The Shaking of Adventism

[John317]

Yes, what you have said here is the basic message of Paxton's book, and it shows you have read it well and understand his thesis.

The question is, Is Paxton correct?

For instance, is sin primarily "nature," or is it primarily about "choice"?

Is Paxton right in his assumption that the Reformers are the measuring stick for understanding righteousness by faith?

Is Paxton right about original sin?

How we understand these things will determine how we view many statements by Ellen White. For instance, take a look at the following, and ask yourself if they appear to be heresy or truthful statements:

Christ died to make it possible for you to cease to sin, and sin is the transgression of the law.The Review and Herald, August 28, 1894, paragraph 4

Now, while our great High Priest is making the atonement for us, we should seek to become perfect in Christ. Not even by a thought could our Saviour be brought to yield to the power of temptation. Satan finds in human hearts some point where he can gain a foothold; some sinful desire is cherished, by means of which his temptations assert their power. But Christ declared of Himself: "The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in Me." John 14:30. Satan could find nothing in the Son of God that would enable him to gain the victory. He had kept His Father's commandments, and there was no sin in Him that Satan could use to his advantage. This is the condition in which those must be found who shall stand in the time of trouble.

It is in this life that we are to separate sin from us, through faith in the atoning blood of Christ. Our precious Saviour invites us to join ourselves to Him, to unite our weakness to His strength, our ignorance to His wisdom, our unworthiness to His merits. God's providence is the school in which we are to learn the meekness and lowliness of Jesus. The Lord is ever setting before us, not the way we would choose, which seems easier and pleasanter to us, but the true aims of life. It rests with us to co-operate with the agencies which Heaven employs in the work of conforming our characters to the divine model. None can neglect or defer this work but at the most fearful peril to their souls. GC 623

[Woody]

I really don't think we need name calling and labels such as 'New Theology'. Then we have to argue about what the labels mean. Unless of course ... we just take the word of one author.

[Woody]

Quote:

"There is no excuse for sin." MYP 430

This is very evident to any Christian.

We are without excuse.

[John317]

Quote:

"There is no excuse for sin." MYP 430

This is very evident to any Christian.

We are without excuse.

But there is an excuse to go on sinning if sinning is a matter of nature and you can't stop sinning. That's the whole point: is sin "nature" or "choice"? According to the Bible and Ellen White, it is primarily choice.

But according to those who accept the historic doctrine of original sin, it is nature. For them, it is impossible to obey God's commandments. If sin is primarily the nature we are born with, then there is no sense in discussing character development because on that view everything we do and say is sinful. That view is contrary to the Bible and Ellen White. That is why you will see Robert saying no one obeys and why he claims Ellen White teaches heresy and error.

[John317]

I really don't think we need name calling and labels such as 'New Theology'. Then we have to argue about what the labels mean. Unless of course ... we just take the word of one author.

That is not name-calling any more than "historic Adventism" is. New Theology is not a denigrating name. It might be compared to liberal or conservative.

http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/kir-wint1.php

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Redwood

Quote:

"There is no excuse for sin." MYP 430

This is very evident to any Christian.

We are without excuse.

But there is an excuse to go on sinning if sinning is a matter of nature and you can't stop sinning. That's the whole point: is sin "nature" or "choice"? According to the Bible and Ellen White, it is primarily choice.

But according to those who accept the historic doctrine of original sin, it is nature. For them, it is impossible to obey God's commandments. If sin is primarily the nature we are born with, then there is no sense in discussing character development because on that view everything we do and say is sinful. That view is contrary to the Bible and Ellen White. That is why you will see Robert saying no one obeys and why he claims Ellen White teaches heresy and error.

You have every right to voice your opinion of this. But I personally reject your view. It is simply one narrow view. I think scripture and Ellen White have a much broader view than you do. This is the problem when we rush to put people and beliefs in a box. We need to take ALL that scripture and Ellen White have to say.

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Hi John,

I thought I'd add this to the thread.

Quote:

Lev 4:22 When a ruler hath sinned, and done somewhat through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD his God concerning things which should not be done, and is guilty; Lev 4:23 Or if his sin, in which he hath sinned, shall come to his knowledge; he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a male without blemish:

Lev 4:24 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the goat, and kill it in the place where they kill the burnt-offering before the LORD: it is a sin-offering.

There is transgression that is willful and that we should not do and are given the ability to overcome. There is also those that we do that are unintentional but nevertheless transgreesions.

This is the reason why EGW says we will never be sinless but we are given the ability to have complete victory.

Norman

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

But there is an excuse to go on sinning if sinning is a matter of nature and you can't stop sinning. That's the whole point: is sin "nature" or "choice"? According to the Bible and Ellen White' date=' it is primarily choice.

But according to those who accept the historic doctrine of original sin, it is nature. For them, it is impossible to obey God's commandments. If sin is primarily the nature we are born with, then there is no sense in discussing character development because on that view everything we do and say is sinful. That view is contrary to the Bible and Ellen White. That is why you will see Robert saying no one obeys and why he claims Ellen White teaches heresy and error. [/quote']

You have every right to voice your opinion of this. But I personally reject your view. It is simply one narrow view. I think scripture and Ellen White have a much broader view than you do. This is the problem when we rush to put people and beliefs in a box.

Can you discuss why you reject my view? What reasoning and evidence are you using?

For instance, what have I said that is contradicted by either the Bible or the Spirit of Prophecy?

[Woody]

John. I have no desire to do so. You have a pair of glasses that taint all quotes. As do I. There is no meeting of the minds under these circumstances. Our beliefs and interpretations of the Bible and Ellen White are in total opposition. I see no need to go round and round with this. We have been doing this for years. I would refer you to our past discussion rather than rehashing them here.

When you and I get to heaven ... we will have a big Coke together and a good laugh at how little we understood here on Earth.

[John317]

Hey Norman,

Good to see you online.

Those are good points. I agree. The Bible has quite a number of verses that show clear the distinction between intentional sins and unintentional sins.

[John317]

When you and I get to heaven ... we will have a big Coke together and a good laugh at how little we understood here on Earth.

Better make that diet/no caffein because that is what I am getting used to now.

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Quote:

Manuscript Releases Volume Two [Nos. 97-161] (1987), page 348, paragraph 3 Holy People Do Not Claim To Be Sinless

Look at Moses and the prophets, look at Daniel and Joseph and Elijah. Look at these men, and find me one sentence where they ever claimed to be sinless. The very soul that is in close relation to Christ, beholding His purity and excellency, will fall before Him with shamefacedness.

Quote:

God's Amazing Grace page 134, P5 Terms of the Covenant

The condition of eternal life is now just what it always has been--just what it was in Paradise before the fall of our first parents--perfect obedience to the law of God, perfect righteousness. If eternal life were granted on any condition short of this, then the happiness of the whole universe would be imperiled. The way would be open for sin, with all its train of woe and misery, to be immortalized.

You can see two statements that appear to contradict each other but they don't when we take into consideration the verses I posted from Leviticus

[Woody]

Quote:

Better make that diet/no caffein because that is what I am getting used to now.

It was a figure of speech. I don't drink Coke of any kind diet or no diet. I was just trying to be a good host for you. We can make it fruit juice if that is okay. At least that is what I would prefer.

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Hi John good to see you as well, and likewise Redwood.

[Woody]

Yes. Hi Norman.

Personally ... I am saved by the perfect life of Christ. My life is not perfect and will never be. I am a sinner saved by HIS blood. And that is the way I will remain to be.

[Robert]

Would you care to give a brief analysis of why Priebe's book and thesis is so much "junk"?

[Robert]

Taylor, have you read Priebe's book?

And then John quotes, not Priebe, but the lady with the limited light!

[Robert]

Christ died to make it possible for you to cease to sin, and sin is the transgression of the law.The Review and Herald, August 28, 1894, paragraph 4

Totally false! Christ primarily came to save us from "the curse of the law". He came to legally save us from "under the law". Without this truth sanctification is meaningless.

[Robert]

is sin "nature" or "choice"?

Neither! Sin is iniquity....The essence of sin is self-love. Stop loving yourself (or as EGW said, "Self-love, self-interest, must perish.") Until you do this ALL your talk is worthless. It is merely lip service. It is at best hypocritical.

Rob

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: John317

is sin "nature" or "choice"?

Neither! Sin is iniquity....The essence of sin is self-love. Stop loving yourself (or as EGW said, "Self-love, self-interest, must perish.") Until you do this ALL your talk is worthless. It is merely lip service. It is at best hypocritical.

Rob

1 Cor 13:3 If I give all I possess to the poor ..., but have not [agape], I gain nothing. [why?] 4 [Agape] is patient, it is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.

In other words if I gave all my possessions away, but outside "agape" love, my deed is mere filthy rags in God's eyes. Why?

Because while the deed is outwardly good, without "agape" controlling my motive my thoughts will be bent back to myself. In other words I'll benefit from the deed in someway. That's not righteousness, that's selfishness!

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: John317

One of the main differences between the Reformers and Seventh-day Adventist is that the Reformers taught the historic doctrine of original sin and Adventists do not. We differ from the Reformers in our understanding of sin. For them, sin is primarily nature, whereas for historic Adventists (to be distinguished from "new theology"), sin is primarily a choice.

Unfortunately, the conservative side of our church has pretty much reduced sin to our acts and disobeying the law and Christ as our example instead of our substitute. They have made Christ just like is in every way so sinless perfection can be justified. ("Hey if Christ could do it, so can we!").

I have met only one such person that you speak of in all of my SDA life. Are you setting up a strawman to kick around?

Quote:

This is why we sound like we speak out of both sides of our mouth. We say that we are 'saved by grace' but in the end times, going to church on Sunday will cause us to be lost. We say we are 'saved by grace and not of works' but we must achieve sinless perfection without a mediator during the time of probation or we will be lost.

What is your understanding of what "sinless perfection" is? Does the Bible teach it? Will there be a time when mediation is over?

Quote:

When you get down to the brass tacks of the matter, conservative SDAism believes that the sacrifice of Christ merely forgave our past sins and made us right with God. It set our 'sin clock' back to zero, so to speak. From that point on, salvation consists of sanctification through the power of the Spirit and the forgiveness of Christ as our safety net, when we may fall on our way to personal, Spirit motivated sinless perfection.

If they are that many, i.e. these conservatives you speak of, I would have met them. I have yet to meet an SDA that did not believe Christ to be their Substitute.

You make it sound like the word "sanctification" is anathema. Is sanctification a Biblical doctrine? Can you be saved without be sanctified?

Quote:

This is not the gospel. This is not the Reformation gospel. This is merely a variation of the gospel of the Catholic Church.

From what I've read so far, Paxton unbiasedly, shows it for what it is according to our claim that we are the continuance of the Reformation. He lets the facts speak for themselves. What it ends up sounding like is more a reversion to Catholic understanding of salvation, not a moving forward into understanding grace which was a foundation of the Reformation.

When you speak of the "Reformation gospel", whose version are you talking about? Calvin's? Luther's? Zwingli's? Knox's?

Gerry

[LifeHiscost]

Yes. Hi Norman.

Personally ... I am saved by the perfect life of Christ. My life is not perfect and will never be. I am a sinner saved by HIS blood. And that is the way I will remain to be.

Not saying we cannot be saved in our ignorance, but I find it very uncomfortable joining a couple of those thoughts together, with just a slight

tweak to make apparent what they seem to be saying.

My life is not perfect and will never be. ((My life is not perfect and I am willing that it never be.))

I am a sinner saved by HIS blood. And that is the way I will remain to be.

((I am a sinner saved by HIS blood. And that is the way I am willing to remain.))

There does seem to be some difference of opinion about the application and timing of these next two Scriptures but I am willing to accept them as promises at the hand of Jesus, to be worked out according to His timing and His will. How about you?

"Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed— in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed." 1 Corinthians 15:51,52 NKJV

Those who are alive and remain at the coming of Jesus, if they are reveling in the freedom to enjoy sin at His coming, it seems inconsistent that Jesus would take something away from them they are happy to keep.

"If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell."Matthew 5:29 NKJV

"Now on the same occasion there were some present who reported to Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.

And Jesus said to them, "Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate?

I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.

"Or do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them were worse culprits than all the men who live in Jerusalem?

"I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."

Luke 13:1-5 NASB

Regards!

[LifeHiscost]

Originally Posted By: Redwood

Quote:

"There is no excuse for sin." MYP 430

This is very evident to any Christian.

We are without excuse.

But there is an excuse to go on sinning if sinning is a matter of nature and you can't stop sinning. That's the whole point: is sin "nature" or "choice"? According to the Bible and Ellen White, it is primarily choice.

But according to those who accept the historic doctrine of original sin, it is nature. For them, it is impossible to obey God's commandments. If sin is primarily the nature we are born with, then there is no sense in discussing character development because on that view everything we do and say is sinful. That view is contrary to the Bible and Ellen White. That is why you will see Robert saying no one obeys and why he claims Ellen White teaches heresy and error.

May I suggest the choice is not only, "I choose not to sin", for the Scriptures are clear,

"But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin." Romans 7:23-25 NKJV

“I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing." John 15:5 NKJV

Seems to me the key to victory over sinful temptations is to ask Jesus to live His life within us. Then the battle and victory is the Lord's and we don't have to boast of our perfection, but merely let our light shine, light that is a reflection of what Jesus gives any who put their trust in His promises.

"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!" 2 Corinthians 5:17 NIV

Blessings!

[cardw]

Same old stuff guys...

How can God hold anyone responsible for making a choice when all the choices are so unclear and conflicting?

Either one of you is right or none of you are right.

I think it is far more likely that none of you are right.

There is no freedom of choice when the one doesn't even understand what they are choosing.

It becomes quite apparent that the gospel is far from simple when one begins to read all the reading lists, doctrinal points, and background work one has to do to even begin to understand what the choices are.

In my experience this type of thinking leads to a life of shame and feeling less than most of the time, whether that manifests through arrogance or fear.

[phkrause]

I see no problems with choosing right from wrong. Same as choosing to ignore a red light when we know that that is wrong to just decide to go through the red light. The 10 Commandments are a very simple guide, or moral guide I should say, to follow. Like keeping the Sabbath or not committing murder, honoring your parents, etc. I believe that these are choses. And you make those choses based on what Jesus has done for you. He came down to this earth to die the 2nd death in our place. I can't find any other greater reason to love Jesus than to follow or to choose to follow his 10 moral laws.

pk