Righteousness by Faith rather than Dogmatic Conservatism or Extreme Liberalism

[Lauralea]

"Yes, the backlash of liberalism we see cropping up in various quarters of Adventism is, indeed, a problem. But here’s the crucial thing to grasp: the liberalism we are now facing, with its tendency to negate Bible doctrine, is largely a desperate and misguided reaction against the graceless conservatism that has characterized much of our history. We have sown legalism to the wind, and now we are reaping a whirlwind of liberalism. In other words, theological liberalism was born in Adventism as an overcorrection against rigid conservatism—and the battle lines are drawn in the sand to this day. As a result, we are a fractured and fighting people, often straining gnats and swallowing camels (Matthew 23:24). And the whole brawling mess is traceable back to the sharp right turn we took away from the gospel in 1888! "

Ty Gibson http://www.lightbearers.org/the-old-covenant-brood/  

 

Interesting article. I appreciated the Ellen White quotes about not being dictatorial and how people exposed to dictatorial church leaders would either break every fetter of restraint or regard God as a hard Master. She especially wrote about this in terms of the 1888 message- letting Jesus live in us and accede to His guidance in changing our lives, rather than sucking it up and trying to live better on our own or throwing standards out the window. Sometimes when we let God be in charge we realize He reasons with us, he is not so abrupt as we might imagine due to the actions or others who say they represent Him. 

 

 

[CoAspen]

Again we see the use of the words 'liberalism' and 'conservatism'. One being described as 'negate Bible doctrine' and the other as 'graceless'.  I do not see the 'brawling mess' as turning away from Righteousness by Faith, but rather individuals/groups simply wanting to put their own spin on interpretation. The article seems to divide the church into these two groups with the above definitions. I would disagree that it is that simple, maybe some fit into those defined groups, but not the majority.

[Lauralea]

It is true not all are liberal or conservative. Really the gist of the article is that rejection of righteousness by faith caused some to become harsh and arbitrary while others who were treated this way would according to Ellen White either "throw off all restraint" or "think of God as a hard Master." She said that rejecting the message of Righteousness by Faith might cause us to remain in this world many more years. I agree that there are many other peripheral issues coming into the church that may not be doctrinally correct. While they may not be directly precipitated by a debate on Righteousness by Faith, we as a church may have gotten off message by not putting forth this message and focusing on the message of faith in Christ and His transforming righteousness in our lives may be a big part of the solution .

[Tom Wetmore]

I have met graceless and legalistic so called "liberals"  and  so called conservatives ignoring and negating clear Scripture in favor of their own extra Biblical ideas.  The terminology is misused and abused, especially when an effort is made to label and pigeon-hole complex ideas and ideologies.  It is basically inarticulate intellectual laziness or an inability to adequately analyze and describe the real issues that are much more complex and intertwined than such imprecise and relativistic labels suggest. 

[CoAspen]

 

......Righteousness by Faith, we as a church may have gotten off message by not putting forth this message and focusing on the message of faith in Christ and His transforming righteousness in our lives.....

 

Maybe it is the area that I live in, but I have not heard anything but this preached. Having family in other parts of the country, more traditional maybe, this is still preached. Reading discussions on the forum and in personal conversations, I still believe the true issue is interpretations of groups/individuals as to what "Righteousness by Faith" is/includes/excludes/etc. That, to me, may indicate a lack of real belief or faith in the message, not conservative or liberal ideas of such. We simply need to focus on the end scenario instead of all the human made questions which simply delay our total acceptance. Christ died, planned from the beginning, arose from the grave and we just need to believe.

 

In a way...humans are trying to get into the mind of God instead of believing in the words of God.

[Lauralea]

... I still believe the true issue is interpretations of groups/individuals as to what "Righteousness by Faith" is/includes/excludes/etc. That, to me, may indicate a lack of real belief or faith in the message, not conservative or liberal ideas of such. We simply need to focus on the end scenario instead of all the human made questions which simply delay our total acceptance. Christ died, planned from the beginning, arose from the grave and we just need to believe.

 

In a way...humans are trying to get into the mind of God instead of believing in the words of God.

 

 

Yes I agree that while it is spoken of a lot it needs to be experienced in a walk with Christ, and also that all of us need a practical experience with Christ, which is sometimes seen in the church, but while we cannot judge others experience, I know I need this more, and I have reason to believe many others do as well.. I certainly believe the message goes beyond conservative and liberal per se- hence the title of this thread.

[Lauralea]

I have met graceless and legalistic so called "liberals"  and  so called conservatives ignoring and negating clear Scripture in favor of their own extra Biblical ideas.  .

 

The terminology is misused and abused, especially when an effort is made to label and pigeon-hole complex ideas and ideologies.  It is basically inarticulate intellectual laziness or an inability to adequately analyze and describe the real issues that are much more complex and intertwined than such imprecise and relativistic labels suggest. 

I too have met others who were ungracious liberals etc.

 

 The article cited briefly in the above posts referred to Ellen White statements about those church leaders who rejected the 1888 message and sought to upheld a rigid authoritarian status quo. While she does not use the word conservative, seeking to maintain the status quo is one of the main definitions of conservative, so by definition, they were conservative. She also says others treated like this would either throw off all restraint or think of God as a hard Master. However I was hoping to look beyond the extreme conservative or liberal viewpoints or even evaluating them and look instead to what she says may have been behind *some* of the polarization we now see- a rejection of faith in Christ's Righteousness. I believe the primary emphasis of the Ellen White quotes Gibson cited was that a neglect of this would cause various problems in the church. The only solution is His grace and power in our lives.

[Ron Amnsn]

Ty Gibson makes a lot of good points.  I grew up in a church that he would consider "old covenant".

 

However I think the article misrepresents God's Old Testament covenant with the Israelites. The "brood of old covenant men" mentioned in the article were not operating under the grace of God's Old Testament Covenant with the Israelites -- they were are operating under legalism, which is a perversion of Scripture.

 

The "old covenant" as recorded in Scripture is based totally on God's grace.  It was never concerned at all with "getting to heaven".  The covenant was made AFTER the people were already saved (from Egypt). The people were already heirs of a place in the promised land, not by virtue of what they did, but because God made a promise to Abraham -- a promise that will be kept. The core of the covenant is "I will be your God, and you will be my people". The Israelites did nothing to earn their position with God -- they were chosen by God. As a nation, there was nothing the Israelites could do to get out of the covenant with God, although individuals could rebel if they chose to. Forgiveness was freely provided, not earned. Today most of us work for decades to pay for a home. But under God's covenant with the Israelites, every family was provided a home and land without working for it and without a mortgage.

 

Those who lived according to God's Covenant, were not legalistic.  King David, Moses, Daniel, and the other Old Testament heros were not legalistic.  Jesus lived perfectly in accordance with the Covenant that God gave to Israel, but he did not live legalistically at all.  So we know that real obedience does not entail legalism.  Yet legalism has given obedience a bad name.  And legalism has also disparaged the awesome Covenant that God made with the Israelites.

[Lauralea]

Ty Gibson makes a lot of good points.  I grew up in a church that he would consider "old covenant".

 

However I think the article misrepresents God's Old Testament covenant with the Israelites. The "brood of old covenant men" mentioned in the article were not operating under the grace of God's Old Testament Covenant with the Israelites -- they were are operating under legalism, which is a perversion of Scripture.

 

The "old covenant" as recorded in Scripture is based totally on God's grace.  It was never concerned at all with "getting to heaven".  The covenant was made AFTER the people were already saved (from Egypt). The people were already heirs of a place in the promised land, not by virtue of what they did, but because God made a promise to Abraham -- a promise that will be kept. The core of the covenant is "I will be your God, and you will be my people". The Israelites did nothing to earn their position with God -- they were chosen by God. As a nation, there was nothing the Israelites could do to get out of the covenant with God, although individuals could rebel if they chose to. Forgiveness was freely provided, not earned. Today most of us work for decades to pay for a home. But under God's covenant with the Israelites, every family was provided a home and land without working for it and without a mortgage.

 

Those who lived according to God's Covenant, were not legalistic.  King David, Moses, Daniel, and the other Old Testament heros were not legalistic.  Jesus lived perfectly in accordance with the Covenant that God gave to Israel, but he did not live legalistically at all.  So we know that real obedience does not entail legalism.  Yet legalism has given obedience a bad name.  And legalism has also disparaged the awesome Covenant that God made with the Israelites.

 

I think Ty Gibson makes a lot of good points too.

 

I agree those who lived according to God's true covenant were not legalistic but had faith in Him- righteousness by faith. And this is the key of what I wanted to discuss- that we may have a transformative heart relationship with God that goes beyond legalism or other similar labels. And some living before Christ did have this experience. Some of them are mentioned in Hebrews 11,  the faith chapter.

 

However, as a body they did not have this experience. They did not embrace the Abrahamic covenant but were on the "all that thou sayest we will do" ... but "come not near us, lest we die" program.  The Lord Himself refers to this as being the old covenant He would do away with.

 

Jer 31"Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD. 33"But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.…

Hebrews 8:8-11King James Version (KJV)

⁸ For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

⁹ Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

¹⁰ For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:.

 

Former General Conference President AG Daniells originated the quote about the brood of Old Covenant men by the way, not Gibson. Gibson just quoted him.