Travels of a Generic Christian

Righteousness

2010-10-01T22:40:00.004-06:00

I used to have this quaint notion that righteousness looked like a good little boy, with his hair combed and perfectly parted, sitting in a chair with good posture, an almost blank smile on his face and hands folded in his lap.

Recently, I have come to realize that nothing could be further from the truth. Real righteousness--Christ's kind of righteousness--is wild, untamed and spiritually violent (see Matt. 11:12). This helps explain why the Christian life is an utterly new kind of life which always leaves the old (natural) life in shambles.

Natural Disasters and Suffering

2010-01-24T13:57:00.001-07:00

Something has been bothering me recently about Christian discussions on why the Haiti earthquake occurred. Such discussions are generally of great interest to me, but for some reason I’ve been feeling unable to really engage in this one. I’ve wanted to, but it just hasn’t been working.

Then last night I realized something. Looking back on the tragedy of my mother-in-law's sudden death it seems to me that suffering, though it may occur to a large group of people at once, is ultimately felt by individuals. And unless we would-be commentators are either one of the suffering or a genuine prophet, our duties are to keep our mouths closed, help when possible and, if God grant us the grace to do so, simply weep with the wounded. To analyze the cause of others’ pain from the outside is to engage in an academic exercise that switches the focus from those in need to the curiosities of a comfortable outsider. It’s hard to think of anything more insensitive, self-serving, and utterly unchristian… Forgive me Lord for how I’ve mishandled these situations in the past!

EEEVIL-OOO-SHUN

2009-03-28T00:10:00.002-06:00

The following is an excerpt from a journal in which I occasionally make entries about life experiences or concepts that are noteworthy. It happened nearly a year ago. I'm not sure why I'm finally posting it now, but here it is:

CHRISTIANS AND CREATION: To my Christian brothers and sisters: Tonight I explained to my three year old son that, “God made him and put him in Mommy’s tummy.” There is absolutely no untruth in that explanation as told to a three-year old. However, to older people with more highly developed intellectual prowess, not to mention knowledge of basic reproductive biology, this explanation is at best insufficient, at worst flat-out misleading and wrong.

Why is it then, that we as Christians insist on clinging to an explanation for our origins that was given to intellectual and scientific 3-year olds? We have no problem accepting the explanation that I gave to my son, but we all realize that when he gets older, that explanation will not suffice. Later in life he will learn a better, more detailed description of how babies are made.

But, imagine for a moment that no one tells him and that he eventually does the research and figures out the whole story for himself. How many of you would think it right of him, in light of painfully obvious evidence to the contrary, to insist on keeping for his whole life the explanation that I gave him tonight, reasoning to himself, “…because he’s my daddy and he told me so”? None of you, I imagine. I personally would be disappointed with him for doing such a thing. He ought to know better.*

So I ask you, why do we do this to our Father? Now that we are old enough to have figured out the finer details of the story of creation for ourselves, I assert that it is intellectually irresponsible, if not dishonest, to relentlessly cling to an explanation designed only to satisfy a toddler.

* Likewise, if he were to “lose faith” in me because of the “lie” that I told him as a three year old, I would be just as frustrated; either way he would have misunderstood my character and intentions.

Universalism

2008-09-18T00:38:00.003-06:00

The Dog Whisperer, Cesar Millan, states at the beginning of every episode that no dog is too much for him—that is, too far gone for him to rehabilitate. If a human can say that truthfully about dogs, how much more can our Father say that truthfully about humans. Do we think that God does not care to rehabilitate every last one of us? For some it may take hellfire, but He will make us Human.

Why is it that most Christians speak in one breath about the infinite grace of God, but in the next speak about how most people will end up in hell—and, what’s more, describe hell as being a place of eternal torment? As Christians, do we think that our great God will mostly fail in His efforts to redeem humanity? And not only mostly fail, but inflict punitive punishment—not just discipline, but punishment in its most fruitless possible form—upon those whom (arguably, especially if you subscribe to strict doctrines of predestination) He has failed to rehabilitate?

It’s true that Jesus said that many are on the wide road to destruction. But that’s exactly where everyone must go if they are to be saved! As Christians, have we not joined Christ in death? Is the old man not crucified with Christ and alive no longer? (Romans 6; Galatians 2)

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that hell is empty. But I am saying that hell itself will eventually be cast into the lake of fire (Rev. 20). Doesn’t this statement from the Bible imply that hell itself is a tool of God that will eventually no longer be needful?

And no, I cannot agree that hell is a tool that God uses to torture people until He finally kills them off. That’s sick. I cannot get around the conclusion that to embrace either the doctrine of eternal torment or this last thought is to both contradict the Bible (the wages of sin is death (Romans 6)—not eternal torment) and call darkness light. Likewise, denying the possibility of near-complete if not complete redemption of humanity seems, to me, to call light darkness. I’m sorry, but I must trust the Life that now lives in me above some people’s (perhaps most Christian’s) interpretation of Scripture. I trust my Father will do as He should (and that is best!) with regard to the fate that comes to me as a result of this decision.

Do my arguments lead to human license, or leave only a weak need for evangelism? I think no more so than the Calvinist doctrines of predestination—and explanations abound on these topics.

Yes, I believe that the vast majority of people, if not all, will eventually repent and turn to God—and that those who don’t will eventually fritter away their last remnants of humanity; simply disappearing from existence by their awful writhing attempts to avoid repentance.

A Comment on Pascal's Wager

2007-12-09T13:17:00.000-07:00

A highly distilled form of Blaise Pascal’s famous “wager” may be stated as follows:

If God exists then we have everything to gain by believing that He exists, but we have everything to lose if He exists and we decide that He does not. Naturally, if God does not exist then there is nothing to be gained or lost by either believing or not believing in Him. Therefore, the wise, no-brainer “wager” is to believe in the existence of God and act accordingly.

… Uh, actually, I just found out that what I was going to say has already been said better by others. What I was going to say was that the desired/induced result of Pascal’s wager is no belief at all: it is merely lip service. But, like I said, this problem has been nicely addressed by many others, see, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager#Does_not_constitute_a_true_belief

Full Circle

2007-12-09T12:34:00.000-07:00

It seems to me that one of the big problems that atheists have with religion is that most, if not all of the world’s major religions claim that you have to know and accept the right things about God in order to be “saved”. And as we all know, each religion offers its own set of beliefs about God, tacking onto the end of them (in one form or another) that warning that if you don’t exclusively accept their set of beliefs, you will be condemned by God. I think religious outsiders looking in have a legitimate gripe with this scenario: if there is a God, how are they ever supposed to choose the right set of beliefs ‘from the outside’? It isn’t fair: if they happen to end up adopting the wrong set of beliefs, God will say to them, “Oopsy… wrong choice—you’re toast.”

Atheists therefore make the assertion that even if God does exist, he certainly isn’t a good God, worthy of worship; if he were, he wouldn’t condemn someone who was honestly seeking the truth, but just happened to get it wrong.

I agree with the atheists in this assertion, but I recently discovered something that is overlooked in the argument: We are simply incapable of utter honesty. (Until just a few days ago, I didn’t recognize this and felt that utter honesty was the ultimate thing that God asks of everyone. But, for a Christian, that’s the wrong answer—one I couldn’t get around.) Even hardened, atheist-scientists fully recognize our incapability of utter honesty as evidenced by their affinity for double-blind experiments. The design eliminates (to the greatest extent possible) any subtle, even unrealized, bias in the human experimenters.

So where does this leave our atheist friends once they realize that they can’t even be honest in their assessment and digestion of the evidence regarding the ultimate nature of reality? I suggest that if they really are open minded and are willing to consider that there is an ultimate, conscious Truth (albeit a Truth/God different than all the caricatures painted by the world’s religions—including, sadly, Christianity), then the only thing left for them to do in order to have a chance of being right with this Deity is to realize that they have no other options and simply throw themselves out into the emptiness of metaphysical space, trusting that the Truth, whatever or whoever it may be, will eventually draw them into Itself.

But wait! That’s the Gospel of Jesus! He said, “I AM the Truth”! Once we realize that we are utterly incapable of knowing, finding, achieving, or acquiring the Truth ourselves and finally, in philosophical desperation, fling ourselves into the insanely unsafe abyss--that which is anything and everything EXCEPT ourselves--trusting the Truth to draw us into Itself, then we have accepted the Christian Gospel. No wonder Jesus said that there were those who were not of “this fold” who would see the Kingdom of Heaven.

Follow-up to May 4th's Post

2007-05-06T14:17:00.000-06:00

A couple days ago I was pondering a quote containing these lines:

"Love is the only way to grasp another human being in the innermost core of his personality. No one can become fully aware of the very essence of another human being unless he loves him. By his love he is enabled to see the essential traits and features in the beloved person..."

Surely these attributes of love describe the purest, truest, most God-like form of love. Such a love sees a relative and, rather than saying, "I love her--she's my granddaughter." It says, "I love her--she's Ruthie!" Between friends, rather than saying, "I love him--he's my friend." It says, "I love him--he's Tom!"; better yet, "I love him--he's ol' Tommy Boy!"

It's a kind of love that sees the very person rather than the relationship held between the lover and that person; the latter kind of 'love' is prone to self-centeredness but the former is not. Something tells me that young children have no familiarity with the kind of love that sees the relationship and not the beloved; they can see nothing but the beloved--which, given what Jesus told us about children and the Kingdom of Heaven, suggests to me that this kind of others-fixated love is that which bubbles forth from the very Life and Soul of the Kingdom of Heaven.

One Thing I Know

2007-05-05T17:30:00.000-06:00

For all the countless Biblical interpretations and theories about God, none of them matter one lick unless the mind in which they are being considered has been born again. For outside of this passage from darkness to light, no theory--be it right or wrong--can make a lasting existential difference to the soul. The foundational question is, "Do I know God?" Are we satisfied with anything less; worshiping Him with weekly church attendance and uncontemplated, mindless prayers as if, in the words of George MacDonald, '...He were a heathen deity'? Come to Him--come to know Him through whatever means necessary and the troubled ponderings of your heart will transform into the very joy of life's existence--the very means by which you enter deeper into the joy of knowing Him better.

A Quote about Love

2007-05-04T23:17:00.000-06:00

Just thought I'd share a quote about love that was written by Viktor Frankl, a Jewish survivor of World War II concentration camps. The quote is from pages 111-112 of the book Man's Search for Meaning--a book I'd highly recommend.

"Love is the only way to grasp another human being in the innermost core of his personality. No one can become fully aware of the very essence of another human being unless he loves him. By his love he is enabled to see the essential traits and features in the beloved person; and even more, he sees that which is potential in him, which is not yet actualized but yet ought to be actualized. Furthermore, by his love, the loving person enables the beloved person to actualize these potentialities. By making him aware of what he can be and of what he should become, he makes these potentialities come true."

The Inner Circle

2007-03-04T16:01:00.000-07:00

Getting to the inner circle of a social group is an unspoken, unintentional goal that most people will pursue no matter what the social group may be--work, church, neighborhood group, etc. It feels good to be 'on the inside'.

But the Kingdom of Heaven does not operate with such a structure of concentric social rings; you're a part of the Kingdom because you've placed your faith in Christ and as such are in the ultimate of inner circles. There's no working your way in deeper with regard to something like 'elite membership status' in the Kingdom of Heaven (contrary to how some church congregations function)--even if you're terribly imperfect when you arrive (as all of us are). The Father loves us and will mold us, one baby step at a time, into the person He always intended us to be--into the role He's always had for us as part of His Kingdom--but this does not involve piercing through rings. Straining and striving cease and we notice that while He recreates us, we find ourselves changing from the inside out and not caring at all about 'who's on the inside and who's not'; our desire becomes for oneness with our brothers and sisters in Christ--not for exclusiveness.

CS Lewis wrote about life's Inner Rings in an essay called The Inner Ring. After re-reading this essay after writing the above two paragraphs it dawned on me that members of any society’s elite hate those who won’t compromise to get themselves into The Inner Ring. I think this may be one of the reasons why Jesus was so hated. If ever there was a promising candidate to pierce through boundary after boundary of concentric Inner Rings it was Him. But He shunned societal glory for the sake of Oneness with the Father--tearing down the very concept of Inner Rings which was held so precious by the Insiders of His day. Christ’s example ought to set our priorities in-line--not in an external sense that requires strain and effort, but in a quiet giving up and full submission of ourselves to the Father that brings the genuine intimacy that the Son treasured above all.

To Ponder for the New Year

2006-12-31T14:31:00.000-07:00

Of which are you more sure?

A) That you have Jesus Christ and that He has you as one of His sheep.

or

B) That you have the truth about what it means to have Jesus Christ.

The Law and New Covenant Believers

2006-12-06T20:32:00.000-07:00

One of the most common questions asked of former Seventh-Day Adventists by current Adventists is, "How can you [theologically] justify keeping all but one of the Ten Commandments--i.e., the fourth?"

Let's take a look at Romans 10:4 as a starting point for this answer:

4For Christ is the end of the Law [the limit at which it ceases to be, for the Law leads up to Him Who is the fulfillment of its types, and in Him the purpose which it was designed to accomplish is fulfilled. That is, the purpose of the Law is fulfilled in Him] as the means of righteousness (right relationship to God) for everyone who trusts in and adheres to and relies on Him. (AMP)

or

4 For Christ has already accomplished the purpose for which the law was given.^[b] As a result, all who believe in him are made right with God. (NLT)

If Christ has 'already accomplished the purpose for which the law was given' or 'is the end of the law as the means of righteousness', then our failure or success to keep the law plays no role in the accomplishment of our salvation; we are no longer "under the law", see

Romans 7:6 But now we are discharged from the Law and have terminated all intercourse with it, having died to what once restrained and held us captive. So now we serve not under [obedience to] the old code of written regulations, but [under obedience to the promptings] of the Spirit in newness [of life]. (AMP)
(see also 2 Corinthians 3:6)

Also see Romans 6:14 "Sin is no longer your master, for you no longer live under the requirements of the law. Instead, you live under the freedom of God’s grace. (NLT)"...
...But verse 15 seems to be something of a contradiction: "15 Well then, since God’s grace has set us free from the law, does that mean we can go on sinning? Of course not! (NLT)"

After reading verse 15, the SDA may ask the former SDA, "Aha! So what do you think happens if you knowingly sin by breaking the fourth commandment?"

The answer of the new covenant believer is: "Not applicable. This question makes no sense to me as a new convenant believer. The question that perhaps you meant to ask which actually does make sense is, 'What happens if you go against the leading of Holy Spirit?' In which case my answer would be: 'If this has happened then I have intentionally sinned, but God is gracious and merciful to forgive me when I confess my sin and honestly repent (1 John 1:9). But if I intentionally persist in going against the Holy Spirit and thereby sinning then there no longer remains a sacrifice for my sin (Hebrews 10:26). Note, however, that Galations 5:4 says, 'For if you are trying to make yourselves right with God by keeping the law, you have been cut off from Christ! You have fallen away from God’s grace.' (See also Romans 2:12, and Galatians 3:10) Oh, and faith does not lead you to keep the law--Galatians 3:12. This is the False Gospel outlined in a different post.) So there are two ways of falling from grace / missing out on salvation: Intentional, persistent rebellion against the Holy Spirit and/or putting yourself under the law and thinking that by thoroughly keeping the law that you will be right with God."

So, you see, the new covenant believer follows the prompting of the Holy Spirit and not the letter of the Law. (See Romans 7:6, quoted above.) And if we are no longer obeying the letter then, as expained in a previous post, it's quite possible that the Holy Spirit may lead me to break the letter of the law for the sake of the higher principle of love for God and my fellow man that is behind the Law. And, if the fourth commandment really is a shadow of what we find in Christ (Colossians 2:16-17), then I'm not surprised when the Spirit causes me to find my spiritual rest in Christ every day of the week ("today", as found in Hebrews 4:7) rather than a mere "shadowy" physical rest one day a week.

"In Christ" and "Not under the Law": Perfect Consistency

2006-10-14T00:36:00.000-06:00

I recently had a revealing conversation with a good friend of mine who is an Adventist pastor. It started by him bringing up that he was going to preach from Colossians 2 in the near future, and that it would be difficult to properly explain this chapter (in which Paul essentially warns against cults). I told him that I like the chapter and am "fired up about it". That got the ball rolling...

We've been good buddies since high school and I hope and pray that we always will be. But, sadly, from the conversation, I came to understand that to most traditional Adventists, there will always be confusion about what it means to be "in Christ" but "not under the law"--as all new covenant Christians should be, according to the Bible (See Romans 6:14-15; Galatians 3:23 and 5:18). Part of this difficulty arises from the fact that most traditional Adventists do not think it is possible, or ever necessary at all as part of doing the will of God, to break a single letter of an old covenant law (one of the 10 commandments) without breaking the principle behind it.

Let me explain: I think everyone would agree to the inverse--that it is possible to break the principle or "spirit" of the law without breaking the letter. For example, most who call themselves Christians would agree that harboring hatred in one's heart breaks the sixth commandment (thou shalt not murder), as explained by Jesus, but that it does not break the letter of the sixth commandment. However, I have yet to meet a traditional Adventist who thinks it possible to break the letter of the old covenant law without breaking the bigger principle behind the law. They don't see how this is possible. And because they don't see how it is possible, the meaning of the phrase "walking in the Spirit" is somewhat confusing to them as well. After all, no situation could ever arise in which it might be necessary to break the letter of the law in order to obey the higher principle or Spirit behind the law. (Of course, with that attitude, why do we need the Spirit if we have the law? Yikes, that's a scary thought!)

I submit to you now two scriptural illustrations that prove that it is not only possible to break the letter of the law without breaking the larger principle behind the law, but that God Himself did it and commanded His people to do it!

Example 1

LETTER OF THE LAW Exodus 20:13 You shall not murder.

THE SPIRIT BEHIND THE LETTER OF THE LAW Matthew 5:21-22 21 “You have heard that our ancestors were told, ‘You must not murder. If you commit murder, you are subject to judgment.’ 22 But I say, if you are even angry with someone, you are subject to judgment! If you call someone an idiot, you are in danger of being brought before the court. And if you curse someone, you are in danger of the fires of hell.
...AND...
1 John 3:15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. (NASB)

GOD COMMANDS THE LETTER OF THE LAW, BUT NOT THE SPIRIT OF IT, TO BE BROKEN

Deuteronomy 7:1-2
"When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; 2And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:" (KJV)

Deuteronomy 20:16-18
“But of the cities of these peoples which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive, 17 but you shall utterly destroy them: the Hittite and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite, just as the LORD your God has commanded you, 18 lest they teach you to do according to all their abominations which they have done for their gods, and you sin against the LORD your God. (NKJV)

1 Samuel 15
Then Samuel said to Saul, "The LORD sent me to anoint you as king over His people, over Israel; now therefore, listen to the words of the LORD. 2"Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt. 3'Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'" (NASB)

… and if you continue reading 1 Samuel 15, you find that Saul received a severe rebuke for not completely fulfilling this command.

Can you deny the fact that God commanded genocide (mass murder) in the above cases in violation of the letter (but not the spirit) of the sixth commandment? I can't.

Example 2

LETTER OF THE LAW Exodus 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

THE SPIRIT BEHIND THE LETTER OF THE LAW
The rest of the second commandment goes on to expand and explain this apparent command against sculpting (which appears to be something of an extension of the first commandment):

5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 6And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

GOD COMMANDS THE LETTER OF THE LAW, BUT NOT THE SPIRIT OF IT, TO BE BROKEN
Exodus 25:10, 18-20
10 “Have the people make an Ark of acacia wood—a sacred chest 45 inches long, 27 inches wide, and 27 inches high...
18 Then make two cherubim from hammered gold, and place them on the two ends of the atonement cover. 19 Mold the cherubim on each end of the atonement cover, making it all of one piece of gold. 20 The cherubim will face each other and look down on the atonement cover. With their wings spread above it, they will protect it.

...AND...

Numbers 21:8-9
Then the LORD said to Moses, "Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a standard; and it shall come about, that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, he will live." 9And Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on the standard; and it came about, that if a serpent bit any man, when he looked to the bronze serpent, he lived. (NASB)

When I pointed out these examples to my friend, he said that I was "twisting scripture". What have I twisted? I can certainly tell you that if I were an Israelite that happend to have an ability for sculpting and I had just heard the giving of the law and the penalties to go along with it, there's no way I'd ever sculpt an image of any living thing without an explicit command from the Lord to do so!

Interestingly, my Adventist pastor friend was more than ready to admit that the 10 commandments and accompanying old covenant laws were given to "spiritual three year olds". But, for some reason, he seemed unwilling to admit that new covenant believers who are "a royal priesthood, a holy nation" (1 Peter 2:9) not "under the law" (Galatians 5:18) may at times be required by the Holy Spirit to follow the above Biblical examples in breaking the letter of the old covenant law for the sake of upholding the greater principle behind the law. In fact, he wouldn't even admit that the examples presented above were, in fact, violations of the letter of the old covenant law. Unfortunately this kind of denial of plain Biblical facts is rampant among Adventists. It has to be in order for Adventism to be self-propagating.

Although it is not an exactly analogous example, we read in the Gospel of John that Jesus bypassed the letter of the law, with regard to the penalty for breaking the law in the case of the woman caught in adultery.

John 8:1-11
Jesus returned to the Mount of Olives, 2 but early the next morning he was back again at the Temple. A crowd soon gathered, and he sat down and taught them. 3 As he was speaking, the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in the act of adultery. They put her in front of the crowd.

4 “Teacher,” they said to Jesus, “this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?”

6 They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. 7 They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” 8 Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust.

9 When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the woman. 10 Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?”

11 “No, Lord,” she said.

The Pharisees were correct about the due penalty for adultery given in the law of Moses. But Jesus, who is greater than the law--having the authority to do so--simply chose to forgive her. And she would be forgiven. The letter of the law of Moses was violated, but the Spirit behind the law was vindicated and glorified.

So you see that it is possible to break the letter of the law without breaking the larger principle behind the law. Unfortunately my generally lucid, critically thinking Adventist pastor friend simply refused to accept these clear Biblical examples laid out above; he thought I was somehow "twisting scripture"--and I suspect that most traditional Adventists would feel the same way--that is, that once we come to faith in Christ we begin keep the law (letter and all) as a manifestation of our faith. (Unfortunately for traditional Adventists, Galatians 3:12 says, "However, the Law is NOT of faith; on the contrary, 'he who practices them shall live by them.'" (NASB) Emphasis supplied. Read it in context here.)

But when you understand that it is somtimes possible to break the letter of the old covenant law (including the ten commandments) without offending the Spirit of the Law, then you know what it means to be "in Christ" but "not under the law". It's very plain and very simple. But until the true possibility that breaking the letter of the law without breaking the Spirit of the Law is acknowledged, there will forever be confusion about the consistency of being "in Christ" but "not under the law".

The Afterlife

2006-09-25T22:21:00.000-06:00

A number of posts ago I promised some more “uncomfortable” texts. Here are a few on the afterlife (all emphases are my own):

1 Thessalonians 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus. (NKJV)

Again, in the NLT:
For since we believe that Jesus died and was raised to life again, we also believe that when Jesus comes, God will bring back with Jesus all the Christians who have died.

How is it that those who have died in Christ are to be brought back to the earth with Him if they are simply in a state of soul sleep and their souls are not (or cannot be) separated from their bodies? The Bible clearly says that those who are in Christ are to be brought [back] with Him, in an event that is prior to the resurrection. Taken as is, this verse flies in the face of SDA theology, but I'm thrilled to say that I now have absolutely no problem with it! Ahhh… so freeing to believe the plain and simple word of God without "explanation"! I’m perfectly comfortable with, and totally excited by this wonderful text. It requires no explanation and no theological spinning. Why? Because it's the word of God and it's true!

Parable of rich man and lazarus
Luke 16:19-31 “There was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day. 20 But there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, full of sores, who was laid at his gate, 21 desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell[d] from the rich man’s table. Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 “Then he cried and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. 26 And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.’ 27 “Then he said, ‘I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father’s house, 28 for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.’ 29 Abraham said to him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’”

Why would Jesus use a completely heretical description of the afterlife when it is painfully clear the He need not have done so? Why would He take such an unnecessary risk that might lead so many astray? The answer: He didn’t! He was simply describing the reality of the afterlife. Life is so simple when we approach the Word of God as a little child would! (Yes, Jesus did tell His disciples that they were to be ‘wise as serpents’ (Matt. 10:16), but this was so they would not be destroyed by those wielding theological poison—not because they would need to “explain” their Master’s own statements!)

2 Cor. 5:6-8 So we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. 7 For we walk by faith, not by sight. 8 We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. (NKJV)

Verse 8 in a few different versions…
we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord. (NASB)

Yes, we are fully confident, and we would rather be away from these bodies, for then we will be at home with the Lord. (NLT)

[Yes] we have confident and hopeful courage and are pleased rather to be away from home out of the body and be at home with the Lord. (AMP)

We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord. (NIV)

We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. (KJV)

Whoa! Put on the brakes! I always thought that being “absent from the body” was impossible—whether you were a believer or non-believer! Paul almost seems to be talking about being absent from the body like it’s a foregone conclusion; the real news seems to be that to be absent from the body is, for believers in Jesus, to be present with the Lord! Well that’s good news isn’t it?!—Certainly not an uncomfortable theological hangnail!

Finally, anyone ever notice how the 1844 / investigative judgment doctrine is completely dependent upon the SDA 'soul sleep' state-of-the-dead belief? After all, how can people have been going to heaven or hell (or the good or bad side of ‘Abraham’s bossom’) for millennia if the investigative judgment hadn’t yet started and/or Jesus had not yet ‘turned the page’ to their name in the judgment sequence? These two unbiblical beliefs of Adventism go hand in hand; take out the SDA state-of-the-dead belief and the investigative judgment falls flat on its face—rather like a house of cards.

Postscript: Oh, I almost forgot to address the great SDA proof text on the state of the dead: Ecclesiastes 9:5 --"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten." (KJV)

If anyone can "prove" the state of the dead from the book of Ecclesiastes, then I can "prove" how Nihilism is a valid, Biblical philosophy that we should all adopt. After all, isn't the 'Teacher' (Solomon) simply describing by first person experience the natural philosophy that (rightly) develops when a person puts anything except God at the center of their life? Besides Ch. 9 vs. 5, how many other Nihilistic statements from Ecclesiastes are we willing to take as absolute, literal descriptions of truth?

Giving

2006-09-09T12:59:00.000-06:00

I’m having to re-learn how to give. I used to think that if I gave my tithe then all the rest of my money was mine to do with it what I wanted. Oh, and if I gave a bit of offering on top of that then I was really free to splurge any excess on myself. I learned recently that this kind of thinking is just another way to segregate my spiritual life from my secular life. In the past few months I’ve realized that this is a totally wrong way to go about giving—and living. But since this realization, I have been utterly clueless on how to give.

I think the Lord is starting to teach me…

As part of the process of freely offering gifts of our monetary resources to our brothers and sisters in need, we face the dilemma of how much to give. I think there are three possible points of decision that arise: Point 1) Give as much as you can until it hurts—for the specific purpose of reaching this threshold—to the point where everyone who may see the gift would wonder how it was even possible and be very impressed. Point 2) If you possess great resources, give a lot, but only up to the point where you really don’t feel it. This kind of giving also appears impressive; if no one sees it, at least it is impressive and comforting to our fleshly selves. 3) Give as much as you can up to the threshold of still remaining ashamed that you were able to give so little. (Immediately beyond this threshold of ‘shame-bordering-on-pain’ we reach Point 1.)

Which of these three manners of giving is most appropriate? What does the Bible teach from the story of the widow’s donation of two mites (which was enough money to perhaps buy a single meal at most) found in Mark 12 and Luke 21? Jesus taught from it that we are to contribute not out of our surplus, but “out of our lack and our want, putting in all on which we have to live” (AMP).

How many of us in America actually have “lack” and “want” to compare with this widow? Probably none of us. So how are we to give? Since we do not have lack and want for the necessities of life, are we to literally give away all that we have—even that by which we support our families? If heaven has an economy I’m confident that this is how it will work; but to behave like this on earth—unless specifically called by the Lord to do so—is to behave irresponsibly. (I would suggest that those of us who think the call of our Lord upon the rich young ruler to be a specific, literal call upon all of us, are those who still seek a precise formula for salvation. I cannot state emphatically enough how much salvation, and all that is beyond it, is about relationship, not following a specific formula.)

While we may not lack the necessities of life, all of us have “lack” and “want”; specifically, we lack that which we want. And for most of us, many of the things we want are just on the border of being out of our reach—much as the widow’s next meal was on the border of being out of her reach. We want an IPOD, a spiffy new pair of athletic shoes, a CD changer for our car, etc.

Thus, when the Spirit leads us to give, I would suggest that we, too, are to give out of our “lack” and “want”—giving all that we have that has the potential to fill that which we “lack” and that which we “want”—not towards the end of inflicting pain on ourselves (for the Lord does not desire self-flagellation), but so that we give in humility—still ashamed that we were not able to give more. In this way, our left hand does not know what our right hand does.

For what is more valuable: pain that can lead to pride, or humility that does good without looking back—forever fixing its eyes upon the Savior?

Forgiveness

2006-08-29T01:03:00.000-06:00

About ten days ago a concept regarding forgiveness struck me—or, I should probably say, was given to me, and I began to put it into practice. It made such a profound impact on my wife that she kept swearing that I was up to some mischief! She said that I was “a totally different person” and that I must have “turned over a new leaf.”

I had been reading a book of excerpts by George MacDonald wherein he made at least several references to something that he ultimately (in my mind) referred to as ‘a foul doctrine of blood atonement’. (That is not a direct quote because I can’t seem to find it to provide at the moment, but nothing less would have made such an impact on me. Here is an analogous statement from page 183 of the book Knowing the Heart of God:

“Very different is the good news Jesus brings us from certain prevalent representations of the gospel, founded on the pagan notion that suffering is an offset for sin. This mistaken gospel—indeed, no Gospel at all—culminates in the nonsensical assertion that the suffering of an innocent man, just because he is innocent—perfect—is a satisfaction to the holy Father for the evil deeds of his children.”

His statements so shocked me because everything else of his that I had read was a series of strong, beautiful theological expositions. But I could not get around such a statement. It was the bold antithesis of all I understood about the nature of divine forgiveness.

So, giving the benefit of the doubt, I prayed, “Lord, before I finish reading this book, let me understand what this man is trying to explain.” I had yet to read only a few pages further until understanding came—but not in the form of explicit statement—rather in the form of MacDonald’s allegorical explanation of the nature of the Kingdom of heaven, linked, in my mind, to MacDonald’s continuous and unrelenting echo of James (the half-brother of Jesus) that obedience is the very essence of faith—that obedience is the action of faith; that faith is defined by obedience.

On pages 176-179 of the same book quoted above, an excerpt from MacDonald’s book The Curate’s Awakening is given that portrays one character’s vision of how Heaven’s economy works. Without providing the whole vision here, the lesson drawn is that Heaven itself operates on the principle of service or servitude; each person finding his or her greatest joy in acts of service to one another—and, in turn, accepting acts of service from one another. The story contrasted this nature of the Kingdom of Heaven with the nature of the kingdom of earth in which each person seeks first his own gain.

All of a sudden I realized that, just in the same way that obedience is the action of faith; thus so is service—or servitude—the action of forgiveness; forgiveness is defined by service.

Contrary to what we so often think, forgiveness is not merely doffing our mental hats to someone who has wronged us. It isn’t even doing thusly and then trying to act like we’re OK with the events that have transpired, all the while trying to suppress the anger that wells up within our hearts.

Forgiveness requires action. Service is the defining action of forgiveness. Forgiveness without servitude is dead!

I now believe that, for God, forgiveness meant coming to earth in the person of Jesus and treating us—serving us—as if we were still members of the Kingdom of Heaven. Thus, in this action of Jesus, we can literally see the very forgiveness of God! Seeing things this way, how could we ever question whether or not God has really forgiven us?! (The picture relied upon in such a question is that of the mental doffing-of-the-hat referred to above, in which we can never be sure if someone really forgives us.) We see the forgiveness of God in the very action of Jesus!

The practical application of such a concept is obvious: when someone wrongs us and we see them as requiring our forgiveness, we, to truly forgive, must turn around and become their servant—just as God did for us in the person of Jesus.

For me, this means that instead of angrily doffing my mental hat and cleaning up a mess that my wife leaves behind, I ought to leave it alone and go and serve her by taking my “precious” time and doing something as “worthless” with it as watching a “ghastly” Reality TV show with her. It’s crazy, it’s insane, but it works! I guarantee you that after a few rounds of such treatment upon your spouse, they will swear that you’re up to something! They may even think you’re a new person, even though you really don’t think you’ve changed at all!

I have yet to run this whole notion by any bona fide theologians, so I may be proclaiming great heresy here, but it’s incredibly hard to argue with such practical results!

Red flags of potential heresy pop up in my mind because this concept offers such a simple answer to questions such as, “If blood is required for the remission of sins as stated in Hebrews and as modeled in the old covenant sanctuary services, who requires blood—God the Father or Satan?—Or perhaps some deep, unspoken law written at the foundation of the universe?” (In my mind, the latter option is just a cover for God the Father.) Of course, there are serious problems with either response. Yet if servitude is the defining action of forgiveness, then we see that the Godhead simply chose to forgive us; the Father did not angrily demand blood, nor did God owe anything whatsoever to Satan. God simply chose to take the action of forgiveness by becoming servant unto us—treating undeserving humanity as if we were still members of the Kingdom of Heaven. The Kingdom of Heaven stands in such sharp contrast to the nature of the kingdom of earth that the shedding of the blood of the Servant was inevitable. It was the ultimate consummation—the final fulfillment of—God’s act of forgiveness.

Other questions such as, “Why was innocent blood required?” And, “Why was divine blood required?” are also answered by the simple fact that God was the One whom we sinned against, therefore He was the one who must forgive us if forgiveness was to be given.

OK, but what about the whole substitution concept? Again, I would assert that the wrong introduced into the universe by our sin was taken upon the Lamb when He became our servant. As the earthly servant bears the brunt of his master’s hardship, so the Heavenly Servant bore the brunt of the wrong we introduced into the universe by becoming servant unto us. Think of the sin of stealing and how the one who was stolen from, if he should choose to forgive, bears the brunt of the sin—in this case, the loss of money or goods.

Perhaps I am oversimplifying… yet the concept that forgiveness is defined by service seems Biblical. Didn’t Jesus teach the paradoxical greatness of servitude to His disciples at the last supper and in other explicit statements during His ministry?

(How have I missed this concept my entire life? There are many fragmentary hints of it throughout the Bible and in the writing of many great authors such as MacDonald. Surely this idea must be laid out explicitly somewhere in the annals of Christian literature.)

Well…regardless of heresy or oversimplification, this concept has been a great blessing to me not only because it seems to shatter much of what has always been the “black box of forgiveness” in my mind, but also because of it’s profound practical impact so readily realized in my day-to-day interactions with others. I hope and pray that if the concept is new to you as well that it will bless you as much as it has blessed me!

A False Witness

2006-08-20T17:19:00.000-06:00

I owe an apology. For too long I have pussyfooted around a forthright declaration of the status of my spiritual journey. I have been too worried about the possibility of someone thinking that I am boasting or that I am not humble. Ironically, my very pride has been the cause of such thinking. Well, I no longer care whether people think I am full of spiritual pride or not. I have nothing to prove in this regard.

In particular, my pussyfooting has been prevalent in my role as a Sabbath School leader. I make mention of the fact that I have “tasted” this or that aspect of a dynamic, on-fire, walk with the Lord. Truth is, I have more than merely “tasted” it; I am swimming—nearly drowning—in it!

Despite (or, perhaps, because of) the fact that I’m finding so many flaws in traditional SDA theology, I have never been more alive spiritually than I am today. Without a doubt, I know what it is like to live in the Spirit. I know the joy of letting go of everything except the Lord and finding a richer, deeper life because of it. I know what it is like to worry about nothing and to fear nothing and to have a core of joy that, despite the fact that I’m not a very emotional person, leads me to near tears every day by a simple verse read, a thought contemplated, or a song heard. As I stated in my first post, my life is the anathema of depression—despite the fact that outside circumstances really have not changed—for these are irrelevant! I know the experience that Paul described in Galatians 6:14 of being seen by the world as something dead and, reciprocally, to have no interest in things of the world. Rather, I have an unquenchable thirst for all things that have anything to do with the nature of God—which, by the way, has been the most powerful answer to prayer that I have ever experienced!

Because at one time in my life I was on the other side of this experience, I also know what it is like to not understand this experience and to see it as something “new-agish” or hokey-pokey or fanatical or of the substance of moral relativity. These are all misconceptions. The claimed experience of those radical Christians who have no doubts about whether or not they have received the Holy Spirit, or about the nature of justification or of sanctification is absolutely real. I now find that I myself am living proof.

Praise the Lord! Continue to not just break me, but to crush me for your purpose, Father!

The One and Only Gospel

2006-08-05T14:38:00.000-06:00

Nothing I have said or will ever say is more important than this:

Here is the Gospel: Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay the blood requirement for our sins. We receive the righteousness of Christ imputed to our accounts as a free gift when we believe in Him as our Savior and Lord; we therefore stand righteous before the Father and share in the eternal life of the Son. This is salvation by grace through faith.

Here is what the Gospel is NOT: By the grace of God, the death of Jesus on the cross provides a means for us to live a sanctified life of righteousness which will be the basis by which we will be judged as saved or lost.

The latter is a damn lie. No ifs, ands, or buts about it—these two “gospels” are mutually exclusive. If you grasp the latter explanation in irreconcilable natural exclusion to the former, you will not inherit eternal life.

Conclusions on food and drink

2006-08-03T17:44:00.000-06:00

Here is some general advice given by Paul:

Titus 1:15 Everything is pure to those whose hearts are pure. But nothing is pure to those who are corrupt and unbelieving, because their minds and consciences are defiled. (NLT)

And

1 Cor 6:12 12 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

Also see 1 Cor 10:23, which says nearly the exact same thing as 1 Corinthians 6:12.

And finally, Romans 14:20-23

Don't tear apart the work of God over what you eat. Remember, there is nothing wrong with these things in themselves. But it is wrong to eat anything if it makes another person stumble. 21Don't eat meat or drink wine or do anything else if it might cause another Christian to stumble. 22You may have the faith to believe that there is nothing wrong with what you are doing, but keep it between yourself and God. Blessed are those who do not condemn themselves by doing something they know is all right. 23But if people have doubts about whether they should eat something, they shouldn't eat it. They would be condemned for not acting in faith before God. If you do anything you believe is not right, you are sinning. (NLT)

So yes, we should not eat or drink things that would cause someone else to stumble in their Christian walk—even if those things are perfectly OK to consume, according to the Bible (see previous two posts).

Look at again at Romans 14:22 (above). As a current SDA, can you believe the freedom the Bible gives us under the New Covenant? These Biblical excerpts are mind blowing to someone who has been sheltered by SDA doctrine their entire life! At least they were mind blowing and initially difficult for me to accept!

You see, in reality, the New Covenant is all about relationship with God through Christ (primarily) and relationship with others (secondarily). And contrary to the statements and implications made by EGW, there is not a set of specific rules that drive the Christian walk; there are only principles to guide relationships. In fact, the principles that guide relationships are much bigger and better than any set of rules that someone might suggest. They are bigger and better in exactly the same way that the New Covenant is bigger and better (Heb 8:6) than the Old Covenant!

Oh, and in case you’re wondering: Yes, I do believe that the excerpts from 1 Corinthians and from Titus apply far beyond the realm of food. I’ll have more on that later.

What about drink?

2006-08-01T21:51:00.000-06:00

While we’re on the topic of food, what about drink?

Traditional SDAs assert that most Biblical references to men of God drinking wine (with the noted exception of Noah and maybe a couple others instances of people getting drunk) refer to unfermented grape juice. I no longer think this view has any Biblical validity whatsoever. Check out the following couple of verses:

Psalm 104:15-16 He causes the grass to grow for the cattle,
And vegetation for the service of man,
That he may bring forth food from the earth,
15 And wine that makes glad the heart of man,
Oil to make his face shine,
And bread which strengthens man’s heart.

The Psalmist praises the Lord for wine—wine which makes the hearts of men glad. In context, it seems highly unlikely that the psalmist is referring to unfermented grape juice.

Now take a look at Luke 7:33-34

For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ 34 The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ (NKVJ)

Clearly the Pharisees accused Jesus of being a winebibber. Now, let’s apply a little logic. The Pharisees were not idiots. If they knew or even suspected that other people thought that Jesus was only drinking grape juice, they would have undermined their own credibility in accusing him of being a winebibber.

This text in Luke makes it painfully obvious that Jesus drank alcoholic wine.

Even further evidence is supplied by the story in John 2 of the wedding where Jesus turned water into wine and someone made the comment about the host taking a unique approach and saving the best wine for last—at statement that clearly implies the cultural practice of serving the best wine while people’s senses were sharp, then getting out the inferior wine when people’s senses were dulled by the alcohol in the wine they had already drank.

More “uncomfortable” texts on different topics to come…

Issues of diet

2006-07-30T15:25:00.000-06:00

Here's a text that, looking back now, should have seemed quite problematic to me:

Mark 7:18-19: And He [Jesus] said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, 19because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.) (NASB)

The parenthetical statement is actually part of the Biblical text! I didn't add it! Check it out for yourself!

I read through the entire New Testament when I was still a full believer in all 27 (now 28) fundamental SDA beliefs. Somehow this verse didn't really strike me. I think that it was around the time of my reading through the New Testament that I began to relax some of my strongly held SDA-specific beliefs. But, as I remained a believer in the inspiration of Ellen G White (EGW) I should have had a major problem with this verse. It's quite obvious that the verse not only allows for the consumption of meat, but of formerly unclean meats as well. Don't deny it and don't make up excuses; intellectual honesty is critical!

While I can still muster the SDA mindset, I'll try to provide an example excuse that I might have offered myself:
OK, I can accept that Jesus declared all foods clean, but back then they had neither the "health message" [i.e., in this context, EGW's proclamations of what we should and should not eat] or a good knowledge of medicine. When Mrs. White received the "health message" we learned that to eat meat, especially unclean meat, was to risk deleterious health effects--and thereby desecrate the temple of the Holy Spirit [i.e., our bodies]. So now we know that eating meat (especially unclean meat) not only desecrates the temple of the Holy Spirit, but that it ignores the counsel of the Lord's messenger [EGW].

(Ugh... I think I need a bath now! I think I may have gotten my first taste of the feeling C.S. Lewis referred to when he mentioned that he didn't take pleasure in writing The Screwtape Letters because of the mindset that he had to adopt to do it. Of course, I'm nothing next to Lewis.)

In practice, this kind of excuse is much more verbose so that it does a better job of transitioning from the beginning (truth) to the end (error). But you get the idea. Do you see what a person who offers himself this kind of excuse is doing? He takes a clear declaration from scripture and twists it around to entrench in his mind a (preconceived) concept that is in direct contradiction to the Bible!

Paul talks quite a bit about issues of food (see Romans 14, 1 Corinthians 8 and 10, Colossians 2), and all of his counsel completely agrees with Jesus and Mark... but not EGW.

More on the investigative judgment and a thought on SDA theodicy

2006-07-30T13:30:00.000-06:00

Another text that made me uncomfortable while I held onto the Seventh-Day Adventist (SDA) doctrine of the 1844-initiated investigative judgment is John 5:24--as referred to in my first post.

John 5:24 reads, "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life." (NKJV)

The judgment of 1844, according to SDAs, is where people with unknown salvational status will pass before the judgment seat of heaven for a decision of guilty or innocent. In the above text, Jesus tells us that the default state for all humans is 'death' and then explains that all those who believe on Him pass from this default state of death into life. ACCORDING TO JESUS, THE SAME JUDGMENT THAT SDAs BELIEVE HAS BEEN GOING ON SINCE 1844, HAPPENS INSTANTANEOUSLY THE MOMENT SOMEONE ACCEPTS CHRIST OR, BY DEFAULT, DIES WITHOUT ACCEPTING HIM. Thus, by the words of Jesus Himself, there is no need for an investigative judgment—especially an investigative judgment of works!

After considerable contemplation of the Biblical evidence against the IJ, the following thought also hit me regarding the SDA take on theodicy:

Now that we live in the era after Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension, to suggest that the character of God remains to be vindicated before the universe, is to slap Jesus in the face as He hangs dying on the cross. Did not God demonstrate his infinite love, perfect justice, and everlasting mercy to every living creature as His own Son was sacrificed for the sake of sinners? (“But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”

Rom.

5:8 NASB) Must we suggest that in order for God to really be vindicated before the universe, He must display the works of all those who claim salvation in Christ? SDA theology says that the existing universe can already see our works—even our secret works. What more of this can they be shown? And what can better vindicate God than the Cross? The Bible tells us that Christ (God) was vindicated by the Spirit and seen by angels (By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory. 1 Tim. 3:16 NASB) Is evidence that vindicates God in the minds of the Spirit and of angels not strong evidence enough for we who are lesser beings than they?

More texts on different topics to come...

Introduction: Freedom and Joy -- Let's Begin!

2006-07-28T23:14:00.000-06:00

Preface:

I have created this blog so that I may share the story of how I came to find salvation and true freedom in Christ and Christ alone. Absolute and utter joy is mine every day—no matter the circumstances. I am as far away from depression as is humanly possible. Yes, I am living the reality that existed only as a theoretical concept to me just a few years ago. I hope my experience will prove infectious.

In general, the first entries in this blog will focus on difficulties that I faced in finding this freedom within the Seventh-Day Adventist (SDA) walk—and how, through the grace of Christ, these difficulties were overcome.

Framework:
Tenet 1) It has been my experience that one of the most important tools for SDAs who seek a more robust, carefree, exciting, on-fire relationship with the Lord is intellectual honesty. Here is my working definition:

Intellectual honesty means: Whether you like it or not and no matter the cost, accepting the conclusions that are best supported by the evidence (when any conclusions whatsoever can be made)—and, as a corollary, not twisting evidence into saying something that it does not say.

Tenet 2) I have found it critical to stand by the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. As explained at the CatholicMatch website Sola scriptura is the Protestant doctrine that Scripture alone is "the primary and absolute source of authority, the final court of appeal, for all doctrine and practice (faith and morals)" and that "the Bible -- nothing more, nothing less, and nothing else -- is all that is necessary for faith and practice."[1]

All SDAs that I have ever known are more than happy to take up a discussion within the framework of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is important because, as so nicely explained in David DePinho's personal testimony, SDAs, when cornered in an argument, will often play the EGW “trump card” to drive their point home. SDAs themselves believe that they should be able to provide a ready defense for their beliefs without ever having to rely on the EGW “trump card”.

Now, with intellectual honesty and Sola Scriptura to guide us, I’d like to begin by showing you a number of Biblical excerpts that always made me uncomfortable until I found true salvation and freedom in Christ alone. At this point in my life I can honestly say that I am perfectly comfortable—even excited by the straightforward, direct statements and implications of these texts. I praise and thank the Lord for this blessing every day! I would love for readers to have this experience themselves.

Note that all emphases are mine and that my commentary will sometimes follow text(s) (which, unless otherwise noted, are from the NKJV of the Bible). In general the commentary consists of thoughts and arguments that went through my mind as I contemplated the issues at stake.

Let’s get started:

Hebrews 9:12 "Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption."

My final conclusion: If taken as it reads, this verse alone is a death-blow to the SDA doctrine of the investigative judgment (IJ). Note the past tense and use of the term “Most Holy Place”. Many English translations use the actual term “Most Holy Place”. If this is accurate, then the doctrine of the IJ must be rejected. (By the way, it is amazing to me that a defining doctrine of the SDA church hangs on the necessity of the term “Most Holy Place”, as read in Hebrews 9:12, being interpreted as only “Holy Place”. The IJ doctrine seems to be skating on very thin ice indeed.)

I have read the incredibly verbose SDA arguments on how the original greek used here actually means “Holies” and therefore refers only to the “holy” and not “most holy” compartment of the heavenly sanctuary (thereby keeping the doctrine of the IJ in place).

Unfortunately, even if you grant these SDA arguments, I found that in order to maintain the IJ as doctrine I had to cast out common sense: you see, if the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary was NOT used for the once-and-for-all-time event where Christ applied his blood to obtain eternal redemption (for all those who believe in Him) as the text says, then FOR WHAT OTHER EVENT IN GOD’S GREAT UNIVERSE THAT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH HUMANITY WOULD THE MOST HOLY PLACE OF THE HEAVENLY SANCTUARY BE USED? WHAT COULD POSSIBLY BE OF GREATER IMPACT FOR US THAT MIGHT BE DONE IN THE MOST HOLY PLACE OF THE HEAVENLY SANCTUARY?

Well, SDAs would suggest that a judgment of salvational assignment is taking place and that this is just as integral a part of redemption as Christ’s sacrifice. In my heart of hearts I disagree with this notion, but OK… Maybe… An assignment of this sort is logically necessary (man, am I itching to bring up John 5:24 here!)… But wait: the earthly sanctuary was a model of the heavenly sanctuary. And if a judgment of salvational assignment was not the core of the High Priest’s activities in the most holy compartment of the earthly sanctuary on the day of atonement, then why should we think it to be the core of what Jesus DID (or, as SDAs would prefer, IS DOING) in the heavenly sanctuary? (Is not the earthly sanctuary modeled after the heavenly?) I’m sorry… I just can’t twist this verse into supporting or even allowing the SDA doctrine of the investigative judgment.

But this isn’t all the author of Hebrews had to say regarding the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary:

Hebrews 6:19-20 19 This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which enters the Presence behind the veil, 20 where the forerunner has entered for us, even Jesus, having become High Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.

And Hebrews 10:19-22 And so, dear brothers and sisters,^[c] we can boldly enter heaven's Most Holy Place because of the blood of Jesus. 20This is the new, life-giving way that Christ has opened up for us through the sacred curtain, by means of his death for us.^[d] 21And since we have a great High Priest who rules over God's people, 22let us go right into the presence of God, with true hearts fully trusting him. For our evil consciences have been sprinkled with Christ's blood to make us clean, and our bodies have been washed with pure water. (NLT)

SUMMARY: These passages utterly contradict the SDA doctrine of the heavenly sanctuary and the 1844-initiated investigative judgment.

I have no doubt whatsoever that many SDA scholars are more than ready with long, circuitous explanations to tell me what these texts really mean. However, if such explanations are thought to be required beyond the context of the verses themselves, chances are (mostly, not always) that one may need to refer back to what it means to be intellectually honest. Remember, evidence should not be twisted to fit preconceived ideas about the way things are or the way things work. Sola Scriptura.

More texts to come...

[1] Geisler, Norman L. and MacKenzie, Ralph E., Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995).