I don’t know where to start.  I just got through the first chapter tonight, and I could hardly put it down.

The first chapter alone is worth the price of the book many times over. This chapter is called “Born Again Again”. 

The author set out to Atlanta for a youth conference when he was standing in line at a hotel, when he heard some young people talking about theology--of all things!  And guess what?  Can you believe the first people this author talked to when researching his book was a group of Seventh Day Adventists from the Florida Hospital SDA church?  Wow!  Apparently there are some SDA pastors who really like what Reformed teachers such as CJ Mahaney and others are teaching. 

This may whet your appetite for a really exciting journey to what the Lord is doing to bring a new revival of truly Biblical theology.

I will be very busy for the next three days, but I at least wanted to get this thread started.

More to come.

Solio Deo Gloria!

Stan

The stimulus for Kellner’s article was a sermon series he heard on the radio by Alistair Begg, pastor of Parkside Church near Cleveland, Ohio. In this series, Begg argued for a continuing role of the Old Testament Sabbath for Christians. Because Christians worship together on Sunday, Begg belives the Sabbath principle should continue to apply to this day. To an Adventist, Begg’s teaching is part of the great deception about the Sabbath that has been promoted in Christianity since the fourth century rule of the Roman emperor Constantine. Adventist prophetess Ellen White claimed that Christians would one day be tested on their loyalty to God on the basis of their day of worship—those who worship on Saturday will be eligible for heaven while those who worship on Sunday will not.

Kellner revives this Adventist teaching in his criticism of Begg. “So how did [Begg] move from dogmatic insistence on honoring the fourth commandment to an about-face on the God-specified day?” Begg’s answer, of course, is that the day of worship was changed from Saturday to Sunday in the first century as a result of Jesus’ Sunday resurrection. Striking at the heart of Adventism’s view of early Christian history, Begg stated that Constantine did not change the day of worship 300 years after Christ’s death, but merely endorsed a widespread and long-standing Christian practice. Kellner, obviously not moved by this argument but providing no evidence of his own, writes, “Such assertions, however, lack much in the way of actual historical proof...”. Nevermind that over one hundred years earlier, former Adventist preacher D.M. Canright provided ample historical evidence to support Begg’s conclusions.

Not surprisingly, Begg reported receiving harsh criticism of his position from Adventists, some even accusing him of not being a Christian. Kellner casts doubt over the truthfulness of Begg’s account, saying, “...there’s little way of proving that such a charge was made”. Perhaps Kellner chose his words poorly, but the way the article reads, Begg’s honesty is at least implicitly questioned. Kellner proceeds to counter the Adventist criticism of Begg by citing the Adventist fundamental belief statement that “the universal church is composed of all who truly believe in Christ.”

While Kellner is willing to give Begg the title of “Christian” with the one hand, he endeavors to take it away with the other. “To be sure, God will hold responsible those who don’t keep the Bible Sabbath when it is plainly revealed that Sundaykeeping is a counterfeit. But to multiple millions—and even perhaps to Alistair Begg himself—there is justification for ignoring the Bible’s clear command, at least for now.” It is left to the reader to decide whether Begg is really a Christian, but we can be sure that if he has ignored the Bible’s “clear command”, he will be “held responsible” for his actions. For those who know the Adventist version of end-time events, the underlying message is fairly obvious. If Begg rejects the teaching of God’s Word about the Sabbath when it becomes “plainly revealed”, he will receive the mark of the beast. The only hope is that God will not make Sunday “plainly revealed” as a “counterfeit” during his lifetime so that Begg won’t be held accountable for accepting Satan’s false Sabbath and receive his mark.

Turning his attention toward other Christian teachers, Kellner presses home his point. “...there is an added level of concern now—a lure, if you will, of deception about the Sabbath.” Listing a group of Christian authors who have written about the Sabbath as it applies to Sunday, Kellner claims that a great deception is unfolding before our eyes. Satan is using these Christian authors to lure more people into false Sabbath worship so that apparently, more people will be lost by receiving his mark. In a sarcastic tone, Kellner singles out the noted Christian author Marva Dawn. “The lures posed by radio expounders such as Begg, Tony Evans of the Urban Alternative, and some Christian authors—including Marva Dawn (author of several books on ‘keeping Sabbath’ without keeping the Sabbath)—appear to be that one can freely choose how to observe a commandment of God without adhering to what God dictates.” Using the same logic, an orthodox Jew could just as easily include Kellner among a list of authors who write about the Sabbath without actually keeping it the way God prescribed. One wonders what Kellner does with the very clear list of commands God gave to the Israelites about how the Sabbath was to be observed, much less the commands to observe festivals and holy days.

Concluding the article, Kellner leaves his audience with the take-home message. What are we to do with this growing evangelical Christian interest in Sabbath—interest that is clothed in the world’s greatest deception? “The opportunity for Adventists, in their words and in their living witness, is to present Sabbath, and Sabbathkeeping, as not only delightful, but attractive. It may surprise many to see who shows up when we treat the Sabbath as a true delight, and share that delight with the world.” The centerpiece of Adventist evangelism is here on vivid display—it is all about the Sabbath. Non-Christians and Christians alike need this precious message, because without it, they may stand condemned. If the Sabbath is made attractive enough, people will begin to realize that they should be keeping it and thereby avoid God’s condemnation.

It’s tragic, but what’s missing from all of this is Jesus. If only Adventists had the same zeal for converting people to Christ that they have for converting them to a day of worship. Sadly, the most precious message of Christianity has been replaced in Adventism by the worship of a day. The day was never meant to be the object of worship or the dividing line between believers, but a sign pointing the way to Jesus, who deserves all worship. “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.” (Colossians 2:16-17, see also Romans 14:5-6) The apostle Paul’s teaching is straightforward. All who would divide the body of Christ over a day of worship have missed his point. While Christians hold fast to the substance of Christ, Adventists continue to direct people to his shadow and in so doing, risk missing the Savior who can redeem them from their sin, even their sin of imperfect Sabbath-keeping.

As a physician interested in good health, I have had to analyze the teachings of Ellen White with regard to health to see if she had any special insight. Ron Numbers wrote an excellent book on this topic by the title of this thread.

As far as I can tell, the only two good pieces of advice that she gave on health is 1.) the harms of excessive sugar, and 2.) smoking.

What is the old saying?  A stopped clock is right twice a day!

Scientific research today, virtually says that she was wrong on so many issues. I would like to give some examples. I have thought of a lot of examples today, and will share some of these as time permits. I would also appreciate other thoughts on this.

Stan

I look forward to meeting all of you. This is my first forum post ever!

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

I will not enter in the exegesis of this text, rather I’ll direct you to listen to a very interesting exchange on a radio show, the Dividing Line, about election, assurance of salvation, around this text and John 6 in general, between James White (don’t confuse him with the husband of Ellen White who is food for worms in order to fulfill his wife’s ‘prophecy’, at least partially) and an Arminian from London, a conversation in which James White had the intuition that the guy was an Open Theist and asked him if this is indeed the case, and the discussion had some very interesting ramifications from this point.

I was very pleased to see James White challenged on his reformed views about John 6 and defending them in a very convincing manner, being able very quickly to respond and challenge the Arminian guy in a way that proved the weakness of the Arminian interpretation.

In order not to spoil the satisfaction of listening to such a good apologetic work on the Reformed Faith, I will restrict my observation to a point (minute 43 on the mp3 file) when the Arminian affirmed that Unconditional Election was not taught by the Church Fathers until Augustine, implying that Augustine was the authority of this doctrine, not the Bible. James White answered by saying that Augustine was not sitting near him (James) when he proved that “him” is “him” in John 6:44. The Arminian guy argued that the first “him”, those drawn by the Father are all people in the world, but the second “him” in the same verse, four words later, is composed only by those who are responding to the drawing, those who Jesus will raise up on the last day being only “some” of those included in the first “him”.

Here is the link

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2823

You can watch the video on Youtube, or download the mp3, the conversation with the guy starts earlier but the part with the John 6 comment starts on minute 23 and ends around minute 45. I enjoyed the conversation, I even wanted to applaud Dr. James White for being so quick in discerning and disproving the arguments of the Arminian/ Open Theist guy. You’ll hear them also discussing some points of Open Theism, with a very good rebuttal from James White and also an exchange about substitutionary atonement in which James White challenged the guy regarding his belief in the substitutionary atonement.

If you want to read a very good article of James White about John 6 in response to a roman-catholic critic, here is a good and not so long article.

http://vintage.aomin.org/WinSunRep.html

Gabriel

I first encountered Lawson, the senior pastor of Christ Fellowship Baptist Church in Mobile, Alabama, in another book, Young, Restless, and Reformed, by Collin Hansen. The book recounts Lawson’s invitation to pastor the Dauphin Way Baptist Church in Mobile, Alabama, providing a backdrop for his current work. Before signing on at Dauphin Way, Lawson asked the church leaders what they believed about predestination. “I could’ve said a word in Russian they could have more quickly understood...” As the book goes on to explain, Lawson’s time at Dauphin Way was tumultuous.

“Lawson had problems at Dauphin Way from the get-go. Within those first two years, one group left Dauphin Way to start its own church. [Lawson] attributed this first fissure to his expository preaching. The proclaimed Word exposed hearts, he said. It revealed that some church leaders didn’t believe what they claimed. Lawson told me about one sixty-five-year-old deacon who approached him privately and asked how he could be saved. According to Lawson, nearly one hundred adult church members professed faith for the first time during his eight-year tenure.” (pp. 80-81)

Apart from his expository preaching, Lawson received heavy criticism for refusing to remarry a church member whose fiancee belonged to the Church of Christ, which Lawson believes teaches a false gospel of baptismal regeneration. He also was criticized for attempting to employ church discipline in the case of two choir members who lived together. But the biggest complaint against Lawson was his refusal to back down from teaching and preaching about God’s sovereign grace. As is often the case whenever God’s grace is clearly proclaimed, Lawson’s opponents sought to label him as follower of a man—John Calvin—rather than a faithful Bible expositor and disciple of Jesus Christ. An anonymous letter was sent to every church member asking the question, “Are you a Baptist or are you a Calvinist?”. The letter was also sent to the local news media. With a groundswell of opposition in the congregation turning against him, Lawson finally left Dauphin Way to pastor a new congregation in the same city, Christ Fellowship Baptist Church.

A Long Line of Godly Men is an ambitious work exploring the theme of God’s sovereign grace within biblical redemptive history and extending to the present time. In the preface to the first volume, Lawson explains what he terms “the Continental Divide of theology”.

“Geography is not the only place we find a great divide. There is a high ground that runs through church history as well—a Continental Divide of theology. This great divide of doctrine seperates two distinctly different streams of thought that flow in opposite directions. To be specific, this determinative high ground is one’s theology of God, man, and salvation. This is the highest of all thought, and it divides all doctrine into two schools. Historically, these two ways of thinking about God and His saving grace have been called by various names. Some have identified them as Augustinianism and Pelagianism. Others have named them Calvinism and Arminianism. Still others have defined them as Reformed and Catholic, while others have used the terms predestination and free will. But by whatever name, these streams are determined by the Continental Divide of theology.” (p. 21)

Explaining a key difference between the geographic and doctrinal divides, he writes, “This [doctrinal] divide differs from the geographical Continental Divide in one key respect. Whereas streams flowing west and east of the Rocky Mountains descend gradually to the plains and lowlands where they meet the oceans, the terrain on the two sides of the doctrinal divide is quite different. On one side we find solid highlands of truth. On the other side there are precipitous slopes of half-truths and full error.” (pp. 21-22)

Concluding the preface, Lawson writes, “Let us now embark upon this God-exalting, Christ-honoring pursuit. Ultimately, our view of God is at stake. It will affect everything. May we elevate Him in our hearts to the highest place, which belongs exclusively to Him.” (p. 23)

In the next several posts, I will share some quotes and thoughts from the book, posting them as I read each chapter.

http://christisdeeperstill.blogspot.com/2008/07/reformed-sociology.html

For readers of this blog over the past two years, it is no secret that many of us who are former SDAs hold to a Reformed view of salvation.  We believe that God is totally sovereign and that salvation is the sole work of God.

But, how should we then live?  How should we interact with other Christians who don’t believe the same way we do?

This article certainly made me think.  I believe I have been guilty of some of what this article talks about.

Let me know what you think?

Stan

I already sense and know that my wife and I have already been upheld in prayer today. Some of you are aware that my wife suffered a career ending stroke at the age of 50, just 2 1/2 years ago, and she was doing excellent until this weekend. She was admitted last night with a much smaller stroke than the last one, so we are hopeful she can recover a reasonable lifestyle. I already appreciate the many emails of support and prayer I have already received, and my heart has been encouraged. I will pass these along to Marti tonight when I go back to the hospital later. Thanks so much again for all your prayers!

Trusting in His Sovereign will,

Stan

Then if you go to the author’s footnote number 6 listed above, you find Dr. Talbot saying:

“In my judgment, the exegetical considerations supporting the traditional doctrine are somewhat better than those against it.” See, for instance, Kendall S. Harmon, “The Case Against Conditionalism: A response to Edward William Fudge,” in Cameron, ed., op. cit.”

So, if even an author who is making a good case for eternal punishment, can show enough grace to say that the exegetical considerations are only somewhat better for his position than those who disagree with him, then I can hardly see an argument for dividing with other Christians over this issue.

I purchased the book by Dr. Hughes entitled “The True Image: The Origin and Destiny of Man in Christ”. It can be purchased here:

http://www.marshillaudio.org/resources/article.asp?id=89

It is a well written book on systematic theology as well as church history. J.I. Packer endorses the book with the following: “In this wide-ranging biblical, historical, and theological study a versatile veteran makes convincing use of the concept of the divine image to integrate the doctrines of man and Christ. His biblical bases are solid, his expositions weighty, and his historical interactions judicious and enlightening. This is a very valuable piece of work”

Sinclair B. Ferguson, a former colleague of Hughes while teaching at Westminster Theological Seminary also endorsed the book as follows: “We have come to expect both solid learning and exquisite literary style from Philip E. Hughes. “The True Image’ is no exception. Indeed it is a remarkable piece of work, quarried from a lifetime of study in Biblical exegesis, systematic theology, and church history. It is encyclopedic in its discussion of anthropology and Christology and their mutual relationship. The novitiate will find it instructive, while the theologically advanced will discover comprehensive exposition married to a scholarly judgment that sometimes resurrects classical views, sometimes provides the unexpected, and on occasion surprises with the controversial.”

I am sure that last statement refers to Hughes views on eventual annihilation. However, it should be remembered that Hughes view is not similar to the SDA view in many ways. He clearly is orthodox on the view of the human spirit, and he believes in the intermediate state, and not soul sleep. He does believe that Jesus’ parable in Luke 16 speaks of the wicked in chains waiting the final judgment, depicts accurately the doctrine of Hades. His contention is that in the new heavens and new earth, Death and Hades will be cast finally into the Lake of fire and destroyed completely.

I think his arguments are well worth considering, and comparing with more traditional views. That is why I decided to take the time to type chapter 37 that deals with this topic and present it for your consideration. I haven’t finally made up my mind on this, but at least I am less dogmatic than before after studying this scholar’s arguments.

Stan

For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. Romans 2:13

How somebody understands this affirmation of Apostle Paul is revelatory about his or her position regard justification by faith alone, apart from the works of the law (Rom. 3:28). At first glance, this text seems to teach righteousness by works of the law, and consequently is one of the texts preferred by Roman Catholics apologists in attacking the protestant concept of Sola Fide, faith alone.

This text appears in the context of the first part of the epistle to the Romans, which starts with Romans 1:18

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. Rom. 1:18

and develops this theme until the middle of chapter 3,

For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. Rom. 3:20

The text under consideration appears in the middle of the argument, and is instrumental in building Paul’s case of proving that God’s wrath is above Jews and gentiles alike, that the Jews are under the same condemnation as the Gentiles in spite of their apparent superior morality acquired by their fidelity to the law. Instead of boasting to be better than the Gentiles who had no God and who had not pledged adherence to God’s revealed law, the Law just proves that they are the as sinful as gentiles are, and instead of justifying them, the Law is condemning them with the same righteous condemnation which they think only Gentiles deserve.

Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things.  We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things.  Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? Rom. 2:1-3

The question appears: why the Law, instead of being a blessing, becomes a curse? The answer is given in the text under consideration: because the Law can justify only those who keep it, and keep it perfectly, not those who are listening to it only. The doers of the Law will be justified. The Law pronounces a blessing for all who are faithfully keeping it.

But since the Law reflects the perfection of the Lawgiver, it requires perfect obedience, pronouncing a curse on the slightest departure from the right course.

For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” Galatians 3:10

Notice that the curse is not for those who keep the law, but for those who don’t: “don’t abide”. And keeping the law to a certain degree is insufficient, because it is necessary an abiding “by all things written in the Book of the Law”. You must obey the Law perfectly, 24 hours per day, in every little aspect, otherwise you are under a curse.

There is no need to go further to understand that, except Jesus, no man is keeping the Law perfectly, and instead of the blessing, he is under the curse. Jews, even by their partially abiding by the law, were under the same curse as Gentiles, because they were not able to keep it perfectly.

The obvious conclusion is that even if theoretically justification by works of the law is possible, since the doers of the Law will be justified, nobody will be justified by the works of the law, because there is no such person who keeps the Law according to God’s perfect standard. Romans 2:13, the text under discussion describes a hypothetical situation, because nobody is a doer of the Law. Consequently, nobody can be justified by the works of the law, because nobody is keeping perfectly the law.

The good news is that we are still justified by the works of the Law, and we can be doers of the Law, but these works are not our works, are Jesus’ works. Jesus perfectly kept the Law for our benefit, and his perfect obedience is imputed to us, in order for us to be justified. To this righteousness we contributed nothing, no works, it is apart from works in the sense that it is apart from our works. But it is attested, confirmed by the Law, because it is a Law righteousness, based on Jesus’ works.

Of maximum importance is to understand that Christ’s righteousness which is able to satisfy perfectly the requirements of the Law is not the righteousness worked in us, by the Holy Spirit, in sanctification. Our sanctification is imperfect and cannot satisfy the full requirements of the Law. Only Christ’s holy and perfect life, which is external to us can satisfy these requirements. Understanding that we are justified exclusively on the basis of Christ’s righteousness imputed, external to us is the essence of Sola Fide, justification by faith alone. The “alone” was and it still is the point of dispute between protestants and romano-catholics. The protestants maintained that our acceptation before God, our entrance in the Kingdom depends exclusively on Christ’s imputed righteousness, external to us, his perfect life of obedience and not even partially on our sanctification, our personal obedience.

As far as my personal experience and knowledge of Adventist theology there are two views about “the doers of the law” in Adventism.

1. Traditional, conservative view, shared by historic Adventists: the doers of the Law are believers who are indwelt by Christ who’s the author of good works. They are truly fulfilling the Law, because the believer’s works are not his own, but Christ’s and consequently perfect, rising to the level required by the Law. The saints will be able to stand before God’s judgment based on Christ’s sacrifice for their pasts sins, and Christ’s perfect obedience worked in them by the Holy Spirit. After the judgment is over, the saints will keep their blameless state during the time when Christ will no longer be a Mediator before His second coming. In short, there is a combination of what Christ did for the believer (death for his pasts sins) and what Christ is doing presenting in the believer (perfect obedience).
2. Evangelical, close to the protestant view. The difference between this view and the precedent consists in an acknowledgment that what Christ is working in us is not perfect. At this point they are in harmony with the protestant view of sola fide. But it is still not the protestant view, because the view sees our obedience, as imperfect as it is, is made perfect by Christ’s blood. The imperfection is cleansed by an application of Christ’s blood, and in this way, Christ’s obedience worked in us combined with Christ’s blood makes our obedience acceptable before God. Our acceptance at the bar of judgment and our living without Mediator is seen as based on our sanctified obedience, made perfect by Christ’s blood.

This second view is closed to the concept of sola fide, since it attributes to the working of God’s grace our acceptance before God. We can find it in the writings of Ellen White

The religious services, the prayers, the praise, the penitent confession of sin ascend from true believers as incense to the heavenly sanctuary, but passing through the corrupt channels of humanity, they are so defiled that unless purified by blood, they can never be of value with God. They ascend not in spotless purity, and unless the Intercessor, who is at God’s right hand, presents and purifies all by His righteousness, it is not acceptable to God. All incense from earthly tabernacles must be moist with the cleansing drops of the blood of Christ. He holds before the Father the censer of His own merits, in which there is no taint of earthly corruption. He gathers into this censer the prayers, the praise, and the confessions of His people, and with these He puts His own spotless righteousness. Then, perfumed with the merits of Christ’s propitiation, the incense comes up before God wholly and entirely acceptable. Then gracious answers are returned.  {1SM 344.2}

But this view still fails short of sola fide, because it is still our obedience, worked by the Holy Spirit, which is made acceptable before God. It is still a righteousness which is not entirely apart from works of the Law, our obedience to the Law. It is a combination of something which is apart from the Law (what Jesus did for us on the cross, his blood) and something which is not apart from the Law, our sanctified obedience. It is not exclusively what Jesus did for us, as the reformers understood it.

As far as I can speak from my experience, this text is constantly used by Adventist apologists in a similar way Catholic apologists use it in order to accuse those who are embracing sola fide of departing from the teaching of the Bible. I personally listened to sermons in which this text was used as a demonstration that even the Apostle Paul does not endorse the “sola” from “sola fide”. I listened to sermons that were made in order to put to rest any doubts that Adventists may be wrong regarding their understanding of justification by faith. Sadly, this attitude betrays a misunderstanding of the gospel message, obscuring from the eyes of the listeners the beautiful truth that our only hope is in Christ’s righteousness worked for us in Christ’s life, death and resurrection. Even Ellen White said that our only ground of hope is not alone in Christ’s righteousness imputed to us, showing her departure from sola fide.

So we have nothing in ourselves of which to boast. We have no ground for self-exaltation. Our only ground of hope is in the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and in that wrought by His Spirit working in and through us.  {SC 63.1}

Instead of putting our hope and trust partially in our sanctified works, sola fide maintains that our only ground of hope is Christ’s righteousness imputed to us, because it is a righteousness apart from works, apart from our holy living, perfect and sufficient.

My desire for Adventism is to finish it’s transition to sola fide. It moved in the right direction, but it still fails short of a clear affirmation of sola fide.

Soli Deo Gloria

Gabriel