And here is a quote from the moderator when the concerns of Tim Challies were initially expressed:
Posted on Monday, March 10, 2008 - 10:27 pm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you, Grace. I believe it’s possible to HIDE BEHIND THEOLOGY when one doesn’t want to face the implications of one’s own life and pain. Challies’ review certainly struck me that way—it missed—and I do mean completely missed—the point and focus of the book.
When one disbelieves that the Holy Spirit convicts us and comforts us as we struggle to come to terms with the resentments and anger that lie deep in our hearts, THERE’S NOT MUCH LEFT EXCEPT THEOLOGY and rationalization.” (emphasis mine)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a clear example of minimizing the importance of the objective truth of scripture, and replacing it with a subjectivism that can be quite dangerous.
Why has theology become such a dirty word? Why do folks want to minimize the importance of theology? After all, the objective truth illuminated on our hearts by the Holy Spirit in God’s Word constitutes a study of who God is and is the very definition of the word “theology”.
I have had a very difficult personal experience in dealing with my wife’s life threatening and disabling illness during the past year. I don’t know what I would have done if I didn’t have the objective truths of God’s total sovereignty in our affairs as so clearly expressed in God’s Word. If this means I am “hiding behind theology”, then so be it. I would rather trust in the objective tuths of the Bible alone, than in some subjective “ feelgoodism” expressed in popular books by William Young and Rick Warren, and many other books. It is interesting that if you go to most any Christian book store, you will find tons of books on so-called pop “Christian” psychology, but try finding even one section in that book store featuring the classic works of great authors such as Charles Spurgeon, and other classic authors teaching classical theology, you will hardly find any of these books. The Christian community has sold out to the"god" of modern psychology and feelgoodism.
May God bring us back to the objective study of God’s Word and to the deep glorious truths of the gospel.
I want to commend our friend Jeremy for being consistent. He exposes the heretical anti-trinitarian themes in the book.
Stan, If you are seeing Jeremy consistent in exposing both “The Shack” and the SDA theology as anti-trinitarian you indirectly concede that the SDA theology is anti-trinitarian. Some time ago you disagreed with Jeremy over the anti-trinitarianism of SDA, defending SDA theology as trinitarian. It seems that you changed your mind and recognize that the SDA teachings have the same problems present in The Shack and consequently need to be exposed and condemned.
[quote author="Stan Ermshar” ]
“He exposes the heretical anti-trinitarian themes in the book”
The SDAC also sends mixed signals on the nature of the Trinity. While the 28 fundies presents an orthodox position on the Trinity, ‘Jesus could have failed’ is an acceptable statement. I heard this stated plainly during a SS lesson and protested adamantly with zero support from the members which included a retired academy bible teacher and a retired conference president. And where did this heresy originate? – from their Wednesday night ‘bible’ study of the relentlessly marketed ‘Desire of Ages’
[quote author="Stan Ermshar” ]
“One of the most troubling aspects of ministering to former Adventists, is to see the great tendency to leave one aberrant group, only to embrace other groups which are very problematic”.
This greatly disturbed me on my initial foray with FAF, the absence of a theological center. The ‘anything is better than Adventism’ philosophy encourages emerging Adventists to embrace anything and everything: Eastern Orthodox, RCC, Charismatic, Purpose Driven, Messianic…, their errors are tolerated because they are not Adventist errors. While a ‘touchy-feely’ support group can serve a purpose by allowing people to ‘vent’ their ‘anguish’, if the only goal is to encourage them to leave Adventism but without a destination – where do they go?
I was ‘lucky’ in that I stumbled onto 4TG – thanks Stan and Greg and all you ‘Reformation’ posters.
[quote author="Stan Ermshar"] Here is a clear example of minimizing the importance of the objective truth of scripture, and replacing it with a subjectivism that can be quite dangerous.Stan
This came from some light hearted banter between Ric an myself on CARM
Ric
“You are twisting my words. I didn’t say that you get to define it. I said that true Sabbath keeping is a matter of the heart and therefore can not be defined by external rules. If you have true faith, you will know whether your heart is aligned with God or fighting against Him. The people who struggle to understand this haven’t experienced what it means to have their heart aligned with God’s will.”
Jonvil
“I get it now, It’s a subjective significant event that’s impossible to articulate, true Sabbath Keeping is incommunicable.”
OR:
Adventism is a subjective significant event that’s impossible to articulate, Adventist theology is incommunicable
For those who are not familiarized with Ric and you on CARM, I want to add that Ric is a former adventist who’s NOT sabbatarian, he only acted as he was a sabbatarian.
Thanks Gabriel. I’d hate for someone to come back weeks later and think that I believed what I was saying. Since it has become so hard to get direct answers from SDAs on some of these questions, I have been “putting on my SDA hat” and answering some questions as if I were a conservative SDA.
Thanks Gabriel. I’d hate for someone to come back weeks later and think that I believed what I was saying. Since it has become so hard to get direct answers from SDAs on some of these questions, I have been “putting on my SDA hat” and answering some questions as if I were a conservative SDA.
<marcus welby mode on> Hi, I’m Ric. I’m not an SDA although I sometimes play one on CARM. <marcus welby mode off>
I want to commend our friend Jeremy for being consistent. He exposes the heretical anti-trinitarian themes in the book.
Stan, If you are seeing Jeremy consistent in exposing both “The Shack” and the SDA theology as anti-trinitarian you indirectly concede that the SDA theology is anti-trinitarian. Some time ago you disagreed with Jeremy over the anti-trinitarianism of SDA, defending SDA theology as trinitarian. It seems that you changed your mind and recognize that the SDA teachings have the same problems present in The Shack and consequently need to be exposed and condemned.
Gabriel
Hi Gabriel,
Please understand that I don’t believe that the SDA view of the Trinity is perfect. It has a lot of flaws. But many have a flawed view of it--especially William Young, the author of the shack. He was even using feminine terminology. Here is a quote from Jeremy regarding this:
“As Christians, we do not believe that “the gods” are two women and a man. In fact, as Christians, we happen to not even believe in multiple gods! Duh. Someone needs to clue that author in. I don’t think, though, that it is even his intention to teach Christianity. In fact, he seems to utterly despise “Christianity.” Just reading select quotations from the book creeps me out and makes me sick--it is just a New Age/pagan work of heresy. It subtly (or not so subtly) tries to take people away from Christianity and the one true God. It is a very dangerous book, in my opinion. “
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gabriel, as you know, I spent a lot of time with Dr. Walter Martin. He believed the SDA view of the trinty was orthodox. So did the Reformed scholar Anthony Hoekema. Even today great apologists such as Ken Samples and Kim Riddlebarger also believe that SDA’s are orthodox on the basic doctrine of the Trinity. The statement in the fundamentals of belief on the Trinity is also orthodox.
Having said the above, many in Adventism appear to be tri-theists. There is very poor understanding of this doctrine.
Unfortunately, even the evangelical church at large is confused on this issue. When TV evangelists are openly espousing Modalism, the evangelical church sits idly by and even endorses these people.
But I think there is absolutely no comparison to the terrible view of the Trinity represented in “The Shack” to the official SDA view.
All I meant regarding my praise for Jeremy’s statement, was that he is at least not only criticizing the SDA view, which again I say is quite imperfect, but calling out this author’s view on FAF, where the majority of posters including the moderator, won’t speak out in real protest. Only two persons--Jeremy and Raven--had the courage to give their opposing opinions.
Dan,
If a person does not know Christ by faith while living, he will have no claim in heaven!
Easy my friend! Then you may not believe that Joshua or Moses were saved? I’m sure you don’t believe that, but the OT gives us many examples of people who were saved because they responded to God’s call and didn’t necessarily know the name of Jesus. I believe that God reveals right and wrong to every person and that person has a chance to respond.
Matthew 25:37-40, “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’
Who am I to say who God can save and who He can’t. Why can’t God save someone lost in the jungles who believed in his heart it wasn’t right to eat his fellow men for dinner and believed in a God that must have created nature and loved and respected the God of nature and his fellow creatures. I don’t think that’s far fetched! Here’s some heresy… God might actually save a few SDA’s!
Just having some fun…
Lastly, you say there is no extreme when it comes to truth. Denise commented that she wanted Jesus to be the center and not her theology. My comment was that I want Jesus to be my center and my theology. I’m not sure I understand what your issue or concern with this is… You’ll need to help me out more. I don’t want to be extremely centered on my feelings to the expense of my theology. There is another issue that makes a man relationship with Jesus different than a womans (more intellectually based), but I don’t want to spend alot of time on it… Ex: The picture of Jesus as a mans husband goes against many mens views of relationships… much easier analogy for a woman to accept!
Thanks for your response,
Bill.
Dear brother Bill,
I have not forgotten our exchange back on May 12th. I’ve just not had the free time to do a reply worthy of this forum. I am also concerned that we may be digressing from the original purpose of this thread. Not that that has stopped me before!
I hope everyone has a safe and restful Memorial Day weekend! Please remember those who sacrificed everything so that we might have the freedom to communicate as we do here and to share the Truth without fear of reprisal. May their souls find rest in our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ
Gabriel, as you know, I spent a lot of time with Dr. Walter Martin. He believed the SDA view of the trinty was orthodox. So did the Reformed scholar Anthony Hoekema. Even today great apologists such as Ken Samples and Kim Riddlebarger also believe that SDA’s are orthodox on the basic doctrine of the Trinity. The statement in the fundamentals of belief on the Trinity is also orthodox.
Having said the above, many in Adventism appear to be tri-theists. There is very poor understanding of this doctrine.
Unfortunately, even the evangelical church at large is confused on this issue. When TV evangelists are openly espousing Modalism, the evangelical church sits idly by and even endorses these people.
But I think there is absolutely no comparison to the terrible view of the Trinity represented in “The Shack” to the official SDA view.
All I meant regarding my praise for Jeremy’s statement, was that he is at least not only criticizing the SDA view, which again I say is quite imperfect, but calling out this author’s view on FAF, where the majority of posters including the moderator, won’t speak out in real protest. Only two persons--Jeremy and Raven--had the courage to give their opposing opinions.
Stan
Stan, or anyone. I keep hearing that the Adventist view of the Trinity is or is not orthodox. Can you point me to a thread where this is discussed and what the problems are with the Adventist view according to “orthodox” Christians. I’ve look on 4tg and have had trouble finding any substance.
But I think there is absolutely no comparison to the terrible view of the Trinity represented in “The Shack” to the official SDA view.
Stan, you said previously:
Stan Ermshar - 21 May 2008 09:40 PM
Also Sheryl Barker aka “Raven” makes excellent points about how “Adventist” the book really is.
Are you saying that the book has something in common only with unofficial, unrepresentative “Adventist” trinitarian understanding, but not with the official view?
I’m interested about your endorsement of Sheryl’s comments, because I fully agree with her commentary. She said:
It reminds me of EGW’s words that Jesus had no advantage over us, giving the impression if Christians would just stay connected with God they could do anything Jesus did and be as perfect.
If Sheryl is right, and I think it is, EGW is in the same boat with the author of The Shack on the subject of Trinity. Both are failing short in placing Jesus above the level of human beings, and as far as I’m aware, Ellen White had not modified her view on this point. This is just one point in raising questions regarding Ellen White’s trinitarian views, also of the trinitarian views of the SDA Church which endorses her on this point.
Hi - This is really Sheryl here. (I tried to register and can’t get the activation link to work and was too impatient to wait on that!)
There could be a distinction between saying current-day Adventist teaching generally has an orthodox view of the Trinity (in spite of wide-spread misunderstanding) and historic/traditional SDA’s as well as certainly EGW have/had a very problematic view of the Trinity.
However, Rick has come across something he posted on CARM that he can’t get an answer on. I’m wondering if anyone here can put their finger on what these Adventist scholars are talking about in these quotes from SDA theologians (Moon and someone else?) quoted in Bacchiochi’s newsletter in an article discussing the history of the development of the Trinity doctrine in the SDA church:
“Since the traditional doctrine of the Trinity clearly contained unscriptural elements, they rejected it.”
“the traditional formulations” of the Trinity doctrine “are not entirely satisfactory.”
If current top-scholar SDA theologians are agreeing with EGW’s view and continue believing there is a difference between mainstream Christianity’s doctrine of the Trinity and the SDA doctrine of the Trinity, what is that distinction? Does that distinction place SDA’s outside of orthodoxy on this point?
If current top-scholar SDA theologians are agreeing with EGW’s view and continue believing there is a difference between mainstream Christianity’s doctrine of the Trinity and the SDA doctrine of the Trinity, what is that distinction? Does that distinction place SDA’s outside of orthodoxy on this point?
Hi Sheryl.
Giving the confusion which such declarations bring on this subject, a clarification is needed in order to admit the orthodoxy of the SDA’s at this point. As long as the ambiguity persists, the SDA is not placing itself clearly in the Trinitarian camp, and it is the church’s responsibility to take a clear trinitarian position, removing ambiguous language and criticism of the classical trinitarian view.
For a long time I thought that the presumption of innocence functions in the SDA case, but the fact that the SDA Church started as an anti-trinitarian church does not encourage us to assume innocence by default, but rather to ask for a solid alibi. And if there is no alibi, if the suspect is constantly evasive, the chances are good that he’s guilty.
Gabriel, I do think you’re right, and I’m becoming more certain there is a problem there. But I still wish that if the SDA church is going to say there’s a difference between their Trinity doctrine and the mainstream Christian Trinity doctrine, that they would come right out and say exactly what that difference is. I’m wondering if that difference has to do with what “one” means. I’ve seen SDA’s stress so frequently that God is one in purpose, but I don’t recall ever seeing a clear statement from SDA’s that God is one in essence.
I’ve also had questions about the trinity. I do not understand how an orthodox view of the trinity would fit with a two apartment view of the heavenly sanctuary. Perhaps this explains the reluctance.
