Thabiti Anyabwile of the Pure Church blog wrote a recent piece here that is just priceless, and gives me a lot of food for thought. Sometimes we just have to be theologically correct. This is not wrong in itself, but we must be careful not to become too prideful.
The article appears below and I have highlighted in bold some of the points that spoke to me:
I’m a Pharisee. And I’m a Calvinist.
Those things should not go together. But they do in far too many instances. The Calvinist should be the last to become a Pharisee. Our theology should keep us humble. Or, so we’re told.
But I’m a Pharisee. And I’m a Calvinist. Which means I’m a bad Calvinist.
Here’s the first reason I’m a Pharisee and Calvinist, or, one reason why those two things happen together far more often than they should. The Pharisee and the Calvinist are both exacting persons. They care about precision, about “getting things right.” They care about the letter because each believes getting the letter correct is important. And it is.
So, there is this “bent” toward intellectual things. There is this tendency to live in our heads. And when that meets with a theological tradition as rich and robust as the Reformed tradition, sparks fly–in our heads. Add to that a pinch of argumentative spirit and out comes the Pharisee.
But you know what’s lost? The spirit, or the Spirit. Sometimes both. The letter kills. That’s what happens with us Calvinist Pharisees.
In my particular case, the letter became pretty important once I realized I had spent a few years of my life giving praise to an idol. Once I realized I had believed a lie and bowed to a god who was not God, well getting things correct theologically became desperately important. Who wants to “get it wrong” in the things of God? I certainly didn’t any longer.
I didn’t know it, but I began the Christian life with this impulse that could either help me grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, and/or push me into peevish, narrow, gnat straining regard for “getting it right.” I’ve experienced both in my Christian life. The difference is made by where you’re aiming: those who aim at knowing Jesus escape so much pharisee-ism; those that aim at “getting it right” become so much more Pharisaical.
Perhaps you’re like me. You’ve had some experience that’s left you zealous for getting it right. You love the Book in part because you love parsing things, dissecting them, weighing them, identifying what is wanting, tossing the chaff and holding onto the wheat. There’s a joy that comes from discovery–and refutation. Soon, you’re proud you’re not “one of those publicans” that explains the Trinity in loose language, that balks at giving various views of the atonement, that’s read the latest book from one of “those authors.” “Lord,” you pray, “I work to get it right. I avoid mistakes. I protect your word. I’m not like those who ‘happily’ accept ‘weak’ doctrine.”
Truthfully, it isn’t our theology that keeps us from the self-righteousness of the Pharisee. Our theology, and the smugness of “Reformed” correctness, are part of the problem. Oh, I don’t mean we have aberrant ideas mingled with our theological outlook. We’d never have that. I mean all this heady truth barely lights our hearts. Our theology becomes the handmaid of our pride and our empty orthodoxy. Our fine theological theorems too seldom ignite liberty, joy, love, or anything else that accompanies the Spirit. Honestly, how often does your theology leave you with Jesus?
I know. The Lord reveals Himself in and by the word. The Spirit and the word belong together. Pharisee.
Do you remember that time when you were free? No, I mean happily care-free in your walk with the Lord. When there was lightness to everything?
Do you remember when you could share with others something God was teaching you, perhaps with imprecise language and a lot of enthusiasm, without first hesitating to make sure you were saying it “correctly”? Perhaps you were too liberal in assigning your enthusiasm or ideas to God, but you were happily excited about the possibility that indeed God had done something in you, for you, through you. Do you remember that?
I do. It was before I was self-consciously “Reformed.” I didn’t have a label then, other than “Christian” or “Baptist.” Even those I held lightly. I was label-less, free. And I felt free. I did dumb stuff. I said dumber stuff. But people knew what I meant. Then I discovered what I meant, and knowing what I meant seemed to replace experiencing what I meant.
Now, “experience” is a bad word. Pharisee.
Yep. That’s me.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m a “Calvinist” because what we popularly call “Calvinism” or “Reformed Theology” looks a whole lot like what I understand from the Bible. I think that’s what the Bible teaches, and that’s what I believe. So, I’m comfortable with the label–if we have to use one. I’m just not comfortable with the self-righteousness I see all too often in my heart and life. I’m sure I was self-righteous before; after all, I was an adherent of the world’s largest works-based religion. Pride and self-justification have always been there. Yep. Certified Pharisee here.
But here’s the bottom line: As long as my inclination toward detail ends with “getting it right” and not with getting more of Jesus, I’m going to be a Pharisee. Our theology doesn’t keep us humble. Jesus keeps us humble. I think there are a lot of Calvinist Pharisees out there, like me, who push deeper into the theology trusting the next truth to abase them before God. But we keep getting “puffed up” instead. Why? We settle for knowing more rather than knowing Jesus. We don’t stop to sit at Christ’s feet, to adore Him, to commune with God the Spirit. Far too often, that’s not the goal we have in mind.
My grandmother couldn’t cite you two theological terms if you paid her. She probably never heard of the theological “giants” of church history, and certainly never read them. You know what she did? She “had a little talk with Jesus, told Him all about her troubles. He would hear her faintest cry, and answer by and by.” With all her “little talks with Jesus,” she had infinitely more than I’ve gotten from my books. She walked with the Lord about like Enoch.
I know. Books are not the enemy. Books are our friends. Communing with the saints is important. That’s how we get it right and avoid mistakes. I know. I know. Pharisee.
There was another “Calvinist” (speaking anachronistically, of course) who won his bout with his inner Pharisee. He wrote: “I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord” (Phil. 3:8). I want to be more like that brother–gripped by the greatness of knowing Jesus.
Lord, let us know you and cease the pretension of Pharisees.
---------------------------------------------
The author of the above piece was a Muslim at one time. I have always enjoyed reading his material.
Soon, you’re proud you’re not “one of those publicans” that explains the Trinity in loose language, that balks at giving various views of the atonement, that’s read the latest book from one of “those authors.” “Lord,” you pray, “I work to get it right. I avoid mistakes. I protect your word. I’m not like those who ‘happily’ accept ‘weak’ doctrine.”
Stan, I don’t know your motivations in posting this article, but in the context of our talks on this forum, it smells like a veiled accusation of phariseeism toward those who criticize the SDA Church for the doctrinal issues that are mentioned in the above quotations.
I concede that theological precision should not be used as a tool to judge harshly people who are just at the beginning of their christian faith, who have enough time to grow and learn, and who are open to learning. But this hardly can be said about the SDA Church and the adventists in general.
The SDA Church considers itself as the “remnant”, a special category in which it is the only member, which has a special message, unique, that needs to be proclaimed to all the other christian churches which are apostate, Babylon. The church sees itself as the one who doesn’t need to be corrected by the other churches, the other churches need to listen to her message in order to get out of apostasy. And this theological package produces in its members the same attitude of condescendence toward the other churches.
Recently a document called Manhattan Declaration was signed by well-known and respected evangelical leaders, including Al Mohler and Ligon Duncan from the Together For the Gospel, Wayne Grudem, J.I. Packer, Ravi Zacharias, together with Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox leaders. It deals with the issues of the sanctity of human life (against abortions), marriage (against homosexual marriages), and freedom of speech. While signing a political document together with catholics and eastern orthodox is not by itself a compromise of the gospel, the language of the document assumes a common understanding of the gospel, at least, in its essence. That made John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul and Michael Horton and others to state their objections.
The drafters of the document, Charles Colson, Robert George, and Timothy George, used deliberate language that is on par with the ecumenical language of the Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT) movement that began in the 1990s. The Manhattan Declaration states, “Christians are heirs of a 2,000-year tradition of proclaiming God’s Word,” and it identifies “Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelicals” as “Christians.” The document calls Christians to unite in “the Gospel,” “the Gospel of costly grace,” and “the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness.” Moreover, the document says, “it is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season.”
What I consider relevant regarding our talk here about the SDA Church is the following paragraph from Sproul, in which he shows how the context is highly important in evaluating the situation:
The Roman Catholic Church has a long history of using studied ambiguity in order to win over opponents. Let me be unambiguous: Without a clear understanding of sola fide and the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, you do not have the gospel or gospel unity (1 Cor. 1:17; 2 Cor. 5:21). The ECT initiative repeatedly avowed that the signatories had a unity of faith in the gospel. This included Roman Catholic signers who affirm the canons and decrees of the sixteenth-century Council of Trent, which anathematizes sola fide. I believe there are true and sincere Christians within the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox churches. But these people are Christians in spite of their church’s official doctrinal positions.
The practice of “using studied ambiguity in order to win over opponents” is also part of the history of the SDA Church. Just the way they treated the subject of the finished atonement is relevant. In QOD they stated that the atonement was finished on the cross, while they explained that only the sacrificial part of it, not the atonement itself was finished, in order to keep the day of atonement after 1844 theology. While Walter Martin thought that the SDA Church changed its position on atonement due to the adoption of orthodox language, the adventists kept their theology intact due to this “studied ambiguity”.
And Jeremy’s site proves that this is true with the Trinity also. While using the orthodox language, the theologians of the church present a different meaning of this language. They deliberately use language that is ambiguous, leaving room for them to have different views on the subject. And this they do, as the RCC, “to win over opponents.”
As R.C. Sproul said, without a clear understanding of sola fide and the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, we do not have gospel unity. The SDA Church falls in the same category with the RCC. When confronted with unambiguous language, with clear presentations of the gospel, the SDA Church rejects it.
That’s why, when I, or Jeremy, or any other are insisting on unambiguous statement, on precise formulations regarding Trinity, penal substitution, finished atonement, we are not nit-picking, obtuse, judgmental people. We are pressed to do this because of the studied ambiguity used by adventists to win over their opponents. This is not an innocent practice, and I can’t give the SDA Church and its members the luxury of remaining ambiguous on these subjects, because under the apparent orthodox statements, it lurks the heretical teachings of a church that won its present status on the basis of “studied ambiguity.”
I’m displeased to bring this subject at this time of the year, but I don’t see why I should left the veiled accusation of phariseeism standing unanswered. It bothers me deeply that somebody who’s supposedly on my side regarding the gospel is going to insinuate that we are showing a pharisaical spirit when we are questioning the orthodoxy of the adventist positions. For God’s sake, we left the SDA Church, paying a high price, being classified as apostate, because we saw clearly that despite the orthodox language about the gospel, we couldn’t count on the church’s orthodoxy. This was a costly decision and was made after months of looking for reasons to remain in the church, for reasons to classify the SDA as an evangelical church. If I was inclined toward a particular decision, it was to remain in the church. My wife is still a devout adventist. Why create tensions in the family if the church, while having problems, can still be regarded as a true church?
While Stan thinks that our evaluation of the SDA Church is a slap in the face of Walter Martin, the veiled accusation of phariseeism is a slap in the face of the formers who paid a price for leaving the church because they can’t agree with the ambiguous language.
The article critiqued the way I have posted in the past, especially when I posted on FAF, and as well as here.
I thought the article was well written and is a good reminder that we need to be careful about the spirit of dialogue, as it can become quite heated, I am not disagreeing Gabriel with the problems you outline in SDA. I don’t exactly consider it an evangelical church, I just don’t equate SDA with JW or LDS. RCC and SDA church are very similar in the way they mix works with faith. I was taught a reasonably sound definition of the Trinity when I went to SDA schools. I agree with what Josh McDowell and Don Stewart said about SDA, that it is not a church one could recommend, but it is still possible to be a Christian in an SDA church.
I left SDA for theological reasons, and I stand behind my decision and the article I wrote in Proclamation. It cost our family greatly as well, and is still having serious repercussions with family unity.
My mother who is still SDA has a much closer relationship with God than I do, even though her knowledge of theology is limited. This is why I liked the author’s remarks about his grandmother.
Sorry I posted this article on Christmas Eve, but it was slow while I was on duty, and I had some time to surf the gospel coalition blog, but I still loved the article, and didn’t mean any harm.
The article critiqued the way I have posted in the past, especially when I posted on FAF, and as well as here.
Stan, point well taken. To be sure, the spirit of phariseeism is still in every one of us as long as we are in the flesh and our motivations are not entirely pure. That’s a given, and I will not deny this. The problem is when it is implied that phariseeism is the basic motivation of those who are questioning the SDA christian status.
Stan Ermshar - 25 December 2009 10:43 PM
I thought the article was well written and is a good reminder that we need to be careful about the spirit of dialogue, as it can become quite heated, I am not disagreeing Gabriel with the problems you outline in SDA. I don’t exactly consider it an evangelical church, I just don’t equate SDA with JW or LDS. RCC and SDA church are very similar in the way they mix works with faith. I was taught a reasonably sound definition of the Trinity when I went to SDA schools. I agree with what Josh McDowell and Don Stewart said about SDA, that it is not a church one could recommend, but it is still possible to be a Christian in an SDA church.
The question is not if somebody can be a Christian in the SDA church. The question is not regarding what happens at the individual level.
The question is not if the SDA Church is an evangelical church or not, the question is if it is a true or a false church. If it is a false church, it stands in the same category with the RCC, LDS and JW churches. The RCC and the SDA doesn’t bother too much if you call them evangelical or not as long as you don’t classify them as false churches. Both RCC and SDA considers themselves as the one and only true church on earth.
Stan Ermshar - 25 December 2009 10:43 PM
I left SDA for theological reasons, and I stand behind my decision and the article I wrote in Proclamation. It cost our family greatly as well, and is still having serious repercussions with family unity.
Stan, I left the SDA Church because it is NOT a TRUE church. If it was a true church, I would not put in jeopardy the family relations and especially my relationship with my wife. To leave a church just because you disagree with its theology in non-essential points while your family doesn’t want to leave is treason against God’s given responsibility toward family. In situations like these, there is no valid reason to break outward fellowship with people with whom you disagree on non-essential points. If the SDA gospel is still a true gospel, albeit imperfect and defective, there is no legitimate reason to put the unity of the family at risk. What I hear from you is that the SDA Church is in such a category that can’t be classified as a false or a true church. For a time I was thinking that such category exists, but there is no such category in the Bible.
I hope this helps for bringing clarity. We need clarity
My, my. Such defensiveness. Usually that means that something is hitting close to home. Stan has already made it clear that the Pharisaism that exists on this forum was not his motivation to post this, nontheless I will add that if the shoe fits we should wear it or find a way to keep it off our feet, don’t you think?
GABRIEL PROKSCH - 26 December 2009 12:23 AM
The problem is when it is implied that phariseeism is the basic motivation of those who are questioning the SDA christian status.
Gabriel
It may not be the ‘motivation’ but it sure drives the conversation pretty quick. I concede my part in this too.
We must be clear on the difference between being a Pharisee and being a Christian who pursues truth no matter what the cost. The Pharisees created their own laws for the sake of being “right” and delighted in applying those laws to others so they could find fault in them. Christians should be interested in following what is right without the motivation of showing others how wrong they are. But the Christian does encounter people who are in error and must defend what he believes in the face of their contradictory truth claims. Given this distinction between the Christian and the Pharisee, I don’t think most of what happens on this forum can be classified as phariseeism. Yes, we have some serious disagreements over important issues, but the primary motive is defending truth and sharing it with others who don’t believe it. Exposing and refuting error is a necessary and sometimes painful consequence of this.
I’ve seen Adventists bring the charge of phariseeism against former Adventists, often in a way designed to end a discussion without attempting to deal with the underlying exclusive truth claims, many of which are ironically about Adventist teachings that lead to phariseeism (e.g. the emphasis on Sabbath worship and EGW’s numerous counsels). Maybe I am seeing the sliver in the Adventist eye while ignoring the log in my own, but I previously had Adventist eyes and I know how I saw the world through them.
We must be clear on the difference between being a Pharisee and being a Christian who pursues truth no matter what the cost. The Pharisees created their own laws for the sake of being “right” and delighted in applying those laws to others so they could find fault in them. Christians should be interested in following what is right without the motivation of showing others how wrong they are. Greg
Greg, this is the same reasoning historic Adventists use to defend the near infallibility of Sister White and their adamant conclusions that everything the pioneers established is without fault and all exegesis done by the church today on all scriptures is 100% percent accurate. They rationalize away the comparisons to Pharisaism many make about them too.
Hypocrisy and ‘fault finding’ are not the only aspects of being a Pharisee. Remember that Pharisaism was about being the elite, being right and feeling the necessity of proving they are right to the extent that all others are wrong and need to see the errors of their ways (i.e, convince everyone to their view of the truth).. They claimed to be the defender of truth, implying that they understood and could rightly interpret what is truth. Deviators and dissenters from this interpreted truth were labeled blasphemers, apostates and heretics.
This was the spirit of Pharisaism. This was the spirit of the midieval Catholic Church. This is the spirit of conservative Adventism and it also is the spirit of anti-Adventism and many former Adventists.
This forum is not immune to this type of Pharisaism anymore than a conservative SDA forum like Revival Sermons is. We all must guard against all forms of elitism and Pharisaism under the guise of ‘defending truth’.
Greg, this is the same reasoning historic Adventists use to defend the near infallibility of Sister White and their adamant conclusions that everything the pioneers established is without fault and all exegesis done by the church today on all scriptures is 100% percent accurate. They rationalize away the comparisons to Pharisaism many make about them too.
This misses the point. If a historic Adventist uses an argument similar to mine to support their belief in the infallibility of Ellen White, we’re making fundamentally different arguments and reaching fundamentally different conclusions. Truth by nature is exclusive and arguing for truth necessitates arguing against error. One is not a Pharisee simply for taking a stand for truth, but one can be a Pharisee for what they do with their truth claims. Historic Adventists (and Adventists in general) use Ellen White’s writings and their beliefs about Sabbath as a dividing line between themselves and the Christian church, setting themselves up as the true remnant. They have added to God’s Word by using Ellen White’s counsels as an authoritative source of truth, not unlike the Pharisees who compiled their own extrabiblical rule-books to be followed in addition to Scripture. I’d like to see some evidence that what I’ve written on this forum comes anywhere close to this behavior.
guibox - 30 December 2009 07:27 PM
Hypocrisy and ‘fault finding’ are not the only aspects of being a Pharisee. Remember that Pharisaism was about being the elite, being right and feeling the necessity of proving they are right to the extent that all others are wrong and need to see the errors of their ways (i.e, convince everyone to their view of the truth).. They claimed to be the defender of truth, implying that they understood and could rightly interpret what is truth. Deviators and dissenters from this interpreted truth were labeled blasphemers, apostates and heretics. This was the spirit of Pharisaism. This was the spirit of the midieval Catholic Church. This is the spirit of conservative Adventism and it also is the spirit of anti-Adventism and many former Adventists.
I contend that believing the true gospel should humble you and cause you to earnestly desire to share it with those who do not have it. In many cases, sharing the true gospel necessitates pointing out the way in which others have perverted the gospel. The Adventist church is guilty of perverting the true gospel and it is not pharisaical to speak plainly about this. If you think that talking plainly about error is synonymous with being a Pharisee, then nobody can disagree with another person on biblical grounds. Nobody can say a word against those deviators and dissenters because to speak against them is to be a Pharisee. Obviously Jesus and the apostles did not believe this because they routinely argued against false teaching while quoting Scripture.
guibox - 30 December 2009 07:27 PM
This forum is not immune to this type of Pharisaism anymore than a conservative SDA forum like Revival Sermons is. We all must guard against all forms of elitism and Pharisaism under the guise of ‘defending truth’.
This is an interesting statement. Were you not “defending truth” when you argued so strenuously for annihlationism? If you weren’t defending truth, what exactly were you doing? If you were defending truth, does this make you a Pharisee? Furthermore, you mocked us on several occasions for not believing what you saw to be so clear. How is this not elitist?
The Adventist church is guilty of perverting the true gospel and it is not pharisaical to speak plainly about this. If you think that talking plainly about error is synonymous with being a Pharisee, then nobody can disagree with another person on biblical grounds. Nobody can say a word against those deviators and dissenters because to speak against them is to be a Pharisee. Obviously Jesus and the apostles did not believe this because they routinely argued against false teaching while quoting Scripture.
There is a difference between speaking ‘words against dissenters’ and berating, deriding and accusing those who adhere to a different belief system simply because it doesn’t agree with what is deemed the ‘true gospel’. This is the same mindset prevalent throughout conservative and cultic Adventism. What some would insist is ‘dogma’ others would deem ‘interpretation’. Yet one side insists the other is wrong and labels them ‘apostates’ and ‘heretics’. Both anti-Adventism and conservative Adventism is riddled with this mindset.
Greg - 30 December 2009 09:59 PM
This is an interesting statement. Were you not “defending truth” when you argued so strenuously for annihlationism? If you weren’t defending truth, what exactly were you doing? If you were defending truth, does this make you a Pharisee? Furthermore, you mocked us on several occasions for not believing what you saw to be so clear. How is this not elitist?Greg
If I have mocked people personally, I apologize. However, I would call that being an ass perhaps, but not elitist. I believe that those who adhere to eternal torment are wrong, plain and simple and I will present my reasons why, yes. However concerning eternal torment and annihilation, I and Stan, unlike some on this forum, have not:
- called one’s Christianity into question for believing what they believe
- labeled a person a ‘heretic’ for believing what they believe
- implied that a person doesn’t follow or know the God of the Bible if they don’t believe what the party line is
and so forth..
This is what I believe to be elitism. It is more methodology and branding than simply addressing dissenting viewpoints.
This is the same elitist rhetoric spouted off by historic Adventism to those who don’t believe in the IJ or the traditional interpretation of apocalyptic prophecy or view Sister White differently than they do. There is no room for understanding or compromise. “There is only TRUTH and by golly, you better believe it the way we do!!!”
The same is true for some on this forum and anti-Adventists in general.
There is a difference between speaking ‘words against dissenters’ and berating, deriding and accusing those who adhere to a different belief system simply because it doesn’t agree with what is deemed the ‘true gospel’. This is the same mindset prevalent throughout conservative and cultic Adventism. What some would insist is ‘dogma’ others would deem ‘interpretation’. Yet one side insists the other is wrong and labels them ‘apostates’ and ‘heretics’. Both anti-Adventism and conservative Adventism is riddled with this mindset.
The common point between “anti-Adventism” and conservative Adventism is that both groups believe that there is one single gospel, and this is a truth for which both groups have a solid biblical basis. As there is one Jesus and one name under heaven in which we are saved, there is one gospel by which we are saved. Galatians chapter 1 is clear on this. Any other gospel that claims to be the true gospel makes a false claim.
The common point is that both categories make the same claims for what they believe. But since they share gospel that are opposite to each others, there are only three options that may be logically true, the fourth is excluded.
1. The SDA gospel is the true gospel, the reformation gospel is a false gospel and the protestant and evangelical churches are false churches, or apostate churches, Babylon, as adventists define them.
2. The gospel believed by the protestant churches is the true gospel and consequently the SDA gospel is false, and the SDA church is a false church.
3. Both groups are wrong.
The 4th options: both groups are right is excluded because of the antithetical views of the gospel.
The problem is not claiming that you believe in the true gospel. It’s rather necessary to be assured that you believe in a true gospel because the eternal destiny is at stake. The problem is in making a false claim.
However concerning eternal torment and annihilation, I and Stan, unlike some on this forum, have not:
- called one’s Christianity into question for believing what they believe
- labeled a person a ‘heretic’ for believing what they believe
- implied that a person doesn’t follow or know the God of the Bible if they don’t believe what the party line is
and so forth..
This is what I believe to be elitism. It is more methodology and branding than simply addressing dissenting viewpoints.
Elitism is to affirm that the church was deadly wrong in presenting an infinite unjust God and except you and a minority group, all were pagans in their understanding about God. Only a minority, a group of illuminati got this doctrine right, the rest were blind and went against all logic because they believed in eternal torments in hell.
Elitism is to affirm that the church was deadly wrong in presenting an infinite unjust God and except you and a minority group, all were pagans in their understanding about God. Only a minority, a group of illuminati got this doctrine right, the rest were blind and went against all logic because they believed in eternal torments in hell.
Gabriel
The same could be said for infant baptism, indulgences, confession to a priest, celibacy of the priesthood, adoration of the saints and relics, Gabriel. ALL of Christendom including some of whom are considered the greatest theologians in Christendom like Augustine and Aquinas, along with the thousands of priests, scholars and leaders believed them. The Protesters worth any clout that did not were a small drop in the bucket.
This ‘argument by majority’ is a weak argument but always a necessary one to fall back onto. The Protestant Reformation proved beyond a doubt that this was a lousy argument to drift to.
What difference did it make? The scriptures did. Yet despite having the true gospel as our guide, there are so many differing views and downright contradictions. The differing viewpoints and interpretations are not ‘different gospels’. The SDA church and Arminians are not promoting a ‘different gospel’. The true gospel is looked at different ways and it is elitism to think that one’s viewpoint that happens to be shared by others must be the true one. It is also elitism to think that nobody in history had a differing viewpoint than the one one currently holds and falls back on the ‘everyone in history can’t be wrong and you heretics got it right’ argument.
If I recall, even the Reformers did not agree on the immortality of the soul or Sunday sacredness.
What difference did it make? The scriptures did. Yet despite having the true gospel as our guide, there are so many differing views and downright contradictions. The differing viewpoints and interpretations are not ‘different gospels’. The SDA church and Arminians are not promoting a ‘different gospel’.
To the degree that the Adventist church holds on to the false doctrine of the investigative judgment, the Adventist church promotes a false gospel.
The Adventist church has tenaciously clung to this doctrine even though it is demonstrably unbiblical. The liberal wing of the Adventist church believes this doctrine is passe and it is a waste of time to talk about it, but there is a good reason nobody can actually get rid of it. By getting rid of it, Ellen White’s prophetic gift comes into question and the whole structure of Adventism falls apart. The raison d’etre of Adventism simply disappears and October 22, 1844 becomes the non-event that it was.
This is why the Adventist church must hold a false gospel and cannot rest on God’s grace alone, it must, like Roman Catholicism, promote man’s work cooperating with God’s grace. As but one example, check the exposition of Romans 8:1 in the Adventist Bible Commentary and you will find this quote from Ellen White: “When it is in the heart to obey God, when efforts are put forth to this end, Jesus accepts this disposition and effort as man’s best service, and He makes up for the deficiency with His own divine merit.” What follows in the commentary (from memory) is, “for such there is no condemnation”. This is a perfect Roman Catholic gospel formulation of man’s works + God’s grace = no condemnation. This is not Arminianism vs. Calvinism, it is false gospel vs. true gospel.
It is not wrong to talk plainly about this, it is not pharisaical—it is truthful and it is merciful.
This is why the Adventist church must hold a false gospel and cannot rest on God’s grace alone, it must, like Roman Catholicism, promote man’s work cooperating with God’s grace. As but one example, check the exposition of Romans 8:1 in the Adventist Bible Commentary and you will find this quote from Ellen White: “When it is in the heart to obey God, when efforts are put forth to this end, Jesus accepts this disposition and effort as man’s best service, and He makes up for the deficiency with His own divine merit.” What follows in the commentary (from memory) is, “for such there is no condemnation”. This is a perfect Roman Catholic gospel formulation of man’s works + God’s grace = no condemnation. This is not Arminianism vs. Calvinism, it is false gospel vs. true gospel.
It is not wrong to talk plainly about this, it is not pharisaical—it is truthful and it is merciful.
Greg
According to Calvinism any choice in the matter is ‘man’s works+God’s grace’. This is the heart of Arminianism. EGW’s quote to me is a fine example of anti-perfectionism. Man cannot live up to God’s perfect standard but we are expected to obey. So what does this mean? It means that it shows God that we are not trying to live in ‘cheap grace’, expecting the benefits without the obedience. However, neither does it say that my works save myself. They cannot for they are imperfect. All our works show is our willingness to obey God and not take His gift for granted. The divine merits of Christ are what get us into heaven. To Calvinism, this seems like ‘salvation by works’. I have yet to meet an Arminianist that believes we can choose to disobey God continually and still make it to heaven. And yet still they preach ‘salvation by grace through faith and not works’ as does EGW and Adventism.
To Calvinism and those who do not believe in freedom of choice, this is a contradiction. To Arminianists it is not.
According to Calvinism any choice in the matter is ‘man’s works+God’s grace’. This is the heart of Arminianism. EGW’s quote to me is a fine example of anti-perfectionism. Man cannot live up to God’s perfect standard but we are expected to obey. So what does this mean? It means that it shows God that we are not trying to live in ‘cheap grace’, expecting the benefits without the obedience. However, neither does it say that my works save myself. They cannot for they are imperfect. All our works show is our willingness to obey God and not take His gift for granted. The divine merits of Christ are what get us into heaven. To Calvinism, this seems like ‘salvation by works’. I have yet to meet an Arminianist that believes we can choose to disobey God continually and still make it to heaven. And yet still they preach ‘salvation by grace through faith and not works’ as does EGW and Adventism.
To Calvinism and those who do not believe in freedom of choice, this is a contradiction. To Arminianists it is not.
This is not about Calvinism vs. Arminianism. Both Calvinists and Arminians take issue with the grace + works formula that Ellen White taught. You can’t lump Adventism into Arminianism so easily unless you show me where Arminians teach that good works + God’s grace are the condition of their salvation. This is the Adventist “gospel” and it is not good news. It is not Pharisaical to point this out, it is being kind to Adventists who believe a distorted version of the truth.
If you don’t see the problem in the Ellen White quote I provided, I encourage you to read Geoffrey Paxton’s book, The Shaking of Adventism. Paxton concludes that the gospel articulation of at least one segment of Adventism is equivalent to Roman Catholicism. This problem has never been rectified by the Adventist church and in fact, since Paxton’s book was written, the church has accommodated this gospel articulation while simultaneously projecting themselves as an evangelical Christian church.
If the Adventist church as a denomination was interested in pursuing truth despite the consequences, they would have listened to men like Albion Ballenger, D.M. Canright and Desmond Ford. Instead, they looked biblical truth in the face and rejected it because the consequences to the denomination were too great. October 22, 1844 was a non-event but the folklore of that day must be preserved. The error that flows from this one decision reaches down to the core of biblical truth and it perverts the gospel.
