My wife and I welcomed the new addition to our home with no little suspicion and trepidation. We had never owned one before, and nor had we ever an opportunity to learn to drive one. We had heard many horror stories regarding them; people (particularly women) had become addicted to them. Young ladies were particularly susceptible, being deceived into accepting all that they heard through them as truth, and being led away to slavery, or worse. And then, a few short weeks later, my own dear wife, bless her pretty little cotton socks, was herself addicted. Yes, I speak of that most dangerous of human inventions, the personal computer, or PC for short, and specifically I speak of that most diabolical invention, that comes to us through the PC, the internet chat room. It was 2007, or there abouts, and in order to solve the great mystery of chat room addictive behaviour, I decided to investigate for myself.
Over the ensuing couple of weeks, I discovered four very important things, which have greatly contributed to shaping my life from that time to the present day.
1. I discovered that the internet had massive potential for sharing the gospel.
2. I discovered also that I wasn’t the first to discover this.
3. I found that to my great dismay and chagrin, every man and his pet goldfish had their own version of what the gospel means, despite their constant claim to ‘knowing Jesus,’ ‘having the Bible as their foundation for all doctrine and teaching’ and ‘having God’s own Holy Spirit’ abiding in them to teach them personally. Some had even gone so far as to spend many years in universities, colleges, Bible schools and such like, and subsequently being able to adorn themselves with numerous letters after their names to prove it, and even they disagreed with each other. Not only did they differ from one another on the small points which have no bearing on our ultimate destiny, but they disagreed often on the most basic beliefs, which indeed do affect our ultimate destiny, and more than this, nearly every one of them (including the goldfish) disagreed with me, which meant they were all wrong!
So, having decided to impart to everyone who would listen all the pearls of accumulated wisdom and insight that I had collected over my thirty-five odd years of being clearly one of the most faithful, truth centered, consecrated disciples of Jesus on the planet, I proceeded to register my name on a number of chat sights and in very short order discovered the fourth very important thing that has shaped my life recently. This fourth discovery has several facets.
4. a. I was a lousy, slow typist. By the time I had typed my three or four paragraphs of diamond studded insight into the box and pressed ‘enter,’ seventeen new people had entered the chat room, eight of the original ten had left, the two remaining were not interested in what I had to say anyway, and no-one else understood a thing I wrote. And when I read back my posts, I could barely understand it either, the misspelling and ‘typos’ being so abundant.
b. Absolutely nothing of any depth was actually being discussed; the numbers coming and going forbidding any meaningful conversation beyond ‘Hi… How are you… Haven’t seen you in here for a while… I’m sick and home from work… my baby’s just spewed all over my laptop… etc. etc.
c. There really is no answer to why chat-rooms are so addictive.
d. And finally, I discovered that because of a seemingly inbuilt suspicion and even open antagonism against Seventh Day Adventists within the Christian community, most roundly rejected me without any hearing, arrest warrant, reading of rights, or trial, and damned me as a heretic without right of appeal.
I had to look elsewhere and change my modus operandi if I was going to have any success in changing the world. Thus I registered in an on-line forum, where one could write as much as he liked, within reason, and not need a reply for a day or so. Conversations were lengthened out over weeks if not months, and everyone had an equal opportunity to share and learn from one another. The perfect environment for such as me, where ‘dialogue’ and open, frank discussion was the order of the day. Well, that was the theory anyway.
The first site I registered on was run by staunch Calvinists; the moment the moderators twigged to my SDA leanings, I was banned. Since then I have found some a little more tolerant — at least they allow me to remain on the books — but I am not allowed to promote SDA teachings; rather, I am permitted to answer queries regarding SDA teachings but only in specific forums which are generally not read by most members.
Another site has special forums for just about any denomination you can think of so the end result is those who go there just talk among themselves in their own areas.
Just three months ago, however, I came across a site that was completely non-denominational and allowed for anyone to join in any discussion freely so long as no-one promoted their own denomination. I find that refreshing, and am enjoying sharing there, but I did use a little cunning. I didn’t divulge my denominational leanings at any time, and it was only last week that a member familiar with our teachings asked if I was a Seventh Day Adventist. Because I had been sharing nothing apart from my own personal perspective on many issues, doctrines, prophecy etc., which all are SDA, I asked this member why it took so long to ‘out’ me.
Then there is the blog. I had heard of these of course, but being the archetypical technophobe I was reluctant to investigate further for a long time. Ironically, it was a member from one of the sites, a member who had been one of my bitterest opponents, who suggested I start a blog. Clearly, an ulterior motive was at work here, thinking that a distraction such as a blog would give him some much sought after relief from my continual heretical abominations. And so an investigation ensued and the result was twofold.
a. I found the blog to be a very convenient storage house for my studies on all things Biblical and
b. as I looked around at other blogs I found a greater appreciation for others’ thoughts and perspectives.
So over the years I have learned more I think about myself than I would possibly care to admit. I have also learned that it isn’t going to be me, nor for that matter anyone else either, who is going to change the world. That little task comes under God’s job description, a task for which He is far more qualified than I, with vastly more experience, and the only one with the power to do it. That He uses human agencies to accomplish this from time to time, will always be a puzzle to me, and glory to Him.
Finally, I think the greatest thing I have gained over the last five or six years, the one thing I cherish the most, is the freedom of speech, the freedom to worship according to ones own conscience, and to discuss and share our thoughts and beliefs with one another without bias, bigotry, condemnation, or ridicule. This does not exist everywhere I have found, but where it can be found, must be embraced, protected, and nourished as one of the greatest gifts God has bestowed upon us.
© 2012 Brendan James, Repairing the Breech
Kurt.A
Anupadin
brakelite
chaiwala
ecopax
Eric Hyde
homophilosophicus
Art
notbymysilence
Ivy
southwerk
Tāṇḍava
Nice post and thanks for the contribution! I have to chuckle about the chat rooms because I had run into similar situations with chat rooms. The topic might have been religion or spirituality but more often than not, the chatter was either nothing to do with the topic and/or was dominated by the same school yard bully’s who took my lunch money when I was a kid. It never did seem to be a good place for discussion. At any rate, I just wanted to say hi, and welcome!
Kurt, I had to ‘approve’ your comment. I don’t know why this was — but I am sorry for any hassle that this might have caused. I don’t know why it was delayed.
Better watch your back Jason! No sweat boss-man. Hope your doing well, I’ve been down sick for ten days, and just now am I starting to feel like my old self. Take care!
Nothing serious I hope? I think that I have discovered the cause of the problem. I think that it was because it was on another contributor’s post. Time will tell. Anyhoo I didn’t need to approve you this time. Get well soon.
Brendan, this was a well written post. I loved the familiar tone and the place of the family in the whole thing. Yes, I must agree with Kurt that much of the internet (so far as chat is concerned) is over populated with the inane and the aggressive. Have a look at any politics forum and you will see just what I mean. So would you, Brendan, describe your treatment as a Seventh Day Adventist as prejudiced and intolerant? Maybe you might want to explain what it is you feel other groups see as threatening in your theology. I ask this because I know nothing about Seventh Day Adventism.
Hi guys. I have found that there is a great deal of misunderstanding regarding Adventist teaching: a cursory glance at some of our doctrines can tend to give a wrong idea. For example, the one teaching we have which is exclusively our own, deals with the scapegoat, and the type/antitype connection between the Day of Atonement in the OT (Yom Kippur) and what takes place at the second coming of Jesus. Many who have read of this teaching but failed to study deeply enough have come to the incorrect conclusion that we teach that Satan is a sin-bearer in conjunction with Christ.That if Satan is the scapegoat and is taken into the wilderness as per the scriptures, then, it is thought, the logical conclusion is that without his contribution to the process, our justification is somehow incomplete. This couldn’t be further from the truth. I have gone to great lengths to explain this on a site renowned for their intolerance of not just SDAs, but other denominations also. Their conclusions on the matter however are born of ignorance and lack of study. I sincerely believe that many do not have any desire to fully understand and deliberately fall short in their contemplations because to reach the same conclusions we do would entail a major shift in their attitude toward Adventism, something very few would entertain.
That said, we also ought accept blame for much misunderstanding and bias against our faith. Although I have been an Adventist for only 13 years, I am aware that in the past many in our church tended to focus far too much on the law, rather than on the grace and mercy of a loving God. We came across to many as being legalistic, and I dear say, I am certain that many in our church very likely did think that by keeping the Sabbath etc they were contributing something towards their salvation, thus introducing works into the equation. Such is not official teaching, and Ellen White herself sharply condemned such thinking…however, like all churches, we are made up of people, and people tend to make mistakes, and these mistakes are seldom kept ‘in house’ when so many are keen to find fault.
I also think many Adventists have given too much weight to the concept of our church being the ‘remnant’ church of Revelation 12. Many have tended toward an attitude that echoes that of ancient Israel. Because we have been favoured and blessed so much, and despite the very great focus on evangelism and mission by the church, many members have wrongly concluded that genuine Christians cannot be found outside our own church. Another mistake which has been latched onto by our opponents and considered ‘official’ teaching. Again however, Ellen White herself condemned this idea also, stating on many occasions that there are Christians in every denomination, and not only so, but the majority of Adventists, if they refuse to repent of their lukewarmness aka the Laodicean syndrome, they would find themselves shut out of heaven.
What Adventists are facing though is little different than what other reform churches faced in centuries past. The Lutherans refused to embrace the new teachings that Calvin brought to the church, the Calvinists refused to accept later reformers, and so it continued. Which is precisely why we have so many denominations today. The Holy Spirit begain to call people out of papal error 5oo years in earnest, but the revealing of truth was a progressive affair; the church general however not keeping up with the light given. We as Adventists believe we have a peculiar end-time message, based on Revelation 14:6-12. Whilst we are the fastest growing Protestant church, not all are willing to accept it.
Seventh Day Adventism is not a Christian tradition with which I am very familiar. Dublin has a small congregation at Ranelagh but I have never visited them. Your participation on this blog has inspired me to wonder over and have a little look. Since this tradition is new to me I have included a link to the wiki article on Ellen White.
I was particularly interested when you mentioned the denial and affirmation of ‘Christians in other denominations.’ You must have realised that someone would have picked up on this — so, so as not to kill discussion with the silence of politeness, I have decided to be the first to ask. By what criteria does one deny or affirm the ‘Christianity’ of ‘another Christian?’ I shall take it for granted that the formula of ‘papal error’ is one from Adventist teaching and tradition (my own tradition has similar historical comment in the Thirty-Nine Articles) — we are best to be clear on this point, as the vast majority of Christians around the world clearly do not regard the Roman Papacy as error (though I do know a number of Roman Catholics who see it as error and wickedness — one Jesuit friend comes to mind).
Clarification on the ‘Jesuit friend’ mentioned above: He fully accepts the Papacy, but criticises the Vatican and what he sees as the irrelevant and harmful trapping that surround the Papal Office itself.
Brakelite,
This is an interesting post. I know very little about Seventh day Adventists, in fact on looking at the Wikipedia article I realised that I had mixed up a lot of beliefs with Jehovah’s Witnesses! I was thinking that you didn’t believe in the trinity and thought Jesus was human.
I think that some chat rooms bring out the worst in people, they behave in a way that they would not dream of doing face to face.
I like the bit when you said:
Now unless I have completely misread you this is not meant to be taken seriously. Yet – in a way it must be, because you believe that certain things are true. And it must be for me too, as I believe certain things. How come we can see this as amusing because there are some people who really don’t even listen to anything other than their own way?
I put it down to several things. Firstly I think that both of us believe that God will not condemn someone for honest misunderstanding. I have seen some Christian chat rooms where people fret about who’s “really saved”, whether someone is “not a true Christian”, or has the “wrong concept of God”. It would be hard for them to laugh at people thinking that people who disagree must be wrong. Secondly, for me anyway it comes from believing that practice is as important than belief, and certainly more important than minor differences. There are people following other paths who are better than me at showing simplicity, honesty, and truthfulness in all things – thinking kindly thoughts and so on. For me to say that their path is wrong is not only minor but presumptuous,
Thank you for a thought-provoking and amusing post.
Coincidentally (or maybe God felt like I needed a reminder) someone has posted a comment on my blog that reminds me of one of the most important reasons that I can laugh at someone saying “I am right, all you are wong”. She wrote:
… My intellectual understanding of the truth, and any humans, is gong to be so short of the glorious whole that taking any pride in it being “right” is laughable.
Jason, should you indeed visit that SDA congregation, I am sure they will welcome you with open arms. If they don’t, please let me know and I will be on the next available flight to Dublin to sort them out. Oh, and don’t forget to go on the ‘right’ day!!!
You asked, “By what criteria does one deny or affirm the ‘Christianity’ of ‘another Christian?”. Interesting question. Jesus put it like this:
Luke 6:41 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
42 Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye.
43 For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
44 For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.
45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.
46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
47 Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:
48 He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.
49 But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.
The apostle Paul added:
1Co 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
The reformation was ignited by recognition that the fruits Jesus was speaking about had become rotten within the medieval church. On reading the scriptures, they then recognised how far removed from Biblical Christianity their beloved church had grown, and sought to bring in reforms to correct the anomaly. Whilst Christianity in its purest form had Jesus Christ as its foundation, Rome had laid another foundation and was building upon sand, which failed to yield the good fruit that ought to have been indicative of a true church. ‘Sola fide’ had become anathema to Rome, confirmed by the pronouncements from the council of Trent, the later catechisms offering the same. That salvation can be found ‘only’ through the continuing works of righteousness of the believer; that salvation can be found only as he participates in the church sacraments; that salvation can be found only within the context of the Roman communion, all present a gospel in direct contradistinction to that found in the Bible, that Jesus is the all suficient propitiation for sin.
Jesus did not preclude His church from making judgements between truth and error. He simply said that make sure you personally know the truth first before judging another.
How can I be sure I have the truth? By completely opening myself up to scrutiny. By participating in these forums and blog discussions and being honest concerning my beliefs and faith practices, and allowing others to challenge and ask the hard questions. This I love. It makes me challenge myself in study and contemplating my own belief system….if I don’t have answers I need to find them, and if my answers don’t stand up, I need to reconsider my position.
Now I cannot fault anyone for their faith practice if they are not Christian. Who am I to fault a Hindu or Buddhist …they are building upon a completely different foundation, and what is being built is right and proper and appropriate for that foundation. However, I can be critical of the beliefs of those who claim to be Christian if their foundation is not that which the scriptures lay down as being the only one that will stand the test of time, and the storms of life. As far as the foundation of the Hindu or Buddhist or any religion that doesn’t have Christ as the basis for belief and doctrine, how can their good works or appeasement or religious practice atone for sin? Sin is the critical issue for all mankind. How we deal with that issue; whether we deal with it ourselves or allow God to deal with it…it is that core issue that will ultimately dtermine our eternal destiny.
What a reply! I find common ground with much of what you have said. This is because I am a firm believer in objective truth. Yet my view of Roman Catholicism is rather different. First of all it would only be proper for me to state that I am not a Roman Catholic, and I am not so by conviction and choice. This does not mean, however, that I reject Catholicism. The Church in the Middle Ages was corrupt and rotten, but not completely so. There was the sad episode of the sale of indulgences and what have you, but this was also a time of great academic, philosophical and theological development. Rome loves to boast that it is unchanging, but even within Rome it can be seen that this is not the case; every organisation changes over time.
More to the point, Catholicism is not the monolith its captains like to think that it is. There is plenty of loyal dissent – I would like to point to the above mentioned ‘Jesuit friend,’ and others who, whilst being devout Catholics, strive to live the Gospel in their thinking, speaking and acting. The fact that Rome engages in discussion and has a series of Councils to rely on shows that reform is a constant feature of the Catholic tradition — it is simply that it is a much bigger ship. Moreover, the vitality of Catholic theology (Rahner being my favourite) shows evidence of continuing reflection on the Gospel, sacred tradition and reason in the face of the questions of the modern world.
I mailed Pastor Gavin Anthony from the Adventist Church in Dublin, telling him of your contribution and inviting him to come and read and support your column. I said that I would take a walk over and pay them a visit. He sent the following reply:
So I may take a stroll over there in the next couple of weeks.
Remembering that this topic is “inter-faith dialogue”, I would like to invite the readers to cast their minds back to the mid-nineties, and the great fanfare and hooplah that accompanied the signing of the pretentiously entitled “Evangelicals and Catholics Together: the Christian Mission in the Third Millennium”. This document was signed by a number of leading lights in both evangelical and Catholic camps, and the discussions that lead up to the signing were undertaken with the view to finding common ground for ecumenism in the fight against state sponsored abortion, gay rights, euthanasia, and other political grenades that the religious right saw as threats to society.
The joint signing of this document, purported to be a long overdue conclusion to the rift brought about since the reformation, and despite numerous articles defending the declaration subsequent to the fire-storm of protest after its release, reveals more about the lengths people will go to to achieve political ends, rather than any happy conclusion to the reformation. You see, the signers of the document have a problem. And the problem is utterly insolvable, for it encapsulates the very core issue of “how are we saved”, the quite glaring distinction between Protestant and Catholic theology on the very issue that sparked the reformation in the first place.
As I mentioned above, Rome claims to hold all the keys to salvation, through its sacramental system, its priesthood, the system of indulgences (which still exists and is still offered), the raft of ‘religious’ acts including pilgrimages, attending mass, praying the rosary, invoking the saints, Mary etc., and numerous other things all designed to help the faithful Catholic to gain salvation through his own works which effectively and collectively remove Jesus Christ from the role of sole Mediator between God and man, undermining His role as our High Priest, thus fulfilling to the ‘T’ the meaning of the expression ‘antichrist’, “in place of Christ”.
It was the accusing fingers of the reformers and their condemnation of that system as being antichrist that made Protestantism Rome’s bitterest enemy. Yet despite the fact that Rome has not moved one inch away from the very same theology that sparked Luther’s protests, modern Protestantism has so compromised its own history and core beliefs that it can now pretend to be united with Rome.
True Protestantism rejects outright the notion that justification includes the process of renewal and sanctification of the inner man. Rome says that justification most certainly includes them. Not only so, but that renewal, according to Rome, comes only through the church. Now I am sorry to be so politically incorrect here, and I know this flies in the face of the non-judgemental inclusiveness that pervades modern society, but all this raises a very simple question.
How does one unify Christ with antichrist on the very doctrine that makes antichrist antichrist?
Oh, and another question; what value dialogue that result in such perfidy and contradiction?
For a couple of months now I have been involved in a discussion elsewhere entitled “Were they right?”. This discussion focuses on the reformers accusations and condemnations of the Roman system, and investigates the reasons why they were willing to lay their lives down rather than compromise, and I have been including the discussion lately on my own blog under the same title, and have invited comment from readers there. You believe Rome has changed Jason. In some ways I would agree with you, yes, in some things she has changed, but I would ask, (call me a cynic if you like) has she changed simply because she has had to re-align herself to suit the modern age, rather than any heartfelt changes to her core beliefs? One example of this would be her modern attitude to free speech and freedom of worship. It was only 120 years ago that she utterly rejected any idea that man could choose to worship according to the dictates of his own conscience. If she had the political power again as she had formerly, would she be so generous as she appears today?
Remembering that this topic is an interfaith discussion I may have to remind us all of the rules. My apologies for playing policeman here, but this blog has many Catholic readers (this is not the ‘only’ reason for prohibiting this discussion) and the guidelines do make it crystal clear that no one is expected to defend their faith here. I understand, Brendan, that you hold these opinions and that they are not opinions against individuals, but against an organisation. Yet, as I would not permit an assault here on the elements of your faith, I cannot equally permit an assault on Catholicism. We may express the content of our own faith, and we may answer and ask questions about that faith, but it is important that this is not the place for anti-Catholic (or anti-Anything) polemic.
Tandava, I am neither surprised or offended that you mistook Seventh Day Adventists with Jehovah Witnesses. Even some Christians have done likewise. Interestingly, there is a small minority with Adventism that have difficulty with the Trinity; they cannot accept the Holy Spirit as a personal being and teach that the Holy Spirit is more a force or energy source. This is of course not the official Adventist position. These non-trinitarians accept everything else regarding our doctrines, though I find it difficult to understand how they can miss the many references to the trinity by Ellen White who they agree was a prophet.
You said quote: ‘There are people following other paths who are better than me at showing simplicity, honesty, and truthfulness in all things – thinking kindly thoughts and so on. For me to say that their path is wrong is not only minor but presumptuous, ‘
Jesus said that there was only one path to eternal life, and that path was narrow and difficult, very few finding it. The path leading to destruction was wide and easy, and many would follow that path. If I by God’s grace were to find myself on the right path (for if it is a God ordained path surely God Himself would inform us whether we are in the right or no) and I saw someone wandering along a path that I knew would lead to his destruction, surely it would be an act of love to inform him that there was a better way? Far from, being presumptuous, would it not be the moral and right thing to do? In fact not to do so would be to accept part of the blame for his ultimate destruction would it not?
In fact God Himself put it this way to the prophet Ezekiel:
1 ¶ Again the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
2 Son of man, speak to the children of thy people, and say unto them, When I bring the sword upon a land, if the people of the land take a man of their coasts, and set him for their watchman:
3 If when he seeth the sword come upon the land, he blow the trumpet, and warn the people;
4 Then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head.
5 He heard the sound of the trumpet, and took not warning; his blood shall be upon him. But he that taketh warning shall deliver his soul.
6 But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman’s hand.
7 So thou, O son of man, I have set thee a watchman unto the house of Israel; therefore thou shalt hear the word at my mouth, and warn them from me.
8 When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
9 Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.
Yet we must be careful to note that the Lord said to Ezekiel, “speak to the children of thy (your own) people.”
@bakelite,
I can understand the Fundamentalist Christian-Islamic reasons for wanting to pass on the message at any cost. It just doesn’t fit with the understanding of God in Hinduism, which expressed by my sampradaya as the affirmation “Premaiva Sivamaya, Satyam eva Parashivah“, or “God (Shiva) is Immanent Love and Transcendent Reality“. The first part of the affirmation is also shared by most of the world’s religions, as well as by non-fundamentalist Christians.
This view of God makes it impossible to believe that God will punish people eternally for taking any path in the sincere belief that it will bring them closer to him. It also implies that God would appreciate and value things that allow his children to live together in peace and harmony.
The premise that saving other souls should take the highest priority, when taken to the logical extreme, results in destructive behaviour. For example, anyone preaching the “wrong path” should logically be killed rather than risk them persuading others. This preaching can be extended to any public expression of their religion, display or religious symbols, etc. as happens in many Muslim countries. Also severe punishments for people degrading the faith (torture and death) could save other’s souls by making the idea unthinkable.
Now not many people take their belief to the logical extreme – but I think that anyone who does believe in an exclusive God should recognise that trying to force their view on others is destructive. The stronger the forcing the more destructive. There are many Christians in India who strongly oppose laws that prevent the use of lies, threats, bribes or deception in an attempt to convert people, as they see it as infringing their right to practice their religion. Even at this level their practices cause damage to society, communities, and family. Also, they should recognise that it gives them no moral argument against Muslim extremists who say that the law should allow them to kill non-believers … they are just applying the same logic at a higher degree.
My own opinion is that believing that it is right for you to actively try to make someone follow your path is putting greater trust in your own understanding than in God. After all, if God wanted everyone to follow the teaching of Jesus (or Muhammad,Joseph Smith, or Sun Myung Moon) he could do so couldn’t he? If someone thinks that they can make someone else believe by preaching … or even by lies, threats, and killing leaders of other religions, couldn’t God do the same if he wanted to without evil?
homophilosophicus,
It has also been pointed out to me that Jesus was surrounded by Romans, Greeks, and many people following other religions but said nothing to them about changing their faith. In fact he only seemed to get involved in people outside the Jewish religion when they came to him (like the Canaanite woman)
This most certainly seems to be the case. There is not a single moment in the Gospel narrative when Jesus expresses an interest in the conversion of non-Jews. Even in the early ‘Apostolic Age’ it is not a high priority of the ecclesia. The great mission drive only truly begins with the missions of Paul.
The Adventist posiotion on this comes from the prophetic context of the 70 weeks of
Daniel 9.24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
Now without going into too much detail, (there are any number of online resources which can provide a comprehensive Adventist understanding of these verses, as opposed to the current popular majority view of futurist Evangelicalism), we believe that God gave Israel a time of probation to get things right, or He would pass the responsibility to another organisation. (The debate over national or spiritual Israel in NT theology is still going hotly) Jesus said to His disciples not to go to the Gentiles but to go first to the lost of Israel. This was done as Jason said, for three and a half years from the time of the crucifixion which we believe was to fulfil or complete the time prophecy which came to a conclusion in 34ad (70 weeks = 490 years from 457bc) at the time of the stoning of Stephen. It was this event which triggered persecution in earnest against the Christians from the Jews themselves, and the Christians dispersed into countries around about, taking the gospel with them, fulfilling the instruction from Jesus to “go into every nation and preach the gospel”.
Tandava, I agree with you wholeheartedly that the Christian belief system cannot and must not be enforced upon anyone. In fact, our denomination has a very strong religious liberties department which is a powerful advocate for religious freedom worldwide. Over the years of our existence our church has been at the forefront of defending freedom of conscience against laws and statutes that would restrict or forbid what we deem to be inalienable rights to worship according to conscience, as opposed to man’s instruction or laws. An example of our attitude in this area can be seen here: http://www.libertymagazine.org/
That said, we also believe it is imperative that we share with as many people as possible the good news that God has sent His Son to save mankind from their sins. This is the gospel. Love however, is the motivating power behind such endeavours. The love of God which demands He cannot force Himself on anyone, and that same love which He places in our hearts for the lost.
It is tragic that history reveals a long period in within the Christian era where precisely what you objected to was carried out with much fervour and misguided zeal. Astonishingly, it is believed by historians that up to 150 million people lost their lives during this period over matters of conscience. People from both sides of the Protestant/Catholic divide.
There are also differences in the Christian traditions as to how read scripture best. From the Adventist standpoint, as outlines by Brendan, there is a sense of prophecy as ‘future telling.’ Within the Liberal traditions there is the historical critical approach to the ‘literature’ of the sacred texts. I am always confused by the fuzzy logic of the idea of God placing ‘Israel on probation.’ For one to proclaim an omniscient God surely the idea of anyone being on probation is redundant? Would you be able to explain this concept a little more?
Sorry if my comments on the Catholic/Protestant divide were seen as anti-Catholic polemic. They were intended only to be viewed in the context of the discussions between Catholics and Protestants that resulted in a so-called consensus and agreement. My intention was to rubbish that consensus, and to show that those particular discussions and the conclusion to them was fraudulent.
I am no fan of ecumenism. I believe it is an impossible concept if included in the union is the theology of any of the participants. Without one or the other abandoning core beliefs, for the Catholic to abandon the importance of tradition and the ecclesia, and for the Protestant to abandon sola scriptura, ecumenism can only be implemented on a social basis. Worthwhile in many different scenarios, but please let us not fool ourselves into thinking that so long as Catholics are Catholic and Protestants are protesting, then union is possible theologically.
Time again is limited so I will have to address your last post later Jason.
Brendan
I entirely understand this Brendan, and no one here will demand that you become an Ecumenist in the process of this discussion. All that I would like to drive home is the impossibility of discussion when both sides are name-calling. By all means we can and should discuss the problems of the reformations and their effects on the present condition of the Church. Yet this must be approached without any denouncements like, ‘Antichrist’ et cetera. You are aware that the only possibility of response to this is either hostility or disengagement — and we want neither. We shall all have to take on board that to the Catholic theologian, scripture itself is part of the tradition! The Apostolic Tradition existed before any of the Gospel accounts, and must therefore be seen as a product of early tradition.
My apologies for being the police on this point, but on the same note I would not stand for others calling you to defend your faith. We must all play as equals in discussion.
Hi Jason, you said, quote: There are also differences in the Christian traditions as to how read scripture best. From the Adventist standpoint, as outlines by Brendan, there is a sense of prophecy as ‘future telling.’ Within the Liberal traditions there is the historical critical approach to the ‘literature’ of the sacred texts. I am always confused by the fuzzy logic of the idea of God placing ‘Israel on probation.’ For one to proclaim an omniscient God surely the idea of anyone being on probation is redundant? Would you be able to explain this concept a little more?
There are three methods of Interpretation with regards to the prophetic portions of scripture:
The book of Revelation for example was written to seven specially chosen churches in John’s day and had a message for them. There is however a larger application. There are three main views as to the Revelation:
Preterists say that the whole book of Revelation applied to the churches of the first century. However much of Revelation obviously concerns the end time.
Futurists apply most of the book to the future (Rev 4-22). However much of Revelation, even among chapters 4-22, describes things which are now past.
Historicists believe that the Revelation had relevance to the seven churches of John’s day but ALSO that those churches were chosen because they represented the conditions of the entire church in seven successive periods throughout the New Testament. Revelation is thus seen to have a message to all Christians in all ages.
PRETERISM – Most of Revelation already fulfilled in the past (PRE – terism).
FUTURISM – Most of Revelation still to be fulfilled in the future (FUTURE- ism).
HISTORICISM – Revelation seen as describing the history of the church throughout the Christian era. (HISTORIC – ism).
Preterism and Futurism teach that most of Revelation’s prophecies and time periods have no direct relevance to the Church throughout most of the Christian era.
For the following reasons (and more that I cannot now discuss without upsetting the boss) Seventh Day Adventists reject the Preterist and Futurist interpretations:
(1)The Preterism & Futurism require a change in the unchangeable God (Mal 3:6). God in the Old Testament lovingly prophesied the most significant events that would affect His people THROUGHOUT their history. We would expect Him to do the same for His New Testament people.
(2)Preterism and Futurism present Revelation as silent regarding events of immense significance to God’s church such as
The rise and progress of the Papacy
The Reformation, etc.
The French Revolution and the birth of atheism
The USA, etc.
The rise of Islam
Can we believe that these things were not of sufficient significance in God’s eyes to describe in prophecy?
Historicism
1. Historicism interprets Revelation’s prophecies as useful to the Church, to which Revelation was written. Revelation is seen to have relevance to the Church THROUGHOUT the whole Christian Era.
2. Historicism has Revelation consistent with God’s way in the past, i.e. outlining the most significant events His people would experience THROUGHOUT their history.
3. Historically fulfilled prophecies increase faith in God’s Word and actually reveal what is yet to come.
Ecc 1:9 “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.”
Revelation supports Historicism:
Rev 1:1 “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must SHORTLY come to pass.”
By prophesying events THROUGHOUT Christian history some part of the Revelation has ALWAYS been “SHORTLY to come to pass.”
God describes Himself as present throughout history. Rev 1:4 “… from him who IS and who WAS and who is TO COME …”
Rev 1:8 “who IS and who WAS and who is TO COME, the Almighty.”
Rev 1:19 “Write the things which you HAVE SEEN and the things which ARE and the things which WILL TAKE PLACE after this.”
The prophecies of Revelation cover the PAST, the PRESENT, and the FUTURE. This is the Historicist position.
4.Historically fulfilled prophecy allows God’s people to point to fulfilled events convicting people of the truthfulness of the Bible.
5. Historicism gives the church light concerning our future. Historical events typify our day. Truth about our future is contained in the events of the past that God has chosen to focus on.
Daniel9:24 “…to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.”
Some seem to think that because Israel has not accomplished these things the 70 weeks cannot have ended. (Futurists therefore place the final week (7 years) at the end of time during which ‘Antichrist’ comes.) However the 70 weeks were given as a probationary period in which God WANTED Israel to accomplish these things but the prophecy NEVER SAID THAT THEY WOULD. As chapter 9 shows Israel rejected the Messiah and crucified Him and consequently their city and sanctuary were destroyed. In this Israel was a symbol of the world. As Israel refused to accept Christ and turn from sin so the world will to do the same.
1. Finish transgression.
2. Make an end of sins.
3. Make reconciliation for iniquity.
4. Bring in everlasting righteousness
5. Seal up the vision and prophecy.
6.Anoint the most Holy. (“To anoint a most holy place.” RSV).
Christ personally accomplished these things, many of which are mentioned in the Messianic prophecy of Isa 53.
When asked how often should we forgive Jesus said 70 x 7, (Matt 18:22) that is, until forgiveness is no longer possible due to the hardness of people’s hearts. God gave Israel the 70 week period to stop sinning but they showed their hardness when at last God sent His Son and they crucified Him.
Their final official rejection of Christ came with the stoning of Steven by the ruling Sannhedrin around 34ad. They blocked their ears at his testimony in effect saying, “we want nothing to do with your Jesus”. This concluded the 70 week prophecy and Israel’s probation; consequently the gospel went to the Gentiles from that time which was God’s intention for Israel to accomplish even from Sinai.
Jesus’ parable of the vineyard owner leaving his vineyard in the hands of husbandmen in Matthew 21:33-41 was a powerful prophetic expose of Israel’s ultimate fate in this matter.
When you say, Brendan, that “There are three methods of Interpretation with regards to the prophetic portions of scripture,” it may be countered that there are more than three. One which I would like to add is the historical-critical method which sees prophecy as a form of ecstaticism in the phenomenology of ancient religion. It can also see those prophecies that ‘came true’ as written after the fact — this is one of the key methods used in modern scholarship for the dating of New Testament texts.
Mmmmm. Like for example Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 written after the resurrection? Or did Jesus deliberately arrange things so that He met every detail?
I suppose that the quote ascribed to Jesus Joh 13:19 ” Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he”, was inserted by overzealous translators?
I have heard of your fourth option before, and it never even entered my mind to include it as a serious contender. The Apostle Peter declared that prophecy is an even greater and more sure foundation for faith than a physical appearance or vision (2 Peter 1:19) , and you would suggest that there is some validity to the higher educated premise that it is all merely “smoke and mirrors”?
Prophecy Jason, and its sure fulfilment throughout history, is the one solid TRUTH that sets the Hebrew and Christian scriptures apart from every other religion on the planet. Why?
Isaiah 46:8 Remember this, and shew yourselves men: bring it again to mind, O ye transgressors.
9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
11 Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.
Am 3:7 Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.
Daniel 2:27 Daniel answered in the presence of the king, and said, The secret which the king hath demanded cannot the wise men, the astrologers, the magicians, the soothsayers, shew unto the king;
28 But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days. Thy dream, and the visions of thy head upon thy bed, are these….
The idea put forth that Daniel was written somewhere around the 2nd or 3rd centuries BC doesn’t account for the astounding accuracy of the prophecy regarding the fourth beast, Rome. Nor does it account for the stunning accuracy of other prophecies which expand on Daniel and confirm it, regarding that same entity, both pagan and papal Rome.
Ah see, this is reductio ad absurdum; what you have done is make an assumption that I hold to a certain view of scripture and reduce it to a logical conclusion which no-one can subscribe to. Neither Isaiah 53 or Psalm 22 were written after the Resurrection. They were written as part of an earlier and distinct religious canon; the Hebrew Bible. Of import here is that neither of them make reference to the Resurrection. If the event of Jesus of Nazareth’s rising from the tomb was self-evident within these texts there would be no need for a modern Judaism which reads these texts without reference to the Resurrection. The problem that I have with this prophecy as auguring hypothesis is that the ‘prophetic result’ is always only what the modern interpreter says that it is. Rome, the New York Trade Towers, Osama bin Laden et cetera. To read the biblical texts as one would really wish to read Nostradamus does great harm to the integrity of the text within its own context. This does not mean that I am disrespecting your view of scripture — it means only that I cannot subscribe to it.