It seems every
time I read an article from Adventist Today I read false information. It seems
as if they have no filter at all by which they can test the truth of their articles. It seems to me it is really now all about pushing a political
leftist view upon the readers of AToday.
“Only
if you have been living under a rock would you not have heard that at the
beginning of September the state legislators in Texas passed a draconian law
criminalizing abortions past six weeks of pregnancy. Not only the woman who has
an abortion will be treated as a criminal, but anyone involved in any way,
including any doctor or medical personnel involved—and even a person who drove
her to the clinic or offered her shelter. Women who leave the state to have an
abortion are to be immediately prosecuted when they return.”
Is that paragraph true? Does the Texas law criminalize abortions past 6 weeks? Are
the women treated as a criminal, is everyone peripherally involved treated as criminals?
Are women who leave the state for an abortion immediately prosecuted when they
return?
The
answer is no to all of those assertions. No one has to look too hard to see
that those statements are all untrue. Pretty much a few paragraphs from an NPR
article can show just how wrong the Lindsey Abston Painter’s article is.
“The law allows private citizens to sue abortion providers and anyone else who helps a woman obtain an abortion —
including those who give a woman a ride to a clinic or provide financial
assistance to obtain an abortion. Private citizens who bring these suits don't
need to show any connection to those they are suing.”
“Groups who oppose abortion rights have pushed for this Texas
law, hoping that it will be harder for federal courts to knock it down. Instead
of requiring public officials to enforce the law, this law allows individuals
to bring civil lawsuits against abortion providers or anyone else found to
"aid or abet" illegal abortions.”
“Anyone who successfully sues an abortion provider under this
law could be awarded at least $10,000. And to prepare for that, Texas Right to
Life has set up what it calls a "whistleblower" website where people
can submit anonymous tips about anyone they believe to be violating the law.”
“"These lawsuits are not against the women," says
John Seago with Texas Right to Life. "The lawsuits would be against the
individuals making money off of the abortion, the abortion industry itself. So
this is not spy on your neighbor and see if they're having an abortion."
“On May 19, Abbott signed a law stating that ‘a physician may not
knowingly perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman unless the
physician has determined … whether the woman's unborn child has a detectable
fetal heartbeat.’ The law creates an exception if the physician determines a
medical emergency makes an abortion necessary. Critics have noted that fetal
heartbeats can be detected as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, limiting the
window in which a woman can legally seek an abortion in Texas.”
“The law allows citizens, rather than the state,
to sue anyone who performs or assists in procuring an abortion. Those found to
have done so will, thus, be civilly instead of criminally liable, and will be
made to pay “statutory damages in an amount of not less than $10,000 for each
abortion.” Notably, SB8 does not allow for suits to be brought against women
who recieve abortions after a heartbeat is detected.”
Reading the Facebook comments there are loads of people who
praise this AToday article even though it begins with clearly false
information. My point is not for or against the Texas law but simply pointing
out the lack of factual information in the Adventist Today article. Most of the
article is typical of political progressive arguments for abortions. So the
article is trying to be a persuasive argument for the leftwing views on the
subject. This points out again that the major focus of Adventist Today is the
spreading of political progressive, democrat philosophies.
I give Adventist Today a lot of grief because they can't seem to separate religion from their preferred leftist political views. It has hurt their mission a lot but I have to compliment them when they actually do a good job on an article. In the article Is Probation About to Close? by Loren Seibold we have an important issue discussed that is very much part of Adventism even though it is only occasionally spoken of in Adventist churches. The article begins with the peculiar Adventist belief that at some point Probation closes even though no one on earth would know that point has been reached. After that, you are either saved or lost and this probation is tied into what God does with the Investigative Judgment and whether the Christian has forsaken their sins and in some way perfected their character. He notes well that this is not a Biblical idea but a product of Ellen G. White. Seibold writes:
...They will say it is what the Bible says (it doesn’t) and that the whole of Adventist doctrine stands or falls by it. They will say that it is actually at the heart of the gospel, that in some twisted way it shows God’s love for us.
But just remember this: they are not defending the close of probation. Nor are they defending God. They are defending the notion that every word, every idea, that Ellen White expressed is straight from the mind of God. They are willing to toss God’s good character over the balcony if they can continue to say that a 19th century mystic was sketching out a precise plan for the Seventh-day Adventist “tribe.”
I have defended Ellen White as a strong woman and church leader. I have great appreciation for what she accomplished. But I cannot defend some of the things she taught. It’s not just that many were copied from other writers. It’s not just that some of them were ridiculous, like seeing Enoch on Saturn. Or unscientific, like the earth being a mere 6000 years old, or masturbation making children into twisted, malformed monsters. Or racist, such as that black people are amalgamations. Or contemptuous of grace, as demonstrated by her repeated forays into perfectionism.
There was a time when the rejection of Ellen White as a prophet of God was, I thought the central need of Progressive Adventism. I still think that and mourn for the loss of Progressive Adventism into left-wing politics. But as I have said many times most all of the problems in the Adventist church can be laid upon the belief that Ellen White was a prophet of God. It has for a long time been my belief that a prophet cannot possibly be wrong and destructive as Ellen White has been to truly be from God. From the time when she was alive, her teachings could not be accepted by those who really thought about their religion and what she was saying. With repeated similar events marking the Adventist church about every 20 years or so. Along with the continual loss of members throughout the years who realized the problem.
"All Christians believe there is a close of probation, even though they don’t use the phrase. This might be at the Second Coming or after the millennium, but all Christians believe that there is a point when people can no longer switch sides.
Unlike other Christians however, Seventh-day Adventists believe this event happens a short time before the Second Coming. And, many Adventists think this means that there will come a day when God will close the door of mercy and, even if they want to repent, God will no longer forgive them."
..."Probation closes before the Second Coming and not at the Second Coming because God wants to allow time to pass so that it is evident to angels and unfallen beings that people have made up their minds and are no longer going to change. Some period of time passes where, as much reason as God gives people to repent, no one does any more. And then, heavenly beings all agree that there is no point in waiting any further, and it’s time for Jesus to return to take His people home."
So what does that add to your religion? Really nothing. That God comes and His reward is with Him I can accept. The whole purpose of the Probation close to Adventist theology is built on supporting Ellen White. If what Ellen White really said was good it would not need any support but because it is built upon her and her view of the Investigative Judgment, the coming Sunday law, and having developed Christ's character perfectly reproduced in His followers, Probation closing becomes important. Adventist doctrine most definitely stands on that! It should not! That it does is the problem.
Until progressive Adventism returns to its central focus of removing the damaging theology of the past, Adventism has no future. It will simply work to protect its traditions. It is nice that many of our retired Pastors and scholars repudiate the errors of our past with Ellen White. What it, however, calls for is for leaders who are still in the church to change things, not waiting until they retire but pursuing the truth even if it costs their jobs. The time for hinting to their churches that we have to make some changes in our theology without coming out directly like Seibold has done sends the wrong message. So many defend Ellen White and ignore that she needs to be criticized and that the evaluation of her as a prophet cannot stand. (I am not making any judgments about her as a person or a Christian, none of us get it all right)
Honestly, does it really matter if women can be ordained as Pastors if our church continues with damaging theology about God? I don't think so!
On the Spectrum website there is an article by a pastor formerly pastoring in Canada. Pastor Eddy Johnson says the following about the distribution of the Ellen White book the Great Controversy in his article entitled: Will 'The Great Controversy' Project Harm Adventism?
“The saddest part was the reaction of those who had initiated the “evangelistic” dispersal of the book. Upset when the conference asked them to stop, they accused the leadership of cowardice, apostasy, and bowing to the pressure exerted by the “agents of Catholicism that infiltrated the church.” The incident taught me how difficult it was to explain to determined believers that not every action was Biblically timely or wise. Instead they found comfort in their understanding that good people were always going to be persecuted, even by their own church at times. I believe that the action of the conference was instrumental in protecting the Adventist church from what might have been a very nasty court action (we all know the frenzied appetite of the press for such occurrences).”
Currently the Adventist denomination is promoting a mass distribution of the book The Great Controversy with the Great Controversy Project. One of the concerns of some people seem to be that the book will be looked at as hate literature (in fact that is one of the claims of the Great controversy Project though it is bogus, but apparently has some legs as this will be my second article on the subject). As one of my previous commenter said of previous related article on this blog:
“Yet I have concerns about the core message of GC, for our culture, which appears to me some will perceive it as hateful speech or at least unfounded and harsh accusations.”
Canada has one of the tougher hate law legislations in North America, but does the publication of this 1888/1912 book by the Adventist claimed prophet Ellen White equate to hate speech? First I will put forth the disclaimer that I am against all hate crime legislation. A crime is a crime for it's action it should be dealt with for the action not deemed worse because the motive was something other then emotion or avarice or cruelty. See the article from Reason Magazine for further explanation of the problem of hate crime legislation.
Aside from what should be we have to deal with what legislation has been passed. In this case does the Canadian law open the Adventist church up to a nasty court action. Well first you can have a nasty court action for anything whether you are in the right or wrong. So we as a church or as individuals are always open to that, frivolous lawsuits are all too common. But under Canadian law the publication of the Great Controversy book does not fall into the category of section 318 or 319 of the Canadian criminal code. Hate Propaganda 318 Advocating genocide 319 Public incitement of hatred. As 318 requires the advocacy of genocide of some group"
“Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.”
Criminal code 319 allows:
“(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)...
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;”
Since the Seventh-day Adventist denomination has in their fundamental beliefs that Ellen White the author of the Great Controversy is:
“As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction...” (18. The Gift of Prophecy)
The Denomination has a legal defense against the charge of hate propaganda in the law itself.
The legal or criminal/court threat is of no concern at this time, though the potential for ill considered hate crime legislation may someday create more problems as such crimes restrict constitutional freedoms. The real consideration should be; is this book correct, helpful and wise to distribute. The article by Eddy Johnson goes on to give some further reasons it is ill considered to spread this book throughout the country or world. I am in agreement with the article on some of his objections. Though I would raise a few different objections.
Update from a conversation on Spectrum David Read brought up the problem of the Human Rights Commission of Canada, to which I responded as follows:
---
David Read is correct, Canada has problems with free speech issues because of their human Rights commission which appears to be corrupt and inept. It appears to be an outgrowth of those who believe in hate crime legislation but could not get the legislation into the law. If the Adventist church got involved somehow with that group and the other high profile authors who are being frivolously tried by the human rights commission I would say go for it because they would win this issue in the end and be heralded for protecting Canadian free speech rights.
From an article on the subject:
---
“Canada’s ‘human rights’ laws are abominable,” he said, “especially Section 13.1 of the Human Rights Act, which criminalizes any speech that makes a person feel uneasy. So it’s not a matter of truth, or evidence, but of feelings.”
Section 13.1 prohibits speech, including speech on the telephone, or writings on the Internet, that is “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt.”[4] Whether this is “likely” to happen soon, or in the distant future, the law does not specify. Nor does it define speech that is “likely” to do this. In practice, “human rights” commissions have allowed plaintiffs to define it, based on their subjective feelings.
“Now, finally, there is quite a stirring against the human rights commissions—at least among the newspapers,” De Valk said. “We hope this is beginning to change the environment.”
Canadian newspapers have been increasingly critical of “human rights” commissions since complaints were brought against Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn, and Maclean’s magazine. Levant, when he was editor of the now-defunct Western Standard, fell afoul of the “human rights” regime when he published the notorious “Muhammad cartoons” to illustrate a news story about them. Maclean’s, Canada’s most widely circulated magazine, published excerpts from Steyn’s book, America Alone, that discussed the growing Muslim influence in Western Europe.
But Levant, Steyn, and Maclean’s have vigorously defended themselves. Their high-profile cases have led to calls for investigation of the commissions’ procedures and even for repeal of portions of the Human Rights Act—first by newspaper, and lately by members of Parliament. Meanwhile, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have launched their own investigation of the commissions.
“The Canadian government has got to be convinced to act,” De Valk said. “We have a Conservative government and a Conservative prime minister; but it’s a minority government, so the Conservatives can’t go forward without support from the other political parties.” http://chalcedon.edu/research/articles/canadian-human-rights-commissions...
Then the LORD said to Moses, "Say to the Israelites, 'You must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign between me and you for the generations to come, so you may know that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. "'Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people. (Exodus 31:12-14 NIV)
How do you interpret the above verse? Is it inerrant, God said it, I believe it word of God? How you answer that question will decide your view of the Bible. Most however won’t be asked that question. They will refuse to even allow themselves to ask that question even as they read the similar verses which are also spoken as the instructions of the Lord. For example we could ask the same question of the following verse:
(Exodus 20: 22) Then the LORD said to Moses, "Tell the Israelites this: 'You have seen for yourselves that I have spoken to you from heaven: (Exo 21:17 NIV) "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.
Granted it is pretty nasty to curse your parents but is it deserving of being put to death? I would think most people would think of that as overkill, but what do you do when that is a command from God? Did God ever take back these commands? If He did, which I can’t find anywhere, what would that say about God? Most will say that those are just commands to the theocracy of ancient Israel they don’t apply today. Why don’t they apply today, does not the word of God stand forever, is not God the same today and yesterday? With this introduction; with it’s thought questions in mind let us look at what a couple of prominent Christian organizations say about the inspiration of the Bible. I will use two websites. The first is a study by a noted conservative Bible teacher John MacArthur Our God-Breathed Bible and the other a popular apologetics website: CARM Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
One of the objections raised by critics of biblical inspiration is that the Bible is not the word of God but that it contains the word of God. Is this accurate? No. First of all, this doesn't fit what the Bible says about itself. The collection of 66 books that the Christian Church recognized as being inspired speaks as the very words of God in many places.
"Thus says the Lord" occurs over 400 times in the Old Testament.
"God said" occurs 42 times in the Old Testament and four times in the New Testament.
"God spoke" occurs 9 times in the Old Testament and 3 times in the New Testament.
"The Spirit of the Lord spoke" through people…
We should first correct the ever present condescension that such articles use to try and persuade people who don’t read carefully. The objections are not those of critics of biblical inspiration, they are critics of the fundamentalist form of biblical interpretation. You notice by the title it is not addressed to an atheist critic because they would not hold to the part about containing words of God. So the article begins by assuming their view to be correct and it is based upon some faulty thinking because of course the Bible does not say of itself that it is the word of God, not any particular book or the later collection of books we call the Bible makes the claim. Even the claim to the number of times the Lord is said to have said something does not make the whole Bible the word of God. But if one assumes that it does and that the whole Bible is the word of God where does that leave you when you are answering the introductory questions in this article? Much of the CARM article then goes into the claims that were already dealt with in my previous articles so we will move on to John MacArthur.
In this lesson we examine the subject of inspiration and we begin by considering the meaning of the term. The English word Inspire is derived from the Latin inspirare, which means "to breathe in." Second Timothy 3:16 says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" or, as it is translated in the New American Standard Version, "All scripture is inspired by God." The term, inspiration, does not reflect the exact sense of theopneustos, which is the term in our passage. Theopneustos means "God-breathed"; the Scriptures are breathed out by God, not breathed in. So we may say that the Bible is the product of God breathing out His words so what He wanted written got written. In other words, the Scriptures are the product of divine breath assuring us that the sixty-six books of the Bible are the very words of God.
This is the most popular verse used to claim the inspiration of the Bible thus the Bible is the word of God. It is a good verse dealing with inspiration but does not claim the Bible as the word of God. In fact when we read the whole text in its context we see that the inspiration is very broad.
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:14-17 NIV)
The scriptures are inspired to make you wise for salvation through faith in Jesus, they are useful for teaching, rebuking and training in doing right so we can do good work. That says nothing about the Scriptures being inerrant or literally true in all statements or historically or scientifically accurate. No, it says God gave the scriptures to make us wise for salvation. God is involved in the process of helping us understand salvation; to help us understand ourselves and God better so that we could come to faith in Jesus Christ. Stories which are what most of the Bible is; are wonderful techniques for instructing with ideas of how to behave and how not to behave. What causes trouble and what gets a person out of trouble. Does a story have to be literal or historical to teach a lesson? Well of course not we know that plainly from our own experience with the books we read. Myths like George Washington chopping down a cherry tree can bring lessons out of their fiction, as we have all heard the tale and can quote fictional George Washington, “I cannot tell a lie”. Stand up and take responsibility, a powerful concept from a simple fictional story.
MacArthur later in his article states:
So the men who wrote the Old and New Testaments were commissioned by God to write His words. Paul's words to Felix reinforce the fact that we can trust the Bible as the Word of God: "This I confess unto thee that, after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets" (Acts 24:14).
2. It includes all Scripture The Greek term pasa can be translated "all" or "every." However, when Paul wrote 2 Timothy 3:16 the New Testament canon was not closed. Therefore some believe "all" can refer only to the Old Testament. But that interpretation places a time restriction upon "all" that is not warranted by the text. All Scripture is inspired of God whether it precedes or follows Paul's second epistle to Timothy.
Jesus said "the scripture cannot be broken" (John 10.35). That includes Scripture that had been written, was being written, and would be written.
I really like the juxtaposition of this part of his article. MacArthur concludes one section with the quote about Paul believing all things which are written in the law and the prophets. But does he really? Think about what Paul says about circumcision. He says several places that circumcision is nothing (1 Cor 7:19, Gal 5:6, Gal 6:15) and he even warns of those who cling to it:
Finally, my brothers, rejoice in the Lord! It is no trouble for me to write the same things to you again, and it is a safeguard for you. Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh. For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh-- (Philippians 3:1-3 NIV)
What Paul believed about the law and the prophets was much different then his ancestors believed because Paul did not hold to literal verbal inspiration of the Scriptures, he reinterpreted them in the light of his relationship with Jesus Christ. Paul writes:
Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men)-- remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. (Eph 2:11-12 NIV)
In the Bible we have to be very careful with the word “all” or “every”. Today educated people know that when people say “all” or “every”; they are making a generalization. Because if the use of “all” or “every” is meant to be taken literally the statement can be disproved with merely one example that contradicts the statement. The Bible actually has numerous contradictions of facts. The believer in inerrancy gets by these contradictions by saying that in the original manuscripts the errors don’t occur. This is however a faulty use of logic because the originals no longer exist so it is merely a gratuitous assertion.
Paul tends to use “all” in a the generalization way for example:
At my first defense, no one came to my support, but everyone deserted me. May it not be held against them. But the Lord stood at my side and gave me strength, so that through me the message might be fully proclaimed and all the Gentiles might hear it. And I was delivered from the lion's mouth. (2 Tim 4:16-17 NIV)
Or consider Paul saying:
…if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant. (Col1:23 NIV)
The gospel had not then and probably even now been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, it is an exaggeration, an exaggeration in the Bible. As the following article says of this verse:
(2) It must be recognized as well that the passages cited above are hyperbolic in nature. The word “hyperbole” derives from a combination of two Greek terms that signify “to throw above.” A hyperbole, then, is a figure of speech that contains an obvious exaggeration (with no intention of duplicity) for the purpose of emphasizing a truth. The Bible abounds with this figure, which, in most contexts, is perfectly obvious and draws no criticism.
For example, it was said of the pagan peoples east of the Jordan that “their camels were without number, as the sand which is upon the sea shore for multitude” (Judges 6:5; cf. 1 Samuel 13:5). That’s a lot of camels for a few Bedouin tribes!
As with all information the Bible calls for interpretation and the presuppositions with which we come to the Bible will either make us see it for what it is and derive the important principles or they will call us to make unrealistic claims about how the book came to be and how it must be interpreted. As a final example this is what MacArthur says about the exegesis of the Bible:
Many seminaries and churches teach that God gave thoughts and not specific words to the writers of Scripture. This would mean, for example, that when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 13 the only thing God gave to Paul was some general thoughts on the subject of love. The words of the text we owe to Paul. This view is sometimes referred to as thought or concept inspiration.
Now this position denies not only verbal inspiration, but inerrancy as well. Of course that makes exegesis futile. There would be no reason to do a word-by-word exposition if you're convinced that the words are merely human and not divine.
This is, as with most of the fundamentalist approaches to the Bible foolish. First the Bible was written in one of three languages and when translated the words used translate into various English words and even in the original language one word could have multiple meanings. But this is what verbal inspiration beliefs lead to and the confusion multiplies by all of these various assertions which are incorporated into the Bible to become the presuppositions fundamentalists and traditionalist use to interpret the Bible. There comes a time when we need to realize that we have to be reasonable in our approach to the Bible and see that it does exaggerate and make claims that cannot possibly be true. That even the perception of God changes through it pages as people learn more and knowledge increases. We can’t go back to the primitive concepts and literalism that was once used to understand the Bible. And yes it calls for human intelligence and reason and understanding just as everything else in life calls for us to think. That is not a bad thing however, and let’s be glad that even though in the stories God called for rather nasty things we don’t have to carry them out as if they are the enduring word of God that never changes because really otherwise we would all have to end up killing each other just over our breaking the Sabbath. The subject of keeping the Sabbath reminds us of the old Jewish prophecy which as quoted in this article
"Rabbi Judah said in the name of Rav: If all Israel had observed the very first Sabbath, no nation or tongue would have ever ruled over her…Rabbi Yohanan said, following Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai: Were Israel to observe two Sabbaths punctiliously, they would be redeemed immediately [BT Shabbat 118b]."MyJewishlearning.com
George Knight had a series of presentations at the Pleasant Valley SDA church in Oregon recently. Here are the links to the presentations. Clink on the link to stream or right click to save the mp3 file. I am giving the links here as after a time they will likely be moved on the PVC website. Currently they are on the home page but no doubt they will be moved as time goes by.
It was not a favorable review as the book is basically a continuation of the propaganda that Adventists have the truth, we are the Remnant and if we lose our unique Apocalyptic view we destroy Adventism because Adventism is not content to be Christian but has to be something superior to Christian.
I figured the first two presentations would go over the themes of his recent book. So I started with the Q and A which aside from his answer to the question posed by a “last generation theology” person which was good, in the main the Q and A was unremarkable.
The presentation on “Adventism Gets Baptized” is about Jones and Waggoner and 1888, or more precisely Ellen White and 1888, she being the force that allowed Jones and Waggoner to present their views to a church that thought it had the truth yet did not even understand the basic Protestant concept of Justification by Faith (never really picked up steam until the late 1970’s). It never ceases to amaze me how Adventists can think of their history as that of the remnant, the people with the truth and yet for so long they had no clue about Justification by Faith (Righteousness by Faith to Adventists because apparently we were too pure to use the terms of Protestant Christianity).
What most bothered me is the section in the presentation is where George Knight says that we have to be saved from the law:
“… Seventh-day Adventists needed help, I’ll just read one other statement this comes from her (Ellen White’s) diary, looking back at Minneapolis she talks about a fear that there was danger of carrying the subject into justification by faith altogether too far. And not dealing enough with the law. By the way we have still got some Adventists in that camp today. Talk too much about justification makes them all nervous. OK. But the two go hand in hand I’ll tell you that right now. These people that say you don’t need the law if you got grace, I have never been able to figure that out because you don’t need grace if you don’t have the law. You have got to be rescued from something the law says you’re a sinner grace says shhrrrick we can take care of that.If you don’t have the law you don’t need grace period. No, where all this foolishness comes from in dispensational theology I have not been able to figure it out. We’ve got some Adventist hung up in that camp too.” [he then continues with the Ellen White diary]. Quote begins at 16:02 to 17:05
The question should arise in most people’s minds are we saved from sin (our own rebellious self centered attitude) or are we saved from a law. That is a big difference. It comes down to the idea that God is condemning me for not meeting His law rather then my own selfishness leading to my own demise. It amounts to grace is given to save me from myself vs. Knight’s version of grace is given to save me from God (God’s law). After all it is God that gave the law and the law is of no authority without someone or some system behind the law giving the law authority and power. It is this misunderstanding of God which was pointed out in an earlier blog article which concluded by saying:
“If our fundamental assumption about God is based upon the idea that God’s law condemns us we have set up the presupposition that God is against us. A direct contradiction of the New Testaments declaration: “What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? “(Rom 8:31 NIV) This presupposition becomes the root of so much misunderstanding about God which culminates in the idea that God had to pour out His wrath on Christ so that God could forgive us. An idea which flies in the face of the characteristics of God : “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.”
Certainly the law points out that we are sinners, but was that the reason for its existence or is that the simple result of giving a law to people who are selfish. If the state tells you not to drive through a red light is it because it means to condemn you or because it is seeking to create an orderly environment. You need grace not because you have a law but because you have a defect of sin which will lead to your death unless someone outside of yourself intervenes. Grace exists before a law because grace says I want to help these people, the law is a tool to help people. First as a way to formulate and orderly society such as the law given in the Old Testament and second as a tool to show us that we left to our own devises are no where near the type of person that God is. So the “law was put in charge to lead us to Christ”, the person who offered grace in the first place.
Yet, pardon me my friends, if I just observe that this is a very natural question, too. If you read the doctrine of the apostle Paul you find him declaring that the law condemns all mankind.
Spurgeon gives no reference to where Paul says that…because Paul never said it (see footnote). Paul did say that all sin and fall short of the glory of God before telling us that it is grace that saves us. But what much of Christianity has decided is that what Paul actually said is less important than what they want Paul to have said. Possibly so that they can make grace and law work hand in hand when they never were intended to work hand in hand the way most people think, grace gave the law and grace saves without regard for if someone keeps the law.
All of this and I have not once told you what the law is. It can be many things to many people, is it the 613 Jewish commandments, the 10 commandments, the Exodus 10 commandments or the Deuteronomy 10 commandments? Is it the 2 commandments that Jesus referred to as upon which hang all the law and the prophets or is it all the instructions that Jesus gave or that the apostles gave in the New Testament? Why there are probably some Christians who think the law is that God says obey me or I will have to kill you because my justice demands it. That fits in with Knight and Spurgeon though we have to do some creative restructuring of the New Testament Bible to make it say that but just some simple interpretations of a few stories of the Old Testament however can give you that kind of God.
To sum up the law does not make you a sinner, it does not stop you from being a sinner, though just like the red light it may save you from causing more problems and hurting yourself or others if it is followed in certain instances. It does not change you, it is not an outside force that can change you even if you decide to follow it to the best of your ability, it does not cover all your selfishness whether acted out, thought about or omitted. The change comes from the grace of God who cares about you and seeks to reconcile you to Himself. If the focus is on the laws; whatever laws there may be do not focus you on grace of God that we see in Jesus Christ they are not serving their purpose for God. That is the way that law and grace go hand in hand and it is practically never the way Christians use the term.
Footnote:
There is one other place one can get the idea that the law condemns it reads as follows:
Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. (2 Corinthians 3:7-10)
First we have to realize that apart from what we may want the text to say it might be saying something different so we have to analyze it. Did the 10 commandments written on stone usher in death? No clearly from the other Bible stories death was common. Is the verse speaking of some kind of death in the afterlife, as in no eternal life after this life? Again the answer is no the concept of an after life is not present this early in the Biblical stories. So what is Paul talking about? What ministry of death was inaugurated with Moses the lawgiver? Paul is referring to the Jewish nation who followed the traditions of Moses and ended up ultimately rejected Jesus Christ. No matter how glorious the history of the lawgiver was it did not establish a way out of death. Worse then not providing a way out of death it put Israel in a covenant relationship where if they failed, God would be against them. As Leviticus chapter 26 states:
I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt so that you would no longer be slaves to the Egyptians; I broke the bars of your yoke and enabled you to walk with heads held high. "'But if you will not listen to me and carry out all these commands, and if you reject my decrees and abhor my laws and fail to carry out all my commands and so violate my covenant, then I will do this to you: I will bring upon you sudden terror, wasting diseases and fever that will destroy your sight and drain away your life. You will plant seed in vain, because your enemies will eat it. I will set my face against you so that you will be defeated by your enemies; those who hate you will rule over you, and you will flee even when no one is pursuing you. (Lev 26:13-17 NIV)
The verses go on for a good long list of horrors. Therefore it was to Paul a ministry of death as opposed to the ministry of life through faith in Jesus Christ and His promises. It is not however a covenant to which the Gentiles are a party, but an apt demonstration of the difference between the letter of a law where the nation entered into an agreement that they were unable to keep versus the Spirit’s ministry by the grace of God as revealed in Jesus Christ offer of healing and reconciliation.
As the Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (InterVarsity Press) states on page 537:
"The most natural background for Paul's statements that the Law is aligned with sin, death and condemnation is the widespread conviction among first-century Jews that the Law had justly condemned Israel to Gentile domination for transgressing its commands."
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. (Galatians 5:22-25 NIV)
All of these fruits are characteristics of God.The call is to attempt to stay in step with the characteristics of God…a goal for certain and a goal we often fail to achieve. But God does not fail to achieve these characteristics.That leads me to something I heard in a song and frankly something I have heard all my life. The line is something like “we are condemned by the law of God”, I am not going to link to any of those statements as a goggle search gave me a result of over 4 million hits. But let’s think about that for a moment.
If God is defined by these characteristics, let’s specifically use the term “kindness”. Would a person who was characterized by kindness create a law with the intention of it being to condemn people? It is hard to imagine someone saying that it is a kindness to create a law to condemn.What good does that do? It would seem that with kindness as the reason any law would seek to benefit people rather than to condemn them.
Paul addressed this issue when he said: “So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. “(Gal 3:24 NIV) Paul who actually never says that the law condemns us fights against the idea of being held prisoner to the law which was powerless (Rom 8:3) because of our sinful nature, faith in Christ could do...the law then leading us to Christ and Faith. The law as intended was a kindness, a good thing offering guidelines for a people new to self governing. The kindness of the old Testament law however was not meant to condemn people it was the misuse of the law that caused people to think it was meant to condemn us. What do they think of God if His law is meant to condemn?
If our fundamental assumption about God is based upon the idea that God’s law condemns us we have set up the presupposition that God is against us. A direct contradiction of the New Testaments declaration:“What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? “(Rom 8:31 NIV) This presupposition becomes the root of so much misunderstanding about God which culminates in the idea that God had to pour out His wrath on Christ so that God could forgive us. An idea which flies in the face of the characteristics of God : “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
In a Recent letter to the Adventist Review Claude Morgan, Religious Liberty director Greater New York Conference Manhasset, New York writes the following:
I enjoyed Michael D. Peabody’s article, “Sundae Laws” (Jul. 24, 2008). Even though I have followed the subject of Sunday laws with interest for many years, I found a lot of interesting information that was new to me. I am concerned, however, that readers might reach the wrong conclusion if they read too much into Peabody’s remark, “Most Sunday Laws are no longer enforced and are generally viewed as anachronistic.”
For years I also have been saying, “Nobody is interested in Sunday laws but Adventists.” But that is no longer true. The reality is that a renewed climate favorable to Sunday laws has been developing quietly. Two examples: In its August 2, 2004 issue, Time Magazine featured a column by Nancy Gibbs titled “And on the Seventh Day We Rested,” which nostalgically eulogized Sunday Laws. In 2006, Christianity Today, one of the most prestigious religious periodicals in the country, also ran a column contending that Sunday laws would correct the ills of society.
While Sunday laws are not a center of focus for most people today, the climate of our culture is definitely becoming a fertile seedbed for their rebirth.
Personally I doubt his exclamation that he had been saying for years that “Nobody is interested in Sunday laws but Adventists.” Especially when citing the Christianity Today article. The article in no way indicated that there was any reason to introduce further Sunday laws, in fact it includes this quote:
"Blue laws fell because they became politically untenable," said Bradley Jacob, associate law professor at RegentUniversity. "Not only did non-Christians find them unfair, but even Christians found them silly, archaic, and legalistic."
The article was more a news article which covered a research project. As the Article begins:
Church attendees become more likely to use drugs and drink heavily when states abolish "blue laws." So says a recent study, "The Church vs. the Mall: What Happens When Religion Faces Increased Secular Competition?" The study also found that weekly church attendance and church giving decline after states repeal blue laws, which restrict commerce and labor on Sundays.
"They aren't quitting whole hog," said Daniel Hungerman, a study author and assistant professor of economics at the University of Notre Dame. Instead, those who attend weekly might go monthly, and monthly attendees might show up just at Christmas and Easter. While church giving decreased, the study found other charities saw a corresponding increase in donations.
When a blue law is in place, non-church-goers are about 10 percent more likely to drink heavily than churchgoers. After blue laws are repealed, the gap closes to about 5 percent.
For marijuana and cocaine use, the gap nearly disappears. Non-churchgoers are 11 percent more likely to smoke pot while blue laws are in place. After repeal, the two groups look almost the same.
Other than the title, there is nothing to support Religious Liberty Director’s statement that Christianity Today “ran a column contending that Sunday laws would correct the ills of society.”
Neither does the Time article in any way call for Sunday laws, it mainly bemoans the busy lifestyle of modern America. As the concluding paragraphs state:
With progress, of course, comes backlash from those who desperately want to preserve the old ways. Mom-and-pop liquor stores in New York fought to keep the blue laws to have more time with their families. Car dealers in Kansas City, Mo., pushed for a law to make them close on Sundays so they could have a day off without losing out to competition. Chick-Fil-A, a chain of more than 1,100 restaurants in 37 states, closes on Sundays because its founder, Truett Cathy, promised employees time to "worship, spend time with family and friends or just plain rest from the work week," says the chain's website. "Made sense then, still makes sense now." Pope John Paul II even wrote an apostolic letter in defense of Sunday: "When Sunday loses its fundamental meaning and becomes merely part of a 'weekend,'" he wrote, "people stay locked within a horizon so limited that they can no longer see 'the heavens.'"
In an age with no free time, we buy it through hard choices. Do we skip church so we can sleep in or skip soccer so we can go to church or find a family ritual — cook together, read together, a Parcheesi challenge — that we treat as sacred? That way, at least some part of Sunday faces in a different direction, whether toward heaven or toward one another.
Nothing in modern America promotes the idea of Sunday laws to cause people to attend worship services on Sunday or prohibit Worship services on Saturday. For a Religious Liberty Director to make such statements as that in the above letter is to speak from a poorly informed and generally foolish position.
As to the Review Article on Sundae Laws; it is not freely available on the web other then the first paragraphs. Those sentences lead me to think the story does not give the full information about the origin of Sundae’s as that is still a hotly debated subject between IthacaNY and Two Rivers, Wisconsin. Naturally being Adventist the Sunday Law idea is preferred: What few people realize about this simple dessert, however, is that it was actually invented as a loophole to avoid stringent Sunday laws that prevented the sale of “soda water” during the late 1800s --http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=1994
