There is an old trick for drawing an ellipse that involves a loop of string stretched around two fixed points or the two foci referenced in the analogy. But, that is not a very accurate illustration of how elliptical orbits are formed. The shape of planetary orbits is NOT determined by orbiting around two distinct objects, but the balance of orbital speed and radial distance.

Orbits vary greatly in “eccentricity” or how close they are to being a circle based the orbital speed and radial distance. The earth’s orbit is the closest to a circle of the planets that orbit the sun. Pluto’s orbit has the greatest eccentricity. One could argue that the most balanced orbit is the one closest to a circle (or the least elliptical).

Most everyone would agree that focus and balance are factors that determine our life experience. But, I wonder if it is useful to see life as a balancing act based on the duality of truth. That idea may have some distance kinship to the “ying and yang”. Jesus warned in several teachings against the danger of being double minded. He also claimed to be the “light”, the “truth”, and the “way”.

I think one could easily interpret Jesus’ teaching to mean that He should be the one and only focus for our living. He lived the perfectly balanced life. Our goal should be to emulate Him and make him the focus of our orbit. In this analogy the best orbit would be a circle, always staying as close to Him as possible.

I guess it comes down to this. How can we best achieve the balanced living that God intends for us? Is it a balance we can achieve by the proper orbit around the dualities in truth or an orbit around the perfect embodiment of truth? Adventists (probably all professed Christians) struggle with the balance between law and grace. Do we think we will ever find balance and agreement based on how spiritually flawed human minds interpret this duality? Or, are we meant to devote ourselves to knowing Christ and His will for us
.
In Ephesians 4:4-6, the apostle Paul describes the unity of followers of Christ. "There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." The experience God intends for his followers is one that unifies those with subjective natures, those with objective natures, and all those in between as well.

It seems that the balance between objectivity and subjectivity is achieved not by each individual believer, but by the body of Christ. God has meant from the beginning for us to be unique in many ways (including our subjectivity and objectivity) and value each other for our differences and uniqueness. It is our individual commitment to know and obey the will of God that allows us to contribute our unique part to the balance. Humans vary in their intellectual abilities, but in the end we must all have faith in God’s plans or perish.

EGW rightly says something to this effect. "It is not right to tell anyone exactly how to apply law and grace so as not to sin." This is because we each have a unique and individual experience as Christians. And only the Holy Spirit can reveal to each individual the correct emphasis on any particular issue of life so that we can make a mature decision as how to apply law, grace, or both. As we continually consult the bible, the Spirit will help us apply the principle so that we always "do all to the glory of God." This is "moral perfection". And can only be attained by experience as we apply the biblical principles of law and grace, justice and mercy. No decision is "infallible". Either as an individual, or as a corporate body of believers. The Holy Spirit does not make our decision infallible. (Even though Rome claims it does.) This is the basic error of Rome and all false religions. The fact is, we may and do make mistakes in our decisions even on a unified and corporate level. We can pray until the proverbial "hell freezes over" and we are still liable to make a wrong decision. So, the human factor in decision making can never be infallible, even if it is made with much prayer and consideration of the bible. Sin is both ignorance and rebellion. Ignorance makes forgiveness a continual reality as we trust in Jesus to complete what we fail to do or say or believe. This covers even the sinless angels who have never fallen because they have never rebelled against God and this principle. Rebellion is not forgiveable when it reaches its full end. For it denies Christ and His role in the created order of the universe. All created beings approach God the Father through Jesus Christ and Lucifer challenged and denied this order of government and contended we need no law nor do we need a mediator of creation. The law demands this mediatorial order since no created being can equal God nor His law. Simply put, do away with the law, and we need no "go between" for created beings. In the end, we see God's plan of redemption is nothing more nor less than "restoration" of His original law and government. He has provided a "special" atonement for rebellious sinners by paying the debt of rebellion and through repentance, restoration of people to the "original" purpose of His government and kingdom. Keep the faith Bill Sorensen

Herb wrote:

--

In other words, when someone appeals to the Bible as ‘truth' without an equal emphasis on personal meaning and relevance, we know that the ellipse has become two circles. On the other hand, when one appeals primarily to reason or feeling as the test of truth (human autonomy), we also know that the ellipse has become two circles. 

--

I don't know that this helps your ellipse theory (which is pretty artificial, I mean why not a square or a triangle, it is not like a planet orbit which can be calculated by observation.) but when someone appeals to the Bible as truth they are already at the field of subjectivity. The interpretation of truth is already dependent upon what data they are looking at, how they feel about the data and how they are interpreting the data. 

If I could be so bold I would say that there is no actual objective truth in any form of metaphysical thought. That is pretty obvious since I said thought, it automaticaly moves it to the subjective range where human reasoning. feeling and interpretation create the thought. Which explains why Christianity is a faith based religion (as is any religion) it is not objective. There may be aspects such as historical occurences that are objective. But those are rarely that integral with the actual metaphysical thoughts of a religion. Possibly with the exception of 1844 which is based upon historical inaccuracies used to attain a metaphysical thought of a reality in heaven. But that serves to show us that even a subjective thought can change the objective view of reality.

Ultimately we have to use objective things to create our subjective ideas. Which is why a well reasoned argument is our only tool to propagate the Christian faith. And also why we can't be overly certain about all of our metaphysical thoughts. That becomes a huge difference between fundamentalists and progressive Christians. The fundamentalist is certain of his/her subjective interpretation and demands that to be saved God requires people to hold to their subjective interpretations. The progressive side does not accept that those fundamentalist claims are certain enough to be demanded.

Of course either side can go off into a subjective ditch which is why reason is the middle ground and the only hope. If God is not trying to reach us with reason then a sacred book from God makes little sense.

Ron said...... "Of course either side can go off into a subjective ditch which is why reason is the middle ground and the only hope. If God is not trying to reach us with reason then a sacred book from God makes little sense."

reply.......Excuse me Ron, why is "reason" not "subjective?" As bible Christians, we acknowledge objective truth and also confess that any and all objective truth must be understood by subjective beings. This does not negate objective truth. We may misunderstand and/or misapply any given "objective" truth, but that does not mean truth is not objective.

Protestantism confesses that the bible is sufficiently clear so that any and all can "see" objective truth. Roman had to finally confess they were abandoning the bible when it came to the biblical teaching and opted for a "spirit ethic" apart from scripture. They understood what the bible said and meant, all right. They chose to disbelieve it. Just so,

EGW affirms the same prinicple when she says no one will receive the mark of the beast until it is sufficiently clear to that person that they are abandoning the bible and opting for human speculation and conclusions. If "objective truth" is not sufficently clear so all can make a "subjective" evaluation, then God is a fault concerning sin and rebellion. Your position on a number of things is "non-biblical" as many people know and confess. So you must eventually and finally admit you are abandoning the bible, or, better yet, repent and acknowledge your error. Of course, what you decide to do is up to you and God will not "force" anyone to decide either way.

Everyone who is lost in the end will confess they willingly deceived themselves and denied what they knew was true. This is one major purpose of the resurrection of the wicked and the final judgment at the end of the 1000 years.

It is true, that in this life, a person may embark on a path of self deception that ends in the delusion that they are right even when they know they are wrong. This Paul warns about in II Thess. 2 when he says "God will give them up to strong delusion to believe a lie......" Why? Because they wanted to believe it and "hoped" it was true, even when they knew it was not.

Bill Sorensen

Bill I don't think I ever said reason is not subjective. If you are wondering why I don't debate with you anymore Bill it is because you purposely misunderstand what I say so regularly that I just got tired of dealing with you. We did have some good discussions over on Atomorrow at some times but  they became few and far between and I just got tired of it.

 

I think we understood each other, Ron. We just do not agree and I suppose we both think our understanding is not only correct, but critical for a clear and proper understanding of the atonement and salvation. Therefore, you rightly conclude there is no basis for any futher discussion unless some factor that has not been mentioned is added. I don't know what that would be. Bill

Ron,

I understand your point about the subjective elment in almost everything, but  I think Bill actually has a valid point. There are things we assume have a factual objective basis even though we may have a subjective interpretation. There are other things that people will generally agree are not factually or objectively based and so can only have a subjective meaning.

Herb's comments seemed to contrast people's inclination to focus their interest and priorities based on this definition of subjective and objective truth. Actually, this was just one example that Herb gave, but was suggesting that truth may often exhibit a duality.

I think his observation is generally right. When we ponder truth there is often a dual nature. I don't subscribe to the "ying" and "yang" philosphies, but do believe they are based on "some" valid observations of life and its meaning.

Human beings who recognize this duality probably do better at living balanced lives (on average). But, for Christians there is an even better way to find the balance. We have the Creator's demonstration of balanced living in the life of Christ and we are told we can have His mind. Having His mind does not replace ours, but permits us to use ours with the benefit of His insight, understanding, and love.

If Herb had been discussing philosophy and human discernment of truth then he would be right on target. The problem is that God's word is crystal clear about the flawed nature of humanity and our inability to be righteous in our deeds or thoughts  or judgments. The first step to salavation is to recognize and distrust our own wisdom (repent). The second step is to acknowledge that Jesus Christ is everything we should be, but are not (believe on Him).

When we repent and believe on Him in the manner just described then we  will automatically want to have His mind. We will also want to live in subjection to that mind to the extent that fallen flesh enlivened by the spirit can. This is why Jesus could say "I am the truth" and be stating a practical reality to those who would believe on Him.

Don't be put off by my agreeing with Bill on that earlier point. That is one of the very few things Bill has written that I would agree with.

 

rudygood said..... "Having His mind does not replace ours, but permits us to use ours with the benefit of His insight, understanding, and love."...........reply.........Excellent. Now if we could all understand your point here, about 99% of the non-biblical mysticism would be eliminated. Such as "let Jesus get in you and keep the law for you"........or......"Let go and let God".......etc...... He also said......"Don't be put off by my agreeing with Bill on that earlier point. That is one of the very few things Bill has written that I would agree with.".........Reply......and as I said, "If we say enough things, we are bound to agree on something......" Bill Sorensen "

Bill,

Not sure if there is sarcasm in the first portion of your comment or not. But, pretty sure when we start discussing the law we will have plenty to disagree about.

It appears from your posts you view law as something rather lofty. I see it as something made necessary by sin. Law was given to prescribe good behavior for those who had rebellious natures. But, to receive the mind of Christ is to receive a mind that is free of rebellion, a mind obedient to the will of God.

Jesus was never shy about demanding the obedience of His followers. He divided the wise and foolish as those who obeyed his words. He said if you love me you will obey "my" commands. Jesus set a high standard not only for right behavior, but also a high standard of right motivation.

Law gave wicked rebellious hearts a reason (motive) to behave rightly. But, Jesus came to provide a righteous unselfish motive. Those who glibly equate obeying Jesus with obeying the "law", have missed the core of Jesus' teaching. We obey him because He first loved us and His love for all His creatures demands much more of us than the law ever could.

Professed Christians who get preoccupied with the law will always end up self deceived as did the Pharisees. Their own efforts and apparent rigtheouness blinds them to selfish motives at the center of all their obedience  to the law. As long as we inhabit sin altered bodies of flesh we may succumb to selfishness and rebelliousness, but victory for Christians is obeying Christ, not the law.

Hi Herb:

Just wondering--does that make the God of truth elliptical too? Or as one of your respondents said regarding ellipses, only eccentric?!

Thanks for analogy.

Jonathan

rudygood said........"....victory for Christians is obeying Christ, not the law."......

reply........Many make the mistake you do. You create a "false dilemma" between obeying the law vs. obeying Christ. Let me suggest that you see and make no difference between a believer and an unbeliever. It is truly possible that some "unbeliever" may try to obey "Christ's law" without knowing Christ. These we rightly call "legalists" for they know not Christ nor the principles of His kingdom.

But you falsely assume that if we are "born again" we need no law to guide our decisions nor to determine the will of God. Jesus said, "If you love, keep my commandments." He sets forth a condition that goes beyond your "natural law" application. He states a moral imperative that challenges our life-style and this includes the angels who have not sinned, as well as those who have been "born again."

A true Christian governs his life by "the law" of ten commandments as "Christ's law of love". "Christ's law" and the ten commandments are not two different things as you imply. All Christians are "under the law" as a rule of life. We are not "under the condemnation of the law" if we accept Jesus' condemnation on our behalf and repent and return to loyalty to Jesus and His ten commandments.

To claim that as Christians, we are not "under the law as a rule of life" is pure antinomianism. And yet, your view is becoming the popular view embraced by apostate Protestantism and much of modern Adventism as expressed repeatedly on many forums.

The idea that "Christians don't keep a set of rules" is a delusion of the devil. I heard Ken Cox state this false idea on 3ABN reciently. The delusion has spread all over the church. No doubt, it is becoming the majority opinion in much of Adventism today. But it is wrong, none the less.

Bill Sorensen

Bill,

 It is hard to know what to say to you because you choose the evidence you want to debate and ignore that which you do not.

You ignore the issue of motive and make the ridiculous assumption that law provides some deep insight into righteous behavior. It does not. Law is a tool God used to deal with sin and sinners.

There is a dilemna whether you want to acknowledge it or not. The law that Jesus and His contemporaries spoke of was not just the Ten Commandments. And, every Christian who chooses to be "under the law" is faced with the dilemna of deciding what portion they are under.

Perhaps the line could be drawn at the Ten Commandments, but few are satisfied with that. They recognize as you do that other commands (not part of the Ten) also provide insight into knowing God's will. So, they use their God given ability to reason and extract the principles and then apply them. OH, WONDER WHY THAT WOULDN'T WORK FOR ALL THE COMMANDMENTS?

I am a life long Adventist and I am blessed by my Sabbath keeping, but I refuse to distort the scriptures and God's plan of salvation to create a club to beat other Christians into Sabbath keeping. And that is your hidden motive whether you realize it or not.

Anyone who has fellowshipped with genuine Christians of other faiths realizes that there is no serious need of the Ten Commandments to cause righteous behavior in the born again, unless your goal is to create an obligation to keep the seventh day as Sabbath. Do we really believe that God has raised up a people to create the same legalistic approach to Sabbath that He encountered in the Pharisees?

The fruit of your teaching can be observed in the Pharisees of old and their modern counterparts who parse words and scripture trying to define a path to God that preserves their spiritural pride. YOU FEAR WHAT GOD DOES NOT. You fear that motives of human hearts and minds cannot be transformed, but will always need "a set of rules" to ensure they will behave as desired.

Jesus' teaching and the NT is repleat with statements that boil the law down to something other than "a set of rules". Jesus spoke of the two great commandments, the golden rule, and a new commandent. The language around all of these suggests that those who grow to maturity in God do not need a set of rules. Their hearts and minds will be transformed so that they choose and act righteously without rules.

You may choose to see the law written in the heart as "a set of rules", but I believe the experience is best described by Paul when he said "Let this mind be in you, which is in Christ Jesus." As Christians grow to have the mind of Christ, their motives and deeds will be tranformed far beyond anything that a law can accomplish.

Bill, the law is like training wheels on a two-wheel bike. If we find someone insisting that everyone is obligated to ride a bike with training wheels, one thing we know for sure, they are very misguided about bike riding.

Bill, you are very misguided about obedience to the will of God. Its time to grow up in Christ.

rudygood said......"Bill, you are very misguided about obedience to the will of God. Its time to grow up in Christ.".............reply......... Well, rudy, I had my say and you had yours. Suffice it to say, your argument is exactly and precisely the theory Satan contended for in heaven. Since the angels were "filled with love" they needed no law to guide and direct them in their relationship with God or each other. And as I said before. Your view is rapidly becoming the majority view in Adventism as it reflects modern day apostate Protestantism. You falsely assume any requirement, obligation and condition stated by way of law is legalism. Historic Protestantism has exposed this false view repeatedly and no well read or clear reasoned understanding of scripture would ever endorse your false ideas. Jesus did not say, "If you love me, do as you please." Which is the only way your view can be understood and interpreted. You assume "love" takes the place of "law" but you will not find this view biblical. Love is certainly the proper motive, coupled with faith, hope as well as fear of damnation. Everything in the bible is for the purpose of motivation as EGW has well said, "We have a heaven to win and a hell to shun." So again, yes, love motivates as well as the other things I have mentioned. But love is not a visible law. Love does not tell us what to do. It tells us the attitude and motive for doing it. Unless love has a concrete definition of how it must act, all you have left is will worship and emotional subjective human conclusions based on nothing more than human speculation with a so called "spirit ethic" akin to Roman Catholicism. The proper motive to obey the law never takes the place of the law itself, nor does it negate the necessity for the law as the rule and guideline for Christian behavior. Let people with discernment judge which is the correct biblical view, vs. novelties formulated against God and His word. Keep the faith, Bill Sorensen

Bill,

They accused Jesus of being in league with Satan and they constantly found fault with his law keeping. He responded by pointing out the limitations of the law. The law doesn't state ALL that is required (killing vs. anger, etc.) and sometimes honoring the principles behind the law will cause a transgression of the commands (priests working on Sabbath).

What you claim about the law you do not find in the Word of God. The apostle Paul says, "What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator."

Jesus, the Seed, has come and clearly demanded obedience from everyone who would believe on Him. He taught truth above and beyond the law and was clearly referring to the teachings of His earthly ministry when He said, "If you love me, keep my commandments".

I believe in obeying God and do not imagine for one minute that I am free to do as I please. But, it is the "love of Christ that constraineth" me and not the law.

You speak regularly of Satan and seem sure you understand His deceptions. I would suggest you pay close attention to the enemies of Christ during His earthly ministry. Notice what they believed and how they related to spiritual things, I don't think there is any doubt they were inspired by Satan and their experience is a clear scripture based warning against the deceptions of Satan.

Your argument presents facts and assumptions about the law and Satan that are not found in scripture. And the role you cast for the law clearly contradicts scripture. The verse from Galatians above is just one of many.

"What you claim about the law you do not find in the Word of God. The apostle Paul says, "What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator." ..............reply........Any simple reading of Galatians will affirm this refers solely to the ceremonial law. The ten commandment law could not be "added because of transgressions....." if we accepted your convoluted interpretation, then the phrase "till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made;....." would obviously mean, as you so clearly state, that the law is now done away with since Jesus has come. The only "law done away with" was the ceremonial law. But you would have us believe it is the moral law. The moral law could not be "added because of transgressions....." for there could be no "transgression" unless the moral law was already in effect and made known. The ceremonial law was "added because of transgressions....." and was a system to reveal how forgiveness of sin could be a possibility and reality in Christ. And this law was "taken away" when the seed came, namely, Christ. That the moral law can and does work as a "schoolmaster" is a seperate issue. But it is not Paul's concern in the historical context of Galatians. Nowhere in the book of Galatians do we conceive of the idea that the Judaizers were following Paul all over Asia minor telling people they must keep the ten commandments. Paul never would have objected to this. How absurd is that? Would Paul be saying, "You must keep the moral law until Jesus comes, and after that, you can abandon the moral law?" Yet this is what you state by your convoluted reasoning. How then does the moral law work as a "schoolmaster" to lead us to Christ? If we want to use the "schoolmaster" in reference to the moral law, we can state the Jews who broke the moral law were pointed to the ceremonial law which in turn, pointed to Christ. Today, we simply bypass the ceremonial law and look to Jesus for forgiveness of sin, thus, the moral law still functions as a "schoolmaster" and continues to function as a "schoolmaster" even though "the seed has come". So it is not "until the seed should come" which implies it is done away when He comes. But continues to function as a "schoolmaster" even though the ceremonial law no longer functions in this context. To apply Galatians in its historical context to the ten commandments is faulty scholarship at best. Novices twist and convolute the bible and destroy its obvious meaning to support their faulty conclusions and faulty theology. Someone obviously misunderstands the bible. And it is not me. "Listen and learn." Bill Sorensen

Bill said "That the moral law can and does work as a "schoolmaster" is a seperate issue. But it is not Paul's concern in the historical context of Galatians."

Let's consider the historical context. Jews would NOT have made the division you do between the Ten Commandments and the rest of law. I'm sure they were capabale of seeing differences between moral and ceremonial issues, but they would have correctly believed that much of law besides the Ten Commandments was moral.

It is correct that the Judaizers were demanding compliance with ceremonial parts of the law. This is not surprising because the mind of Christ had the same moral objectives at Sanai, at the cross, in Galatia, and today. There would have been no quarrel over real moral issues.

However, it is clear from a "careful reading" of Galatians that Paul's concern IS over the moral implications of living by law. Paul understands from His own experience that Zeal for the law can make one an enemy of Christ. After His conversion He realizes that true righteousness would not come from law (Gal.3:21). He refers to Abraham being counted as righteous because of his faith (Gal.3:7-9) which occurred before there were any ceremonial laws. So, he is clearly concerned with moral issues, righeouness.

Paul also speaks of redeeming us from the curse of the law (Gal.3:13). Certainly, he is referring to death, the wages of sin. He is talking about the God ordained consequence of living in rebellion against God. That is the human condition the law was given to reveal. One can violate (transgress) a principle as well as a law.

The priniciples of love that govern God's creation are eternal (had no beginning and have no end). They are eternal because they reveal who God is. The law was given to expose and condemn our rebellion against God and the priniciples of His governement. The Ten Commandment law requires some of the core outward signs that hearts are obedient to the principles of God's government.

No Christian I have ever met is satisfied that righteous living can be accomplished by simple compliance with the Ten Commandments. They always add something. And it cannot be otherwise. The Ten Commandments are crude and simple compared to the glorious righeous living that God intends.

The historically accurate concern of Paul is "the dependence on the law rather than the spirit of God to define true rightouesness for the followers of Christ".

The apostle Paul says, "But before faith (in Christ) came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor."

Justification is hardly a ceremonial concern. Paul describes the role of the law to bring us to Christ "that we might be justified". But, "after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor."

How much plainer can it be stated? What is convoluted about Paul's clear teaching?

Well, rudygood, at best, you have a convoluted and confused way of trying to explain what you mean. When you attack the law as having no function for a Christian, you misapply the difference between justification and sanctification.

If you want to tell us, "No law can merit heaven and the favor of God, nor pay for anyone's sins", then hopefully, everyone who confesses Christ would agree with your point. And Paul would agree as well. We should all confess no moral law, health law, civil law, natural law or any other law we participate in can liquidate our debt to God nor any condemnation of the law. Jesus alone merited for us the gift of eternal life and offers it to us freely and we receive it by "faith alone." This is justification by faith alone. A legal payment of the debt of sin. The Jews rejected Jesus and looked to the ceremonial law to fulfill this aspect of redemption. And this is why Paul contrasts the ceremonial law with the ministry of Jesus in heaven.

None the less, there is a "moral justification" that James and the bible speak of. And it is attained by obedience to the moral law. And so the moral law continues to function as a means of a moral justification for the members of God's kingdom.

When you fail to make any distinction between a legal and moral function of the law, you can not explain salvation nor all the aspects of redemption. And you end up saying, "The law was done away with by the death of Christ." Either directly or indirectly by the implications of your explanation.

People who do not discern this difference, have difficulty explaining themselves and/or what they mean or what the bible teaches. And Christians seem at times to be more confused than unbelievers concerning this reality. Confusion abounds. Novices come into the church and are given high positions of influence and authority and they have no qualification to lead or explain the bible and often "worship, they know not what."

And so they write and teach and even say things they don't exactly mean and simply don't know how to say it or explain it in its biblical context. Yet, more and more of these individuals are placed in higher and higher spheres of influence and authority. Some people assume they mean one thing, and some assume they mean something else. In many cases, the people simply place what ever is said in what they think is the biblical context and go on about their business.

All this confusion gives the devil considerable advantage as "the church" has no concensus of how to explain nor define its theology.

Every writer has their own view and expresses it in what they think is a true context. So many books written contradict each other and you can find many views expressed that disagree. All contain some elements of truth, none agree with the bible nor EGW.

A friend asked me how I understood this writer or that writer or some other writer. And my answer was this, "I understand the bible and EGW, as for all these other views, I have no idea what they mean and I don't think they do either." And I would classify much of what you said in this same catagory. You can't explain what you mean in a biblical context and not only confuse others about what you have to say, but confuse yourself as well.

Keep the faith.

Bill Sorensen

Well, Bill, how about we just agree to pray for each other.

 May God bless you.

OK........But let me give a perfect illustration of what I posted. Go read "Humane Adventism" by McLarty. Here is a perfect example of a "thought leader" who "worships, he knows not what." Typical of much of modern Adventism and those pressed into service with no qualification to explain the SDA faith or the bible for that matter. Yet condoned by the church leadership if for no other reason than they refuse to point out his error and discipline his ministry. Bill Sorensen

Bill,

I agree that Adventist thought leadership is in great disarray. But, I don't see as much evil in it as you do. I know you will not agree, but I see it as the inevitable result of years of Adventists trying to live under the old covenant.

Sin abounds in the world and in people's lives and people need a real answer to it. The old covenant was not the answer to the sin problem, it only prepared God's chosen people and those who observe their experience for the real solution, Jesus Christ.

The NT abounds with idea of new freedom in Christ. This was not freedom to do as you please and embrace sin. It was the life lived through the spirit and sustained by grace. "For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." John 1:17

John's statement emphasizes that Jesus brought about a glorious change in our relationship to God. Adventists have struggled to know and experience the full relationship with Jesus, because we do not understand the difference between the old and new covenants.

Jesus spoke repeatedly about His obedience to the Father. It was clear that He had a continual communion with God and was guided by that relationship. On the night of His arrest Jesus described the itnimate relationship that He would have with His followers through the Spirit after His resurrection.

We are meant to graduate from law keeping and become obedient to the indwelling Spirit. The Spirit may use the law and many things to convict us of sin, but His primary task is to reveal Christ. We are meant to be emulators of Christ. People who focus on becoming righteous by keeping the law inevitably lose focus on Christ.

In the disarray of Adventist thought, there is an ever growing interest in Jesus Christ. Things are not as bad as they may seem, but you may have to give up some cherished ideas to follow Christ. That has ever been true.

"We are meant to graduate from law keeping and become obedient to the indwelling Spirit."............reply........I doubt you really mean what you said here. So as I said before, I understand the bible, EGW, and historic Protestantism. What people say today has no biblical continuity nor does it even make sense. I think you simply confuse yourself and many others and in this confusion, you give the devil considerable advantage. While there are some clear differences between old and new covenant, there are also some clear parallels. I think you convolute the parallel and contrast and fail to "rightly divide the word of truth" as Paul says. A true believer always sees himself as "under the law as a rule of life". Because it is the law of Christ. The motive of faith, love, hope and the gospel by way of the Spirit does not change this truth. In other words, "the spirit" does not take the place of being guided by the law. This seems to be what you mean, and if it is, your are totally wrong. According to the historical Protestant confessions of faith, you are wrong. I agree with historical Protestantism as does EGW and basic bible Adventism. If you are right, then we can abandon Protestantism and join the Catholic church. For you position basically embraces Rome's spirituality of law and gospel. That is, the spirit transcends the written word and the Christian community is guided by the spirit over and above the bible. You need to consider carefully the implications of what you contend for. I doubt you understand the final end of your conclusions. If you do, then you should join Catholicism and oppose the reformation. And of course, you will necessarily abandon the SDA church was was built on the Protestant spirituality that any and all spiritual revelations must be tested by the bible and biblical form transcends spiritual revelations. Or simpy, Christians are guided by the law of ten commandments as the only viable form to determine if their spiritual enlightenment is valid. Bill Sorensen

Sorry to be gone for about a week giving presentations in Oregon. Catching up with all these measured contributions has been a great tonic for me. You have given me fresh impetus to unfold briefly what I was teasing your creative minds with regarding the ellipse of truth. Cheers, Herb

Actually it makes little sense to me. Why can't theologians talk the language of common people? Sort of sad, isn't it? Truth Seeker

Dr. Douglass, Thank you for sharing this very relevant theory. I have been holding this idea in my mind for a while without the theological terminology. Paradoxes in thinking do exist and must exist. It is possible to hold a point on the one hand and its counterpoint on the other. Christianity makes a way for paradoxical thinking to make sense, as in, Jesus is both God and man. Kant, Einstein and Newton, each in their own times and ways, eventually conceded that human reason is too limited to completely understand the ways of the universe and the forces at work behind it, and yet we are able to hold paradoxes. This is a marvelous ability. So the ellipsis theory helps us to see how we can bring together objective and subjective or at least hold them in balance, as we understand that we do this anyway. Individual perspective must play a significant role, and objective reality is available for observation. Our interpretation is based on our own (limited) position and understanding as well as on what we have contact with in the physical world. Thanks again for posting this explanation.