Ella M

We can't know what happened without such replays--thus we never will on this earth. We have managed to polarize members on these two issues, and there is nothing wrong in having an opinion on them.  It's how we feel about and treat those who disagree with us. And maybe that says something about the character of the people of the end time.  What I do dislike are censors in the church who don't allow the less known side (human nature after Adam) to be read and discussed.

Actually I don't think the church has ever taken a stand on the nature of Christ. It matters to some more than others.  It is not "everything" as one scholar said.  We could argue this til the end of time, and I don't think it would make a difference in anyone's salvation. I personally believe it could be either way--there is something to be said for each viewpoint.  The fact is we don't know, and I don't think we can.  It seems a bit more on the side of human nature, but then we can't adequately explain what that really means.

The problem I see with the emphasis on the nature of Christ is that it obscures the more important message of those biblical scholars like Weiland and Sequiera who present a God of love whose salvation is broader than we can imagine.  It is Christ crucified from the foundation of the world, and that He has covered everyone who ever lived.  It is only those who repeatedly reject His mercy who are lost. What if we were all born with our names in the Book of Life?  The Bible indicates that some are blotted out--how did they get there? 

One doesn't have to know Christ by name to be saved. Our church teaches that.  Through the movings of the Holy Spirit they respond; They may not have heard of Christ or recognize Him, but have the witness of nature and love relationships that lead to a God they don't know by name.

The false human nature of Christ teaching is the one that is not based on the Gospel and is often taught by off-shoot groups. It is a work-based salvation.  The QOD book helped many to progress out of this rut. Truth is progressive! 

As for the "perfect" end-time generation, what do we mean by perfect?  Perhaps it is the ability to love perfectly--this certainly has to be part of it.  The obvious meaning is maturity, and it puzzles me that some people don't understand this--but insist on a kind of perfectionism that is self-centered and neurotic.  Then there is the "perfect" on different levels theory.  There is also our perfection in Christ--the most important aspect.

There are more questions than there are answers--life is like that! The only replays that we will ever see will be in heaven.

Herb,

A more accurate understanding of history, in theory, could solve many woes. But, the reality is that there are many ways to distort history and many motives for doing so. If your goal is for Adventism to develop a body of doctrine that is not constantly questioned by sincere constituents of the Adventist Church then you need another approach entirely.

Your idea of replaying history does not consider how difficult it is to reconstruct history accurately and without bias. Obviously Adventist history plays a part in shaping Adventist doctrine, so those who have an interest in shaping Adventist doctrine have always had a vested interest in shaping (reconstructing) Adventist history in a way that supports their doctrinal positions.

Objectivity does not come easy to human beings. We inevitably bring a multitude of assumptions and biases to any deliberation. Of course, the consequences and import attached to doctrinal issues does nothing to diminish this tendency. The challenge to be objective in doctrinal issues seems to be particularly acute for Adventists.

One of my personal observations about Adventist history is that since the very beginning, the Millerite days, we have been inclined to self righteousness and spiritual pride. Adventists have been encouraged to think of themselves as special and the resistance to give up cherished position emerged early in the movement. Sometimes when they were forced by the sheer weight of opinion to give up their cherished beliefs they did a very human thing. They tried to hide or obscure their error.

The legacy we receive from our Adventist ancestors is a mixed bag. They were diligent, hard working, and self sacrificing. They were passionate and courageous. They were willing to reorder their lives to match the demands of the truth. They built a worldwide movement with the machinery to impact lives around the globe. All these things are wonderful. However, I think we are mistaken if we assume that part of the legacy is a scripturally sound and well integrated body of doctrine.

There was much work left to do after the first couple of generations of Adventists passed off the scene. Whether or not you agree with the result, I believe that the QOD episode was an effort to deal with the unfinished business inherited from the pioneers.  However the opportunity to validate and align the doctrines with scriptures with the benefit of greatly expanded scholarship and decades of perspective and experience has been lost (at least so far). Instead, the church has behaved as if our only task is to preserve, perpetuate, and propagate the legacy. We have demonstrated our utter inability to make sense of our own history.

Herb, you can see my perspective on Adventist history brings me to a very different place than yours does. No amount of replay is likely to change that.

History is history, nothing about it or the decisions someone made in history is indicative that they were right in their decisions. Ideas unlike sporting events don't need instant replays to decide who was in compliance with the rules or not. The ideas stand or fall upon their relation of logic and evidence. In which case both of the two issues you raise Christ's Humanity (pre or post fall) and righteousness by faith to usher in last generation perfection fall on both logic and evidence.

Yes there were a good number of years when the church was teaching last generation perfection just as there were a good number of years when the Church was semi-arian. Both are historical both are errors.

Speaking of history I just posted my blog on the history of theatre, which might help people understand the SDA historical view better.

"One of the primary miscalls has occurred since the 1888 Minneapolis General Conference when many to this day have been led to believe that the emphasis on Righteousness (or Justification, same Greek word) by Faith was a stunning, but belated,  recovery of Luther's  understanding. Nothing is further from the truth! A number of dissertations and books through the years have cemented this miscall in most Adventist minds."

Herb, who are these people and what are the books they have written? I've never seen any evidence that Waggoner was preaching in the same vein as Luther. One of the leading proponents of this theory is unable to provide a shred of documentation to support his thesis.

I've never seen a book which is able to document Waggoner's dependence on Luther or  that has even tried to document it.

Anyone who has taken the time to read Luther and compare a work of his such as Christian Liberty with Waggoner's writings on justification would almost instantly see a disconnect between the two.

Luther's Genesis commentary, for instance, in which he discusses Abraham's justification, is a far cry from  the Adventism with which I am acquainted. It's a far cry from EGW in Patriarchs and Prophets as well. Compare Luther's Commentary on Genesis with the chapters in Patriarchs and Prophets to see the line clearly drawn.

Hansen, there are plenty of authors who insist that Waggoner's theology was the same as Luther's. Here's just one example from George Knight, in his book, A User-Friendly Guide to the 1888 Message: "Waggoner saw his own message, therefore, as adding nothing to that of Paul, Luther, and Wesley. He did not regard it as something new or unique, but as being in the great stream of the preaching of the everlasting gospel - the common property of history's great Christian Reformers" (p. 84). Of course, the irony that seems to allude Knight is that Paul and Luther weren't preaching the exact same gospel. Luther came close, but he wasn't quite able to return to the Pauline/New Testament gospel.

With all this being said, here is the interesting bit. Knight, et al, get their ideas from Waggoner himself. In The Gospel in Galatians, Waggoner himself makes the claim that to accept his message "would simply be a step nearer the faith of the great Reformers from the days of Paul to the days of Luther and Wesley" (p. 53). Now, I think Waggoner was perhaps overstating his own case. I don't now how anyone can read his writings and maintain that he was simply regurgitating what Luther, etc., was saying. I think what was going on is that he was simply trying to gain acceptance from his audience and thus trying to insist that his message was not contrary to the Reformer's understanding of the gospel.

Lastly, Ron, my heart is saddened that you have not seen the beautiful and liberating truth about Christ's human nature and His ultimate goal for sinful humanity - as well as a secure universe. You are right when you say that history is history and we have to judge history's theology on its own merits. But two things: based on its own merits, what Jones & Waggoner preached is the everlasting gospel. And secondly, to divorce theology/truth from its context is to repeat the failures of generations past. Imagine a person who comes to the Christian faith and says, "I want to be a Christian, but I don't want to talk about that cross event." Simply put, you cannot grow in theology, grow in your understanding, etc., unless and until you deal with the historical implications. It's Psychology 101. 

Plenty of authors? Could you name a few others and provide a quote to make your point? While true that Wesley paid lip service to Luther, the disconnect between their thinking is obvious.

Luther/Melanchthon were anything but perfectionists. They admitted that, because of the weakness of human nature, the Law could not be perfectly kept. Wesley, on the other hand, advocated a form of perfectionism which held that a sinless state might be attained before death.

For Knight to say that Waggoner felt that he added nothing to Paul, Luther, Wesley, as if they were all saying the same thing, is quite a stretch.

Waggoner may have been a step nearer to Luther than the Adventism of his day. That's not saying much. Adventism of those days was virtually devoid of the gospel. It was a legalistic, law centered morass. EGW rebuked it as dry as the Hills of Gilboa and further said that the gospel had beeen virtually absent from Adventism during the first ~forty years of its existence.

Note the following remark from historian/biographer Milton Hook:

"What record would I like to set straight? The traditional account of the 1888 GC Session. Why do perfectionists call for a return to the theology expressed by Waggoner and Jones? Because W and J preached a message germane to perfectionism. It wasn't the apostolic doctrine of righteousness by faith alone. My reading of their Signs of the Times articles, 1884-1890, convinced me of that 2 decades ago. Where did Robert Brinsmead source his perfectionism theory in the late 1950s and 1960s? He admits it was W and J's writings."

The following link provides access to McMahon's take on the Waggoner/ Luther connection:

http://sdanet.org/atissue/books/mcmahon/waggoner-06.htm

Robert Wieland named  Norval Pease as one who  saw the 1888 message as a continuum of the Reformation. Wieland  believed the J+W message was unique because of its relationship to the cleansing of the sanctuary doctrine:

" 43. Insights that made the 1888 message unique did not come from "Creeds of the Protestant churches of the day" but from direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit upon "the minds of men divinely appointed," who had credentials from heaven" (EGW). This is evident from fact that the 1888 message of righteousness by faith related that truth to the cleansing of the sanctuary, a truth that no non-Adventist church or "creed" had an inkling of. Only superficially does 1888 message appear to parallel "creeds of Protestant churches.""

http://www.gospel-herald.com/wieland/three_views/text2.htm

I find Wieland's claims fantastic in light of Waggoner's own admission. Waggoner did not believe the doctrine of the investigative judgment. See Waggoner's "Final Word and Confession." It seems unlikely that he could teach a message bound up (according to Wieland) with a doctrine he did not believe.

http://www.ellenwhiteexposed.com/waggoner.htm

 Although I have read, (years ago) and own  the entire tract, I offer the above link simply as a resource, not an endorsement of other material on the website.

Hansen, you are confusing me. You say that you have never seen one person say that Luther and Waggoner were preaching the same thing and when I present just one opinion on the matter (besides that of Waggoner himself) you say, "Let me see more." But beyond all that, I am not entirely sure I understand what you're really getting at. What is your overall point in your responses? 

Are you trying to say that Waggoner and Luther weren't preaching the same thing? If that is your argument, then I would agree. Are you trying to say that Waggoner wasn't preaching Pauline/New Testament theology? Then I would have to disagree. Are you trying to show that Robert Wieland is wrong? I would also have to disagree.

Beyond that, to quote Waggoner's "Final Word and Confession" as proof that he never believed in the investigative judgment/cleansing of the sanctuary is a poor use of logic. No one would argue that what Waggoner believed in 1888 is the same thing that he believed in 1916. I am not sure how one can read his "Glad Tidings" or Jones's "The Consecrated Way to Christian Perfection" and conclude that their message was planted anywhere else but in the Most Holy Place. 

Shawn, Here is what Dr. Douglass said: “One of the primary miscalls has occurred since the 1888 Minneapolis General Conference when many to this day have been led to believe that the emphasis on Righteousness (or Justification, same Greek word) by Faith was a stunning, but belated, recovery of Luther's understanding. Nothing is further from the truth! A number of dissertations and books through the years have cemented this miscall in most Adventist minds.”

I then responded:” Herb, who are these people and what are the books they have written? I've never seen any evidence that Waggoner was preaching in the same vein as Luther. One of the leading proponents of this theory is unable to provide a shred of documentation to support his thesis.” “I've never seen a book which is able to document Waggoner's dependence on Luther or that has even tried to document it.“

You then said:” Hansen, there are plenty of authors who insist that Waggoner's theology was the same as Luther's. Here's just one example from George Knight, in his book, A User-Friendly Guide to the 1888 Message: "Waggoner saw his own message, therefore, as adding nothing to that of Paul, Luther, and Wesley. He did not regard it as something new or unique, but as being in the great stream of the preaching of the everlasting gospel - the common property of history's great Christian Reformers" (p. 84)

The quote from Knight which you offered offers no evidence that Waggoner preached in the same vein as did Luther. Neither does it demonstrate Waggoner’s dependence upon Luther. If Waggoner did believe himself to be preaching the same message as Luther he was mistaken.

Shawn, I did not mention “one person” Herb suggested numerous books have cemented a concept in the minds of people. I asked who they are or were. Knight’s remark does not document Waggoner’s dependence upon Luther. Admittedly, I am limited in this discussion because I haven’t read the Signs of the Times material in which Waggoner is said to have often referred to Luther. Reading the ST articles in which Waggoner referred to Luther would probably settle the matter.  

I have read Luther and Waggoner. I see little dependence or relationship in their thinking. Maybe I should read Waggoner again; however, each time I do, I am disappointed. We agree that Waggoner and Luther were not preaching the same message.

Why do you reject Waggoner’s own testimony? Even though written in 1916, if I remember correctly, he stated in the "Final Word and Confession"  that he never believed the doctrine of the investigative judgment. He said that he more or less avoided the topic throughout his ministry.

Wieland tried to refute Waggoner’s own testimony by referring to an article which he attributed to Waggoner in the British Signs of the Times. The article was not signed but published during the time Waggoner was the editor. Wieland claimed that his expertise allowed him to attribute an unsigned article to Waggoner, even though the article contradicted Waggoner’s own testimony. Waggoner may have rehearsed the doctrine or allowed another to write upon it. It doesn’t mean he believed it.

1888 is an embarrassment. Adventism, prior to that period, was a legalistic cult devoid of the gospel. EGW said as much. The message of Jones and Waggoner was pathetic in comparison to the justification message of Luther. They were products of their times, working in a very narrow box, proscribed on every side by legalism.

The modern 1888 message is bunk. It reminds me of Venden's "righteousness by senility." The problem is, of course, that, at least in my case, I have gotten worse as time goes by, not better. Maybe that's just me. How about you? Sinless yet? If not, why not?

The sinful human nature of Christ belief doesn't lead to victory, it leads to  legalism, perfectionism, fanaticism. I would be surprised if Koresh did not get his sinful Messiah nonsense from that teaching. It is based on shabby interpretation of Scripture, thanks to the unique communicative skills of Jones. Pastors who teach that in Adventism should be turned out on their ear, for incompetence.

Hansen said......

"The modern 1888 message is bunk. It reminds me of Venden's "righteousness by senility."

Well, no doubt Venden didn't have a clue of reformation theology and still doesn't. But he reflects much of modern Adventism in his ignorance. And thus, they spread his books all over the church like "the frogs of Egypt."

And many members sucked it up like pigs at the hog trough.

His diesel truck illustration covers his whole theological concept. A "let go and let God" idea that all we do in sanctification is get out of the driver's seat and let Jesus drive us to heaven. We just sit in the passenger's seat and ride along.

Not a shred of scriptural evidence supports his false doctrine, but who cares? He made thousands of dollars for the church. This is the main thing.

Even if they knew they were wrong at this point, they would not "repent" and acknowledge they had made an error in any way by publishing his drivel.

Are we supposed to "give ourselves to Jesus"? No doubt. Is this all that is comprehended in sanctification? In no way. In sanctification, as distinguished from justification by faith alone, Jesus helps US to keep the law as we follow His example in obedience to His will.

Jesus doesn't "keep the law for us" so we don't have to. Yet Venden would have us believe thus. And then to top it all off, anyone who opposes his false doctrine is called a "legalist" with the implication any effort to keep the law or strive to do God's will is trying to "earn" their way to heaven.

The man is Satan's right hand helper but highly exhalted and applauded in most SDA circles. He simply ignores huge portions of the bible and EGW quotes that deny his theory.

Let me say this. In the end, his fundamental error is his failure to distinguish between a believer and an unbeliever and simply lumps all together in mass confusion of how the bible explains sanctification for the born again believer.

Many of those in church leadership "worship they know not what" and have no ability to discern truth and error. But........hey, even in EGW's day, the situation was pretty much the same. Look how they were ready to embrace Pantheism and thought it was exactly what EGW taught.

Now we know that all of us make mistakes. But our leaders refuse to "repent" even when it is obvious they have blundered over and over on many issues of theology as well as administration.

What else can you do when you believe in "unconditional election" for your church?

Bill Sorensen

I don't really know what all you guys are talking about. I'm just a pizza delivery driver, so my view may seem simplistic. But it seems that righteousness by faith is simple. Why do some try and make it complicated?

Here's how a simple pizza delivery driver understands God's word-see if you agree:

We are saved by GRACE through FAITH. Period. BUT HE WAS WOUNDED FOR OUR TRANSGRESSIONS, HE WAS BRUISED FOR OUR INIQUITIES: THE CHASTISEMENT OF OUR PEACE WAS UPON HIM; AND BY HIS STRIPES WE ARE HEALED. Faith seems to have two pillars. Belief and submission to the will of God. Faith is more than just belief, for THE DEVILS ALSO BELIEVE, AND TREMBLE. The other pillar is submission the the will of God, EVEN SO FAITH, IF IT HAS NOT WORKS, IS DEAD, BEING ALONE. Abraham serves as an example, WAS NOT ABRAHAM OUR FATHER JUSTIFIED BY WORKS, WHEN HE HAD OFFERED ISAAC HIS SON UPON THE ALTAR?  To sum up being saved by Grace through Faith would be, ......AND SAID WITH TEARS, LORD, I BELIEVE; HELP THOU MINE UNBELIEF......and, LORD, IF THOU WILT, THOU CANST MAKE ME CLEAN. AND JESUS PUT FORTH HIS HAND TOUCHED HIM, SAYING, I WILL; BE THOU CLEAN. ... Also it seems that repentance has the same twin pillars as faith, REND YOUR HEART, AND NOT YOUR GARMENTS, AND TURN UNTO THE LORD YOUR GOD:  and furthermore, COME NOW, AND LET US REASON TOGETHER, SAITH THE LORD; THOUGH YOUR SINS BE AS SCARLET, THEY SHALL BE AS WHITE AS SNOW: THOUGH THEY BE RED LIKE CRIMSON, THEY SHALL BE AS WOOL.  As for the works part,.... what is sin? The transgression of the law of God. FOR THE WAGES OF SIN IS DEATH: BUT THE GIFT OF GOD IS ETERNAL LIFE THROUGH JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD. And what is the law of God? Its a reflection of His character. And what is His character? GOD IS LOVE.  As Paul put it, THOUGH I SPEAK WITH THE TONGUES OF MEN AND OF ANGELS, AND HAVE NOT LOVE, I AM BECOME AS A SOUNDING BRASS, OR A TINKLING CYMBAL. AND THOUGH I HAVE THE GIFT OF PROPHECY, AND UNDERSTOOD ALL MYSTERIES, AND ALL KNOWLEDGE; AND THOUGH I HAVE FAITH, SO THAT I COULD REMOVE MOUNTAINS, AND HAVE NOT LOVE, I AM NOTHING. AND THOUGH I BESTOW ALL MY GOODS TO FEED THE POOR, AND THOUGH I GIVE MY BODY TO BE BURNED, AND HAVE NOT LOVE, IT PROFITETH ME NOTHING. ..AND NOW ABIDETH FAITH, HOPE, AND LOVE, THESE THREE; BUT THE GREATEST OF THESE IS LOVE. But why you ask, do we keep the law? Because the works of doing so show whose we are, IF YE LOVE ME, KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS. That is why. Not so complicated. And what is the spirit of the law? THIS IS MY COMMANDMENT, THAT YE LOVE ONE ANOTHER, AS I HAVE LOVED YOU. As for the commandments, they include all 10, not just 9. The Sabbath is the whole point to it all. The 4th commandment is under assault by the christian world by instituting Sunday in place of Sabbath as we all know. But its also under assault by the secular world through Darwinian evolution. For the 4th commandment points to Him as creator, and Charles Darwin denies Him that honor. And now the so-called christian churches give a 1 - 2 punch to the 4th commandment by adhereing to theistic evolution, SO THEN BECAUSE THOU ART LUKEWORM, AND NEITHER COLD NOR HOT, I WILL SPEW THEE OUT OF MY MOUTH. In todays modern world, (with the internet, journals, etc., ) to access info on the science of creation, NO CHRISTIAN has an excuse to blindly accept Darwinian evolution. None. Let me pose a question; From what source do both assaults stem from against the 4th commandment, both of the institutuion of Sunday and evolution? Let Scripture once again speak to your hearts, BE SOBER, BE VIGILANT; BECAUSE YOUR ADVERSARY THE DEVIL, AS A ROARING LION, WALKETH ABOUT, SEEKING WHOM HE MAY DEVOUR...and..PROFESSING THEMSELVES TO BE WISE, THEY BECAME FOOLS. Why can't we keep it simple, instead of all this 1957, books sent by the opponent of God to undermine our faith, etc., stuff that everyone is caught up in.

HE HATH SHOWED THEE, O MAN, WHAT IS GOOD: AND WHAT DOTH THE LORD REQUIRE OF THEE, BUT TO DO JUSTLY, AND TO LOVE MERCY, AND TO WALK HUMBLY WITH THY GOD?

I was out surfing the net and stumbled across this website. It seems to me that there are a lot of SDA on here who are ashamed of being SDA when I read the blogs or want to rebel against the church to recieve acceptance in the wider world. And an awful lot of whining on this site by people about me...me....me.....stop looking at yourselves and look up to HIM. But He did say to leave the tares with the wheat. I've been stunned by the FAKE warmth on this site by some people who are so cold towards God in their heart. Its as though this whole website is dedicated to lifting SDA hearts up against God. Starting with the tares preaching evolution in our church, it goes on. What is happening to our church?

User "dvddvdd" writes:

"I was out surfing the net and stumbled across this website. It seems to me that there are a lot of SDA on here who are ashamed of being SDA when I read the blogs or want to rebel against the church to recieve acceptance in the wider world. And an awful lot of whining on this site by people about me...me....me.....stop looking at yourselves and look up to HIM. But He did say to leave the tares with the wheat. I've been stunned by the FAKE warmth on this site by some people who are so cold towards God in their heart. Its as though this whole website is dedicated to lifting SDA hearts up against God. Starting with the tares preaching evolution in our church, it goes on. What is happening to our church?"

Welcome aboard, dvddvdd. Before pronouncing judgment on hundreds of Adventists that frequently comment here, rest assured. We are a website that provides regular content that points others to "look up at Him."  We are also a website that allows for multiple forums where diverse, educated, mature Adventists discuss church issues freely and openly. Sometimes, comments by readers may not reflect traditional church views. This is certainly within our control, but we prefer not censoring as to allow for the free exchange of opinions.

We hope you've planted your feet firmly since stumbling in and look forward to your positive and respectful contributions.

AT Moderator

Dvd, Thank you for telling us about your qualifications before posting. An acquaintance of mine operates an Italian restaurant on the tropical island of Hainan. The pizza he makes has just a little cheese on it. The crust is quite thin as well. He has been kind enough to make special pizzas for me which have eggplant and mushrooms. They are delicious. I usually spend winters there, although that may change.

The pizza maker is Italian, an old world kind of guy. He built his own pizza oven.

He also makes some incredible apple strudel with yellow raisins and pine nuts.

 Being in the pizza business and all, you might enjoy looking at some Bible studies here:

http://www.cleansanctuary.blogspot.com