| Author | Message | ||
     Darius Lecointe (Statrei) member Username: Statrei Post Number: 390 Registered: 12-2005 Rating: N/A |
Anyone reading this would get the idea that we are trying to convince the Creator which plan to follow. | ||
| Glenn Hansen (Hansen) member Username: Hansen Post Number: 109 Registered: 7-2006 Rating: N/A |
Tell me something, Bill, Do you believe that you are "obeying the law" as you conduct a slanderous and malicious campaign against Des Ford? What part of the law calls for backstabbing and calumny? Where do you find in the law permission to indulge in personal abuse and name calling? You supposedly are such a friend of Ellen G. White, yet she repeatedly condemned the type of uncharitable behaviour in which you indulge. Her 1888 sermons contained continual exhortations and admonishments for the brethren to treat one another with Christian courtesy and respect, in the context of theological disagreement. I too, have indulged in uncharitable thoughts and words in this context, I apologize for that. I hope that I don't characterize my persona by cheap insults and bitter vitriol against those with whom I differ. There are some prominent individuals in Adventism with whom I differ. I don't feel moved by the Holy Spirit to indulge my carnal tastes in smear campaigns against those individuals. It is contrary to human decency. But your belief system imposes no such constraint upon you. I don't know where you get the idea that I consider myself "highly enlightened." I consider myself a struggling sinner who lives in hope based upon Christ's sacrifice on my behalf. And I agree with Des Ford who you characterize as such a bigot. I heard him say more than once, "Half of what I have taught is wrong but I'm not sure which half." On the one hand you depict yourself as a champion of Reformation theology while with the other you describe Luther's theology as "superficial." I have great admiration for Melanchthon. What do you think about his "Commonplaces of Theology." How about his "Commentary on Romans?" Some scholars posit that "Christian Liberty" was either primarily his work or greatly influenced by him. Would you agree? If so, how do you harmonize the antinomian flavor of "Christian Liberty" with the opening paragraph of "On Justification" in the Commonplaces?" I suggest that the Lutheran theology of law was an afterthought of sorts, developed to make the gospel more palpable to the Papacy and civil authorities. Social order was a great concern of theirs. I suppose that you are aware that Melanchthon believed in astrology and that some of the great "Protestant Confessions" of that era were delivered to coincide with favorable astrological configurations. If you want to dispute that, take it up with Manschreck, Melanchthon's biographer and editor of "Commonplaces." My personal sympathies, though greatly inclined toward the German Reformers, might more correctly be defined as within the parameters of certain of the "radical reformers." Classical Protestant orthodoxy is just another religious system developed by men, many of whom are or were simply too lazy to get real jobs. The bitter waters of mareh were sweetened by the addition of a tree. Perhaps the "tree" upon which Christ was crucified would sweeten your own perspective. | ||
| bill sorensen (Billsorensen) member Username: Billsorensen Post Number: 1475 Registered: 9-2004 Rating: N/A |
Glenn, your attacks on EGW and Adventism are not as subtle as you claim they are. And Dr. Ford's patronizing statements are as phoney as he is. Duplicity and double talk is not the object of Christanity. Many on this forum charge EGW with insanity and a deluded old woman. You agree by accusing her of legalism. Don't play the innocent role, Glenn. And you state..... "Classical Protestant orthodoxy is just another religious system developed by men, many of whom are or were simply too lazy to get real jobs." Now there is a flattering comment about historic Protestantism and those who formulated the theology. So the charge I make that you consider yourself "highly enlightened" is verifiable by your judgment of EGW and historic Protestantism. As you show you think you know more about the fundamentals of salvation than either one. As I state, the third use of the law is a part of all classic Protestant confessions of faith. And EGW simply agrees and built the SDA faith on this biblical confession. Now you can deny the third use of the law as your right and freedom and privledge. And you can bluster into this forum flaylying your sword any which way you please. But I'll expose your pretentious humility as false as your doctrine. Paul knew he could not save the whole world, but "he became all things to all men that he might by all means save some." He exposed lies and deception whether they were advocated by the ignorant or the so called "highly enlightened". Your claim to know more about salvation than EGW would be laughable if it were not so tragic. Her writing are filled with gospel exhortations which can only lead me to believe "you know not the scriptures, nor the power of God." Maybe the "bitter waters" reside in yourself, Glenn. You quote Ford who said.... "And I agree with Des Ford who you characterize as such a bigot. I heard him say more than once, "Half of what I have taught is wrong but I'm not sure which half." And this is a man who will instruct EGW? And the church? Excuse if I doubt the viability of any sincerity in such a statement by Ford. He is a bigoted novice who has been exposed by David Linn and a host of others. I assume you have "China Letters" by David Linn. While all his arguments may not be totally sound, he clearly shows the duplicity in Ford's theology. Let Ford acknowledge his error. I think most SDA's would rejoice to see him saved and re-established in the SDA faith. I know I would. And anyone else who realized they had made a serious mistake about EGW and her teaching. And that includes you, Glenn. I have no desire to drive anyone from the church. (Although more than a few would like to see me out.) Like Tom Norris, I hate the pluralism advocated in modern Adventism for the sake of political unity. So we can say, "If the Lord be God, follow Him, and if Baal, then follow him." But by all means, make a decision. Sorensen | ||
| Glenn Hansen (Hansen) member Username: Hansen Post Number: 110 Registered: 7-2006 Rating: N/A |
Bill, If EGW was simply building on "third use" theology, why does not the denomination advance that idea? Why is it that they publish a paper on the BRI website which contradicts your position. I actually agree with the BRI and had concluded as much myself before reading Woodrow Whidden's paper. But you manage to take a position which differs from official Adventism and with which probably no real Reformation scholar would agree. Can you to provide any quotation from any credible Adventist scholar who suggests that EGW's perfectionistic and legalistic emphasis corresponds more to the Germans than it does to Wesley? She was brought up in the Methodist church and converted under the ministry of a Methodist minister. Of course I have read David Lin's China letters. Wasn't he confined for many years without a Bible? His response to Des Ford was typical of traditional Adventism in the fifties and reflected no progress beyond what might be found in a book like "Bible Readings for the Home." While I mean no disrespect for his dedication to the cause in which he believed, I suggest that if your teacher in these matters is any man who was unable to read a Bible for years, you might do better. I would encourage others to carefully read those letters and discover just how devoted David Lin was to the cause he defends. None of this is an excuse for your judgmental, belittling tirades against the persons with whom you disagree. Your continual slander, false witness, and caluminous remarks about PEOPLE are irrelevant to the issues. They say a lot about what your belief system has made of you. I can say of one individual with whom I heartily disagree that he is, whatever he might believe, a Christian gentleman. I'm not in a position, being a sinner, to make judgments about the sincerity of his personal attributes. I can't characterize his humility as false or his repentance insincere, or even his sincerely held beliefs as stupid and ignorant. But somehow you have managed to acquire a license to do all these things, as you heap personal abuse on individuals? Such is the fruit of Adventism. | ||
| bill sorensen (Billsorensen) member Username: Billsorensen Post Number: 1478 Registered: 9-2004 Rating: N/A |
Can you to provide any quotation from any credible Adventist scholar who suggests that EGW's perfectionistic and legalistic emphasis corresponds more to the Germans than it does to Wesley?" John Wesley was a more mature scholar than Luther and many who preceeded him. He believed in justification by faith alone, just like Luther. Read "John Wesley's theology Today" by Colin W. Williams. As for the "offical" position of modern Adventism, there isn't any. EGW states the "official" doctrine of the SDA church. And the doctrine of the IJ is obviously built on the third use of the law as presented in classic Protestant teaching. As for my method of countering the slander against EGW and her message and ministry, no doubt we all come short in how we witness. And of course, when your theology is wrong as your's is, you must avoid dealing with theology and point out any short coming in the opposition. Tom Norris is a twit, but I still admire his zeal in defending what he thinks is truth. So in my opinion his "zeal is not according to knowledge" and he slanders everything that moves to try to make his point. You said of my methods, "Such is the fruit of Adventism". Do you say of Tom Norris, "Such is the fruit of Dr. Ford's theology?" Your duplicity is showing, Glenn. And do you rag on Luther who called the Pope and other Catholic leaders a few names less than flattering? Or John The Baptist who called the church leaders "vipers"? Or Jesus who said they were of "their father the devil"? I freely confess I am less than an ideal witness at best and a very faulty one at worst, but let's stick to the issue of true vs. false teaching. Sorensen | ||
| Darius Lecointe (Statrei) member Username: Statrei Post Number: 391 Registered: 12-2005 Rating: N/A |
Everyone here is giving a good example of what Christianity is like. | ||
| bill sorensen (Billsorensen) member Username: Billsorensen Post Number: 1479 Registered: 9-2004 Rating: N/A |
Darius said..... "Everyone here is giving a good example of what Christianity is like." Well, Darius, everyone born in this world has an "identity crisis". Jesus excepted. And when we explain what we believe to other people, we are also trying to explain what we believe to ourselves. The gospel gives us an identity and we spend the rest of our lives trying to understand it and respond accordingly (which is, if we are Protestant, keep the ten commandment law). If the true meaning of the gospel is fully comprehended, we are liberated completely to obey the law. This comes by way of practice and experience. We don't know our lack of faith and how confining sin is until we begin to appropriate the freedom the gospel offers and find our limitations in obedience. Thus, the law continues to act as a "schoolmaster" to a Christian who acknowledges that obedience to the law is absolute freedom. If we deny the third use of the law, the second is soon dead. If the law is not a rule of life by which we will be judged, it can no longer be dynamic as a schoolmaster. And when this is true, the gospel dies with the law. Who needs the gospel if the law is dead? So, we must necessarily conclude that Jesus died to make the law more dynamic and more intense in its application to a Christian, or, Jesus died and did away with the law. If there is no judgment according to works to determine if a Christian can go to heaven or not, then the law is dead. So is the gospel. It has a one time application and no futher need of its meaning and application. "This false gospel" tells us Jesus died and did away with the law. But if the law is alive and dynamic even for a believer, so is the gospel. If one is dead, so is the other. If one is alive and dynamic, so is the other. So all viable Protestant confessions of faith knew you must confess the full application of the law for a believer unless you want to negate the ongoing application of the gospel. So we must state, the law is in full effect 100% of the time and so is the gospel. And so we appropriate both at one and the same time. And so salvation is not a line, but a circle. Dispensationalism wants to define salvation in a line. That is, you go from law to gospel and the gospel is superior to the law. But true bible teaching goes from law to gospel and back to the law. Which in turn, goes back to the gospel. Not a line, but a circle. So the third use of the law preserves both the law and the gospel. And it preserves the second use of the law as well. So we can conclude, not only is the law a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ, but it continues to function as a schoolmaster for a believer to keep us in Christ. So, "when faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster" does not refer to the moral law, but only the ceremonial law. While the moral law has an application in Galatians, it is not the historical meaning of the book. An antinomian would deny what I have stated. But the elect of God will readily see that I have presented the truth as it is in Jesus. And Paul would agree. Sorensen | ||
| Darius Lecointe (Statrei) member Username: Statrei Post Number: 392 Registered: 12-2005 Rating: N/A |
Don't rush ahead, Bill. What does it mean to believe something? Don't our beliefs only reflect the essence of our current experiences? | ||
| bill sorensen (Billsorensen) member Username: Billsorensen Post Number: 1480 Registered: 9-2004 Rating: N/A |
Don't rush ahead, Bill. What does it mean to believe something? Don't our beliefs only reflect the essence of our current experiences? That's only half a truth, Darius. What we believe may cause our current experience to change. But that only happens if our belief changes. Christanity is a mind altering experience. Sorensen | ||
| Darius Lecointe (Statrei) member Username: Statrei Post Number: 394 Registered: 12-2005 Rating: N/A |
You misunderstood, Bill. You cannot believe anything that has not been a part of your experience and when your experiences change your beliefs may change. | ||
| Bob Sands (Bob_2) member Username: Bob_2 Post Number: 5530 Registered: 1-2005 Rating: N/A |
Darius, you took the words out of my mouth, only it was directed at you, bro!!!!!!! "Politics gives guys so much power that they tend to behave badly around women. And I hope I never get into that." – young Bill Clinton | ||
| bill sorensen (Billsorensen) member Username: Billsorensen Post Number: 1481 Registered: 9-2004 Rating: N/A |
You misunderstood, Bill. You cannot believe anything that has not been a part of your experience and when your experiences change your beliefs may change." Not necessarily. I never experienced God's forgiveness until I believed it. So faith in God's word preceeds the experience. The experience confirmed what I believed. Sorensen | ||
| Darius Lecointe (Statrei) member Username: Statrei Post Number: 395 Registered: 12-2005 Rating: N/A |
Bill, which is it: God's word or forgiveness? | ||
| Darius Lecointe (Statrei) member Username: Statrei Post Number: 396 Registered: 12-2005 Rating: N/A |
Bob, what do you mean "directed" at me? | ||
| Glenn Hansen (Hansen) member Username: Hansen Post Number: 111 Registered: 7-2006 Rating: N/A |
Why should I read a secondary source about Wesley when I can read his writings? I've read plenty of his sermons and a work he wrote on Christian perfection. Very much the taste of EGW. If Wesley was so mature, why did it take Luther's preface to Romans and the Moravians, who were Lutherans of a sort, to convert him? Anyway, it's nice to know what you really think about Luther-- an immature man who had no use for James. How about mentioning that he was a beer swilling anti-semite as well? That would plant you more firmly in the camp of the enemies of Evangelical Protestantism- Papists, legalists, Jews, etc. If you think that you can cling to the "third use" theology, reject Luther's justification teaching, and still be a evangelical Christian, I think not. There is no harmony between legalistic Adventism and Luther's justification theology. You make a mistake in thinking that your mean spiritedness is in the same vein as the rebukes of John the Baptist, Jesus or Paul. They were inspired prophets of God. That you are not. You call personal abuse, insults, back stabbing and calumny a "method"? Paul described that "method" more accurately when he said "Cursing and bitterness is in their mouth, the poison of vipers under their tongue." Regarding "China Letters" and David Lin: I've only been inside a Chinese jail once. I didn't notice a theological library. I don't know much about the situation of David Lin in China, aside from what he wrote. What I did read of China letters did not impress me. | ||
| bill sorensen (Billsorensen) member Username: Billsorensen Post Number: 1482 Registered: 9-2004 Rating: N/A |
"There is no harmony between legalistic Adventism and Luther's justification theology." Mean spirited, Glenn? I think you are the pot calling the kettle black. Show me one statement where EGW or any other responsible SDA scholar or teacher claims we can merit heaven by our good works. You can't. But you feel free to call it "LEGALISTIC ADVENTISM" without one shred of evidence or proof. You can only base it on your own warped understanding of law and grace. So as EGW said to Kellogg...."I would help you if I could." But she could not because of his theology. Sorensen | ||
| Bob Sands (Bob_2) member Username: Bob_2 Post Number: 5537 Registered: 1-2005 Rating: N/A |
Darius, who knows what kind of experiences you've had to contribute to some of the terse incoherent diddies you have put for every so often!!!!! "Politics gives guys so much power that they tend to behave badly around women. And I hope I never get into that." – young Bill Clinton | ||
| Darius Lecointe (Statrei) member Username: Statrei Post Number: 397 Registered: 12-2005 Rating: N/A |
Bob, all you have to know is that I have experiences and that they are probably different from yours. A just God won't hold me responsible for your experiences nor will he hold you responsible for mine. |
