My response to Lee in the previous post reminded me that I had wanted to share this piece on how widespread the phenomenon of many Christians leaving the thinking to their pastors is, not only in the United States of America which this article addresses, but also here in Singapore.
The ‘Pastorization’ Of Christians
by Van Robison
In her quite revealing book The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America by Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt, Charlotte reveals an astonishing documented trail, proving that “education” in America is a tool of deliberate dysfunction. She worked in the U.S. Department of Education during the Reagan Administration. Educational abuse is massive and while many see through it, many others do not.
Among the world of Christians, there is a “Christian Dumbing Down” because millions have been “pastorized” by professional clergy. Pastorization causes church goers to be unable to think for themselves, and they are told what to believe by the clergy. Virtually, every day of the week, “Christian” television stations broadcast programs in which men and women are standing on platforms, often with their fingers pointed in your face, telling you what to believe. There is a great difference in taking the Gospel of the Kingdom of God to the unconverted and those who are not yet born-again, and the “professional clergy” system of the church world.
Although the name of Jesus Christ is advanced by most pastors to validate their positions, pastors have become the idols of millions, whose lives revolve around pastors. Anyone who reads the teachings of Jesus Christ as recorded in the four Gospels cannot help but see a grand canyon of difference in the teachings of Christ, and the world of churchianity. It is nothing short of utterly dumbfounding to watch countless Christians sitting in megachurches, on television like little children in school, being pastorized by “infallible and inerrant” clergy. Any outside observer has to marvel at the seeming robotization of the pastorized members sitting in pews. Christ said HE ALONE IS SHEPHERD–the GOOD SHEPHERD. Jesus Christ never established “churchianity”, nor the control system of pastors over the flock of God. When Christ appointed His original disciples, they in turn went out and pointed others to Jesus Christ, not to themselves as lifetime “pastors”, ruling over the flock (1 Peter 5:3), nor did Peter and the others preach for filthy lucre (money) (1 Peter 5:2). Peter and the disciples of Christ were EXAMPLES, not authoritarian CEOs of church corporations.
The pastorization of church goers and television preacher watchers is the reason that millions of believers are dumbed down. When human beings let others do their thinking, they in turn cannot reason, discern or think through issues, because it is always the “teachers” who do the thinking. The same is true with those millions who think “truth” in “news” from television comes through the boobtube. A great deal of so called news reporting is nothing more than the opinion of someone, or some think tank that uses television “news” as the means of indoctrination and subtle deceptions (a little truth now and then). Television is probably the single greatest tool the world has ever known, in which the world is brainwashed with endless propaganda, lies, deceptions, godlessness and some truth, all in the name of “news”, “entertainment” and “Christianity.” In the world of churches, the number of so-called pastors, priests, bishops and “professional clergymen” must be in the many thousands. In that world of clergymen, the divisions and differences in beliefs, teachings and practices varies greatly. Do they all represent Jesus Christ and the truth of the Kingdom of God? Something is surely amiss. Any Christian who believes that pastors know and understand truth in Christ just because they graduated from some “Bible” college, and can read Hebrew and Greek, and are persuasive public speakers, is a deluded Christian. The things of God are only understood by the Spirit of God, and not because some man or woman is called “Doctor Pastor” or “Senior Pastor”.
How does anyone know if they have been “pastorized?” Christians are pastorized if:
- They believe everything a pastor says or preaches from their pulpits.
- They think their “pastor” is a man or woman instead of Jesus Christ.
- They think they have to tithe to the local “church” and the pastor.
- They think church pastors have authority over their lives, in contradiction to what Christ taught (Matthew 23:8-10).
- They let the pastors tell them what the scriptures say, instead of proving ALL THINGS for themselves.
- They let the pastors interpret the Bible for them, without studying on their own what the truth is.
- They think the church pastors have a right to a life-time of free money (welfare existence).
- They think they cannot have a personal relationship with the Father/Jesus Christ, without going to church.
- They think that Sunday or (Saturday) church attendance is the definition of being a Christian.
- They think that following Jesus Christ means going to church every week and hearing another sermon.
- They believe pastors are infallible and inerrant and must be obeyed.
- Their lives revolve around church, church activities, camp meetings, revivals, conferences, seminars and endless meetings, even when Jesus Christ lives in them 24/7 through the Holy Spirit, and it is NEVER NECESSARY to go here or there looking for Christ, when He lives within them all the time.
- The focus of their lives revolves around listening to pastors preach, rather than hearing the voice of the true Shepherd.
- Their vocabulary is about “church” and “my pastor” this and that, rather than about Jesus Christ.
- Their lives revolve around churchianity, rather than around Jesus Christ.
- They believe it is rebellion to question the teachings and practices of the pastors and churches.
- They think the “Word” of God is the “Bible”, when the Word is really Jesus Christ (John 1:1-3).
- They never research issues for themselves, but leave all the research and thinking to the pastors.
The twin means by which all human beings are controlled, ruled over, regulated to death and made to live in fear is through secular governments and religions, including churchianity. Churchianity is a man-made religion, and has nothing to do with following Jesus Christ. Pastorization has to do with being dumbed down to the level of not being able to think, reason or discern for oneself, but in which the lords of the church world rule over the pastorized.
HT: Battered Sheep.
Related posts:
- Tag, You’re It! I got tagged by Casey to reveal seven things about...
- The Blind “Anointing” the Blind God help us! According to this report at Charisma Magazine,...
- Dearie Me, Another Message of “Love” A brother calling himself “Lee” left a comment in response...
- A Church “On Fire” This video of a church experiencing the “fire” literally gave...
- Thoughts On the Current Economic Crisis The world around us, and as we know it, is...
24 Responses
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.
Interestingly, this isn’t a new phenomenon. Prior to the advent of the Gutenberg printing press, it was the clergy that had the Scriptures, and the lay had to rely on them for Biblical teaching. Even for years after that, the Bible was only available to the rich, who could afford to buy a copy as well as the literate. Now though, even with Bibles available for the literate masses, there is a tendency for believers to think that the interpretation of God’s Word is the domain of certain people more ‘anointed’ to do so. (Ironic really, that people would read about the Bible than the Bible itself. *rolls eyes*)
Certainly, we need to pray for this spiritual blindness to be healed. I teach Sunday School, and it is my contention that God’s Word is simple enough for the youngest amongst us to understand, and as complex enough to meet even the needs of modern living… for certainly there is nothing new under the sun.
As Brenda has commented …
Previously, the Pope and Cardinals get to interpret the Bible for us;
Today, only the Pastors and the Archbishops are “qualified” to interpret the Bible. And of course, my boy, your are allowed to interpret the Bible for yourself … as long as it agrees with the Pastor’s and the Archbishops’ understanding of the Bible.
You may read the Bible, but only the “anointed” can interpret it for you.
So where is Reformed Rosary?
Brother Isaiah, theses are all Great Points! something for us all to think about and take note of personally. I do believe in almost all of these that’s how I live my Christian Life daily Knowing that God is my “source”.
The thing is most of us worship our pastors and Churches forgeting that the pastor is a man and man is not perfect we make mistakes etc.
so these points are important to note.
Godbless
Hi there (again) Isaiah.
I hope you don’t feel as if i’m stalking you, but I happened to revisit your old blog again just now and noticed that (a) my comment which I put up there is gone (?!) and (b) that you’ve moved. So I’m going to try and reproduce my original comment on your new blog. Please bear with me if you have already got the other message.
I’m a Seventh-Day Adventist Christian: the SDA Church is an established Protestant denomination which believes and keeps the Sabbath of the Bible, God’s holy day of rest, as the same Sabbath that was instituted at the close of Creation. That means we observe the Sabbath each week from Friday sundown till Saturday sundown.
The SDA Church also teaches that there is a distinction between clean and unclean meats, as per Ex 11. You will not find a single practicing SDA who takes their faith seriously eating pork, prawns etc.
Another of the teachings of the SDA Church is that the conflict of the last days will be between the false ’sabbath’ set up by man, and the true Sabbath instituted by God - which no man can change. And yes, we do believe also that there will come a time when there will be universal Sunday laws; and that this is foretold in the book of Revelation.
I couldn’t help noticing that your solo Bible studies have led you to conclusions which are not vastly dissimilar from the tenets of the Seventh-Day-Adventist Church. My impression is that you are an earnest seeker after truth, and I thank the Lord for his graciousness in having led you this far.
Please let me know if I can be of any assistance to you - I sense also that there are a lot of burning questions you have, for which you are seeking answers. I’ll do my best to help if you like. You can always email me
Regards
agaricus
Oops. I meant ‘LEVITICUS 11′ not Ex 11. Sorry! My bad…
Thank you for dropping by, Brenda. I can’t agree with you more that many people have a misconception that the Bible is difficult to understand.
God has intended that His Word be understood by those who seek Him. Moreover, the helper — the Holy Spirit — is with us to guide us in our understanding of the Word.
This is what I think is happening — in this day and age, there are way too many distractions that take away time from reading God’s Word. In addition, we are now in an environment where you can easily pick up knowledge and opinion of any issue simply by typing in appropriate words into a search engine like Google.
It therefore isn’t surprising that many take their cue from the copious amounts of such works available online and this extends even to pastors at some churches who have reportedly been found out to actually buy sermons online to use at the weekly services!
If church leadership is taking shortcuts, does it then surprise many that the congregation is doing the same?
Vincent:
Quite true… and that’s what many in Christian circles mean by unity too. I am troubled by this “some are more anointed than others” phenomenon. It smacks of gnosticism.
Hmm… you might want to try asking Rick Warren — he might have some extra rosaries you can sow into.
Thank you, CoH, but I didn’t write the article, ha ha! However, I do agree with most of the points in there and therefore decided to share it.
Reverence of pastors who are themselves mere men is not new but has become more widespread in recent years. The Apostle Paul warned strongly about personality cults.
Agaricus:
do you therefore believe in the doctrines of the Heavenly Sanctuary and Investigative Judgment (distinctive historical SDA doctrines)?
Yes, I do.
Dear Agaricus,
Thank you for visiting, and no, I don’t think you’re stalking me.
To answer your question, I do believe in the traditional Shabbat, but I think that’s where my common belief with the SDA ends. I don’t believe that it’s imperative that one has to observe the traditional Shabbat to qualify for salvation. It’s more of a personal choice in my case.
I’m going to answer your comment in two parts. Firstly, whether the observation of the Sabbath - as God created it - is imperative, i.e. binding; and second, what salvation is.
On the first count, the Sabbath has special significance. It came as the crowning act of Creation - God had finished making everything, even man, and He pronounced His works ‘very good’. The Earth and all that in it was, came forth from the hand of its Maker perfect: and to cap that sublime work of perfection off, God instituted the Sabbath and hallowed it.
So the Sabbath was made, and given to mankind, even before there was a single Jew on the face of the planet. Jesus Himself said that the “Sabbath was made for man”, and not man for the Sabbath. This means that the Sabbath, as given to Adam and Eve - the progenitors of our race - is meant for the human family. There is nobody on whom it is not binding.
Apart from its being binding, there is also a great significance to the Sabbath, other than its being one of God’s great gifts to man. If you look at the fourth commandment, which is the Sabbath commandment, you will find that it is the only one of the Ten which begins, ‘Remember…’. The entire context of the Fourth commandment smacks of a call to the reader to hark back to God’s act of Creation. Thus the Sabbath is a weekly reminder that God is the Supreme Creator, and ultimately the one In Charge. So the Sabbath is, if you like, a weekly celebration both of the great work of Creation, a commemoration of God’s perfection, as well as a day of rest and repose for man.
There’s more. If you look in the Gospels, I think you’ll find that most of Jesus’ miracles took place on the Sabbath. He drew a lot of flak for this… But I think it is significant that when Jesus was brought to task for having ‘broken’ the Sabbath by healing people of their infirmities, His response was that He is ‘Lord of the Sabbath’, and that it was right to do good on the Sabbath, and to loosen the chains of bondage i.e. relieve suffering, on the Sabbath. It seems to me that the thrust behind Jesus’ actions, on the Sabbath, in particular, was to drive home the message that the Sabbath is about being made whole, and free. This ties in with the Sabbath-as-commemorative-of-perfection angle.
Therefore the Sabbath is, for me, a very special time that I can spend with my Creator, my God, my King, with no distractions between and nothing secular to intrude into my time with Him; and it is even more than that. It is a weekly reminder, a very tangible reminder, of the future healing - perfection - to come when my God will step in to recreate this broken world and its broken people, into what He had meant for us to be. The Sabbath looks both ways.
Another thing I would like to point out is that the construction of the word ‘Shabbaoth’ is actually a conglomerate Hebrew word. Essentially, it is composed of three distinct words, ‘Sha’, ‘Abba’, and ‘ba-oth’ (sorry, my Hebrew sucks); which, put together, mean ‘Sign of the Eternal Father’. So the Sabbath is also the sign of God.
Moving from this discussion of the Sabbath and its significance in my understanding, I now come to the second issue, which is my understanding of Salvation.
Salvation is a gift. We do not deserve it, there is nothing we can do to deserve it, and George Bush would sooner become an intelligent human being than we could work to ‘get’ it.
It’s an outright gift, inspired by immeasurable love, fuelled by grace, and paid for in blood.
You can be a Sunday-keeping Christian and still be saved. I’m sure John Wesley, Martin Luther, Zwingli, Huss etc already have their names written in the Book of Life - and none of these men were Sabbathkeepers.
But the difference is that these men didn’t have the Sabbath truth. You are accountable to God for what light you have. The parable Jesus told about the servants who had different ‘talents’ is pertinent. The Bible says, “to him that knoweth to do right, and doeth it not, to him it is accounted sin”. So if I, convinced as I am about the Sabbath and its binding claims, do NOT keep it, where does that put me?
By way of analogy, if someone knows it is a sin - and against the holy law of God - to commit adultery, but says ‘oh, it’s a choice, I still believe’ and wilfully goes on to commit adultery, is that person not sinning against God? Certainly God is always willing to forgive, but the Bible makes clear that God is not a fruit machine permanently stuck on jackpot. Forgiveness comes when there is REPENTANCE. And what else is REPENTANCE other than a TURNING away from sin, i.e. a sincere and earnest desire PLUS effort to reform?
Putting everything together, because the Sabbath is binding on all mankind, and because we are told that “faith without works is dead”, and because we are all accountable for the light that we have, if you are convinced on the Sabbath issue, then it’s clear where you should take your stand.
The SDA Church does not teach that non-Sabbathkeepers will automatically disqualify for a visa to the Pearly Gates.
I think I’ve busted your word limit. My apologies - the blog I do have is very private so I don’t think I want to link to that
agaricus:
how then do you reconcile the teaching of the Investigative Judgment with the doctrine of Salvation by Faith alone? How do you reconcile the teaching of the Heavenly Sanctuary with the doctrine of the finished work of Christ Jesus in His atonement?
>The SDA Church does not teach that non-Sabbathkeepers will automatically disqualify for a visa to the Pearly Gates
Isn’t that a break from the SDA historical position which condemn all other denominations as being Sabbath breakers and therefore not truly Christian? After all, the historical position of SDA from Miller onwards is that all other denominations are apostate because they break the Sabbath.
First off:
Isaiah, I’d like to apologise in advance for the (inevitable) length of my reply to Daniel’s query. His is a question the answer to which will require me to go into some depth. I hope you will not regard me as a comment spammer. As I said in my previous answer, the blog I do have is a very private one and I don’t want to compromise my privacy by posting and cross-linking from there. I hope you understand that.
Daniel, You have raised several interesting points in your queries above. From what I can understand, there are essentially three questions:
1) The Investigative Judgment and Salvation by Grace;
2) The Heavenly Sanctuary and Christ’s perfect atonement; and
3) Apostasy within the church.
Questions 1 and 2 are related, as the doctrines of the Investgative Judgment (”IJ”) and Heavenly Sanctuary (”HS”) are inseparable from each other. Before I get around to answering your question directly, I will first explain to you what these SDA doctrines are, and how they are derived.
IJ essentially is a judgment of all who have ever claimed Christ, to separate true believers from mere professers. The IJ takes place in respect of every believer who has lived, and who is currently living, in this world - up to the close of probation. It is seen as the fulfilment of Old Testament typology in the sanctuary service. In particular, it is seen as the antitype of the Day of Atonement which was one of the most significant observances of the old Hebrew calendar.
Under the old covenant, the high priest would enter the Most Holy Place with the blood of an animal slain as a sin offering, and offer that blood in addition to sweet incense, to atone for the sins of the nation committed during the antecedent year. The blood of a sin offering, as I think you will agree, was a type which met its antitypical fulfilment in the blood of Christ, sacrificed upon the cross. That Christ is our High Priest may be found in the writings of Paul in Heb 7:25 - 27, and Heb 8: 1 & 2. In Heb 9, Paul writes further, in the context of the Day of Atonement, and states that Christ has “by his own blood… entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.” See also Heb 9:22 - 24. This parallels the function of the OT high priest, who entered the Most Holy Place both to make atonement for the sins of the nation (literal Israel), as well as to seek the pardon of God for all who believed. But there is something else. If you look at the observances enjoined upon the people for this day, it is plain that the people were called to repentance and confession of every sin. A period of fasting preceded the Day of Atonement in which the children of Israel were meant to confess all their sins before God, and ‘afflict their souls’ in preparation for the solemn event. Grave sentences were pronounced against those who would not come humbly before God.
In the same way, Christ our High Priest stands before the Father in the Most Holy Place of the tabernacle above, the one “true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man,” His blood the offering for sin, interceding for the sinner before the Heavenly Father. Just as the Israelites were to look by faith to the remission of sins through the shedding of animal blood, typifying the coming Messiah, so Christians are to look by faith to forgiveness of their sins and justification through the blood and merits of Christ. The parallel carries further: inasmuch as the Day of Atonement solemnly called the nation of Israel to repentance, so is spiritual Israel called also to repentance - and to bearing the fruit of repentance - before God. There can be no forgiveness without repentance. Therefore the IJ is as much about separating the tares from the wheat, as it is about wiping the slate clean for those who have truly repented, and cast themselves entirely upon the grace of Christ in accepting His salvation.
The next question is, does the Bible teach that there is actually a phase of judgment such as the IJ? My answer would be ‘yes’. Matt 13:30 - 50 makes it clear that a separation of true believers from mere professors must take place at the end. Matt 22:10 - 14 is another parable with a similar import. Furthermore, before God hands down a sentence or executes judgment, He always investigates the facts of the case, even though He already knows everything. First He searches hearts, then He rewards. Examples would be the manner in which the Lord dealt with Adam and Eve, and His conversation with Cain after the latter pretty much clobbered Abel to death; also in how the Lord “came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded” at Babel, and again in pronouncing judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah: “The Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.” Rev 2:23 is a reiteration of this pattern.
Taking a look at the parable of the wedding in Matt 22, notice how the king first took a look at the guests assembled, and cast out the one who did not come properly dressed, before the party started. Spiritual Israel is referred to very often in Scripture as being the ‘bride of Christ’. Hence the wedding parable can be interpreted as follows: Christ conducts an ‘inspection parade’ before He comes to take his Bride home (the wedding). Daniel 7 provides additional support for this view: see Dan 7:9 - 14. In those verses, it is clear that a judgment occurs before “dominion, and glory, and a kingdom” are given to Christ.
Putting all this together, what we have is a picture of Christ as Intercessor and High Priest, ministering for those who claim His name. Those who have trusted to His blood for their salvation, and have demonstrated a living faith in their works (faith without works is dead, remember), are adjudged righteous and their names entered into the Book of Life. Those who profess belief in Christ but who yet see no need of reform, or of obedience to the just claims of God’s law, fall short. The command of God is the same today as it was in the days of the children of Israel: obey, and live.
Coming directly now to your query: does the doctrine of an IJ conflict with that of salvation by faith alone? Well - that depends on what you mean by ‘faith alone’. If you mean a real, living, Spirit-filled faith that claims unceasingly the Perfect Sacrifce of Christ and throws itself entirely on His merits, and which evidences itself in loving submission and obedience to the laws of God and which bears the fruit of the Spirit, then my answer is that there is no conflict. God is simply ‘checking to see’ if your faith hath wrought with works, and if “by works was [your] faith made perfect.”
But if by ‘faith alone’ you are referring to a nminal belief that Christ is the Son of God, and that He died to take away my sin, but to which belief the life does not bear witness, then my answer is, “Thou believest… thou does well: the devils also believe, and tremble.”
I think the second part of your question, as regards the completeness of Christ’s atonement, may be answered in the following way. Heb 9:27 and 28 plainly state that there is a judgement. What is described therein as being ‘complete’ is the ACT of atonement, by way of sacrifice, in that Christ was “once offered to bear the sins of many”. It does not necessarily follow therefrom that the other aspect of atonement, viz. the high priestly aspect as alluded to repeatedly by Paul in his writings, is already complete or that such does not exist.
Now to your question regarding the SDA view of apostasy within the church.
Let me state for the record that I do not, and have not, ever looked down my nose at any non-SDA Christian as being an ‘apostate’. Apostasy occurs when you know something to be the truth, when you know that God demands XYZ of you, and you wilfully close your eyes to the light and wilfully continue ‘as you were’, thus denying the truth and grieving the Holy Spirit of God. That is Apostasy. You can be a Catholic, and be a perfectly sound Christian - as long as you are living up to all the light that you have. Similarly, you can be a Protestant - an Adventist even! - and a complete apostate because lip service, not heart service, is all that you’re willing to pay to God.
The Adventist view of apostasy in the church is simple. Any church that claims the Bible as the foundation of all its precept and doctrine, and yet which fails to teach, uphold, preach, and declare the Law of God as immutable, holy, just, and a transcript of His perfect character, and to exhort its members to do the same, and which fails to trust in the blood and merits of Christ as our only Surety, Mediator, Intercessor and Saviour; and which allows the teachings of men and tradition to supersede that which God has delivered in Holy Writ, or which teaches that grace and salvation are obtainable by works or purchase, or that there is any other way to the Father than through Christ, is an Apostate church.
In this light, looking at the 10 commandment law of God, and particularly at the Fourth commandment which enjoins upon Mankind the keeping of God’s Sabbath holy, if a church were to teach that the Sabbath has been ’set aside’, superseded by another day of the week, unnecessary of observance, irrelevant or that it has the authority to change God’s holy day of rest, or that it ‘does not matter which day you keep, as long as you keep one out of 7′, then that church has apostasized from the truth. Just as there can be no other foundation than that which God has laid for the church in Christ Jesus, and just as the Scriptures and all they contain are to be the sole rule of faith and practice, the Law of God is to be the sole standard by which the actions of man are judged. God has only one Law, and that Law is unchanging.
Let me put it this way: if you were to come across a church that taught that the commandment against graven images was a thing of the past, something under the ‘old dispensation’, wouldn’t that teaching strike you as apostate? Or if there was a church which taught that, say, honouring one’s parents was simply unnecessary, or that the need to do so had been overruled by the church, wouldn’t you immediately decry that church as being in a state of apostasy?
As far as I know, no Protestant denomination actually teaches that Sunday is THE Sabbath, or that Sunday is THE day of worship mandated by Scripture, or that the church has the authority to change the Law of God. Historically, however, there have been many leaders of mainline Protestant denominations who acknowledge that there is not one shred of Scripture that points to a change having been made in the law of God as regards the Sabbath. These admit that the Sabbath is Saturday - and not Sunday. Yet the churches they led still keep to Sunday as opposed to Saturday, and the justification given is that this is due to the ‘long tradition of the church’. Sadly, obedience to tradition - however long established - is not a substitute for obedience to the Law of God.
Which brings me back to what I was saying in my earlier comment: if one is given light on the Sabbath issue and is convinced as to the necessity of the Sabbath, and its continued claims upon humanity, then one is obliged to heed the call and obey. A church may, through the rejection of what it knows to be the plain truth, apostasize, but that does not make all its members inherent apostates: we are not saved (or condemned) by virtue of which church we belong to. It is the faith of the individual in Christ and His atonement, and their living by whatever light they have been given, that matters. People are saved (and lost) individually, not corporately.
As to the matter of Sabbathkeeping in the greater context of salvation, Adventists believe that the last great conflict in which people will have to choose once and for all whom they will serve, will be between obedience to an institution set up by God (i.e. the Sabbath) and the keeping of the commandments of man (in the form of a universal Sunday law). Without going into the specifics, we believe that the testing truth for the last days will see people either casting their lot fully on the LOrd’s side - or not. Before that happens, the truth about the Sabbath will already have gone out fully to the world, so that it is without excuse. Serving the Lord requires a ten out of ten commitment - not nine out of ten.
agaricus,
Quote - “If you mean a real, living, Spirit-filled faith that claims unceasingly the Perfect Sacrifce of Christ and throws itself entirely on His merits, and which evidences itself in loving submission and obedience to the laws of God and which bears the fruit of the Spirit, then my answer is that there is no conflict.”
Hi there.
I would like to interact with your thoughts, but I am preparing for my examinations. As such, I can only afford the time to write this … at least for now.
With regard to your definition of faith (that works), you wrote, “… and which evidences itself in loving submission and obedience to the laws of God.”
It is helpful to listen to what Luther has to say at this point:
“It seems a small matter to mingle the Law and Gospel, faith and works, but it creates more mischief than man’s brain can conceive. To mix Law and Gospel not only clouds the knowledge of grace, it cuts out Christ altogether. … This difference between the Law and the Gospel is the height of knowledge in Christendom. Every person and all persons who assume or glory in the name of Christian should know and be able to state this difference. If this ability is lacking, one cannot tell a Christian from a heathen or a Jew; of such supreme importance is this differentiation. This is why St. Paul so strongly insists on a clean-cut and proper differentiating of these two doctrines.” (Martin Luther, Sermon On Galatians, 1532).
Compare this with SDA Uriah Smith’s words concerning the Gospel:
“The whole object of Christ’s work for us is to bring us back to the law, that its righteousness may be fulfilled in us by our obedience, and that when we at last stand beside the law, which is the test of the judgment, we may appear as absolutely in harmony with it, as if we had never belonged to a sinful race who had trampled it in the dust.”
“There is a righteousness we must have, in order to see the kingdom of heaven, which is called ‘our righteousness’; and this righteousness comes from being in harmony with the law of God.”
There seems to be confusion in the area of justification and sanctification here.
Do you believe in forensic justification (imputed righteousness) or imparted righteousness?
Is Samson of the OT a saved man in your opinion? What “evidences” of “loving submission and obedience to the laws of God” can you furnish in view of his life as described in the OT?
agaricus:
I see that you believe in sortof ‘evangelicalized’ SDA beliefs. Interesting.
1) Regarding IJ and Justification by Faith Alone
&
2) Regaring the Heavenly Sanctuary
>Those who have trusted to His blood for their salvation, and have demonstrated a living faith in their works (faith without works is dead, remember), are adjudged righteous and their names entered into the Book of Life. Those who profess belief in Christ but who yet see no need of reform, or of obedience to the just claims of God’s law, fall short. The command of God is the same today as it was in the days of the children of Israel: obey, and live.
This here demonstrates a confusion between faith and works. Are you trying to say that faith must be demonstrated before a person can be saved? Is Salvation conditioned on a demonstration of faith? How about the dying thief on the Cross next to Jesus who believed in Him?
Also, to think that when the Bible in Mt. 13:30-50 teaches Investigative Judgment is wrong both exegetically and historically. Historically, that is NOT what is meant by the doctrine of Investigative Judgment. If you read up the history of SDA-ism, the doctrine of Investigative Judgment is linked to the fact that William Miller and Ellen White got it wrong when the date (in 1843) on which they ‘prophesied’ that Jesus would come back passed without the Second Coming actually occurring. Therefore, the doctrines of Investigative Judgment and the Heavenly Sanctuary were invented to explain away the failures of Miller’s prediction. Investigative Judgment historically meant that at that date which Miller predicted, Jesus decided to come spiritually to investigate the state of the Church in Judgment. And such a judgment was based upon the works of Christians, not upon faith at all.
Exegetically, that passage, and many others like it which you quoted, teaches us about God’s Judgment at the Second Coming of Christ, and therefore is about whether a person truly believes in Christ or not. Yes, there is works mentioned, yet works are mentioned not as meritorious towards salvation, but as evidences of salvation, a Scriptural teaching taught in such passages such as Rom. 4:2-5.
From what you have said so far, you seem to be confused about faith and works; justification and sanctification. Again, we are not talking about living the Christian life here, but the issue is whether faith alone apart from any consideration of works saves. Your answer seems to be no, for you have factored in works as being evidences of salvation without which you cannot be saved. Yet, Rom. 4:5 refutes your position entirely. Works are never considered for salvation at all, either a priori or a posteriori. As it is written, “The Just (Righteous) shall live by faith” (Rom. 1:17; Hab. 2:4). We are not saved by faith working itself in good works, but by faith alone apart from any prior or posterior consideration of good works.
Furthermore, if what my brother Vincent says that SDA is still teaching is correct; that “The whole object of Christ’s work for us is to bring us back to the law, that its righteousness may be fulfilled in us by our obedience”, then how do you explain the Scriptures when it is written
For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” (Gal. 3:10-11)
Note the words “rely on works of the law”, yet the SDA position seems to be Christ’s work is to bring us back to the Law. So how can this be?
With regards to the doctrine of the Heavenly Sanctuary, I think I will just quote from a book review I did which touches on this topic (http://www.angelfire/falcon/ddd_chc82/articles/thekingdomofthecults_review.html):
The doctrine of the “Sanctuary” is based on a literalistic reading of the Old Testament ceremonial rites and rituals into the New Testament book in general and Hebrews in particular. Instead of the correct interpretation which has been held for Christians for centuries that the book of Hebrews is an exercise in contrast between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, and that the New Covenant priesthood of Christ is something which denotes the atoning sacrifice of Christ only, the Adventists read the entire book backwards. Instead of reading the Old Testament in light of the New, they read the Old into the New Testament, even to the details of the heavenly “Holy Place” being distinct from the heavenly “Most High” place. This technique places the Adventists already on very shaky ground for their doctrines, since it is written that the earthly high priests of the Old Covenant on earth serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things (Heb. 8:5). We should interpret what is the copy of and the shadow of anything using what is said to be clear of that thing, and thus the Old Covenant should be interpreted according to the New Covenant, and not the other way around.
The Achilles’ heel of the Adventist’s doctrine of their “Sanctuary” lies in their artificial distinction of the ministry of Christ as being intercessor in the first part of His ministry in the “Holy Place” of the heavenly sanctuary, and then after 1844, begin his work of judgment in the “Investigative Judgment” in the “Most Holy” place. If such a distinction and differentiation is disproved, the doctrines of the “Sanctuary” and of the “Investigative Judgment” (which depends on the validity of the doctrine of the “Sanctuary”) would be proven to be in error.
The first most obvious point to note in the book of Hebrews is obviously the lack of any differentiation of “apartments” in the heavenly sanctuary. The nearest thing to different “apartments” can be seen in Heb. 9: 1-10. However, they only dealt with the earthly rituals of the priests under the Old Covenant, not that of Jesus of the New Covenant. If one goes down the text even further, we can see the passage which destroys the entire Adventists’ position:
But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation), He entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves, but by means of His own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. (Heb. 9:11-12. Bold added)
Earlier in the text, it can be seen that only the High Priest can enter the Most Holy Place and he does it by offering blood to atone for the his sins and the unintentional sins of others (v. 7). In the passage quoted above, Jesus is said to be the High Priest, and he entered into the holy places (plural), which could probably include the “Most Holy Place” if there is any. Most damaging to the Adventist position is that Jesus has offered His own blood, which do in fact signifies that He did entered the “Most Holy Place” apartment if it did existed as a separate entity. However, as we have seen before, the Scriptures do not make such an artificial distinction but instead just use the more generic term “holy places”, since Jesus went through both “holy places” in order to pay for the sins of His own. In fact, the fact that Jesus was said to secure an eternal redemption by His blood shows that the purpose of entering the holy places and the “Most Holy Place” in the heavenly tabernacle is linked to the doctrine of the Atonement.
I think I have already posted too much. So I will post this whole response as well as the rest at my blog. Please do feel free to come over and interact there.
Agaricus:
Please don’t worry about the length of your replies. On occasion, it’s necessary and I totally understand that.
My apologies for not replying directly to you yet; I don’t have a good solid grasp on what the SDA church believes, so I think it best for me to refrain from agreeing or disagreeing with your points until I have read up more.
God bless!
Agaricus:
I have responded to you in full in my blog post here (http://puritanreformed.blogspot.com/2008/05/response-to-agaricus-on-sda-ism.html). I don’t think it is good to hijack too much of Isaiah’ post for that also.
Thank you, Daniel.
Vincent,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on what I have written. As I understand it, you perceive an apparent contradiction between the established Protestant doctrine of justification by faith - which Adventists fully accept - and a working faith. The ground upon which you seem to have founded this conclusion is what Paul wrote in Galatians, and elsewhere, as regards the law and faith in the Christian’s experience.
To answer your question, it will be necessary to examine Paul’s writings on law and faith, particularly with regards to the way in which Paul used the term ‘law’ (nomos) in his epistles.
Paul used the term ‘law’ at least 110 times in his epistles, but not in a uniform way. Sometimes he used it to refer to the Mosaic (or ‘Ceremonial’) Law (eg Gal 4:21, Rom 7:22, 25; 1 Cor 9:9), to the OT in its entirety (1 Cor 14:21, Rom 3:19, 21), the will of God written in the heart of Gentiles (Rom 2:14-15), etc. Even his attitude towards the ‘law’ seemed to vary: in Eph 2:15, Paul speaks of the law as having been “abolished” by Christ, while in Romans 3:31 he explains that justification by faith does not overthrow the law, but rather “establishes” it. In Romans 7:6, he states that “now we are discharged from the law”, while a few verses later he writes that “the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good” (Rom 7:12).
So how is this apparent contradiction to be resolved? The explanation lies in the different contexts in which Paul speaks of the law. When he speaks of the law in the context of law-keeping as salvation, he clearly affirms that the same is of no avail to justify man before God (Rom 3:20). On the other hand, when Paul speaks of the law in the context of Christian conduct - sanctification: right living before God - he maintains the value and validity of God’s law (see Rom 7:12, 13:8-10, 1 Cor 7:19). An example would be when Paul speaks of the various forms of wickedness in 1 Tim 1:8-10, and explicitly affirms “now we know that the law is good”.
Central to Paul’s understanding of the law is the cross of Christ. From this perspective, he repudiates the law as the basis of justification, for “if justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose” - Gal 2:21. But the law is “spiritual, good, holy, just” (see Rom 7:12, 14, 16 and 1 Tim 1:8) because it exposes sin and reveals God’s ethical standards.
Where there is no law, there is no sin (Rom 5:13). As a sinner, man is incapable of keeping the Law of God perfectly in his own strength. Thus Paul states that Christ came, “in order that the just requirements of the law might be fulfilled in us” through the power of His Spirit (Rom 8:4). It is the Spirit of Christ, acting in the believer who, though a sinner, grasps through faith the hand of Christ, and, trusting entirely to the grace and merits of Christ’s redeeming blood, is made a “new creature” (cf 2 Cor 5:17) in Him, capable of perfect obedience to the Law of God. It was with this in mind that Paul admonished the Judaizing Gentile believers that “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God” - 1 Cor 7:19, which is “faith working through love” (Gal 5:6). Paul therefore equates the keeping of God’s commandments with a working faith, which is the fruit of a new life in Christ. The Christian, therefore, is under the law as a revelation of God’s standard for his life, and not under the Law qua vehicle of salvation. Paul therefore rejects the law as a method of salvation, whilst simultaneously upholding it as a binding standard for Christian conduct.
The second question which needs to be addressed at this point is the relevance of God’s law to the believer. Is the law repudiated? If so, has it been repudiated in whole or in part? Here again, it is necessary to realize that Paul made a distinction again between the Ceremonial Law, and the Law of God. It is common ground that the Ceremonial Law, best exemplified by the offering of animals as sin offerings, met its antitype in the crucifixion event. It met its fulfillment in the person of Christ, for the Ceremonial law was a “shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ”.
What about the “handwriting of ordinances” that was nailed to the Cross? Does this mean that the ten commandment Law instituted at Sinai, is likewise no longer binding on the believer?
Firstly, in the whole of the Epistle to the Colossians, the word ‘nomos’, meaning ‘law’, was never used at all. Not only that, but the whole significance of the law, which appears unavoidable for Paul when he presents his gospel, is conspicuously absent from this particular Epistle. To interpret Col 2:14 as having released Christians from the necessity of obedience to the Law of God detracts from the immediate argument of Colossians, which is designed to prove the fulness of God’s forgiveness. The utter obliteration of the Law of God would hardly provide Christians with the divine assurance of forgiveness: guilt is not removed by the destruction of a legal code: that would only leave mankind without principles, or a standard of life.
Rather, the word ‘handwriting’ used in Col 2:14 is cheirographon. Incidentally this word appears only once in the entire Scripture. According to Bible scholars, it is a word commonly used in apocalyptic literature and referring to the ‘record-book’ of sins, i.e. a certificate of sin-indebtedness. This interpretation is supported by the clause in Col 2:14, which states “this he has removed out of the middle”, in the original language. ‘The middle’ referred to the position occupied at the centre of an Hellenic court by an accusing witness. Thus in the context of Colossians, the accusing witness is the record book of sins, which God in Christ has erased and removed out of court. Talk about destroying evidence.
Paul’s use of this metaphor is a daring affirmation of the completeness of God’s forgiveness. Through Christ, God has “cancelled”, “set aside”, “nailed to the cross” the “handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way”. By so doing, God has also “spoiled principalities and powers”, these latter being the accusers of His saints. It is no longer possible for Satan and his associates to accuse those whom God has already forgiven.
In toto, what we have is a clear indication that the Law of God (i.e. the ten commandment law) has not been abrogated, ‘nailed to the cross’, set aside, or made null and void. Rather, as per Paul, it is for the believer to “establish the law” by rendering an obedience made perfect through faith, for “without faith it is impossible to please God”.
Scripture makes it plain that it is the business of those who would be accounted righteous, to obey the commandments of God. The wise man stated in Ecclesiastes that “the conclusion of the whole matter” is to “fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.” Rev 14:12 states plainly that the saints of God are “they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” Christ, speaking through the psalmist, Himself said, “I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.” Psalms 112 equates a righteous man as one who “feareth the Lord”, whose “heart is fixed” and “established”, “trusting in the Lord”, and that “delighteth greatly in His commandments.” Faith, yes - but a faith made lively and real in the outpouring of works in obedience to the Law of God.
In heeding the call of God to leave the land of his birth, and travel to a land which he knew not, neither did his fathers before him know, and which was promised to him, Abraham put his money where his faith was. He lived his faith and struck out on a journey, not knowing where he would end up - save that he was called of God. Would Abraham have been reckoned ‘righteous’ if he had simply said, ‘I believe You, God - but I’m comfortable where I am now’? Obedience, then as now, is the result of a real and abiding faith.
Coming back to your query - while it is faith that justifies and saves, that faith which simply pays lip service without bearing fruit in the life through works of obedience, is a dead faith. And it will not avail its holder. There is thus no contradiction between the doctrines of justification by faith, and the Adventist position that faith must be made manifest in works, as per James 2:20.
Turning now to your other question, which is whether our righteousness coming from being in harmony with the Law of God is a teaching that contradicts that of justification by faith.
Christ, “the Lord our Righteousness”, is the master of every Christian. If Christ is the Christian’s master, then as His disciple, the Christian must follow the teachings, example, and Law of Christ - which, Christ being God, is the Law of God. If we have fellowship with Christ, but do not do His works, and do not keep His Law, then well may it be said of us that “If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.”
Righteousness is therefore the result of a saving faith relationship with Christ, which empowers the believer to live in harmony with Christ’s Law, i.e. the Law of God. Just as it is of no avail to a person who has faith and yet does not put that faith to work, it will not avail a person to trust to the keeping of the law sans faith in Christ. God cannot justify the sinner, no matter how observant he is, without that sinner having faith in the blood of Christ. God cannot justify the man who seeks to rely on his own merits, and works in his own strength, instead of trusting in the merits of Christ, allowing the Spirit of Christ to work in him, “both to will and to do of His good pleasure.” Phillip. 2: 13 Hence there is no conflict between the doctrine of justification by faith, and the Adventist position that the keeping of God’s ten-commandment Law is still a binding necessity.
Finally, you also ask whether, in my opinion, Samson is a saved man.
All I know of Samson is what the Bible records of his deeds and sayings, which, truth be told, smack more of a 9th Century BC hooligan than a judge of God’s people. The Bible is completely silent as to what passed through Samson’s mind during the time of his imprisonment and enslavement by the Philistines, following Delilah’s betrayal and his subsequent capture. Inspiration has not recorded for us whether Samson ‘made right’ with God during those dark days; neither has it given any indication one way or another as to whether or not Samson did repent of his misdeeds and turn again to the Lord: the one prayer of Samson’s which is recorded in Judges 16:28 sheds no light as to the state of that man’s heart with God.
A better illustration would be to consider the thieves who were crucified at the same time as the Lord, to one of whom Christ said, “Verily I say unto you today, thou shalt be with Me in Paradise.” The inference that can be drawn from here is that this man, whoever he was, accepted Christ as his Saviour and repented utterly of his sins, or, as the saying goes, ‘made right’ with God. Consequently, he was forgiven and the promise of an eternity with Christ in the future was given to him by the Lord Himself.
Let’s imagine for a moment that instead of the thief having met Christ whilst dying on Golgotha, he instead met an apostle of Christ in, say - one of the back allies of Jerusalem, whilst in the pink of health, and with every prospect of a (reasonably) long life ahead. If in the back alley the thief repented of his sins and confessed Christ as his Saviour, the slate would be wiped clean from the point of acceptance back. But if, having once accepted Christ, he made no reformation in his life or actions and continued to pillage, rob, murder and do whatever it was 1st century AD thieves did, would this thief still stand justified before God?
Of such, well was it said by Peter that “if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.” 2 Pet 2:20-21 If the “dog is turned to his own vomit again, and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire,” where does that put it?
agaricus and Vincent:
would it be amenable to transfer the debate over to my site, and spare Isaiah? =D… haha
Ha ha, actually it doesn’t bother me. I am learning much from the debate.
Agaricus,
My answer on Daniel’s Blog.
dear Agaricus,
Just in case you missed it, my replies are here:
http://puritanreformed.blogspot.com/2008/05/response-to-agaricus-on-sda-ism.html
May you find the true gospel of Christ - the Christ-centred Gospel - and not a “sabbath-centred” works-righteousness.