You ask unnecessary questions simply to point out that all of the lack of assurance in the SDA church is based on one of it "unique pillars" that Adventists alone taught almost from its inception.

There should not be the least doubt of why so few, especially older Adventists, have been so uncertain of their salvation. We have reaped what was sown, and sown officially by the church--who now is so concerned of the results. Having been taught this damnable doctrine since it inception, there should not be the slightest wonder why this is so. It may take several generations to eradicate it. EGW was repeatedly quoted that "we should never say that we are saved." Was she totally to blame, or was it those early advocates of uncertainty who dared not seem close to the "Once saved always saved" churches.

It may have driven more from It cannot be too often reapeated: It is a devilish doctrine; the Devil would love to have every Christian doubt his salvation. That it is still being taught cannot be assured, since who can be certain of what is still being taught in all the churches and schools with such a beginning.

There is a certain irony running through the lines of this article. In a world of uncertainty, counterfeit and camouflage, the ONLY way to be confident and assured of one's personal salvation is to know that all have been saved. But Christian doctrine continues to deny the truth of the gospel that the Creator saved all. We continue to peddle the lie that Jesus Christ as not the Savior of the world, as He claimed, but only the Chief Broker of Salvation. It is unfortunate that Jim Bursey is in the same place as those in whom he has expressed disappointment.

The beauty of salvation is that one's state does not depend on one's perception. However, one's experience does. The distrust that characterizes our Christian experience is an indication of a people who have not embraced the good news of the gospel.

One Race, Indivisible.

Ellen White as a little school girl was full of doubt, fear, and foeboding. She left an entire church feeling exactly the same way. pity. Tom

Donna

You are correct. But have you observed that almost the entire focus of SDA public evangelism is built upon fear?

Through my early teens, I lived in constant fear--I scanned the sky for that little black cloud out of fear not hope.

My dad, raised as a Methodist, was the mainstay of my sanity.

Certainly, church school and the academy were no help at all. Then the Week of Prayer--had I confessed the cookie eaten between meals and taken without permission or knowledge of my mother? Was sibling rivalry sin or growth?

Why in the world did girls have to wear such form fitting sweaters?

On Sabbath morning while milking the cows, why in the world, the the cow have to hit me in the face with a wet tail?

how much can a guy take?

Then the first thing in SS "Every thought, Every word, Every Act was written down! to be reviewed in 3-D technicolor.

"Now abideth faith, hope, and love, and the greatest of these is love" Never surfaced except as another obligation. Tom

I would note that Adventists are not the only ones who peddle in fear. Everyone who preaches of a hell where God must burn his human children/enemies is peddling in fear.

One Race, Indivisible.

To those who would be SAVED by their love,service,or commitment, My God is holier than your love,service or commitment and you yet will always need Grace.

To those who desire no Hell, then change the meaning of scripture as many have done...but it remains.

To those who say that hell is an everlasting burning, I say my God's hell is hotter than yours because His hell consumes the wicked.

"But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him." Rom.5:8,9.

regards,
pat

Keep on trucking . . . damming the SDA church and evangelists. Last night, my relative decided to get baptised after listening to 3ABN for years. When I asked if he wanted me to talk to a small church nondenominational pastor I know, he said "No!, I want to be a Seventh-day Adventist." He was brought up in the Dutch Reformed church and schools but never connected.

So, my friend is arranging a meeting with a local SDA pastor to introduce the two.

So, old SDAs . . . thanks for your work so far . . . us new SDAs will be happy to carry on. May your new home be as happy for you, as the SDA church and doctrines is for us.

Thanks for your past work,
Hopefully you can let go and move on . . .

Jody ;)

Jody, your comments here - and previously - are consistently arrogant and offensive. Your continual message is 'love it (as you understand what in the church is lovable) - or leave it'. In other words - 'my way or the highway'.

Your perspective on Adventism, presumably nurtured in 3ABN style doctrinal priorities, is certainly mainstream in many churches, but what predominately *is* within such an Adventist world-view does not equate, per se, to what *ought* to be.

Are you insecure, such that you want to circle the wagons around what you came into Adventism believing? If you could dictate it seems you would happily shut down uncomfortable conversation and show many people the door.

Anyone who is CERTAIN that God exists, CERTAIN of the resurrection, CERTAIN of their own salvation...

has a different meaning of CERTAIN than me

I can live with doubts.

I have faith and hope.

/Bevin

statrei
You are absolutely correct when you say that Jesus Christ was the Savior of the whole world. Yes, all have been saved, but not all choose to access this gift or even consider they have a chance to access the gift. I am simply trying to point out the irony of a generation (or more) of Adventists who can sing "Blessed assurance, Jesus is mine, Oh what a foretaste of glory divine" and then cannot tell you with any degree of hope that they can be, or are, saved at that very moment. I find it interesting that you are judging me as being in the same place as those in whom I am expressing dissapointment. I am not sure what you mean by that - perhaps you can expand upon that statment.
Jody
I don't consider that I am part of a "pity party". I am, however, part of a generation of Adventists who grew up secretly hoping that Jesus would not come in our lifetime or at least until we had grown up (thinking that it would be easier to be good when you were older!). Tom was right on when he referred to the Week of Prayer. Many of us ended the Week of Prayer with the full knowledge that we would never be right or ready for our probation to close. If you have never had this experience you are indeed fortunate to have been raised with a clearer understanding of your salvation. I am also not advocating "cheap grace" or "once saved, always saved". What I am trying to point out is that God surely must want us to have some calm assurance of our standing with him. If not, then large portions of the Bible are false. BTW, I am happy that your relative has chosen to be baptized. Any time someone makes a public committment to God it is a great thing.
bevin
We all have to live with doubts - that is not the issue. My issue is with those who doubt the assurance of their salvation while being able to quote John 3:16. There is no place for doubt, or uncertainty, in that verse.
Jim

I grew up in a small Southern town which had no skating rink, movie theater or bowling ally. The only entertainment on the weekends was attending church. And our town had a good variety to choose from. One Sunday, having nothing else to do, my girl friend and I decided to attend the local Baptist church as we had heard there was a lively revival meeting going on.

At the close of the service the call was made for anyone “not saved” to stand. Of course, I and my girl friend, being good little Adventists, stood up. Then the call was made to come forward and be “saved”. We remained standing in our place. The whole church then began pray for us and our salvation. We left the service that day, knowing we were not saved but quite confident we had witnessed for our faith.

Michael,
I was about 12 and in the 7th grade at the time. I had been baptized. I was well indoctrinated into SDA beliefs. I knew that we could not know for certain that we had "made it" until we walked through the pearly gates. For me to be assured of my salvation was heresy.

As the first writer in this line reminded readers - Adventists over the age of 50 - who were raised in the church and attended our schools - knew well the statement, "Never say that you are saved." What that meant was perpetual uncertainty as to our acceptance by God.

We were taught that should we die immediately after accepting Jesus - we stood a chance - but if our lives lingered - than we were obligated to perfect our characters so that we could stand without a mediator in the last days.

As a young adult, I discovered on my own that the NT would refer to "salvation" as a done deal - and when I read l John and saw the many references that said, "I write this so you will know... so that you can be sure... so that you can have confidence," I at last entered into that harbor of rest. However sharing this insight with my fellow church members - of my age - usually elicited a respond such as, "Yes, that that may be true, BUT..."

Donna is speaking specifically of people who have been "long in the church." As Tom and I and others who do have a long memory can attest, that WAS the prevalent teaching of Adventism: we could never be assured at any given moment of our salvation--it was always contingent on whether there were any unknown and unforgiven sins. This robbed us of any assurance. To say or infer that it wasn't the prevalent teaching of Adventism for many long years is to be ignorant of its history.

It is not what one may believe today, but the teaching to children and young people is never completely eradicated.

Good then
I can open up the question to more than Donna. That would be great to have more input.
So I'll ask the question again.
The idea being if everyone has assurance (read a guarantee they will be in heaven) who then are the tares Christ speaks of?

You can answer in terms of your understanding as youth or now if you want. Having your perceptions of both would be great.

Michael: Christ knows his own. We are not to judge now, or later, who are the tares or wheat. Why do we wish to usurp God's position; there was never a time that humans were designated as judges of the saved. Let God be God.

"Elaine has not described her concept of assurance."

This is MINE, and I do not worry about either myself, or others:

I leave it all in God's hands. I don't worry, and try to live by the Golden Rule, and by the Serenity Prayer:

"God grant me the serenity to accept what I cannot change;
Couarge to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference."

It could be called "sanctified senility"--too old to dance, too old to "swing," too old to carouse, gamble, or mind other people's business. Keeps me out of most troubles.

Jim, have you not read this text:

Hebrews 2:1 We must pay more careful attention, therefore, to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away.

Assurance?? You have not read the whole. We can lose it all, that is why this caution is given.

Of course Salvation's Assurance can allow space for Christian growth, but cockyness about it as I ran into with one Baptist lady: She claimed she could not be lost because God had dealt with her at 11 years of age when she was saved. She saw no need to apology for her obnoxious behavior toward me. Assurance or presumption????

Michael

Side step nothin! God knows the wheat from the tares.
and the wheat and the tares know who they are. It is just you and I don't know who else is a wheat or a tares. Judge not that ye be not judged.

There are weeds and there are false sheep. God can identify weeds and false sheep, we cannot. We can openly and freely accept God invitation of at-one-ment. That is a personal choice known to the individual and to God.

God says don't mess with His sheep or wheat and don't make decisions about who is which leave that taxonomy to Him alone!

Read the book of Jude. God and Satan each claim Moses. God wins.

The invitation is of the Lord and the judgment is of the Lord.
A person can only know whether or not they have accepted the invitation--people have no business in the judgment business.

If you don't know your relationship with God, I suggest you stop writing blogs until you do. Tom

Tom
Perhaps you should have read the question first.
Dont get all confused with who is a wheat and a tare. We already discussed that part.
In your last 2 posts you never even used the word assurance and the whole point was how you defined it. Still no definition. That IS sidestepping unless you just cant grasp the question. You might as well have given a weather report.
You also didnt define your little flowery phrase of "the assurance that He has grafted me into His kingdom" means exactly.

Michael

Sarcastic to the end eh? Further conversation is without merit. Tom

If you don't know your relationship with God, I suggest you stop writing blogs until you do. Tom

Posted by: Tom Zwemer | 03 September 2009 at 5:45

So does that make you the pot or the kettle Tom? Can you say sanc·ti·mo·ni·ous?

By Maggie:

Having been through the wars regarding the Bible and Adventism for decades, at length I think the Bible is not linear and cannot be reduced to pure logic. Wouldn't our busy minds love that, were it possible! Alas, I think not....

Currently, I think of the Bible as a kind of Rorschach ink blot test, an incredibly ingenious spiritual growth instrument, worthy of Whomever conceived and executed the creation of this unfathomable universe.

The Bible will have us out! It is a mirror!

We cannot speak a word about the Bible, and the God of the Bible, without speaking reams about ourselves and our relationship with ourselves and others...and, therefore, our upbringing and culture, it seems to me.

And, speaking of our upbringing and culture, I just read a chapter this morning entitled, “The Concept of the ‘Voice‘ and the Cycle of Child Abuse” in a book called Compassionate Child-Rearing by Robert Firestone.

http://tinyurl.com/mmetgk

In short, according to Firestone, virtually everyone on the planet has an unconscious, or semi-conscious, inner critical voice more or less constantly commenting on his or her behavior and worth as a person. This inner voice operates on a continuum in the population from ‘merely’ provoking low self-esteem to actively instigating suicidal behavior, depending on the person’s early nurturing experiences.

Not to invoke Freud as some sort of ultimate authority (and this is not to denigrate the reality of legitimate (as opposed to false) conscience, plus I am certainly not a professional), but I think there is deep truth in his statement:

The torments caused by the reproaches of conscience correspond precisely to a child’s fear of loss of love, a fear the place of which has been taken by the moral agency….

Earlier, on the George Knight pod cast thread The Apocalyptic Vision and the Neutering of Adventism (http://tinyurl.com/knp72e), I spoke of Philip Grevin’s book, Spare the Child: The Religious Roots of Punishment and the Psychological Impact of Physical Abuse, in which he makes a strong argument that we are, to our great social detriment, creating people with “apocalyptic impulses” through our misguided child-rearing practices.

http://tinyurl.com/m9nt9v

My point in all this is that despite any and all “theological and spiritual advantages” we as Adventists may have enjoyed, we have followed the cultural trend of shooting ourselves in the foot by our childrearing practices, and that with sterling intentions, I'm sure!

And we have gone even farther than that in that we have imported unhealthy nineteenth-century memes wholesale into the twentieth and twenty-first century, and have made it even harder to see clearly the results of this action by declaring sacrosanct those unexamined nineteenth-century memes.

The results have been tragic for a great many people, but I still have hope.

Adventism truly is blessed with resources of many kinds, not least of which is Spectrum

I still have hope.

Michael,

Either accepting or rejecting RBF "alone" in Christ is the basis of assurance or lack of it. If one "merely looks" at oneself or one's personal inherit righteousness one will become discouraged and lack assurance unless one is deluded.

If one is in Christ by faith alone, One was brought there by the Spirit. The One who brought us to belief and the "work of God that we are to believe/accept the one He has sent...will finish it." Jn.6:29; Phil.1:6; 1 Cor.1:8; Eph.1:13,14.

PS. Tares "should fear" because they have not believed and are not in His Perfect Love which is Christ. Jn.3:16.

regards,
pat

Pat and Michael

The wheat knows it is wheat. The tares knows it is tares but tries to look like wheat. Either man nor any corporate group of men can tell wheat from tares. That is why Jesus Christ/Lord of Lord is the chief harvester. Man is commanded to let the wheat and tares grow together until the harvest.

The harvester will know which bears fruit and which has not--see Matt. 25.

Both the wheat and the tares can give testimony as did Paul.
Only God in Christ knows which is honest.

There is no profit in challenging either wheat or tares to give testimony. By their fruits--in season Christ, shall know them.

Pat: Certainly RBF in Christ alone is the theme of the hymns I cited above. Imagine the SDA hymnal published in the 1980's carries such a cluster. One I didn't find was the hymn Peace Like a River. It can be found on the inter-net (Google) one selection carries the verse and the tune as well as the history. It is soul warming.

I know in whom I have believed and I am (fully) persuaded that He is able!" Tom

Tom,

In addition to your list, I like "Cover With His life" p.412.
There is a Fountain, p.336.

Pretty much says it all.

Blessings,
pat

By Maggie:

A bit more about what I said above:

"As Adventists, we can't even prove God exists, much less prove our doctrines and prophet are 'true' [much less prove that we are 'saved']. And, we can't soothe ourselves with good industrious works or dissociative religious experiences."

Just wanted to add that maybe it would be good if we could soothe ourselves with dissociative religious experiences.

From David Larson's article:

__________
Quote:

"The upshot of all this is that Taves favors Option 4, the judgment that dissociative religious experiences are 'natural' and 'religious or true.'

She holds that having such experiences is something like singing. Almost all human beings can both sing and have dissociative religious experiences; some have more talent for each than others; and support from companions and training from experts almost always helps even the least talented.

'In my view,' she writes, 'sympathy, suggestibility, and hypnotizability are better understood as abilities or capacities that can be discouraged or cultivated rather than as symptoms of mental weakness.

Most anthropologists and many psychiatrists would agree that the capacity to dissociate is a psychobiological capacity of the species, although like other human abilities not necessarily one that is evenly distributed throughout the population or over the lifespan of the individual.'”

http://ponderanew.typepad.com/blog/2009/08/david-r-larson--schuman-pavil...
__________

I find the following interesting in that regard:

__________
Quote:

Music and Trance
John J. Pilch, Ph.D.

Georgetown University, Washington, DC

In the light of this evidence, anthropologists agree that ASCs [altered states of consciousness] are universal human phenomena, experienced in at least one of a wide variety of forms by all human beings.

"Societies which do not utilize these states clearly are historical exceptions which need to be explained, rather than the vast majority of societies that do use these states" (Bourguignon 1976: 51).

The physician-anthropologist Arthur Kleinman (1988) offers an explanation for the West's deficiency in this matter, as one society, which not only does not use ASCs but frequently vehemently denies that they are of any value.

"Only the modern, secular West seems to have blocked individual's access to these otherwise pan-human dimensions of the self" (Kleinman 1988: 50).

What is the Western problem? The advent of modern science in about the seventeenth century disrupted the bio-psycho-spiritual unity of human consciousness that had existed until then (Price-Williams 1975: 87).

According to Kleinman, we have developed an "acquired consciousness," whereby we dissociate self and look at self "objectively."

Western culture socializes individuals to develop a metaself, a critical observer who monitors and comments on experience. The metaself does not allow the total absorption in lived experience, which is the very essence of highly focused ASCs.

The metaself stands in the way of unreflected, unmediated experience, which now becomes distanced.

This distancing renders the Western self vulnerable to pathology like borderline or narcissistic personality disorders which appear to be culture bound to the West (on culture bound syndromes, see Pilch 2000: 152).

http://www.musictherapyworld.de/modules/mmmagazine/showarticle.php?artic...
__________

Back to John Bursey's questions:

__________

"Why is it that many Seventh-day Adventists, in spite of their numerous theological advantages, lack the confidence that the apostle John so clearly espouses? How is it that one can have the “Truth” and yet be so unsure of one’s salvation and standing on the Day of Judgment?"
__________

Could it have something to do with the assertion that:

__________

"Western culture socializes individuals to develop a metaself, a critical observer who monitors and comments on experience. The metaself does not allow the total absorption in lived experience, which is the very essence of highly focused ASCs [altered states of consciousness].
__________

Or Freud's assertion:

__________

"The torments caused by the reproaches of conscience correspond precisely to a child’s fear of loss of love, a fear the place of which has been taken by the moral agency…."
__________

Does this sound like a fall from innocence? Being driven from the primordial Garden?

Maybe this Return to Innocence, this Righteousness by Faith (?) we seek involves letting go of this "metaself" this critical observer that monitors our every thought and action and does not allow absorption in lived experience?

Dare I suggest it involves letting go of this Accuser of the Brethren we have all introjected since childhood?

However would we keep our balance?

The upside of everyone experiencing dissociative religious states is that it might solve a thousand Ellen White problems by normalizing and democratizing her experience.

We would automatically know to exercise judgment around such material, instead of automatically privileging it, and wouldn't get caught up in life-and-death situations of justifying her every word, and could avoid more mundane skirmishes like the Ernie Knoll situation much more readily, it seems to me.

We would then be in a better position vis-a-vis the needs of the world, I think, being less focused saving our own hide, i.e., on avoiding the flames.

And we might feel better and raise happier children. :)

The story is being told around Augusta that a new pastor came to town and asked a young boy if the boy could tell him where the post office was located. The boy said, "Down two block, turn left and it is three block up. The pastor thanked the boy and added: "Come to church tonight and I'll show you the way to heaven." The little boy said: "No thanks, you can't even find the post office." Tom

They think God will love them when they are good enough, but what they think about God doesnt limit God or make what we think of him true. It merely reveals they have a bad picture of God.

**************************************************************

Michael,

What you are saying plays into the point of this article. Some people lack assurance because they have a bad picture of God. But, this article and others on this thread are making the point that traditional Adventist teaching has contributed significantly to such a picture for many.

A few years back, the then pastor of my local church brought in an elderly woman and her husband to give revival meetings called, "What Must I Do to be Saved." She came vetted and approved by many "churchmen," as it was stated. After the meetings began, it quickly became apparent to me that there were some real issues with her soteriology, and her picture of God..."If you get angry, it is a sin," was stated many times... "If you sin, your name is blotted out of the book of life, until you confess that sin..." it went on and on.

She distributed her book at the meetings, filled with SOP quotations to support her twisted theology and picture of a God who throws you out of the family over every misstep and sin, and accepts you back in once you come confessing. Dysfunctional families usually aren't that bad!

But the really sad part was that while some newer and sensitive souls were wounded by her presentatons, many long time members found nothing wrong with what she was saying!!! IOW, the kool-aid had been so much a part of their spiritual diet in Adventism for so long, that they had no problem swallowing another round.

We can't simply attribute the problem of assurance of salvation to the outlook of individuals when prominent wings of the organization have pushed such a perfectionistic, graceless picture of God for so long throughout our history. It has created a culture within Adventism that creates spiritual malformity, unhealthiness and disease. Unfortunately, an organization like Amazing Facts, which is today endorsed as a major Adventist outreach ministry, has sprung from such a compost...and such a picture of God (maybe not as extreme as the example above) can still be heard as part of their underlying theology/soteriology.

Is such a picture representative of all Adventist theology? Absolutely not. Is it still given voice, tolerated, even endorsed, and still doing damage within our ranks? Absolutely yes!

It is why I understand the passion of people like Tom, Pat and Bob Helm for the gospel of grace, as Paul puts it. It is why I share such a passion. Because it brings freedom from such spiritual bondage, and healing from such spiritual disease.

Thanks...

Frank

Michael
Christ didn't say that "I never knew you to wheat!" To wheat; He said, I have engraven you in the palm of my hands". Tom
Posted by: Tom Zwemer | 04 September 2009 at 1:55

From Christs perspective thats a true statement. But the assurance were are talking about had nothing to do with that. Assurance is a perspective. Some without assurance are wheat some without assurance are tares. THE POINT remains the same, some THINK they are wheat, think they have assurance and they are suprised when they find out they DONT. It is only logical that it works in reverse as well. Some think themselves tares and are actually wheat. It affects their perspective of their assurance not their reality.

Frank and Pat
I have been in the church a long time and the amount of people who are as Frank discribed the woman, I can count on 2 hands (I almost said 1 hand but that wouldnt have been enough.) and yet in some areas of the country it is considered the norm or the traditional position. I must be lucky that those I grew up around in terms of aquaintances and church leaders never gave me that perspective. When I did encounter a few they were identified as historic Adventists or as we called them the long pants under the long skirts ultra conservatives.
So perhaps our lables and discriptions change by what we have each experienced.

We often comment on Catholic teaching and how its members/believers are largely unversed in the bible and are told what to think, believe and do by the priests.
We often comment how that is somewhat less than a Christian is called to do/be.
How then is that any different for Adventists? Someone like this woman comes and depending on how complete the picture she relates is, she does good or damage.
Any condensed picture of God is by definition a characture. Thats why the most pleasing pictures of God (to most people) are preached by people like Billy Graham. Generic, superficial, simplistic but you know what else? No toes are ever stepped on.

The hard part of a twisted view of God is that each individual snippet is true in a correct perspective but an over emphasis of cautions on one side of the road tends to skew the whole picture.
Lets use your own example Frank where she said being angry is a sin. Is it?
Well actually it is or can be. Anger becomes sin when the angry one refuses to be pacified, holds a grudge, or keeps it all inside (Ephesians 4:26-27). Certainly we can identify a number of posters even here on spectrum who have exibited how long they have held grudges and are still angry about their pet issues.
So WHAT she says is often not the issue. It is that one aspect is hyperemphasised and skews the overall picture of God.
The reason many long time members found nothing wrong with what she was saying could be in part, that with their long experience and grasp of biblical concepts the knew the balancing points that gave perspective to the unbalanced presentation.

That also can partially explain why the newer and sensitive souls were wounded by her presentatons. The new members and sensitive souls, like the Catholic's, take whatever is said as a complete encapulation of the subject that tastes like cod liver oil.
Assumptions are made, but like the wheat growing in shallow ground, instead of acting as a Berean who examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. Acts 17:11, they simply wilt.
That is the damage of an unbalanced teaching and perspective. Sometimes even if one checks credentials and has reccommendations, things can still go terribly wrong and all we can do is hasten to the side of those who are not Bereans and support them while also presenting the balancing texts and perspective.

Lets use your own example Frank where she said being angry is a sin. Is it?
Well actually it is or can be. Anger becomes sin when the angry one refuses to be pacified, holds a grudge, or keeps it all inside (Ephesians 4:26-27). So WHAT she says is often not the issue.

**************************************************************

Hey Michael...

To just clarify this side point...she did not mean what Ephesians is saying, nor what Jesus says in the SM about harboring resentment...which is what he really means. She meant that the actual emotion of feeling angry is sin! I started to wonder what her own growing up experience and her own experience with anger must have been like.

So, in this case, WHAT she said WAS the issue.

**************************************************************

The reason many long time members found nothing wrong with what she was saying could be in part, that with their long experience and grasp of biblical concepts the knew the balancing points that gave perspective to the unbalanced presentation.

**************************************************************

Yes Michael...this could certainly be true. However, I'm willing to bet that there is some measure of truth to what I have said as well. When people are fed a steady diet of such unbalanced theology, it becomes normal for them. It becomes the lens through which they encounter the Scriptures, through which they evaluate what they hear... through which they see God and hear his voice.

All in all, it still seems that you are doing your best to discount that this is a running part and problem of Adventist "culture" at large. Maybe, like all of us, you speak from within the confines of your own personal experience. I join you in this phenomenon.:) However, too many people have recounted and continue to recount their war stories with this type of soteriology/theology to relegate this to some offshoot type of historic Adventism. A major media ministry like Amazing Facts, squarely in the forefront of the denomination's evangelism, finds its roots in the sinless perfectionism of its founder, Joe Crews. As someone else on this site once put it, Doug Bachelor seems to put a kinder, gentler face on the same theology.

I'm glad you didn't grow up in this kind of Adventism. I myself was certainly converted into this type of climate, by people who I know sincerly cared about me, but who still believed in this way and who transmitted such dysfunctional beliefs to me and others. Maybe it's not such a problem in the larger institutional churches...but it certainly has seemed to hold more sway in smaller congregations, which are probably more conservative by nature.

I agree with you that we all must continually search the Scriptures to get the full picture for ourselves. It's where my own journey has taken, and continues to take me. For those who have been indoctrinated into such a view, and who are still surrounded by it, it is a paradigm shift that presents its own set of challenges.

Thanks...

Frank

Could somebody tell me why we are so hung up about the need to be saved. If salvation is a gift from God why do we feel the need to appropriate it so badly? Is it because the idea gives us a sense of being in the in-group which in turn makes us feel superior to those who are not saved, the excluded. Some of us concentrate so much on being saved, or not, that we forget to start living. This life is the one we are decidedly cirtain of, if we live it to the best of its potential maybe we wouldn't have to worry about whether we are saved or not.

Good to hear from you Maggie!

Referring to what you posted above, I think that when you've been raised, identifying yourself within this SDA mega-story (or anybody else's mega story), it's difficult to experience anything as personal as a spiritual experience. It seems those experiences are more easily attained early in life and dissipate as we grow older. C.S. Lewis would certainly agree as he refers to them in all of his writings. What made me identify with him right from the beginning were these aesthetic experiences which he describes as a "memory of a memory" in SURPRISED BY JOY. He also bemoans the unfortunate fact that these moments are fleeting and seem to grow more rare as we grow older. It's as if the nitty-gritty of life squeezed them out. It's too bad if this "nitty-gritty" also includes, what should foster spirituality, namely one's religion.

My BIG peeve with Adventism is that it's extremely secular at its core. Feelings are met with suspicion as the life revolves around a great deal of activity. Reflection is recommended for "an hour a day" as one contemplates what must "be done" in this life of faith. The entire experience revolves around "holy activity". Even the primary motivation is to "walk the streets of gold and live in mansions" denied to us in this life - the proverbial pot of gold. God is seen as a "super man"; and, as J.B. Philips describes, "a resident policeman" always monitoring our activities and recording them in a book that is to be reviewed in a courtroom setting. All very secular.

Once this view of "a spiritual life" is rejected, we are left groping for meaning and that "memory of a memory".

...more importantly, keep sharing yourself!

"Yes there may be something nice about dancing around the fire until we pass out but ultimately it leaves us still hungering for something more substantial."

That's a good one, Ron, but it's so typical of male uneasiness with non-material aspects of experience - namely, the spiritual. There has got to be more to "being born again" (Jesus' words, not mine) than listening to third party experiences, taking notes, memorizing a few texts (in order) and voila, - rebirth - sort of like baptismal classes.

I don't know if you've ever had the experience where your entire paradigm shifts - and even that is too a mechanical phenomenon to attribute to the spiritual experiences some have - nothing to do with dancing around a fire, although that does sound pleasant enough.

Perhaps it's best left unexplained. If it were able to be categorized and pinpointed, the spiritual would no longer be spiritual. So it's best left as something that comes "like the wind that blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going...". It's an experience, unexplainable, but it leaves you in awe. Adventists, like the Hebrews, are uncomfortable with language like this. Everything has to make sense, to be rational, and, (above all else) practical. But hey, one can appreciate a good lecture every now and then.

By Maggie:

Keep the zingers a'comin' - love 'em! :)

I'll be back after I analyze the sheep's entrails....

By Maggie:

OK, I’ve read Jim Bursey’s interesting blog several more times and completed my sheep data analysis, and these are my tentative remarks (this may take a lot more sheep…).

First two paragraphs: Jim has taken the clash-of-the-armies story (and a great picture) and applied it to individuals, which is fine. There may someday be another blog lurking there somewhere, I don’t know.

Third paragraph: Adventists’ “plentiful provisions” (martial terms *starred*):

1. They pride themselves on possessing both theological and spiritual advantages.
2. They are confident, and appear to have every reason to be confident.
3. They consider themselves to be theologically superior and *invincible,* “like the French army.”
4. They are the real students of the Word.
5. They are *armed* with what they consider more accurate interpretations of Scripture/Eschatology.
6. They are further *fortified* with the unique gift of Ellen White & the Spirit of Prophecy.
7. Adventists have the Truth. (That’s from paragraph four--I cheated a little.)

Adventism sounds almost like an impregnable fortress!

For some reason Revelation 3 is coming to mind, but, as I said, that’s another blog….

Paragraph six: Jim gives several Scriptures meant to increase confidence. Maybe it’s just me, but with my SDA-structured brain, the first two just dig me in the despair hole ever deeper. How about you?

I John 3:19: “It is by our ACTIONS that we know we are living in the truth, so we will be CONFIDENT when we stand before the Lord.”

OK, so I had coffee with cream and sugar this morning, and that’s just the part I admit to being addicted to. (Her god is her belly…her end is….)

My ACTIONS are the very last thing that are going to make be feel confident before God, trust me.

I John 4:17: “And as we live in God, our LOVE grows more PERFECT. So we will not be afraid….”

Wait. Stop right there. I’m in deep, deep trouble. I don’t think I’m “avoiding or overlooking” these Scriptures, Jim! It’s just that, well…I’m doomed.

Paragraph seven: “1. Emphasis on avoiding, or overcoming sin.

“The breaking of a commandment does not obliterate our salvation.”

“Our salvation is never based on anything we have done or ever can do.”

“That does not mean however, that we will necessarily live a fully victorious Christian life.”

I could say a lot here, but I’m assuming an Adventist readership who are familiar with, and strong on, overcoming every "hereditary and cultivated tendency to evil."

Revelation 2: He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that OVERCOMETH will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that OVERCOMETH shall not be hurt of the second death.

That sounds “fully victorious” to me. Should we water this down just so we can feel better?

Paragraph eight: 2. The Investigative Judgment:

“There may be a change in emphasis of this doctrine, but for generations of Adventist students there was the HOPELESS FEAR….”

A change…since Glacier View?

A change since SDA Fundamental Belief #24 was posted on the current G.C. website?

The investigative judgment reveals to heavenly intelligences who among the dead are asleep in Christ and therefore, in Him, are deemed worthy to have part in the first resurrection. It also makes manifest who among the living are abiding in Christ, KEEPING THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD and the faith of Jesus, and in Him, therefore, are ready for translation into His everlasting kingdom.

http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html

“Hopeless fear” is still with us, built into our very STRUCTURE, it seems to me, parse is as you may. (Maybe this is why Chuck Scriven talks about "restructuring Adventism?")

Paragraph nine: 3. Our relationship to God:

“This text makes it clear that a servant does not share Jesus, or God’s confidence, but a friend does.”

This “friendship” seems morally incomprehensible to me. In any known universe, my friend is not going to burn me alive for deciding I no longer want to be friends.

Please understand, I consider you all my peers. I don’t mean to undermine your faith or pronounce you wrong in any way. I’m just being myself, for better or worse, and I honor your right to do the same.

I believe in the priesthood of all believers, or as Chuck Scriven put it, “The Brain Trust is all of us.”

But...if you want me to go away, I will, without a murmur. Say the word.

First two paragraphs: Jim has taken the clash-of-the-armies story (and a great picture) and applied it to individuals, which is fine. There may someday be another blog lurking there somewhere, I don’t know.

Posted by: Maggie (not verified) | 05 September 2009 at 7:10

------
Evangelical Christianity tends to do this, Maggie: translate collective ideas into individual ones. Perhaps the biggest shift for Western theology, philosophy, and social order has been an emphasis shift from the tribal collective to the lone wolf howling in the wind. Popular soteriology sends the messages, "Just for meeeee, just for meeee. Jesus came and did it just for me" and if I-singular confess with my-singular mouth, I-singular will be saved, singularly. Popular culture sends comparable messages about the individual.

As a result I see a disjunction between the message of singular salvation and the collective and ecclesial life of the saved. We have difficulty conceiving of ourselves not as a heap of organs but as members of one body because we no longer have the tribal-collective culture that makes such a metaphor and arrangement logical or even attractive.

What I'm drawn to is a more integral approach to these concepts -- the holy grail of interdependence, and knowing that one is both an individual and a part of something great and greater. Seems to me that God succeeds at something we struggle with: the ability to see and honor both individual agency and collective identity at the same time. My agency affects my experience and may also affect the experience of those around me, but never does it affect who we all are.

Maggie has the sharp, penetrating gaze that obliterates all the high-flown rhetoric and homes in on the absurdity and contradictory claims--claims from one text that makes meaningless another. IOW, the ability to see that the emperor has no clothes:
A child-like gift that is not seduced by the distorted vision of those who are unable to see because their sight and hearing has been partially blinded and deadened by constant repetition.

Wow. A lot to see, indeed, KM--really good stuff--thanks! More about all that later--low battery at this pizza place.

You know what they say, "The wolf pack eats venison. The lone wolf eats mice."

I might have a teensy-tinsey quibble with you, but hardly worthy of bringing up.

Speaking of quibble, Elaine, where is Dennis Hokama when you could use a good quibble?

Hey, guess who I just saw? Elder Folkenberg. He was giving a presentation on Share Him. I mostly kept my heart open and actually enjoyed it, personal teeth-grinding grievance notwithstanding. I could have lingered and brought it up to him, but...yawn...I think my statute of limitations ran out or something. Or...maybe I'm getting a little more loving in my old age, but...naw...mostly I'm just as insufferable (and doomed) as I've always been.

And speaking of naked emperors, I've come around a bit and think they may have, like, a Speedo on, or something. Who knew....?

Oh, and from the musty archives:

Anxiety About Salvation: Causes and Cures, by David Larson

http://spectrummagazine.org/files/archive/archive26-30/28-3larson.pdf

More about that later. Y'all are saying really interesting things--sooo much to talk about!

Jim, thanks for the yeasty blog! :)

Maggie, I'd be happy to talk with you further off-site.
Feel free to email me at kairoticword[at]gmail[dot]com

Once Saved Always Saved or OSAS, is a dangerous teaching of Evangelical Christians. They can declare to the minute when they were saved, but act and do as they please using that date as justification for their actions.

Paul depicts the salvation as a "fight", a "run" , a "battle". It is a cooperative effort with the King of kings. We are to be cautious about "drifting" away. If we can or could drift away, the assurance of Salvation should or must be understood differently than the standard Evangelical method.

We need Jesus death to save us from "Original Sin" inherited from Adam and Eve, and for empowerment for the day to day living until He comes and changes us in the twinkling of an eye.

Why are we so prone to throw out "Once saved, always saved" when it's only the "always saved" part that we object to? By throwing it ALL out, then we don't have to deal with the 'once saved' part, which is exactly where I'd like some SDA's to do some exploring.

1 John 5:13 “I write this to you who believe in the Son of God, so that you may know you have eternal life.”

Maybe there were some in John's day who believed in Jesus too, but also weren't sure about the ultimate salvation thing, too. He seems to be pretty adamant that eternal life for the believer is secure. Why can't we be, too?

KM, my quibble disappeared when I read over what you said again. :)

I do think your points are well-taken about "the holy grail of interdependence."

A liver can't really do "livering" without the rest of the body, can it?

For my part, I have to say that I think the "confidence problem" cannot be solved with our present view of God.

Harlen just said, "And you don't throw out family when they mess up."

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I can't help observing, you don't run out of grace for family members and burn them alive, either.

No loving family would ever burn family members alive for failing to love.

An inability to love is diagnostic of having been loved inadequately in early life.

I think our present understanding of God and our present parenting methods go hand-in-hand, and both are completely inadequate to create a healthy social milieu, and, in actuality, are creating the very situations we fancy God will have to burn billions of people alive to solve.

I believe that God is far more resourceful than that.

I can't prove that, of course, but I'm not interested in participating in a Kingdom founded on the greatest genocide the world has ever seen.

How can I "love His appearing," when that appearing means genocide, and, astonishingly, actually killing people twice?

As I said, I can't prove God is more resourceful than to have to resort to genocide, but still, I never have anxiety about God as I used to.

I'd far rather fall into God's hands than into the hands of His zealous "servants."

As Statrei says, "One race, indivisible."

Maggie has raised some very important questions: how can we teach of a God who will destroy and barbecue his children, and then turn around and tell our children that God loves them. If a parent's love is no better than that--how pathetic.

I also believe that one's idea of God as Father is projected into a parent's view of his children: if God is waiting to kill those who disobey, what a horrible picture for children. Is it any wonder that many children raised in such an environment either turn against all religion, or fill our prisons. Studies have shown that the far larger prison population is comprised of those who were physically punished: spanked or beaten as children.

If we are unable to present God as a loving parent, more loving than any human parent, how do we reconcile the OT stories that deliberately contradict such a position. Do we simply ignore those stories or focus on a NT Jesus. But then, when Jesus and God are presented a "one" that results in another dilemma. Who can resolve it. Alden Thompson tried in his book "Who's Afraid of the OT God" but only by removing the idea of an "inspired" story in the OT can such a position be honest. It must be admitted that it was only written by men who described a god they believed in; which is similar to other contemporary literature that was written by those who believed in gods, demons, devils and witches who ordered life.

After more than 2,000 years, where has a satisfactory and believable explanation been given for the one book that is believed by millions as the literal "Word of God."

Nine years ago a longtime (40+ yrs.) SDA missionary/evangelist/pastor named Jack Sequeira came to our church and gave a weekend seminar on his view of soteriology. His explanation helped me comprehend the plan of salvation in a new way.
It all has to do with understanding what was accomplished for humanity in the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Many of the issues raised here (and many difficult passages of Scripture) were explained: KM's point about our Western concept of the importance of the individual vs. the Eastern one of the group (the importance of understanding the Biblical idea of corporate identity or solidarity), Frank7's churchlady's view that one can lose salvation for some misstep or unconfessed sin, Harlen's comment on why we should adopt a 'family' vs. legal' approach.
Speaking of family, in fact, Jack's theology is virtually identical to that of W.W. Prescott, a gifted second-generation Adventist leader who wrote a pamphlet in 1895 called 'In Christ - the Divine-Human Family'.
Jack says our problem is that we are not understanding what Paul meant by that very phrase - 'in Christ'.
If you have some time and are open to a new approach, please take a look at Jack's website: www.jacksequeira.org especially the section entitled 'The Dynamics of the Everlasting Gospel'. I think if we get straight all that God has done for us, our assurance of salvation should no longer be an issue.
God bless

Maggie and Elaine,

What I continue to wait for, and what is continually missing even in poetic metaphor, is the practical alternative to the description of "destroying." Yes, I'm still waiting. So spare me the facile criticism, the "tired and trite" attacks; what is your solution? Elaine, please tell us how God could best honor free will, be a loving parent, and clean up this incredible mess.

There are far worse things than non-existence. Right now, for example, hundreds of thousands of children are being systematically raped and tortured. Right now, as you and I sit in front of our computer screens in a warm, safe environment. Even if it's an organic teleological exigency, "starting over" is imperative.

Hell is the end of suffering. No more loneliness and torture. No more psychic barbecues. Evil loses. Forever. Therein is a huge part of my hope and confidence.

We may validly question Who, When, and How, but not Why. The Why is before us every day. I've heard enough sanctimonious b.s. (babbling streams/biblical studies) to last a lifetime. All I need to do is open my eyes, read the papers, listen for the screams.

And until the screaming ends, indeed, I'll need more to satisfy me.

The earnest expectation of the creation waits for the manifestation of the sons of God.
--Romans 8:19

...“just when your hope for a new world is most intense, you engage the present world.

Just then you busy yourself, the best way you can, with the healing of the here-and-now.”
--Chuck Scriven

When will we begin to read the Bible as a work of ancient times rather than the impossibility of trying to interpret it in our understanding of today.

The ancients had numerous beliefs that we have discarded, or revised, according to our increased knowledge: we no longer believe there is a "dome" over the earth; that the sun revolves around the earth; that there are demons waiting to inhabit humans; that hell is a place of eternal torment. Those were common beliefs at the time the Bible was written, and agreed with contemporary thinking.

Originally, Sheol meant only the abode of the dead; the Greeks used "Hades" as the general home for the dead. The OT makes no direct reference to a postmortem Hell--or to a Heaven, for that matter. Both Heaven and Hell enter Jewish lore after the destruction of thne First Temple in 586 B.C. when they fell under the infuence of Persian dualism and Zoroatrianism. Borrorwing from this, the Jewish notion of Hell as fire-and-brimstone began to take root. Christians also borowed from this belief. It did not, however, originate with the first Christian writer, Paul, who only wrote that the "wages of sin is death" not eternal suffering.

The first significant Christian story of Hell is found in Luke who wrote of the parable of the rich man who pleads for deliverance from the "fire of torment, for I am in anguish in this flame." In Matthew, Christian Hell exists as sheer torture, and is reserved for the damned who will be cast "into the furnace of fire that was prepared for the Devil and his angels." Hell gets painted more vividly in the Book of Revelation where John describes the cosmic forces of good and evil and the unleashing of dragons, serpents, armies of sinister angels, plagues of locusts, earthquakes and hailstorms and Satan and his demons are responsible for the slaughter of two-thirds of mankind.

This Christian doctrine gradually developed during the two millennia since its birth, fueled mightily by the great epic by Dante of the "Inferno" where he vividly describes--not flames, but icy torment. Of more modern times, the classic of Jonathon Edwards' "Sinners in the Hands of and Angry God," established Hell more firmly in the American psyche.

From these various depictions, the church developed the doctrine of Purgatory and Limbo as interim steps to lessen the horrors of an immediate Hell.

The entire doctrine of Hell as an eternal punishment has its origin in Persian religious beliefs: adopted by the Jews and then, in turn, adopted and amplified by Christians--and magnified down through the centuries. Failure to realize that the original Hebrew Bible knew nothing of Hell as described in the NT, should give us pause in trying now, to explain its importance, if any, to the Christian.

Personally, I don't view grace as antithetical or inferior to justice. It's not God's Plan B. Grace is just, and isas transformative as "Let there be light."

the longer i live the more i see a universalist hope hinted at in the bible. hitler doesn't deserve heaven, but then again i don't deserve it either. does selection occur based on levels of sinfulness? and how does "choice" get defined when it is such a complex, involved, many-layered notion? grace, grace, grace! somehow the new beginning occurs when sin is extinguished in seeing God 'face-to-face'& God reconciles ALL.

pat,
reconciliation is indeed through Christ & you quote a marvelous passage, one that calls us to spread that good news. i worry in identifying anything of ours to make it 'effectual' i.e. our choice or our belief becomes a work of which we can boast. reconciliation 'through Christ' must be a much deeper divine reality. what is 'effectual belief' after all? something persons w/ brain dysfunctions can achieve? something someone deeply emotionally scarred can be open to? something i would have likely accomplished had i been born in a non-Christian family & culture? i want to keep God as the hero of this ultimate reconciliation, unlimited by my human limits. "For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Dlog/Pat/Elaine
I too have lately started to see universalist hope in the Bible. In fact there enough universalist texts in Scripture that we have groups of universalist Christians.
In Pat's recent post she quotes 2Cor5:19 which in fact says God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. Jesus Himself said that He came not to judge the world but to save it.(John 12:47). Paul said that Jesus was the savior of all men and especially of those who believe.(2Timothy 4:10). Strange statement - are there two classes of those who will be saved? Do those who don't believe in this life still have an opportunity to be saved?
I'm starting to wonder if Jesus' being 'born from above' talk was addressed to Nicodemus because he represented the priesthood. Are those that 'get it' in this life going to be the 'elect' or priesthood to help those in a later age to understand what Christ has done? (Rev 20:6) - much as Israel was and then the Christian church is now?
Perhaps, Elaine, the God of the OT who wiped out entire nations (to preserve His word and the coming Seed for humanity) is not finished with them and has some future reconciliation in store for all. After all, Jesus did say that it would be more bearable for Sodom (one of those OT places destroyed with 'eternal fire') on the day of judgment than for Capernaum (where He performed many miracles).

Excellent Pat.
John 3 speaks directly to the subject of man. It uses the reference HE and speaks of the actions, motivations and beliefs of a worthy disciple.
Whereas
"For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
is a beautiful passage but speaks only to the universality of Gods love for us not our eventual acceptance as individuals or in whole.

Elaine,

Was Christ unaware of the "love of God" which by the way is "in Christ Jesus" when he told his listeners of the necessity of belief in Him as the Messiah? Was he telling them to earn their salvation or receive that which was provided for them?

"And He was saying to them, “You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. 24 “I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins.”
Jn.8:23,24.

regards,
pat

Elaine,

I do not mean this in any pejorative manner. This veiw you have expressed is simply the "objective difference" between those taught and holding the "liberal historical critical method" and those who hold the "conservative" grammatical historical biblical method. The latter assumes the Spirit inspired nature of scripture and the harmony of the biblical writers revealing God's purposes as a thread though scripture.

Let all/each choose which they shall depend on.

regards,
pat

Pat, I recognize that each of us "reads" the Bible so that it will have meaning for us. The different interpretive forms categorize those variables, and it is good that we can appreciate the differences and learn from each other.

I think as Christians we can agree that Christ is not optional for salvation. The question is how God has chosen to impart the knowledge and acceptance of what Christ has done to humanity.

As DloG implied, there are texts in the NT that imply all will be saved.
I gave one earlier - 1Tim 4:10, God "is the Saviour of all men, specially of them that believe." How about [Jesus Christ] "is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2).
You will find others if you look on any universalist website.
Maybe there is more to it than having the opportunity to receive the Word and exercise faith in this age. Perhaps being 'born from above' refers only to those who accept Christ in this age. Perhaps entering the 'Kingdom of Heaven' (the millenial interlude?) means the same thing. After all, the final kingdom will not be in heaven but on this earth. I mentioned earlier that God is not done with some of those OT groups that to us He treated pretty harshly. (Matt. 11:24). Will they ultimately be part of the final kingdom?

I really struggle with the idea of how God is going to explain to those who are ultimately saved why others were not. As Beth said, there are so many variables involved. To us, much of what happens to many people seems so unfair. Maybe He won't have to.

Elaine is right in that there are many seemingly contradictory statements in the Bible and hence many different Christian positions and denominations.
God must have designed it that way on purpose.
He knows we are different (personality, culture, education, upbringing) and are drawn to Him in different ways. The way Scripture is written implies to me that He has taken the risk of confusion and friction among us to try to draw us all.
It also serves to encourage us to appreciate each other and to continue to explore and dig deeper.

I have a dear Calvinist friend whom I talk to frequently about human free will vs. God's sovereignty. Finally he said to me, 'You have your verses and I have mine.'
I don't yet accept that view and am still looking for some way to unify Scripture in some scheme that is humanly logical - sort of a counterpart to the elusive unified theory of physics but applied in a spiritual realm. Grandiose? I hope not. Impossible? Perhaps, as God's ways are above ours, but I think God wants us to keep trying. I believe that He wants to reveal more of Himself to us - to strengthen our faith and of course to share with others.

As I see it, Beth, people are free within bounds. This is part of the conflict between many electionists ('not free') and many free-willers ('free as a bird'). In acknowledging the sovereignty of God many electionists de-emphasize the dominion and responsibilities we were given. In acknowledging human creativity and intelligence many free-willers de-emphasize God's intention and the fact that scripture describes His purposes as always coming to fruit.

How long that fruitfulness takes is apparently not a concern for Him, and the consistent testimony of the Hebrews is that people align sooner or later. Our favorite books, Daniel and Revelation, argue that even arbitrary political empires follow God's game-plan. Whether under smooth circumstances or via traumatic ones, God's intents are actioned. The people leave Egypt more or less on schedule. It takes a donkey to embarrass a prophet into blessing. The right emperor comes to power and the right one falls. A certain baby is born to X woman at Y time. Sometimes we get to pick our route, and sometimes, from a temporal perspective, it appears that we've chosen poorly. We reap consequences and come to know good and evil.

I have found that my views on this issue have brought me tremendous peace and an increased ability to trust that God is for us, His promises are worthy, His work is restorative, and His counsel is coherent. Those are the gains that I share with people, and more and more people seem to need and want such reassurance. They want to be part of our upswing. We've all invested more than enough in the downswing. We've all lost enough.

We sense there is order in the universe and we are drawn towards resolution and healing. We also know that we have stumbled into this human story in medias res and it didn't start with our births. There's so much that's already been set up and that we have the honor and challenge of working into our own experience now. My sense is that we're responsible for that work and our role, but we're characters, not Authors, and the arc of the story is not ours to manipulate. I can only imagine how much more difficult my experience would be if I thought I was part of a flaky story.

"wisdom is vindicated by her deeds.”

Which is why universalism contains such commonsense: It is only by our actions that we can possibly be judged and when they are either out of harmony or in harmony with our beliefs, it will soon be discovered. All those who live by the Golden Rule and "love mercy and justice" whether they walk with a god they have been shown or refuse a god that is capricious and arbitrary, can only be determined by the Great Judge of All.

No doubt, there are millions who have rejected a god they have been told about, and why shouldn't they if he is a murderer, wishes to barbecue his children, and advises on proper slave ownership and invokes against favoritism among an owner's wives. How can this be refuted without undermining the Trinitarian concept.

"If they were in part cognizant of all it truly means they would love Jesus who died for their sins and repent."

This presupposes that they have been properly informed and presented with the incomparable love of Jesus. Who can verify that is being accomplished and how does that take into effect that one's heritage is the most important predictor of our choices. How easy it sounds, yet how difficult to present this to a Muslim with more than a thousand years' heritage. If "Jesus" is the only way in which humans can be saved, that effectively eliminates half the world population that will never hear a reputable story of Him. All the rest be damned--.

Elaine
You are certainly the master of the unsupported blanket statement.
Study Matt:5 and Luke 19:37-40

For someone who claims to know everything about the bible it suprises me how many times you ask questions that you should already know the answer.

Tom, the book by that title "Your God is Too Small" was most influential in my thinking. It is still most apt.