I'm quite a bit more optimistic now that I've been away from the church for a couple of years. And I genuinely do feel as if history shows a movement towards the justice that MLK talked about. It isn't necessarily a form of justice (the ending of slavery, improved financial conditions at least in the U.S., universal suffrage, increased civil rights and opportunities for women and gays for example) that the church would recognize. One of the things that turned me off about the church's world view was to hear repeated every evangelistic series the supposed deteriation of the world. This idea, repeated in right wing political circles generally, implies or states outright a belief that the past was some kind of golden age. My reading of history didn't give me that idea. So I didn't find what the church was selling persuasive or consistent with reality.

On the other hand, I still carry a bit of the "pessimism" if it can be called that that I lived with in Adventism. If nothing else I feel it serves as a kind of realism that recognizes that things don't always get better in a progressively linear kind of way, and that sometimes things get worse before they get better.

While Adventism has had a dour outlook on life in the future, I doubt that anyone would care to return to centuries, or millennia in the past. What has often been called the "Good Old Days" was the distortion of nostalgia, often a child's remembrance when he had no worries and life was devoid of an adult's problems.

What are we, individuals, and collectively, doing to help the world a better place, if only for one or two? It is akin to passing by the poor beggar or homeless person and telling them not to worry, there will be "pie in the sky in the sweet by and by" when we will walk on streets of gold, have plenty to eat, and rejoin our loved ones, so don't worry today.

What a paradox of Adventism's teaching: It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better. What is our responsibility today to make things better? Should we take an active part in legal and social removal of ills? Should we feed the hungry and clothe the homeless? It seems that most of the "evangelistic funds" are used to simply tell people to be be patient, there will be a great time of trouble, but you will come out victorious at the end. We have it all down pat: we are the prophets of the future.

Instead, we are building schools, hospitals, food factories, orphanages, publishing houses and similar institutions. What’s more, when we can afford it, we build them in sturdy structures that will that will improve the lives of many for generations to come.

This makes sense only if we understand that the lasting theological contribution of premillennialism is not that everything is getting worse and worse but that they are not inevitably getting better and better. There is a big conceptual difference here, one that we should not overlook.

I have questions.

Hospitals in mission fields and at home, publishing houses, food factories etc. are part of our attempt of spreading a gospel which has always had a holistic vision which includes our health and what we eat- a message spread books printed by publishing houses. At Loma Linda this vision is especially apparent with Richard Hart's passion and creation of A.H.I. Our institutions have always been mission-oriented. Not only is life with Christ better, but it calls us to repentance- to leave our old life, habits and sin behind. And Adventism also reminds us that most people will reject this call.

Could some or all of what you attributed to premillennialism be attributed to the third angel's message and/or our attempt to spread the three angels message?

Dave,

Interesting article.

According to Grenz in the "Millenial Maze" p.149-152, Justin in the 2nd c. indicated adherents of premillennialism and amillennialism coexisted in the early church. After Augustine into the Protestant Reformation the accepted preference was the Ammil.position.

"This doctrine takes the 1,000 years out of the kind of time we know, making it refer to a different realm or form of life."--Dave

I believe the Amill. Position is a little more clear than you have presented Dave. The Ammil. Position with various nuances believes the “symbolic thousand years” is experienced in the present church age. The time between the Advents will be characterized by periods of a mixture between good and evil until the end. At the close of the present age as the church completes it’s mandate of evangelism the forces of evil coalesce in the appearance of antichrist. In the midst of a final intense persecution of the church, Christ will appear in the fullness of His glory. The final Judgement and the Eternal Kkingdom will be experienced at this unknown future time of the consummation of the age.

In some sense the Adventist Pre-Mill is similar only differing in a “thousand year heavenly millennium” commencing at the appearing of Christ rather than it being symbolic in the present age.

For me reality is, as I look at history and the rise and fall of nations, that no lasting peace is to be expected on Earth…and for the Christian we look for "another city and are but Sojourners here." None of this precludes positive efforts (within this macro-mindset) of attempting rational improvements in the present age. To me “over-optimism” is seated in not realizing mankind’s fallen condition thus leading to unrealistic expectations in the present age divorced from “reality.”

Perhaps Adventist are led to the position you describe by this EGW comment,

“These visitations are to become more and more frequent and disastrous. Destruction will be upon both man and beast. "The earth mourneth and fadeth away," "the haughty people . . . do languish. The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant." [ISA. 24:4, 5.] And then the great deceiver will persuade men that those who serve God are causing these evils. The class that have provoked the displeasure of Heaven will charge all their troubles upon those whose obedience to God's commandments is a perpetual reproof to transgressors. It will be declared that men are offending God by the violation of the Sunday-sabbath, that this sin has brought calamities which will not cease until Sunday observance shall be strictly enforced, and that those who present the claims of the fourth commandment, thus destroying reverence for Sunday, are troublers of the people, preventing their restoration to divine favor and TEMPORAL PROSPERITY… (emphasis supplied). Thus the accusation urged of old against the servant of God will be repeated, and upon grounds equally well established. "And it came to pass, when Ahab saw Elijah, that Ahab said unto him, Art thou he that troubleth Israel? And he answered, I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy father's house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord, and thou hast followed Baalim." [1 KINGS 18:17, 18.] As the wrath of the people shall be excited by false charges, they will pursue a course toward God's ambassadors very similar to that which apostate Israel pursued toward Elijah. GC.589-590.

Regards,
pat

PS. I added the source and page for scholar Grenz for the "possibly interested."

As i mentioned in my report on the AU conference on homosexuality, the attitude of some of the religious liberty directors present was that if our opposition to legalizing gay marriage leads to being vulnerable to Sunday laws, we'll just have to accept the consequences. Sort of a "bring it on" mindset.

While it's certainly hard to see things getting better and better at this particular time, as I look back on history, it does seem that God has gradually been changing the hearts of at least some people with regard to the kind of justice the OT prophets cried for: recognizing the value of those who are different from the privileged ones in society, such as women, racial minorities, and currently, gays and lesbians. Also opposition to war and helping those in poverty. Although this progress may not be even, or spread throughout society, it IS still progress. And maybe God will judge between those who embrace these changing attitudes and those who reject them.

Dave

Regardless of end-time views, fundamentalists are seen as gleeful calamity howlers. Thanks for trying to put it all in context. Certainly Christians shouldn't be part of the problem. The story of the man who fell among thieves is
a lesson for our times. Let us not walk by on the other side!

Betty and I are blessed with three great grandchildren, so when we hear on the evening news that 101 children have died from Swine Flu since April we feel the pain of a lot of households and pray for the lifting of this terrible pandemic. The distress of nations can and does get up close and personal.

The story of the Hinsdale San and the polio epidemic of the late 1940's that eventually created the Kettering Medical Complex is a posiive example of Christian action in a time of crisis.

Classmates of mine were boots on the ground during that epidemic. There was no vaccine in those days. They put themselves in harms way to serve a critical need. This generation needs that same kind of compassion and action from the entire Christian community. May it be so. Tom

Dave,
Thanks for the thoughtful writing - again.

Seems like there may be another dimension to SDA teaching that should factor into the discussion. Church theology is also rooted in the belief that while the "world" will continually get worse (as in the days of Noah) "God's chosen people" will draw closer to Him and attain an even higher state of perfection(within the last 25 years "by His grace" has been added). The real purpose behind the mission of Adventism then, is not to save the world and its inhabitants -but to save a rightous few that will survive the destruction of a filthy planet and the majority of its inhabitants.

The church's seperation from the "world" is much more subtle than in times past because many of the social and recreational prohibitions have softened. Of course, there are still the occasional sermons warning church members not to become too much like "them" in looks and behavior. But that's not where the real seperation exists, and that's not where the real threat to the church's survival resides.

In general SDA's (there are rare exceptions)are not know in their communities for serving on nonprofit boards, joining action groups, or otherwise sharing in the mission of local community organizations. They generally do not contribute financially to these causes either. The same is also true for national and international causes. SDA's are known for being good people doing good work, but on their own through their own organizations - and for contributing only to their own "church mission."

Is it because if the church didn't create and finance it's own humanitarian mission it would loose it's ability to evangelize in the process? If so, the theological roots are still firmly in place, and we really don't care as much about what happens to the world and most of it's population as we do about succeeding in getting a few of "them" to join "us."

I think it's possible that most former SDA's have left the church not because of social prohibitions, or silly spats that occur in every organization, but because they no longer feel alligned with the sepraratist attitude. If that's true, it means their personal theology has changed.

I'm not sure church leadership will ever identify this as a significant factor in poorer and poorer evangelistic results, or shrinking membership - particularly in North America. How could they? Who wants to be responsible for cutting off the roots?

glennspring, Elaine, Johnny, Pat,
Carrol, Tom and Bob

Thank you for your comments! I appreciate and am learning from each of them.

As happens so often in these exchanges, things become clearer and crispier for me as the discussion continues. Here is a summary of what I now think I am trying to say:

1. We SDAs are often viewed as very pessimistic about the future and this is at least partly because we ourselves have often left that impression.

2. As a matter of fact, the world is not getting worse in every respect for everybody and there is no reason to think that it ever will. In so far as premillennialism leaves this impression, it is in error.

3. As a matter of fact, the world is not getting better in every respect for everybody and there is no reason to think that it ever will. In so far as postmillennialism leaves this impression, it too is in error.

4. Human existence--past, present, and future--is always a mix of good and bad and, as we move into the future, we can expect both to increase because our technological innovations will intensify both our capacity to do good and our ability to do evil.

5. Much depends upon how we--all people, not only SDAs-- exercise the degree of freedom we possess. I don't think God will stop us from destroying our planet, whether swiftly in senseless nuclear exchanges or slowly by ecological degradation, if this is what we choose. But neither is there any divine plan that requires that we make these bad decisions. What happens tomorrow depends a great deal on what we choose today.

Thanks again!

Dave

An excellent and timely observation, Dr. Larson, thanks!

I've often heard, as Bob Hoffman says, that while the world will get worse, God's people will draw closer to him, which sounds reassuring.

A while back I reread that section in The Great Controversy that talks about God's people in the end times. During that time, according to Ellen White, there will be unimaginable persecution. "It is often the case that trouble is greater in anticipation than in reality; but this is not true of the crisis before us. The most vivid presentation cannot reach the magnitude of the ordeal." The best that can be said is "while persecuted and distressed… they will not be left to perish." God's spirit is withdrawn, and His people will be in agony, attacked directly by Satan, and wondering whether their sins are forgiven. "As Satan accuses the people of God on account of their sins, the Lord permits him to try them to the uttermost… As they review the past, their hopes sink; for in their whole lives they can see little good.… Though God's people will be surrounded by enemies who are bent upon their destruction, yet the anguish which they suffer is not a dread of persecution for the truth's sake; they fear that every sin has not been repented of…"

So the idea that in this terrible world situation, there will be a corresponding spiritual comfort for God's people, turns out not to be the case. There is nothing but agony ahead for us. In fact, if you look at the last chapter of The Great Controversy, it is only in the last four or five pages that there is a cessation of punishment, war, and threat. Given the book's long description of the agonies of life here on earth, which occupies most of 675 pages, i've always found the brief ending a bit of a let down.

It seems clear that there's not much comfort for us either societally or personally in our eschatology.

Loren

Loren, toss that book and look else where.

I could not help but chuckle when I read Loren's meditation and Dick's swift advice! If I were given a chance to moderate it a bit, my suggestion would not be to throw out the book but to read other things too, both by this author and by others. If nothing else, the paragraphs that Loren quotes tell us what EGW and her sources and assistants were thinking at the time.

I believe Adventist pessimism is quite real, especially as regards Adventist attitudes towards Roman Catholicism (refer to Bruinsma for an expanded treatment). Prophetic views forbid Adventists from rejoicing over the Church's embrace of religious liberty, implementation of the same in Catholic countries, and sincere apologies for past instances of persecution. Instead, Catholicism is only ever cast by Adventism as "a most dangerous foe to civil and religious liberty," all later evidence to the contrary. Prophetic views also forbid Adventists from rejoicing over the progress in Lutheran-Catholic dialogue that has led the Catholic Church to recognize the formula "by faith alone," and confess a common belief in justification by grace through faith alone with Protestants.

David, fair enough. It was a gut reaction, possibly a bit hasty. I like the idea of using a text as a window into a historic viewpoint.

Dick
No problem. I understood it as you describe and it gave me a good laugh!
Dave

Back in 2007 or so, Spectrum reviewed Bull & Lockhart's cultural study of Adventism, Seeking A Sanctuary. I'm currently reading it and think they did a good job -- as you also have -- with pointing out the relationships among the church's doctrines on salvation, separatism, and the state of man, church, and world. It was also useful to me to see that the church's positions on all of these issues has not run steady or homogeneous over time. We should probably expect that flux to continue: it does in all social groups.

Hugo,

"Catholic Church to recognize the formula "by faith alone," and confess a common belief in justification by grace through faith alone with Protestants."

Sorry my friend...their view has not changed since Trent.
Unfortunately many Protestants are not educated to ask the right questions and know the difference...including the Adventist's view to avoid JBF alone issues and the preference for the less controversial "salvation by grace alone."

regards,
pat

Pat,

Yes, the Church continues to maintain the teachings of the Council of Trent, with some development (for instance, recognizing the "by faith alone" formula). What modfern ecumenical dialogue has realized, however, is the fundamental agreement of traditional Catholic, Lutheran, and Methodist teachings on justification. Read the joint declarations; read Kung and Barth, etc.

Hi Pat!

Your response to Hugo made me aware of something I don't think I was clear about.

This is that it is possible to speak of "justification by faith [alone]" or "justification by grace alone" and that the second of these is less controversial.

Am I understanding you correctly? If so, I would appreciate reading more. I'm not trying to challenge you, only to learn.

Wouldn't we all say that it is God's grace that saves us, not our faith?

In your respoonse to Richard Hays I thought you were rightly trying not to divide God's grace and our faith but to make the first of these prior.

Regards [!]

Dave

Dave,

All is of Grace and God takes the initiative. It is Grace that leads to regeneration and repentance. It is Grace that illumines our minds to recognize and accept the merits of Christ alone for our justification "apart from works" by faith alone. It is Grace through the work of the indwelling Spirit that "cooperates with us" in active growing in inward holiness.

The SDA view put forth at the time of Wilson was to avoid that we are justified by faith alone in the merits of Christ alone apart from works... The Reformed view that we are "reckoned perfect" while yet sinners.

This would to "his mindset" rightly destroy the need for "inward perfection" so that Christ might come for a final generation so prevalant by many in the church of his time...and possiblty today. To many we must attain "perfection" in order to "vindicate God."

Interestingly the creature "becomes gracious to God" by proving he is just.

Justification is received by faith alone in the merits of Christ alone (an alien righteousness) according to the Reformers. He has reckoned perfect forever those who are " yet being made holy." Heb.10:14

Sanctification is not by the same "Means of faith alone" but also includes inward holiness in which we have a responsive and active part... but it is still of Grace because " the grace that brings us salvation also instructs us to say no to ungodliness and worldly passions." Sanctification remains incomplete in the present age as to the inward holiness of the believer.

As to "dividing the relationship of grace and faith"...no more than did Luther and Calvin. The Reformation would likely not take place today with the "seeming" majority of present Protestant understanding. That's "ok with me"...it is not an offense to me in other words... but, I suggest, it is to Christ.

regards,
pat

PS. Dave, I may have incorrectly titled Neil Wilson's article in Ministry (Was it salvation by Faith or Salvation by grace? perhaps, "salvation by grace, through faith alone in Jesus Christ" which is compatible with Trent)..but the "facts" are correct.

Pat

At the risk of prolonging this more than I should, I'm still seeking additional clarification. You write:

"All is of Grace and God takes the initiative. It is Grace that leads to regeneration and repentance. It is Grace that illumines our minds to recognize and accept the merits of Christ alone for our justification "apart from works" by faith alone. It is Grace through the work of the indwelling Spirit that "cooperates with us" in active growing in inward holiness."

Is it your understanding that official SDA theology denies some or all of this?

I have no problem with what is in the paragraph. But I would like to add in the name of human freedom that at every point we can successfully reject God's grace.

This is where I think there is a difference between SDAism [and the Wesleyan heritage more generally], and the Reformed tradition.

I don't take either the Reformers or Trent as the final authority. Trent might have got some things right and the Reformers might have got some things wrong, I presume.

Truth is truth where ever we find it and so is error, I beleive.

Thanks!

Dave

"I have no problem with what is in the paragraph. But I would like to add in the name of human freedom that at every point we can successfully reject God's grace."

How in your mind then Dave does that rejection relate to the difference/dividing of "faith and grace?"

" Is it your understanding that official SDA theology denies some or all of this?"

I don't recall the church ever having an official theology on JBF "alone". Do you?

Perhaps the closest thing was in the R&H, May,27,1976 entitled "Christ our Righteousness"... on "Righteousness by/of Faith" when used in scripture applies to Justification...not sanctification.

regards,
pat

PS. As I have often mentioned to Herb EGW in an effort to gain credibility or association speaks of "Justification by faith so clearly taught by Luther."GC.253...was she wrong?
Was she falsely implying SDA's should believe what Luther did on this topic?

Pat

I'm not getting it but that's OK.

I think I understand the debate between dividing and not dividing justification and sanctification and whether the expression "righteousness by faith" properly applies to both or only the first.

But that is as far as my understanding goes. I don't get the grace/faith issue. Someday, maybe?

Regards

Dave

Dave,
"I have no problem with what is in the paragraph. But I would like to add in the name of human freedom that at every point we can successfully reject God's grace."

Perhaps you missed my point.
You had previously questioned my position, "In your respoonse to Richard Hays I thought you were rightly trying not to divide God's grace and our faith but to make the first of these prior."

My point is that "faith in the faith" is a human responsibility and response to God's grace. If you are saying one can successfully reject God's grace, I am saying one has also "rejected the faith" by doing so...and both are possible.

Grace and the faith response are separate but two sides of the same coin resulting in salvation.

My Yorkie unkindly did not recognize the time change and did not realize he was to sleep an extra hour due to today's time change!:~) I am now about to go back to sleep!

regards,
pat

Pat

I understand you and agree when you write: "Grace and the faith response are separate but two sides of the same coin resulting in salvation."

I thought you were up pretty late/early! All the best!

Dave

Dave,

I was up late...then my yorkie that sleeps with us woke me up at 4:30 thinking it was time for his 5:30 A.M. walk.

While I went to Presb. RTS, I consider myself a "Calminian."
I have disagreements with "unconditional election and irresistable grace" of the TULIP. I recommend people start and understand the biblical supports however before criticizing it. A lot to appreciate in the process.

The complex interface between God's sovereignty and man's response, I suggest, can not be explained or fully understood by man...nor God's foreknowledge or "lack" thereof, the later..."lack", which I personally disagee with.

regards,
pat

Pat
I think John Wesley was a "Calminian" too. I think I'm more worried about the "L." Were it not for it, the "U" might be just fine. Your yorkie sounds like a devoted friend!
Dave

Hugo, Dave and those interested in JBF "alone" in Christ.

A recent article in Christianity Today may be of interest.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/november/10.19.html

regards,
pat

PS. Today's dialogues often require that "we parse words and phrases" that are "spinning" shall we say?

Dave,
I found the article by Wilson I had referred to above.

From an “Open Letter” from Neal Wilson, Ministry p.10-11, June 1979 on RBF.

http://www.ministrymagazine.org/archives/1979/MIN1979-06.pdf

"We are proposing that each member
and believer earnestly study the Bible
and the inspired writings of Ellen ;G.
White in order to understand better the
great truth of salvation by grace. We also
suggest that our teachers and ministers,
in their work and preaching, lift up Jesus
in Christ-centered messages that will fill
hearts with the assurance and joy of
salvation and inspire our people to share
the good news of His pardoning and
redeeming grace in. a great evangelistic
thrust.
We are requesting that we refrain from
involving ourselves in public presenta
tions of the fine points and the contro
versial aspects of the theology of right
eousness by faith."

Might I suggest that with his expoused view the Protestant Reformation would not have occurred or succeded. Some of us simply want the truth of the "difference presented" in the historic teaching of RBF presented by the Reformation and other views...and "we" suggest scripture.

Regards,
pat

The "practical" purpose of RBF "Alone."

"God Justifies the Ungodly"
by Charles Spurgeon reprinted in Ministry Mag.March,1981, pp.4-6.

http://www.ministrymagazine.org/archives/1981/MIN1981-03.pdf

regards,
pat