I've been looking forward to reading a report on this lecture... you did not disappoint!
Thank you!

This is good stuff. Thanks, Dave!

David Hamstra
apokalupto

Dave, thanks for the informative report.

Hays makes some points as he deals with symptoms of misdefined Christian key terms

"It contends that it is not our faith in Jesus Christ that most concerned the Apostle Paul but rather His faithfulness to us. This puts questions about God’s fairness (theodicy) more than inquiries about our salvation (soteriology) front and center in our understanding of Paul’s letters."

Did anyone apply the Acts 17:11 approach to the above???

This concern above is due to the simplistic application of 2 Cor 3:18.
The major challenge in Christianity is not having a proper view of God (though this is an issue) , it is rebellion, lack of loyalty or abiding. Humans, due to the fall, are deceived, law trashing, God hating rebellious criminals and even when they know what God is really like they maintain their autonomy. This is how Satan lost out. This is how many in churches will end up in the 2nd resurrection.

Theodicy is a major isssue to those who do not embrace God and also to those like Charles Templeton,(Billy Graham's former sidekick) who did not meditate on, or reconcile God's involvement and gift of freedom to created beings

"A willingness to be surprised, challenged, and transformed.
Hays emphasized the importance of reading the Bible with others who also approach it with a willingness to be transformed by the renewing of their minds. (Romans 12: 1 – 3) "

I contend that the definition of foundational terms >> "gospel , grace, and salvation "have been warped grossly in our time. Paul gave clues to the issue even in his time about the words, "gospel and grace".

Hays deals with the results/consequences of this. I am not sure he deals with the key terms.

When the word salvation is misdefined , then the other two words suffer the same fate.

SDA preachers are increasingly being wrongly influenced by these erroneous contemporary defintions...subtle as they may be.

Wonderful!

My view, heretical probably to most reading this blog, is that reading as a writer, (as one might learn in creative writing training) helps illuminate biblical truth---by which I mean truth, as opposed to mere facts. Because frankly, sometimes it's hard for me to read the Bible as a document of only unadulterated, literal facts (which is why I so disagree with what I've read of the speakers at the recent Andrews thingie).

But knowing that there are many kinds of truth contained, for example, in metaphor (heck, even Jesus used metaphor and parable, ie, fiction, to convey basic truth) can open a reader up to more levels or layers of truth. Although many readers are blessed when they read the Bible as a document of what they take to be literal, factual truth, I also think that's a limited (and therefore, ultimately, somewhat inaccurate) truth from what's contained there. Maybe that's enough. It's not, to me.

I am so glad to learn of this kind of presentation being given at LL. Wish I'd been there to hear it myself.

Thanks Dave L for the summary

"It contends that it is not our faith in Jesus Christ that most concerned the Apostle Paul but rather His faithfulness to us. This puts questions about God’s fairness (theodicy) more than inquiries about our salvation (soteriology) front and center in our understanding of Paul’s letters."

Which is more important in a successful marriage, the husband or the wife...or they but flip sides of the same coin not to be separated? Likewiswe,I suggest both theodicy and soteriology were equally important to Paul's message and justification by faith "alone" can not take place without both...thus Rom.3:21-26.

Righteousness and peace have kissed.

regards,
pat

Dave--

Thanks for taking the time to report.

I would like a better understanding of the case study regarding the objective and subjective genitives. Do you have time to be more specific?

Thanks in advance.

-- Tim

Johnny, David, Zane

Thank you for your encouragement!

Jim, poetry rocks [great name!] and Pat

I appreciate your reflecions on the work of Hays. I'm having the most difficulty following Jim's theme, however.

Tim

I'm at home now but when I get to the office I'll send you some material.

Meanwhile, Sigve Tonstad, a student of Hays who recently joined our faculty, published a paper in "Andrews University Seminary Studies," Spring 2002, Vol 40, No.1 37 - 59 titled "Pistis Xristou: Reading Paul in a New Paradigm."

It summarizes the discussion from Gerhard Kittel in 1906, who offered seven reasons for favoring the subjective genitive--the faithfulness of Jesus to us, rather than our faith in Jesus--to Hays in our time.

Hays does not wholly identify himself with the New Prespectives on Paul movement that began, apparently, with the work of E. P. Sanders which argues that the Judaism of Paul's day was no where as legalistic as we have often thought.

Sigve says that Hays position is "one of several new paradigms" on Paul.

I've asked Sigve to give us all an overview of N. T. scholarship on this and related issues for the last 25 years or so. He's agreed.

I gather from what he and other New Testament people are saying is that there is general agreement that we have long read Paul as though he was an early Martin Luther--or that Martin Luther was a late Paul--and that this has been helpful in some respects and unhelpful in others.

I'm interested in this because it might end for us our long debates about "righteousness by faith," an experssion that easily tempts us to focus on our faith--not by choosing sides but by moving in new directions, by switching paradigms.

Also, reading it as a subjective genitive connects in my mind with what I take to be one of the glorious themes of the First Testament: "God's steadfast endures forever!"

Thanks!

Dave

Dave,
"It summarizes the discussion from Gerhard Kittel in 1906, who offered seven reasons for favoring the subjective genitive--the faithfulness of Jesus to us, rather than our faith in Jesus--to Hays in our time."

Yes the debate is over weather Rev.14:12 is in the subjective or objective genitive.

I suggest that neither opposes the concept concerning "the object of our faith" as being worthy. So indeed it is the "faithfulness of Christ" that we have "faith in." True faith is having "faith in the faith" concerning the redemptive work of Christ which includes the atonement at the cross AND His faithful keeping.

Concerning the "faithfulness" of Christ/God to those who have come "to faith in Christ" consider... "because our testimony about Christ was confirmed in you. 7 Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed. 8 He will keep you strong to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 God, who has called you into fellowship with his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, is faithful." 1 Cor.1:6-9.

Regards,
pat

Hummm, good reporting?

You forgot to cover Richard Hays view on homosexuality which was interesting -- especially when asked "if you could change your views on homosexuality that appear in your book, what would be your thoughts today?"

Since this is a dominant theme on Spectrum, you might have mentioned his discussion on the topic.

Richard Hays views have become even stronger with the "multi-choice sin of our culture" accounting for the growth in this type of behavior in his opinion.

Jody

thank you, Jody, for that input. I have Hays book - and was aware of his conservative views and was wondering if he had changed in any way. I assume you were at the meeting.

Jody and Donna,

Perhaps this summary of Hay's thinking is what you were referring to.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/143/story_14380_1.html

regards,
pat

Jody

The reason I didn't mention Hays' views on homosexuality is that I didn't see the need for yet another thread on this subject.

Even now, because you've brought it up and I've responded, I fear that this discussion will shift from Hays's methodological contributions to his substantive views on homosexuality.

Also, homosexuality was not one of the topics that he chose as a "case study" in Biblical interpretation for this conference.

I actually think that his discussion of abortion in his book is more illustrative of the ability of his method to address old issues in new ways that prove exceedingly helpful.

Yet I admired the conviction and humility with which Hays answered Henry Lamberton's question to him on homosexuality at the conference. And I agree with him--Hays--that sexual orientations are less fixed than some might think.

All of us are changing all the time, albeit in varying directions, degrees and speeds. The only thing that never changes is change itself. Even God changes in some respects, though not in others.

Many thanks!

Dave

Pat

You are right: the objective/subjective genitive discussion occurs with respect to both "Revelation" and "Romans." My impression is that Hays has focused more on the second of these. But I could be wrong about this [and other things too!].

Sigve Tonstad has done a lot of impressive work on Revelation. If you haven't done so already, I think you'd enjoy reading his book.

Thanks for the link and its excerpt from Hays' book. Here are the lines from him that I find most helpful.

"The Bible hardly ever discusses homosexual behavior. There are perhaps half a dozen brief references to it in all of Scripture. In terms of emphasis, it is a minor concern-in contrast, for example, to economic injustice."

Perhaps this from Hays will help us keep things in perspective.

Thanks again!

Dave

Thanks for the clarification and link to the article. It was an interesting conference. I hope there are more in the future with conservative biblical scholars. I have had liberal overdose ;)

The LLUC Creation Conference was also very interesting. I notice a Spectrum reporter in the back of the church taking enthusiastic, extensive notes with twice or three times circled or bold-marked boxes around some parts of the notes, so I imagine the weekend's events will get the typical Spectrum "rebuttal."

As a new Adventist, I have never seen so much splinter-type activities in any church. It is proof to me that Satan is astir with Adventist movements. I like to keep up with splinters so that I can talk with some knowledge to other babes in the faith. They may stumble when meeting Spectrum, so I hope to be helpful to the fallen. My opinion . . .

Jody ;)

Nice to see LLU engaging with religious scholars outside of the church.

glennspring

I agree. We at Loma Linda have long been in interaction with people in bioethics and, at least in yesteryear, American church history. But with the arrival of Sigve Tonstad, we are getting a chance to interact with first-rate Biblical scholars from walks of life other than SDAism. Great!

My goal is to share with others what is going on here by becoming a bit of a reporter.

Jody

I didn't make it to the creation conference, thinking that it was probably similar to others that have been held at Loma Linda. But Cliff Goldstein from the "Adventist Review" did stop by the office and we had a good conversation. He's a bundle of energy!

I admire the Geoscience Research Institute for not being content to put religion and science in totally separate spheres; however, I also think it helpful to keep in mind Hays'comments that the Bible writers weren't trying to do science as we understand it.

Turning to Scripture for geological facts strikes me as akin to attempting to learn about the American Civil War from cook books.

We need to understand the issues the Bible writers were addressing and then apply the principles they developed in their interactions to our lives.

I'm intereted in your comment that SDAism has many splinter groups. My impression is that elsewhere we have two other alternatives.

One of these would be those big denominations in which doctrinal matters are almost irrelevant. Hays' quotation from Stanley Hauerwas that in his denomination the only thing people believe in common is that "God is nice and we should be too" is hyperbolic [as are may things from Hauwerwas!]; however, it does point to something real.

On the other hand, there are congregations that are pretty much on their own, doctrinally and otherwise. So, people who have other views drift to other congregations or form new ones of their own.

Neither of these being available to SDAism, we develop different schools of thought and experience within the one denomination. I have no problem with this providing that in the end we remember we are all in the same community of faith.

I think it similar to our political situation in the United States today. It's fine to have Democrats and Republicans and Independents and so forth, providing we keep in mind that we are all Americans.

I think there is another dynamnic as well. This is that some of us who grew up as SDAs are still very angry about the overly strict ways and narrow thinking we sometimes experienced and our discontent constantly oozes from us. I think that this is immature. Any time now it would be OK for us to become adults!

I'm an American and an Adventist. Both my nation and my church have made many mistakes. But so have all the others!

We can't undo the past, only do the best we can now with the realization that subsequent generations will see our shortcomings more clearly than we do.

Thanks for writing!

Dave

Talking about engaging religious scholars outside the church.....

Is the following statement true?

"We don't keep sabbath to be saved. We keep sabbath because we are saved."

Talking about engaging religious scholars outside the church.....

Is the following statement true?

"We don't keep sabbath to be saved. We keep sabbath because we are saved."

Jim,

Perhaps within the SDA community it might be better stated:

"'Some' don't keep the sabbath to be saved...'some' keep the sabbath as being important to the saved."

regards,
pat

This is that some of us who grew up as SDAs are still very angry about the overly strict ways and narrow thinking we sometimes experienced and our discontent constantly oozes from us. I think that this is immature. Any time now it would be OK for us to become adults!

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

Dave...

I didn't grow up as an Adventist. But I came into a leaglistic/fundamentalist congregation in my early experience. I just didn't realize it at the time. The people were nice and caring, but nevertheless, a sense of uncertainty about salvation was always present because the cuture always emphasized such. Salvation was always connected to reaching a level of consecration in order to be safe to be saved. I now realize that this is a toxic gospel of performance, something that was spiritually and emotionally damaging to me. The damage can be seen in the "war stories" that people tell who were raised in such an environment.

I would agree that immaturity is an issue if one wallows in anger over being raised in a church culture as this. There is a time when people must move on. I would heartily disagree if you are implying that a stage and degree of anger is evidence of immaturity or is inappropriate.

People who come to such realizations later in their lives and experiences need to grieve out such spiritual abuse...for that is what this is. And the grieving process includes anger. It is all part of a healthy recovery from a past that was twisted or robbed. Only after processing one's anger, can peace with the past be made, and a healthy perspective gained. Otherwise, denial rules the day.

The key is not staying stuck in anger. But must it sometimes be revisited? Maybe it depends on how severe the initial trauma was. And that is what this was for some who grew up Adventist...trauma. Maybe not for you, thankfully.

This site seems to be a magnet for those with such issues. I have been able to get out some of my own frustrations here, realizing that this is a safe place for this. I've also had to deal with some of these issues through other means that God has provided.

May healing be found for all!

Thanks...

Frank

"'Some' don't keep the sabbath to be saved...'some' keep the sabbath as being important to the saved."

If those who believe that keeping the sabbath as being important to be saved, how does that differ from keeping it to BE saved? Either way, sabbath observance is important to salvation given that premise.

All the proponents for Sabbath observance derive its importance as it was perpetuated by Judaism, and still is seen today in the very Orthodox Jews. For them, proper Sabbath observance must be regulated constantly to adjust to modern conveniences: elevators, microwaves, and more.

Adventists have "adjusted" the requirements for proper Sabbath observance through the years: no longer is it a test of fellowship (at least in most quarters) if one showers during Sabbath hours, or even if one eats "out" (with SDA convocations tickets should be purchased the day before), but Sabbath is still the most important of all SDA's belief--which is prominently advertised in its name.

In spite of SDAs claim to being "Christian" their major distinctive doctrines are found ONLY in the Hebrew Bible, as Loren Siebold has eloquently written. To date, there is no SDA scholar who has shown that the 4th commandment was ever given to the new Christian believers in all the NT writings after Pentecost. It was only after Pentecost with the arrival of the Holy Spirit giving approval to "all nations" acceptance into the early church, that questions arose with the Jewish believers regarding requirements that the gentiles also adopt Jewish customs. The apostles were crystal clear that the gentiles were NOT to be required to observe Jewish customs.

Yet, the new Adventist believers, reading from the OT, found the 4th commandment and decided it was to be observed and all other Christians were violating that one. Overlooking the NT instruction to the gentiles, they made the decision not only to begin observing the 7th day, but also labeling all other Christians as harlots of Babylon for refusing to also obey the Jewish laws.

Even today, the Sabbath is seen as the "testing truth" as many evangelists have promoted. When all other Christians who are observing another day are seen as rejecting salvation and headed toward Hell, I agree with Tom's ancestors who preferred Hell!

"If those who believe that keeping the sabbath as being important to be saved, how does that differ from keeping it to BE saved? Either way, sabbath observance is important to salvation given that premise."

Elaine you have changed my statement from "some" to "those."

My argument is this. There are "some" Adventist that keep the sabbath to be saved and are legalist. There are "some" Adventist that keep the sabbath because "they feel" it is important for the "saved" and that is their christian priviledge. Rom.14:1-6.

There are "some" Presbyterians who keep the "Sunday sabbath/transference day" because they appreciate "creation sabbath and 4th commandment" motifs and that is their priviledge. There are those who celebrate the "Lord's day as Sunday, the resurrection of our Lord" and I believe that is their priviledge. Let each be fully convinced and nourished by a plausible day of worship for "gentile" Christians.

Who are we to judge anothers servant...it cuts "both" ways. Saturday Sabbath, Sunday Sabbath, or "Sunday Lord's Day."

That, I suggest, would be Paul's view.

regards,
pat

Pat, go back and read you statement. It was a direct copy which I pasted on my post.

My second sentence was mine, and I didn't attribute it to you. You merely copied MY sentence and I take credit, or blame for it. The "those" was my statement, not yours, nor did I say it was yours.

I do agree with you that it should not be made a test for Christians and that each should be fully convinced in his own mind.

Elaine,

"'Some' don't keep the sabbath to be saved...'some' keep the sabbath as being important to the saved."...Mine

If those who believe that keeping the sabbath as being important (to be) saved, how does that differ from keeping it to BE saved? Either way, sabbath observance is important to salvation given that premise."...Yours

Same?

regards,
pat

Pat, it's not that important. My objection to the sabbath has been the traditional SDA explanation that one cannot reject the sabbath, after hearing it, and be saved.

Your memories may not be mine, as many here have experienced different explanations. I can only reflect what I have personally experienced. Some have expressed that sabbath was not given the same prominence everywhere.

Elaine,

My husband has the same observation. His Adventist experience reflected the strong teaching that one either kept the Sabbath or went to hell. "Sundaykeepers" were doomed, the enemy, deceived by the Devil, dangerous, and outright deceivers headed in the WRONG direction on the wide path to destruction.

No bicycles, swimming, baths, cooking, or fun, please, but read the Review, maybe a nap's okay, and by all means no helping your neighbor with anything that might "break" the Sabbath. You could go to a nursing home and sing. Take a walk. Go to a zoo (none for hundreds of miles). Go to the beach (none for thousands of miles). Sundown worship marked a moment of celebration for now they could have fun! Legally. And not feel as if they, too, were going to hell.

It was the Great Measuring Stick of Right and Wrong, the way you could judge whether someone had The Truth or not. Whether someone truly had studied the Scriptures. It was a mark of acceptance into the Lord's fold. The assurance that you were going to heaven. Because you kept the RIGHT day. You knew how it all got changed. You repeated the Fourth Commandment at sundown worship. Sang "Don't Forget the Sabbath." Lit candles even. Seven of them.

Is this anyone else's traditional understanding of the Sabbath?

When are we going to have a real, discussion about this? How about a week-long conference on Sabbath??? A book. Some open discussions. How about some refreshing new concepts?

We are not alone! Those who have been long-time SDAs (50+ years or more) were most likely taught that such infractions on sabbath were the worst of sins. To attempt to explain away such doctrines that were taught in the church, school, and home cannot be denied.

It is this sabbath doctrine, the ultimate identification for Adventism, that has been met with resistance by the majority of the Christian world, and rightfully so. To adopt any doctrine in perpetuity, especially when right out of the Jewish Torah and Talmud, can not be claimed as Christian beliefs; they simply cannot be proved from the NT, which is the Christian Bible!

Elaine,

I don't disagree with "some" of your conclusions but that is why I carefully worded it as I did. I think we have departed from the intent of this strand. I was just initially answering(making a comment "of suggested refinement")Jim Roberts' statement, "We don't keep sabbath to be saved. We keep sabbath because we are saved."

regards,
pat

The lectures by Richard Hays were fantastic! I was especially struck by his comments on the book of Romans. Here is a paraphrase of how he opened his discussion on the book of Romans:

"Many people have come to certain conclusions on the book of Romans, because they don't understand the central question that Paul is answering in this book. The central question that Paul is addressing in Romans is this: 'Can God be Trusted?'"

He then went on to convincingly describe that the theology in this book centers around God's trustworthiness, God's character, and God's faithfullness rather than a description of how we are legally allowed to enter heaven.

Really, really good stuff!