Adventist Women as Ordained Pastors

One of those famous old philosophers was known for his insistence upon "defining the terms" in order that people might accurately address a topic without either party sliding out of corners by altering or confusing the definitions of the terms being discussed.

I see that this altering or confusing of terms seems to be playing a major role in conversations regarding this topic, with people having different definitions for terms such as "ministry" "minister" "ordained" "laborer" etc.

One group defines all Christians as laborers, or ministers, in keeping with 1 Peter 2:9, "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;"

Therefore, they say, all Christians are to be ministers to their fellow man. All Christians are part of the ministry, but not all Christians are to fulfill the role of an ordained pastor.

The ordained pastor, they say, is a specific part of the church structure, or hierarchy. The position of an ordained pastor within the organized church body is entirely separate from the Gospel work and ministry that every believer is called to.

Thus, saying that all believers should be part of the ministry, or Gospel work, is a true statement, whereas saying that all those in the ministry, or Gospel work, should be ordained pastors is a false statement. Otherwise you're concluding that all believers should be ordained pastors.

We must separate "laborers," "ministry," and "Gospel work" from "ordained pastor," for they are not one and the same. We needn't be ordained pastors to partake in the ministry of spreading the Gospel. We needn't be ordained pastors to be laborers in the harvest.

Case in point: Ellen White, who we all accept as having such a vital and important ministry, as being such a powerful worker in the spreading of the Gospel and as being such an effective laborer in the harvest, yet who did not think it appropriate to be ordained.

The other group will point to verses such as Luke 10:2, "Therefore said he unto them, The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest." and conclude that by not ordaining women we are thus sending fewer labourers into the harvest.

So, you can see that this group has defined "laborer" as meaning "ordained pastor." Therefore, they say, by not ordaining women we are hindering the Gospel work, or ministry.

But if taken to its logical conclusion, that would mean that every baptized member of the church should be ordained, so that we can all be Gospel workers or ministers to the fullest degree. Otherwise, if we do not ordain every baptized member, are we not then hindering the work?

But was Jesus Christ really referring only to ordained pastors or elders as "labourers?" Or, was He actually referring to all believers as "labourers?" And if so, is it really those who are refusing to ordain women based on lack of Scriptural support that are hindering the work? Or, is it actually those who are displaying an attitude of rebellion from the organized church body and who are creating dissension that are hindering the work?

Of course there are those who refer to this issue as "women in ministry," such as our beloved brother, pastor Doug, who are simply defining "ministry," in this instance, as meaning ordained pastors and elders. I think it would probably be wise not to use the word ministry in that sense, only because the opposition clings onto that word and cries, "You're refusing to let women be part of the ministry, or Gospel work...you're refusing to let women be labourers in the harvest!"

So, in conclusion, if we force participants in this discussion to define their terms, we can quickly set aside this false notion of the ordination of women having anything to do with the Gospel work, for we can then easily see that a "labourer" is not defined as an "ordained pastor." (In fact, I'd imagine that most of the labourers in the harvest are not ordained pastors.)

And if we have defined our terms and dismissed this first faulty argument, we can then begin to concentrate on the true issue: Is there Scriptural support for the ordination of women?

An Examination of Isaiah 22:12-14 and Vegetarianism

DOES ISAIAH 22:12-14 TEACH THAT EATING MEAT IS A SIN?

This is the result of a Bible study I did when I was told that Isaiah 22:12-14 teaches that eating meat is a sin:

"Thank you so much for explaining to me a little more about SDARM (Seventh-day Adventist Reform Movement). I appreciate it greatly as you can never quite get an accurate view of an organization by asking someone who opposes it. (e.g. you would not get a clear understanding of Adventist teaching if you asked an ex-Adventist, you would not get a clear understanding of JW teaching if you asked an ex-JW.) The best way to get a clear understanding of what a church teaches is by asking those that believe it.

Anyway, I'll stick to one point and that's the one about eating meat being a sin. I cannot accept that doctrine and these are the reasons:

Isaiah 22:12-14,
'And in that day the Lord GOD of hosts
Called for weeping and for mourning,
For baldness and for girding with sackcloth.
But instead, joy and gladness,
Slaying oxen and killing sheep,
Eating meat and drinking wine:
“Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!”
Then it was revealed in my hearing by the LORD of hosts,
“Surely for this iniquity there will be no atonement for you,
Even to your death,” says the Lord GOD of hosts."'

This passage does not declare that eating meat is a sin. God said these people had committed iniquity...but the question is how?

The passage tells us of 6 things these people did: 1) were joyful, 2) had gladness, 3) slayed oxen, 4) killed sheep, 5) ate meat, and 6) drank wine.

If we conclude that it was their actions alone that were the iniquity, we must then believe it a sin to be joyful, have gladness, slay oxen, kill sheep, eat meat and drink wine.

We know that it is not a sin to be joyful, we know that is is not a sin to be glad...for the Bible tells us to be these things. "This is the day which the LORD hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it." - Psalm 118:24 (and 1 Thes 5:16, etc)

We know that slaying oxen and killing sheep is not a sin...for God commanded such things. "When a bullock, or a sheep, or a goat, is brought forth, then it shall be seven days under the dam; and from the eighth day and thenceforth it shall be accepted for an offering made by fire unto the LORD." Lev. 22:27, etc.

Since the Bible is clear that it was not their specific actions that were the iniquity...what was it?

The answer is found in the very first words of the passage...the very first verse... "And in that day the Lord GOD of hosts Called for weeping and for mourning, For baldness and for girding with sackcloth." - Isaiah 22:12

God had told the people that it was a time for repentance and sorrow...He "called" for it, and yet the people did not obey His voice.

In spite of what He had called for, they turned their backs and said, "Hey, since He is going to destroy us anyway, we might as well live it up and have fun while we still can!" And they did not repent.

"And behold joy and gladness, slaying oxen, and killing sheep, eating flesh, and drinking wine: 'Let us eat and drink; for tomorrow we shall die.'" - Isaiah 22:13

If we look at what the Bible tells us...we see that these people turned their back on God, refusing to repent of their sins and choosing instead to indulge and party as long as they could until their punishment came. And this is why God then said...

"And it was revealed in mine ears by the LORD of hosts, Surely this iniquity shall not be purged from you till ye die, saith the Lord GOD of hosts." - Isaiah 22:14

They would not turn away from their sinfulness, would not repent and seek God, even 'til their death.

That is only a deeper look at the passage of Isaiah 22:12-14...but here is the true reason we cannot accept that eating meat is a sin:

If God declared in the days of Isaiah that eating meat is a sin...we must then conclude that Jesus Christ sinned by eating fish, and caused others to sin by giving them fish to eat.

"But while they still did not believe for joy, and marveled, He said to them, “Have you any food here?” So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb. And He took it and ate in their presence." - Luke 24:41-43

"And when He had taken the five loaves and the two fish, He looked up to heaven, blessed and broke the loaves, and gave them to His disciples to set before them; and the two fish He divided among them all. So they all ate and were filled." - Mark 6:41, 42

It is the little twists on Bible truths, even to teach a good thing like vegetarianism, that may seem harmless but have terrible consequences when brought to their logical conclusion. We have to be ever so careful when believing a "Bible doctrine" that it is truly what the Bible teaches, plain the clear, without any man's thoughts applied to the texts.

When we say that "The Bible teaches..." we are treading on holy ground, for the Bible is the word of God Himself and we dare not put words in God's mouth or declare that He teaches something that He truly does not.

Again, I want to thank you so much for what you've shared with me about SDARM doctrines...it has helped a great deal, and I have more studying to do on some of these things, in particular the Battle of Armageddon. God bless you!

-Todd

Is God Responsible for Disasters and Calamities?

From a conversation I was having with a Facebook acquaintance:

"Mr. Hardy...consider Job. Who afflicted Job, God or Satan? Satan. Does Satan have power to afflict whomever he will on this planet? No. Who gives him permission...who decides what he can and cannot do? God. Job does not blame Satan for his affliction. Instead he comes to God and asks "Why?"

What amazing faith had Job...when his wife told him to curse God and die, what was his reply? "Shall we accept the good from the Lord and not the evil? In all this Job did not sin with his lips." (Job 2:10)

When Satan had slaughtered all of Job's sons and daughters...what did Job say?

"The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; Blessed be the name of the LORD.” (Job 1:21)

Was he wrong to say it was God who had taken away his family? The next verse says again, "In all this Job did not sin nor charge God with wrong." (Job 1:22)

Job was right and still faithful, understanding that God is all powerful, a mighty God, and NOTHING can happen in this universe unless He allows it. NOTHING is out of His control.

But whatever happens, we always know we can trust God. "And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose." Romans 8:28

In considering the character of God, we must not over-emphasize His mercy to the exclusion of His justice. The same God who hung on a cross to take the punishment for my sins is the same God who rained down fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, the same God who destroyed the entire planet's population, excepting 8 souls, the same God who sent His angel of death to take the life of every firstborn child upon whose door was not the blood of the lamb.

Make no mistake...God is love, but He is also justice."

Conversations with Rowland (part 1), What Would YOU Say?

Below is a conversation I am having with someone on Facebook...I had/have no idea how to get through to his heart that God is real and that He loves him.

Rowland Nelken
And if I judge that the Bible is a fallible, man made creation; that Daniel's prophecies apply only to his anger at the Greek occupation, and that Revelation is concerned purely with anger at Christian collusion with the Roman Empire, have I thereby condemned myself to destruction, according to your weird theology?


Fundamental Adventist
How can you judge Daniel's prophecies to be "only his anger at the Greek occupation?" Regardless of whether he was angry at being carried away captive to Babylon, his prophecies are still testable, yeah?

I mean just the simple prophecy in chapter two with the image...of which he clearly states that the head of gold represents Nebuchadnezzar (sp?) and his kingdom, Babylon, and that it would be followed by 3 successive empires then be split into ten divisions as opposed to conquered by a 5th empire. Seems like you'd have to either speculate that the book of Daniel was written AFTER Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome's rule OR believe that it was a prophecy that nailed hundreds of years of history in advance.


Rowland Nelken
It is well known and accepted that Daniel was writing in 165 BC, two years after the defilement of the Temple by Antiochus Epiphanes IV. He pretended to have been living in the last years of the Babylonian occupation and the first years of the Persian. He was 'prophesying' after the fact.


Fundamental Adventist
I dunno, man...I was just reading this article that has some compelling evidence otherwise. http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/266


Fundamental Adventist
Plus...if Daniel was a liar then the entire Bible couldn't be trusted, but most importantly, Jesus Himself would have to be a liar because He referred to what was "spoken of by Daniel the prophet"...so He would have been endorsing a liar, making Him decidedly NOT God.


Rowland Nelken
It seems that 'lying' or, to use a posh word 'pseudopigraphy' was an acceptable genre in Daniel's time. The Books of Enoch and Jubilees claim to be authored by Enoch and Methusaleh, though the language is contemporary with that of Daniel. You are right, sir, the Bible cannot be relied upon as a history book by modern standards, and Jesus, whoever he was, was certainly not God. Whether or no there is a God, I would not presume to know. It is beyond proof or disproof. Such depictions of God as we have, in a range of Holy writings, though, are quite definitely works of the human imagination. Alone amongst the animal kingdom, we humans have a curiosity about our origins and purpose. The Bible and Koran are attempts to satisfy that curiosity in a distant, pre scientific age.


Fundamental Adventist
There must be something inside you searching to know God...you seem so interested in these things


Rowland Nelken
I was raised partly as a JW via my mother, though my father was both Marxist and Zionist. All three movements, I have concluded, are ridiculous. They have, however, inspired millions of people, not all of them stupid. Many, indeed, have demonstrated prodigious learning.

The power of delusory notions, is dangerous. I t has been the engine for religious persecution, for ethnic cleansing, for the Nazi Holocaust, for Stalin's purges, for the current troubles in the Holy Land, Nigeria, Iraq, Afghanistan and many more places.

A 'search for understanding' no way implies that I expect to find a God at the end of it, any more than I expect to define a master race or a perfect political/ economic system. Crackpot notions, JWdom in particular, overshadowed my childhood. I believe that a world without the notion of God written books, would not, of itself, create happiness. It is, however, an essential step on the route...


Rowland Nelken
Further, were I to conclude that there is probably a God, it would bear no relation to the genocidal God of the early Old Testament or the vengeful, arbitrarily destructive God of the Book of Revelation.

Fundamental Adventist
From what I've observed in the world...the only hope humans have of achieving any kind of lasting happiness is if God miraculously steps in and destroys the sin that makes us act so vile to one another.

I carry that hope around with me because He promised there WILL be a day when "God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away." Rev 21:4


Rowland Nelken
The preordained paradise delusion is a copout. Sure, life is messy, unpredictable, unfair and often cruel. It is up to us, the fallible human race, to do what we can to improve it. Lenin thought that helping with famine relief during the Czarist era was a waste of time. The preordained Communist Paradise would render aid superfluous and irrelevant. Lenin believed in the economic numbers of Karl Marx. JWs trust to the Biblical numbers of Daniel, Revelation et al. to give them the excuse to shut themselves off from the world and await Divine deliverance.

I agree that the poetic imagery, in your quote from the end of Revelation is beguiling. This peace and beauty only arrives, however, after an orgy of arbitrary destruction. If Paradise means living in a world where virtue is defined as believing in Hebrew number puzzles, then I prefer the world as it is.


Fundamental Adventist
I've heard it said that once we reach a certain age we start to become the architects of our own demise by the way we live, the choices we make...smoking, drugs, unsafe sex...whatever they may be. I think the same can be said of our species as a whole: the weapons we create, the ecosystems we destroy, the natural resources we drain, etc.

My hope of the eternal paradise God has waiting for those who surrender to His goodness does is not something to be used as an excuse for apathy...an excuse to put my head in the sand and wait for Christ to make everything better. On the contrary, my belief in God's words compel me to go and help...to make things better. For Jesus is my example and He said He came not to be served...but to serve. God calls us to be good stewards of this planet and its creatures.

So whereas some belief systems cause its adherents to "copout" and turn their backs on all the good that needs to be done and simply trust that the system they follow will fix everything for them, I believe Christianity...true Christianity, not religion, causes the opposite.


Rowland Nelken
Evidence of doom mongers recurs throughout human history. Zoroaster, 'Daniel', the Revelation man, whoever he was, and you, are but a small sample. Read Act 4 Sc. 4 of Shakespeare's 'Winter's Tale' - you will see a classic - yoof today - the world's going to the dogs' type whinge.

Try getting some ecstatic visions of your own, writing them down and having them appropriately bound. With the right PR machine you could generate a doomster cult of your very own. Why stick with the Hebrews of old?


Rowland Nelken
'Beloved men, know that this is the truth: This world is in haste, and approaches its end,
and therefore always in the world
The longer it is, the worse it gets

Wulfstan, Archbishop of York (died AD 1023)


Rowland Nelken
Have just now read your link, 'Fun. Ad'., to the Apologetics bit on Daniel. It is meaningless. The author of the 'APologetics' piece says that Daniel's Babylonian/Persian pedigree is questioned on account of the prophecies' uncanny accuracy. That is not the case. It is the style of Hebrew and Aramaic that has led scholars to place it in the 2nd century BC. The writer also refers to Daniel's canonical status in Qumran. This, it is said, would be impossible with a contemporary work. Veneration demands antiquity. 'Jubilees' and 'Enoch' are also Qumran sacred works, contemporary with Daniel, and, like 'his' book, are pseudopigraphical.

I appreciate your wish to see the Bible as a unified and sacred document and a guide to our future. Facts, alas, (or fortunately, respecting the Bible's horror stories and its sometimes murderous God) obstruct the realisation of that wish at every turn.


Fundamental Adventist
Have faith, bro...God won't let you down


Fundamental Adventist
In regard to the article, the date of Daniel is questioned by critics for a few reasons, the prophecies being one but the style of Aramaic being another...and the author does address the latter.

"A final contribution from Qumran to the biblically claimed date for Daniel’s composition comes from linguistic considerations. Though, as we mentioned earlier, critical scholars argue that the Aramaic sections in Daniel indicate a second-century B.C. date of composition, the Qumran materials suggest otherwise. In fact, a comparison of the documents at Qumran with Daniel demonstrates that the Aramaic in Daniel is a much earlier composition than the second-century B.C. Such a comparison further demonstrates that Daniel was written in a region different from that of Judea. For example, the Genesis Apocryphon found in Cave 1 is a second-century B.C. document written in Aramaic—the same period during which critical scholars argue that Daniel was composed. If the critical date for Daniel’s composition were correct, it should reflect the same linguistic characteristics of the Genesis Apocryphon. Yet, the Aramaic of these two books is markedly dissimilar."


Fundamental Adventist
"The Genesis Apocryphon, for example, tends to place the verb toward the beginning of the clause, whereas Daniel tends to defer the verb to a later position in the clause. Due to such considerations, linguists suggest that Daniel reflects an Eastern type Aramaic, which is more flexible with word order, and exhibits scarcely any Western characteristics at all. In each significant category of linguistic comparison (i.e., morphology, grammar, syntax, vocabulary), the Genesis Apocryphon (admittedly written in the second century B.C.) reflects a much later style than the language of Daniel (Archer, 1980, 136:143; cf. Yamauchi, 1980). Interestingly, the same is true when the Hebrew of Daniel is compared with the Hebrew preserved in the Qumran sectarian documents (i.e., those texts composed by the Qumran community reflecting their peculiar societal laws and religious customs). From such linguistic considerations provided by Qumran, Daniel hardly could have been written by a Jewish patriot in Judea during the early second-century B.C., as the critics charge."

Rowland Nelken
Some folks will stop at nothing to try and salvage the Bible's reputation as a unified work, which tells the story of mankind from Paradise Lost to Paradise Regained. Historically, due to its influence in shaping nations, its role as a factor in Christendom's wars, the Bible is of huge importance. With careful selection, some transcendental teachings can be found within it.

Where, though, is the virtue in having 'faith' in the strange imagery and number puzzles? I would not put my faith in a God who starts off as one of many Gods (in Genesis), becomes a supernatural racist warrior (Joshua), and an arbitrary murderer of much of humanity (Revelation).

En route, he has decided that he is the only God. The other rival Gods, are suddenly, and arbitrarily, declared fictional. This 'same' God in the psalms promises a return of the Jewish people to their homeland and rich harvests. COmes Daniel and the promise of resurrection and everlasting life is thrown into the mix.

A preacher appears, a freelance rabbi with some new teachings for a post nationalist age. After his death Jesus is ascribed a miraculous birth, a Davidic lineage and an ascension to Heaven. With John's Gospel his story is taken back to the beginning of time.

A successor (Paul), creates a radical Jewish sect awaiting an imminent rapture to Heaven. When the rapture is delayed the sect morphs into a separate religion. Gentile recruitment requires a toning down, and then an abandonment, of Jewish law.

Where is the virtue in believing that this intriguing historical development of ideas, nations and sects is some Divine Truth, which belief will give a chance of everlasting life?It is preposterous. As a JW kid, I believed a version of the above implicitly. I have since discovered that End of the World doomsters have been around, certainly since the time of Zoroaster.

Wm. Miller, Ellen WHite, Pastor Russell, David Koresh can join the ranks of CHristopher COlumbus, Archbishop Wulfstan, Isaac Newton, St. Augustine of Hippo, Gerrard Winstanley, Mahomet, Several pretend 'Mahdis' as well as Rudolf Steiner and Peter the Hermit.

The APocalypse is a figment of the human imagination.I am not going to sign up to one of the current options and I hope you recover from your delusions.

Best wishes,

Rowland


Fundamental Adventist
Maybe you won't come to God, but humor me because I enjoy the conversation. Your posts leave me with more questions than responses so if you'll lend me even more of your time and thought I'm curious about your answers. (side note: I've placed this dialogue we've been having on my blog but will change your name to "anonymous" if you want?

Which passage in Genesis are you referring to when you mentioned "starting off as one of many Gods"?

In regard to the "arbitrary murderer of humanity," I don't see it as arbitrary at all...but as the only possible way to get the universe back to a state of perpetual happiness, i.e. to destroy sin.

I suppose someone could say, "Why not destroy the sin and leave the people alive, sinless?" But that would essentially be creating slaves that behave as God sees fit. As opposed to beings who enjoy the freedom of choice and decide of their own free will that they want to follow God's way of happiness and peace.

What if...hypothetically...you caught a glimpse into the future to see the Bible really is God's word and that Jesus truly is the Saviour of mankind? What if someone you found that the reality you so firmly believe at this very moment was actually an illusion created by your past and the various teachings that colored the lens with which you evaluate all things Holy? Is it possible...only if for a moment...to step outside of all your beliefs and opinions and say "What if...?"

It's obvious you are an intelligent guy so I know you are familiar with the Bible verses that speak of scoffers in the last days who say things have been the same since the beginning, there's always been people around saying "the end is near! the end is near!"...knowing that...do you think it's truly safe to base any conclusions on what other people have done or said in the past?

If you don't want to continue the conversation that's okay, and best wishes to you as well.


Rowland Nelken
'COming to God?' What does this mean? The God of CHristopher Columbus, he who was cited by Isaiah as the one who would bring the Word of the Lord to the distant isles? (i.e. Cuba and Hispaniola). If one were raised as an Egyptian Soldier, doing one's sacred duty chasing after runaway slaves, a drowning in the Red Sea would seem an arbitrary punishment. The early OT God is a racist. I do not want to 'come' to such a God.

I wonder did COlumbus enquire of scoffers what might be their reaction if, having glimpsed the future, they could see that COlumbus was right and the World would End a la Revelation in 1658?

I was hoodwinked by a bunch of JW doomsters as a kid. I am not going to leap into believing some related APocalyptic myth simply because you are going through a stage of finding such a preposterous idea appealing.

I have no wish to hide my name, and will get back to you, Chapter and Verse, on the nature og the OT God as simply one of many.

Rowland Nelken
For the LORD is a great God, and a great King above all gods.

Psalm 95. 3 - The above implies that the belief in God as a top God, rather than the only God, was abroad amongst the Hebrews when the Bible was compiled and redacted, early in the Persian period.


Fundamental Adventist
True, the Hebrew people many times not only believed in other gods, but worshipped them instead of the true God. But again, I simply cannot base what I see as truth on what other people throughout history may have said or thought...I can base reality only on what God has said and done.

As far as the Egyptian soldiers...I can only say that as a human we are nothing if not fallible and blind so I must defer to the mighty God, who created all things and can see the thoughts and intents of men's hearts as clearly as the noon-day sun, to judge, and judge righteously, the people He has destroyed.

I often wonder about the "What if"s of God's judgment, such as, "What if one of those Egyptian soldiers would have eventually come to believe and follow the true God and been saved had not he been destroyed before he got the chance?" Or, "What if some of those destroyed by Christ's second coming would have, if given more time, chosen to follow Him and been saved if only Jesus would have delayed His coming a bit longer?"

To these questions, again, I can only believe that because God is all-knowing and exists outside of the constraints of space and time, always seeing the beginning from the ending, He knew who would continue in their sins regardless of how much time they were given.

It seems that God can no more do something arbitrarily than He can do something evil....and even beyond that: what I believe about God, my opinions and assumptions and beliefs, mean less than nothing. It would be as if an ant could judge the infinite cosmos accurately and precisely.

Ultimately, our perception of what is real has no bearing on what is actually true in this life or the one to come.

Rowland Nelken
I appreciate that human knowledge about the universe is still partial, albeit iincreasing enormously. I can see that you are likely to remain, as I was as a JW kid, a Bibliolater. FOr you there is a connection between virtue and an implicit belief in the literal Truth of the Bible. I see no such connection. You sound like a decent guy. I do not envy you the mental gymnastics essential for reconciling this violent God, whose proclaimed Word has generated such fruitless and destructive prophetic speculation, with your own, apparently benign attitude towards humanity.

I look forward to the day when the Bible and Koran are recognised as significant purely for their historical interest. It may one day be a source of wonder how these works from a distant primitive age, continued to be regarded as complete guides to life, past, present and future, for so many centuries after the scientific revolution should have consigned their importance to history.


Fundamental Adventist
I'm sure you already know which day it is that I look forward to.

Until that day, friend. :-)


Fundamental Adventist
God loves you.


Rowland Nelken
What is your Christ returning/Rapture/Armageddon/Day of Judgement date? As you know, from Biblical text juggling a whole range of End Times scenarios can be dreamed up. 1658? St. Augustine of Hippo and Christopher Columbus.
2062? Isaac Newton - 1843/4? - William Miller, 1881/1914/1915? Pastor Russell - 1925/1941? - Judge Rutherford. 1834? Elspat Buchan. 1975? Nathan Homer Knorr.

When they fail you can use the 'Thief in the Night' quote.

I have no evidence that God would love me. The God of my childhood was due to murder all who did not attend the Kingdom Hall or go door to door with a bag of mags. The OT God killed Mrs. Lot on account of normal human curiosity.

The OT God massacred the Amalekites for belonging to the wrong race. What makes you so confident that this strange God creature of your imagination would love me?

Best wishes Fundy; I hope that one day you recover from your delusions.

Rowland


Fundamental Adventist
Ahh I can't tell you when Christ is coming...and the thief in the night quote would be certainly misapplied in that situation. Sometime after 1844 is all the Bible tells us...there are no more time-prophecies left to be fulfilled.

A passage not out of context would be Christ's words when He said, "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only."

Anyone who sets a date has always been and will always be in error. Don't forget the even more recent predictions of the 1980's return by Hal Linsey and Arnold Murray, etc.

In response to your other question...I am confident that God loves you because He created you...everything about who you are He made and loves and wants to be with forever. He is more your Father than any man or woman could ever be. Your intelligence, your wit, your heart...everything good in you is His creation and He loves it, because it is who He made you to be...holy, happy, loving, compassionate, kind, humble, forgiving, trusting, believing...full of joy.

Props from Adventist Today Magazine

I was pleasantly surprised today when I found out that Our Sword was mentioned at the top of the list for Adventist Today's March 2009 Adventist blog roundup! Many thanks to AToday for taking notice. The article specifically links to the "Adventist/Catholic Dialogue on Death" post, which you can read by clicking here.

The Sabbath and Revelation

These are some thoughts I scribbled down yesterday...tell me what you think.

Why isn't the Sabbath specifically mentioned in the book of Revelation?

Some people make a big deal out of this fact. Consider this: If the Sabbath was mentioned in Revelation, Satan would use a different issue to deceive the world.

Even IF the Sabbath wasn't the main issue in the last days, the Bible is still crystal clear that Christians should be obedient in its observance.

Of all the main issues God could have pointed to without specifically mentioning by name, He couldn't have chosen a simpler and more easily understood issue.

The issue has to do with choosing God instead of the beast, right? So that narrows it down to commandments 1-4. Let's look at the options.

What if the first commandment was the issue. How ambiguous and vague can the logic of people make that commandment? What does it really mean to have other gods before God? One could easily confuse the issue.

What about the second commandment? What about idols? Any image of anything? What about pictures? Only if we bow down and serve? What does it mean to serve?

What about the third commandment? Take God's name in vain? His literal name, or any reference to "God"? What does "in vain" mean? Can we take the name of "Christian" in vain?

But the fourth commandment, the Sabbath...simple. Keep it holy! Work six days but don't work on the Sabbath.

Thank God that the issue Satan uses in the last days to try to deceive the entire world, is so simple if we're honest with ourselves.

How Does Ellen White Measure Up?

Below is information I pulled from http://www.ellengwhitetruth.com/, where they put Ellen White through the prophetic tests. I'm posting this article as a response to some of the other anti-Ellen White posts that have gone up recently by those who jump to conclusions in the absolute worst possible time to do so...while evaluating a prophet. Regardless, the biblical account of how prophets have been treated is plain: "Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you." Matthew 5:11,12

Unfortunately, no DNA testing for prophets exists. But there are the biblical criteria that have been outlined for us. Let us now turn our attention to testing the ministry and gifts of Ellen White with our biblically based testing process.

A true prophet’s predictions will “come to pass” (Jeremiah 28:9).

The fulfillments of this test in the ministry of Ellen are many, but one of the most startling may be the 1906 San Francisco/Oakland earthquake. Having received warnings of impending judgment upon the city for many years prior, she had her final and most detailed vision regarding its destruction on April 16, 1906. She saw houses “shaken like a reed in the wind” and buildings falling to the ground. “Pleasure resorts, theaters, hotels, and homes of the wealthy were shaken and shattered. Many lives were blotted out of existence, and the air was filled with the shrieks of the injured and the terrified. … It seemed that the forbearance of God was exhausted, and the judgment day had come.”

Historical accounts reveal that two days later there was no sign of impending doom until 5:12 a.m., when the San Andreas fault slipped over nearly 270 miles, crumbling the very foundations of the city. In its wake, the quake left 490 city blocks in a state of total devastation and more than 225,000 homeless people, along with over 800 dead and 1,500 injured. Several insurance companies went bankrupt trying to meet the claims.

If this was the only example of a prediction fulfilled, we could chalk it up to a lucky guess. But consistently, Ellen’s predictions concerning political, religious, and personal affairs were fulfilled. The exception to this are conditional prophecies, which we will discuss a little later. We’ll also share many more of her incredible visions later too.

For now, what about the other tests?

A true prophet will glorify God rather than himself (John 16:13).

The central theme of Ellen’s writings was The Great Controversy between Christ and Satan. Her efforts were always aimed at bringing people to the matchless grace of Christ. Her famous Conflict of the Ages books begin and end with the phrase “God is love.” She said, “We must gather about the cross. Christ and Him crucified should be the theme of contemplation, of conversation, and of our most joyful emotion.” She added, “Make Christ first and last and best in everything.”

Few communicators of her caliber refrained from taking credit and glory for themselves. In spite of her great accomplishments, Ellen felt a perpetual sense of dependency upon God. Of public speaking, she said, “When I am about to speak to the people … I have such a sense of weakness that it seems like an impossibility to stand before the congregation.” She would then pray, “Jesus, I hang my helpless soul upon Thee; Thou will not suffer me to be brought into confusion.”

A true prophet does not give his own private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20, 21).

Ever a servant of God and man, a true prophet relates information received through revelation, then submits that information to the scrutiny of the body of believers. These believers are to take the prophet’s word and compare it with the Word of God, as did the Bereans of Acts 17. These students both “received the word with all readiness of mind,” and “searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” Proving the message of Paul by comparing it with scripture was part of the process of incorporating his teaching into the church.

Similarly, Ellen called believers to a decision concerning her writings: “My work … bears the stamp of God or the stamp of the enemy. There is no halfway work in the matter. The Testimonies [“the testimonies” was the term she often used for her writings, especially counsels to the church] are of the Spirit of God, or of the devil.” She went on to admonish believers to apply the same test to her messages as they would apply to any: “If the Testimonies speak not according to the word of God, reject them.” Truly Ellen’s ministry bears the evidence of accountability toward both God and man.

A true prophet points out sin (Isaiah 30:10).

In a warning to Judah, Isaiah pointed out one of their sins. “The rebellious people ... which say … to the prophets, Prophecy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits.” It is our natural bent to want to hear soothing assurances from the lips of religious leaders. Paul told Timothy that the time would come when [even church members] will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (2 Timothy 4:3,4).

From the outset of her ministry, Ellen knew that she would be asked to deliver messages of reproof to many. Not only did her shyness make this an excruciating task, but she was often estranged from those who preferred denial. It was such times she said, “The unpleasant duty has been laid upon me to reprove wrongs and to reveal hidden sins.”

A true prophet warns of coming judgment (Isaiah 24:20, 21).

Not only did Ellen White warn of the destruction of San Francisco and Oakland, but other large cities such as Chicago. She also warned of judgments on her own church’s institutions for unchristian practices, such as publishing degrading literature.

A true prophet edifies the church (1 Corinthians 14:3, 4).

A perusal of her writings reveal that the bulk of them were counsels for the church. Her 5,274 page, nine-volume series called Testimonies for the Church consist of “advice, visions and counsel dealing with institutional development, church organization, home and foreign mission endeavors, social and health reforms, etc.”

Teaming her gifts with the administrative knowledge of her husband, she helped nurture a denomination that grew in her lifetime from a handful of scattered followers to a total of 136,879 members attending 3,876 churches.

A true prophet’s message harmonizes with the Bible (Isaiah 8:20).

Each of her books has literally hundreds of scriptural references. The Scripture Index to 77 of her principal books, not counting periodical articles, contains approximately 30,000 references. Her writings are to the Bible what a state map is to a national map. They agree with the Word without merely reiterating it. In some areas, her writings provide additional detail for present-day application. This is done in such a way as to reinforce, rather than detract from, the message of Scripture.

Another helpful analogy of her writings flows from her own pen. She called her writings “a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light.” This analogy has been experienced by countless seekers who are led to understand and revere the Word of God through her writings.

A true prophet teaches that Jesus came in the flesh (1 John 4:1-3).

Of Jesus’ incarnation, Ellen’s own words are: “[God] gave [Jesus] not only to bear our sins, and to die as our sacrifice; He gave Him to the fallen race. To assure us of His immutable counsel of peace, God gave His only-begotten Son to become one of the human family, forever to retain His human nature.”

A true prophet has a Christian character (Matthew 7:16-20).

The New York “Independent” published the following at the time of Ellen White’s death in 1915: “She was absolutely honest in her belief in her revelations. Her life was worthy of them. She showed no spiritual pride and she sought no filthy lucre. She lived the life and did the work of a worthy prophetess.”

A coworker of 23 years described her thus: “Mrs. White’s life far transcends the life of anyone I have ever known or with whom I have been associated. She was uniformly pleasant, cheerful and courageous. She was never careless, flippant, or in any way cheap in conversation or manner of life. She was the personification of serious earnestness regarding the things of the kingdom. I never once heard her boast of the gracious gift God had bestowed upon her, or of the marvelous results of her endeavors.”

A true prophet is obedient to the will of God (Deuteronomy 18:18).

Before Ellen White received her first vision, Hazen Foss was called to the prophetic ministry. Foss hesitated to obey, dreading the ridicule and rejection such a life would entail. His disobedience persisted through a second vision from God. Fearing that he had grieved away the Spirit, he called a meeting to relate the first vision, but his mind was blank. Finally he said, “It is gone from me; I can say nothing, the Spirit of the Lord has left me.”

Some time later, Mr. Foss was witness to Ellen’s ministry and recognized that the gift had been passed on to her. He pled, “The Lord gave me a message to bear to His people. And I refused after being told the consequences; I was proud; I was unreconciled to the disappointment.” He went on to say that he believed he was a lost man.

Ellen’s willing obedience to the call of God wasn’t without a struggle. When first called to travel, she said, “It seemed impossible for me to perform this work … the trials attending it seemed more than I could endure … I coveted death as a release from the responsibilities that were crowding upon me … despair again pressed upon my soul.” Finally, through prayer and counsel, she surrendered to the will of her heavenly Father, and began her lifework as God’s messenger.

How to Test the Prophets...Biblically

Below is an article by Angel Manuel Rodriguez at the Biblical Research Institute. I'm posting this article as a response to some of the other anti-Ellen White posts that have gone up recently by those who jump to conclusions in the absolute worst possible time to do so...while evaluating a prophet. Regardless, the biblical account of how prophets have been treated is plain: "Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you." Matthew 5:11,12

Prophets, True and False
Ángel Manuel Rodríguez

How does one tell the difference between true and false prophets?
It is good to look at a Bible topic such as this in order to realize how little we can say about it. The Old Testament highlights the constant conflict between false prophets and the prophets of the Lord. Distinguishing between them in the past was difficult, but it had to be done. The Israelites asked the Lord, "How shall we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?" (Deut. 18:21). John wrote to the church, "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world" (1 John 4:1). Since this topic is very important, the Lord gave His people some guidance.

1. Fulfilled Prophecies: Moses told the Israelites: "When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken" (Deut. 18:22; cf. Jer. 28:8, 9). At first glance this is a good test, yet it is often difficult to apply. In order to know whether someone is a true prophet, we have to wait for the fulfillment of the prophecy he or she spoke about. In order to help their hearers, prophets sometimes gave within their long-term prophecies a short-term one that was quickly fulfilled (Jer. 28:16, 17). Yet the predictions of a false prophet could also be fulfilled (Deut. 13:1, 2). This suggests that this test is not sufficient, in itself, to know whether a prophet is from God.

2. Correct Theology: This test assumes that people had already received messages from the Lord and that they were able to use them to grade new revelations. For example, since God's law prohibits worshipping idols, a prophet who led others to worship other gods would be a false prophet (Deut. 13:2). The message from a new prophet had to agree with God's former revelations (Isa. 30:8). The people hearing the new revelation had to have a deep personal knowledge of God's Word. This allowed them to use that knowledge to test the truthfulness of the new revelation. In the New Testament God's revelation through Jesus became the central test, with the written Word, to show whether a prophet was true (1 John 4:2, 3; John 17:17). Although this test is more difficult to falsify, it can be falsified. The apostle Paul wrote about "false apostles . . . transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light" (2 Cor. 11:13, 14). Yet those who know the truth as it is in Jesus will not be deceived.

3. Ethical Test: False prophets do not live up to the God's laws and do not clearly speak out against sin. The prophet Ezekiel accused false prophets, "You have strengthened the hands of the wicked, so that he does not turn from his wicked way to save his life" (Eze. 13:22). False prophets were also arrogant (2 Peter. 2:18), deceitful (Acts 13:6-10), and often preached only for pay (2 Peter. 2:3, 13). Their lives were not in line with God's revealed word. People can give the impression of being holy, even saying all the right things, yet Jesus said they are like wolves dressed in sheep's clothing (Matt. 7:15).

4. By Their Fruit: Jesus Himself established this test. He said: "You will know them by their fruits. . . . Every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit" (Matt. 7:16, 17). It is close to the third test, but it goes beyond it by asking, What are the results of the ministry of a person who claims to be a prophet? Does his or her ministry build up the church? This test requires time, but lies and deception are sooner or later revealed. We have to be open to the possibility that God still speaks to us through His prophets. But in order to identify a true prophet we should know and understand the Scriptures. We should use God's inspired Word to test the teachings and the lifestyle of the person who claims to be a true prophet. Finally, we should not hastily accept somebody's claims. We must allow time for the actions of the new prophet to show what kind of person he or she is. Testing the spirits takes time, prayer, and knowledge of what God has already revealed to us.

Adventist/Catholic Dialogue On Death

The following is a very interesting and enjoyable dialogue between myself and a Catholic brother who also has a blog. The original content is from a post entitled "Who Continued Creating" regarding Christ's death. As you'll see, we delve into some extremely fascinating topics regarding the theological ramifications that one's belief concerning the state-of-the-dead has on one's view of Christ's death and resurrection. Enjoy!

Thomas' Original Comment-

"Interestingly, in your brief thoughts laid out here, you have also just answered the question of how the dead can be conscious after death. When we die perhaps we slip into that realm where time no longer has a grasp on us. It could be argued that the dead can see the Resurrection already before them - seemingly in a moment they have experienced new life - though to us who are left behind here on earth, time marches on. It is a matter of perspective.

The dead are outside of time and can see time from a new perspective. This is why Jesus could tell the thief, "Today you will be with me in paradise."

Perhaps the dead can view time from the outside looking in - sort of a "window" on time. They can see us, and can know our needs and wants. God can allow this, as He is the Master of all time and space. This is how the dead are able to offer our prayers to God like incense, as in the Book of Revelation. This is why Moses and Elijah could appear with Jesus in the Transfiguration - God can allow them to step through the window of time.

This is also why Jesus could tell the parable of the rich man who wished to warn his brothers of their impending doom. Why would Jesus tell a parable that reflects a FALSE view of death? It makes much more sense that Jesus would reflect TRUTH in his teachings. If the dead man could see his brothers and be conscious of them, then there must be some time/space alteration when we die.

If the dead can offer our prayers, or can appear with Jesus beyond the grave, or experience "paradise" as though it is "today," then time and space must be different when we are dead.

Just as Jesus, after death, could be both "asleep in death" and yet remain the sustainer of creation, so too can those who have died be both asleep and alive in Christ. God is the God of the living not the dead. So who are we to say what that new life is like?

I understand that your immediate response will be, "Just read what I have already posted on this subject." ...Well, I have read that post. But what I am saying is that you are still left with your question above: How can Jesus be "asleep" and yet remain the Sustainer of Creation? If Jesus truly experienced death (which I believe He did) then we must explain death in different terms than your Adventist church seems to explain it. Something is wrong with a "sleeping" death if it means that Jesus ceases to be who He is. However, if we allow that death itself entails a time/space alteration then we have opened up the necessity to re-interpret what you posted about death previously. Perhaps the "sleep" theory relies to heavily on how we perceive time here on earth and doesn't take into consideration God's view of time, and our sharing of God's life after death."

My Initial Response -

"Our difference is this: I don't believe we will ever be outside of time, as God is. If we were outside of time after death, we would then be omnipresent, for we could then be all places at once in the view of those "within time" if we were no longer restricted by time.

This is not my only reason, though, for believing that those attributes belong to God alone. There are also the passages in Isaiah which speak of the redeemed gathering together from new moon to new moon and from sabbath to sabbath to worship God...which to me shows that we, as created beings, are always within the confines of time and space.

But regardless of that fact, for the one who dies and ceases to exist, or sleeps in the grave, as some like to say, it will be as a split second before we open our eyes in the resurrection. They will not be conscious of any passage of time. As you said, it is only to those of us who remain here on earth that it seems like they have been gone for so long.

I don't find any Scriptural evidence for praying to anyone other than God. He is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent...surely He does not need help hearing or answering the prayers. On the contrary, the Bible is clear that God Himself always hears our prayers.

One important thing to remember about parables is that they are designed primarily to teach one truth. If we read into them and try to make doctrines of all the various parts and place meaning where none is intended, we "wrest the Scriptures to our own destruction."

The rich man and Lazarus was certainly not told by Jesus with the intention of explaining what happens when we die. I may write a post on this parable, as it is an interesting one.

Certainly all the saved aren't in Abraham's chest cavity...and certainly they cannot look over and see wicked people burning in agony, let alone have conversations with them...certainly a single drop of water on a burning man's tongue would be of no comfort...and probably most importantly, we cannot ignore the hundreds of Bible verses which show that the dead are "sleeping in their graves", "know nothing", "all their thoughts, love, hate, etc have perished", the "dead don't praise God", the dead "wait in the grave until the resurrection", the dead "have no more portion in anything done under the sun", etc. etc.

To arrive at a correct understanding of any Bible truth, we must get all the Bible passages on the subject, and look at the big picture...when we do that, things become very clear, and parables such as the rich man and Lazarus can be seen for their true meaning.

For me the answer to the question of how Jesus can be in the grave and yet be the sustainer of all things is simple...He is God. :-)

With God all things are possible.

If there is one thing that the state of the dead doctrine relies too heavily on, it is Bible texts. For I must admit...our human minds can come up with all kinds of neat ideas about what happens when you die, but if we listen to the plethora of Bible verses on the subject, we must come to the conclusion that the dead are in the grave until the resurrection.

I do enjoy reading about your point of view, though. Keep 'em coming. :-)"

Thomas' Second Comment -

""I don't find any Scriptural evidence for praying to anyone other than God. He is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent...surely He does not need help hearing or answering the prayers."

Just to clarify...when Catholics "pray" to saints, we ask the saints to pray on our behalf - to pray WITH us - we do not pray TO the saints. It is no different than asking any living fellow Christian to pray with you. If God hears all of our prayers, then why would you ask fellow Christians (living or dead) to pray with you? Simple, because it is not a matter going to other Christians INSTEAD of God, rather it is going to God WITH other Christians - a heavenly prayer circle.

My main point is this: I am certain you have many Biblical texts that back up your conclusion about the dead being unconscious or non-existent...but just as you pointed out certain elements of Scripture (in the parables, for instance) should not be taken too literally, I too would say that things like "from sabbath to sabbath" and "from new moon to new moon" should not be taken as literal markings of time. They could be metaphors. And perhaps "sleep" does not mean that the dead are REALLY unconscious from their own perspective, but rather they are only "asleep" from OUR perspective. Those of us who are left here in this life experience their death as a "going to sleep." The Bible uses this analogy to describe a certain perspective of death. But even Jesus said that God is the God of the LIVING, when referring to the Patriarchs. The Patriarchs are dead, yet they are also alive. It depends on your perspective.

All of this is very interesting, but it is just you and I going round and round about who is interpreting correctly. When it comes down to it, we won't convince each other based on the "Bible Alone." We each have a different way of interpreting the Bible, and it is that interpretation and not the BIBLE that is the question. It is a matter of two competing "systems" of interpretation. This is why I like to study the history of these doctrines to discover whether they can be traced to ancient sources.

Anyway, you are still left with a problem...Either Jesus really did die and experienced an unconscious death (as you define death) and so ceased to be the Sustainer of Creation, or He did not really die, He experienced something other than death, remaining conscious, and so his passion was a farce in that respect."

Thomas' Third Comment -

"Allow me to clarify...

To begin with, let us say that you are correct. Let's assume that "death" is a state of unconsciousness. Let's put aside any other doctrinal differences you and I might have about saints or time/space awareness or anything else, and let's just say that "death" is exactly what Adventists claim it to be...When someone experiences death they go unconscious (or cease to exist...or however you understand that to be). Death means that the person ceases to be a conscious being.

Now we are faced with passages such as this..."...he humbled himself and became obedient to death — even death on a cross!" (Philippians 2:8)It would seem that being "obedient to death" would mean to subject oneself to the reality of death. And the reality of death is that it is an unconscious state, or to be put out of existence altogether. To say otherwise is to say that Jesus was NOT obedient to death. He did not really "die."

If Jesus is God (which I assume you believe in the doctrine of the Trinity), and Jesus really did die which the Scriptures say He did, then we must say that God ceased to be God when Jesus died... That is, if death means what you say it means, then when Jesus died the Son of God stopped being God and went dormant or out of existence completely.

That pretty much sums up your initial post. You have stated the dilemma that is present in the Adventist position. But rather than question the doctrine itself you defend your position by simply saying, "Well, all things are possible with God."

So what does that mean?

Does it mean that Jesus did not experience death the same way that you and I do? Well then, that means that the Scripture is false when it says that Jesus was "obedient to death." It means that Jesus did NOT experience death at all. He experienced something different than death - some altered version of death. He was not obedient to death, but obedient to some pseudo-death - He did not follow through in His obedience nor did He experience the death that He came to conquer. How could He conquer that which He never faced?

This possible "alternative version" of death may in theory preserve Jesus' divinity, but it creates a huge problem for the Adventist position. It calls into question the reality of Jesus' Passion and death...

Either way, this one doctrine seems to conflict with the bigger issue of the person Jesus, the Son of God, and what His life and death means to us. When that happens, when a core precept of Christianity is challenged by a minor doctrine, it seems the wise thing to do would be to explore a different way of understanding your notion of death.

Please understand that I am not attacking the Bible in any of this. You and I both use the Bible to arrive at our conclusions. But the Bible can be interpreted to mean a great many things. What matters is whether it is being interpreted correctly. You yourself admit that some passages should be interpreted literally and other figuratively (like Jesus' parables, for instance). The problem is that many people disagree on how that should be - what is literal and what is not. If you believe that the Adventist Church has cornered the market on biblical interpretation it is no different than when any other church claims to do the same thing...including the Catholic Church, I might add. We ALL believe that we "got it right." And we believe we got there with biblical passages to back it up. I don't blame you for that.

So we could go round and round over who is right or wrong...but it is all based on interpretation, and these things can differ. The only reason I posted is to point out that your original post is right on the money about the Adventist problem with death. It seems to contradict Christianity itself. It seems to be a glaring problem with Adventism. I would explore this doctrine further if I were you and see who first proposed it, see if it is an ancient Christian belief or a modern invention. I'm sure the Scriptures seem to back it up, but when the doctrine seems to challenge Jesus' Sonship or the reality of His death that would be a huge red flag to me."

My Second Response -

"In regard to the first of your two recent replies, I just want to clarify my position about the Scriptures.

"but just as you pointed out certain elements of Scripture (in the parables, for instance) should not be taken too literally"

When I say that parts of Scripture should not be taken literally, I mean a very narrow portion of Scriptures...mainly parables. I think it is very dangerous to take this fact further than absolutely necessary...in other words, I believe Scriptures should be taken literally unless there is an obvious reason not to. So, the majority of Scripture should, in my view, be taken quite literally.

So I cannot take the numerous Scriptures referencing death as sleep and the state-of-the-dead and say that they should not be taken literally.

In reply to your second post...

For a certainty the Scriptures are clear that Jesus did die, and He was raised back to life. Those two facts must remain the solid foundation.

So, since I believe the Scriptures which say that death is essentially ceasing to exist, that is exactly what I believe Jesus did. I believe He died. Then...on the third day, He was raised again! :-) (That's an "amen!" moment)

The argument you posed is interesting because it's almost identical to the argument that I believe causes such a problem for those who believe we suffer in hell forever. It goes like this:

If the wages of sin isn't death, as the Bible claims, but instead burning throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity...if that is the wages of sin...then Christ did not pay the full cost...since He would have had to burn in hell forever to take our place.

Again, I want to reiterate that I believe the vast majority of Scripture should be taken literally, at face value, unless there is a clear and obvious reason not to. The only instance I can think of when we shouldn't take the Bible literally, is in parables and in prophetic visions which are full of symbolism, such as Daniel's visions and the book of Revelation, etc.

In my mind this fact doesn't lessen Christ's sacrifice or His divinity, but on the contrary, like I mentioned before, this biblical view of death makes it possible that Christ did pay the full wages of sin, which is death, and not burning in hell forever.

Rest assured, I will study this doctrine even more carefully, paying special attention to Christ's death and resurrection. :-)"

Thomas' Fourth Comment -

"I do apologize for going on so much…but I find this so fascinating. Thank you for indulging me...

You wrote: "I believe Scriptures should be taken literally unless there is an obvious reason not to."

I would agree to that premise. I guess we would differ on what that "obvious reason" might be. To me this issue of Christ's death is an "obvious reason" that we should at least consider some alternative interpretation as to what "death" means. (In other words, Adventists may have it wrong, and in having it wrong it may jeopardize your understanding of Christ’s divinity. And that would certainly be a “serious” reason.)

You also wrote: "If the wages of sin isn't death, as the Bible claims, but instead burning throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity...if that is the wages of sin...then Christ did not pay the full cost..."

Whoever said that the wages of sin is NOT death? I think you assume too much about non-Adventist doctrine. The wages of sin IS death (I am not denying that Biblical fact); and Jesus paid that price…He died! …But the question still remains WHAT is death. Is it an unconscious state where we are snuffed out of existence (in which case the Son of God ceased to be) or is it a conscious state where we still experience something?

If it is an unconscious state then the Adventists are right and Jesus ceased to be God when He died - He in fact went out of existence altogether, as you say – which means the Son of God was nonexistent for three days. That is a false doctrine by any standard of authentic Christian belief. God cannot stop existing or change His nature as God. He is eternal and unchanging.

So death must not be a cessation of existence…Unless you want to claim that Jesus did not REALLY experience death (which would then challenge core Christian doctrine on Jesus’ Passion). Either way you have a problem.

If however, death is a conscious state, and we do not cease to exist, then what do the dead experience? Perhaps they experience union with God and with all of the saints in Heaven? …But what if you reject God and Jesus and salvation…then what do you experience. Are you snuffed out then? Perhaps. Or perhaps that is where all of this “hellfire” comes in. We can leave that an open question for now.

Let me offer a larger view of what I am saying. I’ll summarize one possible interpretation of “death” and what Jesus’ death means. I’ll start from the beginning…

We go through our whole lives isolated from one another. We are separated by our physical and spiritual limitations: we have separate bodies, we are limited by space and time, we are limited by our experiences, we may be rejected by others, or abused, and so on, all of these things drive a wedge between us and our fellow man. We are also isolated from God and from His Grace. Since the fall of man in the Garden of Eden we have been cut off from God and we have had antagonism between one another.

What God wants is to bring us into Communion with Him and with each other, thus Jesus calls us to love one another and to love God above all else – LOVE conquers the isolation and division that mankind suffers from. When we open ourselves to Jesus and God’s love He can repair our fallen state; He can heal our isolation from Him and from one another.

Now what is death? Death is the penalty for sin (just as you say). Death is the ultimate isolation. It is a cutting off from all others. We experience tastes of this isolation in this life (we experience a certain isolation as I described above), but death is the final wage of sin. When we die we are cut off completely from God and from one another. That does not mean that we cease to exist. It means we experience consciously this extreme sense of isolation. It is a radical sense of being cast out and abandoned. And there is no way any mere human can overcome this isolation that death brings about. We cannot conquer death on our own.

Jesus came to earth as God-made-flesh. He is a man, and being a man He chose to experience death just as we do and He confronted this feeling of isolation that death brings about. He did conscious spiritual battle with death. BUT…and this is huge…Jesus is also God…and God is LOVE. When pure divine LOVE enters into the place of utter isolation that is death….what happens? Death is conquered!!! (There’s your Amen moment ;) )

The wages of sin is certainly death. But death is not a snuffing out of existence. Death is utter isolation and hopelessness (sometimes described as unquenchable fire or being shut out from the wedding feast or other metaphors). God brings us hope by shedding the light of Christ’s Love into the dark place of death. Death is transformed from the inside out.

Now, because of Jesus, when one dies with Christ, one finds LOVE waiting on the other side. Death looses its sting.

(I might add…. You argue that Jesus did not pay the full price because He did not suffer hell eternally. Well He was also not snuffed out eternally. So if it is the “eternal” part that you take issue with, then your doctrine suffers from the same problem. Wouldn’t it make more sense if Jesus went out of existence and then never came back? Isn’t THAT what death was all about before He came? Wouldn’t THAT be taking on the FULL penalty of death?)

(Also I must note that what I gave as one possible interpretation is NOT the OFFICIAL Catholic position. It is ONLY ONE theologians attempt at an explanation. And this theory has its Catholic critics. The Catholic Church actually allows for private interpretation as long as one’s private views do not conflict with core doctrine or that you do not force your view on others.)"

My Last Response -

"No need to apologize, I quite enjoy the dialogue! I'm just glad that you don't get angry and frusterated like so many tend to do when talking theology with those whose views differ greatly.

This is the first thought that came to mind when I read your post:

The first lie in the Bible was told by Satan, and it is very revealing. As his first lie to the human race, we can learn a little about one of the main deceptions he uses today.

It's found in Genesis 3:4, "Then the serpent said to the woman, 'You will not surely die' "

Interesting that Satan told Eve that she wouldn't really die.

Now, oddly enough, worldly people define death MORE correctly that most church members. For worldly people say that death means death.

Webster's defines "death" as: "Extinction of life."

Cambridge defines "death" as: "The end of life."

Yet the devil has implanted this idea within the churches that says, "When you die, you don't REALLY die...you go on living in a different form."

The last part of Satan's first lie was this: "You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

It's amazing how similar that sounds to what most churches teach today...that when we die, we don't really die, but instead our eyes are opened, we become a spirit similar to God and we somehow know good and evil.

The truth is that only God truly knows good and evil, and He has to tell us what is good and what is evil.

Like you said, it seems to come down to what we consider "death." But I still ask the question, if the wages of sin is death, and death means burning in hell forever, then how could Christ have paid the full price if He only "died" for three days?

I don't see Adventist's belief that death really means death somehow jeopardizes the divinity of Christ. To me, it only amplifies His love, that He was willing to die, really die, for you and me.

That was a good "Amen moment"! I couldn't help but have a big smile on my face as I read your account of Christ conquering death...good stuff!

I see what you're saying in regards to the eternal aspect of the wages of sin. But I don't believe it's the "eternal" part that is the wages of sin, it's "death...period."

What I mean is that it doesn't matter how long you cease to exist, it's the fact that you've been destroyed...perished. So Christ paid the full penalty, He died, or perished, on our behalf. The amazing miracle that we can't fathom is that Christ, as you said, conquered death and was raised again!

How do Catholics interpret passages like John 3:16 which say that whoever believes in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life?

If we lived forever separated from God, wouldn't that still be everlasting life? And does "perish" not really mean perish but, instead, living forever separated from God?

Like you, I must note that I'm surely no trained theologian of the Adventist faith...so I may not always say what a real theologian would...these are only my personal thoughts.

One thing that I appreciate is that regardless of what we believe about what happens when we die, if we abide in Christ while we're here and follow the light He's revealed to us, we'll just be happy to make it to heaven, regardless of the things we didn't have quite right. :-)"

So, I hope you've been blessed by this peek into the theological musings of a Seventh-day Adventist and a Roman Catholic.