The semantic/pragmatic mischief in the SDA salvation statement

The SDA statement:

"We don’t try to keep the law in order to be saved, but because we are saved".

The statement is pragmatically mischievous in that it ostensibly contrasts [keeping the law for salvation] vs [keeping the law because of salvation], whereas in actual fact what is actually being contrasted is two variant definitions of "saved" as the term relates to time. Specifically, what is being contrasted is:



[Standard-Christianity salvation] which although guaranteed by our being born again, is technically future (being only able to be realised when one dies) and which therefore, by virtue of the aforesaid guarantee, necessarily entails our being forgiven for our future sins as well as our past sins the minute we are born again,

vs

[SDA ‘salvation’] which is merely an offer of a clean slate for sin which occurred prior to accepting Christ, and which therefore necessarily precedes any law-keeping which results from gratitude for it.



That is, the SDA statement is pragmatically impure, apparently offering up one constrast when actually comprising another. For what is actually meant is:

"It is nonsensical to say that we try to keep the law in order to be saved, for salvation by definition is simply the point at which we ask God for forgiveness and therefore such salvation necessarily precedes our attempts to keep the law".





Being born again is at the point at which we ask for forgiveness, but salvation is not. As born again believers we can know we are saved right now because being born again guarantees our salvation, but salvation itself is technically not applicable to us until we leave the body and are at that point at the junction of heaven and hell. For it is written: "now is our salvation nearer than when we believed" (Rom 13:11)

Therefore when a truly born again believer declares he is saved by virtue of his being born again, he understands such salvation to necessarily entail the forgiveness of not only his past sins, but every sin he will ever commit in the future, for he understands that to declare himself saved in advance of the actual realisation of such salvation, necessarily entails God's forgiveness in advance for as much sin as he will ever commit. And this in turn because he is dead to the law, for "where no law is, there is no transgression" (Rom 4:15). Thus he is, by such mechanism, set completely free of any obligation to perform.

So we see that true Christianty teaches that Christ not only took our sins to the cross, but took us to the cross, and having taken us to the cross in our entirety, as far as the law is concerned we have become non-living persons to whom, just as is the case with secular law, the law can necessarily no longer apply.

In contrast to the born again believer, however, the SDA, although ascribing eternal ramifications to his idea of salvation, does not apply the effect of such necessarily-future salvation from such future point without interruption back to his natural birth (which would result in an understanding that his sins from such future point back to the present are necessarily forgiven in advance), but only from the point of his conversion back to his natural birth, with addendum that such salvation is retained through this current 'waiting period' provided he makes all effort to keep the OT commandments. Therefore because of this restricted terminal/past-tense application of the word "saved", he is obliged to keep the law for the rest of his life for fear of losing the salvation which he considers himself to have received in the past. And so the SDA is not free, but in terrible bondage.

The SDA statement pretends to use "saved" in the normally-understood unrestricted sense where it would logically entail advance forgiveness for future sins, in order to give the impression that perhaps there is some merit in the second part of the statement which declares that we keep the commandments because we are saved. But what they appear to be saying, and what they are actually saying, are two different things: the SDA term "saved" is in fact meant in the very-restricted sense, referring to a salvation which atones only for sins up to the point of the acceptance of it, after which point it effectively lies dormant, being merely "retained" via attention to law-keeping until the end of one's natural life, at which point it then comes into play.

The SDA idea is simply an offer of a 'clean slate' for the period before 'salvation', and then an obligation to keep the slate clean for the rest of one’s life for fear of losing such earlier-obtained salvation. So the SDA's initial 'salvation' is free, but his on-going salvation he must pay for. An offer to save oneself, is an offer not worth having.

Sin (to which guilt is attributed) actually consists of the knowledge of sin (cf Lev 4:13,14: Tit 3:11). The bible tells us that the knowledge of sin comes by the law (Rom 3:20), and therefore that this is the reason we had to become dead to the law, otherwise we were always sinners, being always in the knowledge of sin. So the commandments were nailed to the Cross of Christ (Col 2:14, Eph 2:15), and thus we were set free not unto contingency, but the abundant life that is in Christ Jesus.

And thus we are told that we have been "set free unto freedom", which means: "set free for the actual purpose of being free and experiencing freedom".

And thus the prophecy of Daniel: 70 weeks were determined to "make an end of sins and to bring in everlasting righteousness". This is now fulfilled for all those in Christ Jesus.
And so we also read at Heb 10: "For by one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified". That is, we are forgiven for our future sins the moment we trust in Christ, and therefore cannot possibly end up in hell.

Well then, just who is it that is forgiven? Well, we say "forgiven", because we still bear the same unique identity that we bore before we came to Christ. But in actual fact, we were not forgiven, but crucified with Christ. And so having been crucified with Him, we are also raised with Him in newness of life, now in (inside) Christ Jesus, for "he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit".

And so the new man is not our same man with merely a new nature, which is the SDA teaching, and which is to join new cloth to old, but a completely new man in Christ Jesus. For it was not merely our old nature which was crucified (for never was it witnessed under Rome that a nature was crucified: all were people), but our actual person in its entirety.

And so the result is the same result we would have had if we had been forgiven, but being forgiven is not enough, for then we would simply have continued to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of good and evil, and so we would have had to have been forgiven over and over again. No rather, we were crucified with Him so that we would be joined to Him as one person indivisible who could never sin again.

"But!" you object, "we still sin!".

No rather, the old man still sins, but the new man does not. And so God's mercy is so great, and his grace so beyond human imaginations, that he has even made sin to (indirectly) result in praise to Him. For every time we witness our old man's activities of 'unlove', we are drawn by the Holy Spirit to recognise that such old man is the very person who is dead in God's eyes.

And how to we recognise this sin? Well, John tells us at 1 John 3:4 that "sin is THE transgression of THE law". SDAs see the word "law" and presume John speaks of the 10 commandments. But he does not say "sin is transgression of THE law", which would allow for at least 10 different transgressions, but that sin is THE transgression of THE law, which allows for only one transgression of one law. And so he defines that law later in the same chapter at v23.

God bless all those of the Israel of God, and all those Jacobs who are necessarily predestined to become Israel.

"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, and forever."





.

You must really got an axe to grind here friend. Is it wrong to live a righteous life in obedience to God? Understand salvation is a walk we will never reach the end of until we die or christ comes, we progress along the path living our lives to God through his power in a life long journey to conform into the image of christ, it is not any effort on our part that saves us it is by faith we humbly obey God. it is that effort through faith that we show the fruits of a changed inner life. i would suggest reading the book of james as it is nice practical book you can grow on.

__________________
'fear God and keep his commandments.'

The OP caught by eye because of the reference in the title to 'semantics.' I read the OP. Okay, advocating OSAS. The OP makes assertions about 'standard Christianity-salvation,' but appears to be advocating one particular school of thought over others. Semantical issue? Nah, don't think so. More like advocacy for OSAS.

__________________
"Study to show yourself approved unto God, a good workman who needs not be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15

Right on, Bro! Very good answer!!

CalmRon,

Is it wrong to live a righteous life in obedience to God?
This idea is precluded from being valid, by the OP, which you have not understood in the slightest, but which you have, at the most, simply glossed over. This to your detriment, for if you had properly digested it, perhaps you would become aware of the deceipt in the SDA statement.

It is never good to believe something that is logically wrong, or semantically/pragmatically mishievous, simply because it is never good to be wrong, period. It is always better to be right. And because you have not digested the OP, you are in no position to declare yourself right.

You call yourself "stumbling disciple". One way to begin to stop stumbling, is to concentrate on what is being said, in full and without distraction. Unless you can say you have fully understood the logic and points in the OP, and how it all blends together, you do not assist yourself with your stumbling problem.

archierieus,

The OP caught by eye because of the reference in the title to 'semantics.' I read the OP. Okay, advocating OSAS. The OP makes assertions about 'standard Christianity-salvation,' but appears to be advocating one particular school of thought over others. Semantical issue? Nah, don't think so. More like advocacy for OSAS.
You seem to have focussed in on an ancillary issue.
It is true that the foundation of the OP consists at least in part of the OSAS belief, but the actual intent of the OP is to point out the mischievousness in the SDA statement, specifically, its apparent offering up of a contrast of [law-keeping to be saved] vs [law-keeping because one is saved], whereas in fact the actual (underlying) contrast consists of [salvation which is defined as that which occurs at conversion (the SDA idea)] vs [salvation which occurs at point of death (the technically correct version)].

That is, the statement "we do not try to keep the law in order to be saved, but because we are saved", appears to contrast law-keeping for salvation with law-keeping because of salvation, simply because it is assumed that the salvation referred to is the standard version which technically occurs at the point of death.

But the salvation referred to in the statement, is not the standard version, but the SDA version which is synonymous with conversion, and which therefore lies dormant once one is converted, which fact then provides the impetus to try to keep the law once one is converted, for the remainder of one's natural life, in order to retain such salvation until it comes into effect at point of death.

And thus the SDA can have, by definition, no assurance of salvation.

So the intent of the OP is to point out that the SDA, in making the above statement, actually means "we don't try to keep the law to be saved, simply because being saved comes first and therefore necessarily precedes the law", but presents the statement as contrasting quite another thing, and doesn't tell you this at all.

It is definitely pragmatically mischievous.

Originally Posted by CalmRon You must really got an axe to grind here friend. Is it wrong to live a righteous life in obedience to God? Understand salvation is a walk we will never reach the end of until we die or christ comes, we progress along the path living our lives to God through his power in a life long journey to conform into the image of christ, it is not any effort on our part that saves us it is by faith we humbly obey God. it is that effort through faith that we show the fruits of a changed inner life. i would suggest reading the book of james as it is nice practical book you can grow on.

Originally Posted by BrightCandle

Right on, Bro! Very good answer!!

What did you like most about his answer?

.....

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Rich Man of Luke 16 symbolizes House of Judah, the Jews?
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Why Jerusalem is Mystically Called Sodom and Egypt



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.......
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.....
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Now here is a good thread. Thanks for bringing it up LLoJ. I'll come back to it later today maybe.

__________________
Loved without reason by decision and purchased out right with blood by personal selection right off the market shelf.

Originally Posted by RTE (Road to Emmaus)

archierieus,

The OP caught by eye because of the reference in the title to 'semantics.' I read the OP. Okay, advocating OSAS. The OP makes assertions about 'standard Christianity-salvation,' but appears to be advocating one particular school of thought over others. Semantical issue? Nah, don't think so. More like advocacy for OSAS.
You seem to have focussed in on an ancillary issue.
It is true that the foundation of the OP consists at least in part of the OSAS belief, but the actual intent of the OP is to point out the mischievousness in the SDA statement, specifically, its apparent offering up of a contrast of [law-keeping to be saved] vs [law-keeping because one is saved], whereas in fact the actual (underlying) contrast consists of [salvation which is defined as that which occurs at conversion (the SDA idea)] vs [salvation which occurs at point of death (the technically correct version)].

That is, the statement "we do not try to keep the law in order to be saved, but because we are saved", appears to contrast law-keeping for salvation with law-keeping because of salvation, simply because it is assumed that the salvation referred to is the standard version which technically occurs at the point of death.

But the salvation referred to in the statement, is not the standard version, but the SDA version which is synonymous with conversion, and which therefore lies dormant once one is converted, which fact then provides the impetus to try to keep the law once one is converted, for the remainder of one's natural life, in order to retain such salvation until it comes into effect at point of death.

And thus the SDA can have, by definition, no assurance of salvation.

So the intent of the OP is to point out that the SDA, in making the above statement, actually means "we don't try to keep the law to be saved, simply because being saved comes first and therefore necessarily precedes the law", but presents the statement as contrasting quite another thing, and doesn't tell you this at all.

It is definitely pragmatically mischievous.

Well I don't know who you were or if you are still participating here at CF seeing you're banned. I certianly not one bit surprised.

I sure like your posts. It may be said part of the basis is OSAS but I sure didn't picke that up.

I have argued that it is indeed the soul that is saved and not the flesh. The flesh has already recieved its unrevokable sentence of death.

You make a very good point becaue of the SDA misapplication of John 14:15.

They indeed teach perfection of the flesh to be saved and require their version of keeping the sabbath to possess salvation whether it be to get or retain salvation makes no difference. The net effect is earned salvation backed up by the ususal quote of Rev 22:14 giving the right to the Tree of Life. There is a slight problem. They must first get the privelege of entering heaven where the said tree is. One can not get in by the keeping of the law. John 10 and 14 back this up quoting Jesus words.

__________________
Loved without reason by decision and purchased out right with blood by personal selection right off the market shelf.

I understand what you are saying but the reality is they claim they are saved by grace but without following the law they could lose their salvation. There are many protestant and orthodox sects that deploy similar statements about their own particular understandings, such as 'good works' in the case of the RCC. Without same one 'could' lose their salvation.

s