I had hoped...

[RC_NewProtestants]

I just wish DJ and woob would offer some substance rather then the childish remarks.

 

[woobadooba]

I just wish DJ and woob would offer some substance rather then the childish remarks.

We have, and you chose to ignore it. Go back and read the posts again.

 

[Mankin]

Seriously, this has become a flame war between traditionals and progressives. This is just proof that the blame is on both sides.

 

[djconklin]

Seriously, this has become a flame war between traditionals and progressives. This is just proof that the blame is on both sides.

Let me get this straight: I use facts, Ron calls me "childish" and yet I'm as much to blame as he is? I no longer have to guess which side you are on!

 

[woobadooba]

Let me get this straight: I use facts, Ron calls me "childish" and yet I'm as much to blame as he is? I no longer have to guess which side you are on!

Well, I don't think Mankin is taking sides. I think he is just trying to be a peacemaker.

I suppose we should take a break and cool down. At least I should anyway.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Let me get this straight: I use facts, Ron calls me "childish" and yet I'm as much to blame as he is? I no longer have to guess which side you are on!

Lets look at what those "facts" are

Woob

We have, and you chose to ignore it. Go back and read the posts again.

Previous to that:

Quote:
Originally Posted by djconklin
So typical, we show you that your reply was about the moral influence theory and when you are shown that your assertions were wrong you change the subject, to wit: "Science as never nor will ever say the incarnation is impossible as it is not in any way in the realm of science." We're not talking about the incarnation. It is you theory of EGW teaching a false theory of atonement that is being refuted and proven wrong.

Woob Said:
Well, to be fair to RC, he was just simply responding to what I had said. However, I said what I said to make a point that he obviously didn't get.

Previous to that ...oh forget it I suppose something DJ says must be a fact no matter what he says, but it should show the reasonable people here what I have been dealing with.

 

[djconklin]

In this thread it started with your wild, unfounded and still unproven claim:

Woob did you know that the main atonement theory presented in the book Steps to Christ by Ellen White is the in essence the moral influence theory. In fact most every other atonement theory includes the moral influence theory. You want to strike down things that are readily acknowledged in Christianity and Adventism.

My response was:

From http://www.theopedia.com/index.php?t...fluence_theory&

"The Moral influence theory of the atonement is a doctrine in Christian theology related to the meaning and effect of the death of Jesus Christ. In this view, the purpose and result of Christ's death was to influence mankind toward moral improvement. This theory denies that Christ died to satisfy any principle of divine justice, but teaches instead that His death was designed to greatly impress mankind with a sense of God's love, resulting in softening their hearts and leading them to repentance. Thus, the Atonement is not directed towards God with the purpose of maintaining His justice, but towards man with the purpose of persuading him to right action."

As we can see the moral influence theory is unbiblical (John 3:16).

You only response has been that this is "childish."

 

[Mankin]

I am just trying to be a peacemaker. I am a progressive but I can see times when both sides are getting a little crazy.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

In this thread it started with your wild, unfounded and still unproven claim:




My response was:



You only response has been that this is "childish."

I guess I would have been surprised if you had presented something accurately but of course my response to the above was not this is childish. In fact it was:
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=36696685&postcount=54

The problem here is that many people who hold to tradition don't even know history or the Bible:

(Rom 2:4 NIV) Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?

You don't know these things because you don't look into these things. You don't look into these things because you think you already know the truth. You don't question what you think you know. And that sadly is the real difference between Progressive SDA's and Traditional SDA's, Progressive still question and search while Traditional SDA's firmly believe that they already have the truth.

In the current Adventist culture there is one group that really uses the moral influence theory and they get it mostly from Ellen White, they don't call it that because they add other things to it so they call it the Larger View. But they totally reject the Penal concept of atonement as well they should. It is totally unbiblical but it is traditional. Not a tradition for the first 1100 years of Christianity but sometime after the Satisfaction Theory of the Atonement became popular the penal theory developed out of the Satisfaction theory.

Now I know these things because I studied them. Study is something many Traditional SDA's no longer do. Oh they will study to the Bible to find ways to use texts to fit their preconceived ideas so they can as Woob did above quote a text and say Paul was totally against something that really the texts does not say but tradition and words used like propitiation please their preconceived ideas. Modern Bibles would says an "atoning sacrifice" but since that fits very well within the idea of the moral influence the Penal theorist traditionalist use the King James wording because it carries the idea that the sacrifice was to please God rather then to affect man. But the man was the problem not God, God was the one reaching out to man and that is what an atoning sacrifice is.

For those who desire more information see
What is wrong with the Substitutionary theory of the Atonement?

By the way I don't particularly like the theopedia's definition in that it attempts to define the moral influence theory by what it is not. For instance the definition of a shoe: It is not a bicycle you cannot ride it around the sidewalk.

If you had read any of the material I have posted including the link above you would know that the ideas behind the moral influence theory are as old as the Christian Church. Besides the famous verse, It's your kindness that leads to repentance, or John 3:16 we have historical statements such as those found in the writings of the Early Church fathers:

Clement states: Through Him God has called us from darkness to light from ignorance to knowledge of the glory of His name. Clement further says that Christ endured it all on account of us and that His sufferings should bring us to repentance. Hemas adds that Christ reveals to us the true God. Barnabas notes that He came to abolish death and to demonstrate resurrection from the dead.


Apologists also about 100-200 AD
The ideas stayed much the same with the Apologists with the addition of the concept that not only does God impart saving knowledge and bestow illumination, but principalities and powers are destroyed by Him. Justin says that the aim of the incarnation was the conquest of the serpent. Justin further adds that Christ became a man for our sakes, so that participating in our miseries He might heal them. The essence of the Moral Influence theory is that Christ’s Atoning work is directed to leading man to repentance and faith by revealing the true nature of God

Aside from that the concept of moral influence is particularly found in the works of famous Adventist like Graham and Malcolm Maxwell, even in newcomers like Ty Gibson. There is a whole website discussion list called Heavenlysanctuary.com that deals with the concept as modified in the larger view. In fact they even have some a book posted there by a contemporary of Ellen White. So why someone would demand that any atonement theory be restricted from discussion is beyond me. It seems to be nothing more then fear that their preconceived theories cannot compete. And in fact in general the people who demand something not be discussed cannot defend their beliefs but if that is the case they can remain silent, maybe there will be more knowledgeable people to defend them or maybe they should just cover their eyes and sing la la la.

But they should not be writing the rules and they should not be making false allegations like DJ did in the above quote.

 

[icedtea]

I wish there wasn't this kind of division. I go to the catholic and orthodox sections and they all claim the church is divided, there are thousands of denoms, and so on.
Cannot the adventists agree on their faith?
I do not know much about it, but when one is seeking, shouldn't there be denoms out there saying we all agree on this, this is our faith?

 

[woobadooba]

I wish there wasn't this kind of division. I go to the catholic and orthodox sections and they all claim the church is divided, there are thousands of denoms, and so on.
Cannot the adventists agree on their faith?
I do not know much about it, but when one is seeking, shouldn't there be denoms out there saying we all agree on this, this is our faith?

Well, we do agree on a lot of things. However, it is important to note that not all who claim to be SDA are really SDA, just as not all that claim to be Christian are really Christian. Matt. 7:21-23

A lot of people assume themselves to be something that they really aren't, not because they are intentionally telling lies, but because they are deceived and unwilling to receive correction.
The Bible instructs us to turn away from such people, because they are not walking according to the Spirit.

Now then, as to my behavior, I apologize. Even though I still hold fast to what I had said to certain people in here, I could have said it in a better way. I spoke out of anger, when I should have spoken out of love. I hope that I did not cause you to stumble in any way, and that I didn't cause you to develop a bad view about SDAs.

As always, we should follow Jesus, not people. For, people often let is down in many ways.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I wish there wasn't this kind of division. I go to the catholic and orthodox sections and they all claim the church is divided, there are thousands of denoms, and so on.
Cannot the adventists agree on their faith?
I do not know much about it, but when one is seeking, shouldn't there be denoms out there saying we all agree on this, this is our faith?

The reason there are thousands of denominations is because there are thousands of ways of looking at things. The Bible is not a code book that lists how to act in all circumstances or how God acts in all circumstances. It does not define the steps in worship or the order of a church service or even really how to organize a church. It is a case book that reveals through numerous stories ideas of how things are, the lessons drawn are still up to the reader, and even with the Holy Spirit's guidance the lesson from a passage may not be the same lesson for someone else. Even passages of pure instruction are going to be impacted by the culture of those to whom the message was given as well as those thousands of years later who read the message, so there is abundant possibilities for differing interpretations.

We have since the foundation of national religion wanted to have Christianity spelled out to us by some authority how we should live, worship and think. That result led to the Inquisition of the Middle Ages and to a extremely corrupt church. Even during the Reformation followers of one Christian Reformer would kill followers of another Christian Reformer. We have inherited a religion which has a history of members who want to be told what to think. But we have to learn to think for ourselves to see the bigger picture found in the Bible and the natural world around us.

Unity is not found in accepting the same identical beliefs throughout the community but is found in the indwelling of God in His followers. A unity of relationship where we don't have to see them with every belief we have but we can see them as loved and accepted by God and therefore they are our brothers and sisters who we can love and accept. Free to debate our views and their views but not letting those difference split us of a relationship with God and each other.

Right now there are two main concepts going on in the Adventist Church, the above view and the other view held by Traditionalists who hold that we are the remnant church who have the most truth of all the churches in Christendom and that any departure from that tradition is a victory for the devil, so Woob thinks he is fighting for truth and against the evil of the "arrogant" and "repulsive" Progressive SDA's.

With such a history as is present in the Christian church the side I fear the most is the side that claims to have the truth and desires to purge itself of the "unbelievers".

It seems to be where we find ourselves today, and frankly I don't see much evidence that this is only a battle fought within the Adventist church. But I do think it is a battle that no matter where we are, we will have to chose sides.

 

[woobadooba]

It is important to note that there is a difference between 'application' and 'interpretation'.

Scripture can be subject to manifold applications. However, there is a specific point that any author in the Bible sought to make through his writing; and that point can be discovered when we prayerfully humble ourselves before God and seek His counsel.

HowardDean,

You know what I'm about, so I won't try to defend myself against what RC has said about me.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I agree that we can perceive the point the author intent
. I think that many people merely hold to a tradition however instead of letting the text and the context of the text speak for itself. Unfortunately here we have people who don't even want to consider alternative views and desire to make rules that banish even the discussion of certain topics.

I very purposely tried to use the expressions you have previously used on this forum Woob. What I said about you is accurate to your own statements even including what you have said about progressive SDA's in quotes.

From your post
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=36688444&postcount=15

Quote:
Originally Posted by HowardDean
I don't even know what a progressive means.
I still have learning to do.

They are those who do not accept some of the traditional views of our church.

Now, that isn't necessarily a bad thing in itself. However, it's their arrogant attitude that makes them so repulsive. They are highly controversial.

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=36695649&postcount=19
In fact, I don't even care if I get banned from this forum, or from CF for that matter. If getting banned is the result of speaking the truth, then bring it on.

I am tired of watering down the truth to make people who are in error feel comfortable, and to satisfy CF rules. A shallow message will NOT awaken people to the truth.

A message of rebuke is long overdue in this forum.

 

[woobadooba]

RC,

It is one thing to be open to correction, but quite another thing to expect people to accept views that derive from the devil for the sake of entertaining the thought of openness.

If you want to accuse me of being intolerant of such views, then I would consider that to be a compliment since the Bible says,

"For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled." (2Co 10:3-6)

The progressive approach does not agree with this passage. Instead of casting down error, it compromises with it.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

This is where you resort to proof text out of context use of the Bible which is against the logic of interpretation as well as the logic of application.

Progressives are not out to destroy knowledge of God that is your unwarranted assumption. The verses say:

1By the meekness and gentleness of Christ, I appeal to you—I, Paul, who am "timid" when face to face with you, but "bold" when away! 2I beg you that when I come I may not have to be as bold as I expect to be toward some people who think that we live by the standards of this world. 3For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. 4The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. 5We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. 6And we will be ready to punish every act of disobedience, once your obedience is complete.

The strongholds Paul was concerned with were the traditions of the Jews who would not acknowledge Christ and had no need for obedience to Christ. Paul sought through his arguments to demolish their arguments so that they could come to a knowledge of God. And through that knowledge come to be followers of Christ, God in the flesh. It is the power of God that brings about the change that is the weapon that God uses unlike the force which is the weapon of the world. The weapon of censorship, and threat, your weapons.

 

[woobadooba]

This is where you resort to proof text out of context use of the Bible which is against the logic of interpretation as well as the logic of application.

Progressives are not out to destroy knowledge of God that is your unwarranted assumption. The verses say:



The strongholds Paul was concerned with were the traditions of the Jews who would not acknowledge Christ and had no need for obedience to Christ. Paul sought through his arguments to demolish their arguments so that they could come to a knowledge of God. And through that knowledge come to be followers of Christ, God in the flesh. It is the power of God that brings about the change that is the weapon that God uses unlike the force which is the weapon of the world. The weapon of censorship, and threat, your weapons.

The passage says "every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God", meaning, it could be anything that opposes what God deems to be true and upright.

By the way, it was their FALSE DOCTRINE that Paul was speaking out against, which opposed the true gospel of Jesus Christ. What else does this tell us but that Paul did not compromise with error, but blatantly rejected it.

RC,

My patience with your remarks about me has been exhausted. You are going on my ignore list.

 

[djconklin]

The strongholds Paul was concerned with were the traditions of the Jews who would not acknowledge Christ and had no need for obedience to Christ. Paul sought through his arguments to demolish their arguments so that they could come to a knowledge of God. And through that knowledge come to be followers of Christ, God in the flesh. It is the power of God that brings about the change that is the weapon that God uses unlike the force which is the weapon of the world. The weapon of censorship, and threat, your weapons.

Up until the last line you sounded good--there's no limit in Paul's thought that he was only fighting the traditions of the Jews. Then you revealed that you don't know Scripture:

CSB Galatians 5:12 I wish those who are disturbing you might also get themselves castrated!​

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Certainly there are traditions of others other then the Jews that stand against God. The point was that the Progressives are not standing against God. The Principle covers more then just the historical application to which Paul is addressing. That is part of the application, but just because something is not your view of things does not make it something against God.

Woob is of course free to ignore me. But I will still stand up against his numerous false charges against fellow Christians. The tragedy in this is how closed minded some people are it is their way or no way. It is pretty hard for people who care about Christ and the SDA church to just cede the church over to those type of Traditional Adventists. Here we see them try to demand that SDA forum be made after their limited views and we see the trouble it causes, if a person thinks they have a strong position they should be able to argue that position. That is so necessary in the post modern world, you have to explain your views as people no longer just assume Christianity is true. You cannot argue against evolution with modern Americans or Europeans by saying because we must believe in the literal 6 days of creation of Genesis. Christians, not just Adventists have become weak in communicating the reason for what they believe and why they believe it. And fundamentalism has never helped because it would just say believe the way we have interpreted because that is our belief and it must be true.