Put an End to the Pharisaical Mentality...

[woobadooba]

This is not a debate thread. If you find that you are having trouble keeping yourself from arguing with me on this matter, then pray to God and ask him to give you strength to embrace your brother in Christ in love, rather than to criticise him with insults...

Now then, instead of being quick to shut something down because it disagrees with what we've always been instructed to believe, we ought to take the matter to God in prayer, and meditate on it (put more thought into it). Of course, we should also examine it in the light of the Holy Scriptures, but not before removing all personal biases that we hold against it from our view. For, only then will we really be able to hear the Spirit speaking to us via the Holy Scriptures. How much time have we spent doing this on such matters?

I've noticed that some SDAs often expect people to accept what we believe without question. Yet, when it comes to accepting an alternative view to what we've always been taught, it is often assumed that the person who holds such a view is either deceived by the devil, or is trying to compromise the integrity of the scriptures. It is childish to think like this; and such thinking does not promote growth in Christ. For, this (people actually being agents of satan) may be the case at times, but often times it isn't.

Do you remember what happened with the 1888 meetings? Alternative ideas were being introduced to the church about righteousness by faith, and some who were leaders in the church for a long period of time absolutely refused to accept the truth, because they were not willing to humble themselves and accept the possibility of being wrong. In essence the Lord was endeavoring to teach them something, and instead of embracing it, they pushed it away, and condemned those who were God's instruments in disclosing it.

Let's not walk after the same Pharisaical example, but be more open-minded about being corrected. How could we ever expect to be ready for the coming of Jesus Christ when we aren't willing to allow Him to teach us what it really means to worship God in truth and Spirit?

A lot of people have left our church as a result of such bigotry. It's true that some have left because they never really wanted to embrace this message, but just wanted to go along for the ride. However, many have left because they've been discouraged by Pharisaical minds which expect them to accept everything without question. In other words, when these people had shown themselves to be inquisitive, they were referred to as troublers, or agents of Satan trying to divide the church. Hence, because these people have been told (in other words) to shut up and not ask any questions, their questions were never properly addressed, and so they left the church because they lost confidence in it as a result of the manner in which they were treated by these Pharisees.

This shouldn't be. If someone presents something that is an alternative view to what we believe, let's not automatically conclude that it's a threat to our church; rather, let's weigh it well, to see it for what it really is. We just might discover that it's born of the Spirit, and that God is trying to teach us something about Himself which will enable us to grow in the knowledge of the truth as it is in Jesus Christ if we accept it.

 

[Sunrunner]

Do you remember what happened with the 1888 meetings? Alternative ideas were being introduced to the church about righteousness by faith, and some who were leaders in the church for a long period of time absolutely refused to accept the truth, because they were not willing to humble themselves and accept the possibility of being wrong. In essence the Lord was endeavoring to teach them something, and instead of embracing it, they pushed it away, and condemned those who were God's instruments in disclosing it.

I understand what you mean, but at the risk of being picky there's something I have to mention about your example.

In 1888, the Church was not open to New Light. They were, you could say, in the mindset of the Pharisees.

However, Adventists have always held to a clear view of New Light. We believe that, of course, increasing light will fall on God's people, expanding our understanding and knowledge of heavenly things. But New Light is defined as revelations that build upon our established foundation (what the Lord has already shown us) not tear them down. When "New Light" contradicts "Established Light" then we can conclude that the New Light is from a spirit, but not the Spirit.

We shouldn't cast judgment on brethren when they disagree with Church doctrines, instead attempting to understand their view and trying to show them ours. But I believe in following Christ's counsel to the early Adventists (Philadelphia), "Hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown." Revelation 3:11

To end on a bright note, happy Sabbath Woob!

 

[woobadooba]

I understand what you mean, but at the risk of being picky there's something I have to mention about your example.

In 1888, the Church was not open to New Light. They were, you could say, in the mindset of the Pharisees.

However, Adventists have always held to a clear view of New Light. We believe that, of course, increasing light will fall on God's people, expanding our understanding and knowledge of heavenly things. But New Light is defined as revelations that build upon our established foundation (what the Lord has already shown us) not tear them down. When "New Light" contradicts "Established Light" then we can conclude that the New Light is from a spirit, but not the Spirit.

We shouldn't cast judgment on brethren when they disagree with Church doctrines, instead attempting to understand their view and trying to show them ours. But I believe in following Christ's counsel to the early Adventists (Philadelphia), "Hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown." Revelation 3:11

To end on a bright note, happy Sabbath Woob!

Well, this is why I also said the following right in the beginning of my thread: "Now then, instead of being quick to shut something down because it disagrees with what we've always been instructed to believe, we ought to take the matter to God in prayer, and meditate on it (put more thought into it). Of course, we should also examine it in the light of the Holy Scriptures, but not before removing all personal biases that we hold against it from our view. For, only then will we really be able to hear the Spirit speaking to us via the Holy Scriptures. How much time have we spent doing this on such matters?"

How much time did those conference leaders really spend doing this at the 1888 meetings?


You probably missed the edited version of my thread.


Happy Sabbath to you too

P.S. Just because a person says he's willing to receive new light, that doesn't mean he's willing to show himself as one who is ready, or willing to embrace it when God puts it in front of him.
Furthermore, I don't see that there is "new light" per say, since all light that is needed in terms of understanding God's ultimate will and purpose for humankind has already been given to us via the Holy Scriptures (2Tim. 3:15-17). Thus I wouldn't refer to it as "new light"; rather, I would call it 'increased understanding' of light that was already there.

 

[Sunrunner]

Of course, we should also examine it in the light of the Holy Scriptures, but not before removing all personal biases that we hold against it from our view. For, only then will we really be able to hear the Spirit speaking to us via the Holy Scriptures. How much time have we spent doing this on such matters?"

I agree.

Also, that seems like an acceptable label for new understandings of scripture.

 

[Jon0388g]

However, Adventists have always held to a clear view of New Light. We believe that, of course, increasing light will fall on God's people, expanding our understanding and knowledge of heavenly things. But New Light is defined as revelations that build upon our established foundation (what the Lord has already shown us) not tear them down. When "New Light" contradicts "Established Light" then we can conclude that the New Light is from a spirit, but not the Spirit.

Wow Sunrunner, spot on!!! Couldn't have said it better myself!

I think Woob has a very very valid point - Adventists are often quick to jump to the conclusion that whatever adds 'new light' is of the devil - as we 'already know everything' there is to know.

But - on the other hand, the Adventist beliefs as a body is either the Remnant body of Scripture, or it is not. There cannot be 50% truth, 98% truth etc. Whatever 'new-light' we recieve, as Sunrunner brilliantly noted, should not and cannot blatantly contradict our fundamental core beliefs, if we truly are God's Remnant.

J

 

[OntheDL]

On the subject of 1888, it actually introduced no new light.

I have had the question asked, What do you think of this light which these men [A.T. Jones and EJ. Waggoner] are presenting? Why, I have been presenting it to you for the last forty-five years—the matchless charms of Christ. This is what I have been trying to present before your minds. ---Manuscript Releases, vol. 1, 142.

While Jones and Waggoner presented no new light, the new view was in the interpretation of this righteousness by faith message: righteousness by faith and faith only and unconditional justification.

This was the true point of the contention. As a direct result of the new view, Ellen White was forced to exile herself to Australia .​

​

​

 

[woobadooba]

On the subject of 1888, it actually introduced no new light.

I have had the question asked, What do you think of this light which these men [A.T. Jones and EJ. Waggoner] are presenting? Why, I have been presenting it to you for the last forty-five years—the matchless charms of Christ. This is what I have been trying to present before your minds. ---Manuscript Releases, vol. 1, 142.​

While Jones and Waggoner presented no new light, the new view was in the interpretation of this righteousness by faith message: righteousness by faith and faith only and unconditional justification. ​

This was the true point of the contention. As a direct result of the new view, Ellen White was forced to exile herself to Australia . ​

Precisely my point: They did not present new light, but 'increased understanding" of light that was already there. See my P.S. in post #3

And many today refuse to see the light that was already there because they would rather hold on to fables.

 

[OntheDL]

Precisely my point: They did not present new light, but 'increased understanding" of light that was already there. See my P.S. in post #3

And many today refuse to see the light that was already there because they would rather hold on to fables.

The real doctrine the new light presented was not righteousness by faith. It was rather the issue of works: do we need to keep the law? Thus 'faith alone'.

The conference leaders at the time did not object to righteousness by faith. However they by their interpretations of the new view rejected our traditional view on sanctification and justification from the bible and supported by SOP and challenged Ellen White's position as the seer of the church.

 

[woobadooba]

The real doctrine the new light presented was not righteousness by faith. It was rather the issue of works: do we need to keep the law? Thus 'faith alone'.

The conference leaders at the time did not object to righteousness by faith. However they by their interpretations of the new view rejected our traditional view on sanctification and justification from the bible and supported by SOP and challenged Ellen White's position as the seer of the church.

Well, I read the book that George Knight wrote on it and in this book he presented the main issue as being the true nature of righteousness by faith.

Did you read this book? 'User-Friendly Guide to the 1888 Message' http://www.fetchbook.info/search_George_R._Knight/searchBy_Author/startFrom_2.html