What EXACTLY is Righteousness?

[JohnT]

I don't think that JohnT will find many people in this forum who believe in the Traditional/Historic Adventist ideas of imparted righteousness and last-generation perfection, with the Sabbath as the final end-time test of loyalty. Unfortunately, those who do believe such things have cut off dialog in their forum with those whom they don't consider "friends of the church."

Sophia7 and others:

Imparted righteousness is given by Christ to all believers, and has no merit value at all.

OTOH infused righteousness is the tea bag analogy. The hotter the water, more molecules are moving, and the infusion of the steeped tea is determined by the heat of the water, and the amount of time the teabag is steeped. Therefore, infusion is the works model..

Not scolding, but helping all to be on the same playing field of understanding.

I'd LOVE to be able to post post #1 here in the trad's sandbox, but having made one post there recently trying to be truly helpful, and nice, I was hammered for trespassing. Therefore, I will not attempt to read any of their posts in their sandbox. They have it all to themselves.

However, I am sure that they are permitted to post here. (sigh)

So my question comes down to this:
In light of post 1 here, how can ANYONE ever make works a part of righteousness? That ultimately is either pure Pelagianism, or at least Semi-Pelagianism, both were soundly condemned before 500, at Constantinople.

Because that was condemned so early in the church's history it must have been common then. I believe that it was the subject of three different Ecumenical Councils. Why should anyone bring back a proven heresy? Is it because someone, allegedly inerrant said it?

Truly, that is something that I do not understand about some SDAs.

 

[StormyOne]

Sophia7 and others:

Imparted righteousness is given by Christ to all believers, and has no merit value at all.

OTOH infused righteousness is the tea bag analogy. The hotter the water, more molecules are moving, and the infusion of the steeped tea is determined by the heat of the water, and the amount of time the teabag is steeped. Therefore, infusion is the works model..

Not scolding, but helping all to be on the same playing field of understanding.

I'd LOVE to be able to post post #1 here in the trad's sandbox, but having made one post there recently trying to be truly helpful, and nice, I was hammered for trespassing. Therefore, I will not attempt to read any of their posts in their sandbox. They have it all to themselves.

However, I am sure that they are permitted to post here. (sigh)

So my question comes down to this:
In light of post 1 here, how can ANYONE ever make works a part of righteousness? That ultimately is either pure Pelagianism, or at least Semi-Pelagianism, both were soundly condemned before 500, at Constantinople.

Because that was condemned so early in the church's history it must have been common then. I believe that it was the subject of three different Ecumenical Councils. Why should anyone bring back a proven heresy? Is it because someone, allegedly inerrant said it?

Truly, that is something that I do not understand about some SDAs.

I hear what you are saying JohnT and you would not be the only one who does not understand some sdas... I suspect your understanding of righteousness is not going to be met with opposition here in this forum....

 

[Sophia7]

Sophia7 and others:

Imparted righteousness is given by Christ to all believers, and has no merit value at all.

OTOH infused righteousness is the tea bag analogy. The hotter the water, more molecules are moving, and the infusion of the steeped tea is determined by the heat of the water, and the amount of time the teabag is steeped. Therefore, infusion is the works model..

Not scolding, but helping all to be on the same playing field of understanding.

I'd LOVE to be able to post post #1 here in the trad's sandbox, but having made one post there recently trying to be truly helpful, and nice, I was hammered for trespassing. Therefore, I will not attempt to read any of their posts in their sandbox. They have it all to themselves.

However, I am sure that they are permitted to post here. (sigh)

So my question comes down to this:
In light of post 1 here, how can ANYONE ever make works a part of righteousness? That ultimately is either pure Pelagianism, or at least Semi-Pelagianism, both were soundly condemned before 500, at Constantinople.

Because that was condemned so early in the church's history it must have been common then. I believe that it was the subject of three different Ecumenical Councils. Why should anyone bring back a proven heresy? Is it because someone, allegedly inerrant said it?

Truly, that is something that I do not understand about some SDAs.

What you're not understanding, though, is that to a Traditional Adventist, imparted righteousness is what people supposedly get by becoming perfectly sinless before Jesus comes. They don't use such terms in the same way that you would.

 

[JohnT]

What you're not understanding, though, is that to a Traditional Adventist, imparted righteousness is what people supposedly get by becoming perfectly sinless before Jesus comes. They don't use such terms in the same way that you would.

That is called "weasel wording" or "convertible language". It is like calling a cow a dog because they both have four legs.

I am concerned about others who were once like you and hubby, but you saw the light. How to rescue them from error??

BTW I am tracking this down, but it seems fairly common knowledge around here that the local SDA pastor is marrying a local Baptist minister.

One more in each church's worship service, I'd say!

 

[Sophia7]

That is called "weasel wording" or "convertible language". It is like calling a cow a dog because they both have four legs.

It's a common thing in Traditional Adventism. Some of the terms that they use in presenting their doctrines to other Christians sound "orthodox," but Adventists really mean something different by them.

I am concerned about others who were once like you and hubby, but you saw the light. How to rescue them from error??

I have to tell you that I was never as "Traditional" as most of the Traditional Adventists at CF (most of whom joined the SDA Church as adults). I wasn't raised in extremely conservative Adventism, and I didn't buy into the toxic soteriology that some Adventists have. I understood the Gospel despite the fact that Adventist teachings tend to obscure it. My family wasn't big on Ellen White, either, so I didn't even read any of her books until I went to college--and then only a couple. Most of what I've read of her writings has been after I started questioning Adventist beliefs although I have heard her quoted a lot during my lifetime. And I found the Traditional/Historic Adventism that we encountered among some people during our ministry oppressive.

How do we rescue people from error? I guess we don't; that's up to the Holy Spirit although we can share our beliefs with them. I have a few family members who think that I am on my way to hell because I have left the SDA Church and now attend church on Sunday. I've presented the reasons that I believe many Adventist teachings to be contradictory to the Bible, but they still don't see any validity to my objections.

For me, talking to people online opened my eyes to many different beliefs and challenged my thinking on a lot of issues, but it wasn't until something clicked in my mind as I was reading the Bible one day (and I was reading it every day, but for some reason a certain passage struck me differently that day) that I really started doubting the truth of certain Adventist beliefs. (I had a few areas of disagreement before that, but I considered them minor points.) Perhaps you could say that some kind of veil was lifted. My questions began with the IJ and also with the inconsistencies in the Adventist view of the Law. Others may have different catalysts that cause them to rethink things.

BTW I am tracking this down, but it seems fairly common knowledge around here that the local SDA pastor is marrying a local Baptist minister.

One more in each church's worship service, I'd say!

That seems really odd to me because Adventist pastors aren't even supposed to officiate at marriage ceremonies for Adventists who are marrying non-Adventists. Some do it anyway, though. Some areas of the country and some conferences and local churches are more strict about things like that than others.