advindicate

Open full view…

A safe place for whom? — ADvindicate

Wed, 12 Nov 2014 04:07:45 GMT

George Evans
Sun, 23 Nov 2014 01:15:26 GMT

Jesus came to do what we cannot?! So what! I'm in a deep pit. I can't get out. Jesus won't get in (according to you). Jesus is the way? Not out of the pit, apparently. Is Jesus the way from the top of the pit, to heaven? Then what do I do? How do I get out of the pit?

George Evans
Sun, 23 Nov 2014 01:16:04 GMT

Jeremy wrote, >…this is vintage egw, which is supplemented righteousness – where sanctification is the condition for justification… And you called *my* idea contorted?

Jeremy Vandieman
Sun, 23 Nov 2014 02:37:50 GMT

due to the circumstances of our birth, which we didn't ask for, we cannot save ourselves...this is why jesus came to save us...if he came in the fallen sinful nature each of us has inherited, he would have needed a savior, just like we do...jesus' fallen sinless nature didn't confer any advantage in successfully repelling sin...after-all, adam, eve, lucifer, and a third of the angels all sinned with sinless natures...jesus' temptations were far more powerful than ours, to the same proportion that his character and nature were superior to ours...we are not required to keep our divinity in check while doing personal battle with the supernatural lucifer...jesus was...we are not being given absolutely no room for error - we don't have the pressure of being utterly perfect, each and every moment of every day...jesus had to endure this...there is no comparison to what christ suffered and successfully overcame, and anything we can be called to suffer and overcome... the best we can do is give our all to him who gave his all to us...when jesus gave his all to us, we needed it. ..when we give our all to jesus, he in fact doesn't need it...he gave his all to us out of love...we give our all to him out of love, but also out of need... there is a sense in which jesus was like us, and in which he is our pattern...but this must never be allowed to cloud the fact that jesus is also our sacrifice, priest, and savior, functions which he, and only he, was born to be...there can never be another jesus...we can strive to be like him, but we can never equal the pattern...for this reason we worship him, instead of ourselves...

George Evans
Mon, 24 Nov 2014 16:40:49 GMT

Jeremy, I appreciate our conversations. I feel we are fellow travelers on this road. In fact it was the recitation of your paradigm of Jesus' fallen sinless nature that helped spurred me on to further clarify the two room model and I thank you for that. It was in the juxtaposition of those two words "fallen" and "sinless" that I saw the need for two rooms in Christ's human nature. Now we continue our conversation. You wrote, >due to the circumstances of our birth, which we didn't ask for, we cannot save ourselves… The plan of salvation required the Son to place Himself as close to us as possible. In Genesis 3:15 we see the first step in the plan, "And I will put hostility between you [Satan] and the woman and between your offspring and her offspring." These "offspring" became dual residents occupying adjoining rooms in the human psyche, with a wall of hostility between. God created an artificial division in everyone from Eve on down, according to Ellen White, >Since the announcement to the serpent in Eden, “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy s eed and her seed” (Genesis 3:15), Satan had known that he did not hold absolute sway over the world. There was seen *in* *men* the working of a power that withstood his dominion. Carefully and thoughtfully study PP 66, DA 115 and GC 505 regarding this cryptic pronouncement and you will understand the birthplace of the two room model that God later illustrated, in more detail, in the tabernacle. Truly we cannot save ourselves and, once incarnated, Jesus could not save Himself. He had to rely on outside assistance from His heavenly Father, His whole life. She wrote that Satan rejoiced "that when Christ should take upon Himself human nature, He also might be overcome." Such a risk. >…if he came in the fallen sinful nature each of us has inherited, he would have needed a savior, just like we do… Here is where I think you need to tweak your understanding of original sin. It can only apply to the back room. In the front room God gave back to the human race it's free choice. That is the essence of the second probation. That is exactly why you can say Jesus inherited a "fallen sinless nature", a fallen back room and a sinless front room, and with the Father's aid, He maintained His front room sinless His whole life. >…we are not being given absolutely no room for error – we don't have the pressure of being utterly perfect, each and every moment of every day… We will, when He is finished with us. >…when we give our all to jesus, he in fact doesn't need it… I can't completely agree with this because He made a promise to be able to replicate His victory in a test group. He needs a significantly large group of test subjects. >…there can never be another jesus… So true. But, as Waggoner said, there will be thousands of replicas, maybe even 144 thousand.

Jeremy Vandieman
Fri, 28 Nov 2014 05:55:29 GMT

george, i believe your front room/back room concept is a bizarre amalgamation of the two apartments of the sanctuary - which you are linking with each of us because like the sanctuary, we are potentially the temple of god - and an instinctive aversion to the full weight of the argument illustrating justification, based on a four-fold, crescendoing comparison with original sin, found in romans 5, which briefly unfolds as: 1...v.12...because of adam's sin, we are subject to death like adam, because like adam, we've sinned...(notice that you are erroneously interpreting the rest of romans 5 as a reiteration of this first point, which it definitely is not)... 2...v.14...because of adam's sin, we are subject to death like adam, even when, unlike adam, we sinned without knowing it...(this is not point 1 reiterated...it is a different concept)... 3...v.18...we are condemned because of adam's sin...(this point is very far removed from point 1, and is the heart of inspiration's teaching on original sin)... 4...v.19...we have a predilection towards sinning because of adam's si n...(this particular point is clearer in egw, but it can be seen in the bible, as well)... this compound scripture is NOT saying we have a sinful backroom which god has intervened from contaminating our sinless front room that only becomes sinful when we knowingly sin...it's saying our entire being is saturated in sinfulness and guilt, as a consequence of adam's sin, IN ADDITION to any sinfulness and guilt we accrue through our own choices...notice that this sinful saturation was in fact the condition of the earthly sanctuary, which was cleansed at yom kippur...that is, the entire sanctuary was cleansed, not just the most holy place...notice, as well, that the holy place was contaminated BEFORE the most holy place was contaminated, and the most holy place was contaminated only once a year, at the end of the sanctuary cycle...there is no way to construct a sinless front room - holy place/sinful back room - most holy place model as our condition at birth from even a cursory glance at the earthly sanctuary... until you accept the biblical version of original sin outlined in romans 5, and it's effect on everyone on earth, you have no way to explain why enlightening people who are sinning in ignorance is a priority - that is, you have no reason to evangelize the world...you should be advocating keeping the gospel a secret, so that as many people as possible can die without being accountable for what they had no way to know...in fact you have no reason not to advocate mass abortion and infanticide as an act of mercy to save as many people as possible before they reach the age of accountability and sin through willful knowledge....you also have no reason to agree with egw's teaching that babies are sinners and lost unless they are saved through their parents' faith...you also have no reason to agree with egw's teaching that slaves, kept in ignorance, are lost, even though they will not partake of the second death... in short, your entire soteriology paradigm is grievously messed up because you, like so many conservatives, have no real clue of our starting condition at birth...this in turn means there's no way to really understand any of the biblical and egw statements that explain so minutely what jesus is doing to save us, or what our role in that process is...

doug matacio
Fri, 28 Nov 2014 13:36:47 GMT

Makes sense, Jeremy. Is there any reason why God could not save an infant based on the faith of its grandparents or for that matter any person of faith who, knowing its parents are unbelievers, lifts that child up in a prayer of faith?

doug matacio
Fri, 28 Nov 2014 13:44:41 GMT

Jeremy, would you be willing to come up and speak to my class sometime next semester, in January?

Jeremy Vandieman
Fri, 28 Nov 2014 18:34:53 GMT

> @dougc > Is there any reason why God could not save an infant based on the faith of its grandparents or for that matter any person of faith who, knowing its parents are unbelievers, lifts that child up in a prayer of faith? doug, i don't see any...to me, the principle of salvation for babies and children through the faith of a parent means salvation for babies and children through the faith of any guardian, or any person who takes responsibility for them by praying for them, despite the non-faith of parents, which points to the importance of praying specifically for fellow church members and situations we know about...keep in mind we are all priests, 1 peter 2:9, which means we are all designated intercessors... > @dougc > Jeremy, would you be willing to come up and speak to my class sometime next semester, in January? sure, doug...my email is [email protected] let me know when, and what you want me to talk about...i should tell you i'm not that experienced as a speaker...i've spoken once at campmeeting, also at adventist academies in california and washington a fe w yrs ago...in 2015 i'll be talking to another one of our american academies, so why not at cuc...usually i've been talking about homosexuality - why it's a sin even though people really are born gay, which does touch on aspects of original sin - along with what it's like to live as a celibate gay adventist...but i can talk on other things too...just let me know what you need :)

Jeremy Vandieman
Fri, 28 Nov 2014 18:50:12 GMT

i should add that 1 john 5:16-17 says: "if any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death...there is a sin unto death: i do not say that he shall pray for it...all unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death"... this scripture, which i believe extends the principle of interceding for babies to interceding for people who sin in ignorance, is the reason i'm in a major center every new year's eve, interceding for the world...generally i'm in a gay ghetto, since this is the segment of the world i completely understand, but i don't just intercede for gays...this year i'll be in houston for new year's eve... i'm not saying all adventists should intercede in a major city at new year's...but perhaps we should all awaken to our responsibility to pray for the unbelieving world, in addition to our church...our prayers have weight with god when our lives are right...let's not discount or dismiss the value of our intercessory role in the world...

George Evans
Sat, 29 Nov 2014 04:08:16 GMT

Jeremy wrote regarding Romans 5:14ff, >…it's saying our entire being is saturated in sinfulness and guilt… Augustine was not correct that human nature was totally depraved. Likewise it can't be supported that "our entire being is saturated." Ellen White writes in PP 66.1, "Satan…knew that his work of depraving human nature would be interrupted." If it's interrupted it isn't total. In DA 115.1 she wrote, "Satan had known that he did not hold absolute sway over the world. There was seen in men the working of a power that withstood his dominion." And in GC 505.3 she wrote that Satan "knew that his efforts to deprave human nature would be interrupted; that by some means man was to be enabled to resist his power." All these statements point away from Augustine's idea of total depravity. >…the most holy place was contaminated only once a year… When a sin offering was sacrificed at the altar of burnt offering blood was collected and scattered seven times on the ground before the veil symbolizing that the damage caused by the sin was transferred into the most holy place, Levit icus 4:6, 17. >until you accept the biblical version of original sin…you have no reason to evangelize the world… I agree with you whole heartedly on this point. We need to have a correct doctrine of original sin. Every person on earth must be warned that from birth they are 1/3 possessed by Satan and are in dire straights. Jeremy, I appreciate your willingness to help me understand this subject better. I think we are very close to agreement. I just can't accept Augustine's view of total depravity when I read Ellen White's comments above.

Jeremy Vandieman
Sat, 29 Nov 2014 06:24:03 GMT

> @georgethe54th > Augustine was not correct that human nature was totally depraved. Likewise it can't be supported that “our entire being is saturated.” Ellen White writes in PP 66.1, “Satan…knew that his work of depraving human nature would be interrupted.” If it's interrupted it isn't total. george, i think you are confusing augustine with calvin - a reformer endorsed by egw in great controversy - who extended augustine's original sin theory of total depravity to man's complete inability to choose good or evil, meaning god predestines those who are saved, and those who are lost...don't be so quick to dump on augustine...he lived only 300 yrs from the apostles, and was commended by jerome, who was also endorsed by egw in great controversy...augustine didn't know everything we know now, but he got a lot of things right, including original sin and total human depravity as our starting point at conception... as for egw's view of human depravity, here's a sampling: "In order to understand this matter aright [controlling our "thoughts and imaginations"], we must remember that our hearts are naturally depraved, and we are unable of ourselves to pursue a right course. It is only by the grace of God, combined with the most earnest effort on our part, that we can gain the victory. The intellect, as well as the heart, must be consecrated to the service of God. He has claims upon all there is of us. Few believe that humanity has sunk so low as it has or that it is so thoroughly bad, so desperately opposed to God, as it is." In Heavenly Places:163. egw definitely teaches augustine's view of inherited depravity, condemnation, and lostness, although she rejects his assumption that infant baptism addresses this inheritance...of course she also rejects calvin's predestination paradigm...what she teaches is that fallen humanity without divine intervention is on a hopeless trajectory - that the entire world is in fact lost: "The fall of humanity filled all heaven with sorrow. The world that God had made was blighted with the curse of sin and inhabited by beings doomed to misery and death. There appeared no escape for those who had transgressed the law. Angels ceased their songs of praise. Throughout the heavenly courts there was mourning for the ruin that sin had wrought. The Son of God, heaven’s glorious Commander, was touched with pity for the fallen race. His heart was moved with infinite compassion as the woes of the lost world rose up before Him." Christ Triumphant:163. the desire of ages and great controversy references you cite are not saying that we are not depraved...desire of ages:114 in fact says: "After tempting man to sin, Satan claimed the earth as his, and styled himself the prince of this world. Having conformed to his own nature the father and mother of our race, he thought to establish here his empire." desire of ages:115 is merely saying that satan's claim to lordship of this earth would be proven false by christ's victorious life, and that man's depravity and captivity would be successfully challenged: "As the Son of man, Christ would stand loyal to God. Thus it would be shown that Satan had not gained complete control of the human race, and that his claim to the world was false. All who desired deliverance form his power would be set free. The dominion that Adam had lost through sin would be recovered." in other words, human depravity isn't intrinsically not depraved because that depravity has been interupted...we are depraved...but the sinless human nature and life of christ would dispute satan's claim to total control of the human race...the point is, christ sinless human nature and life exists apart from our sinful human nature and life...apart from christ, we are certainly completely depraved, and conformed to satan's depraved nature from conception... in great controversy:506 we read: "It is the grace that Christ implants in the soul which creates in man enmity against Satan. Without this converting grace and renewing power, man would continue the captive of Satan, a servant ever ready to do his bidding. But the new principle in the soul creates conflict where hitherto had been peace. The power which Christ imparts enables man to resist the tyrant and usurper. Whoever is seen to abhor sin instead of loving it, whoever resists and conquers those passions that have held sway within, displays the operation of a principle wholly from above." this "principal wholly from above" is saying that our depravity is complete, except for the intervention of external, divine power...egw is saying that despite our depravity, the power of god through christ has the ability to regenerate us from the pull of that depravity...if we combine earnest efforts with the power of the holy spirit, we can live above the pull of our genes...we can be "sons of god", john 1:12... the bible's testimony is also that we are naturally depraved and wicked: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9. "And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness." 1 John 5:19. there are of course many other texts that teach our inherent depravity and wickedness...the consensus of inspiration is clear that we are born with nothing that we can take credit for...if it weren't for jesus' intervention and the holy spirit's continuing effort, we would continue in our natural inheritance: complete, utter depravity, as well as intrinsic alienation from god and everything good and holy...our starting point is conformity to the depraved image of satan...how much more depraved can you get...

George Evans
Sun, 30 Nov 2014 00:14:09 GMT

Jeremy wrote, >…augustine didn't know everything we know now, but he got a lot of things right, including original sin and total human depravity as our starting point at conception… One of the ideas Augustine didn't have was a two room psychological model. He only saw a person as one room. I have a partner who did this same thing for a long time. But for the last 150 years we have been entertaining ideas of multi-roomed psychological theories and lately this has all started to be synthesized into an answer to a very old Adventist question, Why are we still here? I agree that Augustine was an important religious thought leader and I can see why you are drawn to him. You both share an intrepid need to explore man's condition. This seems to be the kind of person Paul was as well. And you are right that Calvin advanced Augustine's idea into predestination. But the reason he got trapped there is that he, too, was only seeing a person as one room and so the word "total" seemed obvious. How can a person be anything other than total this or total that? You are either all in or all out. But if that is the norm, then why did Jesus spend so much time talking about the danger of being double minded? And why did Paul write the uncomfortably bipolar Romans 7 passage? Paul writes in the next chapter, "…the carnal mind is enmity against God…" That's a phrase that one room thinkers really have trouble with. Paul says the mind IS enmity against God. But every time I ask a person if they hate God they tell me no, I don't hate God. Obviously this hatred Paul is talking about is in the unconscious part of our mind. That must be the back room. That is where original sin is located. All you have to do to make this pop is understand that Augustine and Calvin were focussing on the back room--a room that is the devil's playground from birth. It's Satan's romper room. It is the room societies spend all there time teaching their citizens to control. And it is the final objective of Jesus' final battle. The Back Room. Did you notice that buried almost exactly in the center of you first quote from HP 163.3 there is proof of the two room model. She writes "The intellect, *as* *well* *as* the heart, must be consecrated…" That implies that the intellect and the heart are different things. When she writes "Few believe that humanity has sunk so low…" it is because the back room is out of normal view--they are unconscious of it. We don't *think* we are that bad. Your second quote comes from two paragraphs, CTr 30.2 and 30.3. It is her description of the state of humanity right after the fall. Her next phrase, that you didn't get to, reads "But divine love had conceived a plan…" The first step in that plan was to create the wall of separation so that we would have a fighting chance. >the desire of ages and great controversy references you cite are not saying that we are not depraved… I know. They are saying we are not *totally* depraved. Here again you focus on her description *before* God makes His pronouncement in Genesis 3:15. In fact when you say you are quoting from p. 115 of DA, you actually quoted from 114.3, the paragraph right before the one I quoted. >…but the sinless human nature and life of christ would dispute satan's claim to total control of the human race… It is true that the whole plan rests on Christ's performance. But it is explained in Genesis 3:15 that the action of God putting enmity are done to all of mankind and didn't have to wait for Jesus to be born. She describes how Satan could see that something was wrong with his plan when he saw Adam sacrificing the lamb. He could tell that something was allowing Adam and Eve to commune with God outside his depraving purview. >this “principal wholly from above” is saying that our depravity is complete, except for the intervention of external, divine power… Exactly. And all I'm saying is, that was seen from the moment God made the declaration in the garden. At that moment the plan of redemption went into effect. At the moment of the fall, Adam and Eve did, momentarily, become totally depraved and would have remain that way if it wasn't for God's shoving the depravity to the back and walling it off.

Jeremy Vandieman
Sun, 30 Nov 2014 03:51:39 GMT

george, i see no persuasive evidence for your back room concept of original sin whatsoever...have you considered following the concept outlined in inspiration, that the carnal man - what we are born with and subsist in until the grace of god intervenes - is the whole man we receive at conception...when we are born again, we are completely born again...we aren't born again into two parts, one part of which experiences god's power, while the other doesn't, but is instead walled off because god can't deal with it... the big problem with this back room concept is that it envisions us constantly carrying baggage of depravity than never responds to the grace of god over time because it's walled off, and god isn't touching it...do you believe we're actually transformed by the grace of god or not...if we're transformed, what is being transformed: a front room that didn't need transforming, or a back room that's so hopeless god isn't touching it...i see no victory in this paradigm at all...it's like you think we're constantly living with a 500 lb bowling ball tied around our ank le, whether we've accepted christ into our lives or not... what i see in inspiration is that as a consequence of divine intervention, our characters are developed in proportion to the change in our original depraved natures...over time, what i loved, i learn to hate, and what i hated, i learn to love...this complete inner transformation leads to a more exalted and pure character, which in turn is a reflection of the underlying changed nature...certainly someone with the sanctification of enoch did not retain the inner depravity he started with in some back room...sanctification had done its work, and at last he walked into heaven because he belonged there, not merely because of what he wasn't doing, but because of what he was...he certainly didn't fight his way into the pearly gates with a 500 lb bowling ball of depravity holding him back... this back room concept of yours, like all error, is potentially dangerous because it obscures the action of the holy spirit on our fallen nature that jesus supplements with his own perfect merits...if only our front room of conscious decision making is being changed, it means we are never really in harmony with the decisions we discover god wants us to make because our back room, with all it's depravity, is not responding to the grace of god - because god has walled it off...this view completely distorts the work of the trinity in our salvation...you are virtually saying we are righteous if our works are righteous, whereas the bible says our works are righteous because our inner natures have become righteous through the power of the holy spirit...there is no difference between born again obedience and calculated, pharisaical obedience in this back room view because the holy spirit has no power to deal with that back room under any circumstances...in fact it's putting god in a back room...he isn't being allowed to change what estranges us from him in the first place...

George Evans
Mon, 01 Dec 2014 20:10:32 GMT

Jeremy asked, >…do you believe we're actually transformed by the grace of god or not… I believe the front room is transformed first, and then the back room as Jesus Christ moves ever deeper into my psyche. I also know there were sincere SDA Christians in Indiana over a hundred years ago who went through a dramatic and spiritual transformation called the Garden Experience, and then, thinking they had been completely changed, started having naked time at the Conference office. >a front room that didn't need transforming… The model doesn't require an uncorrupted front room for anyone other than Jesus. Normally our front rooms are pretty ugly also, by the time we meet Jesus. >…over time, what i loved, i learn to hate, and what i hated, i learn to love… I noticed you said this happened "over time." >…if only our front room of conscious decision making is being changed… That would mean the person didn't understand that the back room exists at all. That would probably be a man. >…our back room, with all it's depravity, is not responding to the grace of god – because god ha s walled it off… God leaves a door way between the two rooms. >…the holy spirit has no power to deal with that back room under any circumstances… When have I ever said that? A 500lbs bowling ball?! That's a wild thought. But it would do some damage to the pins if you could get it rolling in the right direction.

Jeremy Vandieman
Mon, 01 Dec 2014 21:51:52 GMT

george, previously you had said that our back room is walled off by god, and that jesus is working in our front room...now you're saying there's a corridor between the two rooms, so that after jesus works on our front room of consciousness, he can work on our back room of unconscious evil - in other words, our back room really isn't walled off, after-all...but despite this improvement there are problems...you are essentially saying that character is transformed before anything happens to the nature we were born with... i believe inspiration is teaching the opposite...that is, our nature is being changed by the holy spirit so that we become progressively able to work out what he is working in...we have nothing to do with cleaning up our nature - this is divinity's job...our job is to work cooperatively with divinity in cleaning up our character: "...work out your own salvation with fear and trembling...for it is god which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure", philippians 2:12-13... this seminal text explains to us that divinity works IN us in ord er to influence our ability to choose to want to do, and to in fact do, god's will...it is saying to us that god is effecting change in our sinful fallen INNER nature in order for anything on the outside to heal through our cooperation with him...here is an interesting egw text: "The power of evil in [Jacob's] nature was broken; his character was transformed," Courage and Conflict:10... this text is not saying that god first cleaned up jacob's character, and then went to work on his nature...it's saying that jacob's front room was cleaned up AFTER his backroom was cleaned up... george, every time you express your front room/back room model, something in it changes...perhaps your next step will be to shelve it, and agree with inspiration's detailed teachings of nature and character in fallen man...

George Evans
Tue, 02 Dec 2014 08:14:22 GMT

Jeremy, I am sorry for causing confusion with my overly aggressive statement about God shoving the depravity into the back room and walling it off. I see how that sounded like a sealed off room. I always picture a wall with a door and a latch. Of course in the tabernacle it is the veil. >…you are essentially saying that character is transformed before anything happens to the nature we were born with… I believe that the moment Christ walks in the front door the back room comes under His subduing influence. I sometimes picture the back room containing a raging beast. In that case I picture Jesus as the beast whisperer or master able to subdue the sinful heart. >i believe inspiration is teaching the opposite…that is, our nature is being changed by the holy spirit so that we become progressively able to work out what he is working in… I like the sound of that. I might say it a little differently. I might say we find it easier to do it as the nature is changed. >…we have nothing to do with cleaning up our nature – this is divinity's job…our job is to work cooperatively wit h divinity in cleaning up our character… It is definitely God's work, but I don't see such a strong distinction between nature and character as you do here. I picture walking with Jesus through the tangles of my back room as He does the pruning work. You make a lot out of a little snippet in the book _Education_ 147.3 about the result of Jacob's night of wrestling. But your strained order of events ignores one of the most well known facts of human nature, viz. issues that are deepest takes the longest to deal with. Cleaning up the outside of the cup is always easier than cleaning the inside. It doesn't make any sense to try and turn that inside out.

Bob Ryan
Thu, 04 Dec 2014 03:58:16 GMT

Ron Said >In conclusion might I suggest that from God’s perspective true safety is promised only to those who accept His authority as Lord and Master, leaning upon Christ and rendering obedience to His expressed will. He does not want us to wander into and along the broad way that leads to destruction. Therefore, through reproof, correction, and instruction He lovingly guides us into and along the narrow way, which leadeth unto life. Notice: Amen!

CharlesLawson
Sat, 27 Dec 2014 02:26:09 GMT

I found this excellent article by Dr. Albert Mohler on the current debate over homosexuality. His article would be an excellent foundation to adopt by our universities and creating a "safe place" for students who have same sex attractions: http://www.albertmohler.com/2014/11/13/sexual-orientation-and-the-gospel-of-jesus-christ/

Doug Yowell
Sat, 27 Dec 2014 19:00:20 GMT

Thanks Charles for the link. That's a really good article, one that could clearly set the standard for all Christian institutions. When the secular begins to define the Biblical the issues become disturbingly complex for those who may not yet be completely committed to Christ. The anti-biblical, media/academic led onslaught on our culture threatens to establish a "salvation" in Adventism that opposes God's redemptive and sustaining power. Is our standard as clear and consistent as that of the So. Baptist's?

CharlesLawson
Sun, 28 Dec 2014 22:59:29 GMT

The difficulty in presenting a united front on this issue within the Adventist church is that there are various institutions within the church structure. Some are indifferent to the standards that have been clarified at the top church level. Some college institutions desire an academic atmosphere where freedom of thought is not hampered by higherarchical authority. As a Alumni of one of our liberal institutions, I saw this firsthand. One of my theology professors didn't believe in the literal creation account in Genesis and didn't hide the fact. The Word of God was inspected, neglected, and finally rejected as inerrant. Higher criticism was working its way into the Theology department's professorships in the early 70's. One lasting impression, made on my young adult mind, was NOT to hold the Word of God in high regard and to take it as it reads. When you couple that with a post-modern mindset, it's no wonder culture is defining our standards in many of our liberal educational institutions.

next
last page