Further QOD reflections

By Alexander Carpenter

Blogger and pastor Bill Cork writes two posts after returning from the Questions on Doctrine conference.

Post one:

I’ll have a lengthier post about the content of the weekend (that might not be for a few days). The highlights of the conference were first, that it happened. Two young scholars, Julius Nam and Michael Campbell, succeeded at something that an older generation never attempted: bringing together a wide diversity of protagonists to talk face to face with one another about subjects they have spent years writing about (often very emotionally). The background to this includes Julius Nam’s 2005 Ph.D. dissertation (Reactions to the Seventh-day Adventist Evangelical Conferences and Questions on Doctrine, 1955-1971), and the publishing in 2003 of the annotated edition of QOD (through the efforts of Ron Knott, Director of Andrews University Press, and George Knight, recently retired from the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary). It was evident throughout the conference that all the participants benefited from the historical research done by Julius and George, which has given us a common understanding of what happened 50 years ago, and what mistakes were made by people of all sides.

Post two:

Reflecting on this from the perspective of having been away from Adventism for over two decades, having studied at Lutheran and Catholic institutions of higher education, it seems to me that the different parties have more in common than I think they realize or want to admit. All agree Christ was fully human and fully divine, and that his humanity was affected by heredity, and was the weakened, mortal flesh we share. All agree he is substitute and example. All agree as a high priest he is able to sympathize with our weaknesses. They all agree he could have sinned (something Catholic and most Protestant theologians would deny), but never wavered. All agree that while we are born separated from God, his relationship with the Father and the Spirit was never broken. All agree that Seventh-day Adventists are fully Arminian. All agree that Jesus is coming and that there will be a time of trouble and that those who live through it will have a very intense experience that will require them to cling closely to Christ. All agree, I think, that the Holy Spirit will continue to uphold them.

Comments

[David R. Larson]

Both posts are excellent! I'm trying to think of some way to make them even more widely available. I think it time for us to emphasize how much we actually have in common so that we can move on to other things.

I've been surprised by how helpful much of QOD still is for me. It answers a bunch of questions that no one I know is asking anymore; however, on some other issues it is still timely. What it says about the state of Israel is first rate, in my view.

[Pat Travis]

Thanks Bill for your list of "all agree" and if "it works" for others in their lives that is great.

Our fellow Catholic Christians share with us "Salvation by Grace" and That we are "Saved by Grace alone without Works."
Why was Luther unhappy in His personal life?

It's sometimes the "absence of" the yeast that prevents the proper loaf of bread or the "addition of" an improper ingrediant that spoils our favorite dish.

Regards,
pt

[Pat Travis]

David,

Why move on? Why can't we use it to teach each new child or Christian or do they already know these things or not entitled to them?

Can we not both "continue" and "move on."

It's kind of like "now that we get accepting Christ out of the way" let's get about doing good deeds...only to later realize we left Him somewhere back there?

Regards,:)

pt

[Joselito Coo]

Thank you, Bill, for stressing the points of agreement among us. Well put, Pat, lest followng the admonition to move on, we leave with the impression the subjects around which many sincere people spent so much energy proclaiming, even debating, in the past 50 years were after all either unimportant or should have been the least of our priorities.

[David R. Larson]

Pat
I'm not certain that I understand your points. True, we never "'move beyond" Jesus Christ; however, we can move beyond the fifty years of QOD debates about him, I think. To me they aren't the same. Thanks!
Dave

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

Certainly Rick, David, and Bill have done a super job in both reporting and analyzing The Conference of QOD. What I missed is any comment on the final vindication of God by the Final Generation. Did I miss something? Or was the issue avoided? It seemed a clear point of contention back 50 years ago. Tom

[Pat Travis]

David,
For me, I daily remember in essence these issues and the direction in which they point...Jesus. I need to know daily that I am Justified by Faith Alone.
That gives me daily peace, hope, and an extreme love of God for His unspeakable gift in this world of pain,frustration, doubts, and personal failings.

As we daily remember this and teach it to others may we also with the particular gifts He has given each of us through His Spirit go out and serve Him.

Regards,
pt

[Pat Travis]

Thanks Joselito,

For me it is important that we do not move on and hurry back to Nazereth to do deeds "of love and compassion" and realize we left Jesus in His Temple.

pt

[Pat Travis]

Tom,
I missed that also..."whenthe prince of this world was judged."

pt

[Elaine Nelson]

To an outside (an former SDA) observer, it seems that too many years have been spent in majoring in minors while the world around us goes to hell in a handbasket.

How many new converts and 3rd and 4th generation young'uns care one iota about all this? Why not focus on what all Christians can agree upon and let the chips fall where they may?

If the Sabbath is salvific, say so. If not, let people decide for themselves after reading all of Paul.

What other doctrines of significance or worth emphasizing today? For one, triumphalism is a dead give-away that we're still a cult.

[David R. Larson]

Tom
Yes, there were a number of comments about "last generation theology," some "pro" but I think mostly "con."

Historian Donald Dayton made what I took to be helpful comment when he suggested that we not link positions on the human nature of Jesus to stances regarding "last generation theology." They have been connected by us but not by others, he correctly observed.

For instance, Karl Barth and Wolfhardt Pannenberg both self-consciously wrote that the human nature of Jesus was like ours; but, of course, neither ever had a word to say about "last generation theology."

It seemed to me that Dayton's suggestion fell on mostly deaf ears because it fit with neither of the two entrenched positions; nevertheless, it would have made it possible to consider third, fourth or fifth options.

This sort of unnecessary doctrinal deadlock, which is based primarily on our inadequate understanding of the full range of options, is the sort of thing we ought to "move beyond," I think. Thank you!
Dave

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

Thanks Dave

All in all Jan Paulsen must be pleased with the outcome. Let us hope it moved the Church forward. Tom

[Bill Cork]

Tom,

Let me affirm Dave's point in reference to Dayton's suggestion.

In addition, as I pointed out in my second post (both of which are truncated in Alex's posting here), Last Generation Theology is hardly something in the dustbin of Adventist theology--the key works continue to be published by RH and PP and sold by ABC. And there is substantial support in EGW.

This raises two questions.

Can LGT be articulated and argued on the basis of "sola Scriptura," or is it solely supported by EGW?

Can LGT be seen in isolation, as an eschatological theory, or should it not be seen as an attempt to spell out why 1844 matters, and how the antitypical Day of Atonement makes a difference in the experience of Christians post-1844?

Roy Adams said, "To bend theology to fit our eschatological goals and objectives is neither sound nor prudent." Is he right? Does not the end illuminate the journey to that end? I think Jurgen Moltmann would affirm the latter, as would Wolfhart Pannenberg.

[Bill Cork]

Just to clarify--those are just some questions that come to mind as a result of the weekend. I'm interested in hearing others' thoughts.

[Pat Travis]

Bill,

Had EGW and the church said we were wrong on 1844 dating (and Jesus not entering the most holy untill 1844) yet believing we did have a message to warn the world of a "coming judgment" when the socio-economic-political-religious "Babylon" would be judged, perhaps we would be valid scripturally. God's people are not "being judged", The worlds "totality rule" is to receive judgment that opposes God and His people. I think there is a sound biblical hermeneutic and motif for that.But not LGT.
We simply stand in that time not inherently sinless but "reckoned righteous" by faith in the creator who has redeemed us spiritually and is about to redeem us physically.

pt

[Pat Travis]

PS. His "people" meaning all who call on the name of the Lord in Spirit and Truth.Rom.10:9-13.

[Pat Travis]

Elaine,

Is the Sabbath salvic? In this sense to me. The sabbath is not to be worshiped but the Lord of the sabbath. A notable difference. It reminds us of the creator of heaven and earth and His redeemptive activity.Yet, who are we to judge another's servant.

pt

[Zane]

Tom, Bill, and Dave,

Interesting points on LGT. I agree with Bill that it is an issue that is not dead.

When my mother first became a Christian through the Adventist church, she got caught up this theology. This lead to a very interesting childhood for me.

Here are the tenants I was exposed to as a child.

1. Jesus was perfect.
2. Jesus was just like us.
3. We can be just like Jesus.
4. Jesus will return when we are like him. (We "hasten" his coming by becoming perfect.)
5. We will make through the last days (which will be horrible and terrifying), which will precede the second coming, if we are perfect.
6. Perfection is keeping the Sabbath, not going to the movies, being a vegan, living in the country, not wearing jewelry, not drinking alcohol, not associating with the world, etc.

I would argue that there is nothing wrong with tenants 1-3, understood properly. (Most Christian affirm that Jesus had a fully human nature and that he is our teacher and example as well as our "Lord" and "Savior.) Unfortunately, in LGT, at least the version I was exposed to, really conflates the issues of justification and sanctification. The understanding that results is a sort of "double justification." I am saved by Jesus death AND my efforts and works to become like him.

Added to this is an impoverished understanding of sanctification. On the model I heard growing up, sanctification is something I accomplished, not something God/Christ does in me as I cooperate with him. (This I believe was Wesley's view--sanctification is a gift of grace just like justification.)

Secondly, the nature of sanctification is misunderstood. For Wesley, it was perfect love for God and neighbor. For the LTG folk it is law keeping and expressed as a bunch of negatives--don't break the Sabbath, don't smoke, etc. The logic seems to be: Jesus who is just like just perfectly kept the 10 commandments. We should and can do the same."

I would argue that this is an inadequate way to understand "sanctification."

All this to say, I think there is strong connection between views on Jesus' nature and LGT, but that heart of the problem lies elsewhere--an inadequate understanding of sanctification.

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

If God was not fully vindicated at the Cross then I might as well be a Scientologist. Tom

[Joselito Coo]

Zane, most ethnic pastors I know (I'm Asian but not Korean) and members of their congregation who read Ellen White and subscribe to LGT will have no problem agreeing with your understanding of sanctification.

[Ray Smith]

Well said Tom. The cross, the atoning sacrifice of Jesus for the sins of the world, is the key. Maybe we could put QOD back on the shelf for a week or two and read John Stott's in-depth study, "The Cross of Christ." What a Saviour! What a God! What a sacrifice! "May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world." Gal. 6:14 NIV.

[Pat Travis]

Ray and Tom,

Now guys...that's not very inclusive...but ...must we be in our right to our personal faith?

pt