Saturday, December 10, 2011

Sabbath School Lesson Questions 20 DEC 2011

Gal 5:1-15



1.       In Galatians chapter 3 Paul proclaims that the Law received 430 years after the promise does not invalidate the promise.  Why does Paul tie the Law into the issue of circumcision?



2.       What does Paul say in Galatians 5:2-4 regarding those who return to the Law by means of circumcision?



3.       Is circumcision the only means to bind oneself under the Law? Gal  3:10  What other means bind us under Law?



4.       Paul often refers to the flesh as works that are contrary to the Law; why does Paul link the flesh to the Law? Gal 4:23-24



5.       What does Paul ask the Galatians who were returning to being bound under the Law? Gal 3:3



6.       According to Paul is it possible to be perfected by the keeping of the Law? 



7.       Moreover is perfection measured by the keeping of the Law?  How does the answer relate to Gal 5:11?



8.       If Christ sets us free are we free to do what we want?  What truly is Gospel freedom?



9.       Is the work of the Spirit now in us manifested by our means or by His?  Is the work of the Spirit bound under Law?



10.   What happens when we start measuring one another by the Law? Gal 5:15



11.   Is a theology based upon a legal process Biblical?

Saturday, December 3, 2011

Sabbath School Lesson Questions 3 DEC 2011

Gal 4:21-31



1.       In last week’s lesson how is strength and weakness defined by those of the world and the false brethren compared to Paul and the Galatians when they received Paul?



2.       How do those of the world treat those who are weak?  How did the Galatians treat Paul when they received him?



3.       Who does Paul refer to as being persecuted in Gal 4:29?  Who did the persecuting?



4.       According to Paul in this passage, who is born of the flesh?  Who is born of the Spirit?



5.       Who does Paul allegorically associate to the flesh and to the Spirit?  What do these women represent?



6.       Upon what was the covenant at Sinai based on?(Gal 4:25) Upon what is the Jerusalem above based? (Gal 4:26)



7.       Which covenant enslaves, which one frees?



8.       How do flesh and Spirit correspond to Law and Promise in regard to the two covenants?



9.       Who are we children of?  Who is sent away?



10.   Upon what do we rest our hope, our trust and our destiny?  Law or Promise?



11.   What will be fulfilled at the end of the age? Law or Promise?



12.   Who fulfills it, man or God?



13.   What does this reveal concerning the nature of Adam and Eve in Eden before the Fall?



14.   Can an asserted sovereign human will exist to accomplish the promises of God?  Why or why not?



15.   Ishmael represents Abram’s use of the flesh to accomplish the promise of God.  How do we re-insert the Law into God’s work of sanctification, atonement, and the second coming?  Is this application based on Law or Promise?  Flesh or Spirit?



16.   If sanctification is based upon Law restored by humanity at the end of the age then doesn’t Grace end since it is no longer required?  Did Grace exist in the beginning or was it created in response to man’s fall?

Monday, November 28, 2011

Review of Fernando Canale, “The Eclipse of Scripture and the Protestantization of the Adventist Mind: Part 1: The Assumed Compatibility of Adventism with Evangelical Theology and Ministerial Practices”.

Quotes are from: Fernando Canale, “The Eclipse of Scripture and the Protestantization of the Adventist Mind: Part 1: The Assumed Compatibility of Adventism with Evangelical Theology and Ministerial Practices”, Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 21/1-2 (2010):133-165.

For Canale's article go to: http://www.atsjats.org/publication_file.php?pub_id=374&journal=1&type=pdf


1.      “Although using Scripture functionally, as a means to receive the Spirit, this generation will not think or act biblically.”  What greater purpose is there for Scripture than for the receiving of the Holy Spirit?  What presuppositions does Canale have to define thinking and acting Biblically?



2.      “To overcome the protestantization and secularization of Adventism we must reach the postmodern mind and keep the young in the church with a combination of a critical evaluation of our own experience, a systematic understanding of biblical truths, and the application of the biblical ministerial and liturgical paradigms.”  Has Canale considered the outcome of a sincere application of this proposition?  What if the results alter the theology of Adventism in a way he does not agree with?



3.      “Perhaps in this way we can overcome the secularization of Adventism, foster the unity of the Church, and finish the final mission of restoring Christianity to its eternal basis.”  “We” may have nothing to do with “restoring Christianity to its eternal basis”, if the Holy Spirit is the One working.



4.      “All positive changes come from understanding and following God’s Word.”  Is it we who do the following by our means?  Canale seems to be out of touch with the issue.  It is not we who understand and follow by our critical capabilities.  It is all born of the Spirit.



5.      “For instance, the eclipse of Scripture and its impact in the thinking of Adventist leaders becomes apparent in recent liturgical changes centered in the use of popular and rock music for worship.”  Canale provides an Administrative regulation to address this issue.  Taking the position that scripture is in jeopardy he does not provide examples but extra-Biblical authority to refute the musical rendition of some church services.  He throws a highly polarizing issue with no hard evidence in order to support his case with . . . a symptom of spiritual decline rather than a cause.



6.      “The hypothesis explored in this series, is that the eclipse of Scripture results from the process of protestantization of the Adventist mind; which in turn, results from the generalized assumption that Evangelical theology is correct in every Christian doctrine but the Adventist distinctives.”  Who in the world is taking this approach to Biblical study, theology and ministry?  Have we like mindless sheep just look for a ready-made religious diet that may sound good?  If so this exposes another symptom of spiritual depravity rather than the cause of Adventist apostasy.  Sound like the Holy Spirit is completely absent from churches that they simply follow the latest theology package.



7.      “The method I will follow is the phenomenological and analytical description of selected texts and events in Adventist and Evangelical history as they relate to the Protestant/Evangelical theological and ministerial paradigm from the epistemological perspective of theological methodology.”  In other words, Canale is going to use human senses and reason to describe Protestant/Evangelical theology and ministry in order to measure it against “the Truth” as defined by a human method.  In classic computer lingo- “garbage in, garbage out”.  What he will end up with is modern scholasticism.  But let’s see where it goes.



8.      “In short, from the perspective of Fundamental Theology there are three conditions of method: the cognitive, hermeneutical, and teleological conditions.”  In short- what we have on hand, how we use it and what we intend to accomplish with it.  Sounds like we are in control of the business of theology, not God.



9.       “In theological methodology, the formal condition stands next and depends on the material condition. The formal condition consists of the macro hermeneutical principles necessary to interpret Scripture and construct the system of Christian theology (ontology [God and human beings], cosmology, and, metaphysics (the whole of the one and the many).  Evangelicals never used Scripture to define their macro hermeneutical principles. Instead, they implicitly assumed the philosophical principles of Plato and Aristotle as retrieved by Augustine and Aquinas. Unbeknown to most Protestant and Evangelical believers, these ontological principles condition and permeate the Protestant-Evangelical system of theology.”  On the one side we have Protestant/Evangelicals applying what they have not developed themselves, creating a shallow intellectual religion and on the other Adventism which creates a robust intellectual religion.  One worships what they do not know, the other what they do know- “an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.  You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.  But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.  God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4:21-24)  Shallow gets you anarchy, but robust gets you legalism.  Only by the Spirit will worship and the Gospel be revealed.



10.  “. . .early Adventists discovered the ontological and metaphysical keys to the inner logic of biblical thinking in the Sanctuary and the historicist interpretation of Daniel’s prophecies.”  So is Adventism method based or Sprit based?



11.  “The Adventist final warning message includes presenting the real Christ of Scripture to all Christians who belong to denominations that persist in constructing their understanding of Christ from tradition and culture. . . The preaching of the gospel to the whole world in the context of the end time prophecies of Daniel and Revelation included helping other Christians to move from a tradition based understanding of Christianity to a fully Biblically grounded personal relation with Christ.”  Is our relationship with Christ informed by tradition, culture , method or is our relationship with Christ crafted by the work of the Holy Spirit- a surrendered vessel in the hands of the Creator?



12.  “They implicitly assumed that little Bible study was necessary for Church growth or Church unity. Gradually, they came to rely more on Ellen White’s writings and less on their own personal theological understanding of Scripture.”  On this I wholeheartedly agree.  We did what protestants did.  No surprise when we consider it the work of human minds.



13.  “Doctrines had replaced theology and spirituality.  A macro shift in the Adventist mind had taken place. Adventists were ready to live parallel lives. On one hand, they would continue to preach the “orthodox” doctrines of the early pioneers without understanding them theologically or receiving their spiritual power.”  Apparently Canale presupposes theological knowledge leads to “spiritual power”.  I thought that came from the Holy Spirit despite our cognitive capabilities?



14.  “As Adventists communicated Scripture but did not seek to understand its contents, theologically and spiritually, they lost the hermeneutical vision that the early pioneers and Ellen White had found in the Sanctuary Doctrine.”  The Adventist Sanctuary doctrine as a hermeneutical principle will color all reason based Biblical interpretation with the color of the Law.  It is no wonder why an “immutable Law” would produce a Law based measure of sanctification accomplished by behavior modification in order to stand apart from Christ at the second coming rather than a focus on a testimony by the works of the Spirit in earthen, sin-stained vessels.



15.  “Thus, in many ways, Froom implicitly assumed the Gospel as the new hermeneutical principle in Adventism. As we have seen above, the sanctuary doctrine continues to be an important distinctive eschatological emphasis but leaders no longer conceived or used it as the hermeneutical key to understand all Christian doctrines including the Gospel.”  Pardon my naiveté but isn’t the Gospel (as revealed by the Spirit in scripture) the hermeneutical key to understanding the role of the sanctuary?



16.  “Thus, we see Froom did not spiritualize the reality of God’s acts and the heavenly sanctuary according to the timeless ontology of Christian tradition but rather reaffirms the biblical historical ontology. This reveals an inner inconsistency and tension in Froom’s doctrinal view because the application of the Evangelical understanding of the Gospel as hermeneutical key requires the rejection of biblical ontology and the implicit or explicit adoption of ontological principles originating in Plato and interpreted by Augustine and Aquinas.  When a Platonic ontology of God implicitly or explicitly replaces the biblical ontology of God, the protestantization of Adventism becomes complete and is ready to become modernist and ecumenical.”  So Adventist’s God is historical- based on the Bible and Protestant’s God is Spiritual- based on traditional.  What do we do with statements like, “God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:24) and , “Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ”?  Where should the source of our doctrines come from?  Tradition, method or the Spirit of Prophecy (Not the red books!  The actual Spirit of Prophecy)?



17.  “Early Adventism stood on the sola Scriptura ground because they interpreted the whole of Scripture in the light of the Sanctuary doctrine. This marked the dawn of Scripture in the incipient discovery of an historical understanding of Christian theology, and led Adventists to come out of Protestantism.”  While I agree with Canale on sola Scriptura I must point out- like the influence of the Sanctuary doctrine and the immutability of the Law caused Adventism to come out of Protestantism a discovery of the Gospel will inevitably cause Christians to come out of Adventism, but not back into Protestantism.  What I hope we see is God’s Church.

Saturday, November 26, 2011

Sabbath School Questions 26 NOV 2011

Galatians

26 NOV 2011


Gal 4:12-20

1. To what were the Galatians re-enslaving themselves? What are the “elementary principles of the world”?

2. Does our knowledge of the world and of the Law, or even of the Gospel save us? 

3. What do the knowledge of the Law and the knowledge of the Gospel achieve?

4. Was Paul correcting knowledge or the Galatians’ disposition toward God?

5. What does our employment of knowledge accomplish for us?

6. How do the world and the false brethren perceive strength and weakness? How does Paul perceive strength and weakness?

7. How did the Galatians perceive strength and weakness when they received Paul? What does Paul beg of them to become?

8. How does the similarity between himself and the Galatians contribute to his perplexity regarding their following of the false brethren?

9. Why would Paul liken himself to them?

10. Does Paul treat them as lost?

11. How could Paul’s weakness in the flesh, when he first preached the Gospel to them, encourage the Galatians in their current condition?

12. Why does Paul say he is in labor with the Galatians “again”?

13. How does this shed light upon 1 John 2:1-2?

14. What Spirit was working in them when Paul first preached to the Galatians? What spirit is working in the Galatians now?

15. Who do the false brethren glorify? Who does Paul glorify?

16. Is this passage in Galatians 4 a matter of correct doctrine and proper execution/compliance; or is the issue contrasting the false brethrens’ deception of self-development to the Spirit’s work in revealing human futility that leads to surrender?

17. What is the “Law of Christ”? How does it relate to the “truth of the Gospel”? Gal 2:20

Sabbath School Questions 19 NOV 2011

Galatians


19 NOV 2011


Gal 3:26-4:20

1. Does the Gospel make Jews out of Gentiles?

2. Is this adoption into the Promise or the Law? (Gal 3:29; 4:28)

3. If baptism represents death and resurrection yet we are still alive, what dies?

4. How is this revealed in Christ’s baptism, ministry, death and resurrection?

5. Christ says that the works are not His own and that we would do greater works (John 14:8-12). What is the connection between baptism and the works of God in us?

6. In Gal 3:23-24 Paul states the Law was like a Governess. In Gal 4:3 he states, as heirs, we were in bondage to the elementary principles of the world. How does this connection between the Law and elementary principles of the world work together to describe the purpose of the Law?

7. How does Paul’s distinction between the Law and the Spirit parallel Christ’s revelation to Pontius Pilate that His Kingdom is not of this world? How does it reveal the new covenant in which we now abide?

8. In what ways does the Law reveal the means by which humanity seeks to aspire to divinity in its fallen state?

9. How is the Law successful at revealing human futility in aspiring to divinity?

10. What did Christ reveal to us, as one of us, that the Law failed to reveal?

11. Was the Spirit manifest in Christ as a result of His works or works of the Law? Was the Spirit manifest at His baptism?

12. If Paul refers to the Law as the elementary principles of this world (which are bound by the principles of cause and effect), that the Law does not justify (Gal 2:16), nor does it impart life (Gal 3:21), and Christ states that the works are not His but the Father’s; what could have caused the outpouring of the Spirit in Christ’s life?

13. If we view the outpouring of the Holy Spirit as the effects of human causality then aren’t we applying the principles of the world to the Spirit? Wasn’t this what the “false brethren” among the Galatians doing? Do we do this?

14. How then is the Spirit poured into us if not by our works? Is it what we do/what we don’t do? How do we become these earthen vessels? How, like Christ, are we poured out?

Sabbath School Questions 12 NOV 2011

Galatians

12 NOV 2011


1. Does the Law give us life? Does it give us righteousness? (Gal 3:21)

2. If the scripture has shut us all up under sin, then can the Law free us from sin?

3. Can the Law justify or vindicate us? Is the role of the Law to vindicate man before God or the universe?

4. If the purpose of scripture and the Law was to keep us in custody until faith was revealed so that the promise may bring us under Christ instead, then is the keeping of the Law our ultimate objective? Is it just a matter of means? Keeping the Law by our own means is death but keeping the Law by the means of Christ’s power is life? Does this relegate Christ to an instrument in the hands of a human sovereign will?

5. If “through the law [we] died to the law” (Gal 2:19) do we now live in Christ under the binding of the Law? Are we “being perfected by the flesh” (Gal 3:3)? Is the Law of faith (Gal 3:12)? Is righteousness based on Law (Gal 3:21)?

6. If the Law does not give us life, righteousness or vindication then is it able to be used to vindicate anything or anyone else?

7. If the Law is like a governess providing moral and intellectual knowledge yet does not impart life, righteousness or vindication then once we find what does (the Gospel- Jesus Christ) should we go back to it?

8. Can we have both the Law and Christ? Can we have both 1) the knowledge of Good and Evil with a sovereign will to execute judgment and 2) the Surrender of the human will? Can we be saved by the works of the flesh and the works of the Spirit? “Having begun by the Spirit, are [we] now being perfected by the flesh?” Gal 3:3)

9. If the existence of the Gospel is contingent upon the Law and the Law is eternal then isn’t Grace too contingent upon the Law? If so, then if there is no transgression then there is no need for the Gospel or Grace. If there is no transgression, is there a need for faith? Which is eternal: the Gospel or the Law?

10. If the Law does not impart life, righteousness or vindication then how could the Law sustain life? Is it the Gospel that imparts life, or the Law? Which was at the creation and in Eden: The Gospel or the Law? Is the Tree of Life the Gospel or the Law? Is the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil the Gospel or the Law?

11. Did Adam and Eve bring the need for the Law into our existence when they chose to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and separate themselves from God?

12. God forbade access to the Tree of Life after humanity embraced sin. Do we have access to the Tree of Life through the Law or through the Gospel?

Sabbath School Questions 5 NOV 2011

Galatians

5 NOV 2011


1. Where do we find references to “the seed” that Paul speaks of in Gal 3:14-16?

2. How do these references relate to Jesus calling Himself the “Son of Man”?

3. How does this seed become like the sands of the seashore, the stars of heaven and the dust of the earth?

4. Paul uses the Greek word, “γεγονὼς” when referring to the Law. This Greek word is derived from the word “γίνομαι” which means “come into being”. If the Law came into being after God’s promise to Abraham, can that promise (Jesus Christ) be based on Law?

5. Why then did God give Israel the Law through Moses?

6. How did transgression enter the world?

7. What is transgression if the Law had not yet “come into being”?

8. Whose seed was in enmity against Eve’s seed?

9. What is the message of these two seeds?

10. What does the Law reveal concerning the Serpent’s seed?

11. What does Paul say Scripture does to all humanity? Gal 3:22

12. Gal 3:22 “. . . so that the promise from the faith of Jesus Christ may be given to those who believe”. What does the seed of Eve and Abraham provide?

13. Christ being the Promise, what do we become? Gal 3:26

14. Which seed condemns us, which one justifies us?

15. How does the Law lead us to Christ?

16. If the Law kills and Faith makes alive, why would Paul be so concerned that the Galatians are being led back to the Law?

Sabbath School Questions 29 OCT 2011

Galatians

29 OCT 2011


1. Was God’s warning not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil the Law or a command, thus providing Adam and Eve with knowledge of good and evil?

2. What caused humanity to be lost?

3. What did Satan offer us? (Gen 3:4-5) What did we receive?

4. Buying into Satan’s offer, what system were we under? (Gal 3:19)

5. How did God drive home this futile endeavor through the Israelites? (Acts 15:10)

6. Under what authority, jurisprudence and charge was Christ crucified? (John 18)

7. Was this condemnation able to destroy Christ? Why not?

8. Upon resurrection what did Christ prove regarding the satanic proposition? (Col 2:9-15)

9. Is salvation apart from works of the Law good news?

10. How does Christ’s revelation of this Gospel save us? (John 3:16)

11. Being saved, does God reveal the Gospel of righteousness by faith to others through us? (Matt 11:11, John 14:10-12)

12. What happens if we return to relying upon works of the Law for revealing our righteousness? (Gal 2:18)

13. Is there a connection between Matt 27:46 and Psalm 22?

14. How does the entire passage of Psalm 22 and Christ’s prayer in John 17 express Christ’s and our experience of faith?

Sabbath School Questions 22 OCT 2011

Galatians

22 OCT 2011


1. According to Gal 2:16 are we justified by works of the Law?

2. Is righteousness defined by the Law, or by being alive or dead? Gal 2:19-21

3. Does the word “Justification/Justify” mean made righteous according to the Law or made righteous according to life through Christ?

4. Who does Paul says lives in us?

5. How does Paul say this happens?

6. Whose life is in us? Whose faith is in us?

7. Does being crucified with Christ mean we suffer to do the right thing or that we surrender our very selves?

8. Whose will and work then manifests itself in us?

9. So is faith of our sovereign and independent will?

10. Is faith doctrine? Our works? If not, what is it?

11. What sin is Paul describing in Gal 2:16 and 18? What sin is Paul talking about in Gal 2:17?

12. If Paul is teaching that the sin of his opponents is asserting that obedience to the Law is required as part of the Gospel, and Christ is a minister of that Gospel, then what is Christ a minister of?

13. If Christ reckons us righteous according to the Law, then what has Christ put us under for continued evaluation of our righteousness?

14. What are we doing when we return to the Law after surrendering to Christ?

15. Is the Righteousness of Christ according to Law or Faith?

16. Is faith about obedience or surrender?

Sabbath School Questions 15 OCT 2011

Galatians

15 OCT 2011

1. What was the meaning of the seal of circumcision? (Rom 4:11)

2. What prompted Paul to go to Jerusalem?

3. Why did he present the Gospel he was teaching in private to those “of reputation”?

4. How would the answers to questions 2 and 3 relate to each other?

5. How did those “of reputation” respond?

6. If Paul received the Gospel from Christ Himself and would later rebuke Cephas with this same Gospel Cephas had earlier recognized as from God, then what was the Spirit’s purpose in sending Paul to Jerusalem?

7. What were the intentions of the “false brothers” in Gal 2:4?

8. How does the “false brothers” issue relate to Titus, Cephas, and Barnabas?

9. How would their behavior cause Paul to say “they were not straightforward with the Gospel”?

10. So for what purpose does Paul write about this issue concerning the Church in Jerusalem to the Galatians?

11. What was James’ judgment in Acts 15:19-20?

12. In what manner did Cephas live and with whom did he share meals while in Antioch? (Gal 2:14)

13. What was Paul’s rebuke to Cephas?

14. Does this rebuke relate to that of the “false brothers”?

15. Why would the Spirit send a former Pharisee to the Gentiles and a fisherman to the Jews?

Sabbath School Questions 8 OCT 2011

Galatians

8 OCT 2011

Gal 2:16-21: . . . since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified. 17“But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be! 18“For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor. 19“For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God. 20“I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. 21“I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.”


1. What distortion does Paul expose to the Galatians?

2. Who ordained Paul’s ministry?

3. Was Paul’s authority established by the means of man or by the Spirit?

4. Why does Paul emphasize that the Gospel he preached came from Christ and not man?

5. Upon whose work did Jews rely for righteousness?

6. What were these distorters of the Gospel doing to the Gospel?

7. What happens to the Gospel when human works are blended with Christ’s?

8. How was this happening in Galatia?

9. How did Paul regard those who taught this “other” gospel?

10. Is Paul’s letter addressing what is being taught or the source of the teaching?

11. Are we taught by man or by Christ?

12. If by Christ, how important is the intimacy of that relationship between Him and us?

13. What then is the purpose of Paul’s letter to the Galatians?

Sabbath School Questions 1 OCT 2011

Galatians

1 OCT 2011

Gal 2:16-21: . . . since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified. 17“But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be! 18“For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor. 19“For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God. 20“I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. 21“I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.”



1. What was Saul’s purpose and means for preparing Israel for the coming of the Messiah?

2. What effect did Saul’s conversion have on his soteriology?

3. By what gauge did Saul measure others?

4. Does Paul measure others in that same manner (1 Cor 4:7)?

5. Can a Christian measure/judge another by the works that are not their own?

6. What builds the Church?

7. Was circumcision part of the Mosaic Law?

8. What was the sign between God and Israel in Exodus 31:17?

9. Is it the sign that makes us righteous (Rom 4:11)?

10. If circumcision was a sign of God’s covenant between Him and His people based upon righteousness by faith (Gen 17:11), why is it not required for Christians?

11. What sanctifies us (Acts 26:18)?

Thursday, November 24, 2011

Christ and the second death

I have read recently that some assert that Christ died the second death in order to pay for our sins. I also read that this death was not the death in the Lake of Fire but Christ's intent to die the second death. This interpretation has two significant problems that stem from a misinterpretation of the Gospel.
The first significant problem is the interpretation that Christ died in order to pay the penalty for our sins. This interpretation is based upon the legal penalty that we are all under according to the Law of Sinai that condemns all flesh. In this interpretation Christ is paying the penalty for the breaking of God's Law. This interpretation is further founded upon the concept that the Sinai Law predates Moses and is in fact eternal. Christ's payment therefore satisfies the sin that is interpreted as the transgression of God's Law in effect in Eden which requires the interpretation that man knew what sin was before partaking of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. This is explained by stating that man had one commandment in Eden- do not eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This idea truncates the knowledge of the Law into the simple Law of do not eat of the tree. If this interpretation is correct then Christ died to receive our penalty administered by God- it was His Law and His command not to eat. This interpretation is based upon the idea that our relationship with Good in Eden and after is based upon Law and obedience. When we disobeyed we came under God's wrath which was then paid by Christ, who is also God. The issue is that this concept is based upon the pagan idea of appeasing a god who can provide you with a benefit; in this case justification according to Law and eternal life. This concept is in conflict with Scripture as Paul states there is righteousness apart from the Law.

The second significant problem is the idea that when we ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil we gave over our dominion over this world to Satan. Satan now accuses us before God and even uses God's Law to indict us. Christ pays the penalty for Sin and Satan indictment is over-ruled by the Judge, who is also the Father of the Sinner's advocate and sacrifice that pays for the penalty. The issue with this concept is the inconsistency of the legal motif. If the sinner is under Law and rightly accused by Satan then a degree of jurisprudence should be afforded the plaintiff in order to assure the integrity of the court. If a plaintiff were to appear in court in the US with proper evidence then the accused would be found guilty. The Judge or jury decides the sentence and the plaintiff would make payment. In the application of the substitutional concept Christ makes the payment for us. However, this concept is based upon a corrupt Judge. The Judge's Son makes a deal with the Judge to pay for the sentence in a manner that is no payment at all. In this idea Satan makes his claim on the idea of an eternal Law that the Judge and Son make themselves subject to in addition to mankind. The Son offering His life (being God Himself His life is eternal) to the Judge who accepts it as payment which thwarts not only Satan's petition but the entire legitimacy of the court. There is therefore no justice under this concept because the Judge is corrupt, the Son is implicated in bribing the Judge, and the Justice system does not support the penalty of Law that it submits itself to honor. This concept makes a mockery of God, Christ and the concept of Justice.

The first significant problem is an appeasement theology based upon Law. The second significant problem places God under Law that He Himself undermines. The common issue with both theologies is the eternal nature of Law and the plan of Salvation to both vindicate it and circumvent it.

It is when we see the Law as revealing the Sin of the asserted independent human will that Christ death comes into focus. Salvation is not achieved under Law but apart from it.  Christ death represents the surrender of the independent will and our grasping for life by our means. Although it appears that we are to die never to live again we trust not in ourselves but in God who has promised us eternal life. It is no accident or fear of death that Christ quotes Psalm 22. This Psalm is not one of anguish of the second death. Psalm 22 is the expression of man's experience that even though it appears that all hope is lost and that God has forsaken us it further reveals God's faithfulness. Far from being an expression of the foreboding of the second death, it is a glorious proclamation of God's faithfulness to save- it is the Gospel expressed and echoed in the words of Christ on the cross not in fear of separation from God and the second death. Christ in His reciting of the 1st line of Psalm 22 makes an unmistakable expression to those Jews who knew this Psalm- that although facing death placed His hope in the Gospel of life. At the cross Christ was one with the Father and with His final words bearing testimony of the Gospel of life . . . the Gospel of surrender.

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Cause and Effect

This thought will be out of sequence because it just came to me.
St Thomas Aquinas is known for his idea of God as the first mover that is essentially the root cause of all existence. We live in a world bound by Law that we introduced when we asserted our independent will and lived by the Knowledge of Good and Evil; a world bound by cause and effect- what Paul also describes as the "elementary principles of the world". 

To live under Law is to be bound by the limit of material cause and effect that can never produce eternal life. We are incapable of either causing eternal life or being effected by God to respond in a manner that gains us eternal life. If by knowing Good and Evil we do the Good then we would be able to sustain ourselves eternally.  Likewise, to assert that if we respond to God according to Law we will be rewarded with eternal life is to affirm Adam and Eve's partaking of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

What is the alternative? Is there an existence apart from cause and effect? I propose that God is not just the first mover, He is also the effect. Since we are unable to effect, by our response or deed, that which produces eternal life, only God may work what we are unable to work under law- what the Law is powerless to do He accomplishes.

If God is the cause and the effect He is the All-in-All, the beginning and the end, the Alpha and the Omega. If He is the cause and the effect then there is no need for this paradigm and we may say: He is the I AM. He speaks the word and it is so. When we pray in the Spirit it will be given.

When we surrender the will we asserted in Eden we surrender the paradigm of cause and effect. We no longer are separate from Him but His will abides in us and also His life. We are no longer independent sovereign creatures but sons and daughters of God. We are as Jesus is. Christ's revelation of the Gospel was not something or some actions to be emulated but rather revealing what He is transforming us into. Christ surrendered at baptism; His was a surrendered life, at Calvary He surrendered His all to God and abided in the Father and the Spirit in Him. His resurrection is the revelation of the hope of the Gospel in which we now abide.

A Little Background

I studied Theology at Pacific Union College but did not get a job as a pastor in my denomination (Seventh-day Adventist).  I tried teaching but hated it.  I worked as a mechanic in a bike shop, a projectionist in Beverly Hills, a Six Sigma Project and Quality Assurance Manager, and in the Army as a Cavalry Scout, Air Defense Officer and now as an Armor Officer.

About three years ago I started talking to God again after many years of estrangement.  I still desired to study theology so I attended the Seventh-day Adventist Seminary in Berrien Springs, MI.  I found the study a wonderful experience since this time I wasn't distracted by a full time job and much more life seasoned than college 16 years prior; but the most critical was that I felt much more in tune with God than ever before.

As I studied I found several key elements of theological insight.  The greatest and perhaps most fundamental was revealed in a moment of utter perplexity.  I was studying the Scripture but could not correlate how different message and themes worked together.  I realized I was not smart enough to figure it out.  It was then that I spoke to the Lord and just told Him I wasn't smart enough and that if He wanted me to understand He would need to show me.  So I just gave up and left it to Him.  Thinking that was the end of it I just sat there, in a state of transition . . . waiting for my mind to think of what to do next.  The brain was not yet in gear to transition to another activity when all of a sudden the puzzle of thoughts, themes, messages came together as if pulled by gravity to interlock into an understandable whole.  The experience was like none I have ever had.  It was not my mind that thought this up (though some may call it subconscious reasoning), I believe it was the Lord. 

If the Lord provides clarity, understanding and integration of His scripture then hermeneutics (methods of Bible study) and illumination have a whole different paradigm.  It was not by my reasoning nor my knowledge that provided my insight but the opposite- the resignation of those faculties attributed the discovery to the work of the Spirit.  It is this idea that prompted another . . . if resignation of the faculties of human reason allow the Word of God to be manifested then how may this apply to the relationship between God and Man?  If I surrender my reason for the sake of revelation what happens when I surrender my heart?  My hope?  My very will?  My understanding of the Gospel was about to be drastically changed!

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

1st Blog

My wife told me I should start a Blog, so here it is.  I hope that the Lord can use this medium to reveal the Gospel to others.  I will post some intro about myself so you can get an idea where I am coming from then I'll share what I believe the Lord has shown us in scripture.  I hope all will feel free to share their insights, illuminations and revelations for all to read how the Lord works in and through His church.