|
XXXI – 9(98) “Watchman, what of the night?” "The hour has come,
the hour is striking and striking at you, "PATTERN of DISSIDENCE" Page 2 A Convicting Witness Page 4 Let’s Think It
Over Page 5 Editor's Preface Last
year, Pastor Eric Winter, Ministerial Secretary of the South Pacific Division,
edited an insert for the Australian Record
(Sept. 20, 1997), captioned, "The Church Under Attack." He selected
three thought leaders in Australia besides himself to discuss various aspects
of the "Attack." One of these was the pastor of the Memorial Church, Cooranbong, NSW, S. R. Goldstone. Goldstone wrote on the
"Pattern of Dissidence." The staff here at the time prepared a
response in a special Australian issue of WWN in which each of the articles of
the insert was discussed. In organizing and writing this issue, Terrie Lambert,
our librarian, thought that all who read WWN could benefit by the response to
Goldstone's article in the Record,
and has reproduced it as the first article. The
selection of the second article should make profitable reading for those
interested in some of the linguistics behind the words used in the Old
Testament which define the Godhead. It should challenge our thinking to
comprehend as far as mortals can the deep things of God. Some theories
advanced, and such they are, came perilously close to blaspheming the Holy
Spirit. Of course, the article selected does not give an answer, but it does
provide a basis for some thinking beyond its scope. The
final article, "Let's Think It Over," coming as near as possible to
the usual editorial title, "Let's Talk It Over," as one could without
using it, discusses a very real problem involving doctrine and Christian
experience. The key is truth which is to be expressed in both concept and life
even as He who is the Truth did when He lived on earth as the Son of man. By
the time you are reading this issue, the Lamberts will be back in Australia,
where they will jointly assume responsibility of the Foundation there. Each
month the unused page 8 (they mail WWN in an envelope) will carry an Australian
oriented article. It may even ask the Australian reader to "think
over" what is written in "Let's Talk It Over." Page 2 "Pattern of
Dissidence" Pastor
Goldstone begins his article by highlighting the Great Controversy theme, which
has been, as he states, "a unique part of Adventist preaching." He
comments that within this central theme of the conflict between Christ and
Satan, of good and evil, lies a history of dissidence, which even a theological
awareness has not been a deterring barrier to its reoccurrence. Goldstone notes
what he calls a "pattern of dissidence" in the Scriptures, by which
we could test all dissidence, as "it is imperative as individuals that ...
we should prepare ourselves to discern and reject dissidence." A
dissident is one who disagrees or opposes the authorities. The two examples
cited by Goldstone, that of Lucifer and Korah, Dathan and Abiram, emphasize
God's attitude towards revolts against His kingdom and authority. God is the
supreme ruler of the universe, a principle that Lucifer rejected because of an
over-inflated opinion of himself. Likewise, Korah, Dathan and Abiram rejected the
authority that God had given to Moses as the delegated leader of His people.
The results were and are indeed tragic as rarely does a dissident against God's
government suffer the consequences alone. (see Numbers 16:32,33) Pastor
Goldstone lists eight progressive steps of Satan's fall and by comparing them
to the Korah, Dathan and Abiram incident, suggests that a pattern is apparent
whereby we may test all dissidence. These steps are: 1) Leadership does not
give automatic exemption from dissidence; 2) Secrecy is an early evidence of
dissidence; 3) Outward claims of loyalty are no proof of fact; 4) Resistance to
counsel demonstrates personal pride; 5) Dissidence is not easily discernible in
its early stages; 6) Distortion of the motives of others is a clear indication
of dissidence; 7) Fomenting discontent by publicly sharing expressions of
disquiet; and 8) Dissidents go public when it is thought that the weight of
public support will carry the day. The
underlying principle, which Pastor Goldstone fails to distinguish, is that God
is the supreme authority to a Christian. And in that sense only, dissidence is
a sin, as it is rebellion against God and His government, whether in Heaven or
on earth. Therefore, the question must be asked, is all dissidence sin? The
answer depends upon whose authority the dissenter is questioning. If the
authority to which a dissenter is in disagreement is itself in opposition to
the government of God, then he is merely exercising his right of religious
freedom and, quite possibly, the Gospel commission. The Scriptures are replete
with such examples of this type of dissidence. The
history of God's chosen people reveals that many of the Prophets of the Old
Testament were dissidents in the true sense of the word. They disagreed and
spoke out against the leadership. However, it was the apostasy of the leadership
that necessitated these messages from God. Therefore, the leadership also were
dissidents, in that they disagreed with the authority of the true God by bowing
down to idols. Notice the exchange between Ahab, king of Israel, and Elijah,
the Lord's messenger: And it came to pass, when Ahab saw
Elijah, that Ahab said unto him, Art thou he that troubleth
Israel? And he answered, I have not troubled Israel; but thou and thy father's
house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord, and thou hast
followed Baalim. (1 Kings 18:17, 18) While
both Ahab and Elijah accused each other of being dissident, it was Ahab's
dissidence that did more to provoke "the Lord God of Israel to anger than
all the kings of Israel that were before him" (I Kings 16:33). Why?
Because it was a direct revolt against God and His laws. And, interestingly, it
is Ahab's position which can be listed under Goldstone's "progressive
steps" to discern dissidence. Ahab's leadership did not give him automatic
exemption; he worked in secrecy until he gained the weight of public support;
he made outward claims of loyalty but resisted counsel given by God's
messengers; and he distorted the motives of Elijah before suffering the
terrible consequences of his sin. Moving
into New Testament times, we see the same illustration occurring in the life of
the Son of God. Jesus Christ was accused many times by the leadership of the
day, of being both dissident against their authority (John 18:22), the
authority of Jehovah (John 10:33), and of being dissident against the authority
of Rome (John 19:12). This last accusation was prefabricated in order to
deliver Him up to death. The leaders told the people that the work of Christ
was satanic (Matt. 12:24), and the rank and file of Israel completely trusted
their religious judgment. Their leaders were wrong and the result was that an
entire nation was blindly led to its destruction. In 70 AD there was
starvation, cannibalism, and a massacre in Jerusalem - the bitter fruit of
unquestioning trust. The
facts are that it was the Jewish leadership who were the true dissidents in
denying and then opposing the authority of the Son of God. Again, Pastor
Goldstone's list applies as; 1) Their position of leadership did not give them
automatic exemption (Matt. 23:2,3); 2) They worked in secrecy to trap Jesus
(Luke 20:20), while Jesus did nothing in secret (John 18:20); 3 & 4) They
made outward claims of loyalty but resisted council because of their pride
(John 9:33,34); 6) They distorted the motives of Jesus (Mark 3:22); 7) They
fomented discontent by publicly sharing expressions of disquiet (John 7:40-52);
8) They finally went public when they thought they had the weight of public
support (Luke 22:5). Interestingly,
the word "dissidence" does not occur in the Bible, but a related word
"dissension," meaning "to stand up against," occurs three
times in the New Testament. In Page 3 the
first instance, Paul and Barnabas "had no small dissension" with
certain men who came from Judea, who taught that in order to be saved one had
to be circumcised (Acts 15:1,2). The Bible is clear that it was Paul and
Barnabas who created the dissension and disputed with those who came, in all
probability, with authority from Jerusalem. However, they were not in the wrong
for doing so, but merely openly and frankly arguing the truth of righteousness
by faith against the heresy of righteousness by works. The
next two instances of "dissension" occur in the 23rd chapter of Acts,
where Paul is brought in before the Sanhedrin. After calling the high priest a
"white-washed wall" and then "apologising,"
Paul undertakes another strategy: But when Paul perceived that the one
part was Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council,
"Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and
resurrection of the dead I am called in question." And when he had so
said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and Sadducees: and the
multitude was divided. (Acts 23:6, 7) Here
Paul, the dissident, opposing the authority of the Sanhedrin, turns the tables
on his opposers by revealing their internal dissidence. The Pharisees and
Sadducees, while united against the work of the Messiah and the fulfillment of
prophecy were in disagreement on basic doctrines. How
ironic it is that history has repeated itself today. We find that the Church
(the modern-day Sadducees), having rejected the fulfillment of Luke 21:24, have
to spend a great deal of time defending themselves against the Independents
(many being modern-day Pharisees), while both are rejecting the truth. While
the Standishes and Pfandl
are quibbling over the nature of Christ [see WWN Australia, Special Issue, Nov,
1997, "Standish - Pfandl, No Alternative?"
p.10, by Darren Lambert], neither have the Truth. Both are dissident against
the authority of the Scriptures, and the Incarnate Word. Returning
to the essence of Pastor Goldstone's article, It is evident that he sees the
independent movement as dissident against the authority of the Seventh-day
Adventist corporate structure. While this may be true, we need to ask
ourselves, is the corporate structure itself, in any way dissident against the
authority of God, as has occurred with the professed people of God in the past?
Pastor Goldstone's own list should give us the answer: Has
the leadership of the SDA Church been given an automatic exemption from
dissidence? Men who are entrusted with weighty
responsibilities, but who have no living connection with God, have been and are
doing despite to His Holy Spirit. They are Indulging the very same spirit as
did Korah, Dathan and Abiram, as did the Jews in the days of Christ...
(Testimonies to Ministers, p.78) 2)
Has the SDA leadership ever acted in secrecy, with "clandestine meetings,
and meetings behind closed doors, or suggestions that 'these matters are best
not discussed with the [laity] and pastors"'? M.L. Andreasen answers: As the negotiations [between Martin and
SDA's] were considered top secrets it was some time before any definite news
leaked out. When it did it was disturbing. Washington furnished little news,
and all others informed me they had nothing to say. ... Our first authentic
news did not come from our leaders or through our journals, but from an
Evangelical publication dated September 1956, which issued a special edition
with an account of what took place. This account was so unbelievable that we
hesitated to give it credence. (Letters
to the Churches, p. 34) 3)
Has the SDA leadership made outward claims of loyalty while acting in a
dissident way? Again Andreasen: I do not know how our leaders conducted
themselves while with the evangelicals, but they left the impression upon these
men that "the majority group of sane leadership (which) is determined to
put the brakes on any members who seek to hold views divergent from that of the
responsible leadership of the denomination." Eternity Extra,
September 1956. (lbid,
p.59) 4)
Has the SDA leadership resisted counsel, demonstrating personal pride?
Andreasen quotes a letter to him: Now for you to go forward and broadcast a
matter like this certainly puts you In an unenviable light. If you do this, we
shall have to do some broadcasting too. This will again place you In plain
opposition to your church, and will undoubtedly bring up the matter of your
relationship to the church. In view of all this, the Officers as I have
previously written earnestly ask you to cease your activities. (Letter dated
Dec. 19, 1957, from SDA church to M.L. Andreasen; Ibid, p.65) 5)
Was dissidence not easily discernible in its early stages? Andreasen speaks yet
again: Our members are largely unaware of the
conditions existing, and every effort is being made to keep them in ignorance.
Orders have been issued to keep everything secret, and it will be noted that
even at the late General Conference session, no report was given of our
leaders' trafficking with the evangelicals and making alliances with them. (Ibid, p.15) 6) Has the SDA leadership ever distorted the
motives of others? Some claimed that Andreasen was offended for not having Page 4 been
invited to participate in the discussions which had taken place with Walter
Martin and Donald G. Barnhouse. Andreason was then in
retirement. This was perhaps one of the reasons he was not invited. But the
true motive was indubitably his well-known position with regard to the person
and work of Jesus Christ. (Christ
Manifested in the Flesh, J.R. Zurcher, p.132) 7)
Has the SDA leadership fomented discontent by publicly sharing expressions of disquiet?
Read what the Adventist leadership told Barnhouse and Martin: . . . regarding the nature of Christ
while in the flesh, which the majority of the denomination has always held to
be sinless, holy and perfect, despite the fact that certain of their writers
have occasionally gotten into print with contrary views completely repugnant to
the Church at large. They [leadership] further explained to Mr. Martin that
they had among their number certain members of their "lunatic fringe"
even as there are similar wild-eye irresponsibles in
every field of fundamental Christianity. (Dr. Donald G. Barnhouse, "Are
Seventh-day Adventists Christians?" Eternity,
September, 1956, p.6) 8)
Did the SDA leadership go public when it thought that the weight of public
support would carry the day? In
1957, the church published the book, Questions
on Doctrine, as the result of the evangelical conferences, assuming that
they had "softened up" the ministry enough to get their compromises
generally accepted. They were wrong, and it took until 1980 before they could
make another definitive statement that was well received. As
Pastor Goldstone has stated; "dissidence is a disease . . . Indiscernible
at first, it spreads silently." We agree with him entirely that it is
imperative that we discern and reject it. However, we leave it to the reader to
determine who the true dissidents against God and His Truth really are. A Convicting
Witness [The
following story, written by David L. Cooper D.D., was recently discovered among
a pile of papers in the ALF Library. For its clearness and conciseness, we
include it here.] One
day as I was journeying from Los Angeles to Denver, I had a most delightful
interview with an elderly Jewish man. I was sitting in the carriage reading my
Hebrew Testament when this man appeared at my side. "You cannot read
that," he declared. Immediately I gave him a practical demonstration by reading a
passage. With a shrug of the shoulders he asked, "Where did you learn
that?" "In
the seminary and University." "Well
you do not know what it means." Again I read it and translated a verse for
him. "Hum - and you are not a Yid," he commented. Moving
over I invited him to a seat beside me and introduced myself. My new
acquaintance told me his name was Baron. Then we settled ourselves for a chat. "Can
you read this Mr. Baron?" I asked. "Sure." At once he read
fluently the passage I indicated. "Now will you tell me what it
means?" He translated with difficulty although he seemed to understand the
substance of what he had read. "Mr.
Baron are you acquainted with this book?" I enquired. He turned to the
title page. He read the words, "New Testament." He had never seen it
before. Reaching
for my grip I pulled out my Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and said; "Mr.
Baron I want to ask you a question. What is the meaning of the word
Elohim?" "It
means God." "But,"
I said, "my teachers have told me that this word means 'Gods."' "They
do not know what they are talking about," he retorted emphatically. "But
Elohim is a plural number". "You
are wrong," my friend declared, "I went to Yeshiva (Rabbinical
School) and I know Elohim means God - singular." "What
is the meaning of the word Baal, Mr. Baron?" I inquired. "Master,"
was his ready reply. "What
is the meaning of the word Baalim?" "Masters,"
was his ready reply, "more than one." "What
is the meaning of seraph?" "One
of the angels," he said. "Seraphim?"
I asked. "Many
of them," he answered, "more than one." "Then
if Baal-im and Seraph-im,
mean more than one would not Eloh-im also mean more than
one?" He looked puzzled. "Let
us turn to the Ten Commandments, and notice the 2nd Page 5 Commandment
- 'Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.' Now
what does the word 'Gods' mean?" "It
is plural and means many - more than one," he replied and added, "It
means all those heathen gods". Turning
back to the first verse of the book of Genesis I said, "You admit that
Elohim in the passage we have just seen means 'Gods."' He nodded. I
continued - "Then what about the same word here at the beginning of the book
of Genesis." For an answer my companion put his hand to his head in a
quick gesture of complete surprise. "The
rabbi did not tell us that". "Never
mind about the rabbi," I rejoined. "If the word is plural and means
'gods' in one instance, then it must be plural in the other instance for it is
spelt exactly the same way." "That
sounds right," he admitted, "But I wonder why they did not tell me
that at the Rabbinical School?" "Mr.
Baron what is the meaning of Shema (The rabbinical name of the great confession
of Deuteronomy 6:4)? I want to ask you particularly about the meaning of the
Hebrew word Elohenu? My instructors have taught me
that it meant 'Gods,"' I continued. "Well
they are wrong. It means one God." "What
is the meaning of the word Abhothenu?" "Our
fathers." "Of
Eholayenu?" I asked. "Our
sicknesses." "Pesha 'enu?" "Our
transgressions." "And
Avonothenu?" "Our
sins." "Then
Mr. Baron," I concluded, "If all these words ending in enu means 'fathers,' 'sicknesses,' 'transgressions' and
'sins,' surely Elohenu means 'Gods' - plural."
For an answer my Jewish friend threw out both hands in a gesture of helpless
perplexity. "But the Rabbi's," he breathed - "We
are not interested in the Rabbi's just now," I told him. "You admit
that it is right that we should translate it plural do you not?" He slowly
nodded. I continued, "One more question - What is the meaning of Echad?" "One,"
he promptly replied. "My
teachers have told me that it is a word which means Unity!" I replied. "Well
you were taught wrong," he retorted quite hotly. "My
friend, here in the first part Genesis we are told that there was evening and
morning making one day. There was darkness and light, two different and
opposite things. Put them together and they make one. A little farther on we are
told that a man was to leave father and mother and cleave unto his wife and the
two were to become one flesh. When the two are married they become one. That is
Echad. God speaks similarly about Himself. The Shema
really says, "THE LORD, OUR GODS IS ONE LORD" - Echad
- a unity." I
then took him to various passages of the Old Testament and concluded with the
words, "The Scriptures teach that there is a Godhead of more than one, and
that the second person of the Godhead came to earth to dwell among us and gave
his life for us all." His
face was a study. He said, "I am old now, if I had only met you many years
ago, how different my life would have been." He then said, "I
certainly would have changed my religion." I
urged him to change then and there. This was bringing home the truth to a Jew
in a language that he understood clearly. LET'S THINK IT OVER There
are two statements made in the above story that need to be carefully
considered. Mr. Baron, after hearing and seeing the truth from the written
word, exclaims, "If I had only met you many years ago, how different my
life would have been." And then he remarks, "I certainly would have
changed my religion." The
acceptance of truth for many of us has necessitated a change of religion.
However, is it possible to change religion and yet not for our life to be
changed? Our "lifestyle" might alter, but do we allow the truths we
hold to transform us into better people? Is there a difference between truth
and doctrine, and just how important are they in the development of a Christian
character? In
the fifth chapter of the Gospel of John, we find recorded an interesting
statement made by Jesus. After healing the impotent man at the pool of Bethesda
(5:1-15), and then declaring God to be His Father (5:17), the Jews "sought Page 6 the
more to kill Him, because He not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also
that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God" (5:18). Taking
advantage of the crowded temple situation, Jesus is able to expound, and
explain the witness of the Father. Then He states, "Search the scriptures;
for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of
me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life" (5:39, 40). It
is impossible to determine from the Greek text if this passage is to be read as
a command, "Search the scriptures!" or as a simple statement,
"Ye search the scriptures." Commentators disagree as to its use,
whether in the imperative or indicative mood, however either case makes good sense.
It is clear that men ought to search the scriptures, but that also the books of
the Old Testament were never more diligently searched than at that very time.
The Jews were in expectation of the immediate appearing of the Messiah, but
also they believed the Scriptures to contain the promise of an eternal life. Jesus
said to them, "In them ye think ye have eternal life." It was ancient
Jewish thought that a knowledge of the law would itself assure a man of eternal
life. "Thus, Hillel, a rabbi of the 1st century BC, is reported to have
declared: 'One who has acquired for himself words of Torah, has acquired for
himself the life of the world to come."' (SDA Bible Commentary, No.5, p.955) It was in this way, by placing
emphasis on the written word, to the exclusion of the Incarnate Word, that the
Jews were able to turn a knowledge of that word into the means of salvation,
and thus rejected Him who is the truth. Although their doctrines were based in
the Torah, they allowed the wickedness of their hearts to corrupt their
perceptions of the coming Messiah. Jesus said, "Ye will not come to me,
that ye might have life." Even though the Old Testament bore evidence that
Jesus was the Messiah, and although they professedly searched it to learn the
way to life, yet they would not come to Him to obtain that life. They [the Jews] clung and appealed to
Moses; . . . Their elaborate searching and sifting of the Law in hope that, by
a subtle analysis of its every particle and letter, by inferences from, and a
careful drawing of a prohibitive hedge around, its letter, they would possess
themselves of eternal life (John 5:39), what did it all come to? Utterly
self-deceived, and far from the truth in their elaborate attempts to outdo each
other in local ingenuity, they would, while rejecting the Messiah sent from
God, at last become the victims of a coarse Messianic impostor (John 5:40-43).
And even in the present, what was it all? Only the letter - the outward! . . .
It was all utterly mistaken; utter, and alas, guilty perversion, their
elaborate trifling with the most sacred things, while around them were
suffering, perishing men, ' lame hands' into emptiness, and waiilng
out their mistaken hopes Into the eternal silence. (Alfred Edersheim,
The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah,
p.322, 323) The
sad history of the Jewish nation is there for us to read, so that we will learn
and not repeat the mistakes of the past. Their love and respect for their
doctrines was commendable, but they had no such love for the source of all
truth, nor for the people for whom the truth was sent to save. They had the
religion, but not the life. They had the doctrine, but not the Truth. The
word "doctrine" is a common New Testament word that may denote the
act of teaching (didaskalia),
or the thing that is taught (didache). The word for "truth" (aletheia), is
much broader in application, and has the fundamental meaning of reality, as
opposed to mere appearance or false pretence. There are distinctive differences
in the use of this word by Paul and John. In the writings of Paul there is a
constant use of "the truth" to describe God's will as revealed to man
(Rom. 1:18, 25), but especially in the gospel of Chnst
(2 Cor. 4:2; Gal. 3:1 etc.) Thus "the truth" becomes synonymous with
the gospel (Eph. 1:13, Gal. 2:5, 14). In his Pastoral Epistles the gospel as
"the truth" or "the word of truth" appears to pass into the
sense of a settled body of Christian doctrine. In
the books of John, "the truth" stands for the absolute Divine reality
as distinguished from all existence that is false or merely seeming. Jesus came
from the bosom of the Father (John 1:18), and truth came by Him (vs.17),
because, as the Word of God, He was full of it (vs.14). The truth is incarnated
and personalized in Jesus, and so He is Himself the Truth (14:6). The truth
that is in Him He imparts to His disciples (8:31); and after His ascension He
bestowed the Spirit of Truth to abide with them and be in them forever (14:17).
Hence the truth is in the Christian as the essence of his spiritual being (1
John 1:8, 2:4; 2 John 1:2). It is there both as a moral and intellectual
quality, something not only to be known and believed (8:32, 45f) but also
requiring to be done (3:21; 1 John 1:6). Primarily it is a moral power, as
distinguished from doctrine which is purely intellectual. Truth sets us free
(John 8:32); in its sanctifying power (17:17-19); it ensures the keeping of the
commandments (1 John 2:4); and a life of Christian love (3:18). Jesus
said, "If any man will do His will, He shall know of the doctrine"
(John 7:17). He who sincerely desires to do the will of God, will be
enlightened by God; he is promised an understanding of doctrine. But there is a
prerequisite to receiving that light, in that the seeker for truth must be
willing to follow in the light that may be revealed. This is a life-changing
experience. This verse does not read that he who knows doctrine will seek to do
His will. A theoretical knowledge of doctrine, in and of itself, has no power
to transform the life. Paul
exhorted Timothy; "Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue
in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear
thee" (1 Timothy 4:16). The Phillips' Translation reads; "Keep a
critical eye both upon your own life and on the teaching you give." Page 7 Clearly
the importance of sound doctrine cannot be denied, however, if our life does
not correspond to it, it is worse than useless. The following quote, taken from
the SDA Bible Commentary on this
verse, states this very succinctly: The apostle asserts the primary
importance of dependable Christian character as a qualification for service to
the church. Acquaintance with teachings of the church is important, but this
knowledge can never compensate for a questionable reputation. The most winsome
argument for Christianity is not unanswerable logic but the fragrance of a
Christ-like life. Sincere seekers for truth are not interested in theory, but
in a working philosophy of life that can solve their problems and help them to
overcome their weaknesses. When non-Christians who are honest in heart see that
the gospel changes selfish, vain, timeserving men into pure, unselfish
Christians, they will be drawn to the Christ of the Gospel. It is a tragic inconsistency for a
minister to attempt to reform the lives of others if his own has not been
re-created by the power of God. He who would preach kindness and love must
first exemplify these qualities in his own life. The preaching of the gospel is
hindered or hastened by the lives lived by professing Christians. (SDA Bible Commentary, No.7, p.307) The
following comment is found in the Writings: 'Take heed unto thyself, and unto the
doctrine.' Thyself needs the first attention. First give yourself to the Lord for
sanctification to His service. A godly example will tell more for the truth
than the greatest eloquence unaccompanied by a well-ordered life. (Review & Herald, August 19,1902) Yes,
Jesus is the Truth, but He gave a broader threefold description of of His existence in John 14:6. He said, "I am the way,
the truth, and the life." He is the way from earth to heaven; through His
life and His death, His humanity and divinity, the necessary ladder was
provided. He is the truth; a living revelation of the Almighty. He is the life;
all that composes life here, physically, intellectually and spiritually, as
well as the life to come. All these aspects of life we may have in abundance
(John 10:10). How silly would it be to seek only intellectual knowledge and
miss out on all the other blessings Jesus has to offer us. In
Adventism today there can be found two extremes. On the one hand we have the
thinking of the liberal majority that an understanding of doctrine is
unnecessary, and that all we need is to "know Jesus." On the other
hand, there is a minority view, equally dangerous, that pure doctrine is all we
need; if we just get the doctrines right then everything else will fall into
place. Clearly we need to learn from the mistakes of the past and find that
middle ground where doctrine, pure and unadulterated, has its right and proper
place and our lives are a reflection of its teaching. The
words of Paul are given for our admonition and should shock us out of any
self-complacency. He writes; "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven
against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in
unrighteousness." The reason that the Lord can do so
little for those that are handling weighty truths is that so many hold these
truths apart from their life. They hold them in unrighteousness. Their hands
are not clean, their hearts are defiled with sin, and should the Lord work for
them in the power of His Spirit corresponding with the magnitude of the truth
which He has opened to the understanding, it would be as though the Lord
sanctioned sin. (Counsels to Writers and
Editors, p.81) As Adventists we are privileged with
some of the most challenging doctrines ever given to man; the Sanctuary, the
fulfillment of Prophecy, the Incarnation, the Godhead, to name but a few.
However, truth encompasses more than even these great and necessary doctrines.
While we may classify some of them as "present truth," they are no
more vital than, say, the Beatitudes of Matthew 5, or the Fruits of the Spirit
in Galatians 5:22, 23. All are necessary, challenging and, if we allow them to
be, life-changing. They are not the means of salvation, but avenues by which we
find eternal life, providing we come to Jesus to receive that life. TL WEBSITES http://www.adventistlaymen.com E- webmaster@adventistlaymen.com |