Embedding Last Generation Theology in Sabbath School Lessons


(George Tichy) #161

Yes, it is surely a good idea. Fantastic idea indeed!! But those who defend that idea still need to come up with at least one, just one, person that reached the goal. … :roll_eyes:
And, by the way, LGT is not bad because some of its defenders are aggressive and disrespectful. It’s bad because it’s a heresy. Let’s not get distracted from the core problem…


(Kim Green) #162

"Why wouldn’t any of us want to be sinless?"

I suppose…but since none of us knows if we are, or not- does it really matter?

But I do want to address this question:

"So I am genuinely curious: Is the opposition posed in this article and on this thread solely because of the abuses committed by some LGT proponents? If so, is it fair to judge a philosophy by its abuses (or abusers, as the case may be)?"

Shane, “You will know them by their fruits”…yes, it is fair according to the Bible.


(Johnny Carson) #163

It’s not a matter of not wanting to be sinless. It’s the arrogant and erroneous assumption that a group of sinlessness individuals must exist, without the covering sacrifice of Jesus, before God can return and begin to close out the sin problem, that God is dependent on this group of people to exist before he can return, and that in order for that to happen, all the sinners must be eliminated from the church.

Many of us here who are regulars on the Spectrum Forum have experienced this arrogance first hand when these supposedly “sanctified” ones come here and demand that if we don’t see things the way they do we must rid the church of our existence by leaving so as the church may be purified.

All that side however, the LGT dogma is not only abusive, it is patently a false teaching. All of us strive for perfection in Christ. Nothing wrong with that. Who doesn’t want to grow and become more like him as we learn of him? That’s not the problem. The problem is the arrogance of suggesting that we will be, in fact we must be sinless in our own right and that anyone who is not must leave the denomination or be driven from it.


(Johnny Carson) #164

Shane, Are you a proponent of the false doctrine of LGT?

Yes_____
No_____

It’s a simple question. Only a one word answer is required.

Thank-you


(George Tichy) #165

Hey…
I have the Copyright for that question being worded like that!
Well…, I guess plagiarism is OK among SDAs, so… just go ahead with your question … :slight_smile:

Wish you a better luck in getting an answer than I am having with @CliffordGoldstein - regarding the same question! The guy just disappeared quickly from here. It is like someone knocking on your door, and when you open the door the person already ran away…
LGTarians are good at this…:wink:


(Johnny Carson) #166

You snooze you lose, George! I’ll try to be more thoughtful in the future however… :innocent:


#167

Right? Ultimately that is the question. I was just trying to understand if the “final test” of those in the last generation is part of the LGT sinless concept as it appears, to me, to be.


#168

If someone is in the last generation and does not worship God on the sabbath, is the judgement deemed “lost”?


(Shane Anderson) #169

Call me stunned and amazed! Now I can tell my friends that George thinks LGT is “a good idea,” even a “fantastic” one!

Just kidding. Your secret is safe with me. :slightly_smiling_face:

Actually, I do appreciate your answer, as it (to my way of thinking, at least) lends more credence to your critique of LGT. Speaking of which:

Yes–but as you essentially point out above, it is not all heresy, and that I believe is an extremely important distinction that is missed if not completely ignored by many critics of LGT. We cannot simply erase texts like Matthew 5:48 and Revelation 14:12. We must instead wrestle with them, study them in the light of other texts like Ephesians 2:8 & 9 and John 17:3, seize what meaning we can, and share that meaning as the liberating news Christ intended. Simply because M.L. Andreasen got some things terribly wrong doesn’t mean Jesus didn’t get all things extraordinarily right.


(Shane Anderson) #170

Hmm, not sure I’m tracking with you, Kim. Are you saying that in order for something to “matter” spiritually, we must be able to fully apprehend and understand it? And that therefore, since we can’t know if we are sinless or not, we can ignore the concept?

Not wanting to put words in your mouth, here, so please help me understand your train of thought better.


(Shane Anderson) #171

I don’t deny your experience for a moment, Johnny. I have experienced much the same thing.

But in my life, at least, those experiences have been few and far between.

Abusive LGT purveyors are in my experience extraordinarily rare. It is far easier today to find (for instance) Adventists who are on the moderate-to-extreme Left, theologically speaking, than it is to find those who are on the extreme Right. The extreme Right are a dying breed, and though I have no objective statistics to back me up, I suspect they represent an extraordinarily small minority in the overall population of Adventism in the NAD.

This is part of what at times makes it difficult for me to take some articles on Spectrum seriously: They take the far-Right abuses of Adventism 60-90 years ago and make it sound like the majority of the church today is still in that same mode. I believe that simply is not true. And with respect to Mr. Quartey, I wonder if his attempts to associate abusive LGTers with the flat-earthers, etc., only show the weaknesses of his generalizations. Reverting to ad hominem attacks to validate one’s conclusions seems an iffy proposition, at best.

Absolutely, Johnny, absolutely! I couldn’t agree more.

“…and that anyone who is not must leave the denomination or be driven from it.” This is genuinely curious to me. Do you know of anyone in a position of genuine authority (academically, politically, whatever) in the church that has actively advocated this position in the last, say, 10-20 years? Please, I’m not trying to be combative, here, but rather genuinely cannot recall any myself and would like to know the basis of your concern.


(Kim Green) #172

No, I am not saying that we can “fully” comprehend nearly anything spiritually. But the “concept” of whether or one is “sinless” or not…appears to be something that is inane and inconsequential, Shane.


(Shane Anderson) #173

Aha, I am honored! To have a George-ism applied to the likes of me - who would’ve thunk it? I believe this means I’ve reached some sort of Spectrum Nirvana, no?

But back to your query. Martin Luther, when asked to simply give a one-word (“revoca”) answer regarding his “heretical” writings, wisely used more than one word. I will now follow suit.

If by “LGT” you mean that I believe that there will be a final generation of people who are sinless and will know it; a generation that will attain salvation even in part by their works; a generation that make those who come into contact with LGTers feel like ice is being poured down their necks on a Minnesota winter’s day; then emphatically, my answer is NO.

But if by “LGT” you mean that I believe that there will be a final generation of people who are sinless and do NOT know it; and who furthermore are joyfully Christ-centered, loving, just, kind, courageous, merciful, etc., etc.–the kind of people that see precisely zero of their good works as contributing to their salvation; then emphatically, my answer is YES.

To me, the idea that one can know when one is sinless is the cancer in the otherwise generally marvelous goal of LGT. The burden of having to know that one is sinless invites self-centered, sin-focused (and not Christ-focused) living in the extreme. This, in my opinion, was M.L. Andreasen’s Great Error: known sinlessness. And yes, it has caused profound damage in the church.

EGW pointed out that good works are the fruit, not the root, of salvation (GC 256). She was right, since she was simply echoing God (Jn. 14:15, Eph. 2:10, etc.). And because of such truths, I have no problem believing that prior to Christ’s return, there will be a joyful, Christ-loving group of believers who do not sin—and that they will not recognize their sinlessness till safely in the confines of heaven (in fact, I suspect no one will be more surprised at the declaration of their sinlessness… than they!).


(Elmer Cupino) #174

This may be true but now you have entered the realm of assuming you know exactly what God knows, the very reason why God banished Adam from the garden.


(Shane Anderson) #175

I see. Perhaps this is where one’s definition of “sin” comes into play. If by “sinless” one means “not breaking one of the Ten Commandments,” then it would be difficult for me to call such a thing inane and inconsequential, since such a conclusion puts God in a very unflattering light: It means that He will have asked us to do something that we simply cannot do (see Jn. 14:15). To ask (much less command) someone to do something important that you know in fact they absolutely cannot do is cruelty of a special sort, true?

But if by “sinless” one means “equal with God in all respects–in character, in depth of integrity, in love, etc.,” then we agree: that’s inane.


(Shane Anderson) #176

I’m pleased we agree.


(Kim Green) #177

I was awaiting your definition…clarity is important, no? Is this why it took so long to reveal your POV- LGTism? :wink:


(Kim Green) #178

But…have dodged his main point flawlessly. Well done, Shane. lol


(Shane Anderson) #179

Thanks!

Shhh! Don’t tell… :slight_smile:


(Kim Green) #180

Oh…I won’t…it is just posted for all discerning readers to figure it out for themselves for posterity (or close enough to it). :wink: