에덴동산에서 일어난
애초의 무화과 사건에는
피고가 셋입니다
아담
하와
뱀
그런데 조사는
아담과 하와에게 하지만
뱀의 행실은 조사를 하지 않습니다
심판은 비록
남자는 고생하다가 흙으로 돌아가고
여자는 고생하면서 아이를 낳게 하고도
구속의 여지를 남겨둔 약속들이 있지만
진짜 심판은 조사도 없이 뱀에게 내린 것입니다.
머리를 깨부시는...
요한복음 16장은 선악과의 반대인 생명과가 달린 십자가에서
성령의 역사를 아래와 같이 설명합니다.
그가 와서 죄에 대하여, 의에 대하여, 심판에 대하여 세상을 책망하시리라
죄에 대하여라 함은 그들이 나를 믿지 아니함이요
의에 대하여라 함은 내가 아버지께로 가니 너희가 다시 나를 보지 못함이요
심판에 대하여라 함은 이 세상 임금이 심판을 받았음이라
십자가에서
의를 묻는 대상은 하나님의 아들의 죽음입니다.
죄를 묻는 대상은 그들이라고 하는 하와의 자손들 즉 교회입니다.
그러나 심판을 묻는 대상은 옛뱀 사단입니다.
이상의 내용을 보면 죄를 묻는 것은 살리기 위한 과정으로 보이지만
심판은 죽음 즉 영멸이라고 하는 저주로 보여 집니다.
결국 죄인으로 나타나는 욥의 알량한 의를 증명하는 일에서도
그의 생명을 건드리지 말라고 하는 하나님의 확실한 의지가 보였고
간음 살인교사 거짓말등 온갖 죄를 저질렀던 다윗을 찾아 온
나단이 퍼붓는 하나님의 선고속에는 다윗의 목숨은 절대로
건드리지 않는 것을 보면
죄를 묻는 일은 어쩌면 용서를 위한 하나의 단계처럼
보입니다.
그러나 죄를 묻지 않는 대상은
두렵게도 심판의 대상입니다.
우리교회가 자체로 개발한 교리속에는
조사도 심판도 짬뽕이 되어 있지 않나 하는 나의 생각과
그 세가지의 과정이 모두 십자가에서 성령의 역사로 이루어 졌다고
하는 사실도 함께 생각해 보기를 바랍니다
조사는 용서를 위한 과정으로 보이지만
심판은 멸망을 위한 전초처럼 보여집니다
만약에 이런 성경적 패턴이
의미가 확실하다면
조사심판은 좀 거시기 합니다
선지자를 살리고 싶나요
아님
성경을 살리고 싶나요?
십자가의 무엇이 모자라서???
데스몬드 포드목사는 호주출신으로 미국에 있는 권위있는 재림교회 신학교인 엔드류스 대학에 신학과장을 하던 사람이였습니다. 그가 성경을 연구하고 가르치다가 교리에 이상한 점을 발견하게 됩니다. 예수님은 승천하자마자 하나님 보좌 우편에 올라가셨는데 1884년에 하나님 보좌 우편에 갔다(혹은 지성소에 들어가셨다)는 교리는 성경에 맞지 않는다는 것을 발견한 것입니다.
그래서 이 문제를 논문으로 써서 1980년에 재림교회 세계 대총회장 피얼슨 목사에게 보내면서 2300주야교리와 조사심판 교리가 성서적으로 맞지 않으므로 이 교리들은 삭제해야 한다고 주장합니다. 대총회장은 원로 목사들을 소집하고 이 논문을 복사하여 배포하고 한 달간 각자 연구한 후에 모여서 논의하기로 하였습니다. 그 후 여러 차례 논의를 거듭한 후에 내린 결론은 다음과 같습니다.
"당신의 논문은 성서적으로는 하자가 없으나, 안식일 교회가 선지자로 추대하는 화잇 부인의 글{2300주야는 제칠일 안식일 예수 재림교회의 기초다]에는 저촉이 되므로 그 교리들은 삭제하거나 변경할 수 없습니다. 그러니 당신은 이 이론을 가르치지도 말며 설교하지도 말아야 합니다."
그러나 포드 목사는 계속 설교하고 가르치다가 결국 재림교단으로부터 출교를 당하게 됩니다. 그때 호주의 재림교인들이 절반 이상 교회를 떠나 버리고 전 세계의 재림교인들의 삼분의 일 이상이 교회를 떠나는 대 위기 사건이 있었습니다. 급기야 대총회는 포드 목사를 설득하여 출교를 철회하고 은퇴를 시키게 됩니다.
결과적으로, 재림교단은 결국 성경말씀을 따르기 보다 화잇 여사의 글을 더 따르기로 결정한 것입니다. 이로 말미암아, 재림교단은 성경 이외의 경전을 성경보다 우선하는 집단이라는 비난을 피할 수 없게 된 것입니다.
요컨데, 위의 fallbaram님의 질문에 대해 대총회는 1980년대에 이미 "선지자를 살리고 싶다"는 답을 한 셈입니다.
(추신: 윗 글의 데스몬드 포드 목사에 관한 일부 내용은 다른 싸이트의 글을 인용했음을 알려드립니다).
다음은 Wikipedia에 소개된 데스몬드 포드 목사에 관한 내용중 일부입니다.
Ford was a primary opponent of the perfectionism within the SDA church, especially its form as taught by fellow Australian Robert Brinsmead.[21]
Ford believes that victory over the guilt of sin (justification) was provided at the cross, victory over the power of sin (sanctification) is the work of a lifetime and victory over the presence of sin (glorification) occurs at the return of Christ Jesus. Ford disagrees with the belief of sinless perfection, and acknowledges the final removal of sin occurs when mortality changes to immortality at the return of Jesus Christ. Ford believes that victory over the presence of sin does not occur during this lifetime, but at the return of Jesus Christ.[22]
Ford teaches that justification precedes sanctification, because victory over the guilt of sin, precedes victory over the power of sin. Ford teaches that while justification is distinct from sanctification, the two concepts are always found together, in the same manner as two railway lines are distinct but never separate. Adventist belief places an equal emphasis on sanctification compared to justification, while still believing both are necessary for salvation.
Ford disagrees strongly with the belief of "eschatological perfectionism," which is the teaching that a final generation of believers must achieve a state of complete sinlessness (or Christlikeness) in the final period just before the second coming of Jesus when the saints are sealed (see Last Generation Theology). Mainstream Adventists consider the life and character of Christ as a perfect example that all must imitate. M. L. Andreasen felt that the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary, or investigative judgment, also involves the cleansing of the lives of believers on earth. This belief in sinlessness arose particularly from M. L. Andreasen's interpretation of the investigative judgment doctrine, which he based on concepts found in The Great Controversy by Ellen G. White.
Ford stepped into the debate within Adventism concerning the nature of Jesus Christ, specifically whether Jesus Christ took on a fallen or an unfallen human nature in the Incarnation. This was precipitated by the publication of Questions on Doctrine in 1957 which some Adventists felt did not agree with what the church held.[23][24]
The debate revolves around the interpretation of several biblical texts:
"For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh." Romans 8:3 (ESV)
"For we have not an High Priest which cannot be touched with the feelings of our infirmities, but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." Hebrews 4:15
"...concerning his Son (Jesus), who was descended from David according to the flesh..." Romans 1:3 (ESV)
"Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people." Hebrews 2:17 NKJV
and statements made by Ellen White:
"Notwithstanding that the sins of a guilty world were laid upon Christ, notwithstanding the humiliation of taking upon Himself our fallen nature, the voice from heaven declared Him to be the Son of the Eternal." The Desire of Ages, p. 112.
"He assumed human nature, with its infirmities, its liabilities, its temptations." Manuscript Releases, Vol. 17, p. 337.
"But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity." Letter 8, 1895 in Manuscript Releases, Vol. 13, p. 18.
"Christ did not possess the same sinful, corrupt, fallen disloyalty we possess, for then He could not be a perfect offering." Review & Herald, April 25, 1893
According to Adventist historian George Knight, most early Adventists (until 1950) believed that Jesus Christ was born with a human nature that was not only physically frail and subject to temptation, but that he also had the fallen predisposition and inclination to sin.[25] Since 1950, the "historic" wing of the church continues to hold this fallen view of Christ's human nature. Mainstream Adventist hold to the belief taught by Ellen White[26] that He came with the effects of Adam’s sin deep within his nature, that Christ took on the fallen nature but not the sinfulness of man.
In contrast to the "historic" view, Ford believes that Ellen White was clear that Christ took our infirmities and with the weaknesses of fallen man, the sinful nature in the sense of that he had a lessened capacity with respect to the fallen physical nature that he inherited from Adam, including physical weaknesses, frailties and mental, and moral degeneracy and deterioration.[27][28] While Christ was tempted as all other human beings are, Ford notes that the lessened capacity of his human nature did not ever include giving in to temptation or having any evil desires or propensity or predisposition towards sin in his spiritual nature, a position with which Ellen White taught and mainstream Adventists agree.[29][30]
Original Sin[edit]
According to Anglican Geoffrey Paxton, during the 1960s scholars such as Ford and Edward Heppenstall highlighted the concept of original sin within the SDA church.[31]
Seventh-day Adventists have historically preached a doctrine of inherited weakness, but not a doctrine of inherited guilt.[32] Ellen White and others such as George Storrs, and Uriah Smith were disposed to de-emphasise the corrupt nature inherited from Adam, instead stressing the importance of actual, personal sins committed by the individual. Adventists traditionally understand sins of commission as the transgression of God's law, either wilfully or in ignorance. They base their belief on texts such as "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." (1 John 3:4) [33] Progressive Adventists add to this with some form of original sin.[34][35]
Robert Brinsmead & Debate[edit]
Ford urged Brinsmead to study the Reformers. As a result, Brinsmead ultimately rejected perfectionism.[18] Around 1970, there was a major controversy amongst Australian Adventists over whether "righteousness by faith" included both justification and sanctification.[18] This had been sparked by Brinsmead, and Ford became caught up in it.[18] Tensions over Ford and the theology teaching at Avondale more generally, led to a meeting of Australian church leaders on 3–4 February 1976 to hear accusations by a group of "Concerned Brethren". Ford's understanding of righteousness by faith was the main issue,[36] while the report mentions "the Sanctuary, the Age of the Earth and Inspiration."[37] In April a group of church leaders and theologians, including Ford met in Palmdale, California, to discuss the meaning of righteousness by faith.[38] Ford was the "center of attention." The resulting document was titled the "Palmdale Statement".[39][40]
Move to United States[edit]
In response to criticisms of his theology, in 1977 the church moved him to the United States, where he taught Religion at Pacific Union College for three years.[6][19][41] The classes he taught included the life and teachings of Christ, the Pauline epistles, Christian apologetics, Daniel and Revelation, the major and minor prophets of the Old Testament, introduction to theology, and biblical theology.[6]
Increasing tensions with church leadership[edit]
In October 1979 Ford was invited to address a chapter meeting of the Association of Adventist Forums (now Adventist Forums) held at the College, on the topic of Hebrews 9 and its implications for the Adventist investigative judgment teaching.[6] The talk was titled, "The Investigative Judgment: Theological Milestone or Historical Necessity?" The talk criticized some aspects of the traditional understanding; Ford was summoned to the General Conference headquarters in Washington, D.C.[6] He was given six months to write up his views. Late in 1979, he stopped lecturing and moved to Takoma Park, Maryland.[19] Ford produced the 991-page manuscript, Daniel 8:14, the Day of Atonement, and the Investigative Judgment .[42] Ford, together with the majority of Christendom, believes the atonement was completed on the cross when Jesus cried out, "It is finished." And the Seventh-Day Adventist Church agrees with Ford on this point, declaring Christ's "sacrifice in behalf of man was full and complete".[43] "On the cross the penalty for human sin was fully paid."[44] Like Ford, Seventh-Day Adventists see Christ's work in the heavenly sanctuary as the application of the benefits of the already completed atonement, and not as an added payment or continuation of the work of atonement begun on the cross, as some groups do that teach salvation by works.
Expulsion from teaching and ministry(Main article: Glacier View controversy)
In August 1980, a group of Adventist theologians and administrators convened at Glacier View Ranch in Colorado to examine Ford's views. According to TIME magazine, he "made the case that White's 'sanctuary' explication of 1844 no longer stood up, and that 'investigative judgment' undercut the belief in salvation by God's grace apart from good works."[45] The culmination of this event was Ford losing his employment with the denomination [45] as a minister and theology professor.[19] After counsel from the General Conference, the Australasian Division withdrew "Ford's ministerial credentials."[46]
Ford's mentor, Edward Heppenstall, saw him as moving in some theological areas that his mentor could not agree with. Heppenstall was disappointed when he failed to dissuade Ford from his position at Glacier View, subsequently writing to him that he "was shocked at how far" he "had swung to the left Biblically and doctrinally".[47]
To commemorate the 30-year anniversary of Glacier View, the Sydney Adventist Forum held a pretend courtroom trial to assess the accuracy of Ford's claim that the Consensus Document has been largely in agreement with him. They concluded, "Ford was found to be substantially correct in claiming that the 114-member Sanctuary Review Committee (SRC) Consensus Document was in agreement with his twelve propositions—while Ministry was judged to have considerably over-stated its case." It concluded, "In retrospect, it is clear that the SRC made—in five days—more progress in understanding this biblical doctrine than the church has typically made in any fifty years of its history."[48]