Richard L. Noel, DMD

As I travel to different congregations I see an extreme variability of practices and beliefs among the SDA churches. The most retrograde might be described as putting the writings of Ellen White before the Bible.  President Wilson, has explicitly confused the public with his stated goals.  He cannot have the Bible as the supreme guide and still use Ellen White as the teacher and expositor.  I am aware he did not use the word "expositor", but his words still have that effect.  

Somehow, we seem to be able to only see what we want to see in the Bible and the writings of Ellen White.  I find these people who emphasize her writings act and appear to be completely oblivious to her direct condemnations of their misusage of her writings. For brevity, I am omitting the list of references from 1890,1894,1901. Her language is "don't ever say Ellen White said."

Erv, this is a little like the arguments over the meaning of Genesis 1:1.  Even Jewish Hebrew Scholars debate just how to translate it.  At least in these arguments we are honest enough to state what and why we hold our specific positions.  The reactionary element only uses what they want and deny the existance of any evidence otherwise.  Therin lies the problem with the new GC President.  He is heading down the path his father followed to destroy the NAD and Australasian Division.

I pray for him to have a real Damascus Road experience like Saul of Tarsus.  Then he may become the real great leader the church needs.

Does history repeat, or recycle?   It would seem so.

The recognition that while a church may be global, it is always practiced locally, and geography plays a far more important part than world leaders would acknowledge.  Religion does not, and cannot change long practiced cultural mores.  We see this in the inability of third world Adventists to accept the equality of women to the ministry; it is also seen in the reluctance of those members uneducated in the sciences to symbolically "tar and feather" those with whom they disgree.  The theologians rule in all areas:  education, evangelism, and while they operate as "jack-of-all-tradesmen" they refuse to acknowledge their deficiency in many areas in which the make decisions affecting the entire church.

There is no democratic process in selecting its president of the General Conference; it is a farce that would never occur in the U.S. president or other elected positions, but in Adventism, only one name is proffered and it's either a yea or nay vote, and the nays may be worried whether it may affect their future denominational employment.

It would seem that Adventism is a combination of "movement" "cult' and "sect" in most instances rather than an established church.  It is still floundering trying to define itself and its doctrines that are constantly up or review and additions.   

Gotta love how those who wish to abandon doctrinal clarity within the SDA Church refer to themselves as "progressive" while they refer to those who wish to maintain doctrinal distinctiveness and clarity as "retrogressive"...

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean:

Gotta love how those who wish to dictate their views of Genesis to others are "maintain[ing] doctrinal distinctiveness and clarity" while those who wish to let the mysterious acts of God remain mysterious are "abandon[ing] doctrinal clarity."  Loaded language is the same whether single words or phrases are used. 

We may debate the meaning of the Genesis creation story, but I believe this text is less obscure:  "As you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is formed in a mother's womb, so you cannot understand the work of God, the Maker of all things." Eccl. 11:5.

A little time spent reading Job should disabuse anyone of believing he knows everything about God and his acts. 

Chuck Anderson wrote:

We may debate the meaning of the Genesis creation story, but I believe this text is less obscure:  "As you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is formed in a mother's womb, so you cannot understand the work of God, the Maker of all things." Eccl. 11:5.

Do you not believe, Chuck, that God has given us enough intelligence to appreciate Him for who He is as the Creator?  Do you not believe that God appreciates intelligent worship?  While we may not understand very much about God and how He is able to be so creative, surely we can understand certain very basic ideas and concepts which He Himself claims to have revealed to us in His Word.  How smart do you have to be to grasp the concept of an "evening and morning" equalling one day?  How smart do you have to be to add up seven such evenings and mornings to equal one week?  How smart do you have to be to understand God when He tells you, "for in six days I created the heavens and the Earth and all that in them is"?  

It is actually retrogressive to put the creature before the creator - to think that mindless natural laws which God created are the true Creator of all that we see around and within us.  It is retrogressive to go back to fall back on mens ideas of how the world works and how it came to be without giving credence to the biblical account of origins.  

Remember that just because we don't know everything about God doesn't mean that we therefore know nothing about Him.  What God has revealed about Himself is for us and our children forever...

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com 

Does anyone else wonder why there is so much verbiage on the literal "days" of Genesis l, while the 2300 days in Daniel automatically becomes years?

 Peter, said that it must never be forgottne:  that with the Lord, 'a day' can mean a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day. 

Hi,

Ole Prof Taylor (Prof Emeritius) bitterly condemns our new GC President as if he were a politician from an opposing party.

I can't help but wonder what would have been said had John Paul son been selected instead of Ted Wilson.

If we are praying for the Spirit to lead the decision making at the GC Session, shouldn't we accept his leading and the outcomes, and not be so offended at the decisions the delegates made. 

Mr Scott considers that 'progressive' SDAs are many things, including "quite frankly anti-America!"  Considering that over 90% of SDAs are not American, I am not sure what being 'anti-American' has to do with being a good SDA.  Are you saying that we muct all agree with 'the American way' of looking at things before we can be considered as being good SDAs?  Last I looked, most of the things that are considered to be the hallmarks of America (democracy, capitalism, etc) were not actually explicitly approved in the Bible.  As someone who is not American, I find the tendency to conflate being Adventist with being American to be insulting to the many of us who are not American.

Kevin

President Ted Wilson has helped to clarify our Church's Biblical foundation.  This will give a good reason to stop looking backwards and allow us to look forward as we continue to seek and to save the lost Jesus came here to die for (including you and me).  I can't wait to see what happens in our Church over the next three years.

You can watch part of Ted Wilson's sermon at www.AdventistVoice.com

"And God called the llight day, and the darkness He called night.  And there was evening and there was morning, one day"  Gen.  1 :5 .

"And he said to me, 'For 2,300 EVENINGS AND MORNINGs, then the holy place will be restored" Dan. 12:14.

 Both texts explicitly identify an evening and morning, which in Genesis is called "day."  Why doesn't the formular follow in Daniel? When did "day" become years, when it clearly explains in Genesis how a "day" is identified?

Kevin (klriley): Couldn't agree with you more, very well said.

I know I shouldn't, but....

Mr. Scott: You must be joking, I almost thought you were serious for a moment.  I can't speak for anyone else, but as a Canadian Citizen I have no desire to immigrate to the United States.  I'm not even that fond of visiting.

davgill

There is a retrograde Christianity that is advocated by some evolutionists which argues that the dark ages was in fact "The golden age". In the dark ages the Bible itself could not be used to test the ideas of man - because the Bible was not to be consulted whenever it contradicted the traditions and maxims of those in charge of the minds of the people.

So today evolutionist advocates of the scorched-bible approach to by-faith-alone evolutionism, will often whine that efforts to promote the Word of God as having the right doctrine on origins (instead of bending-the-bible to fit the usages of evolutionism) are to be rejected.

The way the game is played - this obvious point is "supposed to come as a big surprise" to evolutionists, but in truth I don't think they are as surprised by it as they sometimes pretend.

in Christ,

Bob 

Since when has "the classic literature in the sociology of religion" been what defines us and what I baptized into almost 20 years ago?

I consciously became a member of a movement not a church or denomination. This movement is defined by sound biblical doctrine and as such has a mandate to help prepare the world for return of Jesus. Have we somehow forgotten that? 

I don't know Wilson and his "agenda" too well. It seems we should all do our homework to see what influences this fallable man has. I get he comes from a connected family name and is, what, a 4th generation Adventist?  But isn't any leader supposed to have an agenda? He isn't all powerful to dictate the direction of a group of people worldwide numbering in the tens of millions. He doesn't speak for God Himself. He's a man and he was elected as our leader within a structure that is imperfect at best.

"In the 1960s and 1970s, Adventism was rapidly evolving in the First World in the direction of a denominational-type religious organization." I reread this sentance and the rest of the the paragraph that begins with "however." Dr. Taylor's words suggest that he views this evolving as something postive. Maybe it was and maybe that's the ideal evolution of a group into a denominational framework (according to "classic literature in the sociology of religion").

I don't think it was a postive direction. Disclaimer: I wasn't born, nor have I read a detailed history of SDAs during those decades. The more we dillute our message the more it is compromised. The container in which the message is presented can and must change, but not the message. I have been very disappointed with people within this movement at times. But it doesn't change what I believe and it shouldn't change our fundamentals as a movement either. 

The world's cup of iniquity is going to fill and God is going to finish this story of redemption, and like it or not we are expendable. God can do it with or without us. But He chooses to use humanity and it's our privilege to play a small role in sharing the good news by loving people into the kingdom.

Mike 

I'm not an american and dont think to come live there. The live is not only a money. I can only smile when the progressive adventists are associated with the communists. As a bulgarian who know the mentality of the communist very well I find the american conservative adventism more close to the authoritarian comunism.

I'm not progressive but I was offended by the sermon of Ted Wilson, it was as shooting with submachine gun. Very agressive. The chaire was used for beating the enemies. I didn't see any vision (a image for the future church). I saw a "sweet" memories from the past.

To go back in the past with the beliefs is OK, but not for some 20-30 years but for 2000 years.

I'm woried about and I'm curiose to know how will develop the:

- tolerance and love about differences

- BRI

- leadership style

- inter denominational relationship

- worship and contemporary music in SDA

Bob, I don't know why comments shared with the blogging community have to cast aspersions on the genuiness of faith by those who see evolutionary mechanisms as the means by which creation proceeds. It is entirely possible to hold the scripture in high regard and yet see its account of the origins of the cosmos as reflective of an ancient near-east understanding that was a polemic against the cultural and religious understandings of neighboring peoples.  And as such is insufficient as a 21st century scientific explanation of how life came to be.

For many Christians, myself included, to be guided by widely agreed upon scientific evidence for origins does not necessarily mean a scorched-Bible approach to evolution.  Rather, science and faith can be mutually compatible and informing sources that complement one another when the respective authority in each case is recognized.  This is no retreat to the dark ages.

I don't know how familiar you may be with Creation via evoltion as espoused by earnest and dedicated Christians, but I proffer Francis Collins The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief and Richard Miller's Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution. These are Christian scientists who find faith consistent with a scientific view that includes evolution as the process God chose.  The Biologos Foundation website -  www.biologos.org is a good place to see where conservative Bible scholars and scientists articulate this view which by any fair assessment is anything but a scorched-bible view.

The whole debate in this area would go further if we could imagine we may proceed from differing views that are genuinely faith/scripturally informed and leave aside the judgementalism and ad hominem tactics.  That is, if informed and respectful dialogue is the goal here.

Sean wrote  "....surely we can understand certain very basic ideas and concepts which He Himself claims to have revealed to us in His Word." 

There lies the problem. Words written by men, sorted into chapters and books and then canonized by a group of Bishops coupled with the mother of all assumptions, which is presuming the biblical words are "Gods words."  

Elaine,

Now stop cluttering things up with good questions. :) I never did understand the transition from days to years either. I guess it depends on what doctrines the purveyor is trying to convince the listener, are indeed "truth."

Marksps,

Just because a group prays for the Spirit to lead, why do you assume the outcome of the vote is a reflection of "his" (Gods) leading?  Maybe God had nothing to do with the selection of our current GC President or any of those in the past?

I have been in administrative meetings where "new leadership" is discussed and chosen. However, looking at the outcomes I am quite certain that despite our prayers to God for "guidance" these prayers either bounced off the ceiling or were unheard by the power brokers that vote on such matters.. Many times the political die is cast before a prayer for guidance is ever spoken. I suspect that the choosing of a GC President, (or a Pope for that matter), although necessary, is a well orchestrated event, deeply political, motivated by many interests and does not represent a proceeding that involves "Gods guidance." 

Such "God talk" only trivializes God as one who can be called on to validate men's previous choices.

Bob, I don't know why comments shared with the blogging community have to cast aspersions on the genuiness of faith by those who see evolutionary mechanisms as the means by which creation proceeds. It is entirely possible to hold the scripture in high regard and yet see its account of the origins of the cosmos as reflective of an ancient near-east understanding that was a polemic against the cultural and religious understandings of neighboring peoples.  And as such is insufficient as a 21st century scientific explanation of how life came to be.

======================================

BobRyan replies: 

This denomination does not establish Bible doctrine on any subject (be it the virgin birth, the sinless nature of Christ, His bodily resurrection, the 2nd coming, free will, the millennium, the miracles of the NT... Creation) based on watering down the text to nothing more than "the most popular ancient and outdated understanding of the world" at the time of the author.

Rather our starting point is "holy men of old - moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" 2Pet 1:20-21. It is for that reason ALONE that one of the key Bible tests of true inspiration is accuracy in claims and correct doctrine. 

So for example in Acts 17:11 "They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul - were SO".

The entire protestant principle of sola-scriptura testing of all doctrine (which is also the Adventist method for establishing doctrine) flies against the idea that people in ancient times simply wrote down ideas that seemed good to them and that the Bible is now and for that reason - outdated.

 --------------------------------------------------------

On July 6th, 2010 ockhamsshaver says: 

For many Christians, myself included, to be guided by widely agreed upon scientific evidence for origins does not necessarily mean a scorched-Bible approach to evolution. 

=====================================

How so?

Given the fact that evolution is merely a patchwork quilt of quesswork establishing a counter doctrine on origins so incompatible with scriptrue that leading evolutionists freely admit to this gap. (And by that I mean Darwin, Dawkins, Provine and Meyers - to name a few).

And given the junk-science confirmed fraud history of the arguments for evolution.

And given the fact that even atheist evolutionists themselve lament the by-faith alone religious nature of the evolutionist argument when it promotes a horse fossil sequence "that never happened in nature" (their words not mine)  as the best evidence for evolution and when they lament the fact that evolutionists are presenting evolution as "revealed truth" using "stories from the fossil record about one thing coming from another, stories easy enough to make up but they are not science" - it is hard NOT to see Darwin's point - that these are two competing doctrines for origins. And more than this - that they are two competing religious systems. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------

On July 6th, 2010 ockhamsshaver says: 

 Rather, science and faith can be mutually compatible and informing sources that complement one another when the respective authority in each case is recognized. 

========================

BobRyan replies. 

Agreed.

My objection is to junk science historically shown to be so essential to the argument for evolutionism. 

Our doctrines were never based on the wild notion that "when we know what God knows on this subject we will then believe what God says on the subject". (As I am sure you will agree).

-----------------------------------------------------------

On July 6th, 2010 ockhamsshaver says: 

 This is no retreat to the dark ages.

================================

Bob Replies: 

The dark ages principle was that the Bible could have no weight against the fickle traditions and stories of man. (In that case they managed to pull it off simply by keeping the Bible away from people. Today there is another option).

------------------------------------------

On July 6th, 2010 ockhamsshaver says:

I don't know how familiar you may be with Creation via evoltion as espoused by earnest and dedicated Christians, but I proffer Francis Collins The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief and Richard Miller's Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution. These are Christian scientists who find faith consistent with a scientific view that includes evolution as the process God chose.  The Biologos Foundation website -  www.biologos.org is a good place to see where conservative Bible scholars and scientists articulate this view which by any fair assessment is anything but a scorched-bible view.

=============================================

BobRyan replies: 

My intent was never to claim that theistic evolutionists do not exist.

My point is that our Bible based method for establishing doctrine has never been "first go ask an evolutionist". No Not on any one of our Fundamental Beliefs. But if that ever should be the rule for doctrine - then Bart Ehrman might be a good place to start.

  -------------------------------------------------------------------

On July 6th, 2010 ockhamsshaver says:

The whole debate in this area would go further if we could imagine we may proceed from differing views that are genuinely faith/scripturally informed and leave aside the judgementalism and ad hominem tactics.   That is, if informed and respectful dialogue is the goal here.

======================================

Now there we fully agree. Which is why I surprised by the title of this blog section.

in Christ,

Bob

There are a variety of reasons why I resist the idea of Theistic evolution, but the probability that the Genesis story is a literal description of the creation process seems low to me. In fact, it seems that the story is more likely to be poetic. I am unable to evaluate the structure and meaning of the original language, buth there are those who claim that these attributes are consistent with it being a poetic description of creation.

My reason for not believing it is a literal description is the content itself. The KJV says the following when recording the fourth day of creation: "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night". It is hard for me to treat the mornings and evenings before the fouth day as marking out literal days since apparently the sun was not in the firmanent marking literal days by a morning and evening.

I am sure that those who insist that Genesis provides a literal description of the creation process will come up with some explanaion, but I think they will have to back pedal from a truly literal interpreation to do it.

I realize that the simplest reading of the 4th commandment would appear to treat the Genesis account as a literal six days. But, it could be that creation process occurs in a context that we as time bound creatures cannot fully understand. Einsteins theory of relativity (which is supported by experimentation) seems to support this as a possibiliy.

There are probably a number of things described in scripture for which a literal desciption is impossible (the incarnation of God as man for example). However, there may be a need for finite human beings to have some conceptualization of these same things. Certainly in this case God will provide a description that conveys what we need to understand. , but it may not infact be a lieral description.

I fail to see how one can say with absolute certainity that Genesis 1 must be read as a lliteral account of the creation procss. Neither can I see anything that prevents God from describing what might be incomprehsible time elements of creation in manner that supports a weekly cycle and sabbath celebration of God's work (Sabbath and redemption) when establishing the Jewish people . There are respectable Jewish scholars, that obviously embrace the 7th day sabbath, but do not believe the six days of creation are meant to be literal. Since there is an obvious clue in the story content that it is not literal you cannot accuse God (as the source of its inspiration) of misrepresenting reality.

I am not arguing in favor of this particular interpretation. I am simply saying that non-literal interpretations are possible without creating logical or moral contradictions. This suggests to me we should be extremely careful not to be dogmatic about our undrestandings.

rudygood said:

There are a variety of reasons why I resist the idea of Theistic evolution, but the probability that the Genesis story is a literal description of the creation process seems low to me. In fact, it seems that the story is more likely to be poetic. I am unable to evaluate the structure and meaning of the original language, buth there are those who claim that these attributes are consistent with it being a poetic description of creation.

My reason for not believing it is a literal description is the content itself. The KJV says the following when recording the fourth day of creation: "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night". It is hard for me to treat the mornings and evenings before the fouth day as marking out literal days since apparently the sun was not in the firmanent marking literal days by a morning and evening.

===========================================

BobRyan replies:

1. The text is literal and this is clear from God's own summation of that text "SIX days you shall labor...for in SIX days the LORD made".

2. One day 1 we have a light source on one side of the earth and we have a rotating planet having the same period of rotation that we had even after day 4 with the sun in place. The idea that unless God tells us what the light source was - we won't believe Him is not any kind of exegesis known to man. The idea that the planet could not rotate before the sun was created is also difficult to support. The idea that God only knows how to create light using the sun is equally challenging to argue convincingly.

 in Christ,

 Bob

Unless I may have missed it I find it surprising that I rarely ever see any reference to a recent book titled -- Science Discovers God by Ariel Roth and a subtitle Seven Convincing Lines of Evidence for His Existence.

Just reading the section on the eye itself should give pause to anyone who believes man took eons to come into being.  Has anyone who posts here read the book?

Truth Seeker

To Seminary Student:

I have been one of those that vehemently oppose the 28 Fundamental Beliefs, and have maintained that they are divisive, rather than unifying; that they are destructive, rather than constructive; and most importantly, they emphasize fundamentalist Christianity rather than basic Christianity.

Your post has hit it right on the head, even though it was in the form of a question...  Jesus distilled the 10 commandments down to 2 - love God, and love your neighbor.  We've muddied the waters in a very bad way with our penchant for complicating our own lives.

My father and I discussed this at length this weekend.  He feels the church has a right, as a corporation, to set rules and guidelines - even if these rules and guidelines, if looked at honestly, are irrelevant to salvation. My contention was that if we surrender the church to rulesmakers whose focus is spreading the 28 instead of the message of Salvation, and perhaps even intentionally convoluting the the 28 with the message of Salvation, then the corporate body of our church is lost.  

Today, there is a lot of hubbub surrounding Lebron James, an American professional basketball player.  Did you know that I, too, play basketball?  The basic point of playing is to have fun.  My fundamentals - the shooting, the dribbling, the passing - aren't very good.  But I don't think there is any difference in the basic game that we play.  We both play for fun, but if I were expected to match up to his Fundamental skills, I'd just quit.  There would be no point even in playing.  The plan of salvation - the message we should be spreading - is for everyone, not just the most skilled biblical scholars and most upright of men. It's certainly not to be restricted to those whose behavior and beliefs fall within the 28 Fundamental Beliefs.  The 28 make many people want to quit playing.  

Satan has always contended that the stricture of scripture is an unfair, untenable lifestyle.  The 28 fuel that assertion.  We should instead be focusing on the freedom granted by living to love God and our fellow man.   

When you graduate from Seminary, I hope you'll spread the word of Salvation, and not dedicate your work to selling the 28 Golden Tickets to Willy Wonka's Chocolate (or is it Loma Linda's Veggie?) Factory in the sky.   

To statefarmsteve:

I suggest you study the 1888 message at least as much as to get the gist of it to better understand the relationship between works and grace. In short, works don't get us to heaven; works are manifested as a result of our gratitutude to God. You'll realize that the 28 Fundamentals are not "golden tickets to heaven", as you assume conservatives believe. And I do admit that most people don't understand this concept.

If I dare define them so, the 28 are distinct traits and beliefs of what the Lord has revealed to His people as truth. It is truth that His people will act on out of pure love because they are saved, and not at all to be saved.

If it's not popular, then it doesn't change the truth. Truth has always been appreciated by a minority on this earth (ie. Noah). The irony lies in that the whole universe, rebellious humanity IS the minority.

"Basic Christianity" is a love for Christ, and a true love for Christ is proved by its fruits as shown through the Word of God. A claim to love Christ without the fruit is hypocrisy and outright rebellion. Now, if the Bible is picked apart as so fallible, and the Lord's prophets are always rejected (as I see here), then I suppose that we have nothing but human folly. Trust that the Lord has revealed enough information and evidence to convince you. That is our prayer.

statefarmsteve has given us all a good reminder of how important it is to know the difference between what is actually written in the Bible vs stories people tell.

In Matt 22 Christ quotes Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor as yourself" and Deut 6:5 "Love God with all your heart" - and says that all of scripture is founded upon those two immovable pillars.

 All of our beliefs are tested "sola scriptura" and by that alone they stand or fall. Thus to start carving out this belief or that belief as "nice" is to carve up this part or that part of the Bible. God's Word is not something we carve up.

The foundation is set in Genesis 1-2 and John 1  - that God is Creator and as even the Sabbath commandment tells us - it is for that reason that we even have the Sabbath day of worship.

The New Covenant says that when we are born-again God writes his laws on our heart and mind. But in Romans 8 Paul says that the one who is not born-again does not submit to the Word of God - neither indeed can they.

 In 2Thess 2 we are told that in the last days the saints are known for having "a love of the truth" and those who perish in the end do not have that love of the truth. This is important because Christ IS "the Way the TRUTH and the Life" John 14.

It is impossible to support the claim that we "Love Christ" while trying to distance ourselves from the Truth.

 in Christ,

Bob 

Richard,

I hope you are right regarding the possibility of a conversion by the new GC President. However, I would not count on it. After the vote is finished there is the view that the current selection is "Gods will" and that includes the selectee.

Seminary student,

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God.." I do not see how the local wars described in the bible were "inspirational", especially when God tells his people to kill everyone.

You also speak of "good news" of the everlasting gospel. Everlasting? Not when humans cease to exist. At that point the gospel will be meaningless. The way I look at this is that there is good news and there is bad news. The good news is that one is comforted in this life by the faith that he/she is saved. The bad news is that salvation if manifested in the second coming is not coming for anyone anytime soon. The other good news is that when one does not exist any longer they will not care about the good news or the bad news. 

Praise God for the wake up call we received in Atlanta.  It is very encouraging to witness the truth being witnessed to.

Smitch

Seminary student... simply read 1 Selected Message pg 234.235 (chap 31) and you will get the gist of the issues about the 1888 era (which began about 1882 and c ontinued up until 1901).  Then see if you will be wililng to reassess your conclusions.  And the reasons the church doesn't agree with 1888 is because of the controversial issues between church leadership & EGW, Jones, and Waggoner. 

Peace

Ph. Dr:

Not seminary student here.  God forbid!  Why let a human or an institution as a teacher when I have direct access to God?

Shalom

Raul,

I am reading your posts. So you think the new GC President is a "true leader". How? Because he wants to take us back in time?

Does his leadership entail the ravings of anti-catholic rhetoric? We owe much of our theology to Roman Catholicism. The 66 books you subscribe to were canonized by a council of Bishops.

The election of Ted Wilson makes me recount the words from a song written by the WHO, "meet the new boss, same as the old boss." 

It is true that the church that I was baptized in the 70's is much different now than it was at that time.

It has definitely changed.

For the good?

I personally don't think so.

I really believe God has placed Ted Wilson there for a reason. It is definitely time we Stop promoting "progressive" adventism and go back to the old paths.

I love you all who are sharing your thoughts and I am sure to learn from all of you but I definitely want the church I came to learn as an ex-Catholic recently baptized in the church.

I think the pink elephant has been in the church too long...but i guarantee you it is not Ted Wilson.

GYC has been the best thing that has happened in the church.

If you want to find TRUE Christian Youth...Go to GYC!

Our youth are lost, and we have been ENTERTAINING them with the wrong music and the wrong methods.

You cannot win youth souls with the world.

GYC was founded by Youth who want to consecrate themselves fully to God and Christ. 

I know, because I started in the church as a youth, and know the difference between the youth in my time and the youth today.

The youth today don't have any knowledge of Christ and His word. JUST ENTERTAINTMENT.

Ask any youth to explain Adventist Bible doctrine (any) and you will find that they do not know whom they believe in.

Don't even bother to ask them to explain the 2300 days. When I was 17 years old I could do all the above.

Thanks to knew leadership ...this church is going forward!

A Shaking must happen...let be careful in what side of the fence we are found.

God bless you all!

dear friend:

It was not God's intention for the people of Israel to conquer Canaan by force of war. It was NOT  His plan.

All happened as a result of Israel's disobedience.

God wanted to conquer Canaan the same way He conquered Egypt. By His might. Did the people of Israel fight? They didn't move on finger. God did it all.

The first time I read the Bible I understood it the same way you do. But having prayed and research I found that there was a reason for everything.

God's original intention was for them to repent and be a part of God's people. Didn't He try to get Egypt to repent? But No, the egyptian Pharoah was proud at every step.

The same happened to the nations in Canaan. They had heard of what God had done in Egypt but instead of repenting they decided to war against Him.

This study is a big one and cannot explained in just one comment. If you are willing to find the truth, you will find it. 

If you decide to fight against His word, you will also find deception.

He is Good and His Love endures forever...trust Him, and don't doubt Him and you will find the truth about this and other topics.

If you "seek" Him you will find Him.

Your brother in Christ

I recently began reading Jacques Barzun’s “From Dawn To Decadence:  1500 to the Present—500 Years of Western Cultural Life” (HarperCollins, 2000).  In reading his account of the Council of Trent and the Catholic Counter-Reformation devised there, I was struck with the number of parallels to recent SDA history.  Allow me to share a few quotations, beginning on p. 38:

“The English cardinal delegate Reginald Pole tells us what the Council aimed at: ‘the uprooting of heresies, the reform of ecclesiastical discipline and morals, and lastly, the eternal peace of the church.  These we must see to, or rather, untiringly pray that by God’s mercy they may be done.’”  (Does the agenda sound familiar?  It should, if you listened to Ted Wilson’s sermon).

“One of the means was to restate things clearly and require them strictly:  the creed, the catechism and missal, the exclusive use of the Vulgate version of the Bible, and the guidelines governing the Index of Prohibited Books.  The Roman Inquisition was revitalized and assisted by the bishops’ visitations; seminaries were established in Rome, one for each nation, and a mission given to designated orders, chiefly the recently founded Oratorians and the Jesuits.”  On p. 39 Barzun notes that Ignacio de Loyola, a Spanish soldier with a genius for administration, organized a group for a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, but when war with the Turks made this impossible, set about creating an active society for re-awakening faith.  Loyola’s Society of Jesus (Jesuits) was tasked with reconquering lost Protestant lands and went on to acquire “a virtual monopoly of education.”

“To counter the Evangelicals’ [Protestants’] primitivism, Cardinal Baronius wrote a history of the early church, a classic that gained topical interest from the discovery of the catacombs…The traces of their presence reinvigorated the worship of relics and strengthened the papacy by reminding the faithful that the church triumphed thanks to its first martyrs, including St. Peter, at Rome.”

“At the same time as it cleansed and refurbished the ancestral fabric, the Council of Trent tied reform to narrow views; in this respect, it too went primitive.  The aim was to oppose Protestant errors:  the result was to freeze Catholic beliefs at the point that European ideas had reached by 1500 or even earlier.  Doing this was to go against tradition.  The very meaning of that word for the church had been that teachings not central to the faith changed over time…”

“The ideas in the heads of 16th century bishops were obviously well in advance of those held as true by the contemporaries of Charlemagne in the 9th.  Now in the 16th, instead of an intellectual free-for-all and gradual enlightenment, the church decided to arrest the current of thought.  This stand was in effect dictated by their Protestant enemies.  One could say that in roundabout fashion, it was these Bible-ridden revolutionists who got Galileo condemned for his astronomy.  If the literalism of the Word had not been adopted at Trent to show that Catholics too revered Scripture, there would have been no need to make science conform to Genesis.  By commanding belief in matters not essentially religious or moral, Trent laid the ground for that ‘warfare of science and religion’ which is still being waged.  It has kept making unbelievers, or rather—since it forces a choice—it has deprived many of the chance to believe.”

Adventism increasingly shows many of these elements.  The narrowing of belief, the clarification and tightening of creed, reformation of religious education, ministerial reform, anti-science use of Genesis, Biblical literalism, veneration of church founders and a representation of early Adventism that aligns with contemporary conservative thought, preference for particular Bible versions (KJV/NKJV, even in the new Andrews Study Bible), suppression of theological development (“Present Truth” or “new light”), and forcing people towards disbelief (or to leave the church) over matters not essentially religious or moral.  We have our own index of dangerous books (see Pipim’s list of 66 Adventist scholars/authors/administrators on the wrong side of the divide, according to Thompson as quoted in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Koranteng-Pipim ).  Theologically unsophisticated laypeople with leadership and administrative ability play an increasing role in efforts to uproot heresies in the church.  We even have our own “army of youth” chartered to take back the church and challenge pastors and teachers who don’t adhere to the creed.  Whether we have a papacy, time will tell.

It's encouraging to read a seminary student who thinks outside the square. We certainly have taken the 3 angels out of context. My version of Revelation 14 has about 6 angel's messages in it. Good heavens!! Does that mean we have to update the pioneer's limited view and go to the expense of changing our church logo? 

Barzun's book covers a later time and sounds comparable to Charles Freeman's "The Closing of the Western Mind:  The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason" which is quite similar,  covering an earlier time:  the rise of Christianity through the mid-7th century and Thomas Aquinas and the restoration of reason.

 Reading it, is a constant reminder that religion, like sausages and laws, is best not observed.  Politics and culture always trumps religion and culture influences theology much more than theology influences culture.

Dr. Dennis Waite

What I envision, no, have begun to perceive, is a "waitin' on the mountain" mentality for those individuals who view cultic sectarian, and in your face remnatism the future of this church. Since I have lots of work to do in my dog kennels, wave at me once in awhile so I can be sure everyone is OK. Don't get too close to me because it is pretty dusty here and you've got to watch where you step. Good luck to everyone up there; and I hope someone brought snacks.

The discourse here really has me wondering just how many angels can balance on the tip of a pin . . .

"Those who will suffer most are the youth of the church (which Gallimore seeks to save), when they become aware that it was their narrowly informed religious beliefs that compelled them to throw themselves on the tracks of reality believing they could derail the engine, when instead they were crushed by it."

Joe, you couldn't be more on target with your remarks. I see this suffering, even more at the Graduate level when the scales of imposed blindness begin to fall away. As an aside, I was able to avoid being crushed 30 or more years ago because you and a few other able professors properly prepared me for the basic realities of our world. The wave from the pebbles you dropped into my mental pool continue to ripple outward not only to my own students, but to all my relationships. For that I thank you. (We really should have lunch sometime!)

Joe,

Very eloquent post. Indeed retrograde adventism completely misses the point. A suspicion of reason and return to fundamental beliefs as opposed to a focus on Christ's love and example for our lives.  Indeed if the new GC president realizes his vision then we will enter a new dark age of adventism. But, then again static theology and encasing oneself in the delusion that their interpretation of biblical script is "truth" is very comforting to some. What is it about a religion once established, combined with the view that it has the "truth", then seeks to repress and persecute members who have different views?

Sean,

A minor point, but the evening and morning of the first day can't be a day. No sun. Details, details.

On the first day - God "created light".

Truns out that a 24 hour day has nothing to do with the sun going around the erath in 24 hours as your post seems to suggest.

All that is needed is a rotating planet with a period of 24 hours and a single side light source.

 details details.

 "SIX days you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the Lord made..."

 more details.

 In Christ,

 Bob 

I understand all the comments about Intelligent Design theology vs. literalism...but the main thrust of Brother Ervin's article is the lack of vision Bro. Wilson has for the denomination. The biggest problem with most denominations is the willingness to "camp out" where the founders of said denominations started. With this mentality, Israel NEVER would have entered Canaan.

To question our roots, to be intellectually honest and revisit some teachings and modes, to try and ascertain the Biblical standard for our beliefs rather than swallow everything we've been taught, is at the heart of Biblical Christianity. Consider the apostle Paul - he was in a situation where he HAD to question and reevaluate his upbringing in traditional Judaism.

To start putting labels on everything and everyone is the beginning of the breakdown in the conversation, which must be had in order to really get to the issue at hand, which is - Is Adventism biblically and culturally relevant? What does the SDA denomination bring to the table of Christianity other than the championing of the Sabbath, state of the dead and the literal, physical return of Christ? Not that these teachings are not important, but really...what impact has Adventism had on the world?

Adventism has it's "star" preachers and evangelists, but as one who has had LOTS of interaction with Christians outside the SDA church (having managed an independent Christian bookstore/cafe), no one knows who Dwight Nelson, Kenneth Cox and Doug Batchelor are!

Wilson is borrowing trouble when he thinks that he can put the genie back in the bottle. Instead of trying to regurgitate and then re-digest what we had before, i would encourage him to look what is currently on the table and taste and see that the LORD is good...and not Adventism in and of itself. 

Thank you Bob,

 God is the "light" object? Or did he have a temporary light source? Sometimes making a story literal relies on silliness.

Our solar system has been around for over 4 billion years and the time scale for evolution of the universe is immense. Its time SDA theology got past its literalism. But, we try as best we can to package it all up in the last 10,000 yrs.  I know there is an interesting psychology study somewhere in the stubborness of SDA literalists. Actually I suspect they are no different than literalists in other denominations.

Doctorf you said;

 God is the "light" object? Or did he have a temporary light source? Sometimes making a story literal relies on silliness.

Indeed there is a tendancy to want to "sit in God's chair" instead of just reading the text and accepting what it says. The question then becomes not only "what did God do in the time frame He said He did it" but "how did He do it?"

Did God make some kind of luminous gas nebula that coalesced over a few days into the orb of the sun as we know it today? Was that the "light" on day 1? When God makes such a light source - does it need to have a locus on all sides of earth at once - or is it reasonable to think that it may have been near the area where the sun is today -- and on just one of side earth - so that a planetary spin with a period of 24 hours would result in evening and morning on the first day?

 Well - who has the video?

Until we find that guy - we just have the text itself.

in Christ,

Bob

"The Truth shall make you free" John 8:32

The "silliness" is in Biblioaltry:  believing that it was handed down from on high, uncorrupted by human hands with not a single word being changed from the beginning (whenever that was).

For one who studies the canonization of the Hebrew Bible, the many changes, additions, and interpretations throughout the long centuries BEFORE it was ever put into writing, it should be abdunantly clear that it is edited, redacted, additions made, others deleted, long before it became finalized. 

So where is the "sacred timeless" book?  To believe that it has never been touched by human hands since God dictated it (or did He write it) is to be more naive than anyone claiming to read and use the Bible as a guide. 

Elaine,

I don't see anywhere in any of these posts that there are references to God quoting for transcription, or writing a text Himself to supply mankind a timeless Book.  Again, SDA's do not believe in the inerency of scripture.  Humans wrote as they were inspired by the Spirit of God to speak / write in the framework of their personal experience with the revelation that was given them by God.

So we are even more confident of the message proclaimed by the prophets. You will do well to pay attention to it, because it is like a lamp shining in a dark place until the Day dawns and the light of the morning star shines in your hearts. Above all else, however, remember that none of us can explain by ourselves a prophecy in the Scriptures. For no prophetic message ever came just from the human will, but people were under the control of the Holy Spirit as they spoke the message that came from God. (2 Peter 1:19-21 GNB)

The issue I have with your arguement is this, if the Bible is not the inspired word of God, what do we have left to rely upon to determine what this life / world is all about?  We are left to ourselves to figure it out.  And history is repleat with the evidence that we're not any better off in figuring it all out and getting it right.  And just because you don't agree with all that you've seen and heard in your lifetime does not negate that the scirptures are what they say they are.  Even more so, the Bible has told us it was going to be like this.  Your means of stating your case for your position reminds me of the idiom; "that which proves to much, proves to little."  Anybody can find fault in any thing at any time.  But since we are all in this together, how can we help each other see our way out of this life / world that grows ever darker in violence, cruelty, poverty, and dispair?  Arguing for the sake of argument solves nothing.  

Peace

Men wrote the Bible. Internal claims are not evidence.  The Mormons claim that their scripture is also inspired; the Muslims make the same claim for the Koran.  Claims of inspiration continue to this day, so to give credence to such claims is insufficient.

The internal evidence from the Bible proves otherwise:  If all the writers were equally inspired, did their source of inspiration consistently disagree?  There are numerous inconsistencies within the Bible's pages, so what proof can there be of inspiration if it is so fallible?

People are born into their environment:  none of which we chose.  Again, to be redundant, had you and I been born in India, we would likely be Hindu, Muslims, or another one of their favored religions.  ONLY, because we have a Christian heritage are we persuaded by its tenets; no other possible reason.

You ask:

"if the Bible is not the inspired word of God, what do we have left to rely upon to determine what this life / world is all about?

How did millions of people who had never seen or read the Bible determine those things?  The natural world speaks to everyone.  No different than those long before the Bible was available.  Men formed their own particular customs and how to live without the Bible, and long before there were books and illiteracy was 100%.  In The Great Transformation, Karen Armstong, religious historian, writes of the practices in the major world inhabitants between 1600-800 B.C. when there were no written records.  Those which survived had an unwritten code, similar to the Golden Rule.  It was soon realized that it was the only method for survival within and among other tribes and cultures. 

It is repeated in both the Hebrew and Christian Bible and has never yet been improved upon.  It mentions no gods, only that humans, first and foremost should be respected just as you want respect for yourself, which is how Rabbi Hillel summed it up when asked by a student if he could recite the entire Torah while standing on one foot.  He answered: "Do not to others what you do not wish done to you; all the rest is commentary."

This encompasses all religions, all creeds, and never mentions worship of any god.