Apocalyptic Adventism?
by Andrew Hanson
After reading the 300+ comments that were generated by Daniel Revisited: The Anatomy of a Heresy, I thought it might be appropriate to resurrect and revise the following review I wrote for Adventist Today, The Magazine. (The editor selected another reviewer and review.) This review is substantially different in content, tone, and style from the published one, and it seems to me that George Knight’s angst and frustration mirrors those of a number of commenters on my Heresy piece. —Andy
THE APOCALIYPTIC VISION AND THE NEUTERING OF ADVENTISM
(George R. Knight, Review and Herald Publishing Association, 2008)
Reviewed by Andrew Hanson
"The Apocalyptic Vision and the Neutering of Adventism is not a slow-paced 'scholarly' book. Rather, it is a tract for the times and a wake-up call based on the gut-level feeling that Adventism is losing its way and the observation that many of its younger ministers and members have never even heard the apocalyptic vision, while many of its older ones question whether they can any longer believe it or preach it" (p. 106).
There is a great deal of evidence in the book that these words do indeed express “gut level” feelings. Knight explains that his use of the word "neutering" is used for emotional effect.
"Thoughts on the word 'Neutering'
-
'Neutering' is not a nice word.
-
Neither is the process agreeable, whether it be physically or spiritually.
-
Some will hate the metaphor,
Others will love it,
But none will forget it.
-
If so, I have achieved the first part of my purpose in writing this brief book" (p. 6).
The following comments and phrases reflect the rhetorically sarcastic tone of the book. The effect is a kind of aggressive diminution of anyone that dares to disagree with him.
"Obviously, we have to downplay references that describe Ellen White as 'inspired,' since so much of her writings deal with last-day events. But just make her over into a 'devotional writer' and no problem!” (p. 12). "Announcing that people should 'fear God' is politically incorrect' in the early twenty-first century” (p. 25). "I am a big-picture sort of person. My approach is to look at the trunk and the general shape of the theological tree. And to put it in a more homely way yet, I pride myself on the fact that I can identify a tree when I see one” (p. 52). "If I were the devil I would tempt Adventists and their preachers to just be nice evangelicals and forget about such nasty stuff as apocalyptic” (p. 55). Their arguments are "masterstrokes of the human intellect” (p. 17). They refuse to commit "the sin of Bible study" (p. 33).
Knight describes himself as an "outsider to the club of the born-in-the-church community" (p. 16) and uses words and phrases to demean those in the “club” whose views differ from his own. They are "adjusted to culture," have "nebulous spirituality,” use "politically correct assumptions," and spout "relatively meaningless [religious] fuzzies.” In short, they don't speak with Knight’s "sanctified arrogance.”
In Knight's religious world, everything is black or white. "All religious communities consist of two sorts of members—believers and cultural adherents" (p. 9). "If Adventism loses its apocalyptic vision, it has lost its reason for existing as either a church or a system of education” (p. 11). "Adventism cannot escape the dilemma between being meaningful or being neutered. It can't have it both ways” (p.19). "Christianity is an abnormal religion" (p. 21).
Again and again, Knight creates "what if" or "straw man" situations that make it difficult for the reader to challenge his argument or propose a different solution to the question posed. For example, if Adventists were "to dump our heritage and beliefs in eschatology/last day events, along with the implications of our historical stance on the prophecies, and focus only on being Christlike…. what would be our excuse for existing as a unique denomination?” (p. 12).
Chapter 3, But Don't Forget the Beasts, is a tortured, almost unreadable, explanation and defense of the traditional Adventist prophetic interpretation of apocalyptic end time theology. According to Knight, the books of Daniel and Revelation contain truths about the apocalypse that are essential if Adventism is to regain its virility. "The apocalypse is what Adventism is all about" (p. 25). "The plain fact is that if we have only the Lamb of God, we have only half a gospel…. An Adventism without the Lion[*] is a neutered Adventism, just as a Christianity without the slaughtered Lamb is a neutered Christianity” (p. 24, 25).
Occasionally Knight's "mind wanders in strange directions" (p. 10). William Miller was responsible for "one of the most fruitful ministry's in mid-nineteenth-century America.” His message was the coming of the Lord “about the year 1843" (p. 35). "Adventism has only one real theological problem—Jesus hasn't returned" (p. 59). Referencing the parable of the Bridegroom and the Ten Virgins, Knight notes “that all 10 [bridegrooms] are outwardly Christians” (p. 93).
Occasionally reason prevails. "William Miller read the book of Revelation like most of us. We grab hold of those things we think we understand and skip over those we don't" (p. 35). "We humans may be more limited then we might weigh and extrapolating heavenly knowledge from the particulars of an earthly model" (specific reference to ideas concerning a heavenly sanctuary) (p. 73). "We are truly keeping God's commandments only when our actions flow out of a heartfelt love for Him and other people” (p. 48).
What must be shocking to every Adventist liberal who manages to read the entire book is that Knight's "ballsy," bull-in-the-china shop "sanctified arrogance" is neutered by his concluding definition of the term "neoapocalypticism" and his statements regarding the "ultimate message of both the book of Revelation and the synoptic apocalyptic.” Holy smoke screen! It looks like under all the fiery rhetoric and name calling there lurks a closet progressive, a fuzzy thinker of nebulous spirituality!
"Neoapocalypticism does not put forth a message of legalism, but one of true worship that takes God at His word. After all, it is the Christ of the Revelation who forcefully claimed that at the end of time He would have a people who are
- patiently waiting for his return.
- keeping God's commandments while waiting.
- maintaining a faith relationship with God through Him (Rev. 14:12)” (p. 106).
"The ultimate message of both the book of Revelation and the synoptic apocalyptic is that the only real solution to poverty and injustice is the return of Jesus. It is that solution that makes the Adventist message truly relevant to a dying world" (p. 101).
"Adventists have too long expressed a wrongheaded approach to the apocalyptic vision that has emphasized what is wrong with other churches, fear-mongering, and—worst of all—a fixation on time. Have a Sunday law show up on the horizon, and Adventists get excited. But they all too often have failed to see that time is not where Christ placed the emphasis" (p. 101).
"Jesus, even though He cared for the outcasts and fed the poor, repeatedly turned away from the social justice path as the primary focus of His own ministry. His message at its core was that social engineering and Christian benevolence would never solve the world's problems" (p. 104).
The following words reflect Knight's philosophical ambivalence with regard to the Adventist Church, individual church members, evolving Adventist theology, and his reasons for writing this book.
"I used to be able to preach a sermon entitled 'Why I Don't Like Adventists.’ And I really don't, but I finally stopped presenting it because it sounded a wee bit negative” (p. 10). “Not long ago I saw a bumper sticker…. 'JESUS SAVE ME' read the large print. 'From your people' declared the small. I thought the entire blurb might make a meaningful book title. And then there was the atheistic philosopher Frederick Nietzsche, who proclaimed the profound truth of my early years: 'The best argument against Christianity is Christians.' In all too many cases the same dictum would hold for the best argument against Adventism.
"Well, as you can see, my mind wanders in strange directions. But the upshot of my journey has left me with three inescapable questions that have driven my life both existentially and intellectually.
What is the meaning of life both existentially and intellectually?
Why be a Christian?
Why be a Seventh-day Adventist?
I have to admit that I'm not happy with most people's (including most Adventists’) answers to these all-important questions" (p. 10).
I read The Apocalyptic Vision in the hope that an iconic church historian would suggest a way forward for a church doubling down on fundamentalist theology when challenged by scientific discoveries, higher criticism, and common sense. Sadly, my only discovery was a “mind wandering in strange directions.”
_____________________________________________________
*"That is where the wrath of the Lamb (Christ) comes in. That is where the Lion of the Tribe of Judah enters, pictured in Revelation 19 is arriving from heaven on a white horse to put an end to the sin problem and its ongoing mystery” (p. 24).
George Knight is very insightful in his observations, but I think has missed the multiple elephants in the room because because what he lists as problems are symptoms of two much larger problems: 1) not seeing current fulfillment of prophetic events that are supposed to be imminent, and 2) the predominant absence of the power of God in the church in contrast with what we've been taught about what will happen.
We have laid multiple generations in the grave who lived expecting to see the fulfillment of end-time events. So, why would it not be increasingly difficult for hereditary Adventists to question at least the immediacy of the prophecy, if not the entire accuracy of the teaching? Then we see endless and non-conclusive discussions about Daniel 8:14 that fool people into thinking they are doing God's work, yet they are utterly impotent when it comes to fulfilling the command of Jesus to go and make disciples.
The second large challenge I see is the teaching about the Latter Rain, the idea that the Holy Spirit would be poured-out in great power and we will see the work of spreading the Gospel finished in a short period. Apparently it hasn't happened yet because we're not seeing the Gospel go to the world in great power and most Adventists in North America have never brought someone to Jesus. Add that in many churches it is hard to find evidence of the Holy Spirit working in any significance (or even distantly like is expected), so why would anyone be expecting the Latter Rain any time soon?
The other problems will become insignificant after we deal with those elephants.
Any prediction in real time based on the imginations of "prophecy" are doomed to failure.
May I suggest that the two "elephants" that are mentioned by Mr. Noel are, in fact, mastodons, i.e., they are extinct concepts hardly relevant to the modern world. The fact is that traditional Adventist teachings on the "fullment of prophetic events that are supposed to be imminent" have been demonstrated over and over again to ignore the reality of modern conditions. The idea of the "Latter Rain" has also ran out of relevance decades ago. The idea that the Christian gospel will only be spread around the world when Adventists "get the Latter Rain".is so plainly arrogant that I'm surprised that anyone would even make such a suggstion. .
Yet any reader of Andy's previous column and the hundreds of comments will see the mastadons are still very much alive and defending the pursuit of minutia instead of the Divine empowerment that will mark the church in the last days.
Andy: ‘I read The Apocalyptic Vision in the hope that an iconic church historian would suggest a way forward for a church doubling down on fundamentalist theology when challenged by scientific discoveries, higher criticism, and common sense. Sadly, my only discovery was a “mind wandering in strange directions.”’
William: ‘We have laid multiple generations in the grave who lived expecting to see the fulfillment of end-time events.’
The SDA Church is a Restorationalist movement, meaning it effectively deletes Church history from after the 1st generation and restarts from the disciples onwards. The consequences of that approach are that after the 3rd, 4th and now 5th generations, the movement is going through a massive period of readjustment, as it realizes the Second Coming may not be as imminent as it was first thought.
Thus, the SDA Church is effectively going through what the Early Church went through – our own Perestroika. The Early Church was itself especially apocalyptic, and really did think Jesus was going to return during their lifetimes. One can compare the expected return in 1 Thes with Paul’s exhortations and defence of the Second Advent in 2 Thes. You can see Peter’s explanation of 1 day = 1000 years as an apologetic in those terms.
The early Church adapted and so will the SDA Church. The Gospels themselves are such a reaction and adaptation! The first couple of generations didn’t think they would need a written account of Jesus, for the simple reason the world as they knew it would soon expected to end. It was only when they realized the delay might be substantial, and the disciples started to die, that they better put some of these oral traditions down in writing. You certainly get that feeling in the opening verses of Luke.
Another way the Early Church coped was to emphasis realized eschatology (i.e. a kingdom of heaven starting here on earth, in a more inward-spiritual sense), which is very present in Luke and John and latter Church writings, such as Augustine. By contrast, Matthew and the teachings of Paul are far more apocalyptic in nature.
However, there were a whole host of different responses which I would hope we don’t emulate. As the Early Church discovered, in its road to the Papacy, there is also a profound danger in rejecting or downplaying the Second Coming belief. The consequences of throwing out apocalypticism can be profound. The Early Church thence proceeded forth to also:
A loss of emphasis on the Second Coming was not ultimately good for the Early Church; I doubt it’ll be wholly good for the SDA Church. The ‘A’ in our denomination does stand for ‘Adventist’ after all. Thus, Andy’s title would itself be a paradox, as ‘Adventism’ is an ‘ism’ about the ‘Advent’, which is to say the Apocalypse, Eschaton, Parousia etc etc.
Andy should therefore be careful for what he wishes for.
Stephen,
Once again, I appreciate your insightful analysis and description.
If I understand you clearly, the challenge before us is to find our way out of the current spiritual wilderness in which we find ourselves and the church. I absolutely agree because that describes my spiritual condition a decade ago. I praise God that He has led me out of that wilderness by allowing the formalism on which I had based my faith to die and be buried, introducing Himself to me as my loving and forgiving savior, and then empowering me for ministry according to His will instead of mine. That is exactly the same process through which Jesus took His disciples so they could become his empowered ambassadors. He offers that same redemption and empowerment to each of us.
It was not the teaching of the apostles that caused thousands to believe, it was the power of God that worked ahead of them, through them and around them. I have tasted that power and praise God for the honor He gives me to minister that power in ways that improve the lives of others and turn their attention to God. I am seeing lives changed. I am seeing sinners redeemed. Seeing these things leaves me in absolute awe of God that He would ever consider using me to do them. I used to be lost in endless debates about end-time prophecies and the nearness of Jesus' return. Being touched by God and used to minister in His power has given me peace to leave those issues for Him to decide and do. Instead, I am focused on doing the work He has put before me so that more can be saved. As a result I pity those who are unempowered and lost in endless exploration of what only fills their heads with facts while leaving them ignorant about the power of God. I wish greatly that they could discover the transforming power of God that I have met.
Yes I agree – both on the challenge before us and your own comments about how to adapt. What you seem to be describing is your own personal change of emphasis from traditional eschatology to internal eschatology. Christianity has both elements and has ebbed and flowed from emphasising one to the other.
There must be a reason Jesus never told us exactly when the End would be; He wanted us, in every generation, to think this was it. Only then can we stop storing treasures in heaven, to act in this life, as if tomorrow may never come, even though it most probably will.
Stephen,
I'm not sure I would call it "internal" eschatology, but if the shoe fits, I'll wear it. What has happend is doing the ministry God has given me to do today has filled me with peace about tomorrow. Seeing how God takes care of today gives me peace about tomorrow. That frees me from the need to speculate about what will or will not happen between now and the Second Coming, when Jesus will return, the temptation to spend endless hours dissecting particular prophecies, etc. because I'm focused on doing His work today. That has taken a huge burden off my shoulders.
There are many reasons why Jesus didn't tell us when He would return one main one is that He Himself doesn't know only the Father. Anyways, you made an important observation that in every generation they think that the end was in their time but in reality the end is when we die which could be 2 minutes from now. I'm not saying that when we die we go immediately to Heaven i'm saying when we die probation is close and whatever state we are in we will remain and Christ knew this, even if Christ will return in say 10 years time you are not guaranteed to live during that time no one is and that is why we are to live daily in Christ.
Sorry that should be traditional eschatology to realised eschatology.
How about adding another category of eschatology: mythological eschatology. This is the type of eschatology which will never be realized. It's purpose is to give purpose and meaning to an individual and a group. It will never be realized, because, in reality, there is nothing to realize. The reality is "World without End. Amen" (Now a very intelligent New Testament writer wrote that "in the last days" people would say exactly that there will be no "end." EGW also wrote that "in the last days" people would question her "Testimonies." I wanted to mention these two points before someone else did)
Erv,
"Mythical eschatology?" I love it! That so accurately describes the amount of detail I've seen people try to stuff into unfulfilled prophecies. (Though I get the feeling you were aiming that description at me.)
From my point-of-view, it is anything but "world without end, amen." Discovering gift-based ministry has given me a new urgency to go out and create believers so they can be part of the Kingdom of God. Seeing the suffering in this world makes me wish for Jesus to come more than ever. God has shifted my primary focus from discussing things prophetic timelines leading to when Jesus returns and seeking fulfillments of prophecy in news headlines to actually getting people ready to meet Jesus.
And there are those who still cannot understand why any long-time former Adventist would choose to leave this denomination?
The Adventist Church was founded on a lie rooted in a ridiculous interpretation of "prophecy" (Daniel), buttressed by a face saving device (investigative judgment) and promoted by a "prophet" whose history of inconsistency and lies has been carefully hidden at the top (white estate).
So why should there be any surprise that after 150 years it hasn't gained one inch in experiencing its goal of viewing the second coming or even "hastening the second coming." Garbage in, garbage out.
The "remnant church" looks more like a tattered yard of cloth on the bargain table at Cloth World than the guardian of the "truth" of the Christian religion.
I know, this is a pretty harsh assessment, but what other conclusion is there when a nonbiased review is leveled on the particular teachings of Adventism. Not one has validity. Spirit of Prophecy, Sabbath, investigative judgment, health message, adventism as heirs to the Protestant Reformation, three angels message, final church of the end times, the threat of Catholicism, the mark of the beast, the end is near, etc.
It should have, from the first, called what it really is, the Church of EG White. It appears to me that the staunchest members and defenders are also the most blindly devoted to EGW as prophet, because many Adventist teachings cannot be defended on Scripture alone.
EGW is a very flawed founder of a church. The poor lady was thumped in the head by a stone as girl and commenced her dream world on which a belief system now motors on. Many studies of her life and work reveals the plagiarism, inconsistency, her contradictory proclamations, her deviation from Scriptural teachings about Christ, and her outright errors.
Every thing you just said Bugs could equally be levelled (and probably was by Jews) against the Early Christian Church! Just replace the world EGW with Paul and you really could see this is a tome against Christianity itself. Why then is one genuine and not the latter? Or do you think Christianity itself is a giant fraud?
It is fascinating how defenders of a weak position retreat to misdirection as a tactic to impeach critics. The information about EGW is out there. You know as well as I do the investigations, analysis, and books written about her work. It's your choice not to believe it. It is not uncommon for true believers to be unmoved by the facts.
LDS church is growing quickly in spite of its checkered history, the absence of golden plates, and the questionable character of its founders. And there is the theology it has developed which you would admit is at best bizarre.
Scientology, JW, Islam, and most religions require blinders for their followers to follow.
So the SDA church has plenty of fellow travelers, which in my mind, mutes its criticisms of the other sects and religions I have just mentioned.
Belief is the operative word for followers of Judaism and Christianity, as well as the above mentioned religious systems. True believers are unable to discern fraud in their source of faith.
I hold the teachings of Christ and his resurrection in high regard because I like them and it. Now there is a conundrum for you. Why don't you just admit you like being an SDA and let it rest at that?
Don't you agree with me that the SDA church should have been called the EGW Church?
Joseph Smith and Ellen White were contermporaries not only in developing religious belief on manufactured visions and ideas invisible to anyone but them. They were both successful in creating something from nothing and proving P.T. Barnum that people will believe anything.
Elaine: 'They were both successful in creating something from nothing and proving P.T. Barnum that people will believe anything'
Elaine correct me if you are wrong, but you and your fellow 'liberals-rationalist-modernists' like Bishop John Shelby Spong don't actually believe Jesus Christ physically and historically rose from the dead – usually known as an 'altered state of consciousness' (ASC) by theologians today. Instead, it was just some form of hallunication by Mary Magdalene, Peter, Paul and the other supposed eye-witnesses. Is that correct?
On what basis then can you make prejorative comments about Ellen White, or any proclaimed prophet? Surely they are all equally nuts to you?
In fact, if we adopt the approach of liberal-rationalist-modernists, Ellen White had some visions about health and wo – Adventists are now the world's longest living people. She certainly seems a lot less crazy than people you would say had some form of mental disonance or mass hullucination brought on through grief (within a lament tradition) to think someone was raised from the dead!
Thus, does your accusations against Ellen White make any sense at all? I can't see any rational to your accusations unless you equally say Christianity itself is a fraud.
Stephen,
Surely you know the difference between belief and fact. The Resurrection is based on belief as there are no facts given as evidence. All religion are called beliefs which is the correct terminology.
Why are believers so intent on changing beliefs into actual facts? All religions are based on beliefs about their own history, importance of their laws and rituals. Religion has never been a product of logical reasoning nor based on indisputable facts. But it has never prevented each generation's claim that their particular religion is unlike all others and based on evidence.
Show me the money!
Elaine,
Everything is theory untill it does indeed become fact when ever that future time is. Nearly everything in past history has never happened as it was thought to be feforehand. The way Jesus came is a prime example. He didn't come the way his church thought He would and as a result had Him put to death.
Erv: 'How about adding another category of eschatology: mythological eschatology. This is the type of eschatology which will never be realized. It's purpose is to give purpose and meaning to an individual and a group. It will never be realized, because, in reality, there is nothing to realize. The reality is "World without End. Amen"'
I don't think that is necessary correct from either an exegetical point of view or even a scientific point of view.
Scientifically, the world will actually end one day. Either we'll blow ourselves up, or our planet will be engulfed by our exploiding sun in billions of years.
Biblically, John and Luke play under realised and internal eschatology. However, they don't totally do away with historical-eschatology either. John and Luke really did think the End Time would one day come, although in the apparent delay, they wanted to emphasise instead that we should start living in that End Time frame of mind here today.
To suggest otherwise is pure eisegesis of the Gospels and NT texts. We see the hope of a historical-eschaton in such passages as Peter's passionate reminder that a human day is like a thousand years to God. Just because it seems like forever to us doesn't mean it is to God. Thus, going back to my comment about the sun in a billion years – that might be 'forever' for us but it really is no time at all to the transcendent I AM.
'Now a very intelligent New Testament writer wrote that "in the last days" people would say exactly that there will be no "end."'
Ha, ha, maybe you are indeed proving we are in 'The End.' However in all seriousness, all well and good to see a mythical message in the Gospels. But to read them only in those terms without also in a historical-eschatological context is anathema to what the disciples and NT writers believed.
It would, with respect, be nothing more than Gnosticism, who attempt to mytholize everything. It was that sort of extreme allegoration that Johannine literature later required to correct with comments about 'anti-Christs', who embraced the heresy of Docetism, denying Christ was historically-corporeally existent 'in the flesh.'
That sort of existentialist thinking turns a religion rooted in Abrahamic Judaism, which sees time in a very linear fashion, with a cyclic notion of faith instead found in Judeo-Christianity's opponents – both in Greek paganism and Eastern religions.
I would just note that the SDA Church is about the most anti-Gnostic denomination in Christendom. I would share some of Kevin's suprise by anyone who would embrace the name of 'Adventist' by deny the 'Advent'. I wholly believe we should have a big tent – but how big becomes so big that it no longer is a tent but a shreded tarp?
Stephen,
I'm wrestling with "anti-gnostic" and am not sure is quite descriptive enough. How about "gnosto-phobic" because of the fear of gaining new knowledge? Or "gnosto-static" because of the growing demand for acceptance of a very specific set of doctrines? Maybe "gnosto-phrenic" because of how on one hand we claim to have knowledge while on the other promoting "Biblical research" that is only allowed to produce the same results?
I don't understand the need for such analysis and labels. You believe what you like. Admit that and enjoy it. Maybe one in a million members in your church even knows what "gnostic" means. When you satisfactorly get it all figured out, so what? You or your church is moved one inch forward or backward by your decision.
I was having a little fun with labels lampooning attitudes in the church. FYI, "gnosis" is a Greek word meaning "knowledge." The Gnostics were a sect in Bible times who taught that the pursuit of knowledge was of supreme importance and necessary for salvation. The way some spend great amounts of time discussing scriptural minutia lends credibility to the concept that gnosticism is alive and well today in the church. I agree that the pursuit of knowledge doesn't move the church forward. Only the power of the Holy Spirit can do that.
I'm sure that a little Gnosticism is not the only thing loose in the church! With 3 years of Biblical Greek and an MDiv degree with major in church history, pretty much know about gnosticism. A "little fun" is definitely in order in analyzing belief.
I'm glad you understood.
My brother brother who is working on a doctorate in theology gave me a couple more: "Gnosto-noia," the fear that someone is out there who has greater knowledge than you and is waiting to prove you wrong, and "Gnosto-OCD," where you believe your view is authoritative and you are compelled to force everyone else to agree with you.
Bugs: ‘I don't understand the need for such analysis and labels… With 3 years of Biblical Greek and an MDiv degree with major in church history, pretty much know about gnosticism’
What are we doing here if not analyzing things? You tell me Bugs, holding the fancy theological degrees, if the basis of ‘science’, including social sciences, is not the analyzing and labeling of things? Is not ‘labels’ the basis for human language, which is indeed limited, but necessary for meaningful discourse. Was not the very first thing God got Adam to do was name the animals?
Andy’s article is full of labels, many to be understood pejoratively: ‘apocalyptic’; ‘fundamentalist theology’; ‘higher criticism’; and even ‘common sense.’ What’s ‘common sense’ exactly but a very loaded word, as is ‘fundamentalist’ and ‘apocalyptic’!
However, I will try to re-explain my point then in ‘long-hand’. There were certain early ‘believers’ of Jesus who affirmed certain ancient pagan beliefs, including: salvation through knowledge; rejection of the OT Hebrew God as evil or flawed; rejection of OT scriptures; extreme-allegorizing of the scriptures; a view that all ‘matter’ is evil or flawed; rejection of Jesus’ physical-corporeal existence; rejection of a physical-historical death and Resurrection (some have Jesus escaping the Cross and some ); and the rejection or downplaying of a historical-Second Coming event.
These ‘believers’ who were later called ‘Gnostics’ relied on sources such as the Gospel of John for their support. They adopted the sort of ‘mythical’ thinking of ‘extreme allegorizing’ that Erv seems to be supporting here. Latter Johannine (meaning from the ‘school’ who followed John) thought these people went too far in their extreme allegorizing. They missed that John expected his writings to be understood BOTH literally PLUS mythologically – not as myth alone. In response, they called these extreme-allegorizes ‘anti-Christs’ in the Johannine letters for denying the historical and corporeal existence of Jesus Christ.
As someone with expertise in Church history you would no doubt no all these things – sorry, I am not trying to make you ‘suck eggs’. Whilst the ‘official’ and ‘proto-orthodox’ Pauline Church defeated ‘Gnosticism’, the RC itself absorbed certain elements of it, especially in its view of creedalism, state of the dead and the rise of monasticism.
You would also know that Adventists in particular, as a broad religious movement, reject the basic ‘fundamental’ beliefs of these ‘Gnostics’. Some call that concept ‘Wholism’, and I am reminded of a very good chapter in Jack Provonshar’s old book ‘God with Us’ (I think that is the title) about the history of monasticism that goes to the heart of this point.
I personally believe many ‘modern’ and ‘liberal’ theologians within ‘mainstream’ denominations (I don’t know how else to describe them) that reject the physical and historical Resurrection of Jesus, but instead say it was just a mass hallucination on behalf of the disciples (through ‘altered states of consciousness’) seem to be nothing more than modern revival of old ‘Gnostic’ pagan ideas.
So my point is that I can’t see how ‘Gnostic-like’ beliefs of only seeing Christianity as a ‘myth’ as opposed to a historical-fact could be accepted by any Adventist. Andy’s subtly mocking title ‘Apocalyptic Adventist’ is equally ironic, as it would seem impossible to be Adventist without being Apocalyptic as that is what Adventist means – to believe in the Advent.
I am willing to see Christianity as a myth (which I mean in the positive sense of ideology through narrative) PLUS history; but not myth OR history. That is my understanding is how Gospel authors such as Luke and John saw it also.
My fancy edukation and dagrees ain't halping me much. Actually I do think I have some understanding of your brief tour through little piece Gnosticism and why it is important to you. Your parsing of it as a specific term does leave me a bit puzzled, however. As a topic it is a much more complex issue than you discuss here and I think it barely contributes, if at all, to the conclusion of your argument.
Yes, so Adventists reject the view that could be called Gnostic. So do Christian faiths in general. And it is a stretch to impugn Catholicism with a broad label of being Gnostic.
I don't think throwing the liberal and modern theological mainstream denominations and their proponents under that bus is accurate or meaningful. Most lack the dualistic marker that is the core of Gnosticism. They just don't believe, whatever language they use to express their skepticism.
I like the teachings of Christ and his resurrection. My "like" doesn't come at the end of a factual argument. Nor is it necessarily buttressed by "history" as a precise recounting. Do I think Christ really lived? Yes. Do I believe he arose from being dead? Yes. But a required precision of the narrative in the Scripture as history isn't important to me since something larger is being conveyed by the concept. That is what myth is. Am I a now a Gnostic?
As I think you have hinted above, the word "myth" has more than one meaning. The one I apply to my "like" is a way of talking about something for which there is no other way.
Where I think your conclusion is flawed after wading through gnostic arguments is the difference you make between PLUS history, but not myth OR history. Reason? It is a distinction without a difference. History, including New Testament history is not a precise recounting of events. To some degree or another, history is myth.
I think you are saying your Christian belief is innocent of Gnostic pollution and don't want to be identified specifically with those from the early church that did.
Left out "not" in the last sentence above.
I know that this is amateur/pop psychology at best, but it sure seems apparent. It may be that those to whom this applies will be perturbed by this, but that is par for this course. (I would advise that if the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t try to wear it.)
It is fascinating to see the extent to which truth has apparently traumatized some. Some seem traumatized because they appear convinced against their will. Preliminary evidence that they remain convinced is that it clearly matters so much to them that others do. If they weren’t traumatized it certainly wouldn’t matter to them that others remain convinced. Evidence that it matters to them is that they try to convince us otherwise; which indicates that they are unwillingly convinced. To be unwillingly convinced is probably traumatic; having encountered or been confronted with truth, but not being able/willing to handle it.
Stephen, was trying, with great intensity, to be perturbed while fitting this shoe to my foot. Try as I might, I couldn't install it. But I have become so traumitized in my effort that I am turning to a psychiatric counsler for help. Maybe a psychic counselor would be better.
Apparently it wasn't aimed at me. Since I really don't know what you said or whom you were aiming it for, I'll take it as a joke. Humor is good, even if I don't have a clue.
I’m supposed to be convinced now, right? (Seriously, let’s hope you haven’t been traumatized.)
As I think that since Elaine is so consistently on target with her comments, I hesitate to point out that perhaps she might wish too rethink the suggestion that Ellen's out-of-body-experiences were "manufactured visions." Perhaps I misunderstand the meaning intended here. However, if Elaine is suggesting that Ellen literally "manufactured" her visions, i.e., decided she needed to have a vision or pretended to have a vision for whatever reason, may I suggest that all the evidence I had ever read or heard about does not support that view. I think that, in her early years, Ellen had no control of when she had her episodes. She absolutely believed that she was having visions from God. With some exceptions (her twin sister for example), her behavior was affimred by those around her,, i.e., her mother and some other female friends of her mother (I have never read any discussion of the attiitude of her father or male members of her extended family). She therefore had no reason to question what was happening to her other than they were supvernatural visitations. Now later on, when she had acquired the position in the "Little Flock" of an oracle, things might have changed, espeically once James White came into the picture. Also, since Ellen experienced so many depressive states throughout her life, that might complicate what was really going on. However, I think the evidence does not suggest Ellen was a conscious fraud. She really believed what she said was going in her visions. (Now as for Joseph Smith, Jr., there is a entirely different set of facts that must be considered) .
Erv,
Perhaps I was not expressing my opinions clearly. The "manufacture" of her visions was publicized by her followers who retold, printed and distributed them to others at that time. We only know what others have reported, and while she had a number of "episodes" where she appeared to faint and go into a "spell" is not an uncommon condition experienced in some epileptics. Regardless, there is much in Jewish, Christian, and other religious history of very similar events.
If having visions is the determining factor for truth, then there will be followers who accept that as the most important criteria. Pentecostals have flourished with their acceptance, even desiring such episodes.
How are Ellen's visions to be judged by her reports any differently than the many simlar reports of such visions?
BTW: I recall (and do not have access to such reports) that there were times when some important decisions were needed and she would have a vision that addressed that problem and once she told her vision it was accepted as the answer.
Re BTW: Yes, there are examples of where there were discussions going on around her about a topic, she had a vision about that topic, told her group about the vision whcih contained an answer, and that settled it for the group. Again, I don't think that Ellen was conscious of what was happening in her dream-like states. She just told people what she remembered about what happened in her "visions." . The people around her used her as an oracle. It made decision-making much easier for them. Unfortunately, she also had "visions" that uncovered "secret sins" about people and communicted those "secret sins" to those people. If her "vision" did not square with what that person knew what was going on, that did create some real problems for Ellen's credibility.
Elaine [Re the topic of the Resurrection]: ‘Surely you know the difference between belief and fact.’
If one adopts such an existentialist-point of view, why then should one believe in some things and not others? Why is it considered ok to believe in a Resurrected Jesus (which you don’t really seem to believe in anyway, because you think it was just a hallucination not a historical-physical event) but not believe in Ellen White’s visions? When is one ‘socially acceptable’ but not the other?
Why follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, who we don’t actually know much about except through Gospels you don’t really seem to believe in anyway except as types of pious frauds? On what basis could His teachings be said to represent ‘truth’? Why should I turn the other cheek instead of simply kill my enemies in cold blood?
Erv: ‘As I think that since Elaine is so consistently on target with her comments…’
Erv, why does that not surprise me. I’d appreciate it if you further explained what you mean exactly when you talk about ‘mythological eschatology’?
Do you, like Elaine and people she seems to follow like Bishop John Shelby Spong or Rudolf Bultmann, believe the Resurrection of Christ was not a physical and historical event? Do you instead see it merely as some form of mass hallucination through an ‘altered state of consciousness’? Do you believe there is a body of Jesus of Nazareth rotting out there somewhere, denying the historical reality of the empty tomb?
On what basis then is one ‘myth’ genuine and not another? If the myth I believe through a personal-existentialist experience tells me that I should blow myself up as a suicidal bomber, or that Jesus was reincarnated in the person of David Koresh who commands me to fight ATF agents, what is to say that not as valid as any other ‘mainstream’ Christian myth?
If I were to ‘choose’ myths like in a cafeteria, I think I would rather choose Jainism or the Ba’hai faith. I certainly wouldn’t necessary chose a Jesus that history really knows nothing about; I’d probably chose someone more historically tangible like Ghandi.
Why then chose the 'Christian' or more specifically the 'Adventist' myth?
"On what basis . . . is one "myth" genuine and not another? Excellent question! One person's untrue myth is someone else's central truth. How does one decide? Since 99% of us accept the myths held by the group into which we are born, one might conclude that it is rarely a matter of deciding to accept one myth over another. We rarely have enough data or motivation to really examine the most important myths t hat we accept to belong to a given cultural (including religious) group.
Erv: ‘However, I think the evidence does not suggest Ellen was a conscious fraud. She really believed what she said was going in her visions.’
So on what basis is Ellen White to be routinely mocked but not the very first generation of Christian disciples, who I assume you likewise might think that they had genuine but historically-false hallucinations about a resurrected Jesus?
Who is "mocking" Ellen? In my view, she was a fine woman that wanted to help people become better Chrisitians as she understood what that meant in her time and place. She was also very human and held views and made statements which some of us may not agree with today. I'm not sure what Mr. Ferguson's problem is.
Erv: ‘Also, since Ellen experienced so many depressive states throughout her life, that might complicate what was really going on.’
How is that different from the ideas of Bishop Spong, Crossman and others that the disciples had hallucinations brought about through grief within the context of a lament tradition?
Is the faith of 2.2 billion people built on the mental illness of people like Mary Magdalene (who we note was demon possessed, indicating a possible mental illness), who today we would probably prescribe anti-psychotic drugs?
If we adopt your sort of argument, why should I reject the writings of Ellen White as having no authority or relevance for my life, but accept the writings of NT writers? One might struggle to see the guidance of a 19th-Century Victorian women with a mental illness; however, why instead accept the views of a possibly misogynist and slave-advocating 1st-Century Jewish Pharisee living in the Roman Empire, who likewise possibly had a mental hallucination on the Road to Damascus, claiming to be visited by a Galilean Jew who was executed by Roman officials in the manner of a criminal?
How do we then make choices about ‘valid’ and ‘invalid’ ‘myths’ and ‘mythical authors’?
You don't have to believe the mental health issues of her life are relevant to her experience and teachings. However, if your neighbor lady, or even your wife, with a serious head injury started having similar vision experiences as EGW, would you accept her experience and proclamations without evaluating it in the context of her injury?
I propose that people believe what they like and the interventions of facts play little or no role. Even though there are pages, chapters, dissertations, and books evaluating EGW in the light of modern mental health with conclusions of her being a classical case of a specific mental illness caused by trauma, it doesn't matter to true believers. Even thought the same and similar analysis on a theological and proclamation level track here checkered history of theological errors in the light of Christian theology, her dualism in proclamation and practice (she continued to be a meat-eater long after she said she wasn't), her personal biases that showed up as theology, her plagiarism, and her borrowing from pop medical musings of the day as the real source of some of her health revelations.
The cheap equivalency trick of EGW, as the Victorian woman and Paul as the Pharisee has no validity. Was Paul hit in the head by a stone? Don't know. We know about EGW.
So, believe on. Follow, by your definition, the mentally ill.
Once you've drunk the "ALL IS VANITY" concoction, all is vanity. Then why spend your valuable FINITE existence time refuting a myth??? Get on with far more important pursuits. Ps 53:1 The fool hath said in his heart,There is no God.shock & Awe, Shake & Tremble.
Oh Earl, me doth think you protest tooooooo much. Myth is the basis for most religious belief. Can't refute that.
Why don't you show me the error in my evaluation of EGW? What does she have to do with the no god argument of Ps. 52:1?
Being a part of this discussion means you are going to be confronted by views opposed to yours. Throw some bricks at my propositions not harmless little shuttle cocks.
For those here, probably most, who base their religious belief on the Bible and Ellen White, on what basis have you accepted them rather than the story of Mohamed and what he taught?
Since all Muslims, more than one billion, are convinced of Mohamed's visions and teachings, why choose Adventist Christianity over Mormonism, Islam, or Buddhism or an even older religions like Hinduism? What criteria is being used?
Do you truly know?
For those here, probably most, who base their religious belief on the Bible and Ellen White, on what basis have you accepted them rather than the story of Mohamed and what he taught?
Since all Muslims, more than one billion, are convinced of Mohamed's visions and teachings, why choose Adventist Christianity over Mormonism, Islam, or Buddhism or an even older religions like Hinduism? What criteria is being used?
Do you truly know?
How about the themes of self-sacrificing and unconditional love, and the theme and story of redemption, and the experiences which follow?
(Something tells me that this is not the answer for which you are looking.)
I can give you my reasons for being a Christian. First and foremost, a loving and forgiving savior. Second, a returning God who wants to take me to His house and re-create this world as my new home without sin. Third, the changes I've seen Him make in me. Fourth, the empowerment He gives me to share His love.
Are you ready to let Him do the same for you?
Elaine, I concluded when I was a teen that the chances of being born into a family with accurate religious beliefs (or an accurate atheism) were slim. And your question, "what criteria…" is similar to what I asked myself. For other readers (you seem to have already concluded your opinions on these things), here is what I found:
God, in Isaiah 41-49, repeatedly challenges all the religions of the world to a simple and sensible test. He says, "tell us the ancient past and the future with accuracy…if you can." Buddhism and Hinduism have made no predictive prophecies that can be tested against history. And their ancient history, as archology inches backwards, is found to be ever more thoroughly myth. Islam and Joseph Smith each made one testable prediction. Islam predicted the eventual fall of eastern Rome. Smith predicted the civil war. But, when they made these predictions, no one took notice because these things were already expected.
The Bible, by way of contrast, predicted that Europe would not be united, Babylon not be rebuilt, the world would be dominated by powers once-subject to the Roman pontiff, Jerusalem's temple would be minutely demolished, the papacy would (temporarily) lose civil authority after 1260 years of possessing it. I could go on.
And, continueing the contrast, as archeology inches backwards, the Bible becomes more and more substantiated in its historical narritive. The Hittites, the identity of Darius, etc. have become well-known as once-mocked-now-ignored evidences in the Bible's favor. Even the "mysterious numbers" of the Hebrew kings were finally explained (and by an Adventist scholar of some note).
So God's challenge in Isiaiah laid the competeition in the dust. The Bible is the only sensible claimant to inspired authority, except where it grants that authority to others.
That is why I choose Adventism. It is the sensible answer to life's questions. But those who have known the truth and left it, I don't suppose I can make them see it. As Jesus said, "how great is that darkness."
So why is prophecy only of value looking backward? Imposing interpretations in reverse means nothing. It doesn't verify anything except the interpreters imaginative skills. Whenever foretelling is alleged, it ends in disappoint, yes, the Great Disappointment, as an example. The predictors of global warming, whose prophecies are faced with the last twelve years of global cooling, now speak in terms of "climate change." The second coming after the Great Disappointment had to be changed to a non prophetic, "Soon."
If God is behind prophecy, couldn't he have been more specific? He could have dropped some names to Daniel, perhaps Darius and the others since he knows everything.
Why symbols, strange creatures? Divining is only entertainment.
Interpretations of prophecies are not facts, they verify nothing.
Eugene, if interpretation of Scripture is the glue that binds you to your faith, more power to you. I left the "truth' many years ago because I couldn't find enough truth in it to be the "truth." The SDA church was founded on a lie based in prophecy as a predictor, compounded by the damnable device of "investigative judgment" that is a deserving laughing stock of serious theologians, and me, too. As an SDA chaplain many years ago, I walked into a hospital room and heard someone refer to their faith as the "truth." I thought it an SDA speaker was speaking. Nope, Jehovah's Witness. I thought my church, at that time, had a corner on that market.
Eugene, if interpretation of prophecy is an acceptable glue that binds you to your faith, more power to you. No, you can't make me see what you do. I see you reveling in darkness in your smug addiction to a cult where you are easily entertained by mindless mental meanderings and empty judgments of others.
You wrote: "So why is prophecy only of value looking backward?"
To me that is by far the most important aspect of prophecy. It allows us to look back and see how God has led us in the past. By doing that it give us confidence to follow Him into the future, even in times when we do not directly see Him leading. Many have been the times that I have been in a situation and wondered where God was, but afterward when I looked back at it I could see dimensions of His working that were not visible at the time.
I see no benefit in getting all wrapped-up in detailed discussions about how God will fulfill a particular prophecy in the future because I've learned to trust Him and know that He is in control. Plus, I've read the conclusion of the book. The message there is both simple and dramatic: God wins!
My hat is off to you Eugene. This was an excellent response to Elaine.
I don’t believe that any of the participants on this site really don’t believe; otherwise they wouldn’t participate (much less regularly participate); and wouldn’t care what others believe. They wouldn’t just say they don’t care, they really wouldn’t care—and then Adventists wouldn’t hear from them.
After all, they are not trying to save our souls or evangelize us; right? (A little humor is a good thing.)
Others may have been traumatized by Adventists or Adventism; and are simply trying to return the favor.
Are you implying that I am a secret SDA? Well, you caught me. Don't know why I thought I could get away with the ruse of skepticism. I've been trying to hide behind my conclusions that all religious talk is myth, allegory or metaphor, prophecy is of entertainment value only, God didn't create the world, EGW was a fraud, the SDA church was founded on an 1844 lie, the investigative judgment is the result of a sick imagination, the concept of the heavenly sanctuary is a joke, the earth will be destroyed by the sun in a few billion years, keeping sabbath holy is an impossible, unnecessary self imposed restriction, the remnant church is a yard of cloth on the discount counter at Cloth World, all concepts of God are created in man's image, I never could find enough truth in "the truth" to find any truth, I didn't backslide, just walked out the front door, without anger at anyone, and never looked back, etc. etc. Wait, there is more. I was told you can tell when you really bad, that's when you "apostatize," and now I can verify the falsity of that imposed post-hypnotic suggestion,
Now you know why I am here.
I hate to be the one to break this to you my man (not really), but you’re not the only skeptic/non-believer/ex-Adventist…whatever, who regularly participates on these boards. (As a matter of fact, the response to which I commented was addressed to Elaine.)
As I’ve said, if the shoe doesn’t fit…but perhaps thou doth protest too much. (Needless to say, there’s need to try to convince me of anything about you.)
Thank you William
"Who is "mocking" Ellen?" (Dr Taylor)
————
I must give Dr Taylor credit for being a master diplomat. I can also say that if it was his 'dark' side (as he sometimes calls it) speaking, then he would say things in the direction of Mr Boshell. It was his 'lighter' side this time dismissing Ellen White rather politely, placing her in his history box, whilst denying any apocalyptic significance to her inspired writings.
In my teens I witnessed a gang of thugs get hold of a rival gang member. (It was a rough neighborhood). Whilst the gang ruffled their rival, one was oddly rather diplomatic and seemed to speak on behalf of their prey – but a few moments later he got behind the guy and kicked him off his feet. His diplomacy was just a ploy. I'm not saying Dr Taylor does this – as I don't know his intentions – but I'm reminded of this incident for some reason. Go figure!
Larry, i do appreciate your candor, and admire your attitude & integrity. Aside from the religion/science utterings here, believe you have a very lively comical wit.
As per Willian, i am thankful for the Bible promises of Jesus. The power of the Holy Spirit keeps me company daily. i feel its presence mentally. It keeps me at peace continually. You may say its delushional or psychotic, if you wish, but its real to me. It's impossible for me to buy into your MN and its rules, because of its path of extrapolation to origins without the recognition of ID. i know this drives you to distraction that those who've drunk of the wine of the Holy Bible & are eagerly looking forward to the wedding supper of the HOLY LAMB of GOD,with great anticipation and thankfulness, are so bull headed, dense, impossible. It works for me. i wish you well in your beliefs and choices.
Elaine: No doubt i've been culturally educated as a child to accept Christianity as religion of choice. However, having early in life run away from religion, but later a great urging to seek God, i studied & observed all of the so called Great Religions, as well as the 19th century additions, LDS, JW, & SDA. i chose SDA after months of study, and visit from Neal Wilson. Now having come full circle, i'm back where i started, with the Holy Bible only.
I stand with you my fellow brother in Christ. I too had a similar experience, I am educated, read alot and watch alot and I use to argue with believers from other faiths including LDS and Jehovah's Witnesses, I would twist their logics with scripture or science and sometimes they would say they would go away and research and return but they never did, I knew they couldn't. I was arrogant in the "facts" I knew but I never knew Jesus. I eventually started to leave the Church a little at a time and then I heard that call inside me, you can't explain it it's personal and I began to return, sort of like how animals in the ocean and land know how to navigate scientist try to explain it but they feel the pull of the poles maybe or some other unknown force. Even when I returned I struggle immensely with the pleasures of this world but God is still working in me. I now realize that no matter what I know, how kind I am or whatever self righteous anchor I held onto without love it means nothing, and God is LOVE. People have asked me about different religions and other christian groups and why I choose to be an SDA and I could find an "answer" to every question but I lacked love and and i'm learning to love my God and Saviour Jesus Christ each everyday. I'm no longer here to prove people wrong i'm here to follow Jesus and I too invite others to do so on their own free will.
Some members of religious groups never leave. How many do you know who have formally left Catholicism by their request? How many have left Mormonism completely? How many have fully left Adventism?
Most religious believers simply "fade away" without formally becoming an "ex." Only those who wish to be recognized as former members will publicly identify themselves by requesting their church to drop their membership. I doubt God notes those things.
Dear Mrs Nelson, have you really left Adventism? I believe you still hold on to the Adventist Health Message. You're still a vegetarian, aren't you?
Mr. Calahan mentions that he had a "visit from Neal Wilson." I wonder if he would provide just a bit more detail. Might I ask when this occurred and what office did Neal occupy at the time? This is another bit of microhistory of a GC President.
Just a reminder: We are commenting on Knight's book which dealt with this: Babylon was followed by Persia, then by Greece, then by Rome. Rome, when breaking up, gave way to the papacy which became the Holy Roman Empire over European states that, by the 1700's, ruled Australia, the Philippines, India, Indonesia, most of Africa, almost the entirety of the Americas, and most of the other inhabited islands of the sea.Then, the deadly wound came in 1798 amidst the dismanteling of colonialism.
All this was predicted by Daniel 2 and 7. When William Miller spoke to large audiences, they were bigger readers and more critical in their thinking than are we. They generally knew history better. And, consequently, they were more impressed with Daniel 2 and 7. How, they wondered, could a book written before the time of Christ, predict the time of his death (Daniel 9) and at the same time, predict that the states formed in Western Europe would never be united into one nation again? How could the prophet see that those states would remain dominent on the world stage until the very end of time? Fair-minded secularists can see the light in these ideas and that is what jumpstarts interest in traditional evangelism.
The interest, once earned, was followed by William Miller with Bible instruction that lifted up Jesus as the sinner's hope. Preparing for his appearing made Jesus central to the life like nothing else could.
That is still true today. You won't find a successful liberal evangelist who brings intelligent and secular people into adventism without the use of prophecy.
Am writing from Indonesia where Adventists are learning how to use the apocalyptic more effectively, being given access to more of Ellen White's materials, and preparing for the Latter Rain. They are, then, on the apocalyptic road. Oh, and there are about 500,000 Adventists here in the country with more Muslims than the entire Middle East combined.
Ervin, In 1969 a physician friend & Wilson, visited me on a Sabbath afternoon. He was Pres. of NAD.
Thank you. Very interesting. Neal was a very interesting Adventist administrator.
In Dan 2:20, 21, 22, 23 Daniel points to God as the revealer of 'deep and secret things.' The dream King Nebz had encountered was a tall order. All the 'wise' men in the land weren't able to reveal the dream, let alone interpret it (Dan 2:10, 27). Dan 2:28 shows it to be a dream regarding 'what shall be in the latter days.' Dan 2:38 reveals Babylon as the head of gold as per dream interpretation. Dan 2:39, 40, 41-42 show that three kingdoms follow after Babylon and eventually fragment into 'part iron and part clay.' Dan 2:43 can be seeing today as a fulfillment of prophecy, in that these fragmented nations, though they have and are still trying to cleave together, it ain't happening. Dan 2:44 wraps it up when the God of heaven sets up his Eternal Kingdom. Praise God!
Dan 2:45 makes bold claim that the 'dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof is sure.' Seeing that the rest is history, I have complete confidence and faith in the Word of God: The Holy Bible. I'm afraid Mr Boshell's skepticism (among some others on the boards) isn't quite convincing and hardly worth it's salt.
Mr. Prewitt noted: "Am writing from Indonesia where Adventists are learning how to use the apocalyptic more effectively, being given access to more of Ellen White's materials, and preparing for the Latter Rain. They are, then, on the apocalyptic road." Here is another instance of where the Adventist Church continues to create multiple Adventist Churches while maintaining the myth that it is a single church. Adventism in Third World countries is starting at the place where Adventism in the US started in the 19th century, while much of Adventism in First World countries are in the process of either rejecting or more typically, simply ignoring apocalyptic. It is a facinating thing to watch. Adventism in the year AD 2200 will be an interesting institution. . .
ET: Did you ever consider that "your" Adventist church may be greatly out of touch with the average member anywhere? It sounds like you don't care much for the common person who likes what they hear about the apocalyptic.
If the apocalyptic is taught with Christ as the center and the One who died for us (maybe you don't believe that either, if I am wrong I am sorry–just going by what I read from you), then it is valuable. If not, then it is meaningless and can turn into a superstition like any heathen religion. There is a lot of burden on the evalngelist to give the Gospel first and then the symbolic meanings as this church has come to understand them. The Gospel must constantly be linked to Revelation.
Apocalyptic messages appeal to those whose world view is similar to the Adventist founders: less educated, more interested in the meaning of symbols and the interpretation of natural disasters as predicting the "end times."
There is even now such a disparity between first world and third world Adventists that if continued, will eventually cause a schism, following the path of most world religions in the past. As first world Christianity is diminishing, third world Christianity is increasing.
Separation is not an evil but a necessary part of growth. Had not the Jewish and Gentile Christians separated at its founding, Christianity would not have survived except a a small Jewish sect. "Can two walk together lest they be agreed?"
Elaine said: "Apocalyptic messages appeal to those whose world view is similar to the Adventist founders: less educated, more interested in the meaning of symbols and the interpretation of natural disasters as predicting the "end times."
Perhaps they are more humble. Humility is a virtue in the Bible; those willing to listen and take God at face value that He is who He says He is. But some of the greatest thinkers have been humble in that they are willing to listen and be open. We live in a time of little humility and a great deal of pride. We can be do-gooders and give away lots of money but yet view those less-educated as inferior.
Humility is not ignorance or illiteracy. It is easy to be humble when you are aware that there is so much you do not yet know. But that also leaves someone vulnerable to being told new things without the ability to separate truth from fiction. Why is it that so many of the scam artists prey on those who are naive and trusting? The daily news reports such people, often seniors who grew up in a world of trust, and fail to recognize that they become targets simply because of that quality.
Children will often believe everything they are told; primitive people also. The large majority of third world natives who are joining religious groups around the world, are unsophisticated and naive We were told to be "smart as serpents, and harmless as doves. Doves do not take advantage of people.
1 Corinthians 1:20-31, Romans 1:16, Jeremiah 8:9
It's worth repeating: " But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty."
1 Cor.1:27
I expected this response from you. We are, of course, to use our common sense, and it's even found in the Bible (like Proverbs). Yes, many seniors are scammed because they grew up in a more honest socieity generally. I would suggest that God often keeps his people safe from the wicked. But because "rain falls on the just and the unjust" it doesn't always happen (see Ecclesiastes).
God talks a lot about opression in the Bible. The oppressors will have their punishment. They could not tolerate heaven because they are users and selfish; and the citizens of heaven/the new earth would fall prey to them, because of their innocence and trust. Therefore, the wicked will no longer exist. Perhaps it is better to be an innocent in this world than an oppressor who will have no future. But this takes faith. It would also seem a reason for missionaries–that's what spreading truth is all about to fight deception.
I agree Ella M. Please also note Amos 6:1, Matthew 6:2, and Luke 6:24.
Here is the reality, the so-called First World Adventists in North America will soon be majority of Third World ancestral extraction; if they (we) are not already so.
In other words, reports of the demise of the apocalyptic have been greatly exaggerated. (You folks need to visit places like metropolitan Washington, D.C., Baltimore, MD, Atlanta, GA, Nashville, TN, Huntsville, AL, Orlando, FL, Dallas, TX, Houston, TX, New York, NY, Philadelphia, PA, Chicago, IL, and Los Angeles, CA.)
Stephen: You are right, and many of our commenters are out of touch with the average person in the pew. I suspect you can add small towns to the list.
Through Bible history God always used humble people, average, ordinary people to be his instruments in service. Even King David began as a lowly shepherd. The only criteria seemed to that they fear (recognize) God. In the NT he even used crooks (tax collectors) who listened to him. And Paul! This is God's way. He did not choose great philosophers or temple administrators.
Why would it be different today? He cannot use prideful people; even do-gooders can give away lots of money and yet consider the poor and uneducated as inferior. That is why the church in Laodicea can't "revive" itself.
On the worldwide stage this little denomination is very insignificant, usually ignored and rarely recognized. We have nothing to be proud of, but this pride exists even in our small fishbowl. We can pray that it will, as a group (it's always a group as in Israel), come to acknowledge its condition and present Christ's gospel and righteousness as our only hope. This is my personal read on the church today.
Getting zapped in the face by a tossed stone seems to be a good criteria to be an "instrument in God's service."
Perhaps Mrs Nelson can enlighten us as to what the 'more educated' persons in the first world (like herself and Dr Taylor) believe Daniel Chapter 2 teaches.
Dr Taylor says "the evidence does not suggest Ellen was a conscious fraud."
Is he suggesting that Ellen White was some other form of fraud – just not a 'conscious' one?
Maybe he thinks the injury made her uncouscious the rest of her life!
Ha-ha, pretty funny ma'am. By the way, whilst we may disagree on some other issues, I think you're spot on regarding your comments about humility.
The Bible says that that Jesus came to seek and save those that are lost [Matt 18:11; Luke 19:10]. Luke 4:18 shows that Christ came also for the downtrodden and the oppressed. It is for this reason that those who are poor and oppressed respond wholeheartedly to the simple truths set forth in scripture and cling to the old rugged cross for dear life as it is their only means of peace and salvation from the hardships and struggles of not just poverty itself but also and more importantly from the shackles of sin. Educated people, especially the haughty type, tend to justify and find excuses for their unbelief and doubt (and sinful ways I might add). Of course (thank God!) – not all well educated people think or act this way even though there is always the risk of educational indoctrination which can easily turn one who is weak in faith away from a childlike simple faith and trust in God [Matt 18:3, 4].
Isn't there something about judging by fruits? There must be something addictive in EGW fruits, for a few people, anyway, because many analysis determine her "fruits" are rotten. Her defenders seem not to mind, thus addiction.
Beyond getting some kind of fix, what benefit is there for blind loyalty to her persona? Christian belief doesn't need her. SDA's with a devotion to the gospel of Christ have divorced her. Her historical writings, some of which don't pass the crediblity test because of fabrication or having been copied from un-verified sources, alone discredit her as a fruit of truth.
22oct states in part "there is always risk of educational indoctrination which can easily turn one who is weak in faith away from a childlike simple faith and trust in God." Seems to me there is a fear of truth expressed there. When you 22oct, fly as a passenger in my son's airliner where he is captain, his having all the facts and education possible gives you confidence to have him drive your plane. But your religious faith is better off not being informed?
Now we are back to addiction as the only way to account for devotion to EGW.
It is very interesting that any mention of the Investigative Judgement, Dan 8;14, and in this case Apocalyptic Adventism, generates huge comment. The subject obviously runs deep in the emotional veins of Adventism. As a life long SDA, I have read most of the authors who have written of these matters. I have seldom, if ever been satisfied, and as time has gone on, have even been even less satisfied. In spite of what has often been said about 1844 period, it seems to me to be obvious that there was a tremendous outpouring of the Holy Spirit during this time. Before there ever was an SDA there was a huge awakening world wide in many,many churches and in the various mission stations around the world. They thought Jesus was coming again as He had promised before He left this earth.
Many including myself have expected Christ to have come long ago. Why has He not?
Many have written about our history, often with distortion, and a very poor understanding of matters. A couple of years ago, I came across a rather large book, which is not in most of our ABC's and is unknown to most SDA's. This was the first author who looked at matters in their full context of events , chronologically as they had happened, and from how God was looking at matters as revealed through the visions of EGW. It was wrtten with out angst or attitude. And for me at least it has been one of the most important books I have read outside of the Bible. It is deep, requires careful reading, but I now understood what has happened in Adventism–we have done just like Israel of old – been wandering in the desert due to our Laodicean condition. And there is no 8th church, so we wander, and have many problems in the church as well as many misunderstandings, and many have been hurt, become bitter, discouraged etc.. But I think there is hope, and with a new generation on the stage I think there will develop a better understanding of the true Gospel of Jesus Christ and of what real Righteous By Faith is. I hope for that.
The book I refer to is "The Return Of The Latter Rain" by Ron Duffield. One can Google it and locate where to buy it. I would encourage all searching, and serious ones to get it, digest it thoroughly,and read the end of each chapter foot notes.
Simple Believer
Prophecy is not predictive, (I have learned from some posts here!) However, when JC returns you will be able to look back and make sense of the prophecies, and with a sigh of relief, tell me and a host of others, "see, I told you so." Christ's return has been "soon" for two thousand years. Still must be. Right now, all you have is dreamsville.
And this new generation you speak of, as far as I can tell, is racing full speed away from your view. Apocalyptics is not on their smart phone screens.
It is interesting that you bring this up, because I just recently heard about it but have not read it. Considering the context at the time, I suspect it is a good book with much insight. I will check on it.
As for the time element, I can't imagine that prideful humans can make a difference about when Christ will come. The Bible says He wants more to be saved–I'm not exactly sure what that means other than more people born to populate the new earth. I have never been concerned about the time element, because God is in control. Of course, He always comes at the end of our lives–maybe that is partly what this immanent return means. I don't think Christ really is delaying His coming–it is what it is meant to be.
Ella–I likewise, have always understood along this line of reasoning–that Christ would come when we had preached the gospel to the whole world. I find my understanding has somewhat shifted, especially as I understaad better the issues we have struggled with in Adventism. Leaving it up to "us" is in fact very egotistical, and perhaps only part of the story.Christ died for the whole world, and if we do not resist His love, we will keep responding and coming closer to Him and His love, even if we have never heard the "name" of Christ. Sometimes we as Christians do not realize how naked we are, and do not realize we need Christ's garments of righteousness to cover us. What I find exciting is, in talking with others, and even listening to some from other Christian groups, I am wondering if we are maybe on the cusp of the possibility of the outpouring of the Latter Rain in the near future. Hopefully the "Bride" will finally get ready for His coming.
In the 1888 plus period, the Latter Rain started, and there even was a Sunday bill in the US Senate, but God's leaders were for the most part arguing, unspiritual and as rebellious as Korah Dathan and Abiram. Sad. And so God still waits for a Bride desiring to be clothed in His garments.
If you get Ron Duffields book I do think you will not be disappointed. I know others have felt like I have- it has been THE most important book I have read in many years–and I do read a lot of books.
I'm trying to determine what marker you see for this "latter rain" (whatever that might be) in 1888.
The prophecies of Daniel hold no meaning for those who realize that it was foretelling the time of the Macabees, and has no relevance to anyone living more than 2,000 years later. It makes no difference as to a Christian's salvation else God, in His ultimate omniscience, would have clearly told His believers before He ascended that more that 1800 years he was planning a momentous move from one room of a building there, to another. Is the building also built of gold, or was it pearls?
Has anyone the slightest bit of evidence of a physical change in heaven? Does anyone know the exact location? Does anyone claim that He know precisely where God is at any given time?
This prophecy only meant a very opportunistic explanation for the failure that was made previously of Christ's returning from heaven on the exact month and year of earth time. JWs and Mormons have their sources, also. Why are SDA sources superior to other prophetic interpretation? Those who accept it are called "Believers" because there is not the slightest bit of evidence, so they simply believe what they were taught.
Carry on.
If this is what 'more educated' and 'informed' persons think of Daniel Chapter 2 (and possibly the rest of the Bible) then I rest my case.
Or are there any other takers on Daniel Chapter 2 from the 'progressive' camp?
The Adventist Church considers it a prophecy with apocalyptic meaning for it speaks of the 'latter days' [Dan 2:28] when God shall destroy the kingdoms of this world [Dan 2:44].
Dismissing facts by defaming the "more educated and informed persons" is a feeble attempt by a couple of true believers to kill the messenger. 22oct appears to be admitting they ain't educated or informed and have no interest in knowing that they are continuing to live the 150 year old Great Disappointment. Daniel's prophetic marching band led by a few blind souls consisting of a bent trumpet and a frayed bass drum march on in a lonely pathetic parade with no one watching.
One can march down memory lane as much as they wish, but impugning critics doesn't bring one soul to their parade.
I was about to suggest to "22Oct" that his distain for "the more educated and informed" reveals more about him than anything else, but Bugs', I mean Mr. Boshell's, comment that "Daniel's prophetic marching band led by a few blind souls consisting of a bent trumpet and a frayed bass drum march on in a lonely pathetic parade with no one watching . . . march(ing) down memory lane" sums it up much better than I could possibly do.
I have not made attacks on education per se. It is the haughty arrogance of some educated intellectuals who brag about how their 'more education' has greatly benefitted their skepticism and thereby qualify them to condescendingly assert that those in third world countries only embrace Adventism because they are gullible due to being 'less educated.' It is this intellectual arrogance which I take exception to. They even go as far as making secular education the sole qualifier of biblical truth and in so doing they deny the work of the Holy Spirit.
I also said that: "Of course (thank God!) – not all well educated people think or act this way" – which some may have missed.
In your evaluation of arrogance, check the image in your mirror.
You believe what you, do, EGW, SDA, etc., because you like her and it. Creating a straw dog (something you create so you can destroy it) that is, casting some educated intellectuals as being negatively affected by "more education" towards skepticism doesn't help make your belief any more attractive, or believable.
I invite you to show me what there is about your belief that should attract me back to the SDA church.
One having a haughty arrogant manner, always shooting down the beliefs of sincere souls exercising their reason for life, may also have fewer members in their band, marching in the opposite direction, tooting on their tubas. Let all believe in upholding the dignity of others. Being at peace with ones belief & wishing the same for others, is recognition of the efficacy of the Golden Rule.
Sorry Larry :)) Just as a pun, your comical expression was most visual, as Ervin also got a chuckle from. i was certain you had a fertile comical nature.
Take out apocalyptism from Adventists and what have you got? Christians who worship on another day and follow the Kosher diet (hmm, sounds like Jews who accept Christ).
"It is the haughty arrogance of some educated intellectuals …."
Anyone who hasn't learned the importance of living by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God, I don't think the word "educated" applies, from a Christian education standpoint.
There many aspects and details of Prophecy that can be historically verified and there are many that cannot. So it is always prudent to not interpret too far out, or speak in detail beyond the context. But that we often get things wrong (past/present) does not invalidate the many solid interpretations and historical fulfillments that are unexplainable but by Divine Revelation.
Skeptics’ attempts to deny fulfilled prophecy and Divine Revelation in Daniel have failed. Especially this is so with attempts to make Daniel 2nd Century BC document, as the best scholarship Today confirms the 6th Century BC date. The "educated" should know this!
Would Mr. Lindensmith please provide some references for what he considers the "best scholarship today" that "confirms the 6th Century BC date" of the Book of Daniel? Two books by recognized scholars in this field who are not tied to some denominational tradition would be nice..
Ranald: I appreciate your post.
The idea that ALL Christians must be required to understand and interpret bible prophecy the same way or be considered a renegade or unfaithful, doesn't make sense. Especially the 1844 I.J./Sanctuary doctrine that has so many assumptions and divisive interpretaions.
What SIN is one commiting if you believe that Jesus has had free run in the heavenly sanctuary or if he's been locked in the MOST HOLY PLACE compartment since 1844?:
Prophecy should never be made a DOCTRINE of absolutes in the first place! Does it make a lot of sense that all Christians should be required to understand everything in the bible the same way or be classed as a heretic of some kind? Or worse yet, BE LOST!
Does it not enter the mind of some people that Ellen White could possibly be wrong about some things?
We need to "search the scriptures to see if these things be so" Acts 17:11 to study for ourselves and not accept unbiblical teaching from anyone else no matter who they may are.
To be disfellowshipped or defrocked for not seeing eye to eye on non essential biblical beliefs is absurd!
The way some members have been treated in this denomination for having a different opinion on some of Daniel's prophecies, is beyond belief!
I have to admire the pastors and church leaders who have had the gumption to give up everything held dear to them, (career, friends, etc) for standing up against what they sincerely believe to be unbiical truth. Isn't that what many Christians went to the stake or the guillotine for?
Jesus said: John 5:24 "serve and believe on him and you have eternal life" That's the gospel.
That's what we as Christians must all agree on.
Jeanne,
Well said! Where people lose their focus on Jesus, the church stumbles and falls. Wherever I look in the SDA Church if the primary focus is on detailed understanding of prophecy, end time events and dissection of EGW statements, the church is dying. If the focus is on Jesus, it more often is growing. Unfortunately there seems there are far more of the first group. But, I guess it is fortunate that they're dying because that means the won't be around forever and the Gospel will one day reign supreme.
I see it differently. Wherever so-called progressives have had their way the church is waning. In other words where the traditional core teachings of Adventism have been trampled upon, that is where the church is dying. Cheap Grace always loses focus on Jesus whilst claiming otherwise.
Hello October,
Thanks for reminding us of Cheap Grace.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote that "Cheap Grace is the grace one bestows upon ourselves." I've read the rest of the quote too … "Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession…. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate."
That said, I like his opening line all by itself. Cheap Grace is the grace one bestows upon ourselves.
Indeed, Cheap Grace does exactly as you note; it loses focus on Jesus while claiming the merits of repentance, baptism, church discipline, confession, and discipleship.
Paul sets it right. We have been saved (past tense in Paul's day and thus his writing) by grace, we understand this mighty truth by faith, and there is none of ourselves in this (including repentance, baptism, church discipline, confession, and discipleship), err we have room to boast of what we have bestowed upon ourselves.
This is not progressive.
This is reformation all over again.
Adventism does not need the apocalypse to embrace the second coming of Jesus. Indeed, as Jon Pauline, Seventh-day Adventism's formost scholar of John, both the Gospel and the Revelation, explaines in the preface to his 2007 daily devotional published by the Review and Herald, The Gospel from Patmos, Jesus declared that the only sign of his second coming would be his second coming. The author also noted in the same preface that prophecy is primarily a guide in daily living rather than future telling and associated planning.
For those believing they are saved by grace, pure and simple, the Second Coming is a simple given and cause joy in the moment, in the day, every day.
That said, there is reason to believe that God rewards faith wherever He finds it, the 1844 fiasco being a landmark confirmation. How more glorious can one's religioius history be than from Aamazing Error to Amazing Grace without the loss of a single soul.
Of course we need our history. It is just that we will do well to no more be limited by it than early Christians were limited by Judiasm, as challenging as that transitioni was. We still read both Testaments. And find them good for the conversations we continue to have.
We do not, however, attempt to fit our lives into scripture. Not at all. We attempt to experience the meaning of God in our lives, just as scripture records the similar efforst of so many who have gone before us.
As Jesus noted, it is the Hold Spirit, not the scripture, that He promised to the future generations. And no, he wasn't proclaiming Gnosticism. There is no abandoning of the real world for the spiritual world or the future world.
Quite the opposite.
The future is not the past, and of all Christian bodies, Seventh-day Adventists are amazingly positioned, perhaps even prophetically positioned, to step out of Babylon in compelling fashion and in ways the Patmos See'er may well be urging were he with us today, and indeed is in word and in spirit.
There is another interpreation of what large parts of First World Adventism are up to these days which is not that "Adventism is losing its way." Parts of First World Adventism are in the process of moving away from its historical fundamenalist, sectarian origins and moving toward a mature denominational stage of instituional development. It is not a straight line development. The movement was vigorous in the from about 1960 to the early 1990s and then a conservative reaction has emerged attempting to halt or slow it down, e.g., the Adventist Theological Society, the election of the current GC President, publications such as Dr.Knight, and the current editional policy of the Adventist Review and Adventist World.. But this is just a temporary set back.The process will continue. Whether it will eventually result in an open institutional split is debatable. In most other modern churches, it has. But what form it will take in institutional Adventism is difficult to predict. The theological split has already occurred and functionally in First World Adventism there are three or four types of Adventism already in existence each strongly represented.at various institutional centers. An open institutinal split is another thing. If the GC administration handles the women's ordination problem badly, that is something whcih might start the process going. .
I think the day to day function of belief for the average SDA member leaves them oblivious to the details and the nuances of prophetical interpretations. Belief functions as a segment of life that is mostly settled as a structure, and like a car with a couple of cranky noises, gets you where you want to go. The very devout don't like the noise and tend to blame critics for the sand being poured in the gears by "highly educated, unbelievers."
Point is, after one hundred fifty years, the church trundles along on seven prophetical cylinders and will probably do so for the foreseeable future. Like Mark Twain said about himself, the early reports of his death were greatly exaggerated.
There is a much bigger monster lurking in the conservative Christian world, and that is the advances in modern astronomy and physics that establish that creation and decay is a full time occupation of the universe. There are at least billions of planets and stars in various stages of conglomeration, creation, and destruction as a normal function of gravity in the universe. Our world is a collection of flotsam from exploded stars that gravity has congealed over several billion years to a place we, as parasites, hang on for dear life.
Genesis is a great allegory, but not fact. True believers can run out the door, slam it with curses of elevated angst at those horrible unbelievers, but as with Galileo, in the long term, facts trump belief.
Coping with this reality means the foundations of conservative Christian belief will need restructuring. Adventism is particularly eligible for review with the Sabbath, and other elements of the Genesis story, factually untrue. However, demonstrated by its inability to divorce itself from a silly 1844 mistake, the SDA church will simply try to ignore current facts.
Probably the best way to ease into this modern reality is for conservative religions to acknowledge that allegory (a form of myth) and metaphor is the language of faith and there is no real connection to language as fact. Ouch. There is no sugar coating to ease that pill down the hatch.
Concerning the idea of the creation story as metaphor, that can be a place to start, for story can be a way of teaching truth. (I am not saying this is my stand, but I see it as a way to begin a spiritual journey if one cannot accept it as fact–we really have no way of knowing what the writers of Genesis thought–they were not scientists.)
My basis for saying this is that it is more important to believe what something means than if it actually happened as related. And that takes time and study and prayer. the foremost purpose of the Bible is to point forward to Christ who saved "all from the foundation of the world." To know God; that He is love is the big picture. All else comes after. God asks only that we be willing to listen (humility); "taste and see that the Lord is good" and not reject His story.
It's not accepting Bible stories as fact or not, but having them change your attitude and treatment of people in one's life–to learn the meaning of love for God and humanity. That is what the Bible, especially the Gospel of Christ can do. It will all fit together as one glorious picture puzzle one day.
Excellent reply to my premise, Ella. Your last sentence is a nice religious hope, and I like it.
A church that is founded on the fulfillment of prophecies as they alone have interpreted them has strayed far from the one reason for Christianity's birth: The resurrected Jesus who was proclaimed as the Messiah. Anything distracting or replacing that central message is an adulteration of Christianity.
In all these prophetic interpretations, none universally accepted by Adventists, Christ has taken second place while the end times are the main emphasis for which they have become recognized. If correct interpretation of prophecy is to be the goal and qualifications for heaven, it has already become the idol which Adventism worships.
Larry, i love your style of precise picturesque speech. No one is in doubt of what you are expressing. However, some doubt the totality of your confidence in evolution as the origin & driving force of man and his destiny.
Only total SDA conservatives refuse to accept that the SDA church has an identity crisis, and a shism is in the offing, between NAD and the 3rd world church, which may have initial rumblings at the next general world meeting. The numbers are there for the 3rd world SDA to assume the leadership of the GC. Its certain the voting delegates will be thoroughly vetted to maintain control by the current hierarchy for another 5 years. But the internecine elements must be a reality already. The 3rd W. SDA have been thoroughly schooled in the traditional fundamentals, and may resent the current liberal trending of many NAD scholars& thought actives. Is there a strong liberal thought grouping of SDA in the 3rd world? Generally, it is most difficult for people to aver their inaccuracies, to say EYE was wrong, "not on my watch", because of the resulting turmoil, loss of friends, and as some, loss of employment & benefits.
Until some better, verifiable explanation comes along (if ever), evolution fits all the evidence.
If the foreign SDA church represents a more pure version of Adventism, which appears to be the case, along with the majority now being foreign, it would make sense for the control to go there. And it may be as much cultural as theological. As to the evolution of religious thought, there is natural tendency for liberalization to occur over time. That is illustrated in the journey of the SDA church. It is not stoppable. I would think the conservatives in this country have moved or are plotting to move to a branch outside the mainline that more closely adheres to tradition.
It will be interesting to see how all this works out.
Dr Taylor: ‘Parts of First World Adventism are in the process of moving away from its historical fundamenalist, sectarian origins and moving toward a mature denominational stage of institutional development.’
I really appreciate Dr Taylor’s recent comments, and as always those from fellow ideologue Elaine. Both of you have given me much to think about on and off for the last few days.
I guess the question I am most interested in is what this ‘mature denominational stage of institutional development’ of the Seventh-day Adventist Church envisioned by Dr Taylor will look like exactly? I would appreciate if he could expand his own views himself as to the actual shape (in terms of beliefs and practices) of this new, future Adventism – if it could even be called that.
In the interim, I give it a guess myself. If I understand the views of Dr Taylor and his close Elaine correctly (and happy for them to correct me if I misrepresent them, although they will probably continue a Fabien strategy of talking in riddles), this ‘mature’ denomination would seem in effect to contain the following elements:
Perhaps Dr Taylor’s vision for the future will become a reality. On that day, I might chose to join a group that still seems to believe in something.
Stephen,
Like many civic organizations and businesses, churches tend to have lifecycles. They are born in response to a catalyzing opportunity or event, grow, mature, decline and die. The problem with recognizing where you are in the lifecycle is being one stage behind so that where you think you are is really where you were. We may think we're in the maturity stage, but in the countries of the "first world" the Adventist church has already passed maturity and moved into decline where the evidence is found in the reasons you listed.
When people finally realize that an affiliation with a church is much less important than their own very personal beliefs, perhaps religious institutions will begin to fade for those people who have no need to be "joiners," and are very content in needing others to affirm their beliefs.
That day has already come: with fewer church-goers, and more individualism in one's beliefs in politics, religion, and government, churches are merely reflecting trends. We will never return to what some believe as "primitive Godliness" (if there were ever such a thing)
I am really impressed with the ability of Mr. Ferguson to extrapolate from my simple sociological observation about how religious institutions evolve over time to his very specific predictions about what a future mature Adventism might look like.
Take for example his view that in a mature Adventist Church: “The Bible will no longer be accepted as anything more than a construct of the ordinary human mind, rather than as a communication with the divine.”
I’m afraid that Mr. Fergusson here exhibits the problem of thinking in a binary fashion. It is a “either/ or” mind set, everything is either “black or white.” Unfortunately, the world is mostly shades of gray, complex mixtures of truths and errors at various levels of significance. The causes of most real world situations are “both/and . . . and . . .”
However, if I may quote an idea of a frequent contributor to Adventist Today and a fine Adventist theologian, Dr. Alden Thompson, the Bible should be regarded as a case book, not a code book. That’s a binary characterization, but it expresses an important idea.
May I suggest that in a mature Adventism of the future, the Bible will be, of course, be honored as the source of a place where humans have recorded their encounters with the Divine. But it is a human record, written by humans. As a source of the highest ethical standards, it ranks very high (Unfortunately, in parts of it, there are some ethical problems illustrated, but that’s because humans are involved.). However, the Bible will not be regarded as an infallible source of knowledge about scientific matters or historical fact. Since humans wrote about their experiences and humans are fallible, the records of their encounters with the Divine are not error free.
I am honored to have been associated with Elaine in Mr. Ferguson’s view. If I am as sharp mentally at her age as she is, that would be something to look forward to with positive anticipation. However, she and I must have different opinions on various religious topics. Right now I can’t think of any that have been expressed on this forum, but let me think about that for a while and I might be able to come up with something.
I did say I was happy for Dr Taylor to clarify his view – on the place of the Bible and other FBs. Perhaps he would be so kind to do so here or in his next post.
Dr Taylor: 'I am honored to have been associated with Elaine in Mr. Ferguson’s view. If I am as sharp mentally at her age as she is, that would be something to look forward to with positive anticipation. However, she and I must have different opinions on various religious topics. Right now I can’t think of any that have been expressed on this forum, but let me think about that for a while and I might be able to come up with something.'
My understanding (and Elaine can correct me) is that she subscribes to many of the views of John Shelby Spond and other Christian-existentialists who attempt to rationalise-demythologise the Bible and religion (largely started by Rudolf Bultmann and embrace my many Anglican and Lutheran Liberal scholars). Perhaps Dr Taylor could be so kind as to 'cut to the chase' and tells us if this largely represents his world view also?
Would Dr Taylor likewise agree or disagree with John Shelby Spong's 12 points:
I think that some have missed a very important bit of information regarding the church and it's future. Christ is the head of the church and even the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The church is bought with his precious blood and mankind has only one way to receive salvation and be set free from the disastrous effects of sin: through Christ alone. There is no other name and no other way by which we are saved. The future of his church is therefore in his hands and lies not in any sociological evolutionary or engineered process. Jesus is God. He is alive. He will be victorious and his church shall prevail.
Perhaps "22Oct" is confusing the invisible Church as the Body of Christ, i.e., "The Church" with the modern Seventh-day Adventist denomination (or Roman Catholic or one of the Buddist denominations, etc.). They are obviously not the same.
All religious denominations of whatever tradition are human institutions and human institutions evolve through various stages. Come back in 500 years and many Christian denominations including the SDA Church will be extinct or will have evolved into forms that will be very different from what we see now.
There may certainly be overlap in "membership" as there is overhap in membership in all Christian denominations and in other non-Christain religioius traditions but no human can tell who is in (or out) of "The Church." That Church is indeed not operating on any sociological or evolutionary process.
Or perhaps "22Oct" believes the current SDA institutional denominational church is The [Remnant] Church." I hope not..
Hello October,
How about a defination of your use of the word 'church'? Is it denomination, congregation, Christians, or another concept? Or are several options covered in the paragraph here? "Church" is used 111 times in the KJV as listed here http://bit.ly/14B2fgF The meanings are different across the list, though the word remains spelled the same. Related, though different … as in, I attended the live concernt near where I live.
I am not in any way suggesting that Jesus is less than preeminant in all things, though rarely evident, we seeing always through a glass darkly, that is, without being able to detail the image we tacitly know to be returing our gaze.
In this look there is pure, church-free truth, if you will. And while the church prevails, it does not endure, being left behind at the second coming, an artifact of untransformed humanity, of interest though not eternal.
Do not be discouraged. You are right. The gates of hell have no power over those whom Jesus came to save from death. You are free.
http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=church&version1=KJV&searchtype=all&limit=none&wholewordsonly=
no&resultspp=500&displayas=long&sort=bookorder
————–
I didn't post the link – but since you asked, just copy and past all of the above in your browser's address bar. Or, go to http://www.biblegateway.com and do a search for church.
The Biblical Greek word translated from the New Testament as "church" was a mistranslation. It actually meant the "gathered ones," or "assembly". It meant a group of persons organized together for a common purpose.
The word church as now commonly understood didn't come into use until about the 16th Century. In Acts 7:38 a reference is made to Israel as the ekklesia (congregation) in the wilderness. Not at all a church in the modern sense.
In other words, the popular concept of church does not apply to the Testament times. Christ didn't create a church. Peter didn't either. The concept of denomination, hierarchies of belief, came much later, specifically when Catholicism and Protestantism divorced.
Christ as head of the church as an applied term is a late comer to the religious scene. You can extrapolate your religious organization to the beginning of Christianity, but it is not supported by the facts.Your "church" and the "church" of the New Testament are not the same.
Thanks, Larry
You are at once informative and insightful.
In reading all the comments I can sympathize with each one. I was raised as a very conservative and rigid Adventist. Over the years I have greatly mellowed. I have come to realize that if we concentrate on the trees in the forest we will never agree. There are too many different kinds of trees. What we need to focus on is the forest. So what is the forest for the Christian. And I do write from a Christian perspective.
First, what did Jesus say was the forest, the core? Life is made up of two parts: behaviors and attitudes. When the Jewish leaders asked Jesus which was the greatest of the commandments—behaviors he responded with attitude—relationships.
“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:38-40).
As part of his last message to his disciples he clearly laid out the forest, what a follower of Christ would look like, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (John 13:34-35). The true believer is shown by how he or she loves (cares for, accepts as they are) other people, relationship always trumps behavior. Yet, just like the forest you need both. A forest without trees would not be a forest. Relationship without behavior would be non-existence.
Shifting from Jesus as the founder of the Christian church to Ellen White one of the founders of the Adventist church. She wrote, “Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, ‘Behold your God.’ The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love. The children of God are to manifest His glory. In their own life and character they are to reveal what the grace of God has done for them” (Christ’s Object Lessons, pp. 415, 416).
She also wrote, “A loving, lovable Christian is the most powerful argument in
favor of the truth.” (Manuscript Releases Volume Twenty-one, p. 25).
Salvation is not based on behavior but on attitude, relationship, “The just shall live by faith” (Romans 1:17).
If we narrow our discussion more to the forest rather than the trees we might find it easier to reach common ground.
Common ground, consensus is not important. Your journey is yours, it is a singular trip.You like your conclusions, that is enough.
Every idea, concept, or belief has consensus, common ground for some, no matter how reasonable or harebrained or evil.
The Christian stew of ideas has innumerable convictions stirring in the kettle. Common ground, like the desire for peace in the world is unattainable.
If verification of your experience is what you seek in the name of common ground, you will, on some scale, surely find it. It may make you feel good, but it won't elevate your experience to a universal standard.
Your response is rather strange. Since you say that common ground is unattainable I wonder why you bother to post on this website. It seems that you do not want people to agree with you since common ground is unattainable so what is your point?
You figured me out. Being challenged is much more fun than being on common ground, that is, agreed with.
Wack away, challenge my premises. Calling them, it, me, strange doesn't cut it. There are three postulates in my post. Force me to defend them.
I have been down this road before with other people so I am not sure how productive this will be. But I will give it a shot.
Postulate 1: "Common ground, consensus is not important." The American political system seems to be following this postulate. We have gridlock. No laws, no progress would happen if there was not meeting point. For example: Even in Congress, there is common ground that they have to vote and the minority will accept the will of the majority. So you need to elaborate a little more.
Postulate 2. "Every idea, concept, or belief has consensus, common ground for some, no matter how reasonable or harebrained or evil. " No debate. I agree.
Postulate 3. "Common ground, like the desire for peace in the world is unattainable." You need to define peace. I believe that peace is a universal desire. It may be on my terms but the vast majority of people dohn't want to hide in bunkers afraid of a nuclear attack or chemical attack.
1. Your reply is that consensus should be important.
2. We agree.
3. Unless you define peace as the status quo, peace under any definition is not possible. You state that it ought to be attainable.
My premises have withstood your challenges!
Bugs, it seems you see religion wholly as an individual experience. I agree that is part of the picture – but not the whole picture. Religion, especially Christianity, also involves a community of faith. In fact, the very discipline of theology (at least according to Alister McGrath) involves a communication about God through a community of faith; whereas, religious philosophy (literally where we get the notion of heresy, before that word became prejorative) involves wholly a personal search for God.
For theology there must be consensus.
I think I can say, with equal validity, that there must not be consensus in theology. Why? Since belief is not factually based, it doesn't need consensus to be valid for a person. Consensus doesn't create "truth" (or falsehood), only debate points, so theology travels equally well with our without it.
A consensus of belief is an egotistical celebration. That fits my paradigm of belief being what you like. How ego? When you have arrived at some theological understanding and you discover someone that shares your view, you have a back slapping, feel good moment. Nothing wrong with that, but you don't have a factual moment to celebrate your unity.
A unity of faith is when a group of people with the same opinion or belief have a common emotion created by the harmony of their group think. Nothing wrong with that, either, if you like that. Perhaps that is what you mean when write: "the very discipline of theology . . .involves a communication about God through a community of faith." I don't deny there is a social component of value to belief, but I wouldn’t go any further than that.
I do believe the arrival at "truth" in a religious sense is a solitary enterprise.
My good friend David Newman asks why someone posts on this web site believing that common ground is unobtainable in contemporary Adventist. I assume that David believes it to be obtainable. He knows Adventism as well as any of us, perhaps better. I wonder if he could tell us what would be the "common ground" that all shades of Adventism could agree on? .. .
Erwin, I thought my post was pretty clear. Could we not all agree that love is a foundational concept?
Just so we are all clear on to what we are agreeing. I assume that is (1): "A loving, lovable Christian is the most powerful argument in favor of the truth" and (2) "Salvation is not based on behavior but on attitude.".
I really hate to be a negative voice here, but it seems to me that there are a couple of "minor details" in the first statement that could use some further refinement before we all sign off that there is a consensus centered on these two statement.
For example, any time the words, "the truth" is used, I think we need to be sure we are all on the same page about what that means. I think it is a hopeful sign that the words used are "the truth" not "the Truth." Would anyone obfect to "A loving,.lovable Christian is the most powerflkul argument in favor of Christianity,"? .
With regard to the second statement, we should be able to go with "Salvation is not based on behavior, but on attitude."
Now I wonder if our traditionalist friends would agree to these two statements?
Erv. Thank you for the clarification. I agree.
David. Great! Now that we have a consensus/agreement on these two points, it should be relatively simple to get a consensus/agreement on less important points.
Mr. Ferguson says "For theology there must be consensus." Consensus about what?
Language itself is a form of consensus (we largely agree with what different words mean, although those words evolve, and there is a spectrum of understanding, such as US vs UK/Aus spelling), which is necessary for meaningful dialogue.
Theology requires a 'community of faith'. If you are wholly thinking of private religious belief, I believe that is better characterised as 'philosophy'. I believe the original understanding of the word 'heresy', before it was considered prejorative, meant someone who believed things wholly privately outside of stated 'schools' of thought.
For there to be meaningful dialogue for Christian theology, I would guess the 'consensus' would have to be belief in the NT Cannon and acceptance of something approaching the Nicene Creed.
If there are no 'ground rules' there can be no 'theology', as theology is literally dialogue about God. You can personally believe what you like, but you can't communicate those views to others without shared language.
That is my point.
Mr. Mcleish's comment about consensus seems exactly on point. Unless, there is an agreement/consensus on a method of interpreation, achieving agreement/consensus is probably impossible. I would sincerely appreciate it if Mr. Mcleish or anyone else would care to suggest a comprhensive list of of methods of interpreation that might be considered.
And I would similarly appreciate if Dr Taylor likewise shared his views on the subject.
David and Ervin,
The idea that attitude determins qualification for salvation is troubling in that attitude was the original issue. The general thesis is that the original issue could not be resolved in any technical way because the attitude was the accusation that God is arbitrary and not in the least gracious.
Perhaps, and I'm just imagining here, the judgement determins not who will be saved but that everyone who is saved does not deserve being etermally with God rather than utterly destroyed. Such an outcome affirms to the universe once and for all that God is not arbitrary and is utterly gracious.
Does not John declare that Jesus makes it possible for God to save the world? Without exception is the implication and I think the inference, though that certainly raises a host of concerns if one embraces scripture in certain ways, as well as depending on resolving Ellen G. Whites many comments across her lifetime. And if there are exceptions, especially if the exceptions are claimed to be by reason of their having failed an attitude measure, then we are back to God being arbitrary and lacking graciousness and having to appeal to the universe to simply, Trust Me on this. And those not immediately destoryed will live in eternal fear that at some future point God will delcare their attitude worthy of destruction.
And God will be between the rock and the hard place that always arises when love becomes a theory graciousness an explanation rather than both experienced as in unimaginable ways the utter demonstration of God's character, for lack of a word that actually will rise above anthropromorphism.
Job touches on this issue. God delcares that Job has no idea, and thus neither do we, of what this life is all about, let alone what God is about. Perhaps we will know in ways not possible in passing through judgement. Surely whatever we think at this point, including this meager effort, comes hugely short of the mark, itself a description of sin. How can attitude, all things considered, possible justify our salvation or the destruction of the unsaved.
Let's say we just agree that The strongest argument in favor of the gospel is a loving and lovable Christian.
And in light of that, what instigates anyone becoming a loving and lovable Christian?
Believing by faith that God created and will saved the world though His Son Jesus Christ.
Bill,
Great points well-stated. Thank you for reminding us that it is all about God and our role in the movie is playing bit-parts, or even being "extras" in the background.
The Book of Job keeps reminding me of just how far God is above sin-filled humanity. I love the way God's questions remind Job (and us) of His power. Those "Where were you when I…?" questions are impossible for any human to answer without revealing their hubris.
And that part about being a loving and lovable Christian. Oh, the truth of that statement! I was reminded this morning of the time one of my Angel Team volunteers asked me to do an appraisal of a house he had visited to see what repairs we might do. The repair needs were so many and so severe that my conclusion was the house needed a bulldozer, which it eventually got. Still, God showed us many ways that we could show His love to the lonely, embittered, 60+ woman living there. Over several years we saw God's love transform her. Do you know what was the most significant thing that opened her eyes to God's love? Her teeth were so rotted that she had exactly four intact teeth left in her mouth. God provided a way to replace them with dentures. I wish you could have seen the smile she flashed showing-off that first complete set of teeth she'd had in her entire adult life! The change we saw God work in her was amazing.
I think Dr Taylor must have missed my ealier comment:
Dr Taylor: 'I am honored to have been associated with Elaine in Mr. Ferguson’s view. If I am as sharp mentally at her age as she is, that would be something to look forward to with positive anticipation. However, she and I must have different opinions on various religious topics. Right now I can’t think of any that have been expressed on this forum, but let me think about that for a while and I might be able to come up with something.'
My understanding (and Elaine can correct me) is that she subscribes to many of the views of John Shelby Spong and other Christian-existentialists who attempt to rationalise-demythologise the Bible and religion (largely started by Rudolf Bultmann and embrace my many Anglican and Lutheran Liberal scholars). Perhaps Dr Taylor could be so kind as to 'cut to the chase' and tells us if this largely represents his world view also?
Would Dr Taylor likewise agree or disagree with John Shelby Spong's 12 points:
As a recap for the context, I am still waiting with strong interest for Dr Taylor to further explain what his 'mature' denomination of the SDA Church is supposed to look like.
Dr Taylor He seems to have rejected my estimate of his views (gleaned from many comments over the years), so I wait for him to enlighten us all on his approach to: the Bible (divine or human-only origin); Jesus (historical person or myth); supernatural-miracles (possible or impossible); Resurrection of Jesus (true and factual historical-corporeal event or pious fraud via a mental hallucination); life after death (possible or impossible); 2nd Coming (future historical event or world without end); Ellen White (true visions from God or pious fraud via mental hallucination)?
Or will Dr Taylor hide his views and engage in endless riddles to distract (a common debating technique) as some hide their names? As to comparisons with Elaine, I do give her much credit for her candour.
A priori or posteriori doesn't matter. There is no old or new light in regard to prophecy. There is no evidence to support any interpretation of Daniels prophecy except what is manufactured by active imaginations. I'm satisfied that the battle of Little Big Horn is a good interpretation of the prophecy. Did Glacier View take that into consideration?
My point is that interpretations of prophecy have entertainment value only. To elevate past that is to verify Michael Schemer premise: The Believing Brain—How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths.
Where prophecy is the issue, conglomerating piles of information on top of a thesis is like stacking a ton of feathers on top of a stick hoping an arrow will be created. Divining of prophecy has no weight, it is only guesswork.
Party on soothsayers! Get them details worked out!
Correction: Michael Schemer name is actually Michael Shermer. And his book is actually entitled: The Believing Brain. The subtitle is: From Ghosts, Gods, and Aliens to Conspiracies, Economics. and Politics–How the Brain Constructs Beliefs and Reinforces Them as Truths.
Borrowed the spelling and the title from the Ranald Maleash post. If RM can't get this correct, is the rest of his post any more believable?
When I wrote of the church earlier I meant it in terms of 'ekklesia' – a 'called out' gathering or assembly of believers [Matt 16:18; Acts 2:47; Acts 7:38; Acts 8:1; Matt 11:28; Rev 18:4]. This to me would imply organization – and unity, in faith and belief – in Christ. This calling out also refers to those who are saved and are baptized believers in Christ and join together with His church organization which ties in with 'fold' and also the usage of 'woman' and 'remnant' used in prophecy.
The church is also called the body of Christ of which Christ is the Head [Eph 5:23; Col 1:18]. Again this implies organization and unity stemming from the Headship of Christ who purchased the church with his blood [Acts 20:28]. The church is the bride of Christ [Rev 19:7-9]. Jesus speaks of one Shepherd and one fold as well as others not of this fold who belong to Him and who hear his voice and come out and join His fold (or church) [John 10:11, 16, 27].
The remnant Church of Rev 12:17 is the church into which those who come out of Babylon can find refuge in. It is not an exclusive body but an inclusive mainline evangelical church which heralds the Third Angels Message. Seventh-day Adventists fulfill this apocalyptic church role. Christ is Head of this church too for without Him there is no church [John 15:5].
You have missed or are ignoring the point that the ekklesia was not organized, didn't imply organization. The synagogues were the organized conclaves of the day. Those who liked Christ's teachings were scattered about and appearantly got together informally, eventually became the "group of believers," ekklesia. Belief and unity undoubtedly was a hodgepodge of ideas and beliefs. It is suspected, with some evidence, that there were lots of documents, scrolls, floating around that were read and probably debated. There was no New Testament, no Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. They didn't show up, as near as can be ascertained, for at least one hundred fifty years after Christ.
You interpretation of the term "church" wasn't ekklesia and didn't come into use until the about fifteen hundred years later.
Sorry, the "remnant church" you are reading into these scriptures is not your church, nor any concept of church you are proposing.
You can claim the SDA church is the remnant church of prophecy if you wish, but it is a proposition supported only by imagination and wishful thinking.
Quoting EGW may make you feel good, but her pronouncements have no validity outside your little circle.
Furthermore it is proposed that a deeper understanding of how the brain operates will provide additional armour for God's people in the last great battle, as the battle is for the mind, and the issue is truth verses error.
This makes sense to me. I do believe God and the adversary use natural methods to impress our minds. I don't see God as on the side of either liberal or conservative–they both have valid points to make and share. We are who we are, and both can be kind loving Christians. We have learned a lot more about the brain in recent years–how meditation works and relaxes body and mind; how "feelings" can be changed; the fact that a person can be "mentally ill" or disabled in some way but still be a Christian; how medication can help mental conditions; the chemistry behind NEDs and similar experiences; and that there is no one who can be trusted to be totally objective no matter how intelligent.
As I just stated to Ranald above, I don't understand the nature of the "last great battle.". What is the truth/error component that involves the mind? And you apparently see some consequences of the battle. What?
I think I owe you a bit of an apology. I thought you may have purposely misspelled Shermer's name as a method of diminishing his work. Sorry! It appears that was not the case, just an honest mistake on your part. As a snide reply I purposely misspelled yours. Apology again!
I continue to think that several of your premises are faulty including the one that states. "little hope of consensus, or unity, within the Church until the principle of the a posteriori method is accepted and applied…" The prior problem is your hope, or possibility, of a methodology (posteriori) that might eventually be adopted to move thought in a particular direction your desire. The hope of unity of any kind is a pipe dream. Even realized, what would be accomplished? Consensus based on belief is still belief, Consensus cannot create "truth" unless the definition of "truth" is part of the consensus. But even then it is "truth" only to the consenters.
I don't understand the nature of the "last great battle.". What is the truth/error component that involves the mind? And you apparently see some consequences of the battle. What?
As I understand it, most evangelical Christians see Armageddon (the last Battle) as literal and that Israel will be involved. Therefore, it is a political/religious battle between nations. While there may be real wars in the Middle East in the future, I don't see the end-time battle as literal between nations.
The nature of the end-time battle, if we follow the symbolism of Revelation (the symbols are obviously not to be taken literally, even though some do, i.e. JWs and others), is a battle between good and evil, Christ and Satan, love and hate, honesty and pretense, etc. It is a time of choice for all humanity. Of course, all make choices in their lives on some level and thus death is their Armageddon, but this battle seems to be worldwide and simultaneous.
Consequences would be the Judgement Day of the Lord, noted over and over in the Bible, that would show what is in the heart of each individual and if they are "safe to save" in a new world. Obviously if they weren't, we would all be back in the same hell again if they were allowed to live. Because all have sinned, only Christ's righteousness can save those who do not reject Him or His love. Love changes the evil heart and thus changes behavior.
For two thousand years the end time has been the subject of prophecy analyzers. Nothing has happened yet that fits any diviners expectations. Leads me to reaffirm my premise that predictions based on prophecy is for entertainment value only.
The model you have (and all the others) of the end events is a purely mental construct devoid of reality. It doesn't matter one scintilla what evangelical Christians propose (or anyone else) events of time never happen as predicted.
The natural threats to our world represent a much greater threat than any supposed intervention of deity. If Yellowstone returns to super volcano activity, if an unexpected asteroid crashes earth, if a solar blast from the sun strikes a a bulls eye on earth, if a charged beam from outer space lands squarely on earth, if we blow ourselves up with nuclear war, if a maverick germ, without control invades us all, those are real threats without "benefit" of bible prophecy.
Where are the dinosaurs? Probably wiped out by an asteroid. Point: what threatens life on earth has a history, it has already happened in the past. Yellowstone has a traceable history of erupting about every 600,000 years and that has been about how long it has been since it last blew. Even as recent as 1816, the summer that never was in US, Atlantic Canada and parts of Western Europe experience summer snow, such cold weather, crops didn't grow. Three or four of those in a row would devastate human life.
We truly are parasites hanging on for dear life on a vehicle that wasn't designed for us or our protection and on which we are in constant threat.
Enjoy your musings prophecy fabricators. Advice from me, an ordinary skeptic, concentrate on the Golden Rule, on the teachings of Christ, so that your last memory, whatever happens, is being told you are loved or having given that heartfelt message to one of yours.
Do you really want your last memory to be the issue of Armageddon or of the little horn of Daniel?
Sorry, I honestly thought I was answering your question and didn't need a rebuttal–your views are all old news to me. You come across not as a skeptic, but as caustic. I don't deal with those sorts of writers as it is a waste of time. You are definitely not following the Golden Rule!
Ella, please take the "old news" and "sorts of writers" for what it is worth to you. This forum is a stage for discussion. No harm is intended. I assume if you are participating here you can give and receieve equally without hurt feelings or animosity. I expect you to ignore any future posts that I may add, so as not to waste any time.
There have been "doomsayers" since the first century, if not before. Every act of war or terror is seen as the "beginning of the end," and yet we are still here, fighting wars, killing other humans and declaring this is the end. When people no longer are excited it's because it's been heard since childhood and nothing has changed: there are still wars and there are still each new generation of "prophetic utterances" of "This is THE Armageddon." Don't put money on it.
Wolf, wolf. No one notices or cares.
The conflict is a childish morality play invented by SDA's. Even if you acknowledge that it is an allegory, or a metaphor, or even a myth, it is bizarre. The SDA bible for it, The Great Controversy, has a most questionable history at the hands of EGW, whose ideas and writings in the book were clearly borrowed from others, without credit. More than that, to imagine the moral structure of the universe is being acted out like something from the WWF is not even a good joke.
Much of the hysteria it promotes is based on an anti-Catholic history based, to some degree, on excesses of that religion in the middle and dark ages the fear of which continued as a prominent part of Protestant thinking in the 1850's. Of course, SDA interpretation of prophecy continues to demonizes the papacy and the Catholic Church, even though not one of the evils supposedly to be leveled by it have happened or can happen.
Sixty three years ago, I was inculcated with terror of Catholicism and what it was soon to do to SDA's. My carpenter dad, who wasn't SDA, helped construct a new Catholic church and reported that there were no torture rooms constructed in the basement, much to me and my mothers' surprise.
I occasionally attend church with my Catholic wife (a testament to my love for her, not for any remote affection for Catholic theology) and I can report after visiting probably forty of those Catholic churches during our summer escapes from Arizona and our wanderings around Colorado and adjoing states) there is no news to report about hatred for SDA's. Sorry, no Sunday laws in the offing. They don't seem to have any concern about what day anyone keeps. The SDA church is so unimportant on the world stage, it is doubtful even the pope knows, or cares, who they are. They do have something in common with SDA churches, raising enough money to pay the bills and meet goals set by the bishops. And their sexual scandals have siphoned millions of dollars to meet lawsuits.
Ranald, don't you ever tire of the SDA shibboleths that are so mind-numbing? Why retreat to EGW quotes? Do you really think George Knights prescription is anything more than a deadly placebo for the renewal of Adventism?
The great controversy farce and anti-Catholicism are straw men that are totally neutering factors for whatever legitimacy the SDA church has.
Just because I address my prayers, "To whom it may concern…" you think I am agnostic?!? Hope you see the humor there.
My argument with concept of The Great Controversy, and I don't concede my premise that it is a phantom, childish morality play, etc., one bit, has a lot to do with the SDA concept and its imaginary role in the conclusion of the melodrama. I think it is nothing but a self serving device to think the SDA church is so important to be "remnant" and somehow to be on the stage for its version of the finale. And you haven't addressed the deadly proposition that the impotent Catholic Church is somehow part of the conspiracy that will elevate Adventism to martyr, or hero level in this melodrama. When I was an Adventist pastor I was continually struck with the dichotomy over how important I thought my church was and totally unknown and insignificant it was to everyone in my town, and even in the world. Most people figure SDA, LDS, and JW are all the same.
So you can view the scripture as a record of your defined "conflict" between Christ and Satan. I see it as a record of man's attempt to find God.
I "learned" early in my SDA upbringing that the world started out perfect, based on the Genesis story, and Adam and Eve pooped in the nest and we were all saddled with odor of their original sin. Poor us. The darn devil was to blame and it was going to take God thousands of years to vanquish that rascal. It was a pretty even fight, but God would surely win in the end. Well, in my thinking that is quite an allegory, but that is all it is. No argument that evil exists. There is no reason think it hasn't always been here. It is just part of the imponderable question of what we are all about on this earth.
Bugs,
I guess you think it's a discussion, but it's personal when one puts down the beliefs of others with offensive language.
I have no animosity but this puts up a barrier, and we don't really communicate. That's why I think it's a time-waster.
My view of this AT blog section is that it helps us understand different viewpoints. I have learned from some of the folks here. I hope I have been able to share some as well. I don't see it as a debate or competition. I don't think it is even "give or take." At the same time I have taken some strong stands and hope defended them without being obnoxious. Some of the ultraconservatives that get on here occasionally tend to be that way. I find continued arguments rather self-serving actually–to prove someone else wrong.
That's not the usual accepted way of discussion; maybe you and some others are new at this. I would hope we could be respectful of others' viewpoints. Remember the Golden Rule–it works here too!
It would be interesting to know what some other writers think the purpose of the AT blog should be.
I am more than willing to have my beliefs, (or lack of them, by some standards), challenged. When I posit an argument, I fully hope and expect someone to take issue. However, I have discovered that the more pointed my statements are, the less likely someone will address them point by point. I'm not looking for debate or competition, just intellectual discussion. As an example, in a previous discussion with you, I made the statement that in two thousand years since Christ not one thing of prophecy has happened. I fully expected someone to jump on that and show me how wrong I was. Hasn't happened. Show me, I can change my mind, be convinced.
Thank you for your reply. You obviously are a very kind and thoughtful person.
Whatever the purpose of this forum, I enjoy the give and take.
Bugs, thank you for a cordial reply. Concerning taking up your challenge:
1) Can you imagine how long it would take to go point by point and list and explain all of the metaphors, symbols (including the OT sanctuary), and parallel meanings of the Old Testament and show how they were fulfilled in Christ? There are thousands of books out there that do that and run over 500 pages! There are Bible scholars doing this all the time, It's someting like explaining physics or quantum mechanics–you can't do it in 25 words or less.
2) Assuming you are for real (not everyone is), you are not going say you are wrong because I tell you so or even present evidence. You have to care enough to honestly and seriously study it yourself.
3) If you are talking about specific SDA prophecies, there is a list of those as well. They were developed through study by our pioneers. Some of them have evolved. We have differing interpretations of them–maybe they are still evolving; maybe some are even conditional; maybe some are irrelevant. Again personal study is more important than what I believe. To me many of them make sense; others do not at this time in our history–it will take time to see where the world goes. If you want a clear view of what they are, Clifford Goldstein, an editor at church. headquarters, has a book out called 1844 Made Simple.
I set no time limits on the Second Coming nor do I think it has been delayed. The Bible says only God has ever known that time. Only humans think it is delayed, and some have the audicity to believe they have delayed it. I do hope it is soon, however, and see the possibilities that for the first time in history, humans can make contact with other humans over the entire world, and that is increasing. So is the probability of us destroying ourselves.
About my time–it is midnight here and past my bedtime (again). So I'm going to feed my cat and go to bed.
I did reply to Mr. Boshell somewhere when he tried to paint a false picture of the Adventists who heeded the call of the Advent Awakening by portraying them as fanatical and eccentric when this of course was a lie. The many negative 'stories' that were heard during that time and subsequently were planted as propaganda tools in order to shed bad light on them.
One of my assumptions (there are more) as to why individuals read and post on this forum is that they question their faith, if in the smallest way. I think this may apply to you 22oct. Outwardly you appear to be totally in harmony with SDA teachings, going clear back to 1844. But here you are where seekers, questioners, and skeptics gather.
I have no issue with you believing what you like. If you expect to defend your belief, that is fine, too. However, calling critics false picture painters, liars and propagandists without specifics doesn't do the job and leaves your motives, and your presence here, a bit in question. I detect a bit of anger in your post, is there a delicate spot being riled?
When all information that is unpleasant and disagrees with what someone has been led to believe, the immediate reaction is to reject it out of hand, even calling it "fanatical and eccentric whien this of course was a lie" and calling them "propaganda."
It is impossible to converese in a civil manner when the a priori assumption dismisses everything contrary to what has been previously believed, it dismissed by such labeling. There is no reason to converse on a subject when the previous ideas are always set in concrete. It is a waste of time for open minds to discuss with anyone with such an ideology.
When all information that is unpleasant and disagrees with what someone has been led to believe, the immediate reaction is to reject it out of hand, even calling it "fanatical and eccentric whien this of course was a lie" and calling them "propaganda."
It is impossible to converese in a civil manner when the a priori assumption dismisses everything contrary to what has been previously believed, it dismissed by such labeling. There is no reason to converse on a subject when the previous ideas are always set in concrete. It is a waste of time for open minds to discuss with anyone with such an ideology.
See if I get this right. The a posteriori method as the ultimate funnel through which all evidence is poured, at the bottom of which is to be a compelling case, but not necessarily for every one, after which another ultimate funnel can receive that case and new evidence as a road to deeper understanding.
If I'm correct, sounds like a whole lot of funneling going on out there!
One can have the ultimate goal of unity, but I still maintain it is unachievable, particularly in religious discourse. We are discussing methodology, where even there, no consensus is achievable, or we wouldn't be talking about it. The "rules of engagement" in religious intellectual enterprises are seldom clearly enumerated, certainly not codified in advance.
So, like the steel ball in a pinball machine we ring a few bells and light up a few lights as we careen along in our discourse, but eventually end up in the gutter. And that is because religious discussion is based on belief, imagination, faith, not on verifiable facts. So, I am saying it is impossible to have defined, mutually agreeable, "consensus of method."
If I have careened blindly past what you are advocating, please clarify! Take me by the hand, but be gentle!
Dear Mr Boshell – good for you why you post here. I do so because this site uses the name Adventist in terms of it being Seventh-day Adventist related which in my opinion is hard to believe.
I only responded to your Goliath like challenge which you made earlier and reminded you that your remarks regarding the 'Millerites' wasn't quite the way you said it was from the way I see it. Rumors like these often circulate on these boards and some people do believe them. It hard not to believe these things especially when intellectuals with loads of higher educational qualifications tout these rumors as true. I find that intellectually dishonest, don't you?
To use the nicest term I can, intelluctal dishonesty is the refusal to accept the facts. Me thinks your are a little too worked up for a true believer without any doubts. Lighten up, 22.
Bugs (I love that name!):
The problem I see here is that everyone tends to think they have the "facts". I am of the viewpoint that none of us are objective. We all see "facts" through the lense of our own experience, education, background, peers, etc. We are all subjective to differing degrees.
You can not surround yourself with like-minded colleagues in religion, science, philosophy, or politics, and believe you "think for yourself" or are not influenced. Perhaps one is happiest, joyful, at peace, when they find the right fit and it shows in their lives through good will and integrity. That's why I believe in a Holy Spirit that impresses, leads, and brings out the best in us. I know it's mystical, and God could not be God if He/She/It were not a mystery. We will never have all the answers. (But I enjoy subjectively speculating!)
I like your analysis. A bit of mysticism is good medicine for the soul. I think it is rational, in the face of the reality of death, to medicate oneself with some mysticism. I like the death, resurrection and teaching of Christ as my mystical departure. It is the myth, allegory, and metaphor that sustains my hope and optimism.
I have always enjoyed Bugs Bunny and the unbeatable character he portrays.
The current "official" Adventist dogma on the interpreations of Daniel and Revelation is so closely tied to what traditional and institutional Adventists view as almost the whole purpose of the Advenitst denomination that any hope for a rational and reasoned dialgoue inside the church on this topic is essentially impossible. How can you have dialogue when the issue has been decided ex cathedra as a rock on which the institutional Adventist Church says that it has been built. The Daniel and Revelation dogma of official Adventism is the third rail of Adventist politics and polity. To question it openly is political suicide. Thus most Adventist theologians who retain some degree of intellectual honesty simply do not talk about it. A sad state of affairs. It is similar to the silence of most Adventist scientists on the topic of the age of the earth and life. That also is inviting political suicide in the Adventist Church. You can only talk about it openly after you retire. An interesting situation for a church which said it was founded on "Present Truth." .
Ah, we’re getting to the core now!
This has been my theory all along: that efforts to discredit, undermine…whatever, “’official’ Adventist dogma on the interpretations of Daniel and Revelation” is essentially, ultimately designed to discredit and/or undermine “the whole purpose of the Adventist denomination;” because this interpretation is indeed an integral part of the foundation “on which the institutional Adventist Church…has been built.”
Hopefully it will continue to be “inviting political suicide in the Adventist Church,” and tantamount to the proverbial “third rail,” for anyone on the payroll to dispute it.
Why?—because the most solemn warning in the entire Bible is Revelation 14: 9-11. If we are wrong in ‘our’ interpretation of what this is and how to avoid it, then there was never any purpose or role for Adventism at all. Of course, this is the point/purpose of those who dispute the historic Adventist interpretation.
As we think about it, perhaps the ‘best’ way to undermine ‘The Book’s’ conclusion is to challenge its very premise; which is found at the very beginning; right?
Has anyone followed the Mormons closely? They do have an appreciation of humor as the production of the play satirizing Mormonism grew praise from most Mormons. It is very doubtful that such a satire of Adventists would be met with similar enthusiasm as humor is sadly lacking in a religion where the end is around the corner and there is no time for frivolity.
There have been many books written about those who were intimately acquainted with the inside of the Mormon church that illustrates all is not peaches and cream in Salt Lake City. Whether Silver Spring has been able to continue ignoring the SDA movers and shakers would scarcely be a subject for a Review article.
Elaine, you’ve never heard of Jonathan Slocumb? You need to follow Adventists more closely.
Politics in the Remnant church? Surely you jest. New teachings? No Way! Progressive scholars. Isn't that an oxymoron in the SDA church?
I thought the papacy, now the Catholic Church, was the only holder of these deadly, demonic, ecclesiastical powers. And I have now been made aware of the tenuous presence of Adventist Today in the face of this awful crisis. Whew. So fearsome. And the church censures those who question the silly basis of Adventism in the spurious application of Daniel and Revelation? Now there is a quick trip off the heavenly trail!
Fess up church. Interpretation of prophecy is for entertainment value only. Any attempt to make it apply in reality is a fools errand, demonstrated by the denominations inability to arbitrate a decision and based on the Great Disappointment. Why? The hierarchy, the SDA defenders of the faith, are imprisoned between Scylla and Charybdis. They don't dare admit the fraud. And since it is an indefensible position, they have no way of swearing in a "true" interpretation. Pretending the monster isn't there, ostrich wise, leaves the rear end open to being pummeled, but the head gets off with a few grains of sand, that is, bearable criticism.
The honorable, but, overall, the least costly way to handle it, would be for the theologians to convene another papal conference at Glacier View and refute the whole thing as being a part of history that Adventism has outgrown. Allow defeat, claim victory, and go to Estes Park for some adult beverages and then go home.
Problem is for the defenders of "present truth" there are, as mentioned by Ervin Taylor, other monsters in the wings, age of the earth, etc. And more rascally demons thrive in the lengthy list of dubious Adventist shibboleths that are weary, outdated, dark, and doomed in the light of honest review.
I believe the proposed Glacier View conference could save face by adopting my belief that the little horn of Daniel represents the battle of Little Big Horn in Wyoming!
I understand why you take this position sir. Being an unbeliever gives you cart blanche to speculate beyond the boundaries of what the Bible teaches. For you interpretation of prophecy may be 'entertainment' material, however, to the Christian seeker it has eternal implications (most) especially in terms of the plan of salvation in relation to the end times.
Here's one example which has been mentioned before but a very credible one which shows that the Adventist interpretation of end time prophecy as seeing in the Great Controversy narrative is in harmony with the Apocalyptic prophecies in the Bible:
When the secular (yes even the secular) West and religious West chanted that the USSR was evil and the anti-Christ because of its bias towards atheistic communist ideals (which doesn't differ much from the West today), I (like many Adventists worldwide), remained confident in the Adventist understanding of end-time prophecy and predicted (or resolved) that Communism wouldn't be an end time power based on this belief. I can also say that Islam won't either. A religious-political power, as seeing in our understanding of Daniel, will be the one behind this end-time attack on God's Law – particularly the seventh day Sabbath. The United States of America, in spite of some economic setbacks, still is the Real McCoy on the planet. It will eventually succumb to the Religious-Political prowess of Rome. This of course may not be adequate entertainment for you because the Starship Enterprise isn't the name of the Rock which in Daniel Chapter 2 crushes the remaining ‘powers that be’ to smithereens and establishes the Kingdom of God. This Rock is Jesus. Yes, he's the one. This Rock is Jesus. The only one. Be very sure your anchor holds and grips the solid Rock.
I presume that if Christ’s birth, life, death and resurrection isn’t enough ‘entertainment’ for you, even though his birth, life, death and resurrection was also prophesied, then perhaps you have a better understanding of why we exist on this life supporting planet and what lies ahead.
Your post is a relatively lucid defense of your belief.
I don't agree with your premises so I'm not swayed by your conclusions. So we will go back to our corners, wave as a sign of peace, and motor on.
Ranald, that was my throw away line! Otherwise, guilty, your critique is probably true. I am out of touch regarding the progressives and current church teachings. I have family and friends reporting a bit from the Arlington TX church, but that is about it. I left the ministry and the church in 1975 after ten years of intense mental struggles. The key point was whether or not it could be salvaged by people like me. I concluded that it wasn't possible because of the symbiosis of EGW and the church. Hermeneutics are adjustable, exegisis can be reevaluated. But dedication to the "prophet" appears to be without end.
Perhaps I should have been more explicit for Mr. Mcleish. I would suggest that (1) Adventist Today is not an individual, it is an independent magazine dedicated to free and responsible speech within the Adventist tradtiion. As a magazine, it takes no position on any theological or political issue in the Adventist Church. Those responsible for its operation have a wide variety of opinions on theological and political topics. (2) Adventist Today is not employed by the institutional Adventist Church, thus there is no political suicide to commit. (3) The record of Adventist Today over the years speaks for itself. The magazine and the web site has hosted individuals from extreme fundamentalist wing of the Adventist Church to the most liberal and even radical wing and everything in the middle. The people who write for it both challenge the most fundamental traditional parts of Adventist theology and poliity and totally support the most fundamental and traditional parts of Adventist theology and polity. These comments about Adventist Today are the opinion of just one individual. Others involved in Adventist Today administration may express different views about the nature and history of Adventist Today. That reflects the nature and history of Adventist Today
I hope that is a helpful response to Mr. Mcleish's comments.
It appears to take institutional churches hundreds of years to make adjustments in their dogmas even if a number of adherents have already changed their views. Our friends in the Catholic Church have exemplified this principle since it took that institution 600 years to admit officially that it was wrong about condemning Galileo for believing that the earth goes around the sun. It might take the Adventist Church as an institution 600 years to admit that their dedication to 1844 and the Investigative Judgement idea was a result of a regretable but understandable set of decisions made to "explain" what happened in the "Great Disappointment.". 600 years from 2013 would be AD 2613. Hmm. I guess none of us will be around to see what happens..
In religious discourse external facts seldom trump internal belief. The investment in belief includes an ego factor that diminishes the relevance of facts. The evidence in the extreme for that is illustrated in the manner of "true believers" who are satisfied, through their wisdom, intelligence, and superior knowledge, that they have arrived at the final, unimpeachable religious "truth." Challenge to their doctrines is viewed as a personal attack and countered with ego preservation defenses seldom related to the real issues.
Religious institutions suffer the same problem, on a larger scale, as you have referenced about Galileo. Raison d'etre must be defended at all costs regardless of the erosion, and even disappearance, of the foundational propositions.
Part of the ego thing is the desire to be right, correct, and to have some correct view of future outcomes. Ergo, EGW.
Six hundred years? Might well be. But the monsters in the closet, quantum theory, advancement in physics, and astronomy, I think, are presently underestimated on the effect they have on religious belief. At some point, belief will have to be fastened mentally to the concepts of myth, allegory and metaphor in a way that will further isolate doctrinaire "true believers." I probably won't be here long enough to see that, either!
Some people continue to ride a dead horse while continuing to hope it will somehow prove useful long after death.
Have you ever noticed how people who try riding dead horses don't travel very far. They always seem to be stuck in the same place arguing the same points of theology and talking about all the things God wants them to do, but never arriving where God wants them to be working?
Dr Taylor: 'I would suggest that (1) Adventist Today is not an individual, it is an independent magazine dedicated to free and responsible speech within the Adventist tradtiion.'
I wholly agree with AToday's very important role as an independent organisation from the SDA Church. I can think of few places where conservatives, ultra-conservative, liberals, post-liberals (I probably put myself in that category) and ex-Adventists can all come together genuinely.
The only question I am left with is what Dr Taylor means exactly by 'the Adventist tradition.' It does matter insofar as AToday being a place where all 'Adventists' can come together for dialogue. So even if we adopt a very broad term (as Dr Taylor does), what still does he mean exactly by that term?
I also wonder how Dr Taylor's understanding of 'Adventist tradition' fits in with his future vision of a 'mature' SDA denomination, which he also seems reluctant to further explain? Is he suggesting doing for the SDA Church what Rudolf Bultmann did for Lutheranism or John Shelby Spond has tried to do for the Anglican communion?
Perhaps Dr Taylor would like to further elaborate, especially since he must have had something in mind when he helped found AToday in the first place?
Dr Taylor: 'I would suggest that (1) Adventist Today is not an individual, it is an independent magazine dedicated to free and responsible speech within the Adventist tradtiion.'
I wholly agree with AToday's very important role as an independent organisation from the SDA Church. I can think of few places where conservatives, ultra-conservative, liberals, post-liberals (I probably put myself in that category) and ex-Adventists can all come together genuinely.
The only question I am left with is what Dr Taylor means exactly by 'the Adventist tradition.' It does matter insofar as AToday being a place where all 'Adventists' can come together for dialogue. So even if we adopt a very broad term (as Dr Taylor does), what still does he mean exactly by that term?
I also wonder how Dr Taylor's understanding of 'Adventist tradition' fits in with his future vision of a 'mature' SDA denomination, which he also seems reluctant to further explain? Is he suggesting doing for the SDA Church what Rudolf Bultmann did for Lutheranism or John Shelby Spond has tried to do for the Anglican communion?
Perhaps Dr Taylor would like to further elaborate, especially since he must have had something in mind when he helped found AToday in the first place?
Mr. Ferguson asks what I mean by the “the Adventist tradition.” It simply means the entire range of the views and perspectives of those theologically or culturally associated with any part of Adventism over its history from 1844. This might be termed less formally as a very, very large, “Big Tent Adventism” which is often mentioned in Adventist circles.
As for an understanding what a “mature Adventist denomination” would look like, I have been reluctant to try to compare it with the developments within any other church because each religious tradition exists and is defined within a unique set of historical realities. However, what Bultmann did for Lutheranism and Spond has done for the Anglican traditions certainly helped those traditions become relevant to the real world that we live in today.
Now I realize that many adherents of those traditions would prefer not to have to live in the modern world with its intellectual and cultural challenges to their faith. They would prefer to exist within a pre-modern world. I suspect that to be even more correct when considering the current membership of the Adventist Church even in North America and other First World regions. Converts to Adventism want certainty even if that certainty under examination has a lot of problems. But they are not interested in problems, they want answers and they believe that traditional Adventism gives them “the” answers.
May I note that based on the most recent posting of Mr. Mcleish, it continues to be true that I apparently cannot communicate with him concerning the nature of Adventist Today. Let me try one more time. Adventist Today, as a journalistic institution, does not "believe" or "not believe" anything except perhaps that Adventism needs a free and independent press. It is not in the business of supporting or opposing any particular theological point of view or political agenda. There is no "wolf" for Adventist Today as an institution to cry about.
It is individuals who are published in Adventist Today and write opinion blogs for Adventist Today who "cry" about all sorts of things and support and advocate many different theological beliefs, many of them in direct conflict with one another. Adventist Today, as such, does not agree or disagree with any opinion published in the pages of its magazine or posted on its web site. That is not its role.
I hope that these comments will help Mr. Mcleish understand what Adventist Today is about from the perspective of just one individual. I hope that he is no longer confused. If he still remains so, I apparently can’t help him. If such is the case, I would encourage him rather to go to the place on this web site where the purposes and goals of Adventist Today are plainly stated for all to read.
Moving on ….
I am an ex SDA minister, as mentioned elsewhere. Several of my ex SDA buddies think I am nuts for participating on this forum. (OK, there are some on this forum who agree with that diagnosis)! Apparently they are afraid I might be in danger of being reeled back in, or that I am wasting my time in collusion with the enemy. Let them eat cake!
I have seldom had more intellectual fun than experienced here. It truly is, as you say, Ervin, a totally free discussion without ideological limits and that is what I find so valuable.
I received my MDiv from the Iliff School of Theology, a Methodist Seminary on the Denver University campus, while a chaplain at a nearby Adventist hospital (had already spent a year at the SDA seminary in Michigan). At that time it was a rainbow of perspectives that I found very illuminating. Then I was at the end time, the latter rain (!) in my exodus from Adventism. There were faculty and student extending to extremes on both conservative and liberal outlooks, and there was respect across the chasm from each for the other. I found the mix invigorating. I experience this forum in the same light.
One cannot erase his history. The first thirty five years of my life was as SDA. That is the pedestal I stand on to discuss my views.
I am an ex SDA minister, as mentioned elsewhere. Several of my ex SDA buddies think I am nuts for participating on this forum. (OK, there are some on this forum who agree with that diagnosis)! Apparently they are afraid I might be in danger of being reeled back in, or that I am wasting my time in collusion with the enemy. Let them eat cake!
I have seldom had more intellectual fun than experienced here. It truly is, as you say, Ervin, a totally free discussion without ideological limits and that is what I find so valuable.
I received my MDiv from the Iliff School of Theology, a Methodist Seminary on the Denver University campus, while a chaplain at a nearby Adventist hospital (had already spent a year at the SDA seminary in Michigan). At that time it was a rainbow of perspectives that I found very illuminating. Then I was at the end time, the latter rain (!) in my exodus from Adventism. There were faculty and student extending to extremes on both conservative and liberal outlooks, and there was respect across the chasm from each for the other. I found the mix invigorating. I experience this forum in the same light.
One cannot erase his history. The first thirty five years of my life was as SDA. That is the pedestal I stand on to discuss my views.
I am an ex SDA minister, as mentioned elsewhere. Several of my ex SDA buddies think I am nuts for participating on this forum. (OK, there are some on this forum who agree with that diagnosis)! Apparently they are afraid I might be in danger of being reeled back in, or that I am wasting my time in collusion with the enemy. Let them eat cake!
I have seldom had more intellectual fun than experienced here. It truly is, as you say, Ervin, a totally free discussion without ideological limits and that is what I find so valuable.
I received my MDiv from the Iliff School of Theology, a Methodist Seminary on the Denver University campus, while a chaplain at a nearby Adventist hospital (had already spent a year at the SDA seminary in Michigan). At that time it was a rainbow of perspectives that I found very illuminating. Then I was at the end time, the latter rain (!) in my exodus from Adventism. There were faculty and student extending to extremes on both conservative and liberal outlooks, and there was respect across the chasm from each for the other. I found the mix invigorating. I experience this forum in the same light.
One cannot erase his history. The first thirty five years of my life was as SDA. That is the pedestal I stand on to discuss my views.
As you know Bugs, we’re all opinionated. We all believe that we are right. I am convinced, now, that you are on a mission to convince us that you don’t believe in much of anything.
Of course the conspicuous chink in your armor is that you are an ex-Adventist minister. This means that you were well into your adulthood when you held some iteration of Adventism in some significant regard. To leave the ministry, not just the denomination, but both the denomination and the ministry, indicates that something (possibly traumatic) happened,
Now I’m not dismissing you as the typical disgruntled ex-employee by any means. It is apparent that it is deeper than that. But since (for some reason) you have volunteered your background (to some extent); it is more than interesting to witness the venting of your thoughts and feelings.
As I have indicated, I think that you protest a little bit too much.
If being an ex-SDA minister is an armor chink there are an awful lot of armor chinks running around, as well as a lot of armor chinklets (huge number of ex-SDAs)! Disgruntled, no, not with anyone, only SDA theology. No trauma. Brain went to work, led me out the front door. No backsliding.
OK, you got me. Must be a middle-aged hidden motive. Please help me ascertain what it might be, because I don't know. Perhaps a mental problem, as I gather, from your view point, no one in their right mind could leave The Truth, The Remnant Church, the church with the weird concept of the Heavenly Sanctuary where time is measured the same as here, where Christ is totally occupied reviewing behavioral records so he can divide the sheep and end the long wait for his return, where the anticipated Latter Rain has yet to thunder down, where the speculation over the meaning of Daniel and Revelation has a myriad of interpretations, yet supposedly has one meaning for the Last Days, where a rock-struck-in-the-noodle prophet has more influence than the pope does in Catholicism, where rationale for keep Sabbath is no longer valid, where the devil Catholic Church is lurking to enforce crucifixions of belligerent Sabbath Keepers, to name a few. Oh, did I mention the Great Disappointment, the crumbled foundation for the church?
I'm always amused by those left behind in the church who cannot fathom, or accept, that reason can be the reason for the exodus. Must be some trauma keeping you there! Perhaps a dependency, an inability to survive without it? Stephen, I am worried about you, perhaps you have an unresolved internalized parent that kept you from crossing the street as a child now at work saying "no" to analyzing the validity of SDA teachings? See, I'm an amateur shrink, too!
I got you all right; you’re hilarious!
Here’s the challenge, you are out, but you keep looking back; like Lot’s wife. Hey, don’t get me wrong, we can certainly all agree in this case you won’t turn into a pillar of salt.
I have issues (too) Bugs; no doubt. I have written a blog on this site for four years and have written volumes more in commentary. It’s all available (well, the vast majority of it is). My stuff is all out there brother. A professional isn’t necessary to analyze me. You could do it if you tried. (The fact that I enjoy it so much surely is a sign of abnormality.)
But how can you deny that something happened with you other than an “Aha!”? Let’s put it this way; you didn’t just attend, you got into the ministry. Something caused you to do that, right? That’s not your everyday, run-of-the-mill decision man. Not even for someone with repressive parents.
I mean, you actually studied theology; and having been born into this church, went still deeper with study; and then ministry. So, by the same token, leaving had to be something that wasn’t necessarily easy.
But what do I know other than what you tell me? (Even then I have to take your word for it.)
Whoa, shoulda hit the add button only once!
I would like to suggest that we refer to those who refer to themselves or someone else refers to as "Ex-Adventist" with the term "Recovering Adventist." I have always thought that there are a number of kinds of Adventists such as "Ultra-Adventists or "Super-Adventists","Fundamentialist Adventists," "Retro-Adventists," "Institutional Adventists," "Cultural Adventists," in addition to "Recovering Adventists." These categories cross-cut the standard categories of "Conservative Adventist," "Historic Adventist," "Evangelical Adventist," and "Liberal/Progressive Adventist." The individual who writes the "Adventist Man" feature in each issue of Adventist Today should be able to increase that list of types of Adventists.
Dr Taylor: ‘Mr. Ferguson asks what I mean by the “the Adventist tradition.” It simply means the entire range of the views and perspectives of those theologically or culturally associated with any part of Adventism over its history from 1844
… I have always thought that there are a number of kinds of Adventists such as "Ultra-Adventists or "Super-Adventists","Fundamentialist Adventists," "Retro-Adventists," "Institutional Adventists," "Cultural Adventists," in addition to "Recovering Adventists." These categories cross-cut the standard categories of "Conservative Adventist," "Historic Adventist," "Evangelical Adventist," and "Liberal/Progressive Adventist."’
Very interesting – especially the notion of ‘Adventism’ being defined by cultural (as opposed to merely theological) ideas. I guess that does make sense and no doubt there are ‘cultural Adventists’ who don’t really subscribe to the theological beliefs of Adventism anymore.
However, it in turn raises interesting questions about the limits of how far culture in itself is sufficient to define Adventist identity, especially as Adventism is, unlike other national-Churches like the Church of England, is a ‘Catholic’ (i.e. universal) Church.
It also raises questions about whether Adventism is now a type of ‘pseudo-ethnicity.’ One now has atheist Jews or Buddhist Jews – can there now be such thing as an atheist Adventist?
I know people don’t like labels, but labels are the basis of science, academia (including in the social sciences and in religious studies) and even for language itself.
So I guess the next question is then, for someone who rejects traditional Adventist theology (as Dr Taylor seems to do), but still subscribes to Adventist identity on the basis of culture, what are the cultural characteristics that point to someone being an ‘Adventist’. Keeping in mind a continuum, assuming an atheist-Adventist could exist (rather being a contradiction in terms), what would they look like?
So the question remains – who is an ‘Adventist’? Can one be an Adventist if they reject the theological doctrine of the Advent?
The members of any church organization belong to find hope, explanations, and improvement of life, along with a feeling they have chosen the best religious option for that outcome. That is more cultural than theological. After the initial trip through the tunnel of doctrinal exposure, most are then satisfied because it is an important step, but not the most important, in the journey. The end game is satisfaction of belief. Most are not candidates for this forum as their existential concerns are met on the surface.
Critics, including myself, cannot destroy religious systems, including Adventism, because adherents, in the main, aren't looking for profound theology, but lubrication for the pains of life.
Labels don't matter, except to meet the needs of compulsive analysts. An Adventist is one who says he/she is.
Of course labels matter and are useful. (They sometimes matter so much that I hesitate to use them in some contexts.) In reality someone can call themselves anything; but that is meaningless and practically worthless. I can call myself an Indianapolis Colt. What does that mean however—in reality? Does calling myself a Colt mean anything other than that I am in denial?
The most 'conservative' Republicans, for example, have called Republicans who do not adhere to a sufficiently conservative orthodoxy or agenda, RINOS; an acronym for ‘Republicans in Name Only.’ Former Secretary of State and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Colin Powell (U.S. Army, Retired) fits this description; but he calls himself a Republican.
I can call myself a Roman Catholic and officially convert to Catholicism, but if I maintain my positions on Biblical doctrine; am I really a Roman Catholic—really?
How is this any different with Adventism?
Great points. Within the context of Christianity, the Gospels and Paul's writings seem to suggest not everyone who claims to be a follower of Jesus is one.
I am still not sure though we are any closer to defining what an 'Adventist' is. It is all well and good to try and have a broad term, but if it is impossibly broad, it becomes rather irrelevant – doesn't it?
How can Adventst Today exist as a viable place of discussion for Adventists if we don't have a limit on what an Adventist is?
It is probably a moot point over what and Adventist is, except where it is a question of who is an official member of the club. For a person to join it as a club, the church has the obligation to determine criteria for official membership. A contract is explicit and each has an obligation to perform. If the club determines a member violates the contract to any degree, it can expel that person. And a person can leave the club for any reason.
One can leave voiding any offical membership, but still can claim to be a better Adventist than when an official member. And any person, as a JW for instance, can decide to call themselves adventist as a believer in the Second Coming. So, past offiicial, card carrying, members, it doesn't appear possible to determine who is an A(a)dventist
But membership itself seems increasingly irrelevant. In our local SDA Church in Australia, we have people in ministries-office (but not Board positions) who are not official SDA members. Then we have long-standing members who reject much, if not most, of the 28 FBs, which are meant to define membership.
Maybe you are right – it is impossible to define 'Adventist'. Nonetheless, why does 'Adventist Today' exist if there is no notion of what 'Adventist' is. How in any way does it purported mission-statement make sense if there is no understanding of what an Adventist is.
I think there is an identifiable Seventh-day Adventist identity; it's just not as narrow as it used to be. There are many more people who report they are Adventists, I have read, than are actually baptized members. (I think one can find this out at GC archives?? or a similar department–I can't remember.)
In a way I think this is good. I often wonder if it had never organized, would the basic message have spread farther. When you think about the charismatic movement or secret rapture, these seem to have spread through many churches, but if they had been under one church label, would they have spread as much? I don't think so. Maybe some of our more humane doctrines and sabbath might have spread through the churches without being under the umbrella of one church.
On the other hand, I am no prophet and recognize some organization was necessary for logistical reasons.
There is a label you missed, perhaps even the AT guy missed. Recovered SDA.
Why are labels important to you?
Bugs–Why labels? Excellent quetion. Because, in my view, they are useful to focus attention on the range in attitudes and orientations in groups of individuals belong to the same organization, in this case, a religious institution.. I would submit that they are useful as ideal types, but they are not useful for analyis at the individual level.
The basis of language is labels. The basis of academia (including theology, sociology and science) is labels. Labels are necessary, even if imperfect. Naming the animals was the very first thing God had Adam do.
Who or what 'Adventism' is exactly is indeed a difficult question, that can be addressed on the basis of belief and practice. Jews have been struggling with that question for a long time within their own community. And yet it is a worthwhile question.
Every community needs defined boundaries of a sort. Christ certainly made statements about sheep and goats.
Bugs: I have always found it difficult to understand why someone would want to castigate their former church or any church to its members/believers. I like AT because of its open forum of ideas,but I don't think its purpose is to insult others' beliefs. The picture of Adventism you paint is terribly twisted to most of us. I could not belong to such a church myself.
I would find it impossible to join another church because so many believe in an ever-burning hell. Truth in understanding scripture is progressive, and we don't have all the answers (some maybe); neither does anyone else. I find your view to be from some other negative dimension. As you say you have many friends of the same mind and you reinforce each other. Nothing objective here.
Yes, there has to be baggage or you are a generally mean-spirited person.(There's a better word for that.) But I don't believe so, as there are flashes of rationality here and there and even politeness. Any one who could have been a chaplain has to have a good heart.
I make a distinction between what people believe and what organized religion claims. I don't castigate anyone's belief unless they have challenged me with the purpose of trying to "correct" me. On an intellectual level, I do confront religious systems. If you choose to believe anything, that is fine with me, including Adventism. My Adventist college roommate of years ago, recently joined the Church of Christ. I said not one negative word to him, praised him on finding belief that elevated his life. Ella, I have no argument with your belief. One of my base propositions is that a person believes what they like. It is an option you choose. If I challenge that while "castigating" organized religion, I think your belief will be unsullied. I have beliefs, too, the propositions I "like."
If I am castigating my "former church" in a distasteful way, ignore it. And, buy all means, tell me where I am wrong.
I don't place a high value on any organized religion. When I left Adventism, I never joined anyone else. I did provide a private ministry called ChurchAmerica for a number of years that was designed to meet the needs of non-churched Christians. It had no members or creed. Just me, providing weddings, baptisms, funeral, sermons, etc. It was very successful.
Why not organized religion? They are businesses with business interests at their heart. Christ's teachings, I believe, are the heart of Christianity, and don't fare well in the hands of business. And in the view of disintegrated foundations and other dubious doctrinal viewpoints, they tend to lie or bury their heads in the sand. And they have a group-think outlook that, under the pretense of consensus, contradict the very nature of Christ's teachings, which He carefully composed for private interpretation. That's just my opinion.
As a four year chaplain, I watched approximately two hundred people die. I was never was once called for a "death bed confession." People of every faith, including non-religious atheists and agnostics, died the same. I concluded we all go into that "dark night" without concerns of heaven or hell. Religion manufactures concerns for the living, but the dying go to the light free of the anxieties of life.
I assume, if you are investing some of your time on this forum, you are willing to suffer without injury the provocations risked here.
The more I read Bugs the more he makes a lot of sense. The one difference is that his intellectual honesty required him to leave the Adventist community. Some of us decided not to do that, but to remain in the Adventist community and assist, in some small ways, to contribute to making the Adventist community more responsive to and relevant to the real, modern world. Whether that is an intellecutally honest thing to do can be debated. However, one perspective which I apparently share with Bugs is that all institionalized religious traditions which I've been able to read about, have serious problems and, in a sense, are all equal in believing that they have a better understanding of the real "Truth." It seems to me that they all (at least, the ones I've read about and talked to members of) have major problems in that many of them bought into beliefs in the past and can't figure out how to admit that some of these beliefs are very problematic. It seem to me that Adventism is a classic example of that. As to the nature of "Truth," I don't think humans have enough information about "Reality" to say much about "Truth." I guess that makes me an agnostic. (While I was a student at PUC in the late 1950s, I actually gave a chapel talk in the student week of prayer with the title of "The Christian Agostic" One of the Bible teachers was very troubled that I was permitted to say all those heretical things in public and get away with it I think he believed that I would grow out of my heresy. No such luck..)
Sorry I missed your PUC speech. I was there for the fall quarter of 58, but was a dedicated conservative at that time and might well have been miffed at your flirtation with heresy! Was GM the worried one?
I think you are right about reality (although you may mean something different than what I introduce here). The goal posts keep moving on just what it is in the light of quantum theory and other scientific thought. It appears to me that religious discourse has not kept pace. But, must admit, when I attempt an advanced verbalization, I come up mostly blank. So, myth, allegory, and metaphor, remains fastened to familiar expressions of the past as possibly the only way belief can be conveyed as we trek over the miasma of the intellectual and material world.
Bugs- I was at PUC from 1956 to 1960. It might have been in the Fall Quarter of 1957.or Fall Quarter of 1958. I can't recall. That was a long time ago. The bible teacher (I won't call him a theologian) who was really upset had the last name of Hyde. I can't be sure of his first name. It could have been Gordon Hyde. I was a theology major at PUC for about 10 nanoseconds until rescued by Walter Utt from a fate worse than death.
Dr Taylor: ‘As for an understanding what a “mature Adventist denomination” would look like, I have been reluctant to try to compare it with the developments within any other church because each religious tradition exists and is defined within a unique set of historical realities. However, what Bultmann did for Lutheranism and Spong has done for the Anglican traditions certainly helped those traditions become relevant to the real world that we live in today.’
Thanks, yes I get that. However, we are Christians and subscribe to a range of common beliefs and practices of other denominations. I guess I was asking whether Dr Taylor was hoping the SDA Church would eventually adopt many of those beliefs and practices acquired in the last 100-years or so by Liberal movements, especially within ‘mainstream’ Protestant denominations.
As a very simple example, would Dr Taylor wish that the SDA Church would revise its fundamental beliefs, so that it no longer subscribed to an actual historical-corporeal Resurrection event of Jesus Christ? Instead, what effectively was said to have occurred was a mass-hallucination through an altered state of consciousness, probably brought about through guilt by disciples who abandoned Christ for the Cross. This now seems to be the ‘orthodox’ view within Lutheran and Anglican communions (despite lip service being made to the Nicene and other creeds), at least within their seminaries and more educated administrative elites. I was simply wondering if Dr Taylor wishes the SDA Church would eventually arrived at a similar doctrinal position?
The same goes for the Second Advent. It would seem from observing Dr Taylor’s previous posts that he would prefer Adventism dispense with the notion of a future historical Advent (despite it actually being in our name), in favour of notions of realised-eschatology (i.e. the idea that Christ is alive and has returned in our heart, as opposed to a future historical event).
Dr Taylor: ‘Now I realize that many adherents of those traditions would prefer not to have to live in the modern world with its intellectual and cultural challenges to their faith. They would prefer to exist within a pre-modern world.’
Again, would those views seem to indicate Dr Taylor’s rejection of not just traditional Adventist beliefs and practices, but of traditional Christian beliefs and practices? Again, the Resurrection of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, and the future second coming of Christ, as actual, factual, historical and corporeal events come to mind.
This all filters into other worthwhile discussion about who or what makes someone an 'Adventist'.
Bogs: (Are we getting bogged down?) Quote The Remnant Church, the church with the weird concept of the Heavenly Sanctuary where time is measured the same as here, where Christ is totally occupied reviewing behavioral records so he can divide the sheep and end the long wait for his return, where the anticipated Latter Rain has yet to thunder down, where the speculation over the meaning of Daniel and Revelation has a myriad of interpretations, yet supposedly has one meaning for the Last Days, where a rock-struck-in-the-noodle prophet has more influence than the pope does in Catholicism, where rationale for keep Sabbath is no longer valid, where the devil Catholic Church is lurking to enforce crucifixions of belligerent Sabbath Keepers, to name a few. Oh, did I mention the Great Disappointment, the crumbled foundation for the church?
The above is an example of what you wrote. If that isn't insulting and twisted, I don't know what is. BTW no one is required to follow a formula theology. The salvation story is the vital focus. I find the Adventist concept as taught today in seminary biblically correct. Salvation by Christ alone is for everyone who ever lived unless they reject love on their level of knowledge. This is my belief and fits well in SDA theology. There are many ways one can reject Christ/Truth/Holy Spirit. But as one evangelist once said, "it's hard to be lost." You really have to work at it!
I did answer your question tell me where I am wrong in what I thought was a rational way. Maybe you didn't read it. See way above (3 days ago).
As for organized religion–there is no way all the saved will belong to any particular church or be all Christians. Our beliefs teach that, but I suspect not all think so. What a church teaches at its highest educational levels is not the same as what folk in the pew may believe. Yet God accepts a simple honest faith there as well and those willing to learn by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. On the other hand there are fakes who don't want to know.
A critical spirit or disbelief or rigid conservatism is difficult to turn around as one gets older–I guess it's something like "being settled in the truth" for SDAs. And the past is hard to get rid of after one makes a decision to embrace or reject it. I suspect it is the same with all faith in God.
Remnant Church: An inside designation. No one outside the SDA church has a clue or interest, or will ever have, in what that means. Everyone, including some institutions and the persons that compose them want to be special. If it isn't obvious to others, proclaim yourself to be, or interpret some scripture of prophecy to deceive yourself as to your singularity
Weird concept: Heavenly Sanctuary. How do you know what heaven is, where it is, and what is there? If God is the maker of heaven and earth and he "spoke" it into existence, with trillions of galaxies as a result, he walked from one department to another in 1844 to weigh the balances for a few piddling inhabitants of an impossibly tiny planet? A strange, self serving, face saving invention of disappointed Adventists.
Latter rain: Another interpretive invention based on an obscure Old Testament text applied to give future hope to the disappointed.
Daniel and Revelation interpretation: What use is "prophecy" if it doesn't predict the future in a generally understood way? To verify backward is belief and interpretation, which has no factual value except to interpreters looking for something. No one who has looked backward and said, "Oh now, I see the light," has ever then looked forward with one ounce of accuracy and said, "Oh, I know what will be and here it is."
EGW, struck in the head "prophet." Concussion is not the real problem. It is the veneration from adoring SDA's for a that elevates a very flawed, talented, mortal to pope level. Her work, a mishmash of fact and fiction, some copied from others, is an inside job with no value to anyone outside the SDA church. Like all prophecies, hers don't seem to accurately predict the future.
Sabbath: The world wasn't created in seven days, so resting the seventh day honors a beautiful Genesis allegory, but that is all.
Devil Catholic Church: Since the beginning of Adventism not one prediction of Catholic persecution of Sabbath Keepers has materialized. Good cop (sda), Bad cop (Catholic). Another inside creation so the "papacy" of prophecy has an imagined target to maintain its perceived evilness, and to convince members of their importance in the world.
Insulting? Twisted? No. Just the facts. Some SDA church doctrine is an insult to the mind and convienantly twisted.
If an SDA could stand "outside" and take a really objective view of the church's beliefs, it would rival Mormons belief of inhabiting other planets. We have just as much information about heaven as the habitable conditions on planets where the Mormons have been living since they died. To a child taught in either religion, it isn't weird, it's fact!
Fringe doctrines are very attractive to "true believers" as verification of the exclusiveness of the sect of their choice and the truth of its tenets. Criticism of the dubious teaching is interpreted as a personal affront to the dreamers.
Adventists tend to dismiss LDS beliefs as weird and non-Biblical. That is laughing at your neighbors burning house while yours is being swallowed by a sink hole.
One more thing. Interesting how terminology intersects: Latter Day saint and Remnant Church of the last days.
As Bugs knows, Adventism and Mormonism arose out of the same religiouslly "burned-over" region created in the Northeastern US in the early 19th Century primarily as the result of the Second Great Awakening. I agree that the Mormon idea of peopling other planets and our idea of the Investigative Judgement represents an equal measure of a strange form of theological "creativity" lacking any Christian standing.
However, some might ask who can argue with success?. Adventists, Mormons and our friends the JWs, who also share our Millenarian roots, are the fastest growing parts of Christianity right now in the Southern Hemisphere followed by Pentacostals. And the Southern Hemisphere will be where 21st and 22nd Century Christianity and Adventism will flourish.
One take-home message here might be that rationalisty and reason apparently play little, if any, part in the pdrocess by which most individuals decide to join some religious community.
A Rational Religion is an oxymoron. If pure reason was required, there would be no religions. But humans love myths, especially when they are so ancient the roots are unknown. It gives their lives meaning to be connected with something greater than now and links to the past. There will always be religion where there people needing more to their lives beyond their daily existence. Hope and religion are inextricably bound and hope is endless.
I disagree with Elaine about something! Such a rare thing. A rational religion is not an oxymoron, but I would agree that a rational religion would not attract a large number of adherents because, at least in our socieity, only a small minority of the population sees the value of a rational religion. That is a reflection of peronality types. The other problem is that what is "rational" is not absolute,but proceeds from a set of assumptions that one makes about how to evaluate statements. I also agree that the principal purpose of any religious system of which I am aware is to give hope to individuals and that hope does not need to be rational.. Thus what is rational would need to be first determined.
I will predict something here. Mrs Nelson will accept Dr Taylor's position on "rational religion" and will not defend her own in which she regards the term as an oxymoron. Will I be right? Will Mrs Nelson change her tune?
I agree with Dr Taylor when he says that 'what is "rational" is not absolute,but proceeds from a set of assumptions that one makes about how to evaluate statements.' … but will Mrs Nelson agree?
Since Elaine always thinks for herself and always has good grounds for the positions that she holds, I do not anticipate that she will agree with me. Actually, the differences may be primarily sematic ones.
Erv, can you given us examples of a rational religion; one that has objective evidence for its tenets? What is necessary for religion to be rational?
Elaine-It seems to me that the problem here is if one thinks in terms only of some historically-conditioned institutionalized religious tradtion being the only possible way to define religion or think about religion, you point is very taken. There is only one religious tradiion in Christianity I can think of that might be cited and this would be Univeralist/Unitarian one. The vast majority of other Christian traditions with which I am aware (obviously including Adventism) have adopted theological positions which IMHO do indeed support your view of the imposibility of having a rational religion.
Actually Bugs, what you are essentially saying is that Christianity, or at least the Protestant varieties, has doctrines that are “an insult to the mind and conveniently twisted.” (This is what I mean by trauma.)
Practically all denominations of Protestant Christianity believe that a remnant will exist, and that Christ is our Intercessor, or that the Holy Spirit will, and/or has been, poured out on believers, and that the books of Daniel and the Revelation of Jesus Christ are prophetic books. There are millions of non-Seventh-day Adventist Protestants who believe that this world was created in six days. I’ve never previously heard of the “Devil Catholic Church;” but there are plenty of Protestants who don’t know anything about Seventh-day Adventism who have issues with Roman Catholicism and/or "popery" ("the doctrine, practices, and rituals of Roman Catholicism"), that is why they’re Protestants.
Oops, I wasn’t finished…
Other Protestants have a variety of different ‘takes’ and Biblical interpretations, of course; that is why there are such a variety of Protestant denominations.
Stephen, put your shotgun away! You missed me. Get your rifle out and aim at my specific statements. I'm waiting for a real rebuttal. Like Yogi Bera, "I didn't say the things I said," that is, the things people say I said. I was specific, limited to aspects of Adventism, in what is "an insult to the mind and conveniently twisted."
Please provide data on the statement that "Protestant Christianity believe that a remnant will exist." Do you think, if you can prove the point, that they would agree that the SDA church is that Remnant?
Believing the world was created in seven days is so demonstrably false it doesn't deserve comment, except to say that people are free to believe whatever they want, regardless of how much it violates reality. Millions of believers in anything, including a seven day creation, doesn't make a liar out of geology.
Yes, anti Catholicism exists. The Catholic church is guilty of crimes that where it properly earned its "devil" (my comment) reputation. But horrible history is not present history. Most of the conservative Christian churches, in concert with Adventism, harbor an animus against Catholicism that shares the same root. Point: I have seen no SDA's running for their lives from the pope or his cohorts. or indication they are arming the Adventist torture chambers!
My general point, which you seemed to have missed, is Adventist theology is riddled with craziness. I spelled it out. Unspell it for me, if you can!
Uh…you may have missed that I said that “other Protestants [those who are not Adventists] have a variety of different ‘takes’ and Biblical interpretations, of course; that is why there are such a variety of Protestant denominations.” This is undeniably true, Bugs.
Chill out my man, I was addressing what you said; not shooting at you. The things that you mentioned are referenced in the Bible and other Protestant Christians believe something about each one of them. Adventists have their interpretations and other have other interpretations of that which is scriptural. That is what I just pointed out.
For instance, since you asked, while I agree that nobody but (some) Adventists believe that the SDA Church represents the “remnant;” others certainly believe that there is, or will be, a remnant of some sort. As theologically conservative as I am, not even I believe that the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists is itself the remnant. I believe that the remnant represents faithful individuals among whom Adventists should be numbered. But the point is that no matter what corporate Adventism officially teaches or professes, there is such thing as “remnant theology” in other parts of the Christian religion.
As for the six-day creation, again, Adventists aren’t the only creationists, as you know. That’s the point. You claim to have been specifying aspects limited to Adventism when; in fact, most of these things are not at all (or exclusively) from Adventism. They are mentioned or referenced in the Bible; about which there are numerous interpretations.
Dr Taylor: 'Some of us decided not to do that, but to remain in the Adventist community and assist, in some small ways, to contribute to making the Adventist community more responsive to and relevant to the real, modern world. Whether that is an intellecutally honest thing to do can be debated.'
So Dr Taylor why did you stay? What is good about Adventism (both belief and practice) that you chose to stay and not leave?
At one point does one contemplate that the proposed changes one seeks, even if one were ultimately sucessful, would be so raddically new and different, that it would be more honest to leave and form a new faith community. This has been the journey of the first Christians (who originally considered themselves Jews), and the first Protestants (who originally thought themselves reforming Catholicism). At what point do your proposed reforms become so raddicially new and different that the most honest thing to do is to leave and start one's own separate group?
Again, this relates to what you envision exactly for your proposed 'mature Adventism', which we still don't know a whole lot about, in terms of the actual particular beliefs and practices. Even if you propose a new paradigm of a de-emphasis on the need for particular beliefs and practices, an 'anything goes' Unitarian-type faith, then that would in itself probably represent a raddical depature from Adventism, and Christianity quite generally, which began with a Rule of Faith and the Diadache.
Dr Taylor: 'I disagree with Elaine about something! Such a rare thing.'
Stop the press :)! When are you going to give Elaine her own regular official spot here on AToday? It's about time. It might just keep her with us a bit longer.
According to your almost meaningless-broad definition of Adventism, an ex-Adventist (or is that recovering Adventist) is just as much an Adventist as a card carying Adventist. And Elaine does seems to share the same non-theistic 'hard agnostic/soft atheist' beliefs as you (along the John Spong and Paul Tillauch line), but she is excitingly fun, because she is very open about sharing them.
I for one respectfully request you consider giving her a gig.
Dr Taylor: 'A rational religion is not an oxymoron, but I would agree that a rational religion would not attract a large number of adherents because, at least in our socieity, only a small minority of the population sees the value of a rational religion.'
This comes back to some of the other comments in the discussion about Dr Taylor's 'mature Adventism'.
I agree with Dr Taylor that one can attempt to create a rational religion. Rudolf Bultmann and John Shelby Spong have tried to do just that for Lutheranism and Anglicanism respectfully, through a process of de-mytholization. They talk about how we can't worship a personal God of miralces, of the Resurrected dead, or even a personal deity anymore. That seems to be the type of 'rational' religion Dr Taylor seems to be advocating here.
However, Dr Taylor is correct – such a religion is not popular. Call it a crutch, but it isn't for no reason that Lutheranism, Anglicanism and the other sophisticated 'mainstream' religions are in massive decline.
Finally, I kind of agree with Elaine about the irrationality of religion. I think the problem with a rational religion is that it arguably is no longer a 'religion' at all!
Dawkins, in his opening chapter of the God Delusion, explains how using religious language for naturalistic phenonemon, such as Eistein's discussion of the beauty of 'creation', is just religious gard to describe scientific processes. Dawkins is right, in that such religious language is not suggestive of theism, which is belief in a supernatural-personal deity.
In other words, I think it would be fair to say that Dr Taylor's rational religion, perhaps of the type of the 'mature Adventism' he hopes for, is nothing more than agnosticism, if not atheism, dressed up in religious garb – of the type Dawkins observes. I think if Dawkins were here, he might ask people like John Shelby Spong and others who advocate a 'rational religion' to come clean and just admit their agnostic-a-theist beliefs. They shouldn't be ashamed of it, or hide under religious terminology any longer.
I think the final say belongs with Barth, who relied on Paul, in noting that Christianity is ultimately irrational. The Cross is foolishness to the wisdom of the world. God is love, and love isn't rational. In fact, people do amazingly irrational things, like die for another person, throwing away their own one and only life (assuming the rationalists are correct in denying post-mortem existence), for love. God is love, love is God, love isn't rational, and belief in God isn't rational either.
I like your critique here.
Your Wright Brothers example does nothing to support or illustrate your point. They were able to verify their experience and say to the skeptics, "see we told you so." Their achievement was based in fact. What you propose here is based in belief. Different venues. All you will ever be able to say, is "see, I still believe it is so."
Mr. Fergusson suggests that “I think the final say belongs with Barth, who relied on Paul, in noting that Christianity is ultimately irrational. The Cross is foolishness to the wisdom of the world. God is love, and love isn't rational. In fact, people do amazingly irrational things, like die for another person, throwing away their own one and only life (assuming the rationalists are correct in denying post-mortem existence), for love. God is love, love is God, love isn't rational, and belief in God isn't rational either.”
His comment about Karl Barth is interesting. I’m told by card-carrying theologians that Barth’s Neo-Orthodoxy (I understand he did not like that term) represents one of the most influential 20th century contribution to modern Christian theology. I have read a tiny, tiny bit of discussions about Barth. My recall is that Barth’s orthodoxy involved a radical return to Luther’s and Paul’s Christocentric focus as central to the Christian theological project while rejecting the excesses of modern fundamentalism especially the idea of biblical inerrancy. On the other hand, as I understand it, Barth also rejected 19th and early 20th Protestant liberal theology that attempted to reconcile Christianity with the modern world. I hope I remember correctly that he argued that human ideas about God are usually misguided if not typically wrong.
Who am I to dispute the views of Karl Barth? What a silly idea! However, I understand that there are distinguished theologians who have questioned some of Barth’s ideas. On one hand, his thinking that human ideas about God are usually wrong seems be on target. Also, his rejection of fundamentalism suggests that he was not completely opposed to relooking at traditional Christian views in light of modern scientific knowledge.
I wonder if Mr. Fergusson would provide a quote from Barth to the effect that he believed Christianity is “ultimately irrational” My memory is that he defined “irrational” in a very particular sense. I would think that your “God is love, love is God, love isn’t rational and belief in God isn’t rational either” is not really Barth. But I could be wrong. Please provide a quote.
Delighted that Ervin has a topic he can speak to, rather than just the request for more data of ones offering. i appreciate his commentary, that is welcome. Bugs has certainly provided school for thought for all here. He is one wise dude. Interesting the variety beliefs that are represented here. We cover the spectrum. i am not by nature an egotistical person, and never wish to beat a drum, however, i am weary of "experts", "hierarchical figures", "scholars", and the "cheshire cat type" know it all. i don't accept authority figures of any persausion. i don't suffer others to make rules for the followers. When it comes to my understanding of the present, and to my personal future, i don't accept any institutional authority for my lifestyle or beliefs. They know no more of the beginnings, or the future of life, than you. They postulate and dictate with "much pompous wisdom", assuming infalibility. They can speculate, pontificate, and make rules and prohibitions with certainty, not realizing the Emperor is unclothed, the rank and file sheeple follow their falible tradition, because of fear or won't be proven wrong.
Each of us should never allow anyone, yes anyone, to come between us and theHoly Spirit, and the love of Jesus. i am not an agnostic, but you are welcome to make that statement for yourself. Two things i am certain of (i believe), that of ID; and another dimension that is unacceptable to many, that of spiritual communication, whether of a loving Creator, or of demonic origin, should one be open to reception.
Dr Taylor: ‘Mr. Fergusson suggests…’
It’s one ‘s’ in Ferguson actually. Double ‘ss’ as in Fergusson tends to be the posher spelling, but alas, my Scottish peasant ancestors only bestowed on me the more common variety of one ‘s’.
Dr Taylor: ‘I wonder if Mr. Fergusson would provide a quote from Barth to the effect that he believed Christianity is “ultimately irrational”
Dr Taylor, dialogue is a two-way street; otherwise, it isn’t dialogue but a lecture. I note I have similarly requested further information from you as well, which you seem reluctant to answer. This was motivated by your own suggestion of me that I was not perhaps accurately reflecting your views, so I have only sought clarification. You seem to be adopting a similar approach now. On that basis, I am happy to comply with your reasonable request, but on the understanding you will do likewise.
The question I am still waiting to be clarified is what exactly you mean by ‘mature Adventism’. You seemed to avoid the question by only focusing on the question of the Bible, adopting a position that I many Adventists already adopt. The question was really whether you adopt the same position as your fellow-ideologue Elaine, in subscribing to the ideas of John Shelby Spong, which is something akin to the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Spong
Consider my question something akin to Cyril of Alexander’s anathema, and you Nestorius.
Dr Taylor: ‘Please provide a quote.’
Upon further investigation, the concept espoused is perhaps best reflected in the Church Father Tertullian (another lawyer like myself), who greatly influenced Barth’s intellectual mentor Kierkegaard, saying: ‘Credo quia absurdum’ – I believe because it is absurd.
However, I believe Barth quoted the Maxim to underline the ‘paradoxical claim that the negation is also the affirmation’ where Barth later talked about the ‘impossible possible.’
The closest Barth quote I could find at short notice, keeping in mind I am no expert on Barth:
‘We must be clear that whatever we say of God in such human concepts can never be more than an indication of Him; no such concept can really conceive the nature of God. God is inconceivable.’
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Karl_Barth
Have a look yourself in the list of quotes.
As to context and meaning, as summarised in E. A. Livingston’s Oxford Concise Dictionary of the Christian Church (New York: Oxford Uni. Press, 2006) at page 56 under ‘Barth Karl’: ‘Human reason, he held, has no power to attain to the knowledge of God which is given only in God’s gracious revelation in Jesus Christ… This outlook rules out natural theology and makes dialogue with non-Christian views virtually impossible.’
Dr Taylor: ‘Who am I to dispute the views of Karl Barth? What a silly idea!’
Of course you can dispute his views – that is the silliest of all ideas. I think your overall analysis of his views is correct. In some respects, I think Barth is wrong. Barth’s rejection of natural law is nothing more than a return to an ultra-Lutheran position that surrounded the Eucharist Controversy with Zwingli following the Marburg Colloquy of 1529. It was the latter who argued that the idea of bread magically turning into literal Christ’s body wasn’t just repugnant on theological grounds but also on natural law grounds. Adventists uniquely also subscribe to our own version of natural law, which we use to justify our stance on the Health Message.
As such, I think to be honest one must practically aim for a middle ground between faith and reason. Whilst Tertullian famously said, ‘What has Athens to do with Jerusalem’, meaning what does this famous school of philosophy (which today we would call science) has with the famous place of faith, even he realised faith and reason should not be in opposition.
The problem with modern attempts to de-mytholize the Bible is that they take rationalism too far. They say they reject the absurd 19th Century Rationalist position, such as Paulus who argued Jesus didn’t really walk on water but just on a sandbar, or that He never really rose from the dead but was just unconscious. However, modern liberal theologians effectively create modern-day equivalents, like the idea that Jesus’ resurrection was just a mass hallucination brought on through grief.
Dr Taylor: ‘Also, his rejection of fundamentalism suggests that he was not completely opposed to relooking at traditional Christian views in light of modern scientific knowledge.’
I’m not against that either. It’s about a balanced approach.
To be honest, do reject any extreme fideism. Apart from anything else, it often results in circular reasoning. However, the curious thing is that today it is the modern liberal and rationalist theologians who do that the most! For example, Rudolf Bultmann, who is really the modern founder of Christian-Existentialism (after Kierkegaard) said he believed in the Resurrection ‘Because it is proclaimed as such,’ which is just circular reasoning. You will find modern liberal theologians, of Spong’s ilk, engaging in similar circular reasoning.
The modern theological approach is to say the Bible is ‘true’ because a community of faith takes it to be. Again, that is such circular reasoning, as if God is a politician seeking votes. I think you need to read people such as Pannenberg, who claimed Jesus, the Resurrection and the Bible need to be demonstrable historical-fact, keeping in mind the Bible is not the Word of God (capital ‘W’), but a limited human word (lower ‘w’) description of the Word.
In fact, such de-mytholizing attempts are not even in accordance with rational thought, given what we now know about science. Serious scientific views (often atheistic) about quantum physics, parallel universes, time-travel, aliens and the holographic principle, all suggest rationalist presumptions far too limited. Likewise, if supernatural literally means, ‘Not able to be explained by the laws of nature,’ then scientific orthodoxy gives strong weight to the possibility of supernatural events, given the Big Bang and black holes occur where time-space and laws of physics cease.
A Resurrected human being might seem impossible, but Christ as Duling’s ‘Alien Man from the Sky’ and Bultmann’s timeless ‘iustitia aliena’ is a different proposition. In fact, biblical miracles are not beyond possibility, when we consider time traveling aliens as a serious possibility – as Dawkins and Hawking do. Teleportation (yes of Star Trek fame) seems to be a quantum-physics description of resurrection. The holographic principle seems to be John Haught’s and Pierre de Chardin’s objective immortality of Process Theology variety.
I’m not saying this is what happened, or that we think Noah’s ark was a UFO. I’m not a Ralien. All I am just saying one cannot read the Bible with such rationalist presumptions, of rejecting the supernatural because we don’t see it around us in the mundane world. To me that seem arrogance of the highest kind.
I apologize for misspelling Fergusson. Mea Culpa. As for the views of the Rev. Dr. Spong, might I suggest that his views cited above are a good place to begin if one wishes to look carefuly at "truth statements" incorporated into the Christian tradition over its 2000 year history to determine if they make any sense in terms of what we have learned over the last 500 years about a number of things.
Bugs stated,
“Like all prophecies, hers (EGW) don't seem to accurately predict the future”
The following prediction is pretty accurate, just look the comments and AT
“Men of talent and pleasing address, who once rejoiced in the truth, employ their powers to deceive and mislead souls. They become the most bitter enemies of their former brethren”
Any idiot can make that kind of statement. So, she must be one! No, I'm not bitter, if you have read any of my posts herein, and have a sense of humor, you will recognize mine.
More to the point, I don't see my name in her statement. And if it was it would be a lie. Yes, I once "rejoiced in the truth" until I found it it wasn't. Jehovah's Witnesses us that term to describe their belief. No, I didn't join them.
I use my "powers" to reveal religious superstition, which applies to some SDA theology. I am looking for a soul to mislead. Haven't found one yet, you included.
EGW must not have had me in mind. I have no bitter enemies of my "former brothern." When I brushed the SDA dirt off my feet, I was angry at not one, had a good relationship with those I left behind, and value the ten years I was an SDA minister. To this day I have approximately thrity of my old academy students on Face Book as friends.
If that predictive quotation is the best you can dredge from her endless meanderings to illustrate a future prognostication, you have nothing.
Did a little deeper or apologize as a good Christian would when making a false claim and accusation.
Enemies come in different shapes and sizes. Many enemies pose as friends. Someone has even coined a new word that has already made its mark: Frenemy (Frenemies). (Dr?) David's EGW quote may have touched a sore spot here. The response received calling EGW an idiot exposes a deep seeded bitterness and resentment towards Adventism especially our traditional position regarding Ellen White's significant contribution to our church. The author who posted it claims he isn't an enemy of Adventism so I guess we'll have to take it at face value although he has a very odd way of showing it. In fact all the bitterest enemies of our church have always attacked Ellen White in a 'shoot the messenger' approach. That's why I have concluded that EGW must be viewed by our so-called friends and our enemies as public enemy number one. It is a well established fact that there are still pockets within Adventism that have a similar hostile attitude towards the Lord's Messenger. At least Mr Boshell is being honest about now he feels – however, it does make his claim to being a friend of Adventism more challenging. There are many ways to skin a cat I suppose.
When the "messenger" is the source of the message "attacking" one inadvertantly "attacks" the other. Skin one of them cats, you skin the other.
It takes no prophetic inspiration to make such a statement as it is based on common sense by observing how men operate in any institution to gain or keep power. It is a very general statement with no specific people or places addressed.
The hottest field in biology and medical sciences is epigenetics. Each year thousands of peer review papers are published and are changing the paradigms. The base of this information was already written more that 100 years ago by a humble little christian lady, her name Ellen White.
“Any idiot can make that kind of statement. So, she must be one! No, I'm not bitter…”
Perhaps Bugs the natural question might actually be why would even you suspect or imply that David had you in mind in quoting that prediction.
For sake of argument, did you (or Elaine) expect White to provide specific names? Like I said, I have to take your word for it when you say “I have no enemies of my ‘former brothern [sic];’” but rather than specific individuals, EGW may just as easily have been referring to the general fellowship of the SDA denomination/community in reference to “former brethren.” After all, she did predict that “they become the most bitter enemies of” them; not that they were enemies at separation/departure.
Having Mr/Ms Oct (and certain others) make his/her periodic statements on AT blogs I view as very helpful for the rest of us because it brings us back to the reality of what contempoary Adventism is probably like out in the "typical" Adventist Church. I can speak only for myself in that I live in one of the ivory towers of Adventism and among Adventists who approach their church and Adventist and Christian beliefs, in most cases, in a reasonable and rational way and with whom you can usually have a calm conservation about even controversial topics. But that is apparently not the case in many Adventist churches and I appreciate that Mr/Ms. Oct keeps reminding us of that.
I have noticed that "bitterness," a certain lack of Christian civility, seems to thrive among the defenders of the indefensible as testament to a fear of exposure. The ultimate revelation is the definition by the SDA preservationists is to diminish EGW skeptics as "enemies." Feels like vitriol to me. Who really is the brothern (sic), brethren?
A certain political party in our era reveals its questionable activities by what it accuses the other of.
Defense of EGW comes down to belief. Belief fills in the blanks, projects credit for imaginary achievements (epigenetics, i.e.), overlooks insubstantiality, discovers meaning that fits observers wishes or bias, views weakness as a virtue, defines criticism as an "attack," and castigates doubters as promoters of darkness and hatred, bitterness, too.
If you like EGW, that is fine with me. My critique of her is not of you.
H.G. Wells and Orwell were far greater predictive prophets than EGW. Think of all the scientific advances they foretold with such precision. Creative imagination drives new discoveries. What new discoveries did EGW effect? Many were condemning individuals (yes, without names) but they were originally intended for individuals, but then used as "Testimonies" to the entire church.
All religious prophets that I am aware of have value only within the closed circle of their "believers." None have merit outside that circle. An oracle of legitimacy should catch the attention of a larger demographic, it would seem to me, because there would be something of value to almost everyone.
The presence and defense of a prophet feeds into the siege mentality so common among the largely conservative groups with "prophets."
Palm readers use the same methodology as the entrained prophets. Pronouncements have enough generalized, satisfactory lures to captivate the prey, which then seems to authenticate the entirety of the edicts and mentally transforms them into "prophecy."
Mohammad, EGW, Joseph Smith, et. al., have contributed nothing to positively shape world events. If God is reaching out with advice and direction, why doesn't he contact Obambi or Putin or Assad where it would do some real good? Yes, the answer will be, He is, but they are not listening like you (me) and just about everyone else!
Now, I won’t press you and I sure don’t want to provoke further wrath; but this represents an example of EGW Bible commentary that I personally consider prophetic.
EGW:
“When the leading churches of the United States, uniting upon such points of doctrine as are held by them in common, shall influence the state to enforce their decrees and to sustain their institutions, then Protestant America will have formed an image of the Roman hierarchy, and the infliction of civil penalties upon dissenters will inevitably result.
The beast with two horns "causeth [commands] all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name." Revelation 13:16, 17. The third angel's warning is: "If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God." "The beast" mentioned in this message, whose worship is enforced by the two-horned beast, is the first, or leopardlike beast of Revelation 13–the papacy. The "image to the beast" represents that form of apostate Protestantism which will be developed when the Protestant churches shall seek the aid of the civil power for the enforcement of their dogmas. The "mark of the beast" still remains to be defined.”
GC 446
Here’s another useful example; which isn't Bible commentary, but seemingly prophetic:
“Tobacco is a slow, insidios, but most malignant poison. In whatever form it is used, it tells upon the constitution; it is all the more dangerous because its effects are slow and at
Page 328
first hardly perceptible. It excites and then paralyzes the nerves. It weakens and clouds the brain. Often it affects the nerves in a more powerful manner than does intoxicating drink. It is more subtle, and its effects are difficult to eradicate from the system. Its use excites a thirst for strong drink and in many cases lays the foundation for the liquor habit.
The use of tobacco is inconvenient, expensive, uncleanly, defiling to the user, and offensive to others. Its devotees are encountered everywhere. You rarely pass through a crowd but some smoker puffs his poisoned breath in your face. It is unpleasant and unhealthful to remain in a railway car or in a room where the atmosphere is laden with the fumes of liquor and tobacco. Though men persist in using these poisons themselves, what right have they to defile the air that others must breathe?”
MH 327, 328
Clearly, there are other related lifestyle approaches that have had demonstrable, empirical pragmatic benefit. In my opinion these represent examples of prophetic things from which anyone could benefit.
Again, in my humble opinion, it is the first quotation above that is the primary reason for much of anti-White vitriol/bitterness.
Elaine and Larry,
I think you've both thoroughly confused and making statements based on great misunderstandings of both history and scripture. People may look to prophets to get a glimpse of the future, but the primary role of Divine prophets through history has been delivering intimate instruction from God to individuals about how He wanted them to live and what He wanted them to do in their time. Yes, it is easier to count how many prophecies about the future have been fulfilled, but doing this overlooks that the primary role of a prophet of God is far more intimate and immediate. God has declared the end from the beginning, so in-between He has been focused on us individually. Yes, God gave some prophets messages about end times and several prophets are best known for delivering those messages. But they are few and their writings the microscopic minority among the volume of revelations God has given through time by His multitudes of prophets.
Saying that certain prophets "have contributed nothing to positively shape world events" dismisses the impact of prophets on both individuals and history. What may be invented in the lifetimes of my great-grandchildren is of little concern to me when I am confronted with a message from a prophet calling me to repentance from some evil. Look at how many times through scripture someone sinned and a prophet was sent to call them to repentance and the good that followed when they responded positively. After his affair with Bathsheba, God sent the prophet Nathan to call him to repentance. Later we find David being called "a man after God's own heart" because of how he ever-after sought God and to do His will. David could have rejected the message and become evil like many of the kings who followed in later centuries. But he responsed and the nation was blessed as a result. More than that, we have in David a role model of spiritual commitment to which we can all aspire. Where would the world be without the ministry and writings of Paul, who was seeking to imprison and kill believers until the day Jesus appeared to him?
How do their prophetic impacts of HG Wells, George Orwell, Joseph Smith, Mohammed, Confuscius and a thousand other dreamers and so-called prophets compare to God's prophets? Saying that the others are greater or have had more impact on our world is like comparing the light from a few flickering candles and claiming it is the light of the noonday sun.
Can't speak for Elaine, but I am confused on how you think your sermon, good as it is as your testimony, based on religious belief, in any way, counters my assertions. I stand totally behind my undamaged statements.
"When the leading churches of the United States, uniting upon such points of doctrine as are held by them in common, shall influence the state to enforce their decrees and to sustain their institutions, then Protestant America will have formed an image of the Roman hierarchy, and the infliction of civil penalties upon dissenters will inevitably result."
Please, please, please Stephen, where in the world is their any movement among Protestant America for such a thing? I can prophesy thus with equal merit: When the dieticians of the world unite upon common points, they will enforce their decrees to sustain the notion that carrot eaters will have inflicted on them civil penalties in the image of the Roman hierarchy, and will, as dissenters, be punished. Protestant America has no power, declining membership, no concern about a holy day, diminishing creedal points, and is basically emasculated without a central authority (pope) which it has never had and no prospect that it will. Dream on for persecution.
Malignant poison, great comment. My question, maybe without merit, since she borrowed so much stuff from other thinkers and writers of her time, did she get an inside track from someone else? And it seems like much of her comment grew from her annoyance at thoughtlessness of smokers blowing in her face. At any rate, it was a very prophetical statement.
"When the leading churches of the United States, uniting upon such points of doctrine as are held by them in common, shall influence the state to enforce their decrees and to sustain their institutions, then Protestant America will have formed an image of the Roman hierarchy, and the infliction of civil penalties upon dissenters will inevitably result."
That Mr. Foster would bring that quote of EGW up suggests to me that he is totally out of touch with the political and cultural reality of the United States in 2013. For all the reasons mentioned by Bugs, the whole idea is completely and totally absurd. I would have thought that someone who wants to quote EGW as an authority on anything would hope that we would all forget that she wrote something that is so obviously wrong. In her day, of course, there were powerful political and social interests that might have benefited from such actions. Today, the picture is totally changed and let's admit that EGW blew it as knowing the future..
I address Dr. Taylor’s commentary in my response to Bugs (below) on this thread. I would welcome the opportunity to engage Dr. Taylor on this topic individually; but alas, that is not his preferred method.
Bugs in fairness you ask for a prediction of EWG and I provided one I knew. I don’t come from a religious background and I became a SDA Christian later in my life. I read few books from EGW, and for some reason that sentence was back in my mind. When I embraced SDA I never image that I will witness what she wrote. So when I saw the systematic attack s to the fundamental believes of the SDA and the source, for me was a fulfillment. If others don’t see that way is fine with me. By the way this was not a personal attack, “comprende conpadre” ?
In my profession I was able to see some idiots (medical terminology for profound mental retardation IQ less than 70) none of them were able to write of express like EGW. You may not like or not agree what she wrote, that is your prerogative, but I don’t think she was mentally retarded.
Cheers and enjoy your life.
I don't know if she was retarded or not. I know there are syndromes caused by blows to the head, which could include that. And I don't know if her head injury had anything to do with her experience. I assume she was an honest, well meaning woman.
If the SDA church had always treated her work as a novelty, possessing some spiritual value, and with some respect for the bizarre circus of her life, including the extensive insufficiencies of the accuracy of her work, she would never have been elevated to the level of virtual saint she now suffers. The SDA church, because of the some of the tortured theology blessed or created by her, with her elevation to saint level, has bridled the church with a Hobson's choice which leaves it unable, in any way, to divorce itself from the mischief. The church cannot admit the errors epitomized by the Great Disappointment without acknowledging the central role of the prophet/saint in errant theology.
My critique of her work is probably minor compared to the ridiculous use of her in the church.
Bugs no offence, but when I commented to my wife (a world renounce neurologist) that some body thought the EGW was idiot or metal retarded she stated “are you kidding me? had a good LOL, then became serious and told me don’t waste your time reading nonsense. As me she became SDA later in her life.
No one can absolutely be certain of which of all the writings dubbed "Spirit of Prophecy" were actually written by EGW. She had a number of editorial assistants that had to edit her writings. In addition, many of her writings were compiled into separate books and reissued with titles chosen by the publishers. The books published under her name have been so redacted, edited, and some parts eliminated and sold as "new" books, that it has become a publishing business reissuing a dead writer's work can be extended into eternity.
Even the Bible, as many times as new translations are issued, never change the original contents. The "Spirit of Prophecy" is an industry of the White Estates that will be issuing "new" books one hundred years from now, continuing to bring in money to the White Estates.
“The "Spirit of Prophecy" is an industry of the White Estates that will be issuing "new" books one hundred years from now, continuing to bring in money to the White Estates”
Good luck if that is the purpose; they are doing a very poor job…. These days one could read the books of EGW for free in the Internet. Even you Elaine, who knows you may like some of them
There's probably every one she ever wrote collecting dust on bookshelves in my house. I have much more interesting books to read and things to do in my twilight years. Thanks, I have my tastes in books.
Good for you, who knows maybe one of these days you will revisit your good old taste.
I never had a "taste" for EGW books. My late husband, a convert, is responsible for the books.
I almost thought you’d never ask Bugs; and since you said please three times…let’s analyze that Bible commentary/prediction for a minute; especially in light of your pithy commentary. (And again, my hunch is that this is the crux of most White opposition.)
Essentially, the key to this may well be the prediction that “…the infliction of civil penalties upon dissenters will inevitably result.” Of course, this happens whenever the state takes its marching orders from the church. Some American founders may have understood this.
White predicted that in the U.S., after "the leading churches influence the state to enforce their decrees and sustain their institutions," the same thing that has happened elsewhere whenever this has happened, will happen here.
Now in order to influence the state the church will have to have willing accomplices in the court of public opinion and in the halls of civil power.
There are all sorts of recently-uttered statements by varieties of well-known and very influential politicians and political operatives here in America that would confirm that there are plenty of individuals who are ready, willing and able to spend tens, even hundreds, of millions of dollars to acquire civil authority for the purposes of stopping current moral decay and "returning America back to God."
These people and entities are determined to control the reins of government, and/or are currently holding, or in close proximity to, them.
If you think it somewhat far-fetched that such individuals actually exist, perhaps you should consider paying closer attention to the news. If you think it to be far-fetched that the acquisition of civil power by the church will inevitably lead to “persecution,” perhaps you should consider studying world history.
Actually, it’s almost surprising that you haven’t criticized White for simply predicting that which has happened previously on a recurring basis.
The lurking wolf you discern in the shadows soon to spring forth is accompanied by thousands, nay tens of thousands, of imaginary wolves, conspiracy theories, created by doomsayers of every ilk. If, by chance, one bolts into history, its creator will be able to say, "I told you so." Until yours materializes, if in the million to one chances it does, I have to sit on the sidelines and scratch my head and ask, why do persons enjoy such nonsensical speculation? Especially one promoted by a lady whose predictions, laden with generalities requiring perpetual reinterpretation, are so tenuous as to be vacuous.
One Great Disappointment must not be enough for you.
I still think carrot eaters are in more jeopardy than SDAs.
Sorry Stephen, I shouldn't have used so many "pleases!"
Bugs, I might have simply said that you are entitled to your opinion, huh?
It is apparently safe to say that you do consider it far-fetched that such folk as I described actually exist; and that civil penalties do accrue to dissenters whenever the church dictates to the state. It would be fascinating (for me) to know which of these/many things you once believed as a minister and which ones you never believed (as an Adventist minister).
Oh, I should also say that with regard to White’s interpretive predictions in GC, it would certainly be inaccurate to suggest that they are “laden with generalities requiring perpetual reinterpretation;” or in any way “tenuous.”
It is not far-fetched that people believe in intrigue. In your case there are two levels of farfetchedness. That the cabal will materialize, and your authority for it, The GC. The first is a million to one, the second is akin to accepting Alice in Wonderland as guide to understanding and predicting conspiracies.
When I was a child, I believed childish things. When I grew up, I gave up silly, foundationless notions. And I abandoned faux authorities and internalized parents, both of which produce neurotic guilt.
Yeah, whatever man; but I notice that you passed on whether or not religious-political and/or quasi-religious entities and individuals exist who openly seek civil authority/power for the expressed purposes of reclaiming America for Christ and returning America to God; without much/any subterfuge. (In other words, there’s not much “intrigue.”)
I have also noticed that you passed on whether or not is far-fetched that religious liberty is endangered whenever the church obtains effective veto power over the state.
Since the reality is that both you and I know that such individuals/groups do exist, and that it is true that religious liberty is inevitably/invariably abolished by quasi-theocracies; the retreat to attempted ridicule is understandable.
It’s not like quasi-theocracies do not exist. It’s not like religious persecution has never taken place anywhere, or at any time. Million to one odds that it could happen in the U.S. is itself incredible.
Drat, can't sneak nothing by you! OK, here goes:
What about the Fellowship or Family, led by Doug Coe, which is a super-powerful, super-secret, organisation that tries to promote its own theocratic vision of America? Just reading a book on the subject now. Their own public event is the National Prayer Breakfast.
Isn't America already a semi-theocracy? To you Americans it might not seem to – to the rest of us in the West, you seem crazy theocrats.
As to prophecy, one can't talk about true or false prophecies at the moment. We might be talking about an event in 500 years time. A lot can happen in 10 years, let alone 50 or 500 years.
Anything is possible in our world, not likely, in most cases. Semi-theocracy? According to our president we are not even a Christian country. Theocrats? What in the world is that? Stephen, I'm starting to wonder if you might not be in some kind of sleeper cell!?! Or what kind of glasses are you wearing if you see this stuff? You imply you are not American. Come wear our shoes for awhile, if not. If Doug Coe has some super plan (another delectable conspiracy?), it is so secret I haven't heard of it. And if he does, along with many other covert theories that no one knows about, (since secret is the operative word), how the carp would it be implemented in a country where progressives (basically atheists) are increasingly in charge. And why would SDA's suffer in such a scenario?
I know, I know, you hope beyond hope that EGW predictions will come to pass. If Coe succeeds, since his version isn't the residue of the papacy, she would be verified as a false prophet. Right?
A stopped clock is right twice a day. Prophecy, interpreters looking backward can always find a application for prophecies. So in ten years, fifty, or five hundred, reverse prophecy engineers will find plenty of material to satisfy their yearnings.
As hard as you try, as much as you wish, Stephen, foretelling the future, is an exercise in futility.
One more thing, where in EGW's prophetical work is the prediction of the rise of Islam, by far a greater threat to the world and your church and your faith than any of the secret and papal powers? How'd the Spirit of Prophecy lady miss that one? Maybe Adventist soothsayers can reverse engineer her pronouncements to fit them in?
You may be more interested in a host of other things, so I should not be alarmed that you are unaware of “any religious efforts by anyone, anywhere, anything, any church, any individuals or groups who openly seek civil authority for returning America to God…except for the Islamic world.
Allow me to establish a predicate or foundation for my assertion that such individual or groups exist by first quoting some of the, shall we say, ‘founding fathers’ or this movement. (And forgive me, but I’ll simply copy and paste from a posting here a couple of years ago):
“The idea that religion and politics don't mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country.” Jerry Falwell
"I want to bring the Gospel of Christ and the moral standards of God to the hearts and minds of people in Washington…" D. James Kennedy
"Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost." D. James Kennedy
"God, in his providence, has given us a Christian nation, and it behooves us as Christians to prefer and select Christians to rule over us." D. James Kennedy
"It is clear that God is saying, 'I gave man dominion over the earth, but he lost it. Now I desire mature sons and daughters who will in My name exercise dominion over the earth and subdue Satan, the unruly, the rebellious. Take back My world from those who would loot it and abuse it. Rule as I would rule.'"– Pat Robertson, The Secret Kingdom
"There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. It is a lie of the Left and we are not going to take it anymore." Pat Robertson
“The Constitution of the United States, for instance, is a marvelous document for self-government by the Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian people and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society. And that's what's been happening.” Pat Robertson
There is much more…
Before we furnish you with more current quotes from those who have taken up their mantle, I’d like to allow you to spin those away, if you’d like.
I’m interested in whether, as an Adventist minister, you had any interest or knowledge of this movement; and if you then regarded White’s Revelation 13 interpretation as credible.
No interest and No. My reply to your last paragraph. The entities you cite are a gnats threat to an elephant (spun them away!). Now, get on to the real threat, Islam. How did Ellen, Daniel and Revelation miss this one? Persecution? It's here already. Arab countries barely allow Christians, are now killing off any of those infidels, including SDA's, I imagine. They are getting a foot hold in this country. Haven't you noticed Detroit? Religious freedom? That's the sky they fly in our country where we they get a pass for the agenda which calls for killing the infidels, one of which you are. Me too.
Mr Boshell
That's what they used to say about Russia and the 'commies.' Remember? They were the 'real threat' of yesteryear. Your 'real threat' Islam will soon be too.
The difference is that communism was forced on its populace, most of whom were thrilled when the suppression ended. Unbelievers in the state coercion were killed. Islam, made up of about twenty three percent of the world population, 1.6 billion, consists largely of true believers in a relgio/politico system that has its goal the elimination of non-Moslems. Where it has the power it has done it or is doing it.
The old commmie Krushchev once said, Ve vill bery U. He was speaking of nuclear war. The reason he couldn't carry out his threat is that it would have buried him, too, in a hellfire of retaliation. The Islamics are burring Christians, today, right now. They welcome hellfire retaliation. Don't believe that? Have you heard of suicide bombers? They believe Allah rewards such behavior.
Iran is achieving nuclear ability and delivery. Because of their belief in a version of a time of great trouble, they are willing to pull the tent pole of the earth down with mutual destruction as it will bring in the new Islamic age for the world. Think they won't fire some our way some day if they can? They have already been here. Remember 9/11?
I know, 22, you are totally invested in your belief. That is fine.
I guess my real question to you, what is the "real threat," and how will it gain advantage over Islam that is already the scourge of the earth?
Before I go on, perhaps I should clarify for you that Stephen Ferguson and Stephen Foster are two different people. He commented to you above about Doug Coe. You responded to him as if he was me; for which you should apologize:)
As for this previous post of yours, didn’t you say that you had never seen “any evidence of any religious efforts by anyone, anywhere, anything, any church, any individuals or groups who openly seek civil authority who has or ever will get veto power over the state”? Of course you have no way of knowing who “ever will get veto power over the state;” only God knows that, doesn’t He?
But we can identify quasi-religious groups and individuals who openly seek civil authority for the aforementioned purposes; that much is certain.
It is interesting to note that you were not familiar with any of this, nor did you consider EGW’s take on Revelation 13 credible during your Adventist ministry. I am saddened that you have left Adventism, and the ministry, but am also gratified that you had the intellectual integrity and fortitude to exit, given your worldview/mindset.
EGW 'missed' Islam as a player in Revelation 13 interpretation, I would think, for the exact same reason she 'missed' predicting WWI, WWII (the rise and fall of the Third Reich, the Holocaust), and the rise and fall of the Soviet Union.
Since you have identified Islam as the “real threat,” if you are suggesting that it is a factor or is somehow identified in your interpretation of Revelation 13, we would all like to hear it.
Anyway, given that no evidence, not even their own words, will get you to acknowledge that there are religious operatives in the U.S. who seek secular civil authority; then the statements of Ralph Reed and James Dobson, or those of others who have sought high office to lower/demolish 'the wall of separation' between church and state will mean nothing to you in terms of prophecy, and particularly Revelation 13. That is a sort of willful ignorance (as in to simply ignore the indisputable) which ‘protects’ against being influenced/persuaded against one’s will.
This information is indisputable and undeniable because it is happening in real time, contemporaneously with our conversation; not to mention that those to whom I refer do not deny it; and, in fact, admit it.
In a reply on this page I use a metaphor of being blind and wildly throwing darts hoping to hit a target. There I went and did it myself. Sincerest apology. As penance I sentence myself to write Stephen F a hundred time in cursive. Whoops! That's not definitive. Act of penance, therefore, yet to be determined!
Where you refer to my statement of "any evidence of any religious efforts…," I should have installed the qualifier, "credible" before the word "evidence." In a sense I did that at the end of the statement when I said "who has or ever will get veto power over the state." That is a statement of belief on my part, and yes, only God knows the future. I pay no attention to the cited clerics, these puny "religious operatives," (I confess to being willfully ignorant!), so I didn't know their liberty-threatening statements. Now that I know, I consider it meaningless noise. Their attacks on the wall of separation of church and state, are in my estimation, rubber bullets against an Abrams M1A1 tank.
I'm saddened that you are still in the SDA church! Actually, I have no argument or concern over anyone whose faith and church membership supplies him with meaning to life. An ex-Adventist friend recently rejoined the SDA church and that is fine with me, since I have no desire to discourage anyone from seeking their spiritual satisfaction. No, I am not a candidate to return.
My exit was intellectually and ethically based (one shouldn't accept pay when you no longer believe what your payers think you do). By the time I made the decision to leave, I intellectually concluded EGW as not credible in any way, so her pronouncements meant nothing to me. I felt like a huge stone had been lifted from my back.
I don't do interpretations of Revelation, Don't need more entertainment.
In the scheme of things these "religious operatives" have, at the most, a few million followers and a message that has virtually no interest to the population at large. The threat you see is based on EGW predictions and a mindset interested in conspiracy. Dream on. Islam, with more than a billion adherents, has been serious inroads in Europe. In England civil courts are being bypassed by more than 85 Muslim Sharia law courts. Vigilantes patrol some streets in London trying to impose Sharia law. Paris, France, has Muslim areas civil police cannot enter. A million Muslims live in Detroit, where Sharia law, which destroys religious liberty, is practiced, where two McDonalds, until recently (quit for some legal issues), served halal foods, lawful, permissible foods, by their standards.
Your religious liberty concerns are misdirected. Are you blind, Stephen Foster? The enemy, the threat, to Adventism, all Christians, freedom, the constitution, religious liberty, has tentacles in place now, that reduce James Dobson and the others to amateur level.
Your final statement: "This information is indisputable and undeniable because it is happening in real time, contemporaneously with our conversation; not to mention that those to whom I refer do not deny it; and, in fact, admit it." This, your final statement, when applied to Islam, makes my Islamic summation for me. Thanks. So sorry about your feeble application!
You don’t do interpretations of Revelation…at all; so much for Revelation 13 then, obviously. Is all Biblical prophecy totally meaningless as far as you’re ('literally') concerned? If so, that explains a lot; but not what and why you once apparenntly believed something.
It seems you are somewhat suggesting that you are essentially to Islam as the late Sen. Joe McCarthy was to communism. ‘They’ are seemingly everywhere now; aren’t they? (What prominent Muslims can you name who have been openly advocating Sharia law for the United States, or who have claimed to be able to deliver nearly 40 million voters on a presidential Election Day?) No wonder you’re giving ‘million to one.’
Steven, organized religion in the USA has been in consistent decline annually over the past 50 years. TV ministries has a bad name in most homes. Empty churches are being sold for use as pubs and dance halls. The mainlines are almost dead. You are crying wolf wolf constantly, as the threat recedes to nothingness. The only way a prostitute religious power can rise in the USA is if the UNITED NATIONS raises it as a tool for one world government.
You’ve been around a while Earl, so you should certainly know that there is a backlash effect in American public affairs.
You should also be quite familiar with the swiftness with which public sentiment can/does regularly change on any number of issues, with passing and unexpected circumstances and events.
You should also know there is a well-heeled and organized network of operatives who are poised, ready, and willing to effect or leverage an opportunity to "reclaim America for Christ" and "return America to God."
You may not agree that such things are likely to happen, but to deny even the possibility or the facts that I have identified is not realistic either.
Dr Taylor: 'As for the views of the Rev. Dr. Spong, might I suggest that his views cited above are a good place to begin if one wishes to look carefuly at "truth statements" incorporated into the Christian tradition over its 2000 year history to determine if they make any sense in terms of what we have learned over the last 500 years about a number of things.'
Very interesting. Much thanks – that perhaps gives me a better idea where you are going in your own journey, and the types of questions who might be asking.
For me personally, I don't have so much against people who subscribe to Spong's a-theism (as opposed to atheism) views. It is a free country (at least mine is).
I do wonder though is Spong's a-theism views can even be considered part of the 'Christian tradition.' And we aren't even talking about the more specific 'Adventist' tradition.
It seems to me our usually discussions here about women's ordination or 1844-IJ seems totally pointless if we seriously doubt the notion of a personal God, of a historical Jesus who really was factually and corporeally raised from the dead, or of the utility of prayer. I struggle to see the survival of Christianity itself with the adoption of those views, let alone the SDA Church. And to be honest, those 'mainstream' Protestant denominations that are adopting these sort of 'modern', rationalist and 'liberal' views seem to be statistically in decline.
How do you personally consider yourself a 'Christian' – and I ask seriously and not out of some prejorative sense? I am sure Elaine will say one can follow Jesus' teachings without believing in supernatural miracles and all that. But isn't Christianity more than Jesus' ethical teachings? Doesn't Elaine herself often point out that the Golden Rule is found in most religions? Isn't Christianity more than Christ's teachings, which actually are neither revolutionary or peculiar?
Doesn't John 20:16-18 tell us that the 'Good News' of the Gospel isn't a command to go spread Jesus' ethical teachings – if it was, Jesus would be little different from Confucious. Rather, Mary Magdalene was commanded to tell the disciples that Jesus was raised from the dead. That supernatural event, the Resurrection, seems to be the central tennet of Christianity. So to deny that, would seem to be contrary to the very DNA of Christianity.
Finally, although Spong rejects theism, he says his a-theism is not atheism. However, I fail to really see the practical difference. How are his views, or your views, or Elaine's views, for all intensive and practical purposes not practically the same as atheism? What is the point of God in your personal theological worldview? Why does the question of God's existence and nature matter one squat, and why should we spend 5 minutes of our day thinking about God, if He is some impossibly distant and thus irrelevant Tilliach-like ontological being, to whom prayer and all communication is but impossible?
Anyway, whilst I struggle with the modern world (although if a big bang from nothing or the holographic principles or teleportation is possible, then anything is possible), I think the sort of modern, liberal rationalism you and Elaine seem to subscribe to, as Spong and others, is itself fraught with danger. If I ever get to your way of thinking, I suspect I will struggle with how such a worldview should be subscribed, whether it should be called 'Christian', or even theistic.
Best wishes on your continued journey.
What are considered many "Christian" and "Christian beliefs" (e.g., slavery was once ok, there will be a ever burning hell, women could be ignored or worse, people believed that God would wipe out most of the human race in a flood and would ask the Hebrews to kill men, women, and children, etc. etc.) have evolved over the centuries and will evolve in the future. Thus, to talk about the question of who is or is not considered "a Christian" and what is or is not "Christian" (or Adventist in the case of our little group of Christians) is subject to some lenghy discussion.
Stephen Foster: 'It’s not like quasi-theocracies do not exist. It’s not like religious persecution has never taken place anywhere, or at any time. Million to one odds that it could happen in the U.S. is itself incredible.'
I have been somewhat distracted deep in thought about issues raised with Dr Taylor. However, looking at this discussion between Stephen Foster and Bugs about SDA echatology re the US, I might just add my two cents in – not that anyone wants it. Provided I am keeping on the right track of the discussion.
What I find most suprising is that when Andrews (I believe it was him) came up with the idea about the US being the 2nd Lamb-like Beast, the idea was crazy. It was crazy because the US was a colonial backwater mino. It would be like prophesying the rise of Venuzula as a world power (there as once a United States of South America you know). It also seems bizzare that a new religious group would consider its own Government the future Beast Power, when most at the time thought the US was the New Promised Land.
Skip forward 150 years, and wo and beyond the US is the world's remaining superpower. Its democratic functions, like Congress, are increasingly broken. It's executive office is increasingly Imperial. It's like watching the transformation of Republican Rome to Imperial Rome before one's very eyes. Even Obama, who seems to be a very nice fellow (in lamb-like manner), has done some very dragon-like things, like the increased used of drones in effectively assinating people, including American citizen and the odd wedding celebration. And don't get me started on the NSA spying on me typing away right now.
As for Ellen White, even assuming (and just assume for a moment) she really was a prophet- what do people expect? Prophecy is such that it often comes true, but fulfilled in a way we don't quite expect. Did Malachi really think Elijah would return before the return of the Messiah, and would he have imagined a different person like John the Baptist would have fulfilled it?
With prophecy, the vision or idea derrives from the Divine, but the prophet is a human filter, who is limited by human concepts, human language, human symbols and human imagination. Be careful in judging Ellen White by a standard we wouldn't apply to biblical prophets.
Then again, if you are someone like Elaine, who denies even the notion of a prophet who obtains communications from Divine origins, and thus denies the Divine origin of the Bible (even if one recognises the human element), then there really is no point talking about Ellen White is there. There is no point talking about Ellen White if you reject Moses, Elijah, Peter and Paul.
And one final point. Both 'sides' need to remember we are not necessarily talking about the US or RC Church as they are today. Who knows, it could be them in 500 years time. A lot can happen in 10 years, if not 50 years. Imagine what can happen in 500 years or more.
Watch and pray. Don't think you have it all worked out, like those Adventist 'People of the Chart', or so willing to dismiss it all as bunken either. That's my own personal view anyway.
If that is an accurate estimation of Elaine, I'm in her camp on this one (maybe for different reasons). Gaining and sharing wisdom doesn't need acts of divine revelation (look at Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, et. al.). Remember that the Testaments are collections of books chosen by committee from literally thousands of disparate manuscripts floating around throughout history (The Catholic Bible, the Douay version has 73 books , the KJ has 66, different committees and history). Criteria chosen by imperfect humans was exercised to develop canons, (collections of sacred books accepted as genuine). It was all accomplished a long time ago when the religious presumption was that there were people that God used as his mouthpiece. That was the God that answers prayers, receives confessions and intervenes in history, spoke the universe into existence, sometimes slaps people around, has ordered genocide, and made humans in his image, plus a mountain of other super anthropomorphic characteristics. I call that Super Guy, a creation of god in man's image, a concept that thrives to this day. In my estimation, that God has had to pack his stuff into a celestial moving van and retreat to the other side of the big bang (or whatever the genesis of the universe is eventually determined to be).
It seems to me that the Super Guy's intervention has to be considered very fragile, and speculative, since it passed through human filters on several levels, including the one you mention, Stephen. Like manipulative interpretation of prophecy, human desires and judgment has always been operative in divining the presence of Super Guy in history. Any lack of finding him, or questioning of him, is blamed on humans, whose guilt is boundless in this regard.
If you like Super Guy as a convenient, allegory, myth, or metaphor, for your image of the divine, that is fine. However, the universe is real (as best as reality can be defined) and it operates out side of belief.
Your analysis of Obama and the condition of our country doesn't need prophetical application. And it is laborious to make a fit. Makes more sense to me to compare it to the historical disintegration of empires.
"Super Guy" Good show! Jolly good show! Between Bugs and Elaine, the rational progressive end of the spectrum of views in the Adventist tradition on the AT web site is assured. No strange idea coming from the right wing is going to get by them. First class!
So what type of God do you 'rational progressives' worship then? Obviously not a personal one to whom prayers are pointless? Perhaps at best, some distant diest watchmaker, who set the laws of physics of the unvierse going and then stepped away? What's the point of your God anyway?
How does it differ in practice from atheism, or at least Buddhism, where I believe the Buddha said there may be a God or gods, but it isn't at all relevant? How could that position be compatible with Abrahamci monotheism?
Stephen,
The position you hold with your god is very personal. Why should it be your concern how and what other people believe? When they given their personal opinions, you make insulting remarks against other beliefs not in line with your own opinions.
Such questions: "What's the point of your God anyway;" and then make comparisons with other beliefs are dismissive and denigrating and demonstrates insecurity in your own if you cannot allow others the same privilege of beliefs.
When you are not willing to respect other's belief and converse in a civilized and non-personal derogatory statements you are become an immediate conversation killer.
(Another ‘point of order,’ so to speak: please discern that Stephen Ferguson and Stephen Foster are two separate and distinct individuals.
This is really for future reference as I don’t want us to become conflated.
I would not deem it necessary to reiterate this distinction if not for the fact that I agree with Mr. Ferguson more frequently than I disagree with him.)
Worshiping something or Someone is a despensible human trait. You can't worship Love. That is what Christ said God is.
Categorizing me (or anyone) doesn't answer my assertions. Labeling must be all you have.
Now we might be entering the realm of possible reality. If someone would like to suggest that our evangelists talk about what might happen in 100 or 500 years, based on some reasonable projections of what heppens in stressed socieities under very different political, social and economic conditions, then we might have something to consider. But they and most Adventists (and it would seem some large percentage of evangelical Protestant Americans today) think in terms of "The End" sometime in the next few years at most. That is pure fantesy unless, of course, the earth gets hit by a large asteriod that we did not see coming and then all bets are off.
Prophecy, as defined as forecasting the future, has no real value, because it is only as accurate as a dart hitting the target by a closed eyed person. If prophecy is to be utilized in their homilies it would be much safer for evangelists to set up targets way down the time line since most of us won't be around to see if the predictive darts accidently strike home. Couldn't they just exercise their skills explaining why SDA religion has a superior view of Christ's ethic and teachings? I know evangelists aren't prophets, but I doubt the value of any projections in their sales pitches
In reality, the end has always been near and still is. Since we are hanging on for dear life to congealed planetary debris that wasn't amassed for human habitation, an asteroid, or dozens of other threats, may get us before any of the contrived conspiracies whack us.
Your comments are right. However, there is more to Christianity than its ethics. To be honest, its ethics is not that superior, in my respective view, than many other religions. The Bah'ai faith, Jainism and arguably even Judaism (which Christiantity came to replace), are in the running for equal if not superior ethical teachings.
The eschatological and apocalyptic aspect of Christianity that many modern liberal Christians seem embarrased to admtit to. It has very much be a hot topic of debate amongst those engaged in the Quests for the Historical Jesus. And yet if scholars such as Schweitzer and Sanders are correct, the eschatological and apocalyptic aspect of Christianity is something we can't avoid.
The secret is to think the end could be tomorrow or equally likely 2,000 years in the future. The whole point of a warning is to help change our lives today. Warning us about Climate Warming should help us pollute less today. Warning us about the dangers of stroke and heart disease should help us adopt healthier lifestyles today.
Obviously, Dr. Taylor is no more equipped to proclaim that anticipation of Christ’s return within, say, the next five years is “pure fantasy” than is my year-old granddaughter.
That is not reflection on his professional qualifications or his intelligence, or lack thereof, because neither of those is in question. (We know him to be eminently qualified and we know him to be intelligent.) It’s an acknowledgement of the reality that no one knows when Christ will return; so to dismiss any statement that it is soon as a fantasy is like dismissing a statement of what occurs, or does not occur, after clinical brain death.
Since no one who has ever been resurrected after clinical brain death has ever talked about it, and since what happens can’t possibly be tested or disproven scientifically; we may have to use the Bible; which indicates that the brain dead no longer know anything and that certain occurrences indicate that Christ will return one day—and since we don’t know when we will be brain dead or when Christ will return, we should be always preparing/ready.
Some of us think that others of us are already brain dead; don’t we?:) We certainly know that all of us will be brain dead within 50-100 years. (“The living know that they shall die…”)
Dr Taylor: 'If someone would like to suggest that our evangelists talk about what might happen in 100 or 500 years, based on some reasonable projections of what heppens in stressed socieities under very different political, social and economic conditions, then we might have something to consider. But they and most Adventists (and it would seem some large percentage of evangelical Protestant Americans today) think in terms of "The End" sometime in the next few years at most.'
You are probably right here. However, there is an equal danger in adopting a sense of complaincy, to ignore the signs, and think it never could be sooner than we think.
Some of the liberal Christian attitudes against the End Times reminds me of some conservative Christian attitudes against forewarnings of climate change. In the latter case, analogous here, 'believers' fall into the danger of 'crying wolf' by blaming every single unusual weather event on climate change, whilst 'deniers' deny the longterm signs because they think it never is going to happen to them.
I am going to suggest the somewhat impossible here, and suggest there is a 'balanced' approach to eschatology.
May I say that Mr. Foster does have a point about my "pure fantasy" comment. No one knows and to say what is, and is not, pure fantasy about projections about how the future will come out is indeed problematic. There are higher and lower degrees of probability based on past trends. But, major black swans do occur. Thus Mr. Foster's comment is well taken. .
To borrow part of my anology form a previous post, a blind man throwing darts will hit a bulls eye sometime.
Correction: analogy
Anger management my brother Bugs; anger management.
Warning: Watch out! My eyes are closed and I am throwing darts, (anger dispersion, managment), best to stay out of my way!