Biblicism, Bibliolatry, and EGW
by Stephen Foster
Whatever else may be said of her and her writings, the ‘problem’ with Ellen White is that she affirms the Bible.
Which of course begs the question, why is this, or why would this (or how could this) be considered a problem?
Well, obviously it is not a problem for everyone; but it is a huge, impenetrable, insurmountable problem for some of you/us.
If there ever was someone apparently ‘guilty’ of bibliolatry, it had to be her. Of course, I do not believe that there is such a thing as bibliolatry; but if there is, she committed it.
It is seemingly not possible to distinguish between worshipping God and learning of Him. We learn of Him through His Spirit. His Spirit inspired the God-chosen men to write that which we find in Scripture. What we find in Scripture is God.
But supposing that you don’t buy this, and you think that it is indeed possible to distinguish between worshipping God and that which we are encouraged to do in Matthew 11:29 and 2 Timothy 2:15; then White did it—she seems to have reverenced the Bible as God’s words.
It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that Ellen White believed that the Bible represented the Word of God. She seemingly believed that the Bible has, or represents, and/or is a conduit for, transformational power to those who study it.
“The earth itself is not more richly interlaced with veins of golden ore than is the field of revelation with veins of precious truth. The Bible is the storehouse of the unsearchable riches of God. But those who have a knowledge of the truth do not understand it as fully as they might. They do not bring the love of Christ into the heart and life. The student of the Word finds himself bending over a fountain of living water. The church needs to drink deeply of the spirituality of the Word.” MS 117, 1902
Since Jesus claimed to be the Source of that “water welling up into eternal life;” if this isn’t elevating the Bible as representative of, and a source of the living water that Christ claimed to represent, what is?
The question then is, was she right? Should the Bible indeed be held in such lofty esteem, such that we should actually consider it to be the holy Bible?
If the Bible is to be considered holy; if it is indeed representative of the Word of God; if it is actually inspired and brought to us by God (by way of holy men of His); then how is it possible for Biblicism or bibliolatry to be considered pejoratives?
Personally, I think they are pejoratives simply because the enemy would prefer that we not take the Bible as seriously as it should be taken; and that’s all. I’m curious as to what others think.
I think if you imagine for a moment that your blog was written by a Muslim, and you replace Ellen with Mohammed, the Bible with the Koran, and God with Allah, you have essentially the same blog, but would disagree with their conclusion – I hope.
Quite the contrary, SDA's do not teach nor believe that the Bible is word inspirited, leaving no room for interpretation as do the Muslim's with the Koran. We hold that the Bible is thought inspired which gives it a breath of meaning that is as unexhaustable as is the mind of God. But herein lies the problem with us; we want to insert our thoughts upon the Bible and its thoughts, which is the simple explaination for so many of the conflicts that modern man has with the Bible, (and many SDA's with EGW). Isaiah recorded that God's thoughts / ways are nothing like our thoughts / ways, as different as the heights of heaven are from our lowly place here on planet earth.
Peace
Biblicism: "adherence to the letter of the Bible". A little incompatible with thought inspiration and freedom of interpretation I suspect.
I don't believe that you will find Stephen, or EGW taking the verbal inspiration of scripture, but I do believe you would find them in agreement with, "biblicism, a strict following of the teachings of the Bible." I do not see where there is any conflict with the concept of following every detail of the thought process outlined in the Bible. God communicated His will by inspiring men who conveyed the God's thoughts in words for us all to understand.
Occasionally I would like to nominate laffal for the position now occupied by former President Bill Clinton: Secretary of Explaining Things.
Substituting the Book of Mormon would be even more similar to Adventist's belief in Ellen. Mormons also are Christians and accept the Bible, inasmuch as it agrees with the Book of Mormon; while Adventism accepts the Bible as interpreted by EGW. They also accept many of her writings that cannot be found in the Bible regarding specific and detailed health instructions that were totally unscientific and false) and specious statements on "large people" seen in another planet in vision. Those are only a few of her imagainary impressions attributed to heavenly visions.
But the largest amount of her writings was taken directly from others' books and writings and claimed as shown her in visions and the books she had never read previous to copying these statements.
I should also have suggested you replace the verses with Al-Jaathiyah 45:20
and Sura 9:5.
Stephen, I appreciate the motives you have for writing. Sister Ellen White, and you are both concerned with the making of no effect the words of inspiration. You are both strongly convinced that reading the inspired writings does a body good. And Jack Hoehn fully agrees with both of you.
However, why I started blogging on AToday was because I feel the greatest danger to inspiration, was not the attacks of atheists and unbelievers, the greatest danger to the value of the Bible is from those who worship the words of the Bible as if they were God's words, and their own understanding of the Bible as if that was God's understanding.
I especially fear those in my church trying to made specific what Genesis 1 has left unstated, by rewriting our doctrine of creation as "6-literal-24-hour-days", when Moses wrote YOM, which means both a 12 hour period of sunlight, a sundown to sundown 24 hour day, an definite but undefined period of time in the past or in the future, such as Genesis 2:4 uses it, or as we would say, "back in Grandpa's day", or "back in the day of the Dinosaur" or "the day of the Lord" none of which means a 24 hour period of time, but means an age, an era, "back then" or "when it comes to pass in the future" without the limitation of of "literal-24 hour and no seconds" periods of time.
I am encouraged in this by the words of Jesus, Paul, and Ellen White, who all asked people to change, modify, or expand their previous understanding of the Old Testament. Jesus said, Moses said, but I say unto you, which is revising Moses. Paul said, Circumcision of the flesh is not required (against Moses) but is symbolic of cutting away of the love of sin from your gentile hearts. Ellen White has many criticisims of Biblical literalism or dogmatism. One recent one I remember is where she says that the command to not make fires on the Sabbath was only a temorary requirement, suitable for a warm desert, and was not intended to prevent cooking when they got to Canaan! That is not something you can get from reading your Bible, that is a modification of the literal commandment from God's mouth to Moses! There are others. And you as well as I know her explicit statements in full agreement with the words of Isaiah quoted above, that the Bible is not God's thoughts and God's words, but the words and thoughts and logic of humans who were inspired, but not infallible, and some of whom did a worse job than others. And she refuses to rule out the possibility of errors in the Bible, while insisting that none of them, if there are any, are important, if you take the underlying message to heart.
Your EGW quote above is itself pregnant with a meaning you may have not fully appreciated? "revelation with veins of precious truth" If revelation is like a gold mine, this does mean that there is a lot of useless rock that has to be blasted out of the way, ground down to rubble, sorted and sifted, melted and the slag poured off into the slag heap, before you get to the Gold! It is not an analogy one would use if one considered the very human Bible as pure gold, every word valuble as it reads!
It of course means that the exercise of sifting through the rubble, and panning out the flecks, flakes, and nuggets of truth are very worthwhile exercised, to be commended to us all.
But do not be dismayed if some of us are trying to "refine" our previous misunderstandings of the Bible as a short term chronology, to keep the gold of God as Creator and Christ as Recreator and the Truth found inboth science and revelation free from the slag of human limitations and misunderstandings.
I know you do not at the moment believe this. But I am your and the Bible's best friend, and we both are on the same side in these blogs in our intentions.
Both of us wish to defend the Bible from being ignored and disregarded.
Self claims of inspiration can never be verified. Others may claim that someone was inspired, but it has been so used and abused that it has becoming meaningless. The Hebrew Bible never claims to be the "Word of God" or inspired; those are claims made by humans, just as all writing in the Bible is also the product of humans, neither of which are infallible or inerrant.
Most of the controversy in the Bible is not from the Christian Bible, but the Bible written by, and for Hebrews. Unless Christians have claimed to believe and practice Judaism, all the doctrines and law should come from the New Testament which emphasizes Jesus as the Messiah, in contrast to the Hebrew Bible which elevates the Torah and the Prophets and Writings (Tanakh) as interpreted by the Talmud and by Rabbis in Midrashic method.
Yes, I think there is a very big difference confusing our interpretation of the Bible (especially based on English translations), compared with what the Bible actually says – they aren't necessarily always the same. Admittedly, there might be times when there are multiple interpretations of the same passage, understood differently at different times, and understood differently from what the author originally intended – one of the Bible key uses.
The Bible indeed isn't the Koran – a word-for-word dictation for all time. Quite the contrary, when the Syrian Church tried to collate and reconcile the differences of the Gospels into the single Diatesseron edition, I believe Iraeneus made the strong argument in favour of keep the four Gospels, despite the differences. A very large part of the Bible in fact composes two or more versions of the same events. Why is this so? I believe the differences from multiple views are not the Bible weakness, but its strength, as it helps us avoid rigid biblicism.
Preach it, Brother Foster! You are right on. I suspect that the following passage from GC vii, is a thorn in the side of many: "The Holy Scriptures are to be accepted as an authoritative, infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the revealer of doctrines, and the test of experience." That's plain enough. But if flies in the face of modern "scholarship" and "enlightenment."
Yes, but what do you mean by authorative and infallible? God's meaning in the scriptures is clearly authorative and infallible, but our human interpretations are clearly not authoritative and infallible. That is why the Reformation occured in the first place, because the Catholic Church placed its own interpretations of the scriptures above the scriptures themselves. Moreover, often what God intends a biblical passage to mean isn't always entirely clear, observed by the simple fact that there are over 2,000 Christian denominations in the world, and even various 'factions' in our own Church.
If modern scholarship proves your human interpretation of the Bible is incorrect, and you are not willing to change your views, then you really are no different from the Catholic Church who refused to hear Luther's modern scholarly research.
Stephen,
Don't faint. I absolutely agree with you that Ellen White was right and we should be spending a lot more time learning about God from the Bible. But you asked an irrelevant question when you wrote "…was she right?" I say it is irrelevant because answering it univerally devolves into arguments about inspiration and whether this quote written in Year X understood scripture correctly, or if she contradicted herself when she wrote something else later in Year Y. She gave us very plain instruction that we should never, under any circumstance, cite her writings as an authority about anything or use them as the basis for any practice or belief, that we were instead to study the Bible and the Bible only. It is when we heed that counsel that we are left with the challenge of believing God as presented in scripture and our experience with Him in the Holy Spirit.
There are two matters related to this conversation.
First, what do we hope to experience through our reading of Scripture?
Second, what do we believe we are reading when we read Scripture?
Stephen introduces to this conversation the question as to the influence of Ellen G. White to Seventh-day Adventist conversations about hermeneutics.
A most helpful summary of Ellen G. White's comments about scripture are found here. http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/rev-egw.html
From this compendium:
"The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God's mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God's penmen, not His pen. Look at the different writers.
It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man's words or his expressions but on the man himself, who, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts. But the words receive the impress of the individual mind. The divine mind is diffused. The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of the man are the word of God. (Manuscript 24, 1886; written in Europe in 1886.)"
In a very real sense, Ellen G. White in 1886 clearly believed the scriptures do not have a single word written or spoken by God … including the quotes, which are surely crafted rather than recorded words, whether attributed to Jesus or the Father God.
Ellen G. White seens to be saying that those of us who look to be inspired by Scripture clearly 'have our work cout out for us,' so to speak. So I tend to see what Stephen sees when he suggests that tagging this engagement as Biblicalism and Bibliolatry is ment to be pejoritive. It seems that not only did the authors of scripture struggle with the meaning of words in painting their word pictures of God in the context of their daily lives (culture?), we also struggle to see God in both our own context and in the context of various writers of Scripture.
Not only is Scripture not the words of God, it surely is not the final words about God … as this comment line clearly confirms!
And in the beginning and in the end and all the way along, Truth for us individually is not about words, it is about a sense of what is, is it not? Is this not the meaning of Ellen G. White's commentary about individuals personally 'settling into the truth both intellectually and spiritually so they cannot be moved"? http://text.egwwritings.org/publication.php?pubtype=Book&bookCode=4BC&lang=en&pagenumber=1161
And is this not a rephrasing of what Paul believed, 'And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.' Phillipians 4:7
It is ironic that the search for peace is so uncollaborative, so fraught with contesting, so given to fear and dread and the anti-social behaviors that result.
Bill,
Excellent observations.
I'll give you another challenge. Many people believe that the Bible is the "word of God" whether or not they believe the words are from God. But they stop with those words and either have difficulty with or reject the concept that God could continue revealing Himself to us in a direct and personal manner. How do we get them to "graduate" from being continually under the schoolmaster of written scripture and EGW writings into the dynamic and ongoing relationship God wants us to have with Him in the Holy Spirit?
I'll tell you how God did it for me. I was raised Adventist and weaned on the Bible and EGW. Specific in that framework was the belief that there would be no revelation after EGW and that the Holy Spirit would only come at the Latter Rain, whenever that happened in the prophetic future. That left me with an empty faith that crumbled in the face of challenges. I could be factually and theologically correct. But I lacked a dynamic realtionship with God to grow beyond that weakened condition. Over time that brought me to a fork in my spiritual road where I had the choice of continuing as I was and dying spiritually, or stepping into the unknown territory of discovering the Holy Spirit. Some felt I was on the road to perdition because my path was far outside their conceptual boundaries. The changes God worked in my life have been nothing short of revolutionary. Some of those who felt I was on the road to perdition have since found their faith in ruin because of their conscious rejection of the Holy Spirit.
One of the great blessings of connecting with the Holy Spirit has been that discussions about Ellen White have become irrelevant because I now connect with the same source who inspired her. Why would I want to study second-hand revelations when I can get what I need directly from the source?
So, if I understand you correctly, you don't need the Bible, either, because you have direct access to the Holy Spirit? If Ellen White is a "second-hand revelation" so is the Bible. And how do you know what is coming from the Holy Spirit and what is coming from another source? My Bible has the answer to that in Isa. 8: 20–oops, that's a second-had revelation, and might be suspect. Seems to me that you've left the door open to anything and everything.
Well, since EGW has been quoted in commentary on this thread, I will continue:
“Great reproach has been cast upon the work of the Holy Spirit by the errors of a class that, claiming its enlightenment, profess to have no further need of guidance from the Word of God. They are governed by impressions which they regard as the voice of God in the soul. But the spirit that controls them is not the Spirit of God. This following of impressions, to the neglect of the Scriptures, can lead only to confusion, to deception and ruin. It serves only to further the designs of the evil one. Since the ministry of the Holy Spirit is of vital importance to the church of Christ, it is one of the devices of Satan, through the errors of extremists and fanatics, to cast contempt upon the work of the Spirit and cause the people of God to neglect this source of strength which our Lord Himself has provided.” GC p. vii
And I guess that says it all, Brother Foster; but you know as well as I do, that those who reject Ellen White, will also reject that statement as bogus. Without the Bible as our guide, we are left to wander aimlessly through the foggy avenues of life, guided on by "the source," whatever that source may be.
Jean, Stephen,
How do you respond to those who continue ot use the Bible as their only source and genuinely seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but who reach the conclusion that Ellen and her brethren from 1844 onwards, by and large GOT IT WRONG?
If they genuinely seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit, He will lead them into truth. The key is, are they living up to all the light they have? That's all God is asking of any of us. He will be the judge not you or me.
Jean,
Leave the Bible behind? NO! NO! A thousand times, NO! You have expressed the totally misguided, knee-jerk reaction that I hear most often as a defense against the concept of the Holy Spirit having an intimate and empowering role in a person's life. Let's make one thing absolutely crystal clear: Growing into an intimate and ongoing relationship with the Holy Spirit does not imply that a person must abandon truths they have learned in the past any more than you abandon the math and english skills that you practiced while in school. All it means is that you begin applying what you have learned in greater measure and experiencing the full, empowered relationship with God that He has been desiring to have with you.
Ellen White pointedly instructed us to lay her writings aside and focus our attention on the studying scirptures. The Bible tells us we need to be growing in the Holy Spirit. Doing this and no longer needing the counsels shared through her is not a rejection of Ellen White's prophetic role in the church, but a fulfillment of her purpose and the objective outlined in scripture.
The instruction in scripture is for us to grow into an intimate relationship with the Holy Spirit so we can become empowered to work the miracles that will demonstrate the love and power of God in contrast with the claims of Satan. The Holy Spirit is the most often mentioned revelation of God in scripture. He is both the first mentioned in Genesis and the last in Revelation. By sheer number of mentions, the Holy Spirit is the preeminent revelation of God to us. Jesus' greatest desire was for His followers to grow into a close and intimate relationship with the Holy Spirit so they could be empowered to perform miracles. The reason for the explosive growth of the Apostolic Church was the empowerment of the Holy Spirit in individuals. In contrast, the reason people who claim to be followers of Jesus today are not performing such miracles today is because they are not in relationship with the Holy Spirit as God desires. An outpouring of the Holy Spirit is promised to finish spreading the Gospel before Jesus returns. A huge number of people who claim to be believers at that time will be terribly disappointed and eternally lost because their refusal to grow in the Holy Spirit earlier. Because they do not know the Holy Spirit, they will see the outpouring of God's power and believe it is not God at work, but a mighty Satanic deception.
Are you ready to grow into an intimate and empowered relationship with the Holy Spirit?
All well and good, but the Holy Spirit works with the parameters of revealed truth. His work does not dispense with the need of inspired counsel, be it from Scripture or non-canonical prophets. That's why we are told that in the last days our sons and daughters would prophesy. If you are not rejecting Ellenk White's prophetic role, then why suggest that we no longer need her counsel? It seems to me that one book in particular was written for those of us at the very end of time: The Great Controversy. Shall we lay that aside, it's counsel no longer needed, even though some of the events predicted in there have not yet occurred? When she told us to focus our attention on the Bible she wasn't telling us to ignore the counsel that the Lord so graciously gave through her; she was addressing the widespread ignorance of Scripture.
Jean,
Actually, Ellen White very specifically and emphatically directed us to lay her writings aside, not use her as a source for any teaching or practice and to never quote her works in a sermon. Instead, her direction was that we are to focus on the Bible and the Bible ONLY. So I'm just following her instruction.
The Bible tells me that God wants to have a close and very personal relationship with me in the Holy Spirit, who is our source for guidance and empowerment to do His work. He was the source of what was shared with Ellen White, so He is just as capable of sharing with each of us what counsel we need each day. Since we can get it directly from the source, why would we entertain any thought of getting it somewhere else, no matter how much trust we put in that source?
Here we have a classic example of taking her words out of context. She did not say to never quote her in a sermon. I've read the passage to which you refer and that's not what it says. But it's a convenient way of ignoring her counsel. One of the ways the Spirit speaks to us is through the inspired writings, whether from the Bible, or from Ellen White. To dispense with them is to reject what the Spirit has so graciously offered us. If the source of inspired writings is the Holy Spirit, it would imply a lack of trust in God to ignore those writings in hopes of a more direct communication from on High. Remember that Jesus rejected the idea of a more direct revelation when an adequate one was available. He said, in His parable of the rich man and Lazarus: The have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them . . . If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. If one rejects the inspired resources that the Lord has been pleased to give us, why should we expect a more direct revelation?
Jean,
Actually, she gave that instruction with great emphasis on a number of occasions with some of the most emphatic being at ministerial meetings. In a previous discussion of this in Cindy Tutsch's column she gave a list of quotes making the statement that included several I had not seen before.
Since she gave us that instruction and specifically on many occasions to "…use the Bible and the Bible only!", are we not disobeying God by failing to follow that instruction and lay aside her writings?
Thanks Bill, just to repeat, I think the key quote from Ellen White is:
"The writers of the Bible were God's penmen, not His pen."
William and Jean and Stephen,
We so want Scripture to be what it isn't because we so want ourselves to avoid having to be responsible for doing the settling in part that results in the Peace of God, that passeth all understading, keeping our hearts and minds safe through Jesus Christ.
Knowing is not easy, or quick, or to the point. Knowing is a process we are tempted to believe we can avoid by simply being told. That is why we are all tempted to invest a great deal in defending our belief about scripture, when we could spend the same time and find peace within from within scripture and become known for our love of one another rather than our stalwartness in defending a book and all the social distinctions such defenses perpetrait.
As for not needing the scripture, Jean, not at all! Scripture is by far the most helpful, enduring, deep, and encompasing record of those, like each of us, searching for and even finding the peace that passes all understanding. All of scripture! And, yes, life sometimes feels like wandering through foggy avenues, though there is, indeed a peace that passes understanding, a peace in the fog of life, if you will, if but in moments. That said, the peace is not necessary in any direct way, if by meeting one with such peace we sense the possibility and am inspired. That is perhaps all we can embrace until that moment when we are with Jesus in person.
Stephen, as for the the Ellen G. White quote about fanatics and extremists, indeed it is their unwillingness to engage with scripture that is the point … and I might add, their unwillingness to engage with those about them. What we bring to scripture is indeed what we tend to find there. As the saying goes, we see what is behind our eyes better than what is infront of them. Fanatics and extremists are distinguished not only by the measure of their avoiding scripture, but also by their defensiveness and their clinging to the distinctions they embrace, the distinctions we use to barricade ourselves off from those around us, not recognizing that we are all clay and God is the potter.
And William … I'm thinking … perhaps there are no second-hand revelations, there are only our own. Perhaps I am missing something and I have yet to sense a revelation other than my own.
It is the settling in part that we all want to bypass and just be told once and for all. Like why weren't there but a few paragraphs in scripture, instead of such an abundance? I've wished as much, I mean as little, and often. Perhaps it is because life not only takes all of scripture, but is beyond scripture in so many ways though by no means without scripture. What an affirmation of our selves! Is that what God intends of scripture? I wonder and am comforted by that sense.
Extremism and fanaticism are inextricably related to comparative criticism of each other as individuals. Judgmental hypocrisy is what comes to mind (what 1Timothy 6:4 has called “evil surmising”).
In light of 2 Timothy 3:16, 17, how can the Bible be diminished in any way; or how can its role and importance be minimized in any sense?
For sake of discussion, never mind EGW. How about what Paul is hereby saying? What are the implications of this statement?
Doesn’t Isaiah 8:20 refer to the Bible? Isn’t “the law” essentially the Old Testament (and “the testimony” essentially the New Testament?)
Bill,
Yes, you are missing something in what I said. When I said "second-hand revelations" what I was describing was that Ellen White's receiving revelations from God was the first-hand and the sharing with us was the second-hand. Things get lost in translation. Many times she said she lacked words to adequately describe what was shown to her. It is the same thing in a relationship with the Holy Spirit. I've seen God do many things for which I lack adequate words to give Him the praise He deserves, or to communicate fully what I felt and saw. My point is this: It is far, far better to get things first-hand and directly from God so nothing gets lost through imperfect communication. Since God wants to have that kind of relationship with us, why would we be pursuing any other source for His messages. More than that, what He shares with us will be personal and current, making the revelation all the more wonderful.
William, it seems to me that you are saying something I agree with–essentially, that spiritual experience is private and personal. While I might be comforted or inspired by your report of your spiritual experiences, our spiritual relationships do not depend on each others. While I may be bound to comply with my own private spiritual relationship and experience, you are not bound by mine–only by your own.
An attitude of this sort would make us much less judgemental of each other and would help us release to each other appropriate love and respect.
Joe,
Yes. Developing our own growing relationship with God requires that we allow others to do the same– and that we trust God to lead each of us in view of the challenges that we face. While we may view certain truths as static, how we relate to them is personalized by our experience. That God could be so dynamic and capable of relating to us so individually and intimately is utterly amazing to me.
Yes Joe and William
Perhaps it is the peace that passes all understanding (or explanation) that you are describing … and there is no verbalized substitute, scriptural or otherwise, for such knowing. Ellen G. White's explanation of how biblical authors wrote about their inspirations when applied to her own writing suggests that she would certainly claim that not even her thoughts were God's thoughts, let alone her words or her rationale or likely even her subject matter.
Spiritual knowledge is inescapably personal. This is true for prophets as well as priests … one of whom is tasked with upsetting tradition and the other in defending it, as long-time Review editor Kenneth Wood described the prophetic role of the editor.
Fanaticism seems to be when one believes that another must be wrong for them to be right, and they focus on finding people with whom to disagree. The danger here is not in being inspired at the deeply personal level, the danger is to believe that no one else is or can be … or that anyone whose inspiration differs from that of the observer must be inspired by the spirit of darkness.
Bill,
I must confess that God has a ways to go with me before I start experiencing the "peace that passes all understanding" in more than a few situations. I'm growing that direction with each experience where He shows me His power at work or gives me specific guidance, so I am filled with hope. Maybe "excitement" is also a good descriptor because it is so much fun watching God work and so amazing that He is willing to risk using me. We have one amazing God!
I am not quite sure how to respond to this blog. I can't help feeling that terms have been redefined in such a way that any Christian will find it hard to criticise biblicism or bibliolatry as here defined. Biblicism is not merely accepting the Bible as inspired and authoritative, and bibliolatry is not merely reverencing the Bible. If that were all that was involved, far fewer would criticise these concepts.
Bibliolatry is elevating the Bible to a position that belongs to God alone. I don't believe EGW does that, but I have observed members of the SDA church who do so, and also elevate EGW's writings to the same or higher position. Most SDAs do not worship the Bible as if it were God, and those who do deserve to be criticised and condemned for doing so.
Biblicism is probably harder to define, but it includes a commitment to a literal understanding of Scripture and usually verbal inerrancy if not verbal inspiration. It is in fact difficult for any SDA to be consistently a biblicist, as our interpretation of Daniel and Revelation – and other prophecies – is not literal. Dispensationalism arose to a large degree as an attempt by biblicists to remain literalists even when it comes to prophecy. A strict biblicism as it is usually defined would destroy the SDA interpretation of prophecy among other things. I would suggest Stephen read a little more by both opponents and proponents of biblicism before asking his final question. Biblicism is not in the final analysis a 'high' view of Scripture, nor is it the traditional Christian view, nor is it theologically, philosophically or rationally defensible. Apart from that, it just doesn't work. I can see no reason why it shouldn't be used pejoratively. A belief that Scripture is the inspired and authoritative word of God is a different matter, IMO.
In light of 2 Timothy 3:16, 17, how can the Bible be diminished in any way; or how can its role and importance be minimized in any sense?
For sake of discussion, never mind EGW. How about what Paul is hereby saying? What are the implications of this statement?
Doesn’t Isaiah 8:20 refer to the Bible? Isn’t “the law” essentially the Old Testament (and “the testimony ”essentially the New Testament?)
Please enlighten us Kevin, as to how an interpretation of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation can be literal; when it would seem that whatever any interpretation may happen to be, it would necessarily involve defining or interpreting symbols (in any case).
Another question: how is “a belief that Scripture is the inspired and authoritative word of God…a different matter” than biblicism or bibliolatry? Aren’t these terms semantic shibboleths which don’t really describe anything other than “a belief that Scripture is the inspired and authoritative word of God,” and nothing more?
“In His Word, God has committed to men the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are to be accepted as an authoritative, infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the revealer of doctrines, and the test of experience.” GC (Exhibit One) p. vii
This position is indistinguishable from the descriptive pejoratives/shibboleths. This position is a primary reason why people have a problem with EGW, IMO.
If you can't see any difference, then you really do need to examine the subject further. There are many theologians and laymen who belief that the Bible is the inspired word of God but deny biblicism. That you cannot see the difference does not negate the difference.
These theologians and laymen deny association with the shibboleths in terms of their pejorative meanings or connotations; but distinction between Paul’s declarative position in 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 and the negative connotations of these shibboleths is imperceptible/non-existent to me; until/unless proven/demonstrated otherwise.
In any case, I was curious as to what others think. Now I know.
Stephen,
Most discussions about Isaiah 8:20 stop at "the law" and overlook "the testimony." If you do a word study of "testimony" through the Bible you will find that it is the recounting of an individual's experience with God. So there is much more to testing the truth of a statement than just comparing it to the law. It must also be compared to one's Divinely-guided experience in studying and applying the law in life. That tesimony becomes an invaluable part of teaching others about God because it marries instruction and application to produce practical guidance.
Kevin
For Most on this site having a high view of scripture is bibliotary. Many on this site believe that if your do not employ the historical cirtical method , you are guilty of bibliotary. How do you tell if someone is guilty of bibliotary since you said they should be condemned. How do you distinguish the fine line between having a high view of scripture and bibliotary? Is that not God's prerogative alone?
I believe you over-state your case. There is a wide gap between using the historical critical method and being guilty of bibliolatry, and most Christians fall within that gap. One easy test is to ask 'what is the ultimate authority?' If it is God, then all is well. If it is the Bible, then there is a problem. If it is my understanding of the Bible, then there is a major problem.
Had the apostles been biblicists, or if they had been bibliolatrists, there would have been no Christian church. Because they saw God as the ultimate authority, they were willing to reinterpret the Bible in the light of what God had done in Christ. Are we willing to interpret the Bible in the light of God's leading, or do we insist God must act according to our understanding of the Bible? The answer provides a good test of both biblicism and bibliolatry.
Kevin
Not so fast! How does one know whether they are being led by the sipit or not? Everyone claims to be led by the spirit and yet there are a number of different interpretations? How does Isaiah 8 : 20 pan out ? How are we to test the spirits? Everyone after all claims to be led by the spirit. I believe bibliotary is a strawman used by those who have a low view of scripture and crave disobedience. I am sure the Papacy could have used similar arguments in the dark ages to counter sola scriptura
Tapiwa,
Let's not separate our foundation of scripture from the guidance of the Holy Spirit because they are inseparable and intimately linked. Our foundation of scripture gives us a basis for testing whether or not we are being led by the Holy Spirit. More than that, the Spirit give us additional evidences that both are confirmed by what we have learned in the past and that teach us new dimensions of what it means to be in connection with God. One of the most obvious tests is whether or not God blesses what we are doing. An even bigger test is whether it causes the recipient of God's attention to praise Him. Some of the most amazing experiences in my ministry have been watching God at work. But there have been a few times I followed my own instincts and it seemed nothing went right.
Our concepts of the Holy Spirit and the potential we have for being intimately connected with God are woefully limited. My experiences with the Holy Spirit have been amazing times of spiritual growth. But what I have experience is a tiny fraction of the connection God wants to have with each of us. Right now I'm reading Jack Deere's book "Surprised by the Voice of God." (He has another book "Surprised by the Power of the Spirit" that is on my Kindle waiting to be read.) I highly recommend it if you want to have your eyes opened about the Holy Spirit.
Timo I agree – I think.
The Bible itself makes it clear that it is not the 'Word' of God (captial W) – Jesus is! The Bible also makes it clear that it doesn't contain all there is to know about God, and that if everything that could be written about Jesus was written, there wouldn't be enough books in all the world. Moreover, why do we have 4 separate Gospels (putting aside the Diatesseron, which was a collation by the Syrian Church)?
Thus, at most, the Bible is only the 'word' of God (lower case w), which tells us about the Word (Jesus). There are a number of other sources about God through Jesus, including science, logic, history, archaeology, experience and even prophetic revelation (per Ellen White); however, the Bible does indeed give us the most explicit view of the Word.
I wish I could adequately express the serenity and joy I have felt by accepting myself as a natural man.
In support of William's position …
Romans 8: 9 …. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his….
1Cor 2: 6 ¶ Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
Ellen's words are entirely unnecessary to one described by Paul above.
Exactly….
I feel this whole debate is becoming a little stupid and one of semantics and straw men over definitions. What are we actually talking about here exactly?
There are some who regularly visit this site (namely ex-Adventists), who don't believe in the inspiration and authority of the Bible in any real sense. I wonder if Stephen is really trying to address those sorts of people who regularly use the labels of bibliolitary and biblicism? I have made comments myself from time-to-time that I disagree strongly with this view.
There are others who regularly visit this site who do believe in the inspiration and authority of the Bible, but you recognise (again to quote Ellen White), that "The writers of the Bible were God's penmen, not His pen." People who hold these views recognise that the Bible is inspired and authoritative, but it is not dictated word-for-word from God (unlike say the Koran), but written through men. As such, the Bible contains all that is necessary for salvation (per sola scriptura), but it does not contain all the information in all the world about God, as Paul himself notes we merely are looking as in a reflection and the Gospels note that Jesus is the Word and that there wouldn't be enough books in all the world to describe all the teachings and actions of Jesus. I would say most Adventists, myself included, would fall within this camp.
Finally, there are those who really do believe in the Bible as the literal and infallible dictated word of God. This has not historically been the Adventist position but is more common within fundamentalist Dispensationalists. These people fail to distinguish the difference between the Bible itself and their own interpretation of scripture. An example from Adventist history is Uriah Smith's view that the Ottoman Empire was the Kingdom of the North – was the Bible wrong or was it Uriah's view? The NT is full of prophecies that refer to Jesus that upon a plain reading in the OT itself seems to have no apparent correlation to Jesus as the Messiah – yet the NT writers were inspired to see the later connection.
So which of these three views is Stephen Foster primarily try to address? I am somewhat confused!
Stephen can speak for himself, but I would conclude that he is addressing, to some degree, each group. Therefore, I would also conclude that he invites us to declare ourselves, and what position we belong to / represent when he states, "I’m curious as to what others think," As well, I do believe you have given a fair assesment of the issue.
Peace
There are pretty much agreed upon definitions for these terms (biblicism and bibliolatry) among both theologians and those who study religion. When anyone decides to address the issues but use their own defintions of the terms, that adds to the confusion rather than leading to understanding. It is like SDAswho insist on labelling themselves 'fundamentalists' because they believe in the 28 fundamentals, and then get offended when they are associated with groups most people consider to be fundamentalists. What they really mean is that they are conservative Christians/SDAs, not fundamentalists – although we do have some fundamentalists in our church. I accept Stephen leans towards biblicisim. I really doubt he is guilty of bibliolatry. At least as those terms are usually used. Bibliolatry is simply a type of idolatry – and while we are all guilty of it to some extent, I don't believe we should think of wearing it as a badge of honour.
Stephen's concerns are worth discussing. I even share some of them. But labelling those concerns with inappropriate terms will not lead to a worthwhile discussion. The three Groups Stephen Ferguson lists cannot be addressed together. The issue of those who deny any authority to the Bible is a totally different issue to those who deny either verbal inerrancy or an overcommitment to literalism. Both are worth addressing, but not together, and certainly not under the same label.
Biblicism and bibliolatry as usually defined do exist in our church. There is also a debate over how literally to intepret the Bible, and how extensive the authority of the Bible is. People who accept the Bible as the inspired and authoritative word of God can be found on both sides. We also have people who deny inspiration and/or authority to the Bible. To claim that 'biblicism' and 'bibliolatry' are simply 'code words' for 'taking the Bible seriously' and all who can't be accused of such are liberals, is IMO starting from the wrong point if the aim is to generate discussion. If all that is intended is an exchange of insults based on the usual caricature of 'the other side', then it will probably work well.
Kevin,
I do not understand any of these heavy laden terms. However, I do believe the Bible to be the Word of God, however others may label that belief. Under what label does Paul's claim in Galations 1: 11, 12 fall?
11 "I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ."
You take on this (or those of others) will help me wade through the semantics.
Thanks.
An excellent example of the revelations the Holy Spirit wants to give us! Paul experienced such revelations. So, why do we dare think the Holy Spirit won't do the same for us today?
Preston
My point is that believing in the inspiration of the Bible, and that the Bible is an authoritative revelation for Christians, in itself tells us nothing about whether a person is a biblicist or not, or if they are guilty of bibliolatry. Paul clearly believes in an inspired and authoritative Bible. I don't see evidence that he is a biblicist or guilty of bibliolatry. Obviously, someone who doesn't accept either belief is unlikely to be a biblicist or practice bibliolatry.
There are people who believe that every word of the Bible is inspired and chosen personally by God, that to take the Bible seriously we must read it literally, and that God himself is bound to obey the words of the Bible. They will often treat the Bible – as a physical object – with as much reverence as they would God himself. I have heard charismatic believers say 'the Bible promises X, and God would be a liar and damn himself to hell if he did not deliver on that'. I have not heard statements like that from SDAs, although some will say that God must obey the Bible. I am very uncomfortable with that sort of statment and the belief behind them. It places the Bible above God, and that is idolatry. That is what bibliolatry is: the worship of the Bible as if it were God. I doubt Stephen is guilty of that. Perhaps he is, but I doubt it.
Biblicism is more that believing the Bible is inspired and authoritative, or that in general we should read it in a non-figurative manner. Many Christians through the ages have accepted those beliefs without being biblicists. Biblicism is a rigid adherence to literalism combined with a determination not to see the human element in the Bible. I doubt most SDAs are really biblicists, even though many do have an inclination that way. I also believe most SDAs are not fundamentalists, although most are conservative. To claim terms like 'biblicist' or 'fundamentalist' when they don't really apply misrepresents our church and places a barrier between us and people of good will. Why any Christian would defend bibliolatry or any form of idolatry is beyond my comprehension.
Just in case anyone hasn't got it yet, I do believe the Bible is inspired and authoritative. I don't believe that obligates us to always read it literally – although that works well most of the time. I believe both God and the writers of the Bible were smart enough to be able to use metaphor and non-factual stories to make a point clear. When we argue over the facticity of Job or Jonah while missing the message of those books, then I believe we have missed the whole purpose of the Bible. When anyone starts to believe that God is less in authority than the Bible, I really doubt they are Christians, and am firmly convinced they have moved beyond logic and reason into fantasy.
Kevin,
I used to do celebrity interviews for magazine articles. Studying about my subject taught me all kinds of facts about them and gave me the basis for asking questions. Meeting them (or doing an interview over the phone) was altogether different. This was really the person I had studied about and I was often surprised by how different the person was from what I had imagined.
I used to view the Bible as a rule book. Then I realized it was primarily a collection of stories about people, some of them very similar to me, and their experiences as God tried to reveal himself to them and draw them into a closer relationship with Him. We can stop with knowing facts about God. Or, we can discover what He is really like by growing into a relationship with theHoly Spirit.
Listen people, "if the King James version was good enough for Paul, its good enough for me!"
Sounds hilarious until you realise that it was spoken by someone who actually meant it.
Is this an example of KJV-only bilblicism?
And bibliolatry? These sound like terms made up by folks who want to categorise and criticise in one word other folks they don't like or disagree with. Is this kind of neologisticism fair/reasonable/Christian?
A study of the formation of the canon of teh Bible should inform everyone that caution is required in the attribution of authority/inspiration to some texts and not others.
But these arguments have been going on since at least Jesus' day. Matt 22 records a discussion between teh Saducees and Jesus about resurrection. Jesus answered their conundrum about the wife with seven husbands politely. "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures." (That is one reason I so like KJV, the beauty of the language. Translated today we would probably come up with, 'You are so wrong, you ignoramus!').
And he proceeded to remind them that according to the 'scriptures,' there would be no marrying (or sexual intercourse) in heaven, since all would be as the angels, ie, androgynous and therefore lacking genitalia (or bodies generally, if it comes to that). But the question is, where in the 'scriptures' as we know them, are those references or that information?
It is apparently to be found in the 'apocryphal' Book of Enoch, (the same Enoch which btw is quoted by Jude in the NT). Book of Enoch was popular reading in the early church too. And just what were the 'books and parchments' which Paul left behind in Troas which he missed so much? 2Tim 4:13.
So it would appear that Jesus (as did His brother Jude) considered the Book of Enoch to be useful as 'scripture.'
This might suggest that those Biblicists who limit their sources to the Protestant-approved collections of 'scriptures,' might be missing out. The Apocryphon of John and the Gospel of Phillip are two examples of early Christian literature which I have found to be very uplifitng and inspiring.
(But does this make room for Ellen? Well, it might. But she still has to pass the 'true prophet test,' ie, not making erroneous claims/statements/predictions elsewhere in her pronouncements. The shut door and her version of 'the health message' are but two examples which rule her out, imho. The tall majestic beings on Jupiter don't help either.)
Thanks Serge, I think your comments about the formation of the cannon are well said and relevant to this discussion. As for Ellen White, the more I learn about the formation of the Bible, the OT and NT, and just how human (albeit 'inspired' humans) the Bible writers and editors were, the greater prospect in my mind for finding room for Ellen – not less.
As for shut door, the Apostles believed something similar almost, with Paul telling virgins not to marry because there wasn't time. As for the health message, she did say some remarkabley true statements, about the dangers of alcohol, tabacco, too much red meat etc; however, I believe her more nutty statements, such as masturbation causing cancer, are her own nutty opinions. Paul also said as much in his message to the virgins, when he said that this was his view, not something from the Lord.
What I always wonder with interest is if and when the SDA Church has another prophet in the future, what will they say about Ellen? Ellen lived on the cusp of the modern age, and issues surrounding the recordings of her actions, copyright and lack of editors to mix any mistakes, something that OT and NT prophets had but Ellen didn't. Any modern-day prophet would have to extremely careful in what they said, given the tendency of followers to think any personal utterance was a command from the divine.
Further support for William's position (not that it is required):
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. 1 John 2:27
"Open Thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of Thy law." Psalm 119:18.
I will instruct thee and teach thee in the way which thou shalt go: I will guide thee with mine eye. Psalm 32:8
If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of Yahuwah, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. James 1:5
Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: Matthew 7:7
Now one can only ask, why do not SDAs take these texts 'literally' ? Or is it simply easier to read the commentaries? Is the narrow way just too difficult?
According to Scripture, the Bible was written by men—chosen of/by God—who were each inspired by Him; through His Spirit.
Obviously, from any perspective concerning Scriptural references about seeking/utilizing the Spirit’s guidance, the conundrum for those of us/you who may sympathize with the position of Serge and/or William is that all such advice is uniquely Biblical.
This is to say that the advice to seek Spiritual guidance, or the description of what Spiritual guidance is, or the fact that there is a Spirit of God at all, is from the Bible.
How do we know that Bible texts are profitable for such instruction; or even that spiritual instruction is interpreted literally?
Of course, this is not a conundrum for those of us/you who believe the Bible to indeed be prima facie authoritative.
Authoritative: (Bing.com)
au·thor·i·ta·tive
[ ə tháwrə tàytiv ]
1. reliable: convincing, reliable, backed by evidence, and showing deep knowledge
2. backed by authority: backed by an established and accepted authority
3. showing authority: showing confidence in or the expectation of being obeyed
Ahem, (the opposite of Amen), Stephen……….
"….. or the fact that there is a Spirit of God at all, is from the Bible."
The fact that there is a Spirit of God at all, is the fact that there is a Spirit of God. And man can know about God without being told by the Bible. I know this becasue the Bible says so. (Just as Paul knew all Cretans are liars because a Cretan told him). The biggest fact is that GOD IS SPIRIT (once again, the Bible says so).
And we all experience THE SPIRIT. Most of us ignore and He goes away. Some eventually listen. And some of these have written of their experiences. Others have collected a few of these writings and some, for sometimes less than worthy causes, have compiled them into compendiums called books (latin: Bible). Others who also experience the Spirit read those words and recognise a kindred SPIRIT and learn from them. There is no INTRINSIC AUTHORITY in those writings. Unless the unspiritual allow the unscrupulous to use those writings to tell them what to do and how much to pay.
Thankfully, the ETERNAL SPIRIT has unearthed a whole new batch of writings at Nag Hammadi so that the spiritual among us can read of the joyous experiences and understandings of saints less tainted by the non-spiritual ecclesiologists whose benighted world is now dawning into a whole new day.
2Co 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
Grace and peace be upon you.
I stand duly corrected Serge. I should have stated, more clearly (and accurately), that advice or information that there is a Spirit of God is from the Bible.
God is not limited to the Bible, as He communed and communicated to man before the Bible through means of His choosing. However the Bible has been His chosen method for dissemination of the most information about Him and His dealings with humanity to the largest number of humans.
So, spiritual inspiration is highly individual and personal. We are not able to experience each others spiritual relationships and knowledge. As diligently as I sought personal revelation, and sometimes was confident that I had a direct personal and spiritual relationship, I never did actually have a Damascus Road experience such as that described by Paul. I guess I must simply be, no more, no less, a "natural man" in the sense described by Paul. I am content to be a "natural man," and I clearly do not really have any way of understanding how to be anything else. That is my honest conclusion. I marvel that others can enter the spiritual dimension. It is to me a mystery.
Joe,
Trying to convince myself that I was content being where I was left me spiritually empty because my reality and God's promises were so far apart. Convincing yourself to be content as you are is a prescription for spiritual mediocrity leading to eternal destruction. God wants you to be growing in your relationship with Him.
Saul was such a hard-headed zealot that God had to do something dramatic to get his attention. That's why God did what He did on the road to Damascus. It is doubtful Saul would have paid attention to any less dramatic encounter. There was no way Saul could ignore or dismiss it.
I can be pretty hard-headed, too. More than once God has had to grab ahold of me and get my attention in a dramatic way so I'd be willing to do what He wanted. I remember once when I was arguing with God and the answer came as clearly as if it had been spoken: "When are you going to shut-up and listen to what I'm trying to tell you?" What He was trying to show me wasn't anything related to the topic of my demand for answers. It was far more important than my issue. But the biggest thing at that moment was He turned my attention away from what was consuming me into other things where I could see Him leading and working.
I'd like to suggest that your plea to God be that He reveal Himself to you and that you ask Him to help you be perceptive to know when He is acting. Don't expect to be struck by lightning. When Elijah was fleeing from Jezebel, God wasn't in the storm or the earthquake. Instead God revealed His power in gentler and less dramatic ways that were very personal. He's answered me many times in ways that were very intimate and personal to me so I am confident He will do the same for you. Don't give up. Keep pursuing God and He WILL answer.
William, thank you for your message. I imagine it makes perfect sense to you, and I feel that I should respect your private spirituality. At the same time, it makes no sense whatsoever to me. Everything you suggest, I already did, long, long ago, and with great sincerity and intensity. I'm feeling perfectly okay about it, but, as others have acknowledged, ones private and personal experience is just that. Your experience is not my experience and I see no evidence, nor have I had any experience, that suggests to me that "spirituality" is anything other than a product of the human imagination.
Joe, methinks you are not far from the kingdom. After all, you can recognise yourself as psukikos, psychic, or as the KJV translates it, a natural man. But fact is, psukikoi are above the level of the materialist man, who in this schema, which Paul uses, are known as hylics. They are the ones with almost no awareness of anything beyond biological functioning.
I agree with most of what William is saying. He and I must be kindred spirits. So, although our experience, as experienced, is private, it is not unique and unrecognisable to another and can be shared. That is the meaning of fellowship. Birds of a feather and all that. Which is why, and I am guessing here, William may not find too many others who see the spiritual realities that he sees. Am I near the money on that one William?
One thing I disagree with William about is his portrayal of Saul's experience on the Damascus Road. It is similar to your concept of it, and it is the one popularly conceived. I don't think it was a 'bolt from the blue' experience. I think it was the culmination of a longish period of inner struggle with a lot of issues of a spiritual nature. There were, and still are, several streams of understanding within Judaism at the time. The materialistic Sadducees, external works perfectionist Pharisees, and a lot of smaller sects with varying degrees of spirituality, right up to the desert mystics, of which John the Baptist is a possible example. Jesus had been and gone, and Saul saw first hand the results of those who become renewed by the Spirit. They were a threat to his more materilaist view of outward works and earthly kingdoms. Jesus had spiritualised that away into the idea of his spiritual kingdom, where he was one with his people (see John 14-17) and I believe Saul was exposed to these new ideas and resisted them strenuously. For a time.
I travelled the Damascus road two years ago, from Jerash in Jordan to Damascus. Amazing. But no, no thunderbolts. It was great to get a feel for the atmosphere of the place; even now, it is another world. But if you look carefully at Saul's encounter on the road, it contains the essence of the Gospel and the very thing, that mystical oneness, which Saul had resisted til then.
But, since you are a natural man, and in full command of your psyche, can I recommend a book: Bruce Lipton, The Biology of Belief. On kindle if you like that sort of thing. Its about a scientist who resisted the evidence until he could refuse no longer. Not a bad read, though he hasn't made quantum mechanics any more comprehensible to me.
shalom…
The book of Acts provides three accounts (chaps. 9, 22, and 26) that mention details not found in Paul regarding his conversion; that he was on the "road to Damascus: and that he was "blinded by the light." These accounts are difficult to reconcile with one another. Even Paul's own references to the event are somewhat problematic because he is remembering the event long afterward and is reflecting on it in light of his later experiences.
Paul traces his conversion back to an encounter with the resurrected Jesus in 1 Cor. 15:8-11 he names himself as the last person to have seen
Jesus raised from the dead.
He appears to be referring to the same event in Gal. 1:16, where he indicates that at a predetermined point in time, God "was pleased to reveal his Son to me." When Paul experienced this revelation from God, he became convinced, then and there, according to his later perspective, that he was to preach the good news of Christ to the Gentiles.
Serge,
Yes, we are "kindred spirits." Our diverse backgrounds are filters causing us to look at the same story or situation and view it differently. So I appreciate the richness your view brings to the discussion.
For me, the ability of God to relate to each of us in such personal and instructive ways is part of the beauty of God's love. Though someone may not relate to my experience does not prevent me from caring about them and trying to encourage them to discover the same redeeming power of God that I have experienced.
One aspect of Paul's experience after meeting Jesus on the road to Damascus was that he went into Arabia for three years to spend time learning from God. Did he spend that time entirely reading scrolls of the Law and Prophets? I think not because of what I have learned from the Holy Spirit, who often brings to mind a realization about some dimension of a story that I had not seen or understood before though I may have known the story since childhood. It is such experiences with God in situations both quiet and dramatic that give me confidence of God's ability to reach and teach us wherever we are.
William,
Amen, brother! God's school does provide for highly individualised instruction. The student jsut has to remain willing to commit to lifelong learning.
And that is waht happened with Paul. Converted / Paradigm shifted, on the road, then a few days in Damascus, then three years in 'Arabia,' then 3 weeks back in Damascus, a return to Jerusalem, immediatley causes a ruckus and is whisked away, seemingly to Tarsus, and isn't heard of for another 12 years. I presume he didn't waste his time. Did he read the works of Philo of Alexandria? He was certainly well educated in Hellenistic philosophies of the day. I give him 15 years in study before embarking on his mission to the Gentiles.
Interesting about Arabia. Its defined as the area to the south of Damascus and north of Philadelphia (Amman in modern Jordan). It is a large and not highly populated area, but not a sandy desert. There is water deep down, so quite habitable. And it was mainly inhabited by Jews who were 'refugees' from their rejection of the Hasmonean takeover of teh priesthood in Jerusalem, as were the Essenes. These groups became the developers of the Jewish Apocalyptic tradition and along with that, the early practitioners of Jewish mysticism known as Merkavah (Hebrew for Elijah's chariot). A Jewish author, Alan Segal, has written a most intersting analysis of 'Paul the Convert' in whihc he describes Paul as the first Jewish mystic who left us a record of his experiences: "I knew a man……. fourteen years ago…… ascended to paradise…… in the body or out of the body I cannot tell……." etc. 2Cor 12.
Sadly, I think SDAs often avoid such ideas and practices such as deep meditation because they fear 'spiritualism.' They short-change themselves.
Joe,
I agree with Serge in believing you are closer to a new discovery of God than you realize. It is when we feel weakest that He reveals His power and when we are hurt the deepest that He shows us his tenderest love.
Joe,
As I have raised you to God in my prayers, He has reminded me of something from my own experience. My breakthrough into real connection with God did not begin until I was desperate enough to let go of that last thing that was standing between me and God. I did not feel that I had the power to let it go, but God offered the power and removed it once I was willing to allow Him to do it. You have to let go of anything that is standing between you and God. The walls may seem insurmountable, the barriers too great to overcome. But the power and love of God are greater. Give it to God. Ask Him to take it out of the way so there is nothing between you and Him.
William,
Thank you for your prayers. I am open to truth, wherever it exists, and have been for a very long time. I am not aware of "holding on" to any last barrier, but I also have no sense of desperation of the kind you mention. Well, maybe my "barrier" is my inability to accept claims of a "spiritual dimension" apart from physical reality and its emergent products. I must admit that I have no passionate interest in embracing the intangible spirit world or to split away from verifiable existence in reality.
Joe,
Ask God to help your unbelief and what He gives you will will be as real to you as anything else you can touch or feel.
William,
Apparently you just can't imagine or accept that I already did that long, long ago, ernestly and with great intensity. It did not happen for me. I am not claiming that it did not happen for you. Your private experience is just that. You believe it to be spiritual. I cannot verify that. You are entitled to believe whatever you do, but you seem unwilling, or unable, to grant the same respect to me or others who do not believe as you do. Nevertheless, thank you for your concern. I do appreciate your interest and advice, but please understand that I simply do not believe as you believe, and I really do not feel or see any need to do so.
Joe, Pardon, inadvance, my audacity / arrogance to respond this way, but this format is relatively limiting.
'You believe it to be spiritual, I cannot verify that.' Seriously, my friend, can you VERIFY anything? Today's verity is often tomorrow's wrapping paper. (Thats an Aussie saying referring to the old practice of wrapping hot french fries in clean paper first, then newspaper to keep them warm).
REALITY…….. what is it, in reality? Matter, is that all there is? (SDA theology is concreted into a material view of reality, but it is dead wrong. You may still be needing to extract yourself from this error). These things whihc you identify as our 'spiritual' aspects, you seem to want to call 'emergent properties of matter.' I used to do so too. Then the process as described by Ken Wilbur seemed to take over.
"And so, as the self grows in awareness, it moves from unconscious Hell to conscious Hell, and there it may spend its entire life, seeking above all else the numbing consolations that will blunt its raw and ragged feelings, blur its etchings of despair. Its life becomes a map of morphine, and folding itself into the anaesthetic glow of all its compensations, it might even manage to convince itself, at least for an endearing blush of rose-tinted time, that the dualistic world is an altogether pretty thing. (I wonder if folks who look on 'nature' as altogether admirable and lovely fall into this group. They should look deeper).
But alternatively, the self might continue its growth and development into the genuinely spiritual domains: transcending the separate-self sense, it uncoils in the very Divine. The union with the Divine—a union or oneness that had been present but unconscious since the start—now flares forth in consciousness in a brilliant burst of illumination and a shock of the unspeakably ordinary: it realizes its Supreme Identity with Spirit itself, announced, perhaps, in nothing more than the cool breeze of a bright spring day, this outrageously obvious affair."
Can I suggest again Bruce Lipton's experience of discovering how biology is utterly dependent on the non-material environement for its existence, Biology of Belief. (I didn't liek that title at first, thinking it another apologetic by a materialist Christian for his belief in Inteligent Design, or similar. It is far from that. its a real eye-opener.
Reality beckons.
Serge,
Thank you for your concern. Sorry to be blunt, but the quotation from Ken Wilbur reads like something generated by a mental patient. Yes, I think that things that really exist can often be verified. If you live in a state beyond physical reality, that is fine with me, as long as you do no harm to yourself or others.
Your thoughts about Wilbur’s quotation were actually very similar to what I was thinking Joe. This is stuff is ‘out there.’
It’s funny how the Bible is out there too; but somehow apparently not enough.
At this point it may be constructive/instructive to revisit the ‘interpretation’ (of the Bible) discussion—to the extent that there is an aspect of interpretation that we have previously overlooked or ignored; if not disregarded.
This would be that of interpreting what the Bible is—or what it represents—as more, less, or equally important than (or to) what it says, or communicates.
Those who regard the Bible as God’s ideas/instructions given to mankind through the instrumentation and inspiration of men may tend to regard what the Bible is saying or communicating one way; while those who regard the Bible as, at best, significant allegorical representations of His will, view things differently.
Those who believe the Bible should generally be understood and interpreted literally unless otherwise indicated in dreams, visions, or parables (via symbolism and imagery), may tend to regard things one way; while those who think that the Bible is comprised of myths and fables from which moral lessons can be derived will see things another way.
Perhaps as long as we find His Truth, His will, and way, it’s OK. I heard the great Charles Bradford say today that Adventism’s problems and issues are not doctrinal, they are in fact relational.
Perhaps Elder Bradford should visit this site.
Timo, I like what you are saying, but many on this site will point to the 28 Fundies and show that it is still a doctrine of this church that SDA identify as the remnant. Moreso, they can prove it from scripture. So you'd be well advised to stay aboard.
I take issue with 'deed and doctrine will trump identity.' Doctrine informs, yea, forms, identity. And SDA doctrine is founded in the deepest bedrock of a 'religious materialism' which refuses to entertain any identity that God and man are other than material in nature. Heaven is a material place (Planet Heaven?) and the heavenly temple/sanctuary is made of the equivalent of bricks and mortar. As a result, any effort to discuss a spiritual sanctuary teaching is almost immediately met with "You are spiritualising away…." whichever truth is in discussion, heavenly sanctuary most of all.
To her credit, even Ellen came to see things a little differently, by 1900. 'The church of God on earth is the true sanctuary, which teh Lord pitched, and not man.' (ST Feb 14, 1900). This is the only view which fits with Paul's teaching that we are all individuallya nd collectively, as Christ's body, teh dwelling place of God. We are His house (Heb 3.6), and the remainder of hte references to God's house/temple/sanctuary in Hebrews can only be understood on that basis. eg, how can we 'come boldly to the throne of grace' if that throne is literally, materially, in outer space who knows where?
Of course, the materialism espoused by James White and his brethren has to come to terms with the spiritualism (which they call immaterialism) of the NT. Jesus says, 'that which is born of the flesh is flesh, that which is born of hte spirit is spirit.' Jn 3.6. Also, Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. Unlike the SDA pioneers, Paul does not teach that teh divine realm is made of matter, however fine its nature. 'that which can be seen is ephemeral, that which is not seen is eternal.' etc. etc.
I very much like your analogy of the tabernacle and our ''triune' nature, though in truth, we are spirit, in REALity. Our tent of skins, from which WE (our truly personal selves) groan to be delivered, is of a foreign nature, beastly to be sure. We do not merely exchange one beastly nature for another (in the 'spiritual body' of resurrection). We partake of divine nature, which as stated, is spirit and not matter.
This is not an 'unstudied' matter. It has been taught since the time that Jesus first taught it. SDA doctrine demands that this understanding be rejected as 'prone to spiritualism.' The unlearned have sought to 'materialise' a spiritual truth, because of their unwillingness to be transformed into the divine nature.
Matt13:
The sanctuary's true mystery is just such a parable.
A church that was founded on being "right" when all the other churches were in error, should only expect that the obsession with being "right" is ingrained with the 28 and remnant theology. They cannot be separated.
Primary emphasis on being right makes a person deaf and blind to the real working of the Holy Spirit because God doesn't match their limited concepts. Obsession with being right quickly makes a person totally ineffective at doing God's work and a christian in name only.
So how do we counter that?
Maybe we could promote being holy, rather than being right?
And yet, scientific methods, with predictibility in the real world as a basic purpose, is far more reliable than assertion of prophetic revelation, in giving us a view into tomorrow's physical world. As far as the spirit world, science does not even pretend to go there, and how would we ever know if something occurred (or not) in some unseen spiritual realm?
I agree, Timo. Scientists sometimes do reach unwarranted conclusions. When these are about spiritual matters, I suspect that something is at work other than reliance on science. Some scientists (like many nonscientists) hold unsubstantiated beliefs, and some are pretty dogmatic about what they believe.
I very much support the concept of keeping our minds open. Even so, it seems to me that there are some differences in qualities of evidence regarding the observable and the unseen. Personally, I have more trouble accepting as valid dogmatic accounts of private experience regarding ostensibly unknowable dimensions, than descriptions based on replicable observation and measurement of physical realities, e.g., fossil hominids.
The denial that hominid fossils are real requires incredible mental gymnastics–and yet, that is exactly the kind of distorted thinking that we were raised with in SDA culture, and it seems to continue to be pushed onto the young that they should accept the irrational over reasonable physical evidence. I do not see how that can promote their mental health, but I appreciate that my perspective is not shared by many who remained in the church.
I just do not see how teaching error in the name of truth helps people do anything more than learn how to deceive themselves. I do like the idea of teaching people how to be open minded and not dogmatic. I suppose we all have something to learn in that regard….
I wonder if Paul Simon was 'out there' when he sang, "Still, a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest."
It may simply come down to a case of: Choose your delusion.
I know which one gets my attention.
Serge, your earlier rendering was so poetic. Your heart shines through your
compassion. As per Joe & Stephen, the Wilber quote was far out.
Thinking can produce a positive or negative path, depending on which reality it fixes on. Once committed it is most difficult to do an about face.
i can only speak to my subjective reality. Since early childhood, although
being left alone most of the time, in my early years, i never felt alone or isolated, and all thru the years, in my study, in my work life, in my 30 years
of retirement, i am never alone or bored. i have always had what i call
"spiritual company". Even in my dreams while sleeping, i have very unusual
themes that are exceptionally precise & every detail clearly real. Unusual in
that i've had no concious events that these dreams could have relevence to.
Most of these themes are of other time & space. Almost it seems, like a parallel to real life. And i always have an unseen silent companion that is able guide, & if necessary, to aid my escape.What does this silly input mean? i'm sure there are "dream interpreters" who will give a logical evaluation of these phenomical occurences. However, as i've shared on other blogs, i believe the reality of a spiritual dimension to man that is connected to the ether of eternity. The brain of man is vastly complex. You can stimulate the live brain experimentally, and learn a little. You can excise it, but only learn the tissue, but the potential is only speculative. i truly believe man's brain to be the invisible "soul" that God communicates with, and restores in His time & keeping. The spiritural dimension.
"There is joy in heaven when the spirit returns".
Earl, you describe it so well. And by 'it' I mean the way we can tap into the sub-conscious as some call it. Others call it 'cosmic consciousness.' I call it 'Christ consciousness.' How else does one 'let this mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus?' (Phil 2:5). And with it comes being 'transformed by the renewal of your mind.' (Rom 12:2). Its all to be found in how well we can tune into the 'still small voice.'
You are right about the brain. Joe would like to dismiss its deeper tasks as mere 'iMAGInation.' But remember the story(myth)? It was the MAGI who found the Christ. Brain activity can be employed to one's benefit. Once the busy-ness of beta wave activity (rational) is allowed to quieten into alpha and preferably theta waves, these are the times when the kinds of experiences you describe are possible.
Some will also consider this to be 'out there,' the ramblings of a mental patient. This kind of experience, which I think is best described as 'mystical,' ie, union with the divine, has always been described as equating with madness. "Paul, your learning ahs made you mad!' Its the kind of 'turning the world upside down' the post-Pentecost experience brings. That which once seemed 'real' no longer is.
Perhaps another quote from the asylum might be interesting to some:
“Hence, the overall Romantic view: one starts out in unconscious Heaven, an unconscious union with the Divine; one then loses this unconscious union, and thus plunges into conscious Hell; one can then regain the Divine union, but now in a higher and conscious fashion. The only problem with that view is that the first step—the loss of the unconscious union with the Divine—is an absolute impossibility. All things are one with the Divine Ground—it is, after all, the Ground of all being! To lose oneness with that Ground is to cease to exist. Follow it closely: there are only two general stances you can have in relation to the Divine Ground: since all things are one with Ground, you can either be aware of that oneness, or you can be unaware of that oneness. That is, you can be conscious or unconscious of your union with the Divine Ground: those are the only two choices you have.”
Wilber, Ken (2011-08-18). The Eye of Spirit: An Integral Vision for a World Gone Slightly Mad
I'm tuning in rather late, Stephen. But it seems to me that the problem with Bibliolatry, as I intuitively understand that term, is that it tends to encapsulate Truth, and deny the reality of a living God who is grounded in the the past and future, but not limited in the present by them.
The wonderful thing about our Adventist heritage is also its Achilles heel. Our founders were absolutely convinced, notwithstanding the Great Disappointment, and other theological errors, that God was speaking to them through scripture, and that they could know its truths as Truth. That kept them immersed in scripture, constantly seeking to know God's will. And we are the richer for it. Unfortunately, having descovered the Truth, the Adventist message has become hermetically sealed, and highly resistant to any new light.
You are correct, I think, about EGW's devotion to scripture. Unfortunately, we have given her embellishments and interpretations ex cathedra authority. As the arbitor and interpreter of ancient text, she has de facto authority which exceeds that of scripture. And that not only impoverishes us as a church, but creates a barrier to seeing Christ as He is, without Adventist filters.
The problem with Ellen White and scripture is the same question that faced the Jews with the Talmud, Muslims with the Haddith and legal jurisprudence, or the Early Church with the Church Fathers. Do we allow the commentary to become de facto more importtant that the primary source? Do we allow the commentary to continue to evolve, so it continues to be relevant as society evolves, or do we 'shut in time' that commentary.
I think it's fine – no, necessary – to allow the commentary to evolve. What is important is that we realize the commentary is not sacred text, but rather the attempt to incarnate and revitalize sacred text in the faith community of each generation of believers. It is only valid and useful as it serves that higher purpose. And even when it perfectly serves that purpose, we must vigilantly guard against substituting commentary for sacred text or elevating the commentary to the level of sacred text.
In the case of Ellen White, the Church created a conundrum for itself when it excitedly concluded that Ellen White was the last day prophet foretold in scripture. If she indeed was The Spirit of Prophecy, how could we not accord her "commentary" equal authority with the Bible? If she was The Spirit of Prophecy, how could we not deem her assertions as God's Word? Our chain link theology unfortunately has forced the Church into the transparently absurd "lesser light" metaphor, which is really no logical help at all. What that "fix" has done is enable us to de facto infuse EGW with Biblical authority, while claiming, as a matter of official policy, to believe in sola scriptura.
How does commentary about eternal truths evolve? How does what is true one day about antiquity or the future, or about what God or man have done or will do, become something other than true (i.e., false or different) on another day?
This could (only) be possible, I would think, if the commentary itself was erroneous and/or never intended to be considered prophetic.
Personally, I do not believe this to be the case at all with EGW. I believe her commentary about the Bible to have been inspired and accurate ‘interpretation.’
But it’s more important to believe Scripture. It seems that folk who have issues with EGW also have issues with Scripture. In some cases, the Bible and its themes and narratives are just too supernatural. In other cases, the Bible and its themes and narratives are not supernatural enough.
As you should know by now, Stephen, I don't see God's truth being revealed very frequently in doctrinal terms. I see God's truth is incarnational, revealed more through story than propositions. Commentaries serve as pointers. As finite human beings, when we are looking in one direction we cannot see things in other directions. Knowing our limitations, God provides different pointers for different times and places. He speaks to us not to inform us, but to evoke a response. The Bible is crammed with dichotomies, ironies and inconsistencies. The conceit that our truths are eternal truths, or that God has provided a detailed road map, sufficient for all time, sows the seeds of disbelief in a God who reveals living truth.
Yeah, except that the Bible says otherwise. Some things were given for our information. Revelation 1:1-3 was written for a reason.
Amos 3:7 is relevant to this notion that God chooses to reveal specific information. It’s not an either/or question, because the information should prompt a series of responses.
John 17:17 is a statement of truth. Truth is truth. Truth does not change. (In fact, God does not change either.)
Umm, no Stephen, it says other-otherwise. Look again at your text Rev 1:1. His METHOD of conveying the 'information' is in 'signs:' He 'sign-ified it.' Because signs, symbols, parables, stories are His preferred method of conveying 'information.' We gain meaning as we come to understand the meaning of the stories. A picture has always been worth a thousand words. Without a Parable spake He NOT unto them. That includes you and me.
Secondly, What is Tuth? This question has been asked of One more qualified to answer it than I. Jn 18:37, 38 is an exchange with Pilate. Jn 14:5,6 an exchange with Thomas, who asks, '… HOW CAN WE KNOW… the way…?' Answer: Not what we would give today. Today we say, read this, study that… Intellectual information yields truth. Not so. The answer is: I AM the way, Truth, Life. Truth is relational, not propositional. "The Spirit bears witness with our spirits….. in sighs, too deep for words." And it is thus He leads us into Truth, His very Self.
Stephen, Nathan's final comment bears further notice; 'the conceit that our truths are eternal truths…'
As an example of the changeing nature of 'present truth,' allow me to quote from Thomas McElwain, Adventism and Ellen WHite, p.145. The general topic is the early Adventist view of the Trinity, which rejected the doctrine as taught by manistream Christianity.
"But not every Adventist was the product of materialist folk theology and its consequent irreverence. Waggoner entitled a series upon the question of the Trinity undermining the doctrine of the Atonement. 'I am aware that many attach so much sanctity to the term 'Trinity,' that it will appear like irreverance, in their eyes, to speak thus of that doctrine: but I write with feelings of reverence for every scripture doctrine and scripture fact, while I do not profess reverence for human opinions and inventions. I reverence teh Scriptures, but not men's opinions of the Scriptures,' (J H Waggoner, R&H, Nov 3, 1863, The Doctrine of the Trinity Degrades the Atonement, pp 182-182). With these words Waggoner establishes his Biblicist approach, as well as his disdain for academic theology,….."
It has taken many many years, but it would appear that academic theology within the SDA church has restored this 'doctrine' to the orthodox fold. Who said the church cannot overcome a misplaced Biblicism and change?
Where did you acquire McElwain's book? I could only find one source, and my grasp of Scandinavian languages was insufficient to even work out how much it cost.
Kevin,
Yes, it was the most difficult process I've ever made online. You must buy it directly from Swedish Science Press. I couldnt see the price at the time of purchase. Just knew I had to have it (someone seemed ot be saying what I'd been thinking for quite a while now). Either go through their online order process, in Swedish, and hope to get a reply, as I did fairly quickly. Or, try this email: info@ssp.nu I've been dealing with a very helpful and English-speaking chap by the name of Christer Hallgren. Cost to me is 196 swedish kroner.
I wonder why it hasnt' been reviewed in Spectrum?
Thanks for pointing that out, Timo. I wasn't aware. Perhaps Stephen is not so much 'only left brained' as he is as you say, 'deathly afraid of spiritualising everything.' So how do you think he manages with the words of Jesus such as 'God is Spirit, and those who worship Him msut worship in Spirit and in Truth?' Or, 'the flesh profits nothing, teh words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.' etc etc. And parables, cannot be understood in literalistic terms, any more than poetry is intended, as a rule.
It could be due to the church's long history of materilaistic literalism. The early Adventist doctrine of the Trinity, eg, was greatly affected by the belief that teh Father has a body, teh Son has a different body, and even the Spirit is made of some kind of matter. Ergo, Heaven is a planet somewhere, having a building known as a temple/sanctuary, which has an altar for sacrifices and tools for removing the resultant ashes. And it is in that temple where he is effecting the Atonement (not on Calvary as is said in Hebrews). Is it anywonder that teh true tabernacle, his church, His house, ie, His people, remain desolate of His Spirit?
Idolatry can be defined as the materialistic representation of spiritual realities. As was the case in Elijah's day, so now, God has those who have not bowed the knee (or who if they once did, do so no longer) to Baal.
How dark is the cave? what cave? I see no cave…….
Serge (and Timo),
No one has denied that God uses stories, parables, symbols, and imagery to convey messages and information.
My contention with Nathan’s post was this pivotal sentence: “He speaks to us not to inform us, but to evoke a response.”
Now, in re-reading my post you may understand my position; while perhaps yet disagreeing.
Secondarily, I’m not exactly clear what Nathan is meaning by “I don’t see God’s truth being revealed very frequently in doctrinal terms.” Does this mean he occasionally does “see God’s truth being revealed…in doctrinal terms”?
Timo, try not to put your words in my mouth, especially when talking about me, and I will reciprocate. I have never told you that I “despise” anything.
I'm not much “into” poetry. Sue me.
It should also be noted that in some disagreement with Serge’s statement that “Truth is relational, not propositional” on the grounds that it represents a simplistic false choice.
Truth cannot be strictly limited to either being relational or propositional, in my opinion. Truth is often properly expressed in propositional terms; while all Truth is ultimately relational.
Stephen, point taken, up to a point. Sometimes, esp in a format such as this, statements can be seen as simplistic. In the long, more complicated format, propositions can describe truths, they are not the Truth itself, any more than a menu represents the meal to be eaten. They are the finger which points one to the desired object. And it is thus, ulitmately, truth is found in relation-ship to the One who is Truth. This is only possible with a spiritual/ist view and understanding of how God works. "My sheep hear My voice…" etc.
Perhaps what is being said, also by Nathan, is that Truth cannot be ultimately found by mere intellectual exercise alone. There are a host of modern theologians whose study and analysis is purely an intellectual exercise. They also willingly admit to being atheists.
My apologies for any misunderstandings in exchanges above.
Stephen,
I sympathize with Nathan's view about doctrines and whether or not they reveal God, though perhaps with a somewhat different view. Assuming that doctrines are correct they should teach us about God. The danger is when we stop at factual knowledge about God instead of letting the doctrine deepen our relationship with God. Unfortunately a great number of the Adventists I know are far more focused on knowing facts about God than really knowing Him. That's like looking backward through a telescope. Yes, you get a view of God, but is it the view God wants you to be seeing? Absolutely not! It was when I "turned the telescope around" and began looking at doctrines through the lens of my relationship with Jesus that they took on deeper, richer and far more personal meanings.
Serge,
We can’t understand how God works; we can only believe what He says. Only when we believe what He says, can we believe in how He works, and can we believe that He works.
When we believe that He does or will work, we can believe that He has worked; and we can see and appreciate how He worked, after the fact.
It is ultimately a matter of faith in what He what He has revealed. Isaiah 55:8, Job 11:7 are propositional truths. The spiritual view is the faith view.
Yes, Stephen, I do think that doctrines are very important pointers to God's character and will. But as I read the Bible, I see doctrines as having evolved from obedience to very specific divine/human encounters in specific times and places. The doctrinal beliefs and practices were reminders of God's action in history, and pointers towards the promise of future such encounters. When those doctrines lost their power to renew and reinforce the covenant, they were abandoned or even scorned by God.
I don't see much evidence in scripture of the kind of proof-texting, puzzle box-top thinking, or specious, syllogistic reasoning that have characterized Adventist chain link theology. In the Bible, here is how it seems to work: God speaks; He evokes a response of obedience; convenant follows; and communities of faith develop around symbolic reminders that reinforce the covenantal relationship, promoting deeper levels of obedience. This is how I see healthy doctrine. When covenant relationship and obedience to that relationship become dependent on the doctrine, both covenant and doctrine are on very shaky footing.
As Serge pointed out, Jesus alone is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Doctrine cannot show us the map. It can only point us to the map Creator and Guide. If it merely draws people to maps of the past, and confines God to those maps, it is false, regardless of its propositional or systematic elegance. Remember, the devils believe and tremble.
A response (of love and obedience) is evoked after God speaks only when those who hear God speak believe He Is.
The devils tremble only because they believe. Some of us don’t believe or tremble.
The devil’s entire ‘game’ is deceit (lying). Without propositional, doctrinal truth, we’ll be deceived.
Eve could have used more propositional truth; as Jesus utilized it in the wilderness.
Doctrinal truth is a map; but Jesus, The Way, is The Global Positioning System. (This is the way; walk in it.)
What is interesting about Eve's response to the serpent is that she imposed additional obligations that God Himself didn't impose. She said God had told her that she can't even touch the fruit and she will die; whereas, God only said they can't eat the fruit or she will die. Sometimes we make it harder for ourselves, by heaping unecessary burdens as Jesus condemned the Pharisees.
How do you know that God didn't also say not to touch the fruit? The fact that the Bible doesn't mention it doesn't automatically mean God didn't provide additional instructions. The othe alternative is that Eve was lying to the serpent; a possibility, but highly unlikely.
Jean, are you serious? Are you now taking a line of adding words to the scriptures, of heaping additional burdens? Even Orthodox Jews take the point I am trying to make.
Eve deceived, by making it harder than it had to be, and implictly by doing so, made it easier for her to give up when it all got too hard. That was the trick of the serpent. The serpent knew that when he began with the more outrageous response, suggesting God had told them they can't eat any fruit, which was aimed to provoke a reaction in Eve.
It is a very common finding in Adventism: adding assumptions to "aid" in understanding the Bible. Many such assumptions not found in the Bible, are from EGW and because both the Bible and her writings are both considered equally "authoritative" they are often given equal belief.
God did not tell Eve, but Adam. What did he tell Eve? Putting too much faith in how translators and editors told the story is disputing such minor details that cause all the controversies still today.
The story was not intended to be literal but a method of explaining who the world and its inhabitants originated. God did not dictate it; man wrote as he saw the world around him and tried to imagine how and when it began. The tradition that God dictated to Moses is without evidence, but has become fact and believed by millions. Belief is not fact.
"Eve could have used more propositional truth."
Exactly my point, Stephen. So why didn't God give her propositional truth? Why didn't He give Adam and Eve a thorough theological grounding in the origin of the serpent, the deceptive nature of the serpent, etc.? Why didn't he he arm them with propositional truths to meet the serpent's deceptive truths instead of just giving them an arbitrary command? Why didn't He give them the post-Fall prophecies before the Fall? Perhaps The Fall was really God's fault after all. He didn't post enough safety warnings and prophetic markers around The Tree.
I believe the reason is that God wanted them to trust His command because of their relationship with Him – because He was their creator, their lover, and their life source, the Way , the Truth, and the Life. To give them "unassailable" doctrinal reasons would have led them to trust the doctrine and the reasons more than God. It would have empowered them to live as gods, the very temptation offered by the serpent.
I am inclined to think that it was doctrine (rational theological arguments) that led to rebellion in Heaven, not lack of doctrine. In the rational world, there is no end of arguments and counter-arguments. In the world of faith, the arguments and counter-arguments end with obedient response to the voice of a living God. And with obedient action, one discovers reasons for trust and obedience that transcend reason and doctrine. This is the story of the entire book of Genesis – God transects the rational, natural expectations of the human realm to upset the rationality of the natural world, religious dogma, and the social order. He doesn't do it through rational persuasion. He does it through relationship and covenant making. I believe that is how He wants to transform us and the world around us.
Very deep. Yes, I really like that. The command to Adam and Eve wasn't about doctrinal truth as much as relationship. Likewise, I have heard good Adventists pastors say from time-to-time that knowing about end-time prophesies, if they don't result in a stronger relationship with Jesus, are pointless. Progressive truth exists to lead to relationship, not the other way around.
One of the first heresies of the early Church was Gnosticism, which at its heart is the notion that knowledge alone save us. I wonder if both 'sides' who regularly visit here, are in danger of wrongly thinking knowing 'the Truth', whether that be literal biblical truth or naturalistic scientific truth, is the meaning and purpose of life. Further to your point and that thought, God deliberately was trying to hide knowledge from Adam and Eve – perhaps a counterintiuative response to auidences on both 'sides'.
The Adventist Church of today is not far from the Gnosticism of times past with the dominant emphasis on knowledge and factual accuracy about God instead of relationship with Him.
Yes and no. To be honest and in fairness, my Church sermons I hear these days are about relationship with God, not about being right. I do agree that misconception that knowledge saves, which as you say is the very heart of the Gnostic heresy, runs deep within Adventism. However, as I said, that notion also seems to run deep in our regular ex-Adventist critics as well.
P.S. I am looking forward to the excellent moview, based on the great book, the Life of Pi. It looks at some of these issues, stressing that in many ways knowing 'The Truth' is not the most important question, and often irrelevant.
Stephen,
As one of the 'ex-Adventist critics,' I must take issue with what I gather to be your understanding of 'Gnostic heresy.' Gnosticism is as far from Adventism as one can get, if my understanding is even vaguely close to correct. Adventism is founded on a deep bedrock of a materialistic understanding of the nature of God, the universe and everything. Gnosticism is utterly spiritual in its conceptions. Adventism is all about 'what you know,' gnosticism is mostly about Who you know.
Gnosticism was not just a heresy of the moderately-early, and later, church. In all likelihood, it preceded the church, possibly by centuries. It may have contributed to its foundations, via Paul. It began in Judaism as the mystical groupings which gave us such literature as apocalyptic (Daniel included). Yes, not something which literalist SDA thinking will countenance. As the early church grew into the literalist/matreialist Rome-ruled majority that we are aware of, the spiritualist gnostic group was sidelined to the point where the victors wrote the history and Gnostics became the heretics. This is one attributed reason why teh library at Alexandria was burned by the Rome-inspired mobs. If the Nag Hammadi finds are any guide, it is easy to see why they were so antithetical to the materilaist theology of Rome. SDAism has not yet escaped these errors of the materilaist Roman church.
Ellen believed and consistently taught that spiritualism (a denial of materialism -philospohical not moral) was the single greatest obstacle to those looking for the literal second advent. This deep-seated belief still forms the bedrock of most SDA's understanding of their religion. I mean, look at the discussion above and see how literally we/you are prone to take the story of Gen 1,2.
PS Speaking of movies, it is possible to discern a trend of presentation of renewed gnostic thinking in a lot of Hollywood productions for at least the past 30 years. Star Wars being the most obvious. Google Hollywood and gnosticism and see what turns up. Life of Pi eh? …. they say Pythagoras was a gnostic of sorts. Named after the serpents (pythons) consulted by the Oracle of Delphi? Not sure about any of that, but have heard rumours.
“Adventism is founded on deep bedrock of a materialistic understanding of the nature of God, the universe and everything. Gnosticism is utterly spiritual in its conceptions. Adventism is all about 'what you know,' gnosticism is mostly about Who you know.”
There really is no such thing as “a materialistic understanding of the nature of God…” Nor to my (admittedly limited) knowledge does any brand of Christianity purport there to be. No disrespect Serge, but from where do you get this some of this stuff? I mean, “Adventism is all about ‘what you know, gnosticism is mostly about Who you know.” What’s that supposed to mean?
If gnosticm is “mostly about Who you know,” what’s the rest of it about? Are you telling us that you’re Gnostic (“…not that there’s anything wrong with that”)?
Besides, how can anyone know Who they should know until/unless finding out somehow? It would then qualify as knowing something—having to do with a doctrinal truth. Isn’t this essentially what Romans 10:14 represents?
What Christians do not believe that spiritual things are spiritually discerned? What Christians do not believe that the things that are seen were not made out things that we see? What Christians do not believe that the things we can see are temporal, but the things we can’t see are eternal? Jesus is The Truth, yet truth is represented in God’s inspired (written) word. What Christians do not believe that God is a Spirit; and that we are to worship Him in spirit and truth? What Christians believe truth to be unimportant?
On second thought, 2 Thessalonians 2: 1-15 refers to that last group; whoever they are.
2 Corinthians 2:14
Hebrews 11:3
2 Corinthians 4:18
John 17:17
John 14:6
John 4:24
Our pioneers did have a materialistic view of God and heaven. They were physically real. Ellen White asked if God the Father had a body like Jesus and was told he did. I believe her view of the Godhead remained that of three separate beings. Heaven was a physcial reality, in which there was a physical temple with 2 actual apartments. All you need to do to realise how materialistic the views of the pioneers were is to spend a few hours reading what they wrote. There is still a section of Adventism for whom the physical reality of a temple in heaven is important.
Kevin,
This is what I (literally) meant: we can’t understand—as in comprehend—the God-manner, or realm, of existence or intelligence. Nobody can understand it; no matter what.
For all we know, everything in heaven may be material; and simultaneously not material. No Christians know; or claim to know.
Nathan, God gave Adam and Eve propositional truth in Genesis 2:16, 17. We aren’t told in the Bible precisely how Eve obtained this truth; but she shared some or all of it with the serpent.
The problem was she didn’t appreciate or utilize the truth to which she had been exposed to combat and refute error. On the other hand, Jesus certainly did. Eve was therefore deceived. Jesus was victorious.
Stephen( Foster),
I guess we need to be a bit clearer on definitions. I would assume that propositional truths or doctrines refer to rational principles of general applicability existing within a system of belief. I don't regard God's command to Noah to build an ark, or the command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, as propositional truths or doctrines. It sounds like you do.
You are really stretching the meaning of terms. If Johnny's friends want to raid the cookie jar, and Johnny informs them that his mother said not to touch the cookie jar, has Johnny offered his friends propostitional truth? Of course not! A specific command to action or an injunction directed to a particular person is not propositional truth.
You started off, Stephen, by saying Eve could have used more propositional truth, and now you are arguing that she did in fact use propositional truth – just not enough I guess – to combat the wily serpent. It all really boils down to the same question doesn't it – is doctrine or relationship the primary tool for revealing Truth and resisting evil?
It looks like we basically agree on the definition of propositional truths or doctrines; except that I would emphasize that such truths (or "rational principles") include/imply/infer a rationale.
Therefore, whereas I definitely do “regard God’s command to Noah to build an ark” to have been a doctrine that Noah preached—because there was an implicit and/or specific God-given reason for building the ark—I may not, necessarily, consider “the command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac” as one; because God didn't give a reason why He asked for Isaac, until afterward.
(On the other hand, I can see how some may consider the command to Abraham as a propositional truth; since there had long previously been sacrifices of lambs.)
If Johnny tells his friend that his mother has forbidden the touching of the cookie jar, and that there would be consequential repercussions for disobedience of some sort, I would consider that a propositional truth
I would also consider it a use of propositional truth if Johnny told his friend that he loves and respects his mother; and knows through personal past experience that his mother is only interested in what is best for (both of) them.
As for Eve, she simply should have utilized more of the propositional truth that she had; just as Jesus used it. (That's easy for me to say, LOL.) The question is not doctrine or relationship. It is more the doctrine of relationship.
What I mean is that the only relationship that Jesus used or touted in the wilderness to combat the devil’s temptations was His obedient relationship with His Father. Other than that, He used propositional truth (which included/implied His relationship with His Father).
"She said God had told her that she can't even touch the fruit and she will die; whereas, God only said they can't eat the fruit or she will die. Sometimes we make it harder…”
"…adding words to…scriptures, of heaping additional burdens?"
I agree with my namesake on this. Although it is reasonable speculation that God may have (also) told Eve not to touch the tree; it is still speculation.
We know that He told her not eat of it, and that should have been her focus—and should be ours.
When we add speculation to the Biblical narrative to comport with what we think happened, or might have happened, or should have happened, or didn’t happen, as opposed to believing what the inspired word says did happen, we complicate and cast doubt. Interpretation then becomes out and out disbelief. We are then effectively deceived and/or deluded.
The next thing you know, speculation about what God meant, or should have said, or might have said, becomes more comfortable and sounds more reasonable to us than what He actually did say (and meant). What we think becomes tradition, then doctrine. When we teach this traditional comfortable speculation as doctrine, our worship is in vain.
Had Eve focused on what God actually said, she would not have been as vulnerable to serpentine interpretation of His words. This is an object lesson for us.
Religious believers do it all the time: adding to Scripture what they are convicted that was written, but without a text to substantiate such claims. It's as though the Bible writers were deficient and today, we know what they meant, but simply failed to write.
This, in addition to our own interpretation, is cited as straight from the Bible.
Serge: “Gnosticism is as far from Adventism as one can get, if my understanding is even vaguely close to correct.”
I was actually only referring to the aspect of Gnosticism that equates salvation or the meaning of life with knowledge. That is an obsession of both conservative literalists and ex-Adventist scientific naturalists who regularly visit AToday. I would say they both share a common philosophy or goal, to know ‘The Truth’ at all costs, as if that is more important that relationships. That is why there appeared such adverse reaction, from both sides, to an earlier comment of mine that I would willingly chose a ‘God Delusion’ (very much the major theme of the book and movie ‘The Life of Pi’ I referred to earlier).
“Adventism is founded on a deep bedrock of a materialistic understanding of the nature of God, the universe and everything.”
But as to your wider point – yes you are correct and I agree – depending on how one views it. The whole overall theological framework that binds Adventism’s seemingly disconnected doctrines is indeed an anti-Gnostic theological materialism. However, that is nothing to be ashamed of. It is esoterical and aesthetic Christianity, probably best found in RC monasticism and New Age beliefs, as derived from original pagan beliefs that forget its Hebrew-Yahwist roots, which is the problem.
If you want to read my own detailed thoughts on the matter, feel free to check out an article I wrote about it out on my own blog:
http://adventistcultmisconceptions.blogspot.com.au/2011/03/19-why-does-sda-church-have-all-these_11.html
Given one of my closest work friends is a practicing Christian Gnostic, who runs her own classes in meditation and Gnostic philosophy, I do know a little bit about it. As I have often joked with her, Adventism is very much the extreme opposite of her religion.
I also have given a sermon from time-to-time, which I entitle ‘Why Adventists Should Make Terrible Monks and Nuns’. I have also written about it, but never been published. It is largely based on an excellent chapter from Jack Provnsher’s book ‘God with Us’ about how monasticism arose based on Gnostic ideas.
“Gnosticism is utterly spiritual in its conceptions.”
True – at least one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that Gnosticism intrinsically sees matter (i.e. especially human flesh) as evil or flawed. In turn, Gnosticism doesn’t worship the Creator, but rather sees the Creator god as a lesser deity – the Demiurge.
The god Gnostics worship is the ethereal ultimate, called En Sof (to use a Jewish Kabbalahistic term, amongst others). Lucifer and the serpent are agents of the ‘good’ god, as agents of knowledge, rather than the evil Creator God of the OT Yahwah.
In that sense, Gnosticism is indeed the very antithesis of the Adventist emphasis on the Sabbath, which affirms both creation and the Creator as ‘good’ – quite the opposite of the Gnostic Demiurge.
“Gnosticism was not just a heresy of the moderately-early, and later, church. In all likelihood, it preceded the church, possibly by centuries. It may have contributed to its foundations, via Paul. It began in Judaism as the mystical groupings which gave us such literature as apocalyptic (Daniel included).”
Indeed, Gnosticism is old and technically there is no one Gnostic teaching or agreed doctrines, which is why many scholars prefer to use the term ‘proto-Gnostic’. It has very old roots in pagan belief, both in the West with Plato and the ancient Greeks, and in Eastern mysticism.
As admitted by the Catholic Encyclopaedia:
“It is clear, however, that Plato holds the spiritual nature of the soul as against the materialistic Atomists, and that he believes the soul to have existed before its union with the body.” (emphasis added)
And as noted by famous Jewish theologian Abraham Heschel in The Prophets (1962):
“One of the major intentions of Plato’s philosophy was to show that the soul is best by a duality… The former is identified as the rational and immortal component, and the latter as the irrational and mortal (p320).
…The ideas that dominate the Hellenistic understanding of the emotional life of man must not affect our understanding of Hebrew thinking. The Bible knows neither the dichtonomy of body and soul nor the trichotomy of body, soul, and spirit, nor the trichonomy of the soul.” (p331) (emphasis added).
Yes, it very much existed in the NT world. Paul had concerns about libertinism on the one young (e.g. visiting prostitutes because people saw the spirit and flesh as disconnected). On the other hand, Paul also had concerns about ascetism (e.g. those forbidding marriage and food).
Both can be attributed to Gnostic or proto-Gnostic beliefs that intrinsically see matter (i.e. including the human body) as evil. Again, you see these influences in RC monasticism, in vows of poverty, chastity and obedience, and in practices of silence, sleep deprivation, fasting – very much the opposite of the Adventist health message.
“John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know (gnosis) thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”
Yes and no. A huge theological debate today is whether John was using Gnostic terminology, especially when referring to Jesus in John 1 as the Logos (the Word, also found in Gnostic philosophy). However, most scholars today believe John was relying on pre-Gnostic ideas found in Isaiah and elsewhere. Recent findings from the Dead See Scrolls seem to support this idea.
In fact, many theologians, such as Raymond Brown and Dulings, believe John’s Gospel was written specially in opposite to Gnosticism. Cut a long story short, Brown believes there were six broad phases in the evolution of Johannine Christian communities, where after splitting from Judaism, there was a massive schism as the result of Gnostic ideas.
In particular, John is aimed at refuting the Gnostic idea of Docetism, which is the idea that because Gnosticism sees matter (i.e. human flesh) as evil, Jesus Christ only ‘appeared’ to come in the flesh but in reality was only spirit. This proto-Gnostic idea led to the evolution of the Trinity. Thus again, the Adventist affirmation of the Trinity is very much an anti-Gnostic idea.
“If the Nag Hammadi finds are any guide, it is easy to see why they were so antithetical to the materilaist theology of Rome. SDAism has not yet escaped these errors of the materilaist Roman church.”
And is there any coincidence that RC monasticism also arose in Egypt? I don’t believe so at all. We see where Gnostic teachings get us in the RC abuse scandals. See the human body as ‘evil’ is one of the lasting worryingly legacies of Gnosticisms, and I for one am very glad of Adventism’s anti-Gnostic credentials.
“Ellen believed and consistently taught that spiritualism (a denial of materialism -philospohical not moral) was the single greatest obstacle to those looking for the literal second advent.”
Indeed she was correct. As admitted by German Protestant theologian Jurgen Moltmann in Spirit of Life (1992):
“In the degree to which Christianity cut itself off from its Hebrew roots and acquired Hellenistic and Roman form, it lost its eschatological hope and surrendered its apocalyptic alternative to “this world” of violence and death. It merged into late antiquity’s Gnostic religion of redemption. From Justin onwards, most Fathers revered Plato as a “Christian before Christ” and extolled his feeling for the divine transcendence and for the values of the spiritual world. God’s eternity now took the place of God’s future, heaven replaced the coming kingdom, the spirit that redeems the soul from the body supplanted the Spirit as “the well of life”, the immortality of the soul displaced the resurrection of the body, and the yearning for another world became a substitute for changing this one”. (p89) (emphasis added)
As also observed by Roman Catholic theologian John F. Haught in ‘Christianity and Science’ (2007), citing with approval the views of prominent Catholic theologian Pierre Teilhard de Chardin:
“If the immortal human soul can break out of its material prison, the demise of the physical universe should have no bearing whatsoever on our hope for immortality. This approach to the problem of death appeals to many religions…
…To many of its proponents metaphysical dualism – an ancient worldview that allows for the separation of mind, soul and spirit from matter – may still seem the mot efficient way to accommodate both the requirements of science and the hopes of religion. Unfortunately, however, from the point of view of Christian faith such dualism is objectionable. Christians believe in bodily resurrection, and bodies are inseparable from the material universe.” (p154,155) (emphasis added)
“SDAism has not yet escaped these errors of the materialist Roman church. This deep-seated belief still forms the bedrock of most SDA's understanding of their religion.”
True – at least one way of looking at it. Another way to look at is that whereas the RC Church was unwittingly affected by Gnosticism, which is when the early Church started to become Apostate. Adventism attempts to remove pagan-Gnostic influences from Christianity.
In my view, this is very much what it means to call all Christians, even RCs, out of ‘Bablylon’. This is the Adventist mission – our remnant mission.
Given proto-orthodoxy very much grew in opposition to proto-Gnosticism (for example, Marcion’s cannon directly led to our NT cannon we have today), what today we consider Christian ‘orthodoxy’ is linked with views considered the antithesis of Gnosticism. As I have discussed with Roman Catholics before, to that extent, Adventists are not merely an ‘orthodox’ Christian denomination, we are arguably ‘ultra-orthodox’ Christians.
Today’s Gnostics argue that even in their early defeat, the proto-orthodox groups absorbed Gnostic ideals, such as the notion of an immortal soul, which is highly developed in Gnostic theology (I can quote the exact passage from a Gnostic-Christian book in my library if you wish). Thus again, Adventist theology, especially its State of the Dead doctrine, is very much the opposite of Gnosticism.
Further discussion
As this is about my favourite Christian-theological topic, I am more than happy to continue any further discussion about how Adventism is indeed anti-Gnostic. It is something I am very much proud of.
Sorry one last thought. And of course, John saw the Gnostic idea of Docetism (that Christ only 'appeard' to be in the flesh because Gnosticism sees matter and human flesh as evil) is the very antithesis of what he saw as Christianity.
As John is probably referring to Docetism in his first and second letters by declaring as an anti-Christ those who denied Christ came in the flesh.
And of course John's opening declartion in John 1 that Jesus was the Word made 'flesh' is anti-Gnostic.
So Gnosticism (or proto-Gnosticism) very much did exist in NT times, but the Apostles, especially both Paul and John, tried to combat the early forms of that heresy.
Serge: “Adventism is founded on a deep bedrock of a materialistic understanding of the nature of God, the universe and everything… Ellen believed and consistently taught that spiritualism (a denial of materialism -philospohical not moral) was the single greatest obstacle to those looking for the literal second advent. This deep-seated belief still forms the bedrock of most SDA's understanding of their religion.”
And another and probably less derogatory way of describing Adventism’s overall theological framework of theological materialism, which you are correct is the antithesis of Gnosticism, is the term ‘Wholism.’
I believe a survey of Adventist theologians by Spectrum in 1983 showed most of our scholars believe ‘Wholism’, more than the Sabbath or any other doctrine, is the SDA Church’s greatest contribution to Christendom. Wholism isn’t just one of our fundamental beliefs, it is our whole framework which ties all our seemingly diverse range of beliefs, including our more ‘peculiar beliefs’, together.
Wholism sees the Creator and creation as good. It is the antithesis of monastic practices, which see matter and the human body, including bodily functions of the flesh of eating, sleeping, medicine and sex, as intrinsically evil.
Back to the topic of Ellen White, I would rather Ellen White’s Health Message over monastic Christianity, derived from proto-Gnostic thought anyday. Importantly, I would rather send my kids to a school run by Christians whose beliefs and practices are rooted in Wholism, rather than monks and priests whose aesthetism is rooted in proto-Gnostic teachings.
Wouldn’t you? I am not the only way to think this way, as there are even RC theologians, such as John Haught, RC theological professor at Georgetown, who question how these proto-Gnostic teachings have somewhat corrupted the Catholic Church.
Have you followed up on the motivation behind some of our health teachings? I am not sure you can trace it all back to a belief that the human body (and especially sex) is good. There seems to be a fairly strong sense of 'the flesh' being sinful in early Adventism. I would agree we have moved closer to wholism in recent years, but there is also a strong strain of ascetism still current in Adventism. We tend to read the past through the present, and assume our pioneers shared our assumptions. that is not always true.
Stephen and Stephen,
As this little chat has expanded somewhat, its difficult to know how/where to even begin to respond.
Where did I get all this? My heavenly Father taught me. After being invited to leave the SDA ministry in 1981(immedialtely post Glacier View for those who remember it), I had to do a lot of thinking/praying/meditating/sharing with a few kindred souls. I asked my Father for bread, He did not give me a serpent. Or a stone (a lump of earthliness). No, it was the Bread of heaven. See Prov.2:1-6.
It begins with a simple principle: the books of Daniel and Revelation have to be interpreted in a logical, consistent methodology. The principle which stood out to me is the these are books of symbols. Symbols have a meaning deeper than the surface / literal meaning of the word. Thus one cannot read more than the first few chapters of Rev and not be faced with this: Jesus walks among the candlesticks of the heavenly sanctuary. John deciphers the symbol of the seven candlesticks as the seven churches.' Now, rationality, if nothing else, says you cannot have a literal Jesus in a literal building in literal planet Heaven, when the candlesticks are symbolically here on earth. Same goes for a Philadelphian being made into a pillar of God's temple. etc etc etc.
And thus one quickly realises that the literalist SDA view of the heavenly building is a logical nonsense. Soon one turns to Hebrews and learns there that 'We are His house.' This is the dominant image of the church throughout the NT. John 14 promises He will come, to each of us, Father, Son and Holy SPirit. Here, now. This can only happen in spiritual terms. Soon I had to face the reality that the 'materilaistic' paradigm I had been born into and raised with did not fit the NT scheme of things. OT maybe, in parts, NT definitely not.
But it is only in the past few years that I've been coming to the realisation that Adventism is 'materialistic' ie, emphasis on physical v spiritual, in nature. It is not a term I use derogatorily. It is used to contrast it from its opposite, immaterilaism or spirituality/spiritualism. It is, I recently discovered, the term preferred by SDA theologians for the first fifty years of the church's life (until the more common use of the term arose). This is well documented in a book I have mentioned elsewhere, maybe on this blog: Thomas McElwain (2010) Adventism and Ellen White: a phenomenon of religious materilaism.' Swedish Science press. Only in hard copy, and only from SSP. (I dont get a commission either).
Stephen, I find the alacrity with which you quote RC and Jewish theologians in support of a materilistic view curious, but not surprising. I am quite of the view that SDAism is a modern example of the Judaisers in Galatians. 'They observe days and months etc etc….' Luther said it is a test of a theologain to be able to discern between law and gospel. I think SDA theologians fail this test. But that is my opinion.
What is not my opinion is the omnipresence of Spirit over matter in the NT. Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Tell me, what do you think Jesus refers to in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus with the words, 'and between us there is a great gulf fixed?' Obviously, I will respond that this refers to the spirit/matter divide. The same divide we find in Heb 6:19
Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil;
This veil is later (10:20) defined as 'his flesh.' So much for the arguments amongst literalist/materilaist SDAs about the veil. But the point I make is, we are admonished to enter within the veil, to approach the throne of grace. The word here used, within, is in Greek, 'esoteros,' from which we gain the word you seem to disparage, esoteric. I, too, used to be primed to resist such words. Now I embrace them. Its all part of the task we've been given to 'try(test) the spirits.'
You refer to the name of the Gnostic god. Note, I don't capitalise. The full name is Ayn Soph Aur – "the eternal light of the no-thing." No-thing….. non -material. This, you state correctly, is the mystical Judaism view. Sits squarely with the NT description 'GOD IS SPIRIT.' And also, 1Jn 1:5, …God is Light…' (Little wonder there is disagreement as to whether John is pro or anti a gnostic perspective).Only two other definitions/descriptions of God can be found in NT. Heb 12:29 for our God is a consuming fire. And the famous: 1Jo 4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. I am not aware of any other descriptions of God in the NT. And there are none, in my limited awareness, which define Him in material / physical terms. So, if we are to be remade in His image, it is not materially. Of our heavenly life, Jesus says 'they are as the angels,' ie, spirits. (Matt 22:30)
For more on Paul's mysticism see Jewish author, Alan Segal's 'Paul the Convert.' He says Paul is the first mystic jew to leave an account of his 'Heavenly ascent' journies, representing what is taken to be Merkavah or Hekhalot mysticism, which is proto-Kabbalism.
2Co 12:3 And I know such a man (whether in the body, or apart from the body, I know not; God knoweth),
For Paul, the fact he can use the phrase 'in the body or apart from the body I cannot tell' was not surprising. He took it for granted that Paul had a body, but he was not a body. As he said in Romans, Who can deliver ME, FROM this BODY? Can you seriously contend that Paul erred in breaking with his materialist Hebrew roots? This is part of the work of the SPirit, to lead into truth. Or, maybe you'd prefer to call an evolution of truth and understanding.
Now it has been documented for us that early SDAs, EGW included, describe everything in materialist terms. They were opposing the language of the Methodist view of the Trinity, (despite its Lutheran heritage), which was fairly standard spiritualism, ie, no body parts, omnipresent etc. As Canright (still in good standing) stated, 'We utterly deny the distinction between matter and spirit which is claimed. We believe all things are material….' On the other side of the debate was a Seventh-day Baptist friend of Kellogg who opened his book, Spiritual Sabbathism, with the words: 'The antithesis between the transitory and the enduring is possibly the most important contrast used by man.' I take this to be a ref to Paul''s statement: 'that which can be seen (material) is temporary, that which is not seen (spiritual) is eternal.' And it is not necessary to hold that if Spirit is good (eternal), then matter is of necessity 'evil.' It just is, for the time being, anyway.
It shouldn't be surprising to learn that the view that Jesus and Father, and HS, are of material nature demanded of the pioneers that Jesus minister in a material building. This is still deeply ingrained in SDA thinking. In addition to rejecting the RC-inspired doctrine of the Trinity, they took its corollary to be that the Atonement was also to be effected in this heavenly building. Read McElwain's reasoning for this before asking me to expand. So a mistaken doctrine of God led them to a mistaken doctrine of Atonement.
McElwain finds that EGW never uses the term Trinity nor does she argue for or against it. But she does form a consistent message which he describes as 'covenantal monism,' which I take to mean, man, in his material nature, combines his will with God's will to fulfill the requirements of the Law. This position is not taken/adopted 'out of the blue.' This nice little article, found while searching 'Martin Luther and little Christs' shows that Luther's doctrine is not that of a mere divine forensic declaration of innocence' of hte believer. It is that of a participatory nature, made possible by the indwelling/recreative/transformative Spirit.
Just What Did Luther (and the Pietists) Discover? by Eric Jonas Swensson http://www.holytrinitynewrochelle.org/yourti23517.html
Swensson traces a line from Luther to the Moravians to Wesley to the Methodists. But this divine thread is cut decisively by those early Adventists who left Methodism.
In a word, the thing Luther discovered was : we are made partakers of the divine nature.
Look carefully and you will discern a lot of proto / gnostic language.
Now a truly curious phenomenon. The Adventist 'health message.' Even though the early Adventists chose a materilaist cosmology, (and one could say, by extension, anti-gnostic), the underlying, determinitive principle of the 'health message' is strangely similar to this idea of escaping the corruption in the world via 'lust.' Its better translated as 'desire,' imho, but true to a literalist view, Ellen and others were convinced that teh foods people eat have the capacity to 'stimulate the base animal passions of unregenerate human nature.' This is is the dilemma of a materialist view. I paraphrase. Utterly consistent with this view is Ellen's FIRST, and one therefore presumes most important, message: 'A message to mothers.' It is not unreasonable to observe that this first order message is a warning against the secret sin, self-pleasuring, a habit commenced in childhood and had the capacity to morally ruin a man. So it was vital to only eat foods which did not stimulate the base animal passions, or take any stimulant at all. This is the beginning of the health message. It is very ascetic in its philosophy. It could even reflect the concerns of 1Tim 4:1-4
SDAs do not forbid to marry, but they do forbid certain foods, along the lines of OT food laws (here goes the Judaiser tag again). And this forbidding of foods is related to sexual purity, which the ascetics hoped to achieve by forbidding to marry. So this is a very odd disconnect between the materilaist cosmology of SDAs and your view of gnosticism/assceticism which is usually blamed for its false views of flesh v spirit.
Just a note on the origins of monasticism. I think you will find that the Essenes probably practised a form of monasticism long before the Alexandrian monks. And it was those monks who burnt the library of Alexandria to destroy its gnostic texts, so one can hardly equate monks with gnosticism per se. But you are quite right ot point out that the term gnosticism does not describe any one philosophy or system of religious thinking. It is an extremely 'broad church,' requiring analysis of each system on their merits. Or not. I'd rather just read the NT without preconceptions.
Its a pity SDA theologians no longer have the courage of their ancestors who were not at all embarrassed by the term Materialism, at least, not until the early 1900's. Wholism is rather a wimpy term by comparison. Is there something being concealed here? If you are truly proud of it, call it Materialism. Shout it from the rooftops, 'I am a materialist and I reject all things Spiritual!' Fundamental 7 says man is body, soul and spirit, indivisibly. Is this 'Wholism?' This is a nonsense. Spirit, by any definition, is not the same 'substance' as flesh. Or is this statement still reliant on early SDA view that Holy Spirit, too, is made of some kind of matter, we just don't know quite what? Sadly, this is but another example of the logical inconsistencies which beset any materialist teaching which claims to also believe the New Testament.
There is one final text which needs mentioning.
1Jo 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed (Gk sperma) remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
I find this to be one of the most 'difficult' texts in the NT. What do you make of it? To me, it says emphatically that Spirit does manifest in the flesh, now as then. Reconsider Luther's reference to believers as 'little Christs.' Hebrews' description 'He was made in all points like unto His brethren' should not be forgotten.
I notice that most of your supporting material is from RC and Jewish authors, but precious little from scripture, esp NT. Can you cite a few NT ref's to help me see that NT is predisposed to your materialist view. Stephen Foster cited quite a few, but they are all pro-spiritualist texts.
Just one final thing. Am I a gnostic? only in the sense allowed by Jn 17:3
Shalom, brothers, may we all be filled with the Eternal Spirit.
Serge
Have you had a chance to read up on the Orthodox undestanding of Theosis? It is in some ways similar to Luther's ideas.
Both the Orthodox and the unorthodox, Kevin. There is a nice summary of (very 'theological') essays in Christensen & Wittung, 'Partakers of teh Divine Nature – the history and development of deification in the Christian traditions'. On Luther (and what a revelation this is turning out to be) Braaten & Jenson, 'Union With Christ, the new Finnish interpretation of Luther'. There are likely many more.
There is one more that I have on theosis, but not yet read: Michael Gorman, 'Inhabiting the Cruciform God – Kenosis, Justification and Theosis in Paul's narrative soteriology.'
I cited the texts I did to indicate reinforcement of the points made and questions asked in that post’s last paragraph; and to demonstrate that what you might term materialist Adventist theology, acknowledges these truths.
These aren’t “pro-spiritualist texts” Serge. They are texts about the spirit and about faith. There is no need to fear the spirit or the spiritual things of God. Everything about God is spiritual in nature. God is of course a spirit, but we can’t know what that all entails; other than He is bigger than us. That is what we need to know. (The Bible is far enough 'out there.')
Frankly, I find your views highly/entirely speculative. I won’t be going down that road. But I thank you for sharing nonetheless.
Its a pity that you find some things in scripture to be highly speculative, Stephen. Even greater pity that you might choose not to go where the Spirit might lead. Spirituality is not an optional extra. It was specifically rejected by SDA's founding generations. Don't let it happen to you. No man can serve two masters. God or Mammon. Mammon is not money per se, it represents Materiality. Jesus' message is simple: Spirit is everything (thanks for that link, Nathan).
Meanwhile, I shall "not cease giving thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers,
No Brother Serge, what I said was I find your views highly/entirely speculative. To be perhaps clearer, that would mean your interpretation of scripture—as it relates to materialism, as you put it—appears to rely more on speculation than on inspiration.
What is in the Bible is spiritual. It explains the so-called material very plainly. What we see is not real in the sense that it is essentially temporary. There was a time when it did not exist, and there will be a time when it will no longer exist. So how real is something (anything) that was not at some point; and at some future point will no longer be?
This, to me, is what 2 Corinthians 4:18 and Hebrews 11:3 have told us.
This doesn’t mean that what we might consider tangible matter doesn’t exist in heaven. It doesn’t mean that it does either. We do not know, and cannot know. Thus it is not important to know.
The spiritual view is the faith view. Hebrews 11:1 encapsulates all of this, Serge.
That said, thank you for your prayers. I will pray for us as well.
Thank you Stephen. I actually did think I did refer to the NT, but admittedly looking at historical-critical themes as a whole, rather than getting into a proof-text war, which I find here is rarely that useful.
What does the Bible, Serge, and us today, mean by the notion of 'material' and 'spiritual'? Presumably Serge still believes in a physical resurrection, as occured with Jesus. The resurrected Jesus had a 'material' body, in the sense he allowed Thomas to poke his holes and Jesus ate to prove He wasn't just some etheral spirit. Yet Paul tells us 1 Cor 15:44 that at the resurrection we will be raised with a spiritual body.
So my question is, does this spiritual body mean it is etheral – a ghost, rather than material, in the sense of existing in some physical sense per the laws of physics? Jesus' own resurrected body, which consumed food and could be touched, would suggest it was 'spiritual', and not 'material' or 'natural' in the sense of a fallen sinful body, but indeed still 'material'.
I find trying to interpret 1 Cor 15 – whether one view or the other – encapsulates a lot of this discussion.
Despite getting too dogmatic, I don't think Paul or any other NT writer really knew exactly what type of 'heavenly body' Jesus had at the resurrection, and what we can expect. We are only now beginning to understand fantastical things such as quatum physics, which despite looking etheral, are still 'material' in the sense of existing within the laws of physics.
Even those dreaded RC theologians, such as Piered de Chardin and John Haught, who are starting to adopt an 'Adventist-type' view on these issues, come to similar points. They see eschatology, and the resurrection, as 'material' events within the universe and laws of physics that God created. It is a reaffirmation of our Creator God and His Creation – unlike the gnostics who see the Creator as the evil or flawed Demiurge.
Brothers Stephen,
Thank you both for the 'spirit' of this discussion. Believe it or not, I have no axe to grind nor am I here to convince anyone of anything. It is the SPirit who convinces, after all. So I mean nothing is to be taken as personal, we're jsut having a chat about ideas. I happen to think these ideas are significant, others won't see it that way. Each to their own. Some might see me as a demon trying to peddle a garment of light. So be it. I jsut say, THINK. But I aslo say, MEDITATE on THE WORD. There are a lot of texts, whole books, of the NT, which are misunderstood. But I have no monopoly on truth or understanding of them. I jsut think a whole lot of standard SDAism misses out on deeper understandings of scripture (the meat of the word) because it is quite superficial/simplistic/literalistic.
For spiritual v material see response to Bro Foster. But I also ask, how do you see the difference? Is 'spiritual' perhpas the equivalent of 'dark energy' represented as 'dark matter'? Unfortunate terms, but such is the science. Would James White think so today? For me, Spirit cannot be represented in any form that physics would or could describe. That would make it 'material' and hence subject to the laws of entropy and decay. That is how it is: subject ot death. Remember, the 'whole creation' cries out for deliverance.
Physical resurrection? Do you mean a reassembling of one's very own pre-exisitng molecules and atoms? What of those molecules and atoms which have been shared by more than one body? How will you know that this resurrected entity is actually YOU? The answer is 'memory,' but if memory is physical in nature, you are back to the same problem. Which face, of the dozen or so which you had through your earthly life will you remember as you when you look in the mirror of the bathroom of your heavenly mansion? (Will there be flushing toilet?) What if only a clone of you is recreated? Sure, God can do all things. But He can also exist in a form entirely unlike this material one we call real.
So, in a word, No, physical resurrection as is commonly described is redundant.
Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, HAS everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but IS PASSED from death unto life.
Joh 11:26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me SHALL NEVER DIE. Believest thou this?
1 Cor 15 is best understood in the light of these sayings of Jesus. Rationalisations that death of hte body is but a sleep etc wont cut it. ROmans 6 is quite misunderstood, imho.
Now you might say, I should not be taking these texts literally. Can you suggest another way? Are our bodies 'quickened' here? I don't see that it says that. So if WE are quickened, and not our bodies, what does that say about WHO and WHAT we ARE?
As for Jesus' resurrection body. It is described as 'flesh and bones.' In contrast to 'a spirit.' But also, this 'flesh and bones' material body can pass through walls and travel distances by other than normal material means. So it is clearly not a standard material body being spoken of. I'll be upfront and say I think these references could be later interpolations (as, eg, 1 Jn 5:7), and were added as part of the spiritual/material debate in teh early church. The materialist-oriented western church (Rome) won the day and was able to carry this through.
Because, these 'flesh and bones' texts have to be set off against Paul's 'flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom' texts. 1Co 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
So what is a 'spiritual body?' Paul spends some time describing a lot of different types of 'bodies.' Not all are material. He contrasts, say, natural bodies with spiritual bodies. Tell me, what is the nature of a 'body of knowledge?' Body corporate? etc. The greeks used teh word body in this way also. It meant as much 'conceptual entity' as literal thing. But the real clue to Paul's usage, which is utterly consistent with the earlier sayings of Jesus is here:
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
Here Paul contrasts earthly/material with heavenly/spiritual. Entirely different orders of existence. Heaven is not a luxury version of earth.
Apologies for the quoting. Not trying ot 'proof-text,' but ot let scripture speak for itself. It is possible, because it happens ot me so often, that we think we read a text and in fact our eyes are glazed over, because we are not conceptually in tune with what it is actually saying. We see what we want to see, what we think we see, but not always do we see exactly waht is there. I present these texts as examples of texts I once read in a materialist way, but now in the opposite way. And I know which one is more meaningful, and has the greatest impact on my day to day living, and dying, in Christ.
Dear Brother Foster, mea culpa, non maxima, I was also slightly 'tongue-in-cheek,' regarding you and scriptural speculation (speculation means to 'look into' so that is a good thing, no?). I think I realised what you were saying but framed my response in a way to elicit another response. And you have expressed a view I think we can discuss.
The spiritual view is the faith view
That is one way of seeing it. It is a warm and fuzzy way, shall we say.
Spiritualism, on the other hand, is a, for want of a better word, systematic philosophical understanding of the underlying conception common to all or most of the authors of the NT, and many who didn't make the cut. (Many of those that didn't make it into the canon were a bit too obviously 'spiritual,' while those that did contain enough ambivalence or even interpolated additonal saying to at least obscure the issue.) It is the equivalent to 'immaterialism' which is the absolute antithesis to Materialism, which is the stated philosophical underpinning of the founding fathers and mother of the SDA church.
Now they formed the express view that heaven is composed of matter and all things in it. Furthermore, not even God himself could imagine a state of existence which was not composed of things material. (James White, 'How Readest Thou?' R&H May 20, 1875, p 156)
Now James White asks the pertinent question here: How readest Thou? I am stating that I read the NT (quite an advance on teh OT I say) to be based on the idea that God is NOT made of matter, does not have a body and is SPIRIT in nature. Non-material. So I take this as evidence that James and company got it wrong. They proposed that 'spirit' refers to a type of matter, though it could not be defined. (Is that what you wanted to say … 'This doesn’t mean that what we might consider tangible matter doesn’t exist in heaven. It doesn’t mean that it does either. We do not know, and cannot know. Thus it is not important to know.)
I now read it quite differently. It is important to know. Heaven is a non-material realm (where teh laws of physics are redundant). But, this matters because it affects basic assumptions about how God goes about His business. eg, if we conceive of heavenly sanctuary as a building on planet heaven, all material entities, then we ahve a vastly different concept of how God works in us to do what needs to be done. Ellen alluded to this as I recall, stating that 'they have removed Christ into the nether regions far from us,' or words to that effect. She also said, ST Feb 14, 1900, 'God's church on earth is THE TRUE TABERNACLE….' (Ellen was not consistent about a lot of these things, imho, she also presents teh literalistic/materialist view). Now this cannot be a 'literal' building if we see this in the symbolic terms that it is. But we, well, you? and SDAs generally, persist with notions of buildings akin to bricks and mortar, or diamonds if you prefer, in outer space where Christ in physical body is 'pleading' with an Ancient of Days figure who apparently wants to fry the lot of us unless Christ can convince Him otherwise. Sorry, got a bit carried away. In the spirit, I trust.
If you read teh remainder of Ephesians you will find a description of teh heavenly temple, and it is US.
Many scholars omit Ephesians from teh Pauline corpus because it is a bit too 'gnostic' in its flavour, and that beautifulprayer at the beginning is apparently borrowed from some pagan source. Go figure.
Thank you Serge.
To be honest, I am not sure if some of what you said went over my head so bare with me please.
From what I can see, the irony of course is in your own life, and the lives of a whole generation of Ministers, the question of a material vs immaterial heaven seems to be linked with the whole question of a literal building in heaven, per the Ford controversy as you stated earlier. For someone of a 'younger' generation, the whole debate seems wholly stupid, in the sense that it seems quite crazy that Ministers could lose their job, especially Ford, for such a 'non-essential' question. I know that is heresy to many in the older generations, and I do understand the historical-cultural importance to Adventism as a 'face-saving' issue, but frankly I don't really care that much whether the Sanctuary is a literal material building in heaven or just a metaphor (didn't Christ say He was the Temple), and whether the investigative judgment (which even RC believe in) began in 33 CE or 1844.
As to whether heaven has a literal Temple in it is not at all linked in my mind to whether heaven is a material 'place' made of 'matter', even if it is 'matter' we don't recognise here on earth. Again, when it says in Revelation that it has streets paved with gold, does this mean the element Au on the periodic table – I don't know. Thus, to you and many 'opponents', this whole question seems bound up to the Sanctuary issue, but to me, the two are not necessarily linked.
At the end of the day, I don't really know what a 'heavenly body' could mean, and whether it would be some type of matter (however defined) that I don't understand, or some type of immaterium, which I also don't understand. Therefore, given we can only really speculate about the afterlife, heaven and the resurrection, isn't pretty much our only guess Christ Himself? Isn't He the firstfruit of the resurrection, without whom there would be no hope?
And wasn't Christ's resurrection a 'material' one. He could be touched and He could eat. But He didn't have a sinful, earthly body – it was a 'heavenly' and 'spiritual' body. He seemed to shape-shift or walk in disguise, and He could seem to teleport Himself. Not unlike the angels, where Jesus said we will be like the angels.
So to sum up with another question, what sort of 'body' do angels have and Christ has? Is it a 'material' body, albeit something raddically different from what we have on sinful earth?
Ellen, Kellogg, and contemporary health teachers greatly influenced Adventism's
concentration on health. There was a Puritanical belief about all things sexual that pervaded the SDA teachings. Masturbation was the cause of all fearful diseases known and unknown to humans and the treatment recommended was horrible: carbolic acid on the genitals! Marital "excesses" were condemned as "animal passions" and certain foods contributed to sexual excitement.
Today, all health professionals advocate sex as healthy and "use it or lose it" is their motto.
I know comments are ideally supposed to be brief, and I am chief among "sinners" in this regard. But I do want to thank Stephen Ferguson especially, but also Serge, for a very stimulating and enlightening discussion regarding the Adventist Church, materialism and gnosticism. I would encourage any of you who, like me, initially breezed by Stephen's comments, because of their prolixity, to go back and carefully read them.
May I also encourage anyone interested in a highly entertaining and creative mind, body, and Spirit enhancing treat, to view the video by Rob Bell entitled Everything is Spiritual. Google it. Bell does a masterful job of using the Genesis 1 poem to deepen our awe and worship for the God who creates material reality and fills material reality; then and liberates His creatures from slavery to the natural order through the Sabbath. I was struck, as I saw the multiple layers of symbolism in Genesis 1, by the improbability that anything so profoundly sublime and elegantly symbolic in its construction was intended to be understood as a literal narrative. I have watched the video at least half a dozen times, and each time it is highly moving and stimulating. It's about an hour and fifteen minutes long. So find a quiet place and a nice big screen to maximize your viewing pleasure. Then go order several of the DVDs for your friends.
Sorry Nathan. I probably should have responded to each of Serge's points in a series of separate threads. In my defence and in much thanks to Serge, his comments were jam-packed with really deep, and quite interesting points.
Serge: "Spirituality is not an optional extra. It was specifically rejected by SDA's founding generations. Don't let it happen to you. No man can serve two masters. God or Mammon. Mammon is not money per se, it represents Materiality. Jesus' message is simple: Spirit is everything (thanks for that link, Nathan)."
Serge, rather than getting into a proof-text war, and to demonstrate I am actually willing to hear your views, could you perhaps expand on what exactly you mean when you talk about concepts such as 'spiritual' and 'material'? Part of the problem is we aren't just talking about individual doctrines, but I hope we both agree, a whole approach to theology, which certainly underpins Adventist doctrines as a whole.
In order to facilitate this a bit and allow me (and others like Stephen Foster) to understand where you are coming from exactly, if you feel comfortable that is, could you provide a brief overview of whether you do indeed subscribe to the following 'anti-Gnostic' views:
Stephen, we move on.
Yes, Agree, this more than random doctrines. It relates to bedrock ideas which underpin whole theologies. You really must read McElwain to get a good summary of some of these underpinnings of Adventism. You will be at the least, surprised. If their concepts of Trinity as based on their materialist ideas are anything to go by, its no wonder a few gnostic ideas crept in there also.
Re my attitude to your list. Please don't hold me to any response I make; I have no idea what kind of category structure you have for these ideas and we will almsot certainly have some degree of category confusion. Eg, are all of these points 'anti-gnostic?' some look to be pro. I am not a Gnostic and do not study it for its own sake. I tried, for academic interest, but it is so tedious. I prefer to think of myself as a student of the NT alone.
How'd I go……… am I one of those nasty Gnostics?
Thank you Serge. Whether that makes you a 'nasty' Gnostic is probably impossible to answer for the simple reason that Gnostics, to my knowledge, emphasize that there can be no set of established doctrines. I am sure they would probably consider you a kindred spirit if you stated the above, but wouldn't push to say you were one of them either.
I'll have to get this McElwain book. It is a pitty AToday doesn't it sell it. I have to also say, this discussion is quite refreshing to the usual beat ups – something slightly different. Much thanks again for your very interesting points, which I will consider further.
And thank you Stephen, also Stephen Foster, Timo and others. Yes, I enjoyed the discussion also. I was a bit stunned, though, to hear of your disinterest in the sanctuary doctrine. Is SDAism going the way of the churches in minimising its significance? It is the heart of true religion because the church is the Body of Christ, mystically-speaking. And this is the temple he built in his resurrection. Which is only to reiterate the non-material nature of it all. (You know, destroy this temple and in three days I will rebuild it). To later, in 1844, 'literalise' or 'materialise' this deepest of all Truths to me is akin to an abomination of desolation. As Jesus said at the time, "… Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.' ie, bereft of the inner presence of the divine Spirit/Shekinah.
As Angelus Silesius said centuries ago:
Though Christ a thousand times in Bethlehem be born
And not within thyself,
Thy soul shall be forlorn.
The Cross on Golgotha thou lookest to in vain
Until within thyself
It be set up again.
So, if you must attaach a tag to me or this kind of thinking, I will accept Christian mystic. Yes, I know its hip to call yourself mystic these days, but for the true religion it was ever thus. 'My sheep hear My voice.'
PS Stephen Foster / Timo…….. want to start a thread: What is Idolatry, Is the second commandement even relevant in this modern era?
Stephen, in my own personal experience based on observation, many SDA churches are minimising the Sanctuary doctrine, in practice if not officially on its books. In my own mind, after doing my own study, I do still very much believe and think important the notion of a phased judgment, which includes a pre-Advent investigative judgment phase. However, I have also discovered that even RCs and Eastern Orthodox teach the same, in their own distinction between Particular Judgment and General Judgment. To me this is what matters.
As to the whether the investigative phase of the judgment began in 1844 or 33 CE, that is less important to me, and I would say to most Adventists today, than to our pioneers. For the record, I do still subscribe to the traditional teaching re 1844, but to me it is a 'non-essential' issue, akin to Jesus being Michael the Archangel. I know that doesn't please many to hear that. That is why to my generation, the fact that you and Dr Ford lost your job over such an issue does indeed seem simply absurd, as if another group of Ministers lost their jobs because they didn't believe Jesus was Michael.
Whether the New Jerusalem in heaven has an actual laver, alter and candlestick is quite irrelevant to me, and quite irrelevant to the question of whether we will have 'physical' and 'material' bodies following an iminent and literal 'physical' and 'material' parousia.
Timo,
Our brittle literalisms of truth break in the slightest brush-if we dared question them.
That is magnificent language, and so profound. You are blessed.
The spiritual view being the faith view is something more than "warm and fuzzy." It is the all-encompassing, all-inclusive, actual view.
We have no way of knowing what the “immaterial” is, other than that it can be invisible to mortal human beings.
Frankly, it sounds like this is all about 'a problem' with the sanctuary doctrine. But even if it isn’t (just about that), it is conjecture, at best, to suggest that God does not have a body, merely because He is a Spirit.
Not only is it total conjecture, but it is literally immaterial conjecture at that.
The heavenly sanctuary does not have to made of brick and mortar to exist; or for there to be a judgement. But your point seems to be that if it isn’t a ‘tangible’ (by human standards?) building, and if God doesn’t (or can’t) have a body, then there’s no judgement or advocacy process to speak of; or at least not one in heaven.
Is it possible that what is actually invisible here is a somewhat hidden agenda? We cannot comprehend how God goes about His business; because it is His business. He has provided sufficient proof (evidence) of what cannot be seen. Faith is the substance of…the spiritual. Faith provides the view/vision. The spiritual view is the faith view.
"Frankly, it sounds like this is all about 'a problem' with the sanctuary doctrine."
This was kind of a key point I was also trying to make. Whether the Sanctuary is a literal, physical building seems very important to Serge, as it was a major theological issue for himself and a whole group of ministers at the time of the Ford controversy.
However, to me, the 'material' vs 'spiritual' (whatever those terms mean, and I don't really think we or even the Bible writers quite knew, per 1 Cor 15) way of viewing theology as a whole, is a much broader question than just the Sanctuary doctrine. Most Christians don't subscribe to the SDA Sanctuary doctrine, but most still do belive in a 'physical' and 'material' resurrection.
i was priviledged to hear Desmond Ford's investigative judgement presentation over a four day series in the 1970's. At the time i thought it odd that he stated he would not take questions? Obviously he was already taking heat from the hierarchy. Glazier View was beginning of my estrangement. Couldn't believe the happening.
i am a simple soul, a fish out of water here amonst the highly educated scholars present. Simply i offer the following: i believe in the Lord, Jesus Christ (GOD). Maker of heaven & earth, in an unknown time frame. All mankind are sinners, of whom i'm chief. We deserve death. God loves us with an everlasting love, not wanting a single one to perish. Jesus came to this earth, in the flesh, to be our role model. Being God, He offered himself as a sacrifice for every sinner who by faith, accepted His shed blood.
Each one of us caused this sacrifice. He died for you, He died for me. We are accepted as though we never sinned. Except you become as a little child you can not enter heaven. Jesus, our ransom payer was killed. He rose on the third day. He appeared to many.i believe Jesus has powers to instantly change from Spirit form to flesh, & reverse the phenomenon, as well as instant transport to anyplace in the universe, at will. He is GOD. Nothing is beyond His perfect being. We in awe are unable to comprehend the greatness, the holiness, the majesty of the Godhead. The heavens declare God's glory.
Mankind & the earth display His genius. i believe Jesus & all inhabitants of heaven are Spirit. I believe Jesus ascension was spiritually. Many think of Spirit as invisible only. i believe that God's Spirit world has many dimensions we can't know or comprehend. At Creation, God breathed into Adam's nostrils & he became a living soul. At death when Adam died God retreived the soul. Our souls at death will return to God.The transition from death to life is awaiting every believer in Jesus Christ.
Timo, sorry but not entirely sure I follow what you are actually saying. Jesus was the representative of the Father. The Father, IMO and based on mere speculation of the wholly speculative, is He who exists outside of space and time – the great I AM. To that extent, Jesus is indeed a metaphor for the Father, as all theophanies are.
But what type of metaphor is Jesus? Did He share the same flesh and blood as you and me, or did He only 'appear' to look like flesh (i.e. Docetism). Moreover, when He rose from the dead, the firstfruit of the resurrection (1 Cor 15:20), and the limited example for us of an afterlife we can only speculate about, was Christ raised in the 'flesh' in a 'material body', albeit a 'spiritual one'?
Can we expect an actual Second Advent, or is the parousia merely a metaphor, perhaps to be experienced in our minds through ASC? Can we expect actual new physical bodies, and a new material New Earth, albeit a raddically different one, probably as far as an omeba's body from ours today?
What do you say?
Serge: "Material bodies? No, spiritual bodies. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom. Jesus' 'flesh and bones' body was not a normal material body. It did not obey the laws of physics. These references are inconsitent with so much else in NT."
Earl: "He appeared to many.i believe Jesus has powers to instantly change from Spirit form to flesh, & reverse the phenomenon, as well as instant transport to anyplace in the universe, at will."
Hi, just want to expand on this issue of what 'body' Christ had at the resurrection, because I think it perfectly addresses this issue, just as the debate between the proto-Gnostics and the proto-Orthodox used Docetism (the notion that Christ only 'appeared to come in the flesh') as the vehicle to address their own 'material' vs 'spiritual' debate. I note both Serge and Earl's interesting comments above.
In my view, I agree that Christ's resurrected was indeed amazing, and 'appeared' to go beyond the laws of physics. But wouldn't a flying plane appear to break the laws of physics to some in the NT times. By that, I agree that a 'spiritual' body, as Paul describes it in 1 Cor 15, is indeed something amazing and beyond the scope of the understanding of our own sinful physical bodies.
But to say Christ, indeed like the angels, had these amazing powers is different from saying it was an etheral, ghost-like form surely. For example, Islam views jinns as being made of 'fire' rather than 'earth' as Adam had.
So my question is, to those who say Christ was not raised 'in the flesh', albeit a new 'spiritual' kind of super-flesh, but instead some type of etheral ghost-like form, what do you say about Jesus allowing Thomas to poke Him and eating to prove He was indeed raised 'in the flesh'? Was Jesus merely performing some sort of amazing optical illusion, or did He really 'eat' and have 'flesh' to be poked?
If Christ's body was not physically and literally raised from the dead, how could prophecy that in 3 days the Temple would be rebuilt, “But He was speaking of the temple of His body. Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said." (John 2:18-22)
Moreover, if there is no 'physical' and 'material' body in the afterlife, what is the whole point of a 'resurrection' event? Why is death finally destroyed at the End of Time if we have immortal souls? Or do people think the Second Coming is just a metaphor, not an actual future event to look forward and hope for?
“Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen.” (1 Cor 15:12-13)
Brothers Stephen, Timo, Earl,
Please do not pigeon-hole this discussion into mere 'problems with the sanctuary doctrine.' That is but one very obvious(to me anyway) example of viewing a spiritual truth from the wrong (materilaist/literalist) end. That said, please do not assume that Des Ford would see things as I do either. I know he does not. He is still more fond of the vicarious/forensic atonement than the mystical/participatory one). And I have no 'baggage' over loss of job in ministry either. It was tough having to go back to uni for 6 more years with young family etc, and I have had a very fulfilled life as an ER physician. But my primary interest in life has always been spiritual truth.
Bro Foster I apologise if my 'warm and fuzzy' description sounded perjorative. I didn't intend it. That was used to differentiate your practical/experiential description from the more intellectual/philosophical concept of spiritualism, in opposition to the early SDA founders' stated emphasis on 'materialism.' Fact is, I extol 'warm and fuzzy,' its where I live, in my unreal world. But it originates in, dare I say it, the propositional truths I find in scripture, NT version being generally preferred to the old. Here are some bed-rock foundational propostitions (not intended as 'proof texts') of the NT, and old, which help define what is to me the true religion, which is Life 'eternal':
This couples with:
(The IJ is an invention of those who for whatever reason, need to look on the outward appearance in order to judge another. God doesn't need to, and neither does the rest of the universe. There is no evidence that THEY doubt God's judgements. The 'rationale' for the IJ is spurious. And it is another example of where those who look on the outward appearance create a religion of externals). also John 5:24
So, is there any role for 'externals?' None that I can think of, apart from: Baptism is a wonderful symbol, the dying of the 'old man,' 'dying a death like His,' and resurrection (the only resurrection that matters) of the new, 'Christ in you.' Drinking the wine (and to be true to the symbol it should be alcoholic, the NT knows no other kind, 'spiritual life in the blood') and eating 'the bread of heaven,' are also ejoined upon us to remind our feeble memories of who we truly are and the Source of our true Life. 'This do in rememberance of ME.'
Let God be true, and every man a liar. Romans 3:4.
You will see I am not merely quoting theologians, but the plain words of the NT itself.
As to naming, you say I should be proud to call myself a 'materialist'. But if I say that I care where a child in an Indian slum next gets his or her meal, does that make me a materialist? That type of materialism seems quite different from the so-called spiritualism of James 2:16, of so much heavenly focus to be no earthly use, and through doctrines of Karma and reincarnation teach that those who suffer deserve what they get. The materialism that cares for the poor also seems very different from the materialism of Western civilisation, being for the love of cars and houses. For that reason I do object to the terms 'Materialist' and 'materialism' and favour 'Wholism', for the sole reason it is a loaded and ambiguous term.
Brother Timo,
Try to occasionally read what I am saying with the intent, or for the purpose, of trying to understand what I am saying; and whether or not it is reasonable or accurate or logical or rational or helpful or noteworthy.
I want to discuss these various issues. You seem to want to discuss me (perhaps because I happen/seem to disgust you).
I am unquestionably a pretty bad guy; but I’ll just say, as Michael said to Kay in The Godfather III, “I’m not the man you think I am.” (In reality I am probably much worse.)
Other than that, it is also probable that religion and politics are subjects that we simply shouldn’t discuss with each other. (I’m guessing that we could both survive.)
Des Ford used to say: There's so much bad in the best of us and so much good in the worst of us, it scarce behooves any of us to pick any fault with the rest of us.
I like this version too: Half the lies they tell about me aren't true.
~ Yogi Berra
Serge,
Your “warm and fuzzy” did not sound pejoratively at all. It did sound somewhat (and benignly) patronizing; but in an understandable way. There’s no need to apologize.
All I will say is that it is a very good thing that you are not trying to proof text me.
"I certainly believe Jesus was human flesh, and for many reasons. And I also believe we all shall be comprised of some tangible material in heaven, fashioned with perfect Divine intent."
I agree. And so I take it you are indeed an admitted 'Materialist' yourself to that extent then? It is Serge, or rather others before him who are using that term 'Materialist', which he says we should be proud of. I for one believe in a tangible material resurrected, as was Christ's, but I don't pretend to comprehend what exact form that heavenly and spiritual body would take.
As to some of your deeper thoughts on the Sanctuary, I would be interested in hearing them.
Brothers All………….. Hail………….. (but, hey, it would be nice to hear a sister's voice too)
Timo, I missed your most intriguing post a day or so ago. Can I ask is it ok to post consecutively so we don't miss any inputs? I like the Ruskie Kookli metaphor. I have a few sets of those dolls myself. And it is true, teh bigger doll you hold, the more of everything you have. I take this to mean, big, inclusive pictures tell more than minute details here and there. But I am also a fan of Russian miniature painting, where teh detail can often only be made out under magnification. Turns out I have a distant relative in Palekh, one of teh Golden Ring cities and he paints the miniatures. He uses a very large magnifying glass, and 'brushes' of single hair for the finest of work. Which all reminds me of the holographic nature of this universe. Ergo, kingdom of Heaven within you being entirely consistent with the way God does His thing. In us. With us. For us.
Which brings one to Stephen's questions. It is in the nature of things that we view the world through our own eyes, metaphorically speaking now, and this vision is always 'filtered' by our preconceptions of 'reality.' Hence, eg, the story about the Aztecs?? who didn't 'see' the spanish ships since they had no conception of such things. (sounds mythological, but like all myths, an element of truth). Whatever primary paradigm governs our 'big picture' thinking, that is what will determine how we see teh world, and what we see in it. "Have I been so long with you Phillip and you have not seen (oraow) the Father?" "Blessed are those who have not 'seen,' (eidow) yet believe."
Stephen, (likely Ferguson and Foster) since your paradigm appears to include a major emphasis on the material reality of things, as it would appear do some of the authors of parts of NT, allow me to ask you a question, or two.
1. What is the 'new birth?' Is it a change of one's (spiritual) state, or a change of one's (intellectually-governing) propositions?
2. Can 'matter' be 'born again?'
In order to avoid further confusion, I might leave it there pro tem.
Stephen, re: your question of Christ's resurrection. Yes, i asume He was raised from death in His flesh &
bone. Yet as some who witnessed Him thought Him a vision , ghostly etc., or did not immediately know
Him, and HE suddenly appeared in a closed room. Assumed He alternatively changed from body to spirit at will. Perhaps appearing in different locations simultaneously.
In my above statements i indicated i believed His ascension was in a Spirit form.
I am going to "rudely" break into this thread to address the question I think Stephen Foster posed: "How is it possible for Biblicism or Bibliolatry to be considered pejoratives?" Quite simple. It occurs when one engages in eisegesis – reading one's own ideas into a text. The problem with Ellen White's writings, as they have come down to us, isn't that she occasionally contradicts the Bible – the Cana grape juice story – or that she elevates her writings above scripture – she does not. The problem is that she superimposed a 19th Century Adventist worldview on each and every story of scripture, thereby imaginatively making the Bible more relevant initially, but over time making her writings more important than that toward which they were intended to point.
That is the essence of idolatry. Ellen White was a master of eisegesis, which wasn't terrible, since her ideas were primarily derived from scripture and contemporary Awakening theology in the first place. But the effects of the circular, closed theology evolved from that methodology have too often kept Christ entombed, and His Spirit at a safe distance in the Adventist Church.
I remember as a college student, when I was infatuated with existential theology and questioning traditional church authority, noticing that my mother would regularly quote the scriptural embellishments contained in The Conflict of The Ages series as if that was really what the characters were feeling or thinking – as if Ellen White really knew what God was thinking or what He was trying to do in a given setting. I wondered why one would accept her embellishments as True when the Bible told the story without such pedagogical overlay. One time I challenged my mother: "It sounds to me like you and Ellen White think God's ancient Hebrew followers were really S.D.A.s who just didn't go by that name." She readily acknowledged believing exactly that. And if one reads the Ellen White narratives into scripture, it is very easy to reach that conclusion. Thus, Ellen White has, by giving us a "living, evolved Bible", become for Adventists a prophet among prophets – a super prophet – with authority to do most anything she wants with scripture as long as she doesn't directly contradict it.
When we superimpose our Church doctrines or our personal philosophy on the Bible, using it as a megaphone to speak to and judge others, instead of letting the Bible speak to us and judge us, we limit God's power and misuse scripture. There are so many examples of this. Proponents of womens' ordination do it when they read Galatians 3:28 as a statement of radical egalitarianism. Opponents of womens' ordination do it when they read 1 Cor. 14:34 as a timeless theological prescription for womens' place in culture. Advocates of illegal immigration do it when they read Deut. 10:19 as an endorsement of Sanctuary cities. Proof-texting is usually, though not always, a pretty good indication that one is in danger of Bibliolatry. I don't think bright lines can be drawn, where one can point and say, "Aha! There it is – Bibliolatry." But I do think it exists, and that it limits Christ's ability to dwell in our minds and hearts through His living Spirit.
Stephen,
Eisegesis? We all do it. That's how we take God's word and personalize it to apply in our lives. The problem is when we take someone else's eisegesis and superimpose it on the Bible. That is when we become deaf to both scripture and the intimate understandings the Holy Spirit wants to give us.
Ah Timo, you see so clearly, and say it with such apocalyptic clarity!
Stephen,
Rest assured, I am not trying to close any gates, for there are none. In Christ, all boundaries and barriers are gone. Eph 1.24. I am trying to open the doors and windows of closed minds and hearts so that those things of the Spirit which you admit you do not understand can be as life-giving to you as they are to me and moreso. 1 Cor 2: 9-16
I like your use of the seed metaphor. Paul uses it in several places. John uses it in 1John 3.9 The seed here is none other than the divine sperma, the very life of God, which He imparts at the new birth, teh new creation, the resurrection. All terms referring to the one event. But it is NOT an event awaiting the end of the age. It is NOW. Now is the hour of salvation!!! 2 Cor 6.2, Today is the day, Heb 3.7,8; Joh 5:25 …., The hour cometh, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live.
The whole point of Paul's discussion in 1Cor 15 is to show that we are not doomed to suffer in our earthly nature another moment longer. Adam was a living soul – human nature. Christ, the Seed from Heaven, is a LIFE-GIVING SPIRIT. 1 Cor 15.45. Spirit is the best word we can use to describe the non-material. Any attempt to call Spirit an unknown form of matter is an absurdity. Wholism is an absurd concept, Spirit can NEVER be indivisible with matter. They are two entirely different things/concepts/bodies. One is of matter, the other is not.
Tell me, did Christ have a body prior to Incarnation? What form, if any, did this take? If He is God, and God is immaterial Spirit, what 'body' could Spirit have prior to incarnation? So why is it difficult to imagine / understand that He is LIFE-GIVING SPIRIT now? If He is restricted to bodily form, as EGW teaches, He cannot fulfil His promises of John 14. SDAs routinely stop reading at v 3. Becasue the remainder of the chapter tells of how Father, Son and Holy Spirit 'come' NOW to the one 'born anew' of the divine spirit life. And that word 'come,' erchomai, is the one used in all those other texts which the natural man uses to project into an unknown future.
You talk of Parousia as if the word must mean an eschatalogical event only. Its best meaning is 'Presence,' which is a NOW idea much moreso than a 'then' idea.
One example of its different use is 2 Thes 2:8,9 8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming (parousia):
Note also that this 'wicked one' seats himself in the Temple of God. I wonder what that could mean?
I have to admit that I came to see the symbolic nature of so much scriptural language when I was challenged to 'be consistent' by an old Loma Linda trained doctor. You mentioned teh Tree of Life from Revelation as being a literal tree. Is 'teh smoke of their torment ascends for ever and ever' equally literal?
There has to be a consistent way of 'dividing' the word of Revelation, and other apocalyptic passages, including 2Thes 2. That consistent way is to accept that it is all symbolic language. As you then take each word and ask, what does this mean, waht does this represent or symbolise, then you will begin to understand that the literal interpretation offers very little spiritual insight. And those things which you thought you understood as well as a fish, will become much clearer. But please, resist the human view of seeing these spiritual truths in materialist/literalist terms. Ask, and ye shall receive! Prov 2.1-6
I spoke about the filters with which we view and read and understand in scripture. I have jsut given you the filter which I try to apply in my search for wisdom and understanding. I have found that there is a spectrum of experience and understanding to jsut about everything in life. Thinking about the different approaches you and I have taken to these realitvely simple questions of resurrection and parousia, I composed a bit of a list of themes or topics and what I see as part of the range of possible ways of understanding them. It will be obvious on which end of the spectrum I place myself, but I do not want you to think I am placing you at the other end or anywhere between. If you don't like my atempt to explain how it is we see things so differntly, I won't be aggrieved. If anyone would like to add more, please do. Here goes, in no particular order:
1. Spiritualism …………………. Dualism……………………. Materialism
2. Kingdom within……………………………………outward works/deeds/sacraments
3. Spirit………………………………………………………Flesh
4. Knowledge/experience……………faith……………………..traditions of fathers
5. Symbolic lang.……………………..parables………………literality
6. Now is hour of salvation……………………………… ……..emphasis on eschaton
7. Mystical union/partakers of divine nature …………………… belief of ‘right doctrine’
8. Salv’n from ‘self’ /old man /ego death/kenosis…………………salvation of ‘justified’ egoic self
9. Resurrection of spirit from death in sin …………………. ………Physical resurrection
10. God is all and in all……………………………………………. God is separate entirely from us
11. Spiritual temple / church ……………………………………….. literal temple / building 'out there'
12. Judgement by response to truth ………………………… ………….judgement by records in books
13. Presence of Christ NOW John 14………………………………Yet to arrive
14. Christ revealed in us (2Thes 1.10) ………………… revealed to us 1Thes 4.16 (in air and clouds forever?)
15. Ye have come to Zion Heb 12.20…………………………….. will go to Zion
16. Have been raised to heaven Eph 2.5,6 ………………………will be raised, after physical death
17. Have passed from death to life Jn 5.24………………………….. will be resurrected to life
18. Born of Spirit ……………………………………………………. born of flesh
19. Oneness / peace everlasting…………………………………egoic anxiety…. Will I be ok in IJ?
20. We believe, Enter into rest / eternal sabbath Heb 4.3 ……… weekly Sabbath, still in hope of future rest
As Shelley said, 'The deep truth is ineffable.'
Apologies…….. Reference for point 15 above is Heb 12.22 but as always, see whole context.
Thank you Serge,
As always, you have very interesting and thought-provoking points, which I shall have to ponder further.
In the interim, isn’t this whole debate really somewhat linked to the meaning of the ‘Kingdom of God’ or ‘Kingdom of Heaven’? For example, I note Jesus says in Mark 1:15 that the time has come (i.e. present) – not will come (i.e. not future). There are many passages in the Bible, especially the NT, that emphasise an individual/spiritual/non-historical as you rightly say.
However and conversely, there are many other passages in the NT, and indeed a central theme of it, that the Apostles were expecting a future literal eschatological event of Christ’s return. Peter wasn’t talking about symbolic meanings, but was addressing an expected communal/physical/historical event when he consoled his followers in 2 Peter 3:3-7:
“Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.”
And isn’t the reference to the creation and destruction of a physical planet earth one emphasising that Peter is talking about a ‘literal’ and ‘material’ creation and destruction of planet earth?
So I guess the question is, how do we deal with this tension in the NT itself? Does it have to be an either/or choice?
Isn’t the Gospel the realisation that the Kingdom of God begins right here, today and inside of us, but also recognising the Kingdom of God is the hope of the future historical event, when this sinful world of pain, suffering and death will finally end? Isn’t this the traditional distinction between the Church Militant and Church Triumphant? Isn’t this the traditional distinction between Particular Judgment of the individual (to use a RC or EOrthodox term) compared with the General Judgment of the whole world?
Isn’t this the way to distinguish those individualistic and non-historical eschatological texts from the corporate and historical eschatological references? Is that a way to find a compromise to some of the divisions you rightly point out go to the heart of Christian belief and practice?
Otherwise, I am not sure if it is possible to provide an adequate answer to explain the numerous apparent contradictions in scripture, which on one hand appear to promote the individual/spiritual/non-historical column of themes, and then at other times appear to promote the communal/physical/historical column.
Serge, appreciate your knowledge, wisdom , faith, and your williness to share your abiding testimony
in our Lord Jesus.
Speaking of seeds. Heard somewhere that some seeds found in a bowl in one of the excavated burial
chambers in Egypt, supposed for over 3000 years, were planted, and they sprouted. Example of life in
suspended animation?
As in earlier comments in other blogs, i related that at a very vulnerable time in my life (1969), i was rescued from permanent death, by my study of Ellen Whites's Steps to Christ, and my life was forever changed. Praise God for permitting me to hear that small sweet voice of the Holy Spirit, i believe, for the last possible chance for me.
we can discuss the difference between exegesis and eisegesis until the cows come home, but unless our heart is broken, and we accept that our carelessness caused the bloodletting of Jesus, and we cry Abba, Father, save us, for we knew not, but now we know, and now we live by faith in the everlasting life with our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
And a hearty AMEN to that Brother Earl! If we don't gnow Him, we gnow nothing. The 'still, small voice,' ever patient, waiting to be heard.
Just a thought on the blood of Jesus. They say 'the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.' As with all the sacrifices, the blood of Jesus has been poured out into the gound, the earth. We, in our Adamic (red earth) natures, receive that divine seed and so we become the ground in which the divine life is manifested. So glad you experience this every day!
Eisegesis? No way,……. I SEE JESUS!
That, my friend, is a beautiful statement!
In answer to your question about being born again, it is a reference to being transformed by our minds being renewed. That is at least what I believe. It is my understanding that such a transformation is made possible only by surrender through faith in the Son of God.
The question you may be asking is what exactly is the mind of man? I return to Hebrews 11:1 as key.
Good points and good questions Stephen.
I think 'the mind of man' is an imposter, a veritable serpent in the Garden. It is a fearful ego which calls on the things of an earthly/material nature to 'hide them from the face of Him who sitteth on the throne.' Another translation of 'kingdom of God' ie 'reign of God.' But man today is calling on materiality, imagining 'structures' in which to hide his own 'special' identity, separate from the God who is his life. The latest fad is genetics.
Here is a matter of logic to consider. If matter cannot be 'born again,' then to what was Christ referring when He instructed Nicodemus to do so? He was not referring to Nicodemus' body, or any aspect of that body whihc is intrinsic to it. Paul says, Rom 6 again, that our 'old self' (Adamic/egoic nature) is that which must die with Christ, and be born anew / resurrected. Jesus said, If any man will come after Me, let him deny his 'self,' take up his cross (crucify self) and become a disciple (under discipline) Mark 8.34, Luke 9.23. This is entirely compatible with Romans 6.
This is not a reference to anything physical/material in nature by definition!
Phil 2.1-11 is the classic statement of 'kenosis,' Christ 'emptying Himself' of everything incompatible to becoming fully human. This is the degree of emptying of self Paul enjoins on His followers. Because it is that sense of a separate 'self' which maintains separation from God. Rom 12.2 describes this process as 'be ye transformed by the renewal of your mind (nous). 1 Cor 2.6 reveals teh result: 'we have the mind of Christ.'
Since matter is not reborn (the outer man is daily perishing while the inner man is being renewed, 2 Cor 4.16), then the rebirth/resurrection is one of spirit. The old man Adamic nature passes away, behold a new has come, in the form of the mind of Christ. (2 Cor 5.17 'If any one is in Christ, he is a new creation.') Not minds of Christ, nor mind of Christs. I would offer that it is only this mind which is capable of faith. Thus, the 'mind of man, reborn,' is 'the mind of Christ.' 'He that is joined with the Lord is one spirit' (and mind). In this way, all are one. 'Christ is all and in all.' Col 3.11. Also, 1Cor 15.28; Eph 1.23. One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, and one mind in all.
The prayer of John 17 is thus fulfilled.
One final point for Bro Ferguson who has suggested that the main burden of the NT is the reward of the saints and its commencement at the eschaton. I think a cursory reading of the NT will see that teh emphasis of the NT is on this whole idea of transformation of the heart and mind. This, after all, is the new covenant, in My blood (seed / Spirit) whihc is given for you. The gift of God is the gift of Himself. He becomes one's life by virtue of being the one mind that is all and in all. 'Christ in you, the hope of glory.' '… the Spirit of Truth: He shall be with you, and shall be in you.' John 14.17. It is the divine mind, the divine Self, and it is our own true self. It awaits our REALising it. It can never die.
And this is reward beyond imagining. Heavenly manisons on streets of gold pale in comparison.
Serge: “Tell me, did Christ have a body prior to Incarnation? What form, if any, did this take? If He is God, and God is immaterial Spirit, what 'body' could Spirit have prior to incarnation?”
Intriguing question and I think it is a fun question to discuss.
To be honest, I don’t think anyone really knows – either way. I do think it is important to stress that ‘body’ is an ambiguous term, as is notions of ‘material Spirit.’ I would probably say Christ, fulfilling his role as the Theophany of God that communes through personal relationships with lesser created beings, must by necessity, exist in some manner of a more limiting corporeal form, although I can only speculate as to what exact form might be.
In the same way Jesus is the Word, and words by nature are a limited form of the communication of the mind, which is a necessity for communication between two beings. In my view, the Father and Holy Spirit may be fully transcendent, beyond space and time (which were actually created in the Big Bang, and are limited), being omnipotent and omnipresent. Christ on the other hand, as begotten of the Father, must by His nature be limited and corporeal, as it would not otherwise be possible for mere created beings to maintain a relationship with the transcendent. I know this is perhaps branching off onto other theories, such as open theism, and I am certainly not advocating Arianism by saying Christ is ‘lesser’.
As to the exact form or body of this second person of the Godhead, who became incarnate in Jesus Christ, I really have no idea, any more than I know what Paul really means when he talks about ‘heavenly bodies’ in 1 Cor 15. However, I do note that Yahweh’s theophany in the person of the ‘Angel of the Lord’ (and Adventism’s extension of that in the title of Michael the Archangel), which most Christians recognise as a title for the pre-incarnate Christ, seems to be corporeal or bodily in nature. For example, consider:
And I could go on… you get the point. We have also already long discussed the various NT passages, of the physical nature of Christ’s resurrected body, where Jesus Himself makes clear in Luke 24:39 is not in the nature of a ghost but of flesh and bone.
That all said, I think it is prudent to just say that one should be cautious of ascribing scientific meanings to biblical writers for concepts that even modern scientists don’t understand – and this goes for arguments each way. For example, I could equally ask whether you consider light as ‘material’ or ‘immaterial’? Light doesn’t have mass, but it is composed of energy, and it is affected by laws governing time and space, such as gravity and the speed of light (which appears to be a universal speed limit). In that sense, scientifically speaking, light seems to be ‘material’ even if it isn’t matter. Thus, even if Christ and angels are only composed of sub-autonomic particles that have no mass, such as light (akin to Islamic understanding of the nature of jinns), on one hand they might seem ‘immaterial spirits’ but technically they would still be ‘material corporeal’ beings with ‘bodies’, still being subject to God’s divine laws of the created universe.
Before you raise the obvious counter argument, I am not necessarily suggesting that the Angel of the Lord was stuck with human legs to walk, or a human mouth to talk, but rather just that God must have adopted a limited corporeal form, being less than the transcendent nature of the Father and Holy Spirit outside of space and time. Just as you will no doubt say, that these are all figurative or metaphorical descriptions of God, I say to you, are you so certain that the Angel of the Lord couldn’t or wouldn’t exist in some sort of corporeal and material form, albeit not one we might easily understand on earth, just as a fish would consider the form and realm of the bird (to use Paul’s analogy in 1 Cor 15) something totally otherworldly?
At what point does the attempt to see everything in the Bible as a spiritual metaphor, rather than a literal historical description, itself become as absurd as those who only read everything in the Bible as a word-to-word dictation of God? Is there a point where the look for the constant double spiritual meaning in everything becomes a bit silly in itself? Must every single thing in the Bible be taken as symbolic, as many Gnostics believe?
In my opinion, if you mean ‘immaterial’ and ‘spirit’ in the sense of some unknown, unearthling-like, perhaps non-carbon based life form, but still within the confines of the universe (i.e. everything that God has created, including space and time), then I don’t have so much of a problem. As I said, even light is ‘material’ in that sense, even though we don’t usually think about it as such.
But if you are suggesting angels or humans can exist beyond the created universe (i.e. even beyond space and time itself), then that in my view is idolatry, in ascribing attributes limited to Yahweh, who alone as the Creator of the universe can exist outside the universe. Even in death we still ‘exist’ in the universe, in the sense of a limited spot in space and time, albeit a spot in the past, and only God can go beyond that place. In my view, any suggestion that we or angels can exist outside the universe (and I am not suggesting the universe is only comprised of the 4 dimensions we can see), that appears nothing more than the original lie – the lie Lucifer first told himself, that he could be like the most High, and the lie he told Adam and Eve, that they could be just like God.
Perhaps we are now discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin…? Sorry for the length – I get rather carried away.
Stephen,
Curious questions and observations. Though I'm quite unsure about ever delivering the topic to a conclusion or what value I would get from that conclusion. I'm willing to wait and let God explain it– in person, of course!
Thus, even if Christ and angels are only composed of sub-autonomic particles that have no mass, such as light…
But what if they were composed of the same 'stuff' as love, truth, beauty, joy, goodness, peace, meekness, self-control? After all, God IS love. And all the rest besides.
And what 'stuff' is 'love, truth, beauty, joy, goodness, peace, meekness, self-control' exactly? What do all your symbols and metaphors mean? If you don't know, then how do you know they don't mean a type of 'physical', 'material' and 'corporeal' eschatological reality, albeit one way above ordinary human perception?
Just because to a fish the world and body of a bird is uncomprendable, does that mean the world of birds don't exist? Just because we can't see X-rays, or germs, or black holes, does that mean they don't exist as 'physical' or 'material' reality?
God IS love because He is transcendant – outside of the created universe, which consists even of space, time and the void itself and contrary to common view is finite and doesn't go forever. We created beings, by contrast, can be loving, but IMO we cannot ever BE love as God can.
Any suggestion we can 'exist' in the very place of 'non-existence', outside of space and time, a place beyond creation itself, is to suggest we can be just like the Most High, like gods – the first lie.
"I'm willing to wait and let God explain it– in person, of course!"
So I assume you still think God, or rather the resurrected (afterlife) you, will be in some 'physical', 'material' or 'corporeal' existence of 'a person'?
And reliably, Stephen, your responses evoke an equal challenge. I cannot account for the double aspect of the NT, ie, present reality, vs imagined future. Yes, the traditional view is that of Church Militant and Church Triumphant. I think both fall short. The best view, in my experience, is that of the eternal present. Is this the one of which Christ said, 'few there be that find it?' Is the one of which He said, 'Give no thought for the morrow?' The one in which one need not fear 'the death of the body?' ( Matt 10.28; Luke 12.4) It is not dependent on such externals as history, past or future. If it did, the scoffers might well have a point by now. Immanence trumps imminence every time, for mine.
I don't think the tension of the NT can be resolved by a both / and attitude. For as we have seen with teh founders of SDAism, their need to see 'the Church Triumphant' was so overwhelming, they invented, or heavily promoted, a materialistic theology so intense that the Eternal Spirit Himself is turned into an object of indiscernible difference to His creation. This is not a tension which can be resolved equivocally. Either a man will love one and despise the other, or vice versa. It appears to be so, in practice. Because bound up with the Church militant attitude is the theoretical possibility that those with such an emphasis could be motivated by desires other than for 'Christ alone.' This can be partially revealed by the kind of heaven it is one is anticipating. 'Heavenly materialism' often reveals a materialistic theology. Do folk still wonder as to why 'my Lord delayeth His coming?' The one who inderstands John 14 never need ask such impatient questions.
Des Ford used to say, one is not ready for heaven until one is prepared to go without it. So how does one know if one is ready? The type of heaven one anticipates is a clue, I think. If ego-death is the via dolorosa to 'the kingdom of heaven' within you, (Rom 6) there can be no likelihood of mistaken egoic motives for seeking / desiring a false notion of 'heaven.' Another way to look at this is to look at the many senses in which the word 'heaven' is used in NT. This will help to 'readjust' one's anticipations. Obviously, I am not advocating looking at Harry Anderson pictures for this enlightenment.
Regarding your comments re the materiality of the eternal Trinity, I find it difficult to see some of them as anything other than a type of Arianism. But then, there are some texts which Arius has called on in the formation of his views. The early founders of SDAism seemed unaware that they were advocating similar views also. It appears to me that we are firstly confronted with problems in the nature of language itself. It is, after all, a symbol of an idea. To convey an 'idea' requires that I find a suitable description of it, put that into words, perhpas write it down. Then you will read it, translate it into your own sense of meaning and finally attempt too recreate the idea within your own consciousness. But overall, our efforts to find shared meanings makes this process usually a fairly efficient one. The more esoteric teh subject matter, however, the more room for idiosyncratic interpretations. This does not occur when the 'one mind' of teh Holy Spirit 'bears witness with our spirit,' 'in sighs too deep for words.' Rom 8:26.
Regarding symbolism in sacred writings: This is one way in which God communicates most effectively. 'Without a parable spake He not unto them.' Pictures are far more effective than words. Then one msut realise that the authors of scripture wrote their ideas in jsut such a fashion, OT sometimes more than the new. Although I do consider the NT to be more 'spiritually' advnaced in its understanding of divine realities. The Kabbalist approach which sees most sacred writing ot be capable of presenting wisdom at a number of levels is relevant here. Obviously, this approach is best suited to the Hebrew language.
Apocalyptic literature is clearly symbolical in nature. Literality in one's approach to scripture is a thing of more modern eras. That we lack the mindset of teh ancients is making our understandings of their thought processes and writings more difficult as we are removed from them. For example, the ancient schema of the four elements, earth, water, air & fire is often found to underly the old ideas. Eg, the veil of the temple was in the four colours of those elements, on the 'earthly side,' and on the most holy side, it is represented in celestial blue, embroidered with angels. In the NT, John the Baptist says he baptises with water, but the one comning after him will baptise with spirit(air) and with fire. Paul employs this scheme wehn he tells teh Corinthians that they are mostly 'natural' men (psychikos), due to taking only the milk of the word, when they ought to have been 'spiritual' (pneumatikoi) by virtue of taking the strong meat of the deeper things of God.
Will such an approach enable one to calculate how many angels can indeed dance on the head of a pin?
At the least, for one group, the immaterialists, it will show them the complete irrelevance of even thinking on such non-questions.
'Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.'
Timo,
God speaks to us in language we know. Can I also suggest that God speaks to us in 'groanings which cannot be uttered?' Rom 8.26. Or in a language which 'it is not lawful for a man to utter?' 2 Cor 12.4.
It is when we try to speak to each other that we use words. And then we use words at their most effective if used in metaphor and other word pictures, as you have jsut done so well yet again. Problems arise when we fail to interpret the metaphor and see it in literal terms.
I think your 'weary travellers in a desert land dragging tents of skin acroos rocks and thistles,' were only looking for milk and honey and a vine under which they could sit and perhaps drink the fruit thereof. Prov 31.6,7
The language of philosophy, art and science had to wait until the NT era, when the ideas of those philosophers, including Philo Judaeus of Alexandria, had begun to permeate the 'civilised' world. The 'wisdom literature' attributed to Hermes Trismegistus at this time, though written down at a later period, is representative of this kind of thinking. Paul came to see it their way also. But, and here is an intriguing thing, Manetho, a Greek-speaking priest in Egypt, says that the Greek philosophers got all of their wisdom from Moses!
Now I will endeavour to paint another word picture for you. Go to Strong's concordance and look up Nebo, as in Mt Nebo. It is the Hebrew equivalent of the Egyptian god Thoth, Roman Zeus/Mercury and Greek Hermes. (To which, I also wonder if the apocryphal 'Shepherd of Hermas' is connected somehow.) So, in symbolic/metaphoric terms, Moses' view of 'the Promised Land' might best be understood from its symbolical roots, as is the Hermetic literature. eg, the famous Emerald tablet of Hermes talks about 'that which is above is as that which is below.' This is very reminiscent of Moses' language in describing his vision of the archetypal sanctuary, with his description of the 'pattern.'
So although God speaks to us individually without words, necessarily, we always speak to each other using words. The most effective use of those words is in metaphoric/symbolic language. It communicates at a level somewhat deeper than rational thought alone. After all, mansions is a very poor translation of 'abode,' but it has created a picture that has distorted the spiritual reality for so many. For some, 'My Father's house has many rooms……' doesn't have quite the same attraction.
Serge (and anyone else who denies a ‘physical’, ‘material’ and ‘corporeal’ historical resurrection event),
I wonder if we have almost exhausted this discussion and maybe now going round in circles, although to date it has been very interesting and enjoyable? I also wonder if we do substantially agree on more than we might think but are just arguing semantics – or approaching the issue from different angles – who knows?
I guess I would conclude by saying that the following still really isn’t clear to me:
In conclusion, people scoff at claims of a ‘physical’ and ‘material’ afterlife; however, they do so without any explanation of their own views as to what a ‘spiritual’ and ‘immaterial’ afterlife actually means. Again for the avoidance of doubt, I can have faith that I will be raised in the ‘flesh’, and see the place of ‘heaven’, whilst freely admitting that a ‘heavenly body’ and ‘heavenly place’ is as far above my understanding as a fish can comprehend the body and world of a bird. But I still do have faith that I will see Jesus ‘in person’, and in a ‘place’ called heaven – whatever that is.
Thanks again for all the great discussions and I will endeavour to get a hold of that copy of McElwain's book though, as it does sound awfully interesting.
God bless.
I agree, Stephen. And yes, the arguments appear exhausted. I have only three witnesses to help sum up.
"Materialism is a 'closed system.' If the criteria for 'reality' include a requirement that it be conceived within that particular framework, anything outside that framework will be rejected."
Thanks Serge, yes, I think that is a very good summary of our two different approaches. I personally take 'the system' to be the sum total of creation, not just of life or matter, but even of space, time, light, dark matter, the laws of physics and everything else that is the sum of the universe. I do indeed believe that creation is closed, as obviously only the Creator can exist outside of creation.
However, it is important to stress that whilst I believe the system is closed, that is not to say as a flawed and limited human being I understand the totality of creation. To that extent, I am equally cautious who think of heaven as just literal streets with gold, of a Sanctuary made of literal bricks, or our resurrected bodies as something akin to our earthly bodies.
But as to overall philosophies, it would seem you have faith and hope of salvation from the system; whereas, I have faith and hope of the system. It all comes down to 'from' vs 'of'.
As far as generalisations go, Stephen, I could conditionally agree with that 'from' vs 'of' summary. Its not because I have some Gnostic notion about the evil nature of matter. It just appears that God has no further use for it.
1Cor. 6:13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them.
Heb 1.10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
And since we are made to partake of the divine nature, then it is reasonable to assume we shall remain separate from this existing creation also, particularly as it is to perish.
I make no claim to special revelation. Just trying to reach a consistent, logical understanding of a collection of sometimes (apparently) contradictory ideas in a collection of books, the Bible. And the more recent conceptions are preferred, hence NT over OT. But I do not limit myself to these. Jesus didn't. He and His brother Jude were happy to consult such 'scriptures' as Book of Enoch. One presumes other apocryphal literature was available to them also. But above all, I allow the still, small voice of Spirit to lead. And I have much to learn. And having been thoroughly indoctrinated in SDAism, I have much to unlearn.
You are obviously a keen student also. I am sure you will follow where the Good Shepherd leads you, and you will be blessed.
Yes much thanks Serge. If there is anything to be gained from all this, it is to be careful of our own preconceived assumptions. I am reminded of a passage from the Ba'hai scriptures that I much like:
“The world beyond is as different from this world as this world is different from that of the child while still in the womb of its mother.”
I am sure we will all be quite suprised with how limited our understandings and expectations of the world to come are. To that extent, I do somewhat share in your original concern, all those years ago, about being limited in seeing heavenly Sanctuaries made of literal brick and stone according to human understandings. Obviously you have moved on much further than I from that point.
I would just like to conclude that I have probably enjoyed and been challenged by this discussion more than any other to date on this site, and I would like to thank you again and God bless you in your own spiritual journeys.
Amen and likewise, Stephen. And yes, I expect surprises of understanding, both now and eternally.
You are right about me and Sanctuary truth. But be sure of this; while I have moved on, I haven't moved away. Its just that I now understand the truth of it in a different aspect. And it is, in fact, the original aspect which God described to Moses in the beginning: "Let the make me a Sanctuary, that I might dwell among them. (Ex.25.8) The NT is equally adamant that heavenly temple/sanctuary ideas are all about God with and in His people, individually first, then collectively. The idea that He is ACTUALLY sitting on a literal throne in a temple out in space is quite anathema to the deep truth being taught. And whilesoever one allows for the possibility of the literal/material 'out there' as representing some kind of truth, one will find it easy to deflect, even hide from, the spiritual demands that the 'in here' truth brings with it.
Anyway, we've been over that more than once already, and who knows, we likely will again in some other format.
Here's something to consider. We sing, or used to, 'This is my Father's world….' and it describes all the lovely things we see around us. But it ignores that around us is a constant round of death and destruction, little critters being swallowed up by larger ones, up to man, with global warming and man's overall destructive effect on biological life itself. But Jesus spoke of 'the Prince of this world.' Given the 'real nature' of this world, it makes me wonder if there isn't some room for reviewing the blythe way in which we call it 'my Father's world.' (And no, no need to get all gnostic about it).
Cheers!
Stephen, I was talking to a long-lost friend the other day about these things, and he reminded me of a passage in 2Cor 5 which ought to have been mentioned before now, but somehow was forgotten. It is obviously highly relevant to the view I have been presenting.
See 2Cor 5.12,13,14,15,16,17
v12: '…. that ye may have wherewith to answer them that glory in appearance, and not in heart.'
vv15,16: '15 and he died for all, that they that live should no longer live unto themselves, but unto him who for their sakes died and rose again.
To me, Paul is here emphasising the deep significance of the resurrection, by his use of 'wherefore.' It is his way of saying, 'therefore,' or 'as a consequence of which…..' And what is that consequence? 'We have known Christ after the flesh, yet NOW, we know Him so NO MORE.'
v. 17, 'Wherefore/consequently, …. there is a NEW CREATION. The old (material) things are passed away, all is new.'
How readest thou?
What a beautiful conversation. I wish more of the dialogues on this site had the spirit of this one.
Serge,
I can accept, and know, that there is a spirit world that is not visible to the mortal human eye.
Can you accept that this same spirit world can be simultaneously invisible, intangible, and/or immaterial (or materially inaccessible) to finite human beings and visible, tangible, and/or material spiritually (which is the substance of things unseen)?
That is to say, when we are changed at Christ’s return we will have visible, tangible, and material access then to that which is not so accessible now?
The faith view (or the actual substance of things unseen) is the spiritual view.
YES, Stephen, when you put it like that I do happily concur. You had me look again at Heb 11.1. Faith is the 'sub stance,' (Gr. hypo stasis), whihc can be literally translated, 'under standing.' Faith is 'understanding.' And since, as you reminded me long back in this discussion, we are 'born again… by the Word (Logos) of God.' (1Peter 1.23).
This Logos is not the written words of various texts (Bible), as much as they help one 'towards the Light,' but it is the personal presence (Parousia) of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, 'with you and in you.' (John 14.17).
And in similar vein, the concept of downpayment on our inheritance, is likewise 'spiritual.' See 2 Cor 1.22, 5.5, Eph 1.14. Signed, sealed and delivered.
And yes, this is only the 'glass darkly' view. But I reckon its totally amazing, even so. And it need not be entirely 'invisible' to the eye of 'understanding.' As Heb 12: 22,23 exalts, 'Ye ARE COME to Zion ……. and to the spirits of jsut men made perfect.'
We do indeed walk by this faith/understanding, not by (literal) sight.