Getting Down to Fundamentals
by Andrew Hanson
By Andy Hanson, January 29, 2014
SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS BELIEVE
Fundamental Belief Number One
The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, the trustworthy record of God's acts in history. (bold mine)
The words “divine,”[1] “infallible,”[2] and “trustworthy” [3] connote a wealth of ideas and/or feelings in addition to their literal or primary meanings. In this context they proclaim irrefutable intellectual and emotional certainty. That is, who is prepared to argue that God is not divine, infallible, or trustworthy?
However, according to Seventh-day Adventists Believe, the words of the Bible are “embodied in human language with all its limitations and imperfections” and reflect “the education and culture of the [Biblical] writers.”[4]
This equivocating language, while undercutting the claim of infallibility, is helpful when Adventists are confronted with something we don’t believe exists.
For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment. (2 Peter 2:4)
If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. (Mark 9:43, bold mine)
This same equivocating language is also helpful when considering divine commands and the trustworthiness of Biblical history.
From Numbers 31
They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man…. They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho…
Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp…“Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man…”
The plunder remaining from the spoils that the soldiers took was 675,000 sheep, 72,000 cattle, 61,000 donkeys and 32,000 women who had never slept with a man.
Now to a suggested rewording of that vitally important first Fundamental Belief:
In the Bible, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. Salvation (Latin salvatio; Greek sōtēria; Hebrew yeshu'ah) is being saved or protected from harm or being saved or delivered from some dire situation. In religion, salvation is stated as the saving of the soul from sin and its consequences.
___________________________________________________
[1]
di·vine
adjective
devine:relating to or coming from God or a god
[2]
in·fal·li·ble
adjective
infallible: incapable of making mistakes or being wrong—unerring, unfailing, faultless, flawless, impeccable, perfect, dependable, trustworthy, reliable, sure, certain, safe, foolproof
Synonyms: precise, accurate, meticulous, scrupulous, never failing, always effective, faultless, impeccable, perfect, precise, accurate, meticulous, scrupulous, precise, accurate, meticulous, scrupulous
"The very nature of inspiration renders the Bible infallible, which means that it cannot deceive us. It is inerrant in that it is not false, mistaken, or defective" (Lindsell, Harold, The Battle for the Bible, Zondervan, 1978, p.31).
Some literalist or conservative Christians teach that the Bible lacks error in every way in all matters: chronology, history, biology, sociology, psychology, politics, physics, math, art, and so on (Geisler & Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, Moody Press, 1986).
[3]
trust·wor·thy
adjective
trustworthy: able to be relied on as honest or truthful, reliable, dependable, honest, honorable, upright, principled, true, truthful, ethical, virtuous, incorruptible, unimpeachable, responsible, sensible
Synonyms: loyal, faithful, staunch, steadfast, trusty, safe, sound, reputable, accurate, authentic, authoritative, believable, convincing, credible, ethical, honest, honorable, principled, realistic, sensible, truthful
[4]
Page 8, Seventh-day Adventist Believe, A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines, Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1988.
I think there is a greater issue here than any claim of infallability: people stopping with debate about scripture instead of connecting with the Holy Spirit and allowing God to reveal Himself directly to them. The lengths to which a person will in debating the authority and infallability of scripture is often a surprisingly accurate measure of their relationship with God because the more they debate, the greater their insecurity in that connection.
I certainly would word this doctrine differently, given my philosophical perspective regarding the fallibility of humans and the inherent limitations of the vehicles through which through the divine revelation has been perceived and communicated – particularly language. But like William, I strongly doubt that the wording of this belief makes any difference in our witness to Christ's presence in our lives.
I don't know why we thought we needed to improve on 2 Timothy 3:16. But such is the conceit of theologians. I would add that the primary role of scripture, as I see it, is to evoke a relational response to God. But more fundamentalist types tend to see the Bible more as a source of knowledge and doctrine than as story. They see it as speaking first and foremost to the head rather than the heart. I don't think Andy's proposal to retain the emphasis on knowledge helps that problem.
You are correct in my opinion, Nathan. We “fundamentalist types [do] tend to see the Bible more as a source of knowledge and doctrine than as a story.” You’re right, we do “see it as speaking first and foremost to the head” which, in the final analysis is inseparable from (really, the same as) the heart. We don’t see this as a problem; we actually see this as a solution.
I also agree that we never really needed to improve on 2 Timothy 3:16. The “knowledge and doctrine” is how and why we are here—and what’s next. This includes that “it is He that hath made us and not we ourselves.” It includes the knowledge that “in Him we live, and move, and have our being;” It includes knowledge that He so loved us “that He gave His only begotten Son” to die in our place. It includes the knowledge that He sends His Spirit for comfort, guidance, and empowerment. This knowledge is what evokes a response. So why should that be a problem?
"Speaking to the head' first is the biggest reason why the church is growing so slowly. Jesus loved first and taught last because of the greatness of His love for us. The head (reasoning) follows the heart (emotions) much more quickly than the heart follows the head. Also, people do not believe the Bible is infallible because of what it says, they believe it is infallible because of the emotions they feel in response to seeing God at work in their life.
Fine comment, Stephen. It is really a false dichotomy to separate head and heart when talking about any aspect of Christian life. The Church needs both. They will always be in tension, and seldom be in perfect balance. Our intellectual perceptions very much impact and direct our heart/head commitments. But I do tend to agree with William that humans are generally more swayed by emotion than by reason. Love for God and love for man… this is the cry that is at the heart of Scripture. We certainly cannot truly love God without knowing Him as someone other than our own highest aspirations and most noble sentiments. And the basic path to knowing Him as that transcendent, immanent other is The Bible.
Actually, the basis for Biblical authority is Jesus Christ. The Bible is our sole authoritative window by which to see and know Him and His will for us. Infallibility, while it may be true, is unnecessary once we grasp this. In fact, it is really irrelevant to our ever deepening relationship with Him; we will hear His voice by the Holy Spirit through its pages anyway.
Exactly James – well done. The Bible itself says Jesus is the Word, not the Bible. The Bible is at best the word, being a second-hand account of the Word. Christianity is a unique religion because ultimate authority doesn't actually reside in a book but in a person.
The Bible is premier, because it tells us the most about Jesus. However, there are also other sources of divine knowledge as well. Paul mentions nature (what we might consider science) as another source.
It seems to me that most of our "issues" in this denomination, and the discussions which develop from them, tend to lead back to the basic issue that Andy has raised here. That is to say, "What is the exact nature of the writings we refer to as the "Holy Scriptures?" ("Nature" here is meaning basic or inherent characteristics.) It seems that we agree on the "divine specialness" of scripture, but then have difficulty expanding that to fully "explain" it in a way to which all would fully agree. It's not an easy task. Many books have been written on that subject already.
Until we reach age of say 12, the Bible like many other things in life has unquestioned authority.
But we are then required to grow up and begin to understand the difference between what the inspired but fallible authors say, and what Jesus would have us do.
We also need to understand that these commands were useful for specific cultures and ages. For example I can learn I should be thorough in erradicating evil in my day, and I should be mercyful to the young and inexperienced evil doers, while holding the older experienced ones to account, is a valuable lesson. But that does not say that I should practice or approve of genocide, even if they thought God asked them to do it.
Did He? I don't know, I wasn't there, the Bible tells me He did, but I reserve the right to ask: is this what Jesus would do? and adjust my life to that. Perhaps at that time and that place this cruelty was a kindness. Perhaps eradication of the religious prostitutes was the only way of stopping it and the communicable diseases they may have harbored. I don't know, and can leave such questions for a time in the future when I can investigate it further. But I can know that now, with Jesus teaching, we can not do genocide.
Jack,
When people accuse God of genocide (large-scale murder without cause) they typically are looking at only part of the story. Genocide is when a leader sends his followers out to commit mass murder without moral or legal cause. Examples of this include the Nazis killing more than six million Jews just because they were Jewish, or the Japanese in World War II in China who systematically murdered more than three million people in Nanjing (among their many mass klllings), or Pol Pot's regime in Cambodia in tha 1970s where his tribe decimated other tribes just because they were there.
God NEVER told people to just go out and commit mass murder. In contrast with the murderous examples above, God destroys those who commit evil and refuse to repent. God's commands to the Children of Israel to destroy the nations living in Caanan were predicated on the great evil of those tribes and nations. God used the Israelite invasion of Caanan to destroy them and remove their evil from the land. Many of the problems the Israelites suffered later came as a direct result of failing to completely carry out God's command and the evil that remained infected them.
As much as we may wish to explain away or justify the instructions attributed to God, wiping out large numbers of men, women, and children because of some ethnic or religious affiliation, seems entirely out of character with the teachings attributed to Jesus. Furthermore, it fosters stereotyping and prejudice and violence as problem-solving strategies. Just how "tolerant of ambiguity" can we be with regard to such matters? I think I am a fairly flexible person, but it seems to me that part of the message attributed to Jesus was a denial that the portrayal of God in the traditional scriptures was accurate. That instead of being exclusive and hateful toward all but the chosen, He loved all humans (and even the sparrows) with a profound and all-consuming love. How do we hold all these images together in our minds? Do we just accept it all as unintelligible? And how do we respond when people promote messages that sound much more like the vindictive tyrant of the Old Testament rather than the loving and forgiving Good News Jesus God?
Joe,
You have described the heart of the question well.
I think the central issue we're dealing with here is our baseline concept about the nature of God. Is He primarily a diety who loves us and goes to great lengths to redeem us, but who also promises to destroy those who refuse that redemption? Or, is He a vengeful diety who seeks to inflict great harm and suffering on all but the few He has chosen to redeem?
Unfortunately, most people hold some variation of the latter view of God. Most Christian churches teach that at death God condemns all who have not repented to suffer eternally in hell. Even those churches that do not teach an eternally-burning hell cultivate the same attitude about God when they have a predominant emphasis on God's judgement. This background makes an accusation of genocide seem at least somewhat credible.
Like you, I was raised hearing a lot about God's judgement on sin and the need to avoid eternal destruction. But I heard very little about the love of God. Redemption was a passing mention overwhelmed by God's condemnation on sin. It was because of the great evil in the world that God sent the flood from which only Noah and his family were saved. Raining fire and brimstone on Sodom was not God destroying people who had become so evil they were beyond redemption. Telling the Children of Israel to utterly destroy the nations in Caanan was just more condemntation. I read those stories and overlooked the descriptions of how evil those people had become.
Destroying those who do great evil is God's last and most extreme act after a long effort to draw them back into a loving relationship with Him. But that destruction is not the result of an evil heart with malicious intent. It is an unavoidable act required by the real nature of evil that, if allowed to continue, would bring great suffering on those who love God. To those who do not love God it can appear an act of genocide, but to those who love God it is an essental act of protection.
~~It is an important question to discuss; how does inspiration work?
Considering the fact the Jesus takes pains to correct past 'inspiration' is paradigmatic.
"You have heard in the past. . . . . . . But I say to you No, but this, . . . . . "
Not just Jesus but there seems to be a progressive nature to the revelation process through out scripture. In the Tora we have the formula of punishing the children of an offender "unto the third generation." And the to be corrected by Ezekiel who said, "Never say that children are punished for "the soul that sins, he is the one that shall die" Ez. 18
In the historical writing we have Elisha commissioning Jehu to slaughter all the house of Ahab. 2 Kings 9. The years later the prophet Hosea condemns these actions as not being the will of God. Hosea 1:4
Then of course we have Jesus sermon on the mount which turned many assumptions on their heads.
"For the law was given through Moses but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" John 1:17
So we see a consistent hermeneutic, a vision shining more and more" that culminates in Christ as the clearest revelation of the Father, "the true light that illuminates everyone that comes into the world."
It happens when a person recognizes and allows the working of the Holy Spirit in them.
Put on the whole and complete armour of God that ye may be able to stand…..
The Bible speaks to the head (brain, computer), heart (soul,spirit,mind,ghost) of the person that seeks the wisdom of life.
i believe it is the Holy Spirit's input to the individual soul that unites the inspiration and knowledge of God's message of His pure and perfect love to His Creation.
The Psalmist: "The heavens declare the glory of God". Even in isolated areas of Earth, man, down thru the ages has had knowledge of god, without books, as lore was transmitted orally from generation to generation, Myths?? As knowledge increased, man has sought to draw close to God, as God has provided the tools. Man, since Eden, has had the availibility of the Holy Spirit.
Tribes and clans have always been suspicious of each other, just as they are today.
Neighbors (Hatfields /McCoys), turfs, hoods, ghettos, ethnics, North/South, etc etc, guarding their territories, since language barriers and customs developed.
On Earth we have many different reasons why the peoples are suspicious and militant, but ONE SUPREME ALMIGHTY GOD OF LOVE teaching us to unite
in love for each other. According to the scriptures what is impossible for man IS POSSIBLE for God, and He will bring it to happen. Let the hearts of the children
and fathers unite with the Holy Fathers eternal love.
God's inspired truths to His Creation is contained in the Holy Scriptures. The WAY, Jesus Christ God, has not left us to be ignorant. Although the totality of the
Bible is not infallible, we who have accepted Jesus as our Lord and Saviour have
been given The HOLY Spirit as our constant companion, to convict us, lead us to
repentance, accept God's grace and peace, truth and knowledge, wisdom, and His perfect love, as we follow the paths to God's Righteousness. PRAISE GOD.