Is the Author Serious?: The Truth, The Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Truth? A Commentary.
commentary by Ervin Taylor, February 25, 2015: A book written by a well-known Adventist author but printed by a less-than-well-known (at least in North America) Adventist publishing house, carries the title, The Truth, The Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Truth.
No, this is not a typo. It is actually the title of this book. One rarely sees such a title – even for Adventist evangelistic books ‒ since it exhibits such a gross lack of theological modesty, bordering on such unmitigated religious arrogance that I first thought that someone was playing a joke and whoever authorized the printing of the book missed the humor. My second thought was, well, perhaps a book with such a title would have been authored by someone like Doug Batchelor or the late Joe Cruz, both of the Amazing Myths organization.
Although the copyright date is October 2012, it appears that this volume was not placed on sale at various retail Adventist Book Centers in North America until late 2015. Perhaps this book did not get onto the publication lists in North America until recently. One wonders if the apparent delay may have something to do with the publisher, the Inter-American Division, or perhaps because it was printed in Mexico.
At least to this commentator, there are two things that are very surprising about this book. The first is the arrogant title. The second surprise is the author, Dr. George Knight, a retired professor from the Adventist Theological Seminary at Andrews University. Although Dr. Knight was not trained as a historian, he is the prolific Adventist writer of articles, chapters, and books on Adventist history. His Ph.D. is in educational philosophy from the University of Houston. He is a convert to the Adventist Church – actually he is a double convert. He joined the Church, attended the Adventist seminary and became a clergyperson. He left the pastorate and the Church for a time. During the time he was “out of the truth,” he obtained his Ph.D. He then rejoined the Church and was appointed first to a faculty position at Andrews University in the School of Education, and then he moved over to the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary and continued his career, teaching Adventist history at the Seminary until his recent retirement. All of this information is contained in a recently published Festschrift, entitled Adventist Maverick.
On the other hand, Knight’s book contains a number of colorful graphics, many creatively produced. The layout artist is identified only as “DMG.” I’m not sure if that is someone’s initials or the name of a company. The cover is also an interesting one and the cover design person should be congratulated for a creative product.
The text of The Truth, The Whole Truth, etc. book begins with a familiar English translation of 1 Timothy 3:16: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.” I hope that the author or whoever inserted that quotation into this book is aware that the “All Scripture” reference only pertains to what Christians call the Old Testament. This is because the collection of works that we call the New Testament did not as yet exist. Since 1 Timothy was written in Greek, in referring to “all Scripture,” whoever wrote this letter was probably thinking of the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, which included what we often call the Apocrypha or Deuterocanonical books.
These books include 1st and 2nd Maccabees. If you are an orthodox Adventist, this would be appropriate, since Ellen White approved of the use of 1st Maccabees as a source of inspired information. By the way, the consensus of scholarship is that Paul the Apostle, the author of the book of Romans, wrote neither 1 Timothy nor 2 Timothy. Both of these letters were probably penned late in the 1st Century or early in the 2nd Century AD by someone who had been influenced by Paul, knew his background and wished to combat Gnosticism. Since Gnosticism did not become a problem for Christianity until late in the 1st Century, this is one piece of evidence that Paul did not write this letter. The point is that he (it was certainly not a “she”) thought that the Old Testament Scriptures were all “breathed” upon by God and therefore were “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, [and] instruction in righteousness.”
So much for which books of the Bible are inspired. Let us return to the “The Truth, etc.” book. It contains 22 chapters. The preface indicates that these chapters had originally been individual articles in a journal entitled Priorities, published in Spanish, English, and French by the Inter-American Division of Seventh-day Adventists. The title of the series of 22 articles in that journal was, “What the Bible Says About . . .” We will not comment on all of the chapters, but consider just four of them to see if we can get the flavor of the approach taken by the author as he talks about “Truth.”
Dr. Knight says that “the aim of The Truth, The Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth is to briefly explain the Bible’s major themes in a manner that is both clear and brief.” He likes to use the words “clear” and “plain” when referring to understanding the Bible. That might explain some of his views. I will quote some of the author’s statements and then offer some comments which are in bold in parenthesis.
Chapter 1 declares that the “Bible reveals truths that we couldn’t possibly know except through God’s revelation.” However, “it leaves most questions unanswered.” It is insisted that “All too often we bring our ideas to the Bible and find a few passages to support our biases . . . We need to get our ideas of spiritual realities and truths from Bible study rather than imposing our views onto God’s work.” (Comment: Excellent idea, but when there are major differences of opinion about what exactly are “Bible truths,” what do we do then?)
Chapter 2 addresses the nature of Jesus. Dr. Knight states that Jesus is “not only the center of the Bible and history, He is also bridge between the God the Father and the human race. His unique divine/human nature did not come about by accident. That thought brings us to the question of why Jesus became human, a topic on which the Bible is very clear.” (Comment: If it is so very clear, why are there endless theological debates about the topic? There is always the interesting idea that Jesus is both 100% human and 100% divine. If someone could explain that idea clearly, we should all be grateful. Dr. Knight does not deal with that.)
Chapter 3 is entitled “Creation or Evolution?” Dr. Knight begins with the comment that he does not “have enough faith to be an atheist. . . (Comment: relevance?) For the first nineteen years of my life, I was not a Christian or a believer in any religion. (Comment: relevance?) My teachers tried to explain how things just happened throughout ceaseless ages of evolution. (Comment: We can assume that this is in science classes in a public school. We can be reasonably sure that they did not explain that things “just happened.”) But even as a teenager I know that something does not come out of nothing, that intelligence does not flow out of ignorance, and that order is not the child of chaos. I might have been gullible about some things, but I was not that gullible (his emphasis). (Comment: The question of gullibility is raised . . . that’s an interesting question. We might have a difference of opinion about who the real gullible individual is.)
Chapter 10 is entitled “A Weekly Gift from Jesus” which is, of course, addressing the topic of the Sabbath. In a section of that chapter entitled “The Change of the Sabbath,” Dr. Knight notes that “While the misunderstanding of certain Bible texts is related to the change of the Sabbath, even more to the point is Daniel 7:25, which plainly teaches that a power would arise which would attempt to change God’s law, especially as it related to time: “He shall speak pompous words against the Most High, shall persecute the saints of the Most High, and shall intend to change times and law. With that prophecy in mind, it is of interest that the only entity that historically has claimed the authority to change the Sabbath has been the Roman Catholic Church. Thus the Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, after noting that the biblical Sabbath is Saturday, goes on to claim, “we observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday (1957 ed[ition], p. 50). (Comment: It is a great disappointment that Dr. Knight, someone who has worked with primary historical materials dealing with the history of Adventism, simply repeats the totally false canard that “The Catholic Church changed Sabbath to Sunday.” This is simply factually incorrect. The catechism text quoted is simply wrong.)
The change from Sabbath to Sunday as the Christian day of worship began about a century after the death of Jesus, centuries before the Roman Catholic Church as an institution existed. This is not the place to recount how and why it happened. But it might be pointed out that an Adventist scholar who was no liberal and who was a colleague of Dr. Knight at the Adventist Theological Seminary at Andrews University, Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, published in 1977 a book entitled From Sabbath to Sunday: A Historical Investigation of the Rise of Sunday Observance in Early Christianity.
This work set out what the historical evidence actually says about how, when and why this transition took place. The Roman Catholic Church as such had little to do with the change. Dr. Bacchiocchi’s book was based on his dissertation in Italian submitted to a well-known Roman Catholic institution, the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome. One might think that if authorities in the Roman Catholic Church wanted to claim responsibility for the change, they would have expressed some concern about the conclusion of this dissertation.
Parenthetically, most serious scholars not beholden to some denominational tradition view the “power” that is noted in Daniel 7:25 as actually referring to a 2nd Century BC Syrian king, Antiochus IV Epiphanes. But let’s not belabor this point.
In conclusion, there are certainly some helpful comments in this book but, in the view of this commentator, the positive materials are almost totally overwhelmed by the entire spirit of this volume, which makes no attempt to treat all of the conventional 19th century Adventist theological traditions in any light except that they are The Truth, The Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth. That’s very sad. One possible conclusion one might draw is that Dr. Knight wants his legacy to be remembered as consisting of this kind of simplistic apologetic literature rather than his more substantive historical writings. Or perhaps he wishes works such as this to provide atonement for some of his earlier treatments of Adventist history that laid out some of the problematic aspects of Adventist orthodoxy.
In my last commentary, I noted that Dr. Knight had, in 2009, published The Apocalyptic Vision and the Neutering of Adventism. In that book, he argued that if modern Adventism does not emphasize its classic prophetic interpretations and apocalyptic message, it might as well disband. To again quote Dr. Knight, “If Adventism’s apocalyptic big picture isn’t valid, the most sensible thing is to shut up shop, go home, and do something meaningful with our lives.” I suggest again that this opinion might make sense for a convert to Adventism, but it may not be compelling or persuasive for someone who is a second-, third-, or fourth-generation Adventist.
i haven’t read Dr Knight’s “Truth” book. But don’t need to. as Dr Taylor’s lancet has precisely lanced the subject matter. i have totally rejected the offerings of traditional and conservative SDA “scholarly” tomes. It is utterly
impossible for mankind to know the “truth”, for a certainty, of the origins, methods, and reality, of their physical living beings. Thousands of trusted scribes and churches have “THE ANSWER”. Would you dare reach for the golden ring
of any of these “driven to print” authors??.
As a young Adventist in Adventist institutions, in the US and elsewhere, I often asked myself why it was that since 1844 (or so) “all truth” was channeled by God through the Chosen People, our Adventist membership. This was somewhat explained to me in the sense that God has “privileged” our church with the responsibility to spread the Truth worldwide, and though angels might do the job instead, God has ordained that His chosen people should be edified with the task.
Yet I have always held that God is amply enabled to share truth through any means he wishes, and could once again (suppose?) call a lay Baptist preacher (or someone of that standing) to enlighten the world with truth. Yet so often in our churches we are reminded that the Remnant is THE body of believers entrusted with absolute truth, and that therefore Adventism has a monopoly on the latest truth available in Christendom. In one church I attended for a number of years, any “new light” that appeared to come from (or via) a non-conservative Adventist source was deemed by a good share of the congregation to be heretical.
It was in an Adventist college that I began augmenting my reading of the Bible and Sister White with devotional writings from other faiths, including the Catholic.It’s very useful to be well-versed in the esteemed writings of other faiths, if we deign to relate with them on equal footing on discussions of ultimate truth.
Well, of course, the first thing Dr. Taylor must do is attack the credibility of the bible. And from then on, what George Knight might teach is simply irrelevant.
Neither am I suggesting that all of Knight’s conclusions in all the books he has written are a real accurate view of historic Adventism in the past, present, or future. Some of Dr. Knight’s views are less than accurate in his conclusions and applications, especially 1888.
But when you must first attack the validity of the bible to make your case against someone’s views of scripture, there is less credibility in your analysis of what is concluded, than what Dr. Knight may have stated.
I suggest Dr. Taylor is the last person on earth to have any credibility in evaluating what another person may conclude about what the bible teaches.
Erv,
The Adventist church doesn’t have clergy, official or otherwise. We certainly don’t have clergypersons. That word ought to be banned from the English language. I never heard it before. Did you make it up? I made up a word like that, useage hasn’t taken off, yet. Pastorette. Do you like it?
I saw that politically correct, but inappropriate, term “clergyperson” and I have to conclude that Erv is a captive of political correctness. And I do like the word “pastorette.”
Erv: I would suggest the new word “clergeon,” a cleric who rightly divides the word of Truth in the biblical sense….
Erv, you sound no less arrogant than George Knight when you snarkily impugn his credentials as a historian, and then proceed to gleefully skewer his conclusions. What are your theologian/historian credentials?
More importantly, I think you may be completely missing the significance of the title. “The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” is a term with which I, as a litigator, have some familiarity. It is part of the oath that every witness takes prior to testifying in deposition or in a courtroom. What generally follows is testimony regarding the witness’s percipient knowledge of an event or, in the case of an expert witness, opinions about a subject within that witness’s area of competence. The lawsuits I handle often involve sharp differences between witnesses. But it doesn’t mean, because I disagree with a witness, that he/she has not told the truth to the best of his/her ability.
You jump to the conclusion that Knight’s title is risible, because you have a fundamentalist notion of truth. You tend to treat statements of faith, or mixed statements of faith and fact, as assertions of empirically verifiable or refutable fact, and that leads you to make straw man, nitpicky attacks. Theological statements, by their very nature, are not subject to such proofs. Maybe the real joke is on you, Erv for not understanding what Knight meant. Perhaps he intended to convey the sense that he was simply a witness communicating the truth to the best of his ability.
Erv, and Nathan:
Right on! This is the way I took the title–it is a journalistic method of getting people to read the book.
I really like to read Nate’s comments because like when I read Cliff Goldstein’s writing, I learn a lot of new words. For example, “risible.” Other readers be honest now: How many immediately knew the definition of that word? I had to look it up: It means “funny, humorous, comical.” With that information, we can translate the first sentence of Nate’s third paragraph as “You jump to the conclusion that Knight’s title is comical, because you have a fundamentalist notion of truth.” What a low blow. “Fundamentalist” That’s the most terrible thing you can say about someone. And why does Nate say that? Because, he says I have a “fundamentalist notion of truth.” And then he says the most amazing thing. He says that “Statements of faith” and “theological statements” . . . “by their very nature” are not empirically verifiable” From that, I would conclude that Nate believes that “faith statements” can be completely illogical and counter factual and that’s ok with Nate. If that’s his view, who am I to disagree? Perhaps this has to do with Nate’s profession as a distinguished member of the bar. I have heard that it is not the role of an attorney to argue the truth about his client, His role is to defend his client. Truth is irrelevant.
No Erv, truth is not irrelevant, and what you have heard about the role of an attorney is not how I see my role. ILLOGICAL…? How about this for illogical: “Nate thinks theological and faith statements are not empirically verifiable; therefore, he must think that it’s okay for them to be counter-factual and illogical.” HUH???!!!
Oh what drivel you sometimes write Erv.
“If Adventism’s apocalyptic big picture isn’t valid, the most sensible thing is to shut up shop, go home, and do something meaningful with our lives.”
Thing is the “apocalyptic” doesn’t give us our meaning. Our meaning comes to us only in relation to or in service to Jesus Christ. The rest is at best window dressing or at worst idolatry.
This commentary on Dr Knight’s book, leaves me wondering whether Dr Taylor’s Theology credentials are more credible than George Knight’s Theology or Church History credentials?
Apparently Dr Knight believes that I Timothy 3:16 is true whereas Dr Taylor disputes the provenance and/or veracity of this verse. To compare these conflicting claims let us consider some alternative logical formulations of this proposition.
I Timothy 3:16 as we have it, uses the Universal Quantifier (ALL). Alternative propositions might include:
a) ALL (scripture inspired by God …)
b) (scripture inspired by God …) EXISTS
c) (scripture inspired by God …) DOES NOT EXIST
d) (scripture inspired by God …) IS UNDECIDABLE
Apparently Dr Taylor disagrees with (a). I am wondering which of (b, c, d) Dr Taylor would assert?
At the time Timothy was written by an unknown writer, there was only the Greek Septuagint available and the one that Jesus and the apostles used and quoted from. The NT was still to be determined several hundred years later.
Dr. Taylor is far more knowledgeable, but to say that “all scripture is inspired” is a tautological claim: It is inspired because it claims to be inspired.
I must rush to the defence of Erv Taylor. Erv is NOT a fundamentalist of any shape or vintage.
And even though he is a scientist I commend Erv’s grasp of theology regarding Daniel 7 when he seems to favour Antiochus Epiphanes as the fulfilment. Nathan Schilt betrays his lack of theological nous by not recognising Erv’s awareness of the interpretation. And George Knight himself apparently gives no weight to the fact that AE did indeed seek to change the Jewish laws.
Church history and theology are naturally linked. I sat in Mervyn Maxwell’s seminary church history classes and found he was weak in theology and strong in anecdotal SDA history. He was a good story teller, like his father, which made his classes entertaining. When he retired Knight was chosen as the replacement —- once again an affable gent who could tell a good story but was a lame theologian.
In my opinion anyone who pleads that “the truth” is “plain” simply ignores the centuries of diverse Christian comment about the Scriptures and is probably unaware of the proper questions to ask, rushing into print with “plain” or simplistic answers. Is that arrogant? It could be ignorant. It could be naive, or any combination of the three possibilities. Take your pick.
I once presented a question to a handful of prominent SDA scholars….”What color is an orange?”
Yep you guessed it…one quickly responded ….”some are green.”
The canards of Adventism aren’t a good springboard for proclamation of “truth” buy apologists such as Knight. Adventist presuppositions deliver slanted conclusions devoid of rationality or fidelity. In computer coding speak, garbage in, garbage out.
As a hospital chaplain I wandered into a room and heard one person referring to another about their church as The Truth. It was a term I grew up with where Adventist insiders used the same words to apply to my church. Much to my surprise they were Jehovah’s Witnesses. I thought my church had a patent, a trademark, on that label pasted on my psyche for thirty years. I realized that there are either a lot of “Truths” out there or there isn’t any. The result is the same.
I haven’t read Knight’s book, either, but am well acquainted with the theological fairyland Adventism inhabits. “Untruth” would be a more appropriate key word for historical Adventism. None of the prophetical predictions on which it was founded have materialized. The inability for some apologists to admit it is indicative of a type of brain washing that elevates wishful thinking over truth, the truth of its bankruptcy. There is an opiate effect, apparently, infused by believing you are special because your church has been ordained by God for a special purpose.
The last resort of delusional dreamers is the vision of the phoenix materializing from ashes. Some Adventists prefer a charred myth over confession of the dead duck of dogma.
“…pasted on my psyche for 30 years.” Have you gotten help for your having been so traumatized and, in so doing, been told that getting it out in writing will have a positive, therapeutic effect? Does that at least partially explain your labeling of my denomination’s doctrine as “garbage”?
Stephen Stephen, my private unpaid shrink, how do you do it? When I need help the mostus you show up! Thankfully someone out there recognizes my trauma and it source.
In my mentally unstable condition, I am free to ask you, Are you a delusional dreamer invested in the phoenix myth for the garbage of ancient Adventist dogma? You don’t need to answer if you don’t want to.
You know that I would love to answer your question my man, except for the fact that I cannot quite decipher what it is you are asking. Would you do me the service of rephrasing it a little? I would appreciate it.
Bugs,
What’s nowadays called the JW.org, fka, The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society and before that the Bible Student Movement is in fact a Millerite shoot, or off-shoot. Restorational Adventists was the earliest nomenclature for the followers of Charles Taze Russell. If you read about a debate between the Adventists and the Baptists or whomever in the 1860s or 1870s it may very well have been the Restorational Adventists doing the debating. Be careful.
The most published book in world history for short while was the JW book called, The Truth that Leads to Eternal Life or The Truth Book, for short. Among other things, the book talked about 1975 as the year of the Lord’s Return or more accurately the consummation of His return because he more or less returned in 1914, but didn’t touch the earth. (Its complicated for the JWs.) For reasons obvious it was not republished after 1981. I probably still could find my copy somewhere.
Pilate asked Jesus of Nazareth, what is truth? I read Erv’s recent posts and I think about Pilate’s question. I wonder if Erv thinks about it also?
As an aside I don’t think George Knight is a bad historian. I don’t think Ron Numbers is either. I’m looking for the facts and I appreciate the interpretation. Who I despise are the Adventist historians who deliberately distort the facts regarding history women’s ordination in the SDA church. Their work is untrue and contemptible.
Concluding comments attributed to George Knight, with my own personal responses:
“if modern Adventism does not emphasize its classic prophetic interpretations and apocalyptic message, it might as well disband.” (paraphrase by Dr Taylor)
I am not certain whether or not this accurately represents George Knight. Regardless, here is how I personally view this proposition:
The “classic prophetic interpretations” may or may not hold-up under Biblical scrutiny. To the extent that they hold-up I will defend them – to the extent they do not, I will not defend them. Sola Scriptura for me.
The “apocalyptic message” mostly comes from a straight reading of Daniel and Revelation and other parts of the Bible. We may or may not correctly understand every application of these portions of Scripture, but God put them there for a reason. God understands what is going-on in this world with its manifold good-vs-evil “games”, and God has an “end-game” strategy to salvage as many of His human children as He possibly can. When that is accomplished, it will be “game-over”. To me this message is clear in the Bible.
(continued in the sequel)
“If Adventism’s apocalyptic big picture isn’t valid, the most sensible thing is to shut up shop, go home, and do something meaningful with our lives.”
To the extent that I correctly understand “Adventism’s apocalyptic big picture” I agree with this statement. To the extent that “Adventism’s apocalyptic big picture” reads credibly from the Bible I agree with this statement.
Paul correctly observed that if there is no resurrection from the dead, then our hope is in vain, and we are above all humans the most to be pitied. Paul said that regarding all Christians, regarding the resurrection of Christ, and the resurrection of the saints at the return of Christ.
If not, then I would ask what else and how else “to do something meaningful with our lives”?
(continued in the sequel)
Humanists say that we should seek to “maximize the other” or “maximize the collective good”. But what metric shall we apply to determine the “maximum”? Bug-Larry espouses Love as a metric. Though Love may be an attractive label for the metric, he offers no coherent criterion for identifying Love beyond “We know it when we see it”. With no direction we are eternally trapped in human Brownian motion, bumping-into one another and occasionally encountering Love.
Naturalistic evolutionists propound the “selfish gene” hypothesis. Maximal gain is achieved by striving to perpetuate our own genes and those most closely akin to our own. Against overwhelming statistical odds, life forms will improve at best, or hopefully survive and adapt. Although cosmology tells us it is far more likely the sun will first expand and consume us, then contract and allow our remains to freeze.
Ecologists tell us that humans need to maximize the potential for other species, to the detriment of our own. Presumably their end-game is that we gradually work ourselves out of a job, and then peacefully retire from the planet.
Solomon tells us that all such endeavors are “emptiness and chasing the wind.”
I have a pencil with erasers on both ends that says “Without Jesus life has no point”.
Paul’s statement was an allowance for the realistic possibility that Christ might not have resurrected, a murky event because it was unseen by humans. The importance of the occurrence is based on the ancient, pagan concept of blood propitiation of gods, a concept that predates Judaism and was assimilated by it. Israelites/Jews during the length of its BCE era (Audiology, the Great Courses, The Old Testament, Amy-Jill Levine), monotheists by reputation, occasionally practiced polytheism in their worship and sacrifices to propitiate all God(s).
The narrative of sin and its cure via a singular sacrifice, Christ, is clearly based on resurrection, so Paul was verifying the obvious. However, Christ never presented himself as the salvation for mankind. Yes, I know the texts that favor that view, but they are interpretations that fit the post-resurrection narrative. And they simply re-address the pagan concept of propitiation to a new sacrifice.
My view is that what Christ promoted and accomplished doesn’t depend on the resurrection. God isn’t bloodthirsty, nor is mankind “lost” in need of a Savior. Jesus was a Jew and that concept of an angry god pre dated Judaism. What He did was to show that God intermingles with mankind, always has, always will, and it is “love” that preserves whatever is good in the world and, when reflected in human behavior provides the meaning to life and its satisfactory continuation in the face of “evil.”
“For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (words attributed to Jesus Christ in 3 out of 4 gospel narratives)
I will not claim to be able to parse-out all of the nuances pro/con the “propitiation” paradigm. But I do think it fair to say that Jesus Christ is our “ransom” as prefigured by at least some of the OT sacrifices.
Ransom is this context means to buy-back those who are slaves of sin.
This was prefigured in the OT by the “ransom” of the first-born, the “ransom of the slaves from Egypt, etc.
I totally agree with you that God is not blood-thirsty. But I agree with virtually the entirety of the OT and NT that without God we are all in BIG trouble.
“For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.” (Hosea 6:6)
My God is a merciful God and my Jesus is a friend of sinners. This is very good news for me!
The one belief accepted by all Christians is hat Christ’s death and resurrection was necessary for our salvation; that it was impossible without his death, which would mean that He Had to die, otherwise we would all be doomed.
That is the one primary and essential Christian belief, isn’t it? That death is absolutely necessary. The idea and pagan pattern, long predating both Judaism and Christianity was also based on the absolute necessity of sacrifice to appease the gods. The Israelite people had long been practicing polytheism and simply switched gods while maintaining the same system. Christians modified it but again, sacrifice for appeasement to God is the essential belief. Without it, we would only need to follow the Golden Rule, which also comes from many old cultures, and live a good life here. The promise of “pie-in-the-sky in the sweet bye and bye” is seductive and so strong that millions have been killed who would not adopt that belief.
Elaine – What is your source of authority for the proposition that “millions” have been killed for refusing to subscribe to belief in “pie-in-the-sky in the sweet bye and bye.” That is a very strong assertion for which you surely have some authority.
“The one belief accepted by all Christians is [t]hat Christ’s death and resurrection was necessary for our salvation; that it was impossible without his death, which would mean that He Had to die, otherwise we would all be doomed.”
Absolutely correct, Elaine. I hope you believe this.
“That is the one primary and essential Christian belief, isn’t it?”
I agree.
“That death is absolutely necessary.”
Death is a consequence (not penalty) for sin. Sin inexorably destroys all that is good. Sin was not necessary and death was not necessary. But in the present, sin and death are inescapable facts of life.
“The idea and pagan pattern, long predating both Judaism and Christianity was also based on the absolute necessity of sacrifice to appease the gods.”
I agree. Attempts to gain the favor of the gods and/or avert their wrath, is the basis of every form of false worship. In contrast, the Bible offers two bases for true worship – gratitude to God as Creator and gratitude to Jesus Christ as Redeemer.
“The Israelite people had long been practicing polytheism and simply switched gods while maintaining the same system.”
This is partly true. This is what happened but it is not what the Bible teaches. The two recitations of the Decalogue in Exodus and Deuteronomy give the two reasons for worshiping God previously enumerated.
“Christians modified it but again, sacrifice for appeasement to God is the essential belief.”
This is indeed what happened in the Mediaeval church. The preponderance of Christian converts brought their pagan notions of God into their new faith. Again this is not what the Bible teaches but Bibles were not readily accessible.
(continued in the sequel)
“Without it, we would only need to follow the Golden Rule, which also comes from many old cultures, and live a good life here.”
If the antecedent of “it” in this sentence is “death” then I agree. If (sin -> death) then (no death -> no sin) (from DeMorgan’s laws of logic).
The problem is that sin and death render us incapable of living this kind of life. So we are trapped in one horrible mess, which is why we need a Redeemer.
Jesus Christ disagreed. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
It must be most miserable to hope in something so ephemeral as your own sentiments.
“Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”
Well and truly stated. I would expect no less from the tongue of Jesus Christ.
“It must be most miserable to hope in something so ephemeral as your own sentiments.”
“We use the tongue to bless our Father, God, and we use the same tongue to curse our fellow-men, who are all created in God’s likeness.”
James wrote this statement TO Christians, and ABOUT Christians. It is still true today. We are ALL a work-in-progress.
Yes, my view is contrary. I have spent a lifetime analyzing the presuppositions of Christianity. The confounding mess of its infinite versions, explanations, conflicting dogmas, the thousands of years of failed eschatologies, the modern corporate practice, Christian development of ascending, collective opinions, and the contradictions of propitiatory blood as a concern to “God,” in our universe (where it doesn’t fit any actuality or logic). And the impossibility of rationalizing all of it.
So I have looked carefully at the life of Christ to try to determine what he really advertised, and I have concluded his goal was to reveal how to properly live in the world since there is no escape from it beyond death.
I do not posit Christ didn’t raise from the dead. I am in the same boat as Paul and everyone else, in that maybe he didn’t. Heresy, of course, on that side of the issue, but, in my view, not as dire as Paul’s fearful desperation.
I find the experience of love in my life (not a metric, measurement, or idea) the best evidence of God since all theology is brainstorm, subject to whims, fashion, and most of all, endless opinions and pagan roots. There is a part of me that is touched by nothing but love, the same for every person and that is where God (language is feeble here) lives.
“Yes, my view is contrary. I have spent a lifetime analyzing the presuppositions of Christianity. ”
And like many on this particular forum, your skepticism and unbelief is obvious. Not many escape such a wretched conclusion, but none the less, God does bring some out of bondage who realize their utter delusion. Paul was classic and also realized that few would ever escape the snare of the devil. But stated that he “would by all means, save some.”
Apologies to the Nihilists for inadvertently omitting your views from the foregoing.
I would say to Nihilists that you have no pencil at all, only an eraser.
Milton, I didn’t say Erv was a fundamentalist. I said he demonstrates a fundamentalist notion of truth in this review. Fritz Guy once observed that fundamentalism is not confined to conservatives. There are liberal fundamentalists as well. I use the term to connote an approach or methodology – not one’s religious convictions.
I’ve never read anything by George Knight and probably never will. I commend Erv for his fortitude. But I also think Erv, that you make several picayune points.
Everyone, including George Knight, knows what the author of Timothy was referring to. It is doubtful that the writers of what are now viewed as OT messianic prophecies foresaw what Christians easily see in hindsight. Most Christians also see Scripture as progressive, and have no problem applying 1 Tim 3:16 to the entire Canon.
Your criticisms of Chapters 1,2, and 3 merely point out that Knight did not definitively answer all the theological questions that his assertions and assumptions raise. Well duh!
I fully agree with your critique of Chapter 10, a critique of Adventist theology with which most Adventist lay scholars are very familiar.
But in sum, Erv, you seem to be criticizing Knight for not writing a book that thoughtful, skeptical Adventist are likely to find appealing. What did you expect? Based on your review, it appears fairly clear to me that Knight writes to remind his base (traditional Adventists) of what they already know and believe.
Isn’t such a book redundant? If Knight has written to his based what they already know and believe? Why should the SDA press have published it? Why should those who are more than familiar with Adventist beliefs want to read it?
Nate is very insightful when he wants to be: It seems to me that his last sentence makes an excellent point: “It appears fairly clear to me that Knight writes to remind his base (traditional Adventists) of what they already know and believe.” Well stated.
Jim. Should the return of Christ be delayed another 30 years there will be no hope for future generations. With the rapid expansion of genetic research such as “gene splicing” man will soon be half human/half robotic, even you may see the day of computer chips in the thumb, in forced compliance, no “credit card required. “No man allowed to buy or sell” etc etc.
Nathan, even if the Bible has no truth, and in the whole, allegorical, does not mean there is not an “Ancient of Days Creator in the Cosmos”, of which we are the end result of intelligent designs, and our praise and worship is not in vain. That which is reality can be replicated.
Stephen, ahh, such elegant phrasings from the spinner of LOVE, which always catches you in his finely spun web.
Have a great day all, in the name of the “ANCIENT of DAYS”. GOD BLESS each of
you, and your’s.
I’ve heard this song and dance for 91 years; many who heard it before are now in their graves. The boy who cried wolf was eventually ignored.
I wonder if Mr. Calahan and any other individual who wishes to try his/her hand at prophecy would consider what the condition of the Adventist denomination will be in 100 years and Christ has not returned? How long can a religious tradition insist on a “soon coming” tradition and keep to a core message that is not coming true over multiple hundreds of years? Talk about a “elephant in the room” problem!
Erv, If you are talking about membership growth, worldwide, things have never looked so rosy. When I joined the church forty years ago it was around two million now its over eighteen million. No other church is growing more rapidly.
Com’n. His coming is nearer than when we first believed.
The nearness of Christ’s coming is a biblical principle not a sectarian rant.
The membership growth is fueled by countries that have higher birth rates. The first world nations have low birth rates, higher education, and very minimal membership growth.
From occasional news from countries with high SdA populations, they also support death for homosexuals, fewer high school and college graduates; have been opposed to condoms where there are very high rates of AIDS, live under strong murderous dictatorships, and have fewer freedoms. Sociologists could probably shine light on these conditions as related to membership.
I get it Elaine,
Lesser breeds without the law. Inferior races with inferior intelligence, that is to whom the Adventist message appeals.
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are
That explains why the Adventist Church’s most robust growth in North America is among minorities. Social pathologies, less education, perhaps even innate inferiority? Elaine you must elaborate your church growth theories. Don’t wait for the sociologists. You are on to something big!
I am puzzled, and somewhat disturbed by Left wing Adventists’ penchant for mote hunting, though as something of a contrarian myself, I understand the impulse. What bothers me is this: What’s the point? Why go out of your way to troll fundamentalist literature that would not interest you, even if it was packaged less offensively, and then proceed to snipe at it in a forum where few are likely to ever read the book? Why, Erv, waste your time going after George Knight? If Knight thinks he has the Truth, so what – unless of course he has something creative to say that you think is likely to seduce a significant number of thoughtful Adventists who frequent this website?
Here, as I see it, is the problem with sport-trashing and disrespecting “foolish” ideas that others hold sacred: From a cultural perspective, it is a small step from delegitimizing and ridiculing religious ideas, that the “knowing” class sees as counter-factual and illogical, to collective intolerance of such ideas. This reality is on full display in American universities, which are cauldrons of militant intolerance for conservative ideas or traditional moral values. Once we lose the ability to celebrate and defend moral and theological truthiness in those with whom we disagree, our grasp of tolerance becomes very tenuous, and our morally justified intolerance of authority and truthiness gives rise to the mob (c.f., The French Revolution).
Nathan,
I agree with your comment.
I would add that intolerance runs amok on both extremes. Witness the current US presidential campaign for anecdotal evidence 8-(.
Of course you are right, Jim. When humans gain political power, the temptation is to politicize truth claims and suppress competing moral truth claims. Presently, the Left dominates cultural, educational and political authority structures in society. This state of affairs is enabled because secularism is not Constitutionally seen as the religion that it is.
So there are no legal structures in place preventing public policies advancing secularist religions. Thus, while intolerance can be found on both extremes, the religious Right has far greater legal, institutional and cultural impediments to making its intolerance the rule of law.
I am far more concerned about those who have motive, means and power to suppress my freedom than I am about those who may have the motive, but lack the ability to implement their agenda due to strong, firmly established legal barriers.
“Talk about a “elephant in the room” problem!”
Well, Dr. Taylor, we have luxury of saying “You can’t prove it isn’t true, can you?” No matter how long it takes.
But like the flood, it is an historical event in history that stimulates people to consider all the implications of their relationship to God, past, present, and especially future.
So 1844 is an historical event in heaven when Jesus goes from the Holy Place to the MHP and begins the work of final judgment. And then true believers ask themselves, “What are the implications of this reality?”
So now, this historical event becomes a moral motivation to intensify the question “What must I do to be saved?” in a far more dynamic way than ever before. If probation is about to close, what is my relationship to God after the close of probation?
This is the basic reason for the revelation by God in heaven of this historical event. It takes place in heaven, but has a dynamic influence on the church on earth.
To ignore this event will also deny the influence and motivation necessary to prepare for the event itself. So now you know why it is important, and as Gerald Wolfe said.
“Just because you won’t accept it, won’t change it.”
But the sad part is, neither will you be ready for Jesus to come and your name will be blotted out of the book of life. That is, if it was ever written there in the first place.
Bill, your comment is thought-provoking – at least until the last paragraph. You suggest something I have said many times on this site: “God speaks to us not so much to inform us as to evoke a response.” His Word is relational and transformational more than propositional and informational. If this observation is valid, then “The Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth” can be seen as the truth about who George Knight thinks God is and who we are in relationship to Him. The theology and exegesis are simply tools to help people see that larger truth in the context of salient Biblical stories. The stories and analysis aren’t so much the Truth as they are pointers to the Truth. And if they undermine that purpose, they are not true – at least not in the Biblical/spiritual sense. His methodology and conclusions don’t generally resonate with me, so what he says is not truth for me. But that doesn’t mean it’s not truth for others. God has many paths to Truth. What is ultimately important is that I stay faithful to His covenental revelation to me.
Do we need, for example, to know whether the fruit of the Forbidden Tree produced hereditable genes – both toxic and beneficial – in order to understand the truth of The Fall as an issue of failure to trust the Word of God above human reason and empirical evidence? Hardly.
You better be careful, Bill. I just might turn you into a Adventist mystic. 🙂
Well, Nathan, God can’t “make us do anything”. All He can do is persuade us to do what He wants us to do. In which case, He must convince us by all the reasons we find in the bible to do what He says. And the motive is very comprehensive and not just some simple singular concept about God and His kingdom.
Of course, the cross comprehends all these factors that motivate. Law and gospel are comprehended in the cross. And they are both relevant 100% of the time all the time. The gospel does not negate the law, nor, does the law negate grace and the gospel.
So we can see the Jews had a “Christless” and “graceless” law. Let’s not develop a “lawless” and antinomian Christ. While law and gospel can have some elements of antagonism, none the less, at the cross they become perfect friends with each holding their own on every level.
I can’t understand why it would make a difference since 2000 years have past since Jesus seemed to echo the same thing.* We know Christ will come for everyone when they die, so it is hardly a deception. Maybe that’s the elephant in your room.
*He said only God the Father knows. If Christ were fully human as classic Christianity teaches, then He wouldn’t have known any more than His contemporaries. He learned from the OT scriptures read in the synagogue–perhaps He may not even been able to read being from a poor class. His belief system was not anchored in Hellenization as later religions and Christianity. He believed as a first-century Jew inspired by the Holy Spirit.
While I don’t suggest taking the well-known Adventist stance of presuming to know it all, or “have the truth”, if there is one who can support his speculation it would be George Knight, and I believe he is flippant enough to pull it off. ‘Adventist’ should not be synonymous with “unable to laugh at oneself”!
Ervin Taylor and George Knight need to go out and drink several root beers.
Knight’s versions of truth and Ervin’s reactions, remind me of the first novel I ever read. It was East of Eden, by John Steinbeck. From this great book I got one of the wisest lessons about truth:
“An unbelieved truth can hurt a man much more than a lie. It takes great courage to back truth unacceptable to our times. There’s a punishment for it, and it’s usually crucifixion.”
― John Steinbeck, East of Eden
George and Ervin’s ideas on truth are similar to the destinies of the two families—the Trasks and the Hamiltons—whose generations helplessly reenact the fall of Adam and Eve and the poisonous rivalry of Cain and Abel.
Steinbeck introduces us to some of his most memorable characters and how they dealt with their understanding of truth in their lives.
After reading from both, Knight and Taylor, I suppose the most revolutionary act (decision) I can engage in is… to tell the truth, the best way I can. I need to realize that “what is truth” will forever be a lifelong quest and not a static inflexible set of ideas.
You do not wake up one morning an untruthful person. It happens by a gradual, incremental process, in a thousand tiny surrenders of self-respect to many compromises with “pure truth”. Ervin, George, and I–need to take A DEEP BREATH, and deal with truth as best as we can!
Even in heaven truth will be unfolding, always linear! Stay tuned…
Sam, ????
Nathan, i agree. Freedom is the most important benefit a person can have, within boundaries of “live and let live”, “i won’t tresspass your privacy”, “love your neighbor”, etc. The current Potus has contravened our National Constitution with impunity, without the intervention of the other two levels of balance of power.
Adolph Hitler, started his rise to “absolute” power, without a peep from his opposition because of fear. The “Religious Right” as a formidable opposition is basically in name only, they exist as tho in a vacuum. Amazing to me the Christian element generally appears to favor the “left voting bloc” the very structure that is rapidly removing the “FREEDOMS” we had in the 20th Century, excepting those of segregation policies of law and mind.
As stated previously, i do not vote. Some say “you deserve what you then get. My answer is “you get what you deserve because you vote. Can you imagine the political turmoil and fallout if no one voted?? Both political parties are totally rotten to the core in corruptible daily practice, 24/7. How can an honest person vote for the devil they know?? This country “MUST” have a dramatic change of direction, instead of business as usual, or a dictatorship is certain. The buffoons in the Congress and Senate, and the participating nominees running for the top leadership of the world. remind me of the monkeys on the Animal Channel
Earl, !!!!
Earl, Yawn to your whinging, as the Brits say, about your loss of freedom. For the good of the many, for survival of a relative few, I am willing to give up a portion of my “freedom” by allowing my government to control the type of firearm I am allowed to own. I find no compelling argument for the ownership of rapidly repeating firearms. I find no compelling reason to take whining about “my right to say Merry Christmas” seriously. For the survival of the planet I am willing to limit the amount of inexpensive fuels that I buy and, yes, Donald Trump, the aerosols that I use.Those who scream about freedoms the loudest in the state in which I live, while giving tax breaks to the wealthy, withdraw support of public schools because of their “sacred” obligation to adhere to the principles of limited government and fiscal conservation.
Many who complain about loss of freedom are all too willing to take away a woman’s right to choose, or deny a terminally ill person’s right to choose, or a marijuana user’s right to buy, or a drinker’s right to drink publicly (in a bar) in his own community.
My point is that as a citizen we all must be limited or inconvenienced in some ways for the good (and sometimes) survival of the group.
Larry, i can live out my life in patience and contentment, understanding the potential for non resurrection. But the nagging element is “LIFE IS AN INTELLIGENT DESIGN, BY A SUPERNATURAL MASTER DESIGNER”. No doubt that mankind’s intellectual domination of this Earth is a reality. NO DOUBT. For Earth to survive for four billion plus years, and arrive at the 21st Century with “MANKIND” excelling plenipotentually, in that the Genetic Code has been unwound, and now Science is in development of procedures to amalgamate various animal and artificial robotic devices and intelligence with “mankind’s humanity”, being given over to machines, is maddeningly offensive to me. This
planet Earth, deserves a better fate, because of those of goodwill, selfless
giving in service to others, mentors of noble endeavors, YES, those expressing
the quality of life and love, and the “THE FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT, WHICH IS LOVE”
As stated earlier, should the Holy Bible be not the inspired message from the Creator of all things, then we must return to the beginning of the Cosmic phenomenon, to square one, to find the origin of the intelligence displayed by mankind on Earth. WE OWE OUR INTELLIGENT EXISTENCE TO SOMETHING INFINITELY GREATER THAN THE COSMOS. My allegiance, and praise must be to the SUPERNATURAL
BEING of all CREATION. Knowing nothing of it’s game plan of all things. Meantime those who faithfully follow Love God, and love neighbor, are inconclusive power of life.
Earl, all one can do is wait and see if any of the amalgamation proposals and robotic traumas become a reality. When I read the qualifiers of “might” and “could” in a headline, I interpret them as my cue not to read the article.
I can live without answers about the genesis (intelligent design, for example) and direction of mankind. When I struck off to follow my own thoughts decades ago, the first thing I learned was that I could infinitely ask questions for which I would never have an answer. That was a eureka moment. So, for decades I’ve been squatting as an observer in Query Stadium where the contest is between those who think they have answers and those that are sure they don’t. A good share of the excitement is provided by theologicrat bookies offering enticing odds for bettors based on their opinions.
I may croak before this game ends, but the one issue long solved for me, and the one that will assist my peaceful departure, is that my transition will be in the able hands of the God of love. In the meantime I’m hanging out at Query Stadium because I still haven’t abandoned hope for an answer to some pesky questions! He, Mr Food Guy: Another Root Beer and Vega Dog over here, please! No Vega Dog, OK, dead cow burger will be fine!
When we stop asking questions we stop learning.
When we think we have all of the answers we stop learning.
When we think there are no more answers we stop learning.
Note: last line should read “in conclusive…….. Better stated “are assured of their belief in the ALMIGHTY”.
I’ve made a personal decision not to read any blog, commentary, or other posting on the AT web site which contains any words written in capital letters. That’s just for me. I realize that I might miss something very interesting. But, rules are rules. Just for me: capital letters = no reading. Others will obviously see things differently.
OK – I GET IT!
Whoops, doesn’t appear so. rascal.
Ervin, there’s a time for everything, and that includes capitalizing words.
When to Use Capital Letters
• Begin each sentence with a capital letter, including sentences inside quotation marks. Examples: “Discrimination against capital letters is silly.”
• Use capital letters when a title includes a proper name or a numeral. Examples: “Number 2 Corinthians.” (by Trump)
• Use a capital letter in the first word and all words of importance in published titles. Example: “T.O.S.C.” documents,
• Capitalize titles of people when the title appears before the name. Example:
• Do not capitalize a title that appears without a name. Example: The vice president of the college spoke to the student body. Do not capitalize a title that appears after a proper name. Example: the speaker and director of Amazing Facts,.
• Use a capital letter as the first letter for the days of the week, for the first letter of a month and for the first letter of a holiday. Examples: Sabbath, Saturday.
• Use a capital letter in the names of historical events, historical statues, historical monuments and historical papers. Examples: General Conference Session at San Antonio, Equal Rights Amendment
• Use capital letters in names that are of a geographical nature such as the Pacific Ocean
>>>>>>>>>>when you are venting in a blog
Deep breaths….one at a time…
“I’ve made a personal decision not to read any blog, commentary, or other posting on the AT web site which contains any words written in capital letters.”
Well, we know how to post if we don’t want Dr. Taylor to read it…….
That is assumption works both ways. Capital letters are actually part of the diversity in giving emphasis…
It’s a way of shouting in print, count me in Ervin’s corner, almost. Years ago, while a pastor, I would sometimes receive multi-page missives from the 7-Up (my abbreviation for Seventh-day Adventist, no harm intended) lunatic fringe with rambling lines of “correct” theology babble, half of which was in caps.
However, I do give Earl a pass. I don’t know why, I just do! He’s older than me, there, that’s why. I was taught to respect my elders.
Michael. Is your last name STALIN? lol
Irvin, i am the most guilty one here. Hence forth i will bow to your wishes.
AToday is not about not being Seventh-day Adventist.
AToday is about seeking for a more promising vision for the future of Seventh-day Adventism.
George Knight may well come up short in this regard. He has, after all, focused decades on mastering the backward look.
However, Erv, you also have come up absent when it comes to rendering supportable elements of a possible 21st Century Seventh-day Adventism and how they specifically contrast with George Knight’s book.
In reflection and in brief, Erv, what is a possible better vision for the Bible? The God/man Jesus? Creation? And Sabbath? And how do these visions improve on George Knight’s review of Century before last Seventh-day Adventist visions as George Knight explains them?
Bill,
I think that your description or perception of what atoday is about means that atoday is a misnomer. It should be called ‘atomorrow’ or ‘asomeday;’ and those monikers perhaps might be followed with question marks.
If the future of Seventh-day Adventism is represented by the skepticism and non-belief that is frequently articulated on this site by some, then we’re talking about something besides a religious (or even a Christian) denomination altogether; which is apparently someone’s goal.
May I say that IMO Mr. Garber makes an excellent point. If one presents a criticism of some position, it would seem that there is or should be the assumption that there is a “better” position. This is particularly true for someone who is offering commentaries on a routine basis. So the question would seem to be, in the context of the Adventist Protestant faith tradition in the 2nd decade of the 21st Century, what might be that “better” position. This obviously would be only one person’s opinion. This will take an entire commentary piece which will be forthcoming. Meanwhile, others are solicited to offer their own “better” positions.
Gandhi answered when questioned about what was the best religion, replied: “If you are a Hindu, be the very be Hindu; if you are a Muslim be the very best Muslim; and if you are a Christian be the very best Christian.”
Christ never established a denomination but gave us a way of life to follow. If that is insufficient, humans will devise all sorts of beliefs if humans if you decide to follow another human.
” If one presents a criticism of some position, it would seem that there is or should be the assumption that there is a “better” position.”
On some things, there is no “better position” and to add or change the “position” is to do away with it altogether. We have more than a few examples in the bible. “Jesus as the Son of God died for our sins on the cross.” People try to alter and change this “position” and all they do in the end is deny it.
The same with 1844 and the pre-advent judgment. You can not alter of change it without doing away with it. It has its own inherent meaning that can not be changed or altered. If you try to alter or change it, you simply are rejecting it. If this is your decision, then say so. But don’t try to change it, and then claim you believe it. That’s not possible.
” If one presents a criticism of some position, it would seem that there is or should be the assumption that there is a “better” position.”
There is no “better position.” Truth is truth, and “Just because you won’t accept it, won’t change it.”
Finally, someone who knows truth, the final version. Please reveal it to me Bill, I’ve been waiting 65 years. I want to “accept” it!
“Finally, someone who knows truth, the final version. Please reveal it to me Bill, I’ve been waiting 65 years. I want to “accept” it!”
Well, I think you heard it and rejected it. In 1844 Jesus entered the MHP in the heavenly sanctuary and began to judge all professed believers by the law and the gospel. At the end of this judgment, He will make a final atonement for the church and His work as intercessor for sin is done.
This is moral motivation for all believers and unbelievers to find out “What must I do to be saved?” before it is too late. And if you refuse to “get on the boat” as in the days of Noah, when the door shuts (like Noah’s boat) you are out and that’s that.
So, you have heard it like the people in the days of Noah, but you all seem to reject it and if you continue, you will be shut out, and that’s that.
I guess like Noah’s message, that should be plain enough. And hopefully, like Paul, “I can by all means, save some.”
By the way, you will find that the Sabbath truth is bound up in this message. So, like Elaine Nelson, all who reject it will also reject the Sabbath. At least she is honest enough not to play the games some of you play. But we must assume willful deception will not avoid the final end.
It must be nice for individuals like Mr. Sorensen to know what “The Truth” is. That must be so very convenient. It also simplifies things. Ah, the simple life.
Subjective truth is the answer that satisfies a question. And for a person to have received a “truth” to their question of life, death, transformation, they should not be hassled they have chosen unwisely. Why? Because no one can refute the truth they have chosen as being untruth. Their belief system will carry them through this life with rational satisfaction, to them. There is no objective truth known to mankind of which they personally can discern. Should the reality of their choices become untrue, they will never know it. “There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the way thereof are the ways of death”. Death is certain, resurrection is???????? So choose you this day of how you will spend eternity, because no man on Earth can deny you, and that is Truth.
Since “truth” is individually determined, it is opinion based. And I agree. And I don’t challenge anyone’s profession of faith, for that reason.
However, Bill Sorensen seems to know truth beyond opinion. I am waiting for his reply. (Maybe Stephen Foster, too)! Come on you guys, enlighten me!
Since my name was specifically mentioned in this post, I should weigh in on this. Perhaps truth is not so much individually determined as it is individually discovered and individually accepted; and even individually rejected.
While it may be true that Bugs “[does not] challenge anyone’s profession of faith,” it is certainly true that Bugs challenges the faith of a group of individuals among whom he was once numbered—and numbered in a ministerial role at that.
Bugs,
Jesus Christ was crucified, buried and rose from the dead on the third day.
That statement is either true or false. No individual can make it false if its true or true if its false. We must decide what we believe based on the evidence. We might be right, we might be wrong. We will never alter the facts about Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection.
Since “truth” is individually determined, it is opinion based. No Bugs – veritas lux mea
Milton, shucks, dog gone it. You made a good reference for Irv, and then you go and waste it, by CAPITALIZING “WAS”. shucks.
“Veritas lux mea,” simply verifies my posit. How is your enlightenment determined? As a function of opinion, yours.
“We will never alter the facts about Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection.” Nor the facts of its uncertainty.
William, you are reliant on belief. That is all you really have. And that is enough for a profession of faith, which is what you are really proclaiming. I have no argument with you.
No no no. There is utterly no uncertainty about Christ’s resurrection. He either rose from the dead or he didn’t.
There is evidence, we need a verdict. Right or wrong, I have to cast a vote.
Guilty or not guilty. Its neither belief or knowledge. It’s a decision rendered after seeing the evidence.
Truth is the light we shine upon the evidence.
You sound like Pilate who said to Jesus “What is truth?”
He was not really asking for an answer. His question was like a skeptic who is stating “You don’t know truth, I don’t know truth, and neither does anyone else.”
So he asks “What is truth?” and walks away.
I’m asking you for truth, can’t you help me? Does that sound like Pilate?
Render your verdict on the resurrection – you’ll draw closer to the truth. You asked. How long will you deliberate?
Erv, I hope you are making a list of Nathan’s words that bamboozle you. Yes, there’s “risible” and “picayune” and “truthiness” and “hereditable.” So far I’ve found three out of the four in my dictionary.
I think he demonstrates a Websterian notion of words. Notice, I didn’t say he WAS a Websterian. I said “he demonstrates a Websterian notion of words.” Did you get the nuance? Don’t struggle too much. There really is no essential difference. It’s all semantics worded semantically by a semanticist or semantician.
Milton, that was witty, laced with wisdom and insight!
About *truth* of which there is much interest in this thread.
Assuming truth is neither a means nor a confirmation of our salvation, on what basis do we aspire to know truth?
Paul writes to his spiritual son, Timothy, with regard to truth:
I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2)
For Paul, salvation precedes a knowledge of its truth.
If so, truth cannot divide us, but must be measured by its ability to bridge the differences among us as humans.
Truth may distinguish Seventh-day Adventistism, but it must not differentiate Seventh-day Adventism from humanity. Such a future vision of Seventh-day Adventism certainly distinguishes it from 19th Century Seventh-day Adventism, though unapologetically so.
“You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth.”
Jack Nicholson’s character to Tom Cruise’s character in the movie, A Few Good Men has a deeper meaning for us today.
The church is a servant body “handling the truth”. We are reated for service, we serves the Lord in praise, we serve one another in love, and serve the world in humility. In this way the truth is “handled” “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” (Eph. 2:10)
God asks the church to be a community of people sharing a common purpose and fellowship, continually growing in truth and in the knowledge of the Son of God. Paul describes the church as “his body, the fullness of him who filleth every thing in every way.” (Eph. 1:22)
God calls us into His body for the purpose of establishing a saving relationship with Him and community with one another. The Holy Spirit convicts our minds, leads us to real truth, and plants us within the church. Thus, the church is a creation of the Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is the vital life force of the church. When you come to Christ, you are prepared by the Holy Spirit, who has already led you to incremental truth, for service.
We want the truth, with God’s help we can handle HIS truth!
c is missing in the 4th line, should read “created”
Sam,
Help me please.
Truth is propositional and is anchored in our salvation, which is not propositional. Right?
When we imagine our salvation is anchored in truth, as the movie line goes, all hell breaks loose.
For the Christian truth is not about ‘I’m right and you are wrong.’
It is surely not about ‘I’m saved and you are not.’
It is about sensing myself, as one with every humanbeing an essential element of the World Created by Jesus, Saved by Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, and to be Redeemed by Jesus upon his return to make our eternity real with Him.
Ellen White it seems agrees. She advocates that our schools and our sermons both make ‘the science of salvation’ the preeminent focus. And she goes on to share her belief that ‘the science of salvation’ will captivate our full attention for the first many millennia of eternity. Clearly, then, the truth about ‘the science of salvation’ does not enable salvation, but rather is the outgrowth from salvation sensed as secured, not by us, but by Jesus on our behalf, which is the only basis for our salvation being trustworthy.
The sequencing of salvation and truth discovery is key. As Paul wrote to Timothy (2:4), God “wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.”
So … The Comforter wordlessly confirms the reality of our salvation and out of that we come both to worship Jesus and to embrace *a* knowledge of *the* truth in Him.
How does this…
“For the Christian truth is not about ‘I’m right and you are wrong.’”
But in fact, Bill Garber, this is exactly how Jesus presented “the truth”.
He said clearly, “I am right, and you are wrong.” and this is the same format Paul uses and every believer who confronts error. The bible is not a mass of confusion like many hope it is so they can escape the judgment of God. It is clear and concise and demands that we pay attention to all its declarations for our salvation is at stake by how we respond to the word of God.
Bill, You are wrong. Paul left certain issues to the individuals conscience. It was wrong only if they thought it was wrong.
“Bill, You are wrong. Paul left certain issues to the individuals conscience. It was wrong only if they thought it was wrong.”
You would have us believe all issues are non-salvational and subject to speculation. So “certain issues” is not the issue at all. It is specific declarations of non-negotiable truth and “I am right, and you are wrong.”
I will bet that Mr. Sorensen is barrel of laughs when he questions individuals If they have “The Truth.” I will also bet that he doesn’t tell the people he questions that “The Truth” is his version of “The Truth”.
Bill I sense my salvation in Jesus’ story in Mathew 19:16-26; the story that describes the prospects of a human becoming saved as akin to a camel passing through the literal eye of a needle.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A+16-26&version=KJV
I take great heart in this exchange between Jesus and his disciples.
25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this [salvation] is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
I take Jesus at his word. I accept that I am his creation, the object of his salvation, and in his metaphor the bride to his returning bridegroom who is right now preparing our place to spend eternity together. I accept that I was personally in the mind of God before creation.
I accept that you are equally the object of God’s creation and salvation and destined to live eternally with him.
I sense this to be reality not because I am privileged to read this from scripture, which I am, but because God’s salvation is not privileged to those of who have been richly blessed by literacy and the printing press and the church that canonized scripture for us. It is the illiterates, indeed the anencephalics who will rightfully lead the human race into Heaven, the truest confirmation of God’s love, despite the judgment having without exception proved us all equally present by God’s grace.
Universalism is nothing new, Mr. Garber. It started with Lucifer in heaven when he persuaded the angels there was no level of accountability that could ever jeopardize their eternal life.
God was the creator, and He alone was responsible for the final outcome, no matter what.
And this is what you believe and millions and billions more will “buy” your false idea.
The real sad part is this. It destroys any value of any created being as to what they think, do, or believe. It is pure fatalism. True believers reject it for the obvious reason we seek some value in our choices and actions. And the higher the level of the meaning of the outcome, the higher the value in the choice and action.
My eternal life is at stake, and I am pleased to know that God will validate my final decision and action by affirming my decision with a continued life of value and meaning.
I reject your meaningless theory that most will readily embrace and the irresponsible freedom it advocates. I accept the responsible freedom God offers that validates my existence and gives the highest level of value to what I decide. People go “brain dead” over religion and accept any off the wall idea totally outside scripture and “hope” their view is OK.
Bill Garber on February 28, 2016 at 5:04 pm said: “Sam,
Help me please. Truth is propositional and is anchored in our salvation, which is not propositional. Right?” Thank you, we agree.
Truth is 100% propositional.
Truth is propositional. This is a hard one to wrap our minds around, but simple propositional form is the unavoidable way of all coherent thought and action, for both God and men. There is a big move today to say, “No. Truth is relational.” But whatever that is supposed to mean, it never seems to be said in anything but propositional form.
Subject, Object, Copula. “God is good.” This is what communication demands, because, everything is relational. And every truth is thought in the form of a relation between something and something else or something and itself. There just isn’t any other way for things to be. So of course Jesus is logical, because to be illogical is to be confused, or ignorant, or just wrong about something. God, in Christian Theology, is an eternal mind. He thinks. He is personal (in fact, tri-personal). But He is not confused about either what He thinks is true or what He thinks is false or the relationship between the two. He knows that He exists instead of not existing.
God is Good. And because God is good He is also Truth, and truth neither lies nor errs. Logic is not some eternally existing Platonic thing outside of God to which He looks for verification as a principle.
I find the SDA denomination as a Neo-Pharisee Sabbath acknowledging cult that follows in the footsteps of the ones from 2000 years ago. The whole truth is not their agenda. I see the emphasis of pet institutional doctrines that eclipse the comprehensive message as revealed in the bible. In a contemporary approach the denomination voids the exposure to the LAW(bible) through their tradition of marketing/exposing their hobby horse doctrinal darlings…3 angels message. The group is fixated on eschatological paranoia or swings to the other extreme and presents Jesus only obscure clichés. They are intimidated by evangelicals and cower in fear over worrying about being legalistic and thus present convoluted antinomian beliefs and phrases about the law. Because the teachers/pastors are so inept in their messages, the members are victims of shallow teachings and parrot the warped notions so prevalent today in other denominations. Members are taught (poorly) to outreach to grow the ranks of Adventists instead of adding to the body of Christ. What a pathetic groupie, institutional, herd mentality just to get more Laodiceans into the crowd.
jimbob,
Do you think of any of the Adventists who comment here on atoday.org fit your above description? We are quite the eclectic collection of old Adventist men (and Elaine – our token old woman).
If we were darts we’d be all over the board and not a few of us maybe completely off the wall. But I don’t think any of us fit your description.
Aren’t we collectively a refutation of your assertion?
William,
Thanks for the reply/question. My post was a broad brush/generalization aimed at a portion of the book title for this thread. I agree with your statement on the “eclectic collection” but do not include Elaine since I do not consider her an Adventist even though she is an SDA PK. Any “Adventist” who invalidates the sabbath for the new testament era, in my estimation, is a renegade SDA. She is not alone, on these sites, as far as that persuasion. Many years ago,at the recommendation from my former, non-denom, mega church pastor, when I investigated the 4th commandment, I read “From Sabbath to Lord’s Day” by DA Carson. I learned about going man’s way or God’s way. There are enough clues in that book to see how superficial and fragile the sabbath abrogation premise is.
Renegade SDA. I like it. Kind of like a Jack Mormon or a Shirt-tail Relation. I think they will like it too. Elaine the Adventist Renegade.
Ode to Elaine.
When I left Adventism forty three years ago I happily left the Sabbath with it. No regrets. I realized it is a self-imposed requirement/restriction that had nothing to do with anything important. There is no reward or punishment for observing or ignoring it. And I could see the strict observance of it blocked hundreds of thousands of fine people of being all the could be. Adventism is virtually unknown because its membership is missing from business, work, and social interchanges because of its legal enforcement by a church founded on what became lies based on wild prophetical interpretations. If it was so wrong about prophecy, why would it be right about Sabbath?
I maintain all the dedicated Sabbath keepers wouldn’t give it a nod if they weren’t invested in the idea either through birth or family, or conversion where someone convinced them of its efficacy. In other words, the mandate for keeping it isn’t from reading and applying scripture, or for sure, from the words of Jesus.
If you want to “keep” Sabbath, that is fine with me. But It isn’t necessary because deity doesn’t care. Since I left sunset to sunset behind I haven’t had one instance of law-breaking in my conscience. And that is because I haven’t violated a law or rule.
Larry, we both left Adventism several decades ago and there has been absolutely no regret, but the relief of no worries about playing cards, reading novels or attending movies, especially on Sabbaths.
Reading the NT for the first time rather that looking up proof texts to substantiate beliefs, I discovered what had never been taught in 13 years of SdA only education.
You illustrate a problem that the church requests of members but at the same time, inhibits practicing: making friends and introducing them to your religion; but the inability to attend Friday night or Saturday events together does not encourage participation.
Inviting neighbors or acquaintances to church with you or to attend a week evangelistic campaign seldom produces acceptance without first becoming a good friend.
Just reading the lack of assurance so many long-time Adventists express on various sites, we are free to live and love in peace, the gift we were given. My only regret is why did it take so long?
If you want to “keep” Sabbath, that is fine with me. But It isn’t necessary because deity doesn’t care. Since I left sunset to sunset behind I haven’t had one instance of law-breaking in my conscience. And that is because I haven’t violated a law or rule.”
Since you have decided what deity cares about or don’t care about, no doubt you have broken no law or rule you have made up for yourself. And everyone can make up their own laws and rules as far as you are concerned, thus it matters not if some “keep the Sabbath” or not. It has no bearing on your own religion that you have made up for yourself.
But the God of the bible has made up the laws and rules, and you will find in the judgments your own laws and rules are worthless as an explanation for a clear conscience. But you do reflect the major spirituality by more than a few who post on this forum, so you will get massive doses of affirmation by all those who advocate and embrace the same spiritual sentiments.
SDA’S honor the God of Moses and attempt to live by the Ten Commandments, which condemns their very best efforts. Christians honor the God of the New Covenant, Jesus Christ, and His Law of Love. Every King put on the throne to rule His people by God, the Ancient of Days, was corrupt, and poor role models. The Prince of Peace was Holy, pure and perfect, without equals. SDA’S wiggle and refuse to acknowledge their theme is legalism.
Why do Sadducee’s question the faith of brothers and sisters?? Look askance
with Holy scorn at others?? Only God knows the heart of each of His creation.
John 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.
“SDA’S honor the God of Moses and attempt to live by the Ten Commandments, which condemns their very best efforts. Christians honor the God of the New Covenant, Jesus Christ, and His Law of Love.”
Your false and deluded understanding of old and new covenant is far outside the teaching of Paul or any new testament writer.
None the less, you find comfort in your delusion. And while you scorn “judging others” no one “judges” more than yourself and others who embrace your delusion. Maybe if you weren’t such a “phoney” about your claim to “not judge”, people could actually take your comments as have some validity.
But your “duplicity is showing” big time, Mr. Judgmental. Who tells us he can define all legalists, Sadducees, by way of his own definition of what is truth.
You don’t fool anyone who has a brain and uses it.
“Only God knows the heart of each of His creation.” Yup. A reason to tread lightly as well as to stifle the urge to winnow and purge.
Who has to purge? The clues are right on this page.
One of the great things about AToday is that day after day it proves that Seventh-day Adventism is a religion one can leave without having to leave.
The next task for AToday is to help Seventh-day Adventism embrace new members as generously. No?
Look, people like being with us. They are happy to worship with us on Sabbath. They are convinced God created us and is still creating. They believe Hebrews beautifully illuminates Jesus’ effectiveness for us in the symbolic Heavenly symbolic.
They respect our history and indeed consider it one of our finest recommendations; out of such horrific biblical misunderstanding arises what is quite possibly the first church founded specifically without a creed, but not without the presence of God!
And most of all, they embrace the salvation story of the Three Angels Message in which the First Angel’s clarification of our security with God by reason of his having created us settles our salvation. They humbly acknowledge that the Gospel lays waste to humanity’s self-justifying confusion Babylon supports, a condition that John so vividly describes as spiritual fornication; spiritual sex without a future.
They just want to experience the patience of the saints, rather than the brimstone hail of self-justification. No wonder they love Ellen White, she declares justification by faith the Third Angel’s message in verity.
Indeed.
I’m sure that we are all happy that there are converts to our faith tradition who find what they need in traditional Adventist beliefs. I’m not aware of anyone who does not wish them well. However, many 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation Adventists are able to view their faith tradition within a much larger context. When that happens, a whole host of problems appear–theological and political. That’s a natural progression that happens in every church tradition with which I am aware. Adventism is not exceptional in that regard. Some 2nd-3rd-4th generation Adventists live in places where the progressive parts of the Adventist church exist in greater proportion and can stay in. Others do not and their intellectual honesty is such that they must leave. In North America, I would suggest that in the majority of cases, staying in or leaving Adventism is largely based on where one lives and the social networks to which one belongs.
What a unique amalgamation of religious puzzlement. As always, just what Dr. Knight planned and expected. Since there are too many books to be read, with so little time, I continue to read as much as I can; but I have had to resort to reading book reviews to expand my reading list. Good, bad or indifferent, book reviews have to be taken for what they are: someone’s opinion about someone else’s opinion. Therefore, a review of a book on truth is bound to be shot full of holes. Just remember, the ammo being used is “catch-22” ammo: it is opinion, someone else’s truth, with a different reference point, and different interpretations. Man up everyone (sorry, I’m not PC). Don’t take it personally, just decide for yourselves and move on to the next book.
I’ve been trolling for truth but haven’t yet caught any. So far all I have landed are flotsam and jetsam, opinions and a Latin epithet. I’m starting to believe there isn’t any. Either that, or the “experts” are holding out on me. Could it be there really isn’t any? Only opinions? In other words, maybe it is just what one thinks it is? So it isn’t one thing, but a universe of different ones?
Trolling in the wrong places? Wrong hooks? Wrong lures?
Truth for some is found in very murky waters. If the fishers don’t mind on what the fish feed, they will always find some.
“Truth for some is found in very murky waters. If the fishers don’t mind on what the fish feed, they will always find some.”
Well, here is what is absurd, Elaine. Those who cry “don’t judge” are the most judgmental people on the face of the earth. And all it proves is that it is impossible not to “judge” everything on some level.
Maybe if they would quit crying “don’t judge” they could actually gain some degree of credibility. Why not just admit everyone must judge unless they are totally brain dead and/or can’t read?
Bill,
Most in church who say “Don’t judge” are really saying..”Shut up”
They do so because of guilt,fear, pride and insecurity and want to control others. It is actually a satanic attitude. The kingdom of God is not one of force….for the most part ….and the “Don’t judge mob are dominating control freaks.
I gave an example, in church, of how ridiculous the blanket/overuse approach is.
I said that I could be a mass murderer, serial rapist, and child molester and if someone accused me…I could throw back at them…”don’t judge” according to the religious fanatic concept/usage of…”Don’t judge.”
There is so much superficial, cliche religious lingo nonsense in churches.
On the contrary, I don’t preach “don’t judge.” We all MUST actually make judgments, constantly, about those with whom we associate.
BTW, I enjoy this exchange. Tremendously. I’m also an “old lady” — my age falls somewhere between Elaine’s and that 65-year-old poster [whose name I’ve just now forgotten….obviously my short-term memory is failing].
Having grown up with two dear, dear SDA parents, I never considered leaving this faith. I have, however, enjoyed the fruits of non-SDA educational institutions for graduate school, and have entered a non-Christian profession. Never have those activities caused me to doubt my foundational beliefs. I feel our church is something like a giant fraternity; everywhere I go I find someone I’ve known in an earlier life, or someone who’s related to someone I’ve known earlier. Nathan Schilt, are you related to the former pastor of Loma Linda University Church?? He was a delightful preacher, BTW.
So, please keep up the dialog here. You’re all much too esoteric for me; however, I love reading and pondering your comments. And I even loved Erv Taylor’s article at the top.
Thank goodness for AToday!
On Earth in the year 2016, not a soul is qualified generally, to “judge” another soul. Now, we are qualified to “evaluate” ourselves, and others, to the degree of trying to arrive at any sense of agreement, but under no circumstances should we “judge” their beliefs as being without merit, as the Eternal Book of Life discloses the actual wheat and tares. It is in essence the Book of Truth. Until the day of resurrection, we should refrain from judging others in religious matters. Let the perfect sinless soul do the judging, at their risk. Those who are without sin, let them throw rocks.
earl,
Have you forgotten most of your bible and just present some self-embraced religious notions?
The new testament is about 1/4 of the bible and I suggest you look up the word “judge ” in an exhaustive concordance or web search.
Sorry, but more than several bible verses come to mind that counters your post..including ones voiced by Jesus.
We are generally not discussing the overt acts here that are self incriminating,
such as capital crimes of life and limb, mentally and physically. We are commenting on the religious belief systems.
Well, we see that “judging” must be qualified on some level. But the liberal agenda seem to think they are the ones who will define and qualify exactly what “judging” means.
One comment for Bugs and anyone else who really and honestly wants to know the issue with Adventism and the spirituality it is built on.
It is EGW vs. Paul. And the reason for the difficulty is for more simple than people may think. So, here it is in a nut shell.
Paul builds his whole system of theology and doctrine on the historic event of the death of Jesus and His going into the heavenly sanctuary to start His ministry in heaven vs. the ceremonial law the Jews treasured and clung to for salvation.
EGW does not deny this historic event, but she does not build her theology in this event specifically. Rather, she builds her doctrine and theology on the historical event of Jesus going from the holy place to the Most Holy Place in the heavenly temple in 1844.
Unless you understand the parallel and contrast of her ministry vs. Paul, you are doomed to confusion. Paul would never deny what EGW has stated in light of the timing of her ministry. Neither would EGW deny the emphasis Paul uses for his ministry and theology. But they are simply not the same basis for each one’s doctrine.
If you try to force EGW on to the Paul context, it simply will not fit. Nor will Paul’s doctrine fit the precise timing of EGW. So unless you see the parallel and contrast, you will not know the difference.
I learned at home and from several generations of relatives literally dating back to the time of Abraham Lincoln that the US of A was founded as a “liberal” nation whose constitution was so loosely written that it would allow for change of an organic kind, so the nation would not find itself caught in the grip of its own kind of feudalism.
When it becomes fashionable in any organization simply to impugn by label those judged to be “liberals” or “conservatives,” I think we have a problem. These is nothing intrinsically wrong with observing and being guided by the accumulated wisdom from the past (conservatism); likewise, there is nothing fundamentally injurious about applying lessons from the past and applying them to new vistas and expectations for the future.
Those who may believe that all Truth has been explored already would tend to be conservative; those of us who believe there’s much more to learn, and an eternity in which to learn it, would consider ourselves liberals. Much has to do with one’s experience and outlook in life. Neither is fundamentally right or wrong; any more than doing something with the right hand can be seen as the only correct way to accomplish a task. Though I am right-handed in general, my left hand and fingers are far more agile and flexible and do other tasks far more effectively. I think the right and the left in real life work much the same way….
We were given two hands, and ideally they work best when they work in tandem…
Jeannie, I admire your simplicity; but I do not understand what you mean by a “non-christian profession”. If you served conscientiously and selflessly, especially if you helped to relieve some needy soul,God will bless your efforts. This is truth, even if its not the whole truth.
Kindly describe what is a non-christian profession.
Non-Christian or Christian?
I met a new physician today who began practicing with the group of internists, my PCP. Very nice gentleman. Among many questions getting acquainted with my medical history he asked if I was a Christian. I paused, and replied: “I try to live by Christian principles.” This sums it up for my ideology.
Chris, you have just now discovered that there is no truth? We have been told that that is the conclusion of all real science. Interesting question is, if there is no truth how did we come to know it? Or is this also an “untruth?”
Darrel, science doesn’t determine “truth.” It seeks information and tests hypothesis. Adjustments are encouraged and welcomed (usually). Experience verifies hypotheses to the degree an action based on it succeeds in achieving an expected outcome. Men went to the moon and returned successfully based on an entire collection of propositions that were correct.
Religious conclusions are opinion, hypotheses, not truth, but pipe dreams, without testable possibilities. Different universe. Believe religiously what you want. It doesn’t matter. Try sliding up hill on your sled. That matters, affirmed by experience, a testable outcome.
Bugs,
Why is there still an Israel? Is that just my imagination? Why is the Jewish nation unlike all other nations? Why does the Jew endure?
Why do you say there is an an Israel?
The truth in science is always the extent of our present knowledge; but always subject to further discovery and revelation. One of the finest examples is in astronomy–constantly adding new information, never static.
This is also true in many other areas; crimes, for example. The evidence may point to the criminal without a “shadow of doubt” as in so many previous cases. But lo, and behold! DNA proved unmistakably that he could not have committed the crime of which he was accused!
This is also true in Bible accounts: We now have manuscripts unavailable when the KJV translation was written that are earlier and add new history to the Bible records. Biblical historians and archaeologists have made amazing discoveries in the past 200 years to both prove and give denial to many biblical accounts.
What is the “truth” according to all new manuscripts regarding 2 Cor. 5:21?
Missed the point completely guys:[
Really?
Perhaps Darrel is onto the truth. After 136 replies to the question, what is the
result??
Really? What truth? I’ve been searching for 137 replies.