Reviewing – God’s Prophetic Movement, Message, and Mission and Their Attempted Neutralization by the Devil
by Andy Hanson
Ted N.C. Wilson’s sermon at the 2014 Annual Council – Posted October 11, 2014 (1)
Reviewed by Andy Hanson, November 13, 2014
I was appalled by this “message” to the Adventist worldwide community. Its narcissistic tone is frightening. Relying heavily on quotations from Ellen White, Ted assumes the ability to speak Truth to all those who question his authority. (2) He is entitled to overrule the decisions of those who disagree with him. (3) His lack of empathy is astonishing. (4) He uses fear and threats in an attempt to manipulate the behavior of others. (5) And he demonstrates a lack of remorse for the feelings of those he castigates. (6)
For the complete complement of Wilson religious pronouncements, see footnote (7).
In this Prophetic Movement message, Ted describes his foundational Adventist belief in “sola Scriptura” this way. “It is in that very Word of God that the Lord reveals that His last-day people would be guided by the prophetic gift! The Spirit of Prophecy is a wonderful blessing to lead us back to the Bible and to make clearer its meaning and application in our lives.” Consequently, Ted’s version of reality is strongly influenced by the writings of Ellen White (EGW), as evidenced by the fact that he quotes and paraphrases EGW’s words twenty-four times, and a third of his words (2025 out of 6530) are direct EGW quotes or attributed paraphrases. (8)
The word grace appears only once. It’s used in the phrase, “grace and righteousness of Christ.” The words love and loves appear only in this sentence: “Church members love what the world loves.” Satan or the Devil is referred to twenty-seven times.
In this speech Ted asserts that Seventh-day Adventists are God’s exclusive remnant because they “keep holy” the fourth of the Ten Commandments; subscribe to the literal truth of the first eleven chapters of Genesis, particularly the creation story; and “are guided by “the prophetic gift” of Ellen White. He demonizes Catholics, independent religious thought, historical analysis of the Bible text, and the questioning of the Church’s administrative authority.
I asked a friend and former colleague in Chico State’s Psychology Department to read the transcript of this speech. He returned it to me with some of the following words scribbled in the margin: “grandiose,” “demonizing,” “this sounds Catholic,” ”I thought Christ’s crucifixion was more than an offer,” “the only chosen?” “His family members are on Satan’s hit list because he is who he is?” “my way or hell?” “dictating worship practices?” “you guys are God’s favorite human beings?” “God’s waiting on his probationers?” “Andy, you are ‘dead meat.’”
When I debriefed my friend, I was surprised by his “so what” attitude regarding Ted’s theology. He was acquainted with the beliefs held by other fundamentalist denominations, and wondered at my consternation. But what he said next blew my mind. “The picture of that guy translating the speech into French as if his salvation depends on getting it right is really disturbing. The fact that your President’s words will be translated into hundreds of languages and considered to be God’s word by millions of uneducated and naive listeners is a moral and intellectual tragedy.”
************************************************************************************
Ted’s narcissistic and terrifying world is not the one I live in, and his God is not mine. Even though I was influenced by teachers who shared Ted’s worldview early in my life, I met other Adventists who inhabited a different world, a world of inclusive, joyful worship, whose inhabitants loved and encouraged me to fearlessly find my own way in the world; who lived lives of Christ-like service; who believed that scientific reasoning was God’s gift; who inspired me to ask questions; whose words and deeds defined integrity; and who lived the two great commandments: Love God—meaning: honor God by your willingness to do what is right, using Christ’s life as the moral standard; and Treat Your Neighbor As Yourself—meaning: take care of each other because we are all God’s children.
I’m convinced that C. S. Lewis knew religious authorities like Ted. I’ll close with his words. “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. . . . Those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” (9)
(1) https://www.adventistreview.org/church-news/%E2%80%98god%E2%80%99s-prophetic-movement,-message,-and-mission-and-their-attempted-neutralization-by-the-devil%E2%80%99
(2) The Devil will work “from the inside to weaken the church through dissension, discord, and conformity to the world.”
(3) “God has given us light in regard to the things that are now taking place in the last remnant of time.”
(4) Satan will foster “charismatic and Pentecostal music approaches…rather than focus on truly worshiping God.” Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers, page 470
(5) Satan will use “skepticism about the veracity of the scriptural record of the origin of life and early history,” bringing in “controversy and discord over Bible doctrine.”
(6) “We are in the shaking time, the time when everything that can be shaken will be shaken.” "The Lord will not excuse those who know the truth if they do not in word and deed obey His commands.” Last Day Events, page 173
(7) Satan is: “doing everything he can to attack the Seventh-day Adventist movement”; working “from the inside to weaken the church through dissension, discord, and conformity to the world”; trying “to neutralize our efforts by secular diversions”; absorbing “people in financial deals and materialistic matters”; encouraging “poor health habits and lack of respect for God’s natural laws that enfeeble the mind and benumb the senses”; using “skepticism about the veracity of the scriptural record of the origin of life and early history”; bringing in “controversy and discord over Bible doctrine”; encouraging believers to function “independently from the main body of the church”; suggesting “that reformation within the church consists in giving up our unique doctrines”; scheming “to quell our effectiveness with terrible physical challenges”; attempting to “drown out the proclamation of the Advent message through wars and rumors of wars”; tempting believers “to be so cozy with other religious organizations” that it will neutralize “your own effectiveness through unbiblical ecumenical bonds”; fostering “charismatic and Pentecostal music approaches…rather than focus on truly worshiping God”; and “strengthening [the devil’s]cause by sweeping all into the ranks of spiritualism.”
(8) “Time on this Earth is short…those who are living upon the Earth when the intercession of Christ shall cease in the sanctuary above, are to stand in the sight of a holy God without a mediator.” The Great Controversy, page 425
“Disasters, moral decay, and financial woes in this very country will lead apostate ministers to rally citizens to demand the enactment of the Sunday law, and the world will follow this lead.”
The Great Controversy pages 587, 590, 592 and 607
“God’s last-day people, their faces radiating the presence of the Spirit, hasten from place to place proclaiming the three angels’ messages and working miracles.” The Great Controversy, page 612
“Satan will bring a false revival in those churches under his influence. People will think that God is doing marvelous things among them, but the power is not from God. Through this false revival Satan will spread his influence through Christian churches.” The Great Controversy, page 464
“We are in the shaking time, the time when everything that can be shaken will be shaken.” "The Lord will not excuse those who know the truth if they do not in word and deed obey His commands.” Last Day Events, page 173
“God has given us light in regard to the things that are now taking place in the last remnant of time.” Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers, page 470
“By giving the gospel to the world it is in our power to hasten our Lord’s return.” Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing, page 119
(9) C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/526469-of-all-tyrannies-a-tyranny-sincerely-exercised-for-the-good
One of the primary commands of Jesus to His followers was to cast-out demons. If God is offering us such power that we can command demons, why would a leader in our church be concerned about Satan's attacks more than victories of God's people in His power? That Ted Wilson would preach such a sermon makes me wonder if he hasn't lost sight of the power of God.
There you have it folks. He is the world spokesman for entire SdA church worldwide. As Andy writes, how tragic that it will be replayed to millions of naive and uneducated members who will hear it as the voice of God. But it certainly doesn't represent Christ when He was on this earth who came not condemn but to love His children. Now, the church should be looking for Satan equally in, as well as outside the church.
Elaine, I am glad you always agree with me.
If at any time you become tempted to disagree with me, please know that it's Satan working in you.
LOL
"how tragic that it will be replayed to millions of naive and uneducated members who will hear it as the voice of God" Wow! Do you guys listen to your selves? "Naive and uneducated"? That's how you view the members of the Church? Are you included in that group? Since America only has a Million members in can safely conclude that your comments are primarily aimed at the rest of the World Church especially Asia, Africa, Inter America, South America, and the Middle East. Unless Naive means something else to you it means "showing a lack of sophistication and subtlety or of critical judgment and analysis" So Elaine Nelson the rest of the World (our membership) in your mind lacks the ability to show "sophistication and subtlety" or "critical judgment and analysis"? They are that uneducated? Wow! The level of Western arrogance, and the cheapened view of others I see being displayed on this site is mind blowing! Amazing!
Aparently to those commenters here who long ago left the Adventist church (Adventists Yesterday), those of us who remain (Adventists Today) appear to be naive and uneducated 8-).
Wow Andy – It seems to me that you are way overreacting! "Ted's narcissistic and terrifying world…"? Puh-leez.
I grew up in Ted Wilson's Adventist world. His is pretty typical reformist religious moral rhetoric. Have you read the Old Testament? Have you seen speeches or read the writings of the giants of Protestantism? They are fire breathing specimens of divisiveness, judgment and condemnation. Speeches are given in particular times and circumstances for particular purposes. Why do folks on the Adventist Left always have to smugly psychoanalyze those they demonize?
Wilson's speech is neither appalling nor astonishing. I can close my eyes and feel the phrasing and cadence without even hearing the speech. It has a soporific effect on me. How do his words impact, or threaten to impact, the way you serve Christ or the manner in which your faith community witnesses to the power of the Spirit in its midst? Wilson has no significant coercive authority and he is not running for governmental political office. Are his minions plotting terror attacks in your local church? Please share what it is that has generated such an apoplectic response to Wilson's message.
Are you sure you are using C.S. Lewis honestly? Was he talking about religious leaders? It was my impression that he was referring to political despots (particularly on the Left) when he talked about tyranny exercised for the good of its victims. But I could be mistaken.
A review of Andy's judgemental review
I was appalled by this “message” to the Adventist worldwide community (at least AT world). Its narcissistic tone is frightening. Relying heavily on judgementalism and character assasination, Andy assumes the ability to ascertain the motivations of Ted, which God alone claims to be able to do . (2) His lack of empathy is astonishing. (4) He uses fear and threats, lies, deceit and defamation of character in an attempt to manipulate the behavior of others. (5) And he demonstrates a lack of remorse for the feelings of those he castigates. (6)
In this Ad hominem vitrolic message, Andy castigates Ted for speaking for the majority of adventists in the world. His elitism knows no bounds. Andy time and time again has castigated adventist beliefs in his opinion pieces and yet no one has called him narcissistic even though he exhibits the traits from time to time. Ted's messages resonates with the majority of adventism and most of us pray for him daily so that he is not affected by attacks such as Andy's.
Andy’s narcissistic and terrifying world is not the one I live in, and his God is not mine or the majority of adventists. He accuses Ted of tryranny and yet he was elected quasi democratically and has the backing of the majority of adventism. He exhibits the western teenager stereotype who sulks and lashes out if they do not get their way. The interesting thing is that Ted's speech resonates with the majority of adventism but Andy's article resonates with elitists, ex adventists and anti adventists. the observant reader should note this intersting phenomena as a window to the true motivation with how he views the majority of adventists.
It is richly ironic, Andy, that you wrench from a C.S. Lewis essay – The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment – a quote about tyranny which, in the context of the essay, implicitly repudiates the approach you take in condemning Wilson's message.
Mind you, I am no fan of Wilson, and I don't care for his attempt to play "divide and conquer" within the Adventist Church family. But I object, as would C.S. Lewis, to your feeding the notion that religious fervor is evidence of some kind of deep seated neurosis, to be definitively diagnosed and analyzed by mental health experts. It was this conceit of secular humanism – not religious authorities – to which Lewis addressed his remarks about the tyranny of "compassion.": "…psychology already regards religion as a neurosis. When this particular neurosis becomes inconvenient to the government, what is to hinder the government from proceeding to 'cure' it? Such 'cure' will of course be compulsory; but under the humanitarian theory, it will not be called by the shocking name of Persecution…The new Nero will approach us with the silky manners of a doctor, and though all will be compulsory, all will go on within the…therapeutic sphere where words like 'right' and 'wrong'…are never heard. And thus, when the command is given, every prominent Christian in the land may vanish overnight into Institutions for the Treatment of the Ideologically Unsound, and it will rest to the gaolers to say when (if ever) they are to re-emerge."
Let me emphasize that I am not defending Wilson's message here. Rather, I am concerned that, in your zeal to attack him, you are using weapons of the secular Left that C.S. Lewis accurately prophesied would be used against Christian values and concepts. The quest to find, in sincerely held, fundamentalistic religious statements which threaten no one with loss of liberty, some deep-seated "narcissistic, terrifying" psychopathology frightens me far more than the statements themselves. I fear your analytical approach to Wilson's message, Andy, reflects the type of thinking that leads to "compassionate" state run mental hospitals and re-education camps for religious/faith leaders who call people to acknowledge and obey a higher authority than the state and its elitist enablers. C.f., Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Since I’m in ‘fundamental’ agreement with Wilson, I can’t help but ask why Adventists would be ‘shocked’ that (there is gambling at Rick’s in Casablanca) Wilson is Adventist?
Really what I’d like most of all to know is what did those of you on the Adventist left, who nearly all must have been born into Seventh-day Adventism, and who like Andy must surely have been “influenced by teachers who shared [Ted Wilson’s] worldview early in [their lives], think the “last days” would look like; or should I have added, “when you thought there would be a ‘last days’”? Didn’t you hear that the movements identified in footnote seven (7) would take place? Do you doubt that some are occurring?
I don’t agree with everything Wilson says, or that everything he says is happening is happening as he believes it is; but I could be wrong and he could be right about those few things. (Then again, entertaining the possibility that Wilson may be right about any of this further qualifies some/me as “naïve and uneducated.”)
'In this Prophetic Movement message, Ted describes his foundational Adventist belief in “sola Scriptura” this way. “It is in that very Word of God that the Lord reveals that His last-day people would be guided by the prophetic gift!'
I've had that same mind-numbing argument with members of the SDARM offshoot. When I keep asking them to show me from the Bible, they keep going to Ellen White, and when I keep telling them they can't then claim to uphold sola scriptura, they just don't understand.
We can't have it both ways – we're either sola scriptura or not. Of course it's simply riddiculous because Sister White herself upheld sola scriptura over herself, admitting she was fallible, admitting we will have to 'unlearn' many things, and prohibited using her in public or to override the Bible.
My own reactions posted earlier, were that:
1) Wilson has a very contorted view of how Ellen White plays into sola scriptura. After invoking the latter he devoted much of the rest of his speech to Ellen quotes. And finally circled back to the Bible at the end. Judging by the content of this speech, Wislon gives far too much of his attention to Ellen and far too little to the Bible.
2) Wilson played far too heavily on his fears for his church and his family, and far too little on his faith in the power of Jesus Christ to overcome every Satanic influence. Satan loves nothing better than to have Christains focused on Satan rather than on Jesus Christ. Wilson dove head-first into this tar-pit.
I do not deny that Satan seeks every opportunity to attack us as individuals, as families and as a church. I see ample evidence of this right where I am. I do not need pastors and leaders to remind me about evil. I need pastors and leaders to remind me of the power of God to overcome evil. Far better to deliver a speech that emphasizes the ways that Jesus Christ, and only Jesus Christ, overcomes every one of Satan's assaults and calms every fear.
I need to find peace in the midst of my own storms. Ditto for Wilson. Judging from this speech he is still searching. Studying Ellen quotes about the power of Satan will not produce what he needs. Like the rest of us he will only find what he looks for, and is not likely to find what he is not looking for.
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
Peace I leave with you,
My peace I give unto you.
Let not your hearts be troubled,
Neither let them be afraid.
Jim,
Well said! The last two sermons by Ted Wilson that I heard on 3ABN left me more depressed instead of hopeful because there was so little focus on the power of God and the victories He is giving when and where people seek Him. If he wants to come and spend a couple days working with me in my volunteer ministry, I'll be happy to show him the victories God gives. I greatly prefer talking about how God has worked to overcome evil than the troubles Satan throws in our paths.
"Performance Adventism" is indeed a very discouraging and ultimately depressing place to stay. I hope Ted Wilson doesn't go there himself, albeit too many in his support base are already there.
The more any of us look around the Adventist church the more problems we will find. We all need to spend more time looking-up to Jesus.
Perhaps you are crying peace peace when Jeremiah is trying to warn the people and stir them up from a false sense of security
“I do not need pastors and leaders to remind me about evil. I need pastors and leaders to remind me of the power of God to overcome evil. Far better to deliver a speech that emphasizes the ways that Jesus Christ, and only Jesus Christ, overcomes every one of Satan's assaults and calms every fear.”
Isn’t this yet another false choice setup? We need pastors and leaders to remind us about the power to overcome evil and of the reality and pervasiveness of evil. During the holocaust for example, shouldn’t the Christian pastors and leaders have recognized and ‘reminded’ of evil instead of ignoring it? I believe that whenever evil is ignored it is by default then being accommodated.
Ted Wilson and his theology needs to die out. Classic sectarian fear mongering theology. Us vs them mentality. Satan is lurking around every corner. Me thinks the man needs to be medicated.
Well, it will never die out, Doctorf, because the need to demonize one's opponents is part of human nature. It infects every human endeavor, whether it is politics, religion, or science. Evil is real. It's just that you and I don't see it lurking around all the corners where Wilson is looking.
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why we need to get any more worked up over Wilson's imprecatory psalms than American Catholics do over the Popes' exhortations to abandon contraceptives. Is he winning the hearts and minds of "independent" Adventists? Why is Elaine so discouraged? Why is Andy so terrified? Does Wilson represent a greater threat to them than say ISIS or the mullahs of Iran? Or is there something wrong with me because I see him as acting and speaking within a segment of Adventism that is pretty well sealed off from my Adventist community? What power or influence does he really have over Adventists who wish to remain independent of his influence and agenda?
What should I be discouraged or frightened about, especially since I don't view my salvation or ministry as dependent on what happens in or to the Adventist denomination? I don't get discouraged or frightened by what Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi say, even though I profoundly disagree with them. They are very predictable, and I do what I can, rather unsuccessfully over the past eight years, to minimize their impact on my life. Why not do the same with Wilson's statements?
Nathan,
thanks for pointing out the distorted use of CS Lewis.
He's been self-medicating on EGW too long and should be given some rest from his present duties ASAP.
Just reading portions of his address is so discouraging I can't imagine what it must be to hear his voice with these condemnatory quotations. When horses have plowed so long they are put out to rest in the pasture.
Elaine, i agree. The man is terribly troubled. He should resign immediately, or at least take a 3 month leave of absence. Or the current vp's should relieve him of all duties. They shoot horses, don't they??
wow!!!
You are reeking of so much judgementalism Caiphas aint got nothing on you! You do realise that he is merely reflecting the views of the majority of adventism unless you believe that millions of adventists are also disturbed and troubled? The bible was not kidding when It said that those who stand for truth shall be persecuted.
I have the right to express my ideas.
You have the right to criticize my ideas, and show why you don't like them.
That's the way it works in many parts (not all) of the world.
Any ad hominem comment has absolutely no relevance in this discussion.
The charge of narcissism is an extreme interpretation of Wilsons psychological motivation for his quest that I think doesn't apply. Heroes, one of which he views himself, it appears, often are humbly self-sacrificed for a greater good. Calling him a tyrant based on the reactions of rebels? Ridiculous. He is doing exactly what a leader does. He leads. Yammering goes with the territory.
Wilson, as a good captain , is choosing to go down with the ship. He has two sets of charts and each point to disaster. One is Ellen and the other is science. So, he is doomed no matter if he selects one or the other or even skillfully blends them. (He isn't dumb, I'm sure he knows intimately all the science/religion issues involved). So, by relying on the Ellen one, he demonstrates his preference to be remembered as the Preserver Captain of Historical Adventism rather than the abandoning coward chief who watches from afar as his SS SDA ship flounders and sinks modified by science into "modernism."
Unlike other religious vessels that have made safe made passage through similar shoals the Adventist boat has a petrified steering gear, a rudder without a hinge so that steerage is useless regardless of the maps. And that is where onlookers, outside critics (unlike me having been once on the inside) are clueless. They tend to judge poor Mr. Wilson (i.e., the Chico State guy) by standards formed to measure ordinary conservative enterprises. Most of them were and are not encumbered by a public identity tied to unflinching dogma. (Seventh-day is anchored to a literal, unmodifiable, Word of God). Of course Mr. Wilson can only be seen as a lunatic by them under this miscomprehension. He is guilty of nothing psychotic. He is simply appealing to Ellen, to the ultimate authority, as crazy is it appears to onlookers, even some internal ones. Her record, history and influence on the evolution and finally, ossification of SDA church doctrine cannot be understood without having paddled in her canoe.
Adventism is not an ordinary conservative church. It, from its birth, charted a course of exclusivity, based on a proud view of itself as the last remnant of hope for God's work. None of its wild projections of itself have materialized and its it is paying the price of disappointment (the Second one?) and an inability to gracefully adapt to current realities.
Critics who moan the church Wilson lives in isn't theirs are correct. But they are on the wrong side. He is isn't. As for me, the church he leads is not mine. I made that official about 40 years ago by departing, not in anger, rage or disappointment, but an honest evaluation of where I was and where he and his (it is actually the same) church is. I realized that prophets were just people and have no intrinsic authority on anyone or institution. "Prophet" is a tag placed on humans by humans. However, To Wilson, that is a historical tag critical for the defense of the church essentially established by the prophet.
How will this all work out after the BiG San Antonio meeting? We'll just have to wait and see! As I have speculated elsewhere the Captain and his crew will proclaim victory and the laity will pretend it matters and they, as the financiers, will continue their investors role, de facto winners. Or, just maybe, the third word in the Seventh-day Adventist name will salvage the legitimacy of the first two by Christ's second coming!
This has been interesting reading, and I have found some truth in all of them. I decline to judge Wilson's psychological state, for it would be judging a great many members. He is not neurotic, and anyone who has met him would know that and respond to his friendly demeanor and interest. Neither can I judge his motives, though I am sure he believes he is doing the right thing and as a kind of Jeremiah and telling it as he sees it.
But I don't think he understands the lives and struggles most of us have, nor is he able to stand back and see the issues objectively. Therefore, Andy is correct in pointing out his lack of empathy for the ones he attacks–he is too far removed from them and pushes them even farther away.
As many have expressed, the message given is not one of love and faith in the power of God to change the spirit. And it can't be ignored by Bible readers that Jesus' harshest words were for the religious leaders and their lack of love and understanding.
There is an emphasis on the darker side of faith that makes me wonder of our leaders understand the Gospel. Even quotes from EGW are those based on warnings rather than love. If anyone were to read the writings for emphasis, they would find the much larger percentage of it to be based on God's love for us. Even the substitution doctrine, ignored by the more liberal, is love at its greatest.
Both sides of the spectrum seem wrong in their belief systems to me–they seem devoid of the real meaning of life, love, and salvation. That's my opinion.
(See the Chen blog for an interesting concept of life and how we live it.)
I don't know how many–if they were–of Wilson's quotes were taken out of context, but I share the fear about this sermon being translated into other languages for world consumption. It does not reveal our love for the Gospel nor faith in Christ in the end-times.
Does anyone doubt that Wilson believes he is on the right side of prophecy, or thinks he doesn’t believe that evil forces are bent on destroying the Advent movement and stifling proclamation of the Third Angel’s Message; or doubt he believes in God’s power, or the love of Christ? Does anyone doubt that Wilson prays for wisdom; or doubt that he believes that he is led by the Holy Spirit?
A more accurate statement has seldom been made than when, in The Usual Suspects, the fictional Verbal Kint (Keyser Soze) said “The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.”
For those who think that Wilson is hyperbolic, shrill, or even paranoid, ‘get a clue.’ (I offer similar advice for those who think Adventism is, and will remain, irrelevant.) I’m wondering what the antediluvian cognoscenti/intelligentsia thought of Noah back in the day. Clearly, like Noah, Wilson is quite imperfect. But I am gratified that/when an Adventist believes what Adventism has long preached/taught; and is leading by painting in bold colors.
I am not so much concerned with what Ted Wilson actually believes as with how he presents himself and our beliefs. Adventism was founded on the firm belief that we should take our doctrines only from the Bible, strongly rejecting appeals to traditions and church fathers. Now that we have our own traditions we still need to take our doctrines only from the Bible, strictly rejecting appeals to our own traditions and our own church fathers and mother (spiritual polyandry anyone 8-). Using the Bible primarily to justify his belief in Ellen, then using Ellen as the basis for everything else he says would NOT please or dear departed spiritual mother. Fortunately for all concerned, we do not believe she is in heaven watching us and listening to us.
It is fine to say that Ted Wilson was speaking from the heart to a bunch of his cronies, but then we should not be publishing a transcript of the speech online for the entire world to read. You cannot have it both ways. Ted Wilson is the public face of Adventism today. If he wants to talk in colloquial Advent-speak to his buddies (and a very few women) in the choir, then do not publicize his remarks. If on the other hand you must publicize his speeches, then those of us who are not his choir boys or girls, can be rightly concerned about how he presents OUR church to the watching world.
Sola scriptura means the Bible only, right? Doesn’t this also mean that the Bible is the source through which the Holy Spirit has provided doctrine that is profitable; and that all prophecy/doctrine must be in absolute harmony with what the Bible says? Or does it mean that there are no legitimate prophetic scriptural understandings or interpretations other than what is directly written therein?
I personally don’t think that Wilson should ever say anything to any audience that he would not have any audience hear. I somehow don’t get the impression that he’s given to saying some things that he may be afraid of others hearing.
Complete transcripts are more informative than reports.
Complete transcripts are more informative than reports.
That is why I study his written speeches carefully. And why I mostly ignore the pablum from the GC PR mill.
Sola scriptura means the Bible only, right?
I totally agree. I am not the only one who finds it strange, to say the least, that in a published speech Wilson invokes sola scriptura primarily as a launching pad for a very long list of Ellen quotes.
Doesn’t this also mean that the Bible is the source through which the Holy Spirit has provided doctrine that is profitable; and that all prophecy/doctrine must be in absolute harmony with what the Bible says?
And again I totally agree with this statement. I would go a step further and say that doctrine should be derived from what the Bible says without appeal to extra-Biblical authority.
Or does it mean that there are no legitimate prophetic scriptural understandings or interpretations other than what is directly written therein?
This is a very loaded question. When and where to apply things in the Bible literally vs symbolically vs metaphorically has been debated since before the time of Christ. Jesus and the Apostles used all three methods of applying scripture. I would say that we should give primacy to direct interpretation over derivative interpretation wherever possible.
The more layers of inference, the greater is the opportunity for human misunderstanding and the weaker is the line of reasoning. This is a fundamental principle of logic that many theologians blithely ignore. The fewer assumptions, and the fewer inferences, the stronger the argument.
Unfortunately a few traditional Adventist interpretations rely upon very many layers of inferences and are consequently very weak. Regardless of whatever the GC may vote in committees or sessions, I do not consider doctrines that rely upon deep layers of inferences, to be fundamental. They must be considered secondary.
Arguing for our beliefs primarily based upon Ellen is very weak and error-prone. And that is one of the serious problems I saw in this particular speech. Arguing that these beliefs are not inconsistent with Scripture is a necessary but not sufficient condition. There are all kinds of propositions that are not inconsistent with Scripture but are nevertheless false. Just because Scripture does not negate a proposition does not mean Scripture supports that proposition.
One serious problem is that there are many people wanting to add EGW's writings to the Bible. A participant at Spectrum (spectrummagazine.org), Jeremy VanDieman, even says that the SOP contains the whole Bible, therefore if one reads the SOP, it’s all there.
It seems a way to do away with the Bible and making the SOP the “sola sola Scriptura”… Would this be "pure, refined, and re-defined Adventism?"
Ban her books is the only way to achieve Sola Scriptura.
Perhaps I have missed it here Jim, but do not understand what your answer is to this so-called “very loaded” question. I acknowledge that you have indeed answered the question; but I am not clear if you’re saying that there are or are not legitimate prophetic scriptural understandings or interpretations of Scripture that aren’t Scripture themselves.
I tend to agree with you that “we should give primacy to direct interpretation over derivative interpretation wherever possible” and that “the more layers of inference, the greater is the opportunity for human misunderstanding and the weaker is the line of reasoning.”
But does that mean that there are or are not legitimate prophetic scriptural understandings or interpretations of what is written therein? Maybe that rephrasing helps ‘unload’ the question.
“Just because Scripture does not negate a proposition does not mean Scripture supports that proposition.”
This is true, but in the case of EGW and those interpretations of Scripture that have been adopted as doctrinal, I personally have a comfort level with that which “Scripture does not negate”—because of its concomitant alignment with Scripture—which makes me comfortable to be an Adventist and makes me comfortable with White’s ministry.
Logically, I think that Bugs is on to something in suggesting that Adventists who aren’t comfortable, tend not to make sense.
Jim does engineer talk. Isn't it a form of obfuscation?
I’m wondering what the antediluvian cognoscenti/intelligentsia thought of Noah back in the day.
I'm wondering how Noah talked to his family inside the ark? Did he spend more time warning them that the Devil was trying to destroy them or did he spend more time praising God for saving them? I think they could all hear the howling wind and driving rain. I think they needed their attention turned away from their dire straits to the God who had given them steerage passage on the only life boat to launch.
I say steerage passage because they had to work their way by feeding the animals and forking out the manure every day. Anyone who has spent quality time in a barn knows whereof I speak. They were locked-up in a barn for a year taking care of a bunch of smelly animals. Consdering the alternative they were probably glad to be there, but nevertheless it had to wear on them after a while.
And I doubt they were all that concerned with Adam and Eve and Enoch and Methuselah and doctrinal purity.
For those who think that Wilson is hyperbolic, shrill, or even paranoid
Last time I saw him over 40 years ago he was not shrill. I did not observe that he was hyperbolic or paranoid. I do know someone else from that era who had a chance confrontation with him and understandably has a different assessment than mine. I certainly need a pass for some of the things I did in my school days and no doubt he does as well.
All I can observe now are his published speeches and articles and actions. I routinely ignore the PR spin because it is so patently fawning and self-serving that it tells me more about the authors than about the subject. I have gotten various reviews from others who have met him more recently. Doubtless you have met him more recently? Do his speeches accurately represent him? Do they accurately represent God and/or the Devil? Do they accurately represent OUR (not his) church?
Does anyone doubt that Wilson believes he is on the right side of prophecy, or thinks he doesn’t believe that evil forces are bent on destroying the Advent movement and stifling proclamation of the Third Angel’s Message; or doubt he believes in God’s power, or the love of Christ? Does anyone doubt that Wilson prays for wisdom; or doubt that he believes that he is led by the Holy Spirit?
I actually agree with you. Still, do we have any example of Jesus or the Disciples ever focusing more than passing attention on Satan? Even when Jesus was tempted by Satan himself it was only for a short time after a 40-day fast in the wilderness. In that short period he answered Satan with scripture. Both our ability to differentiate between good and evil and the power to overcome evil derive from the same time spent with God. Nowhere are we told to pay attention to evil. So, why would Ted Wilson draw our attention to the attacks of Satan instead of the power of God and the victories He gives us over Satan? The power of God is so magnificent and the things He does to give us victories are so amazing that I can arrive at only one conclusion to explain why he would be expending any energy highlighting Satan's attacks: that he has lost sight of the power of God. So I think the next GC session would be an appropriate time for him to step aside and let someone who is more focused on the power of God step into the office he holds.
I think the next GC session would be an appropriate time for him to step aside and let someone who is more focused on the power of God step into the office he holds.
Another possibility would be that his keynote address at GC 2015 should focus on God's amazing provision for our every need, individually and as a church. Then move-on to the power of the Holy Spirit to draw us together in unity. Then lead everyone in a season of earnest prayer that God would manifest His power in this Session, and the Spirit would draw us together despite our differences, and that everyone present would experience the peace that passes understanding.
Far more than another spate of Ellen quotes, this might spark true revival and reformation from the top down.
I like that idea. Sometimes even I forget that God's primary focus is on redeeming and transforming us. For him to have such an attitude change could be just what the church needs.
If revival and reformation is to start at the top (which they seldom do) it is necessary for leaders to allow God to redeem and transform them (which they seldom do).
Among his early moves after being elected, Ted Wilson set about to do some (arguably necessary) house-cleaning in the Mother Ship at his home town of Silver Spring. To an outside obsever who knew several of the insiders it seems that the agenda for purges had at least as much to do with idological purity as with actual job performance. The results of the purges were arguably a mixed bag. Some replacements may have done better but others did not fare so well.
All in all very little changed in the culture of the Mother Ship as a result of the purges, except that a lot of other people in important positions began to wonder who might be next. I attribute the dramatic shift to excessive fawning over Ted and his family in the Adventist Review, to this as much as to anything else.
Having spent a fair amount of my high tech career at fairly high levels in major corporations, this was entirely predictable. To many executives, when given a new position, immediately set about to reorganize. That is one of the few lvers that executives can actually pull (another being control over budgets.) Too many of the reorganizations that I have seen id not actually result in constructive change. They were as likely to result in operation chaos and confusion.
It is far easier to break things in any organization than to fix them. And when you get a control freak at a high level (and there are many out there), after a few "executions" everyone else starts running scared. For many this produces compulsive fawning over the boss, laughing at every joke he (or she) makes, listening obsequiously to every little tidbit or anecdote, not daring to ever disagree, etc. None of which actually improves anyone's job perfoemance.
By trying so hard, (apparently) to "fortify the bulwarks" of Adventism Mr. Wilson will – sadly – likely isolate himself from the larger community of Believers. Sure there will be some who rally around him in this little crusade. But he is heading for a dark and disappointing place. I know, for I was there once.
Whatever comes of this let us leave no doubt that he is welcome back to the larger community at any time. And let’s just say here that while Adventism has, (I believe) gathered and saved some valuable perspectives to contribute to the world of religious ideas not every “Adventist” idea is valuable, and – perhaps even more important to remember – the Good News is not dependant on Adventism.
After Wilson’s first speech following his inauguration as Prez I said that he was going to either, 1) Resign before completing his term, or 2) Split the Church.
One would be good for the Church; the other would be a disaster!
I still wonder which one will happen first…
Pray tell what larger community are you talking about?? I would actually like to invite you and Geroge to the actual larger community of actual SDAs
It is amazing to see the metaphor of having ones cake and eating it too is so loudly being demonstrated as I see in the critics on this subject. You want Ellen to be the prophet but not when it is inconvenient. You want Sola Scriptura to be queen for a day, but just for the day it is convenient. You want to crucify the guy who has the clearest picture of what the Adventist church is while promoting the same version in a different nomenclature with the deceit that yours is better. You wish to ignore the categorical defense she makes of Sola Scriptura except when you wish to harmonize current scientific thought with what she said. You want to pretend the church has a fine foundation with a blurry, neo-interpretation of creation. There is a conflict migraine lurking there!
Try as hard as you want, you cannot have an SDA Church without Ellen blowing the wind of its life into the sails. You can only argue with Wilson's choice of Ellen's quotes, not the authority and the creative power she represents. You can't get rid of her which you have to do to provide an alternative to Wilson's propositions. You can't have a "Seventh-day" mandate without her version of Scripture Alone. Wilson stands with Ellen on the high ground on this fact.
And the obvious visible contradiction to an outsider like me is that when you marshal scriptural defenses (analysis of the psychology of the antediluvians bobbing around on the stinking ark, as an example) to your rescue you have joined Wilsons band by agreeing to the literal interpretation of the Bible. When you search and find the "Holy Spirit" as the tool in support of your position, your argument is not substantive, just over who has the bigger hammer.
Unless you include Ellen's work as scripture, Sola Scriptura is a pipe dream in Adventism. Only for the sake of argument has there ever been a separation of the two.
To have Adventist cake, you must have Ellen. And Wilson.
Ellen White I suspect would be horrified to learn that there are those who feel the Adventist church could not exist without her. If it is true that “being an Adventist” requires an acceptance of the inerrancy of Ellen White then I would suggest that Adventism’s relevance for many is limited.
Those who truly believe that Ellen is the foundation of their faith, will eventually leave the church as did Bugs-Larry (like Canright, Rea and countless others) when this foundation was shaken, or they will do as Ellen herself did, and learn to look beyond any human (including herself) to Jesus Christ the God-man.
Let us look to Jesus who is the source and the purpose and the completion of our faith.
Jim I said she is the foundation of the Adventist faith. Not mine. Never was. Why don't you address that assertion here? As a feeble smoke screen, you continue to mischaracterize my exodus motives. (Briefly, I took an intellectual journey, a ten year review of Adventism, found it wanting and departed, angry at no one, never felt mistreated, wrote no anti-Adventist tracts of books, and continue to have good Adventist acquaintances). Or at the very least by lumping me with, "Rea, Canright and countless others," you seem to find a swipe-of-the hand dismissal of us "backsliders" as more effective, maybe less threatening, in the aggregate.
I think your reasons for hanging on is a real mystery. I have been totally open in previous posts but my departure from Adventism and the process. With your scientific knowledge, education, and experience I find it incredulous you could remotely subscribe to mainline Adventism (represented by Wilson) as it appears you do. That is, Sabbath as a mandate and the boat load of accompanying accoutrements (including your call to faith) based on the Scriptures as the revealed, spoken, Word of God. My speculation is that you have heavy investments financially, socially, officially, and historically that are the catalysts of your adherence. Actually, I don't really care. I never prod anyone to leave a faith they find valuable for their wellbeing. I just have an ongoing interest in why the issues that motivated me to experience new vistas don't have the same effect for others. You haven't said so, but I feel certain you have had many associates travel my road. What about them?
I am sorry if I misunderstood or misrepresented you. That was not my intention.
You like to write in riddles and analogies, which can be entertaining but can also make it difficult to determine what you are actually saying. I must have taken your references to your escape from the "Ellen coccoon" too seriously. I concluded (perhaps erroneously) that you must have actually lived for some time inside that coccoon. Did you escape from inside that coccoon, or like me did you evade and avoid ever becoming trapped there? Or did you actually live inside the "Ellen coccoon" without it becoming the foundation of your faith? Or did you discover that you never had any faith and therefore no foundation for your faith?
You have told me what you were NOT saying about your (present or former?) faith, but left me wondering what you ARE saying about your (present of former?) faith.
My many associates who are now former Adventists have traveled different spiritual roads. I think that a fair number of them probably discovered they never really had any faith. Others decided their faith was mis-placed. Still others seriously resented the authority trips of their parents and teachers, and threw-out the baby with the bath-water. I am not sure how your spiritual journey went. You have shared with us where you are and a bit how how you got there. Perhaps you never actually sorted-out where you were and simply deicded to find a happier place somewhere else?
ronc: Painting Ellen as an innocent bystander is a proposition without value. So what? Frist of all, it can't be proven or disproven. (I'm sure one could add to the bulging, mindless libraries of compilations selectively harvested from her writings to argue the point). How she viewed herself is immaterial. Her assigned role by doting followers is the key to my assertion that her work in Adventism is effectively on par with the Scripture. As the announced chairlady of the "spirit of prophecy," as the alleged inheritor of the mantle from the seers of the Bible, she functions as the main pillar of Adventism with an imputed version of inerrancy. If not her, who? And if you want to say her work is a kind of qualified errant but Scripture isn't, then she is just another religious guru, among tens of thousands, with opinions on about everything. And if you want to demonstrate that Adventism can nourish itself on Scripture, Sola Scriptura, impound the millions of her published works for ten years, redact her name from all other Adventist publications and documents, and see what happens when no one knows who she is or was.
Yes, mistake free or mistake prone, in either event, her relevance is marginal. Outside the sound proof chamber of Adventism it is worse, no one gives a hoot.
There are people who "can’t think out of the box.”
Then, there are those who "can’t think out of the boox”…. the red boox…
Nat,
Here is the C.S. Lewis quote in context. I look forward to your apology.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)
One has to suffer hysteria to even misapply this C.S. Lewis quote to Wilson. He has no police power. There are no "victims." And no potential ones. He can't impose "hell on earth," unless, of course, keeping Adventism what it has always been is some sort of hell (see my next paragraph). Tyranny is defined as "cruel or unjust use of power." If he were to change course and announce the adoption of a mythical version of creation wouldn't that be cruel to the very name of Adventism which then would lose its mandate, the reason for Sabbath keeping?
I grew up feeling I was living in a sort of a parent imposed hell. Sabbath was cruel and unjust. The Sabbath sunset event marked a sense of death and life, a weekly 24 hour prison confinement as a child. I was peppered with fear mongering about the persecution on the horizon from that %^Y&*## papacy and the %^&**@^%^ pope whom we could only escape by running to the "rocks and mountains". (I lived near the Colorado mountains so figured we had a chance of making it safely there but wasn't sure how we'd get enough clothes there to survive winter). I scanned out the windows of my Academy Bible class fearfully hoping not to see the "cloud the size of a man's hand" barreling down, where DA JUDGE was certainly going to "weigh my balance" and then abandon me as he made his return trip. I was sent to a public school for the 8th grade where I felt I was the oddest ball in the school since all the fun stuff happened on Friday night and Saturday, but not for me. Didn't stay long, back to church school, whew.
So I graduated from an Adventist college, having pretty much put away these "childish things." Became a minister. Then decided I didn't need the SDA church to live my life and left. You can do the same. Or stay.
Wilson has no guns or thought police in waiting, can't impose anything on anyone. Whatever is decided at San Antonio, you won't see any changes. The SDA church at its core is what it always has been. Members will continue to make their faith accommodations and adjustments in the mind and will continue to practice their faith according to their conscience. It’s a tempest in a teapot.
Bugs,
I’m in agreement with you as to your assessment of the dilemma in which some of Wilson’s critics find themselves.
What I don’t understand however is—given what you have since divulged about the traumatic aspects of your ‘Adventist’ upbringing—how or why you ever denied being traumatized.
What in the world did you think that I meant when I concluded that you had indeed been traumatized by Adventism/Adventists?
Fortunately, to put it mildly, God’s love and grace are sufficient for us all. You’re apparently bright enough to appreciate this.
(Is that why you’re still hangin’ around? Of course you must necessarily deny this—just as you’d initially denied being traumatized. I suppose that’s OK—as long as you don’t deny appearing to be bright:-)
That was childhood stuff that I figured every SDA kid suffered. I understand you and others have to ascribe absenting Adventism a result of trauma of some kind. I am aware it isn't possible for you, in your wildest dreams, in the most extreme stretch of your imagination, to accept that one can simply take ten years during a ministry to intellectually evaluate the system and end by leaving it behind, after all, the most wonderful message the world has ever heard! In your mind, there has to be some psycho reason for departing the "truth."
Steve, if I knew your story I could find evidence of trauma as the glue that holds you to your religious system. If you maintained you are SDA because you like it, I wouldn't believe it. I would speculate you are so fearful of an angry god, Superguy, and the threat of hell (at least you would burn yourself out!)you wouldn't dare deviate. Or that you don't have the capacity to see the fallacy of your dogmas. I would say you are addicted to your belief system and even intervention wouldn't budge you out of it.
You apparently assume everyone is exactly like you and therefore would have to suffer trauma to make an exit move. I have no power or intention of disabusing of your myth. So, keep watching, you may find more evidence of my "trauma."
I remember the post hypnotic suggestion of orthodox Adventism, before I exited, that "some of the brightest lights will go out." So my bright 🙂 light is not so much now (:-. And that may be why I am still hangin" around."
Bugs,
I’ve said this before, but I used to argue against the entire scriptural meta-narrative. I was indulged in this by authority, particularly my Seventh-day Adventist father, in youth. Perhaps the fact that my father wasn’t raised an Adventist contributed to his approach. (I’m ‘fourth generation’ on my mother’s side.) I was allowed and encouraged to think for myself about everything—that’s my problem; clearly I was over indulged with this.
I’ve never, ever, said or thought that you left Adventism because of trauma. Instead I have always thought that the bitterness/vitriol that you have since exhibited toward Adventism is a result of trauma (that you now admit was experienced in childhood). What’s so hard to understand about that? Threats of hell, and all that, must have had a lingering effect on you as they have had on many others. This isn't necessarily why you left, but it is clearly why you linger in bitterness and why bitterness lingers with you.
Why are you denying the painfully obvious? (I know this ticks you off man, but that’s because you know it’s true. You’re too bright not to know it.)
Quite clearly I’m no shrink or anything. I’m just an Adventist lifer who has seen this same thing with many others. I’m also not criticizing you either, my brother. You’ve been traumatized; so criticizing you would be tantamount to blaming the victim.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry or pour an adult beverage in reading your replies, Stephen. I don't have a clue half the time what you are saying and the other half you don't seem to have read what I said because it has had no effect. But, I am, nevertheless entertained by your analysis of my psyche. So, I encourage you to keep perusing my posts and request you please report back all advances in your comprehension of me! I need all the help I can get!
Yeah, right…you have no clue what I’m talking about. (Try laughing instead of crying.)
We have things in common; we both need all the help we can get!
Andy, you are right on the money.
Ted Wilson is trying to make his position at the top stronger and more powerful than most prior Presidents did.
I don't see you as overreacting; rather seeing clearly what is behind the curtains.
Great and accurate analysis!
Ted Wilson is trying to make his position at the top stronger and more powerful than most prior Presidents did.
You are ignoring or unaware of much prior church history. There is no shoratge of examples of prior GC presidents wielding more authroity than Ted Wilson is ever likely to wield. This is very much a pendulum that swings back and forth. The period of oscillation is perhaps 30 years, although I have not attempted to measure it very precisely.
In the 1980s there was a very strong GC President named Neal C. Wilson. In the 1950s there were also some strong GC Presidents (eg Figuhr). Ditto for the 1880s (eg George Butler) and the 1910s (eg A G Daniells), etc. My estimate of 30 years has a causal explantion. When one generation of nominating committes (composed primarily of Adventist Cardinals) sees things going too far in one direction they tend to over-correct. Then the next generation sees things going too far in the other direction they tend to over-correct. So the half-wave tends to correlate with the duration of the various Cardinals' tenures on the nominating committee.
To this point Ted has not attained the power or longevity of his father. We must understand that his role model for a GC President was his father who was probably the most powerful GC President in at least a generation. When his father was finally voted out of office (and that not without a fair amount of contention in Indianapolis as I recall), the Adventist Cardinals of that generation said to themselves "never again". But never only means never in my generation.
And as a "Senator for life" Neal kept an office at the Mother Ship in Silver Spring for many years after. Unlike Jan Paulsen who quietly packed-up and returned home to Norway. And Ted Wilson ascended to the Adventist Curia while his father was still hanging around in the role of "Senator for life". For the Wilson family Silver Spring IS home. There is no other home to go back to.
We can always send him to Malta…
A review of Andy's judgemental review
I was appalled by this “message” to the Adventist worldwide community (at least AT world). Its narcissistic tone is frightening. Relying heavily on judgementalism and character assasination, Andy assumes the ability to ascertain the motivations of Ted, which God alone claims to be able to do . (2) His lack of empathy is astonishing. (4) He uses fear and threats, lies, deceit and defamation of character in an attempt to manipulate the behavior of others. (5) And he demonstrates a lack of remorse for the feelings of those he castigates. (6)
In this Ad hominem vitrolic message, Andy castigates Ted for speaking for the majority of adventists in the world. His elitism knows no bounds. Andy time and time again has castigated adventist beliefs in his opinion pieces and yet no one has called him narcissistic even though he exhibits the traits from time to time. Ted's messages resonates with the majority of adventism and most of us pray for him daily so that he is not affected by attacks such as Andy's.
Andy’s narcissistic and terrifying world is not the one I live in, and his God is not mine or the majority of adventists. He accuses Ted of tryranny and yet he was elected quasi democratically and has the backing of the majority of adventism. He exhibits the western teenager stereotype who sulks and lashes out if they do not get their way. The interesting thing is that Ted's speech resonates with the majority of adventism but Andy's article resonates with elitists, ex adventists and anti adventists. the observant reader should note this intersting phenomena as a window to the true motivation with how he views the majority of adventists.
A Short Review of Tapiwa Mushaninga’s Review of Andy’s Review:
Since when does Tapiwa speak for “the majority of Adventists?” Based on what?
Writing an ad hominem post to complaint about Andy’s “Ad hominem vitrolic message?” It sounds odd…
Well, at least he acknowledges that TW “was elected quasi democratically.” Though it compares to saying that a woman is “quasi pregnant”…
An even shorter review of George's review of My review of Andy's review
The majority of adventists who believe in all our fundamental beliefs that's the majority I am talking about.
In defence of Tapiwa, I suspect he does speak for the majority of Adventists. The fact he writes from Africa, where the Church's sense of gravity is now moving together with South America, seems to highlight the fact. The fact that Tapiwa even engages in this site seems to indicate he is even probably one of the more 'liberal' brethren from the south – let liberal American Adventists choke on that thought.
Whether liberal American Adventists like it or not, their demographic seems to be dying. Both their liberalism and their Americanism. I must confess I don't entirely like the direction of this myself, but I have at least come to accept the reality of it.
Thus, as far as I am concerned, Tapiwa probably does come closest to speaking for the 'majority' of Adventists in this place. And his support of Wilson highlights something as plain as day – Wilson was elected because the majority support him.
You can of course disagree with Tapiwa – I do. But you are in effect disagreeing with the 'majority'. Don't confuse the issues.
It appears to me that the loudest noise of criticism aimed at Wilson is from the rebels who have either already abandoned traditional Adventism and either don't know it, or think they are wiser the remnants, or simply think the Adventist mountain should come to them. If they succeeded some new lines would have to be placed in the baptismal certificate.
(1) Since we have no Scriptural mandate for Sabbath observance, we recommend you do it anyway for whatever reason you like unless you like another one better or even none at all.
(2) Since Scripture is metaphor, the second coming is a pipe dream that will never happen, so don't worry about it.
(3) The organization has a new name reflecting this new reality, The Seven Day Something or Other.
Bugs I obviously disagree with your three points. However, I do appreciate your interesting perspective on this. You seem to be suggesting those complaining about President Wilson, who I assume you especially mean Andy, have already left Adventism and just don't know it? So they should stop complaining and either get in-line with Wilson or get out of the Church? Is that your view? I suspect Wilson himself might agree with that assessment.
Steve, how would you word revise the statements in the Baptismal Certificate to accommodate your view?
Revelation 18: Brings to light, NEW LIGHT! From the "angel" the 7th Angel to the 7 Churches…
~Rev 18:1 And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory.
Rev 18:2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
Rev 18:3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.
Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
THEN: The division is decided! Who is rejoicing? Heaven, Holy Aspostles and His Prophets? Who is "HER" who has the blood of prophets and saints on her hands? May I suggest, on the last day of atonement, Jesus will place ALL the SINS on the HEAD OF LUCIFER…the goat that has escaped Judgment…is going out like a roaring Lion, seeking whom he may devour…
~Revelation 18:20 Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her. (God has avenged His Holy Apostles and Prophets)
~Revelation 18:24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.
Andy –
Your insistence on returning to the spoor of your infelicitous C.S.Lewis reference leaves me slack-jawed.
You quoted from an essay originally published by C.S. Lewis in The Twentieth Century: an Australian Quarterly Review. Its title was "The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment." In this essay, Lewis contended against the "humanitarian" philosophy of justice that saw crime as a disease/psychopathology to be diagnosed, quarantined if necessary, and cured, rather than as just desert or legitimate retribution for moral offenses against the public conscience. The tyranny he refers to is the ominous power of a state and its elitist enablers to assume enormous authority over its citizens through verbal deception. The means by which he envisions this will be accomplished in the context of the criminal justice system is refocusing the objects of criminal justice on deterrence and cure "for the good of society" rather than on retribution and punishment to serve the ends of justice. How can you honestly argue that C.S. Lewis is using the term "tyranny" in anything other than a political sense?
You can read the essay, as well as commentaries online. So I will not go into depth here. Suffice it to say that no reasonable person can conclude from the context of the larger essay, that the quoted language from C.S. Lewis has any remote bearing on cultic, prophetic rhetoric used by religious zealots to purify the church. Lewis is, if anything, a kindred spirit of those who seek to preserve fundamentalistic concepts of evil and sin against the repressive tolerance of "enlightened" collectivist social engineers who would take such judgmental, condemnatory concepts out of circulation. Whether he, as a non-SDA Christian, would see evil lurking behind every challenge and doubt raised to our "unique doctrines" is doubtful.
So go read the entire essay, Andy, and then please explain to me why you feel I should apologize for pointing out that you misused C.S. Lewis as authority for your crusade against Ted Wilson.
So Bugs says, you're all like Wilson, so why should you be surprised. And Nate denies that CS Lewis had a problem with well intentioned moralists who try to force others to do what they are sure is "right", no holds bared. ~~~~It looks to me like Andy had it right down the middle, when he is attacked from both sides of the argument! Prophets are not honored, Andy, but let me say at least thank you, for showing that our Emperor if not naked, at least has on some very frightening clothes.
I have known lots of Adventists leaders and preachers and teachers in my 68 years from Branson to Figur to R.R. Bietz, Les Hardinge, Jan Poulson, Robert Olson, Graham Maxwell, Jack Provonsha, Wilbur Alexander, Bill Loveless, Hanz Heinz, Edward Heppenstahl, Morris Venden, Lou Venden, HMS Richards Senior and Junior, Bill Loveless and Neil C. Wilson who knew me and my wife by name and patrimony, as he knew thousands of Adventists.
These great Adventists were right and left and center to my own views, and all of them had a positive influence on me even when I disagreed with some of their opinions and political decisions.
However NONE of them would ever preach a sermon like Neil's son did. Elder Wilson's sermon and approach is fear and retreat and it does frighten me for this church. It is not Classic Adventism, it is not Historic Adventism, it is surely not Progressive Adventism. It is Pathologic Adventism– the same kind that thinks women belong only in the bed and in the kitchen; that yesterday's answers are suitable to today's problems; and that being "right" is more important than being kind, generous, gracious, and loving, and that you can't trust others to be right, if they disagree with your ideas they should be manipulated and controlled.
It is the Pathology that says, "common Adventists like those coming to General Conference can't be trusted on their own to not choose to drink coffee. So we superior moral leaders who have the right standards, will buy out the concessionaires to make sure this temptation is not placed before the weak willed "ordinary" Adventist God has asked us to control." It is the manipulation those who continue to see evidence that this world is a lot older than 6,000 years and that the Bible might need retranslation in face of the evidence they think they see, well we will just have to set up a conference by invitation and not invite any of those "weed sowers" who might disagree with we heaven sent defenders of the faith, and invite them as soon as we get this voted by the GC, to leave this church and its educational institutions.
It's not that I am bothered if Elder Ted Wilson has different ideas about truth than I do, but it bothers me if he tries to prevent me from differing from him by calling me not an Adventist, or that he would purge and fire all Adventist teachers, preachers, administrators, scientists, who dare think more broadly and widely than he does.
C.S. Lewis seems to me to be talking about the danger of a powerful man who enforces his beliefs on others because they are "good for us" in his moralistic and megalomanic way. I see no reason to not apply a warning like that to our present top church administrator.
In fact C.S. Lewis fictionalizes just such a religious leader in his "That Hideous Strength" as the Reverend Straik, who with "bitter sincerity" says, "Do not imagine…that I indulge in any dreams of carrying out our programme without violence. There will be resistance. They will graw their tongues and not repent..It is no part of our witness to preseve that organisation of ordered sin which is called Society…sweep away all idea of cooperation…Does clay co-operate with the potter? You have no choice..there is no turning back…" That is the attitude CS Lewis fleshes out in "Reverend Straik." That is the attitude that frightens Andy and frightens many classic, historic, mainline, dedicated, but progressive Adventist like me.
Jack –
It is not like you to misrepresent what others say. You know quite well that I said nothing remotely resembling the suggestion that C.S. Lewis had no problem with well-intentioned moralists who try to force others to do what is right -no holds barred." That is a gross mischaracterization of what I said. As phrased, I can't imagine that anyone would have no problem with the canard by which you implicitly demonize me.
My only point – one you did not address – was that the C.S. Lewis essay from which Andy quoted did not reflect a concern with religious leaders. I presume you did not read the entire essay, or you would not describe his point so simplistically in your penultimate paragraph. Your attempt to rescue Andy by changing the topic to another work by C.S. Lewis is a transparent dodge. I'm sure that C.S. Lewis had much to say about the misuse and abuse of religious authority. It's just that he didn't say it in the essay quoted by Andy.
There is a world of difference between religious leaders exhorting members of a voluntary organization, with no political power, to embrace doctrinal purity, and political leaders using the authority of the state and the rule of law to impose their moral beliefs on society. Failing to recognize that crucial distinction trivializes the nature of tyranny and exerts a chilling effect upon legitimate prophetic voices in the church.
Whoa Councelor, we're not arguing about you. I did write what I thought I heard you say, so you can be thankful for the feedback from your reading audience. But my point was not did CS Lewis want Andy to use or misuse the quotation he applied to this religious leader, but that CS Lewis understood the problem of religionists who not only exort us, but actually have taken (in the GC coffee folley) and are taking (in published intentions and manipulative actions) stepts to extort Adventists into following his "bitter sincerity". I think Bugs gets what I was trying to say in his post below.
Jack, I confess to not having read Wilsons sermon in question. So I am eligible for criticism. Your statement alerts me to the reason for him being targeted beyond the foundational issues of the church, in other words, character and motivation. The issue is more complex than I first thought, with the possibility the C.S. Lewis illustration has an appropriate application.
From my perch overlooking the scene, I see an organization, with which I am in almost totally at odds on a dogma level, enduring an assault on its very foundation with him as the defender.
From the fifty five years of my past adult experience I have learned that my prediction of dire results are seldom realized, replaced by unintended consequences, or nothing at all. So in this case both you and I could easily be confounded. On that we will just have to wait and see.
Yes, of course my fears may be exagerated, but I have tried for the past 4 years to put a happy face on what I read and hear, and I hate being a grumpy old conspiratist. I do trust my sisters and brothers to do the right thing and I do think Christ loves his church, including those of us in the Adventist church. We paranoid people are only paranoid when the dangers aren't there.
NONE of them would ever preach a sermon like Neil's son did. Elder Wilson's sermon and approach is fear and retreat and it does frighten me for this church. It is not Classic Adventism, it is not Historic Adventism, it is surely not Progressive Adventism. It is Pathologic Adventism
Well Jack, I am wondering if you listened to the sermons back when you were a boy? Or were you in Africa with your missionary parents and simply missed-out on Pathological Adventism back then?
There was definitely a pathological fringe in Adventism when I was a boy. My father pastored some churches where they were a strong contingent. I had one church school teacher who came from this contingent. He could spout the darkest Ellen quotes and paraphrases by the hour. I didn't believe what he was saying so I started reading her books and found that he was using her very selectively. And there were revivalist ministers from high ranks whose camp meeting sermons were mostly taken from Ellen, for better and for worse.
I see the (second or third) world Adventist church as being culturally about half a century behind the "first world" church. This is a mixture of good and bad. As there are many things in our culture that I would not wish to defend, so there are things in their cultures I would not wish to defend. But it is a fact that the majority of the worldwide church have voted for a leader whose attitudes and methods reflect more of their vision of Adventism. To some of us this may seem anachronistic – a throwback to the 1950s. But it is where the overwhelming majority of the worldwide church resides today.
To our brothers and sisters who live in those cultures, I understand that it is easy for you to tsk-tsk the "backslidden" condition of the church of my part of the world. I would warn you that when you look at us you are probably looking at the church of your own grand-children. All of the empowerment and upward mobility that Adventism offers to you and your children will bear our fruit in your grand-children. If you do not like this prospect, then pray earnestly for Jesus to come back before your grand-children grow up.
Remember the common epitaph:
As your are so once was I
As I am so you shall be
“By trying so hard, (apparently) to "fortify the bulwarks" of Adventism Mr. Wilson will – sadly – likely isolate himself from the larger community of Believers.”
As Tapiwa Mushaninga asked (you Ronc), “Pray tell what larger community [of Believers] are you talking about”?
(When I last checked, the Inter-American Division had more than three times as many members as has the North American Division.)
I am really wondering why ‘the Adventist left’—or those who seem to quite vehemently oppose Wilson—have the (mistaken) impression that “the larger community of Believers” sees many things much differently than Wilson does.
The following is directed at American SDAs who appear to remain somewhat in denial: it might be advisable for some to consult Google or your local telephone directories, and perhaps consider a visit to some other Seventh-day Adventist fellowships in your vicinity.
Steve Ferguson is absolutely correct about this. Anyone thinking that Wilson got elected against the will of the SDA majority should take the free advice offered above. The church has changed demographically; which unfortunately perhaps makes a ‘split' a fait accompli. (In my view, it perhaps makes predicted persecution an even more plausible possible future scenario.)
We often speak of ourselves as a "Remnant" and with that humble phrase I have no problem, except to add that there a number of sub-remnants within the Adventist community. For example, I trace my spiritual lineage far, far back to northern Germany, to the land of Luther not far from Wittenburg itself, and my upbringing as an Adventist has been highly grace-oriented.
This is not true of many who sit in the pew with me, many of whom spring from a Methodist-style remnant and find in Ellen White's earlier writings greater comfort and spiritual sustenance (Ellen White, at least during a major portion of her ministry, clearly favored a Methodist narrative, and only later in life began meditating deeply on a more grace-oriented style of remnancy.)
By far the brightest brand from the burning these days, however, springs from the Roman Catholic tradition, and this remnant is as viable as any other, except that its anecdotes and narrative has a Catholic flavor, a different zeitgeist in particular in regard to the nature of the ministry of Ellen White.
These are, in effect, various "languages" we speak in our denomination, and from time to time presidents arise who are more fluent in one or the other. But it would be fairly short-sighted of me, as a neo-Lutheran Adventist, to declare that only my views are "truly Adventist" and that only Ellen White's writings that appeared after her husband's death in the 1880s are "truly Adventist."
Perhaps this is an essential message of the Adventist independent press, that Adventists represent a remnant of highly mixed cloth, not all of which is made of the same fiber. Perhaps that's why we pull apart, at times, "when we are all wet." It's not that one fabric is better or worse than the rest, but that our "fundamental points of priority" are still somewhat different. There is, for example, a fairly large "Mennonite Remnant" in our midst with views culturally quite divergent from any other norm.
Whether we must all standardize our Adventist tailoring to reach the kingdom is something I seriously doubt, for we will continue to bring in new members from a wider and wider diversity of "remnancies" until the very end of time (if I understand Adventist eschatology correctly). That's why it's so important to celebrate the diversity of our religious heritages, as well as our genealogical diversity. The "Adventist distinctives" are actually quite few and far between. On these we are pretty well agreed, by and large. The problems begin when we start pointing to the remnant cloth and declaring certain patterns within that fabric to be superior, or more authentic, than the rest…..
I have some conceptual issues with an organizational entity positioning itself as “the remnant.” My thinking is that “the remnant” represents a people, but an organization isn’t necessarily representative of a people, or vice versa.
Don’t get me wrong, I do believe that the remnant should indeed comprise an oversampling, if you will, of Seventh-day Adventists; but that’s only due to message exposure.
Great post, Ed!
Yes, it was an excellent post Ed, although I didn’t quite agree with it; it was well reasoned and presented well. What I think you’ve described are different iterations of Adventism, none of which have anything to do with the remnant concept; or at least no remnant concept about which I’ve ever heard or been told. In other words, a brand or iteration of Adventism doesn’t necessarily translate as being a brand or iteration of ‘the remnant.’
“By far the brightest brand from the burning these days, however, springs from the Roman Catholic tradition, and this remnant is as viable as any other, except that its anecdotes and narrative has a Catholic flavor, a different zeitgeist in particular in regard to the nature of the ministry of Ellen White.”
Frankly, I have no idea whatsoever as to what this refers; but I sure would like to know. Is this an acknowledgement that Adventists in Central and South America live in a predominantly Roman Catholic part of the world?
Clarification: Perhaps I meant, and should have said, that “What I think you’ve described are different iterations of Adventism/Adventists, none of which have anything to do with the remnant concept…”and that “a brand or iteration of Adventism/Adventists doesn’t necessarily translate as being a brand or iteration of ‘the remnant.’”
i remember well Neil Wilsons visit to my home. He was gracious, condescending, exuded a presence of humility, yet a directness of his mission. i was most impressed that a man of his stature, Pres. of the NAD would be calling. A question of where was i in my Christian journey. No preaching, just a gracious invitation. Ted Jr. is locked inside the box of 19th century prophecy and is unable to escape, so he will remain. He is isolated. Doubt he has any confidants able to offer other than agreeable comments, so as not to rock the boat, knowing his time at command is short, so humor the poor soul. i seriously doubt he will stand for nomination. His mental strain cannot stand even one more year, much less 5 years. The power in SDA is now in hands outside the USA, and they will surely step up and provide a leader of pastoral and intellectual quality. If the new administration does not come to grips with old age Earth, they will continue to lose the youth of western world, from whence commeth the oil which provides the life of SDA.
What a contrast to the son, whose discipleship of sola EGW, above the gospel of Jesus Christ's love and compassion, and "invite them all into my wedding supper", was the Elder Neil Wilson.
Earl you say that Wilson is locked in a 19th century prophecy. But so is Adventism inescapably, it seems to me. How can old age earth which is also an inescapable fact, be rationalized with the immovable tenant of Adventism, the literal creation story? Doesn't the foundation of Adventism suffer fatal damage with an adjustment there?
Larry, i think the transition to recognition of OEC could be successfully accommodated by the following statement by Pres. Wilson at the GC/San Antonio meeting, "There are many of our dear members who are thinking that Earth's creation is much older than approx 6000 years, while perhaps the majority of members believe that 6000 years is about right. But most still believe it was accomplished in seven (7) days of Earth solar days of 24 hours, or of God's concept of seven (7) heavenly days. We, of God's people are able to accommodate this differential in thinking, of many different views of our doctrinal beliefs, by our membership. We are all imperfect, but our Lord Jesus Christ loves each one of us, and sacrificed Himself for each one of us. So in Christ Jesus, let us be loving and encourage each other in the Gracious and peerfect love of our Saviour."
We wish this could actually happen…
But with Ted Wilson as Prez? Good luck! 🙂
Amen and Amen.
"Nate denies that C.S. Lewis had a problem with well-intentioned moralists who try to force others to do what they are sure is 'right' – no holds barred."
Of course I have already pointed out to Jack, who offered that conclusion, that I made no such denial. In fact, I can't imagine anyone, including C.S. Lewis and Ted Wilson, not having a problem with such a "well-intentioned" moralist. Jack then offered the Reverend Straik, a character who appears in a C.S. Lewis novel – That Hideous Strength – as a better metaphor for Wilson. It may be a better metaphor. But it's still a really bad one. I want to point out why, because I hate to see the moral authority of C.S. Lewis conscripted to advance an argument which his work does not support.
Ted Wilson's detractors could as well find points of comparison between Wilson and Vladimir Putin, or between Wilson and Jeremiah Wright. His supporters might find striking similarities between Wilson and Lincoln, or between Wilson and any number of Old Testament prophets. The problem is that these are ad hominem comparisons. They do nothing to advance an argument, because they are emotionally motivated, and there are too many points of dissimilarity for them to be intellectually interesting, much less compelling.
My first stealth encounter with The Legend of Frankenstein and The Horror of Dracula movies at a drive-in as an Adventist teenager who had grown up with no T.V. was quite terrifying. But that doesn't mean Count Dracula is like the Ayatollah Khamenei, who also terrifies me, though in a less immediate and personal manner. Reducing literature to a contest between powerful good guys and powerful bad guys in order to seek authority for one's own narrative is a gross misuse and oversimplification of the nuances, subtleties and richness of literary works.
Apart from the possibility that his attitude produces fear in those over whom he has power, the Reverend Straik character bears little to no resemblance to G.C. President Ted Wilson. In Lewis's novel, Reverend Straik is the Deputy Director of N.I.C.E. (National Institute of Coordinated Experiments), a powerful quasi-state organization with coercive power, founded on the principles of scientific materialism. He has joined N.I.C.E. bacause it is powerful, and Straik equates whatever is powerful with God. He twists Scripture to advance his rejection of an afterlife, arguing that Jesus real teaching was about justice here and now (This really sounds a lot like Ted Wilson, doesn't it?? LOL). The antagonists of the novel believe that humans can be perfected by morphing into a machine – in other words, destroying their humanity. N.I.C.E. aspires to use the blessings of science and rationalism to build a modern tower of Babel. The protagonists in the story are used to advance Lewis's belief in the inherent sinfulness of humanity, transcendent reality, and the impossibility of human self-perfection.
Apart from the reality that the SDA Left has no power within the SDA Church, its path and philosophy bears a much closer resemblance to Reverend Straik than does Ted Wilson's. Reverend Straik began as a good person. But he became disillusioned and deranged after the tragic death of his daughter. He came to reject fundamental Christian beliefs, using Scripture as a tool to advance the interests of N.I.C.E. (This is the only potentially interesting point of comparison between Wilson and Straik, as Wilson certainly makes questionable use of Scripture to advance the institutional interests in preserving unique SDA beliefs.).
In the forward to the novel, Lewis states that the story is intended to advance the same point he made in The Abolition of Man. Once one understands this reality, it is very difficult to reasonably see Reverend Straik as anything other than the personification of disillusioned, traumatized ("deranged"?) Christian leaders who lend their moral and clerical authority to the forces of philosophical materialism. Wilson only has suasion over those who choose to make him their leader and are employed by organizations in which he has influence, albeit often highly attenuated influence. N.I.C.E. killed dissenters, and oppressed those who did not join its ranks. Comparing the GC to N.I.C.E. or Wilson to Straik, trivializes evil and, by gross ad hominem exaggeration, distracts from the indictment that can and should be brought against Wilson for sowing seeds of division and distrust in the Adventist Christian family.
There is undoubetedly an undercurrent of deep resentment and bitterness towards Pastor Ted Wilson in this rendition of the national 'anti-traditionalist' anthem, especially with the choir joining in.
Perhaps this chorus may fit in well, taken from a song in the skit "the pastor's barbecue." [http://www.christianskitscripts.com/pastorsbbq.htm ]
(Chorus)
(group) We'll pick apart the preacher,
then we'll put him on the grill
we'll string him up then run him down
until we've had our fill.
(individual voices)
We'll stew him in some misery.
He'll turn on our rotisserie!
We'll baste him with some tangy sauce.
We'll show that fellow who's the boss!
(group) We've had it with his meddling,
from the pulpit to the pew.
So we're gonna have Roast Preacher
at the Pastor's barbeque!
So it is not OK to critique Ted Wilson's speeches, but it is OK to critique anything and everything Dan Jackson says or does? How so?
You are setting up a false analogy. You may critique Ted Wilson's sermons or ideology but to label him personally narcissistic is downright disrespectful and petty. Are you honestly suggesting that critiques of Dan Jackson are as vitrolic as those of Elder Wilson?? If you are, you might want to sell some of the excess bias.
Well I must say that certain commenters here appear to have a very selective memory 8-).
Am I the only one who remembers the accusations of power-grabbing and inciting rebellion that have been periodically leveled against Dan Jackson by some of the same commenters who object to the treatment of Ted Wilson?
Is it OK to criticize those we do not support but not OK for others to criticize those we do support?
Personally, I have a hard time differentiating the level of vitriol from the liberals and from the conservatives. Though I clearly see that they choose different targets for their vitriol.
First remove the plank from your own eye . . .
You may critique Ted Wilson's sermons or ideology but to label him personally narcissistic is downright disrespectful and petty.
Where have I ever labeled Ted Wilson as narcissistic? I would not nor have I ever made any such claim. I would disagree with anyone who did make such a claim.
I think Ted Wilson is very much focused on doing what he thinks is best for the church. In the particular case of this speech, I wrote that I agree with much of what he said. However I do not think it best for the church to be more focused on Ellen White than on the Bible, and more focused on our fears than on our hopes. And bsed upon the published version of the speech, there is far more fucus on Ellen than on the Bible, and far more focus on the ways Satan is attacking the church than on the power of Jesus Christ to defeat every foe.
I was not refering to you specifically but to Andy and co. I still maintain that the vitriol against Ted Wilson is far worse than that against any liberal. You also need to remember that Jesus works within the parameters of freedom of choice and actions. The Israelites believed that God would be in control regardless of how they acted and we know what happened, God rejected them. I do not want the same to happen to adventism hence we need to prayerfully fight to stem the tide of false doctrine and apostacy.
See my comments below regarding Matthew 5.
Do not return evil for evil. Overcome evil with good.
Tapiwa,
Since working ‘within the parameters of freedom of choice and actions’ is the common explanation for all things evil, and one you have employed here, would you be so kind as to provide a little Bible study on the origins of human freedom and its core necessity for God’s plan to redeem His creation?
You are right to imply I have my doubts with regard to any role for human freedom in our spiritual experience or the Gospel or Creation.
Nice song! lol. I can see Erv Taylor as the conductor of the anti adventist mass choir!lol
So much for eschewing personal attacks.
I do not agree with Dr Taylor on many things, but I see no reason to make him any more an object of ridicule or satire than some have done to Ted Wilson whom you defend.
Vitriol is vitriol, regardless of the source or the target. Retaliation is retaliation, regardless of the source or the target. The spirit of spite and revenge is the spirit of Satan. Christians have no need to operate like the devil.
Jim
I accept that my posts were vitrolic and that was intentionally done to prove a larger point. If you notice carefully, I used Andy's words and tone that he directed to Wilson to refer to him to see the reaction and show the hypocricy of liberals (I hate that word we should find another). Why is it okay for liberals to be mean to adventists and yet when their own words are used against them people start to complain? I accept your reprimand but I cannot help but feel it was only directed to me and not Andy or Erv for their tasteless articles. My tone helped to prove a larger point that you and your ilk operate on a double standard ( which is unchristian) I have never read you even once castigating Andy or Erv for "having no need to operate like the devil" It would be nice if you would show a little balance and fainess in your rebukes and not just reserve them for those who are of actual adventist persuasion.
See my comment below re Matthew 5. The children of the kingdom are held to a higher standard than are the children of the world. Even the heathen love those who love them. If you claim to be a child of the kingdom then you are an ambassador for Christ. Your spiritual home is in heaven and you need to speak and act and write accordingly.
Those of us who publicly proclaim ourselves to be followers of Jesus Christ need to carefully consider His teaching in Matthew 5:43-48.
The fact that some who do not profess to be followers of Jesus Christ do otherwise, offers us no excuse.
We all reveal what kind of God we serve by how we treat those who disagree with us.
Trevor,
Thanks! I needed that laugh!
None of those Adventists who disagree with you are asking for manipulative, draconian, megalomaniac kingly type administrators to resign from the Adventist church, or to force them to stop calling themselves Adventists. We also don't mind if they don't drink coffee or use mustard. We are just asking them to return to serving the church instead of trying to purify it in their image, and step down from positions that they think give them the moral authority to force their views on others, instead of dialoging with others. I haven't asked Tapiwa or Trevor or Stephen to get out of my church. I just am asking them to make room for honest differences and to let the Spirit of God convince different conferences if women are allowed to lead and minister to men.
Was Ellen White, "anti-Adventist" when she stood up a the start of the 1901 General Conference and said, we need new leaders elected here? ~~"Why, I ask you, are men who have not brought self into subjection allowed to stand in important positions of truth and handle sacred things? They have grown to the stature of men, but they have brought with them their childish tendencies. God does not want any such thing. " "~~The men that have long stood in positions of trust while disregarding the light that God has given, are not to be depended upon. God wants them to be removed."
Jack
Ted is simply carrying out the wishes of the majority and is also defending the faith from apostacy. The manipulative, megalomaniacs are you and Andy. The adventist movement was set up to proclaim a particular message with a unified voice, the last thing we need is the mixed multitude, (who were a vocal minority, educated in wordly customs and creeds and were from a higher class than the rest of the Israelites who were former slaves) to second guess the movement as we progress to Cannaan.
You have accused Wilson of being a king he is not ( Ironic that the mixed multitude also accused Moses of the same nothing new under the sun eh) We have a leader who is actually representative of his constituency and does not just serve the liberal elite. You are whining because your elitism and its influence is deteriorating and I think that can only be good for adventism. Democracy also means leaders you do not like get into office from time to time and to accuse them of demagoguery is just the evidence of a sore loser.
The majority of the church believes in a literal six day creation and wants that to be our unified position as it is fundamental to our existence, doctrine, message and purpose. If you cannot accept this then elaine is waiting for you with open arms.
Jack,
Since you mentioned me in association with Tapiwa and Trevor, fine company indeed, let me just say that I disagree with Tapiwa in his characterization or categorization of you and Andy as manipulative megalomaniacs.
Other than that unnecessary ad hominem criticism, I must agree with Tapiwa to the extent that Wilson is “a leader who is actually representative of his constituency and does not just serve the liberal elite.” (He doesn’t serve the “liberal elite,” period.) I understand that you simply consider yourself to be essentially a ‘bit tent’ Adventist, and I do respect and honor that. But you must understand, I would think, that the majority of Adventists perceive that some of our differences are effectively existential; and that your interpretation of Exodus 20:11 which, whatever it is, clearly isn’t ours (Tapiwa, Trevor, or mine), is a non-starter.
You have trouble accepting the implications of that; which is that your views aren’t considered, and/or that ‘educated, thinking, and sophisticated’ people such as yourself will reject Seventh-day Adventism. I don’t want you to go in the direction of some others, but I do see that path as inevitable for those who ‘believe’ as you do. I realize that you honestly believe that the evidence is overwhelming that Exodus 20:11 cannot have meant days with evenings and mornings that we now recognize as days; and that therefore our interpretation is erroneous. But personally—without (you) telling us what God meant (especially without offering further Scriptural evidence/proof thereof)—I reject an interpretation (yours) that basically declares that scientific consensus disqualifies a literal interpretation of God’s explicit claim.
I’m not sure what Tapiwa and Trevor (or even Ted) would say about that; but that is where I stand, brother.
Correction (typographical error): I understand that you simply consider yourself to be essentially a ‘big tent’ Adventist, and I do respect…
Stephen, do I understand correctly that you see the "big tent" Adventism philsophy as leading to the rejection of Seventh-Day Adventism? It seems to me that the most liberal, anti-SDA commenters on this website are overwhelmingly former true believers, well-versed in, and deeply committed to, the fundamentals that you seem to believe are essential to maintaining faith. Couldn't one reasonably argue that the Ted Wilson brand of Adventism produces a very brittle kind of Adventism that is very susceptible to breakage when the very methodologies and logic upon which it is based are used to challenge its conclusions?
I remember Jack writing a column some time ago about the Stewart family SDA faith tradition, and how, even though their's was not a fundamentalist faith, it has sustained commitment to the Church from generation to generation. I know in my own experience, growing up with industrial strength Adventism, and then individuating to a more contemporary Adventism, my appreciation for, and commitment to, my SDA faith community has deepened and strengthened. Not all of our children are committed SDAs. But all of them have great respect for the faith they grew up with, and none of them are the least bit hostile to Adventism. Had they grown up with a Ted Wilson brand of Adventism, I suspect they might very well be Adventist-denigrating agnostics.
Nathan, please read that post again, more carefully. I said that I respect and honor Jack’s big tent approach to Adventism.
What I've said, and see, as inevitable is where the path to which a disbelief that God literally created the world as He claims to have done leads. Inevitably one will doubt other things too, and for one reason or another, leave.
You may not agree with that assessment; but whether ex-Adventists are scathing in their criticism of Adventism or not has nothing to do with what my position is. Neither does a ‘big tent’ approach to Adventism have anything to do with the inevitable exit path that others have taken.
Actually, it might help to read what Tapiwa had said to Jack about Elaine. My statement to Jack—that I hope he doesn’t go in a certain direction—was made entirely in that particular context; and frankly, I had Elaine, Joe Erwin, and Bugs in mind when making it. (I can think of other Adventists that I perceive as being on that path.)
I did read your post carefully, Stephen. That's why I asked for clarification. It's meaning wasn't clear. On the one hand, you said you respect and honor Jack's big tent approach to Adventism. On the other hand, you see rejection of Adventism as the inevitable path for "educated, thinking and sophisticated" people who believe as Jack does. That's why I asked you to clarify whether you see a belief in big tent Adventism as leading to the rejection of Adventism. Or did you have in mind only a particular small cluster of beliefs that are a necessary condition to be strongly anchored in the Adventist family?
I happen to believe that the religious authoritarianism reflected in Wilson's content and style is precisely what Jesus fought against. More than anything else, He saw the politco-religious leaders of His day having put impenetrable barriers of religious dogma in the way of the Holy Spirit. As long as those barriers stood in the way, people could not see the Kingdom. So in His words and in His life, He broke through the layers of institutionalized religiosity to free people to new birth and new life.
Much of the fighting in the SDA Church today, it seems to me, is the rough equivalent of doctrinal, conceptual disputes between conservative pharisees and liberal saducees, both of whom see control over the declarations and power levers of church institutions as a moral/divine imperative. I agree 100% with Bill Garber's observation below that our call is to testify to how our stories intertwine with Christ's story and how His story intertwines with, transforms, and informs our hearts and minds. That doesn't mean concepts are not important. It simply means that the best way – the only truly effective way – we fight dangerously false doctrine is by the testimony of our lives.
“That doesn't mean concepts are not important. It simply means that the best way – the only truly effective way – we fight dangerously false doctrine is by the testimony of our lives.”
If indeed there is a testimony by which we can truly, effectively “fight dangerously false doctrine” it is “only” the testimony of Jesus.
Stephen Foster, thank you for your willingness to consider Big Tent Adventism. And for your concern about me wandering off away from Adventism.
I will leave Adventism when the Spirit of God leaves Adventism to themselves, until then I'm in.
I've written clearly my love for this church, my respect for our prophetess, and the blessing I've had from the Adventist princes it has been my privelege to know. I could name many others. I was baptized by A.L. Bietz in his yellow convertible and Southern California easy ways. Yet I most enjoyed my PUC classes from Les Hardinge a brilliant man who was an inerrantist for Ellen White. I've listed left, right, center Adventists who have blessed me.
I seek a middle road not on rigid fundamentalism or careless liberalism. I am fundamental on Jesus but liberal on my ability to fully understand the mind and ways of God revealed in scripture.
Instead of being one thing to all men, I do want to be all things to all men, so that by some means I can win all not to one kind of rigid science but to one warm and welcoming Jesus.
I do see that Spirit in you, even as we disagree on the details of the chronology of creation. Thank you.
Jack
I have always disagreed with you in the past on theology and policy for the SDA church. the main reason why I have been really against you is the way you view adventists from the thirld world rather than your faulty theology. The way you view Africans who disagree with you is appalling at best. You have infered that we believe the way we do because we are Africans and cannot be expected to come up with intelligent reasons for disagreeing with you. You once wrote an article basically calling African men mysoginists for being WO! I do not have much of a problem with you being pro WO or LOng age creationist. My problem is the elitism that causes you to have negative stereo types about your African adventist bretheren. Bill even refered to us the sub class of Humanity! The biggest problem that I have with your liberalism is not so much the faulty theology it tries to infuse into adventism but the mindset and perception it gives you about African adventists.
Since you claim to have the ability to see whether the Holy Spirit is present ( As you have said you will leave if he leaves and that he is present in Stephen Foster) Do you feel I have the Holy Spirit of Africans have the Holy spirit too??
Jack,
Thanks for your reply, my brother.
I’ve got to ask how you would recognize your exit signal, “when the Spirit of God [has left] Adventism to themselves”? Will the Spirit reveal that to you?
How does winning all “to one warm and welcoming Jesus” have anything to do with anyone’s insistence that the world was not created within the literal time frame that God claims to have accomplished it; or anyone else’s insistence that it was? You seem to be suggesting that God’s incarnation is neither a deal breaker nor a barrier to acceptance of the gospel, but that His creating the world in six days is such a deal breaker. If that is what you are suggesting, do you appreciate how nonsensical that sounds?
I appreciate that it may not be nonsensical; yet no one appears to be able to explain how it makes sense.
Your declarations of love and loyalty to Adventism have not gone unnoticed by me; but neither has your disdain for Wilson, or at least his leadership and approach. Wouldn’t his reelection, or the election of someone like him, signal to you that “the Spirit of God [has left] Adventism”?
I’d expect you to perhaps say “no;” but I think that Bugs is accurate in his assessment of Wilson’s harshest critics/criticism.
Dear Mr Hamstra – let's put this to the test. Show me one article that comes from the traditional camp that is filled with the same level of vitriol and caustic resentment in what you term is a "critique" that is directed at Pastor Dan Jackson.
Hi Jack, you provide an interesting quote above from Ellen White. I am wondering if she would same the same to us who do not hold to a 6000 year belief?
In my three decades as an employee of the church and now in my work with Adventist Today, I recognize that successful organizations today are characterized more by their networking associations than by their strict adherence to a unified position on all things (as was believed necessary in earlier phases of the Industrial Revolution and the Information Age). Adventist congregations in North America today are far less dependent on orders from conferences and unions than they were even as late as the 1970s, when I began working as an employee of a union conference.
But soon there arrived on the scene Wise Men from the East during the 1980s and 1990s, a cadre of ambitious religious neoconservative leaders (which included Brothers Ted Wilson II and Bob Folkenberg) who saw danger in the development of such congregationally independent behavior in the North American Division, and believed that a return to a strongly traditionalist point of universal view was the simple, expedient answer for the preservation of what they saw as endangered Truth.
Earlier I had lived, studied, and worshiped for nearly 10 years as a young member of a missionary family in South America during the 1960s and 1970s, where I was a child preacher for a period of time, and it's very true indeed that in my experience, conservative positions were very normative among Adventist members, among whom education levels pretty much averaged out at sixth-or-seventh grade. These were bright people, many very talented, but with a relatively narrow focus of reality, and we worked with these people, concentrating on exhorting and doing good works, healing, preaching, and turning away from dangerous vices and self-destructive behavior.
Adventism in the Third World, emphasizing these virtues, has met with enormous success but by and large has done so by effectively reaching and elevating the lives and hopes of less-educated peoples. This should by all means continue in these nations, as well as among immigrant populations in North America, but we must also effectively reach more intellectually and culturally informed elements of North American and other highly educated societies. We cannot concentrate solely on elevating the under-educated; we must also touch the lives of those who do not appreciate the power of Jesus Christ to transform the educated life in wondrous ways. And to do that will require a modified mode of outreach predicated and led by highly educated and dedicated Adventists. If we write off the educated people of the world as "unreachable" we will be abdicating our professed responsibility to touch every nation and people. Interaction with educated members of world society may at first seem difficult and comparatively (numerically) less productive, but it's wonderful spiritual and intellectual exercise for us nonetheless. With changing realities in the nations of the world must come adoption of modified outreach methodologies, or we will find ourselves caught in a dreadful sameness of unenlightened repetition that will weary the world as well as our own membership.
So insightful here, Ed.
Many thanks.
Now if we could just get a few more donations on your dest for AToday … I digress and friends here in AToday Land … it is time to double up this year … or for the first time offer a check of thanksgiving for AToday … and give Ed a chance to write you a personal note along with your receipt …
I am especially attracted to your explanation of how Seventh-day Adventists are so successful in garnering members in the Third World. These are people hungry to improve their situation, and traditional Seventh-day Adventist teaching is all about taking personal action to improve one's self at the highest levels of the Universe. The Third World is perfectly positioned to hear and act on traditional Seventh-day Adventist evangelism.
The striking confirmation of this is the fading membership in the Developed World while membership explodes in the Third World, and the Developing World.
What is being confirmed then may by a shadow Gospel rather than the true Gospel. The measure of the True Gospel is its universal appeal and application in real people's lives, rather than a Gospel for a subclass of humanity. If what we preach does not appeal to everyone, how can it be the real Gospel? It isn't.
God so loved the World that he sent the Creator, His Son Jesus, to save the World, as promised long before by the writer of Genesis, where God took full, personal, unilateral, and undivided responsiblity for dealing with the Snake, the originator of Death. Jesus is God's confirmation and guarantee that none of us will perrish, but we each will live eternally. We shall not all die … and this appeal touches the lives of everyone who realizes they will die … which is every one, rich or poor, Third world or First World, churched or non-churched.
Nothing is so universal as death or as our dependence on the Gospel that promises that we will not perish but will have eternal life.
This would not be the end of the Three Angels' Message, but surprisingly to many the very beginning.
Just thinking here … and hoping readers will be giving Ed another opportunity to send a personal thankyou for a fresh contribution to AToday arriving on his desk next week …
Bill
Allow me to respond to your post. You believe that the adventist gospel is specifically tailored to meet the needs of sub human third world adventists of which I am one of them. I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and that you phrased your words wrongly. Firstly that is a bit condescending but lets move on. The bible and SOP affirms that people who live in abundance and opulence are less likey to receive the gospel. Even when Christ was on earth it is people of the lower sub class of humanity who resonated with the gospel of Christ whilst the upper classes at time struggled to accept him and his message. Humility is also part of the gospel, one must be willing to be taught of Christ and have the faith of a child. Elitism and pride are incompatible with the gospel and that is one of the main reasons developed nations have with the gospel.
You seem to want to create a parallel gospel for the upper classes to pander to them and I think that is the wrong approach. Our mandate is to proclaim the truth in love and leave the results with God. Noah and Jeremiah might not have been succesful (At least to our standards but they proclaimed the truth). Another point to refute your claim is that even though we use the lower class gospel, Adventism is still the fastest growing churches in USA even faster than those churches which espouse the gospel you want to bring into adventism
“The measure of the True Gospel is its universal appeal and application in real people's lives, rather than a Gospel for a subclass of humanity.”
Says who Bill? Jesus said that if He is “lifted up” that He would attract all mankind. Is that what you’re saying, rather ham-handedly? You don’t actually consider those in the so-called Third World “a subclass of humanity;” so would you like to rephrase that?
Are you guys suggesting that a literal belief in a six-day creation is what is impeding church growth in developed countries? I’m just want to interpret this correctly and not misrepresent what you are saying?
I’ll wait for Edwin’s or Bill’s response; but I don’t see how altering the message or the way Scripture is interpreted, in accommodation to those whose worldviews may have been in contradiction to the Bible, as the most effective way to introduce them to spiritual concepts and Biblical precepts. We would then not only be telling them to “Come as [they] are”—which we should do; but we would be suggesting that they come on their terms. How can those surrendering to God (or man) do so on their own terms?
I am conceptually in favor of adapting and expanding communication methods and evangelistic methods. But I don’t think this is to what Edwin and Bill are making reference. It sounds like someone is suggesting that the appeal song for the highly educated should be changed to “I Surrender Some.”
Adventism isn’t for everyone, but Jesus’ love certainly is. I believe when Jesus is “lifted up,” creationism isn’t a deal breaker. But our responsibility isn’t necessarily to make people Adventists, but to encourage/facilitate more discipleship—and to give men/women earth’s final warning.
Oh dear, Stephen …
I had moved a long way in my mind from the Third World when I suggested accepting a gospel that only appeales to a sub-class of the world, I can see that it certianly came aross to not only you but no doubt others as ham-handly.
Then again, you are comfortable with a class in the church defined as 'you guys' … which is far less inclusive than the Gospel or Jesus' definition of his disciples … Yeah, these conversations challenge our ability to verbally fully embrace the Gospel … and probably because we don't spiritually really embrace the Gospel.
As for the rest of your observations, my sense is this. We are not called to introduce people to spiritual concepts or Biblical precepts. My sense is that we are called and priveledged to testify as to the Gospel in our personal experience in such a way that the hearer will sense themselves as having been understood.
I'm a bit disinheartened by your sense that 'Seventh-day Adventism isn't for everyone, but Jesus' love certainly is.' First, I thought you were opposed to sub-classes of Christians. Second the Gospel is for the World. And if some corner of the World isn't getting it, we are not personally testifying in such a way that the hearer understands we understand as they understand.
Let's get on the human side of side and see what the Gospel light reveals to us both right here.
Bill,
I want to be careful here. Actually I always try to be careful, and to pick my words somewhat responsibly; especially in this case, since we’ve met and I have learned much of what I know about journalism directly from you.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt with the “subclass of humanity” remark by asserting/volunteering my knowledge that “You don’t actually consider those in the so-called Third World “a subclass of humanity;” particularly given that you and Edwin (and that’s who I meant by “you guys”) had both referenced the so-called Third World, and that you had just done so in both of the two immediately preceding paragraphs (to the one in which you used that unfortunate phrasing), and had just juxtaposed the explosion of membership in the Third World and Developing World to the fading to the “fading membership” in the Developed World.
So why take a cheap shot man? “You guys,” meant you two posters; to whom my post questioned points you’d made. What is this “you are comfortable with a class in the church defined as 'you guys' … which is far less inclusive than the Gospel or Jesus' definition of his disciples …” supposed to mean?
I realize that we have different approaches to the church, the Bible, doctrine, and whatever else; but “Bonasera, Bonasera, what have I ever done to make you treat me so disrespectfully?”
“We are not called to introduce people to spiritual concepts or Biblical precepts. My sense is that we are called and priveledged to testify as to the Gospel in our personal experience in such a way that the hearer will sense themselves as having been understood.”
Bill, respectfully, the Gospel is a spiritual concept and a Biblical precept, if there ever was one. Certainly our lives and personal experience are perhaps the most efficacious means of introducing the Gospel; but how can we “not” be called to introduce what is the Mother of spiritual concepts and Biblical precepts? That “hearer will sense themselves as having been understood” seems an esoteric communications methodology (that one might expect from a Ph.D.:). There are times when those who hear the Gospel through the witness of our lives, if not from the words the Holy Spirit gives us, do not say anything and/or aren't looking to be “understood.”
In such instances they may well hear something that gives them a fuller understanding of themselves and their need of Christ.
“I'm a bit disinheartened by your sense that 'Seventh-day Adventism isn't for everyone, but Jesus' love certainly is.' First, I thought you were opposed to sub-classes of Christians.”
Why are you disheartened by my sense that Seventh-day Adventism isn’t for everyone, but that Jesus’ love certainly is for everyone? And what does this have to do with “sub-classes of Christians” in any case? I heard a young Adventist preacher once say that the Lord knows that some people are actually better off in the Christian faith community where they are (than they would be as members of some Seventh-day Adventist churches); which is probably true. His reasoning was that God knows at least they had Jesus where they were; and that they may lose what they have in some of our Adventist congregations. The Bible does teach that in Christ there are no subclasses of humanity, Bill. (Of course we both know that this means are no subclasses of humanity, period.)
“Second the Gospel is for the World. And if some corner of the World isn't getting it, we are not personally testifying in such a way that the hearer understands we understand as they understand.”
Bill, when I said that Jesus’ love is certainly for everyone (which it is), what did you think that I meant? Again I ask both of you guys, do you think that the Developed World is a corner of the World that isn’t getting the gospel because of the six day creation interpretation?
Ed –
I've made it very clear in a response I just posted to Stephen (above) that I take great issue with Pastor Wilson's religious authoritarianism. But I must also take issue with your suggestion that we need to adopt a "modified" approach to faith that appeals to an intellectual, highly educated, culturally informed mindset. This strikes me as akin to saying that we need a modified approach that appeals to hedge fund managers, corporatists, and Wall Street bankers.
Jesus had a "modified" approach to those who sought a Gospel that accommodated their own intellectual aspirations, accomplishments, wealth and power. As I recall, He had a pretty repelling message for the wealthy and sophisticated who wanted to bask in His presence while hanging on to the things that brought them security. "You must be born again"; "Sell everything you have." Jesus didn't have much to say that really appealed to the rabbis, pharisees, and saducees, did He? If that is what you mean, Ed, when you talk about the power of Jesus to transform the lives of the highly educated, I am with you. But I don't see how that's a "modified mode of outreach."
Mind you, I'm not saying we should write off the intellectuals. What I am saying is that the only way the self-proclaimed Adventist cognoscenti will reveal Christ to fellow intellectuals is through lives that witness to the power of a Gospel that is foolishness to the wise – not by intellectual accommodation to the values and beliefs embraced by the intellectual "masters of the universe" or the druids of philosophical materialism. Western educated intellectuals are not lacking knowledge of the precepts and theology of Christianity. In fact they often have a much better understanding of those matters than do observant believers. They can always present credible arguments to refute our intellectual theological constructs. But they cannot argue against the testimony of a surrendered, servant-community of believers loving one another in the name of, and for the sake of, Christ.
Ed –
I've made it very clear in a response I just posted to Stephen (above) that I take great issue with Pastor Wilson's religious authoritarianism. But I must also take issue with your suggestion that we need to adopt a "modified" approach to faith that appeals to an intellectual, highly educated, culturally informed mindset. This strikes me as akin to saying that we need a modified approach that appeals to hedge fund managers, corporatists, and Wall Street bankers.
Jesus had a "modified" approach to those who sought a Gospel that accommodated their own intellectual aspirations, accomplishments, wealth and power. As I recall, He had a pretty repelling message for the wealthy and sophisticated who wanted to bask in His presence while hanging on to the things that brought them security. "You must be born again"; "Sell everything you have." Jesus didn't have much to say that really appealed to the rabbis, pharisees, and saducees, did He? If that is what you mean, Ed, when you talk about the power of Jesus to transform the lives of the highly educated, I am with you. But I don't see how that's a "modified mode of outreach."
Mind you, I'm not saying we should write off the intellectuals. What I am saying is that the only way the self-proclaimed Adventist cognoscenti will reveal Christ to fellow intellectuals is through lives that witness to the power of a Gospel that is foolishness to the wise – not by intellectual accommodation to the values and beliefs embraced by the intellectual "masters of the universe" or the druids of philosophical materialism. Western educated intellectuals are not lacking knowledge of the precepts and theology of Christianity. In fact they often have a much better understanding of those matters than do observant believers. They can always present credible arguments to refute our intellectual theological constructs. But they cannot argue against the testimony of a surrendered, servant-community of believers loving one another in the name of, and for the sake of, Christ.
Ed –
I've made it very clear in a response I just posted to Stephen (above) that I take great issue with Pastor Wilson's religious authoritarianism. But I must also take issue with your suggestion that we need to adopt a "modified" approach to faith that appeals to an intellectual, highly educated, culturally informed mindset. This strikes me as akin to saying that we need a modified approach that appeals to hedge fund managers, corporatists, and Wall Street bankers.
Jesus had a "modified" approach to those who sought a Gospel that accommodated their own intellectual aspirations, accomplishments, wealth and power. As I recall, He had a pretty repelling message for the wealthy and sophisticated who wanted to bask in His presence while hanging on to the things that brought them security. "You must be born again"; "Sell everything you have." Jesus didn't have much to say that really appealed to the rabbis, pharisees, and saducees, did He? If that is what you mean, Ed, when you talk about the power of Jesus to transform the lives of the highly educated, I am with you. But I don't see how that's a "modified mode of outreach."
Mind you, I'm not saying we should write off the intellectuals. What I am saying is that the only way the self-proclaimed Adventist cognoscenti will reveal Christ to fellow intellectuals is through lives that witness to the power of a Gospel that is foolishness to the wise – not by intellectual accommodation to the values and beliefs embraced by the intellectual "masters of the universe" or the druids of philosophical materialism. Western educated intellectuals are not lacking knowledge of the precepts and theology of Christianity. In fact they often have a much better understanding of those matters than do observant believers. They can always present credible arguments to refute our intellectual theological constructs. But they cannot argue against the testimony of a surrendered, servant-community of believers loving one another in the name of, and for the sake of, Christ.
Sorry about the triple post…program was exceedingly slow in responding. So be patient when you hit "Add Comment."
The same thing just happend to me on another page 8-(.
After watching this happen several times, and also some other apparent "freezes" related to comment windows, I have concluded that there are probably bugs in the "refresh" functions in the commenting scripts.
I have a suggestion for other commenters who experience this problem.
When you hit the Add Comment button, if the page seems to freeze do the following:
1) Select the entirety of your comment and COPY it.
2) Hit the Refresh icon in your browser. If after refreshing your comment appears, then it was merely a failure of the scripts to properly refresh.
3) Otherwise, open a new comment box in the same place, PASTE in your previous text, and hit the Add Comment button.
4) If the comment again fails to appear go back to step (1).
the only way the self-proclaimed Adventist cognoscenti will reveal Christ to fellow intellectuals is through lives that witness to the power of a Gospel that is foolishness to the wise
Very well stated. This drives right to the heart of the matter.
Exactly.
For pastors to hold to doctrines that are contrary to what the Bible plainly teaches and explains is a lot of what and why so much of error and compromise has gripped the Adventist church in the West. What is a strikingly common element in the view that the Earth is not young, is the rejection of the Worldwide Flood that the Bible teaches of. This has led to the belief that the twenty four hour day (from even to even) found in Genesis is merely a poetic verse referring to an indefinite time period. All of these are subtle attacks on various Biblical teachings and doctrines with one error leading to another – even to the extent of evolution theory becoming the preferred worldview among many so-called Adventists, instead of a faith based belief in the Creation account as shown in the Bible.
the twenty four hour day (from even to even) found in Genesis is merely a poetic verse
1) When was the last time you did a word search on "hour" in the Old Testament? Please tell me where this unit of time first appears in the Bible? Likewise where is the first explicit usage in the Bible of a 24-hour day?
2) If "evening came and then morning" (a fairly literal rendering of the common "non-poetic" phrase in Genesis 1), how long was the "evening" of Day 1, when light was created?
3) In the Gensis account, the Sun and the Moon serve as timekeepers (clocks and calendars). The sun rules (or measures) the day and the moon rules the night (evening to morning). How can you be certain of the length of a day before the Sun and Moon were created on Day 4?
4) The phrase "evening came and then morning" does not appear in the Genesis account of Day 7. The end of the Sabbath is not described. In a spiritual sense the Sabbath was never intended to end. Although for Adam and Eve it ended when thay ate the fruit.
5) One way to answer some of these questions is to interpret the "evening came and then morning" as a literary transition between the creative activities on each of the "days". Then there are 6 transitions between 7 days which is literally how Genesis describes things. Genesis does not actually describe the beginning of Day 1 nor the ending of Day 7.
I agree with you that we should not "hold to doctrines that are contrary to what the Bible plainly teaches and explains".
Would you agree with me that we should not hold to doctrines that are not plainly taught and explained in the Bible?
The Word of God (sola scriptura) is indeed a two-edged sword.
I failed to ask:
0) Where in Genesis do you find "from even to even"?
Jim, you start your critique on the good metaphorical avenue but then deviate and have Adam and Eve actually eating paradise apples (my version). If you treat the story in its majority as metaphor aren't you logically obligated to treat it so in its entirety?
I said nothing about metaphors. You read that into my questions. I am merely pointing-out that a very literal reading of Genesis 1 does not yield what some Adventists claim.
I agree, Jim, you didn't use the word metaphor even once. I was swayed by the language you used scattered in your statement because I see them as collective metaphorical references. My intent was only to see how you might rationalize Adam and Eve as historical figures.
Here are the lines that directed my critique:
"the twenty four hour day (from even to even) found in Genesis is merely a poetic verse"
"The sun rules (or measures) the day and the moon rules the night (evening to morning)"
"In a spiritual sense the Sabbath was never intended to end"
"questions is to interpret the "evening came and then morning" as a literary transition between the creative activities on each of the "days". "
It isn't the first time I have overreached, if that is what I have done!
The bold intro was exceprted from Trevor's comment that I was responding. Trevor denied any poetic meaning. Whereas I find poetry as a literary device in many parts of the Bible. Just because something is expressed as poetry does not mean it is only a metaphor.
My point was not to deny there were literal evenings and mornings. My point was to challenge the assertion that all of the days of Genesis 1 (and first part of 2) were 24 hours long. That is reading more into the text than is actually there.
Nobody was there with a time piece that could measure with a resolution of hours. The sun dial had not yet been invented. The first mention of a sun dial in the Bible occurs in the time of Ahaz who was the father of Hezekiah (and was murdered by his servants after a very short and unpopular reign). We do not know what were the increments on the sun dial of Ahaz.
The first Bible mention of hours in the modern sense of the term is in Matthew 20.
And his reference to "from even to even" is from the laws of Moses. You will not find this in Genesis either.
I am NOT advocating for metaphorical interpreatations of the bibel, except where the local context clearly indicates a metaphor. I am advocating for NOT imposing later developments onto the Genesis narrative. I prefer to let it speak for itself, in the context of the time and place of the narrative. There is a lot of stuff that "Biblical literalists" claim to find in Genesis 1 and 2 that is not actually there but was inferred later by scribes and rabbis. Not only the Jews have their Talmud, so do the Catholics and the Adventists.
It seems to me that the effort to a achieve a uniform, non-metaphorical view of the Scriptures, requires convoluted intellectual sophistries that verge on embarrassment.
But then, according to Nate in a post below I may be "intellectually dishonest," a "cynic" and a "former believer[s] who now love to hate the church!"
So, since salt allegedly is deadly for health, I suggest maybe a taking me with a crumb of granola? Humor aside, I do understand the purpose and the goal of your argument . It's the methodology I question. If a story is replete with mythical elements (a glib serpent as an example) can one properly extract concrete data as if the story was intended to be a factual account? It seems to me that one has to have a specific agenda to determine which is which, facts vs. myth. Bias rules. Am I wrong?
And if the ingredients of a story are so vague that poetical devices are necessarily the operative component isn't that a basic identifier of myth?
For me "facts" are things which are emprically verifiable, eg via repeatable observations or experiments. This is not the same as "truths" which may or may not be empirically verifiable. Things which are not empirically verifiable may nevertheless still be true.
By these definitions much of the Bible teachings are not facts though I still hold them to be true by faith. Faith is belief in things for which there may or may not be subjective or anecdotal evidence but no empirically observable evidence. For example consider the Bible teachings regarding the nature of Christ. The miraculous claims regarding Jesus Christ were attested by multiple eyewitnesses, yet these were singular events and there is no way to verify them by repeatable empirical observations in the present. All we can do is study past claims and decide whether or not to believe them.
Similar comments would apply to the Genesis accounts of creation and of Adam and Eve and later Noah, Abraham, etc. You can choose which if any of these to believe.
My obejctions to Trevor's comment related to the claim that things are plainly taught in Genesis that do not even appear in that particular book, though some of them appear elsewhere in the Bible. This is a fact which can be verified by repeated readings of this book in various languages and translations, study of lexicons, etc.
As Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan used to remark, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts. This includes myself, yourself, and Trevor.
Poestical descriptions can be as precise or imprecise as various other literary forms. It is a choice of the author or orator in how to fashion the language.
I have seen imprecise and even erorneous technical descriptions in scholarly journals, complete with voluminous footnotes. I have seen very precise descriptions of technical and historical facts set as poetry.
Some of us prefer to apply skill to crafting our prose, regardless of the subject matter. Others prefer to cloak balderdash in precise literary forms as a means of conceling their ingnorance and ineptitude.
Do not confuse the medium with the message.
LOL! "Cloaked balderdash!" Darn, sounds like a verbal construct I should have engineered! (I'm ignoring the entirety of the vague back-hand slap shot apparently intended by the entire paragraph since I'm not sure of the target).
Your barely adequate filibuster fails to answer my question of how an engineer aware of modern astronomy, physics and geology can advocate for a seven day creation and a universal flood. "Truth" that ignores facts is myth I understand, it may not be convenient for you to give an honest public answer to this query.
It seems to me that one has to have a specific agenda to determine which is which, facts vs. myth. What is yours?
And if the ingredients of a story are so vague that poetical devices are necessarily the operative component isn't that a basic identifier of myth? Your poetic analysis doesn't answer this as it applies to the creation story. Metaphor is a way of expressing the inexpressible, myth is the structure of metaphor.
I see the medium as the message in this discussion.
Your barely adequate filibuster fails to answer my question of how an engineer aware of modern astronomy, physics and geology can advocate for a seven day creation and a universal flood.
I have repeatedly written that from an empirical scientific basis I have no explanation for the details of Creation. I cannot tell you with certainlty either when or how it happened. I was not there to make any observations nor was any other human that I know. The Bible accounts shed far more light on Who did it and Why than on When and How.
I have made similar comments about the flood. From the best evidence that I can believed, or it was probably local to the known world of the Patriarchs rather than to the larger world that we know today.
The Genesis accounts of these events were written long afterwards, based upon the scientific knowledge of objects and phenomena observable at the time and place where they were written. Trying to extrapolate them to other objects and phenomena at other times and places generally does not work very well. You quickly encounter no shortage of unwarranted and contradictory conjecture and speculation.
I am trying to hide neither my answers nor my lack thereof, to these challenging questions. I make no apology for looking at these questions using both the eye of fact and the eye of faith. And I make no apology for persistently pointing-out deficiencies in explanations offered by those who give primacy either to the eye of fact or to the eye of faith. Either way you look at this there are more tough questions than good answers.
I think the honest response is to humbly acknowledge the limitations of both empirical investigation and supernatural revelation when trying to answer these questions. I warn everyone that scientists or theologians or preachers or teachers who claim to have definitive answers to these questions are lying to you and probably to themselves also.
I recognize that for those who do not believe in the Who of creation, there is not much point in conjecture and speculation regarding Why, and at best limited evidence regarding When and How.
Awesome, a straight answer on the forum! Rare, and I thank you.
From the best evidence that I can believed, or it was probably local to the known world of the Patriarchs rather than to the larger world that we know today.
Somewhow this paragraph broke in the editor. It should say:
From the best evidence that I can find it was probably a lot longer ago than traditional Jews of Christians believed, or it was probably local to the known world of the Patriarchs rather than to the larger world that we know today.
"Cloaked balderdash!" Darn, sounds like a verbal construct I should have engineered!
I was sorely tempted to allude to "varnished excrement" but I opted for a more poetic yet equally clear rendition of this concept 8-).
I'm ignoring the entirety of the vague back-hand slap shot apparently intended by the entire paragraph since I'm not sure of the target.
In my sporting days my back-hand slap shot was very wimpy be it ice hockey or floor hockey. On the other hand I like to think my back-hand drives and smashes at the tennis table combined consderable force and very wicked spin with deadly accuracy 8-).
In this instance I had no particular target in mind. However much of what I read and even more of what I see and hear from the bradcast media (which I prefer to avoid) would provide a trempting target were it not for my poor sore wrists and elbows. (Yes I have been know to play Table Tennis and also Wii Tennis using both hands.)
FYI – The first reference to "hour" that I find in my Bible is Matthew 20.
Claiming anything in the OT was measured in hours is specious.
Although there were spacings on the dial of Ahaz we do not know what were the units of time.
Trevor,
Would it be that the 'Bible plainly teaches…'
Not only is the Bible inadequate, we are personally inadequate when it comes communicating even the core belief of Christanity. We know all too personally, as evidenced by the exchange of comments here and elsewhere in the community of faith, spriitual matters, let alone observable matters and written statements are all removed from the reality about which the speakers and quthors attest to their unspeakable experience.
And the Bible affirms the limitations of both scritpure and personal testimony, even the personal testimony of Jesus himself. It is he who asked Peter, 'But whom say ye that I am?' And when Peter replied, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' Jesus replied, 'Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto the, but my Father which is in heaven.'
That you are with us here testifying to your sense of your spiritual experience is wonderfully useful, just as the letter to Timothy declares all scripture to be useful, and for the same reason. The Holy Spirit is breathing in and through you and us today, the direct result of Jesus' promise with regard to the Holy Spirit.
And now, please let me retract my opening statement, Would it be that the 'Bible plainly teachers …' It is not God's intent that the Bible plainly teaches. Or it would. And it doesn't. Nor do we. Because not only is the realization that Jesus is the Christ, the Sone of the Living God known only by the action of the Father, but the peace we seek is ours without our ability to understand and therefore explain.
We can, though,testify to our sense of its reality within us.
And thank you for affirming your experience in our presence. It is our collective hope, it seems, that we are returning the favor.
Bill,
God does not want us to stop with merely knowing what scripture teaches. Doing that leaves us spiritual weaklings because we lack the experience of working with God to know how He actually works with us and through us.
Jesus sent out his disciples to perform miracles in the power of the Holy Spirit. When they returned they were excited to tell what they had seen God do through them. They had been changed by the experience.
Recently I've been re-reading the epistles of Paul and one thing that has impressed me is the number of times he tells people to follow his example in doing what God told them to do. More than that, he confidently gives them specific instruction based on his experience to tell them what to do.
Give me a person who is spouting scripture but who has no testimony to demonstrate they know from experience how God actually works and I'll show you a fool who doesn't know which way is up. But give me a person who has a testimony about their experience with God based on scripture and I'll show you someone who actually knows God.
Yes, William,
Testimony trumps texts every time. People are not attracted to a bible study, they are attracted to people doing what they believe and willing to testify as to how they sense the world makes all the difference.
Trevor, the Bible teaches absolutely nothing. Readers read into what they wish. No one is right or wrong in divining it because it supports only opinions. Why do you suppose there are countless conjectures supporting endless views of whatever truth is contained in it? Haven't you noticed all the denominations and sects, all versions of Christianity, out there looking at the same source, the Bible, with different results? And why are you so smart above all the geologists, climatologists, and astronomers whose lives depend on their expertise, so that you know, without a doubt, that the Creation and Flood stories are reliable history?
You are properly entitled to your religious belief. But to judge others to only be "so-called Adventists" propels you into the little band of the Glorious Guardians of the Good who will preserve "traditional Adventism" (building feel-good Dogma Potemkin Village in the process for you, that I've referenced above) while ignoring the massive majority, real Adventists, who are comfortable with metaphor as interpretation.
"…the Bible teaches absolutely nothing. Readers read into [it] what they wish."
Both of these statements are such absurdly false overgeneralizations as to deafen any intellectually honest reader to anything said thereafter. Though cynics like Larry may reject the substantive beliefs of Adventism, the dogmatic mindset and approach of fundamentalists Ted Wilson seems to dies very hard in former believers who now love to hate the Church.
Hate is not part of my experience. At the church, you, or anyone.
It is convenient for you to dismiss me by accusing me of being "intellectually dishonest," a "cynic" and a "former believer[s] who now love to hate the church." Do I detect a smidgen of hate, or at least vitriol, in your reply? Whacking the messenger does no harm to the message, does it?
Nate, if the shoe doesn't fit, don't worry about wearing it. I expect you to disagree but why don't you explain why and how I am wrong?
Bugs-Larry,
Glorious Guardians of the Good? Really! I love that phrase! Mind if I use it sometime?
OK – I could not be too nice for too long could I? You knew it had to end 8-).
It is certainly true that even Christians interpret the Bible differently, and of course the same can be said for Jews and their Bible subset (it the OT). Yet most Christians would proabably agree with at least 70% to 80% of SDA Fundamental Beliefs. Beware the reductionist fallacy. Just because Christians do not agree how to interpret everything in the Bible does not mean we only agree on very little that is in the Bible.
I confess, I purloined and adopted the phrase, the Glorious Guardians of Good (GGG, my acrynim), from the movie La Cage aux Folles, the French subtitled version. Credit where credit is due! And a consensus (70% to 80%) conceivably be wrong, too. Consensus is a happy amalgamation of opinion, not necessarily the correct one. The majority of scientists (we are told) agree there is man caused global warming. The majority of the populace, so the polls show, say it isn't so.
You are more fun when you are ornery!
acronym
adapted, not adpoted the phrase
Thanks, and thanks again, for your generous, generous check a few weeks back, Bill, and for going that second mile to speak out in our behalf….An educated, participatory membership expects and deserves an independent, analytical source of information and opinion. Like a free press in most advanced nations, the Adventist public learns to depend on AT for principled reporting that does not bow and scrape to power and money. Adventist Today is supported financially by donations as small as $5 a year, as high as $5,000, averaging about $75 each (overall).
This is a grass-roots driven organization, and this reality burnishes our credibility and is mainly responsible for our hug annual Web audience. As such AT extends its influence worldwide, particularly through its Web site which at the moment is in the throes of rebuilding, to handle far more contacts than ever before….
Sir, I've asked you this before. AT as you say, practices principled reporting. I'm not sure of this. For instance: Why wasn't the death of a well known figure like Dr. Robert W. Olson, former life trustee and director of the Ellen G. White Estate, reported on AT. Surely the news of his death would have been a significant news event. Yet there was silence. If it was merely an oversight, then that could have easily been corrected. Is there something more to this? Biased reporting perhaps?
According to the Ellen White Estate, he died at his residence in Hendersonville, North Carolina, on April 15, 2013, at age 92.
Why was the death of Graham Maxwell, long time religion teacher at several colleges, also not reported?
RE: "the Bible teaches absolutely nothing" [Mr Boshell]
———-
Or do we choose to learn absolutely nothing from it?
Of course, Trevor, one chooses to learn what he wants from Scripture. And that is my point. It isn't a teacher, but a source. Readers choose to learn from it what they wish. You apparently choose to learn the earth and heavens were created in seven days. Slave owners learned it was alright to own slaves, as their "property" (Exodus 21:20-21). In Exodus 35:2 it is ordered for Sabbath breakers to be executed. Paul said women should shut up in religious meetings.
I'm pointing out that interpretation operates for all Biblical gleaners, including you (you probably don't approve of slave ownership or advocate my death as a Sabbath breaker). Interpretation is a personal bias and there is no standard for how to do it or what to learn. It is pick and choose. You think your belief choices are based on right and wrong, but in fact they are based on what you "like" (that is, what you prefer). It gives you leverage to criticize the ones with whom you disagree, including those "liberals." It’s the choices you adopt from the Source that support your belief opinions, not the ones you ignore. The same Source feeds the belief of others who are often directly opposite of yours.
Since the Scriptures is a source, it is subject to the same legitimacy analysis of other sources, a proposition surely anathema to you.
You're just going further down the rabbit hole, Larry. Your attempted distinction between a teacher and a source is so specious as to defy analysis. We learn from all experience, including our experience in reading sacred texts. The mental construct we bring to learning experiences is of course a product of biases/predispositions which are a product of past experiences. But it doesn't negate the reality that, as long as we are sentiently interacting with our environment, we are learning. I must confess, however, that you do a good job of proving your point by your apparent resistance to this elementary reality, a resistance which raises some doubt as to whether certain biases may be so deeply entrenched as to defy external stimuli.
Millions of lives, and countless societies, that have been radically impacted and transformed by sacred texts attest irrefutably to the teaching power of such sources. The impacts may have negative and/or positive consequences – direct or indirect. If you are arguing the logical implications of some sort of deterministic philosophy, then of course your claim should be that nothing can teach and that all learning is an illusory projection of one's own mind onto an unknowable canvas. And then your nihilistic claim quickly becomes, like your assessment of religious claims that you deride, unfalsifiable, except by the choices you make each day. Even in your Pavlovian tendency, to read into something what you wish to see, you are being taught.
May I offer no less an authority than Elaine Nelson, in her recent post to Erv Taylor's latest blog: "There is no better way to really learn the history of the Bible and its authors than to read it for yourself…"
This might be a propitious time, Larry, to just concede that you got a bit carried away. You can gracefully explain away your statement, that "the Bible teaches absolutely nothing," as a statement of absolute hyperbole, not intended to be taken seriously or literally.
OK Mr. Fudd, it looks like I ducked into my rabbit hole just in the nick of time! 🙂
You are free to expand the term teacher to mean whatever you wish.
To me, a teacher is an active proponent of a point of view.
To me, a source is an inactive reservoir of information.
Those two statements have nothing to do with the validity of either, a confusion you seem to promulgate in your critique. Past that, I'm not really clear on what your issue is.
"And then your nihilistic claim quickly becomes, like your assessment of religious claims that you deride, unfalsifiable, except by the choices you make each day. Even in your Pavlovian tendency, to read into something what you wish to see, you are being taught." Besides explaining your whole exegesis to me, in particular, this line needs serious explanation. It seems hysterical. And it doesn't make any sense.
Nathan, hold the reply! I think I have figured it out. You think I'm an idiot! And you just wanted to say it nicely. If so, just go ahead and spit it out! That I can understand and it relieves the need for explanation of your confusing post. In anticipation, I have already accepted and started the grief process and will diligently progress to stage 5, acceptance (still in stage 1). 🙂
To me, a teacher is an active proponent of a point of view.
To me, a source is an inactive reservoir of information.
Bugs-Larry,
I must endorse your definitions in this case.
Whether or not the Bibel is a an active teacher or only an inactive source, depends on whether you consider it to be energized by the Spirit of God.
There are people who have been taught by and from the Bible. There are others such as your self who have not. I probably fall on both sides of thsi rhetorical fence depending on the subject being taught or learned. Ouch ! That admission really hurts !
I'm from German lineage (many SDA) which hold firmly to the Teutonic view about pain, "Dis vil hert, but you vil lik it." Welcome to my world!
So are you basically a Teutonic masochist?
As a further illustration of my point, before Mr. Fudd starts blasting away again (not worried, I'm good at dodging bullets and tying guns in knots) I took my Bible out of my worn preachers Bible case and laid it beside my computer waiting for it to teach me something. Nothing happened. So I opened it and read it and learned the paper is very thin, getting a bit aged and worn, and has very black ink in its print. Its syntax appeared old English and it seemed well preserved considering its age. It didn't teach anything there.
Then I read "In the beginning God Created the heavens and the earth." Still didn't teach me anything. So I figured out it was a nice metaphor that there may be some reason why we are here. Still didn't teach me anything. But I learned something from a valuable source by combining my reasoning and facts I know to be true.
And then your nihilistic claim quickly becomes, like your assessment of religious claims that you deride, unfalsifiable, except by the choices you make each day. Even in your Pavlovian tendency, to read into something what you wish to see, you are being taught
See, rabbits aren't the smartest denizens in the environment, else why would I have accidently loaded this line as a reply?
Signed: A Wascally Wabbit
At least you know where are your holes and how to duck and run 8-).
I have seen plenty of (mostly dead) rabbits who were not as smart as you are, you Wascally Bugs-Larry Wabbit 8-).
I can be perceived as a bunny trespasser in the SDA carrot garden so a convenient sub-surface refuge is necessary since I can't seem to get kicked out into the briar patch (thanks to a generous spirit of manor bosses and unbridled consternation of some gardeners). To survive for another day has more to do unseen benefactors than with smart(ness)!
Another Tuetonic maxim applies here: "Ve git to soon oldt and too late schmart." The first part applies to me, the second I'm still waiting for.
Okay Larry – So you want to use your own defintion of terms in order to rescue an over-the-top dogmatic assertion and fly the coop from reason and common sense?
Let me see if I understand you. If a lecturer gets up in front of a group and "actively" promotes a viewpoint, teaching is occurring. But if the lecturer gets his viewpoint published in a peer review journal, then teaching, by definition, is not occurring through the journal because the journal is an "inactive reservoir of information." Have I got that pretty much right? It sort of follows, I guess, from your definition, that all books, journals, and treatises ("inactive reservoirs"), like the Bible, teach absolutely nothing. And "[r]eaders read into [them] what they wish." Hence, you have definitionally rendered your statement, that the Bible teaches absolutely nothing, totally meaningless.
So when Moses orally delivered the Ten Commandments to the Israelites, he was teaching. But now that those precepts are part of an "inactive reservoir of information," they teach absolutely nothing. Got it!
Thank you for affirming my grip on reality by letting me know that you find my observations confusing and unclear. I'd be a bit worried, given your tendentious definition of terms, if you were able to grasp my perspective.
OK, Nathan, what has the Bible taught you that didn't arrive through a teacher?
I'm sorry, Larry. I don't understand your question. If teaching can only occur via a live human imparting information or a point of view, then, by definition, neither the Bible, nor any other written media ("inactive reservoirs of information", by your definition?) can teach anything. I equated your statement – that "the Bible teaches absolutely nothing" – with the proposition that no one can learn anything from the Bible, because they can read into it whatever they want. This statement struck me as nonsensical to the point of absurdity. But apparently, because of your idiosyncratic definitions of "teach" and "teacher", you would conclude that the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, the writings of Shakespeare, history tomes, etc., teach abslutely nothing as well (People can and do read into any source of information or opinion, whether written or oral, whatever they want.). So, since we apparently don't attach a common meaning to the words in question, there's not much to discuss, is there?
Nathan,
You are conflating teaching with learning.
I agree with Larry that teaching implies an active agency for imparting knowledge of whatever sort to the learner.
On the other hand many of us (myself included) primarily learn by studying various sources of information without active involvement of a teacher.
Well Jim, we're just parsing words now. I'm not conflating teaching with learning. Learning is the product of teaching, not the act of teaching. Generally speaking, if one has learned something, regardless of the source, teaching has occurred. What "teaching" implies to you or Larry does not exhaust the connotations of the word or its legitimate uses. A "teacher" implies someone who has gone to college and taken classes to become a teacher. But "teacher" can mean lots of other things as well, and be used in a number of different contexts. It would be foolish to say that one who completes an online course of study, using only written materials, has not been taught, because the materials were not transmitted by an "active agency" – a teacher.
Besides, Larry's original point did not implicate a definitional issue. His point appeared to be specific to the Bible rather than general to all written sources of opinion/information. He was taking issue with a statement Trevor made regarding what the Bible teaches, a perfectly appropriate and understandable use of the word "teach." In context, Larry said no, "the Bible teaches absolutely nothing", because people read into it whatever they want. The ability of people to read what they want into teaching materials does not depend on whether the source is passive or active. And clearly, Larry did not mean that the Bible is incapable of teaching because it is a writing rather than an active source.
Much the same has been alleged regarding the writings of Sister White. Specifically, a denominational leader/Ph.D. professor once lamented to me back in the 1980s, in the wake of Desmond Ford, "The problem with Ellen White is that you can prove anything from her works, if you just keep looking for a passage that suits your needs." It seems that to some degree Christianity as a whole offers a lot for everyone, centered only on one central thesis that God is our Creator and ultimate progenitor and is attempting to reveal himself to us by moving closer and closer to us, and ultimately renewing and expanding our royal privileges when he returns to Earth…..
You're so right, Ed. Perhaps the takeaway is that when people are trying to read their own biases and prejudices into a text, it's a pretty good sign that they regard what the text says as important. And that, in and of itself, is evidence that the text is saying something meaningful that is subject to rational discourse on a level beyond personal taste.
There are common denominators in the Bible. And there is significant commonality among those who regard it as sacred text. Otherwise those who contend over its meanings wouldn't be limited to Christians. Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists – even atheists would be arguing over its meanings, and trying to co-opt the Christian scriptures as their own. But that isn't happening. So it's pretty obvious that readers can't reasonably read into the Bible whatever they want, even if there may be wide latitude within certain parameters.
Some but not all learning is the product of teaching. You seem to have a notion that I am only referring to formal education. But in my field by far most of what one learns takes place in the workplace rather than in the classroom. I recognize that the legal profession may be different but that is not where I live and operate.
I certainly agree with you that whether I am studying a textbook or taking an online couirse or actually sitting in a classroom is not determinative. In any of these settings and regardless of the medium of conveyance, there is/was an active agent involved in preparing my course of instruction. Arguably in many of these situations I am my own teacher by your definition. When I patent something I have invented, I have to disclose sufficient information to teach someone skilled in the art how to buld the mechaism and/or practice the method being claimed.
On the other hand if I am experimenting in a laboratory or modeling something on a computer or designing something that will be patented (all of these I have frequently done) where is my teacher? Ditto when I study old books and records to try to determine or better understand something that happened in the past. These books and records were compiled to capture and/or convey information. In many cases the writer's motive was not teaching in any intentional sense. There are many non-pedagogical reason for capturing information, arguably most information that is captured is non-pedagogical. For example, when I study a photocopy of a will that was recorded 200 years ago, who is my teacher? Likewise when i study a musical scor or listen to a musical performance, or look at some work of visual art.
Now let me return to Bugs-Larry's original comment and my original response. I maintain that in order for there to be a teacher in the literal as opposed to metaphorical sense of the word, there has to be some active intentional agent involved in the dissemination of the information.
And in the teacher/learner relationship there must be some presupposition that the teacher knows things about the topic at-hand that the learner does not. Is the teacher an authority on the topic or only a fellow enquirer? Have you ever sat in a class where you already knew more about the topic at-hand than does the teacher? As it happens I have been in this situation far too often. Why? Because I had already studied or analyzed or experimented with the topic long before it was presented to me in a class. There have been instances when the teacher of record has asked me to present the topic or even the entire course.
So was the Bible produced with intention to teach or is it merely some collation of ancient writings and records of varying quality and informational or artistic value? Is it a teacher or is it merely a source one may or may not wish to study? The answer hinges on the presence or absence of intentional authoritative agency relative to the topics of interest. Here Bugs-Larry and I differ. I maintain that major portions of the Bible are intended to be a teacher (eg the Torah, the Prophets, the Gospels, the Epistles and the wisdom writings) whereas he maintains the entire compilation is only a source.
The purposes of musical compositions are interesting. Bach wrote the Well Tempered Klavier as a set of keyboard lessons. Here the purpose was pedagogical. Whereas the Brandenbur Concertos were written to demonstrate his proficiency in composing in support of a job application. And his great Christmas and Easter cantatas were his supreme works of religious devotion.
For all of the above he received pecuniary compensation. He was the consummate pressional. He produced a magnificent body of work for various purposes, with a consistently high standard of proficiency and an unsurpassed passion for excellence.
It is so common to speak of inanimate objects as teachers, and of animate objects as unintentionally teaching us, that it seems silly to argue over whether the Bible literally teaches us, because the authors intended it to educate/inform, or whether it only teaches us in a metaphorical sense, because we learn from it, regardless of the intent behind it. In either event learning occurs, even if the learning only consists of reinforcement of preexisting concepts and attitudes.
When you study a photocopy of a will that is 200 years old, it is perfectly appropriate to refer to the will as teaching you the legal processes that existed 200 years ago for passing on property at death. And if you said, "The will taught me X, Y, or Z, it would be ridiculous for me to say, "No, wills teach absolutely nothing, because readers read into them what they want."
The Bible teaches – that is to say, it informs, educates, and imparts knowledge and understanding – separate and apart from any intention behind the text. I just din't get the point of resorting to what strikes me as sophistry in order to trump common sense and impose an artificial prescriptive straitjacket on word usage.
Hi Bugs, "Biblical Gleaning"? Good heurmanutical term; I like it! But one has to have the right method of 'gleaning?' According to the gospels, Jesus Christ is that method of understanding the what reflects God and what does not in the Old Testament. Here is John:
"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."
"And of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace. For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."
"No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him."
New King James Version. (1982). (Jn 1:14–18).
My question, Darrel, is, how does one know what the "correct" gleaning is. Or the incorrect? Is there anywhere in Christian belief where opinion isn't the operative device?
I'm not at all discounting your statement. But every Christian has his own version (or none at all). Does it really matter? Is everyone correct or at least equally valid in spite of their unavoidable diversity and even contridiction?
Why is it impossible to admit that each and everyone of us interpret and select portions of the Bible as answers and reject others? I challenge anyone here to support and practice all that is found in the Bible. Why are there so many religions claimed to be based on the Bible who have quite different doctrines? Even the first Adventists rejected the biblical interpretation of the Methodists. Yet Adventists readily adopted the Bible as compiled and chosen by the one catholic church; and that church's explanation of the nature of Christ and His virgin birth. Many doctrines are impossible to substantiate by the written text without interpretation; and the very word means that there will be differences in interpretation–evidenced here daily.
Your question, Elaine. "Why is it impossible to admit that each and every one of us interpret and select portions of the Bible as answers and reject others?"
My answer. True believers are loath to admit this because it defeats the notion there is singular truth and therefore scuttles their egoistic delusion they have the inside track to it.
PS Paul never mentions the virgin birth.
Hi Bugs, thank you for your comments. You too Elaine. "Does it really matter?" Well, we are all here for some reason dicussing it, so I would say, "yes!"
"How does one know what the "correct" gleaning is?" I would say, Christ–His teaching and life are the measure! Of course there is no epistomology that does not go through the filters of our mind and will. So "opinion" in a sense is true, but this does not imply that there is no objective truth behind our attempts to understand it.
Personally, between the filters of mind and will, I think our will is the bigger problem in reaching truth.
"If any man will to do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." John 7:17
"No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in The Father, He has declared Him." Jn 1:14–18
In the Greek of this passage, the "HE" is emphatic! "He" is the anwer!
So yes, we do "select." Jesus selected! "You have heard it said . . . . . . ., but I say to you ………"
He was Divine
"Is everyone correct or at least equally valid in spite of their unavoidable diversity and even contridiction?
Try reading this one. I was editing in here and it was scrambled.
"Does it really matter?" Well, we are all here for some reason dicussing it, so I would say, "yes!"
"How does one know what the "correct" gleaning is?" I would say, Christ–His teaching and life are the measure! Of course there is no epistomology that does not go through the filters of our mind and will.
So "opinion?" In a sense 'yes,' but this does not imply that there is no objective truth behind our attempts to understand it.
Personally, between the filters of mind and will, I think our will is the bigger problem in reaching truth.
"If any man will to do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." John 7:17
"No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in The Father, He has declared Him." Jn 1:14–18
In the Greek of this passage, the "HE" is emphatic! "He" is the anwer!
So yes, we do "select." Jesus selected! "You have heard it said . . . . . . ., but I say to you ………"
But we must "select" as He did and as He taught~!
I value your testimony, Darrel, and your opinion. But what if someone tells me differently, probably not the same as yours. How do I know which is valid, more valid or is the one that I should adopt should I be looking for guidance? I want "objective truth." What is it?
There is no objective truth. That is why theology is in many respects a worthless profession. You can spend your life learning ancient dead languages and it doesn't matter one wit, because divine knowledge is in many respect a personal and subjective knowledge. That was kinda Jesus' point to Nicodemus, when He remarked, "You're a teacher of the Law and you don't know this?"
Divine truth is relational. Jesus Christ said He was the way, the truth and the life. Not a book, not a creed, not a Law. A person.
And we can't know a person except in relational terms. We also don't know a personal relationally in the same way. A husband knows a wife in a very different way from a son knows a father.
I beilieve there is objective truth. I also we believe that in our fallen human condition we do not have the ability to accurately ascertain objective truth.
I totally agree with you regarding relational knowledge. Jesus said I AM the Truth. To the extent that we know Him we know truth.
This is one of the paradoxes of the present life. Our highest privilege is to know God. Yet we have such limited ability to know God. Still to the extent that we can know God we should avail ourselves of this privilege, rather than walking away because it is so very subjective.
This is also why we need to cut some slack for those who know God differently than do we individually. They understand something about God better than do we.
Jim, as I see it the only valid objective truth is that we die. Like the mechanical pop-up squirrels at Chucky Cheese, there we are and wop, down we go. Religion is one of the avenues we travel to cope with the angst of it. I don't buy the concept of "fallen." There isn't one shred of evidence that mankind was ever "unfallen," or that death wasn't always a part of human experience. And death has always been here. Dinosaurs died before man lived on earth.
Religion is the pursuit of hope over reality (not a Teutonic maxim, but an adaptation of a pessimistic measure of marriage). It is the concoction of the mind, a created narrative as an attempt to cover every loophole in the coping mechanism. And it has always been structured in harmony with current cosmology, the collective understanding of the universe and the worlds position in it. Until recent centuries, advances in learning, cosmological comprehension has nudged the religious narrative into consensus, uneasy at times, without too much damage.
In the old days, God was "knowable." When heaven was up and earth was down and the universe was a harmonized whir of perfect orbs in syncopated rhythm it appeared to be what a good terrestrial handyman would create and the Ultimate Handyman, Superguy, was mentally configured to fit the bill.
Not now. because the old images can't operate in the universe we know now. No one understands God at all. Our highest ideal may be to understand God but like the Abominable Snow Man, absence is his primary characteristic. In both cases imagination creates footprints in the mud or snow. Nothing more.
Religion is a useful metaphor. That is what it always has been. Those who think it isn't are always disappointed by religious predictions. Adventism was founded on the Great Disappointment. Christ hasn't come back. Not one credible story exists of "God" intervening in human experience. (Yes, I know the Christ story, but it is a religious story, without a single mention [with one questionable exception] in the external chronicles or history of his time).
Gloom, doom, atheism, agnosticism, rationalism. Nope. God as love is experienced as joy and hope the primary elixir in the daily experience of life. Death is on its way, but in the meantime love is the salve that makes the trip into it worthwhile. With God as love, imagination not required. Ignoring reality irrelevant. Specious adjustment of science to fit belief not necessary. Our "highest privilege" is the experience of love.
Is it possible that creative God is the 5th natural force in the universe and Love is his presence?
Is God as love metaphor?
My dear Brother Bugs-Bunny Boshell (aka BBBB 8-),
I explained in my last pragraph preceding that I need to cut you a fair amount of slack. I turst you will do the same for me?
By now you have doubtless figured out that my own God is part Super Guy (all powerful but not a control freak), part Ultimate Handyman (great at cleaning-up our not-so-little mess), part Best Friend (closer than even my brothers or my boys), and all Love Guy. I know this adds-up to more than it should – but my God is bigger than you or I can imagine 8-).
How can the only certainty be Death? If there is no Life how can there be any Death? I think therefore I think that I am.
So, I am half right, life is a certainty. I was half right therefore I am half here, I think!?!
My dear BBBB,
We seem to share some common personality traits – half-wits, half-right and half-mad 8-).
We are doomed to meet in a halfway house. 🙁
I'm half thinking therefore I half am.
Better to half thought than not to half thought at all! (Hope the forum inspectors can tolerate and appreciate a little clumsy bit of humor (?).
“I believe there is objective truth. I also we believe that in our fallen human condition we do not have the ability to accurately ascertain objective truth.”
For the most part I agree with this. The only access to objective truth that we have, the only “ability [we have] to accurately ascertain objective truth,” is through whatever means we have to access whatever God has (had) to say to us.
This is the purpose of the Bible. Not only is the Bible a source of accessing what God has, and has had, to say to us all; but it is also the source for informing us of the other means we have to access what God has to say.
I also sort of believe that Bugs is half right—well, maybe not quite half right—about God (which also makes him at least half wrong; at least).
Bugs presents a classic 'either/or' false choice. God is big enough to be 'both/and.' Jesus represented/represents both objective and relational truth.
Clarification: …only access to objective truth that we have, the only “ability [we have] to accurately ascertain objective truth,” is through whatever means we have to access/ascertain whatever God has (had) to say to us.
This is the purpose of the Bible. Not only is the Bible a source of accessing/ascertaining what God has, and has had, to say to us all; but it is also the source for informing us of the other means we have to access/ascertain what God has to say.
Stephen,
I fully endorse your proposition that Jesus Christ embodies both Objective Truth and Relational Truth.
Unfortunately we humans are left to muddle our way through Subjective Truth. That is the best we can aspire to in our fallen condition.
This is what Paul meant when he said that what we now perceive is Truth reflected in a tarnished mirror. From long before Paul until the middle of the previous century, mirrors were coated with silver which tarnishes easily and rapidly when exposed to oxygen or other contaminants. Anyone who has looked at dim reflections through tarnished silver can understand what Paul meant by this analogy.
Merely teaching us what is truth is only the first part of God's purpose in giving us scripture. The far greater purpose is to lead us into a dynamic and personal relationship with Him so that we will learn His love, become empowered by Him and become effective soul winners. If we are not actively bringing people into a saving relationship with God it is because we have failed to let God teach us the ultimate truth about how much He loves us.
dynamic and personal relationship with Him
That's what I call Relational Truth.
SF, looks like three of us are doomed to meet in a halfway house, you, me and Hamstra!
Stipulation I meant to add! To join Jim and me you will need to rise to being "half" right!
SF and JH Isn't the objectivity of truth dependent on the source? That's the quagmire of religious assertion of objective truth. You have two abysses to navigate in a quest for Objective Truth. Maybe three.
When you say we aren't good enough to learn "objective truth" about God, it is, in football terms, punting from your own end zone as a device to escape being pinned by my points one and two above.
Your common assertion that perfect "truth" is transmitted through corruptible humans, until you get to in corruptible Jesus is vacuous, another device to avoid being tackled in the end zone. Sorry, objections one and two still apply.
If you want to arguably stand on the concept of eternal verities, existence of Objective Truth, what are they [it]? That is, explicitly, without doubt and not arrived at by opinion?
Opinion ruins everything about objective truth, but that is all you have. Aside from your opinion, what does "God have to say to us?"
Well BB-BB,
This is where you and I fundamentally differ. You see only human agencies involved in the writing, collating and preservation of the Bible. I see Divine agencies working through human agencies in this process.
Jim, you verify one of my premises about belief, that is believers choose what they "like." It isn't about evidence, verification, facts, but whatever supports a desired outcome. Not only is there no "objective truth," there doesn't need to be. That pretty much defines metaphor.
My issue arises with "believers" who deny their belief is metaphor in light of their faith being constructed on lack of evidence, unverifiable premises and without actual facts. Since religion exists as a coping mechanism with death, in my estimation, metaphor is appropriate since there is no other way to encounter the enigma of death.
Opinion rules. Religion is therefore a private enterprise continually mismanaged as a collective affirmation of "truth."
So it's not the Dirty Rat Devil (DRD) vexing the future of the church. It's absence of "Objective Truth" and that is why I am amused at the current brouhaha over church polity and doctrine under way and headed to San Antonio. The impossibility of herding cats is applicable. But even worse for the attendees, compared to cats, cats aren't afflicted with opinion (cat owners might object with contradictory experiences!). My prediction is that outcome will acknowledge the function of metaphor in Adventist faith veiled in language that appears to affirm the imagined Objective Truth encapsulated in Adventism. That is the only alternative for managing the unmanageable multiple possessors of unrelinquishable opinions all seeking primacy.
Larry, you are a cool cat, but you must agree with me, there is no objectivity of any thinking person's thoughts. Therefore no objectives for mankind is possible. There is no moral judgement of a central source. Therefore, with your abilities of intelligence and communication, why don't you stretch the truth a bit, offering a warmth, tenderness, confidence, to all comers, easing their way through a godless world that they have unfortunately been born to. Mollifying their transition through a life of pain and suffering. Would not this be a total expression of LOVE THY NEIGHBOR. A more noble enterprise would be hard to imagine. You identify with LOVE, in its truest sense, why not forfeit your own self in love for your fellowman, being the most noble you can be. Sacrificing your sef for the benefit of man. This is the ultimate sacrifice that the Love Man
can offer. The strong lifting up the weak. Bless you Larry.
Earl, there you go revealing our mutual longevity by using the term "cool cat," derivation and meaning of which is unknown by this generation! Yes, I am a subscriber to your assertion about the role of Love. Objectifying truth, or an attempt to do so, in any sense, is usually counter to experiencing God as Love. I see love in action every day and I am elevated and motivated by it. And as I practice it, as a reflection of "God," I am rewarded immediately by a sense of harmony with "Him." All is well.
Scripture: The sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based."
No religion is objective; all are based on human writings and beliefs; ergo, all religions are beliefs or faith, otherwise they would be accepted as fact and belief is not factual.
The only other game in town is "Materialism." Is such 'science' objective?
Religion is the biggest game in town. No practical rules. No singular source. As many definitions of "objective" as there are practitioners. Myth and metaphor rules! Materialism (whatever that is or might be) doesn't hold a candle!
The premise of Bug’s 'argument' is faulty. There is little question but that truth is ultimately a perceptual understanding of reality. It is perceived on an individual basis. It’s understood, appreciated, and recognized individually. How does that “[ruin] everything about objective truth”? An individual understanding or perception is all that opinions are in the final analysis. How does that translate into ‘no truth’? Why would that which is ultimately true necessarily be negated just because some people happen to believe it to be true?
Some opinions, even those of corrupt and corruptible mortals, can be reflections of truth.
I'm a bit surprised to see commenters taking Larry so seriously. He is simply bigotted against religion. Since when are any value judgments, or statements about ultimate reality, objective? What external anchor points would Larry offer for the subjective value judgments he hurls against religion? How does one objectively determine what is good, beautiful, or morally true?
Most of the things which have been of greatest and most lasting value to humanity throughout history cannot be objectively assessed, measured, or validated. That does not make them untrue or unimportant. Larry is a nihilistic believer who chooses to believe whatever he wants as well – such as the beliefs he has about religion – apparently to the exclusion of other value systems. It seems to me he should be pitied rather than debated.
These are excerpts from your reply to me:
You said it, I said a version of the same thing, so how is my argument faulty?
My point, my question is, since truth is defined individually, how is measured?
I say if there are many "truths" there is no "truth." There is therefore nothing but a plethora of opinions all subject to being correct or incorrect.
Whoops. My reply was meant for Stephen Foster. Will reply nest to Nathan.
Boohoo, Oh Nathan, I am so misunderstood! :–( But thanks for revealing that commentators take me seriously, but it does kinda scare me!
My "bigotry" (bias, discrimination, fanaticism, injustice, racism, sexism, unfairness, dogmatism-synonyms one and all, take my pick!) against religion is also incomprehensibly misunderstood!
Nathan, there are countless "truths," judged by persons, but none from the mouth of God who can only be imagined because he has no presence outside of mental fabrication. If a discernable "God" spoke then that would be ultimate objective, truth. So there isn't any of that.
Religion, properly recognized as metaphor, a way of speaking of and imagining ultimate reality as the bastion of ethics and the cure for death, is unreplaceable. And it is a central part of my life. I am a dedicated Christian.
My discomfort arises with those who think they know the "truth" and use their ego affirmed position to dismiss those that don't (know their version). My issue of "objectivity" is aimed at that view. It, in general, is the platform they are convinced they stand on.
"Larry is a nihilistic believer who chooses to believe whatever he wants as well – such as the beliefs he has about religion – apparently to the exclusion of other value systems." If "nihilistic" applies to me in this context, it does to you, too. You have done exactly the same thing. You have chosen to believe what you "like." We both use filters to extract our position to arrive at "the exclusion of other value systems."
Nathan, bigotry may be in the eye of the beholder as I have read every post by Larry here for some time and have yet to have any sense that he is bigoted. My exchanges with Larry shows absolutely no 'prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others' as Google defines bigoted. That Larry continues to enage with Seventh-day Adventists independently does not suggest bigotry, any more than persistently Seventh-day Adventists continuing to engage with Larry without joining him as a no-longer-member are bigoted.
The odd thing here is the reality that membership does not define who is and is not a Seventh-day Adventist. The saying after World War I went like this … You can take the boy out of the farm, but you can't take the farm out of the boy. Or, once a farmer, always a farmer no matter where one lives. And surely as a good number commenting here seems to confirm, once a Seventh-day Adventist always a Seventh-day Adventist by way of experience, history, insight, and so on. In a very real way, we are all Seventh-day Adventists here.
Bill, you have struck a note that I have referred to in the past, and that is imprinting that affects our lives. I can't divorce my children. And I can't divorce my past. I am happy to acknowledge the positive contributions (moderation in all things, good health, a high sense of ethic, and others) of Adventism to my life. As you are surely aware, my critique of Adventism is partially a trickledown effect from my critique of the language of Christianity. I have never joined, nor much attended, another church, and am not a candidate for Adventist reclamation, but still have great appreciation for the Adventist medical system and have instructed my wife, should I croak first and she wishes a church service to mark the event, to arrange for an SDA church and pastor to handle it.
I'm sorry, Larry, but you are conceptually challenged. Religion is not per se a metaphor. It uses metaphors to understand and communicate values, beliefs and truth about what is of ultimate importance. It also employs much that is not necessarily metaphorical – reason, experience, historical sources, etc.
Nihilism is not believing whatever one chooses to believe. Rather, it consists of the belief that there is no objective moral basis underlying the values that one chooses to believe in. You appear to believe the latter, and I do not.
To say you are a dedicated Christian, and at the same time assert that God can only be imagined because he has no presence outside of a mental fabrication, strikes me as nonsensical. The reality that we can only know God through our minds is quite different from saying that He has no presence outside of our "mental fabrications" of Him.
We are all convinced that our values and beliefs are true, in the sense that we believe them to be superior to others. This is true regardless of whether we are religious. The fact that such values and beliefs are not objectively provable – the fact that we debate them – does not make them purely subjective, nor does it render them useless as moral guides or pointers to ultimate reality.
You set up straw men ("those who think they know 'truth' and use their ego affirmed position to dismiss those that don't") to vindicate the black and white, either/or stark contrasts you want to draw between yourself and true believers. (Will everyone who thinks they fit the image of what Larry finds discomfort with raise their hand.) See, Larry. It's just your imagination. No one fits your metaphor. You have nothing to be uncomfortable about. In doing so – and in doing so with vitriol – you reveal yourself very much as the straw man with which you find discomfort.
OK Nathan I will adjust my flawed, properly critically attacked declaration that religion is metaphor to a more perfect assertion (even though it might be a distinction without a difference). "Religious Discourse is Metaphor." Happy now? (Is this evidence of vitriol, I call it irony! You can call it sarcasm!)
You, (incorrectly, of course) accuse me of exercising "vitriol" (nastiness, sarcasm, venom, contempt, disdain, hatefulness-synonyms all). Please cut and paste some, any, of my replies, to illustrate (except from the above paragraph! :—).
Nihilism. Synonyms: anarchy, atheism, lawlessness. I don't advocate overthrowing anything, not even your church.
Atheism: Synonyms: disbelief, doubt, freethinking, godlessness, heresy, irreligion. Bits and pieces of these apply to me, but I have nothing in common with atheists or the atheist movement. As metaphor, I believe in the story of Christ. And I have adopted his teachings as the ideal for my life.
Lawlessness. Not even. I think I am being lawful, in full celebration of it by basking in Love I see and experience every
Nonsensical. The reality that we can only know God through our minds is quite different from saying that He has no presence outside of our "mental fabrications" of Him. How is that? Where else is his "presence" except in the mind? Where do you go to personally access him, outside of your brain? Unless you want to amend the definition of absence to presence, he has none. Any alleged God "presence" is interpretation, imagination, extrapolation, or just wishful thinking. Outside of an opinion, please reveal to me his actual "presence."
I see, as Jesus revealed, God is Love. Not a product of imagination. Not a person, not a presence, but an experience. Yes, this is Nonsense, in that nothing else can be said. No theologizing, no Superguy plastered with trillions of barnacles from every believer (anthropomorphism), no description, not a he, she or an it, not a creator, not a lawyer or lawgiver, nothing that we can create or imagine.
To postulate a "presence" of God is to create him as a causation of the presence. God is not knowable nor imaginable, only experienced.
Nice, but invalid, try on the straw man thing.
A conundrum Larry. Should Earth time advance a couple hundred years and space travel permit travelling hundreds of "light years", survival by suspended animation (ala 2001 Space Odyssey) or Time Warp, or ????, which i predict will never happen, and man arrives on an inhabited planet of mechanical (creatures??) Man invades and is able to establish a beachhead from which communications begin. The info is that there is no history, no lore, no mythology. The locals knowledge of origins is unknown or even a concept of origin has been thought of. What is the origin of animated, articulated, non flesh and blood mechanical devices, with programmed "computer brains"?? The athmosphere is one of noxious prevalence. They have built structures in which they perambulate, and exist, much as a trial run edition of Human creatures. IS this an impossibility?? Why?? Structures exist in Space. We know mechanical robots are in existence. Would this not be a suspicion of Intelligent Design by a source of outer space habitation, which has the ability to perform what we would perceive to be supernatural happennings. We are able to discern now, different galaxies of various sizes existing in outer space, (space which is infinite, without ending) there is nothing to prevent its endless existence, is isn't illusory, it is real.
With the world knowledge available to us, now, we can't replicate what is in space beyond our planet Earth. Yet it exists, it is real. Our international space station would not register as a pebble of sand in the majestic universe by comparison. i submit the power or powers that exist are beyond any Earthly ability to comprehend, to understand, to know, with Earthly knowledge. The supernatural evidence of reality is before us to comprehend, with our eyes, our intelligence. Man's search for answers include every possible listening device, and the ultimate to date, the HUBBLE TELESCOPE. i submit there are unknown elements, physics of intertellar operation unknown to Earth, with substances of ever increasingsmaller sizes of being beyond measurement, and why not, we have here on Earth embryonic evidences of such.
So here we are in the 21st century, on planet Earth, subject to the knowledge available to us at this time in the space age. We are the product of absolute reality of the time in which we live. What is wrong with lore. What is wrong with myth. What is wrong with metaphor. what is wrong with imagination. What is wrong with the brain filtering to the mind of man that he is a special creation, not of his own, that he is the product of a "presence" beyond himself. What is wrong with the conceptthat there is a "spiritual dimension" to man, knowing that within his being as far as he can comprehend, at least on Earth he is the most intelligent creature, among billions of live forms, on Earth. The heavens are telling us there is more, more, more, much more than our concepts. Just because we are unable to substantiate the existence of an infinate source of all things, with our Earthly bound knowledge, is no reason to attempt justification that the infinate source or sources does not exist. Because the source has not appeared within our known Earth history, Earth Time, man can be petulant, disbelieving the source's existence, while in the cource of infinite space time, our 4.8 billion year (estimated) hardly measures a blip.
(to be continued)
Nathan,
You are absolutely on the money! Bugs demonstrates that his nihilistic logic is faulty when he says on one hand that “opinion ruins everything about objective truth,” yet also claims that my question of “why would that which is ultimately true, necessarily be negated just because some people happen to believe it to be true” is a version of what he means.
I suppose it is a nihilistic virtue to gradually (imperceptibly?) make decreasingly less sense. If Bugs isn’t bigoted against Judeo-Christian/theological belief, then that term has no meaning whatsoever. Or is that another example of nihilism?
Stephen, you haven't contradicted anything I said to Nathan. Nor has he. As usual, to sidestep my challenges, my motives, character, and intelligence become the issue with you guys. You appear not to want to take my arguments head-on. (I don't think you can). As an example, to aim charges of nihilism and bigotry at me harms you and transforms you into straw man builders, and poor ones at that.
You are defending a defenseless position, so in a sense I understand, but with a chuckle, I must admit. You have no ammunition, only smoke bombs.
I agree, and apologize to you Bugs. I will hereby amend my statement to read “If Bugs' philosophy isn’t bigoted against Judeo-Christian/theological belief, then that term has no meaning whatsoever. This bigoted philosophy is nihilistic.”
It is nihilistic because it is atheistic. (Nathan may well point out other reasons.) It is bigoted in that “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own” is. I must admit to some bigotry myself. Your philosophy is bigoted against Judeo/Christian/theological belief in a sentient, loving, personal, intentional God/Savior.
I should’ve chosen my words more carefully. (My definition source of ‘bigotry’ is dictionary.com.) My original statement was understandably perceived as a personal criticism when my intention was to critique your philosophy and your logic.
Gurgle Gurgle, look what you have done to me, it's getting darker and darker, that's my departure sound as I fade to my disposal at the hands of Mr. Fudd who is apparently convinced the wascilly wabbit is permanently trashed.
He don't know me vewy well do he?
Nathan, you are unable to prove that God exists outside of one's imagination. There is NO objective evidence that God exists other than the claims that many make. All claims are very subjective and cannot be replicated for another.
Consider the god pictured in the OT with the NT and then today. There are far more dissimilarites than alike. That is because humans wrote of God as they thought He acted, just as we today credit God for events totally without evidence.
When you are able to give indisputable evidence that God exists, you will win more than a Nobel Prize, but be hailed as the world's greatest genius.
By what method would you choose to prove there is a god other than your own very personal subjective ideas and opinions? Forget circular reasoning.
I am not denying there is a god; only that such claims are futile, otherwise there would be no need for faith.
Elaine,
You are unable to prove that you yourself exist outside of your own imagination. By what method can I prove that you exist? Can you offer me indisputable evidence?
For all I know you are a 10-years-old Malay prankster or an FBI poser trolling for illegal activity.
Come Jim, this is one of the silliest syllogism I have ever heard, or read. It is totally defeated by the fact you can find Elaine in a given place at a given time and establish with certainty her identity. God not so much. Not at all. Even if she faked every evidence to support a false identity, there is a person at her point. Not so much with God. This wobbly reasoning would get you tossed out of engineering for sure!
You seem to join mentally with the desperate defenders of a god for whom there is no evidence by endorsing foundationless, smoke screen arguments. Surely you can do better!
Sorry but I do not know who is Elaine nor where she lives. I have never found her. If I do a Google or White Pages search I will find a large number of Elaine Nelsons (100 in White pages). I would not recognize her if I saw her unless she started saying the same things she writes in her comments.
Elaine is every bit as likely to be a fake identity as is God. You simply have chosen to believe Elaine is real whereas you have chosen to believe that God is some collection of false identities. For my part I have more evidence that God is real than I have that this particular Elaine is who (s)he claims to be.
You win, Jim. I Googled "God" and got 1,540,000,000 hits in 0.28 seconds! Your investigation reveals only 100 Elaine Nelsons. Majority rules!
I see through your little ploy. Multiverse, Branes, Strings, Hologram. Quantum mechanics. The favorite retreat for those cornered in our consciously estimated universe. You can go there, Jim, but you can't hide!
Can't you just confess that you "like" the idea of God (I thought that was what you did a while back) so you believe he is real, you choose to act as if he is your buddy? And you don't need evidence, your imagination will do just fine?
Or, if you can, show me your evidence for God, even one particle, that is a majority over that for Elaine? Outside of Google, of course! Elaine (imaginary pseudonym for a possible non-person) has already proposed that a probable Nobel Prize for a convincing explanation awaits you, or anyone else.
Jim, you really sucked me in! I just realized you don't exist, either. I just had a flashback to the days when God talked to me (once a minister always subject to regressions) and he told me to watch out for a non-real you! I have been conversing only with myself! Well, it was better in the delusion, I am now in funk. Maybe if I can find an overwhelming consensus of 10 people that you exist I can create you in my mind and get back on a happy track!!!
Here is my bogus online persona:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/stanatek
I have padded my fake online existence with multiple endorsements, scores of skills and hundreds of contacts. You can also do Google searches for my patents and publications which might all be fakes. I have at least three relatives also named James (aka Jim) Hamstra – we are might all be imposters behind common aliases.
On the other hand God has millions of endorsements (including mine) and billions of contacts. And God also has no shortage of imposters. If you want to find the real God you might want to search for God's works. Some of them have been udplicated or defaced by imposters. But there are some authentic origianls if you really look for them.
I think I may be crawling back toward Happy Time, but only if it can be determined you really are an earthly resident! What if Elaine's resume is equally ponderous? Would that matter?
I think I'm going have to be satisfied with the Superguy smoke grenades you continue to lob since the road we have traveled has become so deeply rutted we are stuck. Your helium inflated balloons in defense of Superguy aren't nearly sufficient to lift us back to pavement. I respect your intention to see what satfies your God needs with interpretation as the operative mechanism.
You can know me not only from my messages but also from my work. Hopefully these two means of communicating are sending consistent messages 8-).
I am not Superguy. But I am a follower of a God who is greater than you or I can imagine. Humans tend to find what we are looking for, and we tend to NOT find what we are NOT looking for.
Come on, Elaine. You're too intelligent to follow Larry in his quest to build a case with straw men. Exactly who has argued that the nature or reality of God can be objectively proven or proven by indisputable evidence? The fact that the quest for indisputable, objective proof of His existence is futile hardly makes the claims that He exists futile. The evidence is overwhelming that such claims, and the evidence in support of them, have been enormously consequential.
My inability to definitively prove that God exists (The fact that hundreds of millions share and have shared my personal subjective ideas and opinions is certainly evidence, though not dispositive proof.) is quite different from saying there is NO objective evidence that He exists beyond my imagination. I can point to considerable relatively objective evidence. Whether you accept it as objective, and whether you believe the inferences that I draw from the evidence are reasonable are subject to dispute. What propositions about moral truth or the nature of ultimate reality can be proven by indisputable evidence? Of course the answer is none. Most all of your beliefs are the product of "your own very personal subjective ideas and opinions."
Natan, haw cum u kestion my tellignce? I ken reed commmix buks and evrthing. I 1ce hde a idea for lite but trnd aut a blub had alredy bin vnted. Kud av bin rch.
To imagine is subjective. i have made Jesus Christ the center of my existence and O' the confidence and joy and vision of the future is mine. i believe because it blesses my soul. My proof of its purity and holiness is that it is my gameplan for life. Its my reality. Jesus Christ. my Creator, Redeemer. Saviour, Lord, is my best friend, my love, my life. So i can't prove that Jesus Christ ever lived (by science, which i treasure), but i know,
I KNOW, MY ALL IN ALL LIVES, and one day "will" restore my immortal soul. Praise Father,Son, Holy Spirit.
earl, your honest admission that imagination creates the God you choose to worship has given you complete confidence and hope. But for millions in the past, as you know, the God they feared was far from your imagination. He was feared and the Hell that would result in fear was a very powerful motivator for confession.
The portrayal of God has been dramatically different since He was first described in the Hebrew Bible. They also feared God and worshiped although far from the devotion you express. How can the very different pictures of God be assimilated as one?
If this isn't evidence that the human heart has created God, what more is needed? Surely, you do not believe in the same God as described by the Jews nor the Christian church for most of history. Why did you reject that god and choose a different one? How about the destroying God described in Revelation? Is that all symbolic? Do you accept all the various portrayals of God described in the Bible? How is the cognitive dissonace handled to believe all? Or, do you have a different picture of God, one that you have chosen personally?
The history of humans shows that they began creating a superior, transcendent "other" which they both worshiped and feared; offering animal, even human sacrifices to honor. Did their imagination create their particular idea of a god? The Israelites had very similar ideas of worship and sacrifice as the surrounding cultures. Did the idea and description of God not evolve?
If everyone keeps imagining the same or similar thing, does that make the thing likely to be true or real as opposed to simply fictitious? I think the line between imagination, fiction, reality and non-fiction is more blurd then both right-wring fundamentalists and left-wing athiests like to expect. I also wonder where the line between mental illness and true religious visionary really is?
To perhaps borrow from Plato and Descarte, if a whale beached itself and spent some time above land, perhaps even trucked through a city to another beach (which has been known to happen), how would that whale describe its experience to other whales? Presumably whales are both intellegent enough and do have a type of vocabulary to speak to each other – we are only scratching the surface of these magestic beings.
The whale's experience would probably be so unusual and mind-blowing, with no pre-existing frame of reference, that it would likely require the whale to use its imagination to translate what it had seen. No doubt many other whales would argue the visionary whales was crazy, had a rock thrown at its head or simply making it up.
If the whale talked about great moving rocks (cars) or huge kelp forrests (trees), would the whale be lying or telling the truth? The line between objective reality and subjective perception, the latter which does require a significant element of the imagination, isn't as clear cut as we might like to think.
The answer to your first line above is yes, in Christian circles (see Steve Foster's comment above) harmonious collective thought produces evidence, in this case, of God. It ignores the question of which God is good, or correct, in the face of numerous other religious persons consensus of a God dramatically different. It also ignores the fact that belief, intense belief, no matter how massive the body of believers creates nothing but consensus.
Your whale illustration ends with less than a whale of a conclusion! It is an imaginary construct with a plethora of alternative dialogue. For example, these star struck legless mammals could stop off at Hamstra's house and pull out one of his cosmology tomes and read current estimations of the normal, virtually perpetual recycling of the universe and its components. And not having heard, yet, of Adam and Eve, and would certainly conclude the universe churns. They wouldn't be pre imposed with the human imprint of beginnings and ends (we die, so a concept of beginnings and ends consume us) and would be awed, amused and educated but without any reason to postulate God.
Bugs Boshell: “Opinion ruins everything about objective truth, but that is all you have.”
Stephen Foster (me): “Why would that which is ultimately true necessarily be negated just because some people happen to believe it to be true?”
Steve Ferguson: “If everyone keeps imagining the same or similar thing, does that make the thing likely to be true or real as opposed to simply fictitious?”
Bugs Boshell: “The answer to your first line above is yes, in Christian circles (see Steve Foster's comment above) harmonious collective thought produces evidence, in this case, of God.”
Would someone explain the connection between what I asked about why that which is ultimately true—whatever it is—is necessarily negated (or ruined) simply because some people happen to believe it, versus something that people imagine as truth?
Let’s say, for sake of argument, that Bugs’ version of reality is ultimately true. Why would the fact that many believe (individually perceive) his assessment, conclusion, or finding—or disagree with it—necessarily “ruin” it?
My premise is that ultimate truth stands on its own. It is sourced outside of the brains of men. It isn't created nor can it be modified by any collective process of a committee or committees of men. As an example, gravity Is a "law" only described by men, but not humanly created nor adjustable. Gravity can't be violated without consequence. A person can't proclaim not to believe in gravity while flinging oneself off a skyscraper and expect anything other than gravity to ignore stupidity while doing what it always does. Negative consequence is immediate, not delayed to someday.
As gravity is predictable so would be ultimate truth.
In common terms there are "laws of nature," aforementioned gravity being one. They are observed, not created by thought. Violation has real consequences.
In common terms there are said to be "laws of God." They are created by thought, "verified" by collective opinion, unobservable, no reward or consequences outside of imagination.
No one knows what the ultimate laws of God are, if any. People want to know so they create them in their minds and work to verify them by thinking, by analysis of documents and by mentally reverse engineering events and deducing causation as unaccountable except by divine intervention (God of the Gaps). Existence of ultimate truth, therefore, is assumed, manufactured, since Something, Someone, must have been a causation, a creator.
Opinion is anathema to ultimate truth. In other words, if it takes opinion to "recognize" it, it isn't ultimate truth. It is belief. It is the foundation of religion and the reason for multiplicity of theologies.
Interestingly Adventism, on one hand was founded on itself representing perceived "The Truth," but on the other recognized the impossibility of it by adopting the outright contradiction of concept of "present truth."
There is a search for ultimate truth, a Diagonese of Sinope type quest for an honest man, (cynically, a futile one), because there isn't one. Opinions abound as creators, all are anathema to ultimate truth since it, by definition, can't be created.
I find your invocation of Diogenes of Sinope very ironic. This gentleman in his own time was known as Diogenes the Cynic, one of the fathers of Cynic pilosophy. Do I rightly suspect that in many ways you share his philosophical perspective 8-)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes_of_Sinope
Believe me, elevating Diogenese the Cynic past his honest guy search is fraught with problems, many disgustingly disgusting, which I mentally sidestepped. I read the source in Wiki before I entered my reference in my post. I'm a cynic (not in his mold, whew,) in the face of futile claims of religionists (one of which your are! :—–(
Too bad Diogenes was not around to shine his lantern into the face of Jesus Christ. Had he looked closely he might have become a disciple of this God-Man who was the very embodiment of Truth (Objective, Subjective and Relational). Jesus Christ had it all and He did it all.
On the other hand, Diogenes the Cynic might have chosen not to actually gaze into the face of Jesus Christ. He might after perfuntorily shining his lantern, have simply turned and walked away and continuted his quest to demonstrate that all men are misled and there is no such thing as Truth.
Jim, in spite of your recent spirited denial of preacherliness, you are pretty good at homilies. Critiques of homilies are inane. So will avoid inanity, this time, anyway! –reluctantly, of course-
Signs of an ill-spent youth perhaps? And a persistent failure to grow-up?
I guess I have just spent far too much time studying my Bible. Not to mention hearing literally thousands of largely repetitive sermons 8-).
Nobody has ever paid me to preach nor is it likely they ever will. I have too strong a tendency to call things as I see them. My sermons tend to be more like business presentations – concise and going stright to the point. Too little entertainment, too little humor.
Your premise is one thing and a definition of ultimate truth is quite another. You’ve conveniently conflated them for rhetorical reasons. By your definition of ultimate truth, it can’t be created…like matter, perhaps you’re saying.
My point’s been that ultimate truth or objective truth is whatever is actually true; and whatever is actually true isn’t falsified/”ruined,” just because certain people believe/disbelieve it’s true.
How do you know whatever is actually true?
Larry, "belief of the massive body of believers creates nothing but consensus". Yes, what other subject ever considered by the masses hasthe result of consensus?? None. This to me is proof of the reality of the "SOURCE" of everything. Consider, some power beyond human invention, is the source of intellectural happening. It is impossible for intellectual substance from nothing. There is a source. You have the liberty of choosing your source.
Elaine, your insight is very poignantly put. For sure, our understanding of God has “evolved.” Does it not make sense that God would want to redeem His reputation?
Jesus proclaimed, “If you have seen me you have seen the Father!” Everything is new in Christ regarding “the God question.”
Paul made the distinction between the old and the new covenants very clear: “Now if the ministry that brought death…came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious?” There is a pronounced difference between “the letter [that] kills,” “engraved in letters on stone,” and “the Spirit [that] gives life,” a “glory of that which lasts.” The “veil” that had for so long shrouded the old covenant, obscuring the radiant beauty of God’s glory, “in Christ is…taken away.”
The happy result is that “we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory” (2 Cor. 3:6–18). And what is that glory? “The glory of Christ, who is the image of Cod,” “the glory of God in the face of Christ” (2 Cor. 4:4, 6, emphasis added). All that the “fathers” and the “prophets” under the old covenant had seen dimly and obstructed by “human elements” but now God’s character is fully and finally disclosed without distortion in Jesus. Jesus presents us with an accurate “image of the invisible God,” because in him “all the fullness of the Deity dwelled.”
As John says, “the law came through Moses, but Grace and Truth came through Jesus Christ”
It's all circular reasoning: illogical.
The Bible is inerrant, infallible, and inspired. The Bible describes God; therefore, there is a God.
The Koran deifies both Allah and Mohamed; therefore Allah is the highest deity.
The Roman Catholic church deifies God, Jesus, and Mary. Therefore all are divine.
Whose sacred scriptures should be believed as the only true ones?
Mistake number one: The Bible is One Book.
Mistake number two: The Bible is inerrant.
Mistake number three: There is no objective proof that God has spoken in Scripture.
I offer you The Prophecies of Daniel as an example of such proof!
Darrel, the prophecies of Daniel are totally meaningless to almost everyone. Casual readers of the Bible, of which are probably millions, read the entire book, and conclude it is the only the source of the story of some poor souls surviving miraculously in a den of lions. What you see as prophecies have no definition in the book, only strange symbols. To support your view, a key is necessary. And that is where your premise that Daniel is proof of anything collapses. I maintain the prophecies therein predict the Battle of Little Big Horn! And I'm working on a "key." :—)
My point is, obviously you find verification therein. That is fine. That is good for you. But there is no useable universal verification for almost anyone else.
"But there is no useable universal verification for almost anyone else"
I am biting my lip here, Larry – trying to be nice; trying to overlook your syntactical solecisms; trying to work through your idiosyncratic employment of words like "syllogism," "nihilism," and "metaphor" – as I gaze at you furiously chasing reason and meaning on your solipsistic hamster wheel.
But please! Totally meaningless? To almost everyone? How about a billion Christians?
Nate, is that blood dribbling out of your lip? Please say it isn't so? Don't take me so seriously!!!
Solecisms. I had to look that one up! Before I write any important words into my posts, I commonly check them an online thesaurus (thesaurus.com) and sometimes wander into a dictionary or Wikipedia for expansion.
Syllogism was definitely stretched to attack poor Hamstra who ignored my misuse! I fail to see an improper use of metaphor on my part. And nihilism, I totally agree was misapplied, not by me, I didn't introduce it to the conversation, it was strangely and improperly applied to me. Solipsistic, (the theory that only the self exists)? Explain please.
I only ask you to address the points of my critiques with wise rebuttals. I'm beginning to think my "points" are so powerful that my critics have no excellent reply so they, including you, have no available weapons except personal attacks, distortion of my arguments, or criticism of my nomenclature. Or going so far as deriding me by claiming I go nowhere on a hamster wheel. (I kinda like that, however, so forget this my hamster retort!)
Larry, please qualify what to you would be proof of the existence of God. In many areas of thought today, the majority are usually wrong. However in the realm of the concept of a god or gods, not a simple majority, but a massive majority of perhaps 90 percentile, of all people ever on Earth, have in their lore, mythology, allegories, philosophy, imagination, belief, is that a superior of intellect is responsible for human beings origin and continued existence. No other subject has ever garnered, anywhere, such a massive overwhelming percentile of believers of a specific nature, noting of course the great variety of imaginative versions, but, of a GODLY nature. This to me is proof of the actual reality of the essence of being. It is a methodology of knowledge that has through every human group ever to have lived on Earth to cronicle the truth and proof of existence for those who follow, through every known way of the times, word of mouth, lore, legend, myth, allegorie, philosophy, imagination, belief. With all the seemingly impossible, clear, ethical, creative, inventive "objects", and creature aided devices and procedure methods, how can one be totally resistant to a methodology of a singular happening of supernatural and or spiritual nature of life????
Earl, the majority of people, including all that have ever lived, have wanted to identify god. That confirms the human hankering for him, not the discovery of him. You say: "This to me is proof of the actual reality of the essence of being." If you want to equate an "essence of being" with God, he still is imaginary.
I don't follow your methodology argument other than to see at as confirmation of my proposition that "god" is a creation by men to satiate the unrequited yearning for a deity that is absent.
God by consensus isn't God.
Elaine, i do not accept the OT rendering of a god that is fearful, warlike, annihilater of global proportions. i believe the scribes and or voices of those awesome times were fearful and chronicled events of appeasing this warlike god or gods, and that he favored them in their annihilations of their enemies, "god made us do it". i don't accept it as inspired, or true, but their coverup for their deadly deeds.
i accept the gospel of Jesus Christ of the NT. HE is "THE GOD of GODS".HE is our GOD of LOVE.
ALL proofs of God are subjective. No one has seen God and lived. Rejecting many previous descriptions of God only clarify that everyone creates a god in his own mind that he can worship, and then finds many adjectives and reasons to communicate with him.
From time immemorial man has always believed in unearthly spirits; something superior to themselves, which was often called a god. The Hebrews had a God, but for most of the time before Christ, had a warrior god, one few would worship today. When Christianity was born, after the Resurrection, the gradually evolving belief that Jesus was born of a virgin, just as were many Greco-Roman gods before Him, and gradually they created the Trinity encompassing the virtues of three entities that were now claimed. This process took over 300 years. Over the next centuries, much was written about God and today there is a consensus among Christians about Jesus as also God; confusing, but all beliefs are unrealistic. It is doubtful that in a thousand years God will not be seen in a very different picture. Even today, He is seen as the giver of riches; a healer–people pray to Him for cures for terminal diseases with total ineffectiveness, but makes little difference. He is seen as the promoter of all sorts of ideas proclaimed by religious leaders of all faiths. So who is God?
I call him Superguy, an imagined super version of ourselves, transfused with personalized serum from every believer-donor to confirm to every vision of what he might, or ought to be. He is modeled after ourselves, explaining his psychotic personality. He is not what God could possibly be.
Jim, do you also recognize, worship and obey Allah? Which God do you worship: the one who killed the Egyptian firstborn or Sennacherib's army? Or the one who allowed Satan to torture Job?
Do you not choose the adjectives you wish to describe a god you can worship and obey? Is the Hebrew god the same as the Christian one? Whose idea of a god is the right one? Or, does everyone create the god he chooses to worship? It seems you have created one in your imagination that is worthy of worship. But doesn't that indicate that those Christians who persecuted and believed they were obeying God in so doing, was a totally different god? You have very convincingly described your God. when you communicate or pray to God how is that unlike small children who have an invisible playmate?
Elohim and Allah are the same Deity as far as I am concerned. Though our understanding of him/her/them has evolved over time. I take Jesus Christ as my reference standard for evaluating various competing claims to Deity. To me that is an essential part of the notion of being a Christian.
Regarding prayer, I believe I have indeed witnessed answers to prayers, mine and others. I could explain further but this would probably be nonsense to you and your fellow-travelers so I will forebear. Those who are curious might want to read a story I wrote for Stephen Foster on another thread.
Pharaoh killed ALL of the male infants of the Hebrew slaves (except a very few who were hidden). By only claiming the firstborn males Yahweh was very merciful by comparison. If you bother to study all of the atrocities committed by Sennacherib's army you would find them all guilty of heinoius war crimes. Of course if you do not admit to the authority of God you will deny the Divine prerogative of judgment in the case of capital crimes.
If you do not believe that humans took a major moral fall in the past, then you would not believe that but for the Grace of God we ALL deserve to die. It is because of the mercies of God that we are not consumed.
Job's torment is adequately explained in the prolog of that book. If you do not believe in God then of course concepts like Free Moral Agency and Theodicy and voluntary submission to Divine authority even when we do not understand the reasons Why, will make no sense to you either. Here is the essence of faith in God, trusting that he/she/they know what is best even when we ourselves do not understand.
What actually do you believe in, Elaine? Do you believe in yourself? In other people? In some kind of Deity though you seem so uncertain about him/her/them? In Bugs-Larry's imaginary Love Guy?
Link to op cit story for those who are interested in the role of prayer in my professional life:
http://www.atodayarchive.org/article.php?id=2753#comment53907
Elaine, it is only subjective for an individual to hear, see, seek, find "GOD".
The reverse of every suggestion you make could be the truth. For every action there is a reaction.
i don't use God. God uses me. i don't seek honors, favoritism, status, priviledges, i haven't earned. i have nothing to recommend me. i can leave this life unfearful of what follows for me, if anything. My imagination tells me there is something more. My imagination is what i am. The collective intelligence is a gift from a source beyond our selves. i am content to have this life, now, only. Because mine eyes have seen the "glory of God".
For some reason your mind is made up Larry about God as a myth I feel. Why, I don't know!
It is probably not theological but emotional? I say this because I don't really think you are ignorant
regarding prophecy, although you feign it.
I see prophecy as mindless exercise in entertainment for those pleased by the quest. That's because one can only find what he wants there. I have watched for 50 years, on the sidelines, the Scripture Miners twisting on the gymnastic equipment of hope and conjecture to achieve a perfect prophetic score. I'm not interested in outcomes achieved by mental gymnastics.
My life is full of hope and joy as I experience and observe love in action in people's lives. God is way bigger than I can ever know, except the vestige of him in the experience of love in daily life. That is experience, not intellect, not theology, not religious, not prophetical, no mental gymnastics. My "feigning" anything isn't true. What I think and what I am is on full display.
I've never said that God is myth, only Superguy, the creation of unrequited searchers of god (almost everyone). I don't know if there is a "real" God or not. It doesn't matter. God is Love, in my estimation, but Love is not God. That is as far as I can go.
My mind isn't "made up." And I'm not ignorant about prophecy. My issue with God is neither emotional or theological. Intellectual. I've been staggering through this site for something or someone to show me "the truth" about God. Instead, all I get are opinions and personal testimonies. And continuous invective about my presence, motives, emotional stability, and style. But my quest continues
All those who believe in the god they describe have also made up their minds. Is it theological or emotional? Surely, those who have such strong belief is very emotional as they cannot be other than subjective about their beliefs. Belief in God elicits one's deep emotions. Theology, which is the study of God can never be objective and the source is almost always limited to the Bible and those who wrote about God based on the Bible; not the Koran or the sacred scriptures of other religions, all who claim God.
I don't see how one at one time can understand the remarkable nature of Daniel's Prophecies matching remarkable fulfilments through history and come to the state of seeing them now as "totally meaningless?" Have we and others completely gotten applications wrong? Yes! But there is plenty enough solid fulfilments of historical events to know that we are using the right assumptions.
My point was, Earl, virtually nobody knows what you understand about the prophecy fulfillment you see in the book of Daniel. It doesn’t explain itself. It is a map imprinted only with roads, nothing else. For you it is a map, with very limited distribution, that someone has printed routes and cities on, in addition to lines (roads).
You have the "right assumptions." For you. If prophecy reveals so much, why is it so hidden and cryptic? How then does one know the "correct" interpretation in the competition among them? Isn't it unfair that some got only the lines and others, like you, the full map?
Earl it all boils down to what you "like." "Truth" is what you want it to be. You appear to have developed a comprehensive, esoteric, personalized view of what is and is to be. You are not "mainline!" I appreciate that about you. Your version is very personal and entertaining. You embrace faith with passion and conviction.
Both the books of Daniel and Revelation have attracted those who found it a conundrum but, nevertheless took a turn at giving names or dates to the different symbols seen in the visions in the book, seeing what they want to see. Even the switch from days meaning years is completly arbitrary and sheerly spectulative as to time periods thousands of years later. It is impossible to prove fulfillment earthly or heavenly.
Every generation thinks the prophetic symbols are about them. I perhaps think this adaptability is the best thing about Daniel and Revelation – their very purpose in being so vague. It is the same in terms of Jesus wanting each generation to think theirs is the last, even though history has demonstrated it clearly is not.
If you think the world will go on for another 10,000 years, many would give up hope or become lazy. The apocalyptic can be a 'good' thing, a drive for fervent change. It only can work in a good way if we believe the end is nigh, end when it probably isn't.
It's like when you go to the gym (or Army in my case). The instructor tells you you are only your last repetition so you give everything you've got. Then there is another one. And then another one. You thought you had nothing left in you the first time you thought it was the end, but you've discovered actually you've giving what you thought was your last about three or four more times.
I think God is our gym instructor.
Even the history of the Christian Church largely shows this. Most of the internal reforms, including within the Catholic Church, happened when Church leaders thought the end was nigh. It was when they went into periods of thinking there was no end that the Church got especially corrupt and worldly.
The Gregorian Reforms, when many thought the end would end in the year 1000 AD, are one example that comes to minds. These reforming Popes thought they were presiding over the Church at the end of time. Compare them to say the corrupt Borgias popes.
I find it totally curious as to why lovers of Daniel and Revelation never ask, what the heck was God up to in delivering to these "prophets" such inscrutable, dark, incomprehensible, script and symbols. WHY? Today we would suspect mushrooms, LSD, or maybe an excess tokes of funny weed. If He has a future message for everyone, isn't He capable of clear communication?
If he knows so much about the future and everything, couldn't he have just said something like "I say to you, I'm going to pass on the mumbo jumbo and reveal that in about 1844 while the papalites start working on Sunday laws, I'll be pretty busy in the sanctuary up here with some clerical work (First Angel, Michael can fill in for me for ever day stuff like answering prayers) while my special, remnant people, prepare to seek refuge in the Rocky Mountains west of Denver. Then I will have finished and will leave my palatal celestial cathedral and will create a cloud the size of a man's hand, board it, drop in, and go into delivery mode. But to keep you on your toes, I won't give you the exact date, I'm keeping it secret."
I'm sure my silly illustration will deeply offend some, but my purpose is to illustrate how D&R doesn't hold a candle to the crystal-clear simplicity beauty and importance next to the Sermon on The Mount. It is mind vs. Heart. Christ never serviced the mind, only the heart.
Interestsing Facts: The early 1st century church understood the Prophecies of Daniel in the way we do in the Historical Method.
Hippolytus, a historian and pastor of Porto, near Rome interpreted Daniel’s prophecies to climax with The Christian Church as anti-christ. Hippolytus died in 235AD, but wrote the following in his commentaries:
“The golden head of the image, and the lioness, denoted the Babylonians; the shoulders and arms of silver, and the bear, represented the Persians and Medes; the belly and thighs of brass, and the leopard, meant the Greeks, who held sovereignty from Alexander’s time; the legs of iron, and the beast dreadful and terrible, expressed the Romans, who hold the sovereignty at present; the toes of the feet which were part clay and part iron, and the ten horns were emblems of the ten kingdoms that are to rise; the other little Horn that grows up among them meant the Antichrist in their midst. . . .
Rejoice, blessed Daniel! Thou has not been in error: all these things have come to pass. After this again thou hast told me of the beast dreadful and terrible.”
Continued—-“It had iron teeth and claws of brass: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it” Already the iron (Rome) rules; already it subdues and breaks all in pieces; already it brings all the unwilling into subjection; already we see these things ourselves . Now we glorify God, being instructed by thee."
Treatise on Christ and antichrist
AnteNicene Fathers sections 28, 32-33 Vol. 5 p. 210
Yes very interesting Daniel. I guess the early Church Fathers did see anti-Christ as Rome, which was persecuting it. Most scholars have to admittedly agree the reference to the seven hills in Rev 17:9 was Rome, which famously was built on seven hills. But later when Roman Emperors converted to Christianity, that early view of eschatology was embarrassing.
~~A major validation of the Historical Method of interpreting prophecy comes through the 1260 years as we apply these to the history of the Christian Church.
This ‘little horn’ power, who’s head is a man ‘speaking pompously,’ arising among the ten divisions of Europe and instrumental in bringing down three, held exclusive politic position for 1260 years – Daniel 7:25.
Historically the remarkable fulfillment of this 1260 year period can be dated from when the church defeated the last of the three divisions that opposed it– the Ostrogoths in 538/550AD.
Church domination of Europe lasted until the rise of Atheism in the late 18th century. Secular revolutions would gut the church of its influence, real-estate and political power during and after the French Revolution.
538AD – 1798AD = 1260 Years Amazingly Accurate!
“From 1790 the Papal States were profoundly affected by the French Revolution and the subsequent wars of Napoleon Bonaparte. In 1791 Avignon removed itself from papal control and was annexed by France. In 1797 Napoleon's conquest of Milan and his seizure of several papal territories was confirmed by a treaty that established the Cisalpine Republic.”
“In 1798 the French seized the rest of the papal territories and proclaimed the Roman Republic; the refusal of Pius VI (1775–99) to recognize the new state led to his arrest and imprisonment.”
“In opposition to clerical rule and as part of a wave of revolutionary movements that struck France and other parts of Europe, revolts occurred in the states in 1830–31 and again in 1849, when, despite the liberal inclinations of Pius IX (1846–78).”
"Papal States." Encyclopædia Britannica from Encyclopædia Britannica 2007 Ultimate Reference Suite . (2009).
Based on the language of the Prophecy only, in the year A.D. 1689 an English Bible Scholar named Drue Cressener (1638-1718) published his predicted date for the end of the 1260 days. “He began the prophetic period in the time of Justinian in the sixth century A.D., and by applying the year- day principle to these 1260 days, Cressener came to the conclusion: ‘The time of the beast does end about the year 1800.'"
L. E. Froom, Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers (Vol. II) : 595
Based on this Prophecy Dr. Cressener accurately viewed that 100 years from his day, the Christian Churches' abusive power would be taken away at the turn of the next Century 'The Revolutions."
This type of fulfillment is varification that GOD actually inspired this.
This should be very eye opening to skeptics especially that God forwarned hundreds of year before that the Christian Religion was going to become an abusive power.
Not to mention that in the winter of 507 to 508 AD, Clovis (King of the Franks) and the Bishop of Rome did in fact form an alliance (directed firstly against the Moors and secondly against the other Aryan tribes) that was to shape the religion and politics of Western Europe for the next 1,290 years. The decisive moment for the fortunes of the Bishop of Rome was when the Franks took the Trinitarian side of the great religious divide in Western Europe. This alliance remained unbroken until 1797 to 98 when Napoleon had the Pope arrested and briefly imprisoned for his refusal to reliquish claims to the remaining Papal States, to the newly proclaimed Roman Republic.
One cannot deny from secular history that the political and economic power and influence of the Bishop of Rome were stripped away by the French Revolution. Yet in one of his more recent books Desmond Ford conflates the problems with IJ and the problems with the year-day principle which he admits he formerly believed and taught. He assserts (without offering any supporting evidence whatsoever) that the demise of the former implies the demise of the latter.
And most of his followers have uncritically followed his line of reasoning. Because Ford was in fact right about some things therefore whatever Ford say must be correct? This is the same flawed logic used by those who place Ellen White on a pedestal of infallibility.
Why cannot the prophecies in Daniel accurately fit the much nearer events that projections far into the future?
Daniel 12 clearly states that these things will happen in the time of the end. That does not eliminate the possibility of multile fulfillments but the major fulfillments will be in the time of the end.
This is why Daniel became progressively more dismayed as each successive vision unpacked more and more details about the prior one, clearly extending far into the future beyond his own time. Like us he wished to see the restoration of all things sooner rather than later. He clearly understood htis was not to be. Finally he was told to go his way and rest with his father. At the end he would stand in his appointed place.
More regarding Clovis can be found on these web sites:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/122446/Clovis-I
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_I
Traditionally the date of his baptism into the Catholic church is placed at 496 AD however some scholars place it as late as 508 AD. In 1996 the Pope celebrated a special mass at Reims in honor of the baptism of Clovis. Both Catholics and secular French acknowledge that this event significantly changed the course of history of both curch and state in Western Europe. He became the first Trinitarian king to rule a large part of Western Europe.
To his defeat of the Aryan Visigoths late in 507 is generally attributed the rise of the nation of France more or less as it exists today. Though he divided the kingdom among his sons subsequently their sons for many years, still they considered themselves one nation, and notably the first Catholic nation in Western Europe.
The name Louis taken by over a dozen French monarchs is directly traceable back to the Germanic name Clovis (drop the C, change the V to a U – note that V and U were written the same in those days).
The term "The time of the end" is most ambiguous. How can a possible calendar time be chosen for "the end." The end of ? To the Jews, their "time of the end" was the temple's destruction and the diaspora that followed.
As a Christian I use the Gospels, Epistles and Apocalypse to help interpret Daniel.
Paul and John both taught that there would be a "falling away" from the Christian church. That the "man of sin" would be revealed before the church was cleansed.
Furthermore Jesus in answer to the diciples' questions associating the time of the end with the destruction of Jerusalem, clearly indicated that the destruction of Jerusalem would NOT be the end of the world, but from that time onward there would be calamities – wars, pestilence, distress, famine, and that the love of many believers would "wax cold".
There are of course other schools of thought on how to interpret Daniel. You can choose to believe any of them or none of them.
As noted by other commenters here, William Miller did not invent the year-day principle, nor the idea that the Bibel predicted the power of the papacy would be broken at the end of the 18th century (1700s). I happen to hold Miller in very high regard despite his one serious blunder that the "cleansing of the Sanctuary" (a phrase derived from the translation of the word nitsdaq in the KJV) would be the return of Christ in or about 1843. When Jesus did not return as predicted, Miller quietly admitted to himself that he had been mistaken. Meanwhile some of his followers went on to invent explanations that rely as much upon imagination and analogies as anything directly taught in the Bible.
What actually began in or about 1843? The restoration of the Christian church, recently freed from the grasp of Rome.
(directed firstly against the Moors and secondly against the other Aryan tribes)
Oops! I got these reversed 8-(.
First the Franks went after the Aryan tribes. Later they stopped the Moors from advancing North from Spain.
Equity and fair play are not part of the ethic of the God prophecy lovers seem to admire. Access to him and possible lodging in heaven is open to just a few lucky ones who happened to be at the right place at the appropriate time.
Much of the redemption material is in code and a very, very few have access to the key(s).
And then there are people like me who recognize the inherent disconnect and intellectually reject the sophistry, but then are charged with being blinded while seeing. (Or hotfooting on a hamster wheel!)
Would someone please help me, straighten me out? I need a vision of a fair God.
Larry,
The answer you seek is best given directly by God. He is more than willing to give you that answer. When my world was falling apart and my faith falling in shattered pieces onto the ground, He reached into my darkness and despair with the utmost of gentleness and the simple message, "I love you." When I accepted that, he began giving me other answers. When I asked Him how to resolve a huge personal challenge He didn't give me the solution, just the assurance that He would walk with me day by day as I struggled to live as He wanted me to live.
Along the way He has taught me a lot. There were numerous things in my Adventist upbringing where I had conflicts and many of my problems were because I had been taught things more from tradition than scripture. As I learned directly from Him, He clarified those issues and removed the conflicts that had been consuming me.
He did it for me. He is willing to do it for you. Just ask Him. Then keep your eyes and ears open because He doesn't shout at us or flash strobe lights. He answers gently and in surprising ways.
Salvation for the few lucky ones? I see Jesus and Paul teaching that salvation is open to all. The Holy Spirit speaks to all. Regardless of what opportunties one may have or not have the Holy Spirit through the conscience speaks and God understands the heart.
Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
So, being a good person is all that is required! Wow, heaven is going to be full of billions of people (plus or minus a few million) who don't have a clue about what is going on. Won't the SDA's that followed the rules to get there be a bit jealous? Like the immigrants who have naturalized by legal channels and have serious anger at the interlopers now proclaimed legal by presidential fiat?
I think you have a good point there Larry :-}
Act 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
Act 10:35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
__________
Act 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth . . . .
Act 17:27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
Act 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Darrel, I a longtime friend, Gregg Hill, and a fine, ethical man, rare in his industry, a lifetime car sales manager, now deceased, taught me this, "you can say about whatever you want to a person, without inducing anger, if you smile while you are saying it." Much of what I post here is done with a smile on my face, but without the asset of visible modification, obviously. I think you have a pretty good sense of humor and you seem willing to extend some grace to me in my feeble attempts even though my smiling face is unviewable!
Another example of my comparing used car selesmen and evangelists. Both are trying to sell you an untested ride, generally with no warranty (beyond the end of the driveway or baptistry) and no service department should you encounter problems later and need their help. And both do it most convincingly when they have a smile on their face 8-).
I wouldn't know, I am not now nor ever have been an evangelist! I have a fifth amendment right to not reveal any personal acquaintance I might have with car sales. I did perform several hundred weddings as a profession a few years ago, yellow pages and internet advertising. Always smiled as I offered my thirty day, sorry no money back, warranty. In most cases, warranty issues were ignored including my smile, candidates were busy engulfed in the miasma of love heralded in the maxim that marriage is the triumph of hope over reality. Jim, you offer the most profane interpretation of my lily pure writings!
Jim, you offer the most profane interpretation of my lily pure writings!
And you are only too happy to return the favor 8-).
Yep!
" Desmond Ford conflates the problems with IJ and the problems with the year-day principle which he admits he formerly believed and taught. He assserts (without offering any supporting evidence whatsoever) that the demise of the former implies the demise of the latter."
You are so right Jim. Des, I believe was correct basically regarding IJ, but in his study of other issues regarding Prophecy was so influenced by FF Bruce that he lost his prospective. He of course is a great man and Christian and I do not question his motives at all. But the Historical Method of understanding Prophecy clearly valid; Proof of Concept has been demonstrated I believe.
Are not most Adventists greatly "influenced" by another writer, namely EGW? She cannot hold a light to F.F. Bruce, one of this century's most eminent Bible scholar. While EGW is a great devotional writer, she was never a Bible scholar.