The Creationism of Evangelical Christians: Why Do Traditional Adventists Object?
by Ervin Taylor, November 22, 2015: Traditional Adventism argues that it is necessary to believe in “recent” Creation in seven literal days because they allege such a belief is the only one that preserves a belief in the veracity of Scripture. Any other view, they insist, would fatally compromise the truths of the Adventist faith. These individuals think that “truth” is so important, they recently caused it to be added as a “Fundamental Belief” of the Church.
We here use the term “traditional Adventist” to designate those Adventists who agree with the most literal and straightforward interpretations of all the “Fundamental Beliefs” of the Seventh-day Adventist (Adventist) Church as voted at a General Conference session. In the current version of those beliefs, there would be 28 statements with which a “Traditional Adventist” would be expected to agree. As defined here, these individuals would have no question about the need and requirement that all Adventists be “real Adventists” and believe all of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs. In most cases, a “traditional Adventist” would be expected to hold to a classic, Fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible, which includes the proviso that the Bible contains no major or substantive errors of fact when addressing topics in science and history.
If one is interested in obtaining a more balanced understanding of how one part of the evangelical Christian community is addressing this topic, an excellent source is a book by David Young and Ralph Stearley, entitled The Bible, Rocks and Time: Geological Evidence for the Age of the Earth, published in 2008 by InterVarsity Press, an evangelical Christian publisher.
Davis A. Young (Ph.D., Brown University) is Professor Emeritus of Geology and Ralph F. Stearley (Ph.D., University of Michigan) is Professor of Geology, both at Calvin College, an evangelical Protestant Christian liberal arts college. These geologists are certainly not the “infidel scientists” about which a certain 19th-century Adventist writer warned. The mission statement of the institution at which they were (or are) faculty members states that “Calvin College is a comprehensive liberal arts college in the Reformed tradition of historic Christianity. Through our learning, we seek to be agents of renewal in the academy, church, and society. We pledge fidelity to Jesus Christ, offering our hearts and lives to do God’s work in God’s world.”
The concluding chapter of this volume is entitled “Creationism, Evangelism, and Apologetics.” Here are some quotations from that chapter:
“In this book we have endeavored to show that several purported scientific claims advanced by Young-Earth Creationists [which also includes Young-Life Creationism] do not stand up to scrutiny and fail to establish a young age for the earth [and fossils]. These claims are generally based on incomplete information, wishful thinking, ignorance of real geologic solutions, selective use of data and faulty reasoning” (p. 475).
“When presented with the gospel, unbelieving scientists will reckon that, if it is an article of Christian faith that the world was created only a few thousand years ago and that most sedimentary rocks [those containing fossils] were deposited during Noah’s flood, a religion that tolerates such bogus science is not worthy of further interest. By linking the gospel of Jesus Christ to Young Earth Creationism, Christians place a serious barrier in the way of a person’s acceptance of the gospel. In this sense, modern Young Earth Creationism is a hindrance to evangelism” (p. 478).
“Sadly, too many Christians have distorted the content of the natural sciences in order to gain an accommodation with what they perceive to be a natural interpretation of Scripture. This is, in fact what has happened with the modern Young Earth Creationist movement. Having locked themselves into fixed interpretations of the creation or flood accounts, they find themselves in profound and widening disagreement with the results of modern geology and other sciences. Unwilling to allow conflict to exist, they have sought harmonization with science, not by reevaluating their biblical exegesis but by the wholesale distortion of science and the data of nature. They have tried to force nature to say things it does not say” (p. 494).
In the light of such views by members of another branch of conservative evangelical Christianity, one might ask why traditional Adventism is so concerned with advancing a view of origins that is at odds with so much of contemporary science dealing with earth and human history. Why would it rather align its views with that of Christian Fundamentalists? The argument that one must accept the reality of a “recent” creation and a worldwide flood to support the veracity of Scripture is revealed to be, at best, a highly suspect argument. Is there a different explanation that may be closer to what is actually involved?
The reason most often offered is, of course, the Seventh-day Adventist belief in the importance of Sabbath observance. That view says that without a belief in a literal Creation, the injunction to observe the Sabbath would lose much of its biblical support. The force of this argument can only be sustained by ignoring the fact that there are two completely different reasons given in the Old Testament for why the institution of the Sabbath is to be honored. One reason is cited in the well-known Exodus version of the Ten Commandments in that the Sabbath is stated to be a memorial of Creation. The other reason is given in Deuteronomy, where the justification of the Sabbath is as a memorial of the Exodus from Egypt. This dual justification would appear to indicate that among the ancient Hebrews both of these events were cited as the justification for the institution of the Sabbath. We now might ask why it is important for traditional Adventists to accept one explanation and ignore the other.
One suggestion is that the most important factor involved in the need for a part of Adventism to align its views with the fundamentalist wing of Protestant Christianity is actually not primarily a concern with the veracity of the Bible. It is suggested that the most important reason is the need for traditional Adventism to support the views of Ellen G. White (EGW). While the Bible might be ambiguous about the basis of certain teachings, EGW has made very specific and uncompromising statements about what must be believed on certain topics. Her views on the nature of earth history are well known. She used the expression “6,000 years” on a number of occasions as the amount of time that had transpired since Creation, and she certainly believed in the reality of a recent worldwide flood.
It is posited that until the Seventh-day Adventist tradition has sufficiently matured to be able to accept an understanding that the views of EGW on the subject of earth and life history of our planet are artifacts of the times in which she was living and her own consciousness that sometimes were manifested in the contents of some of her visions, we shall continue to consign our faith tradition to a marginalized position outside of the informed and thinking parts of the contemporary Christian community. This is one factor among many that is being vividly played out currently, causing the high rates of departure of our younger, better-educated members.
Erv, EGW never claimed infallibility but I’ve heard very little about her fallacies. Is your point that EGW’s views on Creation are fallacious? Of course it is. While I don’t necessarily agree with you, let’s be clear about what you are saying: “EGW WAS WRONG ABOUT THE WORLD BEING CREATED 6000 YEARS AGO.”
w
I think we all know that she was wrong about the earth being only 6000 years old. We have records of civilizations going back a thousands of years before this.
We know she was wrong about many things but we will not talk about it. We do not sell her first book on health after her major health vision because it is filled with weird assertions. So we know, but we just ignore it the fact to maintain this narrative
Darrel, what records of what civilizations do we have that go back thousands of years before 6000 years ago?
Archaeologists have collapsed Egyptian chronology as they discovered that certain dynasties were contemporaneous rather than consecutive. And much of the chronology of the ancient world is tied to that of Egypt by these archaeologists.
So the question today is whether the current, revised interpretations of ancient records by fallible archaeologists still need revising, or are more accurate than biblical chronology.
Biblical chronology allows for some flexibility for many dates, but I know of no manuscripts that would permit the records of civilizations to go back thousands of years before 6000 years ago. That in effect would be making the Tower of Babel event older than 6000 + 1000’s of years, and I don’t see how that is possible.
Sorry, I didn’t see this. Sumerian Cultural History.
Please give the examples of these cultures..
I am against the use of the inclusive word ‘we’ you seem to have a problem with EGW. I think you are in the wrong church, or you are an ex SDA masquerading as a current member. By the way she was not the first Christian to believe the world is 6000 years old. There are creation scientists in other Evangelical churches who believe the same. May Gid expose your evil Intentions if they are to cause doubt in our belief in EGW.
In addition to the strong geological evidence we see now debunking a 6000 year figure it may also be useful to recall where that figure originated, (with James Ussher) and how arbitrary the methodology he used to arrive at his conclusion.
I think you’d be hard pressed to show how Ussher was way off. The biblical data allows for some flexibility, but not much.
What strong geologic evidence are you referring to? In reality, there is strong geologic evidence that the earth is just thousands of years old.
Evolutionists claim that dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago. Do you know of any way that soft tissue would remain intact in dinosaur bones for that length of time? Five years ago I heard a lecture on how protein molecules have a half life, and how that half life is too low to permit the amount of protein we find in dinosaur bones today if they are as old as evolutionists claim. I know Erv was at some of those lectures, because I saw him there.
And that’s just some of the geologic evidence out there.
Why on earth would it matter if the person to whom you’re responding is SDA? If they bring light that illuminates something you believe that is false, why wouldn’t you want to know? Is there any way that you’d know if you’re wrong?
Look at Gal 2:14 and then ACTS 13:44 where Paul did NOT dissuade GENTILES from meeting on the Sabbath to hear a sequel to what he preached in ACTS 13:42. Since so many want to call it a old covenant, shadow, JEWISH observance. He should have told them to come back any other day than the Sabbath. Also too bad that of all day observances…only one got on the stone tablets. Maybe God should have just left it off with all of the other celebration days.
Then there is the written gospel records where more verses are included about Sabbath than any other of the day observances or other 9 commandments put together. MATT 12, MK 2,3 Luke 6, 13, 14, JN 5,7,9.
Jesus created fish and bread pretty quick or the several thousand hungry JEWS would have been very agitated.
And when Adam was made from dust did he look just 10 seconds or 8 hours old?
I wonder if perhaps Mr. Jimbob could please indicate to us the point of his comment. Perhaps there is hidden in his posting some important point.
Did U look at Gal 2:14?
Dr Taylor: “I wonder if perhaps Mr. Jimbob could please indicate to us the point of his comment.”
I wondered the same thing! Gal 2:14 said:
“When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?”
What has that got to do with the insertion of the word “recent” into FB#6 on a six-day creation, or the relevance of E White talking about the earth being 6,000 years’ old?
It is probably very clear from science that many of the miracles of Christ are believed to be factual only by ignorant people who are uneducated and not that far removed from those fundamentalists who detonate their underwear on airplanes. In fact, that Christ was a real figure and not just a compilation is up for debate. In reality, if science is to be believed, Christianity is Santa Claus for grownups. Creationism is magic and books of faith are nothing more than morality tales. Aesop and Moses are equivalent and there is no resurrection from the dead.
Why these doubters continue to orbit Christianity without seeking better uses for their limited period of existence is beyond me. Living like a believer but believing like an atheist is foolishness.
In that sense it’s better to just go have fun and stop pretending to have an anchor in anything supernatural. No more ESP silent prayers or waiting for Superman to save you. It’s all on you.
Could not agree more. I supposed this is the first step. First they reject EGW writings the. They start rejecting the scriptures. Next they are out. She did say it.
Amen! She was inspired by the Holy Spirit to be sure!
Notice the following from inspiration, “It is Satan’s plan to weaken the faith of God’s people in the Testimonies. Next follows skepticism in regard to the vital points of our faith, the pillars of our position, then doubt as to the Holy Scriptures, and then the downward march to perdition. When the Testimonies, which were once believed, are doubted and given up, Satan knows the deceived ones will not stop at this; and he redoubles his efforts till he launches them into open rebellion, which becomes incurable and ends in destruction.” {4T 211.1}
I would suggest that such a threat could only come from a false prophet. Of course EGW would say such things. But where is the hard logic in this downward spiral to perdition which the prophet promises? Disbelieve the testimonies, yes, doubt the ‘pillars,’ certainly. But why is it essential that one who doubts the dubious and unbiblical teachings such as the IJ should necessarily go on to doubt the scriptures generally? Only one whose heart was not seeking truth in the first place, who came to the SDA movement and the Testimonies from unworthy motives would be inclined to go down that path. The true seeker, who searches with his whole heart, will still receive the promise of Jesus that the honest seeker WILL find Him. He/she does not have to accept the errors of Adventism in order to receive the guidance of the Holy Spirit. In fact, the opposite is the case, in my experience.
A true scientist does not insist that we dismiss as impossible all that science has been unable to explain, for while Science is pretty good at explaining what we do know it is not so great at explaining what we don’t yet know. A good scientist recognizes and readily admits that. The same can be said for theologians.
“For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.” [Exodus 20:8-11.]
Cyclic seventh-day Sabbath observance had to have come from creation week – that first literal 7 days. If this time period weren’t literal then what would our Sabbath worship interval be, for it most certainly didn’t come from the Exodus, which was a singular event.
Clearly, many Adventists do not take literally the seven day creation story but view the Sabbath institution as a valuable contribution to human betterment. I trust other Adventists who believe that the seven day creation story must be taken literally will not need to criticize those Adventists who belief the Sabbath is an important element in their lives but do not think that a literal seven day creation story makes any sense — for them. If you need to criticize that view, what does that make you?
“many Adventists”?
How many approximately? Is it a majority?
Do you have surveys to support that “many Adventists”?
18 million Adventists…..how many trash the 7 day creation?
Read the 2nd half of GC p608.
I am not an institutional, follow the crowd, person who is infected with institutional Adventitis or are a victim of Adventist idolatry.
I go with Jesus who made fish and bread real quick ..like in minutes for a crowd of thousands and who said that humans were created.
Erv,
Care to comment on why it is important to keep Saturday as the Sabbath rather than Sunday, if your speculations be true? Why would the 7th-day Sabbath be any more valuable of a contribution to human betterment than a 1st-day Sabbath? Why couldn’t Sunday be called the 7th-day Sabbath instead of Saturday?
One of the reasons that Sunday gets enforced by law so much is that there is no divine command backing it. We don’t need a civil law forbidding work on Saturday because God has already spoken.
In your understanding, when is the first time God commanded people to keep the 7th-day Sabbath? Did the manna really fall only 6 days a week as described in Exodus 16? Did God really come down on Mt. Sinai and give the 10 Commandments? Or are these things just as bogus, in your opinion, as Gen. 1’s 6 days of creation? Did Jesus really say, as recorded in the gospels, that He had made the Sabbath for all mankind back during creation week?
I’m just wondering if your line of thought would take the divine command out of the Sabbath, leaving us with the same problem that Sunday keepers have.
If you are so sure in your belief, then go ahead and quote a plain “Thus saith the Lord” in response to PEK’s statement.
Here is a thought:
We keep every seventh day, weekly ’24 hour day’ in commemoration of God’s finished work at the end of the 7 epochs of God’s creation week. God’s epochs of creation could have been 100s of thousands of years, our week is a commemoration of these larger creation days.
Doesn’t te testimony of Jesus tell us that this idea is a most dangerous form of infidelity?
I’m surprised Hansen has heard very little about EGW’s fallacies.
Here are a few to whet your appetite:
2 Cor 1:22; Eph 1:13 says the seal of God is possession of the Holy Spirit. EGW says the seal is Saturday observance.
Ex 29:44; 1 Cor 6:11 indicates sanctification takes place at the beginning of one’s Christian ministry. EGW says it is the work of a lifetime of moral improvement.
“Spiritual Gifts” vol 3, pp.64,75 teaches the physical impossibility of the amalgamation of man and beast both before and after the Flood.
EW p.145; MS 137 (1899) teaches the now discredited phrenology.
Testimonies vol 5, p.466 Our character is fixed at the Second Coming. COL p.332 Our character continually improves in heaven.
Testimonies vol.2, p.319 Someone else’s faith can save us by proxy. COL p.412 “No man can believe for another.”
“Appeal to the Youth” pp.42,62 “Wicked children God does not love.” ST 15 Feb 1892, p.36 “Do not teach your children that God does not love them when they do wrong.”
EW p.90 Apostles wrote scripture by the dictation method. SM vol. 1, pp.19-22 scripture written by the plenary method of inspiration.
Letter, EGW to Frank Belden 10 Dec 1897. Belden is 39 years of age and bringing litigation against the RH for transgression of copyright. EGW warns him he will die an early death if he persists with this rebellious conduct. He persisted and lived to be 87!!!!
The EGW apologist will plead her accuracy improved with age. No it didn’t.
She was a…
If we are honest enough to admit that science supports an old earth view rather than a young earth view, this does not automatically mandate the acceptance of an atheist mentality.
Science does not necessarily uphold neo-Darwinism. In fact, more and more scientific evidence supports Intelligent Design. I would highly recommend the works of Steven Meyer, and here he is at his best. http://www.socratesinthecity.com/video/darwins-doubt-stephen-meyer
The Fundamental Beliefs may be the cause of death of the SDA Church, in North America, Australia, and Europe, as the more learned young people will continue to abide such false teachings of Science, and non scriptural Beliefs.
The non creedal SDA Church has 28 creedal beliefs.
Earl,
They might be.
My perspective is that if what is presented at church does not feed the spiritual person enough to counter the food that feeds the fleshly self, offered by the world, then the members will bail out.
Pastors/SS teachers do not preach the 28 fundamental beliefs. They preach amateur, superficial, bible dotted, religious therapy/damage control /counselling sessions…using a little institutional pep talk phrases.
Ellen White’s science with things like amalgamation of man and beast and the explanation for volcanoes is weird. There is no need to hold her as an infallible scientist.
Adventism is in dangerous territory in holding a belief then using contortionist thinking styles and rationales to make outside evidence fit the preconceived position.
If the evidence doesn’t back up a particular strongly held belief, then it’s time to let it go. If it means we have to revaluate our thinking styles and theology and practice, then that is the honest way to go.
The more Adventism worships a particular belief or notion regardless of the unfolding evidence, the more it becomes irrelevant, backward, and potentially cult-like dangerous.
When the creationist Ken Ham debated the evolutionist Bill Nye on a widely viewed program, both were asked “What would it take to change your position. The Creationist said that nothing would. That his interpretation of the bible, which he concluded was the only valid one, was correct. Any and all the evidence in the world would have no impact on him if it disagreed. He would still maintain his,position. The evolutionist gave a list of things that would be enough to change his beliefs. His was the only smart answer. It showed up the paucity of the creationist’s beliefs, attitudes and approach.
I would say Ken Ham was 100% sure of his faith. Are you?
Who is more sure of their faith than Roman Catholics? Baptists? Even Muslims?
Does stronger faith infer truth?
There are no “two different reasons” for Sabbath observance, one in Ex 20 and the other in Deut 5. One explains one thing, the other explains a different thing. The Ex 20 reason explains why the Sabbath comes every 7th day, while the Deut 5 reason explains why the Sabbath must reach not only you but also your manservant and your maidservant.
Milton, I’m aware that EGW’s statements regarding the seal of God contradict the plain testimony of Scripture. I can still hear the howl that went up when I pointed this out during a Sabbath school more than 20 years ago. Sanctification may be understood in different ways. One clear definition defines it as avoiding fornication, that’s all.
The other statements that you cited look like contradictions in her own writings
Where should the presidence of bias cease; GOD/CHRIST/The WORD, the Body, the Church, the remembrance of those that sacrificed, the Denomination, those sacrificing and continuing within the Denomination? There is definitely opposing bias at each level; so is it bias or motive?
Do we not lead into the answer within motive; while unable to even address or understand the question? Within intent; do we have sufficient accumulated knowledge or wisdom to even pose the question?
All accumulated knowledge, even within alternate motive, all point to intelligent design and interference; please provide any example that does not. Then should Creationism not be the standard theory? Why should an opposite theory within specific motive and such adverse proof ever be the standard?
If the vast majority of all experts within all disciplines hold sufficient conviction (and have Faith in HIM), while a very small vocal subset do not; why is the voice of the small subset not identified as such? Why does the small subset of voices constantly scream to be heard? In many cases we scream for help; but seems very different.
Does Ellen’s view change either stance? Does the degradation or cherishment of her value accomplish or solve anything? Do we look at her conviction as an example or do we want to pick her guidance to death? What if the Spirit leads her and others to observe Sabbath? Are we told not to judge or condemn either way? Do we not Love in both ways?
Humans started being gullible starting with Eve who believed the serpent.
How many believe the world is 4.5 billion years old because a bunch of PHD’s said so? What if 20 PHD’s said it was 6 billion years old.. would U have a confidence issue with the other PHD’s?
Anyone ever been on a jury to hear defense & prosecution witnesses?
So easy for those reading here to Google and find scientific sites such as
https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/
I have endured the gullible, rebellious SDA goat/tares for over 40 years. It will only get worse..see Great Controversy p 608
I surely hope, Jimbob that you can find something more meaty than “Answering Genesis” to support your conclusions.
In its eschatology of the Sabbath, I believe the SDA church robustly flirts with cultism. Simply keeping the seventh day holy is not the issue. Clearly, that practice has a good Biblical foundation, even if Elaine does not find it persuasive. It is in relying on the extra-Biblical authority of its founding mother – Ellen White – to create an end-times Sabbath theology – that the church heads toward the cultic shoals of mainland, sola scriptura Protestantism.
I am strongly committed to the seventh-day Sabbath. But that’s because it is God’s gift and command. If He had sanctified the 6th day, and commanded observance of that day as a memorial of His creative work, would you be inclined to ignore it, Jimbob, because it isn’t as logical to you? Creation fundamentalists certainly take the Bible more literally than other Christiians. But they also appreciate that the Bible is packed with symbolism, allusion, and metaphor.
A student of Ancient Hebrew can readily see how Genesis 1 is larded with numerical patterns that suggest a purpose that goes beyond the mere informational. God usually speaks to us not so much to inform us as to reveal who is and evoke a response.
I will suggest below why I believe we can find greater Sabbath depth and meaning by freeing it from literalism.
“Answers in Genesis” is a “scientific site”? JimBob must be joking. Answers in Genesis is one of the most notorious Christian fundamentalist apologetic site on the internet. Also, the most slick and technologically savvy. They are so far to the right of center of creationism that it makes the Adventist Geoscience Research Institute look liberal.
“Answers in Genesis” is a “scientific site”?
Absolutely not, since you are the final authority.
I just posted it as one of the first page Google sites that showed up.
I did see how one part dealt with the topic of ioactive halos, which George Vandeman aired on a IT IS WRITTEN telecast years ago when he interviewed Bob Gentry. But of course both of them and the producers were evidently just so naïve…right?
To say that a particular interpretation—with which one disagrees—of the symbolism employed in prophetic Scripture is itself “extra-Biblical,” and to suggest that a particularly Protestant interpretation is effectively non-Protestant, turns logic absolutely upside down and reason completely inside out; especially if the near-cultic, extra-Biblical, non-Protestant critical assessment is based mere disagreement, and even more illogically from a member of the church that teaches and promulgates such an interpretation.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, most if not all of the opposition to Ellen White is about her interpretation of the very Biblical warning of Revelation 14:9-11; and that everything else is a smokescreen, a diversion, a distraction.
Likewise I’m now beginning to believe that all or most of Adventist liberalism is in fact really about the same distraction.
I surely hope, Jimbob that you can find something more meaty than “Answering Genesis” to support your conclusions.
More meaty??
U need to get on the thread where they want to serve meat at SDA potlucks.
Do we not move the question; from how long it took GOD at creation, to how old is the earth? Does this not introduce additional variables? How long was Adam in the garden alone. How long were Adam and Eve there before the transgression? I would contend; long enough for satan to become jealous, rebellious and to build (and get kicked out)?
The true alternate to the original question would be; could GOD create the Universe in seven days or did HE know about the rebellion? Would the answer to both not be a resounding yes?
I would also contend that Genesis 1 poses many purposes. If the evening and the morning make the day (either direction the verbiage); GOD must be a night person, noon to noon? Or maybe we rely on our definition of a day instead of HIS (maybe the date line)? Maybe this is the reason for the one exclusion in “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: (Colossians 2:16)? Maybe both are half right (or wrong)?
Many things will not keep us from Heaven; or get us there. The same for everyone else; those Churches of the seven messages early in Revelations. HE will lead us where we should go.
The more knowledge we acquire only proves more that we do not understand within wisdom. Is that not the ultimate theorem? In our present condition we are nothing, compared to HIM? But HE definitely does grow us.
Just some thoughts.
If I may be permitted to paraphrase Ms Charity: “Maybe we are all half right or half wrong about our religious convictions–the problem is that we don’t know which half is right and which half is wrong.” What do we think about that? Let’s call it “The Charity Postulate”
Maybe we can call it the GOD postulate? We are fortunate HE gives us the “whats”; because we are definitely unable to understand the “whys”.
We may personally hold conviction to any instant, such as Sabbath; but cannot condemn or judge others in such. Collossians 2:16 “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:”. HE came not to condemn, but to Save the world.
Maybe we would die in a car accident observing any other day; ergo the “whys” enter the picture again. We are who we are; but we need to remember that that does not follow us into the Body, that is of the world. If the convictions are from HIM they are then our commands; but maybe not others. As long as the Doctrine is Sound; we should never hold issue of others. If it is unsound, we are commanded to take issue; to protect others.
Just Charity is fine. We are cumulative of Body and voice.
The observance of one particular day has been the sine qua non of the church since it was founded; linked with the belief that those who worship on that day will be the the the cause of all the future apocalyptic disasters.
It is the symptom of both narcissism and persecution complex that has resulted in cult who claim to be the remnant of Revelation. This has resulted in insulation from the world recommended by their prophet; the danger of association with “the world”, and the teaching that the “Sunday churches” represent the daughter of the harlot, the Roman Catholic church.
What better method to induce fear of ecumenism with all other Christians?
Bringing the Gospel to all has meant conversion to the one true church. It’s a form of selling: I will tell you about the soon coming events and how you can escape them by joining this church.
Now, all those who object to how that has been taught, start commenting.
Elaine I always enjoy reading your comments.
You hit the nail right on the head there.
Nice to know someone commenting here has their head screwed on straight!
A Fundamental Question of interpretation of Genesis 1:
Can—and should–the following two aspects of the initial Creation narrative (Genesis 1:1-28 and 2:1-4) be separated and/or distinguished?
(Not only as to the sequence and timing, but also as to the existence of non-organic vs. organic LIFE)?
(A) the initial creation of the basic “proto-planet” Earth (without the “biosphere” and all organic life therein); as distinguished from:
(B) the 7-day Creation of the “Biosphere” –with all the life-forms on earth therein, in Gen. 1:3-28, which also includes the Sabbath, as described in Genesis 2:1-4.
Isn’t the 7-“Day” narrative sequence really the record of the creation of the Biosphere and the origin of Life on the previously-created sterile planet Earth (much as Mars now appears to be)?
Notice that the “Day” recording system begins in Gen. 1:3-5 with God’s calling forth “light” on the Earth, which in Gen.1:2 had until then been shrouded in “thick darkness,” (Job 38:9 calls it “the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddling band for it.”) See the entire context in Job 38:1-21.
The language tells me one thing. What was written is similar to a lot of reports the world is producing. I’d listen but as soon as it starts to agree with the world’s thinking, and really using words in a very cunning way, you be sure by God’s word to determine who’s fruits are being uplifted here. Look at where the crowd is going and compare this opinion with what the world is producing. It’s compelling and it has to be. If it wasn’t, our first parents would’ve have fallen and so any prophets would’ve have as well. To him that endures to the end, the same will receive the crown…so make your calling and election sure my brethren, signs that Jesus’ return is truly imminent.
Quoting “,…a religion that tolerates such bogus science is not worthy of further interest. By linking the gospel of Jesus Christ to Young Earth Creationism, Christians place a serious barrier in the way of a person’s acceptance of the gospel.”
I didn’t finish reading after that point and with due respect only read a few comments.
Pita, the crowd isn’t always wrong, as in this case. The crowd, the “world’s thinking” is led by smart people, who honor observable facts, have dedicated their lives to honest search for verifiable conclusions. They don’t ask you to “believe” anything. Just look at the evidence, that is all. You can see for yourself what they see. They don’t require an outcome. You do. And that separates you from the crowd, because you have a required outcome. You must look at the evidence and modify it to fit your scheme. Which is a way of avoiding “truth.” You are entitled to believe whatever you wish. But don’t assume your minority view is accurately factual because you choose not to be part of the crowd.
What if the Ten Commandments were part of the Old Covenant ceremonial law that was no longer valid after Jesus died? In Matthew 5, Jesus reiterated and expanded on five commandments. Jesus continued the moral authority of the Ten Commandments, but that didn’t include the Sabbath. Later, he boiled it down to two: Love God and love your neighbor. Paul, in Rom 13:9, said loving one’s neighbor summed up the law.
When Jesus said, “Keep my commandments,” he was talking about Matthew 5, not the Ten Commandments, as SdAs believe.
Jesus repeatedly and intentionally “broke” the Sabbath commandment, which is one of the reasons the Jewish leaders wanted to kill him. The penalty for breaking that commandment was death.
Aside from demonstrating true Sabbath observance, could He also have been showing their belief was no longer valid?
Finally, belief in the Sabbath isn’t salvific. Rom 10:9 states that if we believe and confess that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead, we will be saved.
“Now we can serve God, not in the old way of obeying the letter of the law, but in the new way of living in the Spirit.” Rom 7:6 NLT
Jesus didn’t break God’s law of Remembering the Sabbath. He broke the Jewish rule of breaking the Sabbath. The religious leaders added to God’s commandments by creating laws saying you could only walk a certain distance,not light candles or harvest food which rule the disciples were breaking as they walked through the field. Jesus always kept the Sabbath holy even in death. Jesus asked the scribes and pharisees if it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath and they certainly didn’t want to answer Him because that’s what God’s 10 Commandments were. Laws of love. Of course Jesus kept the Commandments out of love for His Father and love for His creation
The fundamental question regarding creation: Can the two distinct and entirely different stories be harmonized?
Why is the discussion always centered on Gen. 1 and 2-4? Surely, they were written by two separate authors and two separate times. Most scholars are in agreement that the account in the 2nd chapter is much older than that of the 1st chapter of Genesis.
In order to teach seventh-day observance as Sabbath only the 1st chapter must be taught. Most all scholars are agreed that the 2nd chapter account was written or told long before the 1st chapter story. There are some who have never read or heard of the 2nd chapter or know that in the earlier account it was never mentioned.
The author(s) of the day-to-day activities were intent on assigning God’s work on each separate day as significant culminating in God’s resting after completing His work. As man had only lived one day and needed no rest from work, God never told them to rest on that day and none of their descendants were recorded as observing the 7th day until the Israelites settled in the Sinai desert. There is no “unbroken” cycle of a day observed every 7 days for several thousand years. When the command was given to the Israelites it was not given to their ancestors nor any other people but those who God delivered from Egypt.
One other thing, Elaine, it was assumed the world was flat back then. A “morning and evening” had a different effect than now. A round world reduces the effective meaning to absolute contradiction since there is no starting point on a globe for the calculation. So not only is there no historical exact record keeping to know if the seventh day of now was the same as then (all assuming the 7 day creation story is factual), but where on the round world does it begin and end? No exact record and a round world destroys the myth of any possibility of exact observance. Adventism has survived with its ongoing “Waterloo” created when facts were dubious. Now we know the Sabbath was a manufactured requirement on the fallacy of Biblical inerrancy and the limited application to Jews, as you reveal, and the facts of geology plain for even the simplest to see.
The creation “fundamentalist” are correct about one thing, so sorry Dr. Taylor. Adventism and its theory of Sabbath are the inseparable Siamese twins on which the balance of the church hangs. A literal, traditional, acceptance of the Scripture as fact and “the seven day young earth” is the living tissue of its existence. That’s why the obvious facts of cosmology and geology are ignored at all costs at the willing expense of idiocy on the part of the defenders.
The reinterpretation of Sabbath as primarily a benefit for mankind, without the mandate of the commandment, is nothing but a fiction, a rationalization of what is the “whited sepulcher” of Adventism. Nothing in scripture supports that airy, neo point of view (not that it matters in actuality), which places the interpreters of each untruth in the same, but opposite, position. That is, both retreat to fallacious arguments to buttress their propositions.
Adventists have observed Sabbath for no reason. The rules the church mandated and applied for one hundred forty some years were a fabrication, borrowed, remanufactured, and applied without mercy on hapless millions of honest, duty motivated adherents who now are left with “you mean I did this for no good reason?”
It is time to face the facts about Sabbath keeping. It is optional without divine imperative. Adventism has punished millions over the decades by blocking their full participation in society by preventing Sabbath employment.
I uusually don’t take issue with Bugs but his assertion that “Adventisn and its theory of Sabbath are the inseparable Siamese twins on which the balance of the church handgs” makes two disputable assumptions: (1) that there is only one Adventism and (2) that one “theory of the Sabbath” is correct. Both assumptions can be and have been challenged as Bugs most certainly must know.
Erv must likewise certainly know that just because an assumption or a theory has been challenged does not make said challenge valid or reasonable; or even necessarily worthwhile.
We know of Seventh-day Adventism. Is Erv suggesting that there others; that is other iterations of Adventism, other than Seventh-day Adventism?
1. There is only one Adventism. Yes, it’s the legal, Ten Commandment, Seventh-day one. So far, at least. As best as I can see, according to the Creationist narrative, he rested to admire his work, but without any requirement for people to do the same. Until the legal trip up the mountain and down again by Moses, that is. The Adventists hadn’t noticed the mandate to keep it until the Saturday Baptists alerted them. Then they adopted it not to celebrate creation, but because of the Ten Commandment Law. And they have maintained for one hundred forty years or so, it is a legal requirement, divinely decreed by God Himself.
Members deviating from that understanding aren’t “real” Adventists. Maybe they can be called NeoAdventists which provides cover for the fiction of non-legal Sabbath keeping. Dr. Taylor, has the church modified it’s Sabbath rules differently than its tradition?
Admitting the allegorical nature of creation defeats the legal basis of the “Sabbath of the Lord thy God” since there is no basis for a real divinely decreed seven day cycle, on one of which he allegedly “rested.” Conjuring up a rationalization outside of the legal one is only a face saving device for those who originally bought the legal argument, but need an excuse to avoid the embarrassment of admission of being fooled, and wish to maintain their “Adventism.”
2. The “theory of Sabbath” without a legal admission isn’t defensible. The “challenge” is equally puny, meritless.
Constantine gave Romans the benefit of rest every seventh day by an order that the first day of the week was legalized as a rest day. Prior to that, many slaves and the poor labored every day.
That humans need at least a day free from work is evident. But to claim that the only rest day is the seventh is not based on any teaching in the NT, but a distortion that it is a requirement for salvation and a biblical sign of the remnant church that will be persecuted for observing the Sabbath and the only one that will be saved.
My problem with an old earth and evolution, even theistic evolution, has nothing to do with either EGW or the Sabbath. It has to do with the fact that man was made perfect and in the image of God. Then he fell and as a result we have a need for a Savior. Without a perfect Creation and fall there is no need for Christ, or Christianity. Christianity’s very foundation is a Biblical Creation.
Richard, where is the evidence of original human perfection? It’s only a belief, a theory, a presumption. It is based on an allegory, the Genesis account. It may or may not be fact. Supposing it isn’t, but is a convenient part of a narrative based on just one view of man’s condition. Other world religions don’t posit that view. What if mankind is now what it has always been? That there isn’t any viable explanation for our condition.
Christ as redeemer was never part of his claim. That was a view of him developed after his “resurrection.” His followers saw him as messiah, the deliverer from Rome. They didn’t cheer his death as an understood step of “salvation,” but grieved in disappointment at his failure as a deliverer. The empty tomb changed it all, but it was men, not him, who developed the new interpretation of his past life as Savior.
Billions of people have live and died, and we will too. Christ raised the dead, not permanently, so they died again. We don’t have perfection in our genes, only the program to die without which there would be massive overpopulation.
Revelator and exemplar of God as love was what he represented. He didn’t perceive that mankind was “lost,” but in a perpetual state of foundness by the God of love. By loving each other we are always in the state of his awareness. We aren’t lost since the Good Shepherd never loses his sheep. It’s that eternal love that preserves mankind in the midst of insufferable chaos.
Mr. Sherwin raises an excellent issue. I’m sure many of us have different ways of addressing his concern. But one initial query might ask: The majority Christian world does not have a problem with this issue. They confess the truths of Christianity but do not see the reality of an old earth and evolution as conflicting with that confession. Why does the majority Adventist tradition have a problem with that understanding?
Ervin,
Have you not considered the possibility that part of the motivation for so many professed Christians embracing evolution, despite how it contradicts the Bible, is to avoid the Sabbath? Take for example the Scopes trial. Why would William Jennings Bryan say on the witness stand while being questioned under oath by Clarence Darrow, that the Bible doesn’t say that the world was created in 6 days, if not to evade the Sabbath?
I think Ellen White was right that the various unbiblical theories about origins are attractive to some professed Christians because it provides them an excuse to ignore the Sabbath.
Since about half of Christians are of the Roman Catholic tradition, what does it mean to Protestant Seventh-day Adventists that the majority of Christians do not believe what the majority of Adventists believe—about anything?
I don’t care what the rest of Christianity believes, what matters is what God teaches and what I believe.
Erv, again in understanding the question; we move from creationism to old earth to evolution? Are these not mutually exclusive ideologies? Inclusive of the range from GOD creating us to our ability to grow? Would GOD create us and not allow us the ability to adapt?
The US does have the highest percentage of persons that believe humans evolved without GOD, but that only represents less than 20%; while over 70% believes GOD did have a hand in it. In the rest of the world the percentage is much higher, and there are many Countries I would suggest that you not even ask the question.
The Gallop Poll asking these questions started in 1982, to reflect our beliefs leading to the 1987 SCOTUS ruling removing the privilege to teach creationism; which most of us believed in. Still the numbers are relatively static within such discriminatory actions (and our tolerance of such).
The question and definitions do seem to be the problem. Could we stick with one question and maybe provide some proof at some point in time?
We should all believe and reverence GOD if we are posting here. Should we not believe that we are created for and by HIM? Since the world has it’s bias, should we not? Does this profit HIM (or us)?
Maybe we could talk about the beauty and simplicity of all the acquired knowledge that always points back to HIM, with HIM in the center of the picture; or at least prove otherwise?
Actually you have faith.
I tried posting last night but it didn’t go through so I’ll try again.
Here’s a link to a review of “The Bible, Rocks and Time: Geological Evidence for the Age of the Earth” by a non-SDA geologist: http://creation.com/review-young-and-stearley-bible-rocks-and-time
There are “informed and thinking parts of the contemporary Christian community” that do not accept the long age, evolutionary view of things. As for interpreting Genesis as history “causing the high rates of departure of our younger, better-educated members”, many continue the departure by becoming atheists. Listen to Richard Dawkins’ comments in the following video: http://creation.com/media-search?q=Richard%20Dawkins As he states; there is a deep incompatibility between Christianity and Evolution.
It is all about the character of God. You can argue that an all powerful God could have used long ages of suffering and death to bring about what he have now, but would a God of love have done it that way. As the late William Loveless asked once, “What kind of kingdom are you seeking? One that ascends by tooth and claw or one in which righteous and peace dwell.”
Where is the evidence man was created perfect? In the Bible, but of course if you don’t believe the Bible was inspired then there is no evidence. Where is the evidence of a lot of the things that happened in the Bible? It’s not there. If we want evidence to support all our beliefs then there is no need to call yourself a Christian. The Bible is the only evidence for most of our religious beliefs, and if can’t rely on it we have no religious beliefs.
Actually you have faith.
What I’m about to write here won’t make “sense” to about half of the people who have already commented but I have a suggestion:
Instead of thinking of members of our denomination as “liberal” or “conservative”, try thinking of some as protestants (religious liberty; salvation by grace; historicist interpretation) and others as restorationists (based on Ellen White’s interpretation of the Bible). (Admittedly, some members are neither protestant nor restorationist–only “cultural Adventists”.)
For protestants, the question is not, “Who is right and who is wrong?” but “How do you currently understand the Bible?” Are you willing to consider other points of view than your current one? It was that willingness (it came from the Christian Connexion) that made the advent movement non-creedal in its infancy.
I propose that without that ideal, any attempt to define the advent movement falls short of being truly “historic”.
Is there anything about the advent movement that is truly important?
I think so. In this sense: Professed Christians who are anticipating an earthly kingdom are more likely to be deceived into attempting to legislate morality.
For the record, I don’t believe life on this planet existed millions of years ago and I don’t think the “kinds” of life on this planet are the result of MACRO-evolution (“theistic” or otherwise). Does that mean I am “uneducated”?
This is helpful.
Sounds like another way to divide people! I like your last paragraph though.
What a shame for Ervin Taylor. Don’t spread this wrong satanic ideas in our community!
I wonder if Ms Sara would be kind enough to let readers know exactly the nature of the “wrong satanic ideas” that I am purportedly spreading.
The plain and simple fact of the matter is that the only reasons to observe the Sabbath are because of what God has been quoted to have said about it and because of what the book of Genesis says that He did about it. These are the only basic reasons why Seventh-day Adventists observe the Sabbath.
In Exodus 20 God is quoted as personally stating that He “made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it”—and commanded that the Sabbath be remembered to be kept holy because of that fact. He also specifically identifies the seventh day of the week as His Sabbath. So those are things that God said about the Sabbath.
In Mark 2:27, 28 Jesus is quoted to have asserted that the Sabbath had been made for man as opposed to any notion that made had been made for Sabbath; and claimed to be “Lord even of the Sabbath.”
In Genesis 2:2 the writer claims that God actually blessed and sanctified the seventh day of the week “because that in it He had rested from all His work which God created and made.” So it’s about God’s claims/statements/assertions.
If one is to believe what the prophet Isaiah wrote, one would also believe that there are benefits to observing the Sabbath; but what God Himself is said to have said and done about the Sabbath are the foundations for its observance. It serves as a weekly reminder of who created whom; and what He created.
You said: The plain and simple fact of the matter is that the only reasons to observe the Sabbath are because of what God has been quoted to have said about it and because of what the book of Genesis says that He did about it. These are the only basic reasons why Seventh-day Adventists observe the Sabbath.
I totally disagree with this statement and believe it is why other Christians are not able to see Sabbath as important. We have failed on this. WE have not told the truth in evangelistic meetings or Bible studies on Sabbath. The reason for Sabbath celebration is because it represents Christ’s work on the Cross–He is our rest. We rest from the works of our hands (3rd angel’s message) and worrying about our salvation (mind). While the beast requires our doing it on our own under his control. No day will save us in the end nor can it be the “seal” for Christ is our seal. This is the Sabbath message for the last days.
The first angel’s message has to do with worshiping the true God who created us, and is a reference to the kind of evolution that denies God.
The second angel says to come out of “Babylon” or confusion.
Concerning Irv’s two Sabbath commandments, we are so caught up on proving something happened as stated in scripture, we don’t focus on its meaning. The first commandment symbolizes creation and the other one the Exodus because the Exodus (though true) is a metaphor for the spiritual journey of His people.
EM you are also a Neo-Adventist, not a “real” one. Stephen Foster and I finally agree on something (I think)! There is only one reason to keep Sabbath and it is the traditional, historically maintained position by official church dogma based on the creation story and the ten commandments. When you find alternative reasons you have deviated from official Adventism. You are therefore a heretic and subject to being kicked out of the church. Or you should just resign! (Stephen surely
disavows my rhetoric at this point although a bit of humor is my intention!)
I grew up a 7upper (more humor) and was as a minister and was required to keep Sabbath required by law established in Genesis and Exodus. And now new thinking leads me to believe I obeyed the law for no good reason! Truthfully (humor abated here) I exited forty years ago because I learned Sabbath was a self imposed rule, human created, without benefit of reward or punishment. “God” has never slapped anyone around for ignoring it, nor awarded divine benefits for its observation. Of course the Sabbath addicts need too late death as the imaginary doorway to check that out,
Keep it if you wish, that’s fine, but the new reasons presented verify the useless, optional nature now, inadvertently, openly admitted. The new rationalizations are vacuous. Why bother? Even the Israelite couldn’t have historically kept it all the time. Where is their divine condemnation?
Bugs, I think that we possibly do agree on the SDA reasons to observe the Sabbath; and that most of the other reasons are vacuous rationalizations at best. I think that we’re also in some agreement that “Adventism and its theory of Sabbath are the inseparable Siamese twins on which the balance of the church hangs.” Perhaps you actually meant “Creationism and the Adventist theory of the Sabbath are the inseparable Siamese twins…or that Adventist eschatology, Adventism’s theory of the Sabbath, and Creationism are the inseparable Siamese triplets which distinguish Adventism from other evangelical and fundamentalist Protestant denominations.”
Stephen, we were do so well and then you tried to do the impossible, morph my agreeable twins into triplets! As I see it, your addition is DOA, SDA eschatology, that is. There is no Code Blue that can possibly resurrect your deceased addition. It’s coroner time, autopsy even.
But in the spirit of detent l will accept your effort as your attempt to proclaim your faith, a noble, if misguided enterprise!
BLB: This is not new; just ignored. There have been a couple of books written on this by theologians, but didn’t get to the members. EGW said the third angel’s message was righteousness by faith. Truth is progressive.
I think it has been ignored because of the focus on the first angel’s message of God as Creator using words from the Sabbath commandment. And also the incorrect belief that Sabbath would lose something if not tied to a six-day, 24-hour creation. Meaning gets lost focusing on literalism or the material facts and ignoring the spiritual realities.
Interesting that Foster didn’t respond.
Bugs,
We were doing well, but you are confusing the Adventist Siamese twins, or triplets in my view, with your beliefs or non-beliefs.
In other words, whereas we perhaps agree on that upon which the Adventist distinguishing doctrines are based, we don’t agree as to whether those are sound doctrinal bases. Likewise is true with regard to the triplets that I referenced that included Adventist eschatology. You can disagree with Adventist eschatology while still agreeing that it is a foundational basis for Adventism—whether you agree with its details or not.
Let me put it another way, I can agree with a Roman Catholic or a Southern Baptist or an Orthodox Jew as what the fundamentals distinguishing doctrines of their faith may be without agreeing as to the validity or veracity of the particulars of any of those doctrines.
You may not believe that Jesus is coming back, or you may not believe the Bible’s prophecies concerning His return—particularly as interpreted by SDAs—are valid. Such disbelief/unbelief need not preclude an acknowledgement that Seventh-day Adventists nevertheless do believe our own doctrines.
I have noted that EM has interpreted and articulated the Hebrews 4 reason for Sabbath observance. I do not include that reason as among the vacuous rationalizations because it is clearly Biblical; but it could not have been written by Paul, and would not have made any sense, had the seventh day not already been sanctified by God for man—
which was done starting with the first seventh day, and which He claimed to be His day.
But I do take EM’s point that the reasons I’ve stated are not the only reasons for Sabbath observance by Christians, even if they are the original reasons expressly given by God Himself. I also agree with EM that Adventists should place much greater emphasis on the Hebrews 4 reason than we do.
Stephen:
“EM has interpreted and articulated the Hebrews 4 reason for Sabbath observance…. it is clearly Biblical; but it could not have been written by Paul, and would not have made any sense, had the seventh day not already been sanctified by God for man which was done starting with the first seventh day, and which He claimed to be His day.”
Apollonius of Alexandria is a bit miffed that you have attributed his beautiful book to Paul, Stephen, but then, few have given him the credit that is due.
Likewise, SDAs give almost zero credit to the teaching of Hebrews 3.1-4.11. This is understandable, because it does not strengthen their case for a Sabbath test at the end of time. In fact, it does the opposite. Nowhere in the NT is it more clearly stated that Israel has lost its special status as the uniquely chosen people of God, in favour of all who become ‘partakers of Christ,'(3.14) and members of His body.
The reason is simple….. Israel never believed God. They had the 7th day Sabbath but they never entered God’s rest. They never ceased from their own works as God did from His. And a group that posits the keeping of a day as a test of obedience has never found that rest either!
No, The author of Hebrews says powerfully, 4: 8 For if Joshua had given them rest, he would not have spoken afterward of another day.
9 There remaineth therefore a sabbath rest for the people of God.
The people of the 7th day Sabbath never entered rest. Cont
Cont…
‘He would not have spoken afterward of another day.’ And that other day, is…….. Sunday? No, as it happens. It is TODAY. Because the rest God offers is a 24/7 rest. To take a single day out of the seven is, for Apollonius, a mistake. Those who held to that day never entered God’s rest. So the true memorial of creation is an inner experience of perpetual rest in the good tidings (4.6,7) Those who stick to a day which is held as a test of faith are here described as ‘entering not in because of unbelief.’
It is not a matter, Stephen, of placing greater emphasis on this. It must be taken with the whole heart, and leave behind that which hinders fully entering into His rest. Cease from all your works, including Sabbath keeping.
So as not to misrepresent Serge, he wrote: “It must be taken with the whole heart, and leave behind that which hinders fully entering into His rest. Cease from all your works, including Sabbath keeping.”
So, the upshot of Serge’s theological interpretation of Hebrews 4 is that the Lord’s rest—which the day that He claimed as His holy day represents; a day that He said was made for man—can only be “fully” entered into by DISCARDING/IGNORING the day that His very rest REPRESENTS.
Now I’ll ask anyone, as he stated it (and as has been quoted) is there another way to interpret Serge’s position? I welcome/challenge anyone to try to do so. What’s more, is there absolutely, positively any way that this makes any sense (whatsoever)? Have at it y’all. This would be hilarious if Serge wasn’t serious; or if the subject itself wasn’t serious.
Roger:”Is there anything about the advent movement that is truly important?”
In a word, NO. SDAism holds/teaches NO vital salvific truth/s. It is essentially anti-Protestant, in that its ‘Sabbath’ teaching is legalism writ large. Its literalistic hermeneutic is naïve in the extreme and its ‘materialism’ is anti-spiritual, ie a denial of the spiritual, and of the Spirit, regardless of the lip-service paid to the ‘spiritual’ nature of God (WHo is conceived as a physical Being of larger than human proportions).
In another word, it is idolatrous. Idolatry is the attempt to represent spiritual things in physical/material terms and ideas. I doubt many here will even give this conception a second thought, such is the lack of spiritual understanding within Adventism generally. And that last sentence will be ‘evidence’ to many that ‘spiritualism’ is the great deception.
As Jesus said in His parable of the rich man and Lazarus, ‘between us there is a great gulf, fixed.’ Ie, between a spiritual understanding vs a materialist/literalist one.
That which SDAs in their literalist simplicity fail to conceive, eg, is that GOd inhabits ‘eternity.’ Eternity is not endless ‘Time.’ Time is a function of ‘space,’ ie, this material cosmos which we currently inhabit in our physical natures. But ‘that which is seen (the time/space cosmos) is ephemeral,’ it is that which is NOT SEEN (spiritual) which is ETERNAL. ‘NOT of this creation.’ The Eternal Spirit…
It’s hard to follow this. If you are saying the material is bad–that is Gnosticism one of the anti-Christs as Paul refers to it in the NT. If you are saying we pay too much attention to the literal words in scripture (which change in meaning over the centuries) and miss their spiritual meaning, you are right. “God is not on trial in the scriptures.”
If you want something that is truly ‘hard,’ EM, read John 6:50-60+ ‘This is a hard saying, who can hear it….. But some of you do not believe.’ etc
I can’t see where I’ve said the material is ‘bad.’ Labelling with names, eg Gnosticism, in order to disparage is not nice. And if you actually have a critique of the ideas presented, please deal with them on their merits, or demerits as the case may be.
But you are quite right to emphasise that the ‘deep things of God’ simply cannot be taken literally. Eg, back to the John passage mentioned: ‘except ye eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of man, ye have no life in you…’ Literally? Hardly.
So it is with all that is truly meaningful in the NT. God teaches thru parable/metaphor. The true meaning of ‘mystical’ is the closest word in English which approximates how we are able to comprehend it.
God is absolutely not on trial. It is how we respond to His still small voice that is our day of judgement.
I was taught that the earth is old and only life is younger. Did some SDAs pick up the YEC concept from other religions? Sometimes they can be right–but I don’t think in this case. I believe in the inspiration of EGW, but she reflected the ideas of her era. She echoed the cause of earthquakes prevalent at the time (I checked it out). All Christians of the era believed in Usher’s (uninspired)conclusions.
We don’t know when life was created, and it did not say it was in 24-hour days like we have now. The term “day” is used for time throughout scripture. Seven is a very important symbol; therefore no reason to negate Sabbath. The worldview seemed quite different from what we know about the earth today and how they viewed the sun and stars. This does not negate God as Creator. But He could not create through violence as Darwinian evolution describes. That would knock out Jesus’ reason for coming to earth and His salvation act. That is our reason for existing. There could not be life before sin.
We still do not know the secrets of time and space or even what is in the universe. How can we judge God’s works on such little information? We are specks in both time and space and do not know their nature.
Serge,
1. Do you agree that people who are expecting an earthly kingdom will be more easily deceived?
2. The advent movement existed before the creation of the Seventh-day Adventist organization. My rhetorical question was about the movement, not the organization.
4. If, by “SDAism” you mean the creedalism and hierarchy that many members of the SdA organization currently promote–if you mean trust in an organization or its officers instead of trust in the creator–perhaps it should be noted that some adventists insist that the “Fundamental Beliefs” should NOT be employed to measure anyone’s orthodoxy.
5. I’ve been a voting SdA for 50+ years and elected to various offices by a half-dozen congregations in a half-dozen states. I know as well as you do that:
a. Some members believe we are saved by grace alone through faith alone. Others teach that only 7th-day sabbath keeping vegetarians will be translated when Jesus returns.
b. Some members promote the principle of prior reference–the principle that anything purported to be special revelation should be evaluated and interpreted by older revelation. Others use EGW writings the same way SDS use the writings of their prophets.
c. Some members consider the church to consist of believers. Other think and speak of an organization as “the church”.
6. Can you accept that I am a protestant?
7. What is your religion (belief system)?
Shalom Roger,
1. They are expecting an earthly kingdom because they are deceived/mistaken already.
2. I was mainly referring to the SDA organisation and its general membership.
3. Oops, there is no 3.
4. When I was an SDA minister, Roger, baptismal candidates were expected to publicly declare their belief in the 27FBs. I was invited to take my leave because I did not accept the conference president’s demand (immediately post Glacier View) that I agree to sign a belief in all 27FBs. They were a good measure of SDA ‘orthodoxy’ then, and I suspect that they still are, by and large.
5. These comments mean to the ‘true believer’ SDA that ‘the standards have fallen.’ To others they mean an increase of ‘confusion.’ Tolerance of a wider range of belief styles does not mean that traditional SDAism has ceased to hold heterodox SDAs as other than being in spiritual peril.
6. Not for me to judge. Can you say what it is that you are protesting against? If you do not wholeheartedly accept the 28FBs, why do you not protest that, by your actions? Birds of a feather will always flock together.
7. My religion is found in the NT. Of that, John and (genuine) Paul say it best. My comments above reveal it in principle. My comments in the thread ‘What is Fundamental? Part 3’ also.
Religion: from the Latin ‘re’- ‘thing,’ & ‘ligio’ – to bind. ie, ‘the binding thing.’ I have no ‘religion.’ Christ sets one free from such.
Serge,
I knew I was getting senile but now I can’t count?!!
4. I’d like to ask that conference president what he thinks, “not a creed”, might mean.
6.
a.I subscribe to the doctrine that it is inappropriate for civil governments to enforce religious doctrines (see Protest of Spires–1529)
b. I subscribe to the doctrine of salvation by grace alone through faith alone–which is a protest against the doctrine that God’s grace is received through sacraments.
c. Ditto the primacy of scripture–which is a protest against clergy interpreting scripture for the laity.
d. Ditto the priesthood of all believers–which is a protestant against the doctrine that an organization IS the church.
e. I use the historicist method of Bible interpretation–which is a protestant against the doctrine that the Church replaced Israel.
f. I protest the use of any list of doctrines as a creed.
g. When I was asked, “Do you believe the SdA Church is the remnant church?” I said “No.” Nobody seemed to notice and I was baptized anyway. 20 years later, my wife, Sally, was asked the same question and said, “No”. When the minister understood what she DID believe about the remnant, he said he “entirely” agreed with her. On the morning of her baptism, he changed the wording of the question.
7. I’m not uncomfortable with the word, “religion”, but I insist that true Christianity is personal–not institutional.
Roger- I’m not sure what you mean by the primacy of scripture. Knowing-that- we-are-Christians-by-our-love in my mind trumps scriptural primacy at least in the sense that doctrinal purity as outlined in scripture seems less important than living a loving life which is lived in the here-and-now outside of scripture.The Bible-idolatry and ten commandment-idolatry sometimes defended on Adventist Today blogs seems misses this point.
The inability to edit after posting is so distressing. 🙂 “seems” in the last line should have been deleted.
Roger, if you ‘know’ you are getting senile’ then you probably aren’t. Last bit of that sentence is true tho……. none of us count.
Most of your protests would be news, & of little interest, to historical and modern SDAs. And so would Michael’s re-emphasis of priorities, as perfect as it is. Historical SDAs had/have a very limited view of what matters. Turns out, imho, virtually none of it is either true or necessary. But back in EGW’s day, as in immediate post Glacier View, it was considered the Be and end all. Hence, the Aust Division Pres, who was so determined to defrock Des, sent his COnf Pres’s back to root out all Ford-influenced ministers. Since then, things have softened, ie, standards of doctrinal purity have fallen. You’ll be hard-pressed to find one member in the average church who seriously knows, let alone cares, about 1844. Yet officially, they stand by ‘the old landmarks.’
Your call for the church to return to a purer Protestantism doesn’t go back far enough. There is a universe of understanding and the peace of Christ to be found in constant feeding on the more mystical aspects of the NT. ‘..and few there be that find it.’ At least, that is my experience.
Tell me, how does one ‘eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of man?’ It appears to be important. Without DOING so, one has no life within.
Yes, its intensely personal. Lists of acceptable beliefs are a snare.
I see that Bugs used the term “Neo-Adventist.” That’s the second or third time, I’ve seen that term in print. Could Bugs or anyone else enlighten me as to where they first encountered that term. I think I know the origin of “Cultural Adventist” but I don’t have a clue as to “Neo-Adventist.”
I’ve never seen it anywhere. I created it as far as I know, because it fits the reality.
I hope that you are the author for it simplifies attribution. I have a vague memory of the term appearing elsewhere, but I might be confusing it with Post-Adventist. Any further suggestions as to origins with specific references are very much welcomed.
I first used it in a reply about five paragraphs above on this thread. I, too, welcome any usage reference anywhere else (which I doubt). I’m sure I’ve not seen it anywhere apart from my usage.
Larry,
How about the term that is being more widely used now: “Non-Adventists” (non-Seventh-day Adventists)? Which means membership in the denomination.
One other item, Ervin. I see Neo-Adventist as those moving away from the ossified church, it’s defunct eschatology and its moribund horse-whip-days outlook with cultural dcultural adhesion to a bygone time. Nostalgia, cultural addiction, likely explains their preference to coexist under the adventist umbrella rather than bailing entirely out,
From what limited information I have about you I could speculate that you might be a Neo-Adventist candidate. Of course, since I bridle at being labeled, I would never actually past one on you!
Why the (expletive deleted) can’t we be content to use the word, “adventist” (with a lowercase “a”) to mean what the word meant before there was a Seventh-day Adventist organization? i.e. emphasizing a) an heavenly kingdom, b) a premillennial, cataclysmic second advent for the purpose of raising the sleeping saints and taking them with us (the finally penitent) to be with Jesus where he is. Those adventists were opposed to hierarchy and creedalism. Which is why, no matter how much they might like to think so, people who promote hierarchy and creedalism are NOT “historic adventists”.
After I taught a Sunday school class in Iowa in 1975, during which class I did my best to lay the foundation for a protestant understanding of prophecy, the matron of the congregation told me, “We don’t have any use for your new-newfangled theology!”
What she failed to realize wast that the futurism she had been taught was MUCH newer than the eschatology I was attempting to introduce.
Many Adventists make a similar mistake. They assume that the legalistic dogmatic restorationist religion of their parents is “historic adventism”.
My maternal grandmother’s religion may have been of such an ilk but my mother abandoned that in the early 1940s shortly before she met my dad. He had been raised in the Roman Church and left it because he had had enough of hirearchy and creedalism.
Regarding ‘adventism,’ I would assert that the Parousia (presence) experience of the whole of John 14 is the sum total of all a believer needs. Oh yes, they shall say to you, lo here, and lo, there……. believe them not! Mark 13.21
Lu 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
“new-newfangled theology”; interesting term.
I guess we would have to prove that Spiritual wisdom changes over time for this to be a passable approach? The BIBLE is explicit in 2 Peter 1 that prophesy of scripture is not from man but the Holy Spirit, nor left to private interpretation. This does include creating or deriving terms of definitions.
The contention seems to be that you can fold CHRIST up and stick HIM in your little pocket? HE was already there. HE made both the material and hands that created the pocket. HE created you to hold up the pocket.
There is absolutely nothing that you can do for HIM; except Love HIM. HE will not force you to do that; but the alternatives look pretty bleak. If you are HIS you will do HIS works, not yours; again there is nothing you can do on your own for HIM.
The concepts are simple, absolutely anything outside the bounds places us into a picture that we do not belong in, assuming self arrogance only degrading HIM; when HE created your existence, purpose, intent and dispensation, period. A childish mentality since we cannot save ourselves or even tie our shoe. Many are called but few are chosen, grow up; the FATHER is always there to help if you let HIM. Just give up yourself and leave the world behind.
Serge,
The Lord has inspired some people to emphasize one and others some other aspect of the truth about himself. Luther emphasized salvationism, biblicism, and the priesthood of believers, Calvin the sovereignty of God, the Wesley brothers free moral agency and the second blessing.
If there are other Christians with a similar calling to our own, there is nothing wrong with creating associations for mutual encouragement and support.
I’m a 7th-day sabbath keeper. Resting on the 7th day is a way for me to worship my creator AS creator. The seventh-day-ness of the sabbath isn’t however, what the Lord has called me to emphasize.
My primary emphasis is on religious liberty.
Is that related to the sabbath?
Yes. the sabbath IS God’s rest. Resting one day of the week is a symbol of a relationship based on his work, not my own. Resting isn’t doing. It is the opposite of doing.
Can the Lord be honored by resting on another day of the week?
I think so. I also think resting on the day he rested is a better way to honor him as creator.
People–including “Adventists”–who want to impose their religious practices and prohibitions on others don’t much like my emphasis on religious liberty.
If the Lord has called you to emphasize the kingdom of grace more than the kingdom of glory, that’s not only OK, it is what you should emphasize.
Totally agree Roger. This is why His body is composed of many members, each with a place and a role.
However, as you emphasise, within the SDA community, they do not share the same understanding of many aspects that you consider highly important to an enhanced Christian experience.
For mine though, I find that these ‘poles’ of understanding are in the nature of a spectrum. Immanence – imminence, grace – glory, kingdom within – kingdom ‘out there,’ somewhere. It happens, imho, that one end of those spectra are ‘more important,’ more ‘necessary,’ for a restful experience in the Divine. These are the inner aspects, for me, and the outer aspects only tend to distract.
In the end, its a bit like serving two masters. One of these, the outer aspect, you can actually do without. I think it is better to ignore it, so that one can concentrate on one’s inner life, for that is the only place where one can meet with Him who is our Life. ‘The Spirit bears witness with our spirit… in sighs, too deep for words.’ This cannot happen so well when one looks only on literalist/outward aspects of one’s beliefs.
SDA teachings almost exclusively emphasise the outer. They are thus quite Lifeless.
“the sabbath isn’t however, what the Lord has called me to emphasize.”
I and many others agree. But the church has made it of first emphasis by naming the church as “Seventh-day….” It has also made it one of the doctrines necessary for remnant status and heavenly admittance.
Elaine,
You seem to me to be one of the people I could persuade–if I get down on my knees and beg–to desist from referring to an organization as “the church”.
To my begging let me add the following: By using the phrase, “the church”, in referring to an organization, you are–however unwittingly–giving tacit approval to the doctrine that an organization is the church (or that the church is an organisation).
The first Seventh-day Adventist organization wasn’t a conference. It was a publishing association–the Review & Harold Publishing Association. It was a Seventh-day Adventist organization without using the name, “Seventh-day Adventist”.
The second SdA organization was the Michigan Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. Notice that the word, “church”, is conspicuous by its absence. I think that was intentional.
Some years ago, someone at at Baptist convention made a motion to rename the organization–including the word, “Church”, in the official name.
The motion was defeated because Baptists recognize that no organization, convention, association, etc is the church.
The pioneers of the advent movement understood that too. What I still don’t know is: When did that change? When did adventists start referring to an organization as “the church”?
My concern is that if or when I cease to be a voting member of the organization, I will have no influence to help change that.
“Church” does mean different things to different people. But there is no denying that when the General Conference leaders send out edicts of what defines an Adventist, then “church” has an entirely different meaning to leaders that many individuals.
“Church” was never meant to represent the hierarchy of a religious institution, but in its usage, it has been the spokesman for the Adventist church. This was demonstrated concisely at San Antonio on WO: “The church has spoken, this is the will of the church: no women should be ordained.”
The second part of the title of the above article is: “Why DO Traditional Adventists Object?
Maybe it would be better to try to answer the question but, in the 1940s, we heard many sermons about the ways traditions and traditionalism negatively impacted the beliefs of members of other denominations. We were told that traditions prevented many people from making spiritual progress. To my parents and me, the term “traditional Adventists” would have been a contradiction in terms.
To me, it still is.
Does that mean we should abandon “the old landmarks”?
Well, that depends on what are considered to be “old landmarks”.
I can’t imagine abandoning my belief that the seventh day of the week is the sabbath day God created and on which he rested.
On the other hand, if my maternal grandmother believed she “had to” keep the sabbath in order to be saved, that would be an example of a “tradition” that needs to be reexamined.
If my grandmother believed the only way to “come out of Babylon” was to join the SdA organization, that would be an example of a “tradition” that needs to be reexamined.
If my grandmother believed that he is not a “good” Adventist who disagrees with the language of a list of doctrines or thinks not all of the doctrines on that list are “fundamental” (essential), that is an example of a “tradition” that needs to be reexamined.
Roger, traditional Adventists object to anything other than a literal take on Gen 1 because they are literalist by nature, but especially because it upsets the role they have assigned for the Sabbath, namely, the test of obedience, ie, a ‘works’ based contribution to their own salvation. This is the sense in which Sabbath is a ‘landmark’ of SDA teaching. Heb 3,4 clearly sets this belief in the ranks of ‘unbelief,’ and a denial of one’s true ‘rest’ in the works of Christ, of whom the true believer becomes a ‘partaker.’ This is a profoundly mystical concept which few wish to canvas.
So, Dr Taylor, if that interpretation of Hebrews 3,4 is even remotely close to true, then SDAs should have not the slightest concern that Gen 1 is not a literal account of creation. The 7th day of creation is a test of works-ceasing, not of obedience. The ‘another day’ spoken of in Hebrews is no longer the 7th in a weekly round, but it is today, and by extension, everyday, for the rest one enters is perpetual. Taking one day out and making that a special day in any sense is a denial of one’s unbroken rest in the finished work of Christ. Those who partake of Him have also ceased from their works. The literalness of the Genesis story need trouble SDAs no longer.
How often have any here heard the verses in Col. 2:16 as a sermon topic? Or Gal.
3,5, and 6; or Paul’s complete exposition of the Law in the book of Romans?
How many in their entire SdA education heard these texts adequately explained? Most, based on contributions here and other SdA websites, learned all the “proof texts” which were carefully selected in promoting Adventism, but absent the change from Judaism to belief in Christ.
No offense to Serge, but his way of approaching—or circumventing—the reality the seventh day of the week on the planet in which we inhabit has indeed been sanctified by God for man (from the beginning) is what I would categorize as a vacuous rationale for avoiding and denying reality.
I get that God is a Spirit and that essentially what matters is that our minds are to be transformed and linked to His mind and/or His Spirit (if that is the gist of Serge’s philosophy); but resting from works as God rested from labor does not mean that we discard or ignore that which He made—that time which He sanctified or set apart—for our benefit, nor does it make what He said of any less effect.
Discarding or ignoring what God made to symbolize (to us) both His very identity (as Creator) and the rest (from works) that His indwelling Spirit provides—and teaching others to do so—is heretical spiritualism; is it not?
I do agree with Roger to the extent that some of our rhetorical approaches to Sabbath observance do smack of traditionalism; but Serge throw-the-baby-out approach is, as he apparently knows, a non-starter for Seventh-day Adventists.
Clarification/correction: Discarding or ignoring what God made to symbolize (to us) both His very identity (as Creator) and the rest (from works) that, as a result of Christ’s atoning sacrifice, His indwelling Spirit provides—
…Serge’s throw-the-baby-out approach is, as he apparently knows…
“No offense to Serge…….. but he’s nuts!” And for that, Stephen, I thank you. Paul was told his learning had made him mad too.
You are also correct that I wish to throw out the baby. For I do. And whilst I would not presume to teach you, I would urge you to consider a few things. I know that this spiritualist approach to Christianity is a non-starter for SDAs. James and Ellen were determined to save you from ‘spiritualism’ and so all things spiritual have been off-limits to SDAs ever since. The only things that matter are all ‘out there.’ The kingdom of heaven is not within you as far as they are concerned, so do not go there! And SDAs stay away from the Spirit, in droves. Heaven is a planet out near Orion and it has a building called a temple, complete with altar of burnt sacrifice! and there is a veil between its two rooms, and God has a physical body and he sits on a throne in the second room and its in a city peopled with angels, etc etc. Such is the literalist/materialist SDA view. And it is errant nonsense! This is the view that is seriously short of understanding spiritual reality.
I know it is nonsense, because the book of Hebrews tells me so. It tells me that ‘we’ true believers in Christ ARE HIS HOUSE, the one in which HE/Father/Son/Holy Spirit dwells. Also see Joh 14. Again, if you try to have it both ways you will lose the most critical aspect, ie, the here and now. You will lose. Period. I don’t want you to lose, btw. Cont..
Cont…
We can be absolutely certain that the literal ‘heavenly temple’ as described by SDAism is nonsense because Hebrews tells us the way in which we should understand it. It is symbolic of the total experience of the Christian, from birth to union with the divine. Take just this one text and make it fit with that literal view, if you will:
Heb 10:19 ¶ Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holy place by the blood of Jesus,
20 by the way which he dedicated for us, a new and living way, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
So we, here and now, are kings and priests and we are admonished to boldly ENTER that heavenly temple! Couldn’t possibly be a literal physical material place on planet Epsilon! But the clincher is v 20….. the veil, the one SDAs have argued about since day 1, the veil is defined and described for us: it is the flesh of Christ. How on earth, or in heaven, could that be describing anything like the SDA view of a literal heavenly building? SDAs teach that Christ has retained a fleshly human nature, but here we are told that the veil at the door of the MHP of the heavenly temple is the flesh of Christ. Do SDAs see a fleshly Christ hanging as a curtain in the doorway to the MHP? Now tell me who is nuts! Does this gross illogic on the part of SDAs suggest they have any grasp of heavenly reality whatsoever? Cont…
Concluding…
So yes, it is vital to one’s spiritual health to throw out the baby. If we never progress in understanding beyond the stories we tell our children, we are in trouble. If we never progress in understanding beyond ‘the milk of the word,’ we will remain weak.
Hebrews 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
Heb 5:13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
Stephen, throw out that babe. Grow up into the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. Its ok, when a child, to think as a child. Now its time to grow up. Childish literalist conceptions of heavenly realities should be discarded in favour of receiving the admittedly harder but more adult conceptions of spiritual reality. Or as Paul says elsewhere, ‘you are natural man…… I would that you were spiritual.’
One of those realities is that in the realm of the Spirit, there is no ‘time.’ Heaven is not a planet out there. It is a spiritual consciousness of knowledge of God. This time-based reality no longer exists for those who have entered there. They rest, perpetually. Glorious rest, here, now and forever. Today. if you hear His voice….. harden not your heart. This is the message taught by Apollonius of Alexandria in his beautiful, but strident, letter to…
Serge, you clearly appear to be an intelligent and sensitive gentleman; and I truly do not wish to offend you; but the esoteric nature of the nonsensical does not make it any less nonsensical.
You have point blank stated that observance of the day that symbolizes the rest that God would have us enter into actually hinders the entrance into the rest that such observance represents.
That makes no sense; and it makes no sense on any conceivable level under any conceivable circumstances. It may as well be gibberish; particularly from a strictly spiritual perspective. In fact, it did not go unnoticed by me that you did not even attempt to make sense of it yourself; but rather went on to wax eloquently about your philosophical/theological approach as compared to what you perceive to be the historic or traditional SDA approach.
(Tell me what percentage of sentient and rational human beings would you speculate might fully grasp your approach exclusively? In other words, just how accessible is your philosophical approach to others?)
Never mind that, my friend. I challenge you to confirm or deny the accuracy with which I have characterized and summarized your statement; and if it appears that I have characterized and summarized your statement accurately, I challenge you to make sense of it yourself.
Stephen, maybe you should’ve just left it at ‘this makes no sense to me.’ This is one reason Paul rarely wrote the things he knew he could only speak directly to those in Corinth whom he considered to be ‘pneumatikoi.’
Of course I reject your characterisation. You appear to be no more able to understand me than these scriptures I have put forward.
How about I challenge you. But this one is easy. Please describe your understanding of the heavenly sanctuary/temple. Take as long or short as you like. But please include some discussion of Heb10.20 And also, please indicate from where you have obtained this understanding (of heavenly temple).
Apologies Stephen. I neglected to respond to your main point. I will write slowly so that you might more easily keep up.
“You have point blank stated that observance of the day that symbolizes the rest that God would have us enter into actually hinders the entrance into the rest that such observance represents.”
Now you have correctly discerned an esoteric aspect. Esoteric means ‘inner.’ In this case, there is some inner meaning to be had. Normally, the intelligent response is to ask, now, what could this inner meaning be? Some, however, are content to dismiss it as gibberish. If it doesn’t fit their own paradigm, however nonsensical their own paradigm happens to be, they simply pass it off as not worthy of further comment.
In this case, the answer you don’t necessarily seek is simple: When that which a thing symbolises is come, you no longer need the symbol! In fact, adhering to the symbol will block the apprehension of the greater reality.
For illustration – Matt 12.1-9. Jesus is accused of sabbath breaking by harvesting grain as he walked to synagogue. I mean, its not like he called in for a McMuffin on his drive to Sabbath school. But they called him guilty. He reminded them of David, and how the priests profane the temple etc. Then he said, But One greater than the temple is here! So fixated as they were on the symbol of union with God, they completely missed Him as He walked among them. But a few understood Him.
I don’t pretend to have a comprehension of that which goes on in paradise, wherever that is, Serge. I have a little more of an understanding or a concept of the heavenly sanctuary and/or of what comprises the heavenly sanctuary than I have a conception of how the war in heaven in which Michael and His angels prevailed over Satan and his angels was waged; but that is only because of the Old Testament typological symbolism, and even then perhaps not really. I understand and believe that Jesus makes intercession for me in a “time” frame or a dimension that is beyond my comprehension. I believe that the Old Testament symbolism is a representation for our purposes of what intercession may look like to and for our mind’s eye, if that makes any sense.
I have a view through a dark lens, and I am nearsighted. So I must depend on that which God has provided for me to understand and believe; and to repeat, I understand and believe that Jesus, through the veil—that is, by way of his incarnation—makes intercession for me.
But symbols are important well past the “time” when what they represent occur. We are conducting this life in an earthly dimension Serge. If Luke 19:13 is telling us anything, that is clearly part of what it is telling us; that we occupy within a realm for the time being. We need, and we were given, and we are told by God to remember, certain things, and to do certain things (to remember) until He comes to take us out of this realm. One of which, for example, is the Lord’s Supper; another of which is the assembling of ourselves together to encourage and exhort one another; and another is the day which reminds us of who God is and what He has done for us.
Serge, how can you deny that the Lord’s Supper is a symbolic ritual that represents something that has already occurred? How can you deny that God instructs us, or surely instructed His disciples, to partake of His symbolic body and blood for the purpose of remembering that which had been accomplished for us (or in the case of those disciples, that which was about to be accomplished)?
Hmmm…. not sure too many TA’s will be impressed with your defence of the SDA ‘Sanctuary doctrine’ Stephen. Very ‘airy-fairy.’ And I am sure that your view of Heb 10.20 misses the mark entirely. Guess its a case of ‘move along nothing to see here.’
Is there something of substance in your view of various symbols, perhaps? Not really. The reading of the parable around Luke 19.13 also misses the point. The words, ‘occupy til I come’ do not automatically make it a parable of what to do til your view of the second coming occurs.
Is the Lord’s Supper a ritual to a past event? In a small way yes, because the main, vastly main, point of the eucharist (good gift) is the symbol of imbibing divinity. ‘Except ye eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of man ye have no life in you!’ Eating/drinking for physical life is a constant thing. For spiritual life it is the same. Recalling the Source of our real Life is the point of the ritual. But the actual fact of imbibing the divine life is a constant. Or it should be.
Just so, Sabbath rest is a constant. As Heb 3,4 describes. Even though you may want Sabbath to be symbolic in some other way, Heb 3,4 has done the reinterpretation and you would find your experience much more joyful to take Hebrews as it reads, not as you would like it to be. Sabbath, for Heb. is not a test. Is not a ‘moral’ command. It is a constant experience of rest in the divine life. Eat, rest, eat, rest… how good is that?
I’m not particularly interested in impressing so-called Traditional Adventists (‘TA’s’) if for no other reason than I reject what I perceive to be a self-serving and arbitrary label given by some other iteration of Adventist.
I’d much prefer people to label or categorize or describe themselves. So whatever a TA is to your way of thinking, and whether or not THEY are impressed with answers to your questions is immaterial from my perspective.
The larger point is that I am, as you would expect (and may even hope), baffled by the first two paragraphs of your response; but I do appreciate your acknowledgement of the enduring symbolism of the Lord’s Supper and your willingness to address what the Sabbath represents. And maybe the key to our differences revolves around our respective approaches to the recognition of the Sabbath: you perhaps, or hopefully, see the Sabbath as a symbol of a larger truth; whereas I see the Sabbath as a sign representing entrance into a larger truth, and a larger set of truths; much like a road sign that informs you are now within the territory of a certain city. It is a sign, signaling that we acknowledge and recognize exactly who God is, and what He has done—and is doing—for us.
It is also a sign reminding us of who God is as we go around in circles in this wilderness land. Shouldn’t we CONSIDER the meaning/purpose that God intended in Exodus 31:13 and 17 and Ezekiel 20:12 (and note that there is delineation between the statutes and ordinances in verse 11, and the Sabbaths in verse 12)?
This theme of reminding or of remembrance is where we may agree. “Recalling the Source of our real Life is the point of the ritual.” This is as true for Sabbath observance as it is for the Lord’s Supper. Again, the NLT version of Ezekiel 20:12 states, “I gave them my Sabbath days of rest as a sign between them and me. It was to remind them that I am the LORD, who had set them apart to be holy.”
I realize that there are those who have taught Sabbath observance as a burden or a task to accomplish. So I understand why you and others reject that. Instead it should be taught that “recalling the Source of our real Life is the point” of its recognition. Moreover, it appears in Scripture as a constant, perpetual way to recall and not to forget. When we discard or disregard it, we are then ripe for deception.
Perhaps if Christian Sabbath observance was taught as a delight, and as made for us, and not we for it; and if we were taught to regard it as Christ regarded it in His incarnation, (that is, as less of a behavioral burden) perhaps this wouldn’t be nearly as controversial Serge.
No church exists in Scripture except Adventism. That is the unique self-view that contributes heavily to why “Traditional Adventists Object. . .” It has to do with possessing the “Truth.” For many people peace of mind and life comes when “truth” has been realized.
Arrival at Truth means the end of a struggle, peace, the end of uncertainty. Adventism, from its beginning, claimed exactly that, present and final Truth. The proclamation came and was welcomed, still is, as a placid respite, (albeit as the prelude to tumult, the “time of trouble,” persecution by Catholics). Subscribing to this outlook includes adoption of a righteous, pre-siege mentality of creative doctrines designed as a spiritual blockade against assaults from apostates, Protestants, the educated, intellectuals and Sunday keepers.
The central backbone of “the Truth” was the Scripture as the inerrant Word of God revealing Adventism as unique (the Spirit of Prophecy, the Three Angels Messages, etc.), the final repository and arbiter of the ultimate “TRUTH” laid by God, via Scripture, into the singular hands of Seventh-day Adventists.
Adjusting Creationism is seen as destroying the Scripture as the “Word of God,” and worse for Adventism, the destruction of its position as the repository of final, end time, Truth based on that Word.
For SDA’s swimming across a river loaded with crocodiles is less fearsome than abandoning restful, “The Truth,” sullied by mere “evolutionists.”
A comic strip interaction between Snoopy and Charlie Brown:
Charlie Brown: ‘What are you doing, snoopy?’
Snoopy: ‘Writing a book about theology.’
Charlie Brown: ‘Good grief, what’s the title?’
Snoopy: ‘Have You Ever Considered You Might be Wrong?’
Thank you p priest. First Class. Jolly good. A lethal question for a fundamentalist Adventist, if he or she would seriously consider it.
Erv,
That was a joke that cuts two ways. It is also “lethal question” for whatever kind of Adventist you would classify yourself as being. It is a “lethal question” for anyone who thinks that they are right about anything they believe or don’t believe regarding theology. This question is in fact where and when Pascal’s Wager would be appropriated; would it not?
We are old. We are as the decades-long members of the church collectively weary of the uncertainty of looking for truth for today. We want truth for yesterday to be truth for today. And maybe it is. And what if it isn’t?
Ah …
In most matters where members of Christian denominations differ, including Seventh-day Adventists, the struggle involves the mutual reluctance we have in giving up something we truly want to believe truly matters.
I have found great comfort recently is coming to sense that faith endures when all else ultimately fails (1 Cor. 13). And what fails is what we see and touch, what we do if you will.
As Sister Whites intuitively noted, the closer we come to Jesus, the further away we seem to get … the ever increasingly unlike him we see ourselves. And this is not something quaint. It is, it seems, an ever growing sense of the impossibility of our loving as Jesus loves us. At some point we give up on that and with that we give up on the significance of all of our preconceived opinions, and in that moment the purpose of the law is fulfilled in us in the giving up rather than the attaining.
It is in that moment of giving up, in that moment of truly accepting our fate by faith that we celebrate our commonness, our bond with every person we come to meet.
Oddly, in this paradigm, it is not the last to give up who prevails, but the first it seems.
Bill, we prevail only in the search, not in the finding. And that’s where we discover “our bond with every person we come to meet.” Like the myth of the pot of gold at rainbows end, there is no truth be found. Just the discovery of the warm multitude of similar searchers and the celebration of such.
“Seek and ye shall find only other seekers.” Bugs 1:1
Bugs, that is truly sad. You might have said, ‘Abandon hope, all ye who enter here.’ Bugs 1.2. Or, ‘now abideth, cynicism, despair, and something we think remotely approaches love. But the greatest of these is cynicism.’ Bugs 1.3
C’mon Bugs, go outside, take your shirt off, no sunblock, get some divine solar rays, soak up some photons and get that cholesterol turning into Vit D. That is what will keep you alive and kicking, and not just against the pricks.
Serge, I followed your suggestion, de-shirted myself, absorbed some rays (no shortage of those here in Valley of the Sun, Phoenix, AZ!), ratcheted up my D, infused “divine” solar rays and hopefully dissolved some gunky mental cholesterol. But nothing changed. My good health motored on, my outlook continues joyful and optimistic, and my spirit is high.
My only negative photons came from you, but they croaked waiting in the back of the endless divine ray line plastering me with optimism. There is no Bugs 1:2, perhaps Serge 6:66!?
The pursuit of truth invigorates, doesn’t depress, because it is the common, unifying, universal enterprise that existentially brotherhood-izes mankind. There is no the “Truth” to be found, only enlightenment individually gleaned, valued and privately determined by each searcher. No one has a clue what the ultimate “Truth” is or might be. There is a driving force, a collective yearning to know why we are here, what our purpose is, and where we are headed. Opinions, collective or otherwise is, it turns out, all there is, don’t conflate to a singular “Truth.”
So hope is the living nourishment as the motivation for Truth search. Truth is infinitely illusive, personal enlightenment is not.
Enlightenment for private me is experience of Love. Since it is said that God is love, that attaches me to the brothers and sisters of mankind and the Unseen for which I can add nothing else. Truth teases, Love rules.
Ah there, see……… that’s a whole lot better. I suspect those rays did a little more than you are giving credit.
Its just that previous sad post was so out of character, or so it seemed to me.
I generally agree with your sentiments. I love this: ‘Truth teases, Love rules.”
SDAs and even ex SDAs can be quite obsessed with propositional ideas of truth. Words assume far too great an importance. Because Truth is not a form of words! Truth is, IN FACT, the other side of your love coin. For Truth is personal relationship, with the divine… whose essence is love.
The great search, for me, can be summed up in the need to know who we are. Nothing else. I love the little book by Alan Watts, zen Buddhist, ‘On The Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are.’
Thing is, I am optimistic enough to feel that I can, indeed have, find/found a satisfying enough answer to that question. I suspect you have also. Sunday laws are just so much detritus in comparison.
Buggs, I sense you actually have prevailed by giving up. And in that I am absolutely with you.
You know, my sense is that the atheist and the saints of Revelation 14 are both rooted in the giving up in terms of knowing. We both live by faith if you will … faith being the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. You’ll recall that the KJV translators used “hope” where today the more meaningful term would be “trust.”
The difference may be that the atheist is likely to look at pain and suffering and figure that it is incompatible with divinity, while the saints have a look at joy and beauty and love and figure this unimaginable without divinity.
And if God is truly loving, both are in a good place.
And if God is non-existent, both are in a good place.
And if God is devious, both are equally doomed and blissful in the meantime.
Or as Samir Selmanovic notes, It’s really all about God.
With regard to the term, Neo-Adventist, one of the best informed individuals in the Adventist North American Division has indicated that, as far as he can recall, he first he time he heard the term “NeoAdventist” was in 1988 from an official of ADRA. The term was run past an Adventist sociologist who considered it and thought that it was best used to refer to Adventists who shared the views of Neo-Orthodox mainstream Protestants.
A widely quoted definition of Neo-Orthodox can be read when Goggle is queried: “A movement in Protestant theology, beginning after World War I, stressing the absolute sovereignty of God and chiefly characterized by a reaction against liberal theology and a reaffirmation of certain doctrines of the Reformation.” As the case for many terms, Neo-Adventist can be used in a number of ways depending on different assumptions and agendas of those defining and using the term.
Adapting the term to the Adventist experience, this author’s definition would be something along the line of “A movement within Adventism beginning in the 1960s which rejected the views of fundamentalist Adventism with regard to a series of traditional Adventist doctrines including the Investigative Judgement which is considered non-biblical and the authority of a number of Ellen White’s theological views, which were considered to have been helpful to keep early Adventist adherents together, but which in the late 20th and early 21st Century have outlived their original…
It goes to show, there is nothing new under the sun, not even thoughts!
Whether it’s called a rose or a dandelion, it still has the same DNA.
To this day, Elaine, I don’t understand the viability or equity of the options between being a non-Adventist or a Neo-Adventist. They aren’t experientially the same. I left Adventism because I found its teachings untenable and had no further interest in participating in that community. I wasn’t angry, misused, fired, was in good standing. But I learned prior to my exodus that there were countless equally moral ways for me to experience life.
And I never looked back, no regrets, only satisfaction. I have written before about the dying patient in his forties who revealed to me as a hospital chaplain his primary regret of being too cautious in his life choices and feeling that he hadn’t fully lived. I determined that wouldn’t be my lamentation. He never knew he influenced me to move on.
So I watch in wonder as I see plenty of people on this forum who hang on to Adventism without fully subscribing. Why do they stay when they deny and/or wish to modify the basic ossified, unchangeable, tenets of Adventism? They fit the example of Neo-Adventist (a definition more than 30 years in existence, revealed by Dr. Taylor).
To me the dandelion is hanging on while attempting to revise or redefine the unchangeable. The rose is a different, fully lived life, with all the adventure it offers.
I am aware of the cultural, employment, leadership and all the ties that keep intellectually unattached to the church attached. But I still don’t comprehend it.
In some parts of the West Coast, the term “California Adventist Conservative” seems to cover the “Neo-Adventist” paradigm rather well…. Still, it’s just a label and there is a fairly broad spectrum of latitude in the catch-all term, as one would expect these days in the Western Church….
I have been peering in from outside the Adventist orbit for a long time, and it appears some things haven’t changed (including Adventist dogma). Years ago we (even ministers) peered down our holy Central Union noses (with a great deal of orthodoxy violation suspicions) at those California Adventists. We heard they imbibed alcohol infused wine, watched TV on Saturday, played on the beach on Sabbath, and even went to theatres to watch movies. Of course, we made no effort to verify those accusations, because the rumors perfectly satisfied our self-righteousness propensity.
Back then the tag Neo-Adventist hadn’t yet been invented, probably, but we had our terms. Backsliders and apostates and of course California Adventist adequately express our disdain. Must say I now hear of suspicious orthodoxy among some Texas Adventists in a certain large church in the Dallas area. So, neo-orthodoxy (an Adventist version, not that of Barth, a redefinition) disease may have spread. Elsewhere, too? Could there now really be entire Neo-Adventist congregations? Oh my, where will it end?
Bugs,
Did you leave Adventism because you found its teachings untenable and had no further interest in participating in that community? If so, what do you mean by “Adventism”? Are you implying that Adventist Today isn’t Adventist?
I’m not just trying to give you a hard time. I’m asking you to define your terminology so I (we) can understand what you mean. The Seventh-day Adventist organization may be one manifestation of the advent movement but (broken record) one doesn’t equal the other.
Roger Metzger
I have no clue what is going to happen in the future, Roger. I was raised thinking my church did know because of its claim that it was revealed to it in the inspired Word of God via D&R.
Back then I “bought” the package. While at Union College I began to analyze the teachings and after ten years came to the conclusion that none of it was true, not even in a metaphorical sense. The Millerites were utterly embarrassed by the result of their interpretative process of “prophecy,” remembered as the Great Disappointment. I came to see that faulty premise, scuttled by reality, as the true Swiss cheese foundation of the Adventist Church.
Instead of owning up to its fiasco and moving on the misled diviners doubled down with new interpretations reusing the same faulty process of interpretation. They created a new face-saving play entitled The Great Controversy, transforming tragedy into victory, rescuing their infant from Dunce-Ville and elevating it to a divinely appointed star, the center of a wild eschatology. Like a Broadway play the scenes were described, the cast revealed, the timing synchronized, the battles scripted and the supporting theology manufactured to fit the script. The 1844 phoenix was projected to rise to heights unheard of in the history of the world. But it was the Seventh-day Adventist Church, duped and doomed by fiction writers to much less than a Pyrrhic victory.
Extrapolation on error multiplies error.
Continued:
What is Adventism today? That is actually the crux of Dr. Taylors essay. My answer is that is the same as it was from it birth in the Great Disappointment. It still pretends to know the future. And it doesn’t.
Adventism has thrived in spite of its derelict predictions because of the common human desire to know the “truth.” What will be. There are countless cultural examples of authoritative voices loudly proclaiming leadership, with special knowledge, gaining massive amounts of followers to diverse ideas, mostly religious. It’s the “special knowledge” that is so entrancing. Adventism has marketed this self-aggrandizing concept since its beginning and has collected literally millions of followers because of it.
The Traditional Adventist church cradles a cup of hemlock in its hands because the darkness of its beginning is the darkness of its presence. It never was and can never be the End-Time Super Star. Neo-Adventism is its surviving child, and its only hope. Issues such as creationism and women’s rights are the knives paring from the ossified body those who can no longer abide its misrepresentations . If the original predictions were accurate there wouldn’t be Neo-Adventists, only backsliders and apostates because the Great Controversy would be somewhere in the middle of the script.
So, Roger, I left the church because it was conceived in error, I knew it couldn’t (and can’t) be fixed and I had no desire to be a Neo-Adventist.
The Adventist church has traditionally taught that there were two distinct laws: moral and ceremonial, although the Bible always refers to the Law as one given to the Israelites. In this arbitrary division, the moral law was always the Decalogue, while the sacrificial system with its priestly function and the Levitical laws were considered to be ceremonial laws.
Thus, if someone broke the Fourth Commandment, or committed adultery stoning was the law for disobedience. The 5th through 9th laws of the Decalogue are also part of civil laws even today; while the first three and the 9th are not moral laws in western nations.
For Adventists, failure to observe the Sabbath commandment can risk being defellowshipped, while adultery was also similarly punished but is now looked at more lightly. Those laws as well as the first three and tenth are not moral laws except for Adventists and a few denominations.
There is often confusion between ethics and morals. Below is a standard definition:
Ethics define the code that a society or group of people adhere to while morality delves into right and wrong at a much deeper level, which is both personal and spiritual. The ethics that a person adheres too are impacted upon by external factors like the nation, society, peer group, religion and profession, and could change with a change in any of these influencing factors.
If anyone might be interested, a definition of “Traditional Adventist” has been added as the 2nd paragraph of this opinion piece. Comments pro and con welcomed.
Ervin,
Pardon the redundancy but I’m saying it is inappropriate to refer to someone as an “historic Adventist” who fails to take into account the opposition to hierarchy and creedalsim that exited among the pioneers of the advent movement.
Roger Metzger
After reading Erv’s article and 131 sincere comments and reactions, I am left with that “peace that passes understanding”
To all the naysayers, doubters, skeptics, pundits and any variation of the name Adventist–Conservative, Neo, Historical, Traditional, Fundamentalist, Centrist, Liberal, Orthodox, etc., etc.
My response is, keep it simple. Sing three stanzas of “I love to tell the story”, and trust in the Lord.
Katherine Hankey, 1834-1911
1. I love to tell the story
of unseen things above,
of Jesus and his glory,
of Jesus and his love.
I love to tell the story,
because I know ’tis true;
it satisfies my longings
as nothing else can do.
Refrain
I love to tell the story,
’twill be my theme in glory,
to tell the old, old story
of Jesus and his love.
2. I love to tell the story;
more wonderful it seems
than all the golden fancies
of all our golden dreams.
I love to tell the story,
it did so much for me;
and that is just the reason
I tell it now to thee.
3. I love to tell the story;
’tis pleasant to repeat
what seems, each time I tell it,
more wonderfully sweet.
I love to tell the story,
for some have never heard
the message of salvation
from God’s own holy Word.
“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish…
“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:” -1st Peter 1:18-19
For me personally, the emphasis is on “vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers”.
There is a very easy answer to Erv’s question. If it has already been offered, let me remind you. Traditional Adventists (TA’s), as Erv defines that term, believe that their Biblical world view is the product of divine revelation: first, the general revelation in scripture, and second, the concrete meaning and application of certain aspects of that revelation – particularly the eschatological/apocalyptic writings – in further special revelation to Ellen White. The latter was God’s final revelation to mankind, an all-encompassing preview of the end of history for the modern Christian mind that saw the Bible as a puzzle to be figured out and distilled to moral lessons and propositions.
But to the TA, it represents more than just revelation. It is logical Truth that can be propositionally articulated and is logically compelled – at least to the Spirit filled mind. Central to that revelation is the Law of the Sabbath, the logic of which depends on a literal 6-day creation week. TA’s built their identity and eschatology on the logical necessity of the seventh day Sabbath.
As the laws of nature and science began to challenge that logic, TA’s had two choices: They could release God from the old covenant on which they had built their identity, and find new meaning and rationale for the Sabbath as a gift of grace; or they could double down on their naturalistic interpretation of Sabbath meaning, making exclusive belief in that narrative, as historical fact, a test of…
…a test of faith. They chose the latter.
Evangelical Christians, not molded by the modern mindset, and not being dependent for their identity on 19th Century naturalistic, rational boxes of theology, are more pluralistic. Those who are creation fundamentalists – and there are many – believe as they do because they take the Bible quite literally, and they believe that the Christian doctrine of original sin requires a literal belief in the Genesis account. Others, less doctrinally oriented, seek to honestly follow the empirical evidence where it leads, and trust God to lead them to new understandings that will deepen faith, and keep them faithful to the Biblical teachings of who God is and who man is. This latter approach results in weaker institutional authority, but it also avoids painful change and internal fighting as the institutional structures built on rigid theology become brittle and unwieldy.
Nathan,
If I misunderstand your last post, the following questions won’t make sense–in which case no reply is expected.
But if I understand you correctly, there is a difference between those adventists who take the Bible as the highest authority (the primacy of scripture) vs. those who are dedicated to “tradition” (as they understand it–even though their understnding ignores or denies the history of the advent movement).
Are there traditionalists who think “institutional authority” existed in the 1840s and 1850s?
I’m a fiat creationist. Any questions about whether the God of Moses DID create life on this planet in seven literal days notwithstanding, he had the power and the ability to do so and he inspired Moses to provide us with a record of that. The question isn’t how “literal” the Genesis account is. The question is whether the God of Moses can be trusted.
The old covenant is a relationship with God based on what we do. The prototype is the promise made at Sinai, “All the LORD has said we will do and be obedient.”
The new covenant is a relationship based on what God has done, is doing and has promised to do. The new covenant existed before the old covenant.
The old is called old and the new is called new because the old covenant was ratified with the blood of animals at Sinai before the new covenant was ratified by the blood of Jesus at Calvary. (To be continued.)
You can’t answer this question “for” the traditionalists, but do they really think that it would be better to disrespect fiat creationist Adventists who refuse to be dogmatic with regard to something upon which we agree?
If so (or to the extent that it may be so), what is the answer?
Let me know if you have a better idea but I think the answer is for those Adventists who believe in salvation by grace alone, the primacy of scripture and the priesthood of all believers to be out knocking on more doors than the traditionalist/institutionalist/restorationists do.
For every “remnant” publisher and “amazing facts” ministry, let’s create two protestant adventist ones. For every so-called “Bible study” that is nothing more than an indoctrination class, let’s create two small-group Bible studies that are actually dedicated to searching the scriptures as for hidden treasure. For every sermon about the supposed evils of worshiping the Lord on Sunday, let’s attend a sabbath service AND a Sunday service. Let’s let other protestants know there ARE protestant adventists who abhor popery and Roman traditions and LOVE the people who have not yet looked past those traditions.
I sure appreciate the spirit of your response, Roger. I do think the TA world view was the consensus view of Adventism before it was institutionally encapsulated. I used the term “old covenant” to refer to the legalistic TA view of the Sabbath. I think I understand pretty well the larger Biblical meanings associated with the terms Old and New Covenants. But thanks anyway for the primer.
Erv’s question dealt with why TA’s reject so vigorously the evangelical Christian scientists who strongly affirm God as Creator, but refuse to force the origins of the biosphere into a theological box of six 24 hour days, contrary to empirical evidence. It was that question which I was trying to address.
I happen to believe that melding the Deuteronomic rationale for Sabbath keeping with the Exodus rationale provides an incredibly profound and compelling basis for the seventh day Sabbath as a symbol of freedom from dependency on the created order and submission to the Creator of that order. For me, there is no more powerful argument against philosophical naturalism and materialism than the Sabbath. And that argument doesn’t require six literal days for its validity.
What really undermines the SDA position on a six-day creation is the user lack of relevance of this fact in SDA practice.
It literally doesn’t matter in practice.
Dominant SDA culture has absolutely no interest in creation care (environmental awareness and action) which would be the logical outgrowth of a belief that a six-day creation is the only theory that respects a creator.
Since it has no practical application, it is a belief whose sole purpose is to bolster another belief (supposedly).
That alone undermines the Sabbath and makes the belief of no effect.
ATT…… have you thought that perhaps SDAs, being neo-Jews, are literally following God’s command to the first couple?
Ge 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Do you think the current state of the environment is the result of all the ‘subduing’ and ‘having dominion’ that has been going on ever since?
Is the thinking reflected in this text the source or a reflection of the attitude of the so-called ‘acquisitive cultures'(Judeo-Christian, by and large) which have plundered the earth of her resources? Would/should we live more like the aboriginal cultures, taking nothing more than immediate needs for survival? Adam and Eve in the garden didn’t need a car or phone. Should we all go live in the woods?
It is true that Young Earth creationism implies Young Life creationism. But not viceversa. The objections of the Evangelical author you quote are specifically addressed to the former. On the other hand there is nothing in the fundamental belief of Seventh-day Adventists, including the addition of the term “recent,” against Young Life creationism. Thus the article of Ervin Taylor misses its mark.
Young Earth Creationism is a farce treasured by those who refuse the facts in their face because of the myth of Scriptural inerrancy. It represents a strategic retreat toward the reality of an old world, but can’t quite go there because of a predisposition of belief.
The huge creationist body of gymnastic flimflam fills speculative rhetoric storehouses to overflowing while the facts are simple and straightforward. As to the age of the world, any dummy can drive through exposed layers of earth anywhere and see they aren’t being laid down now, weren’t a hundred years ago, with no record of it happening by any accounts in recorded history. And honest, studious people, geologists, can calculate the time frame it had to have taken for it to process. Think in the millions of years.
As to life on earth, why does it have to be recent in contradiction to the evidence? Doesn’t basic integrity require reviewing the evidence and accepting it? I know, Adventism, as a body, ignores moral conclusions when facts threaten or undermine its pretension for existence, Scripturally appointed star role in the last day events, anchored in the proposition of inerrancy.
Yes, one can believe what they wish. Which is an exercise in mythical thinking when it contradicts facts. Now there is an inconvenient truth!
While you can see, Bugs, that I am not sympathetic to TA “science” regarding creation and earth age, I cringe at your rhetoric. I suspect that if you were to discuss what you describe as simple, straightforward facts with a knowledgeable expert like Leonard Brand, you would quickly look as foolish and incompetent as I would if I were to go one on one with Kobe Bryant. There are professional and lay experts who make informed comments on these issues. I have never read any posts by you suggesting that you are one of them. I certainly am not.
When folks like you and I need to rely on experts for our conclusions and opinions, we need to be cautious about vilifying those who differ with us based upon their reliance on different experts.
That doesn’t mean truth is relative. It just means we should be careful not to get emotionally attached to positions that require expertise beyond our intellectual capacity or qualifications.
You seem to come at so many issues with the same passion, fervor and emotional overlay that you decry in conservative fundamentalists. It would be so much more becoming for you to actually to address arguments made on this website, rather than mount cathartic drive-bus, venting and railing against individuals or groups for having sinister ulterior motives or being stupid.
That should be “drive-bys”. A fie on autocorrect.!
So Nathan you think it is indelicate of me to fire flaming arrows at vulnerable structures? My rhetoric mirrors language usage in fundamentalism? And ignoring “experts” like Dr. Brand is a form of vilification in their absence that would turn me to spaghetti in their presence because of their expertise? It’s the meaning of defenders of Creationism, the why, not the how, that interests me, and to which my arrows are fired. Vulnerabilities reside there, not in their ability to skillfully glean points from the holes, vulnerabilities, exceptions, and contradictions that are minor vexing parts of all scientific positions.
You say about me, “It would be so much more becoming for you to actually to address arguments made on this website, and rather than mount cathartic drive-bus, venting and railing against individuals or groups for having sinister ulterior motives or being stupid. Kindly post for me what individuals, or groups, I have accused of sinister ulterior motives, or of being stupid.”
Critics of me and my methodology virtually never reply specifically to my posits, which are argument discussion and not personal diatribes. You have done the same here. Why? I am more than willing to be called wrong or a liar. All I ask is for supporting evidence. OK, in the meantime, call me reckless, passionate.
[I have no ability to ever edit my posts, as you surely have noticed. Your miscue is a venal sin compared to mine!]
That’s a good point in theory Aecio. TA’s have, however tried to use a literal interpretation of Genesis to explain away the scientific evidence for the “geologic column.” The theory advanced is that the earth substantially achieved its present form as a result of a worldwide flood, depicted in Genesis, within the past 6,000 years. Embedded in the geologic column is much evidence of biologic life (fossils, e.g.). So the scientific observations and conclusions of the scientists cited by Erv inferentially, if not explicitly, logically preclude YLC. Necessarily perceived from our temporal perspective, evidence of deep geologic time is inextricably intertwined with evidence of life forms existing at least tens of millions of years ago.
Like neo-Darwinists, scientifically minded TA’s are forced to elevate to scientific status a variety of speculative possibilities to explain away evidence that challenges their religious beliefs. Fortunately, there are many fine scientists, both within and outside the Christian faith, who understand the difference between science and faith, and are committed to exploring science as free from faith straitjackets as possible. The work of a number of those individuals is cited by Stephen Meyer in “Signature in the Cell” and “Darwin’s Doubt,” two books making very lucid and powerful arguments against non-science.
Here’s what baffles me about some who may or may not see things like you Nathan. Many of them have occasionally expressed a strong belief that those scientists who believe that there is abundant irrefutable scientific evidence for anthropogenic climate change are mistaken, or are perpetrating a hoax; whereas they don’t believe that scientists who claim to know what happened (and what didn’t happen) 100,000, or 1 million, or 1 billion, or 10 billion years ago are mistaken, or are (unwittingly) perpetuating a hoax.
It would seem that as a general proposition, scientists would be more prone to be more accurate with regard to assessing what is currently happening than they would be about assessing what happened eons ago.
I think you’re kind of mixing apples and oranges here, Stephen. As to the distant past, I have more confidence in the ability of science to disprove theories than in its ability to confirm theories. The tools of science are quite inadequate to prove just how the present order of the natural world came into existence and developed. Certainly some inferences are more plausible than others. But they remain just that – inferences.
As to AGW, I think there is good evidence to prove the greenhouse effect and the mechanism by which CO2 traps heat. What is poorly understood is climate sensitivity and other contributors that can confound predictions. The records of the past 19 years tell us that the GCM’s have vastly overpredicted the impact of indisputable increases in CO2. The role played by politics in climate change cannot be overstated. Every major drought, every major storm, every cold wave, every heat wave is attributed to climate change.
It is increasingly evident that, for the foreseeable future, no evidence can falsify CAGW, and therefore, it cannot be considered science. I think most informed scientists cringe when they hear overwrought politicians predicting the end of civilization if we do t let them take over our money and our businesses to combat a threat that is greater than terrorism.
In the case of both earth age science and AGW, I have no quarrel with science. It’s the theories and conclusions that masquerade as science which I view with a jaundiced…
I’ve pondered this some Nathan and I am not quite seeing how I am mixing apples and oranges; but rather pointing out an inconsistent regard for scientific consensus.
How can what happened a billion years ago be falsified? So by your reasoning, how can speculation about what did or did not occur a billion years ago be considered science? Nevertheless it seems that some who reject whatever you call it that has most scientists convinced of anthropogenic climate change, simultaneously accept whatever you may call it that has most scientists thinking they can know what happened, and what did not happen, a billion years ago.
To add briefly to Nate’s comment, the focus of the volume cited is concerned with the age of rocks since the author is a geologist. However, many of the rocks dated by various isotopic methods contain or, in more cases, are situated above or below rocks containing fossils. Thus this data contributes in a major way to refuting the validity of both Young Earth and Young Life Creationism.
Good points Erv. As Nathan pointed out above, disproof is much easier than confirmation. Ideologies lead to theories that lead to thesis or anti-thesis; each step creating a potentially weak link. Sometimes only a little tweaking is required and sometimes a new drawing board; from idea through impact and resultants.
In such concept of disproof; I have not seen isotopic dating variances between layers above “and” below, denoting impact in folding or layer shifts. Actually I have not seen isotopic dating of trace materials in the fossil layer compared (three way inclusion/exclusion).
Trying hard not to be biased between any theory or trajectory of proof (maybe a little bias to insufficient accumulated knowledge for theory, proof or disproof).
To help access the level of respect for science present in the SDA church, read the official church paper. In this month’s issue a scientist from the Geoscience Institute juggles a fundamentalist reading of scripture with science in a discussion about dinosaurs. In a recent issue, in an article about newly published research on the dangers of eating meat, the author asserts that Ellen White’s prophetic gift was reaffirmed by the study results. I am still looking for an article discussing research about the benefits of moderate coffee drinking and a reevaluation of Mrs. White’s prophetic gifts. Can we trust the research of Adventist universities? Are scientists not so subtly being given the message that studies which may contradict Mrs. White’s health message aren’t acceptable and that studies which contradict the age of the earth as reckoned by the General Conference are off limits? Would results of the Loma Linda Adventist health study that did not affirm or even contradicted Mrs. White’s testimony be swept under the rug? In the future, will health research be limited to the study of the potential benefits of walnuts and olive oil?
I do think, Michael, that responsible scientists on both sides need to be open to new data that might cause them to reconsider cherished views. Why…just the other day I heard a liberal SDA science professor admit that the reality of Ted Wilson is causing him to reconsider his previous thinking that it has been tens of millions of years since dinosaurs roamed the earth and went extinct. ?
Interesting that your science professor acquaintance would cite Pastor Wilson as a significant influence in this area of knowledge.
It’s a joke, Michael. The professor isn’t real.
Sorry, Nathan, I missed it. I thought the joke was the idea that dinosaurs ever existed at all. Every good SDA knows that dinosaurs weren’t in the ark, even the nice little vegetarian ones, so therefore they never existed. But, God did create dinosaur fossils, just to keep true believers on their toes. Tippy toes at that. I expect Omphalos Theory will become FB29 any year now.
Nathan, there is no question about the age of the earth. There aren’t two sides to the question so there is no need for caution, except for on the part of the creationists who have an agenda beyond the pursuit of evidence wherever it leads. They are looking for proof, support, for a presupposition. So they aren’t honest scientists. They are apologists pretending the application of scientific principles.
Real scientists don’t require pussy-footing. They expect to be grilled on their conclusions so they are prepared with facts to meet the demand. Reasoned explanations can change their minds because that is what scientists do on their journey to understanding.
Why is it required to walk softly in this enterprise. Is it Adventist correctness? A wish not to offend someone (the current sin on college campuses)?
You have labeled me a drive by attacker. I happily own that marker on this occasion.
The bit that got my attention in Nathan’s description of your barb-throwing, Bugs, was the designation ‘cathartic drive-bys.’ Now please, if you will, examine your soul (we both know you’ve got one) and tell us why you feel the need for such catharsis.
Because, if you truly do not feel that you need it, then perhaps Nathan is revealing his own need for some purgation (Freudian analysis would permit this conclusion. ?counter transference??). After all, any SDA whose IQ even registers on the scale must absolutely be feeling a certain cognitive dissonance with regards to the advances of understanding, both scientific and theological, since SDAism was set in stone way back when. There is only one catharsis which can help these bewildered folk: Come out of her, My people. For freedom Christ has set you free!
I’m not suggesting walking softly, Bugs. You know I don’t shy away from expressing myself pretty forcefully when I think someone is indulging patent fallacies or utilizing nonsensical logic.
But what you do isn’t “walking.” It’s more like wildly swinging a baseball bat at the heads of folks you lump into an ill-defined stereotype. Many SDAs who believe in literalism don’t try to defend their belief as a matter of science or fact, but as a matter of faith.
I don’t have all the simple science answers for dummies that you seem to. I have my opinions. But I know that when you drill down on a scientific issue, it’s often not as simple as it may appear on the surface, and dummies like me get lost pretty quickly. I don’t know what God did way back then or how He did it. But I do believe the stories of Genesis are God’s supreme revelation to me of who He is, and who we are relative to Him and the natural created order.
If I was a geologist or a biologist, I would get that it is important for me to commit to the scientific findings of my discipline. But I’m not. So why is it such an emotional issue for you that lots of Adventists disagree with you, especially if they are only offering theories, rather than false science? Why denigrate them so harshly? I think Mormons believe some pretty kooky things. But it does not seem to adversely impact their ability to be honest, upstanding, productive citizens.
In response to the question about the nature of the Loma Linda University (LLU)-based Adventist Health Study (AHS), may I report that based on my own experience and inquiries, all of the evidence I have ever seen points without question to the high quality of the science and intellectual integrity of those involved in AHS research. The director is a distinguished physician and scientist with a book published by Oxford University Press and many peer-reviewed articles in mainline scientific journals with very high standards. I am confident that if the data that the AHS researchers collected had pointed in a direction that contradicted Adventist Church dietary traditions and statements of EGW, that data would have been published in the open literature and public statements would have reflected what the science determined to be the case without fear or favor. As far as I am aware, this characterization is true for any scientific research undertaken by LLU researchers.
In contrast, it is important to note that the GC apologetic operation, the Geoscience Research Institute (GRI), has a totally different reputation. Any pronouncement that comes out from the GRI must support the Adventist fundamentalist party line concerning earth and human history. Although it is physically located adjacent to Loma Linda University, it is not– repeat not–a part of LLU and many LLU faculty members have declined to become associated with the GRI.
Those in the area hold our hearts and Love in this difficult situation. evil abounds and is everywhere; sometimes present at the beginning and sometimes creeping in. It can erupt from small numbers, as in this situation; with absolute force and resultant terror. It proves to use we are human.
In such are checks and balances not necessary? If a few can reek terror, can a few not also fail within knowledge and wisdom; with intent. Should there not be separate assembled bodies of research? Can the individuals of those bodies not tip the scale in either direction; therefore needing external balance?
We have many appreciated, capable and within conviction. We cherish those. We should always watch diligently. We should label anti-thesis when noted for what it is and store such within knowledge; to build upon the wisdom of such failure (this didn’t work, don’t try it again) and the added knowledge of why it failed.
I would contend bodies without conflict of interest are necessary for balance; but we should definitely identify any proposals within value of added knowledge, to ensure handling as such. We are all responsible for the body of knowledge (and the Body of us).
Ervin-This is somewhat reassuring, although,according to Wikipedia, the author of the dinosaur study received his PhD in vertebrate paleontology from Loma Linda University.
Last evening Serge posted a comment that is very important. He seemed to be suggesting that those with an iota of intelligence who remain in the SDA Church must surely be suffering cognitive dissonance, the only remedy for which is to find freedom in Christ by heeding the call, “Come out of her [Adventism] My people.”
I presume that Serge would accept that cognitive dissonance, in context, refers to the denial or suppression of facts and information in order to protect and advance deeply held beliefs. By this definition, to be a purpose/meaning seeking human being is to humbly accept the malady of cognitive dissonance.
Cognitive dissonance first appears in the story of The Fall, when God apparently set the stage by suppressing the truth about the benefits of eating from The Tree, and misleading Adam and Eve in order to preserve and protect their relationship with Him. In the stories of Noah, Abraham, and the other patriarchs, God seems to establish Himself as the champion of cognitive dissonance.
Any person or group that commits to a foundational world view or set of beliefs automatically subjects itself to the charge of cognitive dissonance. It is an inevitable byproduct of human finitude. The most obvious, dangerous, and egregious examples that pop into my mind come not from religion, but from the political Left. In the interests of space and staying on track, I’ll spare you those Orwellian examples.
Below, I will focus on the rich irony of “Come out of…
Freedom in Christ, Serge, is a marvelous, often elusive, goal. I’m not sure what that term means to you. But I’m pretty certain it doesn’t have much to do with enlightened theological or scientific concepts.
In my experience, I have not observed evidence that non-SDA Christians, as a whole, do “freedom in Christ” better than SDA’s. In particularly, I have not observed that enlightened, non-TA, intellectually “liberated” Adventists do “freedom in Christ” better than TA’s. What evidence do you have that my experience is not reflective of reality?
In seeking to free His listeners from the stranglehold of religious authority, Jeaus remained firmly within the Jewish subculture and faith throughout His life. His call to enter the Kingdom and find freedom in His yoke was not a repudiation of Jewish faith so much as a call to find freedom through deeper engagement with their faith.
“Come out of her, My people,” was an allusion to the Babylonian captivity. It was not an invitation to go wandering in a godless, form-your-own-faith wilderness of intellectual freedom. It was a call to go back to faith roots, to rebuild the temple, to renounce the advanced scientific/theological understandings of Babylonian culture. Ironically,Serge, you turn the phrase, “Come out of her, My people” completely upside down by the inferring that it is a call to embrace advanced scientific/theological understandings of enlightened scholars. Isn’t that precisely what Babylon…
…symbolized? How is your plea, “Come out of her, My people,” not an invitation to return to Babyon? To what Promised Land would you lead “bewildered” SDAs? What temples would you lead them in rebuilding, to re-establish worship of the God of Israel? What abandoned cities would you lead them to to rediscover their roots?
I don’t know Nathan, but I think you’ve over-egged that pudding just a tad.
Freedom in Christ is not an elusive goal! Its the very beginning of Christian experience, and the whole journey. If I didn’t know that, I’d be examining myself to see if was ‘in the faith,’ as Paul would say.
Thinking SDA’s are bewildered, ie, uncertain how to respond to the ever-growing evidence of old earth, old life, vs SDA short-term literalism. This blog alone is proof of that.
On the theological side, SDAism is pretty much defunct. If a great SDA theologian, never defrocked as were many others, can write his final work on why SDA 1844/IJ theology is simply wrong, and that the Church’s response is one of deliberate ‘obscurantism,’ then I would say that thinking members will not be able to tolerate the dissonance for too long. I speak of course, of Raymond Cottrell. This is why it is entirely appropriate to remind folk who are troubled that their best option is to summon the moral courage to withdraw from associating in such a conflicted organisation and begin to stand alone before their God, alone in Christ. They will find others with whom to associate in a much freer spiritual environment.
Almost exactly what I have been saying for a long time, Serge. But I’m labeled bombastic when I write it! I maintain Adventism was built on a lie leaving it finally, now, with a chalice of hemlock in its grasp. It wasn’t the intention of the Millerites at first, they were honorable people. But they and their subsequent theologicrats doubled down and created a grotesque, face saving novel, a fictional drama supported by oddball doctrines that has garnered millions of adherents. Why? People customarily give their lives for “special knowledge” of a religious nature.
Novels are imaginary. Not one of the predictions of the scenario came to pass. The Great Heavenly War between Christ and Satan has mental attractions even though the earthly aspect never entered the stage. The imaginary heavenly chapter still plays as a central part of official Adventism without one miniscule root connected to reality. A novel (GC) still is widely distributed to a wisely incredulous world.
So, for most Adventists the current Disappointment hasn’t registered since they park this vain dogma in the back of their brains by assuming it’s true, still to come, and they are too busy anyway to worry about it. But those aware face the dilemma of bailing out or morphing into Neo-Adventists.
And the Glorious Guardians of Good at the core of official Adventism are forced to spit in the eye of reality (via creationism) to maintain the novel of Adventist primacy in the end time.
‘Almost,’ Bugs, almost the same. But I don’t find you bombastic. Rather more strident, clear, incisive, perceptive and with a very stylish gift for nuanced expression.
The one area I tend to disagree is with your general pessimism that we can know anything much about God, ie, what comes thru as your view that ‘theology’ is a pointless exercise. You may be right. But, what we can do is analyse the theologies (yes, there are many) that have been recorded.
I quite like the idea that we can explore the ancient mind thru their recorded works. Yes, they all expressed their ‘opinions.’ But one can discern ‘patterns of opinion,’ if you will, and it is these patterns that morph into ‘theologies,’ which we decide that we ‘like’ or not. Usually according to the extent to which a theology will help us make sense of the world.
We can also discern how the competing theologies back then made their way into collections, which we call OT, NT, Dead Sea Scrolls, Nag Hammadi, etc. It can just be one’s interest in history that motivates, or the history of ideas, or at a deeper level, the sense with which one can identify more closely with the thinking of a particular author. In my case, John and Paul stand out.
Ultimately though, we definitely have to come to terms with our own psychological apparatus. What do we find in ourselves, how do we follow the advice, ‘Know Thy Self.’ This is a common start point which none can avoid. Your ‘Love’ motif is better…
Serge –
Conflicts among members of a movement/organization do not equal uncertainty or bewilderment. I tend to think that space for conflict is a sign of health. The SDA faith community with which I fellowship doesn’t really pay much attention to theological/scientific issues that seem to preoccupy the Institutional elites. Apparently, despite having found spiritual freedom, you are still pretty hooked into railing against an Adventist “officialdom” that has minimal impact on the spiritual environment of most evangelical, Christocentric Adventists. It makes me wonder if perhaps you need some couch time.
I’m not sure what you mean when you say that Adventism is pretty much defunct on the theological side. The conferences in Atlanta, reported on by AToday news team, would seem to challenge that conclusion. I suppose you would also have said, at the time Europe was embroiled in the Protestant Reformation and secular enlightment, that theologically, Christianity was defunct.
You appear, Serge, to be quite strongly invested in your dim appraisal of Adventism, based upon a narrow window that fails to account for the great diversity within the church. I would caution you that cognitive dissonance is virtually guaranteed when one paints and freezes a one-dimensional image of a complex, dynamic, living organism, and then analyzes and reacts to the image over time as if it were the reality.
Funny how easy it is to recognize the signs of cognitive dissonance in others.
Missed it again, Nathan. I’m not talking about conflicts between members ….. I’m talking about the far more serious, significant conflict within the mind of a member who is no longer willing to live in denial (yes, Egyptian fishy style) about the dawning realisation (its a very slow dawn for some) that SDAism IS theologically defunct. Have you read the Cottrell article, Nathan? Have you any interest in the last theological testament of a giant of Adventist theology? If so, what is your considered response? If not, why not? It is one of the most significant pieces of work ever published on SDA theology, and yet no-one wants to know? Why is this, do you think?
See Cottrell’s challenging work, ‘The Sanctuary Doctrine – Asset or Liability’ here, or simply Google it: http://www.lifeassuranceministries.com/pdf%20files/Cottrell%201844.pdf
Nathan, the majority of Adventists don’t even consider what the few on these sites discuss. They are no different than long-time Baptists or Catholics who have habitually aaccepted beliefs and no more. In fact, most believers were born, attended church as children and some even as adults largely by habit. That cannot be denied.
Did anyone believe that the ATS meeting recently would challenge doctrines? Who pays all their expenses plus salaries to engage in such discussions? Any who dared challenge and “rock the boat” should immediately have alternate employment readily available. Such meetings are never open to any but “faithful” Adventists who “cuss and discuss” but never dare make real substantive changes.
As long as the church continues to grow among the most backward countries, nothing will change; but the NAD, western Europe and Australia will continue to lose members. The handwriting has been on the wall too long to recover.
Jesus was born, lived, and died a Jew. Does that infer that the disciples should have faithfully followed his example and remained in Judaism? They, not Christ, established and founded the Christian church. By whose authority was it changed?
Can one be a Christian and also accept Judaism? Doesn’t it create cognitive dissonance trying to practice both? Jesus always practiced Judaism with all it feasts and celebrations, but who determined that they were no longer required, if not Paul,the first Jew,to accept Christ and remove all Judaism for gentile converts?
Just as one cannot be a faithful Mormon and Lutheran, it is also impossible to faithfully practice Judaism, as Jesus did, while at the same time practicing Christianity. That is the dilemma of a puzzle wrapped in an enigma (to paraphrase Winston Churchill.
Your point is well taken, Elaine. I didn’t mean to suggest that one should never leave the church of one’s fathers, or that freedom in Christ might not be experienced more deeply in one faith community than another. I think God has always called those in covenant relationship with Him to form new communities of faithful living and witnessing. That call has often actually created cognitive dissonance. My point was that He doesn’t do that in order to resolve and banish cognitive dissonance through enlightened theological and scientific knowledge. God speaks to us not so much to inform as as to evoke a response. As long as we are honest with Him, and give primacy to that relationship, I don’t think he gives a rip about whether others accuse us of inconsistency or cognitive dissonance.
Hello, friends. I see you are all still at it. Season’s greetings! Or, Merry Christmas, if you prefer. Anyway, I wish you all well.
Hi Joe! Just when Nathan and I have had a chat about freedom in Christ, you reappear and remind us that ‘the truth shall set you free.’ Its like deja vu all over again. Or Jungian synchronicity, if you will. Are you going to stay a while or just drop by to say hello? Either way, nice to see you, and we wish you a very merry Christmas also.
Back atcha, Joe!
No Serge, I haven’t read the Cottrell work you reference. I have heard him speak on the subject, and I have always agreed with his analysis and conclusions.
It is you who is in denial. You need to believe that unless Adventists have their noses rubbed in the dubious stuff their parents believed, and that most of the Church – at least outside NAD – probably still believes, and then say “Uncle!”, they are in denial. That strikes me as really shallow thinking, oblivious to how religious institutions/movements change and grow.
The Investigative Judgment, the Sanctuary Doctrine, FB #6 just doesn’t have any relevance to the faith life of my vibrant SDA community, just as The U.S. Constitution has little bearing on the political values and lives of most Americans. It doesn’t mean most Americans are in denial or suffering from cognitive dissonance when they say they believe in the Constitution. It’s just that they don’t think deeply about such things and the trajectory of their lives isn’t guided by political doctrine.
The more you press this obsession with trashing Adventism for its lack of intellectual respectability, Serge, the more bizarre appears your claim that you have found freedom in Christ by leaving it. What other websites do you frequent which serve members of organizations that you find to be intellectually bankrupt and theologically defunct? I still say there’s a couch waiting for you that you need to take advantage of before you can declare…
For a psychoanalyst, Nathan, you make an ok lawyer. But thanks for the confirmation. Stephen called me mad the other day also.
There is zero correlation between politics and religion, unless one’s religion means practically zero ie. If your faith community which takes its name as SDA were as vibrant and intellectually respectable as you suggest, it would collectively write to the local conference and admit that it no longer stands by the old landmarks and ask to be released from the sisterhood of SDA churches. Instead it appears that you all wish to tip-toe around the elephant sitting in your front pew and hope that one day it will just disappear and save you all the weekly embarrassment of turning up to a church you no longer believe in. Man up, Nathan.
I had the privilege of knowing and talking extensively with the late Raymond Cottrell during the period when Adventist Today was taking shape and have a great respect for his theological insights and personal integrity. His work on the Investigative Judgement (IJ) doctrine is one of his most important manuscripts and, may I suggest, clearly establishes that whatever the nature of the IJ concept is, this, the only unique Adventist theological concept, cannot be supported on the basis of any reasonable interpretation of any biblical passage unless you greatly distort the contexts of various texts. Those who deny the validity of Dr. Cottrell’s’ arguments on this topic, or, more likely, on purpose ignore them, apparently cannot face the implications of the conclusions of what he clearly established as the non-biblical nature of the IJ concept. The same thing can be said for a number of other favorite beliefs of classical Adventism including its strange insistence that the institutional Advent denomination is the “Remnant” (as in “Remnant Church”) of the Book of Revelation and the recent official reaffirmation of a literal interpretation of the “days” of Genesis.
Good choices, Erv, for the worst doctrines of Adventism. There are lots of Adventist communities that have intentionally jettisoned one or more of these doctrines, as well as many that just don’t care about those doctrines. I just don’t understand why it matters that some Adventists believe things I think are not reasonable. As for being theologically defunct, there are a large numbers of Adventist scholars and theologians in good standing who do not accept the traditional SDA teaching of those fundamental beliefs.
and Nathan, your last sentence gives evidence of the SDA lack of sufficient theology to be different from any other protestant denomination, as per Serge. The only authenic creed of belief is honoring the 7th day memorial being the Sabbath of the Lord our God. i believe in another 20 years, as the greybeards die off in the NAD, Western Europe, and Australia, there will be two (2) different SDA denominations. The ones noted being one,and the rest of the Globe the other. i belong to the “true remnant” Church of God, organized by God Himself, and under the live care of the Holy Spirit of God. Let everyone
be faithful in their belief in our Lord Jesus Christ, and they will receive His Grace, and promise of their soul restored. Praise our GOD for His ALMIGHTY GIFTS, and PERFECT LOVE.
It will not come as a surprise to any reader of this web site that it has been argued here that a number of traditional Adventist theological concepts cannot be sustained on the basis of a reasonable interpretation of biblical narratives. But I would ask anyone to name any major institutionalized historic Christian body which does not have in its formal statements of belief at least one highly problematical doctrine. Can a reader point to a Christian body whose doctrinal statements do not contain at least one belief that can be reasonably disputed as to the validity of the biblical interpretations supporting it.
Lacking such an example, I am not sure what might be the purpose of separating oneself from one’s ancestral church body because of a disagreement over doctrine. That does not mean that one should not. But may I suggest that the best reasons would not be because of doctrinal disputes since all of the religious bodies of which I am aware are essentially equal in having some part of their belief structure to be problematical to one degree or another.
Well these last two comments are revealing. SDAism is slowly draining down the plughole of its religious/doctrinal purity, and intelligent members think this is a good thing. Can’t say I disagree either, if it comes to that. But there isn’t a lot of intestinal fortitude in such an approach. Maybe I’m living so far in the past when one’s beleifs were matters of principle, and if one fell so far out of agreement with one’s church, then it was considered the honourable thing to resign. But, it would appear, the vast majority of the membership are either so uniformed or so apathetic, that such religious hari kiri is no longer the honourable path, or necessary.
But when the realisation dawns that if the IJ goes, so does the Sabbath, then folk will really start to wonder why they bother at all. I wish you all well.
Erv, is there now some logic ot the view that since there are NO Christian denominations which are without inconsistency, then the advice to ‘assemble together’ becomes entirely optional?
In answer to Erv’s challenge I would ask Erv what doctrinal belief(s) of the Southern Baptist Convention he understands to be controversial among members of that faith community; since he asked us to name one.
Here’s why disagreement with the literal interpretation of the ‘days’ in Genesis is nonsensical for a Seventh-day Adventist: because the literal interpretation of the ‘days’ in Genesis is the nominally distinctive doctrine of the denomination…as in, it’s in the name. It would be as if a Lutheran believed that Martin Luther was essentially and fundamentally wrong in most if not all of his 95 theses, or if a Baptist did not believe in the doctrinal practice of baptism by immersion, or as if a Roman Catholic did not believe that the bishop of Rome had any ecclesiastical authority.
Since Erv says and/or believes that Cottrell’s work on the Investigative Judgment doctrine “clearly establishes that whatever the nature of the IJ concept is…[it] cannot be supported on the basis of any reasonable interpretation of any biblical passage unless you greatly distort the contexts of various texts;” and since a “reasonable interpretation” of biblical passages without distorting the context of various texts is apparently important to Erv; and since he is implying that “the non-biblical nature” of any doctrinal teaching—to whatever extent that description is appropriate and applicable—should be eschewed, then on what basis does he believe that the Genesis creation narrative does not represent seven literal days; and on what basis does he deny the “concept” of what is described in Revelation 20:12-13?
Stephen, Malachi Martin, in his book Windswept House, written as a novel, although known to be accurate in it’s dialogue to actual past events in the
Roman Catholic Church, with most of the personalities given alias’es, can be identified by the descriptive roles played. Malachi indicates the authority in the future will be vested in the Body of Bishops, rather than in an infallible Pope. If a Pope is elected, He will be referred to as the Vicar of Peter, rather than the Vicar of Christ, and have no more authority than any other Bishop. As the United Nations is currently meeting in Paris to bring about the first arrow in their quiver, the mandated authority of the United Nations to force all nations to bring their allotted roles in the war against Global Warming, in alignment with UN Policy. Of which you’ll recall the Pope gave the preamble for this very item in his recent UN address. With out a infallible POPE, with the Church authority resting in the Body of Bishops, will lead to easier bringing the RC Church to be “the Global Church”, in the New World Order.
Stephen, and you, and most TA’s (Traditional Adventists) it appears to me, are suffering the grief process in regard to your defense of traditional Adventism. Denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance, those are the general step of the process. The experience of grief doesn’t require human loss, but any significant loss. It is evident traditional Adventism, with its coterie of strange and invalid (based on current science) doctrines, is invalid, deceased, but you pretend, illustrated by your defenses, they are alive and well. Your retreat to vague defenses is a primary symptom of grief.
This isn’t intended as an indictment of you, or the others, from Chaplain Bugs, just an observation of the futility of your resistance to reality. Grief is a process, the stages don’t always exactly occur in order, but ordinarily the process delivers an end product of some kind of acceptance.
Cherished beliefs are like good friends. They contribute to the psyche sense of tranquility and orderliness. They longer they are embraced the greater the resistance to the specter of their loss.
I’m not suggesting you aren’t entitled to believe what you wish. Just that you are a “thinking” person, obviously, and that transports you into a toward an irresistible, difficult conclusion. Grief is a symptom of reality confrontation. It acknowledges loss, or at the very least, the anticipation of it.
Erv, do we not have seven examples of doctrinal guidance early in Revelations?
Should we have a little strength, keep HIS Word and not deny HIS name in works; like the Church in Philadelphia? Do we have works, tribulation and poverty; like the Church in Smyrna? Do both not suffer those that say they are Jews, but are not; because they are of the house of satan?
Do we look at that which is good; the works, labour, patience, not suffering evil in which are liars, Charity, service, faith and hate the deeds of the nicolaitans?
Should we not keep our first Love, hate the deeds of the nicolaitans, doctrine of balaam (Jude 1), teachings of balac and stumblingblocks in the messages, not suffer that woman jezebel, not be dead or even luke warm and definitely not say we are rich when we have nothing and can do nothing without HIM?
Should we not remember from whence we are fallen, be zealous and repent? Is the Tree of Life and to sit at HIS Throne not enough? Do we wait to be rebuked and chasten in HIS Love? Do we Love others enough to save them from such and hopefully by some small grant of HIS strength help them by example in the path to HIM?
We know what has, is and will happen; should we not use it?
One might go so far as to suggest that since the RC Church was the only actual church for about a thousand years that all Christian doctrines were filtered through its human machinery and output with diverse reasoning and motivation. Most of Protestant theology is one version or another of its machinations.
So, it might be argued, such teachings as the trinity (read the history of it) are all “inconsistent” when viewed through the window of Christ’s life and teachings. Virtually none of the core of Christian theology is traceable to Christ himself. The basis of Christian teachings, via Catholicism, are the result of a two thousand year attempt to explain about Christ and his role what he didn’t. While that might be considered problematical, it doesn’t compare to the route that Adventism took.
Adventism’s contribution to the mix wasn’t designed to amply Christian thought, but to apologize for its own existence because of its stillbirth in faulty prophetical interpretation. Its creation of a scheme for the purpose of the rehabilitation of its self-image propelled it into never-never land of Christian thought, with not even one particle of it ever adopted by any other Christian organization.
Serge correctly says: “SDAism is slowly draining down the plughole of its religious/doctrinal purity. . .”
I see it sipping from its hemlock chalice-in-hand. No-Adventism, or Neo-Adventism, the only deliverance I can see from hemlock poisoning.
Since we have no evidence from the words attributed to Jesus or those of his immediate followers that he or they contemplated that the faith tradition that came to carry his name would be broken up into many groups with varying interpretations of his words, the fact that there are different Christian “denominations” is surely not a very important consideration. (Of course, there is no indication that Jesus’ original followers even contemplated that a lengthy period of time would elapse between Jesus first and his predicted second coming. But that’s another topic.) This yet again is a reason that changing one’s affiliation with some modern denomination over differences of opinion with their “official” statement of beliefs or worrying about some mythical “doctrinal purity” would seem to be (to use yet another cliché.) “majoring on the [very, very] minor.”
True, Dr. Taylor. There’s a sense in which there isn’t a dimes worth of difference between segments of Christendom one joins, particularly if you factor in the history of Christianity as I have noted above. So one opts for the collective opinions “liked” best without denying the core of Christianity. None are anchored in verifiable “truth,” so all are equal faith choices.
The problem for Adventism is that it purposely opted not to be a part of that tradition, so, I maintain, there is more than a dime’s worth of difference for it. It stubbornly chose to distinguish itself by creating a nonconforming theology, an eschatology limited to place and time that depended on an interpretation of prophecy which placed it out of the mainstream. Sadly, its prediction didn’t happen. It now has no credible place to go with that scheme.
So there is no doctrinal purity available anywhere. But to be an Adventist one has to subscribe to the dogma of a failed prescribed event, something mainline Christianity never did, leaving their faith with easily adaptable options.
I have no doubt on the survivability of Adventism. It has a marvelous reputation (outside of theology), a worldwide collection of duty bound, ethical people who have shown they haven’t and won’t be throttled in their faith by what are ancient foundational errors mostly highlighted by us blabbermouths on this forum! You heard it from me here first: Long Live Neo-Adventism!
Bugs, I’ve just had a chance to review the past day or so of posts. Astounding. If the CB’s (‘concerned brethren’ – most traditional of TAs) who spent so much effort in putting Dr Ford to the sword, could read these comments, they would turn in their graves. I suspect also that Earl’s prediction of schism is correct. The TA will not cease to exist. If they can muster enough strength for one last push to uphold ‘the landmarks,’ (and bring about the prophesied ‘shaking’) then perhaps the Neo’s who are the ascendant group today, may not survive the purges. It might ultimately become a fight over the assets, ie, who actually ‘owns’ the local church real estate?
But I would also ask, since ‘a nickel ain’t worth a dime no more,’ do the Neo’s have enough strength of conviction to continue paying a full 10% of income to an organisation whose official tenets they no longer subscribe to? Seems a fairly hefty fee to pay to belong to a club that officially doesn’t want them as members.
So it is a very interesting time. The once vigorously anti-papal church has now become quite ‘catholic’ in who it tolerates under its umbrella. Its a good thing that so many have jettisoned a number of the anti-Gospel aspects of SDAism. That they seek fellowship and a medium for service to their local communities, under the roof they have known so long and well, I think is a wonderful thing. May the blessings of Heaven abound to all!
Why one would opt to be a Neo puzzles the heck out of me. I mean there are countless fine ways to order one’s life beyond Adventism and I can see no advantage to hanging on. When you say, “Hi, I’m Seventh-day Adventist,” to someone, anyone, do they reply “Wow, I always wanted to meet one, this is awesome!” On an experiential level there is no glitter, only misdirects like “Oh you people don’t believe in giving blood.”
Commitment to an ideology has to have some benefit. The TA’s have a point to their adhesion to dogma based Adventism, regardless of how ridiculous and inane. They “like” what they bargained for and they intend to keep it and finance it with their willing tithes.
Serge, you poked into the artery of the system in questioning possible asset distribution and Neo-tithes. When I bailed decades ago tithes (and offerings) went with me. I left for intellectual, ethical, and spiritual reasons and couldn’t imagine giving another nickel or dime to support what I couldn’t suffer any more.
So taking the 1844 experience with the abject failure of future predictions as a lesson, I’m not going to subscribe to Earl’s musing, and other random guesses on schism, or the degree of it, if it is realized. There is an x-factor, an indeterminable loyalty of some mysterious kind, in my estimation, that appears to keep Neo’s financing and marching in step with a system they have intellectually abandoned. Why? That confounds me.
By the way, I somehow missed the original comment/question(?) of Mr. Hansen. Obviously, EGW was factually incorrect, otherwise known as wrong, in stating what essentially all of her small band of followers believed, i.e., that the world was only about 6000 years old. I thought that this should be obvious. However, since she was not infallible, I’m not sure what the significance would be of pointing out the obvious–except for those traditional Adventists who have not come to terms with the obvious.
Reply ↓
For what it is worth (very little), I usually agree with Bugs (I wish I had a handle like that!) but I must take exception to his statement that “. . . [T]o be an Adventist one has to subscribe to the dogma of a failed prescribed event.” I’m sure that one of Bugs fingers slipped and what he intended to type was “To be a traditional Adventist, one has to . . . ” As I get older, my fingers are starting to slip more and more as well. Progressive and Neo-Adventists have no need to believe in the cosmic or religious significance of a”failed proscribed [non-]event” that supposedly occurred in 1844. If our fellow Adventist co-religionists want to believe in the cosmic religious significance of this event, that is obviously their absolute right. We would simply hope that they would have the maturity to reciprocate that courtesy.
Yes, we can conveniently call it a slip of the typing finger! Your correction, Dr. Taylor, is in harmony with my intentions and my last blast: “Long live Neo-Adventism!” In addition, I honor anyone’s private profession of faith including Traditional Adventists who maintain strict adherence even for what I see as an indefensible view of things. I do reserve the right for a passionate discussion with anyone, however!
Erv parenthetically wrote, “Of course, there is no indication that Jesus’ original followers even contemplated that a lengthy period of time would elapse between Jesus first and his predicted second coming. But that’s another topic.”
Of course there is an indication from the words attributed to Jesus that Jesus Himself fully anticipated that there would be those who would perceive that He has delayed His return. Luke 12:45-46, especially in the NIV or NLT.
Then, of course, there is 2 Peter 3:3-4; which I love to cite in this forum. Since the author of that book is the apostle Simon Peter, how can Erv claim that “there is no indication that Jesus’ original followers even contemplated a lengthy period of time would elapse between Jesus first and his predicted coming”?
I’d ask if you would care to explain yourself Erv; except that I understand that there is nothing about that statement that is explicable.
Stephen, Jesus followers had their hopes crushed when he died. Only after the empty tomb was a new paradigm developed, based on hope, speculation, and review and new application of his teachings. Only after that point was he eventually deemed the “savior” of the world who would “soon” pilot a cloud in the air to rescue the 144,000, or whomever. One of the problems is we can’t be sure what he really did say, or mean. The record you rely on, the Gospels, weren’t written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and were a minimum fifty years post resurrection. And they have significantly different accounts of events back when. In those documents he is credited with sayings that make no holy sense.
Supposing you’re correct, Stephen, the Gospels are accurate. How do you account for the failure of the prophecies applied to our day (1844)? Those predictions were considered the ultimate verification of His Advent based on his promise. But they turned out to verify nothing beyond unrequited yearnings. So, the tactical retreat to “soon” was made and could mean tomorrow, next year, or ten thousand years. Or never.
There is a dream like quality to paradise and the delivery to it. Then there is the reality of the world where divine intervention for that purpose has never happened. Not once. It’s a faith dream, 1844 proved that is all it is.
[Apologies to Erv, I just had to drop in my dime’s worth!]
Bugs,
Your moniker is eerily appropriate, as you are as hilarious as is the famous Looney Tunes character.
Yes, I do rely on the Gospels to be an accurate representation of what Jesus said and did and meant—just as you rely on them, and on the remainder of the Bible, as being an INACCURATE representation of the Godhead in general and particularly its representation of the divinity of Jesus (that is to say, Jesus as deity).
In other words, I fully depend on Jesus as being Superman; just as you are depending upon your conception that He was something more like a great teacher who happened to live and happened to die (or something).
We’ve been around this prophecy barn before (or maybe I have in colloquy with some other scoffer), but what do you mean by “the failure of the prophecies applied to our day (1844)?”?
For most Christians who believe as I do that the Gospels do represent an accurate, reliable, historical representation of what Jesus said, did, and meant—and that the 2 Peter 3:3-4 prophecy is a prophecy from one of the apostles concerning people like you and Erv—1844 doesn’t mean very much, if anything, to be quite candid.
1844 clearly means more to you than it even does to me. I account for it as a confirmation that it is possible to not believe the Bible—while purporting to believe it. Matthew 24:36 should have disabused anyone who actually depended upon the Gospels to be an accurate record and representation of what Jesus said, did, and meant of the notion that they can know “that day.”
By the way Bugs, I’m reasonably certain that there was no need to apologize to Erv, as he was not about to respond to that particular post and is quite likely very appreciative to you for having contributed your ‘ten cents’ worth.
Stephen, you say “1844 doesn’t mean very much.” There is a double disconnect there for you, so contridictory. First, your church is founded on it. Second, are you telling me you no longer believe in the doctrines that are irrevocably pinned to it? That would mean you are a Neo-Adventist. Perish that thought!
The Three Angels Messages, the heavenly sanctuary, the scape goat, the end time, the time of trouble, Christ in a half-hand sized cloud,the millinieum, the evil empire/papacy, the investigative judgment, the Spirit of Prophecy, in other words, the entire heart of Adventist dogma, were hatched and live only because of the Millerites cum Adventist. These unique (bizarre) doctrines define Adventism and you claim they don’t matter? Without 1844 these doctrines never exist.
So call me that Scwey Wabbit if you wish, but I am actually Chaplain Bugs and I declare you to still be in the first stage of grief, denial. You are clearly disconnected from reality and your flip flopping around (Scwey Wabbits know about that kind of display) is significant evidence of your unrecognized dilemma. But I’m patient, been trained to assist the grieved kindly through their trauma, so think of me as your therapist! Fire me if you wish, but first explain why you aren’t actually a reprobate Neo-Advntist! Maybe a scoffed under construction?
Steohen, it should have been “scoffer” under constrution. I know, it is difficult even for me to imagine you as that, but in my Chaplain role I must allow for even the remotest possibility, particularly in light of your confession about 1844!
OK So Ervin properly diagnosed my errant, aged typing fingers, STEPHEN. Perhaps I should engage a physical therapist, no, not a psychic one!
Here’s the thing with me Bugs, I’ve never been hung up on 1844. I’m not a theologian; I’m a believer. I didn’t major in theology at Oakwood. I majored in history. I wasn’t very interested in denominational history. I was interested in American history.
Unlike you, my brother, I was never a preacher. I was basically a corporate salesman. (Whereas you should perhaps have always been a photographer or a philosopher; perhaps I should have always been a journalist or an attorney.) So I haven’t been traumatized by the truth, or by anything of the sort. Therefore, as I say, 1844 or The Great Disappointment, has candidly never meant much to me; and neither has the IJ doctrine from which its meaning or relevance emanates, and against which you rail.
I reason that if in the IJ, Jesus is our Advocate and our Judge, and if I have retained Him as my Advocate by accepting and believing that He has earned the opportunity to represent me, I then trust that I cannot possibly be found guilty. Now, if that sounds like grief or denial to you, then we have diametrically opposing definitions of those terms or concepts. You can categorize me as a Neo-Adventist or a scoffer under construction, or whatever floats your boat. But you and Erv see Seventh-day Adventism one way, and I happen to see Seventh-day Adventism quite another way; call me what you will.
Surely you are not suggesting that Protestantism and the reformers’ interpretation of the symbols representing Romanism and the papacy, and eschatology (including a time of trouble, or tribulation, as identified in Daniel 12:1) exist only because of the Millerite movement. If so, your premise is ‘scwey’ and silly; and how very surprising that would be; right?
Stephen , I am aware`of the long Protestant traditions for the concepts the Millerites borrowed and amplified as the basis for their presuppositions and calculations. Their only success was in proving them merritless. Faulty propositions aren’t salvaged by ancient or massive collective opinions.
I don’t pretend to know what will be, so my rightness or wrongness isn’t the issue. However,foundational Adventism is demonstrably wrong. One doesn’t need to be a theologian to see that it’s predictions were worth zilch.
However, you have led me into some present truth. There are Traditional Adventist (TA’a), Neo-Adventist (NA’s) and I am forced to confront, because of you, Regular Adventist (RA’s). RA’s are mostly unconcerned about nitty gritty theology, have little interest in improved alternative beliefs so not interested in Neo-Adventism, just like being where they are in their version of being a Christian Adventist, and too busy with life to worry about dogmatic pecadillos. In other words, being a Seventh-day Adventism meets their needs. That’s it. They seldom venture into the labyrinth of this forum.
So, I’m reevaluating my proposition about your grief affiliction. Maybe you are an RA, and you are content with that. See, present truth now has me grieving about missing the obvious! Off with me to the Fields of Ambrosia to work this through!
I’m sure that Mr. Foster did not mean that Jesus’ followers contemplated a 2000 year “delay.” If he indeed meant to type that, he must meant it as a jest. As for the 2nd Peter quote, that is certainly an admission on the part of early Christians (certainly not Peter who did not write 2nd Peter) that they, after only a couple of decades had passed, were getting worried about how long it was taking for Jesus to return.
Erv,
I’d think that Jesus’ followers were like most human beings who reckon a long time for something that they anticipate in terms of their own 70+ year-life span and perhaps that of the ancestors they have known, or know about.
In other words, it is rather doubtful to me that they would have been much different than we are in these regards.
Tell me Erv, what specifically gives you the impression that the apostle Simon Peter did not write or dictate that epistle?
Stephen, if I might chime in to this awe-inspiring discussion…. Peter didn’t write 2Peter because he was dead, deceased, shuffled off this mortal coil, gone to meet his Maker. He had been crucified, head-down as tradition has it. He was a dead Peter at the time that epistle was penned. That is what gives me the impression he did not write it. Maybe you should increase your interest in the study of theology before you make statements which NO actual theologian would ever make.
I just noticed, Stephen, that you also said ‘dictate.’ Well, I suppose its possible he dictated it from ‘the other side.’ Is that what you are proposing?
Simply to add a footnote to the helpful and appropriate response of Mr. Agafonoff: Mr. Foster might consider taking a little time to read standard scholarly discussions on the topic of the development of the New Testament canon. If he had already done so, he might have learned that most New Testament scholars don’t think the Peter who was the disciple of Jesus wrote 2nd Peter. As Mr. Agafonoff suggests, that Peter was long dead when 2nd Peter was written. As I understand the arguments, the Greek styles of 1st and 2nd Peter are very different and a number of early Church Fathers did not accept 2nd Peter as Scripture. But perhaps Mr. Foster only reads Fundamentalist literature where any kind of reasonable arguments are ignored because of an obsession with the discredited idea of biblical inerrancy.
Dr. Taylor, I concur. It also occurred to me that Mr. Foster would do well to be reminded of the sage advice of 1st Peter, (who may or may not be original apostle Peter). But the advice is good, and I would have thought that for a traditionalist SDA, vital. 1Peter 3.15 ‘…being ready always to give answer to every man that asketh you a reason concerning the hope that is in you,…’
So there it is Stephen. You are not actually permitted the lazy approach, the luxury of saying, ‘Oh, I’m a believer, and there’s the end of it.’ No, you are required by your scripture to give a reasoned account for why you believe what you do. A good place to start would be to take the aforementioned teatise by Raymond Cottrell and tell us in a reasoned manner, why he is wrong. For you say you continue to ‘believe’ that which Cottrell says is unbelievable and unbiblical.
Over to you, reasonable Stephen. I am asking. Give us the reason for the hope that is in you.
You’re back Serge, or at least with me. We had some unfinished business did we not?
Sorry guys, but I believe that Simon Peter wrote or dictated this epistle—and would have obviously done so before he was martyred. Doesn’t 2 Peter 1:16-18 indicate that he was an eyewitness and that the author heard the voice of God himself the Mount of Transfiguration? How fraudulent do you guys suppose the Bible to be? (Uhm…don’t answer that, please!)
As for whatever else you may be referencing Serge, I believe that the SDA denomination teaches more truth about Jesus and His love and purpose for humanity than any other version thereof; and I believe this personally because I have been privileged to be eyewitness to and have benefitted from living revelations of these truths…people who have embodied God’s love and have been practically possessed with His Spirit…who have poured themselves into me to the extent that I have permitted them to do so (which is not nearly enough).
I have also witnessed the fruits of the unique combination of truths taught by Adventism borne out in the public events and trends that I have witnessed and with which I keep abreast for over a half century, and in the relative, undeniable and empirical carnal health and longevity—not to mention the comparative quality of life—of those who attempt some adherence to classical Adventist lifestyle approaches (as compared to those who don’t); which is personally compelling.
The Lord has done so much for me and has shown me too much unmerited favor and mercy, and I have seen and been the recipient of too much of His love by way of His servants (two of whom are/were my own parents) that I would be an absolute idiot not to believe.
I am no genius (and I maintain that I’m no theologian); but on the other hand, be not deceived…people may regard me as they wish—and some will call me what they wish— but I assure you that I am not an (absolute) idiot. Lol
As for Raymond Cottrell, I confess I have seen his name a number of times, but have never (to my knowledge or recollection) ever read anything that he has written. Now I know that may sound surprising (or not), sort of like my surprise that a lifelong Adventist had never heard Barry Black speak; but let’s just say that we run in different circles and are impressed by different things; and are influenced by differing perspectives.
I’ve explained my thinking on the sanctuary and the Investigative Judgment on this thread. I’m not interested in what another opinionated guy has said or written on this topic (because it simply had never interested to me much, frankly); unless of course I am conversing or corresponding with him or her in some sort of interactive forum.
There is something magical about the faith of a little child. But little children are unable to discuss the deeper ideas of the Scripture or the history of the canon and the church. They remain in the kindergarten no matter their chronological age. Enjoy Uncle Arthur’s Bedtime Stories with cookies and milk.
I am sorry Erv, but are you not referencing scholarly deconstruction of the New Testament; by definition?
Was 2 Peter not canonized? Is the postulation not without theory? Do you wish to bring forth the doubts of Origen (never canonized for rebellion), who provided no explanation; Pamphilus or Eusebius nearing 300 years after the fact? Or do we review opinions 1800 years later, or resent? Or throw away the reference of such works from Clement of Alexandria,Theophilius, Justin, Polycarp or Aristides; nearly 200 years earlier or the multitudes of scholars since then?
How does the new “common core” (pun indented) work? Do “most” scholars only include the loudest or those referencing questionable works in summary of anti-thesis? Should proofs never be provided?
Since we are in questionable areas of speculation; could Peter have not referenced the writing style of Jude (written earlier) or the Spirit lead in delivery of both? Are the alternates more plausible? Is the absolute alternate that GOD will not protect HIS Word even less plausible?
Does Stephen, within wisdom, have less to offer? Does the accumulation of knowledge only prove and increase the bounds of that which we do not know?
Just making some statements; noting the bigger picture.
Another comment disappeared into thin air. Why does this continue to happen??
Oh Elaine, think about it for a minute. Faith is what this is about. You know what Paul says about faith. Oh, but wait, that may or may not have been Paul; and oh wait, we must consider how whatever the author said about faith was chosen to be placed in the canon; or whatever. Are you kidding me? Sadly, I know that you’re not.
As you know, the words attributed to Jesus in the Gospels, there is a quality of childlikeness that is acceptable, if not preferable, to God; yet Paul puts gives us another aspect of this to consider in 1 Corinthians 14:20 (or was that Paul).
I think it’s fair to say that if you are an example of an adult way of thinking, then I have held my own with adults and their approach to things in this forum for a number of years. But if being an adult results in me no longer believing the truth of the Biblical meta-narrative or approaching the Bible and belief in an all knowing, all powerful, all loving, omnipresent, intentional Creator God in favor of Bugs version, then I will gladly wear the child label. Just sit me at the children’s table…thank you very much.
Are you kidding me? And this is for Serge, I have been fairly prolific in my comments over the years, and have written a good number of opinion articles on this site; some having to do with faith and theological issues. I would think that this volume of opinion over this many years and such a variety of issues would give you some insight into why I belief and faith in the Judeo-Christian God…
Heb 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
Heb 5:13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
1Pe 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
Stephen, it is unfathomable why someone who disavows any interest in theology would write as much as you do on things theological. Forgive my utter rudeness, but the reason you and I, and others, have so many disagreements here is because you are never convincing. And now you have revealed why. You are sincerely disinterested. Which means that your statements are not made in the sense of genuine discussion, but mere apology for your childish ‘faith.’ Henceforth, all will know there is no point in discussion with Stephen Foster because he doesn’t give a damn about what is being said. He is here merely to make his statement of puerile, milky faith, and is not genuinely interested in seeking greater understandings from the fellowship of minds. He already adjudges those minds to be mistaken and faithless so he does not engage in fair and reasoned discussion. He is a true example of Nathan’s wonderful term, ‘cathartic drive-by.’ Fair enough, you can take that approach. But none will ever take Stephen seriously again. This is an adult only discussion forum.
Serge,
You need a surge protector mate; I think you have short circuited or something. What I said was that I am not a theologian; I am a believer. Does that mean that I have “[disavowed] any interest in theology…”? Of course it doesn’t. Instead I have candidly admitted a disinterest in the IJ controversy; but since, as you’ve observed, that write a lot about “things theological,” and do so on this particular site—where most “Regular Adventists” (Bugs’ term) would never do so—indicates that I am more than willing to engage others of differing perspectives.
No offense again Serge, but it also doesn’t matter a whole lot whether we take each other seriously or not. We engage in these discussions voluntarily. I disagree with those who do not believe what I believe. I’m sorry that disturbs you…but the same can be said of you, and everyone else on this site.
I am a Seventh-day Adventist; a regular one, if you will. Most of the disagreements I have on theological issues with other regular contributors to this site are with people who would not consider themselves of the same iteration of Adventism. That’s just the lay of the land in this venue.
Correction: …Instead I have candidly admitted a disinterest in the IJ controversy; but since I nevertheless write a lot about “things theological,” and do so on this particular site—where most “Regular Adventists” (Bugs’ term) would never do so—would indicate that I am more than willing to engage others of differing perspectives.
of the Bible is more than warranted.
Correction: …I would think that this volume of opinion over this many years and over such a variety of issues would give you some insight into why, to me, belief and faith in the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible is more than warranted.
Stephen – I wanted to pick up on something you said a few days ago. You argued that it would be nonsensical for an SDA to reject creation literalism since that concept is embedded in the name.
I disagree. If God had simply said, “I have sanctified the seventh day and rested on it; so you also keep it holy and rest on it,” would the “command” have less authority? Or if all we had was the Deutronomic version of The Ten Commandments, could we still not call ourselves SDAs without believing in creation literalism? Jews keep the 7th day without believing in literalism. Do you think God literally needed to rest on the seventh day because He was pooped after six hard days of speaking order into chaos? Is that literal? Does God really get tired?
I accept, as a matter of faith, the Biblical story of creation. But I don’t for a second believe as a matter of fact that that it happened in six consecutive 24-hour days within the past 6, 10, or 40,000 years. Nevertheless, I embrace the seventh day Sabbath as a profound symbol that God not only created the natural order, but that he frees us from worship of, and dependency on, the natural order. This the Sabbath alone is a unique refutation of naturalism and philosophical materialism.
So you may think it nonsensical for me to call
myself a Seventh Day Adventist. But don’t tell me it’s nonsensical of me to treasure the Seventh Day Sabbath as God’s greatest gift, next to His Son.
Your points are well taken Nathan, but the ‘problem’ is that we can’t pretend or suppose that the Genesis reference to the seventh day is not the seminal reference to it; or that the Genesis reference to the seventh day in the Exodus events—in which God Himself makes reference to the original seventh day—does not exist. The Genesis, Exodus, and Deuteronomy accounts all exist and coexist in Scripture; and for some very good reasons.
As I understand it, by its use of (the verb form translated as) “rested,” the Bible doesn’t imply or indicate that God was tired; but rather that He ceased from His Creative activity or work.
The thing is, it seems to me that we have to account for the repeated “evening and the morning” references as representative descriptions of the “days” in the Genesis account; and then we have to determine if God Himself was the One speaking in Exodus 20:11; and then we have to explain from whence the Adam character—the one about it is said lived 930 years—directly originated (if not literally from the hand of God). All of that, it seems to me, is embedded/indicated in the ‘Seventh-day’ part of the name.
Stephen,
While it is without dispute that Genesis declares that God rested on the seventh day following his work of creation …
It is also without dispute that Jesus made clear to the Pharisees who were questioning Jesus about lawful Sabbath behavior, that “the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.”
Let’s define ourselves as Seventh-day Adventists as those who embrace the Sabbath as God’s gift to each of us who, every bit as much as Adam was, are God’s creation.
We know that we do not secure our salvation nor evidence our salvation by perfecting our behavior against the Ten Commandments and their Livitical extrapolations.
We are encouraged to rest from our work and turn our attention to the experience of being cared for in ultimate ways by our creator, our savior, and our returning redeemer as promised again and again from Genesis to Revelation.
Sabbath is about accepting, rather than achieving. Sabbath is an expression of faith, itself measured to each of us by God in real time. Sabbath is about deliberately accepting the perpetual creative engagement God initiates with us and is the opposite of our seeking God.
I grew up spending Sabbaths waiting for sundown when I could put ‘finished’ to my weekly Sabbath-keeping shift. I’m grateful that by faith the Sabbath reminds me why I no longer do my own work on the Sabbath. Jesus did it all for me already, just as He promised to.(Gen 3, Ex 20, John 3, Rev 14, etc.)
This is very nice sentiment, Bill, but I don’t think TA’s will state things as you do. The Sabbath doctrine did not arise within the Millerite remnant movement with the view that Sabbath keeping symbolised their rest in the finished work of Christ.
For pre-1888 TAs, Sabbath was a divine requirement for salvation, and represents the crucial aspect of human contribution to the sanctification of the soul who must prepare to stand in the sight of a holy God without a mediator. This doctrine had come to them from the belief in the literal heavenly temple with its literal ark containing the Decalogue on two tablets of stone! With the fourth commandment having a red halo of light about it! Ok, I’m not sure about the red part.
So it is fair to ask: given this history of the evolution of Sabbath doctrine in the SDA church, how does the anti-gospel origin of the teaching eventually morph into its opposite, a supposed symbol of the gospel? An example of how difficult it is to make this case is the travesty known as Glacier View. For Des Ford would say almost nothing different to you. He rejected the IJ and all its implications, and instead put all of his devotion into pleading with the church to let the IJ give way to the finished work of Christ emphasis of the gospel. The TA view won on that occasion. I am not convinced that when push comes to shove, the IJ will win the hearts and minds of TAs even now. Cont.
Serge,
Traditional Seventh-day Adventist beliefs are the result of fundamental changes in Seventh-day Adventist beliefs. That we even have sharply identified beliefs are the results of a change in the founding belief statement: ‘The Bible is our Creed.’ Changes take time.
You mention the Investigative Judgment. It is not just the biblical basis for the chronology and symbolism for which the Investigative Judgement is an explanation that remains sketchy, it is that soteriologically the Seventh-day Adventist Investigative Judgement makes every person’s salvation fundamentally of their own making.
Being Justified by Faith is a continuing if hardly begun spiritual revolution in Christianity, as Revelation 14 confirms. The Three Angels’ Message describes a future time when Justification by Faith fully defines the saints described by the Third Angel, as Ellen White herself explains.
Demanding Seventh-day Adventist baptismal candidates declare their life long affirmation of each and every Seventh-day Adventist church fundamental belief is evidence of Babylon’s universal appeal in support of self-justification. The Saints described by the Third Angel are all recent self-satisfying spiritual fornicators, to borrow John’s metaphor, or sinners if you prefer keeping it family friendly. The Saints have all been sometime since birth freed from Babylon’s clutches of confusion by the First Angel’s clarion presentation of the Gospel of Jesus the Creator.
Cont…
One further thought, Bill. Do you feel that your new appreciation of Sabbath is consistent with Ro 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
Or is there a larger imperative in there somewhere? In other words, have you been able to shake off the old IJ aspect of your modern Sabbath keeping motivations?
Observance of the Sabbath is the final test for heaven according to EGW and most Adventists. But it was never given to Christians, only the Israelites. This is completely explained in the NT and especially the Book of Hebrews which has been ignored by the church which bases its unique doctrines on the Law of the Jews, while giving short shrift to the entire Christian letters.
Can anyone explain why the Torah should take precedence over Christ who is the Christian’s guide, not the Law? No other Christians accept Adventism’s questionable interpretation and application of the Old Covenant with its laws rather than the New Covenant. It’s a throwback of 3,000 plus years totally unrelated to Christ’s redeeming sacrifice which is unnecessary if the Old Covenant Law is to be our guide.
I do not esteem every day alike when it comes to Sabbath. Sabbath is a gift, a gift that keeps on giving in amazing ways. Sabbath actually frees one from any obligation of worship, which makes for some amazing worship experiences.
I took up skiing in my 6th decade of life because I wanted to feel the freedom of not being expected to do well. I wanted to feel that free. Is that cheating? Being an all-my-life Seventh-day Adventist may have had something to do with that … or not. And guess what, I posted the third fastest time out of more than 600 timings by men in my age group at Taos NM the year before launching my 7th decade of life. There is no telling what can happen when one is free from having to.
The Third of the Three Angels of Revelation 14 describes such freedom as patience and those so freed as Saints. What are the Saints freed from? Fear. Fear is the energy that feeds Babylon’s confusion and keeps those trudging heavenward under a hail of brimstone whom the Third Angel calls out to.
Fear leaves our body as we accept that we are God’s creation, and without fear, Babylon falls, and the Saints experience patience, and only the remnant, the last few, are still muscling their way heavenward until the Third Angel calls their halt with the restatement of the Gospel of Creator Jesus.
Or something like that …
Bill, I agree that the “Sabbath is about accepting, rather than achieving.” Perhaps one difference that regular Adventists have with some others is that “regular Adventists” ‘accept’ that part of what they are “accepting” is the reality that God is our Creator as well as Him being our Redeemer.
While it is theoretically possible to believe that God is our Creator without accepting that one of its purposes is to perpetually remind us that He Created us, and not the other way around; it is much easier to ‘accept’ the notion that we created God (as opposed to Him creating us)—and much easier to REJECT the fact that He created us—when we fail to ACCEPT the Sabbath as a reminder of Who did what.
Thanks Stephen,
Plenty rationalizing going on here, isn’t there?
I would like to offer that the Sabbath is absolutely a reminder of God as Creator. And God as Creator reminds us that we are under no obligation for ourselves in the eternal sense. We are who we are, God’s creation. God, on the other hand self describes, I am that I am.
And remember the Sabbath appears nowhere in Scripture until the Israelites are crossing the desert after leaving Egypt. Inspiration apparently saw no need for the Patriarchs to know anything of the Sabbath.
And Sabbath appears nowhere in Revelation. Or in Daniel for that matter. The Three Angels Message is literally Sabbath-free in the scripture.
That some are so fervent about the weakness of the Sabbath that they are determined to see it disappear should the Genesis creation story fail to be confirmed as literal is a human weakness, not a Sabbath frailty. Words are not frail, only the meaning each human experiences with words is frail.
That some try to bolster the literalness of Genesis by declaring that to not do so invalidates the namesake of the Seventh-day Adventist church is a human frailty, neither a Biblical nor a Sabbath frailty.
What endures is faith, Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 13. And like the Sabbath, faith is a gift of God. So to the degree that Genesis is literal, it invalidates the need for faith. And without faith, of what meaning is the Sabbath?
Bill, the Sabbath, of course, was isolated and described before there was a recorded instruction to observe it, or to remember it. And why would there have been instruction to “remember” something that did not exist? (And why look a ‘gift’ horse in the mouth?)
Since it is important to know that God is our Creator, and since the truths that you eloquently espouse about His redemptive work are derivative of our recognition of Him as our Creator, then how important it is to remember—and to be reminded—that He is our Creator; and that we did not create Him!
Here’s the thing you must acknowledge and cannot ignore; that once we diminish the Sabbath, it becomes easier to believe that we created God. Let’s face it, it’s not like we’re NOT cognizant that people have followed that path.
Since we are speculating, Stephen, why do you suppose that the Sabbath as Sabbath is first mentioned thousands of years after the Creation?
No record of Adam and Eve or the Patriarchs experiencing Sabbath worship or the march through the desert stopping Sabbath by Sabbath until Sinai.
There is no question in the least that God rested on the seventh day or that the Sabbath is a celebration of God the Creator. And there is no question in the least that the Three Angels’ Message arises from the promulgation of the Gospel of Jesus, the Creator.
As poorly as I have done, my point with the Sabbath is that it may well find its full flower in Revelation rather than in Genesis, though unmentioned in either biblical book. We are each the creation of God no less surely than is Adam. It is the everlasting I AM THAT I AM Creator not the once-having-created Creator that the Three Angels’ Message proclaims and the whole World is prophesied to accept as evidenced by the fall of Babylon and the gathering of the pioneering Saints of patience. It is this world-wide worship that at last universally judges God as truly justified in Jesus as worthy to be worshiped not just by the World, but by the still-being-created Universe of which we are but the most recent ongoing creation.
We do well to remember that the Sabbath continually reminds us to ponder what it means to be created and thus greatly simplifies what it means to be a Seventh-day Adventist.
Dr. McDougall posted a Youtube video entitled “Why Did Steve Jobs Die?” It’s relevant to this discussion because it illustrates quite well how the unchallenged dogmatism of scientists [physicians, in this case] leads people into moral,ethical, philosophical/spiritual conflict i.e., 1)Jobs decided to violate his decades long vegan diet in order to “survive” cancer 2) he had radical surgery which was more or less irrelevant to his prognosis 3)Jobs family and friends opposed his principled convictions due to the influence of “scientists”, 4) he lived with guilt/self doubt due to scientific dogma which his intuition contradicted, even though, according to McDougall, he was right and his critics were wrong
I have yet to capitulate on conservative views of Biblical chronology/Creation because to do so would, to be consistent, require the dismissal of nearly the entire Scriptural narrative: If Jesus isn’t the Creator, he isn’t the Redeemer.
Edwin Thiele demonstrated the accuracy of the divided kingdom chronology even though it had been construed as nonsense, more or less, back even to the genesis of the LXX.
Adventist repudiation of Genesis and, essentially, the Biblical narrative is just more “me too,” “me too,” nothing really new here.
Hansen, surely you do not expect your concept of ‘the unchallenged dogmatism of scientists’ to go unchallenged? And your choice of examples is a very unfortunate way of proving your thesis.
What you appear to be saying is: Steve Jobs developed cancer (of head of pancreas as I understand it) while he is faithfully following a vegan diet. His big mistake, then, was to consult a surgeon with a lot of experience and understanding of this problem, accepted the advice to have surgery as part of treatment, but he died anyway.
According to what I heard, it could be this way: Jobs develops an aggressive cancer which is usually diagnosed very late in its course of development. He then adopted a vegan style of eating, plus other ‘natural therapies.’ When he failed to show evidence of healing, he consulted the surgeon, but too late.
True, the surgeon did not cure him of cancer. But is this failure of Steve Jobs to survive the fault of the surgeon and of modern medical science generally? Could it be due to his delay in seeking the surgeon’s aid? Could it be the disease itself, which is generally fatal, in short time. Could it be due to the vegan diet he was following for so many years?
Who was more ‘dogmatic?’ The surgeon, or the ‘natural therapy’ adviser?
Finally, how does Thiele’s biblical chronology relate in any way to the vastly older earth taught by science? These two fields of understanding are worlds apart.
Serge, If you listen to McDougall’s presentation, which apparently you haven’t, it wouldn’t be necessary for you to interpret my interpretation of McDougall’s interpretation. If what McDougall says is true, Jobs had cancer for decades and was symptomatic long before his diagnosis, yet people blamed him for delaying surgery, as if that hastened his death. He was also cajoled into doing things which he considered unethical such as eating meat, which was not necessary at all. Linda McCartney had a similar experience.
It clearly illustrates the way scientific paradigms are rammed down the throat of people who intuitively know better.
Thieles’s thesis was very relevant to the current discussions regarding Creation simply because both deal with issues clearly spelled out in Scripture i.e., chronology. There is a time line of of the world before the flood, just as there is one of the divided kingdoms. The time events such as the flood, the birth of Abraham, and the Exodus can easily be calculated.
I Kings 6:1 says that construction of Solomon’s temple was initiated 480 years after the Exodus. Thiele clearly demonstrated the accuracy of the chronologies recorded in Kings. The time of the Exodus can be calculated from the Genesis record.
The greatest “scholars” of the day Thiele was loony and the Scriptural record rubbish until he proved that neither was the case. Why is the Creation chronology debate any different? You can push EGW over a cliff, not…
(cont.) Scripture.
Are you seriously saying, Hansen, that McDOugall diagnosed Jobs with cancer long before he was diagnosed? A diagnosis is knowledge (gnosis) that something is going on. Did Jobs know exactly what was causing his symptoms? Or is McDougall saying that Jobs had symptoms, and in retrospect, McD says, ha, its obvious, he had cancer way back then. (I seriously doubt this, in the case of pancreatic cancer, which is quite a fast-progressing disease). It seems to me that the one being dogmatic here is McDougall. No, I won’t bother watching. I am here to take issue with/challenge your logic. Knowing something ‘intuitively’ is more likely to lead to dogmatism than well-designed scientific study.
I ask you again, did Jobs get cancer while he was on his intuitively correct vegan diet? If so, how was he ever going to be healed of it while staying on the same diet? IF, and its a big if, his diet had anything to do with it in the first place. (I hear that Jobs was a ‘hard man’ to work for and with. Maybe he had other issues which can also dispose one to cancers???)
Re Thiele: I take it you are saying that biblical chronology, Thiele’s not Ussher’s, is an accurate guide to the age of the earth, and/or life on earth. Have I misunderstood? If that is what you are saying, why do you think the charge of dogmatism is not applicable to yourself? Most scientists are far from dogmatic. They are healthy sceptics. Question everything. Only the religious can afford dogmatism.
FWIW: I worked with cancer studies and statistics for more than 10 years, each year reporting to the American Cancer Society on deaths, survival rates, and remissions. Cancer of the pancreas is notoriously difficult to diagnose and it has the highest death rate and shortest life span once diagnosed. Steve Jobs did not have the usual adenocarcinoma, but a much rarer neuroendocrine tumor. Whether he shortened or lengthened his life cannot be known but it’s rare for one to have lived even one year with cancer of the pancreas.
With Jimmy Carter in remission from metastases of melanoma to his brain is a breakthrough with a new drug. Melanoma is a deadly disease also, once it has metastasized. Australia has the highest incidences of this cancer.
I think that is great news re Jimmy Carter, Elaine. First because the treatment of melanomas is proving so successful. Second because Jimmy C has always come across as one of the more ‘genuine’ individuals of US politics. yes I was alive when the Ayatollah took the US embassy in Teheran hostage, and I’ve seen the movie about it recently too (quite good imho). Yes, I am quite ignorant of US politics.
Problem with melanoma is that those with low Vit D levels get it more often. Best source of Vit D? UV light form the sun. And its been estimated that for every melanoma saved through reduction in UV exposure (sunscreens etc), that five other cancers are caused/facilitated by lack of Vit D. In particular, breast and colon cancers. So you’re damned if you do, and damned if you don’t (sun-bathe, ie. Actually, half an hour a day is enough, they say). Or just take supplements of Vit D.
In the end, though, and I think Steve Jobs is a case in point:
Ec 9:11 I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.
Serge, If you are actually interested in what McDougall said about Job’s cancer, listen to the tape on Youtube.`
Thiele’s chronology of the divided kingdom essentially proved that scholarly “opinion” for decades, even centuries, was wrong. Most scholars thought the chronology recorded in Kings and Chronicles was gibberish. The LXX translators altered it, “higher” critics mocked it. People like W.F. Allbright discounted it; nevertheless, Thiele offered a sensible explanation for apparent discrepancies which made perfect sense when applied to the text.
Now some believe that those Biblical writers got everything right but one passage which pertains to the building of the temple, that it took place 480 years after the Exodus, which took place less than a thousand years after the birth of Abraham, who was contemporary with Shem who was a contemporary of Methuselah, who was a contemporary of Adam. That’s what Scripture says, same Scripture whose chronology was long ridiculed until someone “proved” it correct. It’s not logical for one “discredited” chronology to be right but another to be wrong.
If Jesus is not the Creator, he is not the Redeemer. If he wasn’t born of a virgin, killed, and resurrected, neither did he create the world. The record of his life is no less miraculous than the creation account. Let’s be not only logical but consistent. If you want to be an atheist, that’s your business but don’t confuse it with Christian faith.
Not sure why you imagine me to be an atheist, Hansen. I may not be as theistic as you, but I am no atheist, in the classical sense.
But what I really don’t understand is your Creator-Redeemer connection. I see no demand of logic there. Redeemer simply has to be one who is qualified to redeem, ie, a perfect ‘sacrifice.’ He/she doesn’t even HAVE to rise again. Isn’t the important thing that the ‘debt’ be paid? Debt payment equals redemption. THat is the definition of redemption.
Then you go on with a few other logical and linguistic inconsistencies. Born of a virgin? Mistranslation. ‘young woman of marriageable age’ is now the better way of understanding that word.
‘Killed.’ Now that one really troubles. God can be killed. Tell me, how does this compute? The One who has eternal life within Himself, can be killed? Is this the same One who said, ‘Before Abraham was, I am?’ So we find the Eternal One speaking in/from a body (‘a body thou hast prepared for Me’ Heb 10.5), so He is not a body, but has a body. Yes, the body is killed (‘fear not them that destroy the body’), but the Eternal Spirit cannot be ‘killed.’ And God IS Spirit, Creator God is Spirit, Jesus IS Spirit. And all who are born of the Spirit ARE Spirit! Tell me, how does one ‘kill’ Spirit? This is far more ‘miraculous’ than I think even you would accept. So be it. This is Christian teaching, whether SDAs in their ‘materialism’ accept it or not.
Serge, The Creator/Redeemer motif exists in the heart of the Decalogue recorded in Exodus and Deuteronomy. You also might try this text:
Isa 43:1 But now, thus says the LORD, your Creator, O Jacob, And He who formed you, O Israel, “Do not fear, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name; you are Mine! Notice creator and redeemer.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and they that were his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name: John 1
1 ¶ “God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by divers portions and in divers manners,
2 hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds;
3 who being the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;” Hebrews 1
So you don’t get the connection between Creator and Redeemer? He “made the worlds” and “made purification for sins”
Hansen, I am not doubting that scriptures old and new draw this connection between Creator and Redeemer. I just don’t see that there is some demand of logic that they must go together. They do go together very nicely. But, in the OT, it can be argued that the ‘redemption’ was the bringing of the people out of Egypt (which is allegory for our redemption from sin I know). And note, that for the OT, the Creator and Redeemer spoken of is JHVH, not Jesus, by name anyway. Moreover, in Deuteronomy, the ‘redemptive act’ of Christ had not yet occurred. SO the two roles are associated, but one could say, not yet ‘actual.’
Likewise, in the NT, the Redeemer is not YHVH, by that name specifically, rather Christ, who is a second person of that Godhead.(I know, ‘before Abraham was I AM’ is one of his identifying marks, but Jesus is not YHVH, by name. Hence I say, the Creator and Redeemer functions are portrayed in a kind of ‘division of labour’ way between persons of the Godhead. I think its a small, even moot, point, but I think it worth making.
Thinking about this a little more, Hansen, I think your case is strengthened if you refer to this connection as one between Creator and Re-Creator. This idea of the ‘born again’ as those who are ‘a new creation,’ rather than the ‘redeemed,’ is one which holds a much nicer parallelism within itself. For many, forgiveness of sins is all that matters. For Paul, however, the key element in salvation is ‘transformation’ of the old nature, through rebirth of the Holy Spirit. Jesus described the same thing to Nicodemus… except you be born of the Holy Spirit, ye cannot see the kingdom of heaven. This transformation of the old self requires death of ego, so it is no wonder that few are much interested in it. Forgiveness is a much easier concept, and process.
That absolute chronology can be calculated using the names of the patriarchs is doubted by all the OT scholars. Because it was not usual to name all the direct descendants but only the prominent ones which are recorded in the Genesis record when there no written accounts.
Many ancient peoples memorized their history by making it into a song to be passed down from one generation to another. We know they weren’t accurate as Jesus genealogy is very different in Matthew and Luke’s Gospel. They included names prominent in Jewish history but of course, Jesus was genetically unrelated to either parent so those genealogies are meaningless. Knowing this, how can it be definitely determined that the genealogical record from Adam forward is accurate and arrive at specific dates? It cant.
“That absolute chronology can be calculated using the names of the patriarchs is doubted by all the OT scholars.”
I’m often chastised for making broad generalizations. The one above by Elaine is a whopper. If she had prefaced it with “liberal” scholars, I might have believed it. But even if the majority take that position it wouldn’t prove it correct. Nothing in antiquity is “absolute,” but the chronologies put us with in a reasonable framework which does not allow for a few hundred years error either way. Bottom line is that 6000 years as an approximate figure is a reasonable conclusion based on the available data.
Where are the many Fundamentalist OT scholars who refute it? Dare to name them?
“Jesus was genetically unrelated to either parent so those genealogies are meaningless.”
Nothing is meaningless in God’s word: 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:19-21, Romans 1:2; 15:4, Luke 1:70, Acts 3:21, and Psalm 19:7.
Dear Ervin Taylor.
Let’s focs on the facts: DNA similarities between species, fossils similar to other fossils, etc., etc., that seems to link them as being from one common ancestor, but without knowing empirically that those resemblances mean that they are related in a biologically evolutionary process is not science. The evolution establishment has adorned those conections with scientific arguments to seem that the theory is a scientific fact, and not allowing other posible explanations. I’m not in the not knowing field of science, so why is evolution considered as a fact when there’s not empirical information to related one thing to another, just imagination…