| Author | Message | ||
| Benevento Registered user Username: Benevento Post Number: 114 Registered: 4-2005 |
www.wwc.edu/academics/departments/theology/probe/lessons/2006/julsep/lesson1.htm Wondered if any of you had heard of this. I hadn't If you haven't you might like to look it over. Peggy | ||
| Mwh Registered user Username: Mwh Post Number: 79 Registered: 4-2006  |
Interesting ... | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 773 Registered: 4-2000  |
I agree with Alden Thompson and his guests that "The lessons this quarter take us into potentially contentious territory. We could easily fall in arguing, quarreling, or worse." It is my prediction that many will leave Adventism as a result of these Sabbath School lessons this quarter. I have already received one firsthand report from a longtime Sabbath School teacher who is refusing to teach these lessons on the investigative judgment. He said his integrity would not allow him to teach these lessons. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4244 Registered: 12-2003  |
Yes, this will prove interesting. The Adentist Today website is also accepting essays responding to the Sabbath School lessons and posting them online. At the same time, there is a new book which appears to be making a showing at camp meetings. It was handed out at the Michigan camp meeting, and so many people took it they ran out of copies. It is entitled "Prophets Are Human" by Graeme Bradford at Avondale College in Australia. It is a short book, 90 pages or so, and its entire purpose is to counter the "anti-EGW" information available on the internet. It is written as a narrative featuring a couple who find disturbing facts about Ellen online, and their "faith" begins to waver. Their pastor and a retired Bible teacher proceed to meet with them and to walk them through reasons to believe in Ellen. I haven't read the book yetóRichard is reading it first, and he came out and read passages to me this morning when I was working on the roses, etc.óbut the thrust of this book is to cast doubt on the Bible's complete reliability. The author makes the claim that the Bible is human words, not God's words, but even though there are things that are hard to understand in the Bible, there is evidence that it is inspired. Therefore, we can believe the Bible because of the evidenceóbut we don't have to worry if it seems internally inconsistent because we know that the writers were just men who wrote what they understoodójust like Ellen, of course. Here are some quotes from near the end of the book: "Öthe false prophets [in the OT] offered prosperity without repentance. They preached the gospel without the law. the writings of thetrue prophets are full of complaint against [Israel]." Referring to Matthew 7:15-23 the author identifies his understanding of the mark of a true prophet: "This passage of Scripture is of vital importance in distinguishing true prophets from those who are false. Here JesusHimself lays down clear criteria. It isn't by laying claim to working in the name of Jesus. It isn't by miraculous manifestations, whether that may be the physical manifestations accompnaying the prophet's work. It isn't by driving out demons. The real test is that of obedience. Verse 23 says, literally, 'Depart from me the [ones] working lawlessness.' The word translated 'lawlessness' is anomia. Nomia means lawfulness and an a before a word in Greek means "against.'Ö"True prophets will uphold obedience to God's law, both in their lives and in the lives of others." "The great test to be applied to prophets, to determine if they are true or false is: Do they call us to worship the true God and give obedience to His laws by living a holy life? If we have erred from the faith, they will call us sto repent and give obedience to God's Word. They will call us away from false worship." The author conspicuously omits any of the classic Biblical texts describing false prophets: Deuteronomy 13:1-5; 18:18-22; Jeremiah 23:30-32 (where God says He is against the prophets who steal words from each other that are supposedly from Him, and He is against those who "prophesy false dreams" and "lead my people astray"); Colossians 2:16-19; 1 Timothy 4:1-4, etc. As Richard said, they're starting to counter the direct attacks of the former Adventist websites. Colleen (Message edited by Colleentinker on July 01, 2006) | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 273 Registered: 7-2005  |
Colleen, it will be worse, this booklet is only the abbreviated and simplified version of the book "More than a Prophet", which Bacchiocchi is publishing this month. Check http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/BradfordOffer/offer.htm Bacchiocchi said
Bacchiocchi target are those who are discovering the problems with Ellen White.
In his last newsletter, Bacchiocchi quotes some of the leading adventist theologians who are endorsing his book. One of them is Bob Olson, former Director of the White Estate. Next is Lester Devine, director, Ellen G. White SDA Research Center; William Johnsson, editor at Adventist Review, Jon Paulien and famous George R. Knight, and Hans LaRondelle. Big names in adventism are happy to see this book published. I'm thankfull because the last Proclamation raised the issue of inspiration. This new book is a new proof of church's position about the Bible inspiration. Let's pray that more and more adventists will see the deception involved. | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1831 Registered: 3-2005 |
I agree with Dennis that this quarter's Sabbath School lesson about the sanctuary doctrine will be a great opportunity to witness to current SDAs. Some of you will remember a thread about the liberal SDA's "Good News Tour" that took place recently in Redlands. There is a website and forum that these liberal SDAs sponsor at www.heavenlysanctuary.com where Brad Cole (who happens to be a neurologist at Loma Linda) has posted an article that also shows how bankrupt any modification of the sanctuary doctrine is. Just an excerpt from his article that you can read on that link above: "I appreciate that this quarterly, which hopes to address the issues that relate to 1844 and the investigative judgment, opens with a description of the war that began in heaven. The Heavenly Sanctuary initially became defiled before the creation of this earth and in Godís very presence. For this reason, the concept of a cleansing of the sanctuary can only be understood when we know what defiled it in the first place. There are 2 closely related issues which lie at the foundation of this war and which resulted in the defiling of the sanctuary: 1. Distortion and misrepresentation of Godís supremely gracious, kind, and forgiving character. 2. Distortion and misrepresentation of Godís principle upon which the entire universe is designed to operate: selfless, other-centered love. On both accounts, Satan has successfully intruded his character and his principle in place of the character and principle of the true God. ìFrom the beginning it has been Satanís studied plan to cause men to forget God, that he might secure them to himself. Hence he has sought to misrepresent the character of God, to lead men to cherish a false conception of Him. The Creator has been presented to their minds as clothed with the attributes of the prince of evil himself,ñas arbitrary, severe, and unforgiving,ñthat He might be feared, shunned, and even hated by men. Satan hoped to so confuse the minds of those whom he had deceived that they would put God out of their knowledge.î (E.G. White, Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, p. 738) The correct understanding and application of Godís character and the principle of his kingdom should be at the heart of every doctrine, because it is the successful resolution of these two issues that will win the war, cleanse the sanctuary, and bring this conflict to a close. I will give two illustrations of how this applies to some of our most fundamental beliefs..." I decided to reply to that article with this statement: Authored by: Stan Ermshar on Saturday, July 01 2006 @ 06:20 PM PDT I still don't undersand why so many are still trying to find some way to justify an unbiblical date and somehow sanitize a doctrine that should really be discarded. I agree with Raymond Cottrell in his article "Sanctuary Doctrine: Asset or Liability" that there is absolutely no Biblical basis for 1844 and the Investigative Judgment. I grew up in the strictest branch of Adventism. I used to have nightmares about the description of the Investigative Judgment as written by Ellen White in "Great Controversy". That is an evil doctrine that so clearly denies the gospel and destroys a believer's assurance of salvation. Any idea of a believer facing a judgment flies right in the face of Jesus' clear words in John 5:24: 24Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. The believer HAS ETERNAL LIFE NOW! How could eternal life possibly be lost while a careful examination of the books of record are being conducted. This is the doctrine as taught by Ellen White, and I keep seeing evangelical attempts to instead turn this doctrine into a "vindication of God's character". God is totally sovereign. He doesn't need to be proved "just" before the universe. Notice what Romans 9:19-25 says: 19You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" 21Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? 22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-- 24even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? " Who is man to question God? Why does He need vindication? Also, Ellen's vision of Jesus going from the Holy Place into the Most Holy Place in 1844 can be proven to be a false vision just with a simple reading of Hebrews 9. If that event did not happen, then Ellen's vision was false, and any idea that she was a prophet of God is gone. Hebrews 9:11ff: 11But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come,[e] then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) 12he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. 13For if the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies[f] for the purification of the flesh, 14how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our[g] conscience from dead works to serve the living God. So as Raymond Cottrell and Des Ford have said, it is time to admit that this doctrine is in error and move on. I see all these attempts to justify and sanitize this doctrine as further destroying the credibility of the SDA church." It really is difficult to reason with people who have their minds made up. As Des Ford once said "Some SDAs minds are like concrete--permanently set, and all mixed up". However, let us pray that this is not the case, and that God will work mightily during the next quarter as a result of this topic being presented. Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1832 Registered: 3-2005 |
Here is another statement from that article by Dr. Cole that really sums up how the liberal SDA mind tries to make up their own theology: "And then God turned to the on-looking universe and said, so to speak, 'I rest my case! Do you still believe Satan's lies about me?' And we are encouraged to spend every 7th day in review of the evidence of God's character and to enter into intimacy with our Creator." I mean, look how far these people go to justify not only the sanctuary doctrine but the Sabbath. These same folks who sponsored the Good News tour, and who run that website do not believe that the Bible is inerrant. They pick and choose from the Bible and EGW to create a "god" in their own image, who is only loving, and would never punish anyone. Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1833 Registered: 3-2005 |
Greg also responded to that article above by posting this: Let's not forget that the doctrine of the investigative judgment as originally endorsed by Ellen White has been re-cast by this website and other modern Adventists who found the original doctrine distasteful or unbiblical. As an example, here is what Ellen White said about the IJ in "The Great Controversy": ìAs the books of record are opened in the judgment, the lives of all who have believed on Jesus come in review before God. Beginning with those who first lived upon the earth, our Advocate presents the cases of each successive generation, and closes with the living. Every name is mentioned, every case closely investigated. Names are accepted, names rejected. When any have sins remaining upon the books of record, unrepented and unforgiven, their names will be blotted out of the book of life, and the record of their good deeds will be erased from the book of Godís remembranceî (pg. 549, 1940 edition). Later she clarifies what transpires during the investigative judgment, ìDay after day, passing into eternity, bears its burden of records for the books of heaven. Words once spoken, deeds once done, can never be recalled. Angels have registered both the good and the evil. The mightiest conqueror upon the earth can not call back the record of even a single day. Our acts, our words, even our most secret motives, all have their weight in deciding our destiny for weal or woe. Though they may be forgotten by us, they will bear their testimony to justify or to condemnî (pg. 552, 1940 edition). Elsewhere Ellen White called the sanctuary doctrine and the investigative judgment the foundational planks upon which the church was built. If this foundation is now reinterpreted in a fundamentally different way than the pioneers had intended, the implied message is that Ellen White was wrong about this doctrine. But instead of calling her prophetic status into question, many are motivated to preserve her and quietly sweep her unbiblical teaching under the carpet while retaining the doctrine in name only. This is like finding a crack in the foundatioin of a house and covering it over with paint so nobody knows it's there. Either way, the house is still in jeopardy. Better to undo the damage that currently exists than to make it worse by formulating an explanation that implies nothing is wrong. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." -John 3:16 ESV "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." -Romans 6:23 ESV "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." -Ephesians 2:8-9 ESV If God gives salvation as a free gift today to those who will receive it by faith, why does he need to hold a trial of professed Christ-followers to "investigate" those given the gift so he can reveal to the "heavenly intelligences" those who really deserve it? This is akin to giving a child a Christmas present only to take it back from him until a list of all the year's actions can be reviewed to decide whether he really deserves it. In other words, if God gives the gift, the implication is He wants us to receive it! Any doctrine that obscures or reverses this gift is not of God. "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God." -John 3:18 (ESV)" And then if interested you can read the responses from a Psychiatrist named Tim. You can give these people every evidence possible, but you will only see them bending over backwards to try to deny the obvious. Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1834 Registered: 3-2005 |
This link from Adventist Today was posted on a different thread, but AT does a good job of collating all the articles including the one by Brad Cole referenced above. http://www.atoday.com/index.php Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1835 Registered: 3-2005 |
And here is a permalink to the Brad Cole article in case they take it off there home page: http://www.heavenlysanctuary.com/article.php?story=sabbath_scool_lesson_brad Stan | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4247 Registered: 12-2003 |
Thanks for the links and for sharing your and Greg's responses, Stan. As Angel Rodriguez of the GC said in the late 90's, without the IJ, the Seventh-day Adventist church has no reason go exist. They MUST find ways to defend it! BTW, the book Prophets are Human was not "handed out" at the Michigan campmeeting but sold in the ABC. Thanks for the expanded information about it, Jackob. I was also amazed and thankful that God orchestrated things so this particular issue of Proclamation addressed inspiration and Biblical inerrancy. We had no idea of the juxtaposition of the this book and this issue of Proclamation. Colleen (Message edited by Colleentinker on July 02, 2006) | ||
| Violet Registered user Username: Violet Post Number: 434 Registered: 2-2001 |
I printed out the SS lesson for this week and went through it last night. They make some pretty big leaps in their logic. It starts out standard main stream Christianity--we are saved by the price Jesus paid on the cross. Then by the end of the lesson you are suppose to be ready to tell the class how you feel about being judged on your works. At one point they even quote a verse and say "It can't be any plainer than that". I was appauled at that statement basicaaly telling the reader, if you don't get it by now you are stupid. I can see how someone who was not versed in Bible study would be intimidated by this treatment. I know I would of had my SS teacher presented it that way. No where in the lesson did it even mention John 5:24 ìMost assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 274 Registered: 7-2005 |
There are many similarities between the SS lessons and the book ìGraffiti in the Holy of Holiesî. Both have the same author and the same underlying purpose: to show from the Bible alone that the Investigative Judgment is in harmony with the gospel. Pay attention, not with the adventist gospel, which is another gospel, but with the gospel of grace alone, Goldstein emphasizes that our only hope is in the justification imputed to us. This is his genius, he embraces the correct view of the gospel, that justification is our only chance before a holy God. Well, at this point itís hard to contradict him. Works? Works are insufficient before the holiness of God. The works are only the evidence of faith. Their absence is a sure sign of having no faith in the justification alone, grace alone, in the gospel. For Goldstein, the judgment decides the eternal destiny on the issue of faith in justification alone. The question is this: who has a genuine faith? Only the faith which will manifest by works. But Goldstein resorts again and again to the idea of justification alone. His defence of IJ is from the point of an evangelical adventist. He even quote an evangelical statement from Ellen White in his book, Graffiti http://www.adventistreview.org/2003-1548/story5.html
And next, he presents a biblical scene, Zechariahís vision of Joshua and the Angel, as a model for the investigative judgment. This is a good vision about what it means justification alone, putting the garment, the perfect garment of Christís righteousness. How can we find fault with the concept of justification alone presented in this vision? And, because Ellen White used the vision as an illustration for IJ, how can we find fault with the IJ? Seems that IJ is promoting justification alone. Very clever, mr. Goldstein, but not clever enough. Goldstein and Ellen White forget the timing, when they speak about Satan as accusing the believers. A new covenant believer cannot be accused by Satan before God, because God already pronounced him just. Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died-- more than that, who was raised to life-- is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. Romans 8:33-34 The answer is clear, nobody will bring any charge. God justified the believer and after Him nobody can declare the opposite. Itís obvious that this is a present blessing, every believer cannot be accused by Satan before God. Satan cannot do this, even if he want, itís a technical impossibility. In this way, the ide of the IJ with Satan as an accuser of the believer is impossible. Itís a negation of the fact that God justified the believer. Itís a denial that God already pronounced him just. This denial of justification is seen also in the using of the vision of Joshua as a illustration of the judgment of a believer. It will suffice to remember that a believer is someone who stands before God in the righteouss garment of Jesus, his life imputed to Him. But Joshua is not like him, he is clothed in filthy garments. He is not yet justified. He will be justified in the vision, but at the beginning of the vision he is not. But the IJ is about genuine believers who enter in the judgment already justified. Their clothes are spotless, not filthy. By using the vision of Joshua as a illustration for IJ, the inevitable conclusion is that until the IJ, no believer is justified. Nobody can be justified until they pass the judgment. Itís a subtle and clever negation of the gospel. Itís a negation of the present blessing of justification. We have already a spotless garment, Satan cannot accuse us before God. Making Satan the accuser of genuine belivers before God, adventists deny the present blessing of justification. Perhaps they believe that they are already justified, but they contradict themselves heavily by using visions as Joshua and the Angel for the defence of IJ. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4252 Registered: 12-2003 |
Jackob, that is such a great insight. Goldstein does not deal with the fact that according to Ellen, it is BELIEVERS who are being judged, and according to John 5:24, believers will not be judged. I am, like you, frustrated with the current argument "evangelical" Adventists are using that sounds like orthodox justification by faith, but they attach a condition to a person's salvation: they must have the proper "works" to prove their faith is genuineóand those works include Sabbath-keeping. It's really a crazy-making argument. Salvation is neither a free gift nor an earned wage. It is a confusing hypothesis which will only be realized if a person happens to believe with the correct faith, stay "in Christ" (by keeping the law), and observe the Sabbath and the Decalogue. Even in this apparent evangelical-sounding "noise", they are not preaching the pure gospel of grace. They are continuing the same old confusion and hopeless feeling of never being sure one is "staying saved". It's all a guess and a kind of game... Colleen | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1836 Registered: 3-2005 |
I agree Colleen and Jackob, but at least Goldstein is a little closer to truth than the very liberal branch of Adventism represented by that web site I posted above. Greg and I have continued a dialogue with the Psychiatrist Tim Jennings regarding the SDA understanding of 1844. Now, I thought it was a liberal website, but I am finding the exact same cultic spirit on that site that I found on Revival Sermons. It looks like they may be about to throw us off that site, in the same way we got thrown off R/S. The ongoing discussions can be read here: http://www.heavenlysanctuary.com/article.php?story=sabbath_scool_lesson_brad#comments Here is just one exchange that I had today with Dr. Jennings: Authored by: Stan Ermshar on Monday, July 03 2006 @ 03:54 PM PDT Tim, Why do you perceive that I am angry? It seems like whenever facts and actual Bible verses are presented, then you perceive that to be anger. The sad facts of history of all the honest, sincere Christians who have been thrown out of the SDA church because they disagree does paint a disgusting picture. I came to Christ, and was born again while I was listening to Desmond Ford present the true gospel. Forensic justification is taught in the Bible, and has been the predominant view of most of the geat saints of the faith. I would like to quote again from the late great Raymond Cottrell from his last article published before he died: "The historicist principle by which Adventists have consistently understood and interpreted Bible prophecy has, ever since the beginning, imposed our uninspired modern perspective of salvation history on it, and thereby been in unwitting violation of the sola Scriptura principle. In contrast, the historical principle honors the Bible's own perspective of salvation history, within which its prophetic messages were given and to which they were intended to apply. It thereby consistently honors the sola Scriptura principle. Let us not soon forget that the historicist interpretation of Bible prophecy has ever been and continues to be responsible for the loss of many otherwise dedicated leaders and the defection of uncounted hundreds of otherwise faithful Seventh-day Adventists. It has, in addition, diverted considerable time, attention, and substantial resources of the church from its mission to the world. Surely it is high time for responsible church leaders to awake to the situation and do something about it. The obscurantist 1600-page, 5-volume Daniel and Revelation Committee report on Daniel accepts and consistently applies the historicist principle to Bible prophecy---officially for the church. Do we want the twenty-first century to witness the fulfillment of Christ's promise to return, or do we prefer to repeat our pathetic historicist past complacently and indefinitely into the future, and thereby alienate the respect and confidence of biblically literate Adventists and non-Adventists? " See, this is the issue. It is credibility. Any doctrine has to be built on solid Biblical exegesis, and not pre-conceived ideas, or an anxiety for the church to somehow revise its actual history, and try to make the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment anything other than what it is--a doctrine that is antithetical to the gospel as this doctrine is described in "Great Controversy." All assurance of salvation and joy in living the Christian life is lost, when you have to try to remember all your unconfessed sins, and fear being lost. This creates guilt and a stunted Christian growth. I praise God that the sin question has been settled once for all. Jesus paid it all on Calvary, and now to him I owe my life. Soli Deo Gloria (To God alone be the glory), Stan So, now Dr. Jennings comes back with this reply: Authored by: Tim on Monday, July 03 2006 @ 05:08 PM PDT Stan, It is obvious that you are not happy with EGW or the SDA church, your anger comes across in your attacks against her and her organization. Denial doesn't change that reality. So, given your clear statements of disagreement with EGW and your belief the SDA church is wrong for its teaching about salvation, why are you here on this site? What is your agenda? I have not seen a desire to grow and learn. For instance, I quoted clear scripture passages about the atonement describing from the Bible a reality that diverges from your preconcieved ideas and you chose not to discuss it. I respect your freedom to do so but why stay on this site unless it is merely to throw out slanderous allegations and inflammatory accusations against EGW and the SDA church. I don't find this helpful. So, if you find comfort in the fact the Jesus paid a price and "it is all" taken care of, then rejoice in your already recieved perfection and unity with God and pity those of us who are still longing for the full healing and restoration that we believe Christ is actively working to accomplish. As Paul has said let every person be fully pursuaded in their own mind and I percieve you are so settled into your position that no amount of evidence, truth or reasoning will dislodge you from it. So blessings to you and may you find the all the joy and happiness God longs to bestow. But I would ask that you cease and desist comments designed to attack and malign and instead share the truth about God as revealed in Jesus and what He means to you. Tim So this "liberal" site doesn't like hearing what Raymond Cottrell had to say, because it interferes with their agenda. Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1837 Registered: 3-2005 |
It looks like Fred Mazzaferri has come up with a great lesson by lesson critique of the 1844 Sabbath School lesson here: http://www.truthorfables.com/In_Focus.htm Again, this is a tremendous opportunity to start a conversation with our SDA friends and family. Stan | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4254 Registered: 12-2003 |
I don't see the heavenly sanctuary website as especially "liberal". It is, however, very "Maxwellian"óas in they seem to base their view of God, Jesus, and the atonement on Maxwell's theories which reflect what theolgians refer to as the "governmental theory" of atonement. This theory states that God is innately forgiving and didn't need Jesus to die in order to forgive humanity. Actually, it is a liberal idea, but that website is extremely Adventist in tone and intent. They are heavily committed to Ellen White, quoting the parts of her that support their ideas of "a good God". That's the interesting thing about Ellen. Perhaps because she copied so much, her writings can be used to support almost any aberrant theology desired. She did not teach the true gospel, and she is most useful to people such as the heavenly sanctuary .com people because she lends authority to a decidedly unbiblical perspective. You're right, Stanóthey want nothing to do with rebuttals! Colleen | ||
| Randyg Registered user Username: Randyg Post Number: 216 Registered: 12-2004 |
Stan, Thank-you for the links to the heavenlysanctuary discussion. You are right in that it does sound like a rerun of the R/S mentality. In view of all the research on this topic I find it amazing that some are still professing that the IJ doctrine is biblical and sound theologically. When I read Raymond Cottrell's article 2 years ago(and several times since), I was amazed at the lengths the Church has gone to to protect this belief. But you are right in that to lay this doctrine aside, one MUST also lay aside the idea that EGW was a prophet. Without these two doctrines there would be no SDA church because these are 2 of the 3 doctrines that define Adventism. A.Ballinger was defrocked because he questioned. How many today would be defrocked for these same questions? I dare say everyone of them who publicly questions would be defrocked today. Many are questioning, but keeping it to themselves. So much for growth and openness. Two years ago when I first reviewed the 1919 Bible conference transcripts I was stuck by the initial hesitancy of those in attendance. As the paper progressed they opened up and shared a bit about what they really thought. My take on it was that there was a lot of winkwink, nodnod happening that was not appreciated in the final transcript. They to were concerned about their jobs and positions. Truth about how things were done was secondary, otherwise they would not have buried it for 50 years. The Sanctuary Doctrine and EGW are the pillars, and to even question them, by her own admission was to put your soul and salvation at risk. This continues to be the mindset of the conservative historic SDA all the why to the liberal side of the SDA spectrum. Even the progressively evangelical SDAs would have to admit that these 2 doctrines, IJ and EGW if accepted as they were intended, are what stands be SDAs and the assurance and security so wonderfully promise by Jesus in John 5:24. I can find no way to reconcile these 2 pillars with scripture. There are a lot of thoughtful dear Adventist brothers and sisters that are wrestling with these problem now. When I shared the Cottrell paper with a good friend of mine who is a theology prof at an SDA college, his comments included that the paper was too long, that Cottrell seemed biased in his opinions, that he(my friend) needed to work on his biblical languages to fully appreciate the paper. He said it wasn't as damning as he was led to believe. I have to wonder if we were reading the same paper? He also noted that he was still open on this subject. Again, when you realize that one pillar as no basis, you start to view the others in a different light, maybe with a little more discernment, and you realize that hum...what else is wrong with this picture. If you take the Bible ALONE, and in context, by the time you get to Romans and Galatians you gain a new sense of freedom and peace that should be the experience of every Christian. The IJ doctrine, and taking EGW at face value deny SDAs this part of being a Christian. Some might counter that they have that freedom, peace and assurance while being SDA. I submit that this can only occur if they in some way have dismissed in their own minds the traditional understanding of these two fundamental doctrinal pillars of Adventism. The leaders in 1919 had a golden opportunity correct misconceptions and falsehoods. Instead they buried it, and failed to take responsibility. Even though Ellen White had been dead for 4 years, the fear in the room to challenge her was palpable. It is my firm belief that they recognized that to be courageous and do the right thing would have brought the church down, and their livelihoods along with it. It is this same reasoning by the Church leadership of today that denies a proper airing of these topics. Instead we are told it is all cohesive and unified if we will only see it in the "right light". The "right light" is of course the historical Adventist viewpoint. If you pray for the Holy Spirit's guidance in your Bible study, and yet come to a different conclusion than historic Adventism, you have the "wrong light", and you are challenged as to what "spirit" you are really listening to. Somehow I see a major problem here when we have to personally denies the Holy Spirit's guidance if the resultant understanding is different than the accepted SDA interpretation. This is absolute and utter intimidation and spiritual bullying. This is how EGW treated those who challenged her, and this is mindset of how the Church continues to administer itself today when dealing with those that challenge its fundamentals from within. My apologies for rambling on. But hey, this is a topic near and dear, and continues to be timely. Peace to all, Randy | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4255 Registered: 12-2003 |
Randy, excellent observations. Thank you for "rambling"! Colleen | ||
| Randyg Registered user Username: Randyg Post Number: 217 Registered: 12-2004 |
Colleen, Maxwellian, with a decidely Orwellian leaning! Randy | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4256 Registered: 12-2003 |
Ha! Colleen |
