| Author | Message | ||
| U2bsda Registered user Username: U2bsda Post Number: 313 Registered: 11-2004 |
Based on WOW recent comments I have been wondering. Is his the typical Adventist viewpoint? Here is what I found at adventist.org " 1. Holy Scriptures: The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history. (2 Peter 1:20, 21; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Ps. 119:105; Prov. 30:5, 6; Isa. 8:20; John 17:17; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:12.)" Does this statement give an accurate picture? | ||
| U2bsda Registered user Username: U2bsda Post Number: 314 Registered: 11-2004 |
I found this EGW quote which seems to agree with WOW, but not with the statment of belief: "The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God's mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God's penmen, not His pen. Look at the different writers. It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man's words or his expressions but on the man himself, who, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts. But the words receive the impress of the individual mind. The divine mind is diffused. The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of the man are the word of God." - Manuscript 24, 1886 (written in Europe in 1886). {1SM 21.1-2} " | ||
| Susans Registered user Username: Susans Post Number: 95 Registered: 8-2006 |
U2, Thanks for opening this thread as to not step on Ramone's. I'm glad you brought this up, and while not having time to respond immediately, I will do so later this evening. As you can see, there IS confusion. Blessings, Susan | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 60 Registered: 9-2006 |
u2: I was shocked when I finished writing the post above and discovered this one had all ready been posted, I assure you it was not intentional. my apologies. I use Microsoft word and transfer over to thread. I am sometimes shocked also when I get to church and the sermon is on the same thing that I had studied on that morning. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1603 Registered: 10-2004  |
U2, What that Fundamental Belief statement is saying is that the Scriptures are infallible with regard to revealing God's will, but that they are not inerrant or verbally inspired. Adventism teaches "thought inspiration" rather than verbal inspiration. In other words, Adventism's position is indeed more clearly stated in that quote from EGW. In their public statements, they try to sound more evangelical so Christians will accept them. Jeremy | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 277 Registered: 6-2006  |
I'm just amazed that with all the "yes she messed up, yes, she wasn't perfect" we can still defend her, (and not see the obvious) and yet label Paul, who is as consistant as all get out as "hard to understand" and "not (God's) pen". U2, those EGW quotes are full of a lot of double-talk. You'd have thought that she would just get to the point. That's what people who are "easy to understand" do!  Leigh Anne | ||
| Mwh Registered user Username: Mwh Post Number: 255 Registered: 4-2006  |
Grace_alone, yes its weird, they pull down the Word of God and elevate the words of their false prophetess. God I pray that the people under spiritual bondage will be set free by hearing your wonderful word! In Christ! | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 283 Registered: 6-2006 |
Mwh, AMEN! I especially pray that for our new friend. | ||
| Susans Registered user Username: Susans Post Number: 96 Registered: 8-2006 |
U2, Well, after a long Sunday out, I see that some posts of WOW have shed a little more light on the Adventist understanding of the bible. Adventists, as Jeremy said, do not believe in the inerrancy of the bible, only thought inspiration. This is one of the ways that they can say Ellen is inspired in the same way as the bible writers. When I was studying with the SDA's in 1984, I asked the pastor lots of questions. I asked him were Adventists fundamentalists (at the time, I wasn't really sure what a fundamentalist was ) and he told me, in essence, no SDA's were not fundamentalists because they did not believe that the very words of the bible were inspired. There was mention of corruption of the bible texts and translations, and that we needed to be careful which bible we read. When I asked him what bible translation he recommended, his answer to me was that he liked the King James version, because they KNEW who the Antichrist was! I thought that was interesting and promptly bought a New King James version, which I used until I decided to buy a version I was not familiar with and read it without the assistance of EGW. I chose the NASB. But, I digress... As Jeremy said, the Adventists have learned to say the right words for the evangelical world so they will be accepted as evangelicals. The truth of the matter is how EGW states it. The men are inspired, but they wrote the bible as they understood it. Adventists as a general rule, at least in my experience, don't care for Paul. I get this impression from WOW that he feels that way as well, since he has stated a couple of times that Paul did not do what Jesus did, and that Paul was pretty hard to understand. I've heard this from other SDA's as well. What's hard to understand about Paul is what someone else pointed out on that thread. It's not that Paul is not clear, but it's hard for SDA's to understand because Ellen has contradicted Paul. When Paul says the weaker brother eats vegetables only, Ellen says if you want to be translated vegetables will be what you eat. When Paul says one man esteems one day over another, and another man esteems every day alike, Ellen says you must esteem the 7th day Sabbath or you will be lost if you give it up. Adventists believe that Ellen is a "continuing and authoritative source of truth". Ellen was the lesser light to lead to the greater light, but more importantly, Ellen was to give particular instruction to God's remnant people. If there is a conflict between what the Bible says, and what Ellen says, Ellen will trump every time. That's why they must lay the foundation before talking with anyone about the bible and what it "really" is saying. Because you see, words are only words. Susan | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 478 Registered: 10-2002  |
I hesitate to comment for fear of derailing the other thread with its simple questions, but I believe the answer to the emphasis on the "difficulty of Paul" is arising essentially so that we may later re-interpret some of his statements instead of taking them at face value. The basic problem for Adventism is that it trips over the statements of Paul about "law". His statements cannot be taken at face value because of the pre-decided Adventist emphasis on the continuation of the Law, particularly of the weekly Sabbath festival. Before conducting Biblical investigation, the matter of the Sabbath is already decided for most all Adventists. Therefore, when Paul says what he does about the law, well, it simply cannot mean what it says, can it? In order to put Paul in his place (in other words, make his words mean something other than what they mean in a literal reading), the New Testament is divided into a kind of hierarchy. The Gospels are put on top not necessarily because Christ is centric, but rather because the example of Him attending the synagogue may then be used to "trump" anything that Paul wrote. (Nevermind that synagogue-attendance is not commanded anywhere in Scripture... the synagogue was a Jewish innovation that took place after the Babylonian exile. Sabbath observance today and in Jesus' time looked a lot different than in Moses' time. It certainly didn't involve a synagogue or "church" service of any kind. This knowledge alone destroys the Adventist eschatological scenario completely.) | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 479 Registered: 10-2002 |
Oh, U2bsda -- yes, thank you for opening this separate thread! | ||
| Timmy Registered user Username: Timmy Post Number: 118 Registered: 8-2006  |
U2, I think it was wise to open this thread. Maybe we can post our thoughts here, as Susan pointed out, so Ramone and wow can stay focused on the five questions... I think Ramone has been patiently waiting for 5 simple questions to be answered for almost a month now. I wish I was as patient! Maybe someday. It appears to me that the 'foundation' issue stems from the age old adventist arguement that Jesus was our example and we need to do as he did (whether he said to or not). This is one of their main proofs for Sabbath keeping. They never seem to want to address the fact that Jesus kept ALL the laws. If this is their arguement then logic would mandate that all laws kept by Jesus must be kept by us. Interestingly though, about 3 months ago we recieved a book from an SDA group. Typically the EGW to Bible ratio was about 10-1, but the point they were trying to make was that we also need to be keeping the feast days and holy days. Like I said, it had lots and lots of EGW quotes to support this theory. I told my wife if Christ sacrifice did not fulfill the law and only added to it, they are right! Here it is. It is called "Holy History" by John L. VanDenburgh. Printed by Bible Explorations in Terra Bella, Ca. Copy Right 2005. On the cover it says: This book explores oracles of God as opportune advantages in the process of becoming a clean and holy people fit for translation. On page 75 he says "our Lord connects with the feasts" the ol' action not words issue... or Jesus is our example... it sounds like Armstrongism filtering into Adventism to me... He then quotes Testimonies, Vol 6, pp. 39-40, and comments that EGW is recommending that we observe the feasts. He then asks if feasts are moral or cerimonial, I quote, "The answer is obvious. The feast are part of the moral law." Has anyone heard of this? Are the feast days and holy days creeping into Adventism? While processing out of SDAism, our pastor told us that we must keep the Sabbath because Christ kept it, When I reminded him that Christ kept ALL the holy days and feast days he said, "Well then keep them too!" Anyway, I was just thinking out loud and was wondering if anyone had heard of this stuff.. | ||
| Susans Registered user Username: Susans Post Number: 97 Registered: 8-2006 |
Ramone, The "law" is indeed the heart of the confusion for Adventists. The idea of "well, that's what it SAYS, but this is what it really MEANS" is fundamentally necessary because of what the prophet said. EGW MUST agree with the Bible, otherwise she would be a false prophet. So, as you said, the NT has to be divided into a hierarchy. WOW has begun that division in his first post. The words and experience being the essence of Jesus of course override Paul's words. Adventists point to "well, that's what Jesus did and so that's what I am to do" forgetting, as you put it so well, that what Jesus did was live under the law before the Cross, and that his disciples could not understand and He could not explain to them before His death because they could not bear to hear. The time that Jesus spent with the disciples explaining the New Covenant before his ascension, and the time He spent teaching Paul after his ascension don't register with Adventists. I pray WOW and all the ones we love, know, and who fall under the spell of Adventism have their veils lifted so they may behold the glory of God as revealed in ALL the New Testament! Susan | ||
| Susans Registered user Username: Susans Post Number: 98 Registered: 8-2006 |
You know, in reading back over the EGW quote in the second post, I thought it interesting that while she said: "The writers of the Bible were God's penmen, not His pen. Look at the different writers." ; she sometimes placed herself in a different category in that she was given the exact words to write by her angel or God. | ||
| Timmy Registered user Username: Timmy Post Number: 119 Registered: 8-2006 |
Here is another interesting point: Jesus did indeed live under the old covenant law and did it with perfection, but he also upheld the new covenant law. At times the two laws would clash. One time was when the Jews brought the harlot to be stoned. Old covenant said she must be stoned for adultry, new covenant says love thy neighbor. Jesus and only Jesus could have pulled off keeping both counterdictary laws at the same time. He kept the old because he ordered her stoned. But he kept the new because when he pointed out the sins of the accusers, they dropped their stones, saving the life of the harlot. The first time I saw the old/new covenant issue addressed in this story, I was just amazed, once again, at the glory of our Lord! Tim | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 483 Registered: 10-2002 |
I had forgotten to mention how Christ was "born under the law" (Gal.4) in what I'd written about "foundation". However, I really hope these things can be put on hold for the meantime until the five Qs start to be answered. I think we can all handle them as they come along, WalkOnWater included. | ||
| U2bsda Registered user Username: U2bsda Post Number: 320 Registered: 11-2004 |
Timmy said "Has anyone heard of this? Are the feast days and holy days creeping into Adventism?" About 15+ years ago an Adventist pastor made negative comments to me about the Worldwide Church of God because they kept the feasts. I would assume that if there was any feast-keeping it would be a small contingent. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4909 Registered: 12-2003  |
Yes, U2óthank you for opening this thread! I've also heard about the feast days creeping back in here and there. Actually, if Adventists are going to defend the Sabbath, they really do need to defend all Sabbathsóincluding the feasts. The entire law emphasis really breaks down when one analyzes the Adventists' positions. Colleen | ||
| Cforrester Registered user Username: Cforrester Post Number: 26 Registered: 7-2004 |
Timmy: * Jesus walked everywhere * Jesus ate fish * Jesus went to the synagogue * Jesus did not have a home of his own And so on. The fish one always got me. We keep the Sabbath because of his example, but condemn eating of meat and fish. If Adventist really followed Christ's example a lot of us would probably still be one. I have also heard (and unfortunately repeated) the aforementioned "we keep Sabbath because Jesus and the apostles did". The logic is flawed. On the feast days, there was always the fringe that said we still needed to keep them, but even mainstream people felt that it was important for us to at least understand them. I had a teacher that practiced the Jewish rituals around Christmas time just to remember the passover, etc. On the view of revelation and inspiration: I really think that, like many Adventist beliefs, most every-day Adventists have not really thought about it. But growing up I envisioned an angel standing behind the writer (EGW included). I don't know if I thought about what he was actually doing there. I do remember being taught that the Bible was "true" but not totally "correct". It had errors, but we considered it the Word of God because He had ensured that all the important themes were correct. BTW, I too think that all the imporant things are correct. I do remember being taught that KJV was the only version that should be used to study theology. This may have just been my own impression, but growing up I felt that the reason we needed EGW was because there were errors in the Bible and in transmission over the thousands of years, and God wanted to make sure we got the correct message. | ||
| Timmy Registered user Username: Timmy Post Number: 120 Registered: 8-2006 |
Cforrester, Good point... Jesus walked everywhere, he is our example, so we should sell our cars... Hey the Amish do it. Logic is a difficult thing for SDA's, I think that was one of my biggest problems as an SDA, I tried to make everything have a logical foundation. Your impression of Ellen is not isolated. I believe that many felt that way. Look at brother Walk for example. He cannot answer 5 simple questions without staging a huge scenerio to set us up for his fundamental beliefs. The sda mindset says that the Bible is soo complicated that we cannot interpret it ourselves, we need the prophet to explain it to us. It is a wonder that anyone managed to find Christ between AD30 and 1844. All they had was the Bible with no help to understand it. Isn't it amusing that we were taught that we are not smart enough to read the Bible, but in the dark ages Bibles were burned because only the leaders could read it and make sense of it? |
