Adventist Media Response and Conversation

The Misuse of Liberty Magazine

2012-01-19T20:17:00.000-08:00

Over the past decade I have felt that Liberty Magazine was not really supporting liberty but anti-religious propaganda. Though most Seventh-day Adventists are religiously conservative (and many socially and politically conservative as well), Liberty Magazine has in recent years presented such conservatism as the enemy of religious liberty. I thought things had improved in the last couple years, but then I read the following from January/Febuary 2012 issue in the article entitled Religion on the Campaign Trail The Third-Party Interest by Jonathan Turley:

“With the rhetoric and rancor rising in the campaign for the White House, the election has increasingly become a call to the faithful, with candidates attempting to outdo one another in appealing to religious voters. Indeed, listening to these candidates, one could easily think this is a campaign for ecclesiastical rather than presidential office. One leading candidate recently invoked "supernatural" events guiding him and suggested that God predestined him for this office. Another candidate trumped that implied divine selection with an express promise to discriminate against Muslims to guarantee a Judeo-Christian nation.”

Of course the author, a Liberal Law professor (so characterized by “Politico” is alluding to Republican candidates so we should not expect him to be particularly fair or even reasonable. But I do expect more from Liberty magazine then such veiled allusions to candidates without even giving their names. How are we to know if his claims are even true if he won't even address who supposedly invoked supernatural events and suggested that God predestined him for “this office”? The reason is that he is not telling the truth and Liberty is publishing his falsehoods. You can search the Internet to see who suggests that supernatural events have lead in their lives. That is probably a reference to Rick Perry. Salon.com reports:

“Perry said then that “all through [my] life there have been these supernatural events.” He spoke in particular of an incident in 1978 when it rained 30 inches in his hometown following a drought, an episode he took as a sign that he should continue farming rather than becoming a commercial pilot.”

While someone seeing a divine sign in unusual rainfall should not scare us at all. Someone who saw something as a sign from God is not really that concerning if the sign is directed at them and what they as one person should do. It is not good to see our own Adventist publication making fun of a personal interpretation of God's messages to that person. Especially when our own former Mission Quarterly, and our current Junior Guide, if not many sermons, routinely demonstrate the same world view I was unable to find any reference that Rick Perry suggested that God predestined him for any office. But the editors of Liberty would not need to know the truth or the facts of a statement if no identity is given by the author. This is extremely sloppy journalism.

The second unnamed candidate is apparently Michele Bachmann who Turney misinterprets as “trumped that implied divine selection with an express promise to discriminate against Muslims to guarantee a Judeo-Christian nation.” What is that based on? Besides being a literary nightmare of a sentence “trumped”, “implied divine selection”? Go ahead look up the definition of “trumped”. What did Michael Bachmann actually say? You can read it in the transcript of Michele Bachmann’s speech at the Twin Cities megachurch Living Word Christian Center in 2006:

“Twenty-two months ago, He called me to run for United States Congress. And my husband thought, you need to do this. This is a big deal to do something like this. So we set aside three days where we fasted and we prayed, and long about the afternoon of day two, we knew. We knew that we knew that we knew. This was it. And so we jumped in, and little did we know that out of 435 seats for Congress, this race would turn in to being one of the top three in the country. And that how this race turns will probably determine what majority is in Congress this fall. [sic]

We are sitting right now at a time in our history when we’re going to be dealing with some of the most important issues of our time. Number one being, which your pastor is going to be talking about in the next few weeks, radical Islam. How will our nation deal with this threat of radical Islam? There’s so much at stake, but we listen to the Lord and we decide we’re going to suit up, we’re going to sign up, we’re going to be hot for God, and we’re going to do what He is calling us to do! And we’re going to watch out and see what He is going to perform in our midst.

And that’s what it’s all about when He makes our calling sure. It isn’t about us. It’s about Him. And it’s about freeing each one of us up to do His will for His glory so that He will be magnified! And that’s His calling. It’s sure. I commend to you to listen carefully to the truth of His word that He will bless you with as your pastor comes and speaks to you this morning.”

Her Description of what it means to be hot can also be read in the transcript:

“I’m 50 years old. I came to know Him when I was 16. For 34 years, I’ve been hot! And you want to be hot! Because when you are hot for Jesus Christ, there is nothing that is like that life! It is the most exciting life! When you are praying in the spirit, when you are meditating on his word, when you are fellowshipping with white-hot believers, He turns your life around. And it isn’t just for you. It’s for the world! He changes the world through hot people!”

Bachmann's reference to “Radical Islam” to Turley and by extension Liberty magazine becomes discriminate against Muslims to guarantee a Judeo-Christian nation. Sure it is not what she said, not even implied but when one is a confirmed political liberal it may not be worth their time to be accurate or truthful. Time is better spent upon propaganda. I understand Jonathan Turley's misuse of information I accept it as the animus of the partisanship of the political liberal against the conservative. But why is it included a religious liberty magazine of the Adventist church?

My guess is the reason is the same as we see here on the Adventist today Website by certain columnists: Prophetic Prognostication. The fear based upon the belief that Christianity will rise against Seventh-day Adventism. That non Adventist Christians will soon act as the Beast of the book of Revelation. A fear 200 hundred years out of date. But with implications as current as today, where fear and prejudice engender defamation of fellow Christians not because of what they say or do but because they are simply Christians of a different tribe.

Luke and the Census

2011-12-24T12:05:00.000-08:00

As it is Christmas season we often think about the story of the birth of Christ. It having more importance then either the birth of Frosty or Rudolph the red nosed reindeer even during the Christmas season...at least for now. Most of us have realized by now that the two birth accounts of Jesus, those of the book of Matthew and the book of Luke are not really reconcilable (see the article Matthew Chapter 2 Immanuel Context and Substance). Most of us also simply ignore this and conflate the two stories together but that really does not work if one thinks critically.

John Ankerberg presents some of his answers to the problem of the census in the book of Luke in his article “Was Luke Wrong About the Census under Quirinius?” He does well in laying out the problems when he writes:

So, Luke tells us Augustus took a census before Jesus was born and this was the reason Joseph took Mary to Bethlehem. However, critics say there are five reasons why Luke’s account is historically incorrect.

1. There is no known evidence of an Empire-wide census in the reign of Augustus. If it occurred, wouldn’t it be mentioned by one or another of the ancient historians who recorded this period?

2. Josephus records a lot about Herod but does not mention a Roman census in Palestine

3. Quirinius was not appointed governor of Syria and Judea until A.D. 6, many years after Jesus was born.

4. In a Roman census, Joseph would not have been required to travel to Bethlehem and he would not have been required to take Mary with him.

5. A Roman census could not have been carried out in Herod’s kingdom while Herod was still alive.

The answers he gives to the above problems could briefly be summed up as:

No evidence but it could have happened.
Quirinius might have ordered a census before that of A.D. 6
There is a reference to “A.D. 104, Vivius Maximus issued an edict that states, "It is essential for all people to return to their homes for the census."

I am going to deal mainly with this last statement about Vivius Maximus. Because I can agree that something in the ancient world was not recorded or the record lost so there could have been a census, after all ancient history is not all that complete. Thus it is also possible that Quirinius also may have ordered a prior rather then first census a couple of years after Jesus' birth. I think that strains the meaning of the word within it's context which is apparently the consensus view of most Bible translators, but I can see the possibility. What I don't see is any logic to the idea of a having a census where someone returns to the home of their ancestors. It would be a logistical nightmare and why would the Romans even care about the ancestral homes of anyone in the Roman territory?

You can read the proclamation of Vivius Maximus and see that it says nothing about returning to ancestral homes. The English translation is: The census by household having begun, it is essential that all those who are away from their nomes be summoned to return to their own hearths so that they may perform the customary business of registration and apply themselves to the cultivation which concerns them. (the footnote is that "nome" was an Egyptian administrative district Vivius Maximus being the Governor of Egypt.) In the case of Joseph that would have been Nazareth (Luke 1:26). There are not too many ways to stretch that Vivius Maximus quote to encompass a return to ancestral homes. Certainly even harder once you read the exceptions for the people living in the countryside who were needed in the city.

When all the evidence is put together however it is difficult to accept the historical truth of various aspects of the book of Matthew and the book of Luke's accounts. The book of Matthew clearly had an agenda the writer was trying to get across, he took Old Testament texts out of context and applied them to Jesus to attempt to have Jesus recapitulate the history of Israel. As you read Micah chapter 5-6 you see two of those examples in one section. Matthew uses them in Matthew 2:6 using Micah 5:2 and Matthew 2:15 using Micah 6:4.

I don't want you to think that just because a Bible writer misuses facts or takes things out of context that such things are intentional lies. Usually they are methods of the writer to try and get across something of more spiritual importance. Just as I frequently hear in pastor's sermons. They frequently misuse facts and take things out of context to try and build a case. I don't think they are being purposefully deceptive but they are intent upon creating a particular spiritual point. Many Bible writers introduced that technique and it was once probably more useful in an age when knowledge was rather difficult to come by and facts often depended upon who you listened to. But I think we must be a little wiser than that today. A story may be a story and may contribute to a worthy application to ones life without the story being true, literally or historically. But we do ourselves a disservice if we try and pretend that things that very likely did not happen must have happened and happened in a specific way.

It is scary to think that we have to rethink things, but it really is the nature of life. Manipulation of information is no longer acceptable. There are a lot of things in the Bible that are cultural and no longer anything we would want to associate with. But we are not stuck in their times we can progress and we must; even if it is scary to some.

If literal Creation ain't true?

2011-12-10T16:54:00.000-08:00

The Adventist Review continues upon its course of fundamentalism with the article from Mark A. Kellner the news editor of the Adventist Review. In his article entitled If the Creation Account Isn't True... he presents his best evidence why the Genesis 1 account is true:

If the Bible account of Creation isn’t true, as Giberson and Stephens imply in offering to “incorporate” Darwinism in Christian faith, what must logically follow?

If there’s no Creation . . .
. . . where, and how, did sin enter the world?
. . . why do we need a Savior?
. . . from what did God, if He even exists, rest?
. . . why should we rest if, absent Creation, there’s nothing from which God rested?
. . . how can we believe anything else in the Bible?

Let us first define Darwinism since it seems for many Adventists it is a scary word with meaning that they really must not know.

A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Darwin's ideas have been refined and modified by subsequent researchers, but his theories still form the foundation of the scientific understanding of the evolution of life. Darwinism is often contrasted with another theory of biological evolution called Lamarckism, based on the now-discredited ideas of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. The American Heritage® Science Dictionary Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Is natural selection incompatible with Christianity? It has considerable evidence to indicate the genetic action of natural selection, why should it not be able to be incorporated into Christianity. Do we have trouble incorporating Electronics or Physic into Christianity? But apparently biological science is not acceptable to many Adventists and of course to Christian Fundamentalists.

Let us take a closer look at the reasons Mark Kellner gives us:

If there is no Genesis 1-3 literal Creation story “. . . where, and how, did sin enter the world?”

You will notice that I did not say as Kellner deceptively said, “If there’s no Creation” because even if one is a theistic evolutionist or an Intelligent Design believer there is still a creation, the how is simply not known, it does not mean there was not a first cause or creation event. But as you read the fundamentalists you will see that they are very manipulative and love to distort the beliefs of others. That is understandable...when you have a weak theory you need to support it and promote it as best you can and for them the best way is to distort information.

Where did sin enter the world? According to the Genesis 1-3 creation story there is no sin...sin is not mentioned until the Cain and Abel story in Gen 4:7. So we have to read the sin into the story based upon subsequent information. But let us assume that the actions in the story are taken as disobedience which is sin, where did sin enter the world?

The answer is in Eden which is located:

Gen 2:10-15 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin and onyx are also there.) The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. (NIV)

Where is or was that you may ask? No one knows. So the first answer the where is unknown, we don't know where. “How” is his next question. The answer assuming the sin was found in the act of eating the forbidden fruit is to be found in the temptation of the couple in Eden by the most crafty of creatures the talking serpent! You may wonder where do talking serpents come from? A good question we don't find many talking animals in the world or even in the pages of the Bible. This serpent then seems to be the instigator of sin because he contradicts God (later in the book of Revelation we read of the serpent of old as a reference to Satan, but Satan was unknown in the Jewish religion until much later, so to understand the story let us look at it from the perspective of those who heard it). So the how for Mark Kellner is sin came because a man and woman of relatively little experience decided to believe a talking snake and follow its arguments (remember Satan is not a part of the story until several thousands of years later). How comfortable are you with that as the story for how sin entered the world? A talking snake that not only spoke the human language but who happened to be in that particular tree at that time with those particular insinuations about God. I suppose if you are comfortable with that you will be just as comfortable with God expelling them from Eden for this one mistake instead of teaching them about what truth is and what lies are and why God may have more reason to be believed then a talking snake.

His next point, why do we need a Savior? Again there is no savior or mention of a savior in the first several chapters of Genesis. There is an announcement of the human superiority to the snake, at least after the snake is cursed for being such a crafty creature. The snake is cursed to crawl on its belly, nothing is said of it losing it ability to talk however which really seemed to be the root of the problem. But with the curse the descendent's will be able to stomp on the heads of the snakes:

Gen 3:14-15 So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life. And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel." (NIV) Actually many people take this verse as a Messianic prophecy. However it is never in the Bible, the old or new Testament used in any way as a reference to the Messiah. That is a later view developed later during the time of the Early Church Fathers, which is where a lot of our traditions come from, even though many of them are purely fanciful ideas. Ultimately the Genesis story says nothing about a Savior or our need for a Savior.

His third point, “from what did God, if He even exists, rest?” According to the story He rested from speaking, because that was the method of creation, “And God said”. The Genesis account says nothing about anyone else needed to rest. So his fourth point is once again not something from the Creation account.

“Why should we rest if, absent Creation, there’s nothing from which God rested?” According to Jesus the Sabbath rest was made for man not because God rested. Mark 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: (KJV) Even if you use one of the versions of the ten commandments it is rest from human work that is given as the reason. Then there is the common sense argument that one should take some time away from working everyday. Could we not answer the question from experience? Or must we like him make it appear that it comes from a creation account that says nothing about people resting? When people ask questions which have nothing to do with the real subject you can be pretty sure that are desperately searching for something to support their preconceived idea.

Kellner's final point in his list is “how can we believe anything else in the Bible?” Now if he really has no ability to tell an analogy from a metaphor or a parable or a symbol, then in fact he must have serious problems interpreting the Bible and everything else that is written or spoken. Should we ask him how can we believe anything of Jesus Christ because he told the story of the rich man and Lazarus.

Luke 16:20-31

At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. "The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.' "But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.' "He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.' "Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.' "'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.' "He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'" (NIV)

If you are going to take something in the Bible literally that sounds way more literal then the talking snake story. But of course the point of the story is that people don't just change because they see a miracle. And that is really the point of the Genesis creation story, the miracle of creation does not make us believe, whether as literal 24 our days or some other method. God was there and He was the cause, God is the power of the creation, it is not about how it was done. When we see the evidence from nature we simply can't ignore it to cling to the simplistic explanations used to help a privative man understand that there was more to this life then what they could see. Which is such an important lesson because the more we learn the more we find that there are vasts areas of information that we could never see before. We keep exploring and learning more, it makes no sense to me that God did not expect us to continue to grow in understanding of our world and universe. He would not expect us to cling to a simplistic story made for people who did not even know that they lived on a planet, let alone one that was not the end of the universe itself.

So please don't let the Fundamentalism take over the Adventist church even though that is our current leaderships desire.

Shawn Boonstra, lies about the Tea Party

2011-11-26T17:51:00.000-08:00

The Adventist Review has a recent article entitled Would Jesus Be in Zuccotti Park? By Shawn Boonstra. In his second paragraph he writes:

“Would He? Conservative evangelicals would likely disagree, preferring instead to see Jesus on the other side of American dissatisfaction, attending Tea Party rallies and helping push America back to its religious roots. Of course, no self-respecting liberal would agree: Jesus, they would emphasize, is clearly about social justice and toppling corporate greed.”

Now I am not going to accuse Boonstra of being a deep thinker, he is not after all his answer to his question is:

“Where would we find Jesus in the heart of the world’s current mess? At rallies and protests? His current occupation provides the answer: He’s chosen to stand in heaven’s sanctuary, devoting His full attention to the same underlying problem He focused on during His earthly ministry: sinners in desperate need of reconciliation to God.”

So he has limited thinking ability that he must apply to Jesus Christ who is God a physical location, the heavenly sanctuary. As if God has a building in heaven that was the model for earthly buildings rather then a God who deals with reality and trying to express reality in earthly terms. Even Adventists realize much of the furnishings of the temple can have symbolic meaning and can connect them as symbols of Christ, so why have a whole building of symbolism where Christ can minister to symbols. It is foolish but it is traditional Adventism.

But what bothers me more than his traditionalism is his lack of discernment. Take for instance the statement that the Tea Party rallies are helping push America back to its religious roots. Is that what the Tea Party is about? If so you sure don't find it in their online material. For instance:

“The Tea Party movement is a grassroots movement of millions of like-minded Americans from all backgrounds and political parties. Tea Party members share similar core principles supporting the United States Constitution as the Founders intended, such as:
• Limited federal government
• Individual freedoms
• Personal responsibility
• Free markets
• Returning political power to the states and the people
As a movement, The Tea Party is not a political party nor is looking to form a third political party any time soon. The Tea Party movement, is instead, about reforming all political parties and government so that the core principles of our Founding Fathers become, once again, the foundation upon which America stands.”

Newt Gingrich one of the candidates running for the Republican nomination for President has a Contract from America which lists several points, but not one about pushing America back to its religious roots. His points are:

1. Protect the Constitution
2. Reject Cap & Trade
3. Demand a Balanced Budget
4. Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
5. Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington
6. End Runaway Government Spending
7. Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care
8. Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above” Energy Policy
9. Stop the Pork
10. Stop the Tax Hikes

How does someone who begin with such fallacious understanding of current events think they can give us any beneficial information. If your argument begins by misrepresenting people or groups it has a faulty foundation and all arguments built upon it will fall. As Boonstra next line shows:

“But students of the Bible ought to ask themselves if Jesus can safely be co-opted by either movement.”

You see his false premise is growing, building more errors upon his original error (is the Tea Party co-opting Jesus). We could argue his errors of no self-respecting liberal would agree it is about social justice and toppling corporate greed. That might be true of Jim Wallis and his ilk, but there are many at the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protests that are protesting such things as Jewish Bankers, that Jews must leave this country. Others that are saying destroy capitalism and start a revolution that creates a new country under communist philosophy. Antisemitism and communism are just two of the ideas we hear from various OWS protesters. So it is any wonder they would disagree with the fictitious Tea Party return to religious roots. I would guess they also disagree with the propagation of flying elephants. It says nothing to say someone disagrees with something that is not even being talked about.

Lying about people and organizations is used when the facts don't fit well with someone's own opinions and speculations. Adventism has a high degree of speculation about what the future holds. That speculation is often considered inspired. The speculation has never proved correct in their areas of prophetic prognostication but that seems to not stop them from pretending that their speculations are true. So when the facts don't line up with the reality, tell another lie.

Better yet tell it in the official church publication. If our church leaders cannot be trusted to be accurate in the small things, why trust them with the more important things such as our spiritual lives and our doctrines.

Perhaps it is time we occupy our churches and remove these thoughtless leaders. That might be something the OWS supporters and the Tea Party supporters could agree on.

The origins of Progressive Adventism

2011-11-20T16:52:00.000-08:00

Recently the Adventist Today Magazine (fall of 2011) printed an article on Diversity As an Asset
By Rob Erwin, the article is mainly in favor of diversity within the Adventist church but it presents some false information about who Progressive Adventists are. The second page of the article presents a chart of certain categories as viewed by Progressive Adventism , Evangelical Adventism, Conservative Adventism and Historic Adventism. For example in the first line of the chart along the category “Secular Politics” Progressive Adventism is Democrat or Independent, Evangelical Adventism is Republican, Democrat or Independent, Conservative Adventism is Republican and Historic Adventism ignores politics. A more reasonable analysis would find Republicans, Democrats and Independents in each of the categories. It perhaps show a distortion of the reality that some political progressive Adventists would like to propagate; that to be a Progressive Adventist is to be a political progressive as ,but it is simply not true.

The article in Adventist Today however makes no attempt to define the terms it is using for the different categories of Adventism. Apparently thinking the faulty chart will define things, but it does nothing really to accurately define this categories. What is particularly noticeably is that there is really nothing to define Evangelical Adventists. Which to my mind is probably even harder to define then the term moderate Adventism.

Recently I came across a well written article by Jerry Gladson entitled The Crime of Dissent that I am going to use to explain the basis for the arrival of Progressive Adventism because we have to move away from this idea that Progressive Adventism is anything like Progressive politics in the United States. The idea that in the chart is defined as Progressive Adventists are Democrat or Independent. Since Gladson writes so succinctly I am going to simply quote several of his paragraphs. In a separate article I will deal with some of the other problems with the Diversity As an Asset article.

In the late 1970's three major individuals came upon the Adventists scene with their published scholarly works.

As a thesis for his degree at the University of Queensland in Australia, Anglican scholar

Geoffrey Paxton wrote and later published The Shaking of Adventism.8 Paxton reexamined

the Adventist claim that the denomination was, in essence, continuing the work

of the Protestant Reformation by its proclamation of the gospel and its rediscovery of

long-neglected truths such as the seventh-day Sabbath and the judgement in 1944. Instead

of the usual exegetical arguments centring on the biblical passages in question, as most

critics of Adventism have done, he held this claim up against one of the central themes of

the Reformation itself: the question of justification, what Luther called the 'chief article'

of Christian belief. Paxton's conclusion profoundly disturbed thousands of faithful

Adventists, including me. While Adventism taught it was proclaiming the gospel of the

Protestant Reformers, Paxton maintained, it was actually-perhaps unwittinglyexpounding

a Roman Catholic view of the gospel rather than a Protestant one.

Australian Adventist theologian Desmond Ford opened the next chapter in the church's

debate in an area not related to the concerns of Paxton. Long an advocate of the

Protestant view of the gospel, as Ford began to relate the concept of justification of his

interest in the book of Daniel, he encountered difficulty. Since 1844 Adventists have

understood the 2300 evenings and mornings of Dan. 8:14 to be a symbolic time period of

2300 solar years stretching from the seventh year of the Persian king, Artaxerxes I (457

BC), to 1844 AD9. On October 22, 1844, the precise date being chosen on the basis of the

Karaite Jewish Determination of the date of Yom Kippur in that year, Adventists believe

Christ's intercessory ministry in heaven shifted from primarily a work of intercession to

that of investigative judgement, on the analogy of Yom Kippur in the Old Testament

(Lev.23:26-30). Yom Kippur is held to be the type of this great event. 'Investigative' is a

metaphor taken from the legal arena to denote the idea that Heaven starts to examine the

records of the human race to determine their eligibility for final salvation. The heavenly

tribunal, in other words, began reviewing in 1844 the cases of all who have ever lived to

see if they are worthy of eternal life. To symbolise this new phase, Christ moved from the

Holy Place to the Most Holy Place in the heavenly sanctuary. Although this judgement

commences with the dead, at some unknown time it will pass to the living, making the

present time one of ominous significance...

That meeting took place in the late summer, 1980, at a church youth camp at Glacier

View, high in the picturesque Colorado Rockies not far from Boulder, Colorado. Church

leaders there publicly admitted some of the theological and exegetical problems, but

rejected Ford's resolution of them. They promised to set up a committee to inquire more

deeply into the issues Ford had raised and recommend appropriate solutions. Then, in a

dramatic, unanticipated private meeting chaired by Neal Wilson, President of the General

Conference, church leaders stripped Ford of his ministerial standing.

Adventist theologians everywhere were outraged at what appeared to them to be a

betrayal of honest scholarship. Although I had been at Glacier View for a theological

conference following the debate over Ford's research and therefore had not heard any of

the preceding discussions, I recognised the essential validity of Ford's diagnosis. I had

encountered many of the same problems in my own research. My search for personal

integrity now took on a new intensity.

With the revelation of Ford's conclusions, two related theological problems now swirled

menacingly through denominational life: the problem of the denomination's

understanding of justification and; the issue of the investigative judgement. They would

soon be joined by a third.

In California, Adventist pastor Walter Rea discovered that Ellen White had apparently

'borrowed' more freely from other theological sources without giving credit than the

church had previously admitted. In some remarkable instances she had attached the

phrase, 'I was shown (by the Lord)' to the material she had borrowed or otherwise

claimed to be the result of a vision.12 Rea noted that this borrowing ran suspiciously

through all Ellen White's published materials. Failing to get the necessary denominational

cooperation he expected in revealing these findings to the Adventist public, Rea decided

to publish independently a work he titled ‘The White Lie’.13

Church leaders again took swift action. They removed Rea from the ministry and

commissioned Fred Veltman, a New Testament scholar at Pacific Union College, to

investigate his claims. In what has to be a strange irony, Veltman spent the better part of

the 1980's, using source criticism, a technique developed by historical-criticism, to

examine closely a fifteen-chapter portion of the Desire of Ages, Ellen White's bestselling

life of Christ, for traces of undocumented borrowing. In 1990, Veltman reported

to the church at large his findings in two articles appearing in Ministry magazine.14

Careful to point out he had examined only a small section of the book, thus making it

difficult to generalise, Veltman concluded that Ellen White did use sources without

giving credit, and that she, at times, even denied doing so. The book Desire of Ages, he

noted, was basically dependent on secondary materials. On the whole, an average of

about 31% of the fifteen chapters was in some way indebted to other material. Worse, her

history, chronology, and theological interpretation - often cited confidently by Adventists

- were not always reliable. For many in the church, Rea's findings, together with

Veltman's later and much more careful analysis, raised serious ethical concern about

Ellen White.

In the space of five years (1978-1983), the Adventist community had seen three of its key

tenets, or as Peter Berger calls them, its 'legitimating structures',15 fiercely assaulted. The

cumulative effect was nothing short of traumatic. The North American Adventist

community buzzed with debate. Frenzied discussion of righteousness by faith, Daniel 8,

and Ellen White quickly escalated into open theological warfare, with the churches and

colleges serving as the battlefields. People chose sides. They branded each other. 'Fordite'

got attached to anyone who acknowledged the legitimacy of any of the criticisms of the

investigative judgement or Ellen White, or who affirmed the Protestant gospel. Those

who stood by the traditional teachings were known as 'Traditionalists'. Neutral ground

became increasingly hard to find. Adventism suddenly became a religious community

intent on self-destruction.

It should not be self destructive to reassess ones beliefs, but if there are those who refuse to acknowledged the problems then they are working against the progression of understanding. Thus Progressive Adventism sees these areas of questionable beliefs as things that need to be addressed and corrected. Particularly the last two areas, the investigative judgment and concerns over Ellen Whites authority or position as a prophet. The reason I don't care two much about Paxton's position is that I think the Reformation was wrong on so many things it is hardly something we should want to carry forward. After all it was a reformation against the Roman Catholic Church it was not the reformation of Christianity in general, which is something that was and is due to Christianity on a regular bases to protect from traditions becoming essentials. The Reformation traditionalized the idea of substititionary atonement and intertwined it with justification by faith. It popularized the one of the most bizarre atonement theories there is. God punished Christ for humanities sins so that Christ could pay the penalty and God's wrath would be turned aside. A teaching that really has no Biblical merit and was simply the latest in a growing list of the Christian churches attempt to understand the meaning of Christ death as atonement. See the article Why did Jesus have to die, Time to talk atonement theory.

Another theory of the dissapperance of the dinosaurs

2011-11-04T21:35:00.000-07:00

I saw this posted on one of the comments over on Spectrum, I had to pass it on.

A Response to Alden Thompson on Conditional Prophecy

2011-10-29T16:51:00.000-07:00

In the most recent issue of Adventist Today (Fall 2011) Alden Thompson has an article entitled Conditional Prophecy and Last-Day Events. I had mentioned to a friend that he seemed to waste a lot of the article on talking about the Sabbath. My friend who knows Alden and thus I suspect has a bit more insight into his thinking, but is also a bit less critical of what he actually said, suggested that the underlying reason for the Sabbath inclusion in the article was to develop subtly the idea that the Sabbath is not an end time Seal of God and the conditional prophecy was a method of planting those ideas into the reader.

Thus I had to re-read the article to see if I could see those subtle connections as my friend explained it. If there I thought I would be in substantial agreement though likely not with his conditional prophecy position.

Alden Thompson introduces us to his subject after explaining through the process of some rather gratuitous assertions the solid foundation of the Sabbath and that “the New Testament is equally clear pressing the question of how to keep the Sabbath but never quarreling over the fact of the Sabbath.” True enough but what does the “fact” of the sabbath really mean. That the New Testament acknowledges the Sabbath is true but does not in any way seek to endorse it as a continuing obligation, leaving it up to the conscience of people (Rom. 14:5). But when someone says the fact of the sabbath to an Adventist I think they often have a different understanding, the fact to them being the continuing obligation of Seventh day Sabbath keeping as their proof of true commandment keeping. I will come back to that after I cover the next area of Thompson's article where he recounts the conflict of 1888 through Ellen Whites perspective.
The article covers an area of all or nothing thinking which he seems to want to use to develop his concept of conditional prophecy. He recounts this incident from the 1888 Ellen White Materials page 220 I will give the full two paragraphs:

I told them I had been shown that some of our brethren had educated themselves as debaters. The process of this education and the mold received by such an education were not after God's order, neither did they meet the approval of God. In many respects men trained in this kind of school unfitted themselves to become pastors of the sheep and lambs; and in combating an opponent, as in the way of discussions, usually harm is done with but little good results. The combative spirit is raised in both parties, and a defiant, hard spirit becomes habitual when their track is crossed. They become criticizers and do not always handle the Scriptures fairly, but wrest the Scriptures to make their point.

The remark was made, "If our views of Galatians are not correct, then we have not the third angel's message, and our position goes by the board; there is nothing to our faith." I said, "Brethren, here is the very thing I have been telling you. This statement is not true. It is an extravagant, exaggerated statement. If it is made in the discussion of this question I shall feel it my duty to set this matter before all that are assembled, and whether they hear or forbear, tell them the statement is incorrect. The question at issue is not a vital question and should not be treated as such. The wonderful importance and magnitude of this subject has been exaggerated. For this reason--through misconception and perverted ideas-- we see the spirit that prevails at this meeting, which is unchristlike, and which we should never see exhibited among brethren. There has been a spirit of Pharisaism coming in among us which I shall lift my voice against wherever it may be revealed." Full 1888 materials in PDF

The brother who says we don't have the third angel's message is on the side that says the law in Galatians is the Ceremonial law (which by the way is an entirely artificial designation the Jews did not separate the law as moral or ceremonial). The brother was working against the position of Jones and Waggoner that the law in Galatians was the moral law (by which Adventists mean the 10 commandments, again a fictional law division).

Thompson then begins on the Conditional prophecy portion by saying that the Adventists had two pillars which can be found in the simple covenant that Adventists first signed when they formed as a church in 1861. “covenanting to keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus Christ [Rev. 14:12] Central to the commandments is the Sabbath;”

So even though Ellen White thought the brother was exaggerating his thinking, that if the law in Galatians was our school master to lead us to Christ and then fade we can't be correct in our statement of the third angel's message which is that last part of the verse in Rev 14:12. Thus the brother's offering is not really all or nothing but the recognition that if our faith is in our understanding of the Seventh day Sabbath observance as our special mission (to preach the third or three angel's message) the position would be in error and faith based on error is not terribly useful. Ellen White is not even able to refute the brother but threatens to, as we continue to read that letter we see she never deals with the issue only criticizes the spirit of those involved. Which by the way is usually a truism when any two or more people get together and argue strongly held views religious or otherwise.

Alden Thompson's conclusion to the illustration of history is:

“Let's be clear: whatever we do with conditional prophecy or end-time events does not move a pin from those landmarks, the ones reflected in our name Seventh-day Adventists.”

That would not be the conclusion I would draw from the illustration from Adventist history of this event. But then I don't see the brother as giving an all or nothing position either. He seems quite rational and deserved a bit more rational response then he received. I might accept the conclusion that from our history we accept certain pillars as unmovable because we ignore any reasons to move them. Which strangely enough seems to be Thompson's case, as he continues:

“I hope the long preamble makes it clear that there is no point in going further unless the Adventist landmarks are in place. When they are secure, however, we can begin to nibble on “conditional prophecy” in bite-size chunks.”

He then covers some of the ideas of the “last days” as being a nebulous term that does not fit all that well with the New Testament and contemporary interpretations of Christians. That some see conditional prophecy as things that must be fulfilled in the last days such as the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem etc.

Next he points to the article The Role of Israel in Old Testament Prophecy (I did an Internet search to give you a link to this article but being an important article it appears to not be anywhere on the Internet). Alden writes:

“All Adventists know about the Sunday law. But very few know how the Bible, the Great Disappointment, and Ellen White come together in this remarkable article that takes “conditional prophecy” seriously in exploring God's original plan for Israel.”

His next point is to direct our attention to Ellen White's own all or nothing statement:

The angels of God in their messages to men represent time as very short. Thus it has always been presented to me. It is true that time has continued longer than we expected in the early days of this message. Our Saviour did not appear as soon as we hoped. But has the word of the Lord failed? Never! It should be remembered that the promises and threatenings of God are alike conditional. Selected Messages Page 67 from MN 4 1883

Notice her position is either the Saviour did not appear as soon as we hoped or God failed. No possibility for the messenger being presumptuous or making something up quite apart from anything God ever said or simply wrong interpretations. After all it had been nearly 2000 years since those New Testament last day prophecies. It does seem a little presumptuous in the 19th century to assume they are all talking about her century. This would be a good example of all or nothing thinking. But if one did believe that the promises and threatenings of God are conditional and you have to admit there is an implied “all” in that statement. In fact the implied “all” would make the statement fall in the category of a logical fallacy known as the false generalization (sweeping or hasty generalization).

The whole possibility of the second coming becomes conditional and may never happen. What are the conditions, who knows? A conditional prophecy without the conditions stated somewhere is worthless. Now ancient Israel had loads of prophecies and from the start of the nation state there were conditions set for all the prophecies. (Read Deut. 28) Is it really logical to assume the same conditions for a ancient nation to modern people in so many different nations? If one accepts that all promises and threatenings of God are conditional and the conditions are not stated then whenever anyone makes a prediction that fails to come to pass they can say the conditions of God were not met and most likely after the fact they will name some conditions. In this way people like Harold Camping could continue setting dates for Christ's return and continue to create excuses for the prophetic failures. The so called prophet could never be shown to be wrong, if something comes true it will show them as a prophet if it does not it shows nothing except conditions were not met.

Alden Thompson continues by saying:
“It was the 1844 Disappointment that forced Adventists to come to grips with conditional prophecy—reluctantly.” Going on to say that Ellen White never published her statement about conditional prophecy while she lived, it was in the form of a letter defending herself from certain charges. I would ask should the letter be taken as inspired or the statement as inspired? Did Adventists come to grips with 1844 as a conditional prophecy? Well no it was assumed that the date was correct but the event was wrong and 1844 became integral to the novel SDA only doctrine known as the Investigative Judgment. He then moves on to Jonah, a favorite of Adventists who want to assert all prophecies are conditional. You can read a response to that position in my article Ellen White's Food for worms, Is it Conditional.

He finishes back with the Sabbath:

“Anywhere and everywhere Adventists can preach that the beast of Revelation 13 is coercive and deceptive. Anyone who coerces and deceives is in league with the beast. Today, however the great threat to our Sabbath is not coercive Sunday legislation, but secularization. Almost no one takes sacred time seriously anymore.”

So here at the end I grant my friends observation is probably correct. But all along the way I see numerous problems with the article's positions. But if this is the only way we can get Adventists to leave behind the 19^th century theology of Ellen White and realize that so far she has been wrong on most every prediction she made, I guess I will have to say Amen. Though I wish we could be more honest with ourselves. But I am not an all or nothing person so it is not either lie to ourselves about conditional prophecy and Ellen White or continue to accept Ellen White and teach the outdated prophecy scenarios, I think honesty demands more. There is a place for subtleness but even being subtle with incorrect facts is not really a winning formula.

Gauging the Intelligence of our leaders

2011-10-22T18:17:00.000-07:00

Here is a quote from a recent article on Spectrum magazine online Reflections on Annual Council and the Association of Adventist Women Conference President Ted Wilson invited a testimony of a Dentist by the name of Carla Lidner Baum. She said the following according to the article:

“Why is there not more of an outcry about the erosion of our beliefs,” she asked?
She said she was worried that our leaders, who in their efforts to be tolerant, instead end up being like Eli or Aaron.

"Because of my gratitude to God, I can never bow down to golden calves."

Next she talked of the “enlightened ones” who seem to suggest that they understand the Gospel better than other people. But the poor people will never be able to understand their gospel. Yet, she suggested, the enlightened ones say they are being attacked.

“I’ve fallen in love with the Adventist interpretation of Scripture,” she said calling it “beautiful, powerful, and close enough to get us through to the end.” Were the ideas about evolution true, “when Jesus came to earth He could have set the record straight,” she maintained. He could have told us that God only gave names and gave order.

So Jesus would have set us right on evolution though no one knew anything about the concept. By that rational should not Jesus set us right on diseases and germ theory and the nature of stars and planets and the destructive nature of slavery and recreational drugs?

Now this might not have deserved mention except that the article also pointed out this:

The next day, Dr. Baum also flew back to Southern California. While it was never mentioned before or after her presentation to Annual Council, she was a member of the Board of La Sierra University. She arrived in Riverside just in time to find out that she had been voted off the Board.

Baum was on the Board of La Sierra University! With a mind like that, an intelligence so uncritical and lets just say it foolish; she was on the Board of a major Adventist University. Somehow I feel only relief that she was removed from the board. But I am equally concerned that she was there in the first place.

We can do better and we must and we must by expecting those in important leadership positions have the intellectual ability to think critically. Being a successful professional does not mean that these people are in any way worthy of positions of leadership. That she spoke as she did at the behest of our Adventist President Ted Wilson says a lot about his intelligence also, sadly.

Raising the dead and other Christian problems.

2011-10-08T12:05:00.000-07:00

I am constantly amazed at the things I read in the Adventist media. It is astounding the things some people say, some of them thankfully don't get wide distribution, sort of like me only read by a few, though I wish I got a little more readers and some of them even less. But none the less I am going to point you to their material because if nothing else I want my readers to learn something. It may be silly but silly ideas taken as true can cause a lot of trouble. So with no further ado here is my latest excursion into Adventist media foolishness.

This is taken from the Pacific Union Conference publication the Gleaner Online, it has a blog by Mike Jones which begins with the following:

Is it crazy to suggest we start casting out demons and raising the dead?

If you think I’m not in my right mind asking such a question, I would remind you that in Matthew 10:8, Jesus instructed His disciples (and presumably you and me) to “heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, and cast out demons” as an integral part of sharing the gospel message.

What do you see there, a serious question that we don't ask too often and then an interpretation that goes against the context of the text he quotes. The instruction is to Jesus' disciples it is not presumably to you and me. Just read the text if you are uncertain of this fact:

Matt 10:5-11
5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. 8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give. 9 Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, 10 Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat. 11 And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, inquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence. (KJV)

Not going to the Gentiles or any Samaritian cities only go to Israel heal the sick raise the dead cast out devils take no money or extra clothes. It sounds kind of specific to the disciples right? But somehow Mike Jones can find this to presumably be directed at you and me.

Well maybe if he was not making such presumptions he would have a better reason to understand why there is not a lot of raising the dead going on around by us Christians. He would not have to resort to one of the often less then factual missionary books found at the Adventist Book Center, Jones writes:

And since Matthew 10:8 references raising the dead, does that only mean those who are dead in their sins? If you think so, please read Greg Rudd’s One Miracle After Another, the story of Pastor Pavel Goia and some of the incredible events of his early life. You’ll be amazed at the story of the boy who died beneath the wheels of Pastor Goia’s car who came back to life after being pronounced dead and his body sent to the hospital morgue over night. What happened the next morning when the keeper of the morgue arrived for work will amaze you. Contact your nearby ABC for this wonderful book.

But that is not all, much of the article is about casting out demons who he sees as the cause of homosexuality and various other mental disorders. Mike Jones states the following:

In one horrifying sentence, the Bible says the natural man (unconverted, in other words) can be “taken captive by (the devil) at his will.”—2 Timothy 2:26 (KJV).

Now that is scary, the devil can take any unconverted person at his (the devils) will. If you think about it that is everyone...because there had to be a point where one became converted and any time before that point they would be unconverted.

Fortunately for humanity Mike Jones has once again presumed too much. Unless of course he is one of the King James Only advocates who holds the strict and wooden literalness of the KJV. Though if he was reading a modern language Bible or even the Authorized Standard Version he would not need such an interpretation.

2 Tim 2:24-26
24 And the Lord's servant must not strive, but be gentle towards all, apt to teach, forbearing,
25 in meekness correcting them that oppose themselves; if peradventure God may give them repentance unto the knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him unto his will. (ASV)

As the Expositor's Bible Commentary says:

25,26 And so Paul goes on to say that the good minister must "gently instruct" ("in meekness") "those who oppose him"-- tous antidiatithemenous (only here in the NT). He does this in the hope that God will give them "a change of heart" (metanoia, "repentance"), leading to "a knowledge" (epignosis, "full knowledge") of the truth. He hopes that "they will come to their senses and escape" (v. 26). This is all one word in the Greek: ananepsosin. The verb (ananepho) literally means "return to soberness." Thayer says that this passage indicates "to be set free from the snare of the devil and to return to a sound mind [`one's sober senses']" (Lexicon, p. 40).

Still if you think that diseases or genetics or chemical imbalances etc. are really demonic manifestations I suppose it can make some sense to believe that such things are done at the will of Satan. After all there is the mythology of the ancient Israelites that diseases were caused by demons in the wilderness so he does have that on his side. So if he can ignore the context of verses and the meaning of the words and hold to ancient superstitions I suppose I can see where he is coming from.

And hopefully so can you, and avoid such things.

Deceptions in the name of Christ

2011-09-24T17:47:00.000-07:00

I have for years been skeptical of the professed claims of the amateur archaeologist Ron Wyatt. To me he seems to have claimed to have found the most significant things the Christian church has always wanted to find. He found Noah's Ark, he found the place where Moses parted the sea and some of the remains of Pharaoh's army. He found the Ark of the Covenant. All of those things would be very impressive and if found should have some kind of evidence to establish their discovery. But he seemed to provide no evidence.

Then I was doing some web wandering since my local church has an amazing discovery/prophecy seminar going on. I wanted to see what people were saying about the presenter of the programs, since the Advertising Leaflet that the church sent out to local residents says nothing about the Seventh-day Adventist church and the presentation was offered at a local high school theater rather then the church. After all this is the Internet age, if you are interested in something it takes very little effort to find out about it by searching the Internet, I see no reason to keep trying to hide the identity of the Adventist church in these things, if they are going to present their version of the truth then be up front about it. I searched the name of the evangelist, of course I found out he was an Adventist hired by the Washington conference and I even found out about his previous presentation last year from some discussion on the website rational skepticism. You can read it for yourself overall the guy sounds pretty accurate in his evaluation of the program. But it brought me to some links to Ron Wyatt.

What I did not know about Ron Wyatt is that he had claimed to have found the dried blood of Jesus Christ on the covering of the Ark of the covenant. That would be commonly called the mercy seat. How do we know it is the actual blood of Jesus Christ? Well according to Wyatt it has 23 chromosomes instead of 46, the normal number for living human beings. You can even look at a you tube video of some sort of laboratorian scrape out some of his dried blood and place it in some sterile water. strangely you will see that she does not wear gloves either. He then shows some poor resolution video microscopy of moving objects, which to my eyes which are quite used to looking at things under the microscope appears to be Brownian motion and the natural movement of a freshly mounted water based slide. (see also the You Tube of brownian motion). Wyatt when seeing this motion says that the blood is still alive.

But why is the blood of Jesus Christ on the mercy seat? Well according to Wyatt at the crucification there was an earthquake as the Bible records (Matt. 27:51), apparently the one that opened the graves and opened a fissure from the post hole of the cross down to the hidden Ark of the Covenant, the ark still hidden from the days of the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem.

What is most interesting to me aside from the sheer hubris of the man to make such claims with no evidence to back him up, oh also he talked to angels who told him that the Ark and the Ten commandments on tablets of stone will be revealed when the mark of the beast is applied as they were there when he discovered it prematurely it seems. A bit too late according to Adventist mythology about probation closing with the mark of the beast. What is it in his and apparently Adventist thinking that makes them think that God needs to perform a miracle so that Christ blood falls on a disused mercy seat hidden away. At one time the Ark of the Covenant was the symbol of the presence of God, but was it the focus of the presence of God hidden away for hundreds of years that needed the blood of the incarnated God to be sprinkled on it?

It becomes another of the symbol over the substance excuses popular today. When the substance was here Wyatt feels that the symbol must be involved. The blood of Christ brought to symbolically to God so that God can forgive. But Christ is God, God does not need blood to forgive. The whole point was that God does forgive even to the point of His enemies rejecting and killing Christ. He still forgave and even after death rose to show the power of God even over our greatest enemy death. As the book of Hebrews says.

Heb 10:19-22 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. (NIV)

Symbols to express the reality, in many ways people like Ron Wyatt have their theology completely backward. Thus they invent things to make their version sound good. But as in this case it shows how little they really know and how little their followers know. Ultimately as with any false information they bring disrupt upon themselves and Adventism and Christianity.

One of the myths about forgiveness

2011-09-10T14:36:00.000-07:00

A friend brought to my attention the following article from the religion section of the Huff Post. First I would say that if you get your religion ideas from the Huff Post you are probably in trouble. But since it gets wide readership I thought I would reply to one of the sections of the article. The article is entitled 5 Myths About Forgiveness in the Bible by Maria Mayo M. Div., M.A.

In my response to my friend I think I disagreed with all but one of her 5 points. The one I agreed with was point 5 Forgiveness sets you free. Which I don't even think is a widely held view by anyone, but I would like to focus on her third point for this article:

3. Jesus forgives his attackers from the cross.

Luke's depiction of Jesus on the cross is often cited as the quintessential example of unconditional forgiveness. As he is being crucified, Jesus cries out, "Father forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing" (Luke 23:34). Readers often take this to mean that Jesus forgives those who are attacking him. However, a closer look at the syntax reveals that Jesus is not, in fact, forgiving his attackers; rather, he is praying that God might do so.
It is possible that the lack of repentance from his attackers prevents Jesus from forgiving the men directly, since he has taught his followers that repentance is a requirement for forgiveness. Also, earlier in the Gospel of Luke Jesus instructs his disciples to "pray for those who abuse you" (Luke 6:38). While his prayer from the cross is a perfect model of this teaching, it is not an explicit act of forgiveness.

This is troubling because of its confusion about who Jesus Christ is. Most readers of the New Testament have recognized that Jesus not only claimed to be the son of God, but that He was One with God, such as:

John 8:58-59 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. (KJV)

This equality with God was it seems a heavy emphasis in the Gospel of John. He began the gospel with:

John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. n him was life, and that life was the light of men. (NIV)
John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. (NIV)

It was of course not just the writer of John that felt this way the author of the book of Matthew seems to be of the same opinion with his use of Emmanuel, God with us. There are very clearly strong biblical reasons why Jesus is considered to be God, it is why the early church derived the doctrine of the Trinity as a way to explain God who was in fact at multiple places at one time. It seems people have no problem with the idea of God as omnipresent but they get a little bogged down when physicality is involved. As if such a thing as a human body should stop God from being God. You can imagine the confusion if Jesus had said I am God right here and now pray to me. The physicality of God would become the issue and they would be even more confused when the physical God was no longer around, where did He go and where was He before He was born on earth. There are ideas that take time to develop and that explains why Jesus prayed to God the Father, as an example of how man should pray to God, but not in a way that was for Himself or separate from God. Even when troubled by impending horrors the concern for His physical comfort took second place to the will of God which was also His will. Not only did Jesus say to pray for those who abuse you but to forgive them.

Matt 6:14 For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. (NIV)

The book of Matthew also points out that Jesus demonstrated His ability to forgive sins:

Matt 9:6 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...." Then he said to the paralytic, "Get up, take your mat and go home." (NIV)

What Jesus did on the cross was far more then to ask God to forgive sins but to demonstrate that through love sins were forgiven even to the extent as Peter preached:

Acts 3:13-20

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this. By faith in the name of Jesus, this man whom you see and know was made strong. It is Jesus' name and the faith that comes through him that has given this complete healing to him, as you can all see."Now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders. But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Christ would suffer. Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,and that he may send the Christ, who has been appointed for you-- even Jesus. (NIV)

The forgiveness was there offered for all, but forgiveness is of little value if you still are an enemy of God, if you don't accept the forgiveness you remain in a state of animosity of your part. There is no renewal, no refreshing just our anger and rebellion, no healing. At the cross Jesus is not asking God to forgive, it is God showing us what forgiveness is like, that love reaches out even to those who reject God even while they reject God with cruelty and hatred. God was reaching out, He is still reaching out.

The Great Controversy and Canadian Law

2011-08-26T21:29:00.000-07:00

On the Spectrum website there is an article by a pastor formerly pastoring in Canada. Pastor Eddy Johnson says the following about the distribution of the Ellen White book the Great Controversy in his article entitled: Will 'The Great Controversy' Project Harm Adventism?

“The saddest part was the reaction of those who had initiated the “evangelistic” dispersal of the book. Upset when the conference asked them to stop, they accused the leadership of cowardice, apostasy, and bowing to the pressure exerted by the “agents of Catholicism that infiltrated the church.” The incident taught me how difficult it was to explain to determined believers that not every action was Biblically timely or wise. Instead they found comfort in their understanding that good people were always going to be persecuted, even by their own church at times. I believe that the action of the conference was instrumental in protecting the Adventist church from what might have been a very nasty court action (we all know the frenzied appetite of the press for such occurrences).”

Currently the Adventist denomination is promoting a mass distribution of the book The Great Controversy with the Great Controversy Project. One of the concerns of some people seem to be that the book will be looked at as hate literature (in fact that is one of the claims of the Great controversy Project though it is bogus, but apparently has some legs as this will be my second article on the subject). As one of my previous commenter said of previous related article on this blog:

“Yet I have concerns about the core message of GC, for our culture, which appears to me some will perceive it as hateful speech or at least unfounded and harsh accusations.”

Canada has one of the tougher hate law legislations in North America, but does the publication of this 1888/1912 book by the Adventist claimed prophet Ellen White equate to hate speech? First I will put forth the disclaimer that I am against all hate crime legislation. A crime is a crime for it's action it should be dealt with for the action not deemed worse because the motive was something other then emotion or avarice or cruelty. See the article from Reason Magazine for further explanation of the problem of hate crime legislation.

Aside from what should be we have to deal with what legislation has been passed. In this case does the Canadian law open the Adventist church up to a nasty court action. Well first you can have a nasty court action for anything whether you are in the right or wrong. So we as a church or as individuals are always open to that, frivolous lawsuits are all too common. But under Canadian law the publication of the Great Controversy book does not fall into the category of section 318 or 319 of the Canadian criminal code. Hate Propaganda 318 Advocating genocide 319 Public incitement of hatred. As 318 requires the advocacy of genocide of some group"

“Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.”

Criminal code 319 allows:

“(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)...

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;”

Since the Seventh-day Adventist denomination has in their fundamental beliefs that Ellen White the author of the Great Controversy is:

“As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction...” (18. The Gift of Prophecy)

The Denomination has a legal defense against the charge of hate propaganda in the law itself.

The legal or criminal/court threat is of no concern at this time, though the potential for ill considered hate crime legislation may someday create more problems as such crimes restrict constitutional freedoms. The real consideration should be; is this book correct, helpful and wise to distribute. The article by Eddy Johnson goes on to give some further reasons it is ill considered to spread this book throughout the country or world. I am in agreement with the article on some of his objections. Though I would raise a few different objections.

Update from a conversation on Spectrum David Read brought up the problem of the Human Rights Commission of Canada, to which I responded as follows:
---
David Read is correct, Canada has problems with free speech issues because of their human Rights commission which appears to be corrupt and inept. It appears to be an outgrowth of those who believe in hate crime legislation but could not get the legislation into the law. If the Adventist church got involved somehow with that group and the other high profile authors who are being frivolously tried by the human rights commission I would say go for it because they would win this issue in the end and be heralded for protecting Canadian free speech rights.

From an article on the subject:
---

“Canada’s ‘human rights’ laws are abominable,” he said, “especially Section 13.1 of the Human Rights Act, which criminalizes any speech that makes a person feel uneasy. So it’s not a matter of truth, or evidence, but of feelings.”

Section 13.1 prohibits speech, including speech on the telephone, or writings on the Internet, that is “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt.”[4] Whether this is “likely” to happen soon, or in the distant future, the law does not specify. Nor does it define speech that is “likely” to do this. In practice, “human rights” commissions have allowed plaintiffs to define it, based on their subjective feelings.
“Now, finally, there is quite a stirring against the human rights commissions—at least among the newspapers,” De Valk said. “We hope this is beginning to change the environment.”
Canadian newspapers have been increasingly critical of “human rights” commissions since complaints were brought against Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn, and Maclean’s magazine. Levant, when he was editor of the now-defunct Western Standard, fell afoul of the “human rights” regime when he published the notorious “Muhammad cartoons” to illustrate a news story about them. Maclean’s, Canada’s most widely circulated magazine, published excerpts from Steyn’s book, America Alone, that discussed the growing Muslim influence in Western Europe.
But Levant, Steyn, and Maclean’s have vigorously defended themselves. Their high-profile cases have led to calls for investigation of the commissions’ procedures and even for repeal of portions of the Human Rights Act—first by newspaper, and lately by members of Parliament. Meanwhile, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have launched their own investigation of the commissions.
“The Canadian government has got to be convinced to act,” De Valk said. “We have a Conservative government and a Conservative prime minister; but it’s a minority government, so the Conservatives can’t go forward without support from the other political parties.” http://chalcedon.edu/research/articles/canadian-human-rights-commissions...

And Jesus said Don't Eat Cheese

2011-08-12T21:57:00.000-07:00

As you read the Adventist media and conversation sources (magazines blogs etc) it is often possible to see some of the truly cultic thinking that inhabits Adventism. One good example is the new blog article at Atoday.com. In an article entitled Annoying Vegans...an article which predominately decries the use of cheese, we read the following:

Many of us have heard the testimonies: “Cheese stops-up my system.” “Cheese makes my arthritis flare-up.” “Cheese disturbs my sleep.” Anticipating these problems, Jesus gave the gracious counsel: “Cheese should never be introduced into the stomach.”¹
¹ Counsels on Diet and Foods, p. 368.

Whether or not we experience any symptoms, it should be enough that Jesus has spoken on this matter. It is an insult to His grace, to presume that His message is not clear enough. While church members debate the meaning of this subject, outsiders suffer.

You notice of course that Jesus never said one word about cheese, the quotes used are from the Adventist prophet of the 19^th century, Ellen White. When challenged on this use of Ellen White as Jesus the author Adam Hendron said in the comments section (proving the article was not actually a joke or satire):

The Testimony of Jesus—not Ellen White—is the spirit of prophecy (Rev 19:10). When God's prophets served their role, "the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify when it testified" 1 Peter 1:11. Two chapters later, we read that Jesus preached to the antedeluvians through Noah (vv 18-20). Noah was the spokesperson, but Jesus was the preacher. Whose message is it? Christs! His Spirit testified through the human agency.

Then his next comment

First, no one is equating EGW with Jesus. That's a straw-man argument. Next, her writings are no more "erroneous" or "contradictory" than the Bible itself. (Critics make the same sort of arguments about both.) Now, are you questioning the inspiration of Peter's epistle? If the Bible is not trustworthy, you put yourself in the position of God as the final aribiter of truth. You ask why the writer of Genesis did not mention that Noah preached? Well, why did Moses not mention a plethora of other details that later biblical writers added to the periods he wrote of, for that matter? Paul, for example, says the rock that followed Israel through the wilderness was Jesus. And how could Moses himself write authoritatively about events that took place long before he was born?

Intriguing isn't it, how completely confused the traditional Adventist is to the Bible and it's statements. The testimony of Jesus is those who testify of Jesus, it is not the words of Jesus, it is the inspiration that allows us to profess that Jesus is Lord. We don't do it on our own it is the Spirit of God that inspires us to accept and proclaim that Jesus is God. (see this article on the misuse of the term Spirit of Prophecy)

Rev 19:10 Then I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “Do not do that; I am a fellow servant of yours and your brethren who hold the testimony of Jesus; worship God. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”

Of course this does not make every statement of a Christian the word of God, or Jesus nor would it even make every word of our fellow servants even if we assumed them to be prophets to be the words of Jesus. As Jesus said to Peter:

Matt 16:15-17
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. (KJV)

The strong play of the fundamentalist is their assertion that their reason and no other reason is acceptable. We see it here in the attempt to make it seem that Jesus spoke to those before Noah, the supposed spirits in prison. But anyone with any knowledge of Christianity knows that there are many different interpretation of that verse. But the art of confusion is the art of the dogmatic fundamentalist. And the above blog author is very much and Adventist fundamentalist, and in my view one who holds to a very cultic understanding. Of course he also asserts that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible despite the numerous facts that lead one to doubt that assertion, you know writing about his own death, differing creation accounts etc. Jewish Tradition is not the same as facts. What about the rock that followed Israel through the wilderness being Jesus? That again is they typical lie of the fundamentalist, to distort and confuse as you can see from the actual verse:

1 Cor 10:1-5
1 For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea.
2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.
3 They all ate the same spiritual food
4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.
5 Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered over the desert. (NIV)

So Hendron ignores the spiritual parts of the statement to make a totally fictitious case. It bothers me that these kind of people are in the Adventist church, I do suppose it is helpful that Adventist Today posts their foolishness for all to see. I do wish they had a more balanced group of bloggers however, maybe not so many traditionalists and maybe even a few political conservatives.

Ah well I guess that is what you find on this blog.

Media plays us for fools and fools believe media

2011-07-30T11:56:00.000-07:00

What happens when the news media fails us? When they report not what was said but what they want to distort for their particular agenda. It is something I have seen frequently though I admit I rarely comment on it. The reason is, to understand something sometimes a great deal of information is needed, so to correct a media distortion the truth and the context of a media quote have to be presented. People don't like that, they want the easy answer the solution of the now common news sound bite. The equally troubling thing is that this news bite analysis and repetition is being called research. I had this experience recently on Spectrum Magazine's website. Alexander Carpenter had an article on the Norwegian murderer entitled Is the Killer a Christian. Alex who is very much a Political liberal/progressive took the familiar tract that the killer was: “In this case, the terrorist thought of himself as a Christian and that identity fundamentally fed his politics.” You can see the word phrasing involved was an attempt to as many left leaning blogs were writing an attempt to portray the killer as a fundamentalist Christian, his Christian “identity fundamentally fed”, you see the technique which Alex uses, and elsewhere when he attempts to imply a list of conservative ideas as not responsible, but of course the list is meant to make them seem responsible. “And while those who wish to conserve a more capitalist, closeted, male dominant, creationist past are not responsible for this violence; fundamentally, Breivik is us.” I am sure there are a whole lot of other ideas that are not responsible that Alex could have mentioned some good and some bad but you can see what he is trying to do. Though the creationist part has nothing at all to do with Breivik but then neither does Christianity as a personal religion. As RealClearReligion's Rod Dreher points out:

But readers of Breivik's manifesto will see that he is not a Christian in any meaningful theological sense. Rather, he sees the faith much as the Nazi leadership did: as a European tribal religion that can be instrumentalized to provide the basis for an ethno-cultural war against the Other - in this case, Muslims. Breivik writes:

If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian.

To be even more specific the manifesto directly precedes the above Breivik quote by saying:

“A majority of so called agnostics and atheists in Europe are cultural conservative
Christians without even knowing it. So what is the difference between cultural Christians and religious Christians?”

A large portion of the manifesto is dealing with Muslims and with much history of the Muslim and Christianity conflicts, but you have to also remember that Norway has a flag that is derived from the Crusader Flag, he is not really dealing as much with personal Christianity as a cultural identification and historical power struggles.

But back to the story, I posted the following message under the comments section in response to both the article and other comments on the thread.

Wed, 07/27/2011 - 10:27 Anonymous wrote:
"(See Glen Beck's outrageous comments today comparing the Norwegian young victims with Hitler youth.) "

This is probably the biggest problem going on here. Too many people don't know what they are talking about. Beck did not compare the victims to hitler youth. He was saying he would not send his children to a Republican summer camp that political indoctrination is not good, the hitler youth was an example of such indoctrination. But the author above does not know that because he only hears the critics distorted version and assumes it is truth.

Much as the orginal article assumes the murderer is a Christian when he does not even claim to be a Christian in anything more then a cultural historic Eurpoean sense. He cares nothing at all about a personal relationship with God...something much different from what we think of as a Christian.

But truth is often the first victim to propaganda and that is what much of the comments and the orginial article seem to be about.

To this the anonymous author of the comment I referred said:

r.c--do your homework. Are you a Glen Beck apologist?

Here's a quote from Norway's own Torbjørn Eriksen, former press secretary to Norway's Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg about Beck's comments:

"Torbjørn Eriksen, a former press secretary for Norway's prime minister, Jens Stoltenberg, told The Daily Telegraph, 'Young political activists have gathered at Utoya for over 60 years to learn about and be part of democracy, the very opposite of what the Hitler Youth was about. Glenn Beck's comments are ignorant, incorrect and extremely hurtful.'

"He also described the comment as 'a new low” for Beck, who many see as one of the most divisive characters in the media.'"
Read the entire article here:
www.christianpost.com/news/glenn-beck-compares-campsite-of-norway-shooti...
The coverage is pretty consistent about what Beck "said."
You have every right to defend Beck. He's just off base, way off base, in my opinion.

The plot thickens now. I who heard the Glenn Beck broadcast, albeit I listen to it one day later since I record radio to listen to at work the next day, which saves a lot of listening to commercials by the way. I need to do more research because what I heard appears to not be what numerous media outlets publish, some I saw without even using one full sentence quotes. The Christianpost article uses at least a full quote thought nothing of the context. You can tell he is recounting his thoughts from earlier hearing about the shooting, which after all if you hear about a shooting at a political camp you must wonder about what kind of camp is centered on politics and it is disturbing to many people. But you can tell that he is not equating the camp to Hitler Youth, it is clearly not even the main part of what he has to say about the camp. That comes a half hour later when he says:

“I would never send my kids to a Republican summer camp. Never in a million years would I send my kids to a Republican Party summer camp what are you nuts? That's what this thing was a Labor Party summer camp I don't know why you would send your kids to that. I see that as, you know my problem with the Nazi youth is that was a Party the Nazi's were the National Socialists Party, is Europe not going to learn stop with the Parties, stop indoctrinating you kids with the Parties.”

Besides the context think about how the media works with the news. Do you think that the former press secretary to the Prime Minister quoted in the so called news article listened to the Glenn Beck show, did the reporter present that half hour's worth of monologue? Or did he or she simply make the claim like the headline of the article says: “Glenn Beck Compares Campsite of Norway Shooting to 'Hitler Youth'” But in context did he not also compare it to a Republican Party camp? But the media appears to have found someone rather like the commenter on the Spectrum blog, a person who accepts what a reporter says as simply truth and accepting the report is research.

What someone actually heard and knows by context becomes of less importance then what someone at a supposed news organization says. Of all the material below that I have transcribed from the Glenn Beck show how many of you would walk away with saying Glenn Beck Compares Campsite of Norway Shooting to 'Hitler Youth'? Does anyone really think that was the main thrust or the overall intent of Glenn Beck's commentary?

The popular media is playing us for fools and far to many people are foolishly laping up distortions and propaganda and worse yet clinging to it as if it were truth.

Transcript from the Glenn Beck show Monday July 25 2011

At the opening of the second hour show of his show Glenn Beck said (underlined part used in ChristianPost article):

So Saturday I was uhh following the news of the shooting in Norway and the explosion which happened what on Friday? ( Pat: yes the explosion was and then we left the air and then he went to you know the camp) When we heard the explosion everybody was willing to say it was muslim extremists its muslim extremists, I don't think we made a comment on it because we didn't know other then there was a bombing that happened. And as the thing started to unfold and then there was a shooting at a political camp which sounds a little like the Hitler Youth or whatever I mean who does a camp for kids that is all about politics, disturbing. But anyways so there is this political camp and some crazy man goes and starts shooting kids. I get up Saturday morning and I write to Scott Baker at the Blaze and I said I haven't seen this yet anywhere and I can tell you exactly what's going on and somebody just needs to follow the story. And what is going on is exactly what I said would happen I warned that this would happen last fall. Can we find and see if we can find the audio of me saying it, it's actually a kind of famous monologue because I made a ah complex theory and you make one error in it and it sounds like you are blaming it or agreeing with or whatever. It's the monologue where I spoke about Geert Wilders I think I only spoke about Geert Wilders on Fox one time, I think I had Geert Wilders on CNN Headline news its just the clips of all the things they are saying. I think he went as far to say that Islam is evil which I don't believe that Islam is evil I believe Islam the way it is being practiced by

Ahmadinejad and millions of people around the world that believe in the same things that

Ahmadinejad believes in that's evil. Absolutely 100% that's evil, but there are a lot of good Muslims as well they need to be strenghened and the way to strenghten them is to say, this kind of understanding of Islam is evil period and strenghten the ones that say thats not what we want to do we don't want to kill our daughters in honor killings we don't want to stone people to death, we don't want our husbands to have you know what is it hourly marriages, we like to call it prostitution here in the United states that Sharia law does not have a place in todays world period... [more on Europe going into financial trouble and trouble with radical Islam and multiculturalism for the rest of the half hour]

The second half our of the second hour of the show begins:

You know we were just talking in the break about how devastating, how devastating this news in Oslo is 93 dead, mainly children now one thing that you have to umm take into account is in Norway at least on this island no one had a firearm no one this guy walked onto this island with a firearm no one else had one. No one could stop him no one had one. Remember when I said a couple of weeks ago the police cannot prevent a crime they can only come and investigate what happened. Occasionally if they happen to be there yes that's why in Newark New Jersey they are saying if you own a Pizza shop and you want to be open after 9 o'clock you have to hire a policeman an armed guard to be able to have your business open because that way somebody can protect you. Excuse me, I have a right to protect myself, nobody had a firearm nobody could stop this mad man and 93 people later he stopped. It takes the police, how long did it take them 90 minutes (Stu: yea 90 minutes to respond) 90 minutes this was going on people where these kids were swimming across the lake trying to get help, neighbors were coming and getting in their boats and coming and rowing across the water to be able to grab these kids out. This guy was an absolute and total monster a monster you know as much as you, maybe it is just me I would never send my kids to a Republican summer camp. Never in a million years would I send my kids to a Republican party summer camp what are you nuts? That's what this thing was a labor party summer camp I don't know why you would send your kids to that. I see that as, you know my problem with the Nazi youth is that was a Party the Nazi's were the National Socialists Party is Europe not going to learn stop with the Parties, stop indoctrinating you kids with the Parties. But as much as I don't want to send my kids to a a Labor Party or a Republican Party or an Obama summer camp whatever it is I am not going to send my kids there. But can you imagine the monster that it takes to say, you know the best way to stop this is to kill all the children. Monster total and complete, monster, so don't listen to anyone who says that first left and right is different in Europe remember that, they had kings... [Explains the difference between left and right in America vs. Europe. Communist left and Fascist right while America it is Communist left and no government right]

In Depth, Ellen White as lesser light

2011-07-15T23:42:00.000-07:00

For quite some time there has been the idea in the Adventist church that Ellen G. White is the lesser light meant to lead us to the greater light of the Bible. This view is largely based upon a heavily edited quote that certain compilers made when apparently trying to sell more Ellen White books. Wikipedia notes: “During her lifetime she wrote more than 5,000 periodical articles and 40 books. Today, including compilations from her 50,000 pages of manuscript, more than 100 titles are available in English.” That means that there have been 60 compilations compared to 40 original books.

Compilations give the editors a way to take what they consider to be important quotes from Ellen White's unpublished material and it also allows them to restate her original material possibly to carry a different sentiment then the original in context. With regard to the lesser light and greater light issue most Adventists will refer to the compilation rather then to Ellen White's original published article. In the 1953 compilation book entitled Colporteur Ministry, we read: http://egwwritings.org/

Sell Books That Give Light—The Lord has sent His people much instruction, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, and there a little. Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light. Oh, how much good would be accomplished if the books containing this light were read with a determination to carry out the principles they contain! There would be a thousandfold greater vigilance, a thousandfold more self-denial and resolute effort. And many more would now be rejoicing in the light of present truth. {CM 125.2}

You can also find it in the other compilations Evangelism and Selected Messages. The White Estates new search engine lists the Evangelism (1946) quote as:

--The Greater and Lesser Lights—Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light.—The Colporteur Evangelist, 37. (1902) {Ev 257.1}

What one notices when searching the Ellen White writings is that most of the references seemed to be only found in compilations. Looking through White Estate search engines for Colporteur Evangelist the book is displayed but it does not give a date. One website has a version as a PDF which indicates that the Colporteur Evangelist is a compilation, though PDF version is dated 1950. As it turns out the Coporteur Evangelsist is not from 1902 but selected from another compilation the Manual for Canvassers, (see here )

“Through the years, guidance in publishing and circulating our literature has been given through the pen of Ellen G. White. In these counsels the selling of our truth-filled books and papers is elevated to a work comparable to that of the gospel ministry. The seller of books is seen as a colporteur evangelist.”

“In 1902 A number of statements from the pen of Mrs. White relating to our colporteur ministry were assembled and published in Manual for Canvassers. Subsequent Ellen G. White counsels on our literature ministry led to an enlargement of this work, and in 1920 the much loved Colporteur Evangelist appeared. This little work has been published in many languages and has been widely circulated.”

Of all of these compilations: Colporteur Ministries , Evangelism, and the earlier Colporter Evangelist only Selected Messages Book 3 listed the actual reference to the published quote where Ellen White presumably sets herself as the lesser light (there are also a few lesser known compilations but they also do not list the source). If she intended to be thought of as the lesser light it is strange that other Adventist writers of her time did not refer to her as a lesser light.. It appears to be a product of the editors of the compilations an attempt to redirect possible critics of Ellen White by the compilations. All compilations are the work of the White Estate as per Ellen White's last will and testament.

The Ellen G. White® Estate, Incorporated, is an organization created by the last will and testament of Ellen G. White to act as her agent in the custody of her writings, handling her properties, "conducting the business thereof," "securing the printing of new translations," and the "printing of compilations from my manuscripts." Her will, dated Feb. 9, 1912

It turns out that the quote came from The Review and Herald, January 20, 1903 (also published in some other Adventist periodicals within a year or two):

Many more of our larger books might have been sold if church members had been awake to the importance of the truths these books contain, and had realized their responsibility to circulate them. My brethren and sisters, will you not now make an effort to circulate these books? and will you not bring into this effort the enthusiasm that you brought into the effort to sell "Christ's Object Lessons"? In selling this book many have learned how to handle the larger books. They have obtained an experience that has prepared them to enter the canvassing field.

Sister White is not the originator of these books. They contain the instruction that during her life-work God has been giving her. They contain the precious, comforting light that God has graciously given his servant to be given to the world. From their pages this light is to shine into the hearts of men and women, leading them to the Saviour. The Lord has declared that these books are to be scattered throughout the world. There is in them truth which to the receiver is a savor of life unto life. They are silent witnesses for God. In the past they have been the means in his hands of convicting and converting many souls. Many have read them with eager expectation, and, by reading them, have been led to see the efficacy of Christ's atonement, and to trust in its power. They have been led to commit the keeping of their souls to their Creator, waiting and hoping for the coming of the Saviour to take his loved ones to their eternal home. In the future, these books are to make the gospel plain to many others, revealing to them the way of salvation.

The Lord has sent his people much instruction, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, and there a little. Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light. O, how much good would be accomplished if the books containing this light were read with a determination to carry out the principles they contain! There would be a thousandfold greater vigilance, a thousandfold more self-denial and resolute effort. And many more would now be rejoicing in the light of present truth.

My brethren and sisters, work earnestly to circulate these books. Put your hearts into this work, and the blessing of God will be with you. Go forth in faith, praying that God will prepare hearts to receive the light. Be pleasant and courteous. Show by a consistent course that you are true Christians. Walk and work in the light of heaven, and your path will be as the path of the just, shining more and more unto the perfect day.

We can see from the quote in context that Ellen White is claiming that she did not originate these books but that she is presenting the God given instruction she received. Further it is God who declares that these books should be scattered throughout the world. The instruction is attributed to God as is the instruction to scatter the books, it is not instruction she received from the Bible. It is instruction she received during her lifetime from God Himself, according to her own writing.

But in the contemporary Adventist world which is careful to try and not appear to be a cult they have thought to redact the quote into the idea that Ellen White is a lesser light meant to lead us to the scriptures. As the following quote from Tim Poirier was used in the article Ellen G. White and Sola Scriptura Merlin D. Burt in dialog with the Presbyterian Church USA (Seventh-day Adventist Church and Presbyterian Church USA Conversation Office of the General Assembly PC (USA) Louisville, KY August 23, 2007)

Ellen White used analogy to describe the relationship of her writings to scripture. She wrote that “little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light.”20 The “greater light-lesser light” comparison suggested that “just as the moon derives its light from the sun and reflects only what that source emits, so her messages are seen as deriving their authority from scripture, serving only to mirror the principles presented therein.”21 (21 Poirier, “Contemporary Prophecy,” 16)

To get to that point however you have to forget about the rest of the context of the quote. In context the greater light...the source of light would be God, Ellen White would be reflecting the light she received from God thus her writing become a lesser light, the greater light being God. For example she wrote:

Christ makes no apology when he declares, "I am the Light of the world." He was, in life and teaching, the gospel, the foundation of all pure doctrine. Just as the sun compares with the lesser lights in the heavens, so did Christ, the source of all light, compare with the teachers of his day. He was before them all; and shining with the brightness of the sun, he diffused his penetrating, gladdening rays throughout the world. (Youth Instructor.1897-09-16.004)

Anyone that receives light from God and then processes it through their speaking or writing would then be a reflector of the light of God. That is the obvious implications of the quote in context but what of the idea that her writings derive their authority from scripture and therefore are meant to point us back to scripture?

We don't have to go very far to test that idea we can do it directly from the material we saw in the Review and Herald quote. So let us ask the question where in the scriptures do we find God telling us to scatter the writings of Ellen White throughout the world? Of course we don't so what about scattering the writings of any Prophet to the world? Again the answer is no. Paul passed his writings on and some of the other New Testament writers likely distributed their letters to several places. But again that was not some instruction of God recorded someone in the New Testament. One could say that scattering the books is simply spreading the gospel therefore scattering the books of Ellen White or anyone else who talks about God or claims their writings lead people to God should have their books scattered throughout the world. I would like my writings to be scattered throughout the world also, but I can't say that is what the Bible tells me to do or that it is what the Lord has declared.

A second test we could use is found in the King James quote Ellen White uses from Isaiah:

Isaiah 28:8-13 NIV:

All the tables are covered with vomit and there is not a spot without filth. "Who is it he is trying to teach? To whom is he explaining his message? To children weaned from their milk, to those just taken from the breast? For it is: Do and do, do and do, rule on rule, rule on ruleⁿ; a little here, a little there." Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues God will speak to this people, to whom he said, "This is the resting place, let the weary rest"; and, "This is the place of repose"-- but they would not listen. So then, the word of the LORD to them will become: Do and do, do and do, rule on rule, rule on rule; a little here, a little there-- so that they will go and fall backward, be injured and snared and captured.

This verse in context is not a description of how to study the Bible or any of the component parts of the Bible. As the Expositor's Bible Commentary states:

9-10 As the prophet declared the word of God in this drink-dominated setting, his hearers made their response. The NIV is probably right in treating both these verses as a quotation of the words of the drunkards. They felt insulted. Were they not themselves spiritual leaders, well able to teach others? What right had this man to place them in the classroom and teach them the spiritual ABC's? There is some thing ironic about the reference to milk (v. 9) in such a context.

Many commentators have been puzzled by v. 10 and have wrestled to make sense of the Hebrew. The truth of the matter seems to be, as the NIV margin suggests, that it is not meant to make sense. Isaiah's words had hardly penetrated the alcohol -impregnated atmosphere that surrounded his hearers. What they picked up were simply a few stray syllables, some of them repeated, like the baby-talk that delights the child but would insult the adult. They mouth this gibberish back at the prophet. The transmitter was as strong and clear as ever; it was the receivers that were at fault. Their judgment, meantime, lay in their failure to hear the word that could have led them back to God; but there was another judgment on its way, most appropriate in its form. Their sin had turned the word of God through Isaiah into a meaningless noise that might just as well have been a foreign language.

See an article on the myth of precept upon precept line upon line

We can grant that Ellen White held to a Christian tradition with her use of the precept by precept quote but it is something that has been taken out of context and given a meaning that is not really true for how to study anything let alone the Bible. In fact if one does that they can simply take from here or there a precept or a line and add it to another line or precept. Context or meaning would just be obstacles we overcome with a bit of editing here and there.

Ellen White has several quotes on the importance and use of the Bible. Like most all other Christians she affirms it should be the standard for faith and practice. In fact she claims it is because people don't study their Bibles that they need her writings:

I took the precious Bible and surrounded it with the several Testimonies for the Church, given for the people of God. Here, said I, the cases of nearly all are met. The sins they are to shun are pointed out. The counsel that they desire can be found here, given for other cases situated similarly to themselves. God has been pleased to give you line upon line and precept upon precept. But there are not many of you that really know what is contained in the Testimonies. You are not familiar with the Scriptures. If you had made God’s word your study, with a desire to reach the Bible standard and attain to Christian perfection, you would not have needed the Testimonies. It is because you have neglected to acquaint yourselves with God’s inspired Book that He has sought to reach you by simple, direct testimonies, calling your attention to the words of inspiration which you had neglected to obey, and urging you to fashion your lives in accordance with its pure and elevated teachings. (Testimonies for the Church Volume 2 page 605)

If one thought that people were not studying their Bibles and the Bible was the central source for truth should not the emphasis have been upon the Bible rather then further testimonies? Do we really need Ellen White to mis-define the Bible for us or to add vast quantities of information that the Bible never mentions. Consider the picture on the Sabbath School Lesson Study guide for the first quarter of 2003, a painting of Adam and Eve offering a Sacrifice. Is that a story found in the Bible? Of course not, it is widely held by Christians however and as such one of the many additions that Ellen White writes about as if it was found in the Bible. Traditions added to the Bible by Ellen White are still only traditions, they don't become Bible truth...or they should not but as we all know for many Adventists once Ellen White said something it becomes as good as Bible truth.

Still we find a bit of a conflict within Ellen White herself when she talks about her writings. In a Manuscript Release published well after her death we read this quote:

How can the Lord bless those who manifest a spirit of “I don’t care,” a spirit which leads them to walk contrary to the light which the Lord has given them. But I do not ask you to take my words. Lay Sister White to one side. Do not quote my works again as long as you live until you can obey the Bible. When you make the Bible your food, your meat and your drink, when you make its principles the elements of your character, you will know better how to receive counsel from God. I exalt the precious word before you today. Do not repeat what I have said, saying, “Sister White said this,” and, “Sister White said that.” Find out what the Lord God of Israel says, and then do what He commands.—Ms 43, 1901, p. 10. (E. G. White talk in college library, April 1, 1901.) {5MR 141.1 Manuscript Releases Vol 5}

Or more acurately as the Spalding Magan collection states:

(Verbatim report of remarks by Mrs. E. G. White, at a meeting held in Battle Creek College library, April 1, at the General Conference of 1901.) {SpM 162.3}

Lay Sister White right to one side: lay her to one side. Don’t you never quote my words again as long as you live, until you can obey the Bible. When you take the Bible and make that your food, and your meat, and your drink, and make that the elements of your character, when you can do that you will know better how to receive some counsel from God. But here is the Word, the precious Word, exalted before you today. And don’t you give a rap any more what “Sister White said”—“Sister White said this,” and “Sister White said that,” and “Sister White said the other thing.” But say, “Thus saith the Lord God of Israel,” and then you do just what the Lord God of Israel does, and what he says.

Christ says, “I do the works of my Father. The works that I saw him do, I do.” Now the works and the sentiments and the principles that we have seen, that God has manifest in dealing with one another, the the purchase of the blood of Christ - only think of it {SpM 167.2}

In one place she says that her “testimonies” were intended “because you have neglected to acquaint yourselves with God’s inspired Book that He has sought to reach you by simple, direct testimonies...”(1871) and much later saying don't quote Sister White until you can obey the Bible (1901). Of course there will be apologist who seek to reconcile the statements just as there are apologists for politicians who present conflicting ideas at different times. Then there is the question of what does it mean to obey the Bible? Is obeying the law the same as obeying the Bible and which law is required to be obeyed?

Notice the next line, it was a talk or sermon so it may or may not be another paragraph of thought or a continuation but she says; Christ says, “I do the works of my Father. The works that I saw him do, I do.” If you know your Bible you will realize that nowhere is that quote or idea found. The closest Bible verse is John 10:37 and it is not that similar When you read Ellen White you can't help but wonder is she leading you to the Bible or trying to lead you to her interpretation of the Bible. Her understanding being what she thinks God has instructed her somehow through her lifetime. Because honestly you don't get many of the things that Ellen White proclaims from the Bible. Read the first few chapters of the book Patriarchs and Prophets with your Bible and see how most of what she says is found nowhere in the Bible.

The final point is one that I have asked a few people, if Ellen White is meant to lead people to the Bible and people already agree that they should be getting their doctrine from the Bible why would they need Ellen White at all? If I choose not to accept Ellen White as a prophet but accept the Bible as God given inspiration why is it a problem to disagree with Ellen Whites writings or ideas? If I believe the Bible why do I need to believe her additions to the Bible? If her purpose was to lead to the Bible why would she need to be thought of as the Adventist fundamental belief 18 states: “As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction...” Because frankly Ellen White's writings don't really make it clear that “the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested.” After all she is not even claiming the books are from her but are from God. Was God so confused when inspiring the Genesis and Exodus stories that he could not tell us how God taught Adam and Eve how to make sacrifices and that the sacrifices were to be a symbol of the coming Messiah, let alone forget all about it on the more technical books that describe in details sacrifices and temple rituals and equipment? It does not seem likely, it seems more likely that God led people with ever increasing knowledge, a progressive process, which is much different from the regressive process which would have to exist if all these early Bible characters knew all the things that Ellen White says they knew.

If you claim she is a lesser light, you can't possibly mean a lesser light to the Bible with all the additions and explanations she adds to the Bible, it simply makes no sense, at least if you hold her as a continuing and authoritative source of truth. It might be conceivable as a lesser light if one held her as a commentator fallible and subject to errors of interpretation and over emphasis on traditions, but that is not how Adventism treats Ellen White at all. After all what other commentator claims that their writings are from God?

More on Ellen White as Lesser Light

2011-07-02T17:14:00.000-07:00

In March of 2011 I wrote an article entitled Ellen White as Lesser Light intentional confusion? In the article I set forth the disturbing teaching that Ellen White saw her writings as a lesser light meant to lead people to the greater light the Bible. I began the article with an illustration from some Adventist material using the following quote (see this link for the entire quote I used):

“Ellen White always made it clear that she was the lesser light leading to the greater light of God’s Word. I can see in her writings that she was only seeking to bring people to God and did not want to lift herself up above the Bible or call attention to herself.”

I then pointed out my research that showed the quote used, was from a compilation, that is it is a later redacted statement made by editors and not by the original author. To my surprise in the Summer 2011 issue of Adventist Today there is an article by J. David Newman entitled Is Ellen White Really a Lesser Light?

In this article he states in the fourth paragraph:

Ellen White herself called her writings a “lesser light” to lead people to the greater light— the Bible.4 There is a growing trend in the Adventist denomination today to make Ellen White the infallible interpreter of Scripture. See, for example, The Remnant Study Bible, in which the words of Ellen White are interleaved with the words of the Bible.5

4Ellen G. White, Colporteur Ministry, p. 125.

As you can see Newman also uses the compilation quote to make his case, he uses the 1953 compilation Colporteur Ministry. I had actually thought perhaps Newman would have read my blog since I did have an extended series of email conversations with him last year. If he had read my article linked above he could have saved himself some embarrassment, or at least knew where to point for the actual published material that was originally used to make the compilation quote. Of course once you do that you are forced to realize that it makes no sense to say that all of those Ellen G. White books are meant to point a person back to the Bible.

However today I had an interesting experience at Sabbath School which further points out the fiction that Ellen White intended her writings to lead people back to the Bible. In the class a dear follower of Ellen White read some quotes from her handy Ellen White book to show us that in the Cain and Abel story both brothers had been instructed from their youth by Adam and Eve how to offer sacrifices to God. That in fact, not only the method of sacrifices was described to them but also the ultimate future fulfillment of the symbolism of the sacrifices, something which of course the Genesis story says nothing about or any later writing of the Old Testament explains the sacrificial system as prefiguring the coming Messiah.

But how could it be that Ellen White's purpose was to draw people back to the Bible as the greater light when the vast quantity of her extra biblical information would not be found in the Bible and if not found in the Bible it should not be used for faith and practice?

Much later in his article, which covered far more then the lesser light question Newman writes:

“How does this apply to Ellen G. White? We have seen that she makes it clear that the Bible is the sole rule of faith and practice, that everything is to be judged by the Bible, and that she is a lesser light to lead people to the greater light. Now a lesser light cannot be equal to a greater light. And if Ellen White is to be tested by the Bible, we cannot then turn around and make Ellen White the determiner of what Scripture means.” page 17

In the practice of Adventism this is precisely what happens. It happens because she is held to be a spiritual addition to the Bible. But in all honesty we can't go around saying that someone is directing people back to the Bible by adding volumes of information to the Bible stories. And she does it over and over again. The whole purpose of the original quote...not the compilation quote, the actual author's words is about the importance of spreading her books, not spreading the Bible.

As my earlier article said about the original quote:

It turns out that the quote came from The Review and Herald, January 20, 1903:
Many more of our larger books might have been sold if church members had been awake to the importance of the truths these books contain, and had realized their responsibility to circulate them. My brethren and sisters, will you not now make an effort to circulate these books? and will you not bring into this effort the enthusiasm that you brought into the effort to sell "Christ's Object Lessons"? In selling this book many have learned how to handle the larger books. They have obtained an experience that has prepared them to enter the canvassing field.
Sister White is not the originator of these books. They contain the instruction that during her life-work God has been giving her. They contain the precious, comforting light that God has graciously given his servant to be given to the world. From their pages this light is to shine into the hearts of men and women, leading them to the Saviour. The Lord has declared that these books are to be scattered throughout the world. There is in them truth which to the receiver is a savor of life unto life. They are silent witnesses for God. In the past they have been the means in his hands of convicting and converting many souls. Many have read them with eager expectation, and, by reading them, have been led to see the efficacy of Christ's atonement, and to trust in its power. They have been led to commit the keeping of their souls to their Creator, waiting and hoping for the coming of the Saviour to take his loved ones to their eternal home. In the future, these books are to make the gospel plain to many others, revealing to them the way of salvation.
The Lord has sent his people much instruction, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, and there a little. Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light. O, how much good would be accomplished if the books containing this light were read with a determination to carry out the principles they contain! There would be a thousandfold greater vigilance, a thousandfold more self-denial and resolute effort. And many more would now be rejoicing in the light of present truth.
My brethren and sisters, work earnestly to circulate these books. Put your hearts into this work, and the blessing of God will be with you. Go forth in faith, praying that God will prepare hearts to receive the light. Be pleasant and courteous. Show by a consistent course that you are true Christians. Walk and work in the light of heaven, and your path will be as the path of the just, shining more and more unto the perfect day.

Two things we can learn from this. First the compilers are not too particular about accuracy and pointing to the original source material in compilations, for whatever reasons. The second is that when you read it in context you see that the lesser light is a reference not to Ellen White as lesser to the Bible but that she is acting as the reflector of the light she is given by God. Which fits in with her earlier statements such as...”

I applaud J. David Newman's attempt to bring back some sanity to Adventism with regard to Ellen White. However we have to be historically accurate and honest with what Ellen White actually said. The problem with doing that is that it shows ultimately that she was not ever a prophet, in either the Old or New Testament sense of the word. Adventism has dug itself into and EGW hole where her words have taken over the Bible. In fact the Adventist denomination is about to rewrite one of its fundamental beliefs so that there is no possible room for rationalization by those who understand the scientific evidence for the age of the earth and the actually evidence of evolution in life. The new statement is likely to reflect the new President of the Adventist church Ted Wilson views: “God created this world in six literal, consecutive, contiguous, 24-hour days of recent origin.” Because Ellen White claims to have seen the creation in vision we can no longer accept the possibility for the Genesis account to have been metaphor or allegorical, even though to make any sense at all they really must be metaphors or allegory (see my article on Adam's Psychology). But since we have all the additions from Ellen White we lose all the possible other methods of interpreting the text. Because an extra biblical authority has inserted new truth...new light into what was supposed to be God inspired material. You really can't have it both ways however, did God really screw up and forget to tell us all this important information?

There is nothing in Newman's article to save us from the self deceit of accepting a false messenger of God as it perpetuates myths. I am not to saying that Ellen White had malicious intent, only that she was deluded herself, something that happens to far too many of us. And when deluded people tend to repeat the things they have heard and believed without really looking critically at them, such as the quote taken from the compilation that Newman used to spread a rather purposely originally false statement about Ellen White. Myth takes on the cloak of truth, because people repeat and embrace when they should be asking questions and examining issues and testing their beliefs. We as a church are all the poorer.

Religion as social club

2011-06-25T17:03:00.000-07:00

I am wondering if there really is a difference between a religious church group and a social non-religious group. Is a religion just another form of social organization where people follow a generally prescribed set of opinions. The boundaries of opinions being set by the overall denomination out of the scores of different denominations. The social groups then holding together the wider dispersed denomination. The denomination leadership working to keep their overall group distinct from the other social organizations, the other denominations.

Now this would not seem to be a bad thing, as there are all kinds of social groups in existence but the religion claims a higher goal. That goal being to search and hold to truth. They do well on the holding onto what they think is truth part, but how well to they search for truth? Or could I be wrong and they are not searching for truth at all, rather, thinking they already have the truth.

Searching for truth involves testing and experimentation with different ideas and practices, that is not something that many church organizations seem to do much of it seems to me. For example when I used to go listen to sermons at my local church I would practically never hear anything new that stood up to the test of being true. Sure our Washington Conference brought a woman in to help teach people how to evangelize and she told us that the ancients tied lamps to their sandals hence the Psalmist famous quote, “thy word is a lamp unto my feet”. That indeed sounds like something new, it was news to me, but there was no truth behind it. No archaeological evidence no written descriptions, no half burned up sandals from the spilled oil. I would love to have seen her try to tie some lamps to her shoes and test out the theory however. But it does not stop these people who seem to be church organization leaders from telling these ridiculous things.

Just this last month I noticed John McLarty had to write the following to the North Pacific Union Gleaner:

“In his May editorial, Max Torkelson spoke of the good news that Jesus is coming again. In support of this good news, Torkelson quoted an "End Times Predictions" website that claims major earthquakes are increasing in frequency. However, according to the United States Geological Survey (which has credibility in the field of earth science comparable to that of the GAO in the realm of government or the CDC in the field of public health), the frequency of earthquakes has not increased over the last hundred years or so that systematic records have been kept.”

I know over the years on the Internet I have pointed out this same mis-information and pointed people to the scientific information from the USGS. But it seems in the church organization truth is ignored in favor of some pet belief. So maybe truth is really a casualty of religion just as in the societal groups that hold to astrology where the truth of planet alignment really has nothing at all to do with human behavior and that the planet positions or names but is assumed to have deep meaning. As the About.com article states:

These ideas were not, however, isolated - they were instead part and parcel of omens derived from entrails, oil dropped on the floor, birds flying in the sky, and more. As Will Durant observed of the Babylonians:

Never was a civilization richer in superstitions. Every turn of chance from the anomalies of birth to the varieties of death received a popular, sometimes an official and sacerdotal, interpretation in magical or supernatural terms ...The superstitions of Babylonia seem ridiculous to us, because they differ superficially from our own. There is hardly an absurdity of the past that cannot be found flourishing somewhere in the present.

Yet how often does the dating crowd ask someone what sign are you? It becomes a commonality a way of communicating, to get the conversation going. That is what is happening with the religion as well. Traditions and untruth are used to bring the conversation around to something that they believe even more deeply. But in religion many of those beliefs cannot be documented as true or false because we lack the ability to ascertain the future or all the aspects of the past so they must remain as beliefs. But if truth is important in a religion why is it so often ignored?

It seems that the search for truth may be one of those statements which is used as a tradition rather then as a meaningful statement. Because a religion should really want to be about truth just as much as tradition if not leaning more toward truth. But because truth interferes with tradition and presuppositions it seems to often be a fictitious piece of propaganda, we have the truth, we search for the truth, but don't ask us to really pay attention to the truth.

The Adventist church is on the cusp of dealing with the issue of science and truth with the controversy at La Sierra University and subsequently all other Adventist educational institutions. Will truth win over traditions...we will see, social clubs don't need truth after all.

Brain Dead Administation

2011-06-18T19:04:00.000-07:00

I think I have figured out the leadership of the Adventist church. Ah you may say no one can figure out their inscrutable minds. After all the Board Chairman at La Sierra University Ricardo Graham recently asked 4 people to resign after listening to a secret recording of their private conversations. As if private conversations should be supplied to employers for their use in deciding faculty and staff positions. You may think they would not want their words recorded and played back to their constituency. But I think they don't even think about that. It is to Clifford Goldstein that I owe this new understanding of Adventist leadership.

Here is the paragraph that led me to my new understanding:

“The dead, therefore, know no delay in the Second Coming. It’s we, the living, who fret over it, but only because we look from the wrong perspective, the perspective of the living. But that’s too narrow a view, because most people are dead a lot longer than they are alive. From  the perspective of the dead, things appear quite differently.”

You see if you have perspective of an active and thinking brain you act differently then someone who as Goldstein says in his article: “--what would death do to that experience when we have no brain function or, if dead long enough, no brain?”

So he wants people to look at the wider view of things. That view, that perspective, in his article is that of the inactive, non functioning, dead brain. Are you getting the picture? The goal of the Adventist leadership is to have the wider view of things. The perspective of the dead with no thoughts and no brain. What is the perspective of someone with no brain; normally being brain dead is not a something to be desired but it appears to be good and we are to emulate it and it does appear that the administration at La Sierra University are doing their best not to think. Strange how not thinking and fundamentalism go together, but that is the subject for another day.

When logical become Traditional

2011-06-06T17:45:00.000-07:00

There was an interesting discussion in our Sabbath School class recently. It was posited by one or two of the members that in the Genesis story of Cain and Abel it is logical to assume that God had instructed the brothers upon how to present offering to God. What I found interesting about this attempt to retell the Genesis story is that it conflates logical with traditional. First is it logical to assume facts not present in a story? Well yes to a certain degree, we could assume that when telling a story about human beings that the humans breathe air, they carry on the same physiological activities as any other human. That we could say is a logical assumption. Now are we still in the land of logical assumptions if in the Cain and Abel story we assume that angels came by and told them how to turn lead into gold? We would say no that is not in any way connected to the story it would not be logical.

The problem comes when we assume logical and really mean traditional. There is a long tradition of the assumption that Cain and Abel or even Adam and Eve were taught about offerings and sacrifices. The traditions of the sacrificial system are assumed to be present in these stories because the sacrifices later on played an important role in the Jewish tradition. Then when Christianity saw Jesus as the focus of the sacrificial system they redefined the stories to make Jesus included in the assumptions of sacrifice instructions which were never referred to in the Genesis stories at all.

Thus what was traditional…the long standing assumptions move into the realm of logical. The two become one even though they are very different. This becomes a real problem when we seek to understand the ancient stories and what they originally intended to convey. Traditions can so color the story as to make it practically unrecognizable. We see this more clearly when we examine how the Midrash adds to the story:

And Cain had words with Abel his brother (4:8)
About what did they quarrel? "Come," said they, "let us divide the world." Cain took the land, and Abel took other the movables (the cattle). Said Cain: "The land you stand on is mine"; retorted Abel, "The clothes you are wearing are mine." One said: "Strip!"; the other said "Fly!" Out of this quarrel, Cain rose up against his brother Abel.

Rabbi Joshua of Siknin said in Rabbi Levi's name: Both took land and both took movables, but about what did they quarrel? One said: "The Holy Temple must be built in my area," while the other claimed, "It must be built in mine."

Judah ben Ami said: Their quarrel was over the first Eve. Said Rabbi Aibu: The first Eve had returned to dust. Then about what was their quarrel? Said Rabbi Huna: An additional twin was born with Abel and each claimed her. (According to the Midrash, twin sisters were born together with Cain and Abel for them to marry--one with Cain and two with Abel.) The one claimed: "I will have her, because I am the firstborn"; while the other maintained: "She is mine, because she was born with me."(Midrash Rabbah)

You can move anything into the realm of tradition. But logic on the other hand has to have some contextual certainty. It requires reliable inference and that is much different from traditions and assumptions that produce traditions. With assumptions you can create a completely different story then the one that was written down. It may have good lessons or it may have absurd lessons. But if you want to know what the story was trying to say you have to limit your assumptions to the information provided and this becomes very difficult when tradition trades places with logic.

Guest Review of Rob Bell's new book

2011-06-03T10:49:00.000-07:00

Love Wins, But Always?

In Rob Bell’s best seller, Love Wins: A Book about Heaven, Hell, and The Fate of Every Person Who Every Lives, the writer raises questions which have rocked the Christian world and have been discussed on the internet, TV shows, religious columns, and many Christian Bible studies. No matter what one believes, as a Christian about either Heaven or Hell and the afterlife, this book brings those questions to the forefront and are back of almost every Christian belief. This is only one of the very provocative questions he has dared to ask: “Will only Christians be saved?” This was prompted by a scrawled not underneath Gandhi’s picture in an art show of prominent peacemakers: “He’s in Hell.”

Seriously, what is the common Christian belief? How can we be sure? What must one do, be, or perform to qualify for entrance to the Pearly Gates? Is it dependent on one’s parents? The country of your birth? Making the right choices during your life? How much control do we really have over our parents, our birthplace, or our early environment that plays such a pivotal role in our attitude?

If one dies very suddenly is there any hope if he may not have been baptized into the Christian faith? Is that what Christians believe? Or, is it based on one’s personal relationship with Christ? Even though there is never such a phrase in the entire Bible?

The age-old questions “What must I do to be saved?” Is answered by sheer luck of being born in the right place, at the right time, to the right parents, and to good environment. If that is true, then my eternal future is in the hands of others.

Or, is it solely on my belief in Jesus’ blood that has saved me? How is this to be applied?

What conditions are necessary for me to be assured?

Nowhere in the Hebrew Bible is there promised a future eternal life; they did not talk of a future life somewhere else because they anticipated a coming day when the world would be restored, renewed, and redeemed and there would be peace on earth.

Jesus was the first to speak of Heaven as eternal life when asked of the young ruler who was most anxious to be assured. In Jesus’ reply he said that one day when God’s will would be done on earth as is now done in heaven, that earth and heaven will be one.

Surely, this question is one of the most important of all questions Christianity has been asked. If Christians cannot be certain of what the future holds, why be a Christian?

Since first they were introduced into the Christian lexicon, heaven and hell have been central to their mission. Are they literal places? Was the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus merely a metaphor for telling men that we must show mercy to others?

Is the Devil the one in charge of Hell and God is in charge of Heaven? When did the concept of Heaven as the home of the saved originate? Or that Hell was reserved for the most devious of humans? How much of the concept of Hell and Heaven were influenced by both ancient and more recent writers? Both John Milton and Dante described these two abodes of humans: Milton described Paradise in his epic poem Paradise Lost and Dante wrote the Divine Comedy portraying Hell, Purgatory and Heaven. This poem had an enormous influence on Christian thinking and was incorporated into Christian theology.

One of the most famous Bible verses in found in John 3:16: “For God so loved this world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him should not , perish but have everlasting life.” What is often forgotten and seldom read are the two verses following: “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him.”

This is the overriding theme in Bell’s book: according to the book of Timothy, “God wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2). And in Hebrews, the writer says: “God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear“ (chap. 6).

What did the writer of the letter to the Philippians mean when he wrote “Every knee should bow…and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord”? and Peter says that Jesus will “restore everything” (Acts 3), and Paul writes in Colossians 1 that through Christ “God was pleased to….reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven.”

On to Revelation: in the last chapters, the gates of that city in that new world will “never shut.” Gates are for keeping people in and keeping people out. If the gates are never shut, then people are free to come and go. When, in that book, God is saying that He will make all things new, does that mean everything, including people?

What did Jesus mean when he said “I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen” (John 10).

In the parables of the prodigal son and the worker who only worked one hour compared to those who had worked all day, it demonstrates that in Jesus’ kingdom, people will get what they don’t deserve.

Bell asks deeply unsettling questions for those who have been so secure in their beliefs of who will make up heaven’s inhabitants: Does this sound familiar? “Millions have been taught that if they don’t believe, if they don’t accept in the right way, that is the way the person telling them the gospel does, and they were hit by a car and died later that same day, God would have no choice but to punish them forever. God would, in essence, become a fundamentally different being to them in that moment of death, a different being to them forever. A loving heavenly father who will go to extraordinary lengths to have a relationship with his child would, in the blink of an eye, become a cruel, mean, vicious tormenter.”

If there was an earthly father who was like that, we would call the authorities. And yet millions of Christians have been taught this very belief and converted millions based on this fear. Has there been a bit of schadenfreud in Adventism that goes like this:
‘
“Those people out there may be going to parties and appearing to have fun while the rest of us do ‘God’s work,’ but someday we’ll go to heaven, where we won’t have to do anything, and they’ll go to hell, where they’ll get theirs” This is the same sentiment expressed by the elder brother when he was so angry because his father welcomed the prodigal son with open arms.

If God’s love is so small, so parsimonious that only those who have joined with the “elect” will be invited to heaven, that god has become much too small to redeem the world; to build mansions to be inhabited; to extend his welcoming arms to his children.

That can only mean that for those who believe this,:their God is far too small, and deserves no worship and adoration. Like the Wizard of Oz, that god is a very small image of our own making.
　

Government against Healthcare

2011-05-14T20:24:00.000-07:00

With all the talk of the government's attempt at taking over healthcare it is important to consider some of the history of how government actually increases healthcare costs.

For a number of years Colchicine has been used to treat gout flares up. A painful Uric Acid accumulation in the joints. Often the condition is caused by the overuse of doctors prescribing diuretics, at least that is what I have personally seen in various people I have known.

In 2008 the cost of a Colchicine pill was about 9 cents. Then the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) got involved. In 2009 the FDA granted Colchicine approval for the treatment of gout. As Wikipedia says: “In 2009, the FDA approved colchicine for gout flares, awarding Colcrys a three-year term of market exclusivity”. The FDA granted the exclusivity on a drug that predated the FDA. This is much different from other instances where a pharmaceutical company researches and develops a drug which they then hold the patent to for a number of years. In this case the drug was made by various companies and was for all intents and purposes a generic drug. Now, one has to wonder under what Constitutional authority the FDA has the right to restrict and grant exclusivity for a drugs of long use. It is not a safety issue or a purity issue which are under the FDA's mandate.

We all have to wonder about what kind of lobbying went on between URL Pharma and the officials at the FDA. But we have to remember that is how much of our government works now. For instance the Obama Healthcare Bill was not from President Obama. He declared all kinds of things about his plan but he never had a plan. It was not even from the Congress and Senators who claimed they were working on the healthcare bill. It was substantially put together by staffers and lobbyists. As America's Watchtower writes:

Much has been made about the politicians who voted in favor of the healthcare reform legislation without actually knowing what was in it because they didn’t even bother to read what they were voting on, but this takes the cake. Max Baucus is credited with writing the unpopular legislation but at a recent public meeting–when confronted with the question of whether or not he read the healthcare bill–Max Baucus admitted that he had not read the healthcare reform bill before voting on it.

When lobbists and money grubbing people get together the consumer is last on their list of concerns. Colcrys the Colchincine drug rose in price from 9 cents per pill to about 5 dollars per pill. Because the FDA acting as king maker gave the rights to a company and took rights away from manufacturer's. True the company did some research on dosages. Nothing that any University could not easily do for not too much money. It might be within the FDA position to issue a grant for such study but not really to hand out the right of creating the drug to one pharmaceutical company.

The New England Journal of Medicine wrote an article on this atrocity and the good folks at URL Pharma wrote a reply which is almost laughable. One of the things they write is the following:

NEJM: “After the FDA approved Colcrys, the manufacturer brought a lawsuit seeking to remove any other versions of colchicine from the market and raised the price by a factor of more than 50, from $0.09 per pill to $4.85 per pill.4 These increased prices directly affect the availability of the drug to patients with gout or FMF who have long been using colchicine safely in an evidence-based manner.”

URL Pharma Response: This statement is untrue. Our Patient Assistance Program protects virtually every patient and is one of the most generous programs ever offered by the pharmaceutical industry. It is only individuals with income greater than 600% of the Federal Poverty Level, who decide to not purchase health insurance, that are not covered for their Colcrys purchases. Also, it is false and misleading to state that we “raised the price” as there was no price for an approved colchicine product prior to Colcrys. The price of a safe, legal, FDA-approved drug, backed by research, discovery, and the financial risks and intellectual commitment to achieve such advancements, cannot be compared to that of an illegal, unapproved product. As shown above, anecdotal information cannot be relied upon as medical evidence, and doing so endangers patients. Additionally, 169 deaths, millions of cases of diarrhea, and other unnecessary toxic reactions do not constitute “using colchicine safely in an evidence-based manner.”

Of course if you check into the assistance program there are many hoops to jump through and it only works if your doctor and the pharmacist know how to do things to please the program. The pharmaceutical company is trying to appear generous with their windfall from the Federal government.

There are probably numerous such examples. I know of some things that would be changed to work more efficiently with some medically related equipment but any change in the equipment even if they had nothing at all to do with the care the patient got would have to run the whole device through the long FDA approval process again. Bureaucracies move slowly and seek to maintain their bureaucracy. If you think it will streamline or cut medical costs you are only kidding yourself. Sadly this is your government at work, not helping the consumer but the pharmaceutical company.

Faith is Accepting the Grace of God

2011-05-06T22:08:00.000-07:00

Most people when they think of faith think of a belief in something or someone. Something that is not fully happened yet so it can't be claimed to be a reality yet it is something that is expected to occur. We have faith that the building we are in will not simply collapse on us. Just as that faith in the building is either based upon our visual perceptions or our confidence in the builders and the inspectors and the host of people involved in creating a building, faith is never based upon just beliefs it should always be based upon evidence.

This frustrates many traditional type Christians. I was led to the following quote of Ravi Zacharias from a comment on Spectrum, (an open letter to Educate Truth). The commenter said of tand article by someone who used the Ravi Zacharias quote; “He mocks the "blind faith" of Christians, relying on the writings of Ravi Zacharias, a critic of the Bible.” Here is some of what Zacharias wrote:

If a pastor says, “All we need is the Bible,” what does he say to a man who says, “All I need is the Quran”? It is a solipsistic method of arguing.

The pastor is saying, “All I need is my own point of reference and nothing more than that.” Even the gospel was verified by external references. The Bible is a book of history, a book of geography, not just a book of spiritual assertions.

The fact is the resurrection from the dead was the ultimate proof that in history — and in empirically verifiable means — the Word of God was made certain. Otherwise, the experience on the Mount of Transfiguration would have been good enough. But the apostle Peter says in 2 Peter 1:19: “We have the Word of the prophets made more certain … as to a light shining in a dark place.” He testified to the authority and person of Christ, and the resurrected person of Christ.

To believe, “All we need is the Bible and nothing more,” is what the monks believed in medieval times, and they resorted to monasteries. We all know the end of that story. This argument may be good enough for those who are convinced the Bible is authority. The Bible, however, is not authoritative in culture or in a world of counter-perspectives. To say that it is authoritative in these situations is to deny both how the Bible defends itself and how our young people need to defend the Bible’s sufficiency.

There is little point in giving quotes from the blind faith side of things because they have nothing to stand upon aside from their tradition. Tradition may be good, bad or indifferent but if it is not inquired about it has tremendous potential for harm. A few examples of harmful traditions would include these:

...”[F]female circumcision/genital mutilation, facial scarring, the force-feeding of women, early or forced marriage, nutritional taboos, traditional practices associated with childbirth, dowry-related crimes, honor crimes, and the consequences of son preference...”

Faith is not based upon tradition, it is not a product of blind choice and it is not merely the assumptions that what you hope for will happen or what you can't see is there. When the Bible says: Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. Hebrews 11:1it is an expression of the results of faith not the reason for the faith. As the Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary says:

“Instead, he treats faith with reference to the future. It is that trust in God that enables believers to press on steadfastly whatever the future holds for them. They know that they can rely on God. So the writer's method is to select some of the great people in the history of God's people and to show briefly how faith motivated all of them and led them forward, no matter how difficult the circumstances.”

Faith was based upon their understanding of God, their experience with God, tradition may have been involved but it is only one part of the overall experience and knowledge, information and reality that creates the understanding of God as someone who can be trusted, someone who is a friend and not an enemy.

Few of us would be so foolish as to say we believe in anything by blind faith. Religion seems to be the one clear exception...well perhaps certain conspiracy theories as well. But generally it is not seen as a reasonable position to base anything on blind faith. What happens in traditional Christianity however is that traditional understanding and practices of Biblical interpretation become the excuse to accept blind faith. If someone uses different techniques to interpret the Bible so that it does not conflict with scientific reality, the traditionalist scoffs at the more reasoned explanation.

But the traditionalist does not want to admit that his faith is in a particular form of Bible interpretation technique, so instead they will say that they are simply following the Bible, or the plain reading of the Bible. Thus if you disagree or have a different interpretation you are going against the Bible in their view. If reason, history, science or any other form of reality disagrees with their interpretation they assert their fidelity to the Bible by which they mean their traditional interpretation of the Biblical texts.

Faith is not found in methods of Bible interpretation, it is not found in tradition, it is based upon the reality of the historical person of Jesus Christ as the incarnation of God. A revelation of the love and acceptance of even His enemies and His power over death and His promises of reconciliation. Faith is built on evidence and it is only faith in God, not interpretations, because we can and historically have been wrong in interpretations. But faith is about who God is, Faith is the acceptance of the gracious character of our God. Other things may fail us but if our God is love, the love revealed by Christ then we have good reasons for belief in better things to come.

The Great Controversy Project

2011-04-19T16:53:00.000-07:00

There is a in some sectors of the Adventist Church a movement to freely distribute the Great Controversy. Their website states:

This is an exciting project and, while is still in its infancy, the results are nothing short of amazing; even more so because of your involvement! Already, well over one-hundred requests come in monthly for studies given through the Amazing Facts Ministries. Their study request cards are bound into the middle of the book making it easy for the reader to sign up for Bible or other studies. Almost 1 million homes have received The Great Controversy in the mail. Many have read it and accept the truth contained within. Many seek answers to the perplexing questions of our day and those events which are impacting our daily life. This book will awaken the masses to the approaching storm as it sheds much needed light on the impending conflict that lurks just over the horizon.

We are living in the most solemn period of this world's history. The destiny earth's teeming multitudes is about to be decided. Our own future well-being and also the salvation of others depend upon the course which we now pursue. Time is running out! Congress passed the hate crime bill (HR1913) and President Obama signed it into law October of 2009. This bill contains language that could very well make it a federal offense to publish and distribute this book (even though it mostly historical and can be verified at the local library) as it will be classified as hate propaganda by some special interest groups or individuals. Please join us in getting this book and its urgent message out to the masses...”

As many Adventist know the Ellen White book The Great Controversy was written in multiple versions and was revised in 1911 to acknowledge the numerous portions copied from other works. Those more familiar with history will also know that the history outlined in the book is questionable on many points regarding it's accuracy. Ellen White used many religious writers rather like Alexander Hislop did selecting writers that agreed with his assumptions but as with Hislop many of the sources were not reliable. For the Great Controversy Project to continue to propagate certain areas of misinformation a hundred years later is not a terribly wise course. (see below for a few examples of some of the material and problems from the proceeding link)

As you read the above quote you will notice that like the book itself they are hoping to capitalize on sensationalism. For instance the hate crime bill would have nothing at all to do with the publishing or distribution of the book. Hate crimes are the additional penalties placed upon violent crimes to add additional penalties. As the OpenCongress summary states:

This bill, previously introduced in Congress in 2007, seeks to expand upon the 1969 US federal hate-crime law by extending hate crime protections to bodily crimes motivated by a victim’s actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, in addition to the current protections for bodily crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived race, color, religion, and national origin. It would also codify and expand the funding and investigative capabilities of federal officials for aiding their local counterparts.

You can read the text of the bill and see that it does not deal with the publication of books. Perhaps if someone dumped a truck load of the books upon the body of some person then it would have some application but short of that the bill has nothing to do with limiting the publication or distribution of the book whether it was truly offensive or not.
The book apparently has an invitation to visit a website which starts off by saying this:

For your interest in learning why you received this book, "The Great Controversy"
You may be asking, "Who sent it", "Will I receive a bill?", "Who is the author?", "What can I learn from reading this book?"

This book was not written or sent to condemn anyone but to warn everyone about the deception used by powers to take away our liberties. It was no accident that you have received this free book and you will not receive a bill. It was sent by someone who cares for you. They want you to know about the coming storm and the challenges everyone is going to face. It is always best to love our neighbors above ourselves. Without the exercise of this love, the highest profession of faith is mere hypocrisy. The goal is only to enlighten people of a major storm that is brewing and the serious developments taking place. The wails of sorrow are heard from all around us. Take courage, for this book will help answer your life's questions.

When you continue to the next page where you would assume they would answer the question of who is the author you find information about how many pages the author wrote but not the name of the author. In fact you don't even find the name of the denomination that has sent out this book. Of course with the Internet it would be easy to find out the name of the author but the question is why the subterfuge and why not be up front with both the name of the author, the denomination and the fact that the denomination thinks this author is viewed as a Prophet by the denomination.

In fact Ellen White did want the widest exposure to the Great Controversy as the Great Controversy Project page says. But her views are certainly dated and the idea of a Roman Catholic resurgence of Medieval power is not very credible in a world now threatened by and even more immediate threat found in radical Islam. That does not mean that the final eschatological events will revolve around Muslim power any more then those in the 19^th century in America were so fearful of Roman Catholics. What it does do however is point us to the fact that what we think at any one time may not actually be an end time event at all.

Adventism and Christianity have to move past the desire to tell others what is going to happen, we have had no history of accuracy in predictions and Christianity has never been agreement in the various denominations about what the eschatology beliefs are. Each group thinking they are correct and each without any way to verify their views or prove the alternative views incorrect. Just become someone claims to be sharing the truth does not make it the truth and we have to recognize that beliefs without evidence is not truth. The philosophy of Christianity is far more important then eschatology and the focus of Adventism must shift to the heart of Christianity and away from sectarian predictions.

*
A few examples of the type of material that makes up a good deal of the Great Controversy book:

Chapter 21, A Warning Rejected, All Except SDAs Become Babylon, 375-390
Chapter 20 ends with the Adventist disappointment that Christ did not return to earth in the spring of 1844. [Again, the first (1843) date taught by Miller for 25 years is totally ignored in The Great Controversy.] Chapter 21 covers the period between spring 1844 and the next disappointment when Christ failed to return in autumn 1844. Chapter 21 introduces the phrase from Revelation 14:8, “Babylon is fallen.”

GC373-374: God designed to prove His people. His hand covered a mistake in the reckoning of the prophetic periods. Adventists did not discover the error, nor was it discovered by the most learned of their opponents.

GC389: The second angel’s message of Revelation 14 was first preached in the summer of 1844 ... The churches then experienced a moral fall, in consequence of their refusal of the light of the advent message; but that fall was not complete.

GC398: It was not the proclamation of the second advent that caused fanaticism and division. These appeared in the summer of 1844, when Adventists were in a state of doubt and perplexity concerning their real position. The preaching of the first angel’s message and of the “midnight cry” tended directly to repress fanaticism and dissension.

GC401: Of all the great religious movements since the days of the apostles, none have been more free from human imperfection and the wiles of Satan than was that of the autumn of 1844.

GC420: By the offering of blood the sinner acknowledged the authority of the law, confessed his guilt in transgression, and expressed his desire for pardon through faith in a Redeemer to come; but he was not yet entirely released from the condemnation of the law.

GC420: Placing his hands upon the head of the scapegoat, he confessed over him all these sins, thus in figure transferring them from himself to the goat. The goat then bore them away, and they were regarded as forever separated from the people.
ERROR 104: The Bible does not say “thus in figure transferring them from himself to the goat.” EGW said that! Atoned sins never made it past the doorway! And the high priest certainly did not carry “sins” inside the sanctuary because he would have been defiled and unclean! He presented a visual demonstration to Israel that their sins were forever removed. “All these sins” refers, not to previously confessed and atoned sin, but to the general sinfulness of Israel. See Lev 16:16-20, 30.

For more see this article

----

While the book may have many good and accurate observations it has many many problems with history and interpretation and is really not the best introduction one could have into Adventism unless of course by Adventism one is restricted to 19th century Adventism.

Update: April 23, 2011

When dealing with the the Book the Great Controversy I really should include some of the things written by General Conference leaders at the 1919 Bible Conference. The originals are finally available on the SDA Archives site but the easier to read versions are available here. (Pay particular attention toward the end of the quote below how W.W. Prescott became orthodox in his interpretation of "Babylon" after the 1911 revision of the 1888 Great Controversy)

A. G. Daniells: I think Brother Benson's question on historical and theological matters has not been dealt with yet, and I do not know that I am able to give any light. Perhaps some of you may know to what extent Sister White has revised some of her statements and references or quotations from historical writings. Have you ever gone through and made a list of them?
W. W. Prescott: I gave nearly an hour to that the other day, taking the old edition of "Great Controversy" and reading it and then reading the revised edition. But that did not cover all the ground.

A. G. Daniells: We did not create that difficulty, did we? We General Conference men did not create it, for we did not make the revision. We did not take any part in it. We had nothing whatever to do with it. It was all done under her supervision. If there is a difficulty there, she created it, did she not?
F. M. Wilcox: She assumed the whole responsibility for it.
M. F. Kern: But we have to meet it.
A. G. Daniells: Well, now, which statement shall we take, the original or the revised?
B. L. House: My real difficulty is just here: Sister White did not write either the old edition or the revised, as I understand it.
A. G. Daniells: What do you mean by saying that she did not write either edition?
B. L. House: As I understand it, Elder J. N. Anderson prepared those historical quotations for the old edition, and Brother Robinson and Brother Crisler, Professor Prescott and others furnished the quotations for the new edition. Did she write the historical quotations in there?
A. G. Daniells: No.
B. L. House: Then there is a difference between the Testimonies and those books.
W. W. Prescott: Changes have been made in what was not historical extract at all.
A. G. Daniells: Shall we not confine ourselves just now to this question of Brother Benson's and lead our way up to the real difficulty, and then deal with it? Do you have a clear conception of the way the difficulty arose? -- that in making the first edition of "Great Controversy" those who helped her prepare the copy were allowed to bring forward historical quotations that seemed to fit the case. She may have asked, "Now, what good history do you have for that?" I do not know just how she brought it in, but she never would allow us to claim anything for her as a historian. She did not put herself up as a corrector of history, -- not only did not do that, but protested against it. Just how they dealt in bringing the history along, I could not say, but I suspect that she referred to this as she went along, and then allowed them to gather the very best historical statements they could and submit them to her, and she approved of them.
C. L. Benson: This is my query, and it underlies all of her writings: How did she determine upon the philosophy of history? If she endorsed our interpretation of history, without any details, do we dare to set that aside? I understand she never studied medical science; but she has laid down certain fundamental principles; and that she has done the same with education and organization.
A. G. Daniells: Sister White never has written anything on the philosophy of history.
C. L. Benson: No, but she has endorsed our 2300 day proposition, from 538 to 1798.
A. G. Daniells: You understand she did that by placing that in her writings?
C. L. Benson: Yes.
A. G. Daniells: Yes, I suppose she did.
C. A. Shull: I think the book "Education" contains something along the line of the philosophy of history.
W. E. Howell: Yes, she outlines general principles.
C. M. Sorenson: Nobody has ever questioned Sister White's philosophy of history, so far as I know, -- and I presume I have heard most of the questions raised about it, -- along the line of the hand of God in human affairs and the way the hand of God has been manifested. The only question anybody has raised has been about minor details. Take this question as to whether 533 has some significance taken in connection with 538. She never set 533, but if there is a significance attached to it in human affairs, it certainly would not shut us out from using it, and that would not affect the 1260 years. Some people say antichrist is yet to come, and is to last for three and one-half literal years. If you change those positions, you will change the philosophy.
W. W. Prescott: Do I understand Brother Benson's view is that such a statement as that in "Great Controversy," that the 1260 years began in 538 and ended in 1798, settles the matter infallibly?
C. L. Benson: No, only on the preaching of doctrines in general. If she endorses the prophetic part of our interpretation, irrespective of details, then she endorses it.
W. W. Prescott: Then that settles it as being a part of that philosophy.
C. L. Benson: Yes, in this way: I do not see how we can do anything else but set up our individual judgment if we say we will discount that, because we have something else that we think is better evidence. It is the same with education and the medical science.
W. W. Prescott: You are touching exactly the experience through which I went, personally, because you all know that I contributed something toward the revision of "Great Controversy." I furnished considerable material bearing upon that question.
A. G. Daniells: By request.
W. W. Prescott: Yes, I was asked to do it, and at first I said, "No, I will not do it. I know what it means." But I was urged into it. When I had gone over it with W. C. White, then I said, "Here is my difficulty. I have gone over this and suggested changes that ought to be made in order to correct statements. These changes have been accepted. My personal difficulty will be to retain faith on those things that I can not deal with on that basis." But I did not throw up the spirit of prophecy, and have not yet; but I have had to adjust my view of things. I will say to you, as a matter of fact, that the relation of those writings to this movement and to our work, is clearer and more consistent in my mind than it was then. But still you know what I am charged with. I have gone through the personal experience myself over that very thing that you speak of. If we correct it here and correct it there, how are we going to stand with it in the other places?
F. M. Wilcox: Those things do not involve the general philosophy of the book.
W. W. Prescott: No, but they did involve quite large details. For instance, before "Great Controversy" was revised, I was unorthodox on a certain point, but after it was revised, I was perfectly orthodox.
C. M. Sorenson: On what point?
W. W. Prescott: My interpretation was, (and I taught it for years in The Protestant Magazine) that Babylon stood for the great apostasy against God, which headed up in the papacy, but which included all minor forms, and that before we come to the end, they would all come under one. That was not the teaching of "Great Controversy." "Great Controversy" said that Babylon could not mean the romish church, and I had made it mean that largely and primarily. After the book was revised, although the whole argument remained the same, it said that it could not mean the Roman Church alone, just that one word added.
F. M. Wilcox: That helped you out.
W. W. Prescott: Yes, but I told W. C. White I did not think anybody had any right to do that. And I did not believe anybody had any right to use it against me before or afterward. I simply went right on with my teaching.
J. W. Anderson: Would you not claim other portions of the book as on the same basis?
W. W. Prescott: No, I would refuse to do that. I had to deal with A. R. Henry over that question. He was determined to crush those men that took a wrong course concerning him. I spent hours with that man trying to help him. We were intimate in our work, and I used to go to his house and spend hours with him. He brought up this question about the authority of the spirit of prophecy and wanted me to draw the line between what was authoritative and what was not. I said, "Brother Henry, I will not attempt to do it, and I advise you not to do it. There is an authority in that gift here, and we must recognize it."
I have tried to maintain personal confidence in this gift in the church, and I use it and use it. I have gotten great help from those books, but I will tell you frankly that I held to that position on the question of Babylon for years when I knew it was exactly contrary to "Great Controversy," but I went on, and in due time I became orthodox. I did not enjoy that experience at all, and I hope you will not have to go through it. It means something.

A Myth of Sola Scriptura

2011-04-16T20:16:00.000-07:00

Wikipedia defines Sola Scriptura as:

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Consequently, sola scriptura demands that only those doctrines are to be admitted or confessed that are found directly within or indirectly by using valid logical deduction or valid deductive reasoning from scripture. However, sola scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God. Sola scriptura was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by the Reformers and is a formal principle of Protestantism today (see Five solas).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

That however is not the myth to which I refer, the myth is when the Bible is used without out using valid logical deduction and valid deductive reasoning; the Bible only without the aid of reasoning and logic, as one of the comments on my last blog said “taking the Bible as it reads”. What does that mean, as it reads? The myth is that you don’t have to take the time and effort to logically interpret the Bible, the myth is that knowledge from outside the Bible is not needed for the interpretation of the Bible.

The Bible in fact does not define itself, just as with any other document of any language the Bible requires both fields of study known as Lower and Higher Criticism. And both of those fields require knowledge of humanity found outside the Bible. The information from outside the Bible is used to understand the culture the times and the language of the material in the Bible. A simply example is the Chiasm, now the Bible does not define what a Chiasm is but it uses them. Our understanding of poetry from the poetry of other ancient literature is used when we see poetry in the Bible. We don’t have to simply claim the Bible tells us everything we need to know about poetry. Poetry frequently is not literal and may cause people to come to wrong interpretations when something is poetic and it is assumed to be literal. One can say that is the way it reads but unless the reader is informed of the poetic characteristics they take the text in ways it was never meant to be taken. For example the book of Job says the stars sang together, if not view poetically people I have seen come up with ideas like the stars are beings from other planets. Despite the poetic nature and despite the context there are probably hundreds of such off the wall interpretations to some simple piece of poetry.

Poetry is just one of the problems in interpretation; another is the assumption that past knowledge when used makes that knowledge used appear to be religious truth. As we saw in my recent article, Bibliotatry, about Jesus taunting the Pharisees when they asked him to make the people stop praising him and he stated if the people stopped the rocks would cry out. Another similar example is when Jesus said that a seed had to die before it could grow and produce more seeds.

I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. (John 12:24 NIV)

We know that the seed does not actually die, this is figurative it seems like it is dead and buried but with modern techniques we can actually prove that a seed carries on respiration, those that don’t are truly dead and they won’t germinate. For example the Tetrazolium test or as the simple test when I planted my edible pod peas from my crop last season some seeds floating at the top of the cup of water, those are not going to grow. Dead seeds don’t grow! But we understand the meaning of a new life a fresh start from the context and the figurative language of Jesus but what we know is because of our cultural and scientific and often our own experiential knowledge. There is little doubt that the Bible writers expected people to read with those ideas from outside their writing. We would hardly expect God in His inspiration process to expect differently. But it is the tradition of the Fundamentalist that says the Bible interprets itself. It does not and neither does any other written work because authors expect their readers to use some reasoning skills. Even with symbols the Bible does not necessarily interpret itself because it will often use multiple symbols and the context is needed to recognize just which symbol is meant for which idea in reality.

Does this mean that human beings have to interpret the Bible with human reason? The answer is yes, you can’t get there any other way, it is not a magic book with writing that absorbs into the mind without the mind thinking, reacting and yes interpreting data. God has given us minds to use and we should be using them and all the tools that the mind can come up with that aid the process of understanding. The book of Isaiah writes:

…Learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow. "Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool. (Isa 1:17-18 NIV)

The Lord says to reason together and learn to do right, you can’t get there without reasoning and thinking and learning that is what our minds are for and we need to use them to understand the Bible and see what it says in context and does the context fit our situations and acknowledge the progressive revelation about God and man that we see in the Bible itself as well as how what we have learned in the thousands of years since the Bible’s individual books were written.

So don’t let the fundamentalist tell you that you are using human reason to understand the Bible, it is simply a cheap and deceitful trick they use to make you think that their certainty is somehow superior. After all it is a truism that the more you know the more you find that you don’t know. If the more you know makes you see even less…then maybe what you think you know is not really knowledge let alone truth.

The fiction of Imputed Righteousness

2011-04-01T22:45:00.000-07:00

In light of the lessons study for this week here is a more Biblical view then offered by our Lesson Study Guide which seems to think tradition is more important then a logical view of what the Bible actually says.

Forgiveness; The Robe of Christ's Righteousness

Christ's Death a Necessity. For a loving God to maintain His justice and righteousness, the atoning death of Jesus Christ became "a moral and legal necessity." God's "Justice requires that sin be carried to judgment. God must therefore execute judgment on sin and thus on the sinner. In this execution the Son of God took our place, the sinner's place, according to God's will. The atonement was necessary because man stood under the righteous wrath of God. Herein lies the heart of the gospel of forgiveness of sin and the mystery of the cross of Christ: Christ's perfect righteousness adequately satisfied divine justice, and God is willing to accept Christ's self-sacrifice in place of man's death." 5 (Seventh-day Adventists Believe...A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines Review and Herald Pub Assn. 1988.p.111
Footnote 5 refers to Hans K. LaRondelle, Christ Our Salvation Mountain View, CA; Pacific Press, 1980 pp.25, 26)

...We are covered with His garment of righteousness. When God looks at the believing, penitent sinner He sees, not the nakedness or deformity of sin, but the robe of righteousness formed by Christ's perfect obedience to the law. 12 None can be truly righteous unless covered by this robe. (P.114 footnote 12 refers to White, Christ's Object Lessons. p.312)

One of the interesting tenets of those who hold to the substitutionary atonement is the idea that Christ's Righteousness can be imputed into the Christian. One of the methods or illustrations, which is commonly used within the SDA community, is the idea that Christ covers our sinfulness with his righteousness. Using the parable of the wedding feast they determine that the robe the guest puts on is Christ's Righteousness.

The parable found in Matt 22:1-14

1 Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: 2 "The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. 3 He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come. 4 "Then he sent some more servants and said, 'Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.' 5 "But they paid no attention and went off-- one to his field, another to his business. 6 The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. 7 The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. 8 "Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. 9 Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.'10 So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, both good and bad, and the wedding hall was filled with guests. 11 "But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes.12 'Friend,' he asked, 'how did you get in here without wedding clothes?' The man was speechless.13 "Then the king told the attendants, 'Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' 14 "For many are invited, but few are chosen." (NIV)

To this the following verse is often related: Rev 3:18

I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see. (NIV)

And Isa 61:10

I delight greatly in the LORD; my soul rejoices in my God. For he has clothed me with garments of salvation and arrayed me in a robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom adorns his head like a priest, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels. (NIV)

It should be noted that the term Christ's Righteousness or even the Righteousness of Christ are not terms the Bible ever uses. Is the idea, common among SDA's that by accepting the Robe of Christ's Righteousness when God looks at the person He sees Christ, actually what the Bible teaches?

Some in theology call this a legal fiction; the answer however may be far simpler then many of the Theologians of the past 500 years have envisioned.

The Bible in several places speaks of those clothed in White, (Rev 3:4-5, 6:11,7:9,7:13-14,) unfortunately too many people are missing the clear picture of the Bible in order to create a complex legal fiction.

Let us try for a moment to look at these verses used above in a slightly different light. The light of forgiveness.

Isa 1:18 "Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool. (NIV)

The following is information on Forgiveness from _The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible_ pages 306-7 should help us see how these concepts work together. I have added the Strong's number in front of the words.

Forgiveness. In the O.T. several Hebrew roots contain the concept of "forgive". The verb 5545 calach (saw-lakh') a primitive root; to forgive: signifies literally "forgive, pardon" (Lev. 4:20, 26: I Kings 8:30, 34: Ps. 86:5: 103:3: Jer. 31:34). The root 3722 kaphar (kaw-far') (cover) which is used to express the idea of atonement or propitiation, in some cases means "forgive" (Ps. 65:3; 78:38;79:9; Isa. 6:7; 22:14; Jer. 18:23; Ezek. 16:63). The root 4229 machah (maw-khaw') signifies that sins may be wiped or blotted out (Neh. 4:5; Ps. 51:1; 109:14; Isa. 43:25; 44:22; Jer. 18:23). The verb 3680 kacah (kaw-saw') suggests that sins may be covered or concealed (Neh. 4:5; Ps. 32:1; 85:3). The root 5375 nasa' (naw-saw')

(lift up, take away) may also mean "forgive" (Gen. 50:17;Ex. 10:17; 32:32; 34:7; Ps. 32:5; 85:3). God forgives sin, but this presupposes repentance and prayer on the part of the sinner (Ps.51:1-17).

Forgiveness is the covering, the concealment, the blotting out or removal of sins. Think about how well the concept of forgiveness fits with those clothed in White, and those at the wedding feast. "The connection with the O.T. is evident when forgiveness is presented in the language of sacrifice (Matt. 26:28; Heb. 9:11-28). It is God's gracious pardon to sinful men and is effected through Christ and through faith in him (Acts 2:38; 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18: Eph. 4:32; col. 1:9-14). In divine forgiveness the guilt and debt of sin are canceled, and repentant man is received back into fellowship with the Father. " (The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible_ pages 306-7)

We who were enemies of God are offered forgiveness and acceptance back into a relationship with God,a God we can trust to accept and forgive us because He offers the acceptance and forgiveness to us first.

Col 1:21-23

Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation--if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant. (NIV)

Christ who while enduring physical torture on the cross loving offered them His forgiveness. Showing all who are willing to see that God is in fact loving, forgiving, and accepting the return of his prodigal sons. The author of life killed by His creation, though He was rejected He continues to offer reconciliation, and forgiveness.

Acts 3:14-16

You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this. By faith in the name of Jesus, this man whom you see and know was made strong. It is Jesus' name and the faith that comes through him that has given this complete healing to him, as you can all see. (NIV)

It is the Righteousness of God, the grace, the love which offers us the "garments of salvation" the forgiveness which is offered to all who are willing to accept His gift. A gift at present we can only see by faith based upon the evidence which Christ brought to us by His life death and resurrection. A faith in the character of our God.

I John 3:2-5

Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. Everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself, just as he is pure. Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. (NIV)

The following quote from a nineteenth century shows how misleading the doctrine of the Robe of Christ's Righteousness can become.

The Lord Jesus Christ has prepared a covering, the robe of his own righteousness, that he will put on every repenting, believing soul who by faith will receive it. Said John, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." Sin is the transgression of the law; but Christ died to make it possible for every man to have his sins taken away. A fig-leaf apron will never cover our nakedness. Sin must be taken away, the garment of Christ's righteousness must cover the transgressor of God's law. Then when the Lord looks upon the believing sinner, he sees, not the fig-leaves covering him, but his own robe of righteousness, which is perfect obedience to the law of Jehovah.

The legal fiction of a God who needs to pretend that the Christian is perfectly obedient to the Laws. Instead of a God who sees our imperfections yet offers us forgiveness and reconciliation out of His love.No games, no legal maneuvers are necessary for God to forgive and accept us back from our wanderings in a far country. Just love.

From the CD The Robe by Wes King (1993) Words by Wes King music by Phil Naish
The Robe
"Come as you are and He will cleanse you. You are guilty; your pardon is of God" --Charles H. Spurgeon
Anyone whose heart is cold and lonely/ Anyone who can't believe/ Anyone whose hands are worn and empty/ Come as you are
Anyone whose feet are tired of walking/ And even lost their will to run/ There is a place of rest for your aching soul/ Come as you are
Chorus: For the robe is of God/ that will clothe your nakedness/ And the robe is His grace/ It's all you all you need/ Come as you are
Anyone who feels that they're unworthy/ Anyone who's just afraid/ Come sinner, come and receive His mercy/ Come as you are.

Also found on NewProtestants.com

Bibliotatry

2011-03-26T11:57:00.000-07:00

The Oxford Dictionaries define bibliolatry as:

1. an excessive adherence to the literal interpretation of the Bible.

Sometimes people misspell it as Bibleolatry but we want to use the official English word here. As Wikipedia points out the word is used as a pejorative, it is not that there really are Christians that literally worship the Bible. It is just the impression one gets from the way they use the Bible. A couple of examples from my wandering across the Internet.

Over on HeavenlySanctuary.com a person by the name of David begins a post by saying:

in Luke 19 "if they are quiet the rocks will cry out''. Truth? egw in DA p573 says
“That scene of triumph was of Gods own appointing. It had been fortold by the prophet, and man was POWERLESS TO TURN IT ASIDE. Had men failed to carry out His plan, He would have GIVEN A VOICE TO INANIMATE STONES, and they would have hailed His Son with ACCLAMATIONS of praise."

God does not want the praise or worship of robots (weve talked about this many times here). Would the rocks have been robots 'acclaiming paise' ? would that have made Jesus happy? forcing rocks to praise Hiim?

The post goes on into some more questionable thoughts but to this point it is pretty clever. It shows a very good example of bibliolatry in Ellen Whites writing's. It is the tendency to take something that could easily simply be hyperbole into something that is meant to be taken literally. Jesus speaks the following in Luke's gospel account:

Luke 19:37-41NIV When he came near the place where the road goes down the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of disciples began joyfully to praise God in loud voices for all the miracles they had seen: "Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!"ⁿ "Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!" Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Jesus, "Teacher, rebuke your disciples!""I tell you," he replied, "if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out." As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it”

It is easy to see this as a jab at the Pharisees who wanted to quiet the crowd, it is more difficult to see this as a possibility of God causing stones to speak human language, after all stones don't say much most of the time and they are not thought to be all that smart or connected to spiritual things. Why would God want to make stones praise God...that would be pretty cheap praise. If God forces you, or an inanimate object to praise Him is it really praise at all?

In this case we have a combination of bibliolatry and Ellenolatry, though that last one is not currently a real English word and I hope it never becomes one. But it is sort of the idolatry that the Whiteites do exhibit. Whiteites is a term I do hope becomes a legitimate English word for those who uncritically accept Ellen White as prophetic spiritual authority who is without theological, historical or scientific error.

Let's look at another frequent example of bibliolatry, this one from Sherman Cox II on his blog Sabbath Pulpit. Speaking about the 2011 Japanese Earthquake and some Adventist responses he writes:

Now there is the whole “God is trying to tell God’s true church something” bit. Ok it is possible to read this as “God killing of thousands of innocent lives just to tell the church something.” I don’t know, but I don’t think that is Boonstra’s interpretation. I would guess that Boonstra would mean that “God is withdrawing God’s hand of protection and thus the evil one is allowed to do more and more of these things. Thus it is a signal to us that the end is near.” Certainly folks may disagree with that due to having a different theology, but is it really an insidious attack on God’s goodness.

Last week in my Sabbath School class I encountered this very similar idea that God is withdrawing His hand of protection, it is an idea based upon the following verse in Revelation:

Revelation 6:16-7:4 NIV They called to the mountains and the rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?" After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree. Then I saw another angel coming up from the east, having the seal of the living God. He called out in a loud voice to the four angels who had been given power to harm the land and the sea: "Do not harm the land or the sea or the trees until we put a seal on the foreheads of the servants of our God." Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel.

This is another of those intersections between the Whiteites and bibliolatry, like the person in my class they did not seem to realize that their quote from Revelation about the four winds is very subject to interpretation, to the Adventist traditionalist when they point to that verse their minds actually refer to the following Ellen White quote:

The restraining Spirit of God is even now being withdrawn from the world. Hurricanes, storms, tempests, fire and flood, disasters by sea and land, follow each other in quick succession. Science seeks to explain all these. The signs thickening around us, telling of the near approach of the Son of God, are attributed to any other than the true cause. Men cannot discern the sentinel angels restraining the four winds that they shall not blow until the servants of God are sealed; but when God shall bid His angels loose the winds, there will be such a scene of strife as no pen can picture. (Testimonies to the Church Vol 6 page 408)

Now there is no real Bible teaching that God restrains His Spirit but the belief in the authoritative prophet with the aid of subsequent tradition, the interpretation of a specific Bible text though vague becomes an infallible truth. It then becomes bibliolatry.

At its heart bibliolatry is never really about what the Bible says it is about what the chosen interpretation is. The one particular interpretation is the truth regardless of the other options involved. So the people don't even come close to worshiping the Bible as much as their respect is limited to their particular interpretation. If you don't agree with that interpretation then you reject the Bible and if you reject their interpretation of the Bible you are rejecting God. It reminds me of the text I found when looking at the only other Bible text where stones cry out

Habakkuk 2:11-12 NIV The stones of the wall will cry out, and the beams of the woodwork will echo it."Woe to him who builds a city with bloodshed and establishes a town by crime!

After that bit of poetic language the prophet moves on to another subject and we read:

Habakkuk 2:18 NIV "Of what value is an idol, since a man has carved it? Or an image that teaches lies? For he who makes it trusts in his own creation; he makes idols that cannot speak.

When the Bible text interpretation becomes an object of the human creator it becomes an idol, it can then speak lies, the text speak what the idol maker wants them to say because the trust is now in the idol (assigned meaning to the text by the idol maker). This is most easily done with vague and obscure texts such as the Latter Day Saints do with baptism for the dead or the reference to the Time of Jacobs Trouble or the four winds etc. Apocalyptic literature is ideal for this technique. Bibliolatry is a growing problem in Adventism. Next week. The myth of solo scriptura.

Ellen White as Lesser Light intentional confusion?

2011-03-21T10:25:00.000-07:00

Recently I was looking up some material and I happened upon this quote:

To put it simply, one of the main reasons I believe in Ellen White is that she never puts her writings above the Bible. Think about it: There are churches and denominations today whose teachings and beliefs depend on their founder or prophet, not on the Bible. That’s not the way it is in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Ellen White always made it clear that she was the lesser light leading to the greater light of God’s Word. I can see in her writings that she was only seeking to bring people to God and did not want to lift herself up above the Bible or call attention to herself. {AC 104.1} A Call To Stand Apart Selections from Ellen G. White A Paraphrase Chapter 17 Chapter 17—Authority Of Scripture A Young Adult’s Encounter with Ellen White ... on the Authority of Scripture

To what do we owe this particular teaching that Ellen White saw herself as a lesser light and that this was made clear to this particular young adult? After all as the young person said “Ellen White always made it clear that she was the lesser light leading to the greater light of God’s Word.” So where do we first find this quote from Ellen White? Maybe the question should be where do most of us first encounter this quote? I took some time to look it up and here are the results:

--1953 compilation book called Colporteur Ministry, we read: (you can find these books at http://egwwritings.org/ )

Sell Books That Give Light—The Lord has sent His people much instruction, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, and there a little. Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light. Oh, how much good would be accomplished if the books containing this light were read with a determination to carry out the principles they contain! There would be a thousandfold greater vigilance, a thousandfold more self-denial and resolute effort. And many more would now be rejoicing in the light of present truth. {CM 125.2}

You can also find it in the other compilations Evangelism and Selected Messages. The White Estates new search engine lists the Evangelism quote as from the 1946 book:

--The Greater and Lesser Lights—Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light.—The Colporteur Evangelist, 37. (1902) {Ev 257.1}

As I was looking at these references they all seemed to be only found in compilations. And so far I could not find anything older then the 1946 quote in Evangelism. But there it said that the reference was from “The Colporteur Evangelist” Looking through both White Estate search engines and my own EGW material which is supposed to have everything that she had published and some other collections I could find no book or periodical or pamphlet by that title. Searching the web I found a version on PDF which indicates that the Colporteur Evangelist is in fact another compilation, though the one I found is dated 1950.

So that left me with a search for the quote and finding it in three compilations 1. Colporteur Ministries 2. Evangelism 3. Selected Messages and a distant 4. Colporter Evangelist which is not all that readily available unless you know it is out there hiding. Not a single one of these compilations listed the actual first quote where Ellen White sets herself as the lesser light. It is no wonder none of the other Adventist writers of her time referred to her in that way.

It turns out that the quote came from The Review and Herald, January 20, 1903:

Many more of our larger books might have been sold if church members had been awake to the importance of the truths these books contain, and had realized their responsibility to circulate them. My brethren and sisters, will you not now make an effort to circulate these books? and will you not bring into this effort the enthusiasm that you brought into the effort to sell "Christ's Object Lessons"? In selling this book many have learned how to handle the larger books. They have obtained an experience that has prepared them to enter the canvassing field.

Sister White is not the originator of these books. They contain the instruction that during her life-work God has been giving her. They contain the precious, comforting light that God has graciously given his servant to be given to the world. From their pages this light is to shine into the hearts of men and women, leading them to the Saviour. The Lord has declared that these books are to be scattered throughout the world. There is in them truth which to the receiver is a savor of life unto life. They are silent witnesses for God. In the past they have been the means in his hands of convicting and converting many souls. Many have read them with eager expectation, and, by reading them, have been led to see the efficacy of Christ's atonement, and to trust in its power. They have been led to commit the keeping of their souls to their Creator, waiting and hoping for the coming of the Saviour to take his loved ones to their eternal home. In the future, these books are to make the gospel plain to many others, revealing to them the way of salvation.

The Lord has sent his people much instruction, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, and there a little. Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light. O, how much good would be accomplished if the books containing this light were read with a determination to carry out the principles they contain! There would be a thousandfold greater vigilance, a thousandfold more self-denial and resolute effort. And many more would now be rejoicing in the light of present truth.

My brethren and sisters, work earnestly to circulate these books. Put your hearts into this work, and the blessing of God will be with you. Go forth in faith, praying that God will prepare hearts to receive the light. Be pleasant and courteous. Show by a consistent course that you are true Christians. Walk and work in the light of heaven, and your path will be as the path of the just, shining more and more unto the perfect day.

Two things we can learn from this. First the compilers are not too particular about accuracy and pointing to the original source material in compilations, for whatever reasons. The second is that when you read it in context you see that the lesser light is a reference not to Ellen White as lesser to the Bible but that she is acting as the reflector of the light she is given by God. Which fits in with her earlier statements such as:

Christ makes no apology when he declares, "I am the Light of the world." He was, in life and teaching, the gospel, the foundation of all pure doctrine. Just as the sun compares with the lesser lights in the heavens, so did Christ, the source of all light, compare with the teachers of his day. He was before them all; and shining with the brightness of the sun, he diffused his penetrating, gladdening rays throughout the world. (Youth Instructor.1897-09-16.004)

God the greater light gave Sister White the light in the material she wrote. Thus compared to God the source of all light she is a lesser light. She did not mean that she was a lesser light to the Bible, after all in her own statement she misuses the Bible using the Isaiah quotation which derides those who take line upon line precept upon precept, even if the King James Version were correctly translated the context makes it clear it is not a description of how to arrive at truth.*. She asserts that her material leads to people who read her work with eager expectation to see the efficacy of Christ's atonement, the books making the gospel plain.

I suppose that is why the compilation did not actually give the original quote reference, after all if the goal is to carry forward a myth as the young adult in the first quote stated Ellen White leading to God's Word, which is in itself interesting because God's Word while traditionally (though inaccurately) used as a reference to the Bible would certainly not be restricted to the Bible would it? I am not saying this is a conspiracy of the Adventist church, rather it is a manipulation of the Adventist church and a very effective one.

* Isaiah 28:8-13 NIV:
All the tables are covered with vomit and there is not a spot without filth. "Who is it he is trying to teach? To whom is he explaining his message? To children weaned from their milk, to those just taken from the breast? For it is: Do and do, do and do, rule on rule, rule on ruleⁿ; a little here, a little there." Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues God will speak to this people, to whom he said, "This is the resting place, let the weary rest"; and, "This is the place of repose"-- but they would not listen. So then, the word of the LORD to them will become: Do and do, do and do, rule on rule, rule on rule; a little here, a little there-- so that they will go and fall backward, be injured and snared and captured.

Expositor's Bible Commentary:
9-10 As the prophet declared the word of God in this drink-dominated setting, his hearers made their response. The NIV is probably right in treating both these verses as a quotation of the words of the drunkards. They felt insulted. Were they not themselves spiritual leaders, well able to teach others? What right had this man to place them in the classroom and teach them the spiritual ABC's? There is some thing ironic about the reference to milk (v. 9) in such a context.

Many commentators have been puzzled by v. 10 and have wrestled to make sense of the Hebrew. The truth of the matter seems to be, as the NIV margin suggests, that it is not meant to make sense. Isaiah's words had hardly penetrated the alcohol -impregnated atmosphere that surrounded his hearers. What they picked up were simply a few stray syllables, some of them repeated, like the baby-talk that delights the child but would insult the adult. They mouth this gibberish back at the prophet. The transmitter was as strong and clear as ever; it was the receivers that were at fault. Their judgment, meantime, lay in their failure to hear the word that could have led them back to God; but there was another judgment on its way, most appropriate in its form. Their sin had turned the word of God through Isaiah into a meaningless noise that might just as well have been a foreign language.

Expositor's Bible Footnotes
10 The interpretation given above is now widely held, for it is difficult to derive proper sense from the Hebrew as it stands. The NIV text is about as near as the translator can get. There seem to be echoes of the Hebrew of v. 8, which suggests that the interpretation in terms of broken syllables mouthed by their recipients is correct. G. Fohrer (Das Buch Jesaya, in loc.) suggests that the syllables actually used are those a Hebrew mother would use to teach her child the alphabet. This is possible.

11 Paul quoted this verse at 1 Cor 14:21, where he seems to be implying that uninterpreted--and therefore meaningless--glossolalia will simply confirm the unbelieving hearer in his sin and therefore anticipate his judgment. Whether in Isaiah's day, Paul's, or ours, it is meaningful utterance a message from God addressed to the understanding--that humans need to bring them to the sure foundation of faith.

The solution for Adventists

2011-03-18T23:16:00.000-07:00

There is a wide gulf between Progressive Adventists and Traditional Adventists but there has been very little written about a solution to the problem. If it is a problem that is. Perhaps that is the problem there is in fact no desire to unify one side with the other.

One of the leaders in the Traditional Adventists camp is Samuel Koranteng-Pipim, PhD, in his article Going Forward, Not Backwards A Reflection on the 2010 Atlanta General Conference Session

Dr. Pipim writes:

One writer on a particular “Progressive” website described the message as a call to “Retrograde Adventism,” a call “backwards” to the 1950s or 60s (to which I will respond: If a call back to our Bible-based teachings and lifestyle practices is a call “backwards,” then it is the best kind of going back. I only wish the call would not end in the ’50s or ’60s, but would go all the way back to the first century--some 2,000 years ago--when Christ founded His Church).

Another “Progressive Adventist” friend of mine caught up with me in one of the hallways of the GC Session and remarked that the sermon was “a declaration of war” (to which I quickly responded: “No, it is not a declaration of war; the war had been raging for decades. The only thing that has changed is that the Church has found a courageous captain, who is not afraid to publicly state what our message and mission are.”).

The reaction of the critics are shrill voices of an influential minority who have largely repudiated our distinctive Adventist identity and mission, and who for years have been calling for an “open tent” Church in which theological error should be embraced as an option. I am encouraged that their views do not represent the longstanding or present position of the Church. I’m equally heartened by the fact that an overwhelming majority of young people today--the real future of the church--do not share the views of backslidden Adventism that masquerades today as “Progressive.” Cooped up in their parochial orbit, they are totally out of touch with where the real Seventh-day Adventist Church is.

I would agree with his first paragraph of his article quotation the church should go back to a more reasoned religion well before Ellen White and the face saving device known as the Investigative Judgment, back when the Spirit of Prophecy was a reference to the Spirit of God and not a 19^th century woman. I have often used C.S. Lewis' quote in this regard:

“We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turn, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man. . .There is nothing progressive about being pigheaded and refusing to admit a mistake." C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1952), Book I, Chap. 5, p. 22.

The second paragraph above I would also agree with. There has been for decades a war between Progressive and Traditional Adventists. I would even agree with the idea that Ted Wilson is a courageous captain for Traditional Adventists. After all in wars a captain does not have to be right just able to lead for his cause. People can go down in history for their courageous opposition such as Dominican theologian Sylvester Mazzolini who drafted a heresy case against Luther, they may not be right but being a leader does not mean the person is leading in the right direction.

It is the third paragraph above that really shows the attitude of the Traditional Adventists toward Progressive Adventists. Progressive Adventists are masquerading as Adventists, they are backsliders or apostate Adventists in their limited orbit of theological error out of touch with real Seventh-day Adventists. So how would we expect the Traditional Adventists to want to reach out to theological error prone falsely called Adventists?

Over on the Adventist Today blog there was an article by Preston Foster entitled Liberal and Conservative Work Avoidance. His point is that Traditional and Progressive Adventists have been avoiding the work of the mission of the the Adventist church. His concluding paragraph reads:

The energy of EGW supporters is, many times, expended more on defending her writings than in lifting up the Bible. The energy of her detractors is often spent more on proving her errors rather than on pointing to Jesus. The energy expended by both sides looks like important work. What is important is not the same as what is vital.

The distraction is an enticing focal point. For some, it is an occupation. However we, as a group, have work to do. That is, to lift up Christ and prepare ourselves and others to meet Him. We are all busy working. However, activity is no substitute for accomplishment.

He is close to being right, but what is the work we are called to do (spreading the gospel), to each side of the Adventist fence? In an earlier blog article Preston told us that our mission as Adventist was not to spread the gospel but to spread the 3 angel's messages of Revelation 14, he writes in his article Have We Lost Sight of Our Mission?

Commitment to a mission creates a sense of urgency and expectation: a reason for self-sacrifice. A clear mission provides a focal point for everything an organization does. A clear mission gives a private direction, even when the captain provides no specific orders.

Think about it: when was the last time you heard a sermon on the essential teaching of Adventism: the Third Angel's Message? If you were not Adventist and visited and Adventist church only one time, would you leave with a clear understanding of the link between the last day events and the Sabbath? We've even changed our logo from three angels sounding their trumpets to a more vague, not threatening flame.

If the Christian Gospel is not the mission of Traditional Adventists should Progressive Adventists really want to work with the Traditional Adventists. I suppose many people do not fully realize what Adventists mean when they use the term three angel's messages or third angel's message. These are code words for Adventist distinctive beliefs. Such as the Seventh day Sabbath to be a final end time test (those who observe receive the seal of God and those who do not receive the mark of the beast by rejecting God's commandment), the Investigative Judgment begun in 1844 and of course Ellen White as the Spirit of Prophecy so that with her the Adventist church can be the remnant church of Revelation. The Christian Gospel...the Gospel we see in the New Testament is not the gospel that the Traditional Adventists hold dear. Oh it is to their credit something that should be included in the reason for their Traditional Adventism but the gospel is not enough.

Mission emphasis is one thing but what if the gospel that the Traditional Adventists espouse is not even good news, what if it is a distorted view of God? With the Japanese earthquake so recent I saw this post on Facebook from a Traditional Adventist relative, a quote from Ellen White under the title If Heaven’s Warnings Go Unheeded:

I am bidden to declare the message that cities full of transgression, and sinful in the extreme, will be destroyed by earthquakes, by fire, by flood. All the world will be warned that there is a God who will display His authority as God. His unseen agencies will cause destruction, devastation, and death. All the accumulated riches will be as nothingness....

Calamities will come—calamities most awful, most unexpected; and these destructions will follow one after another. If there will be a heeding of the warnings that God has given, and if churches will repent, returning to their allegiance, then other cities may be spared for a time. But if men who have been deceived continue in the same way in which they have been walking, disregarding the law of God and presenting falsehoods before the people, God allows them to suffer calamity, that their senses may be awakened....

The Lord will not suddenly cast off all transgressors or destroy entire nations; but He will punish cities and places where men have given themselves up to the possession of Satanic agencies. Strictly will the cities of the nations be dealt with, and yet they will not be visited in the extreme of God’s indignation, because some souls will yet break away from the delusions of the enemy, and will repent and be converted, while the mass will be treasuring up wrath against the day of wrath.— Evangelism, p. 27.

Is that the gospel, is that the way a God of love would act? As if a disaster says anything, you may attribute it to a god but which god will it be? When your God says love me or I will kill you, you have a serious problem. When He talks by causing disasters you don't really know anything about what or who He is you only know what somebody else is claiming, can you imagine doing that to your child?

There still is a solution but I don't think many Adventists will like it. That is take to the time to see God in a reasonable way. Think about what you believe and what your beliefs say about God. Are we presenting a God that seeks to draw people to Himself or a vindictive cruel and unreasonable God. Do our doctrines make sense, do they help us understand God and appreciate Him. Because that is really the gospel. The good news is that God is not mean and vindictive, that He is loving and kind and seeks the best for you even when you make poor choices. God offers you something better then threats and punishment, poor choices and decisions almost universally lead to disaster none of us needs God to punish us for our mistakes whether it is building on a fault line or rejecting the offer of healing. When Adventists can agree on the simple gospel maybe we can finally get along.

Then the Ants Sat in Judgment of the Man, God on trial?

2011-03-12T08:09:00.000-08:00

A couple of years ago I posted an article entitled Is God on Trial? Recently Marco Belmont on HeavenlySanctuary.com posted a nice piece of continuing Adventist mythology entitled Judging the Judge.

He begins with a story which he later tells us is a parable about God, Satan, humans and angels. The key piece to interpreting his parable is supplied when he explains:

“...I'd like to submit that the judgment never needs to be the source of anxious panic because guess what? We aren't the ones who are on trial. We human beings aren't the ones being judged. The crazy thing about the judgment is that The One who is being judged is none other than Almighty God Himself. We human beings – and doesn't this just blow the mind – we humans have been assigned jury duty. When this Great Cosmic Battle between good and evil comes to a close, the question isn't “what does God think about us?” - because that question has already been answered in the person of Jesus Christ. God loves even those who hate His guts. Rather, the real question that each of us will be asked when Jesus Christ appears at the close of time will be, “What do YOU think about God?” Is He guilty of being a harsh taskmaster who enslaves His intelligent creatures by using power and might as a way of keeping them in fearful submission? That's what the reptilian con-artist Mr. Satanic Snake has suggested. Or, is God a compassionate and kind Father who loves and forgives people even when they murder Him? That's the testimony of Christ. Right now, respectfully, we are going to judge the Judge of the Judgment.”

The idea that human beings are going to judge God is such an incredible logical fallacy that it amazes me people believe it. In fact toward the end of his rather long article he destroys his whole thesis by showing that human beings are not qualified to judge God. He writes:

“...If a jury knew a person was innocent and convicted that person as guilty despite knowing the truth, that jury just judged itself as being unfit for jury duty. Likewise, when people of God – and notice I'm not directing this towards non-Christians – who claim the name of Christ but spread any sort of theology that makes God look guilty as charged – no matter how precious the words seem to sound – there is no excuse for lack of investigation and pushing our old cherished beliefs out the window – we simply announce to the entire universe that we have become unfit to make truth – specifically the truth about God's character – our standard. Even worse, our absence from the jury box is not just a loss for God, but another vote in favor of Satan and his methods. Are we guilty of saying, “God is love” and yet warn people of Christ's 2nd coming? Why would we warn people about God? You warn people when an enemy is coming, not a friend. Do we claim there is freedom in serving Christ and yet enslave our youth with exacting rules that come from gross misinterpretation of the scriptures? Do we say God accepts everyone unconditionally but turn around and suggest that He couldn't do it unless Christ first shed His blood thus taking the true message of Christ and replacing it with hedonistic paganism? Have we substituted honesty, open mindedness, and willingness with symbolism, religious rhetoric and euphemisms? Do we keep preaching the soon return of Christ somehow subconsciously implying that Christ isn't available right this second as He stands within our midst at this very moment? Have we preached on prophecy and the signs of the times so much that we've forgotten about The God of prophecy and The God of signs and The God of time? Have we Christians become so enamored with God's law hanging up in some municipal or judicial building – worrying about politics and who will represent our cherished views in parliament or senates across the globe - all the while the law of love and freedom is strangely missing from the barren wall that now encases our hearts as God begs for a group of people to free Him from the shackles of the courtroom and announce with tongues of fire, “In the case of Christ vs. Satan, we find the defendant not guilty on all accounts.” If we have answered yes to any of these questions, we have judged ourselves unfit to judge God. Thus, we have no need to worry about The Judgment, because we won't ever experience that glorious moment when one group of people will turn to our good Good and say, “we are sorry, Father, that you were wrongly accused and that an innocent God ever had to prove His goodness in the first place.”'

To simplify this rather elaborate long section of material. If you believe God is good and just, you are capable of being on the Jury that Judges God. If you don't think God is good and just, you are not suitable for the jury and therefore you won't be seated on the totally biased jury pool and only those on that jury pool are rewarded with heaven. If you ever misrepresented God in any of the numerous ways listed as questions by Marco, then you are unfit to serve on the jury...sinners need not apply could be the title of that little section.

The fact is the judgment in the Bible is not about humans judging God after all, we can judge God now to the best of our abilities, we all have to go through life making judgments all the time who to trust and who not to trust, we apply the data and make the choices, in that respect we certainly do judge but it is restricted to our judgment about things. It is not some kind of legal all encompassing judgment of the ultimate truth or reality of a superhuman creature who dwells in the supernatural while we are restricted to the natural. Even if there was a judgment after this life of God, we would be dependent upon God for the information anyway and if you did not trust His information what are you going to do about it? So in such a vast judgment case in the sky scenario there is no point to man being the jury, no need for the finite to judge the infinite. These remnants of the old Investigative Judgment concepts must really go away as they are just as weak as the original Adventist Investigative Judgment. You cannot redefine a poor theology based upon complete misrepresented texts, that leads only to confusion the only answer is found in going back to the original presuppositions and discarding the faulty ones and rebuilding on a firmer and more logical foundation.

Dwight Nelson and Allah

2011-03-04T22:28:00.000-08:00

I often wonder when listening to some Adventist Pastors how totally out of touch with the world around them they are. This week brought several elements, together that really should focus us on some of these leadership problems in Adventism.

First a bit of sad news as reported on the First Things Website:

Shahbaz Bhatti was a Catholic and a Pakistani minister for the defense of minorities who dedicated his life to the “struggle for human equality, social justice, religious freedom, and to uplift and empower the religious minorities’ communities.” He was assasinated yesterday because of his opposition to the country’s blasphemy law:

Watch his testimony recorded before his death with the instruction to be published if he died:

Last week I received an email of a letter or article by someone who had a problem with the emerging church, it was not specific and was pretty much the usual they don't have the truth so they must be against us view. So I thought I would look up the author and see what else he wrote. He is pretty much a run of the mill Traditional SDA of dubious interpretation abilities but I did discover something interesting. On a website where he has some articles I found this article entitled “SDA Pastor Dwight Nelson says "Allah is GOD" and that "ALLAH IS THE GOD OF THE UNIVERSE”

The article by Phil Moore correctly points us to the following:

In a sermon on Sabbath Dec. 11, 2010, Dr. (Pastor) Dwight Nelson of Pioneer Memorial SDA Church told the world on air, 3ABN and via the Internet that: "Allah is the name of the LIVING GOD; ALLAH IS THE GOD OF THE UNIVERSE."

This sermon was titled "Star Still Rising Over Islam" ...

After listening to the suggested area I saw that Phil Moore had given a accurate description of what Pastor Nelson said. Moore's analysis I will leave to you to read if you are interested, it did not strike me as anything special so I will offer up my view on Nelson's statements. While you can download the file from the above link I will give you a transcript of the relevant statements.

Leading me to this question. (unintelligible) If God was able to shine the light of truth upon those children of the East [wise men at Jesus birth] Those sons of Ishmael 2000 years ago come folks think with me could he not would he not be doing the same today? Among the same people's of the East? By the millions are there not honest hearted seekers after truth in the Muslim faith too? Huh? And if the answer is yes and by the way I believe the answer is yes then does it not follow that Bethlehem not Rome ought to be our example today? And that instead of alienating the children of the East with our anti Islamic rhetoric we ought to be at the forefront of a movement that seeks to share with them the light that shines upon both of our communities of faith.

I recently listened to a series of CD lectures given by the late Dr. Robert Darnell a member of our community of faith, an expert on Islamic studies, he's an anthropologist. In which he carefully chronicled how that the Koran teaches the seeds of every divine truth that you and I embrace. The seeds are all there. It was Darnell's lifelong mission and conviction cultivate those seeds in dialog with the children of the East and in an hour of history when the West is turning against those children ought we not to be the first to raise up our voices in their behalf?
Think. Why shouldn't we? For what if, by the way that story of Christmas could hardly let us do otherwise could it? What if the spirit the mighty spirit of Allah by the way I got some letters from viewers after that last teaching, and one viewer said don't you know that the name Allah is a name for Lucifer? I hope you never never never never never embrace that. Allah listen carefully now Allah is closer to Elohim the Hebrew name for god then is our English word god. In fact hold on to your seats the English name for god is a Nordic pagan god. We have taken a pagan god's name and we've said that is the name of our God. And we all call him god. That's a pagan a Nordic pagan myth. So don't you ever get pushed into the corner where your saying Allah is a demonic name, Allah is the name of the living God. Allah is the creator of the Universe, Allah is the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael Jethro, Job and even Baalim.

What if through dreams the mighty spirit of Allah is raising up a movement within Islam in preparation for the Messiah's return. Would we not want to partner with that mission? I want to end with a story...

The main thing we should deal with are as follows:

--the Koran teaches the seeds of every divine truth that Christians embrace.

--Allah is closer to Elohim the Hebrew name for god then is our English word god

--the English name for god is a Nordic pagan god.

--We have taken a pagan god's name

--Allah is the god of the Old Testament folks.

First does the Koran teach the seeds of every divine truth that Christians embrace? Read John chapter One. The Word became flesh and lived among us. That Jesus Christ is God, does the Koran teach that Jesus was God incarnate or that Jesus was a great prophet who did not die on the cross and who never was resurrected from the dead? The central core of Christianity is who is Christ yet here we have an SDA pastor telling us that the seed of the central core of Christianity is found in the Koran which even though written 600 years after the time of the New Testament denies Christ to be God or to have died on the cross and the resurrection.

Which means either Pastor Nelson is willingly ignorant of the Koran or he is lying or what he means by seeds is something like a concept that is present in such a tiny way that it is infinitesimal. Now think about this, the Koran is written hundreds of years after the New Testament and thousands of years after the Old Testament, would you really expect a divine addendum of truth to discredit the previous inspiration or to offer only seeds of what was previously clearly expressed? See more in the article Revisiting the Quran’s gross errors concerning Christian theology

Allah and Elohim are related, but they are both words from paganism since paganism predates all monotheistic religions, even if one believes there was always one true religion they were it seems outnumbered by the surrounding cultures. In the article Is the Word Allah Similar to Elohim? by Penny Warren B.A., M.A., D.D we read the following:

The Hebrew title of God is "Elohim;" in Arabic it's "Allah." These two words for God have a common bond that most people don't understand. Both of these words have their origin in pagan deities of the ancient past...

Webster’s Dictionary gives the definition and etymology of Allah as follows. Allah is the Muslim name for "the God." Allah is derived from two words "al," which means "the" and "ilah," which is related to the feminine Hebrew word for God, "eloah."

Now the Hebrew title or name for God is 'Elohim' and it is the plural form of eloah. It is made plural by adding "im," which is masculine. This corresponds to adding "s" to make a word plural in English. So the commonality between Allah and Elohim is "eloah" and "ilah."

According the Huston Smith’s book The World’s Religions (p. 222), it states: "Allah is formed by joining the definite article al meaning ‘the’ with Ilah (God). Literally, Allah means ‘The God.’ … When the masculine plural ending im is dropped from the Hebrew word for God, Elohim, the two words sound much alike." Eloah (Hebrew feminine) is similar to Ilah (God). Both Elohim and Allah are titles and not names.

Most Christians should know by know how frequently the “El” term is used in the Old Testament for various gods and in peoples names honoring their god.

Elohim (אֱלהִים) is a plural formation of eloah, the latter being an expanded form of the Northwest Semitic noun il (אֱל, ʾēl [1]). It is the usual word for "God" in the Hebrew Bible, referring with singular verbs both to the one God of Israel, and also in a few examples to other singular pagan deities. With plural verbs the word is also used as a true plural with the meaning "gods".[2]

Is the god the name of a Nordic pagan deity? The short answer is no, in the following article

Etymology of the Name God :

Oddly, the exact history of the word God is unknown. The word God is a relatively new European invention, which was never used in any of the ancient Judaeo-Christian scripture manuscripts that were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek or Latin.

According to the best efforts of linguists and researchers, the root of the present word God is the Sanskrit word hu which means to call upon, invoke, implore.
Nonetheless, it is also interesting to note the similarity to the ancient Persian word for God which is Khoda.

The following is a survey of some of the efforts of those who have been trying to decipher the ancient roots of the word God:

What is nice about this article is that it then quotes multiple reference works, you don't have to go all over the place, just scroll down the page.

Of course the whole concept of god means that there will be overlap between any and every superhuman being in whatever country or culture. The obnoxious thing about Pastor Nelson is he ignores this simple fact so that he can denigrate god in English because we don't speak Aramaic or Hebrew and those two language that we don't use, are closer being they were near to each other in origins.

It is hard to even formulate an argument against such foolish ideas as Pastor Nelson presents. It is as if he desires to ignore the hatred and cruelty through much of the Islamic world, he acts as if when we observe the cruelty and violence it is anti-Islamic rhetoric. Well the fact is there is a lot of problems going on in the world of Islam and Pastors like Nelson do nothing to help the situation with fictional facts and intentional distortions of the truth. He should be ashamed of himself and if he wants to deal with something a little closer to the heart of Adventism's love of eschatology he might consider the Islamic tradition of the 12th Imam and it's possible connection to the Christian conception of the anti-Christ.

Speaking of the news, only this last week Louis Farrakhan stated that the Great Mahdi is present in the world now.

This is a sign that The Great Mahdi that the Muslim world has been looking for is present in the world. That “The Christ” that you hoped for, “The Christ” that you longed for is present in the world. And all tyrants will be set down—God is stimulating the rise of the masses, and soon it will come to America's shores. Indeed it has already begun.

The Bible misused as a dictionary, Faith still needs evidence

2011-02-26T13:03:00.000-08:00

Today let us explore some more of the irrationality that propagates itself contentedly in the Adventist church. Keeping with last weeks article let us again examine a statement made by Preston Foster on Adventist Today website:

What I am positing is that 1) spirituality is, by nature, irrational as it is based on faith which is, by definition, "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (that definition, alone, would repel the traditional rational thinker) and, 2) based on our limited ability to comprehend God, whose thoughts and ways, by His own admission, are different than ours is.

How many times have we heard this statement, as if the author of the book of Hebrews was actually trying to define the meaning of faith, as if his intent was to give us the once and for all time meaning of faith even though he had used it before and it had been used many times in the Old Testament and the Jewish religion. After all those using this statement will say that they are only letting the Bible define itself as if the simple common words needed to be defined by the Bible as if it was not only a compilation of books but also a dictionary. Think about that for a moment should I use that technique if I said to someone “I love you” and I used the Bible as a dictionary I could quote “God is love” (1 John 4:8) therefore my statement is now “I God you”. Oh we can work it out in a round about way, we can say God loves and because God loves we are able to love. But still the definition of love is not found in the word God, even less so if I don't capitalize god and I realize that there are many different beliefs about god and gods, after all, not all gods are that terribly loving are they? We can't just substitute one word for another because some place it was equated in a statement where “is” is used. “God God's you” it may be true but what does it mean. So are we really being wise to use Hebrews statement as the definition of faith. Let us look at the text in question with the surrounding context, because after all context gives meaning because we are rational:

^{HEB 10:37} For in just a very little while, "He who is coming will come and will not delay.

^{HEB 10:38} But my righteous oneⁿ will live by faith. And if he shrinks back, I will not be pleased with him."ⁿ

^{HEB 10:39} But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved.

^{HEB 11:1} Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

^{HEB 11:2} This is what the ancients were commended for.

^{HEB 11:3} By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

^{HEB 11:4} By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead.

The purpose here is not to define faith as some kind of irrational thought that just gets into our head and we believe it even though we don't see any evidence of it. Faith is not even meant here to mean just because a person is sure of something and hope that their certainty is true that it is in fact true in all things one maybe sure of, rather that faith in Christ is something He is sure of and encourages other to be sure of. As the Expositor's Bible Commentary says:

The chapter begins with some general observations on the nature of faith. They do not constitute a formal definition; rather, the writer is calling attention to some significant features of faith. Then he proceeds to show how faith works out in practice.

1 In the Greek the verb "is" (estin) is the first word. Faith is a present and continuing reality. It is not simply a virtue sometimes practiced in antiquity. It is a living thing, a way of life the writer wishes to see continued in the practice of his readers. Faith, he tells us, is a hypostasis of things hoped for. The term has evoked lively discussion. Sometimes it has a subjective meaning, as in 3:14 where NIV translates it as "confidence." But it may also be used more objectively, and KJV understands it that way in this passage by translating it as "substance." This would mean that things that have no reality in themselves are made real (given "substance") by faith. But this does not seem to be what the writer is saying. Rather, his meaning is that there are realities for which we have no material evidence though they are not the less real for that. Faith enables us to know that they exist and, while we have no certainty apart from faith, faith does give us genuine certainty. "To have faith is to be sure of the things we hope for" (TEV). Faith is the basis, the substructure (hypostasis means lit. "that which stands under") of all that the Christian life means, all that the Christian hopes for.

Faith in the Bible is developed, it is practiced it is lived and thus Hebrews chapter 11 recounts several instances of faith. Not one of them simply based upon some irrational concept. God warns Noah and Noah builds and Ark, Abraham is called by God and goes to a foreign country, Abraham and Sarah have a child which they are promised by God. Now we may not know in all the cases how they received their messages from God but it does appear that it is not meant to convey the idea that their spirituality was based upon some form of irrationality. Instead they were trusting the one that communicated to them. The implication being that their lives included enough reason to come to the place where they could trust God rather then just following an irrational voice in their head. Think of the story of Israel's exodus from Egypt. Moses comes to Pharaoh and tells them what God wants. Pharaoh says who is this god and why should I do what he says and then evidence is provided. Pharaoh needed a rational reason to give up what was to him, his property.

We don't ever want to get to the position of faith without reason. There has to be a reason, there has to be some kind of evidence to create the faith. As Paul once wrote:

^{1CO 15:14} And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.

Faith that is not backed by evidence is usually useless. Irrational preaching and faith is useless if there is not reality to move the irrational into the realm of the rational. The problem is that today there are certain people of a fundamentalist perspective who despise logic and reason because reason dictates against certain of their beliefs. Their beliefs having become sacred truth because they hold them tight because they are traditions. When reality conflicts with their beliefs instead of re-evaluating their beliefs they reject reality in favor of their traditions and as in the above quote redefine Biblical material to support their traditional views. Growth however comes from changing, discarding things that don't fit reality and adapting to new systems of thought that function with reality. It is not perfect as you don't arrive at truth instantly it is a constant movement toward greater understanding. Not every theory will work out and when they don't they must be discarded, keeping the theory just because it has become your tradition insures that you won't ever change or grow. This failure to grow is so often the landmark of religion, it becomes why Fundamentalists whether Christian or Islamic fight against modernity. Because modernity and even post modernity refuse to simply accept tradition without evidence.

So we have to move past the irrational toward rational views in all things, and God is not irrational the very process of progressive revelation of the Bible indicates that God understands the need to grow and change and step by step lead people in a rational way while maintaining the necessary distinction between the natural and the supernatural. Which requires us to reason not only why miracles occur but why they don't occur. How best can we understand a God whose capabilities so outweigh our capabilities and the distinction between force and willing trust. It is unlikely that we can fully understand God but to end the rational pursuit of God is a fulfillment of the old commercial that said “a mind is a terribly thing to waste”. We can never get to the point as someone once claimed a church authority said regarding the Godhead and The Plan of Salvation :

“to wit: if we try to understand it, we will lose our minds; but if we don’t believe it, we will lose our souls.”

Adventist Mission Statement Gospel Restricted to SDA Doctrines

2011-02-19T18:40:00.000-08:00

You have probably noticed that I am not putting up blog posts as often as I used to. Part of this is a reflection of the deep disappointment I feel in Adventism. See Addendum below for some examples.

One of the recent article on Adventist Today's website is entitled Have We Lost Sight of Our Mission? By Preston Foster. I will sum up the article by using some of the comments after the article. In response to a comment by John McClarty (in red) where he quotes Preston's original article (in bold) Preston explains his intent.

I'm not saying that our message isn't Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. It is. I'm not saying that the most important thing that anyone could ever discover isn't the love of Christ and the gift of salvation thru His sacrifice. It is.

But those fundamental truths are not our mission."

Do you really mean to argue that our mission and message are separate from "the most important thing that anyone could ever discover"? Our mission is to help people discover the second most important thing? The third most important thing?

Yes, that is exactly what I am positing. The point is to differentiate between our message as Christians and our mission as a denomination. Our message, like that of all Christian churches is Christ, and Him crucified. That is the most important thing that any Christian can communicate to another human. However, that is not the reason that this denomination exists.

(skip one paragraph)

As, perhaps, some of our brethren of other denominations were given light to see was was written about grace, we Adventists have been given a mission in regard to what has been written in Scripture about the Sabbath and its connection to identifying truth in the last days before the Second Advent. Delivering that message is, in my view, the mission of this denomination, in the context of the body of Christ.

The problem here is not only with Preston's view of things. It is in fact the problem with the Adventist church that we create our doctrines as the official interpreter of the gospel. Let me explain the reason I say that lest I simply make unsupportable statements like the bloggers I have mentioned in the addendum. Adventists have a mission statement that is very peculiar. Until I was spurred by Preston's blog to examine our mission statement I did not realize the cryptic nature of our statement. The Adventist mission statement reads:

Our Mission

The mission of the Seventh-day Adventist Church is to make disciples of all people, communicating the everlasting gospel in the context of the three angels' messages of Revelation 14:6-12, leading them to accept Jesus as personal Savior and unite with His remnant Church, discipling them to serve Him as Lord and preparing them for His soon return. http://adventist.org/beliefs/statements/main-stat1.html

Our mission statement which is given by the leaders to inform the organization how to carry out their mission includes the code language of Adventism namely the three angels' messages. If you read Revelation 14 you will not understand how it explains the everlasting gospel. It does not provide the context of the everlasting gospel. For that you would be better off reading the context of the Gospels, or even Paul then Revelation 14. But the three angels messages is code language for the distinctive Adventist doctrines. Even Wikipedia understands the code method of using the three angels' message to mean the SDA church. As their article quotes the SDA church manual:

"In accordance with God’s uniform dealing with mankind, warning them of coming events that will vitally affect their destiny, He has sent forth a proclamation of the approaching return of Christ. This preparatory message is symbolized by the three angels’ messages of Revelation 14, and meets its fulfillment in the great Second Advent Movement today. This has brought forth the remnant, or Seventh-day Adventist Church, keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus." Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual[2]

In short The Adventist church is the Remnant and it is her doctrines that the remnant must proclaim, the Adventist church sees itself in the book of Revelation and in Revelation 14 as being those who keep the commandments of God and have the Faith of Jesus. As Hans K. LaRondelle states in his article The Remnant and the Three Angels’ Messages

Three key teachings, each developed independently, merged into one message that began to characterize the movement of the Sabbatarian Adventists: Christ’s final ministry in the sanctuary, the Sabbath as a sign of obedience to God’s commandments, and the application of the phrase “testimony of Jesus” to a new manifestation of the prophetic gift through Ellen G. White (1827– 1915) in the “remnant” church (Rev. 12:17; 14:12; 19:10). These distinctive concepts began to be integrated into a unified body of belief during six Bible conferences held in the northeastern United States in 1848. The participants held in common a belief that in the post-1844 period all biblical truth had to be restored among God’s remnant people before the Second Advent would take place. They agreed on seven principal points, which came to be called the “landmarks” or fundamentals. These formed the “firm platform” of present truth on which the emerging Seventhday Adventist Church was built. Specifically, they were (1) the imminent Second Advent, (2) the continuous historical interpretation of the major time prophecies of Daniel and Revelation, (3) the conditional immortality of human beings, (4) Christ’s beginning of His final ministry in the heavenly sanctuary in 1844, (5) the seventh-day Sabbath, (6) the renewed manifestation of the Spirit of Prophecy, and (7) the historical fulfillment of the three angels’ messages of Revelation.

What this all allows is that our mission becomes less about the Gospel and more about Adventist Doctrinal interpretations, the gospel according to Adventist doctrines. We see how important this is in the mission statement if we omit the part about remnant and three angels. Removed the statement would look like this:

The mission of the Seventh-day Adventist Church is to make disciples of all people, communicating the everlasting gospel , leading them to accept Jesus as personal Savior and unite with His Church, discipling them to serve Him as Lord and preparing them for His soon return

That would be a pretty good mission statement. Who would have a problem with that? But of course that is not our mission statement. Remember the purpose of a mission statement is primarily internal, for the organization:

A Mission Statement defines the organization's purpose and primary objectives. Its prime function is internal – to define the key measure or measures of the organization's success – and its prime audience is the leadership team and stockholders.

This shows that the Adventist church goal is to define and spread a gospel of it's own particular formulation. Preston on February 17 commented the following on the blog:

The filter that separates those who, in the last days, are listening to (and obeying) the authentic voice of God are, per Revelation 14:12. That is, those "keep the commandments of God" as given in Exodus 20, "and have the testimony of Jesus." It seems many Christians, by definition, "have the testimony of Jesus." The differentiator, for many, will be "keeping the commandments of God," as opposed to the traditions of men. The seventh-day Sabbath is the point of differentiation between the two.

For now I will ignore the misuse of Exodus 20 as the meaning of commandments rather then the New Testament meaning of the instructions of God and the fact that really no one is keeping all the commandments of God individually or as a denomination. We see that Preston defines the gospel along narrow Adventist remnant theology. Which is what the mission statement requires.

It does make me wonder, with a mission statement so self centered how will the Adventist church ever actually present the gospel?

----
Addendum: Edited 9:21 Pacific Time
Adventism appears to very quickly be moving into such a narrow cult-like religion that it seems somewhat pointless to point out the foolishness that is afflicting the church from the top down. All one has to do is read the Adventist Today Blog and see they have installed various bloggers with so little sense that it is appalling. A couple of cases as examples. Originally I cited this section as a preamble to my above article, but they are really separate issues and the importance of the mission statement should be seen without the personally feeling I have regarding the quality of material from the Adventist Today bloggers.

Stephen Foster Adventist Today blogger in the comments section of Ervin Taylors Blog says:

However, regarding the Godhead and The Plan of Salvation, I will quote/paraphrase the great Dr. Calvin B. Rock,to wit: if we try to understand it,we will lose our minds; but if we don’t believe it,we will lose our souls.

Later he will say that “try to understand it” is the same as totally or fully comprehend it. It is the technique of arguing by changing the meaning of the words after he said them. You can read the conversation at the blog. It is considerably frustrating to deal with people that are that completely illogical. It is rather like the person who just peed on you leg telling you that the liquid is not from them and that it is good for you and the ground also but it was not pee and you simply cannot understand that they never peed at all. Most all of Stephen Foster's blogs are like that as well, another example is the first paragraph of his most recent blog:

Yes, it is the undeniable fact that the God of the Bible does set before us life and death, and never changes those options, that has forced those who don't like that type of God, or don't think that type of God is worthy of worship, to reinvent Him in their own image. This is what all the postmodern, emergent, cross-over-Christian psychobabble is largely about, no doubt.

As if that opening tells us anything of the kind; that if one does not accept that God sets before us life and death then everything from postmodern, emergent Christianity is reinventing God in people's image. You will not find him logically setting forth his reasoning in any of his blogs on the subject just his presuppositions as fact and they are not intelligent presuppositions or anything close to facts. But he is not alone in this type of writing style. In Cindy Tutch's article last month also supposedly on emergent churches her beginning sentence is as follows:

In the Adventist sanctuary doctrine, which is unique to our movement, we find a visual merger of relationship (Christ our High Priest), ancient roots (the Judaic Sanctuary rituals) and a common history (unfolding dialogue between the people and God). Satan targets this highly symbolic yet relational motif because it is the very heart of God's will and instructions regarding redemption, mission, spirituality, and even worship.

You know doubt wonder how it is that Satan targets this highly symbolic yet relational motif? Well you can keep wondering because as with the old “Satan made me do it claim” the claim is all that is necessary because they can't show how Satan made them do it nor can Cindy say how Satan targets the Adventist sanctuary doctrine which is highly symbolic yet relational. If you are a critical thinking person you can probably see another problem there in something being called highly symbolic yet relational. You might like to see that little idea delved into a bit...well you will have to wait for that and I would not suggest you hold your breath to find out about that little theory.

Faith and Mystery vs. Certainity

2011-02-05T11:37:00.000-08:00

I came upon the following quote from the speaker Brene Brown on her lecture “The power of vulnerability” at the TED website :

“The other thing we do is we make everything uncertain certain religion has gone from
faith and mystery to certainty, I'm right your wrong shut up that's it just certain...”

This is such an amazingly true statement yet so simply put that it becomes striking. This is so true of Fundamentalism and now becoming undeniable in Adventism. In a previous post I mentioned an Andrews Seminary student who I think is the perfect example of this. In Ervin Taylor's Blog entitled “Forward into the Past” we read this statement directed toward me:

“..It is also just funny how you and some others speak against the doctrines of the church and at the same time don't leave the church . People like you should be disfellowshiped , and given them a restraning order from our churches”... [please not I don't correct spelling or grammar when quoting blog comments]

I put that quote in because most who read the quote by Brene Brown will see the truth of the first part of the sentence but think that we don't actually have people saying shut up if you are not certain like them. Later on this seminary student who apparently is also already a Pastor from what he says, was more magnanimous, saying:

...”Ervin , Ron and Elaine , your problem is that you don't believe in the inspiration of scripture .As a Pastor , I wouldn't mind having you visit my church . I would just not baptize you or give you any privileges ( like preaching , or teaching a Sababth school class or leading in small groups ) So I believe there is place for everybody in the church , and I think that is what the church does to you , I don't think any of you teach or preach in the churches you attend but I am sure that people smile at you and invite you to stay after potluck . ELder Wilson say we should read more Ellen white , I thik she will answer your questions . read the chapter on creation and you will change your view .I am glad that God the remnant church the gift of prophecy and we have Ellen white who has been right on final events and every single area she wrote . Ellen is our modern day "Moses " who is going to take us to the promised land . If you don't want to be deceived by the Satan ,read her writings .”

Church is to be a place to be smiled at and maybe invited to a potluck just as long as you don't talk about what you think and are given no opportunity to express your beliefs or opinions or uncertainty. Shut up unless you believe like me seems to be the new Adventist Fundamentalism. Did you also notice that he would not even baptize those who don't believe like him. My statements here are not simply representative of this seminary student but upon the actual experiences I have in my local church and many churches I have visited. This seminary student is just a recent example who I have in writing so I don't have to rely on my memory of personal experiences.

Certainly about faith and ancient stories and ancient history is really not that wise. It leads to false acceptance of non facts to be facts. I have reason to believe the stories about Jesus Christ but that is based upon certain evidence but evidence is not completely solid which is why it has from the New Testament times been termed faith. But faith that becomes certainty is no longer faith and if that certainty is based upon the misuse of facts or the absence of facts then that certainty is hubris.

Religion as hubris is not attractive! Certainty becomes exclusiveness and rather then spreading the idea of love and acceptance with the humility to learn more, the “certain” church becomes accepting of those who believe like them, love is lost unless you believe as they do or at best a pipe dream talked about but not practices. Humility and learning become the qualities on the outside, they out there, study the natural world and they study mankind with it's many attributes, inside we have our beliefs and we are certain of them because Scriptures can only be interpreted as we on the inside interpret them. Those who are certain don't need to learn anything because it might go against their certainty, and humility becomes humility based upon the assumption that they have the truth, the certainty of their own view of the truth. As we look at history it is often those who are the most certain who are the most dangerous, you only have to look at certain segments of Islam to see that certainty in action and it deadly consequences.

A religion that has lost it's faith and mystery has lost it reason to exist.

May 21 Another End of the World

2011-01-22T17:12:00.000-08:00

Well it is that time once again. Its the end of the world again. The great day of judgment just beats the hysterics of 2012 by several months because now the end of the world comes on May 21 2011. At least according to some acclaimed date setters...though not Seventh-day Adventists.

From the Philadelphia Inquirer:

PHILADELPHIA — Soon it will be spring again. The snow will melt, the dogwoods flower. Trumpets will blast, graves will open, and Earth will begin a five-month descent to its fiery end.
Radio evangelist Harold Camping can hardly wait.
May 21 is Judgment Day, when "this world will be a horror story beyond anything we can imagine," he asserts.
A fixture on Christian airwaves around the world, Camping, 89, is exhorting all who are listening to "make ready" for Jesus' triumphal return, whose precise date he says God has revealed to him with "fantastic proof" in the Bible.
End-of-timers generally have been fixated on the doomsday date of Dec. 21, 2012 — when the "Long Count" calendar of the ancient Maya ends and, presumably, the world with it.
There won't even be a 2012, according to Camping. His website displays the number with a red slash through it.

Some of you may recall Harold Camping from his earlier prediction of the end of the world in 1994. As the Philadelphia Inquirer article states:

“In the late 1980s, he began warning the end would come in September 1994. When Gabriel's trumpet failed to sound, he revised his dates for several years before dropping the subject.”

Camping however did not drop the subject. He and his associates have come up with this new date. If we look at one of their websites we see these remarkable facts about 1994 as they list some important dates of Christianity:

33 AD—The year Jesus Christ was crucified and the church age began (11,045 years from creation; 5023 calendar years from the flood).
1988 AD—This year ended the church age and began the great tribulation period of 23 years (13,000 years from creation).
1994 AD—On September 7^th, the first 2300-day period of the great tribulation came to an end and the latter rain began, commencing God’s plan to save a great multitude of people outside of the churches (13,006 years from creation).
2011 AD—On May 21^st, Judgment Day will begin and the rapture (the taking up into heaven of God’s elect people) will occur at the end of the 23-year great tribulation. On October 21^st, the world will be destroyed by fire (7000 years from the flood; 13,023 years from creation).

Now a good SDA one might ask, from 33 AD to 1988 where is 538 AD, where is 1798 AD which is generated by adding 1260 to 538 however nothing special actually happened in 538, but still where is it and where is 1844, these are important dates in Adventist Eschatology Millerites and Adventists were the most prominent date setters in America.

Once you get past there not being the numbers you as an Adventist are familiar with notice that 1994 somehow became an important date. The 2300 day/year period ended not in 1844 as Adventist's teach but in 1994 and just like in 1844 nothing much changed that we could see, it is all sort of God's plan but does not have anything really to do with us. Except for those who predicted something would happen in 1844 or Harold Camping's 1994. Then it becomes an important date and maybe even critical. Why the new date for destruction by fire is so close to the old 1844 date of October 22 as to be scary if you ignore the 150 years anyway.

If you bother to look at the website to see how they made their calculations you see they are just as silly as those for 1844 but you know once people get an idea they really hang on to it even after the events foretold did not occur. Take for instance this remark made on the comments section of Atoday for January 20th by someone who claims to be a pastor and goes by the moniker Seminary Student (I did not correct spelling or grammar):

“Elaine , the point is the Luther left the Catholic church because he believe in scripture not in tradition to interpret scripture , Ellen White well she was difellowship from the Methodist church because she follow Miller interpretation of scritpture which was biblical .”

Now William Miller disavowed his interpretation which in essence became a prediction and now 167 years later we in the Adventist church at our Seminary in Andrews University someone who claims that Miller was right when Miller was clearly wrong.

The power of reinterpretation from the visible to the invisible. Perhaps it is a strength in Christianity but it most certainly is also a cutting weakness.