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.
I think we should rewrite No17 and cancel this sentence. Or at least the part in bold.
What is your objection to this? I certainly don't see any fault in it. There are many authors who would fit in to this classification. I would like to propose that George Knight and Jon Paulien for certain would qualify. Are they not an ongoing source of truth? Are they not an authority on the Adventist subjects they write about? No need to stop with the two I mentioned. But, like I say ... many would qualify under this statement. So, I don't find it offensive or exclusive at all.
The only problem I have with this statement is that it is not entirely true. When we say 'her writings are an authoritative source of truth' this implies that all her writings are an auth. source of truth. And
some of her writings clearly do not fit in this category.
I also don’t understand your point about Jon Paulien. I do love his books and commentaries etc. but I don’t think it sounds right to say “
The Bible is an authoritative source of truth” and “
Jon Paulien is an authoritative source of truth”. And if you say “many would fit in to this classification” why then not mention them all and include them into our fundamentals?
My main concern is that we unnecessarily give non-Adventists the basis to attack this fundamental belief because it sounds that way, as if
all her writings are a source of truth, and there’s just no need for this.
Previous Topic
Index
