How much of Scripture is inspired?

[Guest]

Amen

[John317]

Greek scholars say that the term Jesus used Abba, is actually plural and a more accurate translation would be Fathers or what children use as a term of endearment (like the word "Daddy" or "Mommy") but simply means parent, a term that can be either mommy, daddy or mommy and daddy. Except for the little child term part, a more accurate English translation would be "Parent" instead of Father.

The Greek word, "Abba," is an indeclinable transliteration of a Hebrew [emphatic state in Chaldee, "the father"] or Aramaic word for "father." It occurs in Mark 14: 36; Romans 8: 15 and Gal. 4: 6. It adds "a" (the) to "ba"(father), thus "abba." The word means "Father," or "daddy," but since it is indeclinable, the word would be the same whether referring to either the male or the female parent. In practice, however, I don't know of any examples in literature where it was ever used to refer to the female parent or to both parents. All of the Greek dictionaries and Lexicons tell us that the word is masculine in gender. It's possible it was used among the Hebrews families to refer to either parent but I don't know of any instance where that was done. In Mark 14: 36, Jesus is reported to have said, "Abba, ho pathr," that is, "Daddy, o Father," making it certain that Jesus meant "Abba" in the singular masculine sense. Therefore we can be certain that Paul used it in the same sense in Romans 8: 15 and Gal. 4: 16.

[Dr. Rich]

Hey Kevin and John, are you insinuating that historic Greek scholars knew more then the wise will as found in Daniel 12:10? Or--that they knew more than the 'good and faithful servant' that is found to be teaching the fellow servants the truth when Jesus come like a thief?

Here is your problem: Jesus would have come a long time ago IF His people knew the truth. The ONLY reason Jesus didn't come in 1994 (appointed time) was because the bride was not ready (didn't know the truth) so there could not be any wedding.

If you disagree, then please tell me your reason why Jesus hasn't come already?

If Jesus didn't come to this earth to testify to the words of the Father, them being the truth, then what did Jesus come to this earth to do? If you answer that He came to die for our sins, then how come God didn't allow Him to be killed with all of the other babies? What took Jesus so long for Him to wait around till His death?

[John317]

Hey Kevin and John, are you insinuating that historic Greek scholars knew more then the wise will as found in Daniel 12:10?

I can't speak for Kevin, of course.

By "historic Greek scholars," I'm not sure who you mean. Do you refer to the prophets and apostles? Those are the people I'm referring to. I'm just talking about how words are used in the Bible.

I consider the Bible as the rule or canon of truth. I don't believe God will ever reveal anything to humans that contradicts the other things he's revealed. It may appear to contradict, however, so we need to be very careful about making this judgment. We need to distinguish between our ideas of what the Scriptures say and the Scriptures themselves. That's why it's always important to go back to the Scripture and make sure our ideas are in line with clear Bible teaching.

Quote:

Or--that they knew more than the 'good and faithful servant' that is found to be teaching the fellow servants the truth when Jesus come like a thief?

Again, I don't believe the good and faithful servant of Matt. 24: 45 will be teaching anything that disagrees with Scripture. In the same way, Christ did not teach anything contrary to what God had revealed before in Scripture. To the Jews of Christ's day, it appeared to contradict, but we know that it didn't and that the "church" leaders of that period were blind to the truth.

[John317]

Here is your problem: Jesus would have come a long time ago IF His people knew the truth.

First, we agree that Christ could have come before now.

But I don't think it's a matter of not knowing the truth intellectually, i.e, certain facts, but of our not accepting the truth of the everlasting good news into our hearts and minds and obeying the truth that we do know. If we were ignorant or did not have exposure to the truth, that would be one thing; but our problem is that we have had more truth revealed to us than any people who've ever lived.

Quote:

The ONLY reason Jesus didn't come in 1994 (appointed time) was because the bride was not ready (didn't know the truth) so there could not be any wedding.

Not sure what you mean by "knowing the truth." What truth do you refer to? It sounds like you have a specific "truth" in mind?

I'm not a believer in the theory about 1994 being the "appointed time." But I do believe that Christ could have come in the 1850s and again in the 1890s if the early Adventists had accepted the message that God revealed and had united on it and proclaimed it throughout the world in the power of the Holy Spirit. I don't believe that it was ever God's plan that the World Wars occur as they did. (Of course this is not denying that God knows the end from the beginning.)

Quote:

If you disagree, then please tell me your reason why Jesus hasn't come already?

Because the SDA church hasn't accepted, obeyed, and proclaimed the 1888 Message, which is the same as the Third Angels Message. The church is essentially in rebellion, the same as the children of Israel on the borders of the Promised Land. There are individuals who are not in rebellion but the vast majority are.

By "rebellion," I simply mean that as a people and as a church we are not in full obedience and submission to the will of God in our lives and in our church. We are resisting.

Yet God still loves us and still loves the church and He appeals to us with messages such as found in Rev. 3: 14-22. (I am not implying that God doesn't love everyone on earth.)

So the reason Jesus hasn't come is simply that His people aren't ready. If He were to come now, the majority of the church would be lost. If He allowed the testing time to come upon us now, we wouldn't be able to stand. So Christ waits.

When will we get ready? When will we be prepared for Him to return for His church?

The book of Revelation (19: 7; 22: 14) says it will happen when His people have made themselves ready.

I don't believe it's a particular time but a particular spiritual condition that God is waiting for. When God sees that condition of His people is reached-- the harvest being fully ripe-- He will allow the angels to release the winds. Rev. 7: 1-3; cf. 14: 14-20; chapters 16-18.

[Guest]

Amen

[Twilight]

The Holy Spirit will work with anyone who will accept Her presence, but She will not dwell (live) in anyone that has a spirit other than Her own. 'Working with' someone is certainly different from 'dwelling in' someone. The Holy Spirit IS the 3rd person of the God head. The Holy Spirit is perfectly righteous, and while She will minister to the broken hearted, and comfort the afflicted, and guide, She cannot and will not be intimate with anyone that is less perfect than is God. Jesus said, "Be ye perfect even as your Father in Heaven is perfect." This statement is not a metaphor, it is a fact.

You must choose who will lead you and to what end. If you believe a lie, even though you believe it is the truth, then you are being led by a spirit other than the Spirit of God. If (as you put it) our Pentecostal 'brothers' believe a lie thinking that it is the truth then they are being led by the spirit of Satan. If this is the case then they are not 'brothers' of Jesus Christ, nor have they been 'born again' of the Spirit of Holiness. The only relatives that God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit can have are those that qualify under the Law to be family. The 'Family' in Heaven IS perfect, so to must the family on earth be. This will be accomplished before the end, because God promised it:

"The glory of the Lord will fill the whole earth." Num. 14:21.

You must choose who will lead you and to what end. If you believe a lie, even though you believe it is the truth, then you are being led by a spirit other than the Spirit of God.

So if you beleive that the Holy Spirit is female, when He is not, then you are being led by another spirit other than the Spirit of God?

Mark...

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

I have the book John317 suggested on order, so will look at that when it comes.

But at this point, I would like to see this point established from scripture.

If you or anyone else is interested, some of Pastor Vaughn Allen's other books on the subject are also available:

Victory On the Battlefield, Setting Captives Free: http://www.amazon.com/Victory-Battlefield-Setting-Captives-Free/dp/0945383525

The above book, published by TEACH SERVICES, was written for Seventh-day Adventists and contains most of the things that Ellen White, as well as the Bible, have to say on the topic of demon possession. 250 pages. His best and most comprehensive book on the topic.

You Can Be Free. 1996, Fourth Edition 2004. CHJ Publishing, PO Box 125 Middleton, Idaho 83644

Delivered From Demon Possession. Introduction by Roy Allen Anderson. Pacific Press Publishing Ass. 1981/ http://www.biblio.com/isbn/9780816303663.html

You Can Be More Than A Match For Satan. Published by American Cassette Ministries, 1983. /http://openlibrary.org/b/OL11401164M/You_can_be_more_than_a_match_for_Satan

Thank you. :-)

My book "budget" has about gone for the month, so will start with the first one.

Do you know if the author has any sermons on the web?

Mark

[Twilight]

I don't believe it's a particular time but a particular spiritual condition that God is waiting for.

Amen... :-)

[Woody]

There ain't going to be many in Heaven since all the past generations failed then. He may have to wait a long time for the perfection that you guys want. I for one ain't there.

[Guest]

DEPARTING FROM THE WORD

PART IV

The Bible – Progressive Revelation or Progressive Ideas?

Objective. In this section we shall examine to what extent higher-critical assumptions are influencing Seventh-day Adventist views on human relationships, the Spirit's ongoing divine

guidance, concepts of God, divine judgment, the doctrine of hell, and the nature of "present truth."

Key Issue. How should we understand the nature of "progressive revelation"? Is it an unfolding of the meaning and import of previously disclosed truth, or is it a revelation of new

truths that are not already present in the Bible?

[Guest]

Traditional Adventist Belief.

Historically, Adventists have understood "progressive revelation" to mean an ever increasing unfolding or expansion of what was previously

revealed. They have often referred to this as "present truth," arguing that new truth does not contradict previously revealed truth.1 Thus, the preamble to our Fundamental Beliefs speaks

of how "the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God's Holy Word."

But as is common in liberal theology, proponents of the historical-critical method have taken this good concept and redefined it according to the myth of evolutionism. To promote their "dynamic concept of truth," they disguise it as the "Holy Spirit's leading"--when it is actually the spirit of the modern age which is driving them. They claim that "progressive revelation" is the Holy Spirit's guidance into truths that were not previously revealed by the

Bible writers, and which may at times be contradictory to established Bible truth. Thus they abandon God's absolute truth for liberalism's "dynamic truth"; and they replace the true

progressive (i.e. unfolding) revelation of His written Word with the allegedly "progressive" ideas of our contemporary culture.

How are historical-critical assumptions shaping Adventist views on the interpretation of Scripture?

[Guest]

Effect of the Liberal Approach

Reinterpreting progressive revelation to mean the disclosure of new truths to supplant old ones is another variation of the cultural conditioning argument discussed in part two of this chapter. In this respect, those who maintain that some parts of the Bible are culturally conditioned will also tend to hold the new views regarding progressive revelation.

Human Relationships. Proponents of the new approaches to the Bible do not overtly deny the absolute nature of Biblical truth.Yet by viewing truth as dynamic or evolutionary--at least in such matters as male-female roles, polygamy, and homosexuality--they are leaning in that direction.

For example, although they acknowledge that male headship and the female supportive roles are taught in both the Old and New Testaments, they argue that these directives were not meant for all time. The teachings were meant to evolve and change with culture. Another example is marriage, which they believe to have evolved from the widespread polygamy in the Old Testament (Abraham, Jacob, Isaac, David, etc.) towards monogamous relationships in the New Testament, and now, some would argue, should include a closed couple

homosexual relationship.

Even when confronted with the evidence that, in Eden prior to the fall, God instituted male-female role differentiation and monogamous (not polygamous), heterosexual (not homosexual) marriage, such proponents may respond that Genesis 1 and 2 are not historical;

and even if they are historical, Adam was androgynous (bisexual). An un-historical creation account and an androgynous Adam both nullify the biblical case for divinely instituted role differences and a monogamous heterosexual relationship. A few examples will illustrate this new understanding of "progressive revelation."

[John317]

There ain't going to be many in Heaven since all the past generations failed then. He may have to wait a long time for the perfection that you guys want. I for one ain't there.

You misunderstand. No one is saying that God requires that people be absolutely perfect in order to be in heaven.

But it is true that there will be many people disappointed to find themselves on the outside of the City when they believed they would be saved. Jesus Himself talks about that.

Jude speaks in verse 4 of "godless persons, who pervert the favor of our God into an excuse to continue breaking God's law and deny our sole Master and Lord, Jesus Christ."

[Guest]

Mat 7:21 Not every one that says unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Jesus never taught that after the cross you could just keep right on doing your own thing and still be saved.

Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For outside are dogs, and sorcerers, and fornicators, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loves and makes a lie. Rev 22:14,15

[Guest]

The Spirit's Guidance Today.

Bible-believing Adventists hold that there are no theological contradictions or discrepancies in Scripture. However, a historical-critical proponent responds: "The objection to such a view of inspiration would be that it does not recognize the developmental process behind doctrinal truths which unfold in Scripture, and

fails to account for theological contradictions in the Bible."

A favorite illustration for liberalism's "dynamic truth" of progressive revelation5 is how the Holy Spirit allegedly guided Paul to contravene His explicit instructions at the Jerusalem

Council. In Acts 15:28, 29, the Spirit guided the Jerusalem Council to lay down as a binding obligation to Christians that they should abstain from "meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication." These "necessary" prohibitions were

binding on all churches (Acts 15:28; 16:4; 21:25; Rev 2:14, 20).6 But in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10, Paul appears to set aside the Spirit-inspired command of Acts 15 when he stated that the Corinthians could eat meat offered to idols.

To some Adventist scholars, this is a prime example of how the Holy Spirit overrules a binding moral command given in an earlier time.7 It could also suggest to them that what may be morally forbidden to Christians in one culture could be morally acceptable in another.

Notice, however, that a careful study of 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 does not validate the conclusions of these scholars. This reinterpretation of progressive revelation is based on an assumption that there is no underlying unity in the various parts of Scripture. If we view the

Scriptures as a divine document as much as human, we will seek to discover the underlying harmony among Scriptures that may at first seem contradictory.

But under the impact of historical-critical assumptions, some scholars cast doubt on the basic unity of the Bible. One Adventist scholar dismisses it as "the traditional theoretical model of the unity of Scripture." In his opinion there are "differences" in the Bible, a euphemism for alleged contradictions, discrepancies, and mistakes.

Denying the Bible's unity makes it impossible to maintain the validity of comparing Scripture with Scripture as Jesus did on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:27). Can this explain the uneasiness of some scholars to do topical Bible study, dismissing it as a "proof-text" or

"key-text" method? Can this also explain the claim by some that later Bible writers cannot be reliable interpreters of earlier inspired writers?

[Ted Oplinger]

Originally Posted By: Redwood

There ain't going to be many in Heaven since all the past generations failed then. He may have to wait a long time for the perfection that you guys want. I for one ain't there.

You misunderstand. No one is saying that God requires that people be absolutely perfect in order to be in heaven.

But it is true that there will be many people disappointed to find themselves on the outside of the City when they believed they would be saved. Jesus Himself talks about that.

Jude speaks in verse 4 of "godless persons, who pervert the favor of our God into an excuse to continue breaking God's law and deny our sole Master and Lord, Jesus Christ."

Agreed John.

Perfection is not required for entry to heaven, but those getting there will be perfected by Christ in His time and manner (Jude 24)

Shabbat Shalom,

[Ted Oplinger]

DEPARTING FROM THE WORD

PART IV

The Bible – Progressive Revelation or Progressive Ideas?

Objective. In this section we shall examine to what extent higher-critical assumptions are influencing Seventh-day Adventist views on human relationships, the Spirit's ongoing divine

guidance, concepts of God, divine judgment, the doctrine of hell, and the nature of "present truth."

Key Issue. How should we understand the nature of "progressive revelation"? Is it an unfolding of the meaning and import of previously disclosed truth, or is it a revelation of new

truths that are not already present in the Bible?

Good topical point there, Richard. How to show one the difference between the two? "Progressive" is earning a bad meaning in several circles I know of...

[Guest]

Progressive theology = Liberal theology

[Guest]

A God Who Keeps Changing.

Rejecting the internal unity of Scripture, one "progressive Adventist" professor takes a "dynamic" view of Scripture. The picture of God revealed in both Testaments, she says, was merely the views of the Bible writers as they understood God in their time. Thus, in the Bible we find God evolving from the violent, blood-thirsty God of

the Old Testament to the kind and gentle God of the New. She writes: "The belief in progressive revelation makes us aware that our pictures of God keep changing. . . .

There is enough internal evidence, as scholars have shown, to suggest that as one reads through the Bible, a loving monotheistic God emerges from a pantheon of warlike gods. The progressive Adventist believes that the picture of God blotting out populations either by the sword of man, or by fires, earthquakes, catastrophic storms, and volcanic eruptions, demonstrates that man has indeed made god in his own image."

This "progressive Adventist" belief is a variation of the cultural conditioning argument, claiming that the inspired accounts in the Old Testament were colored by the Bible writers' cultural understanding of God; the Old Testament pictures of God were a creation in their

"own image." The above scholar's idea that there are "differences" between the Old and New Testament pictures of God is an old heresy--Marcionism--being recycled as new truth for our

enlightened age.

How can the biblical God who says "I am the Lord, I change not" (Mal 3:6) evolve from a "pantheon of warlike gods" into the "loving monotheistic God" that we know Him to be? Can such a God be trusted? Can we place our future into His hands? When friends and loved ones

we trust change, we are disappointed. How can we be sure that the God we know today will not change tomorrow?

[Woody]

Quote:

Perfection is not required for entry to heaven, but those getting there will be perfected by Christ in His time and manner (Jude 24)

Shabbat Shalom,

Yes Amen. In HIS time. And at HIS pleasure. Some of us are far to anxious for perfection. It will come before Heaven and at HIS timing.

[Ted Oplinger]

A God Who Keeps Changing.

Rejecting the internal unity of Scripture, one "progressive Adventist" professor takes a "dynamic" view of Scripture. The picture of God revealed in both Testaments, she says, was merely the views of the Bible writers as they understood God in their time. Thus, in the Bible we find God evolving from the violent, blood-thirsty God of

the Old Testament to the kind and gentle God of the New.

Quote:

Only to turn back into such a violently-potrayed God again at the Second and Third Comings of Christ. Tsk, Tsk, Tsk

She writes: "The belief in progressive revelation makes us aware that our pictures of God keep changing. . . .

"Progressive Revelation - this version is not what I heard it is supposed to be.

Her take on Malachi 3:6 is not too tenable...

How can the biblical God who says "I am the Lord, I change not" (Mal 3:6) evolve from a "pantheon of warlike gods" into the "loving monotheistic God" that we know Him to be? Can such a God be trusted? Can we place our future into His hands? When friends and loved ones we trust change, we are disappointed. How can we be sure that the God we know today will not change tomorrow?

According to her position, she cannot ever have that assurance, for the god she creates always changes...

[Lutz13]

Quote:

Perfection is not required for entry to heaven, but those getting there will be perfected by Christ in His time and manner (Jude 24)

Shabbat Shalom,

Yes Amen. In HIS time. And at HIS pleasure. Some of us are far to anxious for perfection. It will come before Heaven and at HIS timing.

Amen! From what I am starting to understand, God makes the promise to save us. We ask Him to do so, and believe it. Now God doesn't lie so He will indeed save us.

Now, what I am beginning to see is. We can make it painful...Or we can make it a bit easier on ourselves.

When we constantly resist, it's going to get painful. Yet through that pain the garbage is purged out of us. So one way or another it will happen.

Jesus was more referring to the people that would try to work their way into heaven. "But Lord, I did all these things..." Yet they never took the time to have a relationship with Him. "I never knew you"

[Woody]

Progressive theology = Liberal theology

And Liberal theology = Good

And Conservative theology = Bad

Jesus was definately liberal in all of his theology.

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Redwood

Quote:

Perfection is not required for entry to heaven, but those getting there will be perfected by Christ in His time and manner (Jude 24)

Shabbat Shalom,

Yes Amen. In HIS time. And at HIS pleasure. Some of us are far to anxious for perfection. It will come before Heaven and at HIS timing.

Amen! From what I am starting to understand, God makes the promise to save us. We ask Him to do so, and believe it. Now God doesn't lie so He will indeed save us.

Now, what I am beginning to see is. We can make it painful...Or we can make it a bit easier on ourselves.

When we constantly resist, it's going to get painful. Yet through that pain the garbage is purged out of us. So one way or another it will happen.

Jesus was more referring to the people that would try to work their way into heaven. "But Lord, I did all these things..." Yet they never took the time to have a relationship with Him. "I never knew you"