How much of Scripture is inspired?

[Kevin H]

I'm sorry Richard, but first your discription of those who see a friendly God who does not distroy is MOSTLY A FIGMENT OF THE IMAGINATION of their critics. Granted so many who have been wondering about this and starting to drift towards this direction has started picking up this gargage that originate in the imagination of the jumping to false conclusion critics, and that I admit makes my defense of the Bible and Mrs. White on this topic harder, but your facts and evidence is wrong!!!!!

This has been around for a while. I have not seen enough to say for sure, but there is evidence that William Tyndal held this view of hell. Some of our pastors from the last century held this view, apperently a elder Fifield, who was a friend of Mrs. White's also held this view. In the 1920's Elder Lynn Harper Wood came to this view and began teaching it at the seminary for the next several years and this was a view held by many of our top scholars and taught in our colleges until the rise of the Adventist Theological Society. Wood's student Elder Paul Heubeck taught this view through out his ministry. At least 4 of the contributers to the SDABC taught this view, Elder Heppenstall while undesided about how the cross worked, held this understanding of hell. The origninal "Santuary and the Atonement" had 3 chapters studying the investigative judgement in the writings of Ellen G. White and the foundation to defending the doctrine of the investigative judgment comes from this understanding of hell. I know that there is the Graham Maxwell version and the Jack Provonsha version (which has gotten too mixed together due to their close friendship and both availble through the same tape company; but there are differences between them, and they are not the only approaches to this topic. While I believe that Dr. Maxwell has correct conclusions, that he tends to not build up his student's exogesus skills as well as he should have so that they did not drift into mixing his teachings with the critic's false conclusions) But there are other versions.

I strongly suggest that that you take a short break from "Servants or Friends" get a hold of the book Sanctuary and the Atonement(it is the original one, sort of yellow cover; not the later blue covered "ATS" approved version) and read the last 4 chapters, the 3 on Mrs. White's studys "The Mighty Opposits: The Atonement in the writings of Ellen G. White" part one and two and "We must all Appear: The Investigative Judgment in the writings of Ellen G. White" as well as the chapter by Elder Hepenstall. Also if you can it might be useful to read the works of Lynn Harper Wood and Paul Heubeck. But again I can not emphesise the importance of those last 4 chapters in Santuary and the Atonement. Will you read and comment on the context of these chapters (not look for attacks against the authors) or are you going to ignore this advice and continue to go on your marry old way as if you never saw this post and continue to spout your false conclusions?

[Kevin H]

These next 3 posts are NOT to replace the encouragement to read the last 4 chapters of the original Sanctuary and the atonement. I wanted to move this to a new topic area as I feel it's taking away from this particular topic but don't know how to do it. Anyway:

Part 1:

Sin changes us so that God's very pressence becomes a consuming fire. When Cain sinned he was still able to talk to God. Yet when God talked to his people who he just delivered from slavery people asked for God to talk to someone to give them God's message instead of hearing God speak directly. When this intecesser asked to see God, God told him that if he saw God's face, Moses would die, so for Moses' protection he was hid in the cleft of the rock and only allowed to see the back of God.

Back to when God spoke on Mt. Sinai, there was a border around the mountain that if anyone crossed that border that they should be put to death, this was to protect from the chance of seeing God and going through the horrible event of seeing the consuming fire in person.

When the prophets would see God in vision they felt that they were being burned alive, but eventually they came to find themselves transforming from where this fire burned them to where they came to thrive in this flame, the flame of the pressence of God.

Salvation and what ever Jesus did on the cross was to give to humanity the expirence of the prophets of finding this fire of the visible pressence of God from making them feel like they were being burned alive to coming to thrive in this fire.

[Kevin H]

Part 2:

Jesus is our deepest desire, the desire of ages, the desire of all nations, the one beloved of women (probably the least known, but very important Old Testament name of Jesus). The psalmist, talking about God's law which is a reflection of the character of Jesus says that Jesus is more desirable than gold and sweeter than honey. The angels announced to the shepherds that they had news of great joy to the chosen few, that they had news of great joy to only the honest in heart, that they had news of great joy for those who do not love the world.-- Wait a minute, am I quoting the angels correctly? Surely this is what the angels said, they must not have meant news of great joy to ALL people, could they?

When we sinned we developed the sinful nature, as Mrs. White describes in the communion chapter "There is in man a disposition to esteem himself above his brethren, to serve self, to seek the highest place and often this results in evil surmisings and bitterness of spirit." or as the poet - philosopher Eli Siegel said "There is in every person a disposition to think they are for themselves by making less of the outside world" or as the psychiatrist William Glasser says that we think it's natural to try to control people through external control psychology, but it ends up destroying the relationships that we need and long for.

If all we had was the sinful nature there would be no problem. However before casting Adam and Eve out of Eden God said to mankind that there would be enmity between the woman's seed and the serpent, besides being a promise of the messiah, it was also telling us that our deepest desire is NOT our sinful nature but our desire to be like and with Jesus. So all of us are in a horrible fight between our sinful nature and our deepest desire.

Now just because it is the most powerful thing in us, like a small group of tyrants controlling a large group of people, our deepest desire may not always be in control, at times we allow our sinful nature, the weaker of the two, be the one when give the control of our life over to. Since this is the weaker desire it is like kicking against the thorns. We are all a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. We all have a bit of Abraham inside of us and we all have a bit of Herod inside of us. At one moment we yield to the Holy Spirit and go towards our deepest desire, another moment we yield to our sinful nature. Yet despite being the weaker of the 2 it is still wide spread in us and touches everything we do, even the good. Even the desire to be with Jesus is tinged with a little selfishness, and selfishness is our sinful nature, and thus our best works are like filthy rags. But as we go through life and make choices we develop characteristic tendencies to either yield to the Holy Spirit, or our tendency to think we are for ourselves by making less of the outside world.

At the end of time when we all see Jesus in person, for those who have been responding to the work of the Holy Spirit on their heart will find it heaven to be living in the consuming fire. But others who see their deepest desire but have had their sinful nature be in control of their life's are in a horrible hell of wanting to come to Jesus, but refusing to. They developed characters of resisting the drawing power of the love of Christ on their lives on earth, and they find that they continue their habit of rejecting the drawing power of the love of Jesus on their hearts as they stand outside the Holy City with God's love trying to draw them in. But despite Jesus being their deepest desire they have been unforgiving people and they see the contrast between their sinfulness and Jesus's purely and they are horrified as to how ugly their sins are. Hitler sees what he did not from the eyes of good people who were living in the 20th century and thus thousands of years degraded from Eden, but he views it through the perspective of the love and purity of God. While the saved respond to this horrible event by casing our crowns at the feet of Jesus and cry "worthy, worthy worthy is the lamb" the sinner, being unforgiving in nature cannot conceive of God forgiving them and fear that some time some place, God will get them for their sins, so they want to pull back from the only source of life and flee from what they know they deserve... However Jesus is still their deepest desire, Grace is still crying out to them, The birth of Jesus is still good news for them, but they turn it into the most horrible event that ever happened. They want to come and bow and say worthy is the Lamb, but they wont.

They see loved ones inside the city who they loved being with on earth and they so long to throw their arms around them again and hug and kiss them again and shed tears of joy at having a wonderful reunion, they feel this craving even more for Jesus, but they remember how they have used Glasser's external control psychology over their loved one, and see others in the city who they have also hurt and they feel horrified at what they have done and realize that if they were inside the city that they would still revert back to that selfish activity and they are horrified at what they have become, and they know that the one sitting on the throne sees the deepest resecesses of their hearts and they choose to resist their longing to throw their arms around their loved ones just to get away from the purity of that holy place. They want to come, but they won't, Jesus is their deepest desire, but they refuse to yield to his love for them. they refuse to believe that he loves and forgives and would heal them. "For everyone that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved" (John 3:20) Jesus may be their deepest desire but they fear that if they were to yield to him that he will reprove them for their deeds. Jesus goes on to say that those who do come to the light, instead of finding a condemning God instead find that their deeds change and manifest that they are wrought in God. The unforgiving nature of the lost cannot make them able to conceive God forgiving and healing them.

Still Jesus is their deepest desire. They are bombarded by the full force of the Holy Spirit, the full drawing power of the love of God and they are overwhelmed by the love and beauty of Jesus. Calvin saw the power of this and felt that God's love must be revealed to only certain people because you cannot exist while rejecting it. But Calvin believed in the immortality of everyone. If you don't have Calvin's universal immortality, you have the answer of how God kills. God's irresistible grace being rejected by people who choose to reject, equals the inability to exist.

If God did not want to kill, God could be a strict Calvinist and only show his grace and love to those who he knows would accept it. But God shows irresistible grace and love to everyone, whether it gives those who come into contact with it eternal life or eternal death. God does one act: shows up in person in his full loving glorious self, and like putting in a clay pot and an ice sculpture in a kiln, one can be transformed from the fire into a wonderful work of art the other melts away unable to stand the heat. The kiln does not have two settings one to make works of art the other to destroy ice sculptures, but the one and same act does both.

The horror of hell is loosing our deepest desire, loosing Jesus. The center of the doctrine of hell is Jesus. Jesus himself is the lake of fire.

[Twilight]

I'm sorry Richard, but first your discription of those who see a friendly God who does not distroy is MOSTLY A FIGMENT OF THE IMAGINATION of their critics. Granted so many who have been wondering about this and starting to drift towards this direction has started picking up this gargage that originate in the imagination of the jumping to false conclusion critics, and that I admit makes my defense of the Bible and Mrs. White on this topic harder, but your facts and evidence is wrong!!!!!

This has been around for a while. I have not seen enough to say for sure, but there is evidence that William Tyndal held this view of hell. Some of our pastors from the last century held this view, apperently a elder Fifield, who was a friend of Mrs. White's also held this view. In the 1920's Elder Lynn Harper Wood came to this view and began teaching it at the seminary for the next several years and this was a view held by many of our top scholars and taught in our colleges until the rise of the Adventist Theological Society. Wood's student Elder Paul Heubeck taught this view through out his ministry. At least 4 of the contributers to the SDABC taught this view, Elder Heppenstall while undesided about how the cross worked, held this understanding of hell. The origninal "Santuary and the Atonement" had 3 chapters studying the investigative judgement in the writings of Ellen G. White and the foundation to defending the doctrine of the investigative judgment comes from this understanding of hell. I know that there is the Graham Maxwell version and the Jack Provonsha version (which has gotten too mixed together due to their close friendship and both availble through the same tape company; but there are differences between them, and they are not the only approaches to this topic. While I believe that Dr. Maxwell has correct conclusions, that he tends to not build up his student's exogesus skills as well as he should have so that they did not drift into mixing his teachings with the critic's false conclusions) But there are other versions.

I strongly suggest that before you continue to share your ignorance and making more stupid statements that you should take a short break from "Servants or Friends" get a hold of the book Sanctuary and the Atonement(it is the original one, sort of yellow cover; not the later blue covered "ATS" approved version) and read the last 4 chapters, the 3 on Mrs. White's studys "The Mighty Opposits: The Atonement in the writings of Ellen G. White" part one and two and "We must all Appear: The Investigative Judgment in the writings of Ellen G. White" as well as the chapter by Elder Hepenstall. Also if you can it might be useful to read the works of Lynn Harper Wood and Paul Heubeck. But again I can not emphesise the importance of those last 4 chapters in Santuary and the Atonement. Will you read and comment on the context of these chapters (not look for attacks against the authors) or are you going to ignore this advice and continue to go on your marry old way as if you never saw this post and continue to spout your false conclusions?

Reading these 4 chapters can at least make you less ignorant on this topic and you won't be nearly as stupid in your responses to the topic as you are now.

Reading these 4 chapters can at least make you less ignorant on this topic and you won't be nearly as stupid in your responses to the topic as you are now.

I suggest my friend, that you take a deep breath and consider very carefully the biblical teaching on calling your brother a fool...

Mark

[Kevin H]

Part 3:

We see how God kills in the garden and on the cross. Jesus wanted to be with the Father and the Holy Spirit. The Father and the Holy Spirit wanted to be with Jesus. Jesus so desired to be with the Father and the Father so desired to be with Jesus. But they knew that if they did not take sin upon themselves that it would kill us, so while the lost want to come to Jesus but refuse to yield to this longing out of selfish reasons, Jesus and the Father refused to yield to their desire to be with each other out of love for us and choosing to allow my sin to separate them, maybe even eternally, if it would keep sin from killing me.

The resurrection tells us that if we would only yield to our deepest desire to be like and with God, that all the sins of the world cannot keep us apart.

[Kevin H]

The critics (and the neo-maxwellian view which is a mixture of what Dr. Maxwell actually teaches mixed with what Dr. Provonsha taught -- neither which are bad in themselves, althought I like Maxwell better than Provonsha-- but then mixed with a lot of specualtion since Dr. Maxwell did not help his students develop good exogesus skills, and it is also mixed with accepting a lot of the false accusations critics bring up against Maxwell) tends to have the end of the wicked being God simply putting them to bed with a good night kiss.

They do not understand the power and the beauty of Jesus and the horror of loosing our deepest desire.

[Guest]

Reading these 4 chapters can at least make you less ignorant on this topic and you won't be nearly as stupid in your responses to the topic as you are now.

Do you always call people stupid who you don't agree with? That's rather un-Christian don't you think? that's about the same as calling someone a fool is it not? Jesus had something to say about that, you should read the Bible.

When you mentioned Heppenstall and Maxwell as backing up your view, I knew excactly where you were coming from, and really don't care what else you have to say. You have shown by your words what you really are.

I saw something you posted yesterday that made me think you may have some anger management problems. I see now that it goes a little deeper than that. you really should have that looked into. I know there are plenty of psychiatrists around, but just having a real relationship whith God would work wonders.

Heppenstall and Maxwell is nothing but new theology. You can have all of that nonsense you want, but don't tell it to me.

Pro 17:28 Even a fool, when he holds his peace, is counted wise: and he that shuts his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.

[Kevin H]

[quote name='Twilight

I suggest my friend' date=' that you take a deep breath and consider very carefully the biblical teaching on calling your brother a fool...

Mark [/quote']

Mark, I am not calling him a fool, a fool is someone who is stupid or who says that there is no God. I am sure that Richard is a very intelent man who has only been exposed to a small amount of information and that his lack of study shows. I'm encouraging him to do his homework. If I thought he was a fool it would be a waste of time to tell him how to give more intellegent answers. He owes it to himself to present himself in the best light when discussing the topic. Jesus wanted to be fair to the world around him. It is Satan who wants us to be ignorant.

Also to both Mark and Richard: Some of those who have been very critical of this view of hell, after looking into these last 4 chapters of Santuary and the Atonement; reading some of the chapters in the SDA BC from the authors who held this view of hell, reading Lynn Harper Wood and Paul Heubeck, while they may not have changed their mind about hell, many have told me that they have come to no longer see that view as bad as they once thought and have at least become a bit friendlier to those who hold this view.

[Kevin H]

Originally Posted By: Kevin H

Reading these 4 chapters can at least make you less ignorant on this topic and you won't be nearly as stupid in your responses to the topic as you are now.

Do you always call people stupid who you don't agree with? That's rather un-Christian don't you think? that's about the same as calling someone a fool is it not? Jesus had something to say about that, you should read the Bible.

When you mentioned Heppenstall and Maxwell as backing up your view, I knew excactly where you were coming from, and really don't care what else you have to say. You have shown by your words what you really are.

I saw something you posted yesterday that made me think you may have some anger management problems. I see now that it goes a little deeper than that. you really should have that looked into. I know there are plenty of psychiatrists around, but just having a real relationship whith God would work wonders.

Heppenstall and Maxwell is nothing but new theology. You can have all of that nonsense you want, but don't tell it to me.

Pro 17:28 Even a fool, when he holds his peace, is counted wise: and he that shuts his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.

First I did not say that Heppenstall and Maxwell were backing up my view, only listing them as part of those who have studied into this and came to this conclusion even though the approach may be differnt, but different people from different backgrounds and approaches have come to this understanding. I am not a very big fan of Dr. Provonsha (I love some of what he says but have trouble with others)but I have to include him on my list, and I feel that Dr. Maxwell could have had his students more grounded in scripture, and why I am recommending readings from outside of the Maxwell circle.

Second, I don't call people stupid for simply dissagreeing with me, and I am not calling you stupid. I am saying that your criticisms do not show a fair knowlege of the view you are trying to criticise and I want to encourage you to dissagree in a way that makes me think "Hey, he knows what I believe and he is being fair to these beliefs" not where I read and think you are wandering around lost in left field someplace and barking up the wrong tree and had nothing to do with what I actually believe. I'd welcome your dissagreement with me if you can PROVE TO ME THAT YOU ARE ACTUALLY DISSAGREEING WITH ME and not make some fake caracture that I would agree with you that this is a false idea you are criticizing.

The problem is is that you are useing the same method as if you were to preach in a church that Seventh-day Adventists are a cult and all the ideas you bring up are what Jehovah's Witnesses beieve and you don't show any knowlege of Adventism. And when a Seventh-day Adventist encourages you to look into Adventism and to criticize Adventism instead of criticizing the Jehovahs Witnesses and saying that your criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses all applys to Adventism, maybe quote some of what Adventists say about the state of the dead and therefore Adventists are cults.

All I'm asking is for you to know the topic, and present it fairly, and where I can read your words and feel that my views are actually being criticized instead of me just sitting here smugly and say "poor guy does not know what he's talking about"

Third: My comment from the other post was just me coming up with a humorous introduction to let the readers know that it is a topic that I feel quite passionet about and a topic that I see as more important than some of the other topics we discuss.

You are not stupid for dissagreeing with me. But you are making stupid comments by not showing any knowlege of where I'm coming from, and making comments that I can only relpy with "But that's not what I believe." You only seem to be repeating the same old criticisms of people who have not studied, and some of these former critics have at least become less critical of this view once they actually looked into the facts. I'm not asking you to be any less critical. I'm asking you to get the facts. You may have noticed that I have very different views between Canright and Ratslaf, both who I dissagree with but one who I believe was honest and looked at the facts (did not always get them right but at least tried) and the other a guy who is criticizing from tradition rather than the Bible and who ignores or worst even twists the facts. I want to have the same respect I have for you as a critic as I have for Elder Canright, not the contempt that I have for Ratslaf. Just as I'd ask Ratslaf to look into Jim Flemings "Act's New Discoveries from the Early Church" and "Lest we forget: a history of Anti-Judaism in the church" and to speak with these facts in their mind. So I'd encourage you to look at the information in Sanctuary and the Atonement and if you can the SDABC and Lynn Wood's and Paul Heubecks writings too, but at least Sanctuary and the atonement.

[Guest]

I don't know how you can read the text you wrote, and say you didn't call me stupid. But my skin is not that thin anyway so forget it.

[Guest]

"Progressive" Scholars and "Present Truth."

A widely circulated document by an influential North American Conference endorsing women's ordination redefines the ideas of

"progressive revelation" and "present truth": "The essential presupposition of the idea of 'the great controversy' is that God is active throughout history, bringing new truths to light.

Historically, Adventists have understood that God is active in our own time, using the term 'present truth' to denote truths which were not present in earlier times, but which God has led his people to discover. Further, there is the parallel idea of 'progressive revelation,' which suggests that God has not revealed all truth at

some previous time, that revelation is not confined to the thought and behavior patterns of the prophets and disciples of old, but that God lives and is active today and tomorrow. Most importantly, this dynamic character of truth is the undergirding theological rationale for the very existence of Seventh-day Adventism. Thus the notion of Scriptural literalism is essentially un-Adventist."

Contrary to what Adventists have always believed, "present truth" is here defined along historical-critical lines as "truths that were not present in earlier times,"--i.e., "the prophets and disciples of old" were not privileged to have the "new light" that our twentieth century progressive culture needs. In this way truth is seen as "dynamic." In other words, God by-passed Peter, James, John, Paul, and Ellen White, in order to reveal to the "progressive

Adventist" scholars "present truths" which we cannot evaluate by prior revelation in the "prophets and disciples of old." Then how can one "prove all things" and "hold fast that which is good" (1 Thess 5:21)? How does one "try the spirits whether they are of God" (1 John 4:1)?

The above view of progressive revelation and present truth finds expression in an article entitled "Equality Is Present Truth." In this work, the editors of Adventist Today also explain that in "present truth" "God reveals new concepts of truth not known previously."

If "present truth" is a revelation of truth "not known previously," and if "equality is present truth," does it mean that the inspired Bible writers did not each the concept of equality? Or is it more accurate to say that while they had much to say about true equality, they did not teach the kind of equality being advanced today by "progressive" scholars?

This liberal reinterpretation of "present truth" to mean "dynamic truth" not contained in Scripture is the foundation upon which some want to construct an Adventist theology for the next millennium. For example, at a recent meeting of the Association of Adventist Forums

("an organization concerned with the reform of Adventism and the creation of progressive community within the church"), one systematic theologian stated: "My first proposal is that we revitalize our theology. In order to do this, we need to recover the idea of 'present truth'--truth that is not closed but open, not changeless but dynamic."

What scholars of "dynamic truth" apparently overlook is the contradictory logic inherent in their assertion that truth is "not changeless." For if truth is not changeless, then the

"progressive" scholar's own statement that truth "is not closed but open, not changeless but dynamic" is itself not a changeless truth! Why should we accept as "truth" what is not a changeless truth? Which theology needs "revitalizing"--Adventism's historic theology which is based on the solid Rock of absolute truth, or historical-critical theology which is established on the shifting sand of "dynamic" truth? Against these contemporary reinterpretations, we must assert that truth is an unchanging reality, for God is truth, and He does not change; His Word is truth, and it does not change.

[Guest]

Revision of Ellen White's View.

Another author argues for a dynamic concept of "present

truth" by claiming that even the early Adventist pioneers, including Ellen White, did not believe that truth was static. As is often the case in such efforts to revise the interpretation of

Adventist history, one fails to find support in the Ellen White sources the author cites! Contrary to the impression the author creates, Ellen White did not state that what was present truth a hundred years ago might not be present truth today.

What she actually wrote is this: "The present truth, which is a test to the people of this generation, was not a test to the people of generations far back" (Testimonies for the Church, 2:693). The point is not that truth in this generation was not truth in an earlier generation. Her emphasis was on testing truth. Each generation, each time, has its testing truth. But it is the same old truth of Scripture forcefully brought to bear on an individual or group at a particular time and place, testing their loyalty or faithfulness to the God who has beamed His searchlight on an old truth.

As one Bible-believing scholar correctly noted, "To say, then, that something is 'present truth' should not imply that what is truth today was not truth in previous generations. Rather, truth that Scripture taught but which had been overlooked or forgotten now shines with new luster. When this happens, God does not condemn the previous generations. 'The times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent' (Acts 17:30)."27 However, this "present truth" never contradicts an old truth, despite what scholars often suggest who argue for a dynamic concept of present truth (cf. Selected Messages, 1:161-162; Review and Herald, June 29, 1886, par. 9).

[Twilight]

[quote name='Twilight

I suggest my friend' date=' that you take a deep breath and consider very carefully the biblical teaching on calling your brother a fool...

Mark [/quote']

Mark, I am not calling him a fool, a fool is someone who is stupid or who says that there is no God. I am sure that Richard is a very intelent man who has only been exposed to a small amount of information and that his lack of study shows. I'm encouraging him to do his homework. If I thought he was a fool it would be a waste of time to tell him how to give more intellegent answers. He owes it to himself to present himself in the best light when discussing the topic. Jesus wanted to be fair to the world around him. It is Satan who wants us to be ignorant.

Also to both Mark and Richard: Some of those who have been very critical of this view of hell, after looking into these last 4 chapters of Santuary and the Atonement; reading some of the chapters in the SDA BC from the authors who held this view of hell, reading Lynn Harper Wood and Paul Heubeck, while they may not have changed their mind about hell, many have told me that they have come to no longer see that view as bad as they once thought and have at least become a bit friendlier to those who hold this view.

My friend, you may want to read you post again.

It was very aggressive and derogatory.

I would expect you to pull me up if I was guilty of the same thing.

Mark :-)

[Guest]

A Bible-Believing Adventist Response

The Bible teaches: "To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light n them" (Isa 8:20). Even the three angels' messages were considered "present truth" only because they were an aspect of "the everlasting gospel." They were not brand new truths without a basis in prior biblical revelation. They were not the product of an anti-Catholic nineteenth-century culture.

If "present truth" were an evolving, "progressive," or "dynamic" truth, it would follow logically that other Christian doctrines may also be evolving. Adventists would therefore be justified in challenging the church's long-held teaching on sexual morality, homosexuality, divorce and remarriage, clean and unclean foods, use of alcohol, wearing of jewelry, the concept of the remnant, and other matters, as some are already doing. In all these cases the

liberal concept of "progressive revelation" assumes that truth is relative; the cases differ only in degree of application.

Ellen White discredits the claims of the revisionist proponents of "present truth" or "progressive revelation." Anticipating the modern reinterpretations and applications of Scripture which contradict Scripture, she wrote: "When the power of God testifies as to what is truth, that truth is to stand forever as the truth. No after suppositions contrary to the light God has given are to be entertained. Men will arise with interpretations of Scripture which are to them truth, but which are not truth. The truth for this time God has given us as a foundation for our faith. One will arise, and still another, with new light, which contradicts the light that God has given under the demonstration of His Holy Spirit. . . . We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith" (Selected Messages, 1:161).

If accepted, the new view of "progressive revelation" will result in pluralism in doctrine, lifestyle, and interpretation. Everyone will claim a right to his or her "new light" (the new expressions are "unity in diversity" or "openness to other people's ideas").

One church administrator has already endorsed such an outcome in print: "If we truly believe in the notion of progressive revelation (as claimed by the preamble of the Statement of Fundamental Beliefs), we will allow tensions in our belief system as we continue to grow in an understanding of God. If we are on a spiritual journey together, we will create room for diversity of thought and opinion, perhaps even interpretation." In other words, "progressive

revelation" should allow for pluralism in belief and interpretation.

To accept a system of multiple interpretations (hermeneutical pluralism) requires one to assume that there is no underlying unity or harmony in Scripture, that Scripture can be interpreted in many different yet equally truthful ways. Is this not a recipe for theological pluralism, which breeds uncertainty of faith and relativism in ethics? Should Seventh-day Adventists really go this way, even claiming that the Holy Spirit is an ally to this?

For Ellen White, the answer is very simple: "The Spirit was not given--nor can it ever be bestowed--to supersede the Bible; for the Scriptures explicitly state that the word of God is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested" (The Great Controversy, p. vii). Again, "The old truths are essential; new truth is not independent of the old, but an unfolding of it. It is only as the old truths are understood that we can comprehend the new"

(Christ's Object Lessons, pp. 127-128). "In all His teachings He [Christ] dwelt upon the unchangeable positions of Bible truth" (The Upward Look, p. 313, emphasis supplied).

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Kevin H

[quote name='Twilight

I suggest my friend' date=' that you take a deep breath and consider very carefully the biblical teaching on calling your brother a fool...

Mark

Mark, I am not calling him a fool, a fool is someone who is stupid or who says that there is no God. I am sure that Richard is a very intelent man who has only been exposed to a small amount of information and that his lack of study shows. I'm encouraging him to do his homework. If I thought he was a fool it would be a waste of time to tell him how to give more intellegent answers. He owes it to himself to present himself in the best light when discussing the topic. Jesus wanted to be fair to the world around him. It is Satan who wants us to be ignorant.

Also to both Mark and Richard: Some of those who have been very critical of this view of hell, after looking into these last 4 chapters of Santuary and the Atonement; reading some of the chapters in the SDA BC from the authors who held this view of hell, reading Lynn Harper Wood and Paul Heubeck, while they may not have changed their mind about hell, many have told me that they have come to no longer see that view as bad as they once thought and have at least become a bit friendlier to those who hold this view. [/quote']

My friend, you may want to read you post again.

It was very aggressive and derogatory.

I would expect you to pull me up if I was guilty of the same thing.

Mark :-)

Yep

[Kevin H]

Again I wish our last little conversation was a sepperate post as it was a detour from the topic at hand. I see that you have returned to the topic at hand and very good posts, but I hope you are not trying to tap dance over my encouragement to study out the other topic so that you can speak intellegently on it.

I know about thin skin, and I've eaten a lot of crow as I've learned more facts from where I'd be before, but the point is to use this to grow.

As for your current post. I'm sorry but pressent truth is simply understanding the Bible better. Knowing more about the language and culture and poetic structures and what they teach us about the points that the scripture actually teaches.

To have some less inflamitory examples:

We are approaching the Chrsitmas season. Many churches will be having Christmas plays, and most will have an inn and an innkeeper who does not have room for Mary and Joseph. Because our Bibles read that there was no room at the inn.

However the Greek word, Kataluma, or guest chamber was until the end of the 20th century an unknown word. Today we know that it was the guest rooms in a family home. It was Joseph's family who did not have room in their guest chamber. We don't know if it was because they were not welcome, or if they were welcome but had to get away from everyone for some peace and quiet and privacy to give birth. But pressent truth is knowing that there was no inn and no innkeeper in the story.

Psalm 23's table prepared in the pressence of enemies, people could have read and thought "Someday my enemies will enevy me" but now we know that in that culture a table prepared in the pressence of enemies was like the phrase "burry the hatchet" it meant that God will reconcile us to our enemies at the table of forgivness. People forgave their enemies by eating with them.

Pressent truth is simply a fuller understanding of what the text says. (and our views on hell is based on what the Bible and Mrs. White say about hell)

[Kevin H]

Mark: I feel it was no more agressive than when HMS Richards went to a church where the pastor was preaching that Seventh-day Adventists were a cult and he stood up and said "That's a lie" or when William Miller's minister relative told the agnostic Miller that he did not show that he knows what he's talking about when he challenged him to a debate on the scriptures. I was keeping these stories in my mind as I was typing.

I'm sorry if you found my post agressive rather than asertive and simply saying that what Richard was saying does not show understanding of the topic.

I've had to change a lot of my stupid and foolish words as I've learned more informaton.

[John317]

I'd encourage you to look at the SDABC .... and Paul Heubecks writings too, ...

Could you give the page numbers of SDABC and edition and also tell what writings by Paul C Heubach you refer to?

Heubach was a good man and a personal friend of our my parents. My mother knew him as a child in Arizona. He specialized in questions such as "Why does a good and loving and all-powerful God allow so much suffering in the world?"

[Guest]

DEPARTING FROM THE WORD

PART V

The Bible – “Literal” or “Principle” Approach?

Objective. In this section we shall investigate the extent to which higher-critical assumptions are influencing Seventh-day Adventist views regarding the validity of the Ten Commandments, the Sabbath, end-time prophecy, Jesus' second coming, the sanctuary doctrine, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, and issues dealing with Adventist lifestyle.

Key Issue. How should we interpret the Bible--with a "literal" or a "principle" approach?

Traditional Adventist Belief. Seventh-day Adventists have always maintained that one finds the true meaning of Scripture by seeking the plain, obvious sense of the text. Interpreting Scripture literally does not mean blind, rigid literalism. Literal interpretation means we understand a given passage in its natural or normal sense. We must understand the words just as we would interpret the language of normal discourse.

From the literal meaning of the biblical text, we can derive appropriate principles for today's living. These principles must be faithful to the literal meaning and must not contradict any established biblical teaching or truth. The details of the traditional Adventist approach to

interpretation are described in "Methods of Bible Study"

[Kevin H]

Richard and Twilight; I want to appologize if the words I used was hurtful, I still don't see it in the context. What it is is that I feel that Richard's posts were a repeat of criticisms that have been leveled against one theologian (probably the best known but maybe not the best) for this study of hell fire, but where it misrepresents his view, things he has been falsely accused of.

I first learned this view of hell fire in 1977 and did not come to understand or accept it until 1980. I ran into these criticisms of what some in our church were teaching in 1988 and I fully agreed that they were wrong and off the deep end and even in sermons criticised people who were teaching these things, I used words very similar to yours. It was not until 2 years later, 1990 that I learned that the view that was being criticized was my view.

I mean what word woud you use to discribe a belieaf that is so far off that someone who holds that view has no idea that you are talking about them???

All I'd like for you to do if you want to criticise this view is for someone like me to read the words and say "Yes, that is what I believe, so now let me see where we dissagree."

A second consern I have is that these criticisms have been pushing some who have been interested in this view of hell into thinking that they should believe those ideas. I am broken hearted over this fact. 10 or 15 years ago I could say that your post was a lie. Sadly I can no longer say that because there is a growing group of those who are attracted to this view of hell that had incorporated the views of the critics into their thinking and theology and I believe that this is horrible. God will require at the hands of the critics (my self included for when I was saying those things back in 1988-90) not only the misrepresentation but how this misrepresentation has caused people to accept the misrepresentations as truth that they should believe.

[Twilight]

Richard and Twilight; I want to appologize if the words I used was hurtful, I still don't see it in the context. What it is is that I feel that Richard's posts were a repeat of criticisms that have been leveled against one theologian (probably the best known but maybe not the best) for this study of hell fire, but where it misrepresents his view, things he has been falsely accused of.

I first learned this view of hell fire in 1977 and did not come to understand or accept it until 1980. I ran into these criticisms of what some in our church were teaching in 1988 and I fully agreed that they were wrong and off the deep end and even in sermons criticised people who were teaching these things, I used words very similar to yours. It was not until 2 years later, 1990 that I learned that the view that was being criticized was my view.

I mean what word woud you use to discribe a belieaf that is so far off that someone who holds that view has no idea that you are talking about them???

All I'd like for you to do if you want to criticise this view is for someone like me to read the words and say "Yes, that is what I believe, so now let me see where we dissagree."

A second consern I have is that these criticisms have been pushing some who have been interested in this view of hell into thinking that they should believe those ideas. I am broken hearted over this fact. 10 or 15 years ago I could say that your post was a lie. Sadly I can no longer say that because there is a growing group of those who are attracted to this view of hell that had incorporated the views of the critics into their thinking and theology and I believe that this is horrible. God will require at the hands of the critics (my self included for when I was saying those things back in 1988-90) not only the misrepresentation but how this misrepresentation has caused people to accept the misrepresentations as truth that they should believe.

Apology accepted Kevin :-)

We recently had some indepth studies of these issues on this board.

I personally was open to either view, but after careful consideration formed my own position.

That is all each of us can do.

In this subject, there are also many "shades" of understanding.

So do not take it personally when people do not see it the same way as you do.

But endeavour to explain your position without criticising those that do not agree, unless of course the criticism is directed of God.

Just some thoughts.

Mark :-)

[Stan]

Kevin, that was pretty big of you to post that, I hope others will catch your spirit. Thank you.

[oldsailor29]

We could learn a lot from crayons. Some are sharp, some are pretty and some are dull.. Some have weirdnames and all are different colors, but they all have to live in the same box.

This seems to imply that we are all going to be saved, which is present truth for some, but future truth for most.

I wonder if we will be allowed to travel from heaven to hell, just for a visit.

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Stan Jensen

We could learn a lot from crayons. Some are sharp, some are pretty and some are dull.. Some have weirdnames and all are different colors, but they all have to live in the same box.

This seems to imply that we are all going to be saved, which is present truth for some, but future truth for most.

I wonder if we will be allowed to travel from heaven to hell, just for a visit.

OS, I think you may need to sharpen your crayon after a statement like that.

[Woody]

We could learn a lot from crayons. Some are sharp, some are pretty and some are dull.. Some have weirdnames and all are different colors, but they all have to live in the same box.

This is an interesting comment. Of course it is left to use to interpret. But I do agree that some are really weird and need some sharpening. With that said ... I am going to gather up my crayons and go home.