How much of Scripture is inspired?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

And I bet you watch it purely for the spiritual lessons, eh? It just sounds like you're trying to justify watching the program.... Nothing wrong with that...just like watching football. You're being entertained, is all.

[Woody]

That's right ... it is just entertainment. But trying to justify it? NO. I know I am a sinner. No need to try to justify it. I don't get into that game. I just loudly proclaim ... I AM A SINNER. People round here well know that.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

[Woody]

[Guest]

Theological Assumption.

The theological assumption behind interpretation based on the

plain literal meaning of Scripture is this: though the Bible's content is profound, it came from a perfect Communicator. God has done what all good communicators do--He has spoken in the language of the listener. God has used the expressions of normal people, however

imperfect, so that "the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein" (Isa 35:8).

Rather than speaking in grand superhuman language, "The Lord speaks to human beings in imperfect speech, in order that the degenerate senses, the dull, earthly perception, of earthly beings may comprehend His words. Thus is shown God's condescension. He meets fallen human beings where they are. . . . Instead of the expressions of the Bible being exaggerated, as many people suppose, the strong expressions break down before the magnificence of the thought, though the penmen selected the most expressive language" (Selected Messages,

1:22).

"The Bible is not given to us in grand superhuman language. Jesus, in order to reach man where he is, took humanity. The Bible must be given in the language of men. Everything that is human is imperfect. Different meanings are expressed by the same word; there is not one

word for each distinct idea" (ibid., 1:20). God's use of "imperfect" human language to communicate does not mean that the truthfulness of Scripture's message is compromised. Rather, it simply means that "infinite ideas cannot be perfectly embodied in finite vehicles of thought" (ibid., 1:22). In their attempt to communicate infinite ideas in finite human language, the inspired writers sometimes employed figures of speech, like parables, hyperbole, simile,

metaphor, and symbolism. But even this figurative language conveys clear, literal truth.

[Guest]

Literal Understanding. Thus, apocalyptic books like Daniel, Zechariah, Ezekiel, and Revelation, which employ figures and symbols, must be studied carefully to discover the literal truth they convey. The same applies to the parables. They are stories used to illustrate

spiritual truth. Though the details regarding people, events, times, and places in the parables may not be actually historical, the spiritual truths they convey are always literal and real.

Literal interpretation, therefore, means first understanding Scripture in its plain, normal sense. The interpreter then proceeds to apply the literal meaning to the contemporary situation of the interpreter. Those who reject literal interpretation have no objective control for wild imaginations, no safeguard against fanciful spiritualizing, allegorizing, and relativizing biblical truth. This is why responsible Bible students insist that the "principle" of application must always be controlled by the literal, plain reading of the text. Otherwise we tend to pick

and choose only the supposed principles of the Bible palatable to our taste.

When liberalism relativizes Scripture, it uses the Bible selectively, choosing a "key point," "central concept," or "principle" in Scripture by means of which it decides what is abiding or relevant in the Bible. In other words, the new views of Scripture seek to establish a "canon within the biblical Canon" (i.e., an inspiring booklet within the inspired Book). Without the literal reading of the biblical text, they spiritualize away, through fanciful interpretations, the plain meaning of the Scriptures.

How are historical-critical assumptions on these matters affecting the Adventist church?

[Guest]

Effect of the Liberal Approach

To justify setting aside the plain, literal reading of Scripture, expressions like these are now being used: "trajectory of Scripture," the "flow of Scripture," the "plot of Scripture," "Scripture as a whole" (not "the whole Scripture"), "the primary emphasis" of Scripture, "the positive principles" of Scripture, etc. In any case, it is the interpreter who decides what is the central concept which controls the selection process.

Those who adopt these approaches to Scripture reinterpret the Bible and make applications of Scripture that lead away from established truths.

"Positive Principle." For example, one Adventist Old Testament scholar develops a three-tier "law pyramid" which places the principle of love at the apex of the pyramid as the highest norm. Below it are the two laws--love to God and love to neighbor, and at the bottom is the Ten Commandments. His pyramid then consists of "The one, the two, and the ten." He writes: "A key principle undergirds the concept of law pyramid: some of God's laws are more important than others."

But how do we know which of God's laws are more important than others? He explains: "The key point [of the casebook approach] is that the positive principles embedded in the one, the two, and the ten are absolute and enduring, but the specific applications are not." None of the Ten Commandments, then, is absolute or enduring, but only the "positive principles" found in them. Adopting this kind of methodology, each student of the Bible could decide for himself what constitutes those "positive principles."

[Guest]

Sabbath "Principle."

What happens when one interprets Scripture according to the

"positive principle" approach? The Worldwide Church of God, publisher of the Plain Truth magazine and until recently a Sabbath-keeping church, has given up its historic teaching on the validity of the seventh-day Sabbath. The reason may be of interest to Adventists tempted to look only for the "positive principles" within the Ten Commandments.

Under the influence of well-educated moderate liberal scholars, the leaders of the Worldwide Church of God came to believe that the "seventh-day" component of the fourth commandment is not as relevant as the "positive principle" of the Sabbath commandment.

They argue on the basis of their "New Covenant" theology that observing the Sabbath on the seventh day is no longer as important as the "principle" of observing a day of rest after six

days of labor; the Sabbath can be any day.

Among Seventh-day Adventists, the historic method of interpreting Scripture--what historical-critical scholars refer to as the "literal-based approach"--insists that the "seventh-day" (Saturday) is to be observed as the Sabbath. The "principle-based approach," however, may eventually lead to the "positive principle" of the Sabbath--one day of rest in seven, as has happened in the Worldwide Church of God, and as is being advocated by two former Adventists, a pastor and a Bible scholar.

With such an approach, the Sabbath/Sunday issue raised in Daniel, Revelation, and The Great Controversy becomes obsolete for today's anti-apocalyptic culture. Our claim to be the "remnant" becomes mere triumphalism and, hence, our opposition to joining the ecumenical

movement is nothing more than religious bigotry or intolerance. This point will become clearer in part six of this chapter when we take a look at a proposal being suggested as an "Adventism for a New Generation."

[Guest]

Apocalyptic Prophecy.

Already, one scholar and church administrator has called for "a

fresh approach" to our understanding of end-time prophecy as a means to overcome the increasing theological pluralism in the church. He argues mistakenly that the "general anti-Catholic climate which prevailed in the United States in the 1830s through the 1850s"

and the "uncritical adoption" of "William Miller's hermeneutical method in dealing with apocalyptic Bible prophecy" were the reasons behind Adventism's understanding of last-day events.

He expresses his discomfort with the "more conservative Adventists [who] insist that Adventism must continue to subscribe to its traditional interpretations of prophecy, with the corresponding condemnation of Roman Catholicism and other Christian churches." Against these conservative Adventists who "insist that 'the old landmarks' of the Adventist faith must be zealously guarded and are unwilling to re-think or modify traditional views," he sides with

the "more 'progressively' inclined [who] are increasingly open to emphasizing the common bond with other Christians and [who] tend to feel uncomfortable with traditional attitudes." In his opinion the way to make Adventism "more relevant to this generation" is to adopt a "fresh approach that will re-evaluate the traditional Adventist views in the context of time."

Thus, a growing body of Adventist scholars are saying: "We must become facilitators of 'spiritual ecumenicity' [of the charismatic movement] (as opposed to institutional ecumenicity [of the World Council of Churches]), so that we can respond to Christ's last prayer for unity (John 17:21) by breaking down the barriers of denominationalism rather than helping to build them up. . . .

We must open ourselves to the possibility of new and different eschatological [end-time] scenarios so that we do not enter the twenty-first century with a nineteenth-century view of prophecy."

[Kevin H]

Fiction simply means not true. And that's all it meant in her day too. The definition hasn't changed.

1. Then why did Nathaniel Hawthorn and Herman Melvill and other "fiction" writers of the time give the same warnings about fiction and novels that Ellen White did? Where they telling people not to buy their books?

2. (I'm sorry I don't have the quote but we had it in class different times) but why did Mrs. White say that we should not read fiction like Uncle Tom's Cabin (a true story) but we should read true stories like Pilgrams progress. (thus labling a true story as fiction and a made up story as true)?

[Guest]

I will go and look for the quote where she calls PP a true story.

[Guest]

"Pilgrim's Progress" appears ten times in her writings. Nowhere does she call it a true story. I didn't think she did because it's not a true story, it's an allegory.

She did say this however:

There he wrote his wonderful allegory of the pilgrim's journey from the land of destruction to the celestial city. This book, "The Pilgrim's Progress," portrays the Christian life so accurately, and presents the love of Christ so attractively, that through its instrumentality hundreds and thousands have been converted. {RH, May 30, 1912 par. 11}

[Kevin H]

I don't want to push this, and also since my contact with the source was brief and years ago and I won't trust my memory for the mixture of the briefness of the comment. And I'm not trying to push any books, you have the right to read or not read what you wish. I'm just having trouble following your reasoning why your reasons for not reading The Great Divorce does not apply to Pilgram's progress. But that's fine. I'm just saying that the book "The Great Divorce" appears to me to also accurate in pointing out our Christian life and some of the common and sneeky road blocks that Satan places in our way. And I encourage people to want to learn the context of both Scripture and Mrs. White.

[Haldog]

... but why did Mrs. White say that we should not read fiction like Uncle Tom's Cabin (a true story) but we should read true stories like Pilgrams progress. (thus labling a true story as fiction and a made up story as true)?

The spirit of confusion is throughout these writings.

[Guest]

I don't want to push this, and also since my contact with the source was brief and years ago and I won't trust my memory for the mixture of the briefness of the comment. And I'm not trying to push any books, you have the right to read or not read what you wish. I'm just having trouble following your reasoning why your reasons for not reading The Great Divorce does not apply to Pilgram's progress. But that's fine. I'm just saying that the book "The Great Divorce" appears to me to also accurate in pointing out our Christian life and some of the common and sneeky road blocks that Satan places in our way. And I encourage people to want to learn the context of both Scripture and Mrs. White.

It's quite simple really, I no longer have time to read fiction. Time is short. There are more books filled with truth than I can ever read, so why would I waste time reading somebody's fiction who dosn't even believe what I do, or understand any of the things God has shown us as a people, when I can go straight to the source. Ellen white and the Bible are all anyone needs to point the way on the true path.

God used her specifically to point out the sneaky road blocks and pitfalls of Satan, and for that reason she does it better than anyone else could. And then there are people like Samuel Pipim who writes things like "Recieving the Word" which is what I am posting on this thread. Him and others like him are light years ahead of any non-Adventists writing fiction.

In other words, why would I drop back and punt, when I am headed for the goal line?

[Woody]

Quote:

so why would I waste time reading somebody's fiction who dosn't even believe what I do

Then why are you on this forum Richard. There's lot of fiction writers on this forum. It is most painful to have to wade through . But I sog along ...

[Guest]

Quote:

so why would I waste time reading somebody's fiction who dosn't even believe what I do

Then why are you on this forum Richard. There's lot of fiction writers on this forum. It is most painful to have to wade through . But I sog along ...

That is true. Which is all the more reason to keep my reading away from here grounded in the truth. If this forum were all I had to read, I would be in a mess.

[Woody]

Quote:

so why would I waste time reading somebody's fiction who dosn't even believe what I do

[Kevin H]

It's quite simple really, I no longer have time to read fiction. Time is short. There are more books filled with truth than I can ever read, so why would I waste time reading somebody's fiction who dosn't even believe what I do, or understand any of the things God has shown us as a people, when I can go straight to the source. Ellen white and the Bible are all anyone needs to point the way on the true path.

God used her specifically to point out the sneaky road blocks and pitfalls of Satan, and for that reason she does it better than anyone else could. And then there are people like Samuel Pipim who writes things like "Recieving the Word" which is what I am posting on this thread. Him and others like him are light years ahead of any non-Adventists writing fiction.

In other words, why would I drop back and punt, when I am headed for the goal line?

Ok, that is a good answer. There are many good books that do not fall under the warnings, and many books that would be very useful for me to read, infact, many books that I should read, but most of us don't have time to read so we need to limit what we have time for.

I'd love to sit down and talk for a nice relaxed while with Pipim and talk to him about "Recieving the Word" If you don't mind my consern about his book (otherwise feel free to skip this paragraph) He has a tendency to only give the conservative traditional side and the liberal attack on traditons, but kind of leaves the taste in the mouth that there are only those 2 views and only these 2 views. I wish that he would also included looking at the moderate positions and conservative Biblical arguments against the traditions. I also wish he was less interested in tradition and more interested in the Bible. Now I know of at least one person who he attacked in his book who he has appologized to and roumers are that he's giving similar appologies to some others, and roumers that he is less dogmatic in person, however I only know for sure of the one who he appologized to and the information he has written. He seems like a thinker, but again he has only picked the most liberal views as the only other choice to his and I'd love to get this views on the moderates and the conservative arguments that do not support traditon.

Anyway, we need to worship God according to the dictates of our conscious and choose what we will study. God bless you in your study.

[Woody]

KH ... I prefer not to read his materials. I just don't have time for fiction.

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

It's quite simple really, I no longer have time to read fiction. Time is short. There are more books filled with truth than I can ever read, so why would I waste time reading somebody's fiction who dosn't even believe what I do, or understand any of the things God has shown us as a people, when I can go straight to the source. Ellen white and the Bible are all anyone needs to point the way on the true path.

God used her specifically to point out the sneaky road blocks and pitfalls of Satan, and for that reason she does it better than anyone else could. And then there are people like Samuel Pipim who writes things like "Recieving the Word" which is what I am posting on this thread. Him and others like him are light years ahead of any non-Adventists writing fiction.

In other words, why would I drop back and punt, when I am headed for the goal line?

Ok, that is a good answer. There are many good books that do not fall under the warnings, and many books that would be very useful for me to read, infact, many books that I should read, but most of us don't have time to read so we need to limit what we have time for.

I'd love to sit down and talk for a nice relaxed while with Pipim and talk to him about "Recieving the Word" If you don't mind my consern about his book (otherwise feel free to skip this paragraph) He has a tendency to only give the conservative traditional side and the liberal attack on traditons, but kind of leaves the taste in the mouth that there are only those 2 views and only these 2 views. I wish that he would also included looking at the moderate positions and conservative Biblical arguments against the traditions. I also wish he was less interested in tradition and more interested in the Bible. Now I know of at least one person who he attacked in his book who he has appologized to and roumers are that he's giving similar appologies to some others, and roumers that he is less dogmatic in person, however I only know for sure of the one who he appologized to and the information he has written. He seems like a thinker, but again he has only picked the most liberal views as the only other choice to his and I'd love to get this views on the moderates and the conservative arguments that do not support traditon.

Anyway, we need to worship God according to the dictates of our conscious and choose what we will study. God bless you in your study.

Kevin, here is a link where you can look at some of his sermons on video, and some on just audio. I don't know anyone who cares more about the Bible. He is truly a man of God. That's why he feels so strongly about people trying to change the meaning of plain scripture.

http://www.hopevideo.com/media_with_samuel_koranteng-pipim-2.htm

[Guest]

Spiritual Second Coming Principle.

Observe that if one's "fresh approach" to Scripture follows some ambiguous "positive principle" method, there are several ways in which one can "re-think" or "modify" Adventist doctrine. For example, a former book editor of one of our church's publishing houses has identified "the 'spiritual Second Coming' principle" (as he calls

the real "principle" behind the Bible's "literal" teaching of a second Advent) as the belief that "Jesus has come in your hearts."

He continues: "The Second Coming can be accepted as symbolic or typical of the consummation of your religious experience, an event judging and justifying your spiritual connection ith God. You may or may not choose to deal with the question of literality [the literal-based approach?]. But in spite of everything, you can maintain your spiritual existence, which I submit, is far more vital than settling any questions of literality! . . . Once the principle of symbolic interpretation is accepted, one can see many Second Comings."

The "spiritual Second Coming principle" that leads one to see "many Second Comings" in Scripture is the same approach that undergirds the "apotelesmatic principle" (multiple fulfillment principle) or "idealist" principle of interpretation of Desmond Ford, the

Seventh-day Adventist scholar who in the 1970s and 1980s departed from our historic teaching on the sanctuary doctrine, prophetic interpretation, and the Spirit of Prophecy.

Clearly, the so-called "principle-based approach," which may be another name for the historical-critical method, does indeed affect the interpretation of Bible prophecy. Against the literal or plain reading of the Bible, this liberal way of studying the Bible seeks the "positive

principle" of the Scripture. It is a sophisticated way to spiritualize away the apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel and Revelation and their interpretations as found in The Great Controversy.

This explains why the Rio document, "Methods of Bible Study," stated that "The historical-critical method minimizes the need for faith in God and obedience to His commandments. In addition, because such a method de-emphasizes the divine element in the Bible as an inspired book (including its resultant unity) and depreciates or misunderstands

apocalyptic prophecy and the eschatological portions of the Bible, we urge Adventist Bible students to avoid relying on the use of the presuppositions and the resultant deductions associated with the historical-critical method." Regrettably, as we have seen, many

Adventist scholars still use the historical-critical method--disguised under different labels.

[Guest]

The Sanctuary Doctrine.

According to the former book editor mentioned above, the Adventist critics' suggestion that the sanctuary doctrine is "seriously flawed" is "an understatement!" He writes: "Fashioned not to save souls, but to save our collective, wounded ego in the wake of a 'great disappointment' (as though God could be guilty of 'standing us up'!), it [the sanctuary doctrine] is actually destructive to the individual soul." He cites

another writer to explain his own attitude toward the sanctuary doctrine: "Discard the damaging. And shop elsewhere to meet unfulfilled needs." The unwritten "principle" to rehabilitate the sanctuary doctrine, if it is possible at all, is "the fulfilment of needs."

If the statement of a former associate editor of the Review and Herald and current editor of Adventist Today is anything to go by, then a significant number of scholars and church administrators, including himself, seek to revise our traditional Sanctuary doctrine (Article 23

of our Fundamental Beliefs). It is understandable that he would take exception to this fundamental pillar of our faith, given his favorable disposition towards the historical-critical method.

Among those who are seeking to revise the traditional sanctuary doctrine is a theology professor. Seeking to move beyond the "maddening literalization of the rituals of Leviticus" and "cabalistic numerology" (1844?), he builds upon a non-Adventist's work and intimates

that we must "re-vision" our historic sanctuary doctrine around a socio-political axis. Believing that his approach will make the sanctuary doctrine "relevant," he suggests that God's "presence" in the sanctuary (Lev 26:11) should be understood as His presence in the church on earth; the "defilement" of the sanctuary (Lev 26:31) should be understood as God's forced withdrawal, occasioned by physical and moral pollution of the earth (oil spills, acid rain, ozone depletion, nuclear waste, killing of innocent people in wars, starvation, etc.); the "restoration" (Lev 26:42ff.) means that the church should become a place for the "hurting, the marginalized, the disappointed," a refuge where people can "openly express anger and fear and doubt, an even heresy--otherwise the church will always remain a court of law rather than a place of safety."

Does one need to go "beyond literalization" in order to affirm these relevant issues of social ethics?

[Guest]

The Substitutionary Atonement of Christ.

For one Adventist theologian and college administrator, the "principle" in Christ's atonement is "social justice." On the basis of this "principle," he denies the penal substitutionary atonement of Christ, the teaching that Jesus Christ died in our stead, taking upon Himself the penalty of death that we deserved. The titles of his two articles summarize his views: "God's Justice, Yes; Penal Substitution, No"; ". . . Penal Substitutionary Atonement is Still Unbiblical."

Notice that the above author's "principle" of "justice" essentially repudiates the historic Adventist understanding of Christ's atonement as stated in our Fundamental Beliefs, No. 9 and beautifully captured by Ellen White: "Christ was treated as we deserve, that we might be

treated as He deserves. He was condemned for our sins, in which He had no share, that we might be justified by His righteousness, in which we had no share. He suffered the death which was ours, that we might receive the life which was His. 'With His stripes we are healed'" (The Desire of Ages, p. 25).

Sad to say, another influential Adventist theologian rejects this substitutionary atonement of Christ on the grounds that if we are saved because of Christ's death, it would in principle be salvation by works--Christ's works! The author of the devotional book, His Healing Love, echoes this sentiment when he asks rhetorically: "Who needs Christ's merits?"

[Guest]

Adventist Lifestyle. Traditional Adventist practices like abstinence from the use of unclean foods, jewelry, and alcohol are also coming under fire as the "principle" approach gains acceptance in the church. Thus, a growing number of Adventist scholars are asking,

"What's the big deal about these lifestyle issues?" To such, pork and jewelry are not biblical mandates, but rather are, at best, sociological symbols that our nineteenth-century colonial Adventists instituted as "markers" to identify those who belong to their faith.20 Even on the

question of whether the Bible condemns alcohol use or its abuse, some suggest that the answer depends heavily on one's present "bias."

1. Clean and Unclean. Since some Adventist scholars believe that there is no clear scriptural mandate for our lifestyle practices, we should observe how their own "positive principle" conditions their interpretation of Scripture on these issues. One Adventist scholar

asks: "Should Adventists use Leviticus 11 to support the prohibition of pork and other foods listed there as 'unclean'?" He answers No. In his opinion, "only a penchant for proof texting" will lead one to continue upholding the clean/unclean distinction. Arguing on the basis of a

"more principled biblical-theological foundation" rather than on "dubious proof-texts," he concludes that Adventists "will refrain from eating pork, not because the laws concerning clean and unclean in Leviticus are still binding on Christians," but because "pork is especially unhealthful."

The author of Inspiration echoes the same "principle" approach to Scriptures. Since the "principle" against eating unclean animals (Lev 11; Deut 14) is believed to be "health," he suggests that when threatened by starvation, one could "eat everything possible to enhance

and preserve life."23 Did the Bible cite "health" as the reason for prohibiting unclean animals for food, so that if one could raise pigs, snakes, lizards, earthworms, cockroaches, or vultures in a sanitized environment, their carcasses would be "clean" for food? Did not God give His own reason for designating some animals as unfit for food (cf. Deut 14:2, 3)?

2. Jewelry. The new method of interpretation is also shaping the way we relate to the jewelry issue. This is best illustrated by calling attention to the revealing conclusion of an article titled, "Thinking About Jewelry: What the Bible (Really) Says," written by the editor

of the recentbook, Shall We Dance. "If you utilize key-text hermeneutics to study the issue of jewelry, you can develop a good biblical case against wearing it. If you employ contextual hermeneutics, the case against it is less compelling. If you're a Seventh-day Adventist, you

probably hold the Bible as the final authority for truth. Some have suggested that if your training in Seventh-day Adventism pre-dates 1970, you're likely [to] prefer key-text hermeneutics. If your higher education dates after 1970, you probably prefer contextual hermeneutics. When it comes to jewelry, it's not a matter of whether or not you follow the Bible; it's often more a matter of the way you use the Bible to establish your standards."

It appears that the "key-text" designation is a new way of saying "proof-text" method, a label mistakenly applied to those who still uphold the long-standing Seventh-day Adventist plain meaning of Scripture. According to the article's author, among those who employ the

"key-text" method are: (a) "those opposed to the ordination of women at the General Conference session in 1995"; ( the publishers of Bible Readings for the Home (Review and Herald, 1914, 1935, 1942, 1958, 1963); and © "a number of the biblical writers"--notably, the apostle Paul: "It appears Paul used Old Testament verses out of context on occasion as he wrote in the New Testament!"

It is, at least, encouraging that the apostle Paul is bracketed among those who employ the "key-text" method. Could it be that those who use this "pre-1970" approach are on more solid ground than the practitioners of the post-1970 "contextual" approach, the historical-critical

method? The choice for Adventists is really between the approach marked out by the ancient Bible writers and that employed by the so called "post-1970" scholars. In any case, only on the basis of the "positive principles" of the latter approach can one endorse the use of jewelry.

3. Other Issues. For pro-abortionists, the "principle" of selectivity is "choice," understood to be the right to terminate a pregnancy, even if the baby's choice is denied. For biblical feminists, the "principle" is "equality," defined as the absence of role differentiation between men and women in both the home and the church. For libertarians or situation ethicists, the "principle" is "love," even if it includes such things as divorce and remarriage on non-biblical

grounds, breaking the Sabbath, cheating, stealing, lying, discriminating against other races, pre- and extra-marital sex--as long as these things are done for "loving" reasons. And for those sympathetic to homosexual theology, the "principle" may be "acceptance" and "compassion."