How much of Scripture is inspired?

[Guest]

I wish you would return to the truth. You think you have found the truth.

I hope God will make provision for you to return when things don't pan out.

[wayfinder]

If God is anything like what I know Him to be, He will make provision. And if it turns out that I am right, I know He will do the same for you, imagine that, we will be working together.

[Guest]

As long as we end up at the same place, we can talk about it forever.

[Guest]

[Guest]

Whoops...

[oldsailor29]

Oldsailor, you believe something that is not even in the Bible. That everyone is going to be saved.

And when everyone is saved, you will say, "Hmmmm, oldsailor was right."

[phkrause]

Whoops...

did you post that photo in the wrong thread Richard?

pk

[Guest]

I think that I did pk.

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

Oldsailor, you believe something that is not even in the Bible. That everyone is going to be saved.

And when everyone is saved, you will say, "Hmmmm, oldsailor was right."

Ok, we'll see, but when you see the wicked burn up, you'll say: Hmmm, I guess Richard was right.

[Kevin H]

Brethren, cling to your Bible, as it reads, and stop your criticisms in regard to its validity, and obey the Word, and not one of you will be lost. The ingenuity of men has been exercised for ages to measure the Word of God by their finite minds and limited comprehension. If the Lord, the Author of the living oracles, would throw back the curtain and reveal His wisdom and His glory before them, they would shrink into nothingness and exclaim as did Isaiah, "I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of people of unclean lips" (Isaiah 6:5). {1SM 18}

You confuse me Richard; You criticize the Seminary, yet you quote Pipim who is representative of the theology of the seminary. You criticizise my pointing out of some discussions in the church about homosexuality, yet one of those you quote as who you agree with happens to be one of my sources for that topic. Now you are attacking Higher Criticizism and encouraging Fundamentalism, yet you quote an Ellen White quote that was a copy of a how Bible believing Christians don't need to be fundamentalist and arguing that both fundamentalism and modernism are wrong. Richard, can you find any sources from your side instead of constantly quoting those you don't like?

[Guest]

I didn't quote anybody I don't like.

[Guest]

Pipim quoted some people me and him both don't like, but I have quoted Pipim, and EGW, and I like them both.

[Kevin H]

Actually I had just returned to delete my post. Since I am too late I need to go into some detail:

Else where you said that because of my posts you were very unhappy with the seminary and there were a couple of other posts complainng about the seminary. However Pipim's views are the typical Seminary view. If you were to go to the seminary you would be taught Pipim's views and as far as I know, he would still be your teacher. And it was the people who's views Pipim is a reflection of who are the villians in Larson's General Conference Inquisision. Therefore on the one hand you say that you like Pipim. Then on the other hand you attack Pipim (by attacking the seminary, who's views are presented in Pipim, and by talking about the General Conference Inquesision, which again is the views that Pipim presents). This very much confuses me. You prase and copy Pipim in one breath then complain about his thought in complaining about the Seminary and in quoting a Historic Adventist's complaint about prefering the views that Pipim has been endorsing over the Historic Adventist views. And Part of this is me still trying to clear up for you that you can not attack the Seminary due to my posts, since Pipim's views are what the Seminary teaches. But they are also a reflection of the views of the "General Conference Inquesision" was complaining about, how the General conference was embrasing the views that were to be later presented in Pipim's books at the expense of other subgroups within Adventism.

And the Mrs. White quote is where she copied a highly controverseral sermon that opposed Fundamentalism (and also opposed the liberal modernism as well). The pastor who she was quoting ended up loosing his career over this sermon because the Fundamentalists hated it so much.

[Woody]

Yes. It is very difficult to figure this one out Richard. Could you explain it to us?

[there buster]

Quote:

You criticize the Seminary, yet you quote Pipim who is representative of the theology of the seminary.

Pipim is not representative of the theology of the seminary.

[Steve Billiter]

Amen Richard, Pipim is cool, What is the poster referring to the "seminary?" is the "seminary" our example and doctrine or is it Jesus and the Bible? I know some SDA seminaries that are in serious apostasy,i.e. certain professors at Loma Linda and LSU.

[Steve Billiter]

Very true Richard. talk about books of a new order, they are all over the abc store. There is at least 3 EGW adaptations that I know of; I'm unaware if doctrine has been changed yet, but if not its only a matter of time. There are books in abundance by liberal SDA authors that seek to tear down the Adventist pillars of faith one by one.

The Clear Word "Bible" in my view is an abomination.

The Ohio SDA Conference has been featured on Lighthouse Trails for contemplative Spiritualism within their Innovation Infusion Conferences, where New Age speakers are featured such as Leonard Sweet, ( a high occultist)and Samir Selminovic, an ex-SDA theologian who is now a New Age guru and operates the Faith House in NYC. The church will appear to fall.

Ordeal of the Sifting Time.--Satan will work his miracles to deceive; he will set up his power as supreme. The church may appear as about to fall, but it does not fall. It remains, while the sinners in Zion will be sifted out--the chaff separated from the precious wheat. This is a terrible ordeal, but nevertheless it must take place. None but those who have been overcoming by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony will be found with the loyal and true, without spot or stain of sin, without guile in their mouths. . . . The remnant that purify their souls by obeying the truth gather strength from the trying process, exhibiting the beauty of holiness amid the surrounding apostasy (Letter 55, 1886). {7BC 911.6}

[Guest]

Quote:

You criticize the Seminary, yet you quote Pipim who is representative of the theology of the seminary.

Pipim is not representative of the theology of the seminary.

That is correct. You said it first, but that is exactly what I was going to say.

[Guest]

Amen Richard, Pipim is cool, What is the poster referring to the "seminary?" is the "seminary" our example and doctrine or is it Jesus and the Bible? I know some SDA seminaries that are in serious apostasy,i.e. certain professors at Loma Linda and LSU.

That's right. If Pipim merely represented the theology of the seminary, 1) I wouldn't waste time reading his material, and 2) Kevin wouldn't be protesting Pipim's book.

[Kevin H]

My evidence is that what Pipim wrote in his book is what was being taught in the spoonfeed theology classes for the M.Div. program when I was there studying. Elder Pipim became invited to teach at the seminary because he was so inline with their agenda. And Pipim appologized to at least one of those he criticized in his book because he did not see the theology being taught as being so horrible, but other seminary professors did and he told this person that they pressured him into criticizing that view with the others. Also, while I am not fully positive, I think that Pipim was studying at the Seminary when I was there.

These are my evidence; please tell me your evidence to show that the above evidence is wrong.

[Kevin H]

Amen Richard, Pipim is cool, What is the poster referring to the "seminary?" is the "seminary" our example and doctrine or is it Jesus and the Bible? I know some SDA seminaries that are in serious apostasy,i.e. certain professors at Loma Linda and LSU.

Steve, LSU and Loma Linda are not THE Seminary. The Seminary is the Seventh-day Adventist Thelogical Seminary at Andrews University.

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Kevin H

I understand, but be careful, Pipim himself has appologized to at least one of those who he has criticized saying that he did not want to say those things but due to some church politics he had to say it or not get his book published,

Do you think there is any way you can find out what part of the book this has reference to and also verify that Pipim said this? The claim is an indictment against the integrity of the book itself and begs the question why anyone would trust the scholarship of someone who would say what Pipim is supposed to have said.

It makes it sound like Pipim and the publisher are dishonest, the latter for requiring that something unsubstantiated should be written, and the former for writing something that he neither believed nor wanted to say but only wrote in order to get the book published.

What he said.

[Guest]

In other words,

John said:

Do you think there is any way you can find out what part of the book this has reference to and also verify that Pipim said this? The claim is an indictment against the integrity of the book itself and begs the question why anyone would trust the scholarship of someone who would say what Pipim is supposed to have said.

It makes it sound like Pipim and the publisher are dishonest, the latter for requiring that something unsubstantiated should be written, and the former for writing something that he neither believed nor wanted to say but only wrote in order to get the book published.

[John317]

My evidence is that what Pipim wrote in his book is what was being taught in the spoonfeed theology classes for the M.Div. program when I was there studying.

Could you explain what a "spoonfeed theology class" is and maybe give an example?

Quote:

Elder Pipim became invited to teach at the seminary because he was so inline with their agenda.

What is the "agenda" of the seminary? Isn't it to educate and train excellent Seventh-day Adventist pastors, teachers, and administrators who will help spread the Third Angels Messages?

I should think that since you attended the seminary, you are also in line with that agenda.

Quote:

And Pipim appologized to at least one of those he criticized in his book

Any idea who that was? It would be good to know as we read the book who Pipim criticized in error. It seems also like it would appropriate for Pipim to correct the future editions of that book.

Quote:

because he did not see the theology being taught as being so horrible, but other seminary professors did and he told this person that they pressured him into criticizing that view with the others.

I will ask him personally about this. My daughter's husband is taking classes from him at Weimar, CA., where Amazing Facts has its Evangelism school. Pipim is one of the teachers. I'm told that he's excellent. Doug Batchelor also teaches and so does pastor Steven Bohr. It runs about four months.

Quote:

These are my evidence; please tell me your evidence to show that the above evidence is wrong.

You haven't yet produced any evidence to show that it's true. A claim is not evidence. You've said that Elder Pipim apologized to "at least one" person and that he "told this person" something.

It doesn't seem fair for this to be taken as evidence about brother Pipim's book and his scholarly integrity. Without more specific evidence, and references, it seems more like a rumor.

[oldsailor29]

I have little doubt that the AU seminary teaches the same things Pipim wrote in his book. I believe the Adventist Theological Society and the Amazing Facts people promote the same errors. But I would be surprised to learn that Pipim, AU seminary, and Doug Batchelor are supportive of other theological errors, like antitrinitarianism, which are promoted by the Historical SDAs. AU seminary, Batchelor, Pipim, the ATS, Historicals, the BRI, and many others, each have their individualistic set of errors, just like all the other Christian sects, like the Baptists, Methodists, and Pentecostals. All these errors stem from the same problem, Fundamentalism and mistaken ideas concerning the nature of inspiration.

What many are calling pillars should be thought of as waymarks, and left behind for present truth. This is what the SDA church is supposed to be doing, acquiring present truth. Of the above-mentioned groups, the BRI is the one which is closest to that stated mission. Falling short of following Jesus, the next best thing for SDAs to do would be to align themselves theologically with the BRI.