How much of Scripture is inspired?

[Kevin H]

Originally Posted By: 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.

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.

Of course the seminary's agenda is to educate and train excellent Seventh-day Adventist pastors, teachers, and administrators who will help spread the Third Angels Messages? But there have been different trends through out it's history as to how best to meet this. For example there was the influence of people like Lynn Harper Wood in the 1940s, etc. and others who like Gerhard Hasel felt that Lynn Wood's views were wrong for the church, and in the late 1980s the Adventist Theological Society was formed. But some of the ideas that became the ATS were starting to be taught at the Seminary before they formed.

As to the "Spoon Feed" theology classes, all I mean by this is-- the M. Div program has very little formal Bible study. It is mostly classes on how to administer a church. How to hold evangelistic meetings, etc. the business parts of running a church. There are 3 formal Bible classes where they actually study the Bible, and there is one or two classes just giving a general overview of the theology to teach; and when I was there in the early 1980s they began teaching in those classes the ideas that developed into the Adventist Theological Society and the ideas that Elder Pipim's book taught and when some of these professors were approaching retirement, Elder Pipim was choosen to join the Seminary faculty and I only see him carrying on the message.

I have not met Elder Pipim. I'd like to. I'd love to go over a couple of months to meet once a week over a cup of Postum and talk about some of the ideas in his book. But while I have not met him, I have had heard people who said that he is more open minded in person than he appears to be in the book, and I have heard stories about him appologizing to people he wrote about in the book, but that has all only been hearsay. However I know of one of the people who was written about in Pipim's book had to go to Berrien Springs for a family issue. When he returned he said that while there Elder Pipim came to him and that Elder Pipim appologized to him about what he wrote about him in the book. He said that while Pipin does not agree with this person's views, that he does see this person's views as compatable with Adventist though and not as the big heretic that some of the other professors saw this person as. He said that Pipim told him that he was not planing to attack this person's theology, but was pressured to include the passage about this person.

I did not hear Elder Pipim himself make the appology but I did hear this person who Pipim wrote about tell a group of us that I was standing in that Pipim came and made this appology. I don't see why this person would lie about this.

However this is only getting away from the question I'm asking. I am saying is that what Elder Pipim teaches is what the theam was of the basic theology classes at the seminary when I was there, and I want to know why you other folk are saying that the Seminary is NOT teaching what Pipim teaches. I'd like to know what I missed when I was there. It sure sounded like what I read in Pipim's book to me. In fact, Pipim's book sounds like simply a repeat of what I heard when I was in the Seminary.

All I'm asking is what do you see as different between what Elder Pipim teaches and what the Seminary teaches, as I do not see any difference between his book and what I was hearing when I was at the seminary. I am only asking for clearificatin since some of you are saying that Pipim is saying something different.

[John317]

[size:11pt] 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.

They are most definitely NOT antitrinitarian. Doug Batchelor has written a very good little book on the doctrine of the Trinity, and I know that Pipim also believes in the Trinity, as does AU seminary, of course.

[John317]

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."

I'd be interested in knowing what evidence you find in Scripture and in Ellen White's writings (whom I believe you accept as a prophet) that seems to you to teach universal salvation. And do you mean that you believe Satan himself will also be at last converted and saved?

Do you know of any SDA pastors or writers/teachers that believe everyone will finally be saved?

[John317]

I am saying is that what Elder Pipim teaches is what the theam was of the basic theology classes at the seminary when I was there, and I want to know why you other folk are saying that the Seminary is NOT teaching what Pipim teaches. I'd like to know what I missed when I was there. It sure sounded like what I read in Pipim's book to me. In fact, Pipim's book sounds like simply a repeat of what I heard when I was in the Seminary.

I don't think anyone should be astonished to find that Pipim writes many things that agree with some of the professors at the SDA seminary. In fact, I should be surprised if that wasn't the case. The only way that wouldn't be the case is if all the professors are heretical or if Pipim is either a lousy student or fundamentally heretical himself.

Yet the point here is that AU has a variety of types of professors in terms of their theological viewpoints. You may be sure that Pipim had his share of disagreements with what he heard in class as well as his share of agreements.

[Kevin H]

John, this is exactly my point. I don't want to carry the other topic over here. But when I mentioned that after years of just liberal arguments that some conservative scholars (not necessarly) are saying they need to re-examing how some words are being translated and the linguistic structure on a level outside of my scope of practice, but I merely mentioned that there is study being done; I was automatically blamed as being one of these people (even though I tried to give some referenced to BOTH sides of the issue) but the seminary was therefore being attacked, and Elder Pipim's veiws being placed at odds with the seminary's views.

I did not like the Seminary and the church being attacked since it was an underserved attack. Yes, we have a range of ideas. I like more of the much older faculty who were pre-ATS. I also found the ideas of Elder Pipim's books to be a repeat of those who formed the ATS and the core of the M. Div progeram from the time I was there. But some people here were saying "No, Pipim is very different from the seminary." I want to know why they say that Elder Pipim is so different as I don't see the difference.

Now I have to admit, that it is from some of the things that would not fit into Elder Pipim's thought or into the ATS thought, from which I became convinced that Desmond Ford and Walter Rea were wrong and that the Investigative Judgment and Mrs. White are correct, and found these arguments more convincing and more consistant on the topic of inspriation and the Investigative judgment. And I did find that in the schools that thought more along the lines that later became the ATS that when Ford and Rea would show up the school would be tossed in chaos. While in the other schools that were less focused on the points that became ATS, Ford and Rea came, gave their horse and pony show and left and they continued to believe that Mrs. White was a prophet and that the Investigative Judgment was true.

Of course in the Biblical Studies classes we looked more at chiasiams and poetic structures, Biblical Geography and the archaeology background to the text rather than the topics covered in the general theology classes and Pipim's books, but in chapel services and reading the books by the seminary professors and then hearing about the ATS, symphathetic on most of their points, but having a couple of places where I sadly can not sign the dotted line, or where I could by the actual wording but not by the intention and interpetation of the wording, and attending ATS functions, I just do not see the difference in what was given in the core theology classes of the seminary when I was there and what Elder Pipim wrote.

Too many Seventh-day Adventists seem to believe that the gospel is the good news that the church is going to hell in a handbasket, condem the Seminary yet support Pipim and I do not see the dictomy between Pipim and the Seminary. I am simply asking those people to explain to me what I am not seeing about why they come down strong against the seminary while being pro-Pipim.

[oldsailor29]

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

[Twilight]

And yes, even Lucifer will repent and be saved.

What is your "authority" for this statement oldsailor?

Is it the bible?

Or is it your "opinion"?

Because if it is your opinion, then should not your "opinion" be guided by the bible as a Christian?

Mark :-)

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

OldSailor29 said

Quote:

God paid the penalty for sin so nobody has to be destroyed. And yes, even Lucifer will repent and be saved.

This idea is creepy and has been brought up on the forum before. Christ paid the penalty for MAN, not for Lucifer and his angels. They will not be saved.

[Guest]

Oldsailor, if everybody is going to be saved, then God has used his prophets for the purpose of lying to us all down through the ages, and the Bible can't be trusted.

I DON'T THINK SO! Your gospel makes no sense OS.

[oldsailor29]

Oldsailor, if everybody is going to be saved, then God has used his prophets for the purpose of lying to us all down through the ages, and the Bible can't be trusted.

I DON'T THINK SO! Your gospel makes no sense OS.

I know, it only makes sense if you believe God really loves and really wants to save everyone.

As for lying? Lying per se is not a sin. The sin is "bearing false witness against thy neighbor." And we all know that our neighbor is anyone who would act toward us like the good Samaritan. And saying that all will be lost who do not follow Him, does not fall into the category of bearing false witness against thy neighbor, when in actuality everyone is going to be saved, especially if all repent and do follow Him.

Do you love anyone? If you do, then you know what it means to be willing to give your life for theirs. That's how God loves all of His creation, only so much more. Even with my small human thought capability, I know that I could think of a way to save everyone, and I know God is so much more capable of saving than I am, so how can I not believe everybody will be saved. I think it makes a lot of sense.

God has proven many times that He can move the hardest of hearts. Do you find joy in His service? There is no greater joy than that which we experience when God is using us. When God moves the heart, our choice will always be to serve Him. I want God to save everybody because I believe that is what He wants. I don't believe we are any more deserving than anyone else, and I want everybody to find joy and peace in His service.

I believe that after the great controversy is over, and sin has been shown to be the great evil that it is, God will move on the hearts of all His creation, who will then gladly and joyously choose to follow Him, and we will all live happily ever after.

[Steve Billiter]

Old sailor, you said:

"As for lying? Lying per se is not a sin."

It isn't? Since when? Is black white and white black as well?

False witness is a lie, our neighbors are everyone.

Psa 31:18 Let the lying lips be put to silence; which speak grievous things proudly and contemptuously against the righteous.

Psa 120:2 Deliver my soul, O LORD, from lying lips, and from a deceitful tongue.

Pro 10:18 He that hideth hatred with lying lips, and he that uttereth a slander, is a fool.

Pro 12:22 Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight.

[Guest]

Thw Bible says God cannot lie. Any doctrine that requires me to believe the Bible is a lie, and the prophets are inspired to lie, and that God lies, I have to reject that doctrine. And so would anybody who believes the Bible and SOP.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

Oldsailor, if everybody is going to be saved, then God has used his prophets for the purpose of lying to us all down through the ages, and the Bible can't be trusted.

I DON'T THINK SO! Your gospel makes no sense OS.

I know, it only makes sense if you believe God really loves and really wants to save everyone.

God proves by giving His Son to die for us that God wanted/wants to save all humanity. However, the Bible shows us that God doesn't always get what He wants.

Quote:

As for lying? Lying per se is not a sin.

The Bible says that God cannot lie. Lying is intentionally deceiving someone. It is uttering a non-truth, something the person knows to be false.

Can God do this? If so, how can anyone trust Him? If He inspired the prophets to say that Satan and the wicked will be utterly destroyed, it would be a lie if it is not true.

How do you explain the writings of Ellen White, which clearly teach that many people will be lost and that Satan and the fallen angels will be completely destroyed?

[John317]

It's very important for us as Christians to base our beliefs on the Bible and not on what we would like to believe or on what other people say. If you base your belief about this subject strictly on the Bible, what would you believe?

[Steve Billiter]

Old Sailor, you said:

"I have yet to find any proof text which states that everyone will be saved. However, I start with the theory that God wants to save everybody. And once I have accepted that theory as fact, it is enough proof for me."

It appears that what the Bible says is not good enough for you. What I am seeing is just plain old unbelief.

Here is your proof text that says everyone will not be saved, in fact, the saved will be few.

Mat 7:13 Enter you in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leads to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

Mat 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leads to life, and few there be that find it.

Rev 20:15 And whoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Dan 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

I( would urge you to believe the Bible, God will help our unbelief if we ask Him.

[Guest]

Amen!

[John317]

... even Lucifer will repent and be saved.

Ask yourself-- if you haven't already-- what is going to cause Lucifer to repent? What can God teach or show Lucifer (now the Devil) that he doesn't already know? Remember that this being was blessed with everything and was perfect. He stood next to Christ, and knew everything about the Father. He killed Christ, the One who made him!!! Given that fact, what more could God do for him, particularly in view of the fact that the Devil has made himself into the evil being that he is. He has no desire to change. His only desire would be to avoid the consequences of his evil, but he is not sorry for the evil itself. He hates God and he hates everything God loves. God refuses to change him against his will. That leaves God only one alternative, the one described in Rev. 20: 9. .

[oldsailor29]

Old sailor, you said:

"As for lying? Lying per se is not a sin."

It isn't? Since when? Is black white and white black as well?

False witness is a lie, our neighbors are everyone.

[oldsailor29]

But getting back to the original question, about the inspiration of the Bible. I believe the Bible was mostly spoken and written by people who were divinely inspired. There are passages where God is quoted, and there are passages where Angels of the Lord are quoted, and other sources are quoted too, but scripture mostly originates with inspired people. Does this mean they were all theologically correct? No. The writer of Ecclesiastes was mostly incorrect, but the book can be corrected merely by the insertion of one phrase, "without God." As it comes to us however, it is a book full of things which should not be believed. There are other examples of theology in the Bible which are presented as false theology. Some of those are presented in the book of Job, and there are other beliefs presented in the Bible as false doctrines. However, the main object of the Bible is sufficiently true theology, sufficient for learning something about God and sufficient for salvation, but it must be studied carefully in order to be understood correctly.

[Guest]

Responding to the Call.

The late Enoch de Oliveira (1924-1992), a church administrator from

Brazil, clearly understood what was at stake in the hermeneutical crisis. Prior to his retirement, he served as president of the South American Division (1975-1980) and vice-president of the General

Conference (1980-1990) during a period that saw major theological turmoi in the church.

One of his lasting contributions to the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist church was his great courage in contending for the Word against the inroads of theological liberalism. The insightful address that follows, "A Trojan Horse Within the Church," was the keynote

sermon Elder Oliveira delivered at the International Convention of the Adventist Theological Society held in Indianapolis, June 28-30, 1990, just prior to the General Conference session.

Although conditions in the church now may differ somewhat from those in 1990, this sermon aptly summarizes the concerns undergirding this book. It may also be read as Oliveira's farewell message to the worldwide church; two years after delivering this message, he was laid to his rest.

[Guest]

"A Trojan Horse Within the Church"

In one of his famous epics, Homer describes the clever device the Greeks employed to conquer the city of Troy during the Trojan war.

To enable the Greeks to enter the legendary city by stealth, the master carpenter, Epeius, built a huge hollow wooden horse. According to Homer, 100,000 soldiers besieged Troy.

The ten-year siege ended when the Greeks concealed some soldiers in the horse and then left it behind as they pretended to withdraw.

Despite the warning of Laocoön, Sinon persuaded the Trojans to move the horse inside the city walls. At night the Greek army returned and the soldiers who had hidden inside the horse opened the city gates to their comrades. In this way Troy was invaded successfully and destroyed.

Although the war between the Greeks and the city of Troy is generally considered a historical fact, the episode dealing with the Trojan horse has been considered a mythological tale. Nonetheless, from this epic we can derive some timely illustrations that are applicable to the situation our church finds itself in today.

For many years the Seventh-day Adventist church succeeded in bravely and tenaciously resisting the fearful assaults of the enemy. The walls of the "holy city" remained impregnable. But in his determination to conquer and destroy God's church, the prince of this world has undertaken to employ clever and deadly secret weapons.

"There is nothing that the great deceiver fears so much," wrote Ellen G. White, "as that we shall become acquainted with his devices" (The Great Controversy, p. 516).

After many attempts to conquer the "city of God" by applying the same kind of deceitful action employed by the Greeks, the great adversary has been able to obtain his ends by surreptitiously introducing the Trojan horse of liberalism within the walls of Zion.

Now that liberalism has become operative within our church, we perceive how vulnerable we can be to the assaults of Satan. As a church we have been inclined to believe that our greatest danger of being defeated by the powers of evil would come from without.

While we may be able to perceive clearly from the walls of Zion what Satan is doing to conquer and destroy the church, we do not seem able to do much about standing firmly against the evils that are developing insidiously within our midst. Ellen White warns: "We have more to fear from within than from without" (Selected Messages, 1:122).

[Guest]

Liberals Are Not Bad People

Those who are promoting liberalism in our ranks are not "bad" people. They are committed believers. Many of them exhibit the beauty of Christian virtues in their lives. Most of them love the church. They would like to share the faith and certainties of our forefathers, but in the honesty of their hearts, they do not have them. They are unable to see the uniqueness of our message, the distinctiveness of our identity, the eschatological dimension of our hope, or the urgency of our mission. Representing a wide spectrum of religious thought, they attempt to reinterpret traditional theological Seventh-day Adventist thinking by dressing some of our old doctrines in what appear to them to be new and attractive semantic garments.

Why are these people advocating liberal views among us? Why are they so enthusiastically playing the role of apostles of change in our theological system? First of all, it seems to me, they are eager to discard the "cult" label that has been used so widely to characterize Seventh-day Adventism.

They long to see our religious movement become a part of what they consider mainstream Christianity. In their endeavor to attain religious "respectability," they suggest the reinterpretation of some historical views of our theology that they believe are Biblically indefensible.

Although accepting some aspects of our distinctiveness, such as the Sabbath and our health principles, they believe that the time has come for revision in our theological system. In fostering such a revision, some feel uncomfortable with the "remnant" concept as understood by the founders of our message. They believe that all "sectarian mentality" should be rejected

as presumptuous and arrogant.

Other liberals, in their endeavor to make our theology more "relevant," question the integrity of the sanctuary doctrine and unite their voices with those of our opponents in this matter. They explain the two-phase ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary as a face-saving device created by Edson, Crosier, and others to bail our pioneers out of the Millerite failure.

There are those who are alarmed about what seems to them to be excessive borrowing by Ellen White of material from a variety of sources. Misguided by distorted ideas about the way inspiration works, they are willing to challenge the validity of her claims, rejecting her

prophetic authority.

Some liberals define our eschatology as a by-product of nineteenth-century North American culture and, as such, as deserving of substantial reformulation. They insist that after 145 years of proclamation we can no longer preserve the fervent expectation that permeated the church in its formative years.

Liberal scientists in the church insist that the creation doctrine should be reevaluated in the context of current scientific information and hypotheses.

According to the February 5, 1990 issue of Christianity Today, the obsession for change in the Seventh-day Adventist ranks had its beginnings in the 1950s and 1960s, when our students in much larger numbers than before began to attend non-Adventist seminaries and universities seeking advanced degrees. Some of these students, in spite of unfavorable circumstances, were able to preserve their religious experience and came forth strengthened in their convictions. Others, influenced by modern Biblical criticism and liberal theology, reshaped their beliefs.

[oldsailor29]

RH - I think the problem is not so much with the historical critical hermeneutic as with the theology of the liberals who use it. I have learned conservative theology from the historical critical process also. Traditional SDA theology is there. Used properly, the exegetical hermeneutic will yield our sanctuary message, the year/day in prophecy belief, the 457 BC date for the beginning of the 2300 day prophecy, the Seventh day sabbath, and other doctrines of our faith. And I think this method gives us the better argument for our beliefs.

I believe this method is the best way to study the New Testament as well as the Old. I think it is far more authoritative than the systematic and proof text methods for most of the Bible.

However there are some parts of the Bible which I hold as higher authority. These are the parts where God is quoted. In the flesh as Jesus Christ, God gave us His proof texts that support His theology. These quotations are the most authoritative texts of the Holy Bible. They are authoritative and complete. As Christians, we need no other testimony and no other texts than the testimony of Jesus and the proof texts He taught.

We can argue about our understanding of the Bible, just like Job and his friends, and I think we fall way short, just like they did. But I think we can trust the quotations of God, and the explanation of the covenant given to us by Jesus far more than any other study. It all boils down to following Jesus on His narrow path.

[Kevin H]

Part of the problem is our confusing lables when we mean liberal and conservative. We have liberals and conservatives in all types of sub groups. Someone who is a conservative in one sub groups would be a liberal as we compare that sub group to another. Same with liberals, you can have someone liberal in one sub group but that sub group more conservative to other sub groups.

A second part of the problem is a mislableing of two ways of studying the Bible; The historical critical method, also called higher critical method, and (I can't think of the term, something like Historical Lingunal method) or the lower critical method. Both methods were delininated in the 1700s by believers. As linguists were learning more they began to notice different styles of writing in the scripture which looked like they were edited together. Higher criticizm is simply looking at the sources and lower criticizism is studying the final way they were edited together. There was no diconomy between the two styles. The Bible was still seen as the inspired word of God.

But then we come to the mid 1800s (interesting)and the publication of Darwin's "Orgin of the Species" and the popularity of evolution being the orgin of the earth. People began to see evolution in everything. People started to be athiests (before this time there were good people and bad people but they tended to believe in God). People always saw ancient writings, except the Bible, as untrue, so now they were looking for evidence of evolution in these ancient writings now these new athiests began to classify the Bible with how they understood all ancient writings. They began looking at the different writing styles as evidence that the Bible was the product of human evolution. They formed a view of the Bible called Modernism. Modernism rejected belief in a personal God, and in miricals. They were very strongly and conservatively evolutionests. Of course they are lalbed as liberal theology.

In reaction to Modernism, some who wanted to defend the Bible, began to talk about what it means for the Bible to be inspired. They began saying that since God is perfect that his word needs to be perfect and took a Greek view of perfection (See Bowman's Hebrew Thought compaired to Greek). They saw the books of the Bible being written right at the time of the events and that the form we have today is exactly word for word (except for translation) from the work written as a completed form with every single detail being written in complete perfection. It was an extream reaction to modernism. They were not interested in learning about anything hinting that the Biblical books could be edited from earlier writings. Therefore they were interested in only lower criticizm. Finally right at the peek of the growth of fundamentalism came World War 1 and since the Germans did a lot of the study in higher criticizism, they wanted nothing to do with Hun theology

In the late 1800s and early 1900s most churches either became Modernists or Fundamentalists. Now some have tried to stop this trend of falling into either of these two ditches. There was a pastor who wanted to maintain a moderate view, belief in God and in miricals, but fair to both higher and lower criticizism with in a framework of faith and belief. This proved to be his downfall. His sermons were latched on as horible heresy and an attack on the Bible. A woman ruined his reputation by lieing about him. She said that she had an affair with him. Later as this was proven to be a lie she said that she knew that she had to defend the Bible from his beliefs and therefore lied to protect the Bible.

It is interesting that instead of calling him a heretic, Mrs. White took his sermons, changed his view that inspiration was subjective to an objective expirence and she used it for her discription of how inspiration works that we read in Selected Messages and the introduction to the Great Controversy.

W. W. Prescott began teaching Fundamentalism at Battle Creek college, where Stephen Haskell heard Prescott and was convinced. When Mrs. White learned that Prescott was teaching Fundamentalism at Battle Creek Mrs. White asked him to stop teaching and to come and help her with her writings. He was horrified at what Mrs. White was asking him to do as he worked for her. But he came to having the view of inspration as found in Great Controversy and Selected Messages, the views of that one discraced minister presented (except for inspiration being an objective expirence rather than subjective) and Presscot stopped teaching Fundamenalism (at least when it comes to Mrs. White)

Elder Butler had a group of articles in the Review which taught Mrs. White's view of inspiration and rejected Fundamentalism. Later in trying to deal with what happened in 1888 it was his non-fundamentalist views that helped him to deal with the storm and kept him from leaving the church.

Haskell however continued to promote Fundamentalism. A split developed between Haskell on one side with Ellen White, Willie White, A. G. Daniels and W.W. Prescott on the other. Haskell was a close friend of Mrs. White, and there is a period of time where you can read corrispondence between them where Haskell kept trying to convince Mrs. White to be a Fundamenatlists and telling her how God was working through her. Mrs. White on the other hand kept disagreeing with Haskell, telling him what visions do and don't do for her. (interesting it was durring this time that Haskell visited Mrs. White and they had a discussion that so drained Mrs. White that she had a heart attack and needed an angel to come and help her. She does not tell what their discussion was about but letters written around this time was over fundamentalism) Haskell and Mrs. White were never able to convince each other. Mrs. White was still fighting this as she got old and died.

The General Conference was accused of being full of liberal modernist heretics who did not believe that the Bible and Mrs. White were inspired, at least not Mrs. White. (some, such as Elder Spicer, were Fundamentalists when it came to the Bible but took the moderate view towards Ellen White. He believed that there were two different types of inspiration, the one for the Bible and the other for other prophets) Then we had the 1919 Bible conference and 1923 General Conference where Haskell's views prevailed and Fundamentalism became even stronger in the church, the theology faculty at Washington Missionary College (who held Mrs. White's view of inspiration) were labled liberal heritics and thrown out.

It is interesting on how Fundamentalism has also been compaired to the Trojan horse, that we tend to welcome it as so safe and sounds like it is on the side of the Bible, but undermines a faith in the scriptures. If they find things that don't meet the Greek view of perfection they abandon ship. We see the problem with Fundamentalism with the attacks by the church by Canright and Rea. Canright was an extream fundamentalist and joined the most conservative fundamentalist church there was. Rea was / is (I don't know if he is still alive or not) also a strict fundamentalists. He wrote a lot like some people write here against the liberals in the church. He then began to see that Mrs. White did not fit the Fundamentalist presupositions. The church became more open to using higher criticizism to explain Mrs. White and defend her as a prophet. Rea said that he hates how the church was bringing the Bible down to the level of Mrs. White. The reasons why people left the church were all because of Fundamentalism. Other churches are having the same problems with the Bible that we have with Mrs. White. It has not yet grown to the same crisis level, and God is trying to work with us to deal with these issues so that we can minister to our Baptist and Penticostal brothers and sisters when they see these same issues in the Bible.

But even with Fundamentalism there are changes. Today they see that the Bible does not fit the Greek view of perfection, so they say that the autograph original was perfect and that the things that were not perfect are copiest errors. And even among Fundamentalists, Seventh-day Adventists as a church is a moderate church, not officially accepting Fundamenatlism. Although most of our members are fundamentalists the church has taken a stand to not be officially fundamentalists, and our members who are fundamentalists tend to be very liberal fundamentalists.

But when it comes to higher and lower criticizism; even Gerhard Hassel says that there is evidence of editing and the higher critical sources in the Bible, but that we are not to explore that possibility but let it rest and only study the finished product.

But when we look at Mrs. White, we both study her finished product, but also how she developed her ideas and the sources she used. So dispite the telling us not to use higher criticizism, we quite freely use both higher and lower criticizism in our study of Mrs. White. Higher and lower cirticizism are not in opposition to each other. Now the danger of Modernism and how they use higher criticizism to diasect the Bible to where it just becomes bits and pieces is wrong. But if you look at the "Jesus Seminar movement" they are dealing with the finished text and going word by word to ask if Jesus could have said that word. They deal strictly with the text and a word for word study of the text. They do not look at the poetic structures to see if the word can fit that poetic structure. They do not use higher critical tools of compareing Jesus' words to the words of other Rabbi's of his time to see if Jesus could have been quoting (and modifiying) what the Rabbi said. They do not compare Jesus words to the Palinistan family of scriptual texts to see if Jesus could have been quoting the Bible. Thus they are using lower criticism to diasect the Bible and bring it to naught.

Higher and lower criticizism are tools. They were originally designed to work together. You can take the hammer to build something or to smash it. You can take a car and drive into a croud of people, or you can use it to drive you to church.

The issue is NOT that higher or lower criticism are better or worst than the other, or to only use one and not the other. The issue is whether you use them to distroy the Bible (as the Modernists do with higher critizism, and the Jesus Seminar does with lower criticizism) or using it to make the Bible your servant (as the Fundamentalmentalists tend to do). The issue is are we going to leave alone Modernism (and hopefully also Fundamentalism) and sit at the feet of the Bible and allow the Bible to teach us about Jesus.

The problem is that we too often have higher critizicism mixed with Modernism. We need to divorce them. But too many in us are confused because they see evidence of higher criticizism but have it too mixed with Modernism.

[Kevin H]

Also, look at the issue with Ratslaf and Martin. They use to be Historic Adventists using a fundamentalist approach towards Mrs. White to say that Historic Adventism was right and that every one else was wrong and bashing everyone else with Ellen White quotes, and preached the good news that the church and everyone else was going to hell in a hand basket

Today they are fundamentalist evangelicals using a fundamentalist approach towards Paul to say that they are right and Seventh-Day Adventists are wrong and bashing Seventh-day Adventists with Paul's quotes preaching the news that the church and every one else is going to hell in a hand basket.

They say they had a big change. I see very little change in them. I see some of the posts here as just following the path of Ratslaf and Martin. Screaming that they are right, screaming louder when their views are questioned, look for evidence to prove they are right and look for stronger and stronger proof, find the proof does not fit their fundamentalists presupositions so they become enemies of what they once believed.

Ratslaf and Martin did not change from being conservative to liberal. They did not change from Fundamentalism to Modernism. They just changed from one prophet whos words they were abusing who they discovered did not fit their conservative tradition, so turned to another prophet whos world they are abusing who they think fits their conservative tradition. When the test comes we will see one of two things happen to these men. Either they are going to give up faith in the Bible all together and follow the Jesus on the earth, or else they are going to have to deal with the same issues in Paul that they are whining about in Mrs. White, and they may be driven to their knees and come to a moderate view of inspriation, and have to learn under pressure what they are neglecting to learn now, but come out returning to the faith and becomeing Pauls in the last days. But for now they are leading too many to hell not from liberal modernism which is being warned against here, but strict conservative fundamentalism.

While some of Richard's about list are dangers of liberalism, I've seen a lot more people falling into rejecting the idea of the Remanant, the Investigative Judgment, etc. not from liberalism but from the conservativism that Richard seems to recomend as these conservatives run into evidence. Ratslaf and Martin are equally extream conservatives whether they were Seventh-day Adventists or Evangelicals. Whether they were abusing Mrs. White and defending Historic Adventism and smashing everyone else, or whether they were abusing Paul and defending Evangelicalism and smashing everyone else. How things don't change.

Have faith in God. Use the Bible and Mrs. White to understand God better.