How much of Scripture is inspired?

[olger]

Richard be lookin good.

[Guest]

Hey olger, what it be like?

[Guest]

Use of Alcohol.

Does the Bible condemn the use of alcohol, or is it only against alcohol's abuse? In other words, should Seventh-day Adventists just say "No" to alcohol, or should they

simply say "No more" (i.e., "no more" than, say, two bottles of beer)?

The editor of a recent book, Shall We Dance, devotes two chapters to this issue. The first

closes with the assertion that a person's "bias" influences his conclusions regarding the use or

abuse of alcohol: "Those with a bias for moderate use of alcohol receive supportive evidence

from both Scripture and modern science. But there is ample support [for] abstinence, too."

How then does this author conclude his "biblical principles that relate to moderate use [of] alcohol"?

While he makes a "recommendation" to the Seventh-day Adventist church to hold "an

abstinence position on alcohol and seek to correct the negative results of alcohol abuse

throughout our society," he attempts to resolve the question with a carefully nuanced position:

"Rather than being satisfied with the support of either position [the use or abuse of alcohol], this

chapter attempts to look beyond the obvious 'wine texts' in the Bible and consider other Scriptural

principles that would have a bearing on the moderate use of alcohol today, especially in North

America."

Does moving "beyond" the wine-texts in the Bible for "Scriptural principles" include going to extra-biblical sources? He answers: "For Christians, sometimes it's useful to temporarily

put aside biblical passages and simply consider what those speaking outside the church have to

say on a given matter. Listening to a different voice can give a new perspective of Scripture. For

this reason we will now turn to what people outside the community of faith say about alcohol.

While some may be Christians, they do not speak for Christians."

The subtle message in this carefully worded statement is that the Bible is not a sufficient

guide or the sole authority to address this issue. We have to allow extra-biblical sources to "give a

new perspective of Scripture."

In the second of his two chapters devoted to the subject, the author discusses the "new perspective" that we gain when we listen to different voices: (1) "Abstention is acceptable in all

circumstances" (it is not necessarily mandatory); (2) "Alcohol in high-risk settings is

discouraged" (but apparently okay in non-risk settings); (3) "Heavy consumption is discouraged"

(implying that lighter consumption may be all right); (4) "Moderate consumption in low risk

situations is acceptable." Indeed, some research findings on the "medical benefits" of alcohol use

suggest that "2-3 drinks per day is okay. In fact, it may be healthier than a nonalcoholic diet."

The critical hermeneutical question illustrated by the above example is this: Should we decide on the use/abuse of alcohol solely on the basis of Scripture, or must we also look outside

of Scripture (research findings, experience, culture, etc.) for answers? Similar questions are also

shaping the discussion on homosexuality and lesbianism.

[Guest]

Morality of Homosexuality.

An increasing number of Adventist Bible scholars are

arguing that the teaching of Scripture on the subject of homosexuality is not sufficiently clear to

settle the question of the morality of homosexual acts or relationships in our world. If the Bible

cannot settle this question, where does the Christian go for dependable answers?

The argument of one theologian was summarized thus: "Moral norms, he asserted, should

be determined by scripture, but there is also need for empirical evidence about what is. Norms

are useless in a vacuum." The empirical evidence alluded to is the "finding" that people are born

gay. But what happens if the evidence conflicts with Scripture?

If one accepts the Bible as the sole authority for Christian belief and practice, one cannot

accept homosexuality as biblically legitimate. However, a Kinsey Institute study of homosexuals

in California's San Francisco Bay Area maintained that gays involved in reciprocal, permanent,

and sexually exclusive relationships tend to be the happiest, healthiest, and best-adjusted people

of the entire group being analyzed. Based on this highly questionable source, an Adventist

professor of ethics concluded:

"Christians therefore have every reason to encourage homosexuals

who are honestly convinced that they should neither attempt to function heterosexually nor

remain celibate to form Closed-Couple homosexual unions."

The reason given for endorsing closed couple homosexual unions is not biblical revelation, but rather an empirical finding about the subjective experience of homosexuals

[Twilight]

Morality of Homosexuality.

An increasing number of Adventist Bible scholars are

arguing that the teaching of Scripture on the subject of homosexuality is not sufficiently clear to

settle the question of the morality of homosexual acts or relationships in our world. If the Bible

cannot settle this question, where does the Christian go for dependable answers?

The argument of one theologian was summarized thus: "Moral norms, he asserted, should

be determined by scripture, but there is also need for empirical evidence about what is. Norms

are useless in a vacuum." The empirical evidence alluded to is the "finding" that people are born

gay. But what happens if the evidence conflicts with Scripture?

If one accepts the Bible as the sole authority for Christian belief and practice, one cannot

accept homosexuality as biblically legitimate. However, a Kinsey Institute study of homosexuals

in California's San Francisco Bay Area maintained that gays involved in reciprocal, permanent,

and sexually exclusive relationships tend to be the happiest, healthiest, and best-adjusted people

of the entire group being analyzed. Based on this highly questionable source, an Adventist

professor of ethics concluded:

"Christians therefore have every reason to encourage homosexuals

who are honestly convinced that they should neither attempt to function heterosexually nor

remain celibate to form Closed-Couple homosexual unions."

The reason given for endorsing closed couple homosexual unions is not biblical revelation, but rather an empirical finding about the subjective experience of homosexuals

Excellent stuff, keep it coming. :-)

[BobRyan]

Morality of Homosexuality.

An increasing number of Adventist Bible scholars are

arguing that the teaching of Scripture on the subject of homosexuality is not sufficiently clear to

settle the question of the morality of homosexual acts or relationships in our world. If the Bible

cannot settle this question, where does the Christian go for dependable answers?

I understand that Fritz Guy likes walking on the wild-side on that question - but I was not aware that an "increasing number of Adventist Bible scholars" gave him the time of day on that topic.

Why are you saying that this number is significant or growing?

Where is that data coming from?

in Christ,

Bob

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

Morality of Homosexuality.

An increasing number of Adventist Bible scholars are

arguing that the teaching of Scripture on the subject of homosexuality is not sufficiently clear to

settle the question of the morality of homosexual acts or relationships in our world. If the Bible

cannot settle this question, where does the Christian go for dependable answers?

I understand that Fritz Guy likes walking on the wild-side on that question - but I was not aware that an "increasing number of Adventist Bible scholars" gave him the time of day on that topic.

Why are you saying that this number is significant or growing?

Where is that data coming from?

in Christ,

Bob

It is growing Bob, it is a movement within the church. If you want to see where it came from I can send it to you in PM.

[Guest]

Morality of Lesbianism.

This new way of knowing truth (what scholars refer to as

epistemology) is echoed in the Adventist Women's Institute's book, In Our Own Words. This work carries the testimony of a lesbian, who identifies herself as an "Adventist-connected" theologian, Bible instructor/academy teacher-turned-minister. Observe how she came to the conclusion that her lesbianism was "an unusual calling" from the Lord and why her lesbian partner also believes that their lesbian relationship was "God's gift for her conversion."

She speaks about her naivete in blindly following the teaching of the Seventh-day

Adventist church that "told me that my own nature was sinful, so looking to myself would be my

downfall. . . . It did not tell me to look at the rest of the natural world and discover that

same-gender nesting occurs in many species." She explains, however, that following her "unusual

calling" or "Martin Luther experience" (the "ecstasy and torment" of her lesbian encounter), she came to value the importance of "inner knowing"--listening to "the voice of God within me."

Scripture, according to this writer, is not the sole authority. We need "to look at the rest of the natural world" (empirical data) and also listen to "the voice of God within me"--an "inner knowing" (experience). For her, subjective human experience was trustworthy because she did not believe that her "own nature was sinful."

The above examples illustrate an increasing departure from biblical revelation toward empirical experience as the authority base for religious and ethical issues. This trend raises

questions for Bible-believing Christians regarding the starting point for discussions on theological issues: Should it be observation, introspection, or biblical revelation?14 One's response has consequences beyond the issue of homosexuality or lesbianism. It determines whether the Bible or the hypothesis of naturalistic evolution will provide the grounds for

ascertaining, for example, whether or not Genesis 1 and 2 teach a literal-day creation--an issue that affects the validity of the seventh-day Sabbath.

[Guest]

The Question of Origins.

Based on naturalistic interpretations of scientific data, some

Adventist scholars now hold: (a) a long rather than short chronology for the age of our earth (i.e., millions instead of thousands of years); ( gradual, uniformitarian deposit of the geologic column, instead of catastrophism (i.e., Noah's flood); © views that reinterpret the days of creation to represent millions of years, instead of the six literal days taught by the Bible.

The shift from the sole authority of Scripture to empirical data is remarkably illustrated in the case of a former Adventist university president and General Conference vice president. After

reviewing theories of continental drift, fossil records, and radioactive isotope dating, he concluded that: "animals [were] living in the earth . . . millions of years before these [continental]

plates separated. And, moreover, as I got to looking into the geologic column, I had to recognize . . . that the geologic column is valid, that some forms of life were extinct before other forms of

life came into existence. I had to recognize that the forms of life that we are acquainted with mostly, like the ungulate hoof animals, the primates, man himself, exist only in the very top little layer of the Holocene, and that many forms of life were extinct before these ever came in, which, of course, is a big step for a Seventh-day Adventist when you are taught that every form of life came into existence in six days. . . . I had felt it for many, many years, but finally there in about 1983 I had to say to myself, That's right. The steadily accumulating evidence in the natural world has forced a reevaluation in the way that I look at and understand and interpret parts of the

Bible."

Such conclusions have implications. First, denying a literal six-day creation implies that: (i) if Adventists continue keeping the seventh-day Sabbath, they must reinterpret its origin and significance; (ii) if Sabbath observance is retained, there would be no solid basis for seventh-day worship, setting the stage for the end-time recognition of Sunday sacredness in place of the true Sabbath; (iii) if the Bible's authoritative record of creation, which Jesus Christ confirmed (Matt

19:4-6; Mark 2:27-28), can be so easily set aside, we can also ignore its authority in other areas (e.g. morality and lifestyle).

Second, if animals were dying millions of years before the existence of human beings, then death (even of animals) is not the result of human sin. But the Bible says that "the wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23), and that because of sin "the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in

pain together until now" (Rom 8:22). Also, if death came before sin, Paul's statement that "by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin" (Rom 5:12; cf. 8:22) is not trustworthy; neither

can we believe that "as by the offence of one [Adam] judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [Christ] the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life" (Rom 5:18). Pursuing this argument to its logical end raises serious doubts

about the necessity and efficacy of Christ's death for our sins, the possibility of human redemption, and the likelihood of Christ's second coming and a new creation (see 2 Pet 3:1-15).17 Thus, giving up the Bible's teaching on origins may lead to theological skepticism or agnosticism.

[Guest]

Agnosticism, the End-Result.

The experience of a former Adventist, a grandson of a

General Conference president, illustrates this danger. In the introduction to his book The Creationists, he explains how he gave up his Adventist views on a literal creation and became an agnostic: "Having thus decided to follow science rather than Scripture on the subject of origins, I quickly, though not painlessly, slid down the proverbial slippery slope toward unbelief. . . . [in a 1982 Louisiana creation-evolution trial, he elected to serve as an expert witness for the evolution cause, against the creationist lawyer, Wendell R. Bird. At that trial, he continues,] Bird publicly

labeled me an 'Agnostic.' The tag still feels foreign and uncomfortable, but it accurately reflects my theological uncertainty."

In summary, the slide into the abyss of theological uncertainty begins with a departure from the Bible as the Christian's sole norm of authority. Then follows a reinterpretation of the

Scriptures according to the extra-biblical knowledge, whether from science, experience, tradition, psychology, or other sources. As the retired General Conference administrator himself said: "The

steadily accumulating evidence in the natural world has forced a reevaluation in the way that I look at and understand and interpret parts of the Bible."

[Guest]

Cultural Conditioning.

In an effort to show that some parts of the Bible are not fully

inspired, proponents of contemporary higher criticism often argue that the Bible is historically or culturally conditioned. By this expression they mean that the Bible mirrors the prejudices

or limitations of the inspired writers' culture and times. For instance, many such proponents in various denominations dismiss the Bible's condemnation of pre-marital and extra-marital

sex as culturally conditioned.

They claim that in contrast with our enlightened age, the Bible writers lived in a "pre-scientific" era with no antibiotics for venereal diseases, and no condoms and contraceptives to prevent pregnancies; their views were consistent with the conditions of their times. But, they continue, if the Bible writers had lived in our day, they would have viewed pre-/extra-marital sex differently.

On a related issue, is the denunciation of homosexuality culturally conditioned, stemming from Moses and Paul's lack of knowledge about psychological and genetic factors that may

contribute to homosexuality? When Christians read the condemnations of homosexuality in the Bible, should theyunderstand the Bible writers not as condemning the offense of homosexuality but an offensive kind of homosexuality (e.g., homosexual rape and

promiscuity, or those associated with pagan practices)? Are other practices of Adventist lifestyle--such as abstaining from unclean meats, alcoholic drinks, and from wearing jewelry--culturally conditioned to the pre-scientific Bible times or, perhaps, to the

nineteenth-century Victorian age of Ellen White?

The cultural-conditioning argument implies that in some cases the Bible writers wrote from ignorance or a distorted view of reality. In effect, today's historical-critical interpreters

believe they can decide which parts of the Bible are inspired and valid and which are not--the latter being the alleged culturally-conditioned sections of the Bible, not fully binding on all

people in all ages. But they fail to show by what criteria they are able to sort out those parts tainted by the inspired writers' so-called prejudices, ignorance, or culture.

[Gustave]

If any would accept a Papist's views on this question I offer mine for consideration. The Sacred Scriptures are Inspired by God, in total. The question on homosexuality as it relates to Inspiration of Sacred Scripture can be understood by Natural Law as defined by Apostolic Authority. Here is my case:

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

[Guest]

I think we are in agreement.

[Gustave]

See, we've got stuff in common :)

[Guest]

Basis for Cultural Conditioning Argument.

The cultural conditioning argument assumes

erroneously that because the people who lived in Bible times did not have the benefit of modern education, technology, and scientific laboratories, they were "primitive"--a view stemming from the myth of evolutionism. Evolutionism is not the same as the scientific

theory of evolution. It is the philosophical theory that ideas and thought are continually progressing, so that the ideas of today are necessarily better than the ideas of yesterday. The

English liberal scholar Dennis E. Nineham expresses such a view when he describes the Bible as "the expression, or at any rate an outcrop, of the meaning-system of a relatively primitive cultural group."

Moderate proponents of higher criticism argue that since the Bible is both divine and human, the divine part may be fully trustworthy but not the human part. They maintain that such a view of Scripture is the best way to understand the incarnational analogy between Christ and the Bible--for both are fully human and divine. However, they fail to realize that a true incarnation model of Scripture does not permit finite human beings to separate the mysterious union of divine and human or to suggest that one part of Scripture (the human) is not fully inspired (see Testimonies for the Church, 5:747; cf. The Great Controversy, p. vi).

One perceptive Adventist scholar captured the true biblical understanding of the divine and human in Scripture: "Jesus Christ became a man in time and space. Yet, this fact did not

eliminate his divinity nor did it make him historically relative. In the same way, God's written Word, the Bible, also was given in time and space. But rather than being historically conditioned by immanent cause and effect relations, and thereby being rendered relative and

not universally binding, God's Word is divinely conditioned and historically constituted. Thus it remains binding upon all men at all ages and in all places. It is God's Word, revealed to man

and written by man under divine guidance and under the supervision of the Holy Spirit."

How are the two higher-critical assumptions--the cultural-conditioning argument and doubts about the alleged "human" elements in Scripture--shaping Adventist views on the Bible's full inspiration?

[Guest]

Effect of the Liberal Approach

Bible-believing Adventists hold that God accommodated His message--i.e., He expressed His message in terms that could be understood by the messengers and their audience--without compromising the truth in the process. The new views o inspiration, on the other hand, allow

for the truth to have been distorted.

New Views.

For example, the author of Inspiration: Hard Questions, Honest Answers suggests that in divine accommodation God adapts Himself to the opinions of "surrounding culture"--even opinions that are false.6 Because he believes that "revelation is adapted to the

conditions of fallen humanity, [and thus] it partakes of the imperfections of that humanity," the author of Inspiration considers the Scriptures to have "a generous sprinkling of human 'imperfections' in the text," so that he finds "the quality" of the Bible's contents and mechanics sometimes falling to a mere C- passing level on his grading scale.

For this scholar, the fact that the Bible is both divine and human suggests that while the divine portions of Scripture are infallible or trustworthy, the human aspects are not always reliable. He apparently did not consider that just as we cannot discern precisely where in Christ the divine part starts and the human ends, so also, in the case of Scripture, we cannot separate the "eternal" divine aspect of Scripture from the human aspect.8 In the opinion of this

Old Testament professor, the various "strange" laws in the Old Testament (such as capital punishment, the command to destroy the Canaanites) were culturally conditioned, in the sense

that God simply treated Israel according to the cultural norms of justice of their times.

Another who espouses what he styles "a structural view of inspiration" has written: "Personally, I believe there are demonstrable errors of fact in inspired writings." He explains

that the "distortions" he claims to have found in Scripture arise from the fact that "perhaps the prophet did not fully understand the message, perhaps because the prophet's prejudices or

ignorance distorted the message."10 Did, for example, the ignorance and prejudices of Moses and Paul lead them to denounce homosexuality as morally wrong? If they had lived in our enlightened age, would they still have condemned homosexuality or fornication?

The "culturally conditioned" view also surfaces in the heated debates on dress and adornment, women's ordination, and the inspiration and relevance of Ellen White's writings.

A few examples will illustrate.

[Tallmark]

Jeremiah 7:21-24 and Isaiah 1:11 God did not order animal sacrifices.

[Guest]

Ok. Where did that come from?

[Dr. Rich]

RH wrote from a quote:

Bible-believing Adventists hold that God accommodated His message--i.e., He expressed His message in terms that could be understood by the messengers and their audience--without compromising the truth in the process. The new views of inspiration, on the other hand, allow for the truth to have been distorted.

I would beg to differ with this. Daniel did NOT understand the prophecy he was given and had to ask about it. Chapter 12 shows us that no one would understand it until the last generation. Therefore who ever wrote this book is presenting ideas and opinions that do not agree with many SDA members.

[Guest]

You are not arguing that the Bible is short sighted or not fully inspired because of this are you ?

That is what they are doing.

[Dr. Rich]

no

[Guest]

I didn't think so.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

I understand that Fritz Guy likes walking on the wild-side on that question - but I was not aware that an "increasing number of Adventist Bible scholars" gave him the time of day on that topic.....[/quote']

It is growing Bob, it is a movement within the church. If you want to see where it came from I can send it to you in PM.

Indeed, it is. Fritz Guy is very influential. Don't underestimate him. Most people don't realize that it was Dr. Guy who wrote the initial drafts of the FB 28. He was also one of the first SDA scholars to attend meetings by gay SDA groups, and he essentially gave them the green light back about 1980. He was one of my teachers at LLU in 1975-77. I respect him for his knowledge of systematic theology, but he is dead wrong on the question of homosexuality.

Our church is struggling with the issue right now, and I believe the time is not far off when we'll be faced with some very tough decisions, whether to oppose the popular opinion in the West and risk the anger of society towards the church for standing up for Bible truth.

[Guest]

I think you're right about that.

I didn't know Fritz Guy wrote the the initial drafts of the FB 28.

[Guest]

When I got this book I also downloaded "Lessons from the Reformation" by A.T. Jones. That was one of the main ones I wanted. I have found a lot of good stuff at that site.