How much of Scripture is inspired?

[Guest]

Wayfinder, It took me a while to find it.

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/283207.html#Post283207

[wayfinder]

Richard,I am not wanted on that thread. It says access denied.

[Guest]

Hold on, I'll tell John.

[Guest]

Implications for the Future.

Indeed, the destiny of our church depends on how its

members regard the authority of the Bible. Therefore, to understand how skepticism over

Scripture's full inspiration, trustworthiness, and normative authority is impacting upon the

identity and mission of the Seventh-day Adventist movement, it will be important for us to show

from published works how attitudes toward Scripture are shaping the theological quarrels in the

church. Only then can we fully appreciate how liberal presuppositions are contributing to a

departing from the Word.

[Guest]

Departing From the Word

Historically, Bible-believing Seventh-day Adventists have accepted the sixty-six books of

the Old and New Testament Scriptures as the normative governing authority for all issues of faith

and practice. On this foundation they have developed a unique system of beliefs, among which

are the following distinctive S's:

(1) Scripture's inspiration, trustworthiness, and sole authority, (2) the Substitutionary

atonement of Christ, (3) Salvation by grace alone through faith in Jesus Christ, (4) the Sanctuary

message, (5) the imminent Second Coming of Christ, (6) the Sabbath of the fourth

commandment, (7) the State of the dead, (8) the Spirit of Prophecy, (9) Stewardship, and (10)

Standards regarding food, drink, dress, entertainment, relationships, etc.

But today, under the impact of higher criticism, some are challenging the Bible's

authenticity, distrusting its credibility, and questioning its essential and sole authority as a

sufficient guide in today's complex and sophisticated world.

Such departing from the Word has led a number of Adventist Bible teachers and

theologians to challenge the following teachings: the historicity of Genesis 1-11, the literal

six-day creation, the inspiration of the Bible, the prophetic guidance of the Spirit of Prophecy, the

belief that the Seventh-day Adventist church is the remnant of Bible prophecy, the sanctuary

doctrine, the binding claims of the Ten Commandments, the substitutionary death of Christ in our

behalf, and the possibility of victorious Christian living. In the same vein, some of these thought

leaders see no biblical objection to polygamy, women as elders or pastors, homosexuality, eating

unclean foods, drinking alcohol, wearing of jewelry, divorce and remarriage, etc.

[Gregory Matthews]

Richard said:

Quote:

But today, under the impact of higher criticism, some are challenging the Bible's authenticity, distrusting its credibility, and questioning its essential and sole authority as a sufficient guide in today's complex and sophisticated world. Such departing from the Word has led a number of Adventist Bible teachers and theologians to challenge the following teachings: the historicity of Genesis 1-11, the literal six-day creation, the inspiration of the Bible, the prophetic guidance of the Spirit of Prophecy, the belief that the Seventh-day Adventist church is the remnant of Bible prophecy, the sanctuary doctrine, the binding claims of the Ten Commandments, the substitutionary death of Christ in our behalf, and the possibility of victorious Christian living. In the same vein, some of these thought

leaders see no biblical objection to polygamy, women as elders or pastors, homosexuality, eating unclean foods, drinking alcohol, wearing of jewelry, divorce and remarriage, etc.

Richard, I take issue with you on a couple of points:

1) A fundamental issue is: What does the Bible teach. One can ask if the Bible actually teaches a six-day creation (Which I believe.) without challenging the authority of the Bible. That goes for other issues that you have mentioned.

2) One can agree that the Bible has a teaching, such as a teaching on divorce and remarriage, and ask how we should relate to people who are divoriced and re-married. IOW IF X has divorced and re-married, should we forever ban X from church membership? How should we relate? How do we determine fault?

[John317]

I guess not, it must be too private for me to join.

I had to be away since Sabbath, so I'm not sure if you still don't have access to the private forum. You were given access originally.

[Guest]

Richard said:

Quote:

But today, under the impact of higher criticism, some are challenging the Bible's authenticity, distrusting its credibility, and questioning its essential and sole authority as a sufficient guide in today's complex and sophisticated world. Such departing from the Word has led a number of Adventist Bible teachers and theologians to challenge the following teachings: the historicity of Genesis 1-11, the literal six-day creation, the inspiration of the Bible, the prophetic guidance of the Spirit of Prophecy, the belief that the Seventh-day Adventist church is the remnant of Bible prophecy, the sanctuary doctrine, the binding claims of the Ten Commandments, the substitutionary death of Christ in our behalf, and the possibility of victorious Christian living. In the same vein, some of these thought

leaders see no biblical objection to polygamy, women as elders or pastors, homosexuality, eating unclean foods, drinking alcohol, wearing of jewelry, divorce and remarriage, etc.

Richard, I take issue with you on a couple of points:

1) A fundamental issue is: What does the Bible teach. One can ask if the Bible actually teaches a six-day creation (Which I believe.) without challenging the authority of the Bible. That goes for other issues that you have mentioned.

2) One can agree that the Bible has a teaching, such as a teaching on divorce and remarriage, and ask how we should relate to people who are divoriced and re-married. IOW IF X has divorced and re-married, should we forever ban X from church membership? How should we relate? How do we determine fault?

1) One could ask that. The answer would be yes, with directions on how to find Genesis chapter 1.

2) I've never heard of anyone being banned for that reason. I think that even if someone had divorced and remarried in the wrong, so to speak, that it cannot be looked at as an ongoing (living in sin) type of thing, since you cannot change what you have already done. But like any other sin, it can be forgiven. I see no reason to divorce the new spouse just because it was done wrong, this would only make matters worse. I think EGW has something to say along that line also.

[Musicman1228]

Richard,

A very good friend of mine was an SDA pastor in South Carolina. He and his wife had two small children a the time. His wife had an affair, was unrepentant, and filed for divorce. Upon his divorce the S. Carolina conference withdrew his credentials, kicked him out of his church (he was senior pastor), and told him to not let the door hit him in his backside as he went away. He protested the firing on the grounds that this was not his fault; his wife had the affair and divorced him. Their attitude was that since he could not 'control' his wife (read; keep his wife in line) that they could not trust him to 'control' his church (read; keep his church in line). His protest fell on deaf ears, and he was gone.

Needless to say he became bitter toward this short sighted policy within the SDA church and is now an Episcopalian.

I have heard of a number (at least 3) of these situations where the policy of the SDA church (local and national) has made it impossible for someone to remain in the ministry of the church.

From my own perspective this situation with my friend came about as a direct result of the parochial attitude of the church where the husband is 'leader' and 'head' of his wife as Christ is of the church, which stems directly from the teaching of Paul.

As it turned out years later (approx. 10) his wife repented, asked for forgiveness and wanted to reconcile with him; but by then it was too late. When asked what her motivation was in leaving in the first place he told me that she said that it was because she felt stifled as the lesser partner in the marriage. Apparently his behavior toward her based on Biblical (read Pauline) principles caused the rift that eventually led to the divorce and separation not only of them as a husband and wife, but also his separation from the church.

[Guest]

That's a sad story, and yes of course it was all Paul's fault. I can see that clearly now. Thank you for the heads up about Paul.

[Twilight]

Richard,

A very good friend of mine was an SDA pastor in South Carolina. He and his wife had two small children a the time. His wife had an affair, was unrepentant, and filed for divorce. Upon his divorce the S. Carolina conference withdrew his credentials, kicked him out of his church (he was senior pastor), and told him to not let the door hit him in his backside as he went away. He protested the firing on the grounds that this was not his fault; his wife had the affair and divorced him. Their attitude was that since he could not 'control' his wife (read; keep his wife in line) that they could not trust him to 'control' his church (read; keep his church in line). His protest fell on deaf ears, and he was gone.

Needless to say he became bitter toward this short sighted policy within the SDA church and is now an Episcopalian.

I have heard of a number (at least 3) of these situations where the policy of the SDA church (local and national) has made it impossible for someone to remain in the ministry of the church.

From my own perspective this situation with my friend came about as a direct result of the parochial attitude of the church where the husband is 'leader' and 'head' of his wife as Christ is of the church, which stems directly from the teaching of Paul.

As it turned out years later (approx. 10) his wife repented, asked for forgiveness and wanted to reconcile with him; but by then it was too late. When asked what her motivation was in leaving in the first place he told me that she said that it was because she felt stifled as the lesser partner in the marriage. Apparently his behavior toward her based on Biblical (read Pauline) principles caused the rift that eventually led to the divorce and separation not only of them as a husband and wife, but also his separation from the church.

Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it.

That seems a pretty solid principle to me?

Mark :-)

[Guest]

Amen!! Who said that? Was it Paul?

[Gregory Matthews]

Richard said:

Quote:

2) I've never heard of anyone being banned for that reason. I think that even if someone had divorced and remarried in the wrong, so to speak, that it cannot be looked at as an ongoing (living in sin) type of thing, since you cannot change what you have already done. But like any other sin, it can be forgiven. I see no reason to divorce the new spouse just because it was done wrong, this would only make matters worse.

Richard, congratulations on your progressive attitude. In the many years in which the denomination has had to deal with these issues, the issue of how to deal with people hae been a major focus. Skome has wanted to require a second divorce of whatever p;eople and their remairage. Anyway . . .

[Twilight]

Amen!! Who said that? Was it Paul?

Indeed.

Now if we were inclined to read all of Pauls writings on the subject of the treatment of women, we would see that the man has to take the lead in being the loving partner.

Being the one that initiates selfless love.

Now that does seem to be in accord with Christs teachings.

Mark :-)

[Guest]

Richard said:

Quote:

2) I've never heard of anyone being banned for that reason. I think that even if someone had divorced and remarried in the wrong, so to speak, that it cannot be looked at as an ongoing (living in sin) type of thing, since you cannot change what you have already done. But like any other sin, it can be forgiven. I see no reason to divorce the new spouse just because it was done wrong, this would only make matters worse.

Richard, congratulations on your progressive attitude. In the many years in which the denomination has had to deal with these issues, the issue of how to deal with people hae been a major focus. Skome has wanted to require a second divorce of whatever p;eople and their remairage. Anyway . . .

I don't really consider myself a progressive, but that's the way I see it. I can't imagine what good a second divorce would do. That would just break up another home. Possibly a happy home.

[Woody]

Quote:

Their attitude was that since he could not 'control' his wife (read; keep his wife in line) that they could not trust him to 'control' his church (read; keep his church in line). His protest fell on deaf ears, and he was gone.

The same excuse was used when they kicked out a good pastor of mine some years ago. (He can't keep his wife in line). It is far more commonly done by conferences that one would like to believe.

Well I have some news for you. I don't know of ANY man who can keep a women in line.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

and keep a tot or two in a hip flask – for the dying

>>My only criticism of that is why keep it just for the dying, the living could use a little from time to time as well. Taken in moderation it can certainly put one in a more gentle mood.<<

Indeed! especially among dear friends and gentle folk – who, sadly, are all ‘dying’

[jasd]

>>Hey jsad, I'll drink to that!<< [ed.jasd]

Indeed, it appears you have

[jasd]

Observation:

>>Other Greek words that signify "a piece of writing" are gramma and grapheion, but these aren't used in the Bible to refer to sacred Scripture.<< [ed.jasd]

Help me out, as it may be that BAG is the source..., and, well, BAG being BAG – I wonder if BAG is making a particular distinction between gramma and grammata? (is it not that one is simply the singular and the other plural?) Following:

2 Tim 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures,

2 Tim 3:15 kai oti apo brefouv ta iera grammata

yet here it is in Holy Writ translated as “holy scriptures”.

[jasd]

Re the extensive pull/quotes: an observation...

Long on polemics and short on specific textual criticism.

As early as the first two centuries, it had been considered doubtful that St Paul wrote any of the three Pastoral Epistles; for one thing – the vocabulary doesn’t square – those epistles utilize a vocabulary that is approximately 30% comprised of words that St Paul never used in the books we know he did write. Moreover, fully two-thirds of those words

are more prevalently found in the writings of Xtian authors ca the second century forward. Further,

those Epistiles advance a hierarchical structure of the church; whereas, St Paul did not – favoring the manifestation of the gifts of the Spirit as it fell upon various members of his congregation. Etc.

The question obtains, ‘which Bible’?

The Codex Sinaiticus, [arguably] the oldest Xtian Bible, contains The Gospel of Barnabas;

Armenians and Syrians included 3 Corinthians in their Bible; ...

Acts 4:13 apprises us that Peter and John were both unlearned/illiterate; to wit: "and perceived that they were unlearned (#62 agrammatos – illiterate) and ignorant men, ..."

Circulating among the Xtian communities during the first two-three centuries this era, were many mss – which no longer exist – due to the ‘wars’ of dogma and doctrine between Xtian factions. The matter was resolved in favor of the most influential and powerful. Should those mss have

been either destroyed or otherwise allowed to have fallen by the wayside?

Given the 30-plus thousand different Protesting .orgs, as well the sects within the RCC – perhaps, we ought to be a bit more ‘critical’ when expositing Writ.

However, the above said, I am put to mind the words of St Peter,

“Lord, to whom shall we go?” (Jn 6:68)

[Guest]

“Lord, to whom shall we go?” Indeed.

Hey jasd, what's up?

[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.

[Ted Oplinger]

I guess I must be quite the backwards knuckle-dragger...I simply cut to the chase and say 2 Timothy 3:16 is good enough for me.

Paul it was, who wrote that..

I do bear in mind he was speaking directly of the OT...but what God led through the canonization process can certainly accorded the same degree.

For what it matters, I think when Paul is resurrected, he will utterly astonished and humbled to find so many of his letters were accorded Scripture status by God.

[Guest]

The Bible--Sole or Primary Authority?

Objective. This section explores the extent to which higher-critical assumptions are

influencing Seventh-day Adventist views on the use of alcohol, the morality of homosexuality

and lesbianism, and the belief in a literal six-day creation.

Key issue. Is the Bible the sole authority for Christian belief and practice or is it only the

primary authority?

Traditional Adventist Belief. Seventh-day Adventists generally have always upheld the

sole authority of Scripture. Believing that the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments are

the clear, trustworthy revelation of God's will and His salvation, Adventists hold that the

Scriptures alone constitute the standard on which all teachings and practices are to be grounded

and by which they are to be tested (2 Tim 3:15-17; Ps 119:105; Prov 30:5, 6; Isa 8:20; John

17:17; 2 Thess 3:14; Heb 4:12).

The first article of the Seventh-day Adventist "Fundamental Beliefs" states: "The Holy

Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His [God's] will. They are the standard of character, the

test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts

in history."

Ellen G. White wrote, "The Word of God is the great detector of error; to it we believe

everything must be brought. The Bible must be our standard for every doctrine and practice. We

must study it reverentially. We are to receive no one's opinion without comparing it with the

Scriptures. Here is divine authority which is supreme in matters of faith. It is the Word of the

living God that is to decide all controversies" (The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials, pp. 44, 45; cf.

The Great Controversy, p. 595).

But under the impact of higher-critical assumptions the Bible's role as the sole source of

authority for Christian faith and lifestyle is being challenged.

[Guest]

Effect of the Liberal Approach

Influenced by the historical-critical method, some now assert that the Bible is "silent,"

"inadequate," or "irrelevant" on several contemporary issues, implying that the Bible cannot

remain the sole source of authority on issues of doctrine and lifestyle. We must supplement the

authority of the Bible with experience and empirical data. A New Testament scholar voiced this

new view in relation to the abortion question: "Respect for the Bible's agenda means honestly

balancing biblical evidence with other relevant data. The Bible is not our only source of evidence,

even if it is the central controlling norm. Obviously our experience and empirical data will

condition our views, and this must be admitted."1

According to this view, the Bible is not the sole source of authority; it only holds a

priority ("the central controlling norm") over other sources--experience and empirical data.

Similarly, another author argues that "doctrines arise, not from the Bible alone, but from the

dynamic interplay between the Bible and the living experience of the church." For him, the Bible

is only the "central authority for Christian belief," sharing a place alongside Christian experience

and tradition.2 The Bible is the primary source of authority, not the sole source. This shift of religious authority from sola scriptura (the Bible's sole authority) to other

sources--empirical data, experience, and tradition--is shaping Adventist discussions on the use of

alcohol, the moral legitimacy of homosexuality, and the question of life origins.