Dr Samuel Bacchiocchi, defender or shaker of beliefs?

[Reddogs]

Dr Samuel Bacchiocchi, world renouned scholar and former professor in Religion Department of Andrews University, has been probing the foundations of Adventist beliefs, and it seems left some shaken. He has served at Andrews University for 26 years as Professor of Theology and Church History until his retirement on July 2000. He now travels extensively around the world lecturing at universities, theological seminaries, professional meetings, and religious gatherings.

Thats where I caught up with him one Sabbath where he was holding a Sabbath seminar, (Subject:How to keep the Sabbath and gain the greatest blessing out of it) speaking about the latest Sabbath /Sunday developments in religous circles.

I talked to the people that I knew that came to the seminar and to Dr Samuel Bacchiocchi, and came away with the impression that he is on a honest scholarly pursuit of truth as he probes some of the foundation of belief on Adventism. He loves the church and believes in Ellen White and the Spirit of Prophecy, but feels that there is nothing wrong with looking into what is written. Others dont share this view, and feel that any probing or updating with more historical information is a attack or something more ominous to the testimonies that we are given. Can our beliefs and the testimonies be probed and tested in friendly hands to update or confirm them, or are they untouchable by any means and locked in place.......?

[Beryl]

Quote:

Can our beliefs and the testimonies be probed and tested in friendly hands to update or confirm them, or are they untouchable by any means and locked in place.......?

I believe that they should be able to be probed and tested in friendly hands. However, there are several things which need to be considered:

1. The time when they were written. What applied then may not specifically apply in detail today, however,the principle most probably still applies.

2. Often the particular "testimony" was given to meet a specific need. Here again, the principle still applies, but not the specific instruction. Take, for instance, an oft quoted "statement" about not having milk and sugar together. That is so often based on a specific testimony that Ellen White gave to a man whose wife was a lazy housewife and did not do anything to provide her husband with appropriate food. He wanted to do what was right, and he left off meat, but, because his wife did not cook anything to take the place of the meat, he relied on copious amounts of milk and sugar to give to him the strength to continue his work. He eventually died -- probably from diabetes.

So, in this case the principle to apply is to replace meat with a protein food that will be a more healthful alternative than meat.

3. God unfolded truth to Ellen White little by little. We find the same principle in the Bible. When we read the Bible stories we find the same thing happening. Take the book of Ezekiel, for instance. We find God giving Ezekiel instructions over a number of years, gradually becoming more and more insistant to the Israelites who were going deeper and deeper into idolatry. They eventually reached the place in their Baal worship where they were prepared to take their firstborn son -- the one that God had said belonged to Him -- and place him on the burning arms of Baal -- as a sacrifice. Can you even begin to understand the horror of watching that tiny helpless infant die a shocking death all in the name of worship!Eventally God said, "enough is enough" and allowed the Babylonians to take them captive and destroy Jerusalem.

In the Spirit of Prophecy we often find statements in the early writings that contain truth -- but not the whole truth. Later we will find God giving further instructions that shed FURTHER light on the first statement. These are not contradictions, but further light along the way.

God bless,

Beryl

[Bravus]

Probably worth pointing out that Dr Sam is very conservative indeed, and any changes he might suggest to Adventist doctrines are likely to be in that direction rather than any kind of liberalisation.

[olger]

I don't see the problem ?

[Bert]

Our doctrinal beliefs need to be able to withstand the light of scrutiny, for if they cannot, then it engenders doubt and questions the validity, veracity and truthfulness of our doctrines. The Reformation was based on 'searching the scriptures', and in doing so, more 'light' became the source of our doctrinal beliefs that guides our church today. We should emulate the Bereans and ascertain if what we are told is in accordance with what the Bible says.

God bless!

Bert

[John317]

Dr Samuel Bacchiocchi, world renouned scholar and former professor in Religion Department of Andrews University, has been probing the foundations of Adventist beliefs, and it seems left some shaken. He has served at Andrews University for 26 years as Professor of Theology and Church History until his retirement on July 2000. He now travels extensively around the world lecturing at universities, theological seminaries, professional meetings, and religious gatherings. .... Can our beliefs and the testimonies be probed and tested in friendly hands to update or confirm them, or are they untouchable by any means and locked in place.......?

In a word, yes. Every generation of Seventh-day Adventists must individually study the doctrines for themselves personally and know the Bible basis of their beliefs and convictions. It doesn't do any good for any of us to believe something simply because someone else believes it.

[Woody]

I don't see the problem ?

Sorry to hear about your vision problems. I can relate. I have to wear glasses also. And they come in very handy when it comes to religious issues.

[olger]

How was your time out?

[Woody]

Had a wonderful time. Thanks. I was finally able to get out after a winter of hibernation. Went to a cabin in the woods and did some hiking. Went to a certain religious meeting some distance from home. Did some shopping for a house and will soon be moving in. A busy time.

[olger]

Did you chop wood? That's awesome !

[melvin mccarty]

"Can our beliefs and the testimonies be probed and tested in friendly hands to update or confirm them, or are they untouchable by any means and locked in place.....?"

"in a word, yes"

Mmmm is that quite clear? (smile)

mel

[Bravus]

Quote:

I don't see the problem?

Not a problem at all, just an observation. I think sometimes an automatic assumption when people talk about challenging our questions and beliefs is that the intention is to 'loosen' them and make them more liberal. Maybe sometimes it is. I was just noting that that won't be Dr Sam's goal. Not placing any value judgement on that statement at all.

[Reddogs]

Quote:

Can our beliefs and the testimonies be probed and tested in friendly hands to update or confirm them, or are they untouchable by any means and locked in place.......?

I believe that they should be able to be probed and tested in friendly hands. However, there are several things which need to be considered:

1. The time when they were written. What applied then may not specifically apply in detail today, however,the principle most probably still applies.

Correct...

2. Often the particular "testimony" was given to meet a specific need. Here again, the principle still applies, but not the specific instruction. Take, for instance, an oft quoted "statement" about not having milk and sugar together. That is so often based on a specific testimony that Ellen White gave to a man whose wife was a lazy housewife and did not do anything to provide her husband with appropriate food. He wanted to do what was right, and he left off meat, but, because his wife did not cook anything to take the place of the meat, he relied on copious amounts of milk and sugar to give to him the strength to continue his work. He eventually died -- probably from diabetes.

Everything in proper context..

So, in this case the principle to apply is to replace meat with a protein food that will be a more healthful alternative than meat.

3. God unfolded truth to Ellen White little by little. We find the same principle in the Bible. When we read the Bible stories we find the same thing happening. Take the book of Ezekiel, for instance. We find God giving Ezekiel instructions over a number of years, gradually becoming more and more insistant to the Israelites who were going deeper and deeper into idolatry. They eventually reached the place in their Baal worship where they were prepared to take their firstborn son -- the one that God had said belonged to Him -- and place him on the burning arms of Baal -- as a sacrifice. Can you even begin to understand the horror of watching that tiny helpless infant die a shocking death all in the name of worship!Eventally God said, "enough is enough" and allowed the Babylonians to take them captive and destroy Jerusalem.

We also sometimes need truth fed to us slowly so we understand...

In the Spirit of Prophecy we often find statements in the early writings that contain truth -- but not the whole truth. Later we will find God giving further instructions that shed FURTHER light on the first statement. These are not contradictions, but further light along the way.

The understanding on the GodHead comes to mind....

God bless,

Beryl

Wow, excellent answers, where have you Adventist been hiding, this is the first real honest (and positive response) answers on Dr Samuel Bacchiocchi I've gotten on any forum........what do they pass out at lunchtime here, it seems to open up a lot of eyes and understanding.........

I will read the rest and post after work...

[Taylor]

So glad you are feeling better, Redwood! I don't think you had the priviledge of being able to go on a hike in so long.

Won't heaven be wonderful where you can run, hike any time you wish, swim with the dolfins, "sky dive" or even just sit quietly completely at ease and pain free and listen to Jesus speak? Wow I can't wait for that day for all of us!

[BobRyan]

As for Samuel B' probing into history -- recall that no SDA doctrines are founded by or proven by anything Ellen White said. She was not a "doctrinal source" -- the Bible was and still is --

So I am not sure how "knowing more about our history" is a threat of any kind at all.

in Christ,

Bob

[John317]

"Can our beliefs and the testimonies be probed and tested in friendly hands to update or confirm them, or are they untouchable by any means and locked in place.....?"

"in a word, yes"

Mmmm is that quite clear? (smile)

Every generation of Seventh-day Adventists must individually probe and test and study Adventist beliefs and decide if they are true and sound. That is one reason and purpose of the Forum. If each generation did not study these things out for themselves, the living faith of our dead fathers would quickly become the dead faith of our dead fathers. That has happened in some churches. We don't want it to happen in ours.

God is looking for intelligent faith, not blind faith. An intelligent faith requires that people understand why they believe what they do. You can't do that if you haven't looked deeply into the reasons for your faith.

In the final analysis, let every man make up his own mind.

[Woody]

While Dr Samuel Bacchiocchi is certainly a conservative voice in our church ... I have to respect his vast knowledge and sincerity. I attended his Sabbath School class at Andrews and certainly found his comments to be scholarly. I spoke to him for about an hour at the General Conference in St. Louis. He is not so scholarly that he couldn't relate to this unknowledgeable Redwood.

[John317]

While Dr Samuel Bacchiocchi is certainly a conservative voice in our church ...

I enjoy his books and his presentations.

There has been quite a bit of talk in the last few years about his being a Jesuit spy but I don't believe there's any good evidence to support that allegation. I've read Dr. Sam's responses to the accusations, and I believe he's answered them more than adequately.

I've only seen him in person once, at the Hill Church in Loma Linda, years ago. The latest book of his that I read is the one on alcohol. It's excellent.

[melvin mccarty]

Quote "In the final analysis let every man make up his own mind" Do you really mean that? If one such as Dr Ford comes up with a conclusion that differs from the creed he is a rebel and a heretic. By the way how many of the votes on the famous 28 were unanimous? Were the people who were voting actually representative of the membership?

The story is told that when the original model T Ford was in the planning stage the question of color came up. Henry Ford said people could have any color they wanted.....as long as it was black. ........mel

[John317]

Quote "In the final analysis let every man make up his own mind" Do you really mean that? If one such as Dr Ford comes up with a conclusion that differs from the creed he is a rebel and a heretic. By the way how many of the votes on the famous 28 were unanimous? Were the people who were voting actually representative of the membership?

The story is told that when the original model T Ford was in the planning stage the question of color came up. Henry Ford said people could have any color they wanted.....as long as it was black. ........mel

What I am saying is that everyone needs to study these things and decide personally whether they believe the doctrines of the SDA church. If I don't believe them and have disagreements with the church, honesty requires that I won't keep accepting money from the church while teaching against the doctrines of the church.

The church needs to constantly re-examine its beliefs and positions in the light of the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy. Individual members also need to examine their convictions in the light of the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy. It's important to know what you believe and why you believe it. That doesn't mean that no matter what my conclusions are, I stay in the Adventist church. If I conclude that the Sabbath is actually the first day of the week, obviously I wouldn't want to stay in the church.

It isn't necessary to agree with every belief of the church, but it does mean that members are going to be in general agreement with the doctrines of the church, particularly with the foundational truths, and won't be agitating for fundamental doctrinal changes while working as a representative of the church.

In the case of Ford, whom you mention, he came to the conclusion that a foundational pillar of our faith is in error. That is his right. But it is not a right to teach that position from a pulpit while being paid by the tithes of members of the church.

Votes on the doctrines of the church by the world church in General Conference don't have to be unanimous in order to be effective.

[melvin mccarty]

So "The Church" decides by a majority vote! Is there a record kept of those dissenting votes?

A relatively small group of people, most of whom draw salaries from the church, by a majority vote decide what I am to believe. Is that right?...mel

[John317]

So "The Church" decides by a majority vote! Is there a record kept of those dissenting votes?

See 8 T 236, 237 on the organization of the church.

In 3 T 492, Ellen White wrote, "I have been shown that no man's judgment should be surrendered to the judgment of any one man. But when the judgment of the General Conference, which is the highest authority that God has upon earth, is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be maintained, but be surrendered."

Quote:

A relatively small group of people, most of whom draw salaries from the church, by a majority vote decide what I am to believe. Is that right?

The doctrines of the church are not determined by a relatively small group of people. It is decided by a long process that includes the final decision by the General Conference in world session, which is a representative body.

You shouldn't allow anyone to tell you what you are to believe. For instance, if you find that through studying the word of God and the Spirit of prophecy, you cannot believe what the church is teaching, you shouldn't believe it if you are not really convinced of it through study, prayer, and thoughtful exchanges with other believers.

[melvin mccarty]

What criteria persuades you that the G C in session is in fact a representative body?

....mel

[John317]

The General Conference in world session is obviously a representative body. You are no doubt asking if it is perfectly representative. No, it is not. There is no such thing as a perfectly representative body anywhere. Never was, never will be. It's what you strive for but there is always room for improvement.

[melvin mccarty]

Obviously! To you perhaps but it is obvious to me that most of the members of the church are in no way represented ay the G C in session. You should check out who the delegates are and how they became delegates.....mel