"Released from the Law"

[skyblue888]

Why don't you share that statement with us?

[Musicman1228]

According to a literal reading of the EGW statement about learning and unlearning it looks as if we must unlearn twice as much as we have yet to learn. If (and it is only an if Richard) we still have much to unlearn would you not say that would need to be done in preparation for the new learning to follow? You cannot expect to plant a field and have it grow if the ground has rocks in it and the soil is not ready for the seed. Any old truth that needs to be unlearned would not have been, of necessity, truth in the first place, but lies disguised as truth.

Your statement to the effect that not one dot of old truth will be replaced by new but that the new will be built on the old is unproven in practice. Also, there is such a thing as truth for its own time. Some truth can wear out, and when it does it needs to be thrown away to make room fo the new truth that better fits the current situation.

An example would be the buggy whip industry in the early 1900's. The buggy whip was a very useful tool when buggies were in use. But when the horseless carriage came around buggy whips went by the way side, not because they were bad or evil but because they were no longer needed. It is the same with some truth.

It is my own understanding that each time a new truth (confirmed) presents itself what must be done is assess the new truth against all current truth. If a discrepancy appears then the old truth that disagrees with the new confirmed truth must be put aside, just as with the buggy whip when faced with the new horseless carriage.

[John317]

Your statement to the effect that not one dot of old truth will be replaced by new but that the new will be built on the old is unproven in practice. Also, there is such a thing as truth for its own time. Some truth can wear out, and when it does it needs to be thrown away to make room fo the new truth that better fits the current situation.

An example would be the buggy whip industry in the early 1900's.

Better to use an example from church doctrine.

For instance, the church changed its view on the Godhead. We used to be fundamentally antitrinitarian. Since about 1890 to about 1920, and even 1940, we have changed into a church that accepts the Trinity.

My point in this would be that the doctrine of the Trinity is in harmony with Scripture and that Ellen White never taught against the Trinity as SDAs understand the doctrine today.

Do you have an example of such a "truth" that will change?

What about in the so-called "foundational pillars of our faith"?

[Guest]

Any old truth that needs to be unlearned would not have been, of necessity, truth in the first place, but lies disguised as truth.

She said we have much to unlearn. She never said we would need to unlearn truth.

Not a pin is to be moved from the foundations of our faith. Truth is still truth. Those who become uncertain will drift into erroneous theories and will finally find themselves infidel in regard to the past evidence we have had of what is truth. The old waymarks must be preserved, that we lose not our bearings.--Letter 395, 1906,

[John317]

She speaks of people's opinions and favorite ideas. She's not talking about established truths that have been verified over and over again by the Holy Spirit. For instance, we know that the Sabbath is the seventh day of the week and that God's will is for us to keep that day. However, we will doubtless grow-- and should be growing-- in our understanding of the significance of that doctrine and of Sabbath keeping.

She warns against those who would make changes in the foundational pillars of our faith. Two of those are the heavenly sanctuary and the Bible as the word of God.

[skyblue888]

So Richard and John317, what about the SDA/Evangelical conferences (18 of them) that took place between 1955 and 1957? Did not the leaders of the church make subtle compromises on the atonement (the foundation and central pillar of our faith) and the nature of Christ in His humanity in order that the denomination might be recognized as a Christian denomination rather than being categorized among the cults?

sky

[Woody]

I know of no such General Conference vote.

[Ron Amnsn]

But it is also possible that we are using our God-given wisdom to discern that Paul's authority over ancient congregations has legitimate limits

Do you have a scriptural basis for this belief?

Yes, there is Scriptural support for this but it doesn't come in a neat little proof-text package.

If there had been no legitimate limits to Paul's authority, Paul would have had unlimited universal authority, like God himself. We know that is not the kind of authority Paul had. What we need to do then is begin to determine the actual limits of Paul's authority.

The people who interacted with Paul did not treat Paul as if he had unlimited universal authority, nor did they relate to Paul as if he had authority such as Moses had.

For example, when the dispute occurred at Antioch in Acts 15 Paul referred the issue to the Jerusalem Council rather than proclaiming an edict to settle the issue himself. If it had been Moses involved in the dispute at Antioch, the issue would have been settled right there at Antioch. So we can deduce that Paul's authority was limited, and that the elders in Jerusalem were perceived to have greater authority than Paul. This is also confirmed by the fact that the decision of the Jerusalem Council was sent back to Antioch by representatives from Jerusalem accompanying Paul, rather than by Paul alone.

Later, when Paul returned to the Jerusalem congregation in Acts 21, that congregation of believers was concerned about the false rumors that had been circulating about Paul. In order to dispel the rumors, the elders of the Jerusalem congregation recommended that Paul publicly participate in the completion of the vows with four local members (Paul himself had started the vow earlier in Acts 18:18). Paul followed the recommendation of the Jerusalem elders. How much authority did Paul have in that Jerusalem congregation? Apparently not enough to just tell them how it was and how it should be. From this we can deduce that Paul did not have authority over all congregations, even when he was present at the congregation in person. Paul's authority was therefore limited to some congregations and did not extend over some congregations.

When Paul ministered in Berea (Acts 17), the people there used the Old Testament Scriptures to determine whether Paul's teachings were true (the New Testament was not yet available). The author of Acts commends the Bereans for doing so. From this we can deduce that the Bereans and the author of Acts believed Paul's authority was less than the authority of Old Testament Scripture and that Paul did not have the authority to override or disagree with what was written in the previously existing Scriptures. This is a significant limitation to Paul's authority.

Modern Christianity has inherited from the Roman Church the idea that the Apostles (like Paul) had universal authority. That notion is absolutely necessary for a Church that is trying to claim universal authority for itself by claiming that the Church's authority was inherited directly from the Apostles. If the Apostles didn't have universal authority, then it would be obvious that the Roman Church did not have universal authority. Thus the Church warped the meaning of the word "apostle" by assigning universal religious authority to men who did not actually have universal authority. They had authority only within the realm of their responsibilities.

[Musicman1228]

Well done, Ron. Exactly right. If it were not for Paul the Roman church would not exist. Much of their doctrines concerning the state of the dead, predestination, the Eucharist, the role of women (or lack thereof) in the church, and priestly and Papal authority come directly from Paul. To me it is an oxymoron to support the teachings of Paul and in the same breath reject the authority of the Catholic church. The two go hand in hand.

At the very least we should be more careful in how we view Paul's teachings in light of the gospel of the Kingdom as taught by Jesus Christ.

[John317]

So Richard and John317, what about the SDA/Evangelical conferences (18 of them) that took place between 1955 and 1957? Did not the leaders of the church make subtle compromises on the atonement (the foundation and central pillar of our faith) and the nature of Christ in His humanity in order that the denomination might be recognized as a Christian denomination rather than being categorized among the cults?

sky

Yes, certainly. No question about it.

I personally knew Roy Allen Anderson, one of the primary author's of the book, Questions on Doctrine. Of course, this was long after he wrote that book. He taught classes on the LLU campus in Daniel and Revelation, and he also visited the youth's Sabbath School classes at the Loma Linda Hill Church, where he would encourage the young people in their Christian experience.

He also worked closely in the ministry with my father in Loma Linda during the later 1970s, but I don't believe that they discussed QOD or the issues concerning Christ's human nature or the Investigative Judgment. My father very much opposed some of the teachings of QOD, but my dad and RAA got along well and loved each other as brothers in Christ.

Have you read Herbert Douglass' recently published work about the writing and aftermath of QOD? It is entitled, The Fork In the Road. He makes it very plain in that book that what you say is true. Douglass was there and knew the men involved very closely. He was friends of theirs until they died.

Roy Allen Anderson was gracious enough to allow me into his home during the last year of his life in order to take some photographs of him. He was talking to me that whole time about QOD. I wish I remembered what he said, but I was so absorbed with getting the picture right that I remember no details of what he told me.

[LifeHiscost]

Well done, Ron. Exactly right. If it were not for Paul the Roman church would not exist. Much of their doctrines concerning the state of the dead, predestination, the Eucharist, the role of women (or lack thereof) in the church, and priestly and Papal authority come directly from Paul. To me it is an oxymoron to support the teachings of Paul and in the same breath reject the authority of the Catholic church. The two go hand in hand.

At the very least we should be more careful in how we view Paul's teachings in light of the gospel of the Kingdom as taught by Jesus Christ.

Much like the many hammers that were worn out by the anvil in the day of the blacksmith, the bible as a whole will be preserved as our guide until Jesus returns, including all of those writings given by those called of God to preach the Word. The hammers will fall by the wayside and those who continue to hold on to them will end up exactly where the worn out hammers end up.

"The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”" Isaiah 40:8 NKJV

"....having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever,"1 Peter 1:23 NKJV

Regards!

[John317]

If it were not for Paul the Roman church would not exist.

The same could be said about Jesus Christ in relation to the RCC. The Roman church isn't based on Paul's writings but on tradition and on misinterpretations of the writings of Paul, just as it misunderstands the Gospels in many instances.

Quote:

Much of their doctrines concerning the state of the dead, predestination, the Eucharist, the role of women (or lack thereof) in the church, and priestly and Papal authority come directly from Paul.

The RCC views of Paul's teachings are partly true and partly false since they are heavily influenced by church traditions, church councils, and papal pronouncements.

Show the texts in Paul's writings that you believe support the doctrines you refer to.

Quote:

To me it is an oxymoron to support the teachings of Paul and in the same breath reject the authority of the Catholic church. The two go hand in hand.

Explain what Paul teaches that supports the Roman Catholic Church, or the papal system.

Quote:

At the very least we should be more careful in how we view Paul's teachings in light of the gospel of the Kingdom as taught by Jesus Christ.

I agree that we ought to be sure that we truly understand Paul's teachings as well as the life and teachings of Jesus in the four Gospels.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

But it is also possible that we are using our God-given wisdom to discern that Paul's authority over ancient congregations has legitimate limits

Do you have a scriptural basis for this belief?

Yes, there is Scriptural support for this but it doesn't come in a neat little proof-text package.

If there had been no legitimate limits to Paul's authority, Paul would have had unlimited universal authority, like God himself. We know that is not the kind of authority Paul had. What we need to do then is begin to determine the actual limits of Paul's authority.

The people who interacted with Paul did not treat Paul as if he had unlimited universal authority, nor did they relate to Paul as if he had authority such as Moses had.

For example, when the dispute occurred at Antioch in Acts 15 Paul referred the issue to the Jerusalem Council rather than proclaiming an edict to settle the issue himself. If it had been Moses involved in the dispute at Antioch, the issue would have been settled right there at Antioch. So we can deduce that Paul's authority was limited, and that the elders in Jerusalem were perceived to have greater authority than Paul. This is also confirmed by the fact that the decision of the Jerusalem Council was sent back to Antioch by representatives from Jerusalem accompanying Paul, rather than by Paul alone.

Later, when Paul returned to the Jerusalem congregation in Acts 21, that congregation of believers was concerned about the false rumors that had been circulating about Paul. In order to dispel the rumors, the elders of the Jerusalem congregation recommended that Paul publicly participate in the completion of the vows with four local members (Paul himself had started the vow earlier in Acts 18:18). Paul followed the recommendation of the Jerusalem elders. How much authority did Paul have in that Jerusalem congregation? Apparently not enough to just tell them how it was and how it should be. From this we can deduce that Paul did not have authority over all congregations, even when he was present at the congregation in person. Paul's authority was therefore limited to some congregations and did not extend over some congregations.

When Paul ministered in Berea (Acts 17), the people there used the Old Testament Scriptures to determine whether Paul's teachings were true (the New Testament was not yet available). The author of Acts commends the Bereans for doing so. From this we can deduce that the Bereans and the author of Acts believed Paul's authority was less than the authority of Old Testament Scripture and that Paul did not have the authority to override or disagree with what was written in the previously existing Scriptures. This is a significant limitation to Paul's authority.

Modern Christianity has inherited from the Roman Church the idea that the Apostles (like Paul) had universal authority. That notion is absolutely necessary for a Church that is trying to claim universal authority for itself by claiming that the Church's authority was inherited directly from the Apostles. If the Apostles didn't have universal authority, then it would be obvious that the Roman Church did not have universal authority. Thus the Church warped the meaning of the word "apostle" by assigning universal religious authority to men who did not actually have universal authority. They had authority only within the realm of their responsibilities.

So we can deduce that Paul's authority was limited, and that the elders in Jerusalem were perceived to have greater authority than Paul.

Slow down my friend... :-)

That "deducing" is going to get you in a lot of trouble...

Did not Paul himself state he was not of lesser authority...

[Ron Amnsn]

Slow down my friend... :-)

That "deducing" is going to get you in a lot of trouble...

Did not Paul himself state he was not of lesser authority.

Ok. I'm not in a hurry. I'm willing to look at whatever evidence you would like to present from the Bible. Paul may have stated something like what you mention. We can look at it in context.

Because we do not tend to examine the man-made assumptions and traditions that have been accepted from the Roman Church, those assumptions and traditions operate in the background of our thinking coloring our interpretation of Bible passages. We must look carefully at the context. Even if Paul had equal authority as the other apostles had individually, that would not mean that he (or they) had unlimited universal authority, nor would it mean that Paul individually had equal authority to the apostles and elders acting together as a group. It is especially important to examine our own assumptions when dealing with passages that seem to disagree with earlier portions of Scripture (such as the Law and the Prophets). Neither Paul nor the other apostles had the authority to change, annul, or overturn the Old Testament.

I'm interested in avoiding the "lot of trouble" that you mention, but not if I have to accept man-made tradition or man-made doctrine to do so. Please show me from Scripture the "trouble" that you have warned me about.

[Ron Amnsn]

If it were not for Paul the Roman church would not exist. Much of their doctrines concerning the state of the dead, predestination, the Eucharist, the role of women (or lack thereof) in the church, and priestly and Papal authority come directly from Paul.

[skyblue888]

"For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me." 1 Cor.15:10.

"I have become a fool in boasting; you have compelled me. For I ought to have been commended by you, for in nothing was I behind the most eminent apostles, though I am nothing." 1 Cor.12:11.

The cure for any misunderstanding regarding the life and teachings of the apostle Paul is to read chapters 33 to 50 of Acts of the Apostles by E.G. White.

sky

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Slow down my friend... :-)

That "deducing" is going to get you in a lot of trouble...

Did not Paul himself state he was not of lesser authority.

Ok. I'm not in a hurry. I'm willing to look at whatever evidence you would like to present from the Bible. Paul may have stated something like what you mention. We can look at it in context.

Because we do not tend to examine the man-made assumptions and traditions that have been accepted from the Roman Church, those assumptions and traditions operate in the background of our thinking coloring our interpretation of Bible passages. We must look carefully at the context. Even if Paul had equal authority as the other apostles had individually, that would not mean that he (or they) had unlimited universal authority, nor would it mean that Paul individually had equal authority to the apostles and elders acting together as a group. It is especially important to examine our own assumptions when dealing with passages that seem to disagree with earlier portions of Scripture (such as the Law and the Prophets). Neither Paul nor the other apostles had the authority to change, annul, or overturn the Old Testament.

I'm interested in avoiding the "lot of trouble" that you mention, but not if I have to accept man-made tradition or man-made doctrine to do so. Please show me from Scripture the "trouble" that you have warned me about.

that would not mean that he (or they) had unlimited universal authority,

Interesting statement.

Why would they not have unlimited universal authority, do you have scripture for that?

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

"For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me." 1 Cor.15:10.

"I have become a fool in boasting; you have compelled me. For I ought to have been commended by you, for in nothing was I behind the most eminent apostles, though I am nothing." 1 Cor.12:11.

The cure for any misunderstanding regarding the life and teachings of the apostle Paul is to read chapters 33 to 50 of Acts of the Apostles by E.G. White.

sky

Now that sounds like someone humble, but who is led by the Spirit to pronounce his office...

Mark

[skyblue888]

Yes, very humble. I believe the apostle Paul was one of the humblest man that ever lived upon the face of this earth, after His conversion, that is. He wrote, "If any man thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself." Gal.6:3. "If any man thinks he knows anything, he does not know anything yet as he ought to know it." 1 Cor.8:2.

And yet, to him was revealed the deep mysteries of the Gospel. Eph.3:1-5.

The apostle Paul was little in his own eyes and God saw him.

sky

[Musicman1228]

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. Gal.1:6-9.

For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus different from the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit than the one you received, or a different gospel than the one you accepted, you put up with it well enough! For I consider myself not at all inferior to those "super-apostles." 2Cor.11:4-5. (NET)

Therefore, so that I would not become arrogant, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to trouble me - so that I would not become arrogant. 2Cor12:7.

Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church, Col.1:24.

These are but four statements by Paul (among many, many others) that do not speak out of humility but out of arrogance. Paul said that he is filling up what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ (to me that is blaspheme). He was so arrogant that he said that God needed to give him a demon to keep him from boasting (The God of Heaven would never give anyone a demon to get him to obey God). He said that he would curse anyone including an angel from Heaven (a being that cannot lie) if they said to believe a gospel other than his gospel. He even said that he did not consider himself an apostle inferior to the apostles that lived and worked with Jesus while he was here on earth.

Does that really sound like humility to you?

[Guest]

No it sounds like you slandering Paul again. Please show the text where he says God needed to give him a demon.

Is slander a sin?

[Twilight]

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. Gal.1:6-9.

For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus different from the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit than the one you received, or a different gospel than the one you accepted, you put up with it well enough! For I consider myself not at all inferior to those "super-apostles." 2Cor.11:4-5. (NET)

Therefore, so that I would not become arrogant, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to trouble me - so that I would not become arrogant. 2Cor12:7.

Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church, Col.1:24.

These are but four statements by Paul (among many, many others) that do not speak out of humility but out of arrogance. Paul said that he is filling up what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ (to me that is blaspheme). He was so arrogant that he said that God needed to give him a demon to keep him from boasting (The God of Heaven would never give anyone a demon to get him to obey God). He said that he would curse anyone including an angel from Heaven (a being that cannot lie) if they said to believe a gospel other than his gospel. He even said that he did not consider himself an apostle inferior to the apostles that lived and worked with Jesus while he was here on earth.

Does that really sound like humility to you?

I am saddened that you confuse Spiritual Language with arrogance in a servant of God... :-(

Mark

[skyblue888]

musicman, brother it is clear that you are not dividing the word of God rightly. The verses you have quoted do not contradict the other verses quoted previously. Paul is not being arrogant in any way, shape, or form. I understand these verses in a totally different way than you do but I am afraid that any amount of discussion over this will amount to anything good. Sorry to say but I am very saddened to see that the blaspheme is not with the apostle Paul but with you brother.

sky

[Twilight]

musicman, brother it is clear that you are not dividing the word of God rightly. The verses you have quoted do not contradict the other verses quoted previously. Paul is not being arrogant in any way, shape, or form. I understand these verses in a totally different way than you do but I am afraid that any amount of discussion over this will amount to anything good. Sorr to say, but I am very saddened to see that the blaspheme is not with the apostle Paul but with you brother.

sky

Amen...

[Gail]

My thoughts, too, sky... It's funny how people with different mindsets see a set of words.