A Question

[ClubV12]

I am basically familiar with the various groups and bodies and Government type agencies that determined what should and shouldn't be in or out of the cannon. I don't have a specific reason to question their work. I recognize there are many other books and writings of both Old and New testament time that did not "make the cut". Some do accept a portion of those books and writings as gospel and include them in certain biblical versions.

My feeling is that the Holy Spirit was guiding these various groups in their decision as to what to include or disclude. I am not upset with them, or anybody. It is easy to understand why some books were left out, it is much more difficult to deal with the concept that some books "left in" and do not deserve a place in the biblical record. THAT is a new concept to me. It is disturbing, at least, because it is an attack on the very foundation of the bible as the word of God.

If I am forced to choose which books or authors are "inspired" or "not inspired" it would be much easier to just throw the whole thing out. Or, I can trust that the Holy Spirit over saw the end result. The work can either be trusted, or not, I just don't see room for half way on an issue of this importance. The bible stands, 100%, or falls 100%.

[phkrause]

I am basically familiar with the various groups and bodies and Government type agencies that determined what should and shouldn't be in or out of the cannon. I don't have a specific reason to question their work. I recognize there are many other books and writings of both Old and New testament time that did not "make the cut". Some do accept a portion of those books and writings as gospel and include them in certain biblical versions.

My feeling is that the Holy Spirit was guiding these various groups in their decision as to what to include or disclude. I am not upset with them, or anybody. It is easy to understand why some books were left out, it is much more difficult to deal with the concept that some books "left in" and do not deserve a place in the biblical record. THAT is a new concept to me. It is disturbing, at least, because it is an attack on the very foundation of the bible as the word of God.

If I am forced to choose which books or authors are "inspired" or "not inspired" it would be much easier to just throw the whole thing out. Or, I can trust that the Holy Spirit over saw the end result. The work can either be trusted, or not, I just don't see room for half way on an issue of this importance. The bible stands, 100%, or falls 100%.

Excellent post ClubV12,

[Dr. Rich]

And THAT is a major problem. Feelings are just that--feelings! Feeling that the Holy Spirit was involved is like saying you feel that the Holy Spirit was involved in the killing of Ben Laden.

Qustion: Do you have a felling that the Holy Spirit was involved in setting up the Catholic Church? If so, then how come you are an Adventist? If not, then how could the Holy Spirit be involved in how the NT was compiled?

[Guest]

It is disturbing, at least, because it is an attack on the very foundation of the bible as the word of God.

That's exactly what it is. And Satan is laughing at the fact that people who insist on calling themselves SDAs are propagating this nonsense. Let alone the fact that they are trying to usurp the name of a well established and legitimate religion, to try and hang it on their new and strange "religious" beliefs.

That cannot be done legally.

[Guest]

How stupid would it look for someone to carry adventism to a far away land, and tell people "this is catholicism". Do you think the people would be surprised when they went to a catholic church, only to find out that's not what catholics believe at all? It's the same principle here.

Once you repudiate and speak out against a particular religion and it's beliefs, you are then by default, no longer one of them. You can't keep on using their name. It's dishonest to say the least.

[Dr. Rich]

Richard, was Uriah Smith an "Adventist"? Please answer the question. If you say yes, then please give me the requirements that he had to have for becoming an Adventist?!!!

Did not Uriah Smith say that when the Adventists establish teachers, leaders, pastors, evangelests and so forth, that is when they will become just as evil as the Catholics?

And Richard, please show me anyplace where Jesus said that we should establish leaders, teachers, pastors and so forth? He didn't! In fact, He said the exact opposite as found in Matt. 23:8-10 and John 10:16.

It was Paul's words where we find this evilness and the total opposite of what Jesus taught. You can find Paul's evil teaching on this issue in 1Cor. 12:28, Eph. 4:11, 1Tim. 2:7 and 2Tim. 1:11.

Now go read 1Cor. 15:3-8 and then find one place in the words of Jesus that would agree with any of this!????

[Guest]

Sounds like you agree with me. So why call yourself SDA then, if you're not a part of it? You're saying you don't need to be a part of anything organized, and you're right.

[John317]

We should do what we can to share to truth with everyone, but if someone has heard the truth over and over and has made up his mind to reject, there comes a point where one has to leave that person, and go on to those who have never heard the truth or rejected it. Otherwise, we could spend all our time trying to persuade people who don't want the truth, and as a consquence many would be lost because we didn't present Christ to them. I do think we have to remember Christ's words about not throwing pearls before swine. The "swine" are those who don't appreciate the gospel or Christ, and often even use it as a weapon to attack Christians. Jesus also said to be "innocent as doves but wise as serpants."

[John317]

Did not Uriah Smith say that when the Adventists establish teachers, leaders, pastors, evangelests and so forth, that is when they will become just as evil as the Catholics?

You gotta reference for that? I would like to read it in its original context. I like Smith but the truth is that Uriah Smith wasn't always right. He also said Christ was the "first created being," and He spoke also of the "evolution" of the Godhead. He was also wrong about Armagedden and the 1888 Message. Yet for all his faults, Smith was a great SDA leader and deserves our respect.

[John317]

... please show me anyplace where Jesus said that we should establish leaders, teachers, pastors and so forth? He didn't! In fact, He said the exact opposite as found in Matt. 23:8-10 and John 10:16.

It was Paul's words where we find this evilness and the total opposite of what Jesus taught. You can find Paul's evil teaching on this issue in 1Cor. 12:28, Eph. 4:11, 1Tim. 2:7 and 2Tim. 1:11.

Now go read 1Cor. 15:3-8 and then find one place in the words of Jesus that would agree with any of this!????

It is you who are teaching evil, Dr. Rich. It is evil to teach that it was the Devil who inspred Peter and the other discples on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2.

It is evil to try and constatnly drive a wedge between Jesus and Paul and the rest of the New Testament writings; to say that Paul was of the Devil; and that Ellen White was also a false prophet-- all while claiming to be a Seventh-day Adventist.

[BobRyan]

And Ron, if you believe all of the stuff found in Acts, it being written by Luke who never saw Jesus and was not even a Hebrew, then how easy it has become to deceive those who fail to study the words of Jesus! Remember Ron, it was the people of Asia who put Paul and Luke to a test and found them to be false apostles. (Rev. 2:2, Acts 21:27-29 and 2Tim. 1:15 & 18.)

[ClubV12]

Dr. Rich is a Seventh Day Adventist? Dr. Rich, a member in good standing? Seriously, actually a baptized, active in your local church, kind of Seventh Day Adventist? Do you accept the fundamental 28 beliefs? Is it possible to be a Seventh Day Adventist and NOT accept them? Sabbath school must be a nightmare for you when they quote Ellen White or read something from the New Testament? I've only attended services at two Seventh Day Adventist churches, and one of them only a few times, so I've been pretty sheltered. I must say, this is a bit of a shock to me.

Are these kind of "different" beliefs common in other Seventh Day Adventist churches? Wow, I'm trying to wrap my head around this. I'm NOT trying to be insensitive or offensive, it's just, like, wow...

[BobRyan]

Depends on whether the local church leadership has ever read the church manual.

in Christ,

Bob

[Woody]

Depends on whether the local church leadership has ever read the church manual.

in Christ,

Bob

What does the Church Manual have to say on the issue. And btw the church manual is never totally followed in any church. It is just a book of ideas and suggestions.

[ClubV12]

So, I did a brief search/study on the issue and it does appear that those who "fight against the visions" place themselves in a position that may require church discipline or even removal from membership.

Not for their belief, but because of the impact such testimony may have on others. Belief in the SPO is not a test, all though, that is a hotly debated issue as to whether or not it should be. But fighting against the SPO (claiming EGW is a liar, perhaps?) could be considered "cause". I'm not sure this would apply to a new member, not believing fully in EGW or even claiming her outright to be a false prophet. But at some point, for a member in long standing, if such a position is maintained, some action may be warranted.

It is one thing to keep your beliefs to yourself or speak of them quietly. It is another matter to openly fight against or oppose a substantial belief, consistently over time, within a group of which you claim membership. That would fundamentally apply to ANY group requiring membership. At some point you would have to remove yourself from membership, or risk being removed.

It seems a little strange to me that the church manual would be considerd as little more than "guidelines" or "suggestions". A "group", generally speaking, is usually pretty clear about how the governance and qualifications of membership is handled.

[Woody]

Yes. But a guideline it is. Many churches are sour on the Manual. Most churches do use it so some degree. NONE use it 100%.

As far as what you say about membership and the SOP - Could you give a reference in the manual regarding what you have stated here? I would be interested in seeing that. You are essentially saying that belief in EGW is required. Which is news to me.

[Woody]

This is what I agree with:

"A member of the church should not be excluded from membership because of his inability to recognize clearly the doctrine of spiritual gifts and its application to the second advent movement " The Testimony of Jesus p.141

[Woody]

James White testifies:

"They [seventh-day Adventists] believe in the perpetuity of spiritual gifts. They believe that the Spirit of Prophecy has rested upon Mrs. White, and that she is called to do a special work at this time, among this people. They do not, however, make a belief in this work a test of Christian fellowship. But, after men and women have had evidence that the work is of God, and then join hands with those who fight against it, our people claim the right to separate from such, that they may enjoy their sentiments in peace and quiet."--Review and Herald, June 13, 1871.

Elder J. N. Andrews writes:

"We therefore do not test the world in any manner by these gifts. Nor do we in our intercourse with other religious bodies who are striving to walk in the fear of God, in any way make these a test of Christian character. Upon none of these persons do we urge these manifestations of the Spirit of God, nor test them by their teaching.

There is such a thing, however, as men having in the providence of God an opportunity to become acquainted with the special work of the Spirit of God, so that they shall acknowledge that their light is clear, convincing, and satisfactory. To such persons, we consider the gifts of the Spirit are clearly a test. Not only has God spoken, but they have had opportunity to ascertain that fact, and to know it for themselves. In all such cases, spiritual gifts are manifestly a test that cannot be disregarded except at the peril of eternal ruin."--Review and Herald, Feb. 15, 1870.

[ClubV12]

"As far as what you say about membership and the SOP..."

I never said nor implied that belief in the SPO is a test of faith. ALL THOUGH, the matter is not entirely settled as some think it should be. I don't have a position on this issue, I will support whatever the church decides on it, if and when.

However, FIGHTING AGAINST a fundamental principle of ANY group should and could be cause for removal from that group.

A Pastor who continually preaches from the pulpit that EGW is a liar and a fraud should be removed from that position. As should an Elder of the church. As should a long standing member of the church. In all cases a person who is fighting against a fundamental belief that has had sufficient time to understand and accept or reject the churches position on the matter.

There are many other COMMON SENSE applications for active church discipline and/or termination of membership. Though I posted a 100 Spirit of Prophecy quotes to illustrate the point, it would make no difference to those who do not believe in any form of discipline, censure or membership requirements. I COULD post quotes to this point, but frankly, I won't waste my time.

Desmond Ford is one such example of someone "fighting against" basic beliefs of the church, and he paid the ultimate price for doing so. As it should have been.

[Woody]

U say "common sense". But I find no sense in it let alone it to be common.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I find ClubV12's post to be quite in the realm of common sense. But if one doesn't understand the concept of common sense, I suppose it would be confusing....rather evocative of the Dunning-Kruger Effect discussed elsewhere on the forum..

[ClubV12]

I believe it was Samuel Longhorn Clemens that said common sense aint so common. :)

[Woody]

I believe it was Samuel Longhorn Clemens that said common sense aint so common.

Amen to that. I am afraid you are right.

[Ron Amnsn]

If I am forced to choose which books or authors are "inspired" or "not inspired" it would be much easier to just throw the whole thing out. Or, I can trust that the Holy Spirit over saw the end result. The work can either be trusted, or not, I just don't see room for half way on an issue of this importance. The bible stands, 100%, or falls 100%.

I think we need to be careful about setting up a false dichotomy here. Personally, I believe that the Bible stands 100% (as it was written in the original manuscripts). However, we really don't have any guarantee from God that the men and committees who established the cannon made no errors. There would be no profit in saying the that the whole Bible falls if any part of it were found to be uninspired.

We can have confidence in the Bible without placing our faith in the men or committees who established the cannon we have today. Nor do we need to invent a doctrine of infallibility of the cannonization process; nor do we need to invent a doctrine claiming that God prevents men from corrupting God's word. (Men have corrupted the Bible and continue to do so with denominational versions such as the JW's bible and with the various paraphrases.)

The books of the Bible (and the cannon) developed over time, starting with the books of Moses. Each new book and author were tested to see if their lives and writings were in agreement with God's word that had been given earlier. Any new writing that disagreed with God's earlier word, would be rejected. The first books are the standard by which later books are judged. If you work your way carefully through the books and writings from the beginning, testing each book by those books that came earlier, you will probably end up putting your confidence in the same collection of books that are in the Bible we have today (unless you allow your personal biases to interfere).

Those who interpret the New Testament writings so that they [seem to] disagree with the Old Testament have set the stage for people like Dr. Rich to question the authenticity of the New Testament writings. But that need not be the case. Properly interpreted, the New Testament actually is in complete agreement with the Old Testament. Unfortunately, modern Christians have inherited many faulty interpretations of the New Testament from the Catholic fathers. Those faulty interpretations are what Dr. Rich and his cohorts have latched onto in order to question the credibility of the New Testament writings.

[Flyboy]

Dr. Rich has some radical beliefs but I find no reason why he should be removed from SDA's. After all, isn't our ultimate goal to follow the words of Jesus? Let me ask you all, if we had to choose only ONE doctrine in our church, what would it be? I daresay we'd throw them all out and consolidate to "believe in the words of Jesus Christ". That is what Dr. Rich is arguing for, and while I don't agree with some of his other positions, he should not be chastised for stimulating debate and making us think. We should be able to debate in a civil manner and, at the end of the day, agree to disagree. One person's path to the cross is not another person's path to the cross.... don't try to make someone else follow right behind you, it just won't work.

As for Desmond Ford paying the "ultimate price", I find the choice of these words quite disturbing. Since when has there been a doctrine that suggested that one must be an SDA to get to Heaven? Losing out on Heaven (NOT losing one's voting right in an SDA church) would be, I think, the ultimate price!

There is MUCH to say on whether we should preach the word to all the world. MY position won't be popular at all, but at least it should stimulate some brain cells, but I must eat supper now. More later.