Archive for the ‘Editorials’ Category
You are probably aware that Pastor Angel Manuel Rodriguez is the director of the Biblical Research Institute of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. I sent by E-mail the following question to him a few years ago, and I am still waiting for a response. He probably thought that my question was a rhetorical one and felt there was no need to answer it!
Dear Pastor Rodriguez,
In your article entitled “Mixed Marriages” you clarify that Paul’s passage found in 2 Cor. 6:14 is not limited to marriage with unbelievers. Please consider the following scenario: A Seventh-day Adventist law student is planning to join a Southern Baptist as a law partner after graduation. Both are familiar with Paul’s injunction against being “unequally yoked with unbelievers, and both have a struggle with their conscience.” The Adventist because Baptists ignore the Sabbath Commandment of the Decalogue, and the Baptist because Adventists justify abortions even when the pregnant woman’s mental health is affected by her condition, which, according to Southern Baptists is a violation of the Sixth Commandment which forbids “murder” and the shedding of innocent blood. My question is: Who is in this scenario the unbeliever, the Adventist, the Southern Baptist, or both?
If a farmer were to spread the seeds, and then proceeded to pull out the growing wheat, arguing at the same time that he actually enjoyed spreading the seeds but was not interested in the harvest, we would agree that said individual has lost his mind.
If said farmer would at harvest time turn around and buy wheat from his neighbor to feed his family, we would have no doubt that the man needed some psychological treatment in order to bring the individual back to sanity.
This represents what we in the West are doing. We are destroying our own children through abortion, and then we allow both legal and illegal immigrants to fill the demographic void, despite the fact that many of these foreigners come determined to impose their own values on our society. This doesn’t make sense to me!
Human Life is Sacred.
The Seventh-day Adventist Church has officially declared that human life is sacred and that it needs to be protected. Here are some statements taken from the SDA officially approved document entitled Guidelines on Abortion:
1) Prenatal human life is a magnificent gift of God. God’s ideal for human beings affirms the sanctity of human life, in God’s image, and requires respect for prenatal life. [1]
Quote:
2) Human life has unique value because human beings, though fallen, are created in the image of God. [1]
Quote:
3) God values human life not on the basis of human accomplishments or contributions but because we are God’s creation and the object of His redeeming love. [1]
Quote:
5) God calls for the protection of human life and holds humanity accountable for its destruction. [1]
Quote:
6) God is especially concerned for the protection of the weak, the defenseless, and the oppressed. [1]
Continued below. Click on “Comments” if needed.
Dear Brother Wilson,
I was thrilled when I heard you speak about “revival and reformation” in the first sermon you preached as our new president and I realized that we need to pray more fervently than ever before for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon each member of our church and especially upon the new leaders of this great movement the Lord has blest so much in the past.
You made specific reference to a few areas where reformation is needed. One of them is regarding a new emphasis on the most cherished doctrine of the Christian Church, the doctrine of creation. This sacred belief runs like a golden thread from Genesis through the last book of the Bible. If we compromise on this, the most fundamental belief of Christianity, our church will loose its reason for its existence.
Continued below. Click on {Comments” if needed.
The Question
After a long protracted debate with a young man I greatly admire for his keen intelligence and his unswerving loyalty to the Genesis account of Creation, I wondered: Can the elect become the victims of deception? You may wonder why would such a question pop into my mind when dealing with someone apparently so loyal to the Bible story of origins.
The reason is rather simple. The topic we had debated was not the origin of heaven and earth and life on earth, but rather the origin of human life inside the womb. I hold to the belief that human life is sacred from the moment of its inception, while he defended with deep conviction the notion that until the unborn baby–fetus if you prefer since fetus is the Latin word for baby–develops a cerebral cortex, you actually do not have a human being, but rather nothing that can be morally differentiated from a human appendix.
When pressed for a point in time when taking the life of the unborn would be morally wrong, he pointed to twenty weeks after conception, because that is the time science can verify the development of the human brain cortex, which will eventually distinguish the unborn as a member of the human race. It became a no win-situation, for which reason, since both of us are Seventh-day Adventists Christians who pride to be members of the elect of God, I wondered whether either I or him could be deceived into adopting an erroneous moral position regarding the sanctity of human life.
So the question is: Can Christians who were referred by Jesus as the “elect” be candidates for deception? This question is especially important for Adventists, because we have been claiming to be the “Remnant of God” with the “last message for a perishing world.” Jesus did state that before his Second Coming false prophets will deceive, “if possible” even the elect, but he did not say whether this is feasible or not. [Matthew 24:24]
Continued below. Click on “Comments” if needed.
Warning!
In the event you have a hard time figuring out the meaning of some of the terms used in this allegory, you might want to read Erv Taylor’s parable listed below first, as well as the lively exchange of comments that it generated from many individuals, before you read this posting. The Internet link for it is listed below.
Reading both allegories and the comments they generated may take some of your time, but you will not regret investing some of your most precious commodity in doing this. There is also a third allegory listed at the end of all the lively and long exchange of views between myself and Dr. Sean Pitman.
THE ROPE PEOPLE OF THE KINGDOM OF THE BLIND
http://sdaforum.com/page181.html
Note: In the event the sda forum links fail, you will need to copy and paste the title of the article onto the search blank space located on the top right-hand-corner of this page.
Continued below. Click on “Comments” if needed.
If you receive “Adventist Today Newsbreak”, you might have read Max Gordon Phillips article entitled “Renowned Archaeologist: Bible’s “stories are exaggerated” published on 24 February 2007 in their ATNewsbreak. The following includes a question I sent to the magazine hoping that Mr. Phillips would take the time to respond:
I have a question for Max Gordon Phillips, the author of the article entitled “Renowned Archaeologist: Bible “stories are exaggerated.” Max states the following in his article:
“How does Dever affect me? My faith remains. Since it has never depended on “evidence for the ‘probable’ existence of God” anyway, it obviously cannot be shaken when some of that so-called “evidence” collapses under scientific scrutiny. As my Lord and Savior says (Matthew 24:35 NIV): “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.” Meaning: “Jesus’ words are more certain than the existence of the universe” (NIV Study Bible text note). Consequently, I don’t have to believe that God inspired the Hebrew Bible writers to exaggerate the facts any more than I have to believe God inspired Moses to command genocide against the Midianite people (Numbers 25 and 31). The Bible writers exaggerated the facts because they were imperfect human transmitters of God’s unexaggerated revelation. Hence, while human integrity may be at risk in Scripture, divine integrity is not.”
My question to Max is: If you accept the suggestion that the Bible writers exaggerated the facts as they wrote the stories we find in the Old Testament, then why would you believe that the Gospel writers did not do the same? If this is the case, then what is your faith based on? Remember that Jesus wrote nothing for posterity, and what he wrote on the sand is not available to us. All we have is the testimony of the gospel writers, who might have exaggerated the facts of history like the Old Testament writers. If we can’t trust the O.T. authors, please give me a reason why I should trust the evangelists! All we know about God, Jesus, and eternal life has come to us through fallible human means. If they exaggerated the facts, our faith has no solid basis. You cite Matthew. Tell me why I should trust what he wrote about Jesus!
Continued below. Click on “Comments” if needed.
Introduction
This news item might be old news for most Adventists. I am in the process of transferring what is worth saving from the www.sdaforum.com to this new web site before the old forum is deleted. Nevertheless, the old domain name will point at this new one, which means that those familiar with the old forum will gain immediate access to the new one without the need to alter the access link.
*********
For those interested in learning the truth about what has been taking place at the 3ABN network, there is a source of a large number of documents dealing with all the allegations and counter allegations connected with the “growing number of moral, ethical, and financial” dealings by the leading individuals in charge of the Three Angels’ Broadcasting Network which threatens to damage or destroy the defectiveness of this independent Seventh-day Adventist religious organization. Some individuals who are greatly concerned about the future of the network have created a website dedicated to the stated goal of saving the network from disaster.
According to the documents posted on this website, Danny Shelton, the founder of 3ABN, has exhibited a lack of fairness and equanimity in the treatment of his former wife, Linda Shelton, co-founder of the organization and former vice president of the network. An analysis of the voluminous number of E-mails exchanged between the parties seems to reveal the following:
Continued below. Click on “Comments “ if needed.
Introduction
The reader may wonder why am I associating Finkelstein with Darwin and Hitler. The reason is simple. Hitler’s meteoric political rise came at a time when the Germany’s economy was in shambles. He managed to restore Germany’s prestige and economic power, and did a lot of good. Even Americans remember him for giving Germans and the world the Volkswagen. That was the only car my dad drove until he couldn’t drive anymore. Nevertheless, the world remembers Hitler not for the good he performed on behalf of others, but rather for his genocide of six million Jews.
We could say something similar about Darwin. He opened the eyes of scientists about the fact that species do not remain static as time goes on and environments change, but rather tend to adapt to those altered circumstances. Nevertheless, sooner or later, I believe that he will be remembered by the baleful influence of his iconoclastic theory which succeeded in turning people’s reliance in God as the source of life and everything that is good and beneficial. Actually, Hitler was philosophically indebted to Darwin for his survival of the fittest suggestion, which led him to posit the superiority of the German race.
Who is Israel Finkelstein?
At this point, someone may wonder who is Israel Finkelstein. He is the director of the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University, and co-author of the book “The Bible Unearthed,” a “truly iconoclastic and provocative work” written with the overt objective of “challenging the fundamentalist readings of the scriptures” and suggesting that the lack of archaeological evidence tends to support his notion that “many of the most famous stories of the bible—the wanderings of the patriarchs, the Exodus from Egypt, Joshua’s conquest of Canaan, and David and Solomon’s vast empire—reflect the world of the later authors rather than actual historical facts.” (John Shelby Spong, back cover of Finkelstein’s book.)
Continued below. Click on “Comments” if needed.
I wrote the following article three years ago at the request of Dr. Ervin Taylor, Executive Editor of “Adventist Today.” A shortened, edited version was published in the January/February/2007 issue of said magazine. The publication generated a highly controversial exchange between the author and one of the magazine readers. This unedited exchange is posted below
*********
The Puzzling SDA Apathy Towards the Plight of the Unborn
The Plight of the Unborn
Never in the history of humankind the lives of the unborn have been at risk on such a mass scale. There is no question but that the womb, the sacred chamber God provided for the protection of the unborn, is today the most dangerous place on earth (1). According to statistics provided by the Alan Guttmacher Institute [Planned Parenthood], the number of abortions performed per year in the U.S. since 1973 averages 1,560,198 (2). The statistics for the entire world is even scarier: Approximately 46 Million (3). This surpasses by far any other cause of death, including wars (4).
If car accidents, smoking, or cancer, were responsible for the deaths of such a large number of human beings, I suspect that SDA’s would be demanding that something be done to put a stop to such a waste of human life. Half of all abortions in the U.S. are performed at or before the eight week of pregnancy (5); which means that approximately 800,000 developing babies are denied the right to life each year at a stage when they look very human, with recognizable arms, legs, head and feet, as revealed by ultrasound pictures (6). This is why when an abortion is performed, the nurse must account for all the parts of the dismembered baby to avoid serious health hazards for the mother.
Continued below. Click on “Comments” if needed.
I grew up in South America where machismo is quite predominant in society. In spite of this, I believe that our ministerial ordination practices should be gender blind and neutral. If the Lord calls women for church service in that capacity, who are we to abort that call?
I do not think that this issue will split the church, provided we do it without imposing women’s ordination on the rest of Adventism. If we do, it will fail like our American decision to impose democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It will take an unusual amount of courage to implement such a monumental change, but doing what is right has never been easy. Think about how hard it was to do away with the old denominational practice of compensating women on a lower scale for the same type of work and responsibility.
I remember how a colleague of mine complained that her salary at an SDA institution was 60 percent of that of her male counterparts for the same type of work. She was told that the church paid men more because they were the main providers for their families.
-”That’s precisely why I need to be paid as my male counterparts are. I am the main breadwinner in my family,” she argued.
-”Sorry, but we can’t alter the church’s policy,” was the answer she got.
When a few decades ago a woman employed by the Pacific Press decided to do something about this inequality and appealed to a governmental agency, the church exerted all its power in an attempt to keep our loyal women subjugated under this unfair remunerating policy.
Will the church this time do what is right? I do not know, but the climate is changing, and perhaps the new leaders might muster the courage to do what is right.
One way of accomplishing the main objective of treating all church workers equally regardless of gender would be to drop entirely the term “ordination,” which has no biblical basis, and call the ritual by another name, be it “commissioning,” “appointment,” “assignment,” or any other term that would tend to soften the chance of being perceived as an outright rebellion against the rest of Adventism.
Three years ago, I received the visit of Dr.Ervin Taylor, the Executive Editor of “Adventist Today,” a magazine that enjoys a wide readership among Seventh-day Adventists, especially in the United States. He invited me to write an article in defense of my pro-life position on abortion.
Of course, I was more than happy to comply, and said article was included in the January/February/2007 issue of said periodical. It also includes a critical response by Dr. James Walters in defense of the SDA official pro-choice position on said highly controversial issue.
My question is: Is it right for Seventh-day Adventists to generously label ourselves as the “Remnant Church” that keeps God’s Commandments, one of which forbids murder, and proclaiming the “last message of mercy to a perishing world,” while at the same time officially justifying the practice of abortion?
We are concerned as a church about the deaths of innocent human beings in Iraq and Afghanistan and the deaths of American soldiers in said countries currently cursed by internal violent strife. We see and lament the indiscriminate shedding of innocent blood in that faraway land, but we are rather oblivious about the daily genocide of the unborn that is taking place in our own land of the free and the brave.
If you share my concerns and have access to the “Adventist Today” magazine, I invite you to read said article. In the event you don’t, I suggest you access the copy I posted on my “SDA Forum” website.
Article Title: The Puzzling SDA Apathy Towards the Plight of the Unborn
Internet link: http://sdaforum.com/page90.html
Note: In the event the sda forum link fails, you will need to copy and paste the title of the article onto the search blank space located on the top right-hand-corner of this page.
Continued below. Click on “Comments” if needed.
When I wrote this article, several years ago, the tiny Pacific Island of Pitcairn had a population of 47, and six Islanders had been convicted of rape. If these men were convicted and jailed, the rest of the islanders might have faced a bleak future, since they were needed for the manning of the longboat that goes out to passing ships, and life on the island might have been placed in jeopardy.
Some islanders were saying that sex with underage girls as young as 12 or 13 was considered normal on the island; it is what their ancestors had done for generations. I am wondering if the SDA church was aware of this anomaly. You may be aware that the entire population converted to the SDA denomination many decades ago. William Johnson, the former editor of the “Adventist Review” probably responded by saying, “Don’t tell it in Gath.” Is sweeping this under the rug beneficial in the long run? What is your opinion?
You can read more about Pitcairn by clicking on the links listed below:
Pitcairn Facing A Fragile Future
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3950991.stm
Continued below. Click on “Comments” if needed.
The purpose of this posting is to remind you that three years ago I was able to complete all the requirements for my doctoral program including the writing of my doctoral dissertation thesis. The title of my dissertation was: “From Pro-life to Pro-choice: A Dramatic Shift in Seventh-day Attitudes Towards Abortion.” This goal was reached on June 29, 2007.
Disclaimer:
The display of the SDA logo above should not be misinterpreted as an official endorsement of this article by the SDA church!
Your Imput is Needed
The main sources for the material utilized came from the pages of Ministry, Spectrum, Adventist Today, and several books authored by SDA scholars. It is possible that I might have included your opinion on this controversial issue. If you have published on the subject in the above mentioned venues, you may want to examine my report to determine the accuracy of what I have written.
You may contact me by E-mail at nicsamojluk@roadrunner.com, or you can post your opinion on this forum.
Continued below. Click on “Comments” if needed.
Sometime ago I was reading another book written by Desmond Ford: “Right With God Right Now.” He cites Genesis 15:6 as proof that God declares believers righteous the moment they believe. Perhaps this is what the Lord does, but the biblical proof is flawed. Let me first quote the Scripture in question and then Ford’s comments:
“Abram believed the Lord, and he [the Lord] credited it to him as righteousness.”
Do you see? God counts him righteous by faith alone, not by Abraham’s performance. Salvation is something received, not something achieved.
Now let us see why this biblical proof is flawed. What does the biblical record show? My Bible tells me that Abraham received his call from the Lord when he was seventy-five years old. He did believe the Lord, and he left his home country on the basis of this faith [Gen. 12]. Did the Lord declare him righteous the moment he believed? Perhaps he did, but there is no such record in the Bible.
Then a famine forced Abraham to go to Egypt. Chapters 13 record the story of how he and his nephew lot separated due to the increase in their cattle. All this takes time, of course. Chapter 14 relates how Abraham rescued Lot. Then comes chapter 15 where God declared Abraham righteous. My estimate is that Abraham must have been by now anywhere between 80 and 85 years old or perhaps even older.
My question is: Why did the Lord wait all these years before publicly declaring Abraham righteous? We don’t know. Perhaps he didn’t want to issue such a declaration on the basis of incipient, untested faith. Nevertheless, regardless of the reason, the fact remains that we have no biblical proof that Abraham was declared righteous the moment he believed! Someone once said: “True faith is never alone!”