Archive for the ‘Religious Doctrines’ Category
You might be aware that during the month of August, the main topic of Pastor Randy Robert’s sermons at the Loma Linda University Church was the abundant life Jesus promised to his followers. An abundant life seems to have been the main purpose for Jesus’ earthly mission, because he declared:
“The thief comes not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.” [John 10:10]
Sometimes we think that this abundant life Jesus promised is for the future life with him following his Second Coming in the clouds of heaven in order to take us to his eternal home in heaven; nevertheless, it seems that this abundant life is meant to begin here and now.
“I tell you the truth,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life.” [Mark 10:29-30]
How do we know that this abundant life begins here and now? Because Jesus told us that this eternal life is the result of our knowledge of Jesus Christ, and this knowledge begins the moment we believe.
“And this is the way to have eternal life–to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, the one you sent to earth.” [John 17:3]
This is confirmed by the following statement made by the Lord following the healing of the invalid at the Pool of Bethesda:
“I tell you the truth, those who listen to my message and believe in God who sent me have eternal life. They will never be condemned for their sins, but they have already passed from death into life.” [John 5:24]
Continued below. Click on “Comments” if needed.
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.
Bernard Brandstater
Loma Linda University
Part 1: WHERE WE ARE: predicament and potential
Christians in the Seventh-day Adventist tradition have long assumed the importance of Creation. But I want to go further and plead for its centrality in Church life and witness. Creation should be central because major aspects of our daily existence are connected to it: how we view the world and reality, what we teach, how we worship, our task as disciples and gospel-bearers, and how others perceive us. If we give to Creation the centrality it deserves, we could see an Adventism with renewed vision and energy.
In the past we have kept Creation teaching somewhat in the background because we have been nervous about it. Presenting it convincingly requires competence in theology, but especially in science. People so equipped are rare, and we are hesitant to confront brilliant Nobel prize-winning scientists with a story that opposes them, defiantly in their face. Our biblical story of beginnings is told using simple words that dismiss their intricately devised theories. We quote fantastic miracles and an other-worldly, all-powerful God. How medieval and naive it sounds! Have we not heard of the Enlightenment ?
Continued below.<strong> Click on “Comments” if needed and ignore all the “Nic Samojluk says remarks. I have no way of deleting them! The entire documents was authored by Bernard Brandstater.
“The situation at the La Sierra University Biology Department is reviewed, including material recommended by the Biology Department. A comparison is made with the situation at Battle Creek College, and Ellen White’s response to the situation. For reference, read 5T 21-36.” Paul Giem.
Watch the video recording of Dr. Paul Giem’s lecture about the similarity between the Battle Creek College and the current situation at La Sierra University where the theory of evolution is being taught as the only credible explanation for origins.
Read also the interesting debate it generated in the pages of the Educate Truth Internet forum. I am selecting some of the comments and posting them below, but you might be interested in reading the debate in its entirety. Nic Samojluk.
Continued below. Click on “Comments” if needed.
“I gather from what I hear and read that some Seventh-day Adventists might be uncomfortable with panentheism, the idea that “everything is ’in’ God and that “God is ‘in’ everything.
This would be unfortunate because on at least one occasion even the Apostle Paul pictured God along these lines. Quoting one of their own poets to some of the philosophers in ancient Athens, he referred to God as the One “in whom we live and move and have our being.” [Acts 17:28. NRSV]
It is true that the word “panentheism” is an umbrella term which covers a wide range of concepts and practices and all those who have checked the Internet know that some of them are silly and superstitious. Yet this is not the case in serious Jewish, Christian and Muslim theology today.
In these contexts, the word refers to attempts to think through a conceptual alternative to identifying God and the universe too closely (pantheism), on the one hand, or separating them too thoroughly (deism), on the other. This try for a third option is what panentheism is all about and we should focus on it instead of getting stuck on spatial metaphors like “in,” “out,” “up” or ‘”down.”
Also, figures of speech, such as the universe as God’s “body,” or God as the “Mind” or “Womb” of the universe, help some and hinder others and we should use or not use them accordingly. Again, the purpose of panentheism is to find a path between opposite and erroneous extremes.
Although I don’t agree with everything every panentheist says [Nobody does!], some of its recurring themes strike me as especially congruent with Seventh-day Adventist thought. Here are six of them:
1. Panentheism rejects pantheism.
2. Panentheism rejects deism.
3. Panentheism rejects contra-naturalism.
4. Panentheism rejects body/soul dualism.
5. Panentheism rejects determinism.
6. Panentheism rejects radical individualism.
“What would you do if armed terrorists broke into your church and starting attacking your friends with automatic weapons in the middle of a worship service?
Would you be prepared to defend yourself and other innocents?
Would you be justified in doing so?
Is it time for Americans to consider such once-unthinkable possibilities?
There is one man in the world who can address these questions with first-hand experience.
His name is Charl van Wyck – a South African who was faced with just such a shocking scenario.
Continued below. Click on “Comments” if needed.
“In his first major initiative since becoming president, Wilson urged delegates to endorse a response to the 2004 Annual Council affirmation “that the seven days of the Creation account were literal 24-hour days forming a week identical in time to what we now experience as a week; and that the Flood was global in nature.”
Wilson also appealed to delegates to allow the General Conference to initiate a process to integrate the 2004 affirmation with the church’s current fundamental belief no. 6. This states that in “six days the Lord made ‘the heaven and the earth’ and all living things upon the earth and rested on the seventh day.” But the leadership now thinks it is too ambiguous on biblical origins.
The president said: “It is absolutely critical that we accept Scripture as it reads. Personally, and I know in the Seventh-day Adventist Church we believe, that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are not allegorical, not symbolic in some abstract way, but they represent an authentic, a true literal explanation of how God created this earth and also those events following creation, including a global flood of massive proportions.
Holding up a Bible he added: “We are facing a critical time. The devil is trying his best to undermine the very foundations of our beliefs that are derived from this Word.”
A succession of the denomination’s leading figures followed Wilson’s lead. Vice presidents Ella Simmons and Artur Stele, Ellen White Estate associate director Cindy Tutsch, and Adventist Review editor Bill Knott, all spoke strongly in favor of rewriting fundamental belief six.
Even Dan Jackson, newly elected president of the North American Division, who raised hopes in a press conference two days ago of a more tolerant approach to La Sierra University, which has been under fire for allegedly teaching evolution in science classes, said he was in “full agreement” with the change.
Ben Clausen of the Geoscience Research Institute said that Ted Wilson’s statement put science teachers in Adventist schools in an untenable position. Quoting from the statement, Dr. Clausen said that “it is impossible,” to teach students “scientifically rigorous exposure to and affirmation of our historic belief in a literal, recent six-day creation.”
He added: “There are no available models.”
With very little time set aside for debate and only a few delegates publicly opposing any modification of the church’s current statement on creation, the proposals easily cleared the floor
The process will now begin to rewrite fundamental belief 6, according to the protocol established at the last General Conference session for amending the church’s statement of fundamental beliefs. This requires that any such revision should be lodged with the General Conference at least two years before the following session.
Geraty was also responsible for drafting the original fundamental belief 6 when he taught at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary thirty years ago. He adds:
“I fear that the proposal will result in a more literalistic interpretation that will serve to exclude members who love the church, believe in the authority of the Bible, but interpret it in harmony with accepted standards of interpretation for God’s revelation in both nature and Scripture.” …”
Read More:
http://www.spectrummagazine.org/blog/2010/06/30/creation_devolves_politics
“Established in 1874, Battle Creek College had undergone some challenges in its leadership. In 1881, a new president was installed who was new to the Adventist church. A greater emphasis was placed on the study of both the classics and the sciences to the detriment of Biblical instruction.
During the summer of 1881, Ellen White wrote a testimony regarding the College to be publicly read at the Michigan Conference camp-meeting. Instead, the testimony was read at the even more public venue of the General Conference session in December of that year. Relevant portions of that testimony can be read at my earlier posted quote. (The full message can be found at Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, pp. 21-36.)
A main concern of Ellen White was the emphasis on the sciences at the expense of the Bible. She showed a special interest in maintaining a clear teaching on creation. “In God’s word alone,” she asserted, “we find an authentic account of creation” (5 Test., 25). She displayed a willingness to both publicly rebuke the leadership of the college and to warn church members of the problems at the College. “We can give,” she memorably warned, “no encouragement to parents to send their children to Battle Creek College” (5 Test., 21). She proposed that if the College was not returned to the Biblical-centered model, that the church should “sell it out to worldlings” and “establish another school” upon the “plan which God has specified” (5 Test., 25-26).
In light of the problems and the publicity regarding them, the College closed the following year. It was re-opened, however, on firmer scriptural foundations the following year. It flourished for a couple of decades, until once again it encountered problems with the handling of science in relation to the Bible. …”
More:
http://www.memorymeaningfaith.org/blog/2010/06/our-college-today-.html
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.
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.
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.
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!”
You are probably aware that some time ago the title of our Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide was “The Gospel, 1844, and Judgment.” Richard Rice wrote an article dealing with our unique Investigative Judgment doctrine, and he stated the following in his article:
This interpretation of the investigative judgment raises some important questions. For one thing, it does not explain why this review is conducted immediately before Christ’s return. Seventh- day Adventists believe that probation closes at death; there is no further opportunity to repent. But if a person’s eternal destiny is fixed at death, it is not clear why an endtime review is needed to establish the identity of the redeemed. This is something that could be determined throughout human history as individuals die.
In addition, this explanation of the investigative judgment does not indicate just who needs this review. The picture of God having to pore over books of record in order to find out who really belongs to him is unacceptable. It contradicts the attribute of perfect knowledge, the idea that God knows all there is to know immediately and intuitively. God doesn’t need records to find out anything. And perhaps more important, it conflicts with the belief that God enjoys a deep personal relationship with his human children. He knows who belongs to him. So we cannot explain this review as something God needs to discover who his loyal followers are …
Continued below. Click on “Comments” if needed.
Introduction
The question of origins is being debated right now like never before, and if we want to be able to understand the issues involved in this controversy, it is urgent that we become familiar with the question posed by the title of this posting: Who Wrote the Pentateuch? After all, the first five books of the Bible are the ones dealing with the question of origins, and the first one of them is the book of Genesis.
Tradition ascribes the authorship of the Pentateuch to Moses, but critics have raised serious questions that need to be analyzed if we want to have a correct understanding of this problem. I am currently reading the Bible one more time, and I have been highlighting certain passages that are pertinent to this question. I want to share with you my initial conclusions related to this hot topic.
Reasons Used to Support the Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch
I would like to start by citing a few reasons that are used to support the Mosaic authorship of the first five books of the Bible:
A. Evidence found in the Pentateuch itself.
B. Evidence from the Hebrew Scriptures.
B. Evidence from the Gospels.
C. Evidence from the Epistles.
D. Evidence from Jewish Tradition.
E. Evidence from the Church Fathers.
Continued below. Click on “Comments” if needed.