Oh my goodness....Adventists recognized on Leno.

Jay must have skewered that. The SDA church knows how to court embarassment and controversy for some reason.

Part of me is curious to hear what Leno said, the other part feels I might cringe.

One other point about Job: (and about Satan). Satan gets surprisingly very little “press” in the Bible. But there does seem to be a progression of sorts in that he is revealed to a greater degree as the Bible moves forward in time. One example is the account of David’s numbering the people. The account in 2 Samuel 24 has God inciting David to number the people, while the later account in 1 Chronicles 21 has Satan inciting David. One perspective on the different treatments in these texts is that in the earlier time period, when the Samuel-Kings series was written, it was assumed that everything that occured was as a direct result of God’s action. Later on, Satan’s role came to be more understood. So as time goes on in the Bible, there is a greater awareness of Satan’s activity. In the earlier eras, the Bible writers may have been inspired to attribute everything to God as a way of lessening the fear of the people of Satan or discouraging a belief in other gods. Mind you, I’m not reciting dogma here, just some thoughts. So, one way of understanding God’s response to Job is meeting Job where he was without an understanding of “the great controversy” so to speak between God and Satan--which in fact appears to be the case since God doesn’t at all relate to Job the reason why or the source of Job’s troubles.

Guibox, you quoted Cottrell saying “It was present truth following the great disappointment on Oct. 1844. It is not present truth in the year of our Lord 2002.”
Though I appreciated Cottrell’s bravery however late it came, my reply is “ It NEVER was truth. It goes against what the bible teaches.
You also said “look at the phenominal advances.” I say, so what,brother Guibox! Look at the countless organizations out there, they do good work. There are many institutions around the world that do good work insomuch that if ADRA or the other things you are thinking about did not exist, it would not really make any difference. They are just a blimp on the radar anyway. These institutions are only BIG in the SDA world.

The truth of the “non biblical Investigative Judgement” is that the prophecy has been fulfilled as recorded in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Haggai, Zechariah, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther (the so-called book of the beauty pageant). But people would rather believe their “college educated” ministers who are too proud to simply accept Jesus and his word.
“1844 made simple” seems to have a better ring for SDAs than the “thus saith the Lord.” Job 32:9 says that “great men are not always wise; neither do the aged understand judgemant.”
Guibox, it appears as though you are repeating the process again. There is no significance to the date 1844 except in the minds of people who refuse to listen to the word of God.
So God has done with them as he did with the disobedient Israelites when he said “make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be cinverted, and be healed.Isaiah 6:10, or as the verse which says, “For
this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are
dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest
at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart and should be converted, and I should heal them. Matthew 13:15. Also John 12:40; Acts 28:27.

Jesus did say , and I have quoted before,"I am come in my Father’s name , and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him shall ye receive.How can ye believe which receive honour one of another, and sek not the honour that cometh from God only?” John 5:43,44.

When Jesus cried out loudly and gave up the ghost, the veil of the temple was “rent in twain,” and in the same way, the veil needs to be “rent” from the Adventist eyes. It is almost like the chief priests who mocked along with the elders and the scribes saying, “let him come down from the cross, and we will believe him. He trusted in God: let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said I am the son of God.” Matthew 27: 42,43.

I see here a consistent belief in a woman who professed to be “more than a prophet” and a set of people who would rather believe her words, than the biblical account breathed by God himself.
A simple scripture comes to mind. Jesus said “there is nothing from without a man that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, these are they that defile the man. If any man have ears to hear, let him hear… Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; because it entereth NOT into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught,purging all meats...that which cometh out of the man, defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteires, fornication...All these come from within, and defile the man. Could anything be plainer? Paul reiterates this as well, but it appears as though Paul is suspect as far as some in Adventism are concerned, nevertheless, he is part of the cannon.
But the “prophet” (who knows better than Jesus??)said this is not so. So who do SDAs listen to? There is a big deal about “fleshy” things instead of “spiritual” things.

If you say you do not believe the Daniel 8 explaination as the SDA church does, what do you believe?

Greg, great thread on Job. I was scared to say that, since I don’t want to be the “non- thinker” here! smile

Posted anonymously by: Anonymous

Wow, what an interesting thread, as all have been recently. Greg, even the Leno picture showed up nicely on my new cell phone toy. It just won’t allow me to log in.

Greg, I was truly blessed by the Augustine quote. The principle of biblical interpretation is timeless, and to think he wrote that in 300 or so AD.

Stan Ermshar

[quote author="Phen B"]You also said “look at the phenominal advances.” I say, so what,brother Guibox! Look at the countless organizations out there, they do good work. There are many institutions around the world that do good work insomuch that if ADRA or the other things you are thinking about did not exist, it would not really make any difference.

Well, I guess we will have to disagree. I believe that such comments are merely a way to explain away the need or usefulness of the SDA church. I believe that many people out there whose lives were touched by the SDA church would disagree as well. I believe the same reasoning could also apply if the Salvation Army Church didn’t exist.
I’m sure the Catholic Church could say the same thing you are about Protestantism in general.

[quote author="Phen B"]But people would rather believe their “college educated” ministers who are too proud to simply accept Jesus and his word..

My friend, the same reasoning applies to Sunday worship eternal torment, and the immortality of the soul. However, just like many SDAs, some feel that these are biblical and have come to the conclusions they have without any ‘scholars’ simply from studying the Bible even though you could convince me that the pre-advent judgment is more biblical before I could ever believe the Bible teaches that my soul goes to heaven at death.

We must be careful not to be the kettle calling the pot black.

[quote author="Phen B"]There is no significance to the date 1844 except in the minds of people who refuse to listen to the word of God.

Then you missed the point Cottrell was trying to make.

[quote author="Phen B"]I see here a consistent belief in a woman who professed to be “more than a prophet” and a set of people who would rather believe her words, than the biblical account breathed by God himself.

Such generalizations lack serious credibility, Phen. I’m not even going to bother responding to that.

[quote author="Phen B"]A simple scripture comes to mind. Jesus said “there is nothing from without a man that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, these are they that defile the man. If any man have ears to hear, let him hear… Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; because it entereth NOT into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught,purging all meats...that which cometh out of the man, defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteires, fornication...All these come from within, and defile the man. Could anything be plainer? Paul reiterates this as well, but it appears as though Paul is suspect as far as some in Adventism are concerned, nevertheless, he is part of the cannon.
But the “prophet” (who knows better than Jesus??)said this is not so. So who do SDAs listen to? There is a big deal about “fleshy” things instead of “spiritual” things.

If you are speaking about clean and unclean meats, it is pretty easy to simply take what you read at face value without considering context and culture. By your reasoning, you should determine without question that Paul was a Sabbath keeper based on Acts 13:42-44 and Acts 16:13.

Of course New Covenant followers always have a logical explanation why this isn’t so. However, SDAs are not given the same exegetical lee-way to ‘explain it away’.

Perhaps this is the problem some SDAs have with Paul. It is the constant abuse and seemingly ‘EGW worship’ that is given to Paul, and like those who ‘follow EGW’, many people take whatever Paul says that fits their happy theological paradigm to lord it over others while ignoring contradictions or context. Paul, like EGW, is used to ‘prove’ the point. Like EGW, I’m sure Paul would shake his head at this abusive methodology of his writings were he alive today.

[quote author="Phen B"]If you say you do not believe the Daniel 8 explaination as the SDA church does, what do you believe?

I believe that the 2300 days are part of the last jubilee week of the Messiah’s life. Daniel 8:1-14 is explained and fulfilled in Daniel 9:24-26. It is a prophecy that is fulfilled in the 70 weeks of Daniel 9.

The incredibly lengthy and mind-numbingly scholarly paper by Lee F Greer below is one of the best explanations I have ever encountered.

The OT prophecies are ALL about Jesus.

http://www.jesusinstituteforum.org/LAPart1.html

Well Guibox,
Thank you, At least I’ve finally got some answers from you. We can say that for the organizations you mentioned, but we are talking about Adventism as per the Investigative Judgement and how the SDA organization started. It is almost like the round about arguments given when people say that the SDA church should not promote the “clear word bible.”
People argue that “it’s not a bible.” Then they say “anyone has a right to write a commentary if they want.” Next they say, “well other churches did the same thing so why can’t the SDA church.” Next they say “it is not an “official” SDA bible.” So the wheel goes round and round.
I know we are not talking about that “infamous commentary/bible here. But there must be some substantive answer about things of this nature. 
Brother, I will reread the Cottrell post so I get what Cottrell was really saying. I have no problem with that.
I wonder who else would you recommend people quote in the New Testament beside Paul since he wrote most of it. As I said previously, Paul is a part of the canon.
Ellen White is not. God breathed all of the Bible, can you tell me what part of the “SOP” is God breathed?
Notice that I quoted Matthew, John, Acts as well, so I have no real bias as far as Paul is concerned. I worship Jesus Christ.
And some SDAs do have a problem with Paul,and there are a lot of contradictions? Interesting!
I once read a newsletter by one of your “favorite” authors saying the same thing. All about the contradictions in Paul’s writings and how he should have refrained from saying some of the things he said.
I see you have not taken up my challenge from a few posts ago. Reading the bible alone. See if you feel the same way after a few months or so. You might be surprised!
Thank you Jesus, your word does open our eyes!

Phen,

Do you know me? How can you figure that I have not come to conclusions that I have based on the Bible? Where do you get the right to tell me this?

I see you have not taken up my challenge from a few posts ago. Reading the bible alone.

Why do so many formers insist on stampeding to the conclusion that all SDAs suckled on the theological breast of Ellen White? (oh, my, I even surprised myself with that bit of poetic analogy )

I guess I came up with my take on Daniel 8 by reading Ellen White, right?

I’m assuming that when you say “favorite” (which being put in quotations like that comes across to be taken as a bit of sarcasm) you mean Bacchiocchi? Dr. B is not one of my “favorite” authors,Phen. I don’t have a favorite author and there is MUCH that I disagree with Bacchiocchi on.

My friend, please don’t start sounding like some of those on other former-Adventist forums who have nothing better to do but slam the SDA church using ‘Hallelujah, Jesus I’ve seen the light, too bad no SDA has’ rhetoric that merely comes across as bitter and irrational. It almost seems that you are becoming a little overzealous here. Don’t let that cloud your reason and judgment, as up until this point, I’ve enjoyed your posts.

I don’t recall saying that Paul contradicted himself. What I’m saying is that the way many take Paul ‘at his word’ don’t understand that sometimes there are contradictions that are created.  Hence the problem lies not with Paul, but those who seem to think that they are personal scribes of Paul who know it all.

Thank-you Guibox for making my evening. I will have to refrain from reading 4TG while eating my supper.

...."suckled on the theological breast of Ellen White”, almost caused my Big Frank supper to end up on my computer screen. I have to say of all the Guiboxian rhetoric I have read over the last couple of years, I didn’t think it could be topped. Thank-you my friend for proving me wrong.

Your friend and fellow seeker, and on occasion, considered an, at least semi-rabid former, moderately EGW bashing, or at least denying, Evangelical Babylonian,....

RG

Guibox, you do not know me either. I am not becoming overzealous. Things like this don’t go to my head.
All I have written here is in the spirit of Christ.
You have a problem with “formers” which comes out time and again. I will not allow you to draw me into your definition of a “former.”
I recall a few posts back where you were not exactly kind in your remarks and I did not retaliate. I appreciate the owners of this site allowing me to post here.
So please let us discuss without the personal attacks. If you disagree with me that is your perogative. I have not attacked you in any way.

Phen,

Very well...peace.

I promise not to let my disdain for SOME formers come out where I generalize too much if you refrain from letting any rabid-EGW sentiment overshadow reason. I apologize as well if I made some negative comments toward you. I was not trying in the least and perhaps in cyberspace what I was trying to portray got miscommunicated.

Randy,

Sorry for almost causing Cheri to have to perform the Heimlick maneuver on you. Glad I could make your day, however.

Barnhouse and Martin were both candid and correct when they commented that the concept of an investigative judgment was born in a “corn field”. At the moment that Christ’s flesh was torn at that moment the veil in the Temple was also torn. At that moment, time became eternity once again. In 1844 the concept of something significant happening on Oct. 22, 1844 was a great comfort to a very few of those disappointed. Careful exegesis has proved it was also a false assumption. Who can fault those precious souls in Portland Maine? Who can defend those who defend such a false doctrine today? The blame should not fall so heavily on E.G.White, Joseph Bates et al.  The blame should fall on
institutional leaders who have elected to protect the institution rather than the Truth. The question remains.  There are many good Christian believers who cling to IJ. How does one demolish a cherished belief without destroying their entire faith? Therefore, Seventh-day Adventists are my Christian brothers and sisters.  The Seventh-day Adventist belief system is seriously faulted. But then again, some dear friends don’t agree with me on a lot of issues, Arminianism for one.  The Deacon. 

I was out of commission last evening and it looks like I missed a spirited discussion.  As with the Arminian vs. Calvinism debate, I hope we can interact with the ideas being presented without taking things personally.  If we acknowledge that what binds us together as Christians is Jesus Christ and the gospel, much of the other issues will begin to pale in comparison.

Guibox, you indicated that many former Adventists have abused Paul’s writings in much the same way that historic Adventists abuse the writings of Ellen White.  I’d be interested to hear some examples of this and the contradictions you have seen that come out of this.  As Phen said, the writings of Paul are part of the canon and were considered Scripture even by the apostle Peter (2 Peter 3:15-16).  Ellen White claimed divine authority for her writings as well, saying that “not one heretical sentence” was found in the testimonies and that they were “precious rays of light from the throne”.  She identified herself as “more than a prophet”.  When subjected to critical analysis, the writings of Paul have withstood the test of time while the writings of Ellen White have not.  We should be careful, therefore, in equating the use or misuse of these two writers as if they are cut from the same theological cloth.

Let me repeat–Christians are united by Jesus Christ and his gospel, not by any modern-day prophet or devotional writer.  When discussing theology and specifically the theological teachings of Adventism, the life and writings of Ellen White are germane to the discussion.  If she is somehow “off limits,” the message is sent that her writings are indeed more important than we’d like to admit.  Conversely, many people make a career out of dissecting apart what she wrote, and if this is what you’re referring to, I agree this can become an all-consuming proposition.  But let’s not draw a line in the sand at Ellen White.  You are free to criticize whatever I say and show me from the Bible where I am wrong.  Please extend this courtesy to others when it comes to the truth claims made by Ellen White.

Guibox, I wonder what your thoughts are on the quote from Saint Augustine I posted yesterday?  The study of Daniel 8:14 has taken the Adventist church on a significant theological detour, as I believe you have acknowledged.  It is odd that we spend so much time trying to come up with an alternative framework where Daniel 8:14 can still have a significance to Adventists that remains hidden to other Christians, as if we need to justify the “special truths” of Adventism while simultaneously admitting that the Adventist pioneers were wrong.  I see a severe reluctance on the part of some Adventists to take those plainer parts of Scripture as the “main thing” and to use them in interpreting the obscure parts.  For goodness sake, an entire quarter-year was recently consumed in Sabbath School by the study of the sanctuary doctrine!  No wonder some Christians conclude that Adventism majors in the minors.  The reluctance by Adventists to embrace the majors may be seen as becoming too much like the “nominal Christians,” (or Babylon) but this 19th century idea is worn out, don’t you think?  Nowadays when truth is something to be played with and created to fit one’s preconceived notions, the most revolutionary thing any Adventist can do is to take a stand for the historic Christian faith, not look for ways to differentiate himself from other Christians based on obscure Old Testament passages and the writings of Ellen White.

Deacon, I understand your heart for Adventists and your willingness to walk in the shoes of the disappointed Millerites.  Of course they were looking for ways to avoid returning in shame to their Protestant denominations and this set the stage for an alternative explanation for what happened in 1844.  It’s interesting that O.R.L. Crosier, who published Hiram Edson’s cornfield vision, later repudiated the entire thing.  William Miller had even more reason than the Adventists to look for alternative explanations for the Great Disappointment, but he was honest enough to admit his mistakes and did not lend his credibility to the Advent movement.  It is therefore difficult to rationalize the behavior of Ellen and James White, Joseph Bates and the others who believed they needed to create something new out of their little group.  It is difficult to understand Ellen White’s accusation against Protestant ministers that they had “the blood of souls on their hands” because they did not follow with the Adventists.  It is difficult to understand how she could have had a vision where God showed her that the door of salvation was shut for non-Adventists.  I understand the desire to let bygones be bygones, but I still wonder how we can reconcile Ellen White’s claim for divine inspiration when then results were so contrary to the plain words of Scripture.  Like you, though, I consider Adventists my brothers and sisters and I do not wish to use my precious faith in Jesus Christ as a weapon to show them how dumb they are.  True Christian faith humbles the one who has been converted.  The truth can be spoken in love without “destroying the faith” of a brother or sister.  As Paul said, “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.” (1 Corinthians 13:1).

Greg

Greg

I agree with your position on the doctrine and upon the good people who are taken it by it. It seems to me that the heaviest burden falls upon fourth and fifty generation of apologists of the IJ In the words of E.G.White they very well could have “blood on their hands”. The Investigative Judgement and its corollary “The Final Generation” has “doomed” many sensitive souls.  I like J. B. Phillips little book Your God is Too Small, particularly his chapter entitled Absolute Perfection and the God of one hundred percent. His final sentence in that chapter reads: “ God is truly Perfection, but He is no Perfectionist, and one hundred per cent is not God.” What began is a face saving venture has become a demon of the first magnitude haunting sincere hearts and minds around the globe. 

I realize we’ve probably covered this ground before, but I don’t recall what the answer was, so I’ll raise it again:

What are we to make of the verses that indicate our facing some sort of judgment, investigative, pre-advent, executive, or otherwise, like “for we must all appear before the Judgment seat of Christ...” (II Corinthians 5:10); “judgment must begin at the house of God” (1 Peter 4:17--in context a reference to trials and persecution); Matthew 12:34-37 “giving account of every careless word” etc.

In sum, how should we understand the many Biblical references to judgment, particularly when the context in many of them would indicate that it is believers, not just unbelievers, who face it?

[quote author="Greg"]

Guibox, you indicated that many former Adventists have abused Paul’s writings in much the same way that historic Adventists abuse the writings of Ellen White.  I’d be interested to hear some examples of this and the contradictions you have seen that come out of this.

Of course all of this will be subject to interpretation and most likely you will not agree with me but I feel that taking Romans 14 to speak against the Sabbath and eating unclean foods in a gross misapplication of what Paul was dealing with. A modern day application would not be whether to worship on Sabbath or not, but a message to those ultra-vegans who are judging people’s spirituality on whether they can give up meat and dairy instead of eating tofu and soy milk.

I believe that claiming that 2 Corinthians 5:8 is speaking of my soul going to heaven contradicts the myriad of scriptures that show that eternal life doesn’t occur in the form of a disembodied soul and that eternal life in any form is only realized at the resurrection.

I believe that interpreting Paul’s views on the law to mean that ‘the 10 commandments are done away’ contradicts Paul’s words ‘the law is holy just and good’ and many places where Paul upholds the law as a guide to righteousness and a standard of obedience out of love.

I believe that trying to prove Acts 20:7 is an example of early apostolic Sunday observance is without contextual and exegetical support and ignores the situation as to why they were meeting and that according to Acts 2:46 they met daily and whenever they could to ‘break bread’.

These are just a few examples.

[quote author="Greg"]Ellen White claimed divine authority for her writings as well, saying that “not one heretical sentence” was found in the testimonies and that they were “precious rays of light from the throne”.

Perhaps we need to find out what EGW deemed as ‘heresy’. She also said that she was not infallible and that if anything in her writings disagreed with the Bible, to ‘throw Sister White out’. These would be strange things to say if she indeed interpreted exegetical error as ‘not one heretical sentence’. Does she deny the deity of Christ? Does she deny the sacrifice of Christ and the place of the God head? Perhaps the heavier matters are what she was referring to and not whether her prophetic interpretation was tried, true and blue.

[quote author="Greg"] When subjected to critical analysis, the writings of Paul have withstood the test of time while the writings of Ellen White have not.  We should be careful, therefore, in equating the use or misuse of these two writers as if they are cut from the same theological cloth.

I’m not saying they are cut from the same theological cloth. What I’m saying is, is that those who avidly follow them and their writings equally abuse them. I didn’t say they treat them the same way.

And the problem is not whether Paul’s writings have withstood the test of time, it is why there are umpteenth different interpretations of umpteenth passages of Paul’s writings?

[quote author="Greg"]Guibox, I wonder what your thoughts are on the quote from Saint Augustine I posted yesterday?....I see a severe reluctance on the part of some Adventists to take those plainer parts of Scripture as the “main thing” and to use them in interpreting the obscure parts.
Greg

I agree with Augustine, however I see clear examples where he and many Christians today don’t follow his advice in ‘letting the clear passages explain the obscure’. Eternal torment and immortality of the soul are crystal clear examples of this. IMO, the solid doctrines of the SDA church have come about by ‘seeing the main thing’ and using them to interpret the obscure parts. In all my theological wranglings I have experienced ridicule and mockery for following this process and coming to the conclusions I have.

Some people (like SDAs) do NOT want to be told that what they grew up believing is faulty and that they have been taught what they know in some areas due to NOT allowing the clear passages to explain the obscure.

The problem is everybody thinks they have the monopoly on biblical exegesis and truth.