Fundamental Belief 1 questions

[JohnT]

Looking closely at the two official statements of the SDA church causes me concern. That is because they seem to have a lower opinion of Scripture than I do, and since that seems to be the case, it is easy for anyone holding a low opinion of Scripture to supplant Scripture with the writings of someone else, a person esteemed by a larger group.

Permit me to lay out my concern



Resolution on the Holy Bible

58th General Conference Session, St. Louis, Missouri, USA, July 1, 2005.
http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/statements/holy-bible.html

As delegates to the 2005 General Conference Session in St Louis, Missouri, we reaffirm the centrality of the Scriptures in the message and life of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. In them the beauty, love, and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ are revealed and offered to us as a gift of salvation through faith in His atoning sacrifice.

Through them God reveals Himself to us, conveying an authentic expression of His character, a true conception of the nature of reality, a reliable record of His acts, a revelation of His purpose, and an expression of His loving will for us. The Scriptures constitute our supreme rule of faith and practice and the standard by which all teaching and experience is to be tested. Their divine origin invests them with an authority and a message that is relevant to and transcends all cultures and can satisfy our deepest needs.


Given the unique nature and importance of the Scriptures and the manifold benefits their systematic study brings to the Church, we the delegates of the General Conference in Session appeal to all Seventh-day Adventist believers around the world to make intentional provision in their daily routine for regular, prayerful reading of the Scriptures. Moreover, because biblical truths are for the benefit of all, especially those who will come to Christ, we urge every believer to actively seek ways to share the message of the Scriptures with others in order to prepare the world for the soon coming of our Lord.
​

In both parts, any wording that gives rise to the idea that they believe in inerrancy of Scripture is omitted. The closest it gets is to use this phrase: a reliable record of His acts, a revelation of His purpose, and an expression of His loving will for us. But as you parse it out, you find it lacking.

The “reliability” of Scripture is truncated to mean only a history of what God has done, but it does not say that the books of histories and the historical statements in the books of the prophecies or Pentateuch are likewise reliable.

According to the statement, Scripture reveals the purpose of God. As far as it goes, that is correct, but who is it that determines the “purpose of God”? Whenever you look at history, and to cut to the chase, it is the group leader who’s his/her followers say is the one that determined the “purpose of God”. So in this one respect, there is little difference between Meno Simons, Sun Myung Moon and Ellen White because their adherents all say that leader knows the “purpose of God”.

In Galatians 3, Paul says,

“24Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. 26For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.”Jesus tells us the purpose of Scripture in John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Therefore, anyone identifying any other purpose of Scripture other than to point to Jesus Christ, alone distorts the intent of the Apostle, and the Son of God, Himself. The Bible is not a peace book. The Bible does not tell us that Jesus failed. The Bible is neither a rules book nor cookbook. The Bible speaks about Christ, and him crucified.

Peter tells us that God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to a saving knowledge of Christ (1Pe3:9 paraphrased) As is referred to in the previous paragraphs, it is not the will of God for anyone to follow the rules of anyone. No matter how well intentioned they may be, rules do not save anyone. Paul dismissed the rules as a schoolmaster for a child, only for a time, but not permanent. Galatians 3:25

But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. 26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Since the believer is the heir according to the PROMISE of Abraham, no rules are necessary. Thus, it is easy for anyone to see how far short this description falls in regard to the phrase, a reliable record of His acts, a revelation of His purpose, and an expression of His loving will for us.


The Fundamental Beliefs, as will likewise be seen are also another significant problem.

1. Holy Scriptures:
The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history.
​

Notice how the inerrancy of Scriptures is defined: HIS [GOD'S] WILL. That means that the histories are not infallible. The prophecies are not fallible the poetry and wisdom books are not infallible That is because the statement CLEARLY says that [only] God's will--whatever that may be, and whoever interprets it says God's will is.

There is no mention of the autographa being inerrant, but that was a hot topic in Evangelicalism since the Graf-Wellhausen theory of higher criticism first was published in the mid 1800s, so any omission of words that rule out this position leaves open the distinct possibility that the SDA church believes in some form of Graf-Wellhausen, and therefore the Bible is fallible, having errors in one or several matters.

I chose the OFFICIAL site and the OFFICIAL .statements because many "big eyes" saw it, and proof read the statements, and knew exactly both the meanings and implications of their words.. All I did was to parse them out.

In what way, using OFFICIAL SOURCES might the above analysis be wrong?

If the above analysis is not wrong, what might be some of the implications regarding the distinctive SDA doctrines?

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Numerous errors here. You say:

In Galatians 3, Paul says, Quote:
“24Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. 26For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.”Jesus tells us the purpose of Scripture in John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Therefore, anyone identifying any other purpose of Scripture other than to point to Jesus Christ, alone distorts the intent of the Apostle, and the Son of God, Himself. The Bible is not a peace book. The Bible does not tell us that Jesus failed. The Bible is neither a rules book nor cookbook. The Bible speaks about Christ, and him crucified.

Paul talked about the Law he was not referring to the Bible. Second it is a simple fact that not all of the Bible speaks about Christ. The book of Ruth is not about Christ nor are many of the stories such as Lot's daughters getting pregnant by their father. The purpose of the Scriptures is not limited to pointing to Christ. Some areas do some do not.

There is no mention of the autographa being inerrant, but that was a hot topic in Evangelicalism since the Graf-Wellhausen theory of higher criticism first was published in the mid 1800s, so any omission of words that rule out this position leaves open the distinct possibility that the SDA church believes in some form of Graf-Wellhausen, and therefore the Bible is fallible, having errors in one or several matters.

You mentioned inerrent a couple times and that is simply a purposed view that can never be established being that there are no autographa in existence. To claim that something that does not exist is without error is meaningless and without logic.

 

[JohnT]

Numerous errors here. You say:

Paul talked about the Law he was not referring to the Bible. Second it is a simple fact that not all of the Bible speaks about Christ. The book of Ruth is not about Christ nor are many of the stories such as Lot's daughters getting pregnant by their father. The purpose of the Scriptures is not limited to pointing to Christ. Some areas do some do not.

Perhaps you may be correct about the limited nature of what Paul was dealing with as part of the Galatian heresy. My point was that he made no qualms about the necessity of the entire law in the past, and I extended that to include the entire Torah writings, prophets, etc. BTW Ruth is about mercy, and via Ruth and Boaz came King Davis, Israel's greatest king

You mentioned inerrant a couple times and that is simply a purposed view that can never be established being that there are no autographa in existence. To claim that something that does not exist is without error is meaningless and without logic.

My point was NOT to debate if there is such a thing as inerrancy Doing so here may be considered as a FV, and it rightly belongs on another forum.

My point is that since the SDAs want to be considered on equal footing with other (mostly evangelical) churches, and tried to make application to one group, I have been told, that their refusal to apply the term inerrant to the entirety of Scripture, leaves a hole as large as the Grand Canyon through all sorts of non biblical things may come.

Since I will not debate inerrancy here, what is the take on this lack of its inclusion in the official SDA documents by the SDA community?

 

[reddogs]

Looking closely at the two official statements of the SDA church causes me concern. That is because they seem to have a lower opinion of Scripture than I do, and since that seems to be the case, it is easy for anyone holding a low opinion of Scripture to supplant Scripture with the writings of someone else, a person esteemed by a larger group.

Permit me to lay out my concern



Resolution on the Holy Bible

58th General Conference Session, St. Louis, Missouri, USA, July 1, 2005.
http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/statements/holy-bible.html

As delegates to the 2005 General Conference Session in St Louis, Missouri, we reaffirm the centrality of the Scriptures in the message and life of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. In them the beauty, love, and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ are revealed and offered to us as a gift of salvation through faith in His atoning sacrifice.​

Through them God reveals Himself to us, conveying an authentic expression of His character, a true conception of the nature of reality, a reliable record of His acts, a revelation of His purpose, and an expression of His loving will for us. The Scriptures constitute our supreme rule of faith and practice and the standard by which all teaching and experience is to be tested. Their divine origin invests them with an authority and a message that is relevant to and transcends all cultures and can satisfy our deepest needs.​

Given the unique nature and importance of the Scriptures and the manifold benefits their systematic study brings to the Church, we the delegates of the General Conference in Session appeal to all Seventh-day Adventist believers around the world to make intentional provision in their daily routine for regular, prayerful reading of the Scriptures. Moreover, because biblical truths are for the benefit of all, especially those who will come to Christ, we urge every believer to actively seek ways to share the message of the Scriptures with others in order to prepare the world for the soon coming of our Lord.​

In both parts, any wording that gives rise to the idea that they believe in inerrancy of Scripture is omitted. The closest it gets is to use this phrase: a reliable record of His acts, a revelation of His purpose, and an expression of His loving will for us. But as you parse it out, you find it lacking.

The “reliability” of Scripture is truncated to mean only a history of what God has done, but it does not say that the books of histories and the historical statements in the books of the prophecies or Pentateuch are likewise reliable.

According to the statement, Scripture reveals the purpose of God. As far as it goes, that is correct, but who is it that determines the “purpose of God”? Whenever you look at history, and to cut to the chase, it is the group leader who’s his/her followers say is the one that determined the “purpose of God”. So in this one respect, there is little difference between Meno Simons, Sun Myung Moon and Ellen White because their adherents all say that leader knows the “purpose of God”.

In Galatians 3, Paul says, Therefore, anyone identifying any other purpose of Scripture other than to point to Jesus Christ, alone distorts the intent of the Apostle, and the Son of God, Himself. The Bible is not a peace book. The Bible does not tell us that Jesus failed. The Bible is neither a rules book nor cookbook. The Bible speaks about Christ, and him crucified.

Peter tells us that God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to a saving knowledge of Christ (1Pe3:9 paraphrased) As is referred to in the previous paragraphs, it is not the will of God for anyone to follow the rules of anyone. No matter how well intentioned they may be, rules do not save anyone. Paul dismissed the rules as a schoolmaster for a child, only for a time, but not permanent. Galatians 3:25 Since the believer is the heir according to the PROMISE of Abraham, no rules are necessary. Thus, it is easy for anyone to see how far short this description falls in regard to the phrase, a reliable record of His acts, a revelation of His purpose, and an expression of His loving will for us.



The Fundamental Beliefs, as will likewise be seen are also another significant problem.

1. Holy Scriptures:​

The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history.​

Notice how the inerrancy of Scriptures is defined: HIS [GOD'S] WILL. That means that the histories are not infallible. The prophecies are not fallible the poetry and wisdom books are not infallible That is because the statement CLEARLY says that [only] God's will--whatever that may be, and whoever interprets it says God's will is.

There is no mention of the autographa being inerrant, but that was a hot topic in Evangelicalism since the Graf-Wellhausen theory of higher criticism first was published in the mid 1800s, so any omission of words that rule out this position leaves open the distinct possibility that the SDA church believes in some form of Graf-Wellhausen, and therefore the Bible is fallible, having errors in one or several matters.

I chose the OFFICIAL site and the OFFICIAL .statements because many "big eyes" saw it, and proof read the statements, and knew exactly both the meanings and implications of their words.. All I did was to parse them out.

In what way, using OFFICIAL SOURCES might the above analysis be wrong?

If the above analysis is not wrong, what might be some of the implications regarding the distinctive SDA doctrines?

You look at words and letters but still without the Holy Spirit and its understanding, thats all it is and the meaning Gods word brings is lost......

 

[Avonia]

You look at words and letters but still without the Holy Spirit and its understanding, thats all it is and the meaning Gods word brings is lost......

Red, you often mention the flow of the Holy Spirit in your life. What does this feel like to you?

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

[
My point is that since the SDAs want to be considered on equal footing with other (mostly evangelical) churches, and tried to make application to one group, I have been told, that their refusal to apply the term inerrant to the entirety of Scripture, leaves a hole as large as the Grand Canyon through all sorts of non biblical things may come.

I agree with the exclusion of inerrancy because it is an illogical position but I would say the reason that Adventists don't have it in the fundamental belief is because Ellen White has a famous quote which is pretty good about God inspiring the people who wrote the Bible with thoughts and not the very words. He inspired the penmen not the pen. In application since the inerrancy idea is so limited by being only of the original written material which does not even exist it is hardly worth dealing with other then to show that there are Christians who have thrown logic out the window.
I wrote a blog article on this issue at:
http://cafesda.blogspot.com

I am going to add this because it is from an interesting blog article on the subject. First I checked the Jewish Encyclopedia for anything on inerrancy and its variants. They have nothing so then I saw this in the comments sections which I think is representative of the Jewish belief and I think it expresses my idea as well.

They believe that everything in Torah is there to teach them something, and is where it is and what it is because God intended it. What they generally don’t do is measure that in terms of errors, contradictions, concordance with historical research, and so forth.
http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=1064

So the story of Ruth can have many wonderful uses but it is not about Jesus simply because Jesus is merciful. Even if there never was a Jesus the story would have meaning to humanity.

 

[NightEternal]

Excellent RC. Good article!

I started a thread on this very topic in the Prog area awhile back:

Inerrancy/Verbal Inspiration vs. Infallibility/Thought Inspiration


I am amazed that some Trads here are promoting the idea of inerrancy and verbal inspiration of the Bible. For a group that claims to stand fast solidly to all 28 of the fundamentals, this is especially incredible.

The official stand of the SDA church in regards to the Scriptures is thought inspiration and infallibility:

1. Holy Scriptures:
The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history. (2 Peter 1:20, 21; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Ps. 119:105; Prov. 30:5, 6; Isa. 8:20; John 17:17; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:12.)

Where is this fundamentalist idea of inerrancy coming from? This idea that the Bible contains no mistakes and is free from human error is a relatively new one for me, as I have never encountered it in the local church setting anywhere. I have stumbled across it only on ultra-conservative, fanatical websites and here.

This is the book that set the tone for me in this area and I have not looked back since in 20+ years:

http://www.amazon.com/Inspiration-Ha...5060489&sr=8-1

God inspired the men of the Bible to write what they did. This process did not involve removing the personality and characters of the writers or the fallible human filter of the authors. Culture, influence and personal ideals all played a role in each writer's contributions. They were God's penmen not God's pen.

Being infallible in matters of faith and salvation (which the Bible is) does not equate inerrancy by a longshot. Scripture is trustworthy and that fact is not affected at all just because the Bible is not inerrant.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=40718359#post40718359

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Well the inerrancy part is really common, a couple weeks ago I was sick and stayed home from Sabbath school and thought I would check out churches websites around town. I would say about half of them had a statement on inerrancy as part of their beliefs. This related to the idea that there was so many choices if one left the Adventist church. At least for me that is not true I would just be leaving one church with problems for another church with problems.

We often think that there is something better just over the fence when what is there may be different but not always all that different. Is the IJ worse then the manifestation of speaking in tongues is necessary because it shows the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I am not sure, I can manipulate myself into speaking gibberish so I could pass the test but it is fake, is that really all that different from accepting the fake IJ. Neither one really does anything just makes people feel better about their denomination.

 

[Jimlarmore]

The Bible is a compilation/anthology of 66 books. It was written over a 1500 year period by several authors, nearly all of which were of the descendents of Abraham/Jacob/Israel.

In some cases the Bible is the exact words of God given directly to holy men of God to write down. In some cases the words were thought inspired words that were to be placed in written form. Some times God spoke to men in dreams. The canonized books of the OT are all the inspired word of God in my opinion as are the correct form of the new testament manuscripts. Is the Bible innerrent? I don't think so. Not because of any thing God has done but because it has had to come thru the hands of mortal inperfect man.

God Bless

Jim Larmore

 

[JohnT]

You look at words and letters but still without the Holy Spirit and its understanding, thats all it is and the meaning Gods word brings is lost......

Am I to assume from YOUR WORDS that meaning if written words is determined apart from the denotative meaning and context?

Can you not see how preposterous this concept is?


"Twas brillig, and all the slovey toves did gyre and gimbel in the wabes..." from Jabberwocky, by Lewis Carroll

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Am I to assume from YOUR WORDS that meaning if written words is determined apart from the denotative meaning and context?

Can you not see how preposterous this concept is?


"Twas brillig, and all the slovey toves did gyre and gimbel in the wabes..." from Jabberwocky, by Lewis Carroll

Yes it is jabberwocky but it is typical Red.

 

[JohnT]

Yes it is jabberwocky but it is typical Red.

Seems as if running away from issues may also be typical Red

It may also be typical of those who by their refusal to deal with issues, and rationally discuss something; they run and hide when challenged

"Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up."

 

[JohnT]

Feb. 11, 1978, Sabbath School-Quarterly, teacher's Edition, p. 112

DISCUSSION: Is inspired writing inerrant if its writers are fallible?

"The Bible and the writings of Ellen White are inerrant. But a further question needs to be asked: Inerrant in what sense? Might different dates appear in different manuscripts, for example? The Bible is not a scientific textbook; its writers didn't -- in the main -- concern themselves with ever-changing scientific investigations and theories

Its first work is with the heart. It puts man in touch with God, creature with Creator, and here is precisely where its absolute trustworthiness lies. It tells the truth about God and the plan God has to redeem a fallen race....

Merriam-Webster says:

inerrant
Main Entry:in·er·rant Pronunciation: \-ənt\ Function:adjective Etymology:Latin inerrant-, inerrans, from in- + errant-, errans, present participle of errare to errDate:1837 : free from error



Notice how they make jabberwocky of the word, then redefine it, in order to maintain the fiction that Ellen is inerrant.

Do you think that the average person would go all the difficulty of reading the neo-SDA definition of the word "inerrant"?

Below is the accepted definition of Inerrant as it pertains to the Bible



I. SUMMARY STATEMENT


1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself.

2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: It is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms; obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.

3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.

4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.

5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited of disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.

II. ARTICLES OF AFFIRMATION AND DENIAL


Article I.
We affirm that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God.

We deny that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, tradition, or any other human source.

Article II.
We affirm that the Scriptures are the supreme written norm by which God binds the conscience, and that the authority of the Church is subordinate to that of Scripture.

We deny that church creeds, councils, or declarations have authority greater than or equal to the authority of the Bible.

Article III.
We affirm that the written Word in its entirety is revelation given by God.

We deny that the Bible is merely a witness to revelation, or only becomes revelation in encounter, or depends on the responses of men for its validity.

Article IV.
We affirm that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means of revelation.

We deny that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God's work of inspiration.

Article V.
We affirm that God's revelation in the Holy Scriptures was progressive.

We deny that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it.

We further deny that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings.

Article VI.
We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration.

We deny that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole.

Article VII.
We affirm that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us.

We deny that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind.

Article VIII.
We affirm that God in His work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared.

We deny that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.

Article IX.
We affirm that inspiration, through not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write.

We deny that the finitude or falseness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God's Word.

Article X.
We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

Article XI.
We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.

We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished but not separated.

Article XII.
We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.

We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

Article XIII.
We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.

We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

Article XIV.
We affirm the unity and internal consistency of Scripture.

We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved violate the truth claims of the Bible.

Article XV.
We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy is grounded in the teaching of the Bible about inspiration.

We deny that Jesus' teaching about Scripture may be dismissed by appeals to accommodation or to any natural limitation of His humanity.

Article XVI.
We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church's faith throughout its history.

We deny that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism.

Article XVII.
We affirm that the Holy Spirit bears witness to the Scriptures, assuring believers of the truthfulness of God's written Word.

We deny that this witness of the Holy Spirit operates in isolation from or against Scripture.

Article XVIII.
We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.

We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads or relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims of authorship.

Article XIX.
We affirm that a confession of the full authority, infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith. We further affirm that such confession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ.

We deny that such confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences, both to the individual and to the Church.



BTW Thanks to David Conlkin's post on CARM for the quote.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.

One of the good things about Adventism is that it has got passed that silly fundamentalist notion of verbal inspiration.

 

[JohnT]

.

Calling something "silly"may dismiss it in the mind of some people, but it does not substitute for a logical and systematic study on the truth or untruth of the statement in question.

 

[BobRyan]

Short lived thread -- but a comment is due here at long last.

John T
The Fundamental Beliefs, as will likewise be seen are also another significant problem.

1. Holy Scriptures:
The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history.
​

Notice how the inerrancy of Scriptures is defined: HIS [GOD'S] WILL. That means that the histories are not infallible. The prophecies are not fallible the poetry and wisdom books are not infallible That is because the statement CLEARLY says that [only] God's will--whatever that may be, and whoever interprets it says God's will is.

What the reader immediately notices is the contrast between your spin on FB#1 vs what it actually says.

What FB#1 says is that scripture is the rule or judge for all doctrine.

We see an example of this in Acts 17:11 for example "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul WERE SO".

John you have spun "trustworthy record of God's acts in history" into "histories are not infallible". Recall that SDAs are the ones who insist that Gen 1-2:3 is a LITERAL 7 day week as a denominational doctrinal statement. Baptists do not do that. Methodists do not do that. Presbyterians do not do that... The result is that the SDA position on the literal trustworthy nature of the Bible text is equal to or superior to those that call themselves conservative or fundamentalists when it comes to creation.

The same can be said of fiery hell where God "destroys BOTH body and soul in fiery hell" Matt 10:28. Here again SDAs take a VERY literal view of that.

The same can be said of Rev 14:10 where the wicked are "tormented with fire and brimstone IN THE PRESENCE of the Lamb and of His Holy ones" the SDA position takes a much more literal view of that than do the denominations listed above.

The same can be said of Jude speaking of the fact that "cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are examples of undergoing the Punishment of Eternal Fire" -- there again - the SDA position is a much more literal position on that topic.

The same can be said of 1Thess 4 "Regarding those who have fallen asleep... the DEAD in Christ will rise FIRST" -- SDAs take a much more literal view of that topic.

And I for one -- find that very interesting.

Secondly you insert doubt about prophecy where no doubt is mentioned at all in the text.

Thirdly you take "INFALLIBLE revelation of God's Will" and spin it around to "God's Will -- whatever that may be" idea where the text above in no way requires the reader to engage in such an abuse of the text.

Bottom line is - you have to WANT to get that spin -- before you come to the text. So how in the world can your POV be seen as a problem for those who are simply willing to read the text of FB#1 for what it says?

More importantly - the SDA church has placed the full weight of it's doctrinal argument on a sola-scriptura basis by the wording of FB#1. Ideally a non-SDA SHOULD consider this "A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY" to make an actual point "sola scriptura" rather than complaining about it.

So I find your objection to this well established Protestant principle more than a little puzzling.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Far beit from me to critique your approach here - but if I were the one coming to some other denomination to make some helpful suggestions -- I don't think it would start with an attack on their "sola scriptura" foundational doctrine. RATHER my approach would be "say -- your FB#1 SAYS all doctrine must be established or tested sola scriptura... so since that is the case what about FB#xyz?? What is the sola scriptura case for that one??"

You would "think" this would be the more enlightened approach.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[mva1985]

Short lived thread -- but a comment is due here at long last.



What the reader immediately notices is the contrast between your spin on FB#1 vs what it actually says.

What FB#1 says is that scripture is the rule or judge for all doctrine.

We see an example of this in Acts 17:11 for example "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul WERE SO".

John you have spun "trustworthy record of God's acts in history" into "histories are not infallible". Recall that SDAs are the ones who insist that Gen 1-2:3 is a LITERAL 7 day week as a denominational doctrinal statement. Baptists do not do that. Methodists do not do that. Presbyterians do not do that... The result is that the SDA position on the literal trustworthy nature of the Bible text is equal to or superior to those that call themselves conservative or fundamentalists when it comes to creation.

The same can be said of fiery hell where God "destroys BOTH body and soul in fiery hell" Matt 10:28. Here again SDAs take a VERY literal view of that.

The same can be said of Rev 14:10 where the wicked are "tormented with fire and brimstone IN THE PRESENCE of the Lamb and of His Holy ones" the SDA position takes a much more literal view of that than do the denominations listed above.

The same can be said of Jude speaking of the fact that "cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are examples of undergoing the Punishment of Eternal Fire" -- there again - the SDA position is a much more literal position on that topic.

The same can be said of 1Thess 4 "Regarding those who have fallen asleep... the DEAD in Christ will rise FIRST" -- SDAs take a much more literal view of that topic.

And I for one -- find that very interesting.

Secondly you insert doubt about prophecy where no doubt is mentioned at all in the text.

Thirdly you take "INFALLIBLE revelation of God's Will" and spin it around to "God's Will -- whatever that may be" idea where the text above in no way requires the reader to engage in such an abuse of the text.

Bottom line is - you have to WANT to get that spin -- before you come to the text. So how in the world can your POV be seen as a problem for those who are simply willing to read the text of FB#1 for what it says?

More importantly - the SDA church has placed the full weight of it's doctrinal argument on a sola-scriptura basis by the wording of FB#1. Ideally a non-SDA SHOULD consider this "A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY" to make an actual point "sola scriptura" rather than complaining about it.

So I find your objection to this well established Protestant principle more than a little puzzling.

in Christ,

Bob

+1

 

[BobRyan]

Thanks! I notice that a consistent pattern of response is developing whenever we come back with "more Bible please" as our answer to non-Bible accusations.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[JohnT]

Thanks! I notice that a consistent pattern of response is developing whenever we come back with "more Bible please" as our answer to non-Bible accusations.

in Christ, Bob

If you truly want to discuss, start a thread in the Progressive section. This is a "safe haven" and if I post anything here contrary to the 28 FBs, I get sanctioned