Important Doctrines and Inerrancy: An Axiom

[sentipente]

RND, you cannot separate the GC from the Adventist church. The fact that you were not aware of the governance structure of the church before you joined it does not change the facts.

There is no reason to give the impression that Pythons is going off topic. You are the one who introduced the NADGC into the discussion.

 

[RND]

RND, you cannot separate the GC from the Adventist church. The fact that you were not aware of the governance structure of the church before you joined it does not change the facts.

Let's see if I can come up with an example that you might understand senti. You deny a number of Biblical truths that Adventist's believe in, such as baptism. You do not follow the obvious teaching of Adventitism.

15. Baptism:
By baptism we confess our faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and testify of our death to sin and of our purpose to walk in newness of life. Thus we acknowledge Christ as Lord and Saviour, become His people, and are received as members by His church. Baptism is a symbol of our union with Christ, the forgiveness of our sins, and our reception of the Holy Spirit. It is by immersion in water and is contingent on an affirmation of faith in Jesus and evidence of repentance of sin. It follows instruction in the Holy Scriptures and acceptance of their teachings. (Rom. 6:1-6; Col. 2:12, 13; Acts 16:30-33; 22:16; 2:38; Matt. 28:19, 20.)

Has the GC come knockin' yet? Of course not.

 

[sentipente]

RND, all that proves is that you may not be a traditional Adventist as defined in this forum.

 

[RND]

RND, all that proves is that you may not be a traditional Adventist as defined in this forum.

Senti, all that proves is to be an Adventist means you don't have to accept every teaching that the NADGC offers, which, if you review this post, is what I said and what I meant.

You are arguing in favor of the point I'm making. Thanks.

 

[sentipente]

That was a smokescreen you raised to avoid the truth of post #45. You presently hold on to a doctrine that was developed by the Catholic chuch and adopted by the Protestant churches.

 

[RND]

That was a smokescreen you raised to avoid the truth of post #45. You presently hold on to a doctrine that was developed by the Catholic chuch and adopted by the Protestant churches.

No. The doctrine established by the catholic church is completely different than the trinity of the Adventist church. Read it again, real close:

2. Trinity:
There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation. He is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation. (Deut. 6:4; Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 Tim. 1:17; Rev. 14:7.)

This is a Biblical teaching, not a Catholic or Protestant teaching. Correct me if I'm wrong senti but Paul was neither a Catholic or a Protestant.

2 Cor 13:14
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, [be] with you all. Amen. [[[The second [epistle] to the Corinthians was written from Philippi, [a city] of Macedonia, by Titus and Lucas.]]]

 

[sentipente]

No. The doctrine established by the catholic church is completely different than the trinity of the Adventist church. Read it again, real close:

I suggest you read the post again. My comment did not refer to the Trinity.

 

[honorthesabbath]

You end in childish name calling--again! It is as if you believe that Catholicism is the bogey man. Wow, that is so sad! So shallow.

I pointed out that to insist on the 6.8 years, you have to know the exact date that Antiochus desecrated the Temple. There is nothing in Scripture, or any where else to nail it, so it has to be a "floating" period. You failed to see that. Wow, that is so sad! So shallow

You have failed to supply ANY alternative authoritative source to what I posted. You even erroneously dismissed the ISBE as touting "Catholic theology" Wow, that is so sad! So shallow.

It was you, not me who did the one word, two word, one word Hebrew flip flop. I merely pointed out the fallacy of using ANY Scripture in its context to prove your year/day nonsense. You failed in that respect, but have the gall to say that I did not meet the burden of proof. Wow, that is so sad! So shallow.

You mingle three different visions, many years apart, and under two separate kings into one vision, and assume that the commonality of figurative language in each somehow obliterates the simple fact that Daniel asked a question in Dan 8:13, and the angel answered it plainly in 8:14. Wow, that is so sad! So shallow.

It was you who tried to hijack the OP and take it in areas that I did not intend to go, but I humored you to make the point SEVERAL TIMES that it was you, not me who failed to deal with the OP. Wow, that is so sad! So shallow.

BTW your going into pop psychology " project it on to me" is not accurate, not appreciated, and you are unqualified to do any sort of psychological evaluation on anyone here. It merely demonstrated the absurd lengths you will go to maintain your fanciful interpretation of 1844, and the IJ. Wow, that is so sad! So shallow.

What?

 

[honorthesabbath]

RND, your behavior is most disheartening but you won't see it.

Sent, do you have anything theological to offer in this thread?

For you to say that RND 's behavior has been anything but exemplary is nothing short of total blindness.

Rnd has answered everyone of JT's rants with dignity and intelligence. All I have witnessed from you and JT is emotional tripe meant to incite because you have no biblical or intellectual ammunition. Rnd has been a gentlemen though out these exchanges and the attacks against him have been sickening to say the least.

Senti--you and JT should be ashamed of yourselves and offer an apology to RND for your unseemly and unChristian-like words against him.

 

[Mankin]

Oh and you're sure the one to be talking. It's called baiting and it is an annoyance to this forum.

 

[honorthesabbath]

THE LOWER THE DEGREE OF BELIEF IN AN INERRANT AUTOGRAPHA, THE EASIER IT IS TO BE SDA. CONVERSELY, THE HIGHER DEGREE ONE BELIEVES IN AN INERRANT AUTOGRAPHA, THE LESS LIKELY ONE IS TO BE A SDA

So I'm guessing that this is equivalent to the catholic position that this text means that Jesus turns into a wafer?

Joh 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

 

[Mankin]

They respond in kind to baiting posts. If we could actually have an intelligent conversations without disractions and baiting.

 

[sentipente]

Honor, I won't go for your bait. The evidence speaks for itself.

 

[JohnT]

I am bumping this as I see where it is now, and I want to continue this much-needed discussion.

Any takers?

 

[Telaquapacky]

I would say that the lower the degree of belief in an inerrant body of Church Doctrine, the easier it is to be an SDA, and the higher the degree of belief of an inerrant body of Church Doctrine, the more likely one is to be either a self-deceived traditional SDA, or not self-deceived, but totally frustrated in the search for a suitable denomination. I also believe you can substitute SDA in that proposition for any denomination. It's easier to be a member of any denomination if you don't look at that denomination's fine print too closely.

People choose their faith based on emotional needs, not on microscopic Bible study. Once the choice is made, the Bible is seen through a lens that makes it appear that the doctrines of the already-chosen church are at least mostly true, or more true than the other churches. Every church has theological dirty laundry that they prefer to keep in the back where it doesn't show when company is around. People who are very fastidious in seeking inerrant Bible truth end up either without any denominational orientation, or as misfits in the denomination they stay in.

 

[StormyOne]

I would say that the lower the degree of belief in an inerrant body of Church Doctrine, the easier it is to be an SDA, and the higher the degree of belief of an inerrant body of Church Doctrine, the more likely one is to be either a self-deceived traditional SDA, or not self-deceived, but totally frustrated in the search for a suitable denomination. I also believe you can substitute SDA in that proposition for any denomination. It's easier to be a member of any denomination if you don't look at that denomination's fine print too closely.

People choose their faith based on emotional needs, not on microscopic Bible study. Once the choice is made, the Bible is seen through a lens that makes it appear that the doctrines of the already-chosen church are at least mostly true, or more true than the other churches. Every church has theological dirty laundry that they prefer to keep in the back where it doesn't show when company is around. People who are very fastidious in seeking inerrant Bible truth end up either without any denominational orientation, or as misfits in the denomination they stay in.

great point.... additionally inerrant is difficult to define or prove, and doctrines usually morph over time....

 

[JohnT]

great point.... additionally inerrant is difficult to define or prove, and doctrines usually morph over time....

The problem is that the nanosecond that ANYONE say,."the Bible says..." that is an appeal to authority, and by implication, that is making the Bible authoritative, and by extension, inerrant.

OTOH what Telaquapacky may be be confused about is hermeneutics, the science of Biblical interpretation. That is not the same as running several unrelated verses together, ignoring context, and coming up with a spurious doctrine.

That is one thing that got my goat when dealing with certain people who were setting forth doctrines. I intuitively knew they were false, but I was too immature a believer to know how to give a proper answer.

Now as to inerrancy, a good place to begin, and that answers both Telaquapacky and StormyOne is the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, created in 1978, or so. If you are interested, go to this site http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html

 

[StormyOne]

I hear what you are saying John, however I do not believe the bible to be "God's written word" and free from error. Neither do I believe it to be infallible. While I believe the bible can be a vehicle in which a person can be introduced to God, I do not believe that all parts of the bible are relevant for here and now... An interesting book that I am reading at the moment titled "How to Read the Bible" by Kugel is quite informative. As a friend of mine says, "In the beginning God created..." Everything else is commentary....

 

[JohnT]

I hear what you are saying John, however I do not believe the bible to be "God's written word" and free from error. Neither do I believe it to be infallible. While I believe the bible can be a vehicle in which a person can be introduced to God, I do not believe that all parts of the bible are relevant for here and now... An interesting book that I am reading at the moment titled "How to Read the Bible" by Kugel is quite informative. As a friend of mine says, "In the beginning God created..." Everything else is commentary....

Stormy,

Have you ever read the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy?

It is a good place to begin the discussion, and it will show us what you agree with, and don't.

BTW If you read Kugel's cv, you will find that he is consistently on the liberal side of things,

Here is a quote from his home page, http://www.jameskugel.com/critic.php that explains how and why he deconstructs the Bible:

In saying all this, I'm not looking for a back door out of what I take to
be Judaism's basic doctrine about the Torah, namely, "Torah min
ha-shamayim." There's nothing in my book (or in me) that denies that
belief. As I've written several times, words are words, and there is no
litmus test that modern biblical scholars could ever perform to determine
that this word was divinely inspired and that word was not. But in my book
I did try to put the whole doctrine of a divinely-given Torah in a
somewhat different perspective, which, since you say you haven’t yet read
the book, I might summarize here:

What I tried to show was that, at a certain point within the biblical
period, the religion of Israel suddenly changed (I would say "as if by
revelation," except that I don't mean the "as if"). Now, "avodat H'" was
no longer principally understood as the offering of korbanot in the
Temple, but the keeping of God's numerous laws. This is evident within the
Bible itself, and the trajectory of avodat H' as presented in the Torah
carries over into all the later stages of Judaism, even in such perfectly
human activities as writing piskei halakhah (or, for that matter,
formulating lists of required beliefs). Keeping the mitzvot is the way
that Jews seek to reach out to H', and I would make no exception in this
for people who define themselves as "Orthoprax." It can't just be a matter
of lifestyle.

So... The point of this rather long-winded answer is that people who
devote themselves fully to keeping the mitzvot are, at least by my
definition, Orthodox in the true sense of the word: they have grasped what
is essential in Judaism, avodat H', and they are living it. All those
mitzvot have a single trajectory, from the Torah itself through centuries
and centuries of human interpreters, the makers of midrash halakhah and
aggadah, takkanot and gezerot shavot and piskei halakhah, down to the
present day. I think someone who truly understands this will not be
troubled by the things you mention.

 

[Pythons]

So I'm guessing that this is equivalent to the catholic position that this text means that Jesus turns into a wafer?

Joh 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

Almost right honor, the bread turns into the body and blood of Jesus.