Interesting Adventist Review article

[NightEternal]

e have the truth!” It’s one of Adventism’s most popular mottoes. You can overhear it in conversations among members, in some of our literature, and in our classrooms. It is a source of pride for those of us who appreciate Adventism’s distinctive message, and a quick and easy way to affirm our church. It is also, as typically used, distinctly dangerous.

I am currently enduring a three-week intensive about missions to a postmodern society. The reading is copious, and the lectures will rob me of every Friday, Sunday, and Monday for the next three weeks. In reading about issues of relativism and truth this little denominational saying came up.

As I thought about the essence of my faith, I realized that when many of us say we have the truth, we are no better than any other religion. Not because there’s no such thing as absolute truth, but because of what we mean when we say it.

If you were to ask someone to unpack what it means to use this phrase you might hear something about the Sabbath, the heavenly sanctuary, the health message, or the Second Coming—all important doctrines. But knowledge, doctrines, or lifestyle practices are not what it means to have the truth.

http://adventistreview.com/issue.php?issue=2007-1531&page=29

 

[NightEternal]

Some good quotes:

For example, the ancient (and now in vogue) heresy of Gnosticism believed that a believer needed to have “special knowledge” or a “secret revelation” to be set free from this evil world. Have you met Adventists who subconsciously think that because they are blessed with understanding God’s end-time message they are somehow guaranteed a spot in heaven? That the Sabbath or our understanding of the state of the dead is an entry ticket to get into the club? But we are not saved by knowledge, as blessed as we are to have it.

Then there is Buddhism. The fundamental goal of this religion is to eliminate desire—viewed as the source of all evil. In order to eliminate the negative trait of desire, one must follow what is called the Eightfold Path, which involves spiritual disciplines such as having “right concentration” and “right effort.” When desire is eliminated one achieves nirvana, or enlightenment. Again, I’ve met some Adventists who think that if they eat right, drink right, think right, and believe right they will achieve their spiritual goals.

And what about Islam? Islam’s path to salvation revolves around a person’s good deeds outweighing the bad ones. In Islam Jesus is not the Son of God, but a prophet who is a good example. With our many spiritual insights, a rich heritage, and a goal of Christian perfection, it’s easy to reduce Jesus to merely an example, and minimize Him as our Savior.

In his book Jesus Among Other Gods, Ravi Zacharias makes a profound point while comparing religions: “Jesus did not only teach or expound His message. He was identical with His message.” When we say we have the truth, the only biblical definition is the one given by Jesus when He said, “I am the way and the truth and the life” (John 14:6). Everything we believe, including our distinctive doctrines, is all found in Christ. If it isn’t, it should be thrown out.

It gives me hope for the next generation of Adventists when a young man like Seth Pierce can demonstrate such open-mindedness and perceptive ides. It also gives me some hope for the Review that they would allow this article to be published when 30 years ago the writer would have been shot for heresy.

This fellow is also studying to be a minister at Andrews. Pray we get more like him in the field who have not been indoctrinated by the whole 'we have the truth' dogma.

 

[sentipente]

The one thing wrong with that article is that it compares Adventism with other world religions. Adventism is not a world religion. Adventism is a sect of Christianity. With this slight correction the author accurately demonstrates that modern Christianity, with its claim to be outside of "human reasoning" is based on the concept of special knowledge. Until all Christians come to understand that every Christian belief must be tested as every other scientific idea is tested there is no hope for humanity.

 

[AndrewK788]

The one thing wrong with that article is that it compares Adventism with other world religions. Adventism is not a world religion. Adventism is a sect of Christianity. With this slight correction the author accurately demonstrates that modern Christianity, with its claim to be outside of "human reasoning" is based on the concept of special knowledge. Until all Christians come to understand that every Christian belief must be tested as every other scientific idea is tested there is no hope for humanity.

What do you mean to test Christian beliefs? Did you mean to test Christian beliefs according to the scientific method? I wasn't sure since you compared it directly to scientific ideas.

 

[JonMiller]

The one thing wrong with that article is that it compares Adventism with other world religions. Adventism is not a world religion. Adventism is a sect of Christianity. With this slight correction the author accurately demonstrates that modern Christianity, with its claim to be outside of "human reasoning" is based on the concept of special knowledge. Until all Christians come to understand that every Christian belief must be tested as every other scientific idea is tested there is no hope for humanity.

I don't think you realise what you are saying because I know that you have a view of what science is that differs from scientists view of what science is.

JM

 

[digdeep]

Some good quotes:

For example, the ancient (and now in vogue) heresy of Gnosticism believed that a believer needed to have “special knowledge” or a “secret revelation” to be set free from this evil world. Have you met Adventists who subconsciously think that because they are blessed with understanding God’s end-time message they are somehow guaranteed a spot in heaven? That the Sabbath or our understanding of the state of the dead is an entry ticket to get into the club? But we are not saved by knowledge, as blessed as we are to have it.

Then there is Buddhism. The fundamental goal of this religion is to eliminate desire—viewed as the source of all evil. In order to eliminate the negative trait of desire, one must follow what is called the Eightfold Path, which involves spiritual disciplines such as having “right concentration” and “right effort.” When desire is eliminated one achieves nirvana, or enlightenment. Again, I’ve met some Adventists who think that if they eat right, drink right, think right, and believe right they will achieve their spiritual goals.

And what about Islam? Islam’s path to salvation revolves around a person’s good deeds outweighing the bad ones. In Islam Jesus is not the Son of God, but a prophet who is a good example. With our many spiritual insights, a rich heritage, and a goal of Christian perfection, it’s easy to reduce Jesus to merely an example, and minimize Him as our Savior.

In his book Jesus Among Other Gods, Ravi Zacharias makes a profound point while comparing religions: “Jesus did not only teach or expound His message. He was identical with His message.” When we say we have the truth, the only biblical definition is the one given by Jesus when He said, “I am the way and the truth and the life” (John 14:6). Everything we believe, including our distinctive doctrines, is all found in Christ. If it isn’t, it should be thrown out.

It gives me hope for the next generation of Adventists when a young man like Seth Pierce can demonstrate such open-mindedness and perceptive ides. It also gives me some hope for the Review that they would allow this article to be published when 30 years ago the writer would have been shot for heresy.

This fellow is also studying to be a minister at Andrews. Pray we get more like him in the field who have not been indoctrinated by the whole 'we have the truth' dogma.

yes, it wasa good article.

DD

 

[sentipente]

I don't think you realise what you are saying because I know that you have a view of what science is that differs from scientists view of what science is.

JM

You meant to say that you don't understand what I am saying. I am completely aware of what I am saying. I do not restrict my understanding of science to emperical science.

 

[JonMiller]

I don't think that what is left can be called science after empericism is removed. But part of my comment was so Andrew knew what you weren't talking of.

JM

 

[sentipente]

I don't think that what is left can be called science after empericism is removed. But part of my comment was so Andrew knew what you weren't talking of.

JM

Modeling is just as important to the scientific process as is empericism.

 

[JonMiller]

No it isn't.

JM

 

[JonMiller]

Empiricism has to be assumed for (what is commonly known as) science to be correct. A model is just a construct, used in the process of science.

Now, it is true that modeling is based on one of the other foundations of science... which is that the laws of here or now are also true there or then.

I did just realise that you might have been using a more general definition of model than I am. If so, it is sitll important to lay out that fundamental assumption of science which enbales us to predict events distance in time and/or space.

JM

 

[JonMiller]

Additionally, the idea of no privileged observer is a corner stone of physics. This is basically just another way of putting that the laws where I am and the laws in a distance solar system are the same.

This isn't the result of a theory. This is the foundation that many theories rest (And is part of their mathematics).

JM

 

[sentipente]

JM, remember that physics is only one discipline in science. Science is the essence of human activity.

 

[JonMiller]

Chemistry is a subset of physics... and is dependent on it. Biology is similarly a subset and depedent on chemistry.

This is from the reductionist perspective.

Now, I agree that there might be emergent science (in which case my first statement wouldn't be quite right), but the dependences would still exist even if (for example) chemistry wasn't just a subset of physics.

JM

 

[harv]

As per Jesus' words, " I am the Way, the Truth, and The life." How ought we to understand these words with any interpretive expression for confirmation founded upon some form of logic either from within our apart from the book in which the statement is recorded? Way? Truth? Life? And if by some form of "logic." Upon whos' logic must the Truth be "rightly" affirmed and confirmed? By what "method" for certainty of "sound doctrine?" What does the cliche' to "Know Jesus" truly mean relative to "accepting Christ?"

"All Scripture is inspired of God and profitable for.... "
"Faith comes by hearing and hearing by...."
"Study to show yourselves approved unto...."
"He that comes to God must believe that He the __ of those who __ seek Him."

While the Truth of God simple for all the simple to find and to affirm as by "the __ of Christ," He is most certainly not without a __ of Logic." And the "Mystery of God" is not to any who are willing to follow after vain philosophies. Yet much "Doctrine" is to be learned of Him through His prophets, His "Commandments," History, and the True "Science" of nature and the cosmos.

And all must agree one with the other as under the power of His singular expression for thought.