Through the Fundamental Beliefs in detail - 1

[payattention]

Some time ago Tall invited me to pursue a sentence by sentence review of our Fundamental Beliefs. I begin with the first. I agree that the Bible is an authoritative rule of faith and practice.

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.

If God had given that book He would have done a much better editing job. See what he did with the universe. No one can convince me that the Universe and the Bible were made by the same person. Certainly the Bible contains teachings of God and is an authoritative introduction to the Creator but He did not give it.

In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation.

I agree, except that the definite article is a bother. In addition this knowledge necessary give the false impression that it is a recipe for salvation the Bible gives us. Salvation is all God's doing.

The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will.

The Bible is not infallible; only God is infallible.

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.

Same problem with that definite article. It gives the impression that God could not and did not act through any other avenue.

 

[StormyOne]

Well the bible can't be the record of God's act's in history cause there is a lot of human history that is not found in the bible.... We can say it is the record of how Jews and Christians believe God interacted with them in a certain locale....

I agree that the bible cannot be infallible.... Only God is....

 

[payattention]

Which causes one to ask what led our leaders to adopt as a fundamental belief ideas that could not possibly be true.

 

[Cliff2]

Which causes one to ask what led our leaders to adopt as a fundamental belief ideas that could not possibly be true.

This is why I do not believe that you and StormyOne are genuine SDA's.

Sorry guys, but someone has to tell you that what you say is not even close to being SDA theology.

If you do not believe what SDA's do then you have a moral obligation to withdraw your membership from the SDA Church if you are members.

Very little of what both of you say ever supports the SDA Church.

 

[HoneyDew]

This is why I do not believe that you and StormyOne are genuine SDA's.

Sorry guys, but someone has to tell you that what you say is not even close to being SDA theology.

If you do not believe what SDA's do then you have a moral obligation to withdraw your membership from the SDA Church if you are members.

Very little of what both of you say ever supports the SDA Church.

Are you going to beat this dead horse again, Cliff? The moderators have spoken several times about this.

 

[StormyOne]

This is why I do not believe that you and StormyOne are genuine SDA's.

Sorry guys, but someone has to tell you that what you say is not even close to being SDA theology.

If you do not believe what SDA's do then you have a moral obligation to withdraw your membership from the SDA Church if you are members.

Very little of what both of you say ever supports the SDA Church.

Sorry Cliff, but God gave me a brain to use... common sense tells me that there is alot of history that humans have lived that IS NOT captured in the bible. Chinese, Japanese, Native American history for starters... So you CANNOT say that the bible is "the trustworthy record of God's acts in history." And then choose to close your eyes to all the history that is left out......

Now you can tow the "partyline" and ignore the contradictions, and the evidence in your face regarding some of these basic beliefs.... I dare say that YOU are not adventist, for any true adventist would thoroughly question each and every belief to element the inherent flaws. In fact had we been living 120 or more years ago, those in the church felt that fundamental beliefs were NOT needed.....

So let's cut to the chase, I am adventist Cliff, not the kind you are familiar with, probably not even the kind you care to associate with, but I am adventist.... and better yet I am an adventist who does not settle for everything that the leaders suggest is good for "adventists." I am an adventist with a brain, who studies to find truth, not to confirm what has been taught for decades and never questioned or criticially examined...

Your accusations Cliff are getting tiresome... and I have stated before... prove that what I am saying is wrong... ignore me, focus on the issues I raise and address them...

 

[HoneyDew]

Sorry Cliff, but God gave me a brain to use... common sense tells me that there is alot of history that humans have lived that IS NOT captured in the bible. Chinese, Japanese, Native American history for starters... So you CANNOT say that the bible is "the trustworthy record of God's acts in history." And then choose to close your eyes to all the history that is left out......

Exactly. And these cultures are far older than the accepted 6,000 years. Which makes me very curious when I find that the Chinese had 10,000 years of written history, while we still claim the 6,000.

Now you can tow the "partyline" and ignore the contradictions, and the evidence in your face regarding some of these basic beliefs.... I dare say that YOU are not adventist, for any true adventist would thoroughly question each and every belief to element the inherent flaws. In fact had we been living 120 or more years ago, those in the church felt that fundamental beliefs were NOT needed.....

So let's cut to the chase, I am adventist Cliff, not the kind you are familiar with, probably not even the kind you care to associate with, but I am adventist.... and better yet I am an adventist who does not settle for everything that the leaders suggest is good for "adventists." I am an adventist with a brain, who studies to find truth, not to confirm what has been taught for decades and never questioned or criticially examined...

Your accusations Cliff are getting tiresome... and I have stated before... prove that what I am saying is wrong... ignore me, focus on the issues I raise and address them...

Let's get back our legacy of studying to show ourselves approved.

 

[woobadooba]

Certainly the Bible contains teachings of God and is an authoritative introduction to the Creator but He did not give it.

So when the Bible says "all scripture is given by inspiration of God" 2Tim.3:16, are you trying to say that this isn't true?

In addition this knowledge necessary give the false impression that it is a recipe for salvation the Bible gives us. Salvation is all God's doing.

So are you also disagreeing with this, "and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." 2Tim. 3:16,17

It sounds like a recipe for salvation to me! And since it is inspired by God, it is God's recipe for salvation. Hence, it is "all God's doing."

The Bible is not infallible; only God is infallible.

But is that what the statement is really saying, that the Bible itself is infallible, or is it really saying that the revelation of God's will is infallible? There is a difference!

Same problem with that definite article. It gives the impression that God could not and did not act through any other avenue.

No, it doesn't. What it means is that it is the only written means of divine authority for man to access the complete will of God on such matters.

 

[Cliff2]

So when the Bible says "all scripture is given by inspiration of God" 2Tim.3:16, are you trying to say that this isn't true?



So are you also disagreeing with this, "and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." 2Tim. 3:16,17

It sounds like a recipe for salvation to me! And since it is inspired by God, it is God's recipe for salvation. Hence, it is "all God's doing."



But is that what the statement is really saying, that the Bible itself is infallible, or is it really saying that the revelation of God's will is infallible? There is a difference!



No, it doesn't. What it means is that it is the only written means of divine authority for man to access the complete will of God on such matters.

Either we accept the Bible as God's revelation to those who live on this earth or we accept that man can save him/herself.

Salvation comes through what has been recorded in God's Word and now we have people saying that it is not God's Word.

I have to agree with this post.

 

[StormyOne]

Either we accept the Bible as God's revelation to those who live on this earth or we accept that man can save him/herself.

Salvation comes through what has been recorded in God's Word and now we have people saying that it is not God's Word.

I have to agree with this post.

Salvation comes through God... It is God who assures salvation... not what inspired men wrote about God...

 

[woobadooba]

Salvation comes through God... It is God who assures salvation... not what inspired men wrote about God...

But if it weren't for God inspiring men to tell us these things we wouldn't even know what salvation is to be assured of it.

 

[HoneyDew]

But if it weren't for God inspiring men to tell us these things we wouldn't even know what salvation is to be assured of it.

Could we please go back to the topic at hand? I believe the OP was regarding FB numero uno, not what the thread has morphed into now.

 

[woobadooba]

Could we please go back to the topic at hand? I believe the OP was regarding FB numero uno, not what the thread has morphed into now.

I was just simply responding to something that was said about the topic of the thread. Am I not allowed to do that?

 

[HoneyDew]

I was just simply responding to something that was said about the topic of the thread. Am I not allowed to do that?

Yes, you are.
While I did quote you, Wooba, it was meant generally, and I was not being contentious. Just wanted to see where things were going, in detail. LOL

 

[woobadooba]

Yes, you are.
While I did quote you, Wooba, it was meant generally, and I was not being contentious. Just wanted to see where things were going, in detail. LOL

Oh, ok

For a moment there I thought I was being scolded.

 

[payattention]

I wish respondents would address the issues I raised on the details that were used to supplement our basis dependence on the Bible as our authority for rule and practice.

 

[woobadooba]

I wish respondents would address the issues I raised on the details that were used to supplement our basis dependence on the Bible as our authority for rule and practice.

I did address the false accusations you made about our teaching, did you not see it?

 

[payattention]

Sorry for getting to this late. Apologies to Woobadooba.

So when the Bible says "all scripture is given by inspiration of God" 2Tim.3:16, are you trying to say that this isn't true?

Let's be careful here. It did not say only the Hebrew Scriptures. It says all scripture. Paul was emphasizing the divine origin of Scriptures not saying that Scripture was the only way man could have come to know about the nature and characteristics of God.

So are you also disagreeing with this, "and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." 2Tim. 3:16,17

It sounds like a recipe for salvation to me! And since it is inspired by God, it is God's recipe for salvation. Hence, it is "all God's doing."

Ah! This is where the wheels came off the carriage. You quoted a passage that dealss with holy living and somehow twisted it to apply to salvation. I expected better use of the scriptures than that.

But is that what the statement is really saying, that the Bible itself is infallible, or is it really saying that the revelation of God's will is infallible? There is a difference!

Read it again for yourself. It says the Bible is an infallible revelation. The difference you seek is not there. This means that you do not agree with what is written in this Fundamental Belief even if you try to come off as if you are defending if from the likes of me. Clearly, it does not say what you would prefer it to say.

No, it doesn't. What it means is that it is the only written means of divine authority for man to access the complete will of God on such matters.

Even your rendering cannot be true. What do you mean "on such matters."

 

[payattention]

The problem with Fundamental Belief 1 is not the authority it admits for the Bible but that it claims properties and characteristics for the Bible that could not possibly be true. God does not need inflation.

 

[woobadooba]

Let's be careful here. It did not say only the Hebrew Scriptures. It says all scripture. Paul was emphasizing the divine origin of Scriptures not saying that Scripture was the only way man could have come to know about the nature and characteristics of God.

I don't understand why you think SDAs have a problem with this. We aren't saying that the scriptures are the only way God can communicate to us. God can make Himself known outside of the Bible too. If we didn't believe this how then could we accept this passage: "In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets." Heb. 1:1

When God spoke to these men they didn't have their books. In other words, there was no book of Isaiah when God first spoke to Isaiah!

Nevertheless, what we have now is God's best for us in terms of that which is deemed to be the Holy Scriptures. For they, as Paul had stated, are "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." 2Tim. 3:16

Now, I want you to pay close attention to that word "complete". Do you understand what that word means within the context of Paul's statement? What it means is that there is nothing else out there that we need other than the Holy Scriptures to teach us about where we came from, who we are, and where we're going! Hence, God's will for us. This is why we, as Seventh Day Adventists say, "The scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will."

Ah! This is where the wheels came off the carriage. You quoted a passage that dealss with holy living and somehow twisted it to apply to salvation. I expected better use of the scriptures than that.

Excuse me, but what do you think God's word does for us? Does it not teach us about salvation? Does it not tell us what we need to do to be saved? Truth is, you wouldn't know what salvation means if God didn't tell you what it is in His word! So I don't know why you're getting all excited!

Furthermore, Jesus said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes Him who sent me, has eternal life." Jn. 5:24

Do you not hear the words of Christ in the scriptures?

Still not convinced eh?

OK, how about this passage: "and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." 2Tim. 3:15. Did you notice the word "salvation"? Oh, and by the way, notice verses 16 and 17 are the same verses that I already gave you! Thus it is the same context!

Read it again for yourself. It says the Bible is an infallible revelation.

Is that what it says? Let's see: The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will." Do you see the qualifier "of his will"? What it means is that the Bible itself is not infallible, but it's God's expressed will in the Bible that is infallible!

The difference you seek is not there. This means that you do not agree with what is written in this Fundamental Belief even if you try to come off as if you are defending if from the likes of me. Clearly, it does not say what you would prefer it to say.

What it says is obvious, that the "revelation of His will" is what is being stated as being infallible. You see, to have it your way it would have to be worded thus, "The infallible Holy Scriptures are the revelation of His will." But the adjective "infallible" is followed by the word "revelation". Hence, "infallible revelation". And then the qualifier comes in to identify what the infallible revelation is, which is, "His will", so as it is expressed in the Bible. Thus that which is "infallible" is not the Bible itself, but the "revelation of His will", which is expressed throughout the scriptures!

So, I'm not wrong. You are, because you didn't read the statement right; and because you didn't read the statement right, you took it out of context, and thus you misinterpreted it!