| Author |
Message |
Violet
Registered user
Username: Violet
Post Number: 299
Registered: 2-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 10:06 am: |     |
Please be patient with me I really want to understand this. Do the two go together: Satan wanted to put hiself above God and God told His angels to kick Satan and his angels out and they fought? Or are these two seperate incidents? |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 2832
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 8:14 pm: | |
Violet, the Bible doesn't give many details. Apparently, though, these are two brief accounts of the same event. Job 1 and 2 contain the also brief account of Satan presenting himself before God along with the other angels (or "sons of God"). When God asked him where he came from, he replied he had come from roaming about the earth.
"War in heaven" suggests something more than a brief skirmish, but we really aren't given many details. What is clear, though, is that Ellen has misrepresented Jesus in her accounts of Satan's and then humanity's rebellions. Colossians 2:15 is clear about Jesus' role regarding Satan; He disarmed the enemy at the cross, made a public spectacle of them, and triumphed over them.
There is no uncertain outcome; Jesus and Satan are not and have never struggled as anything close to equal opponents. Satan has always been the rebellious creature, and Jesus his Creator. Satan has never been in doubt about either Jesus' identity or His power. He KNOWS he is defeated.
Praise God!
Colleen |
Lisa_boyldavis
Registered user
Username: Lisa_boyldavis
Post Number: 94
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 1:53 pm: | |
What could be done as FAF's to inform the rest of the Christian Community about the cultic views of the SDA Church? So much of the Christian Community has not looked past the superficial to the core beliefs... Hank Hanigraph will not see the truth on this issue, unfortunately. Any ideas besides personal whiteness? Is there a Christian paper that might publish discussions regarding false beliefs of the SDA church?
LBD
|
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 2845
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 3:04 pm: | |
I don't know of one, Lisa. Christiany Today is edited by David Neff who was the pastor of the WWC church shortly after I graduated. I think he would call himself no longer Adventist, but he is still sympathetic.
I'll tell you what I do--I add names of Christians that I know with no SDA background to the Proclamation mailing list. I don't know how many of them read it, but I know many do.
Colleen |
Freeatlast
Registered user
Username: Freeatlast
Post Number: 439
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 3:05 pm: | |
Colleen, when did the most recent Proclamation go out? Haven't seen mine yet... =( |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 2846
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 8:21 pm: | |
My goodness--they went out about 4 weeks ago. Let me know if you don't have it by next week.
Colleen |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 968
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 9:56 pm: | |
Lisa, John MacArthur said it best when he said the evangelical church is woefully ignorant as well as cowardly when it comes to confronting false doctrine. For example, look how easy the evangelical church was fooled by the late pope, by proclaiming he was saved, and in heaven, even while he promoted doctrine that was so corrupt, such as Mary is the way you come to Jesus, and so many other abominable teachings. Yet here were these evangelicals practically bowing down in front of the pope's casket. Another example would be the situation in which evangelicals of all stripes are encouraging the ministry of people who deny the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity, such as T.D. Jakes--at least Hank Hanegraf is not fooled by this false prophet. The problem is you have an SDA church who is expert in presenting an orthodox appearing front to people like Hanegraf, and frankly, Adventism appears a lot more orthodox than T.D. Jakes and others, at least on paper. However, one national radio teacher has not been fooled, and that is the above mentioned MacArthur. He is one true modern prophet who does discern the poor theology and compromise that is going on in Christendom. He realizes that the PDL movement is suspect, if not phony. He calls the Catholic church what it really is--a false religion. I had a conversation with him on talk radio 15 years ago, and he agreed that SDA was a works-righteousness system similar to Catholicism. And, in one sermon I heard him preach on Rev. 2:20, where Jesus in the message to the church in Thyatira said that He was upset with them, because they tolerated the prophetess Jezebel. Now that specific reference refers to sexual immorality, but MacArthur drew a broader spiritual adultery application and went so far to state that that Jezebel reference could refer to all the false women prophetesses in history such as Ellen White and Amy Semple Macpherson, Mary Baker Eddy etc. So there is him as well as Dr. Robert Morey who have gone on record against SDA. Ric_b also gave a good example of a Lutheran pastor with discernment on another thread. I think Colleen's idea of getting Proclamation out to as many non-SDA pastors as possible is a good one, but I think that the response in St.Louis at GC was disappointing when Dale Ratzlaff sent out packets to pastors. It is a Laodicean church out there, who is now saying that Luther's Reformation is not very important, and they are saying that doctrine is not very important. As long as everyone says they believe in Jesus (even though the Jesus they believe in is questionable) well that's OK, let's not be judgmental.
Stan
|
Pauls
Registered user
Username: Pauls
Post Number: 38
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 5:36 am: | |
Stan, what is the pdl movement? |
Pauls
Registered user
Username: Pauls
Post Number: 39
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 5:42 am: | |
also, ric_b "SDA's do not believe in verbal inspiration...
does this put them out of line with the rest of the christian world? a lot of people do not believe in verbal inspiration..but rather "thought" inspiration, where God leaves the details of how to put the thought on paper in the hands of the writer. if you do hold to word for word inspiration (er dictation), like the moslems hold the Quaran--the only valid copy is the original language--which makes the Bible inaccessible to 20th century people...
here is a link to one of many sites that deal with the "inpsiration" of the Bible....
http://www.ibs.org/bibles/about/5.php
i don't think SDA is out of line with these sites...in fact, i never heard of anyone claiming word inspiration....could you help clarify?
|
Raven
Registered user
Username: Raven
Post Number: 317
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 6:05 am: | |
Pauls, I'm not speaking for my husband, Ric_b, but I believe the majority of evangelical Christian churches believe verbal inspiration applies to the original manuscript. That means it was given verbally in its original state, but that doesn't make current Bibles invalid. It just makes it very useful to learn as much as possible about the original word used and its meaning. That's the reason for the wide use of books referencing Greek and Hebrew as related to where the word is used in our current Bible and the likely meanings of the word.
I've read through many church belief statements in our search for a new church home, and if I recall correctly, nearly all of them specifically said they believed in verbal inspiration. |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 351
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 6:47 am: | |
Pauls, please look again at the link from my earlier post and you will see that verbal-plenary (VP) inspiration is not the same thing as dictation. As I mentioned before SDAs frequently create this strawman.
http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=667
The difference between VP inspiration and the SDA view of inspiration is that the VP view acknowledges that God inspired the author's slection of words, not just their thoughts.
This is seen for instance in the description on the site that you linked where it describes thought inspiration as one where "human writers provide Godís message in terms of their own personalities and historical circumstances, and yet they transmit the message fully and exactly as God desired. So we can call this view of inspiration 'dynamic', as well as 'verbal' (extending to the very words of the writer) and ìplenaryî (meaning that the Bible is fully and totally inspired.)" This does not correspond to SDA idea of "thought" inspiration in which the author's thoughts are inspired but the words they choose are their own and may contain errors. This is yet another case where the SDA church attempts to obscure what they really teach and instead make it appear far more mainstream.
And yes there are those who share SDA view of inspiration. These are the theologians who have rejected Scripture as an absolute authority or even accurate record of what happened. The theology of higher criticism nearly destroyed many of the mainstream churches and was one of the elements that led to the rise of the evangelical movement. The only was to maintain support for EGW in light of the growing evidence appears to be a view of inspiration in line with the higher critics.
Consider this statement on Biblical inerrancy:
http://www.reformed.org/documents/icbi.html
|
Loneviking
Registered user
Username: Loneviking
Post Number: 375
Registered: 7-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 8:09 am: | |
Yes, Ric is right about the mainline Protestant churches accepting views of inspiration that aren't verbal and plenary. That is how the UCC and the Episcopals can twist the Word around to support ordaining homosexuals--to use just one example.
Virtually every cult out there also denies verbal inspiration. When you have man choosing the words, then you also have error. SDA's, Mormons and JW's all admit this and all three have an antidote for this. The Mormons have a living prophet, the JW's have the WatchTower and the SDA's have EGW.
How do you get through to the evangelical world? At least to the ones who care? Offer to teach a class on cults and cultic systems to your local church. I did and it took me about two months to educate folks into the thinking of the cults. I used quotes directly from the cults being examined, which included the SDA church.
After the class ended, my pastor said that going into the class several folks were absolutely convinced that the SDA church was christian. By the end of the class they had changed their minds and my pastor was one of them! |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 2853
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 10:36 am: | |
What a wonderful thing you did, Loneviking, in teaching that class!
Ric_b, that is a great link discussing Biblical inerrancy. Thanks for posting it. Also, great point re: the Adventists creating the straw-man argument about verbal inspiration.
Pauls, one of the most helpful things I've read about Scriptural inerrancy is the discussion by Wayne Grudem. In his book "Systematic Theology", he opens with 7 chapters (following his introduction) examining "The Doctrine of the Word of God". Chapters 4 through 8 discuss "the Four Characteristics of Scripture". These four are: 1) Authority, 2) Clarity, 3) Necessity and 4) Sufficiency.
Within this discussion is chapter 5 entitled "The Inerrancy of Scripture". He is meticulous in his discussion--while being, paradoxically enough, extremely readable. He uses applicable Bible texts exhaustively and disucsses the implications and conclusions of each group of related texts. He further discusses the distinction between "inerrant" and "infallible"--a distinction that seems trivial on the surface, but as the years have passed, it has grown and solidified as Biblical scholars have ascribed subtle distinctions to them.
I believe that inerrancy is one of the very biggest hurdles people face as they grapple with Adventism. It underlies everything, because if Ellen White was inspired the same way the Biblical writers were inspired, then the Bible can't be inerrant. There is a problem, though, in assuming that the way Ellen was inspired is in any way the model of Biblical writers. It's a backwards rationalization. Ellen must be evaluated according to what the Scriptures say about themsleves, not the Scriptures according to what we know of Ellen.
I highly recommend Grudem.
Colleen |
Seekr777
Registered user
Username: Seekr777
Post Number: 343
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 12:07 pm: | |
Colleen, didn't Grudem write more than one book on Systematic Theology? I think you or someone else online here mentioned that there is one for the "theologian" and one for the rest of us??
Richard
|
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1039
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 12:43 pm: | |
Richard, "Bible Doctrine" is a condensation of Grudem's "Systematic Theology", but both are very readable. It's a question of a difference in length not a difference in language or readability.
By the way, as a charismatic Christian I think you would appreciate Grudem's view point on a number of matters. He is the only heavy-weight theologian that I am aware of to fully develop a coherent solid theology that includes the perpetuity of spiritual gifts.
Interestingly enough, Grudem could be described as a charismatic Calvinist (and VERY very strong Calvinist at that). A rare combination indeed.
Chris |
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1040
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 12:55 pm: | |
One other note on Grudem's Systematic Theology. This was a pivotal book in my life. I had been struggling with the issue of Biblical inspiration and to what degree we could consider the Bible to be realiable. I had begun to lean towards a view that was quite a bit less than inerrant and definately discounted verbal/plenary inspiration.
Reading Grudem's chapters on the Word of God became an act of worship for me. It was an experience that brought me to tears, to prayer, to repentance, and to a change of heart. It was a time in my life that I felt very close to God as I felt His leading and instructing in my life.
I do NOT attribute this to Grudem's book, which is simply one man's thoughts on scirpture and certainly contains errors and misunderstandings. I realize that Grudem's book was just a tool that the Holy Spirit used to do a great work in my life and to set the foundation for future teaching that He wanted to do with me. The Holy Spirit is an amazing Teacher and knew exactly what I needed to point me back to the Word.
Chris |
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1041
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 12:58 pm: | |
One other note on Grudem's Systematic Theology. This was a pivotal book in my life. I had been struggling with the issue of Biblical inspiration and to what degree we could consider the Bible to be realiable. I had begun to lean towards a view that was quite a bit less than inerrant and definately discounted verbal/plenary inspiration.
Reading Grudem's chapters on the Word of God became an act of worship for me. It was an experience that brought me to tears, to prayer, to repentance, and to a change of heart. It was a time in my life that I felt very close to God as I felt His leading and instructing in my life.
I do NOT attribute this to Grudem's book, which is simply one man's thoughts on scirpture and certainly contains errors and misunderstandings. I realize that Grudem's book was just a tool that the Holy Spirit used to do a great work in my life and to set the foundation for future teaching that He wanted to do with me. The Holy Spirit is an amazing Teacher and knew exactly what I needed to point me back to the Word. Never-the-less, I can enthusiastically recommend this book to anyone with a desire to learn teh Biblical basis of evangelical theology.
Chris |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 971
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 3:25 pm: | |
I agree Chris about Grudem. He is also very even handed about discussing tough issues. Even his larger systematic theology is readable, because he makes a worship experience out of the study of theology by putting in great hymns of the faith where appropriate.
Stan |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 2857
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 5:35 pm: | |
Chris, when I read his chapter on inerrancy in "Bible Doctrines" (the book we use in our monthly Systematic Theology class at church), I had a similar experience to the one you describe above. I found myself teary and in awe of God and His provision for us through His word. I had the sense that God Himself was opening my eyes. The scriptural references Grudem compiled were exhaustive, and seeing everything on the topic discussed in one place was breathtaking.
Colleen |
Seekr777
Registered user
Username: Seekr777
Post Number: 344
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 7:36 pm: | |
Chris and Colleen, I guess I'll need to get this book. His attitude that allows it to be an act of worship draws me to it.
Thanks also for identifying me as a charismatic Christian and NOT a charismatic SDA.  that is much more accurate.
In Christ,
Richard
rtruitt@mac.com
|
Seekr777
Registered user
Username: Seekr777
Post Number: 345
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 9:36 am: | |
WOW, I've been blessed already as I read Grudem's book. I bought the book Systematic Theology as an eBook and can now read it on both my PDA and Computer.
Should make for some more interesting staff meetings as I sit there and "take notes" on my PDA. My principal will be so proud of me ! ! !
Actually I've shared with her some of the things I read during staff meetings and she just smiled and said nothing.
In Christ,
Richard
rtruitt@mac.com
|
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 977
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 1:07 pm: | |
Congratulations Richard on an excellent purchase. You will love it. Glad to hear you have alreay been blessed.
Stan |
Seekr777
Registered user
Username: Seekr777
Post Number: 346
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 2:40 pm: | |
During my lunch break today I spend it reading Grudem. I looked up the texts and references on my PDA.
I also installed it on my Powerbook. The same ebook works on both but I needed to buy the enhanced ebook application for both PDA and Notebook. There are free versions but the "enhanced" versions are more flexible.
richard
rtruitt@mac.com
|
Pauls
Registered user
Username: Pauls
Post Number: 42
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 3:18 am: | |
wow! Thanks Ric_b, et al. very helpful. i came to this web site with a few questions, and now everything from the ground up is up for question
i am aware that many christians criticize the SDA "proof" text approach, saying it is outdated and destroys context which needs to be considered--as opposed to an exxegetical interpretation....
however, if you go for a VP approach, then why can't you pull a single word or sentence out of a passage and recognize that although the author did not contemplate its application to your present subject, that God anticipated your application when He chose the words? and that your application, if sealed by HS is valid?
It seems that a VP approach makes proof texting quite valid....consider the psalms- many psalms have messianic prophecies wove into them, which make no sense in the context of David's experience or the psalm content itself--its just a phrase or idea stuck in there which christ, the gospel writers and/or paul picked up on and said "there" this proves that....
same issue in isaiah 7 esp 8-16 where isaiah gives ahaz a sign that his prophecy will come true. However, the fulfillment of the prophecy occurs within 65 years (see 7:8) but the the sign ( itself a messianic description) does not happen till at least 500 years later...so here we have an obvious "insertion" by the HS because the sign would have no value to prove the prophecy to ahaz since he would be long dead by the time the sign appeared??? is this a evidence of the VP validity? or am i off on another subject?
of course this creates other problems--like at the last supper when Christ says this IS my blood, my body, eat, drink....and the catholic takes it literally and comes away with transubstantiation. He could have said, this is the sign or symbol of my body....
p.s. just ordered grudems' book as well, so hopefully some of these questions get answered there?
|
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 354
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 5:02 am: | |
Pauls, at first pass proof texting might make more sense with VP but consider that the meaning of the words is based on the way that they are being used within a sentence, paragraph, or discussion. And if the NT writers were writing under inspiration, then there use of a OT text is an inspired use, even when it doesn't seem to us that it was used contextually. We aren't working under similar inspiration when we put together a string of texts which are contextually questionable. If any of us claimed similar inspiration and authority as the Scriptural authors I would be concerned. |
Melissa
Registered user
Username: Melissa
Post Number: 1177
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 9:27 am: | |
Will someone explain "VP"? |
Melissa
Registered user
Username: Melissa
Post Number: 1178
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 9:30 am: | |
Oh, never mind, I went back and found Ric's link. |
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1042
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 9:57 am: | |
I would also add that neither the doctrine of inerrancy or the doctrine of verbal inspiration rule out figures of speech, hyperbole, metaphor, simile, poetry, symbolism, or any other common way of speaking or writing. So there is no problem at all with understanding Jesusí statement about the Lordís Supper to mean that the bread and the wine *symbolize* His body and blood. We donít want to take a wooden approach to the words. Rather we want to ask what the author/Author intended when he/He wrote the words in this particular context.
Chris |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 2865
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 1:11 pm: | |
Ric, your point about the NT writers using the OT under inspiration is important. That was one thing I struggled with as I began to discover that the Bible was internally consistent instead of "symbolic" wherever it didn't make sense to us!
I finally had to accept as an act of faith that 2 Timothy 3:16 was telling the truth and not merely creating a straw-man argument for internal consistency. "All Scripture is God-breathed..."
Once I began to read the NT and accepted the writers' uses of OT texts to show Christ fulfilled them, the most amazing Big Picture began to resolve. Only the Bible writers had the inspiration to use the OT the ways they did.
I know the arguments that we don't know who all the writers and what all the source materials really were--and why THESE books in particular--but if, based on 2 Timothy 3:16 and Hebrews 4:12 I agree to read the NT as truly inspired, the Holy Spirit confirms all those connections that span the millennia.
Before, as I read with questions and the underlying belief that an awfully lot was symbolic and time-sensitive and perhaps not to be taken literally, the Bible seemed rather disconnected--a compilation of stories and admonitions and opinions.
Hebrews 4:12, however, states the key:"The word of God is living and active." The Holy Spirit teaches us the mind of God when we read the Bible with our minds surrendered to Him.
We can't compare Matthew's and Paul's uses of OT texts with proof-texting. Matthew and Paul wrote under inspiration. The Bible is the ground of reality by which we can acertain whether or not the Holy Spirit is truly teaching us. We can't assume that our own Scriptural connections are accurate based on our subjective experience of the Holy Spirit's guidance. If our connections disagree with Scripture, we have to assume that our perception of guidanceóprobably wasn't!
And, Chris, I find that the prevalence of metaphor and types, etc., is even more intrinsic in Scripture than I ever realized before I took the words themselves to be innerrant. God protected His Word through all these millennia, and the story of humanity read through the eyes of Scripture tells an amazing story of Divine intervention and calling and faithfulness.
The Word itself is alive because it is the Word of the Word Who was with God and is God!
Colleen |
