The 3abn Massachusetts Lawsuit Poll Options

[PeacefulBe]

In a word... no... saying that the Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will and saying they are infallible are not synonymous. Again I refer you to Selected Messages Book 1:

The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God's mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God's penmen, not His pen. Look at the different writers. {1SM 21.1}

It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man's words or his expressions but on the man himself, who, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts. But the words receive the impress of the individual mind. The divine mind is diffused. The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of the man are the word of God.-- Manuscript 24, 1886 (written in Europe in 1886). {1SM 21.2}

For scripture to be infallible, inherently in and of itself, God, as a writer, would need to be represented. Absent said representation, the revelation to the writers, aka inspiration, was infallible but those who received it were not...and said revelation was transmitted accurately via the fallible reflections of finite men through the power of the Holy Ghost. The bible is fallible because, as Paul states in 1Cor 13, "we know in part and prophesy in part"; God has given no man... or woman, for that matter... "full disclosure".

In His service,
Mr. J

Kevin,

This, to me, is the highest, truest argument for substantiating the fallibility of the Bible. It also contains a most beautiful revelation into God's character, IMO. He is not some Grand Puppetmaster!

So, to hear God's true message where there appears to be conflict or error, it seems that one would need to understand the times, lives and characters/personalities of each of the finite humans He used as penmen. Dare I say, I can see this very thing reflected in the writings of Ellen White. As she grew in her connection and understanding of God, her writings also reflected this maturity.

And, further, this explains the widely disparate use of both the Bible and the EGW writings. Some are still stuck in the legalistic "elder brother" mind-set, some see God's words through the eyes of the prodigal's loving father, and others are at all points in between.

PB

[Clay]

This, to me, is the highest, truest argument for substantiating the fallibility of the Bible. It also contains a most beautiful revelation into God's character, IMO. He is not some Grand Puppetmaster!

So, to hear God's true message where there appears to be conflict or error, it seems that one would need to understand the times, lives and characters/personalities of each of the finite humans He used as penmen. Dare I say, I can see this very thing reflected in the writings of Ellen White. As she grew in her connection and understanding of God, her writings also reflected this maturity.

And, further, this explains the widely disparate use of both the Bible and the EGW writings. Some are still stuck in the legalistic "elder brother" mind-set, some see God's words through the eyes of the prodigal's loving father, and others are at all points in between.

PB

exactly PB.... you summed it up excellently....

[Pickle]

The answers are not that simple.

For example, 1SM 21 has been cited, and yet page 25 says, "But the Bible, with its God-given truths expressed in the language of men, presents a union of the divine and the human. Such a union existed in the nature of Christ, who was the Son of God and the Son of man. Thus it is true of the Bible, as it was of Christ, that 'the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us' (John 1:14)."

It is true that "Everything that is human is imperfect" (p. 20), and this is true in some sense with the Word. But we must be cautious in how we define that imperfection. "Those who think to make the supposed difficulties of Scripture plain, in measuring by their finite rule that which is inspired and that which is not inspired, had better cover their faces, as Elijah when the still small voice spoke to him; for they are in the presence of God and holy angels ..." (p. 17).

The challenge is how to acknowledge human imperfection in the Word without also a) drawing wrong conclusions about the perfection of Christ (since both the Bible and Christ are a combination of humanity and divinity), or b ) making human reason an authority above Scripture. Regarding b, while we must use our reason in reading and applying Scripture, it should not become an authority above Scripture.

The influential fellow I sat next to on the plane last week believed in evolution. He believed that the creation accounts were what the people could understand back then. Where and how do we draw the line when we talk about the Bible being fallible?

An Adventist of note once asked me, Does the New Jerusalem have walls and gates, or is that simply something the people could understand back then? I got the impression he thought the answer was the latter.

Then there are those who say that all the times the Bible speaks of God punishing sin and Jesus dying in our place and Jesus being our mediator are just God speaking our language to get our attention, but that's not really what God is like.

Then there was the Catholic priest who told me that he didn't think God wrote the 10 Commandments with His own finger on tables of stone, that He didn't create the world in 6 days, and that He didn't destroy the world with a flood. But the morals of the stories were true, for God did create everything and He will punish sin. When I asked the priest, after he told me that Catholic tradition was being reinterpreted like that too, what is left for authority for the Roman Catholic, he said, "What Jesus taught in the NT: Love."

[awesumtenor]

The answers are not that simple.

For you, perhaps.

For example, 1SM 21 has been cited, and yet page 25 says, "But the Bible, with its God-given truths expressed in the language of men, presents a union of the divine and the human. Such a union existed in the nature of Christ, who was the Son of God and the Son of man. Thus it is true of the Bible, as it was of Christ, that 'the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us' (John 1:14)."

This is not in contention... so it's non sequitur vis a vis the discussion at hand.

It is true that "Everything that is human is imperfect" (p. 20), and this is true in some sense with the Word.

"We" aren't defining that imperfection because none here is trying to say that scripture is invalid. You are again responding to your presumption rather than anything actually stated.

But we must be cautious in how we define that imperfection. "Those who think to make the supposed difficulties of Scripture plain, in measuring by their finite rule that which is inspired and that which is not inspired, had better cover their faces, as Elijah when the still small voice spoke to him; for they are in the presence of God and holy angels ..." (p. 17).

Also non sequitur; none has proposed to delineate what is and is not inspired, not even between scripture and EGW...your insistence on responding as if someone had notwithstanding.

The challenge is how to acknowledge human imperfection in the Word without also a) drawing wrong conclusions about the perfection of Christ (since both the Bible and Christ are a combination of humanity and divinity), or b ) making human reason an authority above Scripture. Regarding b, while we must use our reason in reading and applying Scripture, it should not become an authority above Scripture.

Challenge to you and others who have tried to view scripture and EGW as inerrant in the past (and, dare I say, the present) perhaps... some of us never took that yoke upon us so we need not be mindful in how we cast it off.

The influential fellow I sat next to on the plane last week believed in evolution. He believed that the creation accounts were what the people could understand back then. Where and how do we draw the line when we talk about the Bible being fallible?

An Adventist of note once asked me, Does the New Jerusalem have walls and gates, or is that simply something the people could understand back then? I got the impression he thought the answer was the latter.

Then there are those who say that all the times the Bible speaks of God punishing sin and Jesus dying in our place and Jesus being our mediator are just God speaking our language to get our attention, but that's not really what God is like.

Then there was the Catholic priest who told me that he didn't think God wrote the 10 Commandments with His own finger on tables of stone, that He didn't create the world in 6 days, and that He didn't destroy the world with a flood. But the morals of the stories were true, for God did create everything and He will punish sin. When I asked the priest, after he told me that Catholic tradition was being reinterpreted like that too, what is left for authority for the Roman Catholic, he said, "What Jesus taught in the NT: Love."

Nice anecdotes... they have no real bearing on the crux of this discussion but I'll file them away; they may be useful illustrations for a yet to be created sermon.

In His service,
Mr. J

[PeacefulBe]

Bob,

I maintain that the answers are, indeed, that simple. I certainly don't see 1SM 25 as an "and yet" rebuttal of what was said on page 21 but a further illumination of the wonderful union between fallible humanity and perfect divinity.

There will always be those who will use any means to rationalize away any spiritual point they level in their crosshairs. Perhaps God will find a way to turn their focus away from self-worship back to Him. I am not suggesting that we humans try to second guess what God means in his Word. He created us with brains that He means for us to use to seek out His truth. I believe Ellen White clearly drew the line for us on how to correctly approach our understanding of Scripture in the quotes from 1SM 21.

Sometimes, Bob, I think we humans tend to overthink some things that are better understood with a childlike faith. Sometimes it is better just to take a deep breath, unwind the mind, put all fear of "getting it wrong" aside and rest in the truly simple joy of a good snuggle on His lap.

PB

[lowender]

I think it's possible for 3ABN to become an effective witnessing channel... But the only way for that too happen is for Danny Shelton to step down & away from Christian television. The Board of Directors needs also to step down in order to have a clean slate...

[mikell]

I think it's possible for 3ABN to become an effective witnessing channel... But the only way for that too happen is for Danny Shelton to step down & away from Christian television. The Board of Directors needs also to step down in order to have a clean slate...

AMEN!!!

[runner4him]

I think it's possible for 3ABN to become an effective witnessing channel... But the only way for that too happen is for Danny Shelton to step down & away from Christian television. The Board of Directors needs also to step down in order to have a clean slate...

I echo that Amen!! Pray for that day!!

[Panama_Pete]

Some people just really like Danny... !!

Just a note to move the poll up from the second page so people will see it.

Sixty people have voted as of today, July 18, 2007

Pete