How Much Of Concern About 3abn Is Motivated By Liberalism?, Neutralizing one of Danny's alibis Options

[Rosyroi]

Slightly off-topic......

Brick Step said:
May those speaking to the "3ABN Saga" not have cause one day to look back upon their handling of the issues, with a sense of shame.

Yes I hope Danny et al some day looks back at how Danny and friends mishandled the various issues and feel a sense of shame.

Back on-topic......

This post has been edited by Rosyroi: Nov 9 2007, 09:16 PM

[västergötland]

Seems that the <i>Church Manual</i> lays everything out fairly nicely.

How many beliefs can one disagree with and still be considered an Adventist? What if he or she believed that the Sabbath was changed to Sunday, that the pope is the head of Christendom, that the dead aren't dead, that the wicked are going to roast throughout eternity, or that Christ is coming in a secret rapture 7 years before the second coming? How many of these things could someone agree with and you would still be comfortable considering them to be Adventist? Are there any non-negotiables in your opinion?

Would someone who believes the pope is the rightfull head of Christendom really want to be SDA? Would not such a person be Roman Catholic?

[Brick Step]

The responsibility to determine the membership status of a person rests with the local SDA congregation, in our present organiztional structure. I support that policy.

Do I think that the local congregation is always correct. No, I do not. But, I would not want to change that to something else.

I will suggest that sometimes the local congregation is wroing is the membership actions that they take. But, they have the authority. Frankly, there is no way to overturn an action that the local congregation takes, outside of expelling the congregation from the SDA Chruch. I do not think that this is a perfect system. Three are changes that I might lilke to make. But, even with those changes I would still want the authority to rest with the local congregation.

(I note the website controls are missing for editing this post. I'll see what I can do without them.)

I do appreciate the spirit in which you have been making your points, Observer. I quote also the following post by Pickle.

"Good points, Gregory. The authority must still reside in the local congregation.
"I think we can discuss this from two directions: whether someone holds church membership or whether someone is Adventist in their belief
system, with or without church membership." Pickle, Post 29.

Yes, I also believe that "The responsibility to determine the membership status of a person rests [or should rest] with the local SDA congregation." It is observable also that things do not always happen this way. Local congregations can be manipulated from above (and other directions, too, of course).

It is going to be very interesting one day soon to check out all the record books in heaven. (God forbid that these records should all have been blotted out at the cross, destroying all the evidence needed to settle all controversy and vindicate His character in the various stages of the prophesied endtime judgment.) It is certain that in case after case after case, down through the centuries and right until the end, we will find discrepancies between the heavenly membership records, and the earthly church membership records. Without doubt, at the last it will be seen that the Creator-God tried every possible way of organizing His followers on earth so as to preserve the remembrance of His name and forward His cause, and every last organizational structure has failed, except as Christ became Israel and did it for us. It will be proven beyond all question and for all eternity that though God's mercy and justice could link hands and provide a way of escape for the fallen, for the universe there is NO alternative to God's original plan of government and its law of love, expressed for this world as the Ten Commandments.

However well it has served us over the years, however necessary it is to have a church structure, not even the Seventh-day Adventist Church structure is a perfect one, and no kind of change to it will EVER qualify as more than a temporary bandaid fix. ALWAYS persons will be held accountable to God as individuals, and if a wrong attitude or judgment is justified by the plea "the pastor (or Church Board, or Conference President, or Executive Committee, or GC, or the weight of popular scholarly opinion) made me do it," the wrong will never pass God's test when there has been every opportunity, by a prayerful study of His Word and providential leadings, to know better. This makes the last point mentioned above by Pickle, to be a vitally important one. I believe Observer is right in stating that in the life of the church there is a degree to which we must all learn to live together peaceably despite differing beliefs. Amen! But also there assuredly ARE SOME Bible-based non-negotiables which make "someone Adventist in their belief system, with or without church membership."

This post has been edited by Brick Step: Nov 10 2007, 08:30 PM

[Pickle]

Would someone who believes the pope is the rightfull head of Christendom really want to be SDA? Would not such a person be Roman Catholic?

Good point. So at some point we would find agreement on a non-negotiable, and agree that someone believing such would not be Seventh-day Adventist in their beliefs. Or at least I think I see you comfortable in that conclusion.

To stretch it a bit further, could someone who does not believe in the existence of God be considered Seventh-day Adventist in belief simply because their name is on the church books? I think we can all agree on that one.

So the only question really is, which are non-negotiables and which aren't?

[Pickle]

Even if this pastor was correct... and he is not... he is still mixing pineapples and kumquats. The issues regarding DS is particular and 3ABN in general are *NOT* doctrinal.... as for how adventist beliefs are discussed in this forum, point your pastor friend to R&H, 12/20/1892 where Sis. White says:

There is no excuse for any one in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation. We are living in perilous times, and it does not become us to accept everything claimed to be truth without examining it thoroughly; neither can we afford to reject anything that bears the fruits of the Spirit of God; but we should be teachable, meek and lowly of heart. There are those who oppose everything that is not in accordance with their own ideas, and by so doing they endanger their eternal interest as verily as did the Jewish nation in their rejection of Christ. The Lord designs that our opinions shall be put to the test, that we may see the necessity of closely examining the living oracles to see whether or not we are in the faith. Many who claim to believe the truth have settled down at their ease, saying, "I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing."

Now we could limit the meaning of the above (about having no fear of investigation) by the historical context, and say that that only applies to the question of the law in Galatians, but I think it would be incorrect to do so.

I don't mind investigating anything and everything, but I think it important to approach such investigations in an attitude of faith not doubt. And I also think it important to identify the specific issue that is really being investigated. Sometimes the surface issue being bantered around isn't the real issue. The foundational presuppositions must be put on the table and tested.

And sometimes the foundation is so divergent that dialog is very difficult, and likely goes beyond what Ellen White had in mind above.

[västergötland]

Good point. So at some point we would find agreement on a non-negotiable, and agree that someone believing such would not be Seventh-day Adventist in their beliefs. Or at least I think I see you comfortable in that conclusion.

To stretch it a bit further, could someone who does not believe in the existence of God be considered Seventh-day Adventist in belief simply because their name is on the church books? I think we can all agree on that one.

So the only question really is, which are non-negotiables and which aren't?

Well, to first know if a person is christian at all, we have the creeds shared by all christian churches.

[awesumtenor]

Now we could limit the meaning of the above (about having no fear of investigation) by the historical context, and say that that only applies to the question of the law in Galatians, but I think it would be incorrect to do so.

I don't mind investigating anything and everything, but I think it important to approach such investigations in an attitude of faith not doubt. And I also think it important to identify the specific issue that is really being investigated. Sometimes the surface issue being bantered around isn't the real issue. The foundational presuppositions must be put on the table and tested.

And sometimes the foundation is so divergent that dialog is very difficult, and likely goes beyond what Ellen White had in mind above.

The problem is, you are only in a position to speak of how you approach such investigations... we can both be approaching in an attitude of faith and still not agree... and it's intellectually disingenuous to demonize one who disagrees with you by painting them as a doubter or one who is lacking faith.

As for whether the discussion goes beyond what EGW had in mind, since she is not here, we can only go by what she said and what she did... and as one who, when investigation of what she believed turned out to not be true, she would change her belief to what she found to be true... that's how we came to the Sabbath truth, the health message and others. She and all of the Adventist pioneers were prepared to toss anything they believed if it was found to be errant... which separates EGW and the pioneers from those who embrace the so-called historic Adventist position who believe that the beliefs of this church are inerrant and immutable and therefore need no investigation since we have "the truth"... which is a position that is diametrically opposed to that of EGW... as she noted... no true doctrine will be made false by close investigation... which begs the question of if we have "the truth" why are we so afraid to let that truth be examined?

In His service,
Mr. J

[Observer]

When Adventist Today covered stories about 3ABN before, they were accused of being a bunch of liberals trying to take down a conservative ministry. That is one reason why they took such interest in Gailon and myself since we definitely do believe the Seventh-day Adventist message as it has been understood over the last 160+ years.

A pastor called me and remarked yet again that he feels that a lot of the criticism is motivated by liberalism, and that some of those posting here aren't really Seventh-day Adventists. Now with a lot of people I know, that is definitely not the case, but in light of some of the posts here, this last-ditch alibi will unfortunately resonate with a lot of people, even if it isn't true.

If you consider the various stances different ones have taken here when it comes to standards, the health message, a literal sanctuary in heaven, misconstruing thought inspiration into word inspiration, eschatology, the gift of prophecy, perhaps the authority and inspiration of Scripture, how can one counter this alibi?

How can it be effectively demonstrated to the conservatives in Seventh-day Adventism that it isn't a liberal agenda or philosophy or beliefs that motivate the criticism of Shelton et. al. at all, but rather one's principles of ethics, morality, fiduciary responsibility, and the like?

Or is it impossible to separate these two categories of possible motives, and thus we just have to live with Danny's accusations that a lot of this criticism is coming from liberals who are out to get a conservative ministry?

Bob:

So some think that the "attacks" on 3-ABN are motivated byliberalism as evidenced by ADVENTIST TODAY.

Well tell them to read the January issue of ADVENTIST TODAY. In that issue Samuel Koranteng-Pipim will write a piece. I assume that he and the world at large will be happy to know that Samuel Koranteng-Pipim is thought to be a liberal SDA.

[Pickle]

Well, to first know if a person is christian at all, we have the creeds shared by all christian churches.

Yet we can find people today who would object to the idea that they aren't Christian if they don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead or in the virgin birth.

It was between 1990 and 1993 that I heard Jan Michaelson on 1040 (I think WHO) out of Des Moines, IA, on Michaelson in the Morning, interviewing a Jewish Rabbi and a lady Protestant minister. I forget her denomination. Both agreed that there wasn't anyone out there who was going to answer their prayers, but it's good to pray anyway. I suppose they thought there was a psychological benefit from so doing.

So if a Protestant preacher told you that no one would answer anyone's prayers or that Jesus never rose from the dead, would you still consider him or her to be a Christian simply because they claimed to be, could show you their ministerial credentials, and so forth?

[Pickle]

The problem is, you are only in a position to speak of how you approach such investigations... we can both be approaching in an attitude of faith and still not agree... and it's intellectually disingenuous to demonize one who disagrees with you by painting them as a doubter or one who is lacking faith.

I would choose a different word than demonize, but I disagree. There are a lot of people out there who come across a question or a doubt or a problem, and then they search for an answer after assuming that the position we have held is wrong. That is not approaching the matter in an attiude of faith, in my opinion, and that is specifically what I was referring to.

I contend that we must first search diligently for an answer that supports our position before looking for something else. The reality of the human mind is that we see what we are looking for, and not necessarily much else. And so if we don't look for answers that support our positions, we risk arriving at an erroneous conclusion unnecessarily.

She and all of the Adventist pioneers were prepared to toss anything they believed if it was found to be errant...

I would be interested in seeing any evidence that you have that our pioneers were prepared to toss out their understanding of the inspiration and authority of Scripture. I'm not saying there isn't any such evidence. It's just that I don't recall any.

But I would think that the supremacy of Scripture over our rationalizings would be a non-negotiable in their minds.

[Pickle]

Bob:

So some think that the "attacks" on 3-ABN are motivated byliberalism as evidenced by ADVENTIST TODAY.

Well tell them to read the January issue of ADVENTIST TODAY. In that issue Samuel Koranteng-Pipim will write a piece. I assume that he and the world at large will be happy to know that Samuel Koranteng-Pipim is thought to be a liberal SDA.

It won't take folks very long to see the same thing you saw. I noticed some of the other names as well.

And I would not call the fellow who interviewed me for the story about Tommy a liberal.

[västergötland]

Yet we can find people today who would object to the idea that they aren't Christian if they don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead or in the virgin birth.

It was between 1990 and 1993 that I heard Jan Michaelson on 1040 (I think WHO) out of Des Moines, IA, on Michaelson in the Morning, interviewing a Jewish Rabbi and a lady Protestant minister. I forget her denomination. Both agreed that there wasn't anyone out there who was going to answer their prayers, but it's good to pray anyway. I suppose they thought there was a psychological benefit from so doing.

So if a Protestant preacher told you that no one would answer anyone's prayers or that Jesus never rose from the dead, would you still consider him or her to be a Christian simply because they claimed to be, could show you their ministerial credentials, and so forth?

If a preacher held the opinion that Jesus never rose from the dead, then I would consider said person to be outside of the bounds of christianity. He or she could well be a very good Jew or Muslim or whatever, but not a christian.
If a preacher held the opinion that no one would answer anyone's prayers, then I would want to know why no one would answer the prayers. If the preacher thought no one would answer prayers because no one exists who could do so, then said person again would be considered outside of christianity by me. However, it could also be that the preacher held that no one would answer prayers due to taking classical theism to its logical conclusion. In such case I would say that the preacher is a christian, although a christian whom I have a disagreement with on this point.

[YogusBearus]

Bob:

So some think that the "attacks" on 3-ABN are motivated byliberalism as evidenced by ADVENTIST TODAY.

Well tell them to read the January issue of ADVENTIST TODAY. In that issue Samuel Koranteng-Pipim will write a piece. I assume that he and the world at large will be happy to know that Samuel Koranteng-Pipim is thought to be a liberal SDA.

It will be interesting to see if Adventist Today is able to stimulate respectful dialogue between the divergent views represented in the church. If successful, this could go a long way towards removing some of the poisonous vitriol which is so damaging to the mission of the church.

-bear

[Pickle]

It will be interesting to see if Adventist Today is able to stimulate respectful dialogue between the divergent views represented in the church. If successful, this could go a long way towards removing some of the poisonous vitriol which is so damaging to the mission of the church.

-bear

The challenge is when different sides on an issue have differing foundational premises which prevent meaningful dialog.

For example, a Nazareene minister once told me that Larry and I had no basis upon which to discuss. Larry was a Catholic priest. When I had asked Larry how the curch could change something God wrote with His own finger on tables of stone, he replied that he didn't believe that had ever happened. he also didn't believe in a world-wide flood or the story of creation. but he believed that the thought behind the stories, the morale of the stories were correct: God created the world, and God punishes sin.

I remarked to Larry that Catholicism has two authorities, the bible and tradition. if the Bible can be reinterpreted like that, what about tradition? Can it be too? He said that that was being done.

Well, if there are two lines of authority and both are being reinterpreted, what's left?, I asked. "What Jesus taught in the New Testament," he replied. "Love."

With this kind of foundational premise, a perversion of "thought inspiration," there would be difficulty discussing anything that relies on the Bible as an authority. The one thing one could discuss is the dating, authorship, and reliability of the biblical account, and scientific evidence that supports Scripture, but that is about it.

[Noahswife]

The challenge is when different sides on an issue have differing foundational premises which prevent meaningful dialog.

For example, a Nazareene minister once told me that Larry and I had no basis upon which to discuss. Larry was a Catholic priest. When I had asked Larry how the curch could change something God wrote with His own finger on tables of stone, he replied that he didn't believe that had ever happened. he also didn't believe in a world-wide flood or the story of creation. but he believed that the thought behind the stories, the morale of the stories were correct: God created the world, and God punishes sin.

I remarked to Larry that Catholicism has two authorities, the bible and tradition. if the Bible can be reinterpreted like that, what about tradition? Can it be too? He said that that was being done.

Well, if there are two lines of authority and both are being reinterpreted, what's left?, I asked. "What Jesus taught in the New Testament," he replied. "Love."

With this kind of foundational premise, a perversion of "thought inspiration," there would be difficulty discussing anything that relies on the Bible as an authority. The one thing one could discuss is the dating, authorship, and reliability of the biblical account, and scientific evidence that supports Scripture, but that is about it.

Bob~

My initial response to your response to YB's post was, huh? So I read your post several times before responding.

I understand YB's post to be about respectful dialogue between the differing viewpoints and that maybe AT can stimulate that with the recent change of editor. Your response seems primarily about whether any dialogue would be meaningful unless all were agreed on certain foundational premises. Are you suggesting that it is impossible for the different viewpoints to dialogue in a respectful way because the positions held are so hardened that nothing of value would come from the discussion?

nw