You say you are a Christian in large part because of your parents. Had you been raised Muslim, wouldn't being a Muslim be largely due to your parents, also?

We so seldom realize that by far the largest predictor of our religious beliefs are shaped when we are too young to even be aware of them.  Then we proceed to rationalize and justify our current beliefs as if they were all made independent of any heritable training or program. 

Of course, that is almost impossible to qualify, but psychologists have demonstrated that our earliest moments are embedded so deeply that we are usually unaware of those influences, but credit our choices as personally and independently made. 

Ask any Catholic if he is a convert; ask any Muslim if he converted as an adult; ask any NAD SDA adult if he is a recent convert to Adventism.  If they were all new converts, not raised in a particular reglion, then it could be concluded that they made mature judgments and choices.  Otherwise, separating the early childhood influences is to dismiss the most effective indoctrination possible.

The Jesuits have been anecdotally given credit for the saying, "Give us a boy until he is seven, and we will have him for life."  While I can find no exact source for such a quote, this hits very close to home, for we say almost the same thing when we apply Proverbs 22:6 as an argument for sending our children into the Adventist school system.

 Why should this concern us?  This creates tremendous potential for inbred theology.  Inbred theology then opens us up to radical fundamentalism.  We become little different from the Muslim madrassa that teaches only memorization of the Koran with interpretation by the imam. In my humble opinion, the only thing that has saved us from this radicalism is exposure to liberal educational influences outside Adventism.  

Without a healthy dose of liberalism, we can still fallen prey to radical concepts like Dominion Theology and Theonomy as promoted by the likes of R.J. Rushdoony and Gary North.  Duane Gish, a name prominent in Adventism, is also found as signatory to "A Manifesto for the Christian Church" along with these men and several other well known fundamentalists who would like to see our constitution overthrown and replaced by a system of laws based upon the laws of the Pentateuch. Sounds eerily similar to the Muslim demands for Sharia Law, doesn't it?

If you think we are not susceptible to such right wing extremism, think again about the last time you heard someone say that they were homeschooling their child because our Adventist schools, as conservative as they are, were considered to be too liberal.

Stephen Foster's blog title is highly appropriate.  No one is so sure that they have the "truth" as a right-wing fundamentalist. And no one is so quick to militancy in defense of that "truth."

 The article states:

--

I believe that the Bible is the actual Word Of God, just as it identifies itself to Be;

--

Wow could you tell us where the Bible identifies itself as the actual Word of God. You surely realize that the Bible was not even put together until after all the books in it were written which presents a bit of a logistics problem.

I look forward to you answer...well rather your rationalization because we all know that the Bible does not self identify itself as the actual Word of God, but give it your best shot.

 I really like your thinking and you make good point. I certainly should have been more precise in my wording and perhaps said something to the effect that "I believe 2 Timothy 3:16, that all scripture is literally inspired by God, and that it contains..."; or that "I consider or believe the Biblical canon to be the "scripture" and that it was (all) inspired by God as is stated in 2 Timothy 3:16." I could then have also affirmed, more accurately, my belief that Jesus Himself is the Word Of God, as the Bible (John 1:1-18) claims Him to Be."

Stephen Foster

 I could hardly agree with Elaine Nelson and arxadelphia any more in that I have the utmost respect and admiration for the intellectual fortitude of those who converted to Adventism in post adolescence. I frankly doubt if I could have done it.

Stephen Foster

There were many things that Ellen White recommended that the SDA church today ignores such as signing a pledge to dispense with meat but because the leadership were still eating it, she wrote we can't make it a test but it was her desire it be a test;

http://imssdarm.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/vegetarianism-a-test-of-fellows...

I'm also the administrator of a 1200 member Facebook group called Ellen White and dress reform as many many people want to learn this subject but its hardly heard in the churches;

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=13310&uid=81048405224#/group.php...

Her writings are immortalized and its not her that speaks Jesus told her, but him speaking.

Regards,

Sabbath Sermons

http://imssdarm.wordpress.com

Stephen wrote:

--

and that it was (all) inspired by God as is stated in 2 Timothy 3:16."

--

Yes you could have done that but does it improve anything. That verse does not mean the Bible is the word of God. It does not even mean that everything in the scriptures is true or literal. It means that it is inspired for the purpose of teaching or reproof etc. That is a huge piece of territory that can include a wide amount of literature from an Aesop's fable to a document of history. A fictional story can inspire someone as much as a literal story. The same could be said for an inaccurate story. Such as George Washington and the cherry tree, "I cannot tell a lie."

So ultimately using the best verse in the entire Bible that people use to say that it is the word of God actually proves an entirely different thesis. That God can actually use a vast type of methods to inspire and that those who produced the writings as scriptures are the tools of the inspiration used to lead us to the Messiah.

15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Ron,

Just a very quick aside: What is your position on and understanding of Sola Scriptura? Can it be proved biblically (as it seems the doctrine would require)?

Many thanks, 

Clement

Ron, 

My point (and position) is that the entire Bible is inspired by God. We know that there are parables in the Bible that may not have literally occurred. This has no bearing however as to the literal "truth" of the Bible.

I have already stipulated that my belief is partially founded in indoctrination. One of the songs of my early childhood indoctrination contains lyrics to the effect of "...the B-i-b-l-e, yes that's the book for me. I stand alone on the Word of God, the B-i-b-l-e." That is essentially my position. I confess that I am now somewhat unclear as to exactly what yours is. 

"My point (and position) is that the entire Bible is inspired by God."

It should be clearly noted that it is your position, just as a person's position may be a chosen member of a political party:  not one that can be substantiated but simply personally chosen.

How is the Bible "inspired" differ from Handel's inspiration in composing "Messiah" or the many plays of Shakespeare, or those of an artist who has a gift not found in most individuals?                  

One can neither prove or disprove the inspiration of any work.  It is only his perception and the attitude each one brings to it.  If one has been taught from infancy that the Bible is the "Word of God" and that it is inspired in its entirety, then that will become an indelible impression not easily changed.  It bears repeating that a personal opinion remains just that, and should not be imposed on anyone else as a fact that can be validated.

Were the very similar stories predating the ones found in the BIble also inspired?  Was Gilgamesh Epic's days of Creation that are almost identical to the Genesis 1 story also inspired?  This is much older than the Bible story, so where does inspiration begin?

 There are numerous other Bible stories that were written long after such tales were recorded in other cultures.  Who was inspired?  The original writer or only the Bible author?

Stehen writes:

--

I have already stipulated that my belief is partially founded in indoctrination. One of the songs of my early childhood indoctrination contains lyrics to the effect of "...the B-i-b-l-e, yes that's the book for me. I stand alone on the Word of God, the B-i-b-l-e." That is essentially my position. I confess that I am now somewhat unclear as to exactly what yours is. 

--

My point is that the Bible is the "word of God" is simple tradition, the Bible makes no such claim for itself nor does any of the books make such a claim for themselves. You acknowledge that your position is the result of indoctrination, so my point is to remove the indoctrination and begin to work from reality rather than traditions. You can read more in my two part article on the word of God on my blog:

http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2009/09/normal-0-microsoftinternetexplorer4.html

http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2009/09/is-bible-really-word-of-god-part-2.html

As for Clements question on Sola Scriptura even Luther did not believe in Sola Scriptura. As He said before the councile unless you can show me my error by the Scriptures or by reason here I stand.

the problem with those who declare the Bible the word of God is that they then bypass the reason part of the equation. It is the word of God when interpreted as they interpret it, which is usually whatever their particular tradition says. After all it is their tradition that defines it as the word of God in the first place. It should be enough for people to say the Bible contains messages of and about God, that should be enough to make it the "book for me" without making it into something it is not. But see what you think after you read the linked articles.

 Elaine,

I'm afraid that we (you and I) are in violent AGREEMENT on this. My beliefs are only, in essence, very strongly held opinions which were initially formulated via indoctrination, at that. Theological beliefs, almost by definition, cannot always/ever be empirically proven and, as such, should never be imposed upon others. In fact, even if some aspects of them could be proven, I would be opposed to imposing them on others (except  my children of course, LOL).

 If however, I did not believe that the Bible was actually inspired by God and that it contains His will and explains His provision for me personally, I would certainly not be interested in either reading or writing about anything having to do with Christianity; except perhaps to oppose it. 

It should always be emphasized that whatever anyone believes about the Bible that "belief" should be the distinctive word. 

Whether your children will be sufficiently indoctrinated to continue those beliefs after they finish college, or more, is only a hope.  Indoctrination can only go so far.  Most Adventists, perhaps the majority in the NAD, were indoctrinated since infancy.  

The real challenge to the church is to determine how many, or few converts to Adventism come from non-Christian college graduates.  In third world countries, where the illiteracy rate may be as high as 80%, it becomes one of "explaining" the Adventist doctrines just as the priests of the church for the first 14 centuries were the sole interpreters of the Bible to the people.

Given this view, we should not expect much growth in new converts in the industrialized nation but should see increasing growth in third world countries, which is exactly what is occurring today.  It is, already, the third world countries that are so conservative (against women's ordination, proposed long imprisonment, even execution of homosexuals) who are able to cast the deciding vote on any change  desired by the first world countries.  What this result will mean for the church should be worrisome.  When power is in the hands of the poorer educated in any government, there is justifiable fear.

 The underlying premise of the blog is that perhaps the notions of the primacy and/or infallibility of Adventist doctrine are, in themselves, overblown fallacies. Indoctrination should only go so far. My parents taught me to (try to) think critically and independently, while simultaneously indoctrinating me with their belief system; hence the article.

All children should be taught to think and reason independently.  With this ability, parents should not be troubled if they exercise that independence and in doing so, either accept or reject their early indoctrination. 

Parents should be proud that their children become independent thinking adults, no longer immature in their thinking.  Anything else becomes stunted growth.

Hi Ron,

Thanks for those links - interesting reading! I wonder if there is a difference between something being inspired (by God or anything else) and something being inspiring to a particular group of people or whoever. It seems to me that you use the terms synonymously. My understanding was that while the scriptures are most certainly inspiring, yet they are also in a very particular way inspired (God-breathed).

Is this collection of books, which the church discerned over time to be the Canon of Scripture, uniquely inspired, setting them apart from other writings, like for example the Gospel of Thomas, The Shepard of Hermas, or to take it to another level, the Music of Mozart?

Could you clarify this? 

I am not sure that I follow your distiction between the two positions you present as God's Word and the Word of God. I'll re read it though!

You say that our reading of scripture is shaped by our tradition, and I could not agree more. Was the contents of the Canon of Scripture also determined by tradition, and if so, why should we trust that tradition and not many of the other teachings of that tradition?

Thank you for your patience with me!

Clement 

 Ron writes

"...the problem with those who declare the Bible the word of God is that they then bypass the reason part of the equation. It is the word of God when interpreted as they interpret it, which is usually whatever their particular tradition says. After all it is their tradition that defines it as the word of God in the first place. It should be enough for people to say the Bible contains messages of and about God..." 

 Well Ron, I reviewed the links you attached to this and must conclude, not surprisingly, that I can't find much common ground. My baseline is that the books of the Canon comprise God's chosen and preferred vehicle of written communication to mankind; and to Clements point, it is all inspired (God-breathed) as opposed to simply inspiring. The context in which some passages appear clearly have application for the time, place and circumstances in which they have reference. In other words, everything is not necessarily for everyone, (or) for every time. THIS is where "reason" comes in to play: all of it is from God, the question is, is all of it for you or for me, for all time, and for every circumstance. Obviously, we know that the answer to this question is "no" because if it weren't, we'd still be sacrificing lambs (among other things).

Forgive the grammar, but the Bible is God's word no matter what or who interprets it how. Particular traditions (including the Adventist tradition) in this sense are totally irrelevant. In my view, we simply outsmart ourselves, and tend to bark up the wrong tree, if and when we think otherwise.

Stephen writes:

My baseline is that the books of the Canon comprise God's chosen and preferred vehicle of written communication to mankind;

And I agree. But how do we know what the books of the canon are?

Blessings, 

Clement

The early Christians used many gospels and writings for several centuries, and it was not until the fourth century that the Scriptures were finally canonized.

By adopting and accepting these scriptures as inspired, we are acknowledging that the church, composed of humans just as we are, had special inspiration to decide which books should be included in the canon, and which should be excluded.

In that determination, comes also the definition of inspired scriptures:  Were those chosen inspired and those excluded lack inspiration?

When one speaks of the Bible as the "Word of God" he is using his individual reasoning ability, and each time he reads the Bible, he is interpreting it through his reason.  Is there another possibility? 

Stephen wrote:

--

THIS is where "reason" comes in to play: all of it is from God, the question is, is all of it for you or for me, for all time, and for every circumstance. Obviously, we know that the answer to this question is "no" because if it weren't, we'd still be sacrificing lambs (among other things).

--

That leads to a problem, you are saying a statement is the word of God because it is found in the Bible which you call the word of God. You as well as most Christians will declare that God does not change yet you assert that there are statements which are the word of God but they don't apply to you. You say that they don't apply to you because you reason that they should not apply to you. So you are saying that the specific word of God on whatever subject in question is being referred to do not apply to you because of your human reasoning.

So if someone says that they take the word of God more seriously than you do because they follow whatever the subject is feast days or fringes or stoning people, how will you answer them? You are both claiming that you have the word of God, that you both follow the word of God yet in fact you don't and very likely you will find that the other person does not follow the word of God either, at least in your estimation.

so what has the tradition of calling the Bible the Word of God done? nothing you still acknowledge that it has to be interpreted by human reason and how can it still be the word of God if it had to go through human penman and then the readers own intellectual analysis.  To determine if or if not the ancient statements are applicable to your or your societies situation.

The ongoing discussion about the canon, etc seems rather silly. If you think about it, we all choose who or what we are going to believe based on experience.  Initially we all take an existential leap of faith for any relationship whether it is with a book, a written article or that new kid playing in the sandbox with us.  Can we trust him or her not to dump sand in our hair? Will they play nice with us?  We won't know until we decide to just jump into the opening stages of a relationship and see what happens.

So it is with the Bible.  Is it inspired? Is there validity to what people say about it?  We will never know for sure until we try to form a relationship with it.  There is a mechanistic theory of truth.  We can discuss whether or not something should work until we are blue in the face.  Not until we actually try the thing to see if it works will we know what is really true.  

The paradox is that sometimes things are only true for us as individuals. However, once again the only way to find that out is by increasing the sample size. Others have to try it.  If it works for you and not for others, then it is only true for you.  If it works for many then maybe you are on your way to a universal truth.  Or maybe something unique about the sample population is making it true for them apart from the thing deemed true.  Then it will never be a universal truth unless the total population changes to become like the sample.

This begs the question.  As Seventh-day Adventists maybe we should ask about our doctrines, our culture, and what we deem inspired, "Are these things universally true and work for everyone in and of themselves? Are they true because they work for us as a denomination? Are we trying to make them universally true by changing the world to agree with us so it will work for them?"  Once we can identify the correct answer, then we can ask "What difference does it make to the inviolability of our doctrines, culture and what we deem inspired?"

Announcement: We have a new moderation policy [see posted announcement]. We are aiming to raise the bar in our forums and by doing so we are moderating all comments before they are published. Please read the announcement and stay informed as it may affect your future comments.

Marcel Schwantes

Online Editor, Adventist Today

sabbathsermons,

Do you suppose Jesus, Paul, or any of the apostles extracted dietary pledges from those who accepted Christ and joined the fellowship of the NT church?

 Paul seems to have taught what the church leaders asked, that believers not eat meat offered to idols, but he made exceptions for even that.

Many have referred to or quoted the "God breathed" claims for scripture made in 2 Timothy. In all liklihood the "scripture" being referred to was what we would call the Old Testament.

I think the rationale we use to apply the "God breathed" statement to the "Bible", which includes the New Testament, would reveal a great deal about the overall creditability of our beliefs about the "Bible".  I find that most people's confidence in the Bible as "God breathed" is formed without a real knowledge of how the "Bible" came into existence. I fear that most people's ideas about inspiration have not been reasoned out.

Inspriation is a complex thing when you really try to explain it. For Adventists and Mormons there is even more complexity. How do they explain their belief in the inspiration of extra-Biblical materials. Is there a difference in the inspiration of the Bible and the extra-Biblical materials? And what is the basis on which each of these groups accepts their own extra-Biblical materials as inspired, but rejects the claims of the other group for their extra-Biblical materials.

rudygood,

You make good points especially relating to Adventists, Mormons and the difference between Biblical and extra-Biblical inspiration.

My take, as alluded to in the blog, is that there is not a discernible difference in true inspiration. If, for example, a sermon happens to have been a truly inspired (as opposed to inspiring) message from God, then It Is what It Is. In other words, that which is from God is all equal. If the "inspiration" in question is actually from God, how can it be purer or more legitimate in any instance it which it truly is extant?

The question with the extra-Biblical material is that, unless it is somehow considered Canonical, there is now way to determine what portion of it, if any, is inspired. Personally, I believe EGW's writings were inspired where and when she said they were; and in fact, that does not necessarily mean that everything, or for that matter most of the things, she wrote was inspired.

Mormons, obviously, would have to speak for themselves. 

Stephen Foster

Isn't inspiration always subjective?

You may find a book, certain music, or a sermon "inspiring" but has no such affect on even your best friend.

To say a book, even the Bible is "inspiring" implies that it should have an equal inspiration affect on everyone.  Just as Mormons find inspiration in their books, and SDAs may find inspiration from both the Bible and their prophet, they are all equally subjective.

Elaine,

Perhaps you are using, interpreting, and/or defining "inspiring" and "inspiration" interchangeably; but that is not my intention in using these words (as someone alluded to previously in an earlier post, if I recall correctly). Something can be "inspiring" to the reader or listener without having necessarily been "inspired" in its inception. Conversely, something can be "inspired" in its inception but not necessarily "inspiring" to the reader or listener (a "spiritual things are spiritually discerned" sort of thing). "Inspiration" from inception refers to something essentially coming from God; i.e, God-breathed. "Inspiring" is a description of an effect on the reader or listener of something read or heard. At least that's what I mean when using these terms.

Stephen Foster