The Great Controversy from an Unlikely Source

Posted May 11th, 2008 by Clifford Goldstein
For years, I've been an avid listener to the Teaching Company (www.teach12.com); they go around the country, getting the best professors at various colleges and universities across America (Their Bible stuff is useless, though; in fact, if you want see what a hellhole Higher Criticism leads to, listen to their Bible material. Beyond idiocy! But the rest is great.)

I listened to one series on the Philosophy of Religion by Dr. James Hall, from the University of Richmond (I think). He describes himself as an "agnostic Episcopalian," or something like that. He's definitely not a fundy, and certainly not an Adventist one.

Well, part of the series deals with theodicy, the justification of God in the face of evil. You know, How can God be all-good and all-powerful and all-loving and there be evil? That kind of stuff, and certainly a fair question. Anyway, he goes through these different theodicies, explains them and then, after each one, said why he believed each one didn't work. And, for the most part, I had to agree with him.

Then, just as an aside, he said (and I'm paraphrasing him), "Oh, yes, there is one more theodicy. No one takes it seriously any more today but I thought I'd mention it." He called it the Cosmic Free Will Theodicy or something like that. The upshot is that for about three minutes he describes, basically, the great controversy scenario, pretty much how any traditional Adventist would. You know, an angel Lucifer with free will, falls into sin, leads a rebellion in heaven that takes hold on earth, a battle between good and evil, etc. I mean, it was our cosmic world view perfect expressed.

What was fascinating, however, is that he ended it with these words. "This theodicy is the only one that works, the only that can explain the goodness of God in the face of evil."

I thought that was so cool! Here's an "agnostic Episcopalian" basically arguing our position on the great controversy. I found it a powerful affirmation of our beliefs, and made me even more certain that God has raised up the Adventists with a present truth message that no one else is preaching, or even comes close to.

Cheers.

Comments

Re: The Great Controversy from an Unlikely Source

On May 19th, 2008 carpenterale says:
Hey Cliff, welcome to the other side of the blogosphere!

Re: The Great Controversy from an Unlikely Source

On May 19th, 2008 johram says:
Cliff, Theodicy matters and I agree, we've got to share ours because it's right theologically and scientifically also both on suffering and death. /the new site looks great

Re: The Great Controversy from an Unlikely Source

On May 19th, 2008 jdavidnewman says:
Hey, Cliff, glad to have you on board with Adventist Today. You always keep the mind stretching and I look forward to much more stretching. Bart Erhmann is a professor who has turned agnostic over the issue of why innocent people suffer. I have had one very interesting exchange with him. Keep the conversation going.

Re: The Great Controversy from an Unlikely Source

On May 19th, 2008 Clifford Goldstein says:

This should be fun. My own soapbox, without the kind of editorial restraints one finds when writing for the denomination. Watch out, all you #$%#@ libbies! Clifford Goldstein

Staff Blogger, Adventist Today

Re: The Great Controversy from an Unlikely Source

On May 19th, 2008 djhamstra says:
Cliff: They say you use a lot of obtuse words, so would you kindly explain what #$%#@ means? Seems like Ehrman had a reason for rejecting the "Cosmic Free Will" theodicy. If my recall is right (heard him on Fresh Air) is has something to do with the suffering of the innocent. Anyway, Julius Nam blogged about it. Maybe Dave Newman would like to elaborate on his conversation?

Re: The Great Controversy from an Unlikely Source

On May 19th, 2008 chillout says:
Why does the cosmic free will theodicy work?

Re: The Great Controversy from an Unlikely Source

On May 19th, 2008 Clifford Goldstein says:
Hamstra-- We are all Derridaians here . . . that means we read into the text whatever we want it to read. We get rid of the author's intent (isn't that how the libbies interpret the Bible anyway), so "@#$@%" can mean whatever you want it to mean, such as "wonderful", or "open-minded" (that's stretching it a bit for libbies) or "tolerant" or whatever else you want. I had a few other modifiers in mind, however, but will leave that up to your imagination. Clifford Goldstein

Staff Blogger, Adventist Today

Re: The Great Controversy from an Unlikely Source

On May 20th, 2008 jdavidnewman says:
Yes, I will share the conversation that I had with Dr. Erhman. There is nothing there that would embarrass either of us, in other words it is not a private conversation. He replied within three hours of me sending the email. I was not even expecting such a quick reply. I add his reply as well which adds an interesting twist. Since it took him twenty years to move from belief to agnosticism I did not expect him to recover faith immediately. I am praying that the seed I sowed will eventually sprout. His wife is a devout Christian and very active in her church. Dear Dr. Ehrman, as well as being a pastor I teach a course called Faith Seeking Understanding at Columbia Union College in Takoma Park Maryland. This last Monday I played your interview with Terry Gross of NPR Fresh Air recorded February 19, 2008 and asked my students to comment. I asked them to listen for the tone as well as the words since tone is even more important than just the words. I was impressed that you did not come across as bitter, angry, with a vendetta or something to prove in a negative way. You came across as a sincere seeker after truth going where the evidence led. And there is no doubt that the evidence you gave on line and in your book does not show a very pretty picture of God. You also felt that none of the classical answers to suffering including seeing it as mystery were sufficient for you. May I be so bold as to suggest a way of looking at the subject that you did not address and learning from Physics. I believe that Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle could inform our discussion. Physicists have come to accept that there are seeming impossibilities on the subatomic level. You cannot determine both motion and position at the same time. Yet they have come to live with that tension. I have a theory that most religious heresies come about because people cannot live with the tensions in the Bible and try and totally resolve them. But maybe there is another way at looking at the issue of suffering and that there is a real tension between a loving God and a God who dispenses justice. Without tension we could not fly. Velocity and gravity oppose each other. With no velocity we could not fly. With no gravity everything would float off into space that was not attached to this earth, But when we get the right tension and balance between the two, flight is possible. Is this a possibility in your quest to understand suffering and a loving God? You state that you are not atheist but agnostic. I can appreciate that. I believe that the bible is a combination of human and divine. If one accepts that concept the challenge comes in sorting out which is human and fallible and which is divine and presumably infallible. This is where the tension arises. And since so much of live involves living with tension maybe that same idea could inform us on the subject of suffering and God. Anyway, just a thought. And if I do not hear back from you that is fine as I know you must get zillions of emails. Yours for the very best, David Dr. Erhman's reply: David, Thanks for your note and your very interesting idea/reflection. If I were a believer, I would find it very attractive. But I'm afraid that for me it works better in the abstract than on the ground: I just have trouble believing in a God -- even a God seen through the lenses of Heisenberg! -- who would allow children to starve to death at the reate of one every five seconds, or a tsunami to kill 300,000 people over night, or ... well lots of things. For me it is not really just a kind of logical problem (as it is for some philosophers) that can be "solved" by coming up with the right equation, if you see what I mean. But thanks again for passing along your idea! -- Bart Ehrman Bart D. Ehrman James A. Gray Professor Department of Religious Studies University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Re: The Great Controversy from an Unlikely Source

On May 20th, 2008 Clifford Goldstein says:
David- here's an excerpt from my book Life Without Limits that touches on this issue . . . for what it's worth.

The cross, and the cross alone, answers the question about the justice and fairness of God amid suffering--and any theodicy that doesn’t place the cross at its center is doomed to choke on its own absurdities. Only as we understand the reality of God, the Creator, suffering in a way that no fallen human being has suffered can we begin to get some understanding of His goodness amid an evil world. Far from being “safely ensconced somewhere in the sky”--this Creator became one of us and suffered the results of sin in ways that no other human ever could. Only when we grasp that amazing truth can we begin to see hope beyond the fumes of a decaying race that rots even before its own corpses do.

And, fascinatingly enough, the clearest expression of this suffering, God’s suffering, is found not in the New Testament but in the Old, in the writings of Isaiah, chapter 53:

“Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:1-6, NIV)

The One suffering here is Jesus, and Jesus is God, the Creator--He who spun those billions of galaxies across the cosmos, and He who sustains them by “His powerful word” (Hebrews 1:3). Those texts are talking about God, in human flesh, suffering what no one else ever could. People have been crucified before, of course, but that’s not the focus of Christ’s sufferings. The focus, instead, is on substitution, on Him suffering for what others have done: “Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.”

Jesus “took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows" (Isa 53:4). The Hebrew word translated "infirmities" (holi) is "sickness, disease," while the word translated "sorrow' (makov) is "pain, physical pain, mental pain." Whose pain, whose sickness, whose disease, and whose woe did He bear at the cross? The whole world's! Christ’s death was for each person; He bore the penalty for every sinner—and, because we all are sinners, this means that He bore the penalty for every human being.

But Scripture says even more. According to the text, He bore all human suffering in Himself, at once. What we suffer only as individuals, our own pain, our own sickness, our own woe--He carried it all Himself, corporately.

The implications are astounding.

Look at this idea: “My external sensations are no less private to myself than are my thoughts or my feelings. In either case my experience falls within my own circle, a circle closed on the outside . . . ."

Right. Any pain, any suffering, any sadness you experience is your own pain, your own suffering, your own sadness--always and always your own. Pain is personal, more private than thought (you can share thought; you can’t share your pain) and so not one of the billions in this cauldron of disease and death ever suffered more than what each one, individually, could suffer. Pain never goes beyond our “own circle, a circle closed to the outside.” You can’t feel anyone else’s pain, and no one else can feel yours, and that has very distinct limits.

“Human nature,” wrote Johann Goethe, “has its limitation. It can bear joy and suffering, and pain to a certain degree, but perishes when this point is passed.”

We’re stunned, for sure, by the sheer numbers in calamities (125,000 in this tsunami, 100,000 in that earthquake, 2,000,000 in this war, 500,000 in that one), but don’t let the numbers fool you. Whether one, or one million, each victim's pain was always and only his or her own, as if he or she suffered and died alone. In the whole wretched history of our whole wretched world, not one wretch ever suffered more than what only an individual could suffer, no matter how many individuals might have been suffering together at once. Holocaust, famine, pandemic—it doesn’t matter . . . . pain always comes in packets of just one. Except one time.

At the cross, the woes of a lost and fallen world, the sickness, disease, pain and suffering, all of it fell at once on Jesus. “Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows,” that’s the infirmities and sorrows of every human being who has ever lived or ever will. It was all there, concentrated at once onto the person of Jesus, God Himself, which means that God Himself has suffered from the free choice He gave us as human beings.

Who, then, can accuse God of indifference to, or being distant from, our pain when He knows it more acutely than any of us because He has experienced it more than all of us? Albert Camus (of all people!) wrote: "Christ came to solve two problem, evil and death, which are precisely the problems that preoccupy the rebel. His solution consisted, first, in experiencing them. The god-man suffers, too--with patience. Evil and death can no longer be entirely imputed to Him since He suffers and dies." Camus got it almost right. "Since He suffers and dies worse than any human being could ever suffer or die" would have been the better answer.

Much still doesn’t make sense about pain and suffering (much doesn’t make sense about the nature of sub-atomic particles, either), but that doesn’t mean God isn’t there, or real, or that the promises of salvation, of redemption, of eternal life aren’t real either.

That was my attempt to try and deal with that issue. Clifford Goldstein

 

Staff Blogger, Adventist Today

Re: The Great Controversy from an Unlikely Source

On May 20th, 2008 jdavidnewman says:
Clifford, I have not read this book of yours but what you have excepted is magnificent. Yes, we have no concept of the pain that Jesus suffered on the cross when he experienced the pain of all who have ever lived. I believe that Dr. Erhman is reacting to the extreme fundamentalism he was raised with and has now thrown the baby out with the bath water.

Re: The Great Controversy from an Unlikely Source

On May 20th, 2008 RonCorson says:
Wow I just read Cliff's book excerpt, I certainly hope Erhman never has to read that. The position Cliff expresses is the extreme fundamentalism, It takes the foreshadowing of Isaiah 53 and treats it as literal of Jesus, even when most of the verses he quoted are never quoted of Jesus in the New Testament. If one has a problem with the idea of God and justice they are not going to be soothed by saying that God caused Jesus to suffer in one time all the suffering of all the people of all time. Then pour into that the idea of substitution that because Jesus suffered by having all the sin of everybody placed on him that that pays the penalty of sin. It is one of the biggest problems in Christianity and why Christianity is declining. We make God out an idiot who punishes the innocent so that He can forgive the guilty. Why not forgive without punishing someone, that seems to be too radical a concept for some Christians to realize. Even though it is clearly expressed in both the Old and New Testaments. God instructs us to freely forgive but God can't do it, He has to punish by making Jesus pay the penalty for our sins. Even though nothing in the New Testament ever says that Jesus "paid the penalty for our sins". So Christianity produces a complex exchange system so that we can say substitution which no world legal system would call justice and they call it justice. And for what purpose? All so God can forgive...by inflicting the penalty on the innocent, God pours out His wrath on God (Jesus) so that God can substitute the payment that God (Jesus) makes to God to guilty human beings. So it is not too surprising to think that anyone with that convoluted logic will think that the idea that God suffered will help answer the problem of a 40,000 dying a day of starvation or and 100,000 drowning. It does not, we have to do better.

Re: The Great Controversy from an Unlikely Source

On May 21st, 2008 Ella M says:
Ella M Why does the writer of the above believe that the suffering and death of millions is punishment? Did anyone here say that? It is hardly punishement when brought on by the existence of evil and perpetuated by evil beings. It is not God's will ,though in the last days His protection is forced to withdraw. The idea of Christ feeling the suffering of all is rather abstract--hard for us to understand. Physically He didn't suffer any more than others executed in the same way and maybe less since He died quickly. We don't understand how this can be--I certainly can't, but I take it on faith that one day we will find out. Again God the Father didn't do it, but He had to withdraw from Christ for Him to die--I can understand that. It had to be done. Now I am going to get into something the church isn't teaching, but I believe it. The Bible says that Christ was slain at the foundation of the world. It also says He was slain for ALL of humanity in many places. There is a tension here when some texts infer that salvation is only for those who believe in Him. Since most of humanity had lived before He came to earth, and most of the earth neither then or now had heard of Him--that would hardly be a fair test unless we are talking about those who heard the Christ perach or heard the pure Gospel, and could then make a fair decision. I am proposing that God is more loving than we can imagine. I believe in the idea that being "lost" depends on rejection of Christ (as we experience Him throught the Holy Spirit and follow His ways and principles). The Bible talks about being "blotted out" of the Book of Life. Then perhaps we are all in the book when we are born. It is rejection of the Holy Spirit that blots us out. We are in the Book of Life because Christ died for us before we were born. To imagine that Christ's sacrifice doesn't include all the patriarchs and prophets of old is absurd. Now concerning the millions who die and suffer, including children, it would seem that they will be resurrected and not remember such suffering. They will come into the Kingdom. There is no real death as yet on this earth--it is only the second death that is final. (One very good reason is that there is no room for all that are born.) They all sleep as we have been taught. Perhaps they are kept from experiencing the final moments of death. Some in dreadful accidents don't remember the incident when they wake up in hospitals. Even the so-called death experiences could be God's way of helping people die as parts of the brain shut down. These are all ideas to think about and have helped me. For I am determined to never believe that God is unfair or cruel. He is love. And those who see Him otherwise are buying into an enemy more powerful than they are.

Re: The Great Controversy from an Unlikely Source

On May 22nd, 2008 jdavidnewman says:
I agree. God is love and not cruel. God is in the business of getting as many people into heaven as he can. I don't believe the bible supports your idea that everyone is written in the book of life and has to choose not to go to heaven. I know there are some Adventists who believe this way. The Bible is clear that we all sin and once we sin the wages of sin is death. So we have to make a decision for God rather than a decision against God., At the same time I believe God is extremely fair and gives every person ever born an opportunity to be saved, but the basis of that salvation will always be the same--relying on someone else rather than my good works.

Re: The Great Controversy from an Unlikely Source

On May 22nd, 2008 Ella M says:
Ella M Salvation always depends on Christ, but it is retroactive to the beginning of life on this earth. We all sin and our sins are covered by Christ as you said. If our first parents hadn't sinned, we would not experience the first death. But we must not reject Christ (and I am not clear on what this means for those who never knew Him by name including those who lived before Him), is it the way of life He taught? Is it responding to the Holy Spirit and experiencing the fruits of the Spirit? Is it a Christlikeness in the life and heart? Is it based on love for and treatment for others? Is it all of these? We cannot be saved by our good works--but thencan we be lost by evil works that are not repented of? Is this rejecting Christ? Or does it also mean just living by our selfish lives and ignoring our spiritual natures? A God of love is not going to destroy the lives (all His records of them--DNA?) of the large percentage of the world and all who ever lived in it--especially children who had no choice. As in the story of the richman and Lazarus, perhaps those who have suffered on this earth will be given what they did not have here--abundant life. Many contemporary theologians (like Clark Pinnock) are coming up with a broader view of salvation and have biblical material to back it up. This is not pluralism. I recommend a book FOUR VIEWS ON SALVATION IN A PLURALISTIC WORLD. Actually Adventism is one of few evangelical religions that can fit this concept into their belief system, according to theologian Neal Punt one of its advocates. I think we call it "living by the light they have"--an old cliche but a true one.

Re: The Great Controversy from an Unlikely Source

On May 22nd, 2008 RonCorson says:
"Ella M Why does the writer of the above believe that the suffering and death of millions is punishment?" Can you show me where I said that or implied that.

Re: The Great Controversy from an Unlikely Source

On May 22nd, 2008 DonB says:
Punishment, probably not. God may see different priorities for us than we see. Pain/stress/tension are seen by us as evil and as something to be avoided. But we seem to require stress and pain to move us to solve problems, change direction, Otherwise the body/mind tends to stay at rest. Perhaps pain/stress/sorrow/sadness is the force that comes between me at rest and the spiritual experience He provides as the superior position so as to avoid atrophy and inaction. Probably among other things, i see Jesus suffering and death as a affirmation that death will not be the worst thing to happen. In His case, bowing down to Satan and being done with the pain would have been the worst. I just wonder how long thousands of children will have to starve for His point to be made obvious enough to produce the action in me to do HIS work.

Re: The Great Controversy from an Unlikely Source

On May 24th, 2008 Clifford Goldstein says:
In the end, I think the key term here is "theodicy," which means the justification of God in the face of evil; not the justification of evil, which is totally different. I have to believe that, in the end, when we "know even as we are known" we will be able praise God for how he dealt with the issue of sin and rebellion, as difficult as it remains now to understand. In fact, I gave up a long time ago trying to make sense of it. All I can do is go back to the cross and let that tell me what our God is like, and cling to that. What else do we have? Clifford Goldstein

Staff Blogger, Adventist Today

Re: The Great Controversy from an Unlikely Source

On May 31st, 2008 Ella M says:
Ella M I notice that Bart Ehrman is the professor for several NT studies in the recent Teaching Company catalog. How does he get to do that as an agnostic? He is hardly going to be objective.

Re: The Great Controversy from an Unlikely Source

On May 31st, 2008 Clifford Goldstein says:
Ella M-- Are you kidding me? As I said in the blog, the biblical stuff from the Teaching Company is a joke; more than a joke. I mean, if you want to see what a demonic hellhole higher criticism is, the Teaching Company stuff on the Bible is the place to go. The rest of their material, however, is great. Clifford Goldstein

Staff Blogger, Adventist Today

Re: The Great Controversy from an Unlikely Source

On June 13th, 2008 Ella M says:

Thanks Cliff for giving me your perspective. I was about to invest $100 in audio tapes on the history series offered in their recent catalog at a discount. However, I just don't have time to spend on "that which is not bread." It may be interesting, but I have other things to do and books to read.

I would recommend The History of the Ancient World from the Earliest accounts to the fall of Rome by Susan Wise Bauer. I found it mentioned on Books & Culture (CT) and ordered this 800-pager. I have never read a more engaging history that sparkles with the author's humor and includes her sources. She has included some of the legends from the different cultures that probably evolved from ancient events. She does not put-down religious beliefs.

From this we get an idea of the context of biblical stories and understand some of the violence of the Israelites (they were better than the surrounding peoples).

Ella M

Re: The Great Controversy from an Unlikely Source

On July 14th, 2008 Elaine says:
As a fan of the The Teaching Company, having listened to several dozen of their lectures over the years, I cannot too highly recommend them. If one wishes to hear and read Christian apologists there are more than sufficent books available, and if they want SDA stuff, simply check the ABC. The Teaching Company is non-biased and none of the many professors who lecture ever disclose their personal beliefs as it would be unethical to do so. Teachers are t o inform on the subject, whatever it may be with the available historical facts, not disclosing a particular bias, whether on personal faith or no faith. This is the standard for all teachers and not to understand that demonstrates an ignorance of what all teaching should be: not indoctrination but the facts, allowing the student to form his own opinion based on the historical facts as best understood by experts. If one wants an Adventist teaching, he should limit his education to SDA schools, or form his own form of The Teaching Company. History is what the combined studies of many have agreed upon, and when new evidence is discovered, it will be added to what is presently known. I'll take mine plain, and those who wish differently can stick with the approved SDA teachings. BTW, how does one with such a biased position accept or refute the many archaeological findings in recent years, plus the replicated myths from other earlier cultures that are so similar to the early Bible stories?

Re: The Great Controversy from an Unlikely Source

On July 14th, 2008 Elaine says:
Having several of heavily dog-eared and highlighted books by Ehrman, and having listened to his lectures with The Teaching Company, I find him most objective. There is an interesting article in a recent Biblical Archeological Review where he discusses his personal faith with three others, two are Jews, I believe. But he avoids any mention of his personal belief (as he should) in his lectures and books. Subjectivsm should be anathema to any teacher excepting perhaps those who are indoctrinating in a particular religion. There is a great difference in apologetic religious history and historical and unbiased teaching. The attempt by a teacher to indoctrinate is basis for removal, in many instances and only in established Christian universities is it accepted. One makes that choice; but for myself, I wish to know the unbiased facts, as can best be known, and wish to form my own personal opinions based on the best facts available. Yes, I realize there are no objective histories, but some are much more subjective than others. Studying a multitude of various writers, one is then better able to determine a position based on the best of available historians and make an informed decision. When new information is discovered, what should one do? Ignore it, or accept or reject it. It is rather difficult to reject history and archaeological findings. There's the rub.

Re: The Great Controversy from an Unlikely Source

On July 15th, 2008 Clifford Goldstein says:
Objectivity is a myth. Everyone works from certain assumtions, biases and presuppositions taken on faith, even the Teaching Company professors. The little bit of the Bible stuff I listened to was anything but objective.

One man's objectivity is another's propaganda.

Cliff

 

Re: The Great Controversy from an Unlikely Source

On August 3rd, 2008 Ervin Taylor says:

Cliff:

"One man's objectivity is another's propaganda."  And I thought you belived you could know "objective, propositional truth." It seems that you apparently don't.  Bravo!

Or is this another case of misunderstanding you?

Erv 

    

 

 

Re: The Great Controversy from an Unlikely Source

On August 4th, 2008 Clifford Goldstein says:

Erv-

 

I believe that objective propositional truth exists, and we can have some knowledge of it.  I'm kind of on Plato's side (in the Sophist ) against the relativism of Protagoras and the like, who denied any universal, necessary and certain truths.  I beleive in the existence of these truths and believe that we can have some knowledge of them, which I think is different from saying that we can "know" them.  "Know" is a very loaded word.

 

Cliff

 

Clifford Goldstein Staff Blogger, Adventist Today

Re: The Great Controversy from an Unlikely Source

On August 4th, 2008 Ervin Taylor says:

Cliff:

I too believe that "objective propositional truth" (OPT) may exist but, if it does, at best, only God can know it.  So as a practical matter, as far as all of us humans are concerned, it seems to me that it doesn't exist. 

What evidence can you offer to support the view that any human might have a clue as to what might be considered to be an OPT? 

Erv 

 

 

Re: The Great Controversy from an Unlikely Source

On August 5th, 2008 Clifford Goldstein says:

Erv--

How about, "In six days God created the heaven and the earth . . ." (Exodus 20).  Seeing as it comes from God, expresses a proposition, and is truth, that's about as close to an OPT as I can think of.

Shalom (I'd write more but an nursing a terrible headache. headaches, I think, are God's way of helping me know for sure that I exist).

Re: The Great Controversy from an Unlikely Source

On August 6th, 2008 Ervin Taylor says:

Cliff:

Sorry about your head ache.  Hope it gets better very fast.

I asked for "evidence" for what you think would be a OPT. You presented an example. 

With regard to your example, I'm sure that you would agree that God did NOT say or write "In six days, God created the heavens (it's a plural in the Hebrew, right? But you're the Hebrew scholar) and the earth"

Some human (let's not argue about whether Moses wrote it or not, that's another problem) wrote a set of Hebrew characters.   Unless you believe in verbal inspiration (which I assume you do not), some human was expressing a point of view at a particular place and particular time to make a particular point.  God has honored what that person wrote but, to quote a 19th century American religious writer whom we both know, in no sense is God on trial when we humans use some set of symbols to express some understanding about what a human writer and/or his culture believed God did "In the beginning."   So I don't think these words are even close to an OPT.  

Next time, it would be helpful if you would present some evidence or argument as why you think some concept or expression directly represents a OPT.

 Erv

 

Re: The Great Controversy from an Unlikely Source

On June 20th, 2009 Kebby says:

Hey excellent article ... God Bless You

Visit http://eladventistahoy.blogspot.com
Clifford Goldstein's picture
Clifford GoldsteinClifford Goldstein, a top-selling author and leading conservative voice, has authored 20 books and hundreds of magazine articles. He is editor of the Adult Bible Study Guide and also edited Liberty and Shabbat Shalom. Clifford blogs on current issues and traditional Adventist teachings--and will take reader questions.