Comment on Supreme Court Decision on Church Employment Case by Ron.

@Ken. Thank you. It seems to me that Jesus once said of someone like you, “Thou art not far from the kingdom of god”

Bill Sorensen: So SDA’s do not limit our confession of faith to simply “the bible only”, but the bible as understood and presented to us by the pioneers, especially EGW.

I accept the Bible, and I believe in what Mrs. White had to say about it, and I even accept that our understanding is informed by the experience of our pioneers, but I still reject your statement that our confession is based on the Bible plus anything, including Mrs. White and the pioneers. Mrs. White explicitly rejected that stance. She consistently represented herself as being a lessor light leading to the greater light. She explicitly stated that she was fallible, and that our understanding of scripture is limited and fallible, and she at least strongly implied if not stated outright, that there would come a time when me might have to change some of our long held beliefs. Our forefathers also had a long debate about developing a creed and explicitly rejected the idea so that our church would not be bound down, but would be open and free to follow God’s truth however He leads.

@ Colin Maunder
RE: Usher’s chronology. I was a religion major and I am not ignorant of Usher’s chronology. I am not going to get into it now because it is beside the point. Let it be sufficient to say that the Dead Sea scrolls had not been found at the time of Usher and by the late 1970’s even conservative Adventist theologians discredited Usher’s methodology based on linguistic and textual grounds.

In this point I could be wrong, and I don’t want to argue it here, but I think I remember being told somewhere that Mrs. White accepted the 6000 years because Usher’s chronology was the commonly accepted belief at the time, not that she was given that specific number in a vision. The point is that, whether it comes from Usher, or Mrs. White, it is a man made interpretation of the Bible. It is not explicitly stated in the Bible, and therefore it should not be included in a creedal formulation, even if you accept the idea of a creed which I reject.

@Bill
“And finally, do you actually think any and every church has no right to discipline those who attack it from within?”

First, that is not what was happening here. The teachers at La Sierra were good loyal Adventists who were teaching Biology the best way they knew how given the fact that after 50 years of research the (I forget the name is it the Geoscience Research Institute that was set up by the GC in the 50’s?) has completely and totally failed to find any convincing evidence to support a short earth time. In fact I understand that the GC had to let several of the directors go because they became convinced otherwise after studying into it extensively.

Second, every other organization of any kind in the world has the right to do that EXCEPT the Adventist Church. The Adventist church does not have that right because of their unique claim to be following Present Truth.

Religion is full of paradoxes, and here is another one. Once you make the claim that you are the repository for God’s present truth, and state your intention to follow God where ever he might lead, you have to give up the right to be right for several reasons.
1. If you don’t, you are making the same error that Catholic church made, and you wind up making an image to the beast.
2. The notion of Present Truth implies that humanity can never fully understand God and that you never know all the truth. There is always more for God to reveal.
3. The fact that you do not yet have all the truth, implies that much of what you think is true isn’t. (In medical school our teachers said, half of everything we teach you is wrong. It is up to you to figure out which half.)
4. The search for truth requires open respectful dialogue. Unless everyone just goes their own way independently without regard to reason, you have to have a reasoned argument and that requires both participants be open to influence. It is impossible to search for truth unless you willing to accept the risk of being shown to be wrong. (This is why it is really foolish for me to argue with Bob. I don’t get any sense that he is open to change. I do it partly in the hope of influencing other readers, as well as to test the strength of my own ideas.)
5. It is also impossible to search for truth unless it is SAFE to be wrong. You need someone to take the opposite side of the issue. Sometimes you need to do it yourself. To be the “Devils advocate” so to speak. Here is where having a creed becomes very problematic. It makes it no longer safe to explore.

6. Being right puts blinders over your eyes. Here is an example: Those like Bob who advocate for a creed, are so focused on being right about the 7 days, 6000 years ago, and making sure the church is pure, that they totally miss the whole point of the Genesis story! Let me paraphrase the story to see of it helps.

God gave Man space to be independent. And when you are talking in reference to God, that by definition means space to be wrong. Have you noticed the conundrum implied by the name of the tree, “The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil”?

One way to summarize the essence of the story, would be to say that God made a claim. Satan made a counterclaim. Without the “Knowledge of Good and Evil”, how is Man going to know which claim is true? The dilemma is that He cannot KNOW which claim is good, and which claim is evil, until he does the experiment. Until He eats from the forbidden tree and gains the knowledge.

Wisdom is generally defined as the ability to distinguish between right and wrong. In most of the Bible it is considered a virtue. But here in Genesis, the choice is between being safe and forever innocent, or to take a risk and experience the pain of evil for the sake of gaining wisdom.

Do you remember the story about the discussion Jesus and God had as to whether they should proceed to create man after Satan’s fall, and Jesus agreed to become “the lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world”? God and Jesus decided, that the value of Man gaining the virtue of wisdom (and love) was worth it; even at the cost of Man’s innocence, and Jesus life, and all the pain of this evil world. So the decision was made to proceed with Man’s creation.

And when Man did the experiment what happened? Did God reject man? No!
Yes, there were some temporary short term consequences, and that is the rest of the Bible story, but in the Garden, Jesus came looking for man. He confronted man with the consequences of knowing evil and made the commitment to be the “Messiah”, “God With Us”. God came to live with us, to share the joy of the good, and the pain of the evil with us. And in Revelation, when the story ends, because Man is the only creature in the universe other than God, to have experienced “Good and Evil”, Man is put on the throne with God to judge the living and the dead.

So you see. The whole plan of salvation is about God making it safe for man to do the experiment. That is why it is wrong for the Adventist church (or any other church for that matter) to have a creed and expel people based on the creed. It sabotages the very gospel itself. It is fighting against the very work Christ came to do, to live life with us. All of us, both the good and the evil. Life is worth it!

(And Yes, that came directly from the Bible and Mrs. White. It is not my own creation.)

Ron Also Commented

Recent Comments by Ron

Facebook

Pinterest

Twitter

Linkedin

email

Print