Has God mellowed through the centuries…? Didn’t he wipe out “heathen” babies in Israel’s time? Is the “C” word to be applied broadly to prophecies that seem to go unfulfilled, even as the world gets to an unbearable, pre-flood-was-a-joke state?

In that case, the “C” word should invariably go hand-in-hand with the “E” word, experience. Our individual and corporate experiences with apparently conditional/failed prophecies will lead us to reshape, reconstruct and even reject past beliefs.

I’m not sure that is the case, I’ve made baby steps into that arena.

During the past 2,000 years of “Christian” history, have Christians taught people to obey everything that Jesus commanded? Or everything but what Jesus commanded? Is this insubordination?

Looking back through history, there was never a time when God’s servants individually or Israel and now the Church didn’t live on the verge of jeopardizing their covenant with God. Truth is, we haven’t and will never fully live up to God’s missiological standards for us, be them the greater mission to all nations or our menial day-to-day “missional existence” as you have suggested.

The question for Adventism is: Will God raise yet another movement to accomplish the mission of preparing the world for His coming? Wouldn’t it be pointless, considering it hasn’t worked for the last 2000 years? Or shouldn’t we just sit around and wait for the fullness of time, God’s own appointed day to judge?

Hasn’t that ALWAYS been the church’s message? Didn’t the followers of Jesus, and Jesus himself predict that he would return in their generation? And hasn’t there always been believers since then who believed that he would return in “their generation.”

The perpetual hope is what either sustains believers, or causes them to appear delusional to those outside their belief system. The old cry of “wolf ” eventually ceases to excite.

Truth is, for those with hope of being resurrected with their first breath they will see Jesus.

Since it is only a hope with no human living who can tell us of what lies on the “other side” we should live here honoring Christ’s command to love our neighbor as ourselves. That is our message and obligation and if we claim to follow him we should focus more on the here and now.

The twin principles of freedom and responsibility, which are the foundation of the teachings of Jesus, are non-negotiable. The context of the teachings of Jesus is not our context, and we do have to use our brains and the internet, to make intelligent theological statements which are relevant to modernity, so as to not degenerate into pious zombies, or Godbots, if you will!

I appreciate the reminder that you’ve brought of what Jesus did. I’m in wholehearted agreement with you! Jesus indeed showed us the way of relating to tradition–i.e., creatively re-engaging the tradition in the present without needing to follow all the particulars of the tradition.

“Following” Jesus is not adhering 100% to what Jesus did or taught and to what his first followers did and wrote; that would be doing exactly what Jesus showed us NOT to do — following the tradition of the elders. But following Jesus means to re-engage the Christian tradition the way Jesus re-engaged the Jewish tradition. I expect the same kind of continuity/discontinuity dynamic between Jesus and us as there was between Jesus and Moses.

So, sometimes being a faithful follower of Jesus can mean doing something exactly opposite of what Jesus and the NT writers did and said. By opposing, ironically, we do what Jesus exemplified for us. Sometimes, we can hold God hostage to our notion of logic, consistency and non-contradiction; so we say that God would never do this or that. But Scripture has a plethora of examples of divine inconsistencies and changes of divine injunction. As I see it, God acts in different ways in different times, and sometimes changes come through the revelation of experience as prompted by the Spirit.

If it were only that simple. Isn’t that what practically all Christian denominations claim: to have Christ as the head of the church? How far back shall we go to get to the “basics”? The one Christian church (now Roman Catholic) chose the books of our New Testament, which all Christians now accept. The doctrine of the Trinity, which that same church decided in the fourth century, is now the Adventist’s belief. The nature of Christ was also decided in the fourth century, and is a major doctine of most Christians, including Adventists. All of these are “received traditions” from the one Christian church. However, the Adventist pioneers did not accept these as “basics” for a good while, and some never did. New doctrines are being continually added, the latest being the 28th to the Statement of Fundamentals. What was once a strange idea, later becomes “doctrine” or tradition. Surrendering of our religious freedom to another authority is the first evidence of religion becoming far too powerful.

We should NEVER abandon our personal opinions; that is, unless one believes that salvation is by a group or organization, and not individually. Isn’t this what many Jews originally thought: They were the “Chosen People” and that guaranteed them God’s favor?

As far as the argument that one should read the Bible purely from a rational standpoint by scrutinizing its very word, we should be careful. I think it will be hard to sustain the belief that the Bible contains any special messages from God whatsoever without the Holy Spirit’s anointing of the reading. Without the Holy Spirit, the Bible becomes completely irrelevant, it’s just an old, unreliable and fictional record of ancient stories. It’s the Holy Spirit that lights in the fire in my heart to accept and believe what is being said, not only when it resonates with my experience but when it calls me to a higher plateau as well.

So yes, one should “feel” the tugging and gentle influence of the Holy Spirit, no matter which side of aisle is using the argument.

Although I believe that Christians and SDAs in general should have a more fluid view of inspiration, I think it’s silly to now bring only our academic glasses to the Scriptures. We need the CORE MESSAGE, not the genealogies or irrelevant details, e.g., “How many angels were at the tomb when Jesus arose? (you’ll get different numbers in the Bible).”

Finally, David, I think the change that needs to occur in Adventism is a return to the basics laid out by our pioneers and EGW: revealed truth in the Scriptures above personal opinions or traditions and Christ at the center, beginning and end of all we do and believe!!

Back to SDA basics, what a concept!

I’ve used regular HTML before but I can’t seem to figure out the instructions above.

Anyone care to walk me through some examples, would be much appreciated. Thanks.

This is, in essense, what most Protestant Christians said of the Advent movement.

I agree. It seems obvious that many former SDA’s who have left the church for some form of Calvinist evangelicalism on the basis of a rejection of EGW have not really read the Bible with any serious scrutiny.

The difference–for many of these folks–is that they are inclined to cut the Bible a lot of slack, as it was written many centuries ago and has a much longer history and status of legitimacy.

Any writing that is held to be sacred, infallible and inerrant, leads to unthinking assent, and has been the source for religious dictatorship throughout history.

This is the basic problem with the fundamentalist perspective. That is, it seeks to cast the “felt” “experience” as objective truth or as “light” that despite its highly subjective nature, must be accepted without question.

EGW, just as the Bible, can be used for all kinds of twisted views and I do acknowledge people have been using her in a abusive and biased way for decades, just as they have the Bible. That’s is not at all my experience, having grown up in a very conservative, South American SDA environment.

My experience has been that whenever I opened her books as a teenager, I felt the real presence of the Holy Spirit by my side leading me to truth, just as do when I open the Bible. On the other hand, applying the same strict reading that people apply to the Testimonies to the Bible will also lead to a rejection of the Scriptures as full of inconsistencies, contradictions and factual errors. Inspiration is a fluid enterprise, between a perfect God and imperfect mankind. Let’s not miss the core message of God’s revelations, be them Scriptures or modern prophets.

Also, EGW NEVER, EVER said that she had the absolute truth or that all inquiry must stop at her Testimonies, or even the Bible for that matter.

What we cannot do is reject past light for “present” light. I often get a sense that so-called “progressives” want to demolish, and reconstruct or “reinvent” eons of theological thought and discovery for a more “present” version of truth, one that will better fit their prior commitment with an “anything-goes” Christianity. The fact that lifestyle is at the forefront of many of the progressive’s rebellion against SDA should raise a red flag.

I agree with Julius that being progressive is being open to discussion and learning and I’m glad to be part of that group. However, simply rejecting the light that has been revealed and discovered in the past does not constitute progress.

While I don’t see this re-interpretation done by religious people as malicious, I do see it as not true in the purest sense of the word. Its not an issue of right and wrong when its your only option in terms of making sense of the world and trying to bring meaning to one’s life.

To me its quite evident that most of this stuff was simply made up to satisfy a need to make sense of the world by very simply people. What disturbs me is that we continue to give it authority and validity out of some type of misplaced loyalty.

We can admire individuals for making the best with what they were given, but this doesn’t give them authority to know how to direct other’s lives throughout the ages.

If we are going to believe in a Spirit then why not access that now? Why do we need prophets and messengers and such? They only can speak from their experience. I have observed far more confusion when we try to make sense out of words given some type of authority.

I find far more success in reading what everyone has to say, observe the outcomes of various beliefs, and then make the best decision that I can, always willing to change my mind with new information.