From: 
Subject: SDANEWS: AR INTOUCH: GC Leader Reger Smith Dies // Weimar, Amazing
Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 17:03:10 -0600

AR IN TOUCH -- Special Edition
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Official Newsletter for the Adventist Review Online
http://www.adventistreview.org

W O R K P L A C E    W I T N E S S

Christians are called to be salt and light in the world. They are to be 
examples of Christ's character in the marketplace and on the job. How can a 
Christian employee witness to coworkers? The following articles will give 
you some creative ideas and insights.

Salt and Light in the Workplace
http://www.adventistreview.org/2005-1510/story3.html
Christians should be the best employees in a secular organization.

Cross-Purposes
http://www.adventistreview.org/2003-1526/story1.html
What can Adventist business people bring to the job?

Witnessing Without Words
http://www.adventistreview.org/2001-1542/story3.html
How should Christians handle difficult coworkers?

There Is a Doctor in the House
http://www.adventistreview.org/2005-1525/story1.html
This Adventist physician helps to shape the future of American health care.

Decoding the Apprentice
http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=195
A Christian critique of a television show that tries to define success

Conquering Lust on the Job
http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=303
Jeff Wright and Mick Bates offer salient advice for keeping workplace
relationships in balance.


Breaking Church News
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

GC Communication Official Reger Smith, Jr., Dies
http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=1858

NEWS BRIEF: Weimar, Amazing Facts Merge
http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=1850#3

UPDATE: ADRA Aids Victims of Myanmar Cyclone 
http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=1849

Russell Standish Killed in Car Accident
http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=1850#2

Healing Emerges After Mexico Floods
http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=1845
Four churches destroyed, 14 members killed

Adventists Join World Faith, Aid Agency Leaders Against Poverty
http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=1846
ADRA pledged $1.5 million for education.


This Week’s Top Stories
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

MySpace ­ What does it mean for Adventists?
http://www.adventistreview.org/issue.php?issue=2008-1513&page=8
MySpace and Facebook are part of today’s technology revolution. Why are 
they wildly popular? And what does that mean for Adventists?

Another Side of Motherhood
http://www.adventistreview.org/issue.php?issue=2008-1513&page=24
When the daughter became the caregiver, she couldn’t imagine where the 
journey would take her.

The Devil’s Favorite Story
http://www.adventistreview.org/issue.php?issue=2008-1513&page=24
Lofty sentiments alone aren’t enough. Make the devil wince by taking action.

Remembering Miriam Wood
http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=1826
Adventist Review shares samples from one of its most beloved columnists.

It’s All in the Numbers
http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=1812
We can be Christ’s witnesses in deed more than word.

Billy Graham: Examining His Life and Legacy
http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=1804


Praise From Idaho
http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=8
Broadcasting throughout southern Idaho, KTSY FM, a Family Friendly Music 
Station, is owned and operated by the Idaho Conference of Seventh-day 
Adventists. Based in Caldwell, Idaho, KTSY FM is a listener supported 
station broadcasting 24 hours a day. It features a contemporary Christian 
music format.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
AR In Touch
To unsubscribe click here: http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=12

From: "Robert Wolfgramm" 
Subject: Re: SDA "Orthodoxy" -Sociological analyses -political
Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 17:39:00 -0600

2008/4/25 Bille Burdick 
<burdick6@bellsouth.net>:
(This is section four of Robert's document "sociological analyses",
continuing from "historic process-2".)

At 04:32 PM 3/5/2008 -0700, Robert Wolfgramm wrote:

 >Armed then with
 >(1) a theory about how charisma is legitimated - and a hunch that
 >delegitimation attempts may be part of the process of legitimation;

 >(2) a spread of four 'types' of responses to charisma, I theorised,
 >more to do with the political character of the issues, about

 >(3) how disputes about EGW's were actually played out within SDAism; and

 >(4) with what outcomes/consequences for EGW's charisma, the church,
 >and the parties to the disputes.

 >I found that 'accommodation', 'conversion', 'exclusion/expulsion',
 >'suppression' and 'non-acknowledgement' were all strategic options
 >that have been taken in the church's management of EGW delegitimation

In terms of the political management of past CDCs, I found they met
with a number of official reactions and leadership responses.  The
most commonly adopted was what I had designated 'conversion' -
strategies used to try and bring the delegitimist and their
associates/sympathisers/groups back into alignment.

 >crises.  Moreover, the spheres of conflict over EGW's charisma varied
 >from what I identified as private-private, private-public, public and
 >public-public and were part of the management strategies.
 >That is,

 >(1) private-private delegitimation was where secrecy was premium among
 >key participants and so 'suppresion' (of news) and 'non-acknowledgement'
 >(officially of there being a problem) were engaged. (I can give examples
 > of this later if you wish).


Yes, definitely.  In fact, I hope that you will move soon to concrete
examples of all of these generalizations, so we can see how they
worked out... or how they were demonstrated... in real life.


Ah, I would end up rewriting my thesis.  I appreciate your interest and if 
I had time to do it, I would supply the details and concrete examples here 
Bille, but I am simply not in a position to elaborate here.  It has taken 
me too long already to summarise what I gave you here and to go further 
would be too much.  Again, all I can do is refer interested readers to the 
piece - gathering dust no doubt on the shelf of a library somewhere.



 >(2) A private-public dispute referred to those conducted through
 >committees and strategies of (attempted) 'conversion' of the dissenter
 >or 'accommodation' by the church to their divergence may be opted for.

 >(3) A public dispute about EGW's legitimacy involves the church's
 >presses and lobbying by respective parties through formal and informal
 >networks. The stakes are taken to the people for a public jury hearing
 >as it were and can be admission of defeat that private lobbying has
 >failed and perhaps outing the dissenter might bring them to their
 >senses as it were.  The stakes being publicised also tends to mean
 >'exclusion' is resorted to if necessary.

 >(4) A public-public conflict is where 'the world' gets to hear about
 >it and reports on it - 'exclusion' is either already a fact or soon
 >will be for dissenters.

Following from the above, past CDCs were politically managed in the
courts of either 'private-public' or 'public' spheres of the church.

 >Finally, I theorised that what we sociologists call 'structural'
 >outcomes and consequences for each of the parties to a charismatic
 >dispute would also be variable.  I suggested (again, on the basis of
 >what I had found in my historical survey) that SDAism would either be
 >more or less divided and more or less united. In brief, that six kinds
 >of divisions and three kinds of re-unions were possible.

 >Re division: Two kinds of 'individual separations' were possible as a
 >result of delegitimation attempt:

 >(1) where the anti-charismatic orientation would be sustained as an
 >ongoing 'mission' (I note the kind of anti-EGW websites that exist
 >which typify this now!);

 >(2) where the person separated and took up new and alternative
 >interests no longer concerned about EGW etc.  There was also the
 >possibility of this happening on a collective scale leading to schisms
 >where

 >(3) a led-minority group departed SDAism to form a sustained
 >contra-movement; and

 >(4) a led-minority group departed to form an alternative reorientated
 >movement no longer concerned primarily about EGW's charisma.

 >Leaderless options were there too and I called these defections
 >'organised' or 'dispersed' depending on their organisation or lack
 >thereof.


Again, I'm looking forward to the real life situations which you
analyzed to come to these conclusions.


 >Re unity, outcomes were summarised as

 >(1) 'hegemonic ideology' - where the church successfully imposes an
 >official view;

 >(2) segregated pluralism - autonomy is granted to live and let live
 >without centralised supervision; and

 >(3) integrated pluralism - where independent views are tolerated so
 >long as there is an overiding commitment to organisational loyalty.

For past CDCs, most (i.e six) rebel types ended taking up 'alternative
interests' and were reoriented to things outside SDAism and EGW;

a few (i.e. three) bothered to take up sustained 'anti-charismatic'
careers (as it were).

The 1888-derived traditionalist CDC threatened a 'major split' but
resolved in favour of a settlement through imposition of 'hegemonic'
ideology'.

One past CDC led to a 'minor contra-movement';

one to a 'minor alternate-oriented movement';

one led to an 'organised withdrawal'; and

three led to 'dispersed withdrawals'.


I hope you will name names and give details of each of these, so
we can begin to compare your analyses of such incidents with those
that have been made by historians, theologians, and other disciplines,
thus adding another "dimension" to the pictures that are emerging.


Ibid.  I will look through your next set of responses and then turn back to 
other questions that have since arisen.

Robert Wolfgramm

From: "Robert Wolfgramm" 
Subject: Re: SDA "Orthodoxy" -Sociological analyses -summary
Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 17:40:10 -0600

2008/4/25 Bille Burdick 
<burdick6@bellsouth.net>:
(This is section five of Robert's document "sociological analyses",
continuing from "political management".)

At 04:32 PM 3/5/2008 -0700, Robert Wolfgramm wrote:


Now to summarise 'present' CDCs (i.e. post 1960 to end of my research
frame 1982), I identified three sources and types of delegitimist
leaders: the 'new intellectual Adventist' (e.g. Ford); the
clergy/hierocracy (e.g. Rea); and 'charisma' itself in a new person
(i.e. Brinsmead).  I described and analysed these new delegitimist
sources and types in some detail in the thesis, but will not here
unless requested.


Yes, please do expand upon these comments.  I am surprised most
by your classing Brinsmead as "'charisma' itself".... as I was
not aware that he had this kind of "supraordinate" status as
you described as a necessary component of "charismatic
leadership/authority" as you described it in the post I
retitled "reprise2".  But maybe that is because I misunderstood
what you meant by superordinate in that context.  If, however,
it can be applied to Brinsmead... then can it not also be
applied to any number of others... whether within, on the
fringes, or outside the SDA church?


  Brinsmead fitted Weber's theory of charisma.  As I studied his followers, 
I realised that they were characteristically charisma-affected.  That they 
imputed to him, the kind of things that define charismatic leaders i.e. he 
was 'special' in some sense, had a 'mission', was divinely 'appointed' for 
the work given him and so on and so forth.  The thing is, you can take 
Weber's postulates singly or even couply and address them to anyone and 
perhaps get a 'fit' of sorts, but charisma as he saw it requires a 
collective match.  And so yes, the theoretical parameters can be applied to 
anyone, but only a few will meet the definition.  'Many are called, few are 
chosen' - if you like.  This is critical because not everyone will be 
charisma-affected.  Charisma is in the eye of a beholder and the beholders 
are not predictable although Troeltsch (Weber's associate) thought they 
were - i.e. that poor and relatively uneducated classes of people were 
suggestible and therefore more prone to be charisma-affected.  This may 
have been the case in some past epoch, somewhere, but I doubt it.  SDAs who 
were affected by Brinsmead 'glowed' when they described his work and 
message to me.  The kind of glow one sees on the face of someone who has 
been affected by a saint or the Saviour or had a conversion experience.  So 
yes, undoubtedly, Brinsmead was a charismatic leader and given the kind of 
infamous status accorded him in Schwarz's Lightbearers to the Remnant 
textbook, perhaps only the second charismatic leader in SDAism since 
EGW.  I say 'second' because I suspect John Harvey Kellogg may have been 
the first post-EGW charisma in our historical ranks.  But I would have to 
undertake a deeper study of the man and his followers to know for 
sure.



More importantly (from a sociological point of view), I found
charismatic delegitimation not just characteristic of these leaders,
but also going on in the pews and pulpits of ordinary SDAism.  That
is, that it was not just confined to the 'big men' of SDA sect life,
but was true for SDA members generally.  That is it was a 'social'
phenomenon.


When I read this the first several times, I thought you were
speaking of the members generally in their attitude toward
the obligatory relationship to Ellen White as an authority
figure.  But now I wonder... are you also including in this
the members themselves who set themselves up as somehow
superior to others (superordinate?) and attract a cluster
of followers around themselves?

And if this latter is true... where does the line come between
legitimate leadership and follower relationships and those which
become manipulative and controlling... to use words from the
psychological disciplines here?

Sounds obvious now and taken-for-granted, but at the time, no one
really knew the shape and size of the CDC as it was happening, or
whether it was taking root among members, the extent of the CDC
'deviant' leadership influence,  and likely outcomes etc.

So I sampled representative SDAs here in Australia by both
questionnaire survey and interview to test extent and depth of CDC.  I
was pleasantly suprised by some data and not by others.  The most
rewarding aspect of the thesis was to actually find rebels and
revisionsts as well as traditonalists in our pews, among our ranks. I
found only an incidental number of reactionaries - too few to count in
the statistical anlysis that I undertook so discounted them as
residuals i.e. they exist, but not found (by my sample spread) in
sufficient quantities to allow scientific sampling of their views etc.


This last I find to be a very intriguing statement... given the
fact that at about the same years that you were doing your
research, there were... in the areas of the US that I was familiar
with... and had been almost forever, it seemed... plenty of individuals...
some who had attracted quite a following through the distribution of
their "yellow journal sheets"... who if I'm understanding your
nomenclature correctly, fit precisely into the "reactionary" grouping....
not withdrawing from the church, but setting themselves up as judge and
jury on the church as it is and pronouncing dire judgements of "the
church" having "lost its way".. or "apostatized"... or a number of other
creative ways to criticize to the point of destroying confidence
in church leadership in general... not merely in one specific
individual.

Now whether these individuals/groups might fit within your
study or not... that I do not know.  But keep explaining, and
maybe I'll be able to figure out some things like these.


Bille, they sound perfectly Reactionary,  I knew of these kinds of SDAs 
here too, and mixed with some who were pastors and lay persons.  They were 
a frightening lot.  In some way they reminded me of Awakeners in the '60s. 
I wish I could have tapped more into their psyche through my 
survey-questionnaire, but I was unable to.  This was no surprise because 
other research tells us that they avoid research scrutiny, do not like to 
share their opinions on matters other than the ones they choose, that their 
mindset is usually closed against academic research and findings, and no 
doubt would regard my research as a waste of time.  My guilt-by-association 
reputation would have preceeded me too.  The Reactionaries usually came to 
meetings to take notes as though working for some higher intelligence 
agency.  Sadly, their enthusiasm as church 'guardians' led to withdrawals 
among more open-minded SDAs, and downright witch-hunts that hurt many 
more.

Robert Wolfgramm

From: "Alvin Fisher" 
Subject: Re: Christ as the source of life - Who says what?
Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 17:40:45 -0600

My thanks to Leroy for this wise counsel and helpful information.

Alvin Fisher
----- Original Message -----
From: Leroy Moore
To: sdanet@sdanet.org
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 8:44 PM
Subject: Re: Christ as the source of life - Who says what?

Hi John,

I appreciate your concern about the "back to the beliefs of our pioneers" 
movement. Indeed, As I was walking to my office only minutes ago I was 
thinking about this issue as it relates to a notice on a bulletin board 
here, which I with administrative permission removed until the issues 
involved can be evaluated.

At the turn of the century a century ago Ellen White urged a reprinting of 
the works of the pioneers on issues relating to the pillars of our faith. 
And a focus upon these pillars is always very helpful. Unfortunately, many 
who are focused upon the writings of the pioneers fail to recognize that, 
while God gave us  special guidance in developing the pillars of our faith 
in the years following the great, 1844 disappointment, there were many 
issues which He allowed the church to work out over time which were not 
central to the third angel's message and its primary pillars.

Thus it is vital both to make this distinction clear and to realize that 
the pioneers were constantly urged to continue to search the Scriptures and 
to be open to advancing light. Issues such as the trinity constitute a 
special point in question. Several of our key leaders came out of the 
Unitarian movement and were thus strongly anti-Trinitarian. They identified 
this doctrine as one of the Papal heresies. Indeed, what they primarily 
opposed were non-biblical concepts which came from Plato, not the 
Scripture. Among other things they decried the idea involved in Protestant 
as well as Catholic churches that God was pure spirit, without form or body 
parts.

It was this which caused Ellen White at least twice in her early visions to 
ask  Jesus  if the Father had a form and was a real person. He assured her 
He was.

Ellen White ever encourage us to grow in understanding and light. What a 
pity when instead of growing in light we recede to the darkness of the past 
prior to the enlightenment that came toward the end of the 19th century as 
a result of deepening Bible study, especially on the part of Prescott whose 
messages concerning Christ and His eternal deity she especially commended.

But even before this growing understanding in the 1890s Ellen White had for 
a few decades been leading us to those very conclusions and her statements 
were no doubt an incentive to those who searched the issues through from 
the Bible.

It was not God's purpose then that this issue be made one of primary 
conflict and I do not believe He desires that it be so now. Whatever one's 
view, may God help us to hold truth or views of truth in the loving Spirit 
of truth.

Thanks for raising this issue which, unless properly related to, has the 
potential of seriously dividing God's people at the very time we need to 
press together as the final issues appear in process of transpiring.

A. Leroy Moore

From: Ralph Seland 
Subject: Re: Christ as the source of life - What happens when people 
Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 17:45:57 -0600

Hello John. Ralph here...

You have asked some very thoughtful questions. I will
respond to one of them and expand a bit. I am leaving
your post intact.
_____

Romans 2:14, 15 read:
         For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do
         by nature the things contained in the law, these,
         having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
         Which shew the work of the law written in their
         hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and
         their thoughts the mean while accusing or else
         excusing one another;)

I understand this to mean that *every person* on the face
of planet earth is touched by the Holy Spirit, and either
accepts the law within his heart or rejects it,  whether or
not he ever heard of Jesus.

Even if one's salvation did not depend on hearing the Gospel,
it makes life so much better when we know Jesus.

With the realization that I am meddling with a sacred cow,
let's take a closer look at Mt 24:14

         And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached
         in all the world for a witness unto all nations,  and
         then shall the end come.

Matthew 24 is a dual prophecy looking at the destruction
of Jerusalem (which many thought was the end of the
world) and the second coming (which will be the end of
the world as we know it.)

In Col 1:23, Paul clearly states that "... the gospel,
         which ye have heard, and which was *preached
         to every creature which is under heaven;..."

He wrote this in past tense around 62 A.D. and Jerusalem
fell about 8 years later.  Could this prophecy of Christ have
been fulfilled almost two millennia ago?

Ralph Seland


At 06:41 PM 5/7/2008, John Rayner wrote:


>There is an urban myth in the Adventism I have been taught
>that says God has no hands but our hands to accomplish His
>work. A corollary might be that He has no voice but ours
>to proclaim these "invisible things."  Seems to me  that
>leaves some of the "lost" at a disadvantage for most of us
>have really been pretty slack at telling people the story
>of Jesus.
>
>If there will be folks in heaven who have not heard the name
>of Jesus that God must have communicated is will and offer
>in some way unknown to us.  I have no  doubt that Places like
>2 Cor 5:19 mean that God does count all people as reconciled
>to Him and doesn't count the world's sin against it (the world
>meaning everyone in the world.)  Of course this offer is open
>only for the duration of a person's life or  as long as probation
>lasts unless they respond when God seals it to them.
>
>Can it be that the difference between people who have not heard
>the name of Jesus but are saved and those who are not is simply
>their works?  And, come to think of it, even for those of us who
>have been told the gospel could it be that judgment is based on
>the works we do in response?
>
>I speak as one who believes that God has provided salvation and
>reconciliation and redemption and forgiveness and justification
>for all on a probationary basis, an "atmosphere of grace more
>real than the air we breathe."
>
>I'd be interested in what others think.
>
>Sincerely
>
>John Rayner

From: "Alvin Fisher" 
Subject: Re: The Book of Enoch
Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 17:46:28 -0600

Alvin Fisher here,

When I pondered this subject a few years ago, when I came across the same 
thing as Washington has, my thought was that perhaps the Book of Enoch 
started out pure with some true sayings remembered from what Enoch said, 
but that over the centuries it had become so corrupted that it had to be 
kept out of the canon of Scripture.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Riley" 
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 9:19 PM
Subject: Re: The Book of Enoch


>Quoting a work in the Bible does not make it inspired or authoritative.
>Many works were quoted without changing their status as uninspired writings.
>
>Kevin Riley
>
>-------Original Message-------
>
>From: waodipo@carboua.com
>Date: 8/05/2008 11:08:41 AM
>
>Dear Netters,
>
>I just read through the book of Enoch and found out that it has a lot
>Of untrue doctrines including immortality of the soul and angelic
>Interpretation on the sons of God who slept with daughters of men
>During Noah's period. My concern is why did Jude recognise it by
>Quoting its prophecy for Christ's second coming? Somehow giving it an
>Authorative outlook as a source of God's word?
>
>God bless,
>Washington Odipo.

From: Tony Zbaraschuk 
Subject: Re: The Book of Enoch
Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 17:47:05 -0600

The Word of Washington Odipo came to the Net, saying:
 > I just read through the book of Enoch and found out that it has a lot
 > of untrue doctrines including immortality of the soul and angelic
 > interpretation on the sons of God who slept with daughters of men
 > during Noah's period. My concern is why did Jude recognise it by
 > quoting its prophecy for Christ's second coming? Somehow giving it an
 > authorative outlook as a source of God's word?

Well, just because someone quoted something in the Bible doesn't
make that source inspired.  Paul quotes a couple of pagan poets
in his speech to the Athenians, for instance.

Another point to keep in mind is that while Jude is _probably_
referring to the work we presently know as Enoch, there were quite
a number of versions of that book floating around and we do not
know exactly which one he was quoting from.  So some of the pieces
you're worried about may not have been in Jude's version.


Tony Zbaraschuk
-- 
Do not ask a Librarian for advice, for she will say both No and Yes,
and Have you checked this source? 

From: Tony Zbaraschuk 
Subject: Re: Forgiveness of sins
Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 17:47:29 -0600

On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 07:09:48PM -0600, John Rayner wrote:
 > I've been trying to get clear in my head how the wilderness
 > sanctuary sin offering ceremony informs us about the New
 > Testament antitype.

 > These ceremonies were said to transfer the guilt of the
 > sinner to the animal and through its blood to the sanctuary.
 >
 > My question is, when did the sinner receive forgiveness in
 > the type?

For what it's worth, the Talmudic interpretation seems to be
that atonement was effected when the blood was tossed against
the altar, though I am by no means a master of all the details
involved, and it's an open question as to exactly how much of
Talmudic discussion represents the opinion of Jews 2-4 centuries
earlier in Jesus' time, or in Moses' original planning.

 > What bearing does that have on when the sinner is forgiven
 > by God in the antitype?

 > Does forgiveness take place when we kill the sacrifice or
 > when we confess?

In practice in Temple times, these two events were pretty much
simultaneous (sinner confesses with his hands on the head of the
beast, animal is sacrificed, priest tosses the blood against
the altar, all in the space of a minute or so).

I am not sure that this is very helpful.


Tony Zbaraschuk

-- 
Do not ask a Librarian for advice, for she will say both No and Yes,
and Have you checked this source? 

From: Tony Zbaraschuk 
Subject: Re: Christ as the source of life - Who says what?
Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 17:48:17 -0600

The Word of John Rayner came to the Net, saying:
 > I had never really thought before about Satan's agenda being a
 > source of truth about God  but I suppose, on reflection, his
 > agenda is calculated to counter attach those points of God's
 > truth that most damage his (Satan's) goals.

The other thing to note is that the most dangerous, the most deceptive
lies, are the ones that are almost completely true EXCEPT right at
the critical point.  A good lie has to be mostly true.

 > Seems to me that getting truth from this source would be a
 > can of worms and pretty dangerous to boot.

Particularly when you're dealing with someone more intelligent
than yourself, who is surely smart enough to come up with schemes
such as "I'll use this obvious and easily detected lie to make
them think they've spotted the hook, but the real deception is
actually over here in this little subclause".

Generally the much safer base is to depend on God and focus on
what _he_ wants, not on trying to figure out what Satan wants
and then reverse-engineering that to try and get around it.
(Not that reverse-engineering isn't occasionally useful, but
as you said it's a pretty dangerous can of worms.)


 > I don't know the situation in other places but in churches
 > where I visit some people want to return to what our
 > pioneers believed and this is particularly so about
 > fundamental belief #2, the Trinity.
 >
 > What do others think about this call back to the beliefs
 > of our pioneers?

It seems to me that it's simply the Adventist version of
Catholic reverence for the opinion of the Fathers.  It really
doesn't _matter_ what the pioneers thought about something:
what matters is what's _right_, what God wants us to do and
to believe, what's Biblical.  If the pioneers were right, let
us be right with them; if they were wrong, then let us not
fall into the same errors.

That said, I should point out that it's often very useful and
helpful to see what other people have thought about the same
issues you're concerned with.  Christians have spent centuries
discussing the nature of God, how Father and Son and Spirit
interrelate and how this applies to our salvation, and they've
probably said a lot of useful things in the course of those
discussions.  We can benefit from them, just as we benefit
from talking about those issues with the Christians around us.
I've certainly found Augustine and Aquinas, as well as Ellen
White and W. W. Prescott and C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton,
to be helpful in my own spiritual development.

The really important point in all of this is to remember that
every other Christian is (or should be) saying "I am only a
messenger; do not bow down to me, but to our mutual Master
and His Word."  Augustine can be wrong; Aquinas can be wrong;
Francis of Assisi can be wrong -- and so can James White
and Uriah Smith and A.T. Jones and, even, Ellen White.

We need to keep ourselves focused toward God and His Word.
Anyone or anything that can help us with understanding that
is good.  But we must not suspend judgment and say "These
other people were always right; I must give up my judgment
and blindly follow theirs."  _You_ are responsible.


Tony Zbaraschuk

-- 
Do not ask a Librarian for advice, for she will say both No and Yes,
and Have you checked this source? 

From: Kevin Kultgen 
Subject: RE: The Book of Enoch
Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 17:50:37 -0600

Judaism treats these books as we would treat a commentary on the Bible. 
They are viewed as useful but not inspired, and often simply as a book that 
records history. For example the story of Hanukkah comes from the apocrypha 
and is accepted as a historical document but nothing else. Claiming that 
something is Scripture because it quoted or found in some versions of the
Septuagint-LXX is tantamount to claiming that the footnotes, maps and 
charts in our modern day Bibles are inspired. Consider that in the New 
Testament Just because Jude quotes one verse from The Book of Enoch but yet 
again there is no reason to think that the entire text of Enoch is to be 
considered as divinely inspired (see Jude 14-15). Paul quotes from Greek 
philosophers but that in no way declares divine approval of Greek philosophy.

Jerome (ca. A.D. 340-420), in his Letter 70 to Magnus, 2, wrote:
The Apostle Paul also, in writing to Titus [Titus 1:12], has used a line of 
the poet Epimenides: "The Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow 
bellies." Half of which line was afterwards adopted by Callimachus ... In 
another epistle Paul quotes a line of Menander of Athens in his Thais, Frg. 
218: "Evil communications corrupt good manners" [1 Corinthians 15:33]. And 
when he is arguing with the Athenians upon the Areopagus he calls Aratus as 
a witness citing from him the words "For we are also his offspring" [Acts 
17:28].

In Acts 26:14, Paul places a quotation from Euripides (ca. 480-406 B.C.), 
Bacchae 794-5, in the mouth of Christ, "it is hard for thee to kick against 
the pricks." In Romans 1:32, he quotes a passage from the Pseudepigraphic 
Testament of Asher 6:2, while in Romans 12:21, he draws from Testament of 
Benjamin 4:3 and in 2 Corinthians 7:9-10, he quotes Testament of Gad 5:6-7. 
Romans 8:38 and 9:5 contain quotes from 1 Enoch (61:10 and 77:1, respectively).

In 170 AD, Melito, the bishop of Sardis, made an early canonical list of 
the books of the Old Testament and while he does not mention Esther, he 
also makes no mention of any of the apocryphal books. The Ancient Jewish 
historian Flavius Josephus excluded the Apocrypha. And Philo, a Jewish 
teacher who lived in the first century, quoted from virtually every Old 
Testament canonical book, but never once quoted from the Apocrypha.

Did Paul give these books an authoritative outlook as a source of God's 
word?  I have yet to meet someone who would say that those Greek theology 
books are inspired; but some of these same people do a 180 when they talk 
about the apocryphal/pseudepigraphical quotes. I expect it is only done to 
support certain doctrines, or an attempt to uninspire the Lord's Word.

Just my 2 cents

Kevin Kultgen


-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Riley [mailto:klriley@alphalink.com.au]
Sent: May 07, 2008 19:19
To: sdanet-send@sdanet.org
Subject: Re: The Book of Enoch

Quoting a work in the Bible does not make it inspired or authoritative.
Many works were quoted without changing their status as uninspired writings.

Kevin Riley

-------Original Message-------

From: waodipo@carboua.com
Date: 8/05/2008 11:08:41 AM

Dear Netters,

I just read through the book of Enoch and found out that it has a lot
Of untrue doctrines including immortality of the soul and angelic
Interpretation on the sons of God who slept with daughters of men
During Noah's period. My concern is why did Jude recognise it by
Quoting its prophecy for Christ's second coming? Somehow giving it an
Authorative outlook as a source of God's word?

God bless,
Washington Odipo.




This message and any attached documents are only for the use of the 
intended recipient(s), are confidential and may contain privileged 
information. Any unauthorized review, use, retransmission, or other 
disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in 
error, please notify the sender immediately, and then delete the original 
message. Thank you. 

From: "Leroy Moore" 
Subject: Re: Forgiveness of sins
Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 17:49:37 -0600

Hi John, I bring up your questions below for brief comments:

My question is, when did the sinner receive forgiveness in
the type?

You introduce two kinds of sacrifices below and I suggest that the answer 
must be delimited to the first, which is the individual sacrifices brought 
by the sinner, whether a common person, a ruler, or priest, congregation. 
The larger and more important animals for the latter no doubt relating to 
the degree of influence as well as ability to provide. This is further 
emphasized in that the blood of the bullock for the anointed priest and 
congregation is sprinkled on the Vail and the bullock's body is dealt with 
ceremoniously. But the principle of forgiveness seems to be the same.


What bearing does that have on when the sinner is forgiven
by God in the antitype? In Acts 2:22ff Peter says that the
people then present (and we by extension) took the :Lamb of
God and put Him to death with lawless hands. "

ALM: The people corporately, rather than individuals, are designated here 
and typify the reality that sin and rebellion was the cause of Christ's 
death. I see this as relating more to the slain Lamb of the "continual" 
which is the underlying ritual upon which all other rituals are based and 
supremely represents Christ's own self-sacrifice.

Does forgiveness take place when we kill the sacrifice or
when we confess?

In forgiveness of the individual, the two are conjoined and are a part of 
one act. The killing of the animal concludes the transfer of guilt by 
confession to the sin bearer. Regardless of specific manipulation of the 
body or blood, the "daily" or "continual" sacrifice is the real basis upon 
which the forgiveness takes place, as the central type of Christ's 
sacrifice, which is always available. When the individual brought his 
sacrifice he made confession over the head of the lamb and then with his 
own hand slew the animal. This physically confessing responsibility for 
taking the life of Christ, as portrayed in the "continual" in which the 
priest himself (type of Christ) slew the Lamb, thus indicating that Christ 
would lay His own life down.

The rest of the manipulation, whether common person or anointed priest, 
portrays transfer of the responsibility for the forgiven sin to the 
sanctuary. This both intensifies the principle that Christ, by virtue of 
His own blood takes full responsibility for confessed sin and also that 
such responsibility will continue until the judgment, at which time the 
validity of the confession is determined -- whether he truly accepted and 
continued to accept Christ's righteousness in exchange for his sin.

Thus the subsequent rituals relate to Christ Himself and how he deals with 
confessed sin. In this way, I see the type as portraying the NT principle 
that as soon as we confess our sin we are forgiven.

A. Leroy Moore
----- Original Message -----
From: John Rayner
To: sdanet-send@sdanet.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 6:09 PM
Subject: Forgiveness of sins

I've been trying to get clear in my head how the wilderness
sanctuary sin offering ceremony informs us about the New
Testament antitype.

The person was to bring a kid of the goats or a lamb - a
female and kill it with his own hand. (Lev 4:27-35) For
priests and rulers the sacrifice was a young bullock,

The priest was to take some of the blood on the horns of the
altar of burnt offering and pour the rest of the blood at
the base of the altar. Then he was to remove the fat from
the carcase and burn it on the altar of burnt offering.
There seems to be some difference between the procedures
for the disposal of the carcase of the offering of priest
or ruler and that of the common person. In each case the
record then goes something like this: "So the priest shall
make atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him."
(Lev 4:31, 35)

In chapters 5 & 6 we find that, for certain sins that
involved loss or damage to either God's or neighbour's
property, reparation of 120% was to be made before the
ceremonial offering. (e.g. Lev 6:1-5)

These ceremonies were said to transfer the guilt of the
sinner to the animal and through its blood to the sanctuary.

My question is, when did the sinner receive forgiveness in
the type?

What bearing does that have on when the sinner is forgiven
by God in the antitype? In Acts 2:22ff Peter says that the
people then present (and we by extension) took the :Lamb of
God and put Him to death with lawless hands. "22 "Men of
Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested
by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did
through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know- 23
Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and
foreknowledge of God, you have taken^[c


by lawless hands,
have crucified, and put to death. ..."

Does forgiveness take place when we kill the sacrifice or
when we confess?

Sincerely

John Rayner





-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.9/1419 - Release Date: 5/7/2008 
7:46 AM