New Method of Bible Interpretation Proposed

[Larry Lyons]

The North American Division, in their ordination study report to the GC Theology of Ordination Study Committee included their report a proposal for a new Adventist method of Bible interpretation. They call it "The Principle Based Historical Cultural Method." They suggest that it could be an option for divisions or unions to choose to accept to be used in their areas.

Here is the Roundup of Divisional Reports on Female Ordination:

www.advindicate.org

[sdazeal]

We all know that a person can make the Bible teach whatever they want if they just use a different hermeneutical method. Many say the Bible "plainly teaches" Sunday keeping. Others say it teaches that keeping any day as a Sabbath is legalism and the Bible is "perfectly clear" about that. It seems our church wants to ordain women as pastors and elders, so a new hermeneutical method that allows the Bible to "clearly teach" that will be used. Is anyone surprised? Not me. Next they will dig up a few EGW quotes and say that she "led the way on women's ordination" and that the church just wasn't ready for the "new light".

 Its easy, folks!

[Larry Lyons]

We all know that a person can make the Bible teach whatever they want if they just use a different hermeneutical method. Many say the Bible "plainly teaches" Sunday keeping. Others say it teaches that keeping any day as a Sabbath is legalism and the Bible is "perfectly clear" about that. It seems our church wants to ordain women as pastors and elders, so a new hermeneutical method that allows the Bible to "clearly teach" that will be used. Is anyone surprised? Not me. Next they will dig up a few EGW quotes and say that she "led the way on women's ordination" and that the church just wasn't ready for the "new light".

 Its easy, folks!

Zeal, I believe that it would be an easy way to break up the church and destroy our witness in the world. The Seventh-day Adventist church would be just another denomination like all the rest. I see this as directly related to the acceptance of evangelical theology by certain Adventist leaders in late 1950 and 1960s and it spread into our colleges and universities.  People are taught  salvation by justification only, and that sanctification is just a nice idea, and that it is not possible or necessary to overcome sin in this life. If they believe that, in spite of clear biblical evidence to the contrary, women's ordination is easy to accept.  I think that many of the problems we see in the church today are related to this "new theology." See Herbert Douglass' book "A Fork in the Road." He observed this development up close from the beginning. 

[sdazeal]

Larry, at the risk of sounding, I don't know, skeptical or combative, I suggest that based on my personal observations, the idea of being "just another denomination" is the goal....with the exception of Saturday church and healthy living, which is our "marketing niche". I submit as examples Easter sunrise services, the elimination of the office of elder from some top-attended churches, contemporary Christian music, endless "programs", "Christ-centeredness" ( please do not misunderstand that, I refer to it in the Lee Venden sense), "reaching the lost"   ( again, do not misunderstand) and eliminating the original mission of our beloved church- to prepare a people for the second coming of Jesus Christ, to prepare a people to survive  the time of trouble, to preach the three angels messages.

 I really believe that some of our top leaders, educators and members are embarrassed to be SDA, as though it is some out-dated, fuddy duddy,  legalistic religion devoid of Christ. Our church was never, from day one, devoid of Christ. But it was a different Christ and a different gospel fromwhat is being pushed now. It was the Christ and gospel of the Bible , Jesus and the apostles. As such, SDA Christianity was expressed differently than it generally is now by Rome and Evangelicals....and "new" sdaism.
That said, there are still millions who are glad of being "real" Adventists...and will stand up for what is right and true.

[Larry Lyons]

I agree with you zeal, but I think some of the leaders have good intentions in this movement. I think we are still considered to be a cult and equated with the Mormons and the JWs. That is no doubt embarrassing to some pastors and members. The original attempt in the 1950s to convince the Evangelicals that we were mainstream did not convince the Evangelicals, although they conceded that we are not a cult. What occurred was probably an unintended consequence. They succeeded in convincing generations of Seventh-day Adventist theology and ministerial students, that except for the Sabbath, our theology of salvation and the atonement is about the same as the Evangelicals. It is easy to understand how and why the NAD leaders would propose the "Principle based Historical Cultural" method to interpret the Bible. If I'm not mistaken, that is almost, if not exactly, the same as the what the other denominations use. It is the "higher critical" method that Ellen G. White warned about. It has been around for a long time.

[sdazeal]

I feel that historical context is useful in understanding how the Bible writer's audience understood what was being said, giving us insight on what is meant by any given statement. For example, how do we know that certain verses in the NT should not be interpreted as teaching Sunday-keeping? Simple, because the original apostolic church did not keep Sunday as the Sabbath! That is not the same as saying that the message itself was influenced by the culture. Big difference! That is the difference between saying God directly inspired the Bible and saying the writers were uninspired church leaders and that were influenced  by worldly customs and cultures. Is it God's word or not? What kind of crazy hermeneutical method interprets that the Bible must be understood as being written by authors who were culturally biased? That takes the inspiration away from God and makes the Bible solely a human work. No text of scripture is of any private origin.

[sdazeal]

I agree with you zeal, but I think some of the leaders have good intentions in this movement. I think we are still considered to be a cult and equated with the Mormons and the JWs. That is no doubt embarrassing to some pastors and members. The original attempt in the 1950s to convince the Evangelicals that we were mainstream did not convince the Evangelicals, although they conceded that we are not a cult. What occurred was probably an unintended consequence. They succeeded in convincing generations of Seventh-day Adventist theology and ministerial students, that except for the Sabbath, our theology of salvation and the atonement is about the same as the Evangelicals. It is easy to understand how and why the NAD leaders would propose the "Principle based Historical Cultural" method to interpret the Bible. If I'm not mistaken, that is almost, if not exactly, the same as the what the other denominations use. It is the "higher critical" method that Ellen G. White warned about. It has been around for a long time.

Agreed. Nobody wants to be ridiculed. I work as a mechanic in a truck shop ( 25 year Master Tech) and face the choice dozens of times daily between consistently walking out my faith and "getting along", often finding myself on the failing end. I know that if I do as I know I should I will be ostracized and ridiculed, and possibly railroaded out of my job. So trust me when I say I understand the pressure to "be normal". I need prayer for this. But as my beliefs go, I am never ashamed of being a Christian or an Adventist. Its just that my "old man" feels very comfortable in shop surroundings and, well, a little "saltiness" comes naturally for me.
But I said all of that to say this, I would rather refer to my failures as failures than to "lower the bar" and change my theology to justify giving in to my weaknesses and avoid such ridicule.

[Larry Lyons]

I well know the feeling zeal. I worked all my career in secular surroundings mostly in the SF Bay area. It was often easy to laugh at off color humor and hard to avoid listening to crude conversation. I often went home very disappointed in my failures. But praise God; He is merciful and forgiving.

[sdazeal]

I well know the feeling zeal. I worked all my career in secular surroundings mostly in the SF Bay area. It was often easy to laugh at off color humor and hard to avoid listening to crude conversation. I often went home very disappointed in my failures. But praise God; He is merciful and forgiving.

Well, Portland is basically SF's Northern Annex. I am glad I am not the only one, although I wish nobody had to deal with this. Recently, I was relating to my boss how difficult it was to live and teach at a self-supporting academy: the lifestyle was very austere, no time to yourself,  the stipend was almost nothing and the housing bordered on uninhabitable. My boss asked if I would ever go back to a situation like that. I responded, "In a heartbeat!"

[Ed Sutton]

In His distillation prayer that focuses everything into 26 verses............John 17:17  Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
John 17:19  And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.

The sanctifying here is two fold.  1. Bring them into harmony with You ( speaking to Father God )  through YOUR truth (speaking about only the truth's from Father God & Christ & the Holy Ghost.)     Not speaking of any teachings from non divine sources or not genuine God sent prophet/messengers.

2. Seal & certify them as Your Children internally & externally so My worthiness entitles and fits them for Heaven and the Ezekiel ch 9 angels can identify and protect them when the time comes.

Since the truth is Father God's Truth, logic dictates that the hermeneutics is exclusively Father God's hermeneutics also, no destruction of truth by reframing what Father God said is allowed.

God's truths and God's accepted hermeneutics stay as He revealed them, otherwise God does not ever promise to sanctify under different truths with different hermeneutics.

It's like employees at some late date telling the company owner they have decided and created new policies of operation that the owner as owner and operator of the company refuses to honour ='s insubordinate insurrection starting with gentle seemingly gracious words firing the first shot.

[V. Hahn]

Jay Gallimore wrote a response regarding this hermeneutical approach in the latest Michigan Memo, but I don't think it's posted online yet.  I just wrote to the conference office to see when it will be posted, and when it's done I'll try to remember to put the link up here.

[Larry Lyons]

Jay Gallimore wrote a response regarding this hermeneutical approach in the latest Michigan Memo, but I don't think it's posted online yet.  I just wrote to the conference office to see when it will be posted, and when it's done I'll try to remember to put the link up here.

Thanks Vicki. I look forward to reading it. Jay Gallimore will no doubt make an excellent response to those who are trying to remake the church. 

[Larry Lyons]

"Women's Ordination--The Biblical versus the Theological: Is This the Issue?"

That is the title of a "must read" article by pastor Daniel Scarone who is currently Associate Ministerial Director for the Michigan Conference. This gives a clear view of what the real issues are, and how our church's claim  to Sola and Tota Scriptura as a basis for our beliefs is endangered.

   "If we say that our authority is the Bible, we have a problem. If all sixty six books of Holy Writ are our final authority and yet we cannot reach an agreement on what the Bible says or doesn't say on the topic of women's ordination, we are denying the efficacy of our "final authority" and foundation of our profession of faith. As Tate reminds us in his book Handbook for Biblical Interpretation, "J.P. Gabler gave a speech in which he posited that the Bible contained a theology of its own, one that should not be influenced by church dogma."

"Committees that deal with women's ordination tend to have two levels. One is what we say or write about ordination, the other is what we imply. On the surface we are discussing ordination but in the background we  are implying ecclesiastical function or the process by which to obtain a religious office in the church from a Scripture standpoint. Meanwhile while we concentration on the process, we cannot reach a clear conclusion because the religious office which we anticipate justifying (a female serving in a male headship role) is simply not in the Bible...."

"...The Bible clearly addresses the following points:

There was no female headship in Genesis, the first book of the Bible.

There was not a female head of humanity in Genesis. The Bible points out the headship of Adam as the representative of the human race, and not the headship of Eve.

There was not female headship in the tribes of Israel in the Old Testament.

There was no female ordination (or anointing) as priests in the Old Testament.

There was not female ordination (or anointing) as priests in the New Testament.

There were no females apostles called by Jesus.

At the first apostolic council (Acts 15) there were no female delegates, or apostles, or elders.

There were no female elders in the Bible.

There were no female pastors in the Scriptures.

There were no female bishops in the Bible.

All these points will forever be fact, even after we finish our committees in 2014, because they belong to Sola Scriptura, to the Tota Scriptura, to the only biblical foundation that we need to accept. And only the true people of God will be guided by it...."

Read the entire article at www.ordinationtruth.com

[sdazeal]

The sola scriptura defense was surrendered years ago. One cannot insist on playing hardball with the scriptures on this one issue after "fudging it" on other topics, particularly in the ordination of non-scripturally compliant male Deacons and Elders, which have not had strict bible interpretation applied to their ordination into these offices. How many deacons and elders are not "the husband of one wife" or "blameless"? Many are divorced, single or are "Elders" under 25 years old. I have attended churches that ordain teenagers as deacons.
The option of playing hardball with sola scriptura has been forfeited....and the liberals know it.

[Larry Lyons]

The sola scriptura defense was surrendered years ago. One cannot insist on playing hardball with the scriptures on this one issue after "fudging it" on other topics, particularly in the ordination of non-scripturally compliant male Deacons and Elders, which have not had strict bible interpretation applied to their ordination into these offices. How many deacons and elders are not "the husband of one wife" or "blameless"? Many are divorced, single or are "Elders" under 25 years old. I have attended churches that ordain teenagers as deacons.
The option of playing hardball with sola scriptura has been forfeited....and the liberals know it.

Zeal, there are apostate leaders and members, there are Laodicean leaders and members and there have been and are still many instances when standards and policies are "winked at" but as Walter Veith said to a man who had not attended church for 2 or 3 years because of being treated badly by his local church and by the conference who acted against clear biblical injunction. Walter Vieth told the man, if you are looking for a perfect church and you find one, run for your life. According to the Bible, that is not God's church (See Rev. 3:14-21). However, the church has never rejected Sola Scriptura. As Walter Veith also has said, The Seventh-day Adventist church is the only denomination that can defend its doctrines solely from Scripture on a public platform.

You do have a point, though. They made a major mistake when they allowed women to be ordained as elders. Apparently they were thinking to placate the wo crowd after the world church in session rejected ordination of women as ministers, but it merely encouraged them and made them more determined to get their way.
One of the division ordination reports handed in this past January said that women should not be ordained, and women should no longer be allowed to serve as elders.