Surprising Percentage of Atheists/Agnostics

Today on Bill O’Reilly’s radio show he was talking during the second hour about atheism, tonight he will be interviewing Richard Dawkins on his television show. He listed some interesting numbers on the rates of atheism/agnosticism in the nations of the World. I am not sure what statistics he used but here is a list that is pretty similar though some of the different polling has lead to a few instances where the range is probably too wide to be really accurate but still indicative of a pretty high percentage. Here is the chart that appears in Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns -- THIS CHAPTER IS FORTH-COMING IN THE CAMBRIDGE COMPANION TO ATHEISM, EDITED BY MICHAEL MARTIN, CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS, 2005

Below is a list of the top fifty countries containing the largest percentage of people who identify as atheist, agnostic, or non-believer in God.

	Country	Total Pop.(2004)	% Atheist/actual # Agnostic/Nonbeliever in God	(minimum - maximum)
1	Sweden	8,986,000	46-85%	4,133,560-7,638,100
2	Vietnam	82,690,000	81%	66,978,900
3	Denmark	5,413,000	43-80%	2,327,590-4,330,400
4	Norway	4,575,000	31-72%	1,418,250-3,294,000
5	Japan	127,333,000	64-65%	81,493,120-82,766,450
6	Czech Republic	10,246,100	54-61%	5,328,940-6,250,121
7	Finland	5,215,000	28-60%	1,460,200-3,129,000
8	France	60,424,000	43-54%	25,982,320-32,628,960
9	South Korea	48,598,000	30%-52%	14,579,400-25,270,960
10	Estonia	1,342,000	49%	657,580
11	Germany	82,425,000	41-49%	33,794,250-40,388,250
12	Russia	143,782,000	24-48%	34,507,680-69,015,360
13	Hungary	10,032,000	32-46%	3,210,240-4,614,720
14	Netherlands	16,318,000	39-44%	6,364,020-7,179,920
15	Britain	60,271,000	31-44%	18,684,010-26,519,240
16	Belgium	10,348,000	42-43%	4,346,160-4,449,640
17	Bulgaria	7,518,000	34-40%	2,556,120-3,007,200
18	Slovenia	2,011,000	35-38%	703,850-764,180
19	Israel	6,199,000	15-37%	929,850-2,293,630
20	Canada	32,508,000	19-30%	6,176,520-9,752,400
21	Latvia	2,306,000	20-29%	461,200-668,740
22	Slovakia	5,424,000	10-28%	542,400-1,518,720
23	Switzerland	7,451,000	17-27%	1,266,670-2,011,770
24	Austria	8,175,000	18-26%	1,471,500-2,125,500
25	Australia	19,913,000	24-25%	4,779,120-4,978,250
26	Taiwan	22,750,000	24%	5,460,000
27	Spain	40,281,000	15-24%	6,042,150-9,667,440
28	Iceland	294,000	16-23%	47,040-67,620
29	New Zealand	3,994,000	20-22%	798,800-878,680
30	Ukraine	47,732,000	20%	9,546,400
31	Belarus	10,311,000	17%	1,752,870
32	Greece	10,648,000	16%	1,703,680
33	North Korea	22,698,000	15% ( ? )	3,404,700
34	Italy	58,057,000	6-15%	3,483,420-8,708,550
35	Armenia	2,991,000	14%	418,740
36	China	1,298,848,000	8-14% ( ? )	103,907,840-181,838,720
37	Lithuania	3,608,000	13%	469,040
38	Singapore	4,354,000	13%	566,020
39	Uruguay	3,399,000	12%	407,880
40	Kazakhstan	15,144,000	11-12%	1,665,840-1,817,280
41	Estonia	1,342,000	11%	147,620
42	Mongolia	2,751,000	9%	247,590
43	Portugal	10,524,000	4-9%	420,960-947,160
44	United States	293,028,000	3-9%	8,790,840-26,822,520
45	Albania	3,545,000	8%	283,600
46	Argentina	39,145,000	4-8%	1,565,800-3,131,600
47	Kyrgyzstan	5,081,000	7%	355,670
48	Dominican Rep.	8,834,000	7%	618,380
49	Cuba	11,309,000	7% ( ? )	791,630
50	Croatia	4,497,000	7%	314,790

(?): certainty/validity on these figures is relatively low

Matthew, Prophecy and Context

As the subject of Prophecy and the Bible in general is the subject of this quarter’s Lesson Study Guide here are some thoughts based upon some of the things that were touched upon in my Sabbath school class.

For some time I have had a distaste for the book of Matthew. The biggest problem I have with Matthew is the author’s way of taking material out of context from the Old Testament and applying them to the life of Christ. Now we don’t know who the author of Matthew was for certain. It is set forth by tradition to be the disciple Matthew; it may or may not be. We do see that in the book of Matthew at least in the first several chapters, an intentional literary device is employed. The book tries to create a recapitulation the events of ancient Israel in the life of Jesus Christ. The writer of Matthew therefore attempts to create or recount similarities between the life of Christ and Israel or Moses. Jesus is endangered in infancy like Moses by an evil king, Jesus goes down to Egypt like Moses and/or Israel and subsequently out of Egypt. Israel passes through a baptism of water by their crossing of the Red Sea and Jordan River. Both spend time wandering about the wilderness at God’s command. There are other ways the book of Matthew continues this comparison but they may not be as easily seen as the above. For instance some say that the Sermon on the Mount is similar to the Law delivered on Mt. Sinai etc.

As the Expositor’s Bible Commentary writes in reference to Matt 2:15:

1. Many have noticed that Jesus is often presented in the NT as the antitype of Israel or, better, the typological recapitulation of Israel. Jesus' temptation after forty days of fasting recapitulated the forty years' trial of Israel (see on 4:1-11). Else where, if Israel is the vine that does not bring forth the expected fruit, Jesus, by contrast, is the True Vine (Isa 5; John 15). The reason Pharaoh must let the people of Israel go is that Israel is the Lord's son (Exod 4:22-23), a theme picked up by Jeremiah (31:9) as well as Hosea (cf. also Ps 2:6, 12). The "son" theme in Matthew (cf. esp. T. de Kruijf, Der Sohn des lebendigen Gottes: Ein Beitrag zur Christologie des Matthausevangeliums [Rome: BIP, 1962], pp. 56-58, 109), already present since Jesus is messianic "son of David" and, by the virginal conception, Son of God, becomes extraordinarily prominent in Matthew (see on 3:17): "This is my Son, whom I love."

A related concept is that Matthew used a technique often used by Jewish Commentators called Pesher:

The term pesher means, "to explain." In fact, however, pesher is an application of OT scripture with little to no concern for the context of the passage applied. Pesher may refer either to commentaries on the OT found amongst the Dead Sea scrolls or to the interpretive technique typical of these commentaries. Pesher interpreters assume that OT authors were speaking to the contemporary audience. This form of interpretation is tied to a word, text or OT allusion, which is then related to a present person, place or thing. The interpretations are generally aloof from the source context and appear to lack any coherent methodology. According to Lundberg, "This kind of commentary (pesher) is not an attempt to explain what the Bible meant when it was originally written, but rather what it means in the day and age of the commentator, particularly for his own community." Matthew's Use of the Old Testament: A Preliminary Analysis
by Lee Campbell

There also seems to be a recurring theme if we look a little deeper at the verses that the author of Matthew uses. In the following verses the section used in Matthew are highlighted in bold.

To Christians the most important of these Old Testament verses is that found in Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.(NIV)

Thanks to the book of Matthew’s use of this verse it is often only considered to be a prophecy of Christ. Even though there is no place other then Matthew that calls Jesus Immanuel. However it is not to the name Immanuel that Matthew wants to draw attention, it is to the idea of what the name means, “God with us”. In fact it was the idea of “God with us” that Isaiah had presented to the Israelites hundreds of years before. In our ardor to insist upon Immanuel as a Messianic Prophecy we often ignore the repetition Isaiah uses of the terms with the meaning of “God with us”. Besides the reference in Isaiah 7:14 he precedes to us it two more times:

Isaiah 8:8

And sweep on into Judah, swirling over it, passing through it and reaching up to the neck. Its outspread wings will cover the breadth of your land, O Immanuel!"

Isaiah 8:10

Devise your strategy, but it will be thwarted; propose your plan, but it will not stand, for God is with us. (NIV)

God is with us is Isaiah’s words of comfort to a people about to suffer a major defeat by their enemies. And even when the enemies appear to be winning God notes that even the purposes of the enemy will not stand because God is with his people. So like the sign to Ahaz, the child born is a reminder that “God is with us”, though bad may come, God will not abandon his people, He does not leave them alone. In the echoes of Immanuel we see that though the people may have failed in their covenant with God, God has not nor will He fail. For we see an inherent promise of hope in Isaiah.

In the book of Matthew the author has taken this hope, this certainty of God with us and applied it to the person of Jesus Christ. Not because Jesus was to literally be named Immanuel and not even because of a virgin birth but because Jesus Christ was now seen as truly “God with us”. Remember the author is writing after all the events in Christ’s life had happened. He is going back in time to state his case as to why this Jesus is the Messiah. In some ways the book of Matthew is very much like the book of John. When they both begin to tell about the person of Jesus they both tell us that it is God with us, Matthew by means of Immanuel and John by means of the Logos, the Word become flesh.

Many people become sidetracked by the part of Isaiah 14:7 about a virgin conceiving a child however in the Hebrew it just means a young woman. It works out well for the book of Matthew’s purposes but again it is a foreshadowing of events to come rather then a clear straight forward prophecy of the messiah. There seems to be no indication that the child born was from a literal virgin as we use the term today. Interestingly Isaiah in the first part of Chapter 8 also has a son who is used to foreshadow what will happen to Judah’s enemies when they are defeated. The first child with the name Immanuel brings confirmation to Ahaz of the disaster to come but the name and its echoes also confirm that God has not left the people.

After the proclamation of the good news that God is with us Matthew moves on to the recapitulation of the Messiah with Israel, it is also possible that it is to Moses the deliverer of Israel that Matthew is comparing Christ.

"When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. But the more I called Israel, the further they went from me. They sacrificed to the Baals and they burned incense to images. It was I who taught Ephraim to walk, taking them by the arms; but they did not realize it was I who healed them. I led them with cords of human kindness, with ties of love; I lifted the yoke from their neck and bent down to feed them. (Hosea 11:1-4 NIV)

Herod’s death decree against baby boys reminds us of the death decree Egypt inflicted upon the children of Israel in slavery (Exodus 1:16). "When you help the Hebrew women in childbirth and observe them on the delivery stool, if it is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, let her live." (NIV)

Like the miraculous deliverance of Moses, Jesus is delivered from Herod’s evil also. Matthew then quotes Jeremiah 31:15-17 to show the sorrow of the people under Herod’s decree. 13 Then maidens will dance and be glad, young men and old as well. I will turn their mourning into gladness; I will give them comfort and joy instead of sorrow. 14 I will satisfy the priests with abundance, and my people will be filled with my bounty," declares the LORD. 15 This is what the LORD says: "A voice is heard in Ramah, mourning and great weeping, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because her children are no more." 16 This is what the LORD says: "Restrain your voice from weeping and your eyes from tears, for your work will be rewarded," declares the LORD. "They will return from the land of the enemy. 17 So there is hope for your future," declares the LORD. "Your children will return to their own land. (NIV)

The verses in Jeremiah are referring to the exile of Israel and once again while the people must suffer the exile, God has promised relief, they are not abandoned, they can say, “God is with us”. While the verse in Jeremiah has nothing to do with Egypt or Herod’s decree Matthew has changed its setting to reflect the story he is telling. While the story being told may have a much deeper meaning then it appears. All the verses he has used reflect in their original context the healing and deliverance God offers. Matthew is a book that presents us with this Messiah, the anointed one who delivers his people from sin and its consequences.

The book of Matthew then moves a step farther then we today can comprehend. …and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene.”. (Matthew 2:23 NIV)

Since there is no Old Testament reference like this it may be that the author was using an expression of scorn used against the Messiah. Such as that expressed by Nathanael,

"Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?" Nathanael asked. "Come and see," said Philip. (John 1:46 NIV) Conceptually there may be some places which could offer the author the incentive to make the statement. Certainly the ancient history of Israel is filled with Israel’s scorn of the things of God.

But Matthew’s failure to reference something in the Old Testament while stating it was something said through the prophets is perhaps the key to unfolding Matthew’s intent in the second chapter of Matthew. The history might not be accurate, but the concepts are what the author found most important. The Messiah has come, God with us, the deliverer miraculously inserting Himself into mankind’s world. The precious gold of God presented to a world that would kill its very savior. So in the book of Matthew the author tells us of the myrrh given to child, an aromatic resin used for the preparation of a corpse for burial. The gift of incense, the sweet fragrance that for centuries was used in the worship of God, even the gifts of the Magi have deeper meanings.

Matthew 2 is not the simplistic story I was indoctrinated to believe. It is a piece of in depth literature with more substance then history. But then isn’t that the way of so much of the Bible. Literature, poetry, Chiastic Structure, and analogy all and more find themselves used within the Bible. Human creativity and God given inspiration can create amazing things. Yet we can in our excitement of discovery often trample all over what was written in our haste to explain what our tradition has taught us.

A Conflict of Ideas

Today at Sabbath School one of the few people who read my blog said that he thought I was too hard in my article on Sanctuary Truth by Jennifer Jill Schwirzer. He said it diminishes me to use the word “pathetic” about the author even though her article was so full of holes. I could not recall using the word “pathetic” in the article so I searched it in Word today and see that indeed I did not use that word. Now maybe I am becoming such a wordsmith that my impression of the article came through that it was pathetic but if that is the case I did so without actually saying so.

I don’t know that he has ever heard me use the word pathetic but I do like the word as its meaning is so evocative:

1. Causing or evoking pity, sympathetic sadness, sorrow, etc.; pitiful; pitiable: a pathetic letter; a pathetic sight.

2. Affecting or moving the feelings

3. Pertaining to or caused by the feelings.

4. Miserably or contemptibly inadequate: In return for our investment we get a pathetic three percent interest. –From Dictionary.com

One of the hardest parts about confrontation whether virtual or actual is that when we address ideas we are of necessity addressing the people who have those ideas. The ideas don’t exist on their own, they are the product of someone’s mind and they may be deeply held ideas. Many times I have come across people whose ideas are so deeply held that they will not allow themselves or anyone else to question their ideas and in some cases the people will not even look at anything that may refute their ideas. As Christians this becomes even more delicate in that we often have to disagree with other Christians about things that are important to them as well as ourselves yet they are still our brothers and sisters; fellow travelers on the road to God. I think this leads a lot of Christians to withdraw from most discussions. Maybe that explains the longevity of Sermon style presentations, no discussion no other ideas just one person’s thoughts holding sway over all the other possibilities. It provides the semblance of unity and spiritually even when they may not exist.

A carefully scripted presentation that is the typical church service is not the reality of human life. In fact growth in understanding is often predicated upon a conflict within our own ideas. Being shown to be wrong is possibly the biggest such conflict. Those nasty little red check marks many of us grew up with in school, though even those pale in significance when compared to the mistake where actual harm came to someone or something because we acted wrongly. We do learn through our mistakes.

In the market place of ideas some will fall away, some will be trampled to death and some will be embraced and vindicated. The market place of ideas does not deal in the worth of the person as a person, or as a child of God.

Maybe this blog should be titled “Respectfully Disagree” because this blog most often deals with statements and opinions within Adventism with which I disagree. But it is not as it covers even more then where I or others disagree. It is about the conversations which should be taking place in the Adventist community even when in actuality they don’t take place. It is a place where ideas are explored and examined not the personalities of the producers of the ideas. A fine line perhaps but a necessary one.

3ABN and Amazing Facts Merger

Latest news from the troubled 3 Angels Broadcasting Network


3ABN AND AMAZING FACTS TO UNITE MINISTRIES

MEDIA RELEASE

For More Information, Contact:
Mollie Steenson, 3ABN General Manager
Office: 618.627.4651, ext. 3009
mollie.steenson@3abn.org

3ABN AND AMAZING FACTS TO UNITE MINISTRIES

“If Christians were to act in concert, moving forward as one, under the direction of one Power, for the accomplishment of one purpose, they would move the world.”-- Testimonies, vol. 9, p. 221.

West Frankfort, IL – April 19, 2007 – Three Angels Broadcasting Network (3ABN) and Amazing Facts Ministries today announced upcoming plans for uniting the two international Christian media ministries. Lauding the global platform for evangelism this union will create, the Boards of Directors of both ministries unanimously approved moving toward joining the ministries under a new board and constituency...

While there are still a number of organizational details to be worked out, with good council both ministries are confident these things can be accomplished rapidly. For the immediate future we anticipate most of the normal operations at both ministries will remain the same. Our goal will be to optimize greater evangelistic impact to the world, more efficient service to the body of Christ and better stewardship of resources through this dynamic partnership.

In making the announcement, 3ABN’s Founder Danny Shelton stated, “We’re excited about uniting our ministries, which will accelerate our array of evangelistic services to reach the multitudes. The Spirit-filled speakers of Amazing Facts will share the undiluted truth of God’s Word on 3ABN’s global platform. The ministries will mobilize an army of Christians to conduct Bible studies in cities worldwide. Time is short—we need to maximize our efforts to reach lost souls.”

Doug Batchelor, Amazing Facts President/Speaker, commented, “This uniting of ministries will expand our operations and forge an impressive team of Christian managers who bring their unique talents and reputation for visionary leadership to the new organization. Our union will surely lead to greater effectiveness and economy in spreading the gospel to the world. We’re really excited about this comprehensive opportunity to communicate the good news of Jesus Christ.”

The Sanctuary Truth Manipulation for the sake of Tradition

After taking a beating from the alternative media of the Seventh-day Adventist publications over the Sabbath School Lesson Study Guide on 1844, the Investigative Judgment and the Gospel the Adventist Review is trying to prop up the sanctuary doctrine once again. In an article entitled the Sanctuary Truth Jennifer Jill Schwirzer presents her view of the importance of this so called truth.

She tells of taking a friend to church and interpreting for her friend the Adventist code words:

Now she sat in the pew next to me, gaining her first exposure to Adventist Church life. “Today, Christ is engaged in the great work of the investigative judgment during this antitypical day of atonement,”⁶ the speaker proclaimed, “and soon the marriage supper of the Lamb will take place.”⁷

Knowing that her appetite for depth was not matched by a grasp of church-speak, I leaned toward Emily and whispered a translation: “Em, what the pastor is saying is that Christ is the husband and His church is the bride. A bride and groom can’t be truly intimate when there’s something between them. The sanctuary in heaven is where Jesus cleanses away the sin that separates Him from His bride.”⁸ Emily relaxed her brow and nodded in agreement.

If I were Emily that would not relax me, “You mean for these last 1600 years no one on earth could be intimate with their God until sins somehow in heaven are cleansed?” “That’s right Em, our sins are not forgiven and forgotten when we ask God to take them away, God must store a record of our sins in heaven and then starting in 1844 He began to cleanse the record of our sins at least of the people who are dead He has not gotten to us yet.” I would guess that this would upset Emily even more, “So we can’t even now have that intimate relationship with Jesus until He has cleansed our sins in heaven. “That’s right Em isn’t the sanctuary doctrine the most wonderful truth you have ever heard?” Emily might respond: “No, I believe that forgiveness is immediate and that God really does forget about my sins, no longer counting them against me, I thought that was standard Christian faith?”

The article then goes on to tell just how much the sanctuary truth trashes evil and treasures good. It ends hypocrisy because it tells us that God will judge us. She writes:

This truth says that professed believers will be judged by an all-seeing God, and ultimately either validated as sincere or exposed as phonies.¹¹ This “scrutinizing of the saints” has been the most offending element of the sanctuary truth, but for those looking in from the outside, it provides a welcome reprieve from prevailing cheap grace.

Wow did you know that Christians do not believe in a judgment by God? That is only found in the Adventist sanctuary truth, the rest of Christianity scoffs at such an idea. You begin to get the picture, the author does not seem to have a good grasp of basic Christianity and likely not of the Investigative Judgment as taught by Adventism in the last 150 years. In fact Christianity does scoff at the Investigative Judgment because it has no Biblical backing but they certainly acknowledge a judgment by God. It is also not really a cheap grace judgment either, it is rather recognition of a judgment not based upon works but based upon faith in God (some believe in rewards based on works but that is separate from salvation). Relationship based judgment, do we have a relationship with God or not. Now according to the author we can’t have that relationship until after our names come up and our sins are forgiven in the Investigative Judgment (she wrote: The sanctuary in heaven is where Jesus cleanses away the sin that separates Him from His bride). Which it would seem to me is really an unnecessary obstacle to faith in God, not a beautiful truth at all really.

She continues:

Yet the sanctuary told her otherwise, because there the most whitewashed sins are recorded with searing clarity. What is done in the darkness is seen and chronicled in the books of heaven to stand as objective testimony in heaven’s court. This tells those whose sense of justice is offended by man’s inhumanity to man that the Judge of the world can’t be bought off by pretended piety.

A little later:

The sanctuary doctrine reveals that we are significant to God, who notices the details of our lives sufficiently to record them all. The enemy has twisted this truth into a weapon of psychological torment—particularly for Adventists who fear judgment. But I propose that we see it as a mark of God’s care rather than His condemnation.

The sanctuary truth tells her that her sins and everyone else’s are kept track of right there in heaven. God keeps a record of wrongs, Love , in 1 Corinthians 13:5 tells us keeps no record of wrongs but God does and he uses them. The Bible actually only records such things as who’s name is in the book of Life and in the Old Testament the book of remembrance (Malachi. 3:16) which again is not about a record of sins. God knows we all have enough sins to choke a heard of horses it surprises me that a record of sins in heaven is such a good thing. I suppose if one considers that some people have so many sins that we with fewer might feel a little better but I can’t see when dealing with a perfect God that it makes too much difference. I would rather know that He has written my name in the book of life (Revelation 3:5) or that He knows who are His (John 10:27-30) then to hold to a theory of recorded sins.

After listing all this about how important it is that God stores a record of sin the author then in true sanctuary truth fashion contradicts herself:

This may pinpoint another sanctuary doctrine stumbling block—it seems to be all about sin!... Simple reasoning follows that if God’s law is love, then sin is failing at love. That means that the putting away of sin involves coming into love—a love relationship with God, but even more relevant to today’s cry, a loving community with other human beings…

The doctrine of the sanctuary posits that alienation is an outcropping of sin, and with the removal of sin, at-one-ment is made possible. By demolishing the sin-barriers, the sanctuary facilitates relationships and brings about true intimacy and brotherly love.

Is this the same Sanctuary mentioned earlier? The one that is at some future time going to cleanse our record of sins? What a sad idea that postpones reconciliation with God until some heavenly sanctuary activity. Nearly 2000 years ago Paul pleaded with us to be reconciled with God (2 Corinthians 5:20) We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. No, this is not a sanctuary pseudo truth this is the reality of a God that loves and wants a relationship with us and through that relationship improve our lives and other peoples lives.

If you have the stomach for reading material designed to prop up the least Biblical of all of Adventist doctrines take some time and read Ms Schwirzer’s article. It is a very telling piece of evidence which exposes the faulty logic that is the Investigative Judgment AKA Sanctuary Doctrine. Calling something truth when it is not truth is an attempt to manipulate people but to print this in our official church paper indicates that it is very likely the accepted view of the leadership of the SDA church. That should be our real cause for concern. Honesty and integrity to the Bible is discarded for the sake of manipulation in the cause of promoting what many Adventist today have chosen to reject because it is not Biblical. The leadership it seems has at least realized it cannot support the doctrine from the Bible so this new means is used. The idea is now that everything good and important is found in the sanctuary doctrine. Forgiveness, love, justice, harmony, reconciliation, even the very formation of the SDA church it is all to be found in the “Sanctuary Truth”.

I feel so used!.

Definition of the Word of God missing in Lesson Study Guide

From the April 2007 Adventist World NAD edition of the Adventist Review Bill Knott writes from the Editor’s Pen the following:

For Those Who Lead

Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation. (Hebrews 13:7 )

It’s the most common of human signs, and in the church, one of the most troubling. We shrug our shoulders, roll our eyes, and say with gentle sarcasm, “But what could you expect of leadership?” It’s a line good for a momentary laugh as we forge a fleeting bond with some other believer by diminishing those who have been called to lead God’s church. “We,” who pretend to be the great unvoiced, unheard congregation, describe ourselves as helpless to overcome the faults and foibles in those we have elected. -- Page 3

The writer of Hebrews was addressing the leaders who brought the knowledge of Christ to the Hebrews though using the King James Version as Bill Knott does may make it sound a bit different and certainly Adventist do not elect their leaders, maybe they choose someone to go to a constituency meeting and they voted to accept nominated people on a committee but that is about as close to an election as SDA members get. But what is the Word of God that the SDA leadership brings? I know what the writer of Hebrews is talking about but I don’t know what Bill Knott is talking about.

We use the phrase “word of God” a lot, in fact it is our subject for this quarter’s Lesson Study Guide. It is mainly used in the New Testament while “word of the Lord” is mainly in the Old Testament except for the book of Acts which also uses the word of the Lord a lot.

From Strong's Lexicon 3056 logos (log'-os);
from 3004; something said (including the thought); by implication a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extension, a computation; specifically (with the article in John) the Divine Expression (i.e. Christ):

KJV-- account, cause, communication, X concerning, doctrine, fame, X have to do, intent, matter, mouth, preaching, question, reason, + reckon, remove, say (-ing), shew, X speaker, speech, talk, thing, + none of these things move me, tidings, treatise, utterance, word, work.

Most famous use:
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (NIV)

I searched the Adult Teacher’s guide lesson study Guide for the definition of the “Word of God” without success. The following is the results of a search of the Adult Teachers Lesson Study Guide through April 27 for the definition of the term Word of God. Unfortunately the folks in charge while able to print the Lesson study guide and send them out can’t manage to post them all for the quarter but instead just offer a couple weeks of lessons in advance. The only reason I can think of for that is that they don’t want the lessons to be searchable in a computer format which could readily show contradictions or biases in the lesson:

Though all these have their role in showing that the Bible is the Word of God, perhaps the greatest evidence for the Bible is the influence and impact for good it has had and still continues to have on the lives of those who apply its teaching to themselves. p-2 Introduction

With such claims made for the Bible, it’s no wonder that people have challenged its authenticity and reliability. Is it truly the Word of God? p-2

April 5 teachers comments quote by karl Barth

But it does not live in the inner movement of these tensions. In them we see rather the process of decay to which the Church is at once subject when it ceases to live by the Word of God, which means by Holy Scripture.”—Page 75. April 7 But why should any one of us put ourselves under the authority of a book? The answer is that the Bible isn’t just a book; it is, instead, the Word of God.

Teacher’s comments April 8

Teach the Class to:
Know: That the Bible is the inspired Word of God.
Feel: Assured that the Holy Spirit inspired each Bible writer.
Do: Choose to live our lives in accordance with God’s Word.

Lesson Outline:
I. The Inspired Word of God (1 Pet. 1:10)
The Spirit of God inspired the messages given in the Scriptures. How can we be sure of this? Bible writers themselves attribute their messages to the Lord. Give some examples.

April 9

As a result of this divine revelation, the Bible also is called “the book of the Lord” (Isa. 34:16), “the gospel of God” (Rom. 1:1), “the oracles of God” (Rom. 3:2), “the word of Christ” (Col. 3:16), and “the good word of God” (Heb. 6:5).

April 11

The apostles were solidly convicted that the Scriptures were the Word of God. At Pentecost Peter said, “ ‘This Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David’ ” (Acts 1:16, NKJV). Paul also said, “When you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God” (1 Thess. 2:13, NKJV).

April 12

With Peter’s reference to Paul’s writings as Scripture, we see internal evidence for the validity of both Testaments; both were considered the Word of God (see also 1 Thess. 2:13). And despite some vast differences in the backgrounds and authors of the Bible, there’s also an incredible unity found within both.

April 13

The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of the man are the word of God.”—Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, book 1, p. 21.

April 13 discussion question

No doubt there are some things in Scripture that are difficult to understand.Why should that not be surprising when one considers what this book is about and the themes it deals with? What can you do to help one another maintain faith in the Scriptures as the Word of God, despite some things in it that can be hard to
grasp?

April 14

This week we’ll take a look at some of the great prophecies in Scripture. What can we learn from them? What is the principle behind prophecy? How does prophecy help us learn to trust in the Bible as the Word of God?

April 22

Hence, the arrival of what’s known as higher criticism, which has been very successful in destroying faith in the Bible as the Word of God. For many scholars, the Bible is just another ancient text, a Jewish version of, for instance, the Egyptian Book of the Dead. Full of historical interest, for sure, but not divinely inspired.

Suppose someone were to ask you, “Why do you trust the Bible? Why do you think the Bible is the Word of God? Why do you live according to what the Bible says?” How would you answer, and why?

April 22 teachers comments

Teach the Class to:

Know: That the Bible is the inspired Word of God and that it will stand
forever.

How can we help others accept the Bible as the true Word of God?

Summary: We have good reason to believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and has been preserved with accuracy through divine intervention.

April 24

How firm is your faith in the Bible as the Word of God? Also, ask yourself this question: “If I can’t trust the Bible, what can I trust?” What’s left?

April 25

What other evidence can help us trust in the Bible as the Word of God, besides what we’ve looked at in the past few days?

April 25 Teachers comments

Thought Questions:

Most Christians believe that the Bible is the Word of God. Does this mean that the Bible is true and infallible down to the letter, that it is verbally inspired? Or can it be said that the Bible is not the Word of God as such, but contains the Word of God (prophecies, direct statements from God Himself, etc.)? What is wrong with either or both views? What alternative is there?

April 26 teachers comments

“Accepting the Bible as the Word of God means first recognizing that the biblical writers do not expound their own views (2 Pet. 1:19-21). It also means acknowledging that the content of the biblical message conveys God’s will, since it originates in the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2 Tim. 3:16) and for that reason is relevant, compelling, and authoritative, independent of human acceptance. It also means following in the footsteps of men and women who trusted scripture as the Word of God.”—Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology (Hagerstown, Md.: Review and Herald®, 2000), p. 679.

April 27

“God has faithful witnesses, to whom He committed the truth, and who preserved the Word of God. The manuscripts of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures have been preserved through the ages by a miracle of God.”—Ellen G. White, Letter 32, 1899.

The closest to providing any definition is that on April 26 but it is also the most troublesome. April 26 teachers comments:

“Accepting the Bible as the Word of God means first recognizing that the biblical writers do not expound their own views (2 Pet. 1:19-21). It also means acknowledging that the content of the biblical message conveys God’s will, since it originates in the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2 Tim. 3:16) and for that reason is relevant, compelling, and authoritative, independent of human acceptance. It also means following in the footsteps of men and women who trusted scripture as the Word of God.”—Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology (Hagerstown, Md.: Review and Herald®, 2000), p. 679.

It is actually pretty obvious that the Bible includes the views of those who wrote the various books, some like Paul plainly say this is their view. Others write from their perspective of the religion such as Ecclesiastes or the reference to counting Israel by David one book saying God caused David to do it another book saying Satan caused it; both actually reflecting the ancient Jewish belief that both good and evil come from God. So the first part of his statement does not work in reality.

The second line saying the words conveys God’s will is also problematic. How do we look at that will, is it the same for ever or is it restricted to the contextual time and place. If it is not independent of human acceptance then should we not be killing Sabbath breakers and those who commit adultery and all the other commands of God given in the books of the law?

We must have a workable definition of the word of God if we intend to use the phrase apart from its own Biblical usage. The Bible writers wrote of specific messages that they said were the word of God but they did not ever call their whole book and certainly not the accumulation of books the word of God. This is a foundational subject to the quarter’s lesson yet it is completely ignored by the lesson. Possible this is why they did not chose and actual Bible scholar to write the lesson.

RON GLADDEN ORDINATION VOIDED

The Adventist church constantly amazes me. Take a look at the following post from Re-Inventing the Adventist Wheel.
The Article entitled RON GLADDEN ORDINATION VOIDED begins:

On March 14, 2007, the North Pacific Union Conference (NPUC) of Seventh-day Adventists voided pastor Ron Gladden's ordination, making him no longer eligible for future employment as a Seventh-day Adventist minister.

Why? After Ron left denominational employment as director of the Adventist Church Planting Center in 2004 due to lack of funding for the center, he started his own self-supporting, church-planting ministry, Mission Catalyst.

Foot Washing - Symbolism over Substance

Recently the Adventist Review dealt with the issue of foot washing, that tradition found in the Adventist church and a few others. The Review begins its article How to End your Fear of Foot Washing by Ed Christiansen by saying:

Ask any deacon. It's a well known fact that on Communion Sabbath perhaps only about half the regular members of most congregations will show up. Some slip away after Sabbath school. Others satisfy a longstanding desire to visit the church in the next town. There's something about Communion Sabbath that breeds colds, flu, bronchitis, and gout.

Why is that? I don't think it's because the day is so boring. I don't think it's because people are against celebrating Communion. Frankly, I think it's because many people think of what we call "the ordinance of humility" as an ordeal of humility: they suffer from fear of foot washing.

We call this the Ordinance of Humility though it is more likely an ordinance in stupidity. Jesus washed dirty feet, He was offering to do a real service to His disciples and asking them to be of real service to each other. In our Ordinance of Humility we wash clean feet and pretend that we are doing a service by washing the feet of people who don’t even have dirty feet. We have elevated the meaning of Jesus’s act to a symbolism and the importance of the act, though often addressed is never addressed practically. We don’t offer to help other church members clean their flower beds or paint their house or work on their car or bicycles. We create an Ordinance of Humility as our official declaration of symbolism over substance.

The article later says:

Because this humility is both hard to attain and hard to retain, the ordinance of humility is a precious opportunity for us to humble ourselves as we ought, and its value is inestimable. As Ellen White writes: "Whenever this ordinance is rightly celebrated, the children of God are brought into a holy relationship, to help and bless each other."²

No! a thousand times no, it is a regular opportunity, that is what Christianity should be about, the willingness to be a friend and a service to others even when it is inconvenient to do so. It is not about playing that this is the way we are in a once a quarter pretend to be humble service inside a church.

As we practice the ordinance of humility it is not only the washing of the feet of others that embarrasses us, but, perhaps more so, having our own feet washed. There's something private about the washing of feet, quite different from the washing of hands. Like certain medical examinations, it can seem an invasion of something that is ours alone.

No, it is not the washing that embarrasses us it is that it is needless and pointless. How many of us would be really embarrassed to clean the wound on someone’s foot say they had a cut and needed it cleaned and disinfected, I am not talking a disgusting wound that might make some weaker stomachs sick. We would not feel that is an embarrassment and if it was our own foot that needed tending we may be embarrassed by our need of help but we would not be embarrassed for having a real need. We are most embarrassed by having no need of something and pretending that the ceremony does anything. That is the reality of why foot washing is so ill attended. Because we make it a stupid ritual, we can serve other people all the time. It is wrong to insert the foot washing into the communion service. The foot washing of the disciples was a practical example of serving others. The rest of the communion, the wine and the bread are totally symbolic it is a shared experience with history and the God of that history.

We have made foot washing as meaningless as Maundy Thursday and just as traditional. Another sad part of this is that we don’t even ask the people in the church why they avoid this meaningless ritual, instead like the author of the above article the leadership simply assumes they know why. Telling them if the reader could only understand the deep significance of this insignificant activity it would be embraced. With a few anecdotes thrown in to make the event seem meaningful as if relationships were created by foot washing ceremonies.

Jimmy Swaggart’s Distorted Bible Commentary

I happened upon Jimmy Swaggart’s A Study in the Word daily telecast a while back and saw a presentation which though it is traditional in Christianity also demonstrates that the tradition has no basis in Biblical fact.

The following is taken from Jimmy Swaggart’s Expositor’s StudyBible which is a King James Version to which he has added his own notes in red:

Genesis 4:3 And in process of time it came to pass (the phase used here refers to a long indefinite period), That Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. (This was Probably the first offering that he brought, even though the Lord had explained to the First Family the necessity of the Sacrificial System, that is if they were to have any type of communion with God and Forgiveness of sins. There is evidence that Adam, at least for a while, offered up sacrifices. Cain knew the type of Sacrifice that the Lord would accept, but he rebelled against that admonition, demanding that God accept the labor of his hands, which, in fact, God could not accept. So we have, in the person of Cain and Abel, the first examples of a religious man of the world and a genuine man of faith.

4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof (this is what God demanded; it was a blood sacrifice of an innocent victim, a lamb, which proclaimed the fact that Abel recognized his need of a Redeemer, and that One was coming Who would redeem lost humanity; the Offering of Abel was a type of Christ and the price that He would pay on the cross of Calvary in order for man to be redeemed).

He then, in his presentation on his TV show attempted to show how important his Bible is. He quotes a conversation between some author, a scholar:

“who has written any number of books, told Francis the other day. He said sister Swaggart, after he had seen this Bible, he said, if every believer had a copy of the Expositor’s StudyBible most false doctrine wouldn’t get off the ground. Most false doctrine wouldn’t get off the ground and he is 100% right.”[At around 15 minutes into his March 23, 2007 daily telecast]

For those who have discovered the way that fundamentalists redefine the stories in Genesis to suit their own purposes it is pretty clear that Swaggart’s notes are nothing but his bias and/or assumptions. Consider what he says: even though the Lord had explained to the First Family the necessity of the Sacrificial System, that is if they were to have any type of communion with God and Forgiveness of sins. There is nothing in the Genesis account about anyone explaining a sacrificial system to Adam and Eve or Cain and Abel. To back up his false statement or at best his assumption stated as fact he says: There is evidence that Adam, at least for a while, offered up sacrifices. Really? Where is there any such evidence? It would seem to be something that an expositor would want to include in the notes of his commentary. The reason Swaggart does not include his evidence is because he has none. He has merely presented a gratuitous assertion and hoped his appeal to non existent evidence will satisfy those who were initially foolish enough to think that his comments were worth purchasing the Expositor’s StudyBible. That name is no doubt chosen because of its similarity to the highly regarded Expositor’s Bible Commentary but there is really nothing that should be highly regarded in the notes of Swaggart’s Bible.

Most Christians have grown up with the idea that God rejected Cain’s offering because it was not a blood sacrifice. No where in the story is such an idea presented but it is assumed because of the traditions that have built up in the Christian religion. What is more likely is that God rejected Cain’s sacrifice because of Cain’s attitude. In fact when God speaks to Cain in the story He does not say it is about the sacrifice but He indicates it is Cain’s attitude that is the problem. In fact the story is used to indicate the foreknowledge of God.

(Gen 4:6-8 NIV) Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it."
Now Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let's go out to the field." And while they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.

Today we are at a stage where Christianity has to redefine itself to reach post modern man and one of the things we have to do is respect the stories for what they say rather then what we may want to read into them. Many Christians are not even aware of just how much ill conceived tradition has been incorporated into their religion. There seems to be no denomination that has not incorporated some poorly reasoned or erroneous ideas into their religion but we don’t have to keep them and we certainly should not build them into Bibles.

What is Wrong With Easter...Nothing!

For the Gospel has a good article on the subject What is Wrong with Easter. It covers the recent Adventist Review article by George Reid on the subject. I recommend taking a few minutes and reading the article at For the Gospel. The Article begins:

“Should we participate in Easter celebrations?” This is the question posed in an Adventist Review article entitled “A Note About Easter.” Apparently there is confusion among Adventists about whether Easter should be observed. Increasingly, the answer to this question has been in the affirmative, with passion plays and Easter services becoming more widespread within the denomination. But this proliferation of Easter celebrations raises an important and potentially tricky question for Adventists — on which day should Easter be celebrated? After all, the Bible tells us that Jesus rose from the tomb on a Sunday (Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1, Luke 24:1, John 20:1). George Reid of the Adventist Biblical Research Institute has addressed this issue and appears to be very hesitant to recommend celebrating Christ's resurrection in common with the wider body of Christ. Of Adventists who endorse celebrating Easter, he says, “They are fearful we will be misunderstood, and for them it is important that we be seen as orthodox and acceptable to the society around us. They conform to customs around us, at times unthoughtfully. Actually this practice conveys another misunderstanding — the idea that we give special significance to Sunday because it was the resurrection day. A few of our churches have introduced Sunday morning services for Easter, which for many Adventists creates problems. We recognize that we are not treating Sunday as holy time, but the public may not catch the subtle difference.” Is the potential for allowing people to conclude that there is significance in worshiping the resurrected Savior on Sunday so unattractive as to do away with Easter observance entirely? Does the Sabbath trump the resurrection of Christ? These and other thorny questions are raised by Reid, a few more of which will be explored below.

My question is why don't we as local churches offer Easter Sunday morning services as an outreach to people who may not normally even go to a church except on Easter or maybe Christmas. Both of these days should be celebrated at our local churches if for no other reason then as a neighborhood outreach. Many Adventist churches will have special presentations for the Sabbath before Easter, why not another session on Easter Sunday?

We sing the old hymn "Tell me the story of Jesus" yet in a country with the culture of going to church on Easter Sunday we are afraid to open our churches and tell them the story of Jesus.

For you Adventist Churches that do offer Easter Sunday service, good for you!
Churches like Pleasant Valley Church and Kelso-Longview SDA church.