More Than One Right Way to Think?
I have been reflecting further about the Questions on Doctrine conference I attended last month. I’d like to expand here on some thoughts I shared at the conclusion there. The whole controversy over Questions on Doctrine, it seems to me, revolved and still revolves around an unspoken subtext. I summarize that subtext in the following sentence: Is there more than one right way to think?
I have little doubt that the earliest Adventist pioneers would have instinctively answered No to this question. In their minds truth was basically clear and unchanging. There was only one right way to think. It seems to me, however, that the answer of Adventist history as a whole to this question has increasingly been Yes. Very early on a considerable diversity of expression can be seen in the pages of the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald. And it has become increasingly evident that Adventist understanding of truth was both developing and fragmenting throughout our history. Our pioneers expressed an awareness of both development and fragmentation at the 1919 Bible Conference, but these thoughts were largely held in private. What brought an awareness of development and fragmentation into public knowledge was the controversies that developed around the publication of Questions on Doctrine. So whether we like it or not, Adventist history bears witness to both doctrinal development (which means that the "one way to think" of the past is not adequate for the present) and increasing fragmentation. Is this good or bad, healthy or unhealthy? What would the Scriptures teach us?
Is there more than one right way to think? Scripture answers this question with a qualified Yes. The answer of Scripture is grounded in the principle that God meets people where they are. The thoughts and ideas of inspiration come from God. But the form those thoughts take are grounded in the time, place and circumstances of specific human beings. Time constraints require me to limit myself to just two biblical examples.
The first and most obvious example is the presence of four gospels in the New Testament. In the highest sense there is only one gospel, the gospel of Jesus Christ. But that one gospel finds itself expressed in four different ways by four different people. While there is an essential unity and harmony in their presentation of the gospel, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are each a unique and creative expression of that gospel. None of the four gospels has the whole picture. Each comes at the story with a unique purpose in mind. Each story is a true outline of the same events, yet they are all distinctly different. To put it another way, the four gospels testify that there is more than one right way to think. In the four gospels, the differences are due to different human standpoints in telling the story of God’s greatest revelation in Jesus Christ.
In Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 God Himself is the one who articulates this diversity. The two visions cover essentially the same ground: a series of four empires followed by a time of political division followed by the kingdom of God. The purpose of the two visions is the same: to show God’s overarching control of history (see Dan 2:21 and 7:26). To the pagan king He develops this outline of history in the form of an idol. To the Hebrew prophet He develops the outline as a midrash on creation. The story is the same, but the form is different. In other words, there is more than one right way to think.
Now in saying this I do not mean to imply that all viewpoints are right simply because they have been expressed. I am not promoting uncontrolled relativism. There were at least a dozen or so written gospels in the early Christian centuries that did not make it into the biblical canon. These contained, at times, fanciful and even bizarre features. All ways of thinking are not right. But my basic point remains valid. We must not, in our fear of relativism, be too quick to marginalize any viewpoint we disagree with. Just because someone else doesn’t see through my eyes does not mean that what they see is false. Differing perspectives can be windows into the larger truths that we all seek.
It is helpful in theological discussion, therefore, to keep in mind that if someone expresses a truth in a form different from mine, it should not automatically be assumed that if I am right the other must be wrong. To accept that there is more than one right way to think keeps us open to learning fresh dimensions of truth, and it inoculates us against the pride that can come from attainment of truth. There is much to be learned from theological controversy, even when we disagree. To still voices that differ from us may be to still the voice of the Spirit.
I do believe that the essence of your blog here is correct, Brother Paulien. It's a very unique perspective to approach the whole uproar over Q on D.
I have always found it difficult to think in just one way upon the topics of sin, the nature of man, and the nature of Christ (big issues in the Q on D debates). The more I press a certain point within those subjects I discover my many limitations to finding the exact way to express an infinate truth or a divine mystery.
So I find my self going back to basic "knowns." I am a sinner incapable of overcoming my sinful desires without the grace of God. In the promises of God I become a partaker of the divine nature. In Christ I am made whole. That Christ was like us enough to bring us salvation and unlike us enough not to need a Savior. Etc. and so forth.
What I am thankful for is we don't have to have an exact formula for truth to recognize how lost we are and how saved in Christ we become.
Reply to this
Of course there are different ways to think about a situation or doctrine.
The fact that we all have a differing combination of gifts, experiences, cultures, almost ensures that everybody will have an almost unique interpretation of doctrine.
Unless it is absolutely contrary to Scripture, we need the grace to allow people to have these differing thoughts and belief and let them grow in Christ and let the Holy Spirit lead that person to a more correct thought.
I think that Paul settles the matter when he talks about in I Corinthians 8 where he talks about meat being offered to idols and says that it is permissible to eat the meat, but not to do it in front of somebody who doesn't have that knowledge.
My understanding of that verse is that, if your conscience is clear, any activity (not contrary to Scripture) is permissible, but have consideration for somebody else whose conscience may not be clear and not do that act in front of them for their sake and if your conscience is not clear, not to hold an act against somebody else where you're conscience is not clear, but their's might be.
Reply to this
Dr.Paulien, this reflection needs to be published in Ministry or Review!!
Reply to this
Personally, I have never been able to resolve the paradox between my belief in absolute truth and my subjective, limited perception of that truth. That God in Christ is this truth in Himself accents my weakness. I have nothing left but the faith that He will make Himself known through my feeble attempts to know Him. In one sense, even incarnate, He remains wholly "other" to me. In fact, the closer He comes, the more unlike Him I become in my own eyes. If He is not gracious, I have no hope. In absolute terms, I cannot identify Him; He must identify me. Living with this awareness of what I am and what I am not in His presence is the ground of my need for faith.
God's solution to my dilemma was to reveal Himself incarnate in His Son, what one has called, "God's thought made audible". The written word only has value as it testifies to the Word made flesh, for He alone is the complete revelation of God. He must manifest Himself, even in common language, by means of His Spirit. The best tools of interpretation will not make Him known of themselves. We use them, we must use them, as creatures of self-expression. But we must never forget our limits.
Language, because it is the expression of a "self", is a slippery creature. Having made it clear your not advocating sloppy, lazy thinking or the drowning of doctrine, surely your call for humility, patience, forgiveness, and love in our relations with one another, theological or otherwise, is a good thing.
Reply to this
Dr. Paulien:
Would you please clarify a bit more of what you mean here? In other words, is it possible for two people to read a passage of Scripture and have fundamentally diametrically opposite interpretations, and both interpretations be correct?
Reply to this
Jarrod,
Under some circumstances, yes. Many Scriptures may have been clear in the original context, but they can be quite ambiguous in relation to our questions today, especially when we approach the text from philosophical presuppositions that are quite different than those of the Bible writers. Two readers may have a very different impression from the text and yet both be seeing something important and helpful. When it comes to big pictures ideas drawn from scores of texts the odds are good that two interpreters will both be at least partly right, even though their conclusions may be opposite. If we fail to listen to those we disagree with, we will have a diminished understand of both Scripture and the will of God. If we are not open to our opponents being at least partly right, we cut ourselves off from great learning opportunities.
When it comes to the nature of Christ issues that were at the center of the Questions on Doctrine controversies, both sides are completely convincing on their own terms. Depending on the evidence one is privileging and the spiritual ground one is defending, both positions can be helpful. I don't believe it has to be either or.
Reply to this
Jon:
Okay. I understand what you mean, i.e., given the difficulties in exegeting a text, there may be opposing yet perfectly reasonable ways of interpreting it.
I was not sure of that and (mis)understood you to say that it was possible to have two *fundamentally* opposing interpretations of the same text yet both of them *actually* be correct. This would violate the law of non-contradiction.
The way I see it, regardless of imperfections in our exegesis, any Biblical text has only one correct meaning, i.e, what the Author originally intended.
However, there can be _numerous applications_ of that text, depending on our circumstances.
I get very uncomfortable when Christians discuss a text saying things like, "Well, the Holy Spirit tells me that it _means_ ..." as tho0ugh it has different *true* meanings depending on who is reading the text. More rather, I think we should change our verbage to say things more like, "What the author originally intended is [fill-in-the-blank] ... and how it applies to me is ..."
Reply to this
"Under some circumstances, yes". Could you define the other circumstances, those that would be "no"?
Reply to this
Greetings Brother John. My wife and I are enjoying the CDs on Revelation, and I understand that you were hoping to have your Greek text available in December. Could you let me know when it will be possible to obtain a copy?
Blessings
David Hay.
Reply to this
It is my understanding that when two or more people argue about a religious issue and have two different opinions, then at least one is not being led by the Holy Spirit. Since the truth is absolute and singular, and since God knows everything AND since the Holy Spirit will lead us into ALL truth, then it MUST be possible to know ALL of the truth. After all, isn't it the truth that sets us free?
I find it interesting that Jesus told Pilot that He came here to testify to the truth. If so, then how come all of the confusion? Maybe it is time we get back to the words/testimony of Jesus given to us by His eyewitnesses as provided for in John 14:26. True, Luke, Paul and the unknown writer of Hebrews was not one of those eyewitnesses and there testimony should be taken with caution, if at all. After all, there is a reason why courts today seldom accept hearsay testimony as factual evidence! And does not the group found in Revelation 12:17 keep the commandments AND have the [straight] testimony of Jesus? (Not Luke, Paul or the writer of Hebrews) If I am wrong, then what IS the foundation for religious truth?
Reply to this
Sometimes we ask the wrong questions. For example, we as a church have argued over Christ having gone to the holy place or most holy place in the heavenly sanctuary and go to Hebrews to prove the point. Yet, Hebrews was not written to make either point. Hebrews expresses the superior perfect heavenly ministry of Christ in contract to the sanctuary services on earth. Since Hebrews does not address the question: "What apartment of the heavenly sactuary did Christ go at the ascension?" one cannot find the answer in Hebrews no matter what side of the aisle you are on.
Paul in Romans 7 is the same issue. We ask: "Was Paul converted or unconverted in his discription of himself in that chapter?" The answer is neither. Paul was simply addressing the futility of obeying God's law, serving God, without Christ, or faith in Christ.
So sometimes, maybe many of the times, we ask questions and debate them and argue over them going to the Scripture passages that we think support our preconceived views (answers) and do disservice to the Scriptures.
Finally, truth can have many facets to it. Just one facet is not all of the truth. Too often we focus on one or a handful of facets and call it the total of truth. We have to be careful in what assembly of truths we make up and then judge others accuracy by our crafted standard.
Reply to this
Kevin; What did you say? Is it really true that "Paul was simply addressing the futility of obeying God's law, serving God, without Christ, or faith in Christ"? Then tell me, how did the righteous become righteous in the Old Testament? Mary was found to be righteous without Christ, wasn't she?
Your 'dance' around the issue of religious truth reminds me of Paul's writings. Did Jesus have faith in His Father? Yes, He had trust, but trust is built upon knowing the truth. Daniel did not say he had faith that God would answer the dream, he said he KNEW God would answer the dream.
Will the 144,000 need faith in order for them to become sealed before Jesus comes? And if all we need is 'grace' then how come only 144,000 are found to be righteous? (Rev. 3:4)
Reply to this
I stand by what I said before and see no need for clarification. I think it speaks clearly enough.
Reply to this
Kevin, your none answer is what I keep getting from pastors, leaders and SDA Bible teachers. Are you suggesting that I am asking 'wrong' questions?
As an investigative lawyer, many times I have seen answers to interrogatories that 'dance' around the question only because the party does not want to answer them because if they do they will lose the argument. My live internet talk radio program called "THE BIBLE ON TRIAL" address this same type of problem. We will honestly answer ANY question that anyone has concerning spiritual/religious truth. Why? becasue we sincerely know that before Jesus will come, (in the clouds), this 'new truth' must be made available to everyone so they can't say they didn't have a choice.
Reply to this
Yes, and no on asking wrong questions. It may be more of not seriously considering what is said because you already have something locked in your mind on the matter. If you keep getting the same responses it just may be you are asking the wrong questions. Something to consider.
Reply to this
Rich wrote:
"Mary was found to be righteous without Christ, wasn't she?"
I believe that this thought is incorrect. I say this because without Christ, we are nothing and our abilities and achievements mean nothing. As I understand Scripture, Christ has been acting as the Angel of God since the beginning of time and His death on the Cross was meant to pay for all sins, past and present. If Adam's sins were paid for by the future death of Christ, than Adam was also made righteous by the future crucifixion. Nothing Adam could do could make him a righteous man on his own accord. To be consistent, that applies to Mary as well. She may have been a very good woman under her own steam, but she was just as dependent on Christ's death to be considered righteous. This would seem to suggest that when God calls somebody righteous, he's looking at them through the lens of the crucifixion, not because that person has actually done anything to be righteous under their own power.
Reply to this
You wrote that "I (you) believe that this thought is incorrect' because without Christ we are nothing"... Since you debate me about Mary being righteous, how about letting the words speak for themselves? Matthew 1:19 states that Joseph was righteous without Christ. Luke 1:6 says that both Zacharias and Elizabeth were righteous without Christ. Luke 1:28 says that Mary was considered a 'favored one' without Christ. And what about Daniel? Was not he considered righteous?
Would you not agree with me that Jesus was the real Passover Lamb? He said so himself. Have you not read about the Passover Lamb before and found that not ONE sin was placed upon this sacrifice?
Did not Jesus die sinless? If so, then how can you or anyone say that the sins of the world were placed upon Jesus?
In John 17, Jesus said that He became sanctified so that we also CAN become sanctified. Did not God tell Cain that sin was crouching at the door and HE must overcome it himself? Isn't this what "you must master it" means?
Jesus said His work was done before He even died. He said His work was to bring truth to this world. This was what Adam was supposed to do and Israel too. Yes, Jesus' death made it possible for you and I to be here but then we must DO something about it.
I find it very sad that our own leaders, teachers and pastors have no clue as to the straight testimony of Jesus anymore. By the way, isn't that what Ellen White said will cause the great shaking? So, instead of making fun of someones 'way of thinking', how about investigating it for a change? Or don't you find that it isn't possible for you to believe a lie?
One of us is wrong and not allowing the Holy Spirit to lead them into ALL truth. I base my foundational belief upon Jesus Christ and Him alone!
Reply to this
John Paterson wrote:
"As I understand Scripture, Christ has been acting as the Angel of God since the beginning of time and His death on the Cross was meant to pay for all sins, past and present."
You mean past, present, and _future,_ right?
Reply to this
Let me ask you this, after Christ comes, will we really be a people that hurts others deliberately? Are you really going to steal, call somebody down, commit adultery, lie, or whatever other sin one can conceive after Christ's coming?
If not, than His death on the cross ends when God's final judgement happens upon the unsaved. If man had never sinned, Christ would never have needed to die on the Cross, but if man will never sin again than the price Christ paid also becomes fulfilled from that moment onward.
That doesn't mean we are independent of God's will. We will always be dependent creatures, because God has made it so. That is why, though we will no longer sin, we will still need the Tree of Life because God has determined that He should always have the last say.
Reply to this
No need for applause people, your appreciation of my words is assumed.
Reply to this
For those who may not know, Mr. Humpal does not accept large portions of the Scripture as inspired. He has certainly implied this in his comment above, but has not explicitly said as much as he has else where. He does not accept the writings of Luke, Paul, or the author of Hebrews as inspired Scripture. I assume this is because they so clearly contradict his perfectionistic view of righteousness by works.
After a comment on my blog not long ago, I was curious and Googled on his name. He, along with several other "Adventists", promotes his views on the ironically misnamed web site, "Spirit of Truth Ministry".
Here is a forum quote from "Dr" Humpal referring to President Bush, in which he calls Paul a false apostle:
"He [President Bush] has no clue as to the straight testimony of Jesus because he has not figured out (yet) that Paul was a false apostle, and thus runs into the same problem as Ellen G. White and the leaders, teachers and preachers of the SDA church. Someday we will see which direction he goes. There is a reason why the group found in Rev. 12:17 have the testimony of Jesus (not Paul, Luke or the unk writer of Hebrews)."
Found at: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/seventh-day-adventist/TTC8Q48VUU9Q41PMM
Reply to this
I find myself in good company since the leaders and teachers of the time made the same remarks to Jesus. Here is the thing: What do you find wrong with the testimony of Jesus given to us by His eyewitnesses? (John 14:26) Do not you understand what Jesus said about Him sowing wheat (truth) and later Satan sowing weeds (lies) and the New Testament is the field? Note that only the servants of the Master found out the difference just before harvest time.
This blog was about 'More Than One Right Way to Think' and now you are condemning me for respecting and teaching what Jesus taught. I challenge anyone to show me that Jesus' words are not the truth. After all did not Jesus say that IF anyone taught anything different than what He taught that there was no truth in them?
This is what is wrong with the SDA bible/theology schools today. They are making 'cookies' out of people just as we condemned the Catholics for doing years ago.
There is no question that Saul/Paul's gospel makes it easy to believe that one would be saved. Jesus told His OWN disciples to go to EVERY nation and people which included the Gentiles. So why did God need Paul, or for that matter, why do WE need Paul's writings? Please give me one good reason. I find it interesting that Peter had this same problem and you can read about it in Clementine's Homily 17:19. And if you want to know why Catholics believe the way they do, google "Revelation of Paul".
And as for slander, I will pray for you.
(Are we not to first go to that person and show him where his mistake is, before we slander them before everyone?)
My email is eat84life@aol.com My phone number is 909-795-4046. I do not hide from anyone! I take Rev. 21:8 and 22:15 serious about lies!
Reply to this
Jan:
Thank you for this important piece of information. It confirms something I was getting from Mr. Humpel's comments. Something was not ringing right in his words and his spirit. Thus, I refuse to go any longer in dialog with him.
If one is going to be inconsistent Mr. Humpel's demarcating what is inspired in Scripture and what isn't is the epitome of such contradictions as far as the Word of God is concerned. The Bible leaves no room for picking what is inspired and what is not. Therefore I think Jesus' instruction about not casting one's pearls before swine fit very appropriately.
Blessings,
Kevin
Reply to this