Herb Douglass speaks on QOD

[dedication]

You are entitled to your opinion on the matter and it is also the opinion of a number of others.  One only has to surf the internet to see the same thing (usually the exact same arguments as on the Video) reiterated by others who believe the book is to blame for Adventist's lack of unity on doctrine.

However, I am very uncomfortable with that view point.
To me it sounds very exclusive and very condescending  and negative to other Christians.  Basically, an "I don't care if those "Babylonians"  have the wrong idea about what Adventists believe, if they can't pick out the truth by reading books written by EGW then just forget about them.  Don't bother trying to explain things to them.

Is that really the attitude we are to take?


The fruit of the book has been bad ?
Where do you see any clear links?
I realize it's been made the "scape goat" --  but just because people want something to blame, doesn't mean it's correct to say everything bad is the "fruit" of the book -- I think a lot of the "bad fruit" came because of the intense opposition by a small group.

 The "bad"  is the dirt thrown at it for 50 years.
Most Adventists know next to nothing about the book, except the criticisms (most of which are unsubstantiated).

I've seen people who read the book come away with a much clearer understanding of our doctrines and their Christ centered, reality, they were strengthened in their faith and their commitment to the Adventist message.

The idea that the book teaches "just obey a little bit" is pure conjecture and unfounded.
There is a lot of MISINFORMATION floating around against the book.   

The book is almost entirely made up of clear restatements of traditional Adventist theology that are phrased in such a way that the book remained faithful to Adventist beliefs while at the same time speaking in a language that those outside of Adventism could understand more easily.

[ColporteurK]

Dedication;

It is not that we do not care about Babylon. It's just that we do not believe that we need to keep repackaging our message until it is acceptable to mainline evangelicals. If they cannot see great light in our Inspired books they will not see great light in QOD. It would appear that they see great light-ness in the book.

What good fruit in our church in terms of positive change do you think came from that book ? It has a been a point of contention. When things like this were a point of contention with the early SDA church such as with the daily and dress reform  Mrs. White encouraged that it be left alone. The substance of the SDA church is not 2-3 men taking an official position for the rest of us. How can you support that ?

[dedication]

Yes, it is very sad that so much contention arose.

I believe we need to be constantly "repackaging" the message, for it is only thus that it remains fresh and relevant.  Just reiterating old worn out phrases, turns the message into a mere form and litany, not a living faith.  One thing we learnt in education classes is that one shows understanding of a subject if they can restate it in their own words.

The book was not just "three men".  I know some contend that they were lying when they said they sent out manuscripts all over the world to have people study it before publishing it.   (to 250 people)  However, why would the general conference men say it was done, if it wasn't sent out.   
The ones saying it wasn't done are the ones who weren't included in the mailing list.   I guess trying to get feed back from certain Adventist pastors and teachers all over the world instead of just asking the people who had controlled Adventist thought for the last 40 years, wasn't considered adequate. 

I still remember when the book came out.  And yes, it was received with considerable appreciation.  I was still an elementary school aged kid then, but dad and the pastor (who would stay at our home when in our district) would talk for hours about it and other religious topics.  The book was received with appreciation -- for stating our doctrines in a clear, Christ-centered manner.

The thing is this --
Whose theology was being changed, if, as you say QOD changed theology?

It's very unnerving when one stands back and simply evaluates what the so called problems, according to the detractors,  with the book were. --

Every argument against that book DEVALUES Christ, Devalues His atoning sacrifice, attacks His perfect holiness, and casts suspicious looks at His gift of justification, pushing justification onto a back burner, or trying to hide it under a bushel as of far less importance than what they call sanctification.
Taking Christ and His cross out of central position, they raise humans to the ones making the final atonement, Christ's holiness is brought down to the lowest level possible without getting rid of it altogether, thus disqualifying Him as the spotless Lamb of God,  and disqualifying Him as our substitute, --while human righteousness is uplifted as actually making the atonement and defeating satan.   Salvation is no longer based in Christ and His gift of righteousness, but in human effort and human righteousness with Christ only being a power source to help them along.

Quite frankly -- what the detractors were pushing is not scriptural gospel.   The detractors who were against the book were not promoting the gospel Paul preached == they were attacking it.
The detractors pull quotes from EGW, but fail to balance and show what she really was saying in her books --  They get really upset because QOD printed a lot of quotes from EGW that showed a different side.
Was EGW contradicting herself?  No -- the problem was certain Adventist theologians had developed theories that were unbalanced.


Questions on Doctrines was a balanced book -- that looked at the WHOLE picture.
Sanctification is not the Savior.   Sanctification is only the result of walking with the Savior.
It's importance is that it shows who we have accepted as our Lord, Savior and Master.
But Sanctification is not the savior -- keeping the commandments does not save us, Christ does.
Those walking with Christ will keep the commandments , but it is their acceptance of Christ that saves them.
The attack against the book was an attack on justification and Christ as our only Savior.

The book could have done a lot of good, but envious agitators who felt THEIR theories weren't given prominence, destroyed it and brought in confusion that lasts to this day.

We need to get back to the gospel --
Until the church sees justification in it's true light, the fourth angel of Rev.18 will never lighten the whole earth with the power of the message.

[ColporteurK]

I believe we need to be constantly "repackaging" the message, for it is only thus that it remains fresh and relevant.  Just reiterating old worn out phrases, turns the message into a mere form and litany, not a living faith.  One thing we learnt in education classes is that one shows understanding of a subject if they can restate it in their own words.

That sounds so much like more post modern relativism. Mrs. White was not an anciet prophet. People that speak English can well understand her writings. Your statement sounds much the same as rationalization for all of these new corrupted Bible translations. It is interesting how the more liberal in our church gravitate to them. That is an indicator. The same can be said for QOD and how the evangelicals think better of us as a result. Some would have us keep repackaging the message until WE need to come out of Babylon ourselves. I keep repeating, if evangelicals cannot see great light in the writings of EGW they will not see it in some other book. However, they apparently see something in the book that you do not.

[dedication]

Repackaging  by stating truth in different words is NOT relativism.

Relativism does not consider anything as absolute truth. Relativism considers all points of view as having equal value -- there is no "search for truth" as such, for there is no absolute truth.

BUT
Stating something in one's own words, believes there is truth and is taking that  truth and saying it in different words, to solidify it in their own minds and help others see those truths more clearly.

Every honest sermon preached, every post written here on this forum, every discussion people have sharing truth with their friends and neighbors is seeking to "repackage truth" in different words  and trying to get people to see what they consider to be the true meaning  of this "absolute truth".

 

[dedication]

If evangelicals realize that Adventists place Christ and the Bible as central in finding salvation and truth, then they will value books like Desire of Ages, Great Controversy, Patriarchs and Prophets etc.
If we, as Adventists are true to what the Bible says, (not just a few selected verses but the message of salvation as outlined in the New Testament and prophesied in the Old Testament) then people will readily read books like Desire of Ages and value it's content.

What QOD attempted to do was to assure the evangelicals that indeed Christ was our salvation, and the Bible was the foundation of our beliefs.

They did not change any foundational pillars that we hold as distinctive Biblical truths which differ from mainstream Christianity.

Vital 'essentials,' 'pillars,' 'foundations' that stand us apart from most other Christians may be listed as:
1. The nature of the second advent of Christ  (end of world destruction of wicked -- 1000 years in heaven, etc)
 2. The binding claims of the seventh-day Sabbath.
3. The third angel's message in  relationship to the first and second angel's messages.
4. The two fold ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary, the second phase as demonstrated in the "day of atonement"  beginning in 1844, which ministry would cease just prior to the second advent
5. The non-immortality of the soul.

When you canvas -- do you start your canvas with
Hi, I'm a Seventh-day Adventist and here are books that teach our message?

If not -- why do you hide your church preference?
What books do you present -- "testimonies to the church" or "Desire of Ages"?
Why?

Aren't you eager to tell them you are "bible believing" and want to assure them that Christ is your Salvation?
Why?

That's exactly what QOD sought to do --
They did share EGW's books, like Desire of Ages, and it did turn the tide, right at the beginning of their conferences, to show Adventist look to Christ as their Savior.

Adventism needed a change back in 1888, the precious message of Christ as Savior in its fullness, it started out as a precious message, was zealously opposed by the leading theologians , causing division, and pushed into the background, the messengers going out into apostasy, but planting seeds of that apostasy in the church before they left.   -- more confusion.

1958, the so called "change" was again a stronger focus on the Bible, all must be tested by the Bible, not vice versa, and a stronger focus on Christ our Savior.   Again zealously opposed by leading Adventist theologian.  Too  "uncomfortable with justification" and wanted to make sanctification as the means of salvation.  Sanctification is NOT the means of salvation, it's only the sign and the fruit of BEING in a saving relationship with Christ.
 


 

[ColporteurK]

When you canvas -- do you start your canvas with
Hi, I'm a Seventh-day Adventist and here are books that teach our message?

If not -- why do you hide your church preference?
What books do you present -- "testimonies to the church" or "Desire of Ages"?
Why?

Aren't you eager to tell them you are "bible believing" and want to assure them that Christ is your Salvation?
Why?

I do not hide my church preference but I defer it unless they ask and until the timing is right. Not emphasizing the name of the church and not emphasizing truth are two different things. They do not equate. I do verbally emphasize present truth doctrine in many homes and literarily in every home, not as my personal transcript but from the pen of Inspiration. 

Yes, I show them Desire  of Ages but far more often it is the Great Controversy. One thing I do not try to sell them is my repackaged personal written efforts at summating the SOP books.

I do not spend a great deal of time proving to the people that I am a Bible believing Christian. That comes through naturally. I am not there to tell them what many already know. I am there to present to them new present truth that most know little or nothing about. I will share enough of that to create an interest that I have something they are missing not that the books are just like what they already have and believe. In short I am not there per se to sell them on our church but on the present truth message given to our church. QOD is trying to sell the public on our church. That is getting the horse before the court. 

If canvassing and passing off QOD are essentially doing the same thing why do you suppose QOD caused an uproar in the church and canvassing does not ?

[dedication]

Colporteur:  I am not there to tell them what many already know. I am there to present to them new present truth that most know little or nothing about.

That's probably good sales practice -- get them curious to read it.

But my question would be -- what do they already know?
Are you assuming they already have a relationship with Christ?
Oh, they may have a little knowledge about the historical Jesus, but do they know anything about Who Christ is, have they accepted Him as their Savior and Friend?
I think that is the biggest mistake we as Adventists have made over the years-- we ASSUME people know Christ, so we by pass the very essence and purpose of Christianity in our evangelistic efforts, and present doctrines.   Doctrines are good if Christ is central in them, because they explain more about Him and His purposes, etc.,  Doctrines are essential to understanding truth.   But if people aren't first lead to Christ and planted upon the solid rock -- all the doctrine in the world won't help them.
People can (and should) know all about the beast powers, but if they don't know Christ PERSONALLY, they will still be carried away by the powers of deception.


By the way -- I think it's great to get the books "Desire of Ages" and "Great Controversy" in the homes of people.   They are excellent and important books.
And yes, -- especially in combination -- and with the help of the Holy Spirit they can lead people into truth as it is in Christ.
I would never knock those books --
 

Colporteur:  QOD is trying to sell the public on our church. That is getting the horse before the court. If canvassing and passing off QOD are essentially doing the same thing why do you suppose QOD caused an uproar in the church and canvassing does not ?

QOD has a different purpose --
It was not to "sell the church" but to break down prejudice -- prejudice that was built on misunderstanding.  This would open the door for people to be more receptive to our message.

I don't think it was ever meant to be a colporteur book.
It was advertised as a "tool" to help Adventists in meeting the objections of their Christian neighbors.  It was to help Adventists give a meaningful reason for their belief.

It wasn't written to explain ALL that we believe -- it was written as a resource to meet the common questions and accusations Christians ask concerning our doctrines.

Why would any of the Great Conflict Series cause an uproar?
Actually they have -- especially Great Controversy -- (and I think those who opposed GC as a colporteur book were in the wrong, it is a book that needs to be shared, especially in this time in history)
These books by EGW are the IN CONTEXT writings  meant to share the conflict between good and evil  view of the Biblical story of redemption with the people.
There is no question that they are books that need to be shared.

The uproar with QOD came because prior  leading theologians had taken selected quotes and phrases by EGW  and built a theology that was out of balance with scripture, as well as with EGW.  Then QOD came and took a lot of quotes from EGW  to balance things -- so there would be  a much more balanced picture, that agreed with scripture .  The "old guard" did not like this more balanced picture so they fought against it, casting a lot of contempt upon the book, so it was removed from market, and no one read it.

You see -- I agree -- if one reads EGW's Conflict Series as written, it is GREAT!

But EGW wrote hundreds of thousands of pages, and it is easy to compile "proof" phrases to totally unbalance the message, and then say that is "true Adventism".   
I'm not saying QOD is ultimate truth in everything it contains -- but it is obvious to me that it was presenting a missing ingredient that was and is very much needed.
Till that ingredient finds it's way into Adventism we will never preach the message with any power.   
   
 

 

[newbie]

the way QOD was written, it can twist and turn things so artfully that one can be easily deceived into thinking it is truth when it is truth mixed with error...
I think we debated this some 10 years ago with Zeal didn't we?

never got an answer to this...
revisited the whole thing and re-read it all...

let's make this simple and clear:
QOD took a whole book to point out two lies that are not in original SOP or KJV bible:

Lie number 1:  Christ came as unfallen Adam, the Holy Flesh doctrine
Lie number 2:  Because of #1, we cannot possibly overcome the bondage       
                      of sin.

What does the bible say?  Are we not to take the Word over anything else?
Truth: 
Rom 8:3  For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 4  That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Do we believe what our bibles say?
Truth
1Pe_1:16  Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.
Joh_5:14  Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.
Joh_8:11  She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
1Pe 2:11  Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;
 2Pe 1:4  Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

This book was implemented into our schools and doctrines and has caused the most severe divisions among our faithful.
The result has been continual debate among the brethren and many letting in the world to the church believing that this does not matter anymore.

[dedication]

No -- QOD is not a whole book on those two points. Nor are they the message of the book.

Actually, the "holy flesh" doctrine stems from a totally different foundation. 
Holy Flesh believes it can not sin, all it's impulses are holy.   That's not what QOD teaches.  They say Christ took on human nature with all it's liabilities but not its corruption.  He took on human flesh but had no propensities to sin, He was perfectly sinless.   He could have sinned -- but He did not.

Nor does the book teach those in Christ remain in "bondage of sin".

I'm more inclined to think  those who teach we will so completely overcome sin that we don't need Christ anymore are the ones teaching "holy flesh", -- "holy flesh" movement relies on self and it's impulses as holy.  It's very much part of the new age type of thinking 

As long as we are in this earthly body we need constant connection with the Divine agencies in order NOT to be "in bondage of sin".

As I wrote, not everything in the book is "right on" , it was written by humans, and as so often happens when in debate, things tend to lean a little too far to one side of what is being addressed -- but it did bring more balance to Adventist thought which was doing exactly what EGW cautioned them NOT TO DO, in regards to the nature of Christ, but the opposition plunged Adventism even deeper in this devaluation of Christ's holiness.

Christ was NOT in bondage to sin.   He did not have to overcome that 'bondage".
His nature was both like Adam after the fall (his body was not like Adam's but like everyone else's of His generation after 4000 years)  his spiritual nature was like Adam before the fall (perfectly INNOCENT -- no propensities to sin, no history of sin, no sinful habits or thought patterns to overcome -- sinless)


Our overcoming the bondage of sin, is not based on Christ having a corrupt flesh, but on us being born again by the Spirit.
His life is what ours are to become, (fully cleansed by Christ's blood, we can reckon ourselves dead to sin and alive for Christ --  and surrendered to the will of God), We are to rise closer to His level, rather than bringing him down to our level as full of propensities and sin which He had to overcome.

His love, grace and holiness is far more POWERFUL to raise us from the bondage of sin, than were He just a model of someone filled with all our evil propensities and overcoming them one by one.

I think -- if Christ, who was pure and undefiled needed so much to be in connection with his Father in order to live according to God's Will, how much more, I, with a history of bad habits embedded imbedded in my brain,  need to stop looking to self and give myself totally to Him, to will and to do His good pleasure.

To me -- the whole doctrine that makes Christ as sin laden as we are, except that He did not exhibit any of that sin in acts,  but overcame them, --- just sounds like utter blasphemy to me.   My Savior is holy, pure, the spotless Lamb of God, who died for my sins, and Who upholds me by His strength as I learn to trust and follow Him more and more,