Elder Johnsson's new book Where are we headed? Adventism after San Antonio is the most recent example of the removal of the Testimonies. We need to understand that those who have been convicted on the inspiration of the Testimonies and then reject them will also do the same with scripture. So in assessing the spiritual soundness of our brothers and sisters we have to look at how well grounded they are in all of the inspired sources. In this review of Johnsson's book notice his new approach to inspiration: He rejects a literal reading of the Word for a "principled" and "nuanced" approach. If he is doing that with the Bible, it is safe to assume he is doing that with the Testimonies.

As he has been doing for years, Kirkpatrick lays out a long list of allegations and complaints with no verifiable evidence at all. His well-groomed religious talk means nothing. Certainly, you have posted no evidence that Willaim G Johnson has "rejected the testimonies."

That what you wrote (highlighted in red above) is simply not true at all. There are only a mere 18 million SDA, half of whom question the "inspiration" of Ellen White. That means, only about 9 million Christians accept "the testimonies". There are about 3 billion Christians in the world today, all of whom embrace the Bible wholeheartedly as THE Holy Scriptures.

What does that tell you? It's obvious that the Whites (those SDA who uphold "the testimonies") are a drop in the bucket but imagine themselves to be the center of the universe, exalting themselves mightily and casting down those who believe the Bible is the alpha and omega of authority in matters pertaining to God.

But such is the mind of those who drift from the path of truth as revealed in the Bible to follow after their lesser light, drinking from broken cisterns of water from murky wells in a dry and barren wilderness.

///

Actually it tells me you must be living in a different world.
Yes, there are Christians who take Bible study seriously as the word of God, there are many genuine Christians in this world, but they are not the majority, and most certainly it is not true of "all" Christians. Many of the sincere Christians, in various churches, are very worried about what they say is "the emergence of “Bible-less Christianity.”

They realize that it's true the Bible is still the most bought book. But the problem is that many people see the Bible more as an artifact to be put up on the mantle for good luck, rather than as a book to be read and studied.

How can one say ALL embrace the Bible when even their ministers think parts are mere "fairy tales" not be taken literally.


There is a movement to " ‘demythologise’ the teachings of the Bible by stripping away the miraculous, especially in the accounts of Jesus.

The Bible is under heavy attack in our day.
Higher Biblical Criticism sets itself up to determine what in Scripture is based merely on culture and human concepts, and what is actually inspired (if any)

It's a sad reality that of the billions of people calling themselves Christians in the world, only a small percent, a minority embrace the Bible wholeheartedly as the Word of God.

What we need to do is encourage each other to embrace the Bible wholeheartedly as the Word of God.

Mark - have YOU read the book? Have you spoken with Johnsson about his book? Or are you going on hearsay of a piece written by an angry saint? What is painfully evident is that many want to take matters into their own hands, for they MUST do the works themselves, for they do not trust God to work things out. This was the fault of Israel, and the church in the last days if falling for the same trap of the devil. Oh that we would look to Jesus...

Yes, I'm also disturbed by judging someone else from a review by someone else. I often find authors quoting scientific papers saying it shows such and such. However, when looking at the actual paper, it does no such thing. To re-quote a quote without checking would not be a good thing.

I tend to agree with Wanderer, Kland and APL here --

William Johnson has written many meaningful and insightful things in his long career. To now judge him simply because he has genuine concerns about the proceedings at the last GC gathering, without actually reading his book, is a "knee jerk" reaction

But you can watch an interview
WATCH: David Larson’s interview with William G. Johnsson about his book Where Are We Headed: Adventism after San Antonio

I find the implications here against Mark to be shameful. No one asked Mark if he had read the book--but assumptions were made. Whether or not Mark has read the book, the arguments made against him fall flat on account of the fact that those making the statements were doing exactly what they accused him of.

Secondly, the review quotes entire paragraphs from Elder Johnsson. The quotes leave little to be questioned regarding his perspective. They make it clear enough. To say otherwise would be akin to saying one doesn't really know if God loves us from reading John 3:16 unless he has read the whole Bible first.

In conclusion, it appears that the criticisms leveled against Mark and/or Elder Kirkpatrick (the author of the review), and in defense of Elder Johnsson, are motivated purely from a theological bias--you defend Johnsson because you agree with his bias. This reduces your criticisms of the review of Johnsson's work to the level of simply an ad hominem attack. Shameful.

I don't have a theological bias since I don't know what Johnsson said. All I'm objecting to is basing one's belief on someone else's thoughts of what someone else said.

No ad hominem attack. But guess you'd be sensitive to such for doing such yourself. For example, have you had your B-12 vitamin today? Evidence shows you haven't.

Ah, green - have you read this thread? The following is a part of speech known as a question:Mark has not replied. I have the book, and have directly discussed it with Johnsson in person.