March 11, 2023. Koot van Wyk in Seoul, South Korea.
I asked if Douglas, Priebe or Batchelor were ever reviewed at any committee in any Division, Union, Conference, University, BRI as a "heretic" and mention the relevance of Andrew Kang.
_________<_____________________________
Dear Koot,
I would not consider any of these men as heretics. While I do not subscribe to all of their views, especially in respect to the nature of Christ, I respect them as men of integrity and as trying to be serious about their understanding of things that are difficult and not always clear. I have known each of them personally and with respect to their writings and teachings. I find them to be colleagues and leaders in their fields without fault in their personal integrity, even if I do not subscribe to all of their teachings. A heretic is not defined as someone I disagree with. A heretic is someone who flagrantly teaches things which are unbiblical and out of harmony with the teachings of the church they oppose. They are repudiated by the church and declared to be dangerous to the believers because they insist on teaching things that the church has anathematized. They do not fall into this category.
For one thing, the church has not taken official positions on the matters on which these men teach something different from what you and I may have convictions. The Adventist church has no official teaching on the nature of Christ, for example. When an article on this topic appears in the Adventist Review, both sides of the issue are represented because the church has not taken sides on the issue. As such, no position can be declared to be heretical.
For another thing, the church has published books written by these men on the pertinent topics. This indicates that their teachings are not held to be contrary to the teachings of the church and should not be considered to be heretical. The church has not repudiated any of their teachings or advised that they should not be permitted to speak in any of our churches.
For another thing, none of these men are held to be anti-Adventist or contributing to believers being drawn away from the church. These men are—or were—all ordained ministers of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and have been members in good and regular standing in the Church. None have had followers that were corrupt in their personal lives (at least to my knowledge), that drank, smoked, or defied the standards of the church. While it is possible that a few did so privately and wore jewelry, it cannot be laid at the feet of these men, who certainly upheld the standards of the church and would never have defended such conduct. They cannot be accused of supporting such personal conduct.
In short, it is unfair to accuse these men of either heresy or supporting conduct which the church does not support. Dr. Douglas was a man of great integrity and served as a college/university president in the Adventist educational system. He was a very personable and kind man, treating people of all persuasions equally, even if they disagreed with him in his views. No one can accuse him of being a man who was a heretic. Elder Priebe was also a kind and generous person, a good pastor and a man of integrity. He would not have opposed Adventist teaching or practice as defined by our 28 Fundamental Beliefs. Pastor Doug Bachelor is one of our leading evangelists who upholds and defends the teachings that Adventists hold dear. He is also a man of integrity and a kind and generous man. He would not encourage anyone to indulge in practices that go against the teachings of the church.
I don’t know Pastor Andrews Kang of South Korea, so I cannot remark about him or his teachings. The Korean Union Conference should address these issues. They should not be dealt with by Elder Wilson or the General Conference officers.
As a personal friend of Elder George Knight, I have been disappointed with some of his public statements and opinions. At the same time, I do not consider him to be a heretic. He does takes some positions that are provocative, intended to get people to think and respond. But he is an ordained minister of the Adventist Church, and he has not been condemned by the church or his positions repudiated. He is widely published by the church and is a speaker in demand around the world by our churches and church organizations. Being a provocative speaker is not the same as being a heretic, drawing people away from the church and teaching things that the church has repudiated. While he takes a position that has not been supported by the worldwide church in regard to the ordination of women, that position has never been deemed heretical or its proponents treated as heretics. The church is deeply divided on the matter, and individuals can hold contrary positions without being considered to be heretics. Different divisions of the church are taking different positions on what is deemed acceptable teaching and practice. Neither of the major positions has been considered heresy. Knight does support the church on the Questions on Doctrine issue, taking a position contrary to that taken by Douglas and Priebe, but it is not contrary to the teaching of Ellen White. White can be held to support both positions on the nature of Christ by those sincerely convinced on either side. While I do support the position taken by Knight and QOD, we have to respect those who take a different position.
Edwin

Edwin Reynolds. PhD in New Testament from Andrews University, Retired after teaching many years at Southern Adventist University in Tennesy, USA.
Koot
My own view is that while not both can be right, you cannot drive on both side of the road at the same time, study, discussion, and evangelizing each other to their view can only be a healthy interchange for both sides.
이 게시물을...