Studiul care probabil a dus la demiterea lui Florin Laiu de la ITA

Se numeste „The Sanctuary Doctrine: a critical-apologetic approach” iar in posesia mea, via Polihronu, se afla al doilea draft pregatit pentru Biblical Research Council si datat octombrie 2011. Il puteti accesa in intregime mai jos. Este bazat pe materialul pe care FL l-a prezentat public la European Theology Teachers Convention, aprilie-mai 2011, Cernica-Bucuresti, si despre care el afirma ca reprezinta filiera prin care opiniile lui au ajuns la cunostinta forurilor superioare (vezi comentariul #3 de aici).

Am sa citez pe larg, din prima parte rezumatul, care pe englezeste se cheama „abstract”, iar din ultima parte „Practical Suggestions”. Fac asta deoarece ideile si modul de abordare al autorului mi se par relevante pentru multe categorii de cititori si pentru ca mie mi-au sporit, inca o data, aprecierea fata de FL. Adnotarile mele sunt intre acolade, „{„, „}”:

Abstract

The following study touches a series of sensitive issues relating to the Judgment and Sanctuary theology (JuST), a point of convergence for the Seventh-day Adventist hermeneutics and eschatology. The author militates for a more critical Bible exploration, and a more dynamic perception of the SDA historical doctrine. It is shown that such a challenging exegetic approach depends on more basical hermeneutic issues, as for example the theology of inspiration, and the role of the Spirit of Prophecy in theological debates.

The fundamental importance of consistent linguistic and contextual exegesis is stressed, as a reasonable approach to Daniel 8-9. {am scos in evidenta acest aspect, il consider notabil} Crucial terms and expressions are critically treated, as well as some secondary terms and expressions, to stress the necessity of better translations of the prophecies of Daniel. While in a few cases the author suggests different and challenging solutions, most of his solutions agree with the present SDA scholarship. Many other important subjects that are usually involved in the debates over the SDA understanding of Daniel 8:14 are touched in this study. All these critical issues are discussed from apologetic-confessional concerns, intended for constructive and affirmative purposes. If opinions of this author are sometimes divergent from yours, Adventist theologian colleagues, it is hoped that the criticism shall not be perceived as the slightest personal affront, neither as an offense to our community of faith. {Rigurozitatea, bunele intentii apologetice si faptele pe masura, toate caracteristice lui FL si cunoscute si de interlocutorii credinciosi si de cei necredinciosi, nu au fost suficiente pentru a-l proteja de un destin decis sec, prin votul unui comitet. Spiritul retrograd al unui conservatorism plat, nechibzuit, devine malefic prin efectul pe care mesajul unei asemenea decizii il are asupra directiei si atmosferei generale din sânul unei comunitati de credinta si asupra formării fiecarui membru, luat in parte.}

[…]

Practical Suggestions

Adventist prophetic (eschatologic, apocalyptic etc.) studies need continual revision and progress, in the light of new hermeneutic and exegetic approaches. This is the task of all our theologians and of all our community of faith. Our responsible authorities (BRI, BRCs) should encourage constructive theological endeavors in this field. First, to make a more thoroughful evaluation of the former critical approaches and suggestions; and second, to encourage the dynamic theological model of our pioneers.

Probably the first necessary step is to promote a sound and realistic theology of inspiration, not only among theologians, but also among our community at large. The Bible study and the Spirit of Prophecy need to be revived and encouraged in our churches everywhere, in a respectful and critical manner. To make more open and more efficient such popular study, much depends on ministers’ concern or abilities to do it, and on the popularity of good written studies on the topic. Our pastors or teachers must be able to understand in a practical way how divine inspiration works, and thus we have to resume, in the most open manner, the task we silently abandoned in 1919 {FL se refera aici la Conferinta Biblica din 1919, subiect despre care am scris si eu, amatoriceste, aici si aici, spre exemplu}. Without a decided and united effort, nothing good is to be realized.

SDA theologians with all our present capacities should make of this fundamental topic a priority in our research. We cannot allow our central doctrine and message to remain in a provisional stage. We should not fear that being fair with the Biblical text or the Spirit of Prophecy might lead to a loss of faith. There are some risks in the dynamics of a fair and determined research, but there are more risks in a conservative inertia. {evidentierea imi apartine, I’ll say Amen to that! Preach it, brother.}

It is wise to ask myself, if a doctrine so difficult for scholars should belong, with all its details, to our official doctrinal expostion, which so often functions as a creed and test of fellowship.295 {aici FL citeaza un material citat via Desmond Ford; bine a remarcat skeptic ca FL ar putea fi considerat un „Desmond Ford de Romania”; oare in oct 2011, data compunerii acestui al doilea draft al studiului, FL insusi a presimtit verdictul nefavorabil?} This is not a militant position against this precious doctrine. But why should we go through so much difficult stuff in Leviticus 16 and Hebrews 9 and Ellen White, insisting on nonessential details and forcing the text, and why should we not express the doctrine of Daniel 8:14 in its essential truth: God’s Judgment as culmination of the eternal Gospel? {mi se pare remarcabil ca aceasta pledoarie vine din partea unui expert si vizeaza tematica lui favorita si cea pe care o stapaneste cel mai bine; eu stiam de la scoala si din timpul facultatii, ca majoritatea cadrelor didactice care predau o materie considerata – fie pe drept, fie pe nedrept – mai putin importanta tind sa devina militanti si defensivi in incercarea de a spori prestigiul domeniului lor de specialitate}

A tentative statement on this doctrine, still in much need to be improved, as I perceive it, is following: […] {sar peste partea asta, nothing new under the sun}

Theological details are not for a statement of beliefs; they are for personal and denominational research, preaching, seminars etc. Why should belief in the two apartments or in a hazy work of celestial cleaning, became more important than tithing, which is not a test of fellowship?

Adventist theological advance depends much on the condition of a realist approach to the concept of divine inspiration of the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy. We must acknowledge our historical errors and perfectibility, and accept the reality that the understanding of E G White and of our pioneers is not necessarily the best exegesis to any Biblical passage in the year 2011. {evidentierea mea; e tragi-comic sa intrezaresti ca un paragraf ca acesta, rezonabil si de bun simt pe de-a-ntregul, inca are darul, in adventismul secolului 21, sa-i faca pe multi sa vada rosu in fata ochilor si sa devina razbunatori ca au fost deposedati de suzeta}

These considerations are themselves liable to human errors, but hopefully and prayerfully, I expect them to do some good for the Adventist JuST, to stir our theological community toward a reevaluation of this nearly classified topic.

Nota bene: Oferindu‑vă aceste paragrafe si cele cateva comentarii scrise de mine in graba nu intentionez sa va creez impresia ca acum stiti despre ce este vorba in acest studiu bine distilat sau ca puteti degusta buchetul soiurilor de vin nou si vechi ‑ nefermentate, desigur ‑ preparate de Florin Laiu. Din contra, imi doresc sa‑l accesati si sa-l parcurgeti chiar daca nu aveti cunostinte de ebraica. Daca aruncati o privire peste cuprins veti vedea ca sunt multe sectiuni pe care autorul, in adresarea sa catre evaluatori, le indica drept „must read” ‑ posibil o discreta ironie din partea maestrului.

Sursa: Poli a oferit aici un link de descarcare a studiului de 85 de pagini din care am citat ultima parte. In cazul in care pentru a descarca documentul vi se cere sa deveniti membri pe forumul OSC, si nu doriti acest lucru, il puteti lua direct de aici.

Nu pot sa nu marturisesc in favoarea cauzei care ma anima

Arius,

Nu este nicio dovada de ipocrizie sa pui umarul sa aduci sistemul pe care l-ai slujit aproape o viata intreaga mai aproape de viziunea care te calauzeste in prezent. Idealurile lui Edi pentru BAZS sunt mature, legitime, si se potrivesc realitatii. Iar tensiunea dintre pozitia lui si cea oficiala se va dovedi in cele din urma fertila si benefica pentru biserica in ansamblu, nu doar pentru cutezatorii care au inceput sa se deprinda cu exercitiul gandirii critice.

Eu am renuntat la o apropiata intrare in sistem si n-a trecut zi in care sa nu ma bucur ca m-am trezit suficient de devreme, dar asta nu inseamna in niciun caz ca eu as fi onest, iar Edi duplicitar. Drumul pe care Edi isi continua lucrarea este mult mai dificil si mai opresiv decat cel pe care am apucat-o eu sau chiar si tu, arius. Dar daca am posibilitatea sa ma raliez misiunii lui Edi chiar si in modul mult mai putin riscant pe care-l presupune statutul meu de laic, fac asta cu bucurie si constient ca fac ceea ce este Bine. Pun pasiune in activitatea mea pe O2 pentru ca ma doare sa-i vad pe multi scaldandu-se in aceeasi bezna in care m-am scaldat si eu in biserica, avand simultan impresia ca ma aflam in Seychelles sau Maldive si ca urmatoarea destinatie ar fi Edenul. Eu am pace interioara si sunt mult mai fericit si mai multumit cu viata mea de acum, asa ca nu pot sa nu va marturisesc in favoarea lepadarii ochelarilor de cal Made in Battle Creek.

Sunt multe lucruri in privinta carora nu sunt de acord cu Edi, dar este indubitabil ca sunt onorat sa fac parte din echipa lui si sa particip la proiectul lui cu final deschis.

PS: Rusine celor care au uitat principiul adevarului prezent al pionierilor adventisti, dar se agata cu indarjire de adevarurile provizorii pe care acestia le-au propus!