My Thoughts On The "Split"..

[StormyOne]

That is the key phrase however, not that they hold certain beliefs in common which they have for over a thousand years. Yet even with certain points in common they have produced 9000 denominations. Pretty egotistical to claim this one denomination got it all right however, especially when our beliefs have changed so much that in my post on the semi-arian views being significantly increased There is a quote where George Knight says that most of our pioneers would not accept our 27 fundamental beliefs.

unfortunately those who need to read and comprehend won't because they are so confident that they are correct, that they have "the whole truth" and that there is no need to add to anything they have....

 

[sentipente]

Until those who wish to change the doctrines of the SDA church learn to present their cases in a Christlike manner, and until they understand that we have rejected their 'enlightenment'--there can never be peace in this forum.

SDA doctrines CANNOT be changed in an internet forum, and certainly not in one that is not sanctioned by the organization.

 

[Mankin]

I agree with you Crimson.

 

[PostTribber]

I think God has used church 'splits' to keep the focus on His word as being the 'final' arbiter of doctrine, or else the danger is to revert back into the 'dark ages', and nobody wants that. God's word never fails to 'expose' false teaching, as long as we determine to "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

 

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

Dearest Crimson, you said..
Quote:
Originally Posted by honorthesabbath
From the words of wisdom of the book..

Am 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed?

There is no agreement here between the factions.

Until those who wish to change the doctrines of the SDA church learn to present their cases in a Christlike manner, and until they understand that we have rejected their 'enlightenment'--there can never be peace in this forum.

It's a sad step to be sure, but a neccessary one.

I also agree with this. To an extent. Obviously some people haven't rejected these progressive ideas, and who knows..maybe there's some truth to them. Who am I to judge?

I'm hoping that you really didn't mean this--are you saying that you agree with God's Word, "TO AN EXTENT"??

I meant what I said. I never said God's Word was up for debate, I said that the different beliefs that all of us have are. Who am I to say that a progressive Adventist isn't right about something? I know many of them have done extensive research, including Biblical, about these topics and have come to these conclusions. I will not judge who is right or who is wrong. That is something only God can do.

The only way one can rightfully chose a place to stand in these situations is to 'completely' know your Bible scripture as a whole. Also, one must understand both points of view from a scriptural sense. When you have the whole picture, then with God's guidance, you will see the truth on the matter. Or, correction, your truth. God opens our eyes to new truths when we are ready to see them, no sooner, no later.

I'm not saying you aren't educatedly following your beliefs. I'm simply saying that, for all I know at this point, other beliefs could be right too. Heck, I'm still too new to even say that the Adventist church as a whole is the true church. I'm okay with that, though..I'm following my walk with God in the slow, careful way needed.

unfortunately those who need to read and comprehend won't because they are so confident that they are correct, that they have "the whole truth" and that there is no need to add to anything they have....

Confidence and fear of being wrong are very close ,especially when it comes to important matters such as how one follows God. To open one's eyes to something that they may of misjudged as being truth, in this area, can be a very hard thing to deal with. Also, there's a factor of fear that they will be decieved. Often it feels safer to stay within one's comfort zone of understanding.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

No, he did call me an invalid. He may not have said that exact word but he meant it.

Are you talking about me? Mankin.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Its interesting Ice...you state those as things we have in common, but start a thread of anyone of those things and a fight will start.

What?

Because somehow in Theory we agree, but in practice we dont. There is always a fight in whatever thread gets started.

It seems traditionals and progressives cant see eye to eye on ANYTHING! Even though we say we do, we dont.

from your posting you show you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

HHmm lets see, where have I heard this idea before? Uniting on common points??

Ah yes—now I remember……………

The Great Controversy, pg 444-445

The wide diversity of belief in the Protestant churches is regarded by many as decisive proof that no effort to secure a forced uniformity can ever be made. But there has been for years, in churches of the Protestant faith, a strong and growing sentiment in favor of a union based upon common points of doctrine. To secure such a union, the discussion of subjects upon which all were not agreed--however important they might be from a Bible standpoint--must necessarily be waived.

Charles Beecher, in a sermon in the year 1846, declared that the ministry of "the evangelical Protestant denominations" is "not only formed all the way up under a tremendous pressure of merely human fear, but they live, and move, and breathe in a state of things radically corrupt, and appealing every hour to every baser element of their nature to hush up the truth, and bow the knee to the power of apostasy. Was not this the way things went with Rome? Are we not living her life over again? And what do we see just ahead? Another general council! A world's convention! Evangelical alliance, and universal creed!"--Sermon on "The Bible a Sufficient Creed," delivered at Fort Wayne, Indiana, Feb. 22, 1846. When this shall be gained, then, in the effort to secure complete uniformity, it will be only a step to the resort to force.

When the leading churches of the United States, uniting upon such points of doctrine as are held by them in common, shall influence the state to enforce their decrees and to sustain their institutions, then Protestant America will have formed an image of the Roman hierarchy, and the infliction of civil penalties upon dissenters will inevitably result.

V-E-R-Y I-N-T-E-R-E-S-T-I-N-G

This is crazy. this does not even apply to what we are talking about.

 

[moicherie]

This is crazy. this does not even apply to what we are talking about.

Christians are good at splitting up hence so many denominations. Adventists are no different we even had to split based on race rather than learn to appreciate a darker looking skin... For shame!

 

[sentipente]

I'm following my walk with God in the slow, careful way needed.

A very wise decision. I wish you the best in life.

 

[SpeakNow]

Christians are good at splitting up hence so many denominations. Adventists are no different we even had to split based on race rather than learn to appreciate a darker looking skin... For shame!

Moicherie, if you came over here under the assumption that racism was a problem on this board, you need to consider the source.

Racism is not the problem here, even though that's what they wanted me to believe so I'd be mad.

Here's the message I received on BSDA (excluding my username):

If you happen to be a member on www.christianforums.com and have the SDA icon and registered before 7-4-07 we could really use your support right now. There is a vote up that wants to segregate us from being able to discuss in the SDA forum on that site.

If you are a member and registered before that time, but do not have the icon, please change it to the SDA icon before voting. We need to stack the deck in favor of progressive ideas and no more segregation or censorship.

VOTE: No, leave them in one area but have stricter rules to prevent personal attacks

“Them” refers to us, and segregation is a terrible thing. It’s them or us, and we feel our rights are being violated there. So if we can get the personal attacks stopped, and keep them from segregating us, we will stop this terrible travisty from continuing and we’ll continue spreading the SDA massage.

Please support the cause!

 

[honorthesabbath]

That is the key phrase however, not that they hold certain beliefs in common which they have for over a thousand years. Yet even with certain points in common they have produced 9000 denominations. Pretty egotistical to claim this one denomination got it all right however, especially when our beliefs have changed so much that in my post on the semi-arian views being significantly increased There is a quote where George Knight says that most of our pioneers would not accept our 27 fundamental beliefs.

You missed my point completely--thats very common in here.

But never mind-I don't want to debate this.

 

[sentipente]

SpeakNow, you have mischaracterized the message you received. You have also mischaracterized what moicherie posted. She used a well-known example of segregation to explain the tendency towards segregation. Nothing in her post or in the message you received tried to make an issue. There is no need to raise the temperature in here higher than it is.

 

[honorthesabbath]

Christians are good at splitting up hence so many denominations. Adventists are no different we even had to split based on race rather than learn to appreciate a darker looking skin... For shame!

That split had nothing to do with SKIN COLOR! It had to do with ACTIONS.

 

[sentipente]

You missed my point completely--thats very common in here.

I think his point was that you missed the point of the quote you posted. The problem was not that they would have ideas in common but that they would use that common position to influence political action in their favor and against those they disagreed with.

I suspect that we would get along swimmingly if each person focussed on the text before them instead of on the author of the post to which they are responding. Focus on the ideas and not on the persons.

 

[moicherie]

Moicherie, if you came over here under the assumption that racism was a problem on this board, you need to consider the source.

Racism is not the problem here, even though that's what they wanted me to believe so I'd be mad.

Here's the message I received on BSDA (excluding my username):

If you happen to be a member on www.christianforums.com and have the SDA icon and registered before 7-4-07 we could really use your support right now. There is a vote up that wants to segregate us from being able to discuss in the SDA forum on that site.

If you are a member and registered before that time, but do not have the icon, please change it to the SDA icon before voting. We need to stack the deck in favor of progressive ideas and no more segregation or censorship.

VOTE: No, leave them in one area but have stricter rules to prevent personal attacks

“Them” refers to us, and segregation is a terrible thing. It’s them or us, and we feel our rights are being violated there. So if we can get the personal attacks stopped, and keep them from segregating us, we will stop this terrible travisty from continuing and we’ll continue spreading the SDA massage.

Please support the cause!

I did not say there was racism on this board. Why are you misrepresenting my post?

 

[moicherie]

That split had nothing to do with SKIN COLOR! It had to do with ACTIONS.

The Adventist split if that is what you are refering to had everything to do with skin colour. Its an insult to the African American membership to suggest otherwise. If you are refering to the proposed split on this site, well like I said above I never said the split here was racial.

Sigh - is there a problem understanding written English here?

 

[sentipente]

Sigh - is there a problem understanding written English here?

I think you can blame emotions for that.

 

[honorthesabbath]

Sigh--sigh--there is no problem understanding English on my part. But I will NOT get a racial thing going in this forum as some seem to what to.

The split in Conferences had nothing to do with skin color--it had to do with 'worship styles'. And that is much of the case today. And please--do NOT make the mistake of calling this an "insult to African-American"--it is not.

And so--with that said--I am done with this racial topic.

 

[honorthesabbath]

I did not say there was racism on this board. Why are you misrepresenting my post?

SPEAKNOW--as I read the e-mail that your recieved from 'whomever'--the word SEGREGATION stood out in blazing power. I think whoever it was that sent this out to the BSDA forum indeed desired that this feud in this forum have racial overtones. It's intent is unmistakable.