New rules being discussed for our forum!!

[TrustAndObey]

http://christianforums.com/t6864947...-review-and-comment.html&page=16#post44723817

I am not sure why Traditional Adventists weren't asked to participate in these discussions, but there's the thread.

I encourage all of you to participate and to do so respectfully.

 

[TrustAndObey]

LOL! I don't know why I said "and do so respectfully". I know you guys are respectful.

It's NAP TIME!!

 

[OntheDL]

Thanks for the heads up, Lainie!

I made proposal for the revised FSGs. Here they are:

Here is the latest revision with the additional debate rules. I need to hear more feed backs.

The latest addition is in blue.

2.11 No condescending generalizations about Seventh-day Adventists or the Seventh-day Adventist Church will be tolerated. After a second look. This is also not needed.

2.12 Referring to SDA doctrine (any one of the 28 fundamental doctrines of our church) as cultish, satanic, or devilish (or variants thereof) is forbidden. Granted, one could declare any doctrine, or some aspect of it to be false; but that person must provide a Biblical reason for declaring it to be false. In other words, that person has to give scripture to prove that it is false. 2.12 should be removed since the generic CF flaming rules should cover this.

2.13 Personal attacks against Ellen G. White will not be tolerated. (We realize that the writings of Ellen G. White can and should be scrutinized using Scripture, however, she is dead and resting in the grave and cannot defend her character. This sentence is replaced with the following:) Discussions of her writings when comparing to the scriptures and known historic facts are permitted in an effort to reach an understanding. However, no direct statements or loaded, rhetorical questions are permitted in the D/D forum to deny the inspiration and prophetic gift of Ellen White. SDAs believe the writings of Ellen White are a special end time testimony from Jesus Christ. This is a core belief of Seventh-day Adventist church.

2.14 No condescending remarks might be made to members who do not profess to believe all 28 fundamental believes. Some might be in the different stages of understanding of the SDA message, but none should feel compelled to judge who is and who is not a SDA.


Please voice your opinions in the FSG discussion thread.

 

[happywiththelord]

OnTheDL,

did you suggest the FSG in the dark blue at the bottom of the page?

 

[OntheDL]

If you are tallking the ones in post #3 here, then 'yes'.

OnTheDL,

did you suggest the FSG in the dark blue at the bottom of the page?

 

[TrustAndObey]

I agree with no condescending remarks, but man, I'm grappling with this whole thing.

Case in point.....in my "what is a soul?" thread in D&D, RC is pushing anti-Adventist theology. He clearly believes in immortality of the soul, even though he's not just coming right out and saying it.

Please tell me how we can co-exist when at least half my time in there has been debating with OTHER Adventists? Immortality of the soul is NOT Adventist doctrine.

So let me ask you this DL: If I mention that his remarks and comments are not Adventist theology, under your rule, would I be in violation?

It's a misrepresentation of what our church teaches to push other theologies. If stating that someone's opinion is not Adventist theology would be a violation of a rule then I can't agree to that suggestion.

I'm not picking on RC either, you guys know that this happens with just about every single topic that gets discussed in D&D.

 

[OntheDL]

I agree with no condescending remarks, but man, I'm grappling with this whole thing.

Case in point.....in my "what is a soul?" thread in D&D, RC is pushing anti-Adventist theology. He clearly believes in immortality of the soul, even though he's not just coming right out and saying it.

Please tell me how we can co-exist when at least half my time in there has been debating with OTHER Adventists? Immortality of the soul is NOT Adventist doctrine.

So let me ask you this DL: If I mention that his remarks and comments are not Adventist theology, under your rule, would I be in violation?


It's a misrepresentation of what our church teaches to push other theologies. If stating that someone's opinion is not Adventist theology would be a violation of a rule then I can't agree to that suggestion.

I'm not picking on RC either, you guys know that this happens with just about every single topic that gets discussed in D&D.

I don't think it's a RV since you are simply stating it's not a SDA theology. That's a fact.

 

[TrustAndObey]

I don't think it's a RV since you are simply stating it's not a SDA theology. That's a fact.

I agree that it's fact DL, but he's Adventist. Doesn't it look a little weird for an ADVENTIST to push anti-Adventist theology?

For it to be SDA theology, SDAs have to believe it. He doesn't.

See where I'm coming from here?

 

[happywiththelord]

I see it and it is totally frusterating!

 

[happywiththelord]

I think you should be able to say you are not speaking like an adventist if someone is stating things that are opposed to the sda church beliefs, and not get reported for it. we should be able to call a spade a spade! IMHO

 

[happywiththelord]

Hey...i just noticed i am 3 posts away from 1,000 posts!! well, 2 after i post this! it has only taken me 3-4 years to do so! haha!!

 

[TrustAndObey]

I'd like to make a couple of suggestions and ask a couple of questions in here to run them past you guys so we can revise/answer them together before I post anything else in the FSG discussion thread.

I do not mean this post in any way, shape, or form as a flame against any one person or any group of persons. I just want to make that clear before I even start.

There just has to be a better system than what we have now, and I'm hoping we can come up with something beneficial for all of us and then pose it as a viable solution to our current problem(s).

First of all, there isn't too much about me that's "traditional" in any way and I know the same can be said for the majority of other Adventists that I know. I believe in the doctrine of the Seventh-day Adventist church but I don’t believe in religious traditions that are anti-biblical!

One Adventist has already posed the question in here asking what in the world we mean by "traditional" and I'm sure she is not the only one that is/has been confused by that word.

Let's remember that Jesus was vehemently opposed to traditions of men (religious traditions)....and I think that the label we've been given doesn't describe us at all. In fact, I feel it misrepresents us. We are Adventist doctrine believers. We are Adventists. We are NOT "traditional".

There has GOT to be a better "label" for Adventists that believe in Adventist doctrine. The obvious choice is just "Seventh-day Adventists" without any type of precursor, but I'd like to hear some other suggestions.

Secondly, in order for there to be an entire group of people labeled as Progressive (or Evangelical) Adventists, why aren't we asking for a statement of beliefs from them? Why are we allowing "Adventists that do not believe all or some of the 28 fundamental beliefs of the Adventist church" statement to pass as a description? That’s not a description AT ALL of who they are or what they believe in.

Do they just not believe the way the fundamental beliefs are worded or are they actually in complete opposition to a belief of the Adventist church? I think it should be clear. Not just for visitors, but for US as well.

That non-description could include anything from not believing in God at all (I know that’s not the case with any of the Progressives here, it’s just an example) to NOT believing that scripture is the Word of God (now THAT description does seem to apply in some cases).

It’s just not definitive in any way, and I just don’t think it’s acceptable anymore. It’s causing too many problems here.

Besides the obvious flaming problem (and yes, I've seen it from both sides), the second biggest problem we have in our forum is that Adventists have to defend Adventist doctrine to Adventists. **Yeah, if you think that sentence was confusing, imagine being a visitor here!**

For an Adventist to slap immortality of the soul doctrine under the Adventist umbrella is unacceptable to me. It’s actually the complete OPPOSITE of what the Adventist church teaches. Amen?

But if immortality of the soul is what people under the label "Progressives" believe, and we have to help keep peace in here, wouldn’t it help most if we KNEW what they believe?

If that’s what they all believe they should have no problem agreeing to that and making it an OFFICIAL descriptive statement.

We were asked to give a brief description of what we believe in, and we were asked to post those beliefs in our forum. Progressives are the only group of people on CF that I’ve seen that didn’t describe ANYTHING about what they believe. Is it okay with any of you that we let them just state that they disagree with US?

Another problem in defending Adventist doctrine to Progressive Adventists is that official Adventist beliefs are spelled out for the whole world to see and in essence for anyone to "pick apart" if they want to. The same cannot be said for Progressive Adventist doctrine.

Aren't any of the rest of you fed up with just being told that you're wrong without any alternative explanation as to WHY you're wrong? Going a step further, aren’t you finding it very difficult to debate with someone that never tells you what it is they believe exactly, or how they came to that conclusion?

I’m just really grappling with this to be honest.

“Adventists that do not believe in the 28 fundamental beliefs” is deceptive. They don’t just disagree with the Adventist beliefs; they’re completely opposed to at least some of them (who knows exactly since we don’t have a description) and argue/teach with the completely opposite view.

I’d like to suggest that they give a descriptive statement of their beliefs like we’ve done. I do not think it should be allowable to just say that they disagree with us. I really do think that it would help. Does anyone else agree? (I know I’m being redundant, but this really is just unbelievable to me that we don’t have a description of their beliefs).

And what would you all think about creating yet ANOTHER subforum (I know, I know) that is just for debate between Progressives and Seventh-day Adventists? This perpetual disagreement is spilling over into the Debate and Discussion forum, and I think that forum should be reserved for non-Adventists that want to debate, not a place for us to disagree with EACH OTHER and/or where Progressives can teach a belief that is in complete disagreement with Adventist doctrine.

We have a place for non-Adventists to post fellowship. We have a place for non-Adventists to debate...but in reality the D&D forum has become a place with Progs to agree with non-Adventists and fight with US. I think there needs to be a separate subforum for us to debate with them, and that they should quit "teaching" their opposing views in the D&D section.

Lastly, I want to state for the record that I do NOT agree with any Seventh-day Adventists from this subforum (I’m going to refuse to call it “traditional” from this point forward) to go into the Progressive subforum to argue. I don’t agree with them taking posts from this area and starting threads over there to ridicule any belief or person either.

If you see someone flaming in that subforum then I am not opposed to reporting it, but I do have a real problem with going in there to debate (and yes, I know they made it a debate section….but you aren’t welcome there as you know).

I think we need a separate forum for Progressive vs Seventh-day Adventist views, which would only include Adventists. I mean no offense to FreeIndeed2 or Lebesgue, or ANY ex-Adventists when I say that. They would be free to disagree with something in the D&D section still.

The only rules….NO flaming and Adventists only.

Okay, so what do you guys think? Do you think any of this would help?

 

[TrustAndObey]

PS...just so we're clear that we really do have a serious problem here, I want to let you guys know that NON-Adventists have suggested that some of the Progressives go to different churches.

They see all this conflict when they come in here, and while I agree with them that it is confusing as to why some stay when they OPPOSE the Adventist doctrine so much, I think we'd be better off separating the debate amongst ourselves away from the watchful eye of proselytizers.

 

[NightEternal]

This won't work, because, as we have stated many times, Progressives and Evangelicals do NOT all believe the same things. Therefore, a blanket creed or belief statement will not work on any practical level.

WE DON'T ALL BELIEVE THE SAME THINGS IN THE SAME WAY.

The best you can hope for is a personal belief statement from each one individually. And that is assuming you can even get them to do so. I don't think many of them will feel they have to justify thier Adventism to anyone in here.

That being said, I have personally posted where I stand on all 28 Fundamentals for anyone to see on this forum many times before. I will post them again here, because I do not have anything to hide and I know what I believe and I can articulate it clearly for anyone who asks.

You want my belief statement, here it is:

I believe all of the 28 fundamentals, but with several qualifiers:

1.) Agree. However, I am a strict thought inspirationist and I do not at all agree with the course men like Samuele Korangten Pippim are wanting to take this church, which is borderline verbal inspiration and inerrancy. I believe the Bible is limited in many areas and there are mistakes. I believe that totally avoiding the historical-critical method is next to impossible. I believe that culture and a range of other outside influences affected the Bible writers and I believe that they struggled to put into words grand spiritual themes. I also believe the Bible is infallible in matters of faith and salvation and its guidance for Christians.

2.) Agree.

3.) Agree.

4.) Agree. Some ultra-conservatives and offshoot organizations have altered the wording of this one to support the heresy that Christ had a fallen, sinful nature in thier own personal list of fundamentals. If the church ever officially accepts this antichrist concept, I will be gone so fast you will not see my dust. I also don't believe in a literal sanctuary in Heaven, so the wording here does not sit well with me.

5.) Agree. However, when it says 'those who respond He renews and transforms into the image of God' I have to ask, what does this mean? If it is referring to glorification, whereby we recieve a sinless nature and a new body, then I wholeheartedly agree. If it is referring to process theology whereby through sanctification process a person works towards a state of sinlessness before glorification, then I categorically reject this as heresy.

6.) Agree. However, I believe that the earth is much older than the 6000 years EGW claims. Archelogical and geological evidence has borne this out unequivocally.

7.) Agree. Again, however, if the statement 'restores in penitent mortals the image of thier maker' refers to glorification, I agree. If it is referring to process theology, I reject that as heresy.

8.) Agree.

9.) Agree.

10.) Agree. However, where it says 'we are given the power to live a holy life' I have serious reservations. This smacks too much of sinless perfectionism. No one will reach a state of exalted sinlessness until Christ transforms our bodies and nature at glorification and corruptible puts on incorruptible and mortal puts on immortality. The Word says flesh and blood will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven, refering not only to our physical bodies, but our sinful, corrupted, fallen nature inherited from Adam as well.

11.) Agree.

12.) Agree.

13.) Agree, although I always hesitate to use the term 'keep' the commandments of God. We cannot 'keep' anything as sinful, fallen human beings. Our attempts at following the moral law are pretty mediocre compared to the ancient Jews who were meticulous at all of thier law keeping, much less the perfection with which Christ kept the law in letter and spirit. Much better to say we attempt to follow the commandments of God as closely as possible, but still totally rely on Christ's perfect law keeping to stand in place of our own feeble efforts.

14.) Agree. However, I do not believe there will ever be true unity between purely evangelical Adventists and the cultic, historic ultra-conservative Adventists. Truth cannot co-exist with error. The Adventism of Larry Kirkpatrick and Kevin Paulson is light years from my Adventism. I have nothing in common with thier tyrannical brand of fundamentalism. Therefore, I believe in unity as far as can realistically be expected.

15.) Agree.

16.) Agree.

18.) Agree, however, I qualify the statement 'authouritative source of truth.' I do not believe Ellen White has doctrinal authourity. I do not even believe she has the authourity of the apostles-indeed, she is subject to them. I also believe to use the word 'truth' in such a generalized manner with respect to her writings is deceptive, for there are many discrepencies, inaccuracies and outright wrong premises in her materials.

19.) Agree.

20.) Agree.

21.) Agree, although I do not believe that tithing is a moral imperitive.

22.) Agree. However, I have some very serious issues with the church attempting to outline behavioural standards in too much detail. Jewelry, for example, I have no problems with. I love rock music and movies. I am not vegetarian. If in practical application the church has not respected individuality and differing convictions on these matters, at least it is written here in theory as wisely leaving things up to the discretion of the individual. I do not want a nanny or a big brother church looking over my shoulder and dictating what my entertainment choices or diet should be. I am a big boy, thanks.

23.) Agree.

24.) Agree. However, I do not believe there is a literal building in Heaven. I believe that Christ Himself fulfills every symbolic application of the earthly sanctuary. I do not believe in a literal Holy and Most Holy apartment in Heaven that Christ literally moved into in 1844. I believe that the Holy and the Most Holy are representative of the phases of His ministry, intercession and judgment respectively. I believe that in 1844 Christ began his judgment phase. I categorically reject the traditional interpretation of the IJ as wrong and detrimental to one's assurance of salvation. I hate the term 'investigative' and use the term 'pre-advent'. The saints do not come under condemnation of the judgment and are pronounced innocent by virtue of Christ thier Savior. Our sins are cast into the deepest depths of the ocean, taken as far as the East is from the West, to be remembered no more. Most certainly they will not be retrieved for inspection in the judgment. The process is simply to reveal to the onlooking universe the goodness of God and a vindication of His right to take us to Heaven.

25.) Agree.

26.) Agree

27.) Agree.

28.) Agree.

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=34128034&postcount=2

I am in no way an SDA fundamentalist.

I may be a CHRISTIAN fundamentalist, yes, but nothing within a country mile of a TSDA.

I do not believe that EGW has doctrinal authourity and is equal to, or, in some extreme cases, above the Bible. I do not agree with venerating EGW and I do not hold to the sinful nature of Christ and sinless perfection before glorification. I believe Christ had a sinless nature and that we are imperfect until glorification.

I do not attach salvific significance to the IJ and I do not believe our Heavenly inheritance is conditional upon passing that inspection. I am not a literalist in regards to the Sanctuary doctrine, ignoring the beautiful symbolism which points to Christ and the phases of His ministry in favor of a literal building with literal rooms which Christ literally moves around in.

I hold to the Reformation Gospel of salvation and do not believe sanctification is a process that our salvation is conditional upon instead of an accomplished fact. I do not believe Christ's righteousness is imparted rather than imputed to us, for that is a clear violation of the Protestant position.

I do not believe diet is salvific and a way to attain righteousness. I do not believe meat-eaters will be disqualified for Heaven, especially at translation. I do not believe non-salvational lifestyle issues are to be made a strict test of Adventist authenticity, nor do I believe one who disgrees on any point will not qualify as a genuine SDA. I do not hold strictly to Trad standards on music, food, entertainment and jewelry.

I support women's ordination, contemporary worship styles and CCM and fully support Questions On Doctrine. I do not believe the Bible teaches abstinence but moderation and I do drink wine once and a while.

I am presently struggling with the clean and unclean issue and have not yet decided wether this should be binding on New Testament Christians.

Let it not be said that I have not come clean on this forum on several occasions clarifying what I believe.

 

[TrustAndObey]

Night, I can't read your posts and this is a non-debate area (in case you are debating).

I'm asking for input from other Seventh-day Adventists that agree with the fundamental beliefs/doctrine of the Adventist church. What we decide (if we can) can be debated after we come up with something.

I'd like to ask for some peace in here so we can try to work something out amongst ourselves before we have input from others please.

 

[NightEternal]

No, I'm not debating.

Oh, never mind. It's like trying to online communicate with someone who has a blindfold on.

 

[Mankin]

Night untill you have seen the website Youths 4 Christ you don't know what Christian fundamentalism is! They make guys like Pippim look like flaming liberals compared to them.

 

[TrustAndObey]

Mankin, don't make me thwack you in front of all these people! haha

 

[catmommy]

I think the Traditional SDA label is so unclear. If your not a vegetarian and someone post about having trouble giving up meat and you tell them just eat clean meats are you disqualified from this forum? If you would/do wear a wedding band are you not allowed in the Traditional SDA forum? If you believe EGW had visions and God spoke to her but do not regard her as a prophet does that mean you can't post here? I mean, these beliefs are not against the 28 fundemental doctrines, but would these view points be welcome here? Also, if you listen to nontraditional gospel/christian music, are you still considered Traditional?

 

[mva1985]

I think the Traditional SDA label is so unclear. If your not a vegetarian and someone post about having trouble giving up meat and you tell them just eat clean meats are you disqualified from this forum? If you would/do wear a wedding band are you not allowed in the Traditional SDA forum? If you believe EGW had visions and God spoke to her but do not regard her as a prophet does that mean you can't post here? I mean, these beliefs are not against the 28 fundemental doctrines, but would these view points be welcome here? Also, if you listen to nontraditional gospel/christian music, are you still considered Traditional?

Vegetarianism is not a requirement for church membership. Clean meats are though.

A simple wedding band is accepted in the North American Division.

If you believe that God gave her visions and spoke to her - why would you not consider her a prophet?

I personally listen to Christian music that is considered upbeat, but do not really find a place for it during the worship service. I listen to it on my own time so to speak.

My personal opinion is that if you come into this forum with genuine questions looking for genuine answers you are accepted.

Just my two cents.