Something to think about

[moicherie]

"The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth..." - EGW, R&H 12/20/1892

 

[MrPolo]

"The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth..." - EGW, R&H 12/20/1892

Very true. Only God can protect men to teach infallible doctrines!!

 

[mva1985]

"The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth..." - EGW, R&H 12/20/1892

I think you need some more context to completely reveal the thought she is trying to get across.

Counsels to Writers and Editors Page 35:
"Investigation of Doctrine.--There is no excuse for anyone in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation.

We are living in perilous times, and it does not become us to accept everything claimed to be truth without examining it thoroughly; neither can we afford to reject anything that bears the fruits of the Spirit of God; but we should be teachable, meek and lowly of heart. There are those who oppose everything that is not in accordance with their own ideas, and by so doing they endanger their eternal interest as verily as did the Jewish nation in their rejection of Christ."

 

[Adventist Dissident]

1892 that was in the after math of 1888. Where EGW did a 180 turnaround on RBF

 

[moicherie]

"No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation."

Considering how some of us react to other Adventists when they question aspects of Adventism they need to remember this statement. I never understood the need to demonise members even to the point of saying one is not Adventist and should leave when doctrines are questioned.
Are they afraid of something, is their faith to weak?

 

[Pythons]

Very true. Only God can protect men to teach infallible doctrines!!

AMEN. I've been waiting for several weeks for someone here to say that!

 

[BGMCFAR]

"No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation."

Considering how some of us react to other Adventists when they question aspects of Adventism they need to remember this statement. I never understood the need to demonise members even to the point of saying one is not Adventist and should leave when doctrines are questioned.
Are they afraid of something, is their faith to weak?

I don't feel its lack of faith I think people get tired of being beat down because they may not agree with the church cause even in the early church there was disagreement. at times I mean its easier to brother a may not agree with you, but i still love you as a brother

 

[mva1985]

"No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation."

Considering how some of us react to other Adventists when they question aspects of Adventism they need to remember this statement. I never understood the need to demonise members even to the point of saying one is not Adventist and should leave when doctrines are questioned.
Are they afraid of something, is their faith to weak?

I have no problems with honest, close examination of true doctrine. The problem most people have is are they going to fall on the Rock or are they going to let the Rock fall on them?

 

[reddogs]

Very true. Only God can protect men to teach infallible doctrines!!

God is never wrong, and neither is His truth... Man and his pride of self and reliance in 'mans wisdom' rather than God's is where the failure occurs.......

 

[NightEternal]

"The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth..." - EGW, R&H 12/20/1892

She also dogmatically stated that not one pin from any of the pillar doctrines is to be removed. Which is why, based on this admonishment, you will never see any Trad concede one iota on anything, castrating productive, progressive dialogue right out of the gate.

So, that pretty much takes care of any sort of 'reasonable' dialogue on reform or taking a second look at any of the fundamentals, doesn't it? Which is, of course, what makes it a catch-22 situation, because that is exactly what the church needs right now in the way of reform.

Oh Trads will go through the motions of 'dialoging' on theology, but don't ever fool yourself into thinking they have any intentions of entering into that discussion with any sort of unbiased attitude. Despite all the posturing and no matter how much they may pride themselves that they are being 'open-minded', the fact of the matter is that they really have no intentions whatsoever of ever entertaining the idea of reform, let alone actually changing anything. They are dialoging for one reason only, and that is to defend fiercely what they have long ago set in concrete. So no Evangelical or Progressive SDA fool yourself for even one second that you are making any progress with any Trad.

Any nonTSDA's who are actually naive enough to think they might be are, I am sorry, idiots.

 

[NightEternal]

I have no problems with honest, close examination of true doctrine. The problem most people have is are they going to fall on the Rock or are they going to let the Rock fall on them?

Yes MVA we have heard it all before. Trads maintain thier open-mindedness from the get-go and claim they have no problems with close examination. Which, of course, is complete baloney, as is evidenced by the Glacierview kangaroo court fiasco and the subsequent treatment of Desmond Ford. The examination in Colorado that year got a little TOO close, didn't it?

No problems at all, right? Of course, they do have all sorts of problems with it, don't they? Because if someone comes to any conclusion other than the accepted Trad party line on any theological point, that, of course, presents a huge problem for them, doesn't it? And God forbid any Trad admit that it is possible to come to some of the conclusions FormerSDA's and nonTSDA's have come to through close, honest, careful study of the Word.

So, it's the same old Trad song and dance that has played on the jukebox many times: Study to show yourself approved and examine the doctrine against the Word all you want-but you make darn sure your conclusions align with the .org party line and Trad dogma, or else.

Is that setting the foundation for real, honest search for the truth? Hardly.

 

[Jimlarmore]

"No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation."

Considering how some of us react to other Adventists when they question aspects of Adventism they need to remember this statement. I never understood the need to demonise members even to the point of saying one is not Adventist and should leave when doctrines are questioned.
Are they afraid of something, is their faith to weak?

Questioning doctrine is fine. The problem I have is when the questioning becomes an active deviation from scripture or truth found in the Bible. One of the most deadly and successful deviations of late is this new idea of righteousness by faith that is nothing more than once saved always saved. The idea that you can go ahead and sin with perceived impunity after being saved is a doctrine of satan himself.

The bottom line is not that it's trads against progs but whether or not it's against the word of God or not. I've always been about keeping an open mind and we must pray to be teacheable in the truth of God. What we embrace we need to be able to back up from scripture. It's that simple.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[NightEternal]

One of the most deadly and successful deviations of late is this new idea of righteousness by faith that is nothing more than once saved always saved. The idea that you can go ahead and sin with perceived impunity after being saved is a doctrine of satan himself.

Jim, you continue to maintain this nonsense over and over when Formers and nonTSDA's have told you time and again that they are maintaining no such thing. No one who holds to justification by faith the way Luther taught endorses 'sinning with impunity'. That is a complete misrepresentation of what we believe as well as a gross, inaccurate understanding of what we are maintaining.

Of course, I realize I am going to get pretty much nowhere with you on this topic, so, never mind.

 

[NightEternal]

duplicate post

 

[mva1985]

Questioning doctrine is fine. The problem I have is when the questioning becomes an active deviation from scripture or truth found in the Bible. One of the most deadly and successful deviations of late is this new idea of righteousness by faith that is nothing more than once saved always saved. The idea that you can go ahead and sin with perceived impunity after being saved is a doctrine of satan himself.

The bottom line is not that it's trads against progs but whether or not it's against the word of God or not. I've always been about keeping an open mind and we must pray to be teacheable in the truth of God. What we embrace we need to be able to back up from scripture. It's that simple.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

+1 on this post!!!!

 

[mva1985]

Yes MVA we have heard it all before. Trads maintain thier open-mindedness from the get-go and claim they have no problems with close examination. Which, of course, is complete baloney, as is evidenced by the Glacierview kangaroo court fiasco and the subsequent treatment of Desmond Ford. The examination in Colorado that year got a little TOO close, didn't it?

No problems at all, right? Of course, they do have all sorts of problems with it, don't they? Because if someone comes to any conclusion other than the accepted Trad party line on any theological point, that, of course, presents a huge problem for them, doesn't it? And God forbid any Trad admit that it is possible to come to some of the conclusions FormerSDA's and nonTSDA's have come to through close, honest, careful study of the Word.

So, it's the same old Trad song and dance that has played on the jukebox many times: Study to show yourself approved and examine the doctrine against the Word all you want-but you make darn sure your conclusions align with the .org party line and Trad dogma, or else.

Is that setting the foundation for real, honest search for the truth? Hardly.

I'm tried of hearing of Desmond Ford - study him if you like.

Maybe you would like to add in some Larry Wilson.

 

[mva1985]

Yes MVA we have heard it all before. Trads maintain thier open-mindedness from the get-go and claim they have no problems with close examination. Which, of course, is complete baloney, as is evidenced by the Glacierview kangaroo court fiasco and the subsequent treatment of Desmond Ford. The examination in Colorado that year got a little TOO close, didn't it?

No problems at all, right? Of course, they do have all sorts of problems with it, don't they? Because if someone comes to any conclusion other than the accepted Trad party line on any theological point, that, of course, presents a huge problem for them, doesn't it? And God forbid any Trad admit that it is possible to come to some of the conclusions FormerSDA's and nonTSDA's have come to through close, honest, careful study of the Word.

So, it's the same old Trad song and dance that has played on the jukebox many times: Study to show yourself approved and examine the doctrine against the Word all you want-but you make darn sure your conclusions align with the .org party line and Trad dogma, or else.

Is that setting the foundation for real, honest search for the truth? Hardly.

I'm tried of hearing of Desmond Ford - study him if you like.

Maybe you would like to add in some Larry Wilson.

 

[Sophia7]

I have no problems with honest, close examination of true doctrine. The problem most people have is are they going to fall on the Rock or are they going to let the Rock fall on them?

And how would you determine when someone is engaging in honest examination?

 

[reddogs]

And how would you determine when someone is engaging in honest examination?

By their character....

 

[mva1985]

And how would you determine when someone is engaging in honest examination?

I think that it helps if the person maintains a teachable spirit. That is one way.