A Question for Tall73...

tall73 · Nov 26, 2007

mjona3 said:
but I really think that this forum as well as reality shows that you don't need to agree with the fdundamental beleifs to be an adventist.

Perhaps your reality has not been that of other people's. In some of the churches I attended people were suspected of heresy and treated differently if they studied something other than the quarterly during SS time.

A pastor who left, not for doctrinal reasons that I know of, but he never said, was asked by the elders to preach to fill in the gaps in the speaking schedule, but when they talked about him when he was not present they would say he was a traitor or speculate about whether he quit so he could go into a better business and make money. I can only imagine how they would treat a pastor who left over doctrine.

But apart from that I can belong to a whole number of organizations who's primary tenants I don't agree with. But I am not sure why I would.

Jimlarmore · Nov 26, 2007

With the exception of the IJ I respectfully disagree with Tall73 on the fundamental beliefs of the sda church not being scripturally founded. Even the IJ is scripturally founded. They didn't come to view this in a vacuum. It' just not too the extent that most of the sda beliefs are. I wish Tall and Sophia well and I hope they find what they are looking for. After being out there in other denominations for years I can tell you that ( aside from small groups ) there is no church that is as close as the sda church to what the Bible teaches.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

tall73 · Nov 26, 2007

Jimlarmore said:
With the exception of the IJ I respectfully disagree with Tall73 on the fundamental beliefs of the sda church not being scripturally founded. Even the IJ is scripturally founded. They didn't come to view this in a vacuum. It' just not too the extent that most of the sda beliefs are. I wish Tall and Sophia well and I hope they find what they are looking for. After being out there in other denominations for years I can tell you that ( aside from small groups ) there is no church that is as close as the sda church to what the Bible teaches.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

No indeed they did not come to view this in a vacuum but in the context of the great disappointment. It was a hurt seeking a fix.

They did not find it through normal study of the Scriptures. No one found it before that time. No one who was a non-Adventist ever asked me to join the church because they found it while studying (as some did with the Sabbath).

Having found an explanation to their disappointment they then modified it when parts of the explanation fell through.

They then added to it the IJ which at first was not included and which James actually rejected early on.

Barnhouse famously called it :

the most colossal, psychological, face-saving phenomenon in religious history

It is not even claimed to have originated in Scriptural study as such but from a cornfield vision.

Indeed, it was not in a vacuum.

freeindeed2 · Nov 26, 2007

tall73 said:
No indeed they did not come to view this in a vacuum but in the context of the great disappointment. It was a hurt seeking a fix.

They did not find it through normal study of the Scriptures. No one found it before that time. No one who was a non-Adventist ever asked me to join the church because they found it while studying (as some did with the Sabbath).

Having found an explanation to their disappointment they then modified it when parts of the explanation fell through.

They then added to it the IJ which at first was not included and which James actually rejected early on.

Most SDA's don't really know how this belief came about the day after the disappointment, and how it was adapted, evolved, and changed out of necessity (because of all the holes in it).

Barnhouse famously called it :

the most colossal, psychological, face-saving phenomenon in religious history

And that it was/is!

It is not even claimed to have originated in Scriptural study as such but from a cornfield vision.

Indeed, it was not in a vacuum.

And not even from EGW, no less! It was from someone who had never had a 'vision' prior, and never had another after!

StormyOne · Nov 26, 2007

cornfield theology at its best I have always said....

Jimlarmore · Nov 26, 2007

tall73 said:
No indeed they did not come to view this in a vacuum but in the context of the great disappointment. It was a hurt seeking a fix.

They did not find it through normal study of the Scriptures. No one found it before that time. No one who was a non-Adventist ever asked me to join the church because they found it while studying (as some did with the Sabbath).

I don't think you will find non-adventists as Biblically astute generally as many are in the adventist church. Some have worshipped in Sunday churches all their lives and not fully realized the Sabbath truth. They come to church and accept what ever the preacher says as the gospel truth from God . Not knowing fully what is written. When they come across the truth they have a decision to make as we all do. Some accept it some reject it for various reasons. The IJ is not taught directly from the Bible as the Sabbath truth is. In order to come to the position our church has on it you have to conclude things based on the whole Bible and not very many specific texts. That's the reason I don't accept all of it the way we as a church do. I believe there will be an investigative judgement but at this point for me to think that Christ's action to fulfill the DOA in heaven had to wait until 1844 is hard to justify by a multitude of scripture. The great disappointment's influence on the IJ as we currently accept it is inescapable I think.

Having found an explanation to their disappointment they then modified it when parts of the explanation fell through.

What are talking about specifically here?

They then added to it the IJ which at first was not included and which James actually rejected early on.

Barnhouse famously called it :

the most colossal, psychological, face-saving phenomenon in religious history

It is not even claimed to have originated in Scriptural study as such but from a cornfield vision.

Indeed, it was not in a vacuum.

There are some texts which support it but not the number I would expect if it would stand as an event of the last days like we think it should.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

freeindeed2 · Nov 26, 2007

Jimlarmore said:
I don't think you will find non-adventists as Biblically astute generally as many are in the adventist church.

What an amazing statement! Over 2 BILLION Christians alive in the world today (not to mention the BILLIONS that have died since the inception of the church), and you believe that a sect that claims 14 million member (which includes the names of those who have left but never removed their names), and that they are more' Biblically astute' than the larger body of Christ? The majority of the body of Christ doesn't even know that SDAism exists!

Let's see...the Christian church, established by Christ, has been around for almost 2000 years...but the SDA sect, established in 1863 after making false predictions and the ensuing coverup explanation is more astute than the church started by Christ. Sorry my friend. We have much to be desired when it comes to Biblical astute'ness'.

Sophia7 · Nov 26, 2007

freeindeed2 said:
What an amazing statement! Over 2 BILLION Christians alive in the world today (not to mention the BILLIONS that have died since the inception of the church), and you believe that a sect that claims 14 million member (which includes the names of those who have left but never removed their names), and that they are more' Biblically astute' than the larger body of Christ? The majority of the body of Christ doesn't even know that SDAism exists!

Let's see...the Christian church, established by Christ, has been around for almost 2000 years...but the SDA sect, established in 1863 after making false predictions and the ensuing coverup explanation is more astute than the church started by Christ. Sorry my friend. We have much to be desired when it comes to Biblical astute'ness'.

I agree completely. Adventists have a very misguided view of the history of Christianity.

freeindeed2 · Nov 26, 2007

Sophia7 said:
I agree completely. Adventists have a very misguided view of the history of Christianity.

Yes. Typically they view it only through the eyes of the early pioneers in the NE United States, and then they apply their Western thought to the history of the Christian church (because we all know it's only about Americans in the first place ). LOL! It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

StormyOne · Nov 26, 2007

freeindeed2 said:
Yes. Typically they view it only through the eyes of the early pioneers in the NE United States, and then they apply their Western thought to the history of the Christian church (because we all know it's only about Americans in the first place ). LOL! It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

and that bias is reflected in the interpretation of bible prophecy, not to mention the church's place in the "big picture."

freeindeed2 · Nov 26, 2007

StormyOne said:
and that bias is reflected in the interpretation of bible prophecy, not to mention the church's place in the "big picture."

Yes. Westerners have wedged the United States firmly into Bible prophecy. We're a little sanguine that way (we must be the center of attention). Never mind that virtually the ENTIRE Bible record took place in the Middle East!

woobadooba · Nov 26, 2007

Tall73 said:
Here is the definition of a creed from Merriam-Webster's online dictionary:

1: a brief authoritative formula of religious belief
2: a set of fundamental beliefs

The Bible is

A. Not brief
B. Not just a list of fundamental beliefs.

It comprises a number of books in a number of genres, etc.

A creed is obviously a brief list of essential beliefs used for a purpose.

The 28 qualify, but the Bible does not.

First of all, just because the term is defined as such here that doesn’t mean we are limited by this definition.

Furthermore, according to an older version of Webster’s dictionary it is actually defined with more clarity:

Creed
CREED, n. [This word seems to have been introduced by the use of the Latin credo, I believe, at the beginning of the Apostles creed, or brief system of Christian faith. See Creed.]

1. A brief summary of the articles of Christian faith; a symbol; as the Apostolic creed.

2. That which is believed; any system of principles which are believed or professed; as a political creed.

Now then, it should be noted that the term doesn’t have to strictly fit the mold of both meanings here, which means a ‘Creed’ doesn’t necessarily have to be ‘brief’. After all, the purpose of having more than one meaning to choose from allows for flexibility to use it within more than one context.

Moreover, there is intrinsic or philosophical value for certain terms that dictionaries don’t always identify as they are not meant to provide us with an in depth understanding of such entries, but merely purposed to inform us of a term’s basic meaning(s).

With that said, according to meaning ‘2’ a ‘Creed’ could be ‘That which is believed’ within the context of a system of principles. Of course, a ‘principle’ could amount to many things when looked at within the realm of ‘thoughts and ideas’. And though I agree that the Bible is not laid out for us in a systematic format as is a set of fundamental beliefs, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t represent a ‘system’ of thoughts and ideas which constitute a specific worldview that a person is expected to espouse as his own if he is to identify himself as belonging to God.

Nevertheless, there is no need to get all caught up in semantics here. For, if you look more closely at what I had said in my previous post you will notice that I am addressing the ‘nature’ of a Creed, which means I’m not merely looking at its denotative meaning; rather, I’m addressing it from the standpoint of its intrinsic purpose; and that is to serve as a measure to determine who shares a belonging to a specific standard of faith or system of beliefs which govern a specific worldview. In our case, that would be Christianity.

So if we look at it from the perspective of its intrinsic worth, then the Bible could very well be looked at as that which constitutes a Creed for the Christian as it contains ‘That which is believed’ to constitute what God expects a Christian to believe in order to identify himself as having a belonging to Jesus Christ.

Having said this, everything that I had said in my previous post to you in refutation of the point of contention that you have against a Creed does not lose its impact by the meaning that we find in the dictionary for a ‘Creed’.

Tall73 said:
I think I already mentioned the Adventist church can have as many beliefs as they want. I just think it is a mistake for the very reason that people should be able to follow their conscience without these 28 being spelled out in detail. The church does not have to agree with me.

It appears to me that according to the standard of your argument here one could likewise use it as a means to suggest that most of what was written in the book of Leviticus was not necessary.

So why was God so precise in mapping out all said rules that He expected His people to live by?

It was because He wanted to make these things clear enough for His people to know exactly what it was that He expected of them if they were to identify themselves as having a belonging to Him, and to demarcate a distinction between His prescribed manner of worship in comparison to how people that identified themselves with the so-called gods worshipped. Such a distinction had to be made for the preservation of the identity of God's people.

So it is the same with our 28 fundamentals. We want to make it clear to everyone that is interested in becoming a part of our church what we believe so that they will know what they are getting into by becoming members of the SDA church.

And to be quite frank with you, because there are so many different interpretations of the ‘basics’ throughout Christendom it is necessary to provide a believer with such details as the message of Jesus Christ has become quite obscure in many ways as a result of bad hermeneutics.

Now if there were only one Christian church rather than so many different denominations which claim to be following Jesus Christ, it most likely wouldn’t be necessary to have so many details. But since this isn’t the case, and there are so many faulty interpretations afloat within the realm of Christianity today, it is necessary to have such details attached to our fundamental beliefs to make a distinction between those who are closest to Christ on matters of truth in comparison to those who have missed the mark by far!

Now if we were to just simplify these things and allow for every member to make up his own details, then we would experience what Paul had spoken of to Timothy when he had said:

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. (2Ti 4:3-4 KJV)

For that matter, one of the reasons why God gave us the Holy Scriptures is because He wanted to safeguard us from such a fate.

Why else would Paul have said: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:(2Ti 3:16 KJV) if details were not important?

Furthermore, if the meaning of ‘truth’ were to be left up to each person to define according to his own conscience, we wouldn’t meet Christ’s objective for His church as it is spelled out by Paul here:

Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and thatthat ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. (1Co 1:10 KJV)

It is because God is orderly that we have doctrinal details to serve as a guide to bring this objective for His people to fruition via the holy Spirit whose role is to guide us into all truth.

I think it is important to note that because we have such details attached to our doctrines that that doesn’t mean we have been stripped of our liberty to ‘think’ outside of them. We are free to think, but not free to make up our own truth and declare them to be God-breathed.

You see, it’s not the presence of details that ought to concern us; rather, it’s the lack thereof that ought to alarm us, because where there are very few details there is less thought about what one is expected to believe. And where there is less thought about what one is expected to believe there is danger of falling into all kinds of heresies that have the potentiality to lead people to a self-destructive end.

I do believe the following verse is fitting here:

Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil. (Pro 3:5-7 KJV)

Tall73 said:
I can accept what the Scriptures say because they are inspired. If they DISAGREE with the 28 then I have to toss out the 28 which ARE NOT INSPIRED. And yes I do think it is a big deal if I disagree with multiple beliefs of the church that they REQUIRE me to believe and will be talking about constantly. So if I find they disagree with the Scriptures why would I then just live with it if the Scriptures are the real authority?

And you think you aren’t going to experience this where you are now at some point? Just because something isn’t spelled out for you on paper that doesn’t mean you won’t be required to accept it as truth in order to function within the capacity of a full-membership in a church.

Truth is, you are going to experience this wherever you go, unless you start your own church of course, and indoctrinate your members to think just like you. But is that what you really want?

Moreover, it is also important to note that though it may appear that what they present to you as a 'basic' Creed that you are expected to adhere to in order to fully identify yourself with them, that doesn’t mean that what is listed in it is being interpreted correctly. Without details you wouldn’t know for sure. So you just may find that you will be moving around from church to church without end as you discover that it’s the basics of the faith that most denominations disagree on.

Even the early church had this problem, which is one reason why the writer of Hebrews had said:

Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. (Heb 5:11-12 KJV)

The interesting thing is that these people had already been given details and look at what had happened to them. How much more then would our faith be reduced to some sort of a babel that really has nothing to do with the truth as it is in Jesus Christ if we did not have doctrinal details and were left to decide on our own what constitutes ‘truth’?

Truth is arrived at as we work together as a body of believers under the influence and guidance of the Holy Spirit. It’s when we arrive at what we deem to be truth according to our own conscience that we inevitably play the role of one who is not willing to receive correction. After all, if our conscience tells us that what we believe is true then what right does anyone else have to expect us to follow something else?

Tall73 said:

If the Scriptures are in your view a big creed then why do we need another? They are not a creed of course, but your argument is that they are. If the Scriptures are EVERYTHING we must believe then why have 28?

Click to expand...

Because the 28 fundamental doctrines serve as a means to put everything into a package that is believed to represent the bulk of core teachings that a Christian is expected to believe according to the Bible.

It doesn’t mean that they are to take precedence over the Holy Scriptures as a guide for truth; rather, they are intended to make truths that a Christian is expected to adhere to easier to locate and view in light of what the Bible has to say about other core teachings.

Tall73 said:

You don't need an alternative to reject something that clearly is not in line with the Scriptures. Rejecting a false belief that you have held is the first step to finding a new alternative. In many cases I actually already have an alternative. You can read for instance in my IJ thread about what I feel fulfilled the type of the day of atonement presentation of blood.

Click to expand...

Clear according to whom?

Just because an idea appears to make no sense to you that doesn’t mean it is false. You just simply may not be looking at things right as you for some reason can’t see the whole picture, perhaps because you haven’t thought things through enough or just simply may not have the understanding due to a lack of information that would enable you to grasp the very essence of that idea if you had access to it.

This is why it is necessary to have an alternative view before making the claim that something is false. At best you could say you just don’t know what to believe; but to say that it is false while asserting that you have no alternative view to make that determination is to merely state an opinion, not a fact.

Truth is, it is inevitable to arrive at a conclusion that something is false without having something that is true by which to measure its validity or the lack thereof to make the determination that your assessment of it is indeed correct.

You may be able to say that certain elements of it appear to be false, but unless you are able to assess it according to the facts, you can’t really be sure that your conclusion is not representative of a mere opinion.

Even in science when it comes to the testing of hypotheses Occam’s Razor is often used to determine which hypothesis makes more sense for testing. If they didn’t use this as a means to make such a determination they would accomplish very little as the testing of every hypothesis would consume too much valuable time, thus placing a limitation on the progress of their work.

But often what appears to be the best hypothesis turns out to be one that is worthy of the trash, because through the testing of it they discover things about their objective that they didn’t think about prior to the fact. Of course, that doesn’t mean they wasted their time testing that hypothesis. To the contrary it helped them to discover something that they were unaware of before testing it. But it certainly does mean that that hypothesis will not enable them to reach their objective, even though it did aid them in some ways to get closer to it.

I think the same thing can be said for the ideas that you are contending with. You could be on your way to something grand, or you could be arguing your way out of something that is vital for your understanding as a believer in Jesus Christ. Whatever the case may be however, unless you have an alternative view that can clearly be substantiated by the Holy Scriptures you really can’t be sure that what you are in disagreement with is actually false as you don’t have enough facts to support such a conclusion.

As for what you have to say about the IJ, there is plenty of room for questions that I just may ask you at some point later on. But before moving on to the meatier topics I would like to address the basic ideas that have influenced you to make the decision to leave the SDA church.

Tall73 said:
Look Woob, you yourself were saying I should resign from ministry to follow my convictions. You pressed me on an internet board to do this though I had already said I would study through the issues and do what was necessary in my own time. And that is exactly what I did.

Now you wonder why I followed my convictions all the way? What happened to your appeal to do what is right? Is it because you don't want to do the same, since you also disagree with one of our beliefs?

But I never said you should leave the church altogether. The only reason why I had said that you should resign is because as a minister of the SDA church you are required to uphold what the SDA church believes according to its own ministerial standards as outlined in the Church Manual.

But that doesn’t mean you can’t start up your own ministry within the church to share what you have learned with others who are asking the same questions. I would just caution anyone that is thinking of doing this to not be dogmatic about it because without an alternative view that can be clearly identified in the Holy Scriptures, you could very well be teaching something to others that is contrary to the truth and be unaware of that fact, and thus lead many astray. 2Pt. 3:16

As for me, I usually make a point to not teach things that I am unsure about, and to receive correction on things that have been presented to me which clearly show that I am wrong. I think this is a good standard to live by. But I don’t intend to leave the SDA church because certain aspects of what it expects its members to believe don’t appear to make sense to me. And even if it just so happens that I do find something that is completely false within its prescribed doctrines then I still wouldn’t leave the church. Instead, I would do what I could to help others that have been appointed as leaders within the church to come to the same conclusion as that is what a leader is instructed to do.

2Tim. 4:2

P.S. Sorry about the misunderstanding that I had about thinking you were informed that you could remain as a minister of the SDA church while not agreeing with all of our doctrines, and that you had said God led you out of the SDA church. I obviously misunderstood what you had said about these things.

Jimlarmore · Nov 26, 2007

freeindeed2 said:
What an amazing statement! Over 2 BILLION Christians alive in the world today (not to mention the BILLIONS that have died since the inception of the church), and you believe that a sect that claims 14 million member (which includes the names of those who have left but never removed their names), and that they are more' Biblically astute' than the larger body of Christ? The majority of the body of Christ doesn't even know that SDAism exists!

Let's see...the Christian church, established by Christ, has been around for almost 2000 years...but the SDA sect, established in 1863 after making false predictions and the ensuing coverup explanation is more astute than the church started by Christ. Sorry my friend. We have much to be desired when it comes to Biblical astute'ness'.

I was speaking of the average "Christian" who goes to church each sunday listens to the preacher and thats it. Which by the way fits the description of most of the "Christian community" in the world today, especially in the Catholic church which is by far the largest. This also fits the description of some adventists however because of the Sabbath belief and the state of the dead alone adventist are much more Biblically knowledgeable than the average Christian. That's just the way it is my friend whether you want to agree with it or not,,,, sorry.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

NightEternal · Nov 26, 2007

So, in other words, SDA ministers are not allowed to study for themselves or engage in thier own spiritual journey of growth or honestly come to thier own conclusions in Bible study. And it doesn't matter if God reveals new truth to them or that thier paradigm and beliefs go through a process of change over the years, they are to respond like programmed robots to the party line without question simply because they are called to ministry. And it is perfectly okay to engage in extortion and blackmail by using thier employment as leverage and a weapon of intimidation and manipulation to ensure this happens.

Lay people are free to enage in free and open study, Pastors are not allowed the same courtesy. And yet we bloviate about how we want our ministers to be students of the Word while at the same time strapping them tightly into the EGW straight jacket all the while telling them thier employment is safe as long as they do not come to any conclusions that contradict her.

Gotcha.

Psh. Whatever. Can we say complete and total crock?

freeindeed2 · Nov 26, 2007

Jimlarmore said:
I was speaking of the average "Christian" who goes to church each sunday listens to the preacher and thats it.

LOL. The 'average SDA church member' would come to me (or any SDA pastor), ask questions, and then totally accept WHATEVER answer we give them. You may not fit the 'average church member' description, but I can assure you that average SDA members accept whatever the SDA pastor tells them too (also). So that would not be unique simply because of what day you 'do church'.

The deepest Bible studies I've been involved with (and I've been involved with them for over 20 years every week) are NOT SDA Bible studies with SDA participants. You're completely fooling yourself if you believe SDA's have a monopoly on deep Bible study!

Which by the way fits the description of most of the "Christian community" in the world today, especially in the Catholic church which is by far the largest.

Yes, the world-wide Catholic church represents about half of Christianity.

This also fits the description of some adventists however because of the Sabbath belief and the state of the dead alone adventist are much more Biblically knowledgeable than the average Christian. That's just the way it is my friend whether you want to agree with it or not,,,, sorry.

Yes, you've just raised the FOCAL POINT of Adventism - the Sabbath and Soul Death. Where the larger body of Christ has Jesus Christ as their focal point. Sorry, but you have just confirmed that this IS the way it is. It's sadly disappointing!

In Christ alone...

freeindeed2 · Nov 26, 2007

NightEternal said:
So, in other words, SDA ministers are not allowed to study for themselves or engage in thier own spiritual journey of growth or honestly come to thier own conclusions in Bible study. And it doesn't matter if God reveals new truth to them or that thier paradigm and beliefs go through a process of change over the years, they are to respond like programmed robots to the party line without question simply because they are called to ministry. And it is perfectly okay to engage in extortion and blackmail by using thier employment as leverage and a weapon of intimidation and manipulation to ensure this happens.

A fairly accurate description! You should have been in on some of the pastors meetings I've been a part of!

Lay people are free to enage in free and open study, Pastors are not allowed the same courtesy. And yet we bloviate about how we want our ministers to be students of the Word while at the same time strapping them tightly into the EGW straight jacket all the while telling them thier employment is safe as long as they do not come to any conclusions that contradict her.

Gotcha.

Psh. Whatever. Can we say complete and total crock?

There is definitely a ceiling and it's pretty low. SDA pastors are handcuffed and there is no way out unless you are willing to resign and leave. That's why I admire Tall and MANY others for following their consciences instead of their pocketbooks. Believe me, it's not easy!

Jimlarmore · Nov 26, 2007

NightEternal said:
So, in other words, SDA ministers are not allowed to study for themselves or engage in thier own spiritual journey of growth or honestly come to thier own conclusions in Bible study. And it doesn't matter if God reveals new truth to them or that thier paradigm and beliefs go through a process of change over the years, they are to respond like programmed robots to the party line without question simply because they are called to ministry. And it is perfectly okay to engage in extortion and blackmail by using thier employment as leverage and a weapon of intimidation and manipulation to ensure this happens.

Lay people are free to enage in free and open study, Pastors are not allowed the same courtesy. And yet we bloviate about how we want our ministers to be students of the Word while at the same time strapping them tightly into the EGW straight jacket all the while telling them thier employment is safe as long as they do not come to any conclusions that contradict her.

Gotcha.

Psh. Whatever. Can we say complete and total crock?

Why are you even still a member then? Why not go somewhere that really gets really deep into the Bible as you say? I'd like to know where and what church you are referring to because I've probably been to most of them in the past but who knows ,,,, I'm always open to a new look thats for sure. As far as the way they treat their pastors I kind of tend to agree and I'm not sure why they haven't been more forth coming on publishing their scholarly research on the IJ as we accept it either.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

JonMiller · Nov 26, 2007

freeindeed2 said:
Yes, you've just raised the FOCAL POINT of Adventism - the Sabbath and Soul Death. Where the larger body of Christ has Jesus Christ as their focal point. Sorry, but you have just confirmed that this IS the way it is. It's sadly disappointing!

In Christ alone...

Huh? His point is that it is important. Just like it is important to me. He didn't (there) say that those beleifs were required or saved anyone. You and others say that the focal point of adventism is doctrines, rather than Jesus Christ. And I agree, adventists do tend to go that way (and it isn't good). But just because you say that a doctrine is good, or right, or even that it is important, doesn't mean that you are over emphasizing it.

We can, as humans, hold more than one thing in our head at a time. We do it all the time. Now, I agree, these other doctrines shouldn't be so emphasized that Christ gets squeezed out (or is squeezed at all). But it still doesn't mean that doctrines can't be taught. Everyone does so, even you. You just are spinning your doctrines.. just like the adventists who have EGW spin to all scripture.

That is why I support Adventists practices in other parts of the world (preach the gospel, than after they join the church talk about doctrine), and don't see why Sophia has exception to it.

Additionally, at least as far as soul death is concerned... all scientific evidence points to soul death occuring (since we are unable to detect a seperate 'soul'). The whole idea of the soul is much more obviously related to Plato's philosophy. The Adventists position on the soul is much more reasonable compared to the Christian communities, and the Biblical support for it is overwelming (and the only disagreement I can see is to ignore portions of the Bible).

JM

Sophia7 · Nov 26, 2007

mjona3 said:
That is why I support Adventists practices in other parts of the world (preach the gospel, than after they join the church talk about doctrine), and don't see why Sophia has exception to it.

I take exception to it because the gospel is diluted and sometimes even distorted by several of the distinctive Adventist doctrines, even in other countries.

NightEternal · Nov 26, 2007

Jimlarmore said:
Why are you even still a member then? Why not go somewhere that really gets really deep into the Bible as you say?
Jim Larmore

I was speaking in regards to pastors, not lay membership.

A Question for Tall73...

Sophia7's husband

Senior Veteran

Sophia7's husband

In Christ We Are FREE!

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

In Christ We Are FREE!

Tall73's Wife

In Christ We Are FREE!

Senior Veteran

In Christ We Are FREE!

Legend

Senior Veteran

Evangelical SDA

In Christ We Are FREE!

In Christ We Are FREE!

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Tall73's Wife

Evangelical SDA

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency