Any Progs changed thier minds on a possible forum split yet?

honorthesabbath · Oct 31, 2007

Sent--the reason I refer to the progs as offshoots is because I cannot consider what they stand for as progress. So why would you demand that I violate my conscience?

Also--I don't see the word 'offshoot' as being the 'bad' word as you all seem to. By the dictionary's definition, an offshoot is simply something that is 'shooting off' from the 'main branch or group'. Are you saying that the doctrines held by the progs is NOT doing just that?

Face it Sent., there is really precious few doctrines that the progs have in common with the main branch of the SDA church--right? All the fundamental beliefs of the main body of the SDA church are refuted and denied by the progs--right?

And you are wrong about my desire for fairness. EVERYONE deserves the right to their own opinion and beliefs. The problem for me though comes about when someone claims to be of a certain sect, when in fact they are in conflict with the majority of that sects standards and doctrines. Call me silly--but I just can't seen to separate myself from that point of common sense.

sentipente said:
I wish you had the same awareness of the impact you had when you called the Progs offshoots and questioned their identity. You seem to be asking for what you claim to have the right to deny others.

honorthesabbath · Oct 31, 2007

sentipente said:
You are being mean because Tall has never renounced fellowhip.

Tall renounced his title as an SDA. The SDA's ARE a fellowship. This is what I meant.

Mankin · Oct 31, 2007

NightEternal said:
Night--I am not going to report you for calling me and those other trads who honestly disagree with you, 'narrow minded'.

It has nothing to do with disagreeing with me. It has everything to do with taking an honest and thorough look at Scripture without the fundamentalist SDA blinders and filtering everything through EGW glasses.

We are well aware of what we believe and WHY we believe it and just because you cannot accept that we REJECT YOUR version of scripture, doesn't make us narrow minded or Romish or unreasonable.

Not 'my' version of Scripture at all. Simply Bible exegesis without Trad bias to skew my understanding.

Furthermore, I have years of Reformation thought and history as well as some of the finest scholarly thinkers of Protestantism behind my positions.

What can you claim? Outdated, 18th century puritan thought, Bible exegesis pre-prepared by ultra-legalists such as Uriah Smith and the latest Batchelor Here We Stand SDA pep-rally seminars reaffirming historical Adventism to the exclusion of all others.

How credible. No thanks, I'll stick with Luther and Paul.

But please be aware that because of the harsh way you direct words at the trads, my experience in this forum has not been very pleasant.

And you have made my experience a day in the park?

Your hatred for us Progs is well documented. I would refrain from pointing fingers if I were you.

I cannot even express in my own sub-forum, my own opinions without someone taking offense and reporting me. This is totally not cool.

Perhaps you should consider the content of some of the things you say rather than the fact that they are getting reported.

Please rethink how you might make this forum a better place for all of us.

Translation: "Stop challenging accepted, Trad dogma please and let the fundamentalist party line rule the boards."

Not going to happen.

Your Adventist subgroup is responsible for retarding the church in its advancement into credible, Evangical orthodoxism and preventing progress for years. That will always be challenged to the bitter end.

You are going to have to get to the place where you realize that every thing that is said is NOT about YOU-because it isn't! When you come to this knowledge, you will be a happier and more peaceful poster.

Where have I claimed this? I maintain that the spew you rail against Progs is directed to the Progs. That includes me as well BTW.

Sorry, but I will not sit back and take anymore Trad hits on our group without a fight. You say 'peace' though one side of your mouth but through the other side you still hurl your 'offshoot' charges at us and badmouth how we Liberals are destroying the church. Your agenda is clear as is mine. Except I will not hide my agenda behind false talk of forum peace.

Peace and harmony will always take a back seat to the true Gospel of salvation in the battle against legalism and Phariseeism. Always.

"I come not to bring peace but a sword..." Jesus Christ of Nazareth

Nice post. People have been saying Liberals have been destroying the church for centuries. The way I look at it, if it wasn't for the liberals Christianity would have very little followers today.

honorthesabbath · Nov 1, 2007

NightEternal said:
I call it not nearly as effective as a total split from any Trad influence whatsoever would be.

IMO of course.

I think he meant what NAME would the new forum have.

JonMiller · Nov 1, 2007

I think we could call them old fashioned adventists.

JM

thecountrydoc · Nov 1, 2007

You can paint the name of any denomonation, on any signboard, aywhere in the world. Doing so however won't make that signboard a membr of the denomination.

Respectfully,
Doc

JonMiller · Nov 1, 2007

Yeah, and old fashioned adventists need to learn that their point of view is no longer that held by the adventist church, nor the majority of it's members.

Maybe a 'historic Seventh-Day adventist' church could be started for those who feel the SDA church has gone astray?

JM

sentipente · Nov 1, 2007

honorthesabbath said:
Also--I don't see the word 'offshoot' as being the 'bad' word as you all seem to. By the dictionary's definition, an offshoot is simply something that is 'shooting off' from the 'main branch or group'.

Here is the problem. If you consider yourself to be a true Adventist you have an obligation to take into consideration what words mean in the Adventist context. To refuse to do so is to behave no differently from the behaviors you seem so set against. You want to believe what you believe about that word notwithstanding what it means to Adventists in general. In doing so you make yourself a transgressor, as Paul said.

sentipente · Nov 1, 2007

honorthesabbath said:
And you are wrong about my desire for fairness. EVERYONE deserves the right to their own opinion and beliefs. The problem for me though comes about when someone claims to be of a certain sect, when in fact they are in conflict with the majority of that sects standards and doctrines. Call me silly--but I just can't seen to separate myself from that point of common sense.

Do you now understand why some Christians do not want to consider SDAs to be Christians?

sentipente · Nov 1, 2007

honorthesabbath said:
You see Sent., I see things in pretty much black and white and your world is gray. The problem arises because we BOTH know that we are right. I will never be able to view the world thru your eyes or you mine. The best we can do is agree to disagree without being disagreeable.

I am not the one who has been questioning the integrity of others because of their points of view.

moicherie · Nov 1, 2007

honorthesabbath said:
Oh--then Moi--you disagree with scripture then.......

Am 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed?
4 Will a lion roar in the forest, when he hath no prey? will a young lion cry out of his den, if he have taken nothing?
5 Can a bird fall in a snare upon the earth, where no gin is for him? shall one take up a snare from the earth, and have taken nothing at all?
6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

Many stories throughout the bible reveal when there is a disagreement, the parties split ways. Even among the Disciples

So was Amos talking about splitting up the house of Israel cos they had disgreements? No so this prooftexting to suit your pov does not work is kind of sad.

moicherie · Nov 1, 2007

tall73 said:
You need to take that up with the GC then and get them to disfellowship all the Progressives. Otherwise you have no choice but to walk together, and a forum split makes no sense. You are all Adventists, and therefore your stuck with each other, whether you like it or not.

Amen! Peopel split because they are not prepared and enjoy the desire to fight more than the desire to live in peace. Paul and Barnabas split cos they had an arguement it was not for a noble cause but becaue Paul was being stubborn even he admitted to being wrong in the end.

RC_NewProtestants · Nov 1, 2007

While I am not in favor of separate forums I do agree that the church will split at some point, 10 years ago I thought it was splitting but there seems to be some reason coming from the leadership to think they were willing to be more open. Today the feeling I get is not that the openness remains but is becoming more closed to anything other then what they have already believed. I think Jon Polsen as president has encouraged more openness but I think that many others in the GC really work against it.

When I read the things that people say like in the sinless perfection thread I think we don't really have much in common with their kind of Christianity.

The question is still open as to how the church will split. My thinking now is that as has happened in the past the church separates into congregationalism where the church leaves the denomination but remains as a local church. I think that is the only possible way to really split however because if you split as a progressive SDA church you are left with the problem of EGW and how much authority does she receive. As she is the main problem in most every theological controversy I can think of she would not really be an asset to the Progressive Church should they split from the main sda denomination.

Of course most people just trickly out of the SDA church to find some more gospel oriented church instead of waiting for some Pastor to lead the way.

Sophia7 · Nov 1, 2007

RC_NewProtestants said:
Of course most people just trickly out of the SDA church to find some more gospel oriented church instead of waiting for some Pastor to lead the way.

And most pastors aren't open about their beliefs anyway if they diverge from the FBs. They can't be if they aren't willing to risk their jobs.

honorthesabbath · Nov 1, 2007

Sophia7 said:
And most pastors aren't open about their beliefs anyway if they diverge from the FBs. They can't be if they aren't willing to risk their jobs.

So what you are saying is, that some of these pastors value the dollar over the truth and integrity. Yeah ok--I see it clearly now.

honorthesabbath · Nov 1, 2007

RC_NewProtestants said:
While I am not in favor of separate forums I do agree that the church will split at some point, 10 years ago I thought it was splitting but there seems to be some reason coming from the leadership to think they were willing to be more open. Today the feeling I get is not that the openness remains but is becoming more closed to anything other then what they have already believed. I think Jon Polsen as president has encouraged more openness but I think that many others in the GC really work against it.

The question is still open as to how the church will split. My thinking now is that as has happened in the past the church separates into congregationalism where the church leaves the denomination but remains as a local church. I think that is the only possible way to really split however because if you split as a progressive SDA church you are left with the problem of EGW and how much authority does she receive. As she is the main problem in most every theological controversy I can think of she would not really be an asset to the Progressive Church should they split from the main sda denomination.

Of course most people just trickly out of the SDA church to find some more gospel oriented church instead of waiting for some Pastor to lead the way.

More 'open' to what? The unbiblical rantings of apostates like Dale Ratzlaff? Sorry RC--but when you make comments like this--you yourself are doing exactly what you attack others for doing.

When I read the things that people say like in the sinless perfection thread I think we don't really have much in common with their kind of Christianity.

I've said it once and I'll say it again. If the church your involved with doesn't teach or believe what YOU do--then for heavens sakes LEAVE--but don't expect the whole congregation to follow you. And when they don't--don't call them names for sticking to what they believe.

moicherie · Nov 1, 2007

I suspect having an official creed aka 28 Fundamentals was probably a mistake that has come back to haunt the church....

freeindeed2 · Nov 1, 2007

honorthesabbath said:
So what you are saying is, that some of these pastors value the dollar over the truth and integrity. Yeah ok--I see it clearly now.

You don't know how true that is. I could give you a list of pastors as long as your arm (please tell me you have arms!) that do not embrace all 28 FB's. I know many who stay because it is their career and they spent many years investing in it. It's their retirement, their health insurance, their friendships, their culture, their school subsidies, etc.

In the eyes of some, pastors are not allowed to question. And when they come to a different conclusion through careful study and the leading of the Holy Spirit, there are some who want their heads. We've all seen it happen many times, and we were VERY careful about who we discussed the issues with.

tall73 · Nov 1, 2007

honorthesabbath said:
So what you are saying is, that some of these pastors value the dollar over the truth and integrity. Yeah ok--I see it clearly now.

There are indeed a good number of pastors who don't believe it but haven't left. Some want to reform the church and some just want to go on being able to work without giving the whole message.

RC_NewProtestants · Nov 1, 2007

honorthesabbath said:
More 'open' to what? The unbiblical rantings of apostates like Dale Ratzlaff? Sorry RC--but when you make comments like this--you yourself are doing exactly what you attack others for doing.

I've said it once and I'll say it again. If the church your involved with doesn't teach or believe what YOU do--then for heavens sakes LEAVE--but don't expect the whole congregation to follow you. And when they don't--don't call them names for sticking to what they believe.

Open to other possibilities. Open to the idea that we don't have all the answers. When people look at things in a way that acknowledges that we can be wrong and that we all are in a seach for truth it becomes much harder to declare other people's view to be "unbiblical rantings". Instead of the continual ad hominem attacks like as the above does they then have to go into actual study and reasoned defense or criticism of an idea.

You will notice that I called no one any names yet I was accused of calling them names, no words about "rantings" or "apostates". It in my opinion shows just how big a difference there is in the way the Progressive SDA philosophy differs from that of the more traditional view which as I said is not open to other views and is not even able to argue the merits one way or the other. Not that this is only a problem among Adventism, in fact it is a problem in most of the fundamentalist religious world, whether that of Christian or other world religions. There is likely no easy fix to the different philosophies and merely leaving a church or denomination will not stop the problems.

Any Progs changed thier minds on a possible forum split yet?

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

A Strange Mixture of Random Components.

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Contributor

Senior Contributor

Senior Contributor

True Brit

True Brit

Senior Veteran

Tall73's Wife

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

True Brit

In Christ We Are FREE!

Sophia7's husband

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency