Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Are there any guesses as to how many "moderate" congregations or believers there are as opposed to "traditional"?
My idea of "moderate", in regards to SDA, would be that they affirm the 28 FB, but are more open to not being a vegetarian, watching TV, etc, basically more "worldly" things or being more loose on following the teachings of EGW on life issues. My idea of "traditional" would be the opposite in regards to the more worldly aspects, but still affirming the 28 FB, and then following the advice of EGW more strictly.What do you think of when you say "moderate" ? "traditional"?
Sure, big "T" Tradition vs small "t" tradition.On the General Theology section of this board "Traditional" means basing doctrine on tradition and not the Bible. And if you go to the "traditional Christianity" section and start quoting the Bible to show that some tradition does not measure up they tell you that that part of the board does is only for those who value tradition as equal to or superior to the Bible so no tradition-challenging texts allowed.
Interesting, thank you for making the distinction. I suppose it varies by church and by personal believer as to what they define themselves as.That is not what SDAs mean by traditional. Some SDAs who call themselves tradition take James White as their indicator of what views to have on the nature of Christ or Trinity etc and they might differ with the published 28 Fundamental Beliefs in some rare cases.
Moderates and Traditional would "normally" be affirming all the 28 Fundamental beliefs. Progressives and Liberals ... not so much.
My idea of "moderate", in regards to SDA, would be that they affirm the 28 FB, but are more open to not being a vegetarian, watching TV, etc, basically more "worldly" things or being more loose on following the teachings of EGW on life issues. My idea of "traditional" would be the opposite in regards to the more worldly aspects, but still affirming the 28 FB, and then following the advice of EGW more strictly.
1. "Moderate" could mean -- I accept QoD as a valid reliable doctrinal statement for SDAs that is in perfect harmony with the 28FB.
2. It could mean - -I accept the 28FB and Ellen White but I don't like the harsh critical judgmental (all Ellen White all the time) spirit I find among "some" notoriously conservative web-site practices so I prefer not to be identified as "conservative".
3. Or it could mean -- I accept all 28FB but I do not accept the idea of "ceasing to sin" before the 2nd coming -- or any variation of that.
4. Or it could mean -- I accept some of the 28FB -- just not the IJ.
Or it could mean -- ??
Well I guess that is the question for this thread -- if you are moderate SDA -- what do you mean by that?
If you are not moderate-SDA what do you think the term means?
If you consider yourself moderate -- how do you suppose that differs from "progressive"?
(Maybe we need a similar thread for "progressive"?)
in Christ,
Bob
I am not a moderate Adventist and I do not know what that means. I'm a progressive adventist, which means I have progressed past the point of even desiring the label.
I hold to doctrine that can be upheld by the scriptures, such as the Sabbath, the OT state of the dead and premillennialism with it reign of the saints on earth; but I’ve cast-off untenable doctrine such as the IJ, replacement theology and the thousand years of the saint’s reign in heaven.
When you say "the Label" I assume you mean you don't want to be called a "Seventh-day Adventist".
You might be interested in Seventh-day Baptists
And I assume you also don't accept the Bible doctrine on the gift of prophecy.
And the historicist model of prophetic interpretation used by all Protestant Reformers
BTW - Adventist doctrine is post-trib pre-millennialism which requires by definition that the saints be in heaven during the millennium
Which means the SDA denomination is the only one with a perfect accommodation for the Bible texts on the "desolate earth" where cities all over the world are destroyed and there are no humans on Earth.
I am not a moderate Adventist and I do not know what that means. I'm a progressive adventist, which means I have progressed past the point of even desiring the label.
I hold to doctrine that can be upheld by the scriptures, such as the Sabbath, the OT state of the dead and premillennialism with it reign of the saints on earth; but I’ve cast-off untenable doctrine such as the IJ, replacement theology and the thousand years of the saint’s reign in heaven.
I hold to the hermeneutic of progressive revelation, as Guinness stated, “human comprehension of Divine prophecy has also been by degrees.”* Being bound by creeds simply will not allow one to maintain an openness to God’s principle of progressive revelation.
As I said, I no longer desire to be bound by labels and now I add to creeds either.
I’m a historicist that progresses, as my homepage conveys. The testimony of Christ, not EGW or the SDA, is the spirit of prophecy
Christ’s Revelation holds the saints do not tabernacle with the Father until the end of the thousand years.
“Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.” Rev 21:1-3 ESV
Explain to me how the saints could be in heaven/paradise, the tabernacle of God the Father, and the tabernacle of God the Father be declared to be definitively with man only at the end of the thousand years according to the testimony of Christ above?
The “desolate earth” doctrine is a fallacy
And I assume you also don't accept the Bible doctrine on the gift of prophecy.
And the historicist model of prophetic interpretation used by all Protestant Reformers
BTW - Adventist doctrine is post-trib pre-millennialism which requires by definition that the saints be in heaven during the millennium
Which means the SDA denomination is the only one with a perfect accommodation for the Bible texts on the "desolate earth" where cities all over the world are destroyed and there are no humans on Earth.
When you say "the Label" I assume you mean you don't want to be called a "Seventh-day Adventist".
You might be interested in Seventh-day Baptists
Does not answer the question... when you use the term "Label" - do you mean that you do not want to be identified as a Seventh-day Adventist.??
"You worship what you do not know - we worship what we know -- for salvation is of the Jews" -- John 4.
Comes to mind.
You are merely parsing words. All Adventists believe that the Spirit of Prophecy is God the Holy Spirit, also called "the Spirit of Christ". This is irrefutable.
They also know that it is a title of a set of books and it is a reference to the work of the Holy Spirit in the messages He gave to the church through the prophet Ellen White.
All Adventists believe the city of God comes down out of heaven after the 1000 years and that the throne of God is in that city. And we both know it.
This it not "news".
How does that make someone "not an Adventist"??
The text never said that the saints did not go to heaven at the second coming.
In Hebrews 11 we are told that Enoch and Moses "DID not receive what was promised" -- even though at the writing of Hebrews 11 - both of them were physically in heaven.
Because as Isaiah 66 and Matthew 5 remind us -- the "home" of the saints is 'The new heavens and the New Earth" thus the saints "inherit the Earth" just as Daniel 7 points out.
This is not that complicated and Adventists accept it.
Until you read the actual Bible.
Rev 19 all the wicked that remain on earth killed at the 2nd coming. desolate earth
Rev 14 all the saints taken... then all the wicked killed. desolate earth
Ez 32:4-8….
Jer 4:23….
Jer 25:33….
Zeph 1:18….
Isaiah 24….
It is obviously a World Wide Calamity – World Wide catastrophe
Isaiah 24….
I choose the Bible.
Where does the Bible say a post-trib, pre-millennialism requires by definition that the saints be in heaven during the millennium?
That’s pure hypothesis. The grammatical-historical perception is that the Messianic kingdom is established upon the earth.
“Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.” Jer 23:5 (KJV unless otherwise stated)
It is the only way that can happen.
John 14 says that Christ is coming back to take us to heaven.
1 Thess 4 says that Christ comes back and takes the saints up to heaven.
Matthew 17 - Moses and Elijah - already in heaven
That means your only choices are
1. Pre-trib pre-mill rapture to heaven -- then something else at the second coming - millennium.
2. Mid-trib pre-mill rapture to heaven - then something else at the second coming - millennium
3. Pos-trib pre-mill rapture to heaven at the 2nd coming. - and desolate earth during millennium
nonsense.
There is no grammatical-historical teaching that the post-trib pre-mill rapture at the 2nd coming does not take the saints to heaven as Christ promised in John 14.
The desolate earth perception chafes against the affirmation that the “wolf also shall dwell with the lamb” in the same context that Christ subdues his enemies and takes his kingdom, which the SDA commentary maintains as entering the 1000 years.
“The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.” Isa 11:6
.
Where does the Bible say a post-trib, pre-millennialism requires by definition that the saints be in heaven during the millennium?
That’s pure hypothesis. The grammatical-historical perception is that the Messianic kingdom is established upon the earth.
Nonsense!
“And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.” Rev 5:10
The saints come with Christ after being caught up with him in the air (1 Thess 4:16-17)
You can rely on EGW’s work as canon if you desire; I desire to hold the 66 books of the Bible as canon, exclusively.
“Then everyone who survives of all the nations that have come against Jerusalem shall go up year after year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Booths. And if any of the families of the earth do not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, there will be no rain on them.” Zech 14:16 ESV
Those who survive of the nations parallel the goats in Matt 25, while the sheep represent those of the nations who care for the saints as they are being persecuted by the goats, just prior to Christ’s return.
Jeremiah predicts the first coming of Christ and the Jews accepting Him. That did not happen.
Now it is the "second coming" that we look for and Christ wipes out the wicked at the second coming - and takes all the saints (including any saved-Jews that may exist at that time) to heaven.
In its explanation of Isa 11:4, the SDA bible commentary affirms Christ subdues his enemies and takes his kingdom at his return (the second coming), 1000 years before the phenomena of Rev 21:1-3. What it does not say is that Christ rules on Earth at the second coming.
Rather Christ "rules with a rod of iron" Rev 19 - at the second coming described in Rev 19. Ruling with a rod of Iron is always the term for no-mercy... only justice. And that is what the wicked get at the 2nd coming.. are dead during the millennium and then at the great white throne judgment which gets to them into the lake of fire... see Rev 20.
The actions of the wicked and the rebellion you reference in Zech 14 is a case of Zechariah writing before the first coming of Christ and not predicting that the Jews would kill the Messiah at all.
The failure of the Jews excluded them from the promises made under the nation-church model which was deleted at the end of the 490 year period of probation given to them.
Now it is the "persecuted church model" under which evangelism proceeds.
We have not even gotten to the point where I would need to quote from what God told Ellen White-- your views don't stand the sola-scriptura test of what the Bible itself teaches.
Bob Ryan wrote: Jeremiah predicts the first coming of Christ and the Jews accepting Him. That did not happen…. The actions of the wicked and the rebellion you reference in Zech 14 is a case of Zechariah writing before the first coming of Christ and not predicting that the Jews would kill the Messiah at all. The failure of the Jews excluded them from the promises made under the nation-church model which was deleted at the end of the 490 year period of probation given to them. Now it is the "persecuted church model" under which evangelism proceeds.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?