ATTENTION MEMBERS need your assistance :)

[Laodicean]

When I joined CF in fall 2005, there was only one Seventh-day Adventist forum, and it was only a couple of months old. Almost immediately, there was tension between those who held to the 28 FBs and those who questioned or disagreed with some of them. That led to the creation of two SDA sub-forums--Traditional and Progressive--in addition to a main SDA forum for all Adventists, and people were labeled according to whether they agreed with all 28 FBs.

At that time, I would have considered myself more traditional than progressive although even then I had questions on some Adventist doctrines, and I can't say that I ever held to a completely traditional viewpoint on some things. So I never liked the idea of being labeled as a particular type of Adventist--and I have, at various times and by various people during my tenure here, been labeled as a traditional, progressive, and former Adventist. Eventually, my questions and what I had considered minor disagreements with Adventist doctrines turned into major disagreements, and my hubby ended up resigning from the ministry almost three years ago because he, too, had come to disagree with several Adventist teachings (primarily the IJ). Now, although, I no longer consider myself an Adventist, I still feel a connection to this community because of our common background in Adventism, which doesn't go away just because a person is no longer officially affiliated with the denomination.

Most of us who have been here since the early days of the SDA forum and who have questioned or disagreed with Adventist beliefs publicly have at some point in the past been the target of personal attacks--which, as Stormy pointed out, were dealt with by the moderators if they were found in violation of CF's rules against flaming. The SDA forum went through some months that were more peaceful, depending on who was posting regularly at the time, but always problems would reappear eventually, to the point where both the members and staff finally agreed that it would be best for each group to have its own forum, not just sub-forums. The situation was complicated by a period a few years ago (known as "777" to those who were around then) during which the site owner at the time gave almost complete autonomy to the members of each forum at CF to make their own rules and to elect their own moderators. As you may imagine, that only increased tensions among Adventist members.

This is just a brief summary, but I hope it helps you to understand some of the factors that have brought this forum to the point where it is now. If you're looking for the earliest posts, you'll probably find many of them in the Traditional Adventist section. Just wanted you to be aware of the fact that these forums were once one in name but that there have always been differences in ideology and in focus among different groups of Adventists. This is also true of the Adventist Church, which includes members from a wide spectrum of viewpoints, not necessarily easily labeled into "traditional" and "progressive" categories.

Thanks for the history, Sophia. I'm so sorry that you had to deal with a poor spirit over on the traditional forum. Regardless of your beliefs, flaming is unChristlike.

You might wonder, since I seem to hold to the 28F, why I chose to jump into the progressives/moderate forum instead of the traditional forum. Truth to tell, I've had several really bad experiences with traditional Adventists, along with a general encounter with legalism, coldness, and a woeful lack of the "milk of human kindness." I'm not saying all SDAs are this way, but I'm afraid it felt to me as if a majority are that way. And worse yet, they seem to be unaware of how they appear -- acting as if they are rich and increased in goods and have need of nothing, when, in fact, they are wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked. Laodicea is the last church in prophecy, and how true is the description.

For a while I questioned whether it might be the doctrines of the church that were causing believers to become rigid and legalistic the way I was experiencing them. So I left -- in body, but not in mind. However, a deeper study of the beliefs that SDAs hold only made me see them as more solid, more relevant and more beautiful than ever.

So what was the problem? I figured it might just be a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the doctrines that is the cause of the problems, not that the doctrines themselves are wrong. I don't know. I hope so, anyway. Because, so far, I can find no reason to give up the 28F, but I do find a lot of reasons to interpret some of them rather differently.

I was hoping that the progressives would have had more of an open mind to examining the 28 in a different light, to finding better ways to understand and explain the 28, but so far, I have discovered that that is not really the purpose of this forum. Instead, I find that it is devoted to rejecting one or more of the 28. That's too bad. I personally do not think we have come to the end of the road in our understanding of our doctrines. To me, there is so much more light to be had on them, certainly at least better ways to understand them --before we should ever think of rejecting them.

 

[StormyOne]

Laodicean we can go through the 28 fundies one by one if you wish, reviewing and dissecting.... we started that once before but never finished... but it's your call.... I don't think everyone rejects all of them because we are all different, but it might make for an interesting discussion.... you up for it?

 

[Laodicean]

Laodicean we can go through the 28 fundies one by one if you wish, reviewing and dissecting.... we started that once before but never finished... but it's your call.... I don't think everyone rejects all of them because we are all different, but it might make for an interesting discussion.... you up for it?

Stormy, it would indeed be an interesting discussion...for me, anyway. But I don't know if I should be cluttering up this forum with discussion that turns the progressives off, to where they "depart the building." If it is only you and me interested in such discussion, we'd probably have to resort to PM. What do you think? Does discussion of the 28 belong in this forum, considering what its present purpose seems to be?

 

[StormyOne]

Stormy, it would indeed be an interesting discussion...for me, anyway. But I don't know if I should be cluttering up this forum with discussion that turns the progressives off, to where they "depart the building." If it is only you and me interested in such discussion, we'd probably have to resort to PM. What do you think? Does discussion of the 28 belong in this forum, considering what its present purpose seems to be?

sure it does... and then you'll see why its hard to pin this group down to one or two views.... as I said there are varying reasons.... so I'll start a thread on the 1st one and we can go from there.....

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Laodicean we can go through the 28 fundies one by one if you wish, reviewing and dissecting.... we started that once before but never finished...

That's my fault. I started that thread when I first joined here. I was trying to better understand the various viewpoints. But my follow-through wasn't so good.

BFA

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Ok after going through most of this thread...Ok only half of it here is may statement of Purpose for the forum.

A forum for the discussion of Adventism: past, present and future and how Adventism relates with the larger Christian community past, present and future. With the purpose of progressing in the knowledge of our God and of ourselves.

 

[Restin]

Raised by SDA parents I joined the SDA church in 1960 and was in the SDA school system for over 14 years. At that time it was taught that SDAs were Christians who believed in, and promoted the 'second advent of Jesus Christ'. It was the 'seventh-day' that set SDAs apart from other 'Adventists'.

In the 60s and 70s, I was in the fellowship of SDA Christians who believed the Godhead consisted of two separate and distinct persons. God Almighty, the Father, having powers over all, and Jesus was/had been given powers set by the Father. In the creation of this earth, Father and Son are one in purpose. This was symbolically given in the creation of Adam and Eve, they shall become 'one'! In the 70s and 80s trinitarian beliefs became more of an issue with mainstream SDA.

Though I never 'left' the SDA church, I do not aggressively believe and promote the 28 beliefs as espoused today, and have considered myself to be a 'former'. 'Former' because I no longer hold the 7th day itself, to be God's set day of rest, rather God's rest is 'TODAY'. While I work hard every day in the things of this life, at the same time I can rest in the belief that salvation is not left to my efforts. This makes it easier for me to face death, because I believe that, in Christ, resurrection is 'TODAY'!

In summary, I believe and maintain a progressive vision that Jesus Christ of Nazareth, the Son of God, is the saviour of man, who died, went to heaven, and will return to establish His kingdom upon this earth. In this understanding I consider myself to be an 'Adventist Christian'.

A. 'Adventist'...believing in the second Advent of Jesus Christ, as taught in the scriptures
B. 'Christian' ...believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and as such, He is the saviour of mankind.
C. 'Godhead' ...defined as two separate and distinct persons, with a common purpose in the creation and salvation of mankind.

 

[Edial]

Final proposal ...

Hi there ... back after few days off.

Here is the chronogy of the proposals that basically revolve around Tall's post ...

A place for Seventh-day Adventist discussion that does not insist on acceptance of all 28 fundamental beliefs. All who wish to discuss are welcome.

Then, SDA was substituted with Adventist, since there are Adventist groups that also participate.

A place for Progressive/Moderate Adventist discussion that does not insist on acceptance of all 28 fundamental beliefs. All who wish to discuss are welcome.

Now, from what I know and see there are Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian Adventists.
This location is for Trinitarian only beliefs as defaulted by CF SoF.
If there are non-Trinitarian Adventists posting here, they could post, of course.
No one will try to twist anyone's arm concerning their Trinitarian beliefs.
However, non-Trinitarian beliefs cannot be discussed here.

Just to make this clearer I propose the final (? ) version of the SoP.

A place for Progressive/Moderate Trinitarian Adventist discussion that does not insist on acceptance of all 28 fundamental beliefs.
All who wish to discuss are welcome.

In Christ,
Ed

 

[seajoy]

Hi everyone I dont know if you remember me but I sorta helped you break away from being one big forum with SDA...

Wish you could help us Lutherans to have the liberal ELCA have their own forum. The conservative/confessionals aren't even on the same page with those guys anymore. It's very disturbing.

 

[Edial]

Wish you could help us Lutherans to have the liberal ELCA have their own forum. The conservative/confessionals aren't even on the same page with those guys anymore. It's very disturbing.

Hi Ang , we could discuss this.

I do realize that after the August ELCA decision the disagreement between the two became just way too sharp. Way too sharp.

But ELCA does have their own forum.
Are you talking about the common TCL forum?

This would take some thinking, but such things are doable.

Yes, since August TCL is not the same.

But we cannot discuss this here.

Do you want us to evaluate TCL?

Thanks,
In Christ,
Ed

 

[StormyOne]

Final proposal ...

Hi there ... back after few days off.

Here is the chronogy of the proposals that basically revolve around Tall's post ...

A place for Seventh-day Adventist discussion that does not insist on acceptance of all 28 fundamental beliefs. All who wish to discuss are welcome.

Then, SDA was substituted with Adventist, since there are Adventist groups that also participate.

A place for Progressive/Moderate Adventist discussion that does not insist on acceptance of all 28 fundamental beliefs. All who wish to discuss are welcome.

Now, from what I know and see there are Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian Adventists.
This location is for Trinitarian only beliefs as defaulted by CF SoF.
If there are non-Trinitarian Adventists posting here, they could post, of course.
No one will try to twist anyone's arm concerning their Trinitarian beliefs.
However, non-Trinitarian beliefs cannot be discussed here.

Just to make this clearer I propose the final (? ) version of the SoP.

A place for Progressive/Moderate Trinitarian Adventist discussion that does not insist on acceptance of all 28 fundamental beliefs.
All who wish to discuss are welcome.

In Christ,
Ed

I like the one you've endorsed.... works for me...

 

[VictorC]

Now, from what I know and see there are Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian Adventists.
This location is for Trinitarian only beliefs as defaulted by CF SoF.
If there are non-Trinitarian Adventists posting here, they could post, of course.

You know that it is nearly impossible to apply this requirement here, as we have tried to point out that the tri-theistic belief system hidden under Arianism claims to be trinitarian.

A place for Progressive/Moderate Trinitarian Adventist discussion that does not insist on acceptance of all 28 fundamental beliefs.
All who wish to discuss are welcome.

In Christ,
Ed

I agree with you that non-trinitarian belief systems should be hendled as a non-Christian faith system, but you have already accepted the participation of tri-theism in a parallel forum where you don't even mention the Trinity. The insertion of "Trinitarian" in this statement only makes a requirement you can't police, and I would discourage its insertion.

 

[Edial]

You know that it is nearly impossible to apply this requirement here, as we have tried to point out that the tri-theistic belief system hidden under Arianism claims to be trinitarian.

By Trinitarian I mean Nicene-creed-Trinitarian.

I agree with you that non-trinitarian belief systems should be hendled as a non-Christian faith system, but you have already accepted the participation of tri-theism in a parallel forum where you don't even mention the Trinity. The insertion of "Trinitarian" in this statement only makes a requirement you can't police, and I would discourage its insertion.

Which parallel forum you are referring to?
I think I am missing something here.
Are you saying there are places here under CO that believe in the Aryan trinitarianism, meaning Christ was created?

Thanks,
In Christ,
Ed

 

[VictorC]

By Trinitarian I mean Nicene-creed-Trinitarian.


Which parallel forum you are referring to?
I think I am missing something here.
Are you saying there are places here under CO that believe in the Aryan trinitarianism, meaning Christ was created?

Thanks,
In Christ,
Ed

The earlier writings of Ellen White (before 1800) affirm a rendition of the Godhead that describes the Son as a separate entity apart from the Father, and those writings include a claim of divine inspiration ("I saw") showing these two individual "gods" disagreeing on the disposition of fallen mankind and formulating a plan to save mankind after the fall.

Sorrow filled heaven, as it was realized that man was lost, and the world that God created was to be filled with mortals doomed to misery, sickness and death, and there was no way of escape for the offender. The whole family of Adam must die. I saw the lovely Jesus, and beheld an expression of sympathy and sorrow upon his countenance. Soon I saw him approach the exceeding bright light which enshrouded the Father. Said my accompanying angel, He is in close converse with his Father. The anxiety of the angels seemed to be intense while Jesus was communing with his Father. Three times he was shut in by the glorious light about the Father, and the third time he came from the Father, his person could be seen. His countenance was calm, free from all perplexity and trouble, and shone with benevolence and loveliness, such as words cannot express. He then made known to the angelic host that a way of escape had been made for lost man. He told them that he had been pleading with his Father, and had offered to give his life a ransom, and take the sentence of death upon himself, that through him man might find pardon. That through the merits of his blood, and obedience to the law of God, they could have the favor of God, and be brought into the beautiful garden, and eat of the fruit of the tree of life. {1SG 22.2}​

Would you include this Arian belief system with Christianity defined by the Nicene creed?
You already have.
It is under the banner of traditional Adventism.
("Aryan" is not the Heresy of Arius, but refers to the beliefs of Naziism embraced by a German chancellor during the 1930's)

 

[Edial]

The earlier writings of Ellen White (before 1800) affirm a rendition of the Godhead that describes the Son as a separate entity apart from the Father, and those writings include a claim of divine inspiration ("I saw") showing these two individual "gods" disagreeing on the disposition of fallen mankind and formulating a plan to save mankind after the fall.

Sorrow filled heaven, as it was realized that man was lost, and the world that God created was to be filled with mortals doomed to misery, sickness and death, and there was no way of escape for the offender. The whole family of Adam must die. I saw the lovely Jesus, and beheld an expression of sympathy and sorrow upon his countenance. Soon I saw him approach the exceeding bright light which enshrouded the Father. Said my accompanying angel, He is in close converse with his Father. The anxiety of the angels seemed to be intense while Jesus was communing with his Father. Three times he was shut in by the glorious light about the Father, and the third time he came from the Father, his person could be seen. His countenance was calm, free from all perplexity and trouble, and shone with benevolence and loveliness, such as words cannot express. He then made known to the angelic host that a way of escape had been made for lost man. He told them that he had been pleading with his Father, and had offered to give his life a ransom, and take the sentence of death upon himself, that through him man might find pardon. That through the merits of his blood, and obedience to the law of God, they could have the favor of God, and be brought into the beautiful garden, and eat of the fruit of the tree of life. {1SG 22.2}
​

Would you include this Arian belief system with Christianity defined by the Nicene creed?
You already have.
It is under the banner of traditional Adventism.
("Aryan" is not the Heresy of Arius, but refers to the beliefs of Naziism embraced by a German chancellor during the 1930's)

Oh, you mean to say that SDA are Arian?
I am not going there.

Yet I will address underlined points and only this time, since I asked.
You want to talk about this more, we could discuss this outside of this thread.

Does the referenced text confirm your suggestion that SDA are non-Trinitarian?

Reading through your reference text of Ellen White (whose readings I did not read) yoI will address the underlined points ...

The earlier writings of Ellen White (before 1800) affirm a rendition of the Godhead that describes the Son as a separate entity apart from the Father, and those writings include a claim of divine inspiration ("I saw") showing these two individual "gods" disagreeing on the disposition of fallen mankind and formulating a plan to save mankind after the fall.

- Son as a separate entity apart from the Father -
Revelation 4 and 5 also shows Father and Son by Each Other.
Also Acts 8 (? from memory) where Steven saw the vision of Christ at the right hand of Father.

- claim of divine inspiration ("I saw") -
No problem concerning non-Trinitarian question.

- two individual "gods" -
I do not see this in the context of the Scriptures, Rev. 4,5, Acts 8, John 17 (Prayer of Jesus), etc.

- disagreeing -
Garden of Gethsamane presented differing of opinion yet acceptance of Father's will.

- formulating a plan to save mankind after the fall -

Colossians (I believe) presents that Christ was sacrificed before creation of the world.

Yet Revelation presents that after Chapter 4 we are talking about the future (when Christ said he shows John what was, what is what will take place later).

Peter states that to God 1 day is like 1000 years and visa versa.

Do I agree with Ellen?
Of course not.
I am not SDA.

Do I think she is the Prophetess of God?
No.
I am not SDA.

Does the text you presented proves SDA are non-Trinitarian in the Nicene context?
No.

Concerning Aryanism as compared to Arianism I confirmed my meaning by defining Arianism as teaching of Christ being created.

The fact that I misspelled proves the fact I do have faulty memory.

No more debates please. Save them for this forum.

Thanks,
In Christ,
Ed

 

[VictorC]

Oh, you mean to say that SDA are Arian?
I am not going there.

Ed,
My comments are not an invitation to a theological dissertation in this thread, but rather a pragmatic concern. I believe you are inserting a litmus test in a manner not consistent with the rest of the forum, and to a place where such a litmus test is both unnecessary and unenforceable. If you desire to understand the belief system you are endorsing (without "going there"), you will have to embark on the path Walter Martin and Donald Barnhouse have already gone.

For over a century Adventism has borne a stigma of being called a non-Christian cult system. Whether or not this was justified in the early development of Adventism, I have already discussed at length in my earlier book, but it should be carefully remembered that the Adventism of 1965 is different in not a few places from Adventism of 1845, and with that change the necessity of re-evaluation comes naturally. (Walter Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults, p. 360).​

Why did Dr. Martin recognize that Adventism isn't the same as it was a century past? The writings that support the "original" Adventism we see some of the adherants describe still exist, and are called upon at times.

In his closing years Dr. Martin voiced concern that his chapter concerning the seventh-day Adventist church warranted a massive re-write for accuracy. His conclusions swayed by the GC publication in 1957 of Questions on Doctrine were apparently not taking hold in the SDA church, and Dr. Martin was returning to his initial conclusion before his discussions with GC staff during the 1960's that the SDA church is a cult. He did not decide to re-write that chapter, as such an action would warrant pulling The Kingdom of the Cults off the shelves where it was available.

 

[Edial]

Ed,
My comments are not an invitation to a theological dissertation in this thread, but rather a pragmatic concern. I believe you are inserting a litmus test in a manner not consistent with the rest of the forum, and to a place where such a litmus test is both unnecessary and unenforceable. If you desire to understand the belief system you are endorsing (without "going there"), you will have to embark on the path Walter Martin and Donald Barnhouse have already gone.

For over a century Adventism has borne a stigma of being called a non-Christian cult system. Whether or not this was justified in the early development of Adventism, I have already discussed at length in my earlier book, but it should be carefully remembered that the Adventism of 1965 is different in not a few places from Adventism of 1845, and with that change the necessity of re-evaluation comes naturally. (Walter Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults, p. 360).
​

Why did Dr. Martin recognize that Adventism isn't the same as it was a century past? The writings that support the "original" Adventism we see some of the adherants describe still exist, and are called upon at times.

In his closing years Dr. Martin voiced concern that his chapter concerning the seventh-day Adventist church warranted a massive re-write for accuracy. His conclusions swayed by the GC publication in 1957 of Questions on Doctrine were apparently not taking hold in the SDA church, and Dr. Martin was returning to his initial conclusion before his discussions with GC staff during the 1960's that the SDA church is a cult. He did not decide to re-write that chapter, as such an action would warrant pulling The Kingdom of the Cults off the shelves where it was available.

Walter Martin did A LOT of research on SDA.

I read Walter Martin's Kingdom of the Cults and do have the expanded latest edition of it in my library.
I do recall reading years ago concerning SDA.
I do recall he said that some movements in SDA are works-based and some are not.
Some cultish and some are not.
Many specifically call SDA a cult.
Walter Martin, after years of reserach did not agree with such a blanket statement.

Thanks,
In Christ,
Ed

 

[VictorC]

Walter Martin did A LOT of research on SDA.

I read Walter Martin's Kingdom of the Cults and do have the expanded latest edition of it in my library.
I do recall reading years ago concerning SDA.
I do recall he said that some movements in SDA are works-based and some are not.
Some cultish and some are not.
Many specifically call SDA a cult.
Walter Martin, after years of reserach did not agree with such a blanket statement.

Thanks,
In Christ,
Ed

Walter Martin is the one who wrote that blanket statement. You seem comfortable with the Adventism of 1845, but not with the one (here) better representative of 1965.

Edit to add a conversation on another thread in this sub-forum, that illustrates a portion of Walter Martin's observation over the differences between historical and modern (progressive) Adventism:

True BFA, which is why I believe as we review/dissect the 28 fundamentals we will pick up glaring inconsistencies in thought and theology... perhaps that is why it is so difficult to codify beliefs because they are so fluid and change as people get older and understand more.... clearly some of the views held by the pioneers were incomplete, and unfinished...there would be no way for those kinds of views to withstand the test of time...

Fair enough.

It's interesting that the denomination has so rigidly held that Mrs. White's writings are authoritative even though her writings do not always line up with the denomination's fundamental beliefs.

BFA

Would these thoughts be similar to my observation that the Questions on Doctrine published in 1957 has not been well received by Adventism as a whole, and some traditional Adventist pastors openly reject QoD as a heresy?

V.C. it is unfortunate that some in the sda church cling to a pre 1950s theology and mindset....

I suppose that becomes inescapable when they're reliant on the writings of Ellen White, all of which predate 1950.

That's the latest observations as they appear in sequence.

 

[Sophia7]

Oh, you mean to say that SDA are Arian?
I am not going there.

Yet I will address underlined points and only this time, since I asked.
You want to talk about this more, we could discuss this outside of this thread.

Does the referenced text confirm your suggestion that SDA are non-Trinitarian?

Reading through your reference text of Ellen White (whose readings I did not read) yoI will address the underlined points ...

The earlier writings of Ellen White (before 1800) affirm a rendition of the Godhead that describes the Son as a separate entity apart from the Father, and those writings include a claim of divine inspiration ("I saw") showing these two individual "gods" disagreeing on the disposition of fallen mankind and formulating a plan to save mankind after the fall.

- Son as a separate entity apart from the Father -
Revelation 4 and 5 also shows Father and Son by Each Other.
Also Acts 8 (? from memory) where Steven saw the vision of Christ at the right hand of Father.

- claim of divine inspiration ("I saw") -
No problem concerning non-Trinitarian question.

- two individual "gods" -
I do not see this in the context of the Scriptures, Rev. 4,5, Acts 8, John 17 (Prayer of Jesus), etc.

- disagreeing -
Garden of Gethsamane presented differing of opinion yet acceptance of Father's will.

- formulating a plan to save mankind after the fall -

Colossians (I believe) presents that Christ was sacrificed before creation of the world.

Yet Revelation presents that after Chapter 4 we are talking about the future (when Christ said he shows John what was, what is what will take place later).

Peter states that to God 1 day is like 1000 years and visa versa.

Do I agree with Ellen?
Of course not.
I am not SDA.

Do I think she is the Prophetess of God?
No.
I am not SDA.

Does the text you presented proves SDA are non-Trinitarian in the Nicene context?
No.

Concerning Aryanism as compared to Arianism I confirmed my meaning by defining Arianism as teaching of Christ being created.

The fact that I misspelled proves the fact I do have faulty memory.

No more debates please. Save them for this forum.

Thanks,
In Christ,
Ed

Ed,

I think some background info would be helpful here. It is often debated, even among Adventists, whether Ellen White was Trinitarian or non-Trinitarian. Many Adventists on both sides use statements from her writings to support their beliefs, which can be done because she was ambiguous and even outright contradicted herself on many issues. She also changed her views on several issues over time, perhaps even on the Trinity.

When my hubby was an Adventist pastor, we had a minority of members who were actually anti-Trinitarian, in keeping with the views of the Adventist pioneers. Historically most of the founders of the SDA Church (including Ellen White's husband, James) were anti-Trinitarian, believing that Jesus at some point had a beginning, that He was not co-eternal with the Father. The anti-Trinitarian Adventists whom we encountered in our ministry believed that the Holy Spirit was not a person but only some sort of force that emanated from God. Trinitarianism has gradually gained greater acceptance in Adventism through the years (especially since the 1930s), and their current official belief statement on the Trinity says this:

2. Trinity:
There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation. He is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation. (SDA Fundamental Beliefs)
​

One possible point of contention with the Nicene Creed is that many traditional Adventists do not view Jesus as "of one essence with the Father," as the creed says. Even many Adventists who accept the Trinity as biblical hold to a view of God as three separate persons united in purpose (as in a marriage), rather than the more "orthodox" concept of three persons of one substance or essence. The wording of their belief statement (as highlighted in dark red above) allows for divergence of opinion on that.

I am not saying that Adventism as a denomination should be considered non-Christian for CF purposes. After all, the current SDA official beliefs are at least superficially Trinitarian, and any posts arguing against the Trinity in this forum would be covered by CF's sitewide rules. However, the historical context of Adventism leads me to agree with Victor about the insertion of the word "Trinitarian" in the SOP. I think that could cause unnecessary headaches, especially since the sitewide rules already prohibit anti-Trinitarian posts other than in Unorthodox Theology.

 

[VictorC]

However, the historical context of Adventism leads me to agree with Victor about the insertion of the word "Trinitarian" in the SOP. I think that could cause unnecessary headaches, especially since the sitewide rules already prohibit anti-Trinitarian posts other than in Unorthodox Theology.

I am trying to be pragmatic and avoid headaches we don't really want here, Ed.