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.
Wrong group, wrong theology, wrong origin, wrong personalities, wrong wrong wrong, take these ideas that have nothing in relation to any form of Adventism away from us.It seems a Moderate/Progressive Adventist would have its roots in congregationalism, a now-defunct denomination shared by Nathaniel Hawthorne and Calvin Coolidge.
I don't think it prudent to finish the sentence you suggested, as you're coming from a mindset that doesn't understand the practice of this particular forum in the form it presently exists in. Several have mentioned that it exists because it doesn't comply with the "traditional" SDA forum's SoF mandating acceptance of the SDA Fundamental Beliefs. It exists as a place where we can openly compare those Fundamental Beliefs with Scripture, and in many cases a choice needs to be made between Scripture and the Fundamental Beliefs where one can't be reconciled with the other.ok this is good in my eyes too ....just for starters...how would you go about hashing something out??? finish this sentence.....
Tell me how progressives feel or act or answer this statement and why?
- Progressives believe that some of the beliefs espoused by the SDA church have no biblical basis, and need review.... the church more often than not is reluctant to do so, so we hash it out here by _____
The answers we get from each of you may help clarify a purpose for you all.....I hope it leads to something anyway
I'm a former MJ, having come out of that belief system when I could not reconcile the position you describe with Scripture stating the first covenant was taken away by the Hand of God to establish the new covenant. The best way you could define the needs of a group that are in various stages of transition is to allow free dialogue rather than caging them into a box where dissention isn't permitted. I don't think I have read anyone air a desire for a "safe haven" here, and if a unity of the one faith entrusted to us is to be attained, we need a place where we can discuss all the traits inherited that caused division in the first place.example in MJ (my forum) we dont allow folks to come in and talk about the law passing away, that would be off topic to MJ as that forum believes (most do strongly anyway) that the law(Torah) will never pass away
VictorC, no bias is indended here.I don't think it prudent to finish the sentence you suggested, as you're coming from a mindset that doesn't understand the practice of this particular forum in the form it presently exists in. Several have mentioned that it exists because it doesn't comply with the "traditional" SDA forum's SoF mandating acceptance of the SDA Fundamental Beliefs. It exists as a place where we can openly compare those Fundamental Beliefs with Scripture, and in many cases a choice needs to be made between Scripture and the Fundamental Beliefs where one can't be reconciled with the other.
Here's the reason I don't think you should be making a SoF for this group, based on what you wrote in this thread:
I'm a former MJ, having come out of that belief system when I could not reconcile the position you describe with Scripture stating the first covenant was taken away by the Hand of God to establish the new covenant. The best way you could define the needs of a group that are in various stages of transition is to allow free dialogue rather than caging them into a box where dissention isn't permitted. I don't think I have read anyone air a desire for a "safe haven" here, and if a unity of the one faith entrusted to us is to be attained, we need a place where we can discuss all the traits inherited that caused division in the first place.
Would you like to define the purpose of this forum?
Then categorize it the same as you would with those coming out of Messianic Judaism, or voicing a dissention with those who insist that the first covenant hasn't lost jurisdiction over God's redeemed.
Or categorize it as you would with those transitioning out of Mormonism.
Or leaving the Jehovah's Witnesses.
If a transition from MJ-ism doesn't fit within your paradigm, then I would submit that you should refrain from defining a SoF for this group. An inherent bias you have will not allow you to oversee an effort that we're having a hard time seeing a reason for. As a minimum, I would like you to step away and hand the task over to someone else more able to see past a bias that makes understanding our needs difficult.
I see.This forum seems to me to be about examining SDA teachings. Anyone with knowledge of their beliefs, and an opinion, should be welcome to participate.
I am third or fourth gen SDA and I never officially left the church, but I now believe they are pretty much wrong on everything that sets them apart from mainstream Christianity. I like to come here and talk to the people who are still "true believers". If some sort of statement of faith is made wherein I would have to hold to certain SDA principles in order to participate in this forum, then that would be a great loss for me.
Ed,VictorC, no bias is indended here.
Tishri1 is working with you.
If she would have had bias against you, this forum or your vews, and would have acted on the bias, she could have dissolved this place.
She is an Advisor.
Please, let's not change the direction of this conversation.
In Christ,
Edial
I see.
Would you say you are an SDA dissident?
Would you say this is a place where SDA traditional teachings are questioned?
You apparently compare SDA teachings to what you call mainstream Christianity.
Work with me here.
Thanks,
Ed
18. The Gift of Prophecy:
One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White . As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.)
Forget SoF.Ed,
Perhaps you could provide a bit of background to help us understand why this effort has suddenly come to the forefront. We have had one of the more peaceful members already state that the provision of a "safe haven" SoF is likely to shut him out, and I'm concerned about that. I too would have to determine an exit from this forum, and I believe it serves a value some of the administration isn't hearing while they're "working with us".
Posted below.Ed,
Perhaps you could provide a bit of background to help us understand why this effort has suddenly come to the forefront. We have had one of the more peaceful members already state that the provision of a "safe haven" SoF is likely to shut him out, and I'm concerned about that. I too would have to determine an exit from this forum, and I believe it serves a value some of the administration isn't hearing while they're "working with us".
Now you are working with us ...Everyone in the SDA church is in a different stage of rejecting the teachings of EGW. Even the most hardcore traditional SDA's on this forum run away from her teachings when questioned. I would call this forum a place where SDAs or people interested in SDAism come to discuss what the church is and what it should be.
I would say yes that makes me an SDA dissident, but so is anyone who rejects the 18th fundamental belief of the SDA church as found on their official website:
Fundamental Beliefs
More of our problems come from those intent on keeping a rendition of the sabbath contributed by a few adament "traditional" Adventists, in my opinion. These have been the impetus for shouting matches that lead nowhere.Forget SoF.
The reason for SoF is because, believe it or not, we wanted to help you out when we saw a non-SDA debating Sabbath day.
We thought, if you all agree on Sabbath, then we could protect you guys from extreme pressure from some anti-Sabbath folks.
Absolutely!But you are saying that even some of the members here question Sabbath.
Consider us a home for those who want to question Adventism directly without the general mayhem of the general population inherent in General Theology. Otherwise, I don't think there's any other difference at a practical level. In the distant past we made use of the Denomination-Specific Theology forum, but it wasn't intuitive enough for interested parties to find it. The title is a magnet, and the placement of this forum draws attention from even those new to CF's structure. If anything, I wouldn't mind an overhaul of CF's layout, as there are so many attempts to cater to everyone that there are too many cubbyholes no one knows exists.Fine. Cool. No problem.
No SoF.
However, we do need an SoP - Statement of Purpose.
Who are you? What do you do? What is the purpose of this forum?
If you say that SoP is to discuss and question traditional SDA doctrines by folks who are traditionally or culturally or theologically or (find the right words) are related to SDA.
This will not include a word "former SDA" since some that might want to question these could be current SDAs.
However, we do not need the Baptists, or Lutherans (me), or Catholics to come here and start bashing Ellen White.
It is just not right. You see what I mean?
Otherwise we might as well call it General Theology.
But we cannot, because you guys clearly are a separate group.
Thanks,
In Christ,
Ed
However, we do not need the Baptists, or Lutherans (me), or Catholics to come here and start bashing Ellen White.
It is just not right. You see what I mean?
The point I was making is not whether Ellen White is "bashed" or her "teachings examined", but the fact that if Lutherans and Baptists would lead discussions concerning Ellen White then this might as well be called General Theology.I do not think they see it quite the way you do.
Many progressives recognize Ellen White's historical contributions but do not hold her as inspired, or at least hold to a different view of her inspiration than most traditionals.
What you might perceive as bashing is often just examination of her teachings. Progressive Adventists hash out Adventist teachings. That includes Ellen White.
Some progressives over time get to the point where Ellen White as a topic is just ho-hum, however. They have other things they want to look at. That is also true of the sabbath, law, sanctuary, etc.
Progressives generally start off their questioning with Adventist distinctives, but their drive to examine enters into other areas of faith. Adventism had as part of its early DNA a tendency to question the status quo. Many progressives retain that, and extend it to new areas. Along with that is a new awareness of the theological struggles of others. They are less dogmatic, more embracing of divergent views.
The point I was making is not whether Ellen White is "bashed" or her "teachings examined", but the fact that if Lutherans and Baptists would lead discussions concerning Ellen White then this might as well be called General Theology.
However, these folks here have definite roots in SDA while challenging SDA's teachings.
This needs to be captured in defining the identity of this place.
Thanks,
Ed
"Adventists Gone Wild??"
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?