Cliff2 said:
You have asked a good question.
Let me say how I understand the differences between two.
The "Traditional Forum" will hold to the 27/28 Fundamental Beliefs. They will support the SOP/EGW, that does not mean that they will support the SOP is above the Bible. All doctrines can and must be shown to be able to be fully supported by the Bible and can stand alone from what is in the Bible.
Are you only accpting 27 out of 28? If that is the case by definition you are not 'traditional'
The SOP is there to encourage, guide, instruct but not take the place of the Bible.
As long as it is viewed and utilized within the bounds that EGW herself placed.
They believe in a literal creation and more than likely belive that the earth is about 6,000 years old. I am not getting down to the exact num,bers of years but it is about that length of time.
This is not a fundamental belief; it is your personal prefence and whil it may be what you believe, that does not make it a test of fellowship.
They would believe in the Investigative Judgement and Christ's ministry in the heavenly Sanctuary.
They often have 3ABN on in their homes which broadcasts many conservative programs. I certainly support 3ABN above the Hope Channel which the General Conference runs.
So you prefer the slant of independent ministries than that which is actually run by the church? And what is wrong with the GC's running the Hope Channel? BTW, 'most Adventists' *dont* receive 3ABN... and whether one watches it or not is not a test of fellowship.
Now the Reformed Forum or now Progressive Forum may not believe in all of the above. More than likely they would not believe in the IJ/1844/2,300 days(years) as the same as the Traditional Forum members would.
Why is it some feel a need to formulate opinions based on presumptions? If you know the above to a fact for the persons in this forum that is one thing... but you don't, do you... all you have is your own presumption.. or, God forbid... the statements of talebearers and backbiters and the presumptions they've made.
I would not call them Reform at all but Liberal. This is the Reform SDA movement, click
here for the Reform SDA's.
Which is part of the problem. All any should be calling any is 'brother or sister'. Everyone here believes that God never abrogated the Sabbath for Christians and everyone here awaits Christ's return. Those are the two doctrines from whence the name of this church comes. The 28 FB is not a creed...according to the church and as such is not a test of fellowship. The are the foundation of religious instruction for new believers and converts but ther are not etched on stone by the finger of God and the church can and, as we saw at the most recent GC, will change them, adding to or taking from they see fit. If there is a test it should be whether one abides by the policies and procedures of the current church manual; many of those who deem themselves 'Historic' SDAs reject the church manual and the policies/procedures as currently constituted and try to live in the past... whether it be by the 1950 Church Manual or the 1888 Church Manual... or whenever... the only valid policies of the church are those contained in the current church manual, however.
My point is, with labeling comes demonization and disrespect, both of which are in no short supply in certain circles among us. Personally I dont believe there should be a split forum at all; segregation on any basis is contrary to Christ's prayer in John 17 where He prays that we 'be one, even as' He and the Father are one. But rather than put in the work that would be required, some would prefer to sequester themselves with "their own kind". The disciples could not recive the Holy Ghost until they were in one place and in one accord. That cannot happen here until some come to grips with the fact that men of good conscience and honestly seek and still draw differing conclusions about non-essential aspects of the Christian faith; if this were not so, CF would be able to get by with a significantly smaller number of forae. The Seventh-day Adventist church, like every other church in Christendom is NOT monolithic or homogeneous and segregating into the gluten ghettos of our personal preference will not change this fact.
Mainstream Adventism... true mainstream Adventist understands and accepts this. The course you are suggesting here does not lead to the middle of the road; it leads to the fringe and the narrowest of views where any who does not think exactly as you do is deemed not a true Adventist... or worse deemed not Adventist enough.
Christ is not in such... Christ is not in division based on man's biases. Paul rebuked Peter for what is being proposed here and he asked the church at Corinth 'Is Christ divided'? The answer is no... and as such, we who claim to have put on Christ cannot... must not be divided either. There will not be a divided heaven but the saddest part is that those who insist there will be will never find out how wrong they are because they wont be there...
Dr Des Ford is often considered to be a leader of the liberal movement amongst SDA's.
To Australians, perhaps. Most in the NAD have heard of him but have no idea what he taught or believed
I hope this helps you out in making the correct choice.
Feel free to ask for more info if you need it.
Segregating one group of believers from another is never the 'right choice', ultimately.
In His service,
Mr. J
Interesting personal observation. In light of the fact that 3ABN is a privately owned independent ministry.
