Decide which Sub-Forum

[awesumtenor]

I can't and will not try and speak for tall73 but I am wondering how you define an SDA.

We now have 28 FB, from memory about 13 statement of beliefs on the baptisimal certificate.

Are we going to throw them out to accomodate certain people who still want to be called SDA's but not go along with what a nominal belief that is put out by the Church.

I believe the above is only a starting point not the end of the road.

I wopnder what type of new truth you have in mind when you speak of wanting more truth.

Every SDA in their own mind should study to know where they stand for themselves. They cannot leave it for the Pr. Elder or anyone else.

But to question every belief all the time seems a bit much for me and then still say "I am a Seventh-day Adventist"

But that's not your call for any save "you and your house". Often people stop at the letter and fail to acknowledge or even recognize that the letter killeth but the spirit giveth life... whether we are talking commandments or 'fundamental beliefs'. Choosing to not work on the Sabbath does not mean one has 'kept it' even it they attend church; there is more to it than basic obedience. Our Christian obligation goes beyond rote adherence that causes one to honor Christ with his lips while his heart remains far from Him.

As for those who should or should not be viewed as 'Seventh-day Adventists'... there is a reason why the master told the zealous servants, who wanted to rush out and uproot what they deemed tares, *no*... zeal does not guarantee discernment and it definitely does not replace it. You lack the wherewithal to do it without leaving tares thinking they are wheat and tearing up wheat thinking it tare. God has a people out of every nation and kindred and tongue and people who speak varied languages, bear varied skin tones, come from different economic strata but in all of that diversity, one thing holds true... In Christ, there is neither jew nor Greek , bond nor free, male nor female, black nor white, traditional nor progressive...you can pick pairs of diametrically opposed terms ad infinitum... for we are all ONE in Christ Jesus and sons of Abraham and heirs according to promise... and any who cannot bear the idea of that cannot be in Christ because how can one love God whom he hath not seen while he hate his brother whom he has?

Splitting the forum is not the answer... Christ, our passover hath sacrificed Himself for us... for all of us... without reservation... not just for those we deem worthy because not a one of us is or could ever be worthy, yet while we were yet sinners... in spite of... He died for us... therefore let us keep the feast... not with the old leaven of malice and wickedness... of self and selfishness and hate and discord and strife and backbiting and talebearing and false witness and presumption and categorization and segregation into separate corners but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

In His service,
Mr. J

 

[tall73]

where is your church... sounds like a great place to be....I agree with what you have stated, but let me ask, is it possible to get past the labeling and "protecting" the 28 fundies in a forum like this or is it a necessary distraction?

Let me state that doesn't mean they NEVER fight. It means that this is an artificial environment where the issues are front and center all the time.

I really don't know if it is something that for the long term is necessary. But splitting them into clearly defined allegiances as we are doing seems to be making it worse not better. Now we are actually reduced to reporting other Adventists who post on our side of the fence. That is nothing short of depressing. And what will happen when a seeker does come by? Will we each refer them to links in our seperate camp?

So I agree, labeling is not good. But we need to make sure that we are not just complaining about it, but suggesting resolutions. And I think some agreed upon rules would go a long ways. They are nothing new, most of them are simply the forum rules to start with.

As I have said before, this is not the church, there are no official elders to expel the immoral brother from among us, and it is not even our forum. So this whole conversation is not on the same level as it would be in real life.

I for one will say that after the departure of Payattention, who I had some disagreements with, that I thought the place went downhill, not necessarily up. For all our disagreements on issues he at least was active and had some ideas to discuss that I also had an interest in. As someone who has been in the church a while I enjoy looking at theological issues. It is something to investigate. I like biblical questions, and discussions of exegesis, hermeneutics etc. The more we are forced to look at the particulars, even if it is by those opposed to us, the more we are forced to grow in our understanding.

I don't begrudge others fellowship etc. But I can't get this discussion many places around here. So I enjoy a place where I can. And that I think is endangered by the notion that you have to conform to speak.

(please note, this is not to say that I object to Payattention's departure, as the reasoning of the mods is their call. I am not second guessing them, I am simply relating my perception of its effect on my enjoyment of the board.)

 

[Cliff2]

where is your church... sounds like a great place to be....I agree with what you have stated, but let me ask, is it possible to get past the labeling and "protecting" the 28 fundies in a forum like this or is it a necessary distraction?

So where and what do you say an Adventists is?

There has to be some sort of standard that we agree to so that a person can say that they are an SDA.

Are we just going to say that we have to believe in the Second Coming and believe that the 7th day of the week is the Sabbath.

Or are we going to accept something like the 28 FB as being a guideline in our beliefs.

I am first to admit that among the "28" there is probably some room to move withing certain numbers. I also think that the Church leaders have that view as well.

But there has to be some sort of core belief that we can agree to without getting upset with each other.

What do you suggest that should be?

 

[amiel]

Oh boy... its almost dangerous to post these days, in fear of starting something!

I've decided anyway, while I agree with the 28, I am 'progressive' in thinking so I should join that forum.

Thanks everyone

 

[SassySDA]

Let me state that doesn't mean they NEVER fight. It means that this is an artificial environment where the issues are front and center all the time.

I really don't know if it is something that for the long term is necessary. But splitting them into clearly defined allegiances as we are doing seems to be making it worse not better. Now we are actually reduced to reporting other Adventists who post on our side of the fence. That is nothing short of depressing. And what will happen when a seeker does come by? Will we each refer them to links in our seperate camp?

So I agree, labeling is not good. But we need to make sure that we are not just complaining about it, but suggesting resolutions. And I think some agreed upon rules would go a long ways. They are nothing new, most of them are simply the forum rules to start with.

As I have said before, this is not the church, there are no official elders to expel the immoral brother from among us, and it is not even our forum. So this whole conversation is not on the same level as it would be in real life.

I for one will say that after the departure of Payattention, who I had some disagreements with, that I thought the place went downhill, not necessarily up. For all our disagreements on issues he at least was active and had some ideas to discuss that I also had an interest in. As someone who has been in the church a while I enjoy looking at theological issues. It is something to investigate. I like biblical questions, and discussions of exegesis, hermeneutics etc. The more we are forced to look at the particulars, even if it is by those opposed to us, the more we are forced to grow in our understanding.

I don't begrudge others fellowship etc. But I can't get this discussion many places around here. So I enjoy a place where I can. And that I think is endangered by the notion that you have to conform to speak.

(please note, this is not to say that I object to Payattention's departure, as the reasoning of the mods is their call. I am not second guessing them, I am simply relating my perception of its effect on my enjoyment of the board.)

As I have stated before, no one has to "conform" as far as I am concerned. Not that what I would want would be considered any more than anyone else.

I've said it before and I'll continue to say it...it's not what's being said, so much as how some of it's being said.

I'm happy to discuss anything as long as it is done out of love, a sense of teaching/learning, and respect.

 

[honorthesabbath]

Amiel--unfortunately--the SDA forum had to be divided because of the continual, nasty attacks by some on the traditional beliefs of others. Nothing of the traditional flavor could be posted that it wasn't severely and irrationally attacked by a handful of "progressives". And so--now you have to choose which side you belive comes closest to what you believe the "Seventh-day Adventist" church teaches. Then align yourself with them so that you can post and discuss with them. You will not however be able to come into the oppositions side and begin to debate with them over their beliefs.

It's this simple--and it's this sad!!

 

[tall73]

Amiel--unfortunately--the SDA forum had to be divided because of the continual, nasty attacks by some on the traditional beliefs of others. Nothing of the traditional flavor could be posted that it wasn't severely and irrationally attacked by a handful of "progressives". And so--now you have to choose which side you belive comes closest to what you believe the "Seventh-day Adventist" church teaches. Then align yourself with them so that you can post and discuss with them. You will not however be able to come into the oppositions side and begin to debate with them over their beliefs.

It's this simple--and it's this sad!!

No, it is not that simple. I have held back for a time because I don't want to discourage new members in the faith, or those who simply love their church and don't want to see it hurt. But some who fit that description have not always been charitable either. The defense of the faith has become an attack on the morals, honesty and motives of other people. It should rather be a biblical display of the truth. The truth is the only defense that God requires or wants

I myself fell into anger in regard to Payattention at first, and this was not right. God wants us to respond in love even to our enemies, and he was not that. So why would we respond in anything but love to those who are among us but have a different view? I am not saying you must agree. But you must not question everything about the person to satisfy yourself that they are Adventist. Simply teach the truth.

I realize that it is painful at times when the beliefs you hold are questioned. And while we expect it in the general forums, we don't here. But the truth loses nothing by examination. But it does lose when the first thing people see is not just disagreement but anger. It is the anger, not the disagreement that has turned many off, and forced the need for two forums.

I know some want a safe haven here. But the truth is, you can go nowhere in life that doesn't demand that you control the sinful nature by God's Spirit, and show love and restraint to those around you. This forum is still not heaven. And if it were, none of us would be here in this condition.

 

[StormyOne]

Irrationally attacked? Thats a loaded phrase and not a fair description of what occurred... however thats water over the dam, and nothing is gained by rehashing it...

My problem Tall is that few are willing to look at beliefs without restating the canned answers that are given in a revelation seminar or taught by pastor so and so. We as adventists are guilty of not actually studying for the truth but studying to confirm what we think we know.... I think I can say that given my history with adventism. I also know when you confront that mindset people get defensive...

I have no problem abiding by rules, but don't tell me that I cannot question the fundamentals, or our view on the 2nd coming, or the state of the dead or whatever it is when those views don't always make sense... If you are saying don't question what we as a church believe, then to me you are suggesting that you don't want thinking people as members, you want robots..... that is my frustration... truth will be truth no matter how many times its investigated.... partial truth or nontruth will have to be revised or discarded..... but that's just me....

 

[moicherie]

Irrationally attacked? Thats a loaded phrase and not a fair description of what occurred... however thats water over the dam, and nothing is gained by rehashing it...

My problem Tall is that few are willing to look at beliefs without restating the canned answers that are given in a revelation seminar or taught by pastor so and so. We as adventists are guilty of not actually studying for the truth but studying to confirm what we think we know.... I think I can say that given my history with adventism. I also know when you confront that mindset people get defensive...

I have no problem abiding by rules, but don't tell me that I cannot question the fundamentals, or our view on the 2nd coming, or the state of the dead or whatever it is when those views don't always make sense... If you are saying don't question what we as a church believe, then to me you are suggesting that you don't want thinking people as members, you want robots..... that is my frustration... truth will be truth no matter how many times its investigated.... partial truth or nontruth will have to be revised or discarded..... but that's just me....

If our Adventist pioneers had that 'don't question the established church' mindset or did not question based on God's revelation via the bible or other means our denomination would not exist.