Forum name

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

How about 'Anyone but Conservative/Jesuit/Tare hunting Adventists -hehehehehe

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Because some of us are not united against EGW just the adventist idol worship of EGW - there is a difference.

That, and some of us have far weightier and more important rallying points than whether we cotton to EGW's style or not.

It's kind of an "it's about Christ" sorta thing, y'know? And how maybe we don't want our peace and assurance from Him ruined by those playing Accusers of the Brethren and nitpickers of flaws. God loves everybody bes not some dismissable optional fluff thing. Wow, how backwards can one get in putting light for darkness and vice versa? Way worse than even the Inhabited, it would seem.
No, God loving everybody, being not willing for ANY to perish, and *gasp* having power and sovereignty to work His GOOD will and bring to pass a TRULY strange act (it ain't "strange" if it bes what people have expected for centuries now, yeah!!??) bes a dramatically RADICAL reality that turned the world upside down once and can and will do so again ...

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Sophia why should I revise it? it is my prsonal opinion, not an offical statement. If you were think this is an offical stament then I could see why.

Actually with a little work it just might make a good official statement for our forum. Then we can nail down a statement of faith. Though as mentioned, Moriah prefers we stay open on the question of JC's inherited flesh.

 

[Sophia7]

Sophia why should I revise it? it is my prsonal opinion, not an offical statement. If you were think this is an offical stament then I could see why.

I did think that you were considering that as a possible statement of faith for Evangelical Adventists. You are entitled to your opinion; I just don't think that your opinion is necessarily characteristic of Evangelical Adventists. Besides, I thought that you were a former Adventist now, too?

 

[Adventist Dissident]

if you want to talk offical statment then yes you are right, are we going to how about this for an offical statment

Evanglicals do not hold Ellen White in matter of doctrine and practice to be a source of authority.She is not a test of fellowship.

nothing said of the personal or the devotional value of her work or her containing the prophetic gift.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

The major doctrinal issues which united this group [Evangelical Adventism] were:
1) Righteousness by faith: This group accepted the Reformation understanding of righteousness by faith (according to which righteousness by faith included justification only, and is a judicial act of God whereby He declares sinners to be just on the basis of Christ’s own righteousness). Our standing before God rests in the imputed righteousness of Christ, which we receive through faith alone. Sanctification is the accompanying fruit and not the root of salvation.
2) The human nature of Christ: Jesus Christ possessed a sinless human nature with no inclination or propensities toward sin. In that sense, Christ’s human nature was like that of Adam’s before the Fall....
3) The events of 1844: Jesus Christ entered into the most holy place (heaven itself) at His ascension; the sanctuary doctrine and the investigative judgment (traditional literalism and perfectionism) have no basis in Scripture.
4) Assurance of salvation: Our standing and assurance before God rest solely in Christ’s imputed righteousness; sinless perfection is not possible this side of heaven...
5) Authority of Ellen G. White: Neither she nor her writings are infallible, and they should not be used as a source of doctrinal authority....

Now that is an Evanglical Adventist Statment

how is that

 

[Sophia7]

how is that

That's much better.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

good are we going to adopt it in our name?

 

[Sophia7]

good are we going to adopt it in our name?

If we do, I think that would make a nice sticky for informational purposes about what characterizes Evangelical Adventists. We're probably not going to put a statement of faith in the actual FSGs because we don't need one if we're not restricting debate only to members. Obviously a statement of faith for Progressive, Moderate, Evangelical, and former Adventists would need to be pretty inclusive, so it wouldn't really be possible to limit debate to members based on whether people agree with such a statement.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

what now?

 

[MaybeMethuselah]

So let me get this straight, we pull passages from scripture out of context, try to use them to help wrap our minds around God's perfect Son to help us name our statement of faith? I hope some day we will all realize that Jesus is God in human form. The Creator is not limited by his creation. *sigh*

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

If we do, I think that would make a nice sticky for informational purposes about what characterizes Evangelical Adventists. We're probably not going to put a statement of faith in the actual FSGs because we don't need one if we're not restricting debate only to members. Obviously a statement of faith for Progressive, Moderate, Evangelical, and former Adventists would need to be pretty inclusive, so it wouldn't really be possible to limit debate to members based on whether people agree with such a statement.

If we use it we need to use it as the author wrote it. It is no big deal to me that I don't agree with Evangelical Adventist because I don't agree with what Evangelical has come to stand for. And the author continued to describe Liberal Adventists which were not into forensic atonement which defines my position better then Evangelical since it has chosen to exclude other atonement theories except penal/substitutionary atonement.

 

[Sophia7]

If we use it we need to use it as the author wrote it. It is no big deal to me that I don't agree with Evangelical Adventist because I don't agree with what Evangelical has come to stand for. And the author continued to describe Liberal Adventists which were not into forensic atonement which defines my position better then Evangelical since it has chosen to exclude other atonement theories except penal/substitutionary atonement.

You're right; if we quote that statement, we should use it as the author wrote it. My objection was to icedragon's revision of the part about EGW because it was his personal opinion, not necessarily reflective of Evangelical Adventism. The way it was originally written is probably better in that regard anyway.

 

[Sophia7]

So let me get this straight, we pull passages from scripture out of context, try to use them to help wrap our minds around God's perfect Son to help us name our statement of faith? I hope some day we will all realize that Jesus is God in human form. The Creator is not limited by his creation. *sigh*

Please explain what you mean.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

how is that

You did good streamlining #5. Great job! But moriah would like to see a bit more openness on #2. Can we work with that one a little?

Moriah understands Christ's FLESH to be the same DNA inheritance we all have (from Mary, which comes from Adam) ... BUT that His MIND, His BEING and CHARACTER, bes sinless and unfallen. However, Moriah also believes Christ's very incarnation to be a vast mystery none of us can perfectly understand -- why else do we spend eternity looking into it? -- anyway if we could leave #2 open-ended on specifics, and simply do something like cite scripture -- that God made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin (referring to Him of course not us), that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him -- and that He bes tempted in all points like us but He did not ever sin, not innocently OR knowingly. It could provide some verses if you like?

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

If we use it we need to use it as the author wrote it. It is no big deal to me that I don't agree with Evangelical Adventist because I don't agree with what Evangelical has come to stand for. And the author continued to describe Liberal Adventists which were not into forensic atonement which defines my position better then Evangelical since it has chosen to exclude other atonement theories except penal/substitutionary atonement.

now see, here Moriah bes trying to use it as a springboard for a statement of faith in the subforum here.... LOL! Not trying to define evangelical SDA.

 

[Sophia7]

now see, here Moriah bes trying to use it as a springboard for a statement of faith in the subforum here.... LOL! Not trying to define evangelical SDA.

We don't even need a statement of faith (at least not in the FSGs) if we're going to allow open debate. I was thinking that maybe we could post a couple of stickies for informational purposes, though, so that visitors would know what some of the differences are between the different groups of SDAs that are represented at CF because that seems to be a common question.

 

[sentipente]

Maybe Questioning Adventists is the way to go.