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.
Just bookmarking.This won't work, because, as we have stated many times, Progressives and Evangelicals do NOT all believe the same things. Therefore, a blanket creed or belief statement will not work on any practical level.
WE DON'T ALL BELIEVE THE SAME THINGS IN THE SAME WAY.
The best you can hope for is a personal belief statement from each one individually. And that is assuming you can even get them to do so. I don't think many of them will feel they have to justify thier Adventism to anyone in here.
That being said, I have personally posted where I stand on all 28 Fundamentals for anyone to see on this forum many times before. I will post them again here, because I do not have anything to hide and I know what I believe and I can articulate it clearly for anyone who asks.
You want my belief statement, here it is:
I believe all of the 28 fundamentals, but with several qualifiers:
1.) Agree. However, I am a strict thought inspirationist and I do not at all agree with the course men like Samuele Korangten Pippim are wanting to take this church, which is borderline verbal inspiration and inerrancy. I believe the Bible is limited in many areas and there are mistakes. I believe that totally avoiding the historical-critical method is next to impossible. I believe that culture and a range of other outside influences affected the Bible writers and I believe that they struggled to put into words grand spiritual themes. I also believe the Bible is infallible in matters of faith and salvation and its guidance for Christians.
2.) Agree.
3.) Agree.
4.) Agree. Some ultra-conservatives and offshoot organizations have altered the wording of this one to support the heresy that Christ had a fallen, sinful nature in thier own personal list of fundamentals. If the church ever officially accepts this antichrist concept, I will be gone so fast you will not see my dust. I also don't believe in a literal sanctuary in Heaven, so the wording here does not sit well with me.
5.) Agree. However, when it says 'those who respond He renews and transforms into the image of God' I have to ask, what does this mean? If it is referring to glorification, whereby we recieve a sinless nature and a new body, then I wholeheartedly agree. If it is referring to process theology whereby through sanctification process a person works towards a state of sinlessness before glorification, then I categorically reject this as heresy.
6.) Agree. However, I believe that the earth is much older than the 6000 years EGW claims. Archelogical and geological evidence has borne this out unequivocally.
7.) Agree. Again, however, if the statement 'restores in penitent mortals the image of thier maker' refers to glorification, I agree. If it is referring to process theology, I reject that as heresy.
8.) Agree.
9.) Agree.
10.) Agree. However, where it says 'we are given the power to live a holy life' I have serious reservations. This smacks too much of sinless perfectionism. No one will reach a state of exalted sinlessness until Christ transforms our bodies and nature at glorification and corruptible puts on incorruptible and mortal puts on immortality. The Word says flesh and blood will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven, refering not only to our physical bodies, but our sinful, corrupted, fallen nature inherited from Adam as well.
11.) Agree.
12.) Agree.
13.) Agree, although I always hesitate to use the term 'keep' the commandments of God. We cannot 'keep' anything as sinful, fallen human beings. Our attempts at following the moral law are pretty mediocre compared to the ancient Jews who were meticulous at all of thier law keeping, much less the perfection with which Christ kept the law in letter and spirit. Much better to say we attempt to follow the commandments of God as closely as possible, but still totally rely on Christ's perfect law keeping to stand in place of our own feeble efforts.
14.) Agree. However, I do not believe there will ever be true unity between purely evangelical Adventists and the cultic, historic ultra-conservative Adventists. Truth cannot co-exist with error. The Adventism of Larry Kirkpatrick and Kevin Paulson is light years from my Adventism. I have nothing in common with thier tyrannical brand of fundamentalism. Therefore, I believe in unity as far as can realistically be expected.
15.) Agree.
16.) Agree.
18.) Agree, however, I qualify the statement 'authouritative source of truth.' I do not believe Ellen White has doctrinal authourity. I do not even believe she has the authourity of the apostles-indeed, she is subject to them. I also believe to use the word 'truth' in such a generalized manner with respect to her writings is deceptive, for there are many discrepencies, inaccuracies and outright wrong premises in her materials.
19.) Agree.
20.) Agree.
21.) Agree, although I do not believe that tithing is a moral imperitive.
22.) Agree. However, I have some very serious issues with the church attempting to outline behavioural standards in too much detail. Jewelry, for example, I have no problems with. I love rock music and movies. I am not vegetarian. If in practical application the church has not respected individuality and differing convictions on these matters, at least it is written here in theory as wisely leaving things up to the discretion of the individual. I do not want a nanny or a big brother church looking over my shoulder and dictating what my entertainment choices or diet should be. I am a big boy, thanks.
23.) Agree.
24.) Agree. However, I do not believe there is a literal building in Heaven. I believe that Christ Himself fulfills every symbolic application of the earthly sanctuary. I do not believe in a literal Holy and Most Holy apartment in Heaven that Christ literally moved into in 1844. I believe that the Holy and the Most Holy are representative of the phases of His ministry, intercession and judgment respectively. I believe that in 1844 Christ began his judgment phase. I categorically reject the traditional interpretation of the IJ as wrong and detrimental to one's assurance of salvation. I hate the term 'investigative' and use the term 'pre-advent'. The saints do not come under condemnation of the judgment and are pronounced innocent by virtue of Christ thier Savior. Our sins are cast into the deepest depths of the ocean, taken as far as the East is from the West, to be remembered no more. Most certainly they will not be retrieved for inspection in the judgment. The process is simply to reveal to the onlooking universe the goodness of God and a vindication of His right to take us to Heaven.
25.) Agree.
26.) Agree
27.) Agree.
28.) Agree.
http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=34128034&postcount=2
I am in no way an SDA fundamentalist.
I may be a CHRISTIAN fundamentalist, yes, but nothing within a country mile of a TSDA.
I do not believe that EGW has doctrinal authourity and is equal to, or, in some extreme cases, above the Bible. I do not agree with venerating EGW and I do not hold to the sinful nature of Christ and sinless perfection before glorification. I believe Christ had a sinless nature and that we are imperfect until glorification.
I do not attach salvific significance to the IJ and I do not believe our Heavenly inheritance is conditional upon passing that inspection. I am not a literalist in regards to the Sanctuary doctrine, ignoring the beautiful symbolism which points to Christ and the phases of His ministry in favor of a literal building with literal rooms which Christ literally moves around in.
I hold to the Reformation Gospel of salvation and do not believe sanctification is a process that our salvation is conditional upon instead of an accomplished fact. I do not believe Christ's righteousness is imparted rather than imputed to us, for that is a clear violation of the Protestant position.
I do not believe diet is salvific and a way to attain righteousness. I do not believe meat-eaters will be disqualified for Heaven, especially at translation. I do not believe non-salvational lifestyle issues are to be made a strict test of Adventist authenticity, nor do I believe one who disgrees on any point will not qualify as a genuine SDA. I do not hold strictly to Trad standards on music, food, entertainment and jewelry.
I support women's ordination, contemporary worship styles and CCM and fully support Questions On Doctrine. I do not believe the Bible teaches abstinence but moderation and I do drink wine once and a while.
I am presently struggling with the clean and unclean issue and have not yet decided wether this should be binding on New Testament Christians.
Let it not be said that I have not come clean on this forum on several occasions clarifying what I believe.
Do we not have a rule that anyone that expresses a view that is in opposition of OFFICIAL Adventist doctrine that they have to state that it is their opinion and not Adventist teaching?
You know, D&D has basically turned into a place where we (SDA) have to defend our faith to outside beliefs and progs jumping on the bandwagon.
I've spent most my time in my thread about the soul defending Adventist doctrine to OTHER Adventists. This is unacceptable....and come on, we all know that MOST of Christianity would debate that with us already.
Nobody has mentioned whether or not they like the idea of a Prog and Trad (ugh) debate section so we can alleviate some of this arguing with progs while at the same time debating with non-Adventists. What do you guys think? I'm totally open to suggestions.
The thing about Night is that he considers himself Evangelical. Is there an Evangelical Adventist statement of beliefs?
TrustAndObey makes some really good points, and I agree with her. I joined the SDA Church about 4 years ago and I find it very confusing to have progressive SDA's and Trad. SDA's debating in the same forum. I'm not even sure what prog. SDA's believe. What exactly do they stand for? I think they should have a statement of their doctrines posted somewhere. Same for Evangelical SDA's (I have never heard of them before.)
Calling oneself a Traditional SDA is not a very clear label.
Can we come up with something more accurate?
The thing about Night is that he considers himself Evangelical. Is there an Evangelical Adventist statement of beliefs?
There is a small Historic Adventist movement that are ultra-conservative - is that the group that you speak of?I have never liked the term traditional SDA. If anything I call myself a a historic Adentist to distinguish from the new theology crowd.
Historic Adventist is someone who believes in the doctrines that made Adventist what they are. The pillar doctrine of Historic Adventism is the sanctuary message which includes the Three Angels' Message, the true righteousness by faith message, the Investigative Judgment...
I think it's there somewhere tucked away. Obviously it's not being enforced by the mods.
I believe that God speaks to all of us. Recieving of a vision or understanding from God does not make you a prophet. In that case, all christians at some point in their lives are prophets, because we all at some point or another hear a message from God. I am just answering your question about my beliefs, I am not trying to debate this point because I see that there is a forum geared toward debate. Thanks for the clarification.Vegetarianism is not a requirement for church membership. Clean meats are though.
A simple wedding band is accepted in the North American Division.
If you believe that God gave her visions and spoke to her - why would you not consider her a prophet?
I personally listen to Christian music that is considered upbeat, but do not really find a place for it during the worship service. I listen to it on my own time so to speak.
My personal opinion is that if you come into this forum with genuine questions looking for genuine answers you are accepted.
Just my two cents.
We have already lost more than one prespective church member because of debate between these two camps over church doctrine. Are you all really sure you want to show the world this kind of conflict?
Respectfully, your brother in Christ,
Doc
Doc,
Not all is lost. If God willing, in due season it will reap. Have patience.
I don't think we drive away people because the debates on our believes. The honest, open-minded people hear the voice of the holy spirit. It's our testimony manifested in these posts that testifies if we are the children of God.
We have already lost more than one prespective church member because of debate between these two camps over church doctrine. Are you all really sure you want to show the world this kind of conflict?
Respectfully, your brother in Christ,
Doc
Doc, to answer your question, no, I don't want to show the world this kind of conflict, but they're seeing it already.
I've been asking for a split for a long time, but it's obviously not going to happen. The best we can do is try to make the most of what we have.
If we had a debate section for Adventists ONLY I think it would alleviate at least some of the tensions we have in D&D. That, and the progressives need to follow the rule about stating they are not teaching OFFICIAL Adventist doctrine.
It's at least a start towards a little more harmony, isn't it?
Hi T&O, I really don't much care for yet another forum for fighting.And I really don't think the other faction is EVER going to be forced to admit that their 'teachings' are not Adventist, especially when we have RC making statements like this......
http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=44843540#post44843540
Post#319
I do however, agree that ONLY the name "Seventh-day Adventist" should be used in this forum since that is the MAIN HEADING being used by CF.
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?