Non-traditionalists - start your own offshoots

[NightEternal]

Interesting tactic. Once one realizes he cannot deal squarely with the issues, he resorts to posting idiotic pictures. Is that the best you can do? I guess so.

Sorry YourNeighbour. No amount of juvenile heckling or name calling will make me leave the church. I have been opposed by much more formidable opponents than you in the past and I'm still standing.

We are not going anywhere. Deal with it.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

God's word says otherwise......and if the church and its members stay in harmony with it, God will keep his protecting and guiding hand on it through all the rocks and dangers till safe harbor........

i am sorry you think you have the truth . Life will be full of disappointment for you.

 

[honorthesabbath]

Discussion doesn't imply that you must accept their views. I don't accept the view of theistic evolution. But I can discuss it.

We don't usually accept every statement made in a Sabbath School class or at potluck either. But we can talk it over and evaluate and point out possible problems.

To the degree that people attack each other it is wrong. But discussion of Bible topics is not wrong.

It is in discussing with those who are most different in their beliefs that I have learned insights regarding my own views that I would not have found otherwise.

Tall--does the Conference who pays your salary know that your teaching anti-SDA doctrine?

 

[tall73]

Tall--does the Conference who pays your salary know that your teaching anti-SDA doctrine?

honorthesabbath, you apparently have not read my thread. I have been discussing the issue in denominational specific theology and if I can't work it out I will resign.

So no, but they will soon if I don't find answers. I am starting a dialogue with a professor as well.

And I am not teaching these things to any of my members and am only discussing it here in a spot where folks can address the questions.

Feel free to address them if you want. If you do not want to or are unable then that is your choice.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I agree but there is a limit to how far I will go in discussing essential truths in the Bible. I guess that all comes from my past experience. You've said you don't agree with theistic evolution but you are willing to discuss it. I guess I am too as long as it is with someone who is not a Christian. I just have no patience with someone who is Adventist and has been exposed to the truths we have who embraces it. Denigration of entire sections of the Bible is not my idea of being a free thinker, sorry if that offends.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

I realize that the idea of theistic evolution in this thread is a diversionary tactic but I am wondering why you would not discuss theistic evolution with a Christian. I don't think there are too many Atheists or Agnostics that believe in theistic evolution.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

honorthesabbath, you apparently have not read my thread. I have been discussing the issue in denominational specific theology and if I can't work it out I will resign.

So no, but they will soon if I don't find answers. I am starting a dialogue with a professor as well.

And I am not teaching these things to any of my members and am only discussing it here in a spot where folks can address the questions.

Feel free to address them if you want. If you do not want to or are unable then that is your choice.

Tall before you resign, as there is little chance of holding to the IJ, check out what other SDA pastors do even when they disagree with certain SDA ideas. You might want to talk to John McClarty or Alden Thompson. Even a traditionlist like Clifford Goldstein has rewritten the IJ to fit his own view and he is readily accepted. We had a whole lesson study quarter on the IJ, 1844 and the gospel and it never once used the concept of the traditional SDA view of blotting out of recorded sins in heaven. Most of the scholars and pastors at Glacier View in 1980 acknowledged the problems with our IJ doctrine. There is a large percentage in the SDA church who reject our historic IJ position. It is also their money that pays the pastors and teacher's salary. Don't believe the Traditionalist who act as if they are the SDA church they are not.

 

[tall73]

Tall before you resign, as there is little chance of holding to the IJ, check out what other SDA pastors do even when they disagree with certain SDA ideas. You might want to talk to John McClarty or Alden Thompson. Even a traditionlist like Clifford Goldstein has rewritten the IJ to fit his own view and he is readily accepted. We had a whole lesson study quarter on the IJ, 1844 and the gospel and it never once used the concept of the traditional SDA view of blotting out of recorded sins in heaven. Most of the scholars and pastors at Glacier View in 1980 acknowledged the problems with our IJ doctrine. There is a large percentage in the SDA church who reject our historic IJ position. It is also their money that pays the pastors and teacher's salary. Don't believe the Traditionalist who act as if they are the SDA church they are not.

Yes, I am aware of the alterations to the traditional view that have been made by scholars in the past 60 + years.

The traditionals really are not that traditional. Just ask the historics.

But at the current time I am considering resigning and then deciding what to do about church membership. I just want to study every angle before I do. I agree though, it is not looking good for reconciling it.

 

[reddogs]

We don't mind being different as long as the "different" doctrines are right. Otherwise, there's no good reason to be different. By the way, "the world" is not other Christians who disagree with distinctive Adventist doctrines, either.

First, they must be in harmony with God, then we can look at their "different" doctrines, "new ideas" or prophetic veiws, because if they can't follow what is in God's word, that church or movement is not going to win those who love God and follow the testimonies of Jesus Christ and His Commandments.......

 

[reddogs]

Yes, I am aware of the alterations to the traditional view that have been made by scholars in the past 60 + years.

The traditionals really are not that traditional. Just ask the historics.

But at the current time I am considering resigning and then deciding what to do about church membership. I just want to study every angle before I do. I agree though, it is not looking good for reconciling it.

Tall73, I have not engaged in the discussion you had as I feel it is a individual decision with God on issues such that are not laid out in detail in the scripture. But so saying, I can testify to you that there is not one church which follows perfectly what God has given us, but like Isreal, the Adventist church has been put in place for a purpose and with God's guidance they will lead in sharing with the world the revelation on the end times so that they are not deceive by Satan and will turn to Christ and gain eternal life.

 

[Sophia7]

First, they must be in harmony with God, then we can look at their "different" doctrines, "new ideas" or prophetic veiws, because if they can't follow what is in God's word, that church or movement is not going to win those who love God and follow the testimonies of Jesus Christ and His Commandments.......

I was referring to the distinctive doctrines of Adventism. I believe that some of them are unbiblical. There is no good reason to be different from other Christians on doctrines that are not true. Adventists are the ones who have come up with "new light." There's no point in trying to convince other Christians of our prophetic views if our views are wrong. And what about reaching non-Christians with the gospel? I think the Adventist Church has wasted way too much time trying to convert other Christians to our distinctive doctrines and has not spent enough time taking the gospel to the world.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

FYI the 2300 days are wrong?

 

[Loveaboveall]

honorthesabbath, you apparently have not read my thread. I have been discussing the issue in denominational specific theology and if I can't work it out I will resign.

So no, but they will soon if I don't find answers. I am starting a dialogue with a professor as well.

And I am not teaching these things to any of my members and am only discussing it here in a spot where folks can address the questions.

Feel free to address them if you want. If you do not want to or are unable then that is your choice.

I can always respect a person with integrity!

Tall, why do you come here to discuss the questions you have knowing full well that the outspoken people here will promote what you are questioning? Have you already made up your mind? I believe you know that a person's salvation does not hang on their belief in the IJ, Just as believing in a secret rapture is not integral to salvation. Believing in something that is untrue can lead to deception. So it is important that everyone of us spend much time in prayer and study of the Bible, as you I am sure well know.

However, to continue to receive a salary when you do not believe what the church believes is not right, and I applaud your integrity in understanding this.

I do have one other question for you, and am asking sincerely and not with alterior motive:

Do you believe that EGW was doing the Lord's work or was she a decieved woman who the devil has been using to deceive others?

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I know tall and he is working through the issue we have had many conversations. He is trying to resolve this issue before he leaves. But we have had discussion about leaving. Leaving is on his mind and when he has made his decision he will leave. He is in the process of deciding. you get the prevledge of either helping leave or helping him stay

 

[tall73]

Tall73, I have not engaged in the discussion you had as I feel it is a individual decision with God on issues such that are not laid out in detail in the scripture.

As you have probably been in my discussion in denominational specific theology you have likely seen the thread, from the way it sounds. It is precisely because our view is not describe in detail that I cannot just accept what folks are saying. Not only is it not described in detail, but some details contradict it.

For those wondering where this conversation is, please check here:


http://www.christianforums.com/t5313191-adventist-pastor-reviews-his-faith-sanctuary.html

I did not put it in the Adventist section because I wanted to keep it from being a contentious issue for those who don't want their beliefs challenged in the main forum. But twice folks have brought issues from it to here, so it could not be avoided.

But so saying, I can testify to you that there is not one church which follows perfectly what God has given us, but like Isreal, the Adventist church has been put in place for a purpose and with God's guidance they will lead in sharing with the world the revelation on the end times so that they are not deceive by Satan and will turn to Christ and gain eternal life.

Many of those claims in fact hinge on our sanctuary doctrine, which is why it is a crucial issue.

 

[tall73]

I can always respect a person with integrity!

Tall, why do you come here to discuss the questions you have knowing full well that the outspoken people here will promote what you are questioning?

I was discussing them in denominational specific theology which is an out of the way sub-forum of GT that few people visit. As of late Adventists have taken to discussing some of their isuses there with formers.

http://www.christianforums.com/t5313191-adventist-pastor-reviews-his-faith-sanctuary.html

For the most part the formers have just watched, which I think is best in this case. They have at times chimed in on peripheral matters.

I have not discussed much of the substance of these issues here in months, except for recently when Jim and OntheDL took issues from my thread (scapegoat and transfer of sin through sacrificial blood) and posted them here. I am not sure why they did that. You can ask them.

But I am looking for answers. Some months ago when I first had an issue with this we had a discussion that helped with some of the things I was wondering about. So I started the topic over there because I knew that Jim, OntheDL, Jon, etc. posted there, and they were the ones who I thought would best give answers.

I am also having a discussion in another place altogether with a professor now who was at Glacier View who can give me more perspective. But most professors and such don't have as much time to deal with the issues and while I have not agreed in many respects with DL and Jon and Jim they do give food for thought. I have revisited one aspect when provided evidence.

Have you already made up your mind? I believe you know that a person's salvation does not hang on their belief in the IJ, Just as believing in a secret rapture is not integral to salvation. Believing in something that is untrue can lead to deception. So it is important that everyone of us spend much time in prayer and study of the Bible, as you I am sure well know.

I have not made up my mind, but after having read a number of denominational works on the subject I am taking things to the next level. I don't think I should leave without exhausting every possibility, so I am now stepping up the process and trying to look for things I have missed. Books don't talk back or challenge ideas as much as conversation.

Do you believe that EGW was doing the Lord's work or was she a decieved woman who the devil has been using to deceive others?

I honestly don't know the answer to that. I have previously accepted that she is a prophet. I have found her books very helpful in the past.

The sanctuary doctrine has a direct bearing on that question as she over and over endorsed it. For now I have put that on hold. I am dealing with the doctrine that I am most wondering about first and then will look at the other. But I do know that many of the positions that we as a church take today are simply not in line with what she says.

Even some of the positions urged upon me in this forum by traditionals do not match up. So even if I reconcile with a view of the sanctuary doctrine I am not sure I can reconcile that with EGW.

 

[tall73]

To anyone who wishes to participate in my thread, we are going point by point through the issues. You can revisit earlier points if you like. But please read through the whole thing so you get a feel for what is going on .

Currently we have looked at two points so far:

1. Does blood transfer sin or does it cleanse? (book of Leviticus primarily)

2. Did Jesus enter the Most Holy Place at His ascension and did He complete the atonement for sins at that time? (Book of Hebrews primarily)

We are just about to get into Daniel.

Please only post if you have a desire to help work through the issues. I am not interested in general discussion about staying in Adventism or leaving Adventism, etc. That could be done here or by pm if necessary. I am wanting to keep the thread there tightly focused to give the best chance of dealing with the issues raised.

 

[reddogs]

As you have probably been in my discussion in denominational specific theology you have likely seen the thread, from the way it sounds. It is precisely because our view is not describe in detail that I cannot just accept what folks are saying. Not only is it not described in detail, but some details contradict it.

For those wondering where this conversation is, please check here:


http://www.christianforums.com/t5313191-adventist-pastor-reviews-his-faith-sanctuary.html

I did not put it in the Adventist section because I wanted to keep it from being a contentious issue for those who don't want their beliefs challenged in the main forum. But twice folks have brought issues from it to here, so it could not be avoided.


Many of those claims in fact hinge on our sanctuary doctrine, which is why it is a crucial issue.

I've always held those issues to be added insight from the Spirit of Prophecy, but I am going over it as a background issue with my Bible Study group so we can look at it with a balanced view...

 

[reddogs]

To anyone who wishes to participate in my thread, we are going point by point through the issues. You can revisit earlier points if you like. But please read through the whole thing so you get a feel for what is going on .

Currently we have looked at two points so far:

1. Does blood transfer sin or does it cleanse? (book of Leviticus primarily)

2. Did Jesus enter the Most Holy Place at His ascension and did He complete the atonement for sins at that time? (Book of Hebrews primarily)

We are just about to get into Daniel.

Please only post if you have a desire to help work through the issues. I am not interested in general discussion about staying in Adventism or leaving Adventism, etc. That could be done here or by pm if necessary. I am wanting to keep the thread there tightly focused to give the best chance of dealing with the issues raised.

But to let everything you believe hinge on these points which scripture does not give a detail view seems a bit extreme. I personally do not believe that everything will be revealed till the final events or like the complete nature of the Trinity/Godhead, till we get to heaven.

 

[tall73]

I've always held those issues to be added insight from the Spirit of Prophecy, but I am going over it as a background issue with my Bible Study group so we can look at it with a balanced view...

Apparently some agree with you. Neal Wilson, according to the 1980 Ministry magazine special issue that published the GC perspective, appealed to Ford to take EGW as an authority on the question.

A few problems with taking them as added insight from Mrs. White.

A. The pioneers did not consider them to be added insight. They thought they were teaching something biblical.

B. I cannot present a Bible study with a non-member and use EGW. How then can I honestly study this question with them? I used to just take for granted some things and skip over something without even realizing it. But what if I am studying with someone knowledgable? Then I lose all credibility. They won't accept EGW and I have no Bible evidence.

C. A doctrine that is our central pillar cannot be based just on EGW.

 

[reddogs]

Apparently some agree with you. Neal Wilson, according to the 1980 Ministry magazine special issue that published the GC perspective, appealed to Ford to take EGW as an authority on the question.

A few problems with taking them as added insight from Mrs. White.

A. The pioneers did not consider them to be added insight. They thought they were teaching something biblical.

B. I cannot present a Bible study with a non-member and use EGW. How then can I honestly study this question with them? I used to just take for granted some things and skip over something without even realizing it. But what if I am studying with someone knowledgable? Then I lose all credibility. They won't accept EGW and I have no Bible evidence.

C. A doctrine that is our central pillar cannot be based just on EGW.

Thats why I have always told and taught, learn God's truth first then all else that is from God will be revealed as the Spirit gives us understanding.