Non-traditionalists - start your own offshoots

[Sophia7]

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.

This is not just an issue of things not being spelled out in the Bible. The problem is that many aspects of the sanctuary teaching actually contradict the Bible.

 

[tall73]

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.

Reddogs everything we believe about the sanctuary requires a number of propositions to be true. So these details have to work if we are to present our case. But again, we can hash that out in the thread.

 

[Sophia7]

Edited.

 

[reddogs]

Reddogs everything we believe about the sanctuary requires a number of propositions to be true. So these details have to work if we are to present our case. But again, we can hash that out in the thread.

But like the issues on the Trinity/Godhead, some things cannot be proven with what God has allowed us in His word, and by my measure need not be as we will eventually talk to the source and He will gives us a complete understanding......

 

[tall73]

But like the issues on the Trinity/Godhead, some things cannot be proven with what God has allowed us in His word, and by my measure need not be as we will eventually talk to the source and He will gives us a complete understanding......

Reddogs, you have just implied we can't understand the IJ, or the sanctuary doctrine, thereby not knowing if we are the remnant, that this time is a special time for God's message.

I tend to agree with you on the evidence so far. I don't think we can prove that.

But that is not the teaching of the church by a long shot.

If the best we have is tentative answers then we better stop pretending we have definite ones.

 

[Your Neighbor]

...Sorry YourNeighbour. No amount of juvenile heckling or name calling will make me leave the church....

A person who remains a Mormon and rejects prophet Joseph Smith and his teachings is not playing with a full deck.

A person who remains a Christian Scientist and rejects prophet Mary Baker Eddy and her teachings has a screw loose.

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]
[/FONT]

 

[djconklin]

The problem is that many aspects of the sanctuary teaching actually contradict the Bible.

This assumes facts that aren't in evidence.

 

[NightEternal]

First of all YourNeighbor, you cannot produce one single quote anywhere from my posts where I have ever 'rejected' EGW, because it just does not exist. So I don't know why this charge against me keeps surfacing.

Therefore, I can only assume from this one of two things:

1.) You and others have not been paying very close attention to my posts concerning EGW.

2.) You are confusing me with someone else, Icedragon or RC_NewProtestants perhaps.

Furthermore, if you are basing your teachings on EGW and not Scripture, you are already in a precarious position and completely contrary to the admonishments she gave to the church in this matter.

Just keep pushing me with those stupid pictures and passive aggressive verbal jabs. My patience with you is growing very thin.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

[/size][/font]

This assumes facts that aren't in evidence.

What facts are bing assumed? you are on this trip again where you shut down the learning process and we are suppose to "just take you word for it" how about instead of saying " it assumes facts" and invalidate what is said, you ask for "evidence" to back up the claim. That would be less rude and come off less arrogant.

There are things that "appear" to be out of order, as much as you don't like to admit it. if the evidence is so strong in your direction then you should be able to 'easily" debunk the idea. I have been to your web page you do it there, Why don't you do it here?

 

[Sophia7]

This assumes facts that aren't in evidence.

The evidence has been discussed in other threads, which you have said that you don't have time to read.

 

[Your Neighbor]

...one single quote anywhere from my posts where I have ever 'rejected' EGW...

Do you reject the teachings as found here:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Prophecies Fulfilled[/FONT]
and here
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Facing Life's Record[/FONT]
?

Those Adventists in the 1860's who rejected these teachings of Ellen White and her S.D. Adventist contemporaries had what it took to start their own churches or take them out of the SDA Church.

 

[Your Neighbor]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The subject of the sanctuary and the investigative judgment should be clearly understood by the people of God. All need a knowledge for themselves of the position and work of their great High Priest. Otherwise it will be impossible for them to exercise the faith which is essential at this time or to occupy the position which God designs them to fill. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Every individual has a soul to save or to lose. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]GC, p. 488
[/FONT]

 

[Sophia7]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The subject of the sanctuary and the investigative judgment should be clearly understood by the people of God. All need a knowledge for themselves of the position and work of their great High Priest. Otherwise it will be impossible for them to exercise the faith which is essential at this time or to occupy the position which God designs them to fill. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Every individual has a soul to save or to lose. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]GC, p. 488
[/FONT]

Where does the Bible say that an understanding of the Adventist sanctuary doctrine is essential to our salvation?

 

[Your Neighbor]

Where does the Bible say everything that John the Baptist said?

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Says Jesus, "For I say to you, among those born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist..."[/FONT]

 

[Your Neighbor]

SPTB07.017.003 (Testimonies for the Church Containing Messages of Warning and Instruction to Seventh-day Adventists, 1906)
Satan is striving continually to bring in fanciful suppositions in regard to the sanctuary, degrading the wonderful representations of God and the ministry of Christ for our salvation into something that suits the carnal mind. He removes its presiding power from the hearts of believers, and supplies its place with fantastic theories invented to make void the truths of the atonement, and destroy our confidence in the doctrines which we have held sacred since the third angel's message was first given. Thus he would rob us of our faith in the very message that has made us a separate people, and has given character and power to our work.

"No, we don't reject Ellen White. Where have we said that?"

 

[NightEternal]

Please spare me your inquisitional style of questioning YourNeighbor. You do not decide who is an Adventist and who is not, so give it up already.

I have been nothing but straightforward and transparent concerning what I believe on this forum. If you had been paying any attention, you would know that.

Once again, here is where I stand in regards to the fundamentals, including the IJ and Christ's Heavenly ministry (both of which I believe BTW):

http://www.christianforums.com/t5219184

Here is where I differ from the TSDA's:

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=34625286#post34625286

Wether you believe I 'qualify' as an SDA by your standards or not means as little to me as anything possibly could.

Furthermore, I was speaking only about myself when I asked to show where EGW was rejected, not Sophia7 or anyone else. So you can back off of her anytime.

 

[Your Neighbor]

GW.307.001
Let none seek to tear away the foundations of our faith,--the foundations that were laid at the beginning of our work, by prayerful study of the Word and by revelation. Upon these foundations we have been building for more than fifty years. Men may suppose that they have found a new way, that they can lay a stronger foundation than that which has been laid; but this is a great deception.

NI.1906-02-07.004
The past fifty years have not dimmed one jot or principle of our faith as we received the great and wonderful evidences that were made certain to us in 1844, after the passing of the time.

LLM.150.002
We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. And while the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar of the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God.

NBL.157.006
We must be decided on this subject; for the points that he is trying to prove by Scripture, are not sound. They do not prove that the past experience of God's people was a fallacy. We had the truth; we were directed by the angels of God. It was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit that the presentation of the sanctuary question was given. . . . God never contradicts Himself. Scripture proofs are misapplied if forced to testify to that which is not true. Another and still another will arise and bring in supposedly great light, and make their assertions. But we stand by the old land marks. . . . We are hindered in our work by men who are not converted, who seek their own glory. They wish to be thought originators of new theories, which they present claiming that they are truth. But if these theories are received they will lead to a denial of the truth that for the past fifty years God has been giving to His people, substantiating it by the demonstration of the Holy Spirit.-- Let.-329-1905 .

Traditionalists or non-traditionalists. Who is who in those passages?

 

[NightEternal]

And the purpose of that post was....?

If it was to prove I have stated anywhere on this forum that I have rejected EGW or do not considered her inspired, I don't think it accomplished its task.

Nothing like a shotgun blast of EGW to accomplish.....well, pretty much nothing. Kind of reminds me of the Shepherd's Rod literature I get in the mail and file under 'T' for trash, complete with CAPITAL LETTERS and lots of HIGHLIGHTING to add to the aura of fear-mongering.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Ellen White is in fact the root of most problems in the SDA church. Which is why so many in the church no longer hold her as a prophet, some may still hold some of her writings as inspired but they are forced to pick and choose. This is what Desmond Ford does and Sam Bacchiochi also. I reject her as a prophet but that does not mean she does not have some good things to say. It is those who unquestioningly pretend to follow EGW that continually condemn other Christians inside and outside of the SDA church. I say pretend because those people often pick and choose among EGW comments just as those of us do who don't hold her as a prophet do. It is in fact easy to do as she often expresses views that are contrary to what she will say someplace else. That is why even among traditional SDA's there is still a controversy about the nature of Christ and the idea of last day perfection. When they discuss these things they don't use the Bible but battle with EGW quotes.

Today just like most SDA's have redefined the IJ, they have also redefined EGW. When you look at what leadership has taught about EGW in the past you will see that she was often redefined. In the past some thought the acceptance of the Testimonies was a salvation issue, and then there were those who held to her as being verbally inspired.

But in the overall issue as Christians she should be irrelevant because to reach the world we can't use her anyway. Just like other Christians we have the Bible and that is our standard both of SDA's and other Christians. When we lose that unity we become far to cult like to do any good. EGW has been a crutch that has crippled the SDA church. And that is hard for us to deal with, but we do have to deal with it. I am glad people are dealing with it like the play Red Books recently preformed at PUC

 

[NightEternal]

Any non-traditionalists who are sick to death of being demonized, please say aye!

AYE!!!