• 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.

Questions for SDA?

JonMiller

Senior Veteran
Jun 6, 2007
7,165
195
✟30,831.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
JM, if that's how you feel, you should absolutely no problem with Brimac coming into that forum to discuss this without your input. Correct?

When have I made comments in this thread that aren't along with the 28 fundamental doctrines of the SDA church. In fact, I have been defending one of the 28 doctrines from people who frequent the Traditional SDA forums.

As long as the Traditional SDA forums are a hot bed of heresy, and no one is allowed to respond against them there, I don't want new members or people with questions going there for discussion.

JM
 
Upvote 0

RC_NewProtestants

Senior Veteran
May 2, 2006
2,766
63
Washington State
Visit site
✟25,750.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
JM, if that's how you feel, you should absolutely no problem with Brimac coming into that forum to discuss this without your input. Correct?


Why pray tell are you encouraging Brimac to violate our own recently affirmed rules.

Traditional SDA Sub-forum: a non-debate sub-forum for Adventists who believe in all 28 Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=36959783&postcount=1


Besides that why would he assume that those who are more closely semi-arian are the real representatives of Adventism.

While I certainly don't represent Adventist theology I am a Modalist. Historically that is what the Trinity was really trying to say but back then they had no concept of the capability of being more then one place or thing at a time. Modalism sees One God who reveals Himself in at least three ways, referred to in the Bible as The Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But during the second century when this concept was introduced they had a restriction which made it really an unworkable idea. As Eerdman's Handbook to the History of Christianity page 111 says:
"They claimed that God existed in different 'modes" (so were sometimes called Modalists), but only in one mode at any one time."

So the trinitarian view was a more rational step though very similar to modalism but without the need for only one aspect of God at a time. Therefore the Trinity saw the Son, Father and Spirit as of one substance as opposed to the Arian view that they were different substances.

Personally I think the substance of God is not something that Christians should divide over though it certainly has logical implications that may change the way people understand atonement. Arians and Modalists became branded as heretics which is still the case today. Recently I read in Christianity today that they must sign a statement that they are trinitarian and they could not review a Christian artist as a Christian artist because that person is semi-arian.

Then a message board on Morse's website revealed some questionable theology—at least from a typical evangelical perspective. Asserting that "I am not a Trinitarian," Morse says Scripture tells us Jesus "came forth" from God, and is therefore separate from God. But the Nicene Creed—a doctrinal statement which most evangelicals affirm—and other traditional Christian teaching state that God is a single being who also exists as a Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Scripture seems to be clear that Jesus is both God and man (John 10:29-30). And our own statement of faith at Christianity Today International—a document all employees are required to sign—also affirms a Trinitarian doctrine.
And so Morse, whom we've covered in the past as a "Christian artist," is now being covered in "Glimpses of God," which typically features secular artists who are exploring themes of faith—musical "seekers," as it were. Morse may well be a Christian; that is not for us to judge. But as long as he adheres to such non-traditional—and some would say heretical—beliefs, we will not cover him as a "Christian artist." http://www.christianitytoday.com/music/glimpses/2007/solascriptura.html
 
Upvote 0

JonMiller

Senior Veteran
Jun 6, 2007
7,165
195
✟30,831.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
And this is precisely why you shouldn't be counted as an SDA in this forum.

Neither do you.

Being an SDA is more then just about toeing the line of the adventist doctrine. There is room for discussion, and being an SDA has to do with being a member of the church.

Is he a member of the church? I don't really know, but I know people who have more 'liberal' views then him who are members (And even ones who are pretty active in involvement).

JM
 
Upvote 0

NightEternal

Evangelical SDA
Apr 18, 2007
5,639
127
Toronto, Ontario
✟6,559.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Declaring someone to not be an Adventist who is a member of the church is against forum rules.

Not that this rule has ever actually been respected in the past.

RC should report Woob's post to the mods, but he probably doesn't really care anyhow. :)
 
Upvote 0

RC_NewProtestants

Senior Veteran
May 2, 2006
2,766
63
Washington State
Visit site
✟25,750.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
And this is precisely why you shouldn't be counted as an SDA in this forum.

I understand your fear, it is what the Roman Catholics said of the reformers, it is the classic response of tradition against any change. Not long ago on my blog I wrote the following:

The Deconstruction of Adventism and Christianity

Paul Whiting who also writes a blog asked the following question:
Thank you for this post. I agree so much with what you say. This is one part of "traditional" Adventist theology that makes me cringe. Actually, too much of it makes me cringe! But for some reason, I have become a part of SDAism and feel that is right presently for me to stay.

I would like you to post on why you chose to continue to be identified with Adventism. What positive aim lies behind the deconstruction you engage in on this blog? --from comment on Our Context Regardless of Context
My deconstruction is not limited to Adventism, there needs to be serious changes in the attitudes and philosophy of Christianity itself. Adventism is just the starting point for me because that is the denomination I am most familiar with. This is why I choose the name NewProtestants.com for my website. The Reformation was a call to return to reason over tradition and we are very much in need of another Reformation. I would hope that with Adventism’s history of going against traditions that we would be a good place to start a reformation of Christianity. Some Adventists have felt that the church is a continuation of the Reformation. In many ways this is a self serving idea but there is still the possibility within the denomination to really be a reformation movement.


Deconstruction tends to be the most effective way to arrive at any type of reform. As we can see in this C.S. Lewis quote:
“We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turn, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man. . .There is nothing progressive about being pigheaded and refusing to admit a mistake." C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1952), Book I, Chap. 5, p. 22.
Deconstruction is the process whereby we acknowledge our mistakes and make a change in the path we take. The deconstruction would have to take place in any denomination in existence today. If I became a member of some other denomination it is likely they would say that I don’t understand the denominations position enough to deconstruct it and lay out a path toward a more reasonable theology. Adventism can’t say that because I was raised and schooled within it. While I could choose a denomination that is more correct on some element say for instance the Atonement there would still be other areas of concern. Trading one problem for another problem is not really the answer, we in Christianity have to change the way we think to really progress.


Unfortunately religion is so intertwined with tradition that deconstruction is a very painful process. Yet it was a very important factor throughout the Judeo-Christian history and it must continue. The Old Testament prophets were reformers, Jesus Christ and the Apostles were reformers and reformers have arisen regularly throughout the Christian era. Today with technology as it is we don’t even need the charismatic leader to lead a reformation just the information and that may make our reformation even more effective because it will not be based upon what a couple of charismatic people think is important it will based upon using our God given reasoning abilities. The scary part for a lot of people is that in some things our reasoning will have to admit that in some things we don’t have answers or there may even be different answers for different people. That maybe there is such a thing as unity in diversity.
 
Upvote 0

woobadooba

Legend
Sep 4, 2005
11,307
914
✟25,191.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I understand your fear, it is what the Roman Catholics said of the reformers, it is the classic response of tradition against any change. Not long ago on my blog I wrote the following:

Fear?

You espouse the view of theistic evolution, reject much of what is written in the Bible and refer to such writings as fables, and you don't even agree that Jesus died for our sins. In my opinion you are not an SDA. Even by your own admission you are not an SDA, since you do not represent Adventist Theology.
 
Upvote 0

sentipente

Senior Contributor
Jul 17, 2007
11,651
4,492
Silver Sprint, MD
✟54,142.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Politics
US-Others
I think the divine died. I admit that I could be wrong... But that is what I currently think. We should have a different thread of a discussion of semi-arrianism.

JM
By defihition divinity cannot die. If both the divine and the human died then He could not have raised Himself from the dead. One must be alive to bring life into existence. There is no need to suspend scientific thought because you are discussing religioius ideas.
 
Upvote 0
T

TrustAndObey

Guest
When have I made comments in this thread that aren't along with the 28 fundamental doctrines of the SDA church. In fact, I have been defending one of the 28 doctrines from people who frequent the Traditional SDA forums.

As long as the Traditional SDA forums are a hot bed of heresy, and no one is allowed to respond against them there, I don't want new members or people with questions going there for discussion.

JM

I'm a Traditional that invited him to come to the Traditional section. There isn't anything else I can do until the Main Forum is set up for no debate.

A person should be able to come here and ask a question without having to endure past conflicts between some of our members here.

I don't think any of the other Traditionals will mind one bit that I've invited him into our subfora.
 
Upvote 0

RC_NewProtestants

Senior Veteran
May 2, 2006
2,766
63
Washington State
Visit site
✟25,750.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Fear?

You espouse the view of theistic evolution, reject much of what is written in the Bible and refer to such writings as fables, and you don't even agree that Jesus died for our sins. In my opinion you are not an SDA. Even by your own admission you are not an SDA, since you do not represent Adventist Theology.

As usual you distort other's views in order to make yourself feel better. Theistic evolution does not deny the creator it matches the ideas of the Bible with the reality of the world around us. I do interpret the Bible different from the way the fundamentalist does and I have no problem admitting that. In fact if fundamentalism was the only way to interpret the bible I would leave Christianity altogether. Fortunately it is not and when you really press the fundamentalist they don't even take it as literally as they think. So what we are really dealing with is their traditionalism. I have never said that Jesus did not die for our sins. That is another of your example of your own misunderstanding. To declare that only the Penal substitutionary view of the atonement is acceptable is to deny the history of the Christian church, to even deny the Bible itself. Again it is merely traditionalism treated as sacred truth.

By the way woob, I have never said I am not an SDA, I said my view's of certain things are not the same as official Adventism. To be exact I said:
Originally Posted by RC_NewProtestants
While I certainly don't represent Adventist theology


 
Upvote 0

JonMiller

Senior Veteran
Jun 6, 2007
7,165
195
✟30,831.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I'm a Traditional that invited him to come to the Traditional section. There isn't anything else I can do until the Main Forum is set up for no debate.

A person should be able to come here and ask a question without having to endure past conflicts between some of our members here.

I don't think any of the other Traditionals will mind one bit that I've invited him into our subfora.

I am saying that this recent derailment is a correction that some of us presented due to some of the 'traditionals' not presenting the 28 fundamental beleifs.

You shouldn't be able to misrepresent official adventism.

JM
 
Upvote 0
T

TrustAndObey

Guest
I am saying that this recent derailment is a correction that some of us presented due to some of the 'traditionals' not presenting the 28 fundamental beleifs.

You shouldn't be able to misrepresent official adventism.

JM

JM, I specifically stated that I differ from some of my Traditional brothers and sisters (i.e. that I wasn't necessarily giving the official fundamental belief).

Right now giving the official belief is not set up in the rules yet as the only way to answer, but I still did not misrepresent Adventism.

I do believe in the trinity. One God.

I just do not believe that Jesus WAS/IS the Father and I feel that they obviously have different roles.

My husband and I are one but we have different roles in the same PURPOSE.

I didn't misrepresent Adventism at all.
 
Upvote 0
T

TrustAndObey

Guest
Hi Sis,

Where did you get this from? Is this a view some people hold?


Jon

It's a view most Traditional Adventists (at least the ones I've talked to) hold as well.

I got it straight from scripture.

For instance:

John 20:17 (I think) says Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Jesus died for three days. Father God did not. In fact, Father God resurrected God the Son.

There's a lot more scriptures like that which point to my view. And in believing what I do, I am in no way contradicting the fundamental belief of the Adventist church.

I do not in any way discount Jesus' role as God. He is the only way for us to get to the Father (His God and our God).

He is our advocate, our judge, and our friend.

I also do not discount the role of the Holy Spirit, our Mediator.

But they are one like my husband and I are one. Two totally separate people that are one in purpose, but capable of doing two completely different things at the same moment in time.

They are unified into one God with one purpose.
 
Upvote 0

Jon0388g

Veteran
Aug 11, 2006
1,259
29
London
✟24,167.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
It's a view most Traditional Adventists (at least the ones I've talked to) hold as well.

I got it straight from scripture.

For instance:

John 20:17 (I think) says Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Jesus died for three days. Father God did not. In fact, Father God resurrected God the Son.

There's a lot more scriptures like that which point to my view. And in believing what I do, I am in no way contradicting the fundamental belief of the Adventist church.

I do not in any way discount Jesus' role as God. He is the only way for us to get to the Father (His God and our God).

He is our advocate, our judge, and our friend.

I also do not discount the role of the Holy Spirit, our Mediator.

But they are one like my husband and I are one. Two totally separate people that are one in purpose, but capable of doing two completely different things at the same moment in time.

They are unified into one God with one purpose.


No no, I agree with you! I was wondering where you got the idea that Jesus is the Father. I've never heard of this.

I thought the very very traditional SDA was still semi-arian (ie, no trinity, only God the Father, Jesus created).

Jon
 
Upvote 0
O

OntheDL

Guest
Hi Lainie,

Christ the man died on the cross, Christ the divine no.

Did you see my reply to your post earlier in this thread? Let me know what you think.



It's a view most Traditional Adventists (at least the ones I've talked to) hold as well.

I got it straight from scripture.

For instance:

John 20:17 (I think) says Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Jesus died for three days. Father God did not. In fact, Father God resurrected God the Son.

There's a lot more scriptures like that which point to my view. And in believing what I do, I am in no way contradicting the fundamental belief of the Adventist church.

I do not in any way discount Jesus' role as God. He is the only way for us to get to the Father (His God and our God).

He is our advocate, our judge, and our friend.

I also do not discount the role of the Holy Spirit, our Mediator.

But they are one like my husband and I are one. Two totally separate people that are one in purpose, but capable of doing two completely different things at the same moment in time.

They are unified into one God with one purpose.
 
Upvote 0

JonMiller

Senior Veteran
Jun 6, 2007
7,165
195
✟30,831.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
No no, I agree with you! I was wondering where you got the idea that Jesus is the Father. I've never heard of this.

I thought the very very traditional SDA was still semi-arian (ie, no trinity, only God the Father, Jesus created).

Jon

Official church position hasn't been semi-arian since the 50s.

JM
 
Upvote 0