The CSDA!!

Vaudois · Oct 12, 2005

Oh...I forgot one!

6. Our Lady of Perpetual Gnat-straining, Saturday Session.

Now, humor aside. Not seeing things the same is normal, but it's self that creates hassles, debates and hatred.

Take a peek at this:

"The debating spirit has come into the ranks of Sabbathkeepers to take the place of the Spirit of God. They have placed finite men where God should be, but nothing can suffice for us but to have Christ dwell in our hearts by faith. The truth must become ours. Christ must be our Saviour by an experimental knowledge. We should know by faith what it is to have our sins pardoned, and to be born again. We must have a higher, deeper wisdom than man's to guide us amid the perils surrounding our pathway. The Spirit of Christ must be in us just as the blood is in the body, circulating through it as a vitalizing power." {1888 168.3}

SassySDA · Oct 12, 2005

PaleHorse said:
I answered your question and did not edit one word - so your question was not changed whatsoever. The underline was simply to show what part of your post I was responding too. This is a pretty common practice on forums; sometimes folks bold the part they are responding to, other times they underline. I would hope you know this by now considering how long you've been on forums.

Also, how can I use your name? Was it not your post I quoted verbatim?

No need to be snappy.

He did "add" a word...he added [who], IN brackets, which tells the reader that it was added by someone other than the original author. It also did not change the meaning of your statement one iota. At least it didn't for me when I read it.

SassySDA · Oct 12, 2005

Vaudois said:
Oh...I forgot one!

6. Our Lady of Perpetual Gnat-straining, Saturday Session.

Now, humor aside. Not seeing things the same is normal, but it's self that creates hassles, debates and hatred.

Take a peek at this:

"The debating spirit has come into the ranks of Sabbathkeepers to take the place of the Spirit of God. They have placed finite men where God should be, but nothing can suffice for us but to have Christ dwell in our hearts by faith. The truth must become ours. Christ must be our Saviour by an experimental knowledge. We should know by faith what it is to have our sins pardoned, and to be born again. We must have a higher, deeper wisdom than man's to guide us amid the perils surrounding our pathway. The Spirit of Christ must be in us just as the blood is in the body, circulating through it as a vitalizing power." {1888 168.3}

ROFL

SassySDA · Oct 12, 2005

PaleHorse said:
No, I do not claim such information. I am going by common sense in the descriptive usage of titles, labels, and names. The name/label/title exists to describe a certain thing - a name is merely a short-hand way of describing something. For example; I could say "you know, the big metal thing that has glass-covered openings, and round rubber things, 2 (or 4) doors that people ride around in"...or I could simply say "car". The name "car" saves from having to give the large description. The same concept holds true for groups/organizations.

When one claims a particular name/label that means they are aligning themselves with that group's beliefs and/or institutions. If someone claims to be "Adventist" then that means they hold true to the beliefs that name/label/title carries with it. If they do not, then they should not claim the name. Its really a rather simple concept. Its a question of clarity.

SassySDA · Oct 12, 2005

HoneyDew said:
Just a quick question: so what do you really think of having the forum further divided into "Traditional or Historical Adventists" and "Progressive or Reform Adventists?" Do you think the "Progressives" no longer agree with the 28 Fundies and therefore should not even be under the Seventh-day Adventist umbrella?

Personally, I believe there shouldn't be ANY division, and I would certainly prefer that.

But there are huge delineations between these different "offshoots" and the General Conference. Why they are allowed to keep Seventh-day Adventist as part of their name is beyond me, but I have no power to change it.

I don't know who disagrees with the "Fundies" as you put it and which one of the "offshoots" don't, I would imagine ALL of them take issue with one or another of them. That's why they shouldn't be calling themselves Seventh-day Adventists any longer.

As Vad so humorously put it, find another name that suits their beliefs. That's what they should be doing. If I leave this church to go to another one, it will BE another one. Not an extension of this one, with some major or even minor changes.

Vaudois · Oct 12, 2005

I don't think we should sweat these tiny groups as much as we do. God has more than enough love and light to help them if they WANT enlightenment.

The ONLY way to make darkness go away is turn on the Light, not curse the darkness.

When Adventists become the powerful Lighthouse they were meant to be, all these bonfires on the sandbars will become unnoticable. But if we scurry about to snuff out these poor, confused groups, wasting our energy, and neglecting to trim the Lighthouse lamp, we are more guilty than they of not leading the ships to safe harbour.

Let God handle the apostasies His way. We need to do our Work!

SassySDA · Oct 12, 2005

HoneyDew said:
Thanks for the reply.

Could you not change my question, though? I asked one question, but you edited it while still using my name. If there is a point to be made with a poster's quote, do it outside of the quote so you won't be thought of as messing with the integrity of the forum.
Thanks, again.

Please retain the integrity of the forum by being true to the fellow members' posts.

I'm thinking he added the [who] because otherwise your post states that ALL Progressives disagree with one or more of the 28. It was probably more habit on his part than anything else.

tall73 · Oct 12, 2005

I think you all are missing an important point, with all due respect. I am a pastor, I support the church ,but the 28 Fundamental beliefs are NOT a creed and were never meant to be. The pioneers believed in a few "pillars" not a complex creed.

Total agreement is not always a good sign. Please note the following statement from the Testimonies volume 5 (yes I did post this once before )

Peter exhorts his brethren to "grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." Whenever the people of God are growing in grace, they will be constantly obtaining a clearer understanding of His word. They will discern new light and beauty in its sacred truths. This has been true in the history of the church in all ages, and thus it will continue to the end. But as real spiritual life declines, it has ever been the tendency to cease to advance in the knowledge of the truth. Men rest satisfied with the light already received from God's word and discourage any further
investigation of the Scriptures. They become conservative and seek to avoid discussion. {5T 706.2}
The fact that there is no controversy or agitation among God's people should not be regarded as conclusive evidence that they are holding fast to sound doctrine. There is reason to fear that they may not be clearly discriminating between truth and error. When no new questions are started by investigation of the Scriptures, when no difference of opinion arises which will set men to searching the Bible for themselves to make sure that they have the truth, there will be many now, as in ancient times, who will hold to tradition and worship they know not what. {5T 707.1}
I have been shown that many who profess to have a knowledge of present truth know not what they believe. They do not understand the evidences of their faith. They have no just appreciation of the work for the present time. When the time of trial shall come, there are men now preaching to others who will find, upon examining the positions they hold, that there are many things for which they can give no satisfactory reason. Until thus tested they knew not their great ignorance. And there are many in the church who take it for granted that they understand what they believe; but, until controversy arises, they do not know their own weakness. When separated from those of like faith and compelled to stand singly and alone to explain their belief, they will be surprised to see how confused are their ideas of what they had accepted as truth. Certain it is that there has been among us a departure from the living God and a turning to men, putting human in place of divine wisdom. {5T 707.2}

I do agree that if a person can no longer agree with the pillars, and there are about 7 of them, then they should bow out gracefully. I respect that.

Moreover, the idea of the Sunday law is in fact NOT a belief held by all SDA. You can see that in the SDA commentary itself there is an alternate view which focuses on secular France, etc. Nor in fact did Ellen White want her writings used as a test of fellowship in the church.

Please understand, I want unity. But not at the cost of no discussion, no study, no faithfulness to God by humility and seeking after Him.

StormyOne · Oct 12, 2005

Amen Tall..... thank you for your insightful comments...

SassySDA · Oct 12, 2005

Vaudois said:
I don't think we should sweat these tiny groups as much as we do. God has more than enough love and light to help them if they WANT enlightenment.

The ONLY way to make darkness go away is turn on the Light, not curse the darkness.

When Adventists become the powerful Lighthouse they were meant to be, all these bonfires on the sandbars will become unnoticable. But if we scurry about to snuff out these poor, confused groups, wasting our energy, and neglecting to trim the Lighthouse lamp, we are more guilty than they of not leading the ships to safe harbour.

Let God handle the apostasies His way. We need to do our Work!

Good point.

PaleHorse · Oct 12, 2005

HoneyDew said:
"Snappy?" Where? Please, Palehorse, do me the courtesy of not ascribing emotions to me. We don't know each other.
*Sigh*
Since I have to repeat this: You quoted me and inserted a "who" in the sentence you underlined. Ergo, you did not quote my post verbatim.

I was merely making your post grammatically correct. The inclusion of the brackets, as SassySDA rightfully noted, is a literary tool commonly used to denote such a correction or clarification. As such, the meaning of your post was not altered one iota.

As for ascribing emotions to you, please don't think I am so new to reading the English language that I cannot ascertain "tone". All correspondence has an emotional tone, it is the resposibility of the writer to convey the tone they want to express - not for the reader to try and guess. I do apologize if I mis-read your tone however.

honorthesabbath · Oct 12, 2005

Moreover, the idea of the Sunday law is in fact NOT a belief held by all SDA. You can see that in the SDA commentary itself there is an alternate view which focuses on secular France, etc. Nor in fact did Ellen White want her writings used as a test of fellowship in the church.

Hi Tall--In reading of the following EGW statement, I'm wondering WHY any Adventist would NOT believe this is going to happen.

TI- Maranatha
-CN- 171
-CT- God's Law Made Void in America
<SI 179 <EI
<SB God's Law Made Void in America <EB
-PR- 01
-PG- 179
-TEXT-
<SB It is time for thee, Lord, to work: for they have made void thy
law. Ps. 119:126. <EB
A time is coming when the law of God is, in a special sense, to
be made void in our land [the United States]. The rulers of our
nation will, by legislative enactments, enforce the Sunday law,
and thus God's people will be brought into great peril. When
our nation, in its legislative councils, shall enact laws to bind the
consciences of men in regard to their religious privileges,
enforcing Sunday observance, and bringing oppressive power to
bear against those who keep the seventh-day Sabbath, the law
of God will, to all intents and purposes, be made void in our
land.

Vaudois · Oct 13, 2005

yep...I'm a litlle confused about that same statement, Tall.

"Secular France" has no problems for me anymore then secular Fiji.

I don't follow you. Can you flesh that out a bit, please?

Vaudois · Oct 13, 2005

Perhaps a review of what God's servant (EGW) considered as the very basics of the Advent Message would serve us well right about now.

She used many terms for these Christ-revealed basics, but often spoke and defended what was called "the old landmarks" of our Message.

Here they are, with emphasis, bracketed comments (in color) and blocking supplied by me:

"But there was evidence they knew not what the old landmarks were...
The passing of the time in 1844 was a period of great events, opening to our astonished eyes:

the cleansing of the Sanctuary transpiring in heaven, and having decided relation to God's people upon the earth(the Investigative Judgement, Christ's priesthood, application of His Blood, etc.),
[also] the first and second angels' messages and the third, unfurling the banner on which was inscribed, "The commandments (inclusive of #4) of God AND the faith of Jesus."
One of the landmarks under this message was the temple of God, seen by His truth-loving people in heaven, and the ark containing the law(#4 also) of God.
The light of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment flashed its strong rays in the pathway of the transgressors of God's law. (This IS all about the false Sabbath and it's enforcement in the future;transgressors will be enforcers)
The nonimmortality of the wicked is an old landmark.

I can call to mind nothing more that can come under the head of the old landmarks. All this cry about changing the old landmarks is all imaginary."{CW 30.2}

Cliff2 · Oct 13, 2005

Vaudois said:
Perhaps a review of what God's servant (EGW) considered as the very basics of the Advent Message would serve us well right about now.

She used many terms for these Christ-revealed basics, but often spoke and defended what was called "the old landmarks" of our Message.

Here they are, with emphasis, bracketed comments (in color) and blocking supplied by me:

"But there was evidence they knew not what the old landmarks were...
The passing of the time in 1844 was a period of great events, opening to our astonished eyes:

the cleansing of the Sanctuary transpiring in heaven, and having decided relation to God's people upon the earth(the Investigative Judgement, Christ's priesthood, application of His Blood, etc.),

[also] the first and second angels' messages and the third, unfurling the banner on which was inscribed, "The commandments (inclusive of #4) of God AND the faith of Jesus."

One of the landmarks under this message was the temple of God, seen by His truth-loving people in heaven, and the ark containing the law(#4 also) of God.

The light of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment flashed its strong rays in the pathway of the transgressors of God's law. (This IS all about the false Sabbath and it's enforcement in the future;transgressors will be enforcers)

The nonimmortality of the wicked is an old landmark.

I can call to mind nothing more that can come under the head of the old landmarks. All this cry about changing the old landmarks is all imaginary."{CW 30.2}

EGW also went ont say that of all the doctrines that we believe in that the truth about the Sanctuary would be attacked the most.

We see that today. It is attacked both in and out. Perhaps the sadest part to this is the way it has been attcked from within.

Yet to my understanding it is so easy and straight forward to see and understand.

tall73 · Oct 13, 2005

It is not my view personally. I am just telling you the SDA commentary includes notes that proport that view.

Vaudois · Oct 13, 2005

Oh, I see, Tall. I misunderstand you.Can you cut and paste some commentary notes, please, showing what you mean? I'd like to see that.
Lots of folks don't know it, but in the SDA Commentaries, anything under pages from about 1000 on down were Conference employees; from pp.1000 on up are generally EGW. Although Vol. 7-A is all her.

Right Cliff: the Sanctuary is the key target of Satan and all duped by him, whether knowingly, traditionally or intellectually. Mess with the truth of the Lord's Work in Heaven for us, and you mess with the whole Plan of Salvation, ultimately.

Vaudois · Oct 13, 2005

EGW never made herself a "testing truth"; it was the truth itself, given through her by Christ that is the testing truth.

God's principle has always been "Read the telegram! Don't adore, worship, uplift, or shoot the telegram messenger-boy! READ AND OBEY the Telegram!"

"The truth, pure and unadulterated, must be presented to the people.
It is the third angel's message that bears the true test to the people. Satan will lead men to manufacture false tests, and thus seek to obscure the value of, and make of none effect, the message of truth.
The commandment of God that has been almost universally made void (#4), is the testing truth for this time. . . The time is coming when all those who worship God will be distinguished by this sign. They will be known as the servants of God, by this mark of their allegiance to Heaven. But all man-made tests will divert the mind from the great and important doctrines that constitute the present truth.
It is the desire and plan of Satan to bring in among us those who will go to great extremes--people of narrow minds, who are critical and sharp, and very tenacious in holding their own conceptions of what the truth means. They will be exacting, and will seek to enforce rigorous duties, and go to great lengths in matters of minor importance, while they neglect the weightier matters of the law--judgment and mercy and the love of God. Through the work of a few of this class of persons, the whole body of Sabbathkeepers will be designated as bigoted, Pharisaical, and fanatical. The work of the truth, because of these workers, will be thought to be unworthy of notice. {Ev 212.2}

TrustAndObey · Oct 13, 2005

Vaudois said:
I don't think we should sweat these tiny groups as much as we do. God has more than enough love and light to help them if they WANT enlightenment.

I couldn't agree more! I see so many people claiming to be Adventist with what they consider "new light". The problem is that most of them are trying to cram that new light down other people's throats. The crazy part is, their new light is generally something other churches already hold in great esteem.

I'll be perfectly honest, I find most of it to be a HUGE distraction from the big picture. It's a stumbling block.

For instance, a poster from here posted something in another forum about what "Progressive" Adventists believe and it sounded like a completely different church than the Adventist church.

Regardless of one's beliefs and what "umbrella" they try to squeeze under if they answer a "What do Adventists believe about...." question without clarifying that they do not hold the fundamental belief of Adventists, they are bearing false witness in my opinion. At the very least they should preface their answer with "I'm not a Fundamental Adventist, but here's what *I* believe........." Put their own necks on the chopping block instead of confusing people about what the Adventist church teaches and believes.

If a person knows their views differ from what the mainstream church teaches, then they really are bearing false witness if they try to conceal that fact, and they have to answer to the Maker for that some day. And frankly, some of these "new" ideas are a little frightening (like not holding to the literal 7-day week of creation) and it does upset me when people claiming to be Adventist have decided to go with the majority on that subject............

I used to go to a lot of chatrooms and there were people in there that I knew were Fundamental Belief Adventists that had a completely different view of the trinity than I do.....that didn't make them any less of an Adventist than I am, that's for sure. We still had the same fundamental beliefs, we just differed on what they meant to us personally. Our fundamental beliefs list our doctrine of the trinity in a very vague way, so there are times that subjects like that will be believed differently by different people. HOWEVER, the fundamental belief does not give way to some "out there" interpretation either.

For instance, if an Adventist started claiming that Jesus was satan's brother or something wacky like that, then they can not fit that under one of our beliefs, period. If they do, it's bearing false witness.

Back to my point.....these little discussions about the differences really are a distraction and a stumbling block. I see Traditional Adventists being accused of being "narrow-minded" or "afraid of change" all the time when the truth is, most of us joined the church knowing the doctrine and agreeing to it beforehand. I'm not afraid of change, never have been, and if I felt that other churches taught the Bible better than Adventist churches, I'd go to those churches, not try to change this one.

An online friend of mine went to an Adventist church for years, but recently switched to Messianic Judaism. She was of Jewish bloodline and decided along her learning path that she should keep the biblical feasts. That's not a belief held by the Adventist church, so she didn't want to be a hypocrite I guess.

Since then I was suprised to find out that most Messianics believe a person's "soul" goes to heaven or hell immediately upon death and I know this is something my friend disagrees with. In fact, she's one of the people that I talked to the most about the state of the dead because it was not what I had grown up being taught. She gave me great material to see the truth about what happens to us when we die. However, in order for her to find a church that taught what she liked about the feasts, she had to compromise a fundamental belief of hers and I think that's really sad.

I will say this about her, she never once misrepresented that the Adventist church believes in keeping the biblical feasts. She always prefaced answering a question about them with "*I* keep them, but..........."

Long story short, I think that when a person's fundamental beliefs differ greatly from the Adventist doctrine, they are bearing false witness to say their beliefs are the Adventist's beliefs.

I would like to remind everyone that this is a non-debate area and this forum was set up so that Traditional Adventists could discuss the stumbling blocks before us specifically. I think all of us in here know we have a lot of Work to do, like Vaudois pointed out, and we cannot let ourselves get distracted all the time. CF has features set up so that we can debate this in the bigger section if we so choose, or we can use the features to keep people from distracting us. I think we should use our time here wisely.

Cliff2 · Oct 13, 2005

Vaudois said:
Oh, I see, Tall. I misunderstand you.Can you cut and paste some commentary notes, please, showing what you mean? I'd like to see that.
Lots of folks don't know it, but in the SDA Commentaries, anything under pages from about 1000 on down were Conference employess; from pp.1000 on up are generally EGW. Vol. 7A is all her.

Right Cliff: the Sanctuary is the key target of Satan and all duped by him, whether knowingly, traditionally or intellectually. Mess with the truth of the Lord's Work in Heaven for us, and you mess with the whole Plan of Salavation, ultimately.

Take away the foundation of a building and in time it will collapse. The Sanctuary doctrine is the one doctrine that underpins everything including salvation, the Sabbath etc.

The CSDA!!

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Sophia7's husband

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Senior Veteran

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Sophia7's husband

Active Member

Active Member

TrustAndObey

Guest

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency