The history of how Sunday worship came about

[tall73]

Not on ChristianForums, because acceptance of the Nicene Creed is required for Christian members, and the forums for debating non-Christian religions have been shut down. Basically, the CF.com Statement of Faith which includes the Nicene Creed and a few other common sense provisions, like acceptance of the Apostolate of Paul, defines for me in a satisfactory manner Christianity; non-Trinitarianism I do not regard as compatible with the Christian faith.

I also have not met any SDAs who reject the Heavenly Sanctuary / investigative judgement doctrine, or any EGW doctrines, on CF.com. I once posted a thread to see if we had any members of that view, and no one appeared who dissented on those issues.

I am aware of some Adventists who are likely non-Trinitarian on the board. But they tend to post in the Adventist section and are not usually vocal about it. I don't see much point in an inquisition.

There have definitely been many Adventists who do not accept the IJ in the Adventist church, including many leaders and pastors, and a fair number of them have been on Christian Forums in the past. Issues such as that, and the near-constant fighting, were part of what brought about (I was not in favor of it, and would still like to see it rectified) the division into Traditional Adventist and Progressive Adventist forums.

Most of the folks from those days don't post here anymore. However, one in particular started posting again recently, who you likely have encountered. Icedragon does not accept Ellen White's writings, or the IJ as a whole. He can clarify in his own time those aspects he agrees with.

Yet, he, and others like him, are still members in the church. While requirements for membership are usually agreement to the fundamentals, they tend to be less willing to disfellowship unless someone is openly agitating on a point in their local church, or prominently in pubic in an identifiable way.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

I am aware of some Adventists who are likely non-Trinitarian on the board. But they tend to post in the Adventist section and are not usually vocal about it. I don't see much point in an inquisition.

There have definitely been many Adventists who do not accept the IJ in the Adventist church, including many leaders and pastors, and a fair number of them have been on Christian Forums in the past. Issues such as that, and the near-constant fighting, were part of what brought about (I was not in favor of it, and would still like to see it rectified) the division into Traditional Adventist and Progressive Adventist forums.

Most of the folks from those days don't post here anymore. However, one in particular started posting again recently, who you likely have encountered. Icedragon does not accept Ellen White's writings, or the IJ as a whole. He can clarify in his own time those aspects he agrees with.

Yet, he, and others like him, are still members in the church. While requirements for membership are usually agreement to the fundamentals, they tend to be less willing to disfellowship unless someone is openly agitating on a point in their local church, or prominently in pubic in an identifiable way.

I have my doubts Icedragon really is an active member of the SDA church. Appears more likely he either doesn't attend or is trying to start or has started a fringe group.

The SDA"s who don't believe in Investigative Judgement are those who were conned by Des Ford and his crew.
They need to call themselves something other than SDA. The SDA movement was founded on that doctrine...it's the entire reason for the churches formation after the Millerite movement's Great Disappointment.

 

[tall73]

I have my doubts Icedragon really is an active member of the SDA church. Appears more likely he either doesn't attend or is trying to start or has started a fringe group.

I have known him since college. He is a member. And in some churches the non ij crowd are the majority.

There is already a less conservative theological society as well.

 

[tall73]

The SDA"s who don't believe in Investigative Judgement are those who were conned by Des Ford and his crew.

I can bump the thread if you want to discuss.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

I can bump the thread if you want to discuss.

Are you a Few Ford supporter? That would be an enlightening discussion, my father and I both studied our degrees at the very institution where he was employed in Australia.

 

[tall73]

Are you a Few Ford supporter? That would be an enlightening discussion, my father and I both studied our degrees at the very institution where he was employed in Australia.

I agree with Ford on a lot of the problems with the Adventist view. I do not agree with him on all of his solutions. And I agree with those advising him that he should have made his book explaining the issues shorter. Some indicate that most did not even read the book prior to Glacierview, which is understandable as it was large and had some rather odd items in it.

On the other hand, if he had included just the first couple chapters, made it easy for folks to understand, and let them come to their own solutions, I think it could have been much more productive.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

I agree with Ford on a lot of the problems with the Adventist view. I do not agree with him on all of his solutions. And I agree with those advising him that he should have made his book explaining the issues shorter. Some indicate that most did not even read the book prior to Glacierview, which is understandable as it was large and had some rather odd items in it.

On the other hand, if he had included just the first couple chapters, made it easy for folks to understand, and let them come to their own solutions, I think it could have been much more productive.

Whilst I disagree with him on the heavenly sanctuary, I feel that had he been about 15 years later, he might have not caused the damage he did and been pushed out of our teaching institutions. My dad kept tabs on his works over the years but in all honesty, dad still cannot understand how a man of the calibre of Des Ford could make such basic errors in his interpretation of scriptures that lead to the thesis he wrote on this. I guess we all have our poorly thought out ideas. I remember hearing Des Ford only once...at the funeral of an Adventist missionary (whom coincidently, was my landlord at the time) who was beheaded in the islands a few years ago. I shall never forget, that prayer was like a sermon and was in the Avondale College Church...it went for a very long time. I remember sitting there thinking to myself Des was using the opportunity to get on his pedastool again in his former hunting ground.

 

[tall73]

Whilst I disagree with him on the heavenly sanctuary, I feel that had he been about 15 years later, he might have not caused the damage he did and been pushed out of our teaching institutions. My dad kept tabs on his works over the years but in all honesty, dad still cannot understand how a man of the calibre of Des Ford could much such basic errors in his interpretation of scriptures that lead to the thesis he wrote on this. I guess we all have our poorly thought out ideas. I remember hearing Des Ford only once...at the funeral of an Adventist missionary (whom coincidently, was our landlord at the time) who was beheaded in the islands a few years ago. I shall never forget, that prayer was like a sermon and was in the Avondale College Church...it went for a very long time. I remember sitting there thinking to myself Des was using the opportunity to get on his pedastool again in his former hunting ground.

I never met him personally. But I did correspond with him some regarding his views, and he was always generous with his time. Previous to his death I proposed he have an online debate with anyone from the Andrews Seminary on the subject. He agreed to do so, but when I relayed this to them they declined.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

I think they probably declined because he had already been given 6 months paid leave to make such a presentation many years earlier. There is nothing new a debate would put forward that changes either sides views. I got the feeling even Avondale University saw it that way. He had his sympathisers, but I think they were exercising caring and friendship rather than agreement with him.

Edit...I agree that these controversial topics should be debated publicly...how can we build our house upon the rock otherwise?

 

[tall73]

I think they probably declined because he had already been given 6 months paid leave to make such a presentation many years earlier. There is nothing new a debate would put forward that changes either sides views. I got the feeling even Avondale University saw it that way. He had his sympathisers, but I think they were exercising caring and friendship rather than agreement with him.

Edit...I agree that these controversial topics should be debated publicly...how can we build our house upon the rock otherwise?

The Adventist bretheren should have been chomping at the bit to debate, because they had decades more of research to discuss, including the DARCOM series, a slew of dissertations, etc. In fact, they had me read a dissertation of hundreds of pages on one Hebrew word when I went to visit them.

Of course, Ford also had access to the many pages of research that Cottrell wrote up that has not been released to the public yet. (which if a Google search brings someone in his family to this page, release it already).

 

[AdamjEdgar]

The Adventist bretheren should have been chomping at the bit to debate, because they had decades more of research to discuss, including the DARCOM series, a slew of dissertations, etc. In fact, they had me read a dissertation of hundreds of pages on one Hebrew word when I went to visit them.

Of course, Ford also had access to the many pages of research that Cottrell wrote up that has not been released to the public yet. (which if a Google search brings someone in his family to this page, release it already).

I doubt any of that will make any real difference. I have started reading through Des original dissertation on this...it makes some very poor assumptions that I think are very problematic. Add to that his mentor for his second Ph.D. that focused on "end times" was a Christian Brethren whom Des references over and over again in many speaking engagements as well as in his writings... that in itself is catastrophic for any credibility among the church. I think he may have been viewed as having been negatively influenced as a result, although he did seem to have a passion for his wayward views even early on in his studies at Avondale. I suspect he went looking for someone to mentor his second Ph.D. who was sympathetic to this view to give it credibility. To me that is the same as the JW's creation of the NWT...they did it by finding someone who would translate to suit pre-existing doctrine (always a frightfully worrying way of doing things)

What I find really ironic and indeed humorous about the Ford debacle, he was originally taken to task by the far left CB's in the church here in Australia. They were the ones responsible for stirring up the hornet's nest that saw him moved out of Aussie institutions and sent to the US in the first place (so it appears that his own side turned on him).

My dad said to me this morning on the phone that he always felt that Des rode on popularity and grandstanding abilities to push a doctrine that was deeply flawed...hence many who were sympathetic followed because they liked him as a person (feeling a sense of charity and solidarity) rather than closely scrutinizing his doctrines. Having said that, Des also provided some insights into the Gospels and subsequent expanation of those Gospels (through the epistles) that Dad rates as excellent work.

I personally think Des made a mistake getting tangled up with Bob Brinsmead, that man was a disaster for Des Ford's cause...We obviously know Des wrote a paper against that man's lunacy. However, it was too little too late as the damage had been done and the bad reputations of these offshoot movements that appeared in tandem with Ford's Sanctuary doctrine escalated out of control and produced a high level of negativity towards him for years afterwards. I think perhaps if Des Ford's ideas had been published today, he would have received a much more favourable outcome...not that the church would change their foundation doctrine (that is unlikely to ever change) but to Ford personally. It seems to me that he suffered immense persecution over his view of the heavenly Sanctuary and that detracted from really sound and decent doctrines he did champion.

 

[mmksparbud]

I had just come back to church when the Ford thing broke. I had done a lot---and I mean a LOT of studying before coming back. I had to be sure, otherwise why do it? I could not see how his ideas could be sanctioned by anyone. I was fairly young, but old enough to know he was wrong----dead wrong. I don't even remember the reasons I disagreed any more---there were many. I wanted nothing to do with him. There were a few off shoots back then, Wheeler---he ended up coming back and saying he was sorry. Tried to get back into being a celebrity but no longer had a following. There was another one that a friend of mine got into buying tons of videos from, all I could see was vanity, from his expensive suits and shirts to his Italian shoes. He reeked of vanity and soon disappeared. Some people were looking for a personality to follow----they found it in Trump, ugh. As far from being a Christian as you can get. Why so many SDA went after him as though he was the Messiah is beyond me.

 

[Mclachlan]

The history of Sunday worship began at the tomb where our Lord Christ rose from the dead on the first day of the week. The first day can symbolise a new beginning, a new creation, a new life, a new power and authority.
"So the Son of Man is Lord even of the sabbath."
"I am the resurrection and the life. He that believes in me shall never die. And he that lives and believes shall rise."
"Let no man question you on matters such as food or drink, or sabbaths, for these are but a shadow."
"For we know that a man is justified by faith in Jesus, and not by works of the law. For by the works of the law no man shall be justified in his sight."
"O foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you!"
"Christ redeemed us from the law by becoming a curse for us."
I'm an ex-SDA and I was set free from the law.

 

[Mclachlan]

The history of Sunday worship began at the tomb where our Lord Christ rose from the dead on the first day of the week. The first day can symbolise a new beginning, a new creation, a new life, a new power and authority.
"So the Son of Man is Lord even of the sabbath."
"I am the resurrection and the life. He that believes in me shall never die. And he that lives and believes shall rise."
"Let no man question you on matters such as food or drink, or sabbaths, for these are but a shadow."
"For we know that a man is justified by faith in Jesus, and not by works of the law. For by the works of the law no man shall be justified in his sight."
"O foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you!"
"Christ redeemed us from the law by becoming a curse for us."
I'm an ex-SDA and I was set free from the law.

I'd rather listen to Paul than to Ellen White and other man made religious observance.

 

[mmksparbud]

I'd rather listen to Paul than to Ellen White and other man made religious observance.

Man made is what is being offered. EGW is biblical, that is why certain segments hate her. The bible is still the standard. She only points to it, she is not the bible.

 

[Mclachlan]

Man made is what is being offered. EGW is biblical, that is why certain segments hate her. The bible is still the standard. She only points to it, she is not the bible.

Do you think this is biblical? According to her, most people on this forum are unsaved or rather won't be saved because we are worshipping our Lord Jesus on Sunday not Saturday.

"Satan is the sharpest critic that the world has ever known, and he works to hinder and pervert truth. He has induced men to strive to change the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. Under his dictation the first day of the week has been adopted by the Christian world as the Sabbath. He has used his masterly mind to influence other men to adopt the same views that he himself entertains. But if we turn aside from the fourth commandment, so positively given by God, to adopt the inventions of Satan, voiced and acted by men under his control, we cannot be saved. We cannot with safety receive his traditions and subtleties as truth." - Ellen G. White {RH, July 6, 1897 par. 4}

 

[Mclachlan]

I showed this or something similar to my old SDA pastor and he said that numbers is not what matters. He is right. But I believe it is getting into dangerous territory when an individual claims the status of prophetess, claims exclusivity and creates an unorthodox religious movement almost 2000 years after the Lord's enthronement... sounds suss.

 

[prodromos]

Man made is what is being offered. EGW is biblical, that is why certain segments hate her. The bible is still the standard. She only points to it, she is not the bible.

EGW is offering an interpretation. The question is which interpretation, if any, is correct.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

I would suggest one stops listening to the naysayers who attempt to discredit from a position of naivety...instead simply look at EG Whites writings for what they are trying to achieve. She was simply trying to inspire and guide a Christian movement. She was on a journey herself.
She did not once make the claim that her writings were infallible or of higher authority than the Bible. There is nothing sus about that!
Her answer on Sunday worship would be ide tical to what the Bible says...the patience of the saints are those who keep the commandments of God and have the Testimony of Jesus.
The ONLY way one can ignore the Seventh Day Sabbath is by explaining it away...and that is what every single Sunday worshipping group do. They do this because there is not a single command anywhere in the Bible where it says worship Sunday as the Sabbath!

 

[Mclachlan]

I would suggest one stops listening to the naysayers who attempt to discredit from a position of naivety...instead simply look at EG Whites writings for what they are trying to achieve. She was simply trying to inspire and guide a Christian movement. She was on a journey herself.
She did not once make the claim that her writings were infallible or of higher authority than the Bible. There is nothing sus about that!
Her answer on Sunday worship would be ide tical to what the Bible says...the patience of the saints are those who keep the commandments of God and have the Testimony of Jesus.
The ONLY way one can ignore the Seventh Day Sabbath is by explaining it away...and that is what every single Sunday worshipping group do. They do this because there is not a single command anywhere in the Bible where it says worship Sunday as the Sabbath!

Do you, then, believe that those who 'explain away' Saturday sabbath are unsaved?