Traditional Adventist's Beliefs

[StormyOne]

Therein lies the rub Tall... for there were things that egw wrote that were cultural... and for that time. Specifically the racial stuff, and how that could be handled... You would not get in your pulpit and preach that "the colored" people should not seek equality with whites..... not in this day and age. And the adventist minister who would think to do something like that would be disciplined or relieved of duties and sent for re-training..... and we have yet to deal with the amalgamation statement nor the statement re: some slaves being as if they never existed... Nor have we dealt with the extensive revisions of her writings as will as producing books annually that she never wrote and selling them...

 

[Cliff2]

If you believe this, then why are you so anti-progressive? (awesementor)

I do not mind digging for truth and searching out God's Word to get a better understanding of the truth at all.

What I am against is those who come up with so called new light which does not agree with what we have believed for many years.

Take the Invesigative Judgement. Why are the Progressives trying to dismantle that doctrine?

When it has been shown so many times to be able to stand on the Bible and the Bible alone.

This is just one doctrine that is being attacked by the progressives as much as they can.

Many progressives do not like the writings of EGW because they do not support their life style and new idears.

 

[Cliff2]

I suggest that if anyone doubts the writings of EGW to go and read Steps to Christ, Desire of Ages, Christ's Object Lessons. See if they draw you away from Christ or bring a person closer to the Bible and their Saviour.

 

[awesumtenor]

I do not mind digging for truth and searching out God's Word to get a better understanding of the truth at all.

What I am against is those who come up with so called new light which does not agree with what we have believed for many years.

Take the Invesigative Judgement. Why are the Progressives trying to dismantle that doctrine?

When it has been shown so many times to be able to stand on the Bible and the Bible alone.

This is just one doctrine that is being attacked by the progressives as much as they can.

Many progressives do not like the writings of EGW because they do not support their life style and new idears.

To anyone who questions the IJ, I tell them to read Clifford Goldstein's book "1844 Made Easy", in which he makes the case for the IJ doctrine solely from scripture... however most who question that doctrine do so because most who try to explain it cannot do so without leaning heavily on EGW rather than scripture... While there are a couple of holes in Goldstein's argument I find that he does make a scriptural case for the IJ, in the overall.

As for the intents of others, let's not usurp the place of God; even though you are commenting on the hearts and intents of 'progressives, you are doing so based on what you view from outward appearance... which leads to erroneous conclusions. Demonizing persons and presuming intent does not refute their arguments and it never will; that is the sort of thing that leads to discord. If the argument can be defeated, then do so, if you can, without attacking the one presenting it.

In His service,
Mr. J

 

[SassySDA]

Seeing as I am frequently being told that I have not been a member, but for 6 months. I guess I will come back when I'm all grown up, then maybe I will have something more pertinent to say.

 

[tall73]

Therein lies the rub Tall... for there were things that egw wrote that were cultural... and for that time. Specifically the racial stuff, and how that could be handled... You would not get in your pulpit and preach that "the colored" people should not seek equality with whites..... not in this day and age. And the adventist minister who would think to do something like that would be disciplined or relieved of duties and sent for re-training..... and we have yet to deal with the amalgamation statement nor the statement re: some slaves being as if they never existed... Nor have we dealt with the extensive revisions of her writings as will as producing books annually that she never wrote and selling them...

A. Yes, there are cultural elements, but in those very statements herself she said they were concessions. In the same way Paul said in I Corinthians7 that a man should not be a slave to men but should buy his freedom if possible. He was clearly making concessions. So the plain sense of the text says it is a cultural issue. My problem is when the Bible author makes no room for culture, or even at times tries to make it painfully clear he is not just giving his own opinion, but is in fact giving a theological answer and it is still rejected as cultural.

So there is no problem with there being cultural issues when they make it cultural.

And I have to admit, I too wonder at times about the "life force" theory etc. Were these cultural concepts?

So I understand why some would be tempted to look at the issue that way. I am just not sure I want to be the one saying when a prophet is inspired or not if they don't say.

B. As for compilations, those to me are quite harmful. And with software now for topical searching they are also unneccesary.

C. As for revisions, are you speaking of the ones where she revised sources, such as the second edition GC, or the revision of the testimonies, etc.?

It is also clear that EGW had fewer and fewer visions as her life went on. Much of her later work was revision itself. The conflict of the ages series went through three revisions essentially. Each time she refined the wording, thoughts etc. in light of new truth.

But does this mean there was no value to her early writings? No, but we have to wonder when she received her health message for instance, was the general thrust to encourage health, and then some of the details were filled in from knowledge of that day? It is hard to say.

And while I am on this subject, has it occurred to anyone else that the Adventist health message was in large part an anti-masturbation/animal passions regime? And no, I am not joking on this one.

 

[awesumtenor]

I do not mind digging for truth and searching out God's Word to get a better understanding of the truth at all.

What I am against is those who come up with so called new light which does not agree with what we have believed for many years.

Consider this, from Ellen White ( No, I don't consider her to be the "end all to be all" but as a self-proclaimed 'traditionalist', you should be aware of what the 'traditional' stance is and where you are in relation to it ):

There is no excuse for anyone in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation. We are living in perilous times, and it does not become us to accept everything claimed to be truth without examining it thoroughly; neither can we afford to reject anything that bears the fruits of the Spirit of God; but we should be teachable, meek and lowly of heart. There are those who oppose everything that is not in accordance with their own ideas, and by so doing they endanger their eternal interest as verily as did the Jewish nation in their rejection of Christ.


The Lord designs that our opinions shall be put to the test, that we may see the necessity of closely examining the living oracles to see whether or not we are in the faith. Many who claim to believe the truth have settled down at their ease, saying, "I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing." --Review and Herald, December 20, 1892.

The task of continually examining the held beliefs of this church was not intended to die with the Adventist pioneers. The Fundamental beliefs are not graven in stone with the finger of God they are a representation of the understanding of fallible men and women who expressed the belief to the best of their ability as they felt led of God but they never said their understanding was the summation and none could find even deeper and fuller meaning in the scriptures than they; that is why the FB are not a creed; the expectation was that continued and constant study would uncover places where their understanding fell short. To become intractable with one's current level of understanding is to say that one will not grow in Christ.



The examination of what we hold true has to be continual because if we decide we are going to stand fast on what we currently have and God moves, which is His preogative, are we any less out of His will then than if we moved while He stood fast?

In His service,
Mr. J

 

[tall73]

Consider this, from Ellen White ( No, I don't consider her to be the "end all to be all" but as a self-proclaimed 'traditionalist', you should be aware of what the 'traditional' stance is and where you are in relation to it ):




The task of continually examining the held beliefs of this church was not intended to die with the Adventist pioneers. The Fundamental beliefs are not graven in stone with the finger of God they are a representation of the understanding of fallible men and women who expressed the belief to the best of their ability as they felt led of God but they never said their understanding was the summation and none could find even deeper and fuller meaning in the scriptures than they; that is why the FB are not a creed; the expectation was that continued and constant study would uncover places where their understanding fell short. To become intractable with one's current level of understanding is to say that one will not grow in Christ.



The examination of what we hold true has to be continual because if we decide we are going to stand fast on what we currently have and God moves, which is His preogative, are we any less out of His will then than if we moved while He stood fast?

In His service,
Mr. J

Yes, quite true. And the traditional angle can be taken to the point of not investigating anything. When it reaches that point it is indeed quite harmful. But the other end of that is when the basis of truth is rejected, setting one's own self up as the final word on what is inspired or not. And this is different from simply arguing points of doctrine BASED on the evidence in the Scriptures. It is reinterpreting the Scriptures based on some formulation of human design.

This is the point at which traditionalists take issue.

As to reading into motives, the truth is that progressives are often traditionals who can no longer reconcile the facts with their former belief. They may even want to, but see too many holes. So they are not setting out to destroy anything. They are simply trying to see the facts add up.

This is why we may all be progressive in one area or another. There are always issues which strke us as difficult etc.

 

[BondGirl]

Okay - maybe it wasn't said as "kindly" as it could have been said...but I do get the jist. You don't have to not post - but you do have to understand that the longer you are in this church, you will "hear things" that will make you say.....

There are many things to love about being SDA. Many things to dislike. I am 34. Not too old.... (iffin you ask me!) I have, however (in my life...) been Methodist, COGIC, and Catholic.

Now....
*ahem*

I have been within the SDA faith since I was 9. I was baptized first at 12 - then again at 16. In the years following I have HEARD JUST ABOUT ALL that is to be heard within the SDA church.

The following is a brief - (seriously!) summation of what I have heard.....

*If you eat meat you will not go to heaven.
*If you eat meat you will not see the coming of JESUS as clearly
*If you eat meat you will not be "translated"....
*If you are vegetarian/vegan - your crown will have more "points".
*If you are vegetarian/vegan - you will be in a "inner circle" w/ JESUS/GOD/HOLY SPIRIT.
*You cannot wear any form of jewelry and go to heaven.
*You can wear a watch.
*You cannot wear a watch, carry it in your pocket.
*You should not wear wigs, if you do you will not go to heaven (extensions included).
*Women should only wear dresses...(remember, I have heard all these things in the SDA church....)
*Women should not be Pastors.
*Women should not preach/speak period.
*Women should not be in any form of leadership position in the church.
*A man can never wash a woman's feet and vice-versa.
*You can only have communion if you are baptized in the church, if you are not then it is "a sin"....
*Getting "therapy" is a sin.
*Taking any form of medication is a "sin".
*EGW is a prophetess.
*EGW didn't actually "die" she was "taken" (like Enoch)....
*EGW is the "last" prophet/prophetess.
*EGW never ate meat (she actually did you know...)
*JESUS was a vegetarian.
*At Passover they didn't "actually eat" the lamb...
*SDA's are the only people that will go to heaven (like JW's in a sense...)

Now - I didn't hear all of this at one time...this is over the years.... (I actually have wrote it down and keep a "log" of "new things" my church "teaches me"....) Believe it or not there are "other" things on this list.

Just as any other religion - the key is DISCERNMENT. Study to show thyself approved..... so when somebody comes to you with "mess" that can't be substantiated by the the Bible.... (or simply common sense...) You can say..... HAYYYYY! That doesn't sound right!

HTH

Seeing as I am frequently being told that I have not been a member, but for 6 months. I guess I will come back when I'm all grown up, then maybe I will have something more pertinent to say.

 

[awesumtenor]

Seeing as I am frequently being told that I have not been a member, but for 6 months. I guess I will come back when I'm all grown up, then maybe I will have something more pertinent to say.

Have you ever visited the pyramids? Seen the Sistine Chapel ceiling? Climbed the Eiffel Tower? Walked through the Acropolis? If you have not, are you willing to call them a myth because they do not lie within the bounds of your personal experience? I doubt it. The point is, it borders on irrational for one who has been in this church as short a time as you have to make absolute statements about what is or is not taught among the millions of members of the church based solely on what you have experienced in your time as a member. I have been a member nearly 20 years and an ordained elder preaching and teaching this message for nearly 10; I have sat on conference committees and been a delegate to constituency meetings and held myriad church offices and my experiences in this church greatly outstrip yours... and I cant make the claim that you have in this thread that because something is not within the bounds of your experience then it must be a 'myth'... not credibly. It's like when I got my driver's license at 17. Looking back at it 24 years ex post facto, I can see that I knew enough about driving to pass that test and to be a danger to myself and others... like every other new driver... but i couldnt say that I had an exhaustive knowledge of driving because I had that piece of paper ( that was pre-lamination ) in my pocket. Joining the church and being baptized does not give any of us an exhaustive knowledge of either Christianity in general or Adventism in particular; if anything it should awe us with the realization that we have barely scratched the surface of understanding and experience.

Capisce?

In His service,
Mr. J

 

[woobadooba]

Have you ever visited the pyramids? Seen the Sistine Chapel ceiling? Climbed the Eiffel Tower? Walked through the Acropolis? If you have not, are you willing to call them a myth because they do not lie within the bounds of your personal experience? I doubt it. The point is, it borders on irrational for one who has been in this church as short a time as you have to make absolute statements about what is or is not taught among the millions of members of the church based solely on what you have experienced in your time as a member. I have been a member nearly 20 years and an ordained elder preaching and teaching this message for nearly 10; I have sat on conference committees and been a delegate to constituency meetings and held myriad church offices and my experiences in this church greatly outstrip yours... and I cant make the claim that you have in this thread that because something is not within the bounds of your experience then it must be a 'myth'... not credibly. It's like when I got my driver's license at 17. Looking back at it 24 years ex post facto, I can see that I knew enough about driving to pass that test and to be a danger to myself and others... like every other new driver... but i couldnt say that I had an exhaustive knowledge of driving because I had that piece of paper ( that was pre-lamination ) in my pocket. Joining the church and being baptized does not give any of us an exhaustive knowledge of either Christianity in general or Adventism in particular; if anything it should awe us with the realization that we have barely scratched the surface of understanding and experience.

Capisce?

In His service,
Mr. J

You appear to be rather hostile in this post, and most certainly condescending.

I want to point something out to you that Sassy said,

In response to this post, please try to remember that I am not intending to speak for anyone else here, or anywhere else on this planet. Sometimes I get the feeling that that is how some posts are taken, and that's not the intention here at all.

I AM a Traditional Adventist, there are no parts of that that I disagree with. I, like Cliff, DO wonder where some of these "myths" (Ellen White is held in higher esteem than God) come from?

Did you notice how she said she is only speaking for herself, and no one else?

Also, I've been an SDA now for about 8 years, and have not heard anyone say that Ellen White is to be held in higher esteem than God. Higher esteem than God?

Moreover, I've been all over the country, and have been to many different SDA churches. Thus I've met all types of peoples in the church--the liberals, conservatives, legalists, and yes, the Ellen Whiters too; and not once have I ever heard anyone say that Ellen White is to be esteemed above God.

So I too, conclude that this is something that is hard to believe. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean no one has ever done this before. Hence, I am open to the possibility that this has happened, and that it could happen at any time.

In any case, your years of experience in the church don't give you the right to belittle others.

And I think you owe Sassy an apology for your condescending rhetoric.

Capisce?

 

[TrustAndObey]

You know what happens when you belittle people? They don't listen to what you say anymore...they just start looking for a way to belittle you back. Then your intelligence and insight, however great it is in your opinion and theirs at one point, is wasted.

I had a boss once that never, ever pointed out the positive things people did. She certainly noticed if we made a mistake though. She was right there when someone messed up, but never a "oh great job on the Snap-on account" or "you are always early, I really appreciate that."

One day she messed up on an account and the client totally reamed her for it, right in front of all of us. Screaming, cussing, the whole works. She cost this client about $4,000 which was double the amount that any of us had ever messed up collectively.

After he left, she started crying. It was really quiet in our office...really, really quiet.

Finally she yelled "aren't any of you going to try to make me feel better about this?!!!!"

<crickets>

All I could hear at that point was a previous episode of her screaming at me for being 10 minutes late when I had always been early for 17 years at that company and only missed work when I had a brain tumor (kind of unavoidable).

Long story short, you open yourself up for the slams when all you can do is slam others.

By the way, I've been to the Eiffel Tower. You don't climb to the top, there's an elevator. In fact, climbing it is illegal. If you climbed it, you'd be arrested.

 

[Cliff2]

Okay - maybe it wasn't said as "kindly" as it could have been said...but I do get the jist. You don't have to not post - but you do have to understand that the longer you are in this church, you will "hear things" that will make you say.....

There are many things to love about being SDA. Many things to dislike. I am 34. Not too old.... (iffin you ask me!) I have, however (in my life...) been Methodist, COGIC, and Catholic.

Now....
*ahem*

I have been within the SDA faith since I was 9. I was baptized first at 12 - then again at 16. In the years following I have HEARD JUST ABOUT ALL that is to be heard within the SDA church.

The following is a brief - (seriously!) summation of what I have heard.....

*If you eat meat you will not go to heaven.
*If you eat meat you will not see the coming of JESUS as clearly
*If you eat meat you will not be "translated"....
*If you are vegetarian/vegan - your crown will have more "points".
*If you are vegetarian/vegan - you will be in a "inner circle" w/ JESUS/GOD/HOLY SPIRIT.
*You cannot wear any form of jewelry and go to heaven.
*You can wear a watch.
*You cannot wear a watch, carry it in your pocket.
*You should not wear wigs, if you do you will not go to heaven (extensions included).
*Women should only wear dresses...(remember, I have heard all these things in the SDA church....)
*Women should not be Pastors.
*Women should not preach/speak period.
*Women should not be in any form of leadership position in the church.
*A man can never wash a woman's feet and vice-versa.
*You can only have communion if you are baptized in the church, if you are not then it is "a sin"....
*Getting "therapy" is a sin.
*Taking any form of medication is a "sin".
*EGW is a prophetess.
*EGW didn't actually "die" she was "taken" (like Enoch)....
*EGW is the "last" prophet/prophetess.
*EGW never ate meat (she actually did you know...)
*JESUS was a vegetarian.
*At Passover they didn't "actually eat" the lamb...
*SDA's are the only people that will go to heaven (like JW's in a sense...)

Now - I didn't hear all of this at one time...this is over the years.... (I actually have wrote it down and keep a "log" of "new things" my church "teaches me"....) Believe it or not there are "other" things on this list.

Just as any other religion - the key is DISCERNMENT. Study to show thyself approved..... so when somebody comes to you with "mess" that can't be substantiated by the the Bible.... (or simply common sense...) You can say..... HAYYYYY! That doesn't sound right!

HTH

I am 54 and I do not know where or when you have heard these things.

Was raised in the SDA Church and I honestly say most of what you have said I have never heard from the pulpit or even outside of the church building.

Are you sure most of them are just not rumours.

EGW didn't actually "die" she was "taken" (like Enoch)....

I do not believe any sane thinking SDA would ever say such rubbish.

EGW is a prophetess.

I do not know of very many sincere SDA that do not believe that. EGW was a prophetess.

I do not take you list too seriously.

 

[awesumtenor]

By the way, I've been to the Eiffel Tower. You don't climb to the top, there's an elevator. In fact, climbing it is illegal. If you climbed it, you'd be arrested.

There hasnt always been an elevator... and the elevators that are there are not always in service. Walking up has not always been verboten.


In His service,
Mr. J

 

[TrustAndObey]

I don't take it seriously either.

 

[TrustAndObey]

There hasnt always been an elevator... and the elevators that are there are not always in service. Walking up has not always been verboten.


In His service,
Mr. J

Walking up is different than "climbing" in my opinion. I'll research just when the elevator was added.

 

[tall73]

Which I have heard:


*If you eat meat you will not go to heaven. YES
*If you eat meat you will not see the coming of JESUS as clearly NO
*If you eat meat you will not be "translated"....YES
*If you are vegetarian/vegan - your crown will have more "points". NO
*If you are vegetarian/vegan - you will be in a "inner circle" w/ JESUS/GOD/HOLY SPIRIT. YES
*You cannot wear any form of jewelry and go to heaven. YES
*You can wear a watch. YES (and Adventists will have watches in their crowns instead of jewels).
*You cannot wear a watch, carry it in your pocket. NO
*You should not wear wigs, if you do you will not go to heaven (extensions included). NO
*Women should only wear dresses...(remember, I have heard all these things in the SDA church....) YES
*Women should not be Pastors. YES (though of course, this one is true! )
*Women should not preach/speak period. YES
*Women should not be in any form of leadership position in the church. YES
*A man can never wash a woman's feet and vice-versa. YES
*You can only have communion if you are baptized in the church, if you are not then it is "a sin"....YES
*Getting "therapy" is a sin. YES
*Taking any form of medication is a "sin". YES
*EGW is a prophetess. YES (I should hope so)
*EGW didn't actually "die" she was "taken" (like Enoch)....NO
*EGW is the "last" prophet/prophetess. YES
*EGW never ate meat (she actually did you know...) NO
*JESUS was a vegetarian. YES
*At Passover they didn't "actually eat" the lamb...YES an extension of the above
*SDA's are the only people that will go to heaven (like JW's in a sense...)
YES

---------
Yeah, the truth is there are a lot of things that could be added. But I don't stress it much--until someone is on that kick in my church! Then I don't have a choice.

 

[Cliff2]

Which I have heard:


*If you eat meat you will not go to heaven. No
*If you eat meat you will not see the coming of JESUS as clearly No
*If you eat meat you will not be "translated"....No
*If you are vegetarian/vegan - your crown will have more "points". NO
*If you are vegetarian/vegan - you will be in a "inner circle" w/ JESUS/GOD/HOLY SPIRIT. No
*You cannot wear any form of jewelry and go to heaven. YES
*You can wear a watch. YES (and Adventists will have watches in their crowns instead of jewels/No)
*You cannot wear a watch, carry it in your pocket. NO
*You should not wear wigs, if you do you will not go to heaven (extensions included). NO
*Women should only wear dresses...(remember, I have heard all these things in the SDA church....) YES
*Women should not be Pastors. YES (though of course, this one is true! )
*Women should not preach/speak period. YES
*Women should not be in any form of leadership position in the church. No
*A man can never wash a woman's feet and vice-versa. YES
*You can only have communion if you are baptized in the church, if you are not then it is "a sin"....No
*Getting "therapy" is a sin. No
*Taking any form of medication is a "sin". No
*EGW is a prophetess. YES (I should hope so)
*EGW didn't actually "die" she was "taken" (like Enoch)....NO
*EGW is the "last" prophet/prophetess. YES
*EGW never ate meat (she actually did you know...) NO
*JESUS was a vegetarian. No
*At Passover they didn't "actually eat" the lamb...No an extension of the above
*SDA's are the only people that will go to heaven (like JW's in a sense...)
No

I owe this set of questions to tall73, thanks.

 

[Cliff2]

I live in a very traditional/conservative SDA Church area and if half of these things that have been claimed were to be true I would have heard of them. I live down the road from a group of independants and if they were floating around I would hear about them for sure.

 

[TrustAndObey]

There hasnt always been an elevator... and the elevators that are there are not always in service. Walking up has not always been verboten

Even if it wasn't always forbidden to walk up, you wouldn't get to the top.

Q Can we go up to the top by the stairs?

A No. The stairs will take you up to the second floor, but not the top. There are elevators available on the second floor to access the top floor.


I'll be the first to admit that Sassy is pretty old, but not THIS old.....

But you are correct, it didn't always have elevators available to everyone. It was built in 1889 and for three weeks no one was allowed to use it.


Q Did the Eiffel Tower always have elevators?

A Since May 26, 1889, when an elevator was made available to Tower visitors. All of the elevators were in working order as of the following June 16.


http://www.tour-eiffel.fr/teiffel/uk/pratique/faq/