We need some SDA moderators

woobadooba · Jun 3, 2007

tall73 said:
You agreed with Woob who wants to eliminate people like Graham Maxwell's views.

Only those views that are heretical.

Wasn't this how it was in the early Church? Did the Apostles tolerate heresy?

Why should we?

Too much has changed since then. We need to get back to our roots!

woobadooba · Jun 3, 2007

tall73 said:
Woob, you are progressive by the definition of this site. You reject the traditional formulation of the sanctuary teaching by believing the the IJ started at Jesus' ascension.

Therefore you do not accept all 28. You are progressive. If you are not progressive then neither am I. We disagree on the same issue. But according to the sites definitions you are progressive.

From the sub-forum description:

Progressive and liberal SDA members who may question, have newer interpretations of, or do not hold to the official 28 beliefs.

I am what I am. I am neither progressive or traditional. CF doesn't define what I am. I do.

tall73 · Jun 3, 2007

1. You are not an apostle. And it may surprise you to know that the majority of the 700 million or so Eastern Orthodox Christans who can trace their line of bishops back to an apostle agree with Maxwell on his view of the penal theory. Does that make them right? No, not in itself. But it does point out that discussion on what the apostles actually believed is valid.

2. I guess RC could declare himself traditional too if it does not matter what cf says.

TrustAndObey · Jun 3, 2007

double post again

Grrr

TrustAndObey · Jun 3, 2007

tall73 said:
You just said the same thing I did and the same thing woob did and they are complete opposites.

I think we don't need Adventist moderators. Woob thinks we do. You agreed with both.

You agreed with Woob who wants to eliminate people like Graham Maxwell's views.

No, I said someone shouldn't misrepresent what the Adventist doctrine is. There are 28 fundamental beliefs, and if someone answers a question about our doctrine with something that simply isn't in the doctrine, then it's misrepresentation.

If RC or someone answered that ALL Progressives do not believe in a literal 6-day creation, you'd disagree with that. That is not what ALL Progressives believe, so it would be misrepresentation.

I think we do need Adventist moderators. I also think they have to want the job.

Hey Woob, if you're Progressive by this forum's definition then I'll put your name on the table for consideration. Do you have time to mod here?

And a bigger question, could you do the job without any bias and without taking it personally? If me or Doc broke the rules, would you reprimand us the same as anyone else on here for doing the same thing?

tall73 · Jun 3, 2007

By the way I am typing on a PDA with a stylus, so if the posts sound abrupt it is not intentional. It just takes a while to type.

TrustAndObey · Jun 3, 2007

I've got to go study.

Woob, I'm putting your name on the table from the Progressive side.

If that's not okay, let me know.

woobadooba · Jun 3, 2007

tall73 said:
1. You are not an apostle. And it may surprise you to know that the majority of the 700 million or so Eastern Orthodox Christans who can trace their line of bishops back to an apostle agree with Maxwell on his view of the penal theory. Does that make them right? No, not in itself. But it does point out that discussion on what the apostles actually believed is valid.

2. I guess RC could declare himself traditional too if it does not matter what cf says.

Actually, I never said I was an Apostle; but in all honesty, who are you to tell people what they are insofar as their commission is concerned?

You may be a pastor, but you aren't the Holy Spirit. So do not take it upon yourself to determine what people are in relation to what only God has the authority to declare them to be.

And as to the moral influence theory, it is heretical, because it states that Jesus' death on the cross merely served to illustrate a moral lesson; but it wasn't necessary for Him to die for us, or in our place.

The Bible is very clear on the matter as to why Jesus died. People like Maxwell distort the truth to serve their own pride on matters that they are not willing to admit to being wrong about.

"But God commends His love toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us." (Rom 5:8)

"Therefore in all things it behoved him to be made like His brothers, that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of His people." (Heb 2:17)

It's quite clear to me why Jesus died.

tall73 · Jun 3, 2007

Yup woob would be progressive. And if we take "new view" seriously then jon and DL would Be too for holding to the inauguration view started by Andross in response to Ballenger. Your real problem might be finding a tradtional under this definition.. And we need both or none.

tall73 · Jun 3, 2007

The founding apostles were those who were w/ Jesus, as the replacement of Judas made clear--you don't qualify. It is their doctrine we are trying to get back to.It is not a matter of gifts, or judging gifts.

And perhaps if you don't want judging you can stop advocating for declaring things heresy by your judgment.

The rules allow discussion, and the forum allows for progressives.

woobadooba · Jun 3, 2007

tall73 said:
Yup woob would be progressive. And if we take "new view" seriously then jon and DL would Be too for holding to the inauguration view started by Andross in response to Ballenger. Your real problem might be finding a tradtional under this definition.. And we need both or none.

Why are Progressive SDAs Progressive? It is because they do not agree with all of the 28 fundamental doctrines of the SDA church.

So what is the opposite of that? Traditional SDAs, which agree with all 28 fundamental doctrines of the SDA church.

So if I disagree with both Traditional and Progressive SDAs on certain doctrines, what would that then make me? Neither one of the two.

woobadooba · Jun 3, 2007

tall73 said:
The founding apostles were those who were w/ Jesus, as the replacement of Judas made clear--you don't qualify. It is their doctrine we are trying to get back to.It is not a matter of gifts, or judging gifts.

And perhaps if you don't want judging you can stop advocating for declaring things heresy by your judgment.

The rules allow discussion, and the forum allows for progressives.

Paul was not one of the twelve. Yet, he was an apostle. Hence the gift of Apostleship did not end at 12.

Of course, this is a topic for another thread...

tall73 · Jun 3, 2007

The rules are not about heresy but discussion. Heresy can be refuted THROUGH discussion, which is far better because then you can convince rather than force.

tall73 · Jun 3, 2007

While Paul was one "abnormally born" he was taught directly by Jesus.

If someone today claimed
to be an apostle and to know all of the apostles original teachings then they could refute heresy and rebuke it--no need to censor it. This is a forum and not the church. Erwin runs it, not the GC. They gave up their forum.

As to not accepting all, that could mean not accepting one. If progressives must reject every sda doctrine then we have no progressives.

My point is simply this--no one likes to be labled--so why are we buying into lables?

tall73 · Jun 3, 2007

Annihilationism was considered unorthodox and was not allowed in the sda forum either. See where this gets us?

woobadooba · Jun 3, 2007

tall73 said:
The rules allow discussion, and the forum allows for progressives.

The forum allows for Progressives, but it ought not to allow for things that are without a shadow of a doubt heretical.

There is a reason why we use the term "Seventh-day" in identifying what we are. It is because we believe that the 7th day constitutes the Sabbath, and honor that day as one of God's commands.

If someone were to come in here and espouse the view that the creation account isn't to be taken literally, then the implication that that gives off is that the 7th day Sabbath is irrelevant, and not binding as a command of God.

Such people who refer to themselves as SDAs while espousing such views are not even properly representing what they believe, much less what the SDA church inculcates on the matter. Hence they should not be called Seventh-day Adventists.

They can refer to themselves as Adventists, but not Seventh-day Adventists. Hence, they should not be allowed to debate in here.

You see, there are things that clearly identify who we are. To espouse views that infer something other is to identify oneself with something other than Seventh-day Adventism.

We ought to come to an agreement on not allowing certain views to be taught in this forum that are clearly not Biblical, while still allowing for people to discuss views that we are not totally clear on as a Church.

Hence, the SDA forum can be a place for open discussion among diversified members, but ought not to be an area designated to promote heresy, or that which does not properly represent who we are.

tall73 · Jun 3, 2007

Has RC ever said he rejects the sabbath?

Yet you openly have said you reject the traditional sanctuary teaching. Both are pillars.

You seem to want to make allowance for some 'heresy' but not others.

tall73 · Jun 3, 2007

If someone ID's as SDA and is a member, his views are welcome under the rules. It seems as simple as that.
.

woobadooba · Jun 3, 2007

tall73 said:
Has RC ever said he rejects the sabbath?

No, but his belief does not support the true teaching and purpose of the 4th commandment.

Yet you openly have said you reject the traditional sanctuary teaching. Both are pillars.

I said I do not agree that the IJ started in 1844, but was in play even during the time of Peter. Hence, I do not reject the IJ. I just don't agree that it began in 1844. There is a difference between flat out rejecting the teaching, and not agreeing with some aspect of an implication of such a teaching.

Moreover, the Bible is very clear on the matter of when it began, just as the Bible is clear about a literal 7 day creation. Hence, my belief that it did not begin in 1844 does not constitute Biblical heresy. Just because it does not agree with what one of the 28 fundamental doctrines of the SDA church dictates it ought to be that doesn't mean I am in error. The 28 fundamental doctrines are not the Bible.

You seem to want to make allowance for some 'heresy' but not others.

Heresy according to whom, Traditional or Progressive SDAs? What about God? Isn't He the one the determines what is heretical?

woobadooba · Jun 3, 2007

tall73 said:
If someone ID's as SDA and is a member, his views are welcome under the rules. It seems as simple as that.
.

Hence, your view states that anyone that merely considers himself to be an SDA is an SDA. Thus this person can teach anything he so desires, and such teachings would be called SDA doctrine.

Sorry but this just doesn't make any sense at all. There is no point in calling this forum SDA if there isn't something in play to define what an SDA is. And if there is something in play to identify what an SDA is, and that person does not concur with it, then he is not an SDA. It's as simple as that.

And in all honesty, does this principle that you are speaking of really work in the Church?

Did the Apostles inculcate such an idea?

If so, what sense was there in Paul telling the Corinthians to be of the same mind and judgement? 1Cor. 1:10

For that matter, why not apply this principle of yours to Christianity in general? Why not let us be whatever we want to be and still be called Christian?

Hence there would be no use for the Bible, or the Day of Judgment. How well would that fair against what Jesus said in Matt. 7:21-23?

We need some SDA moderators

Legend

Legend

Sophia7's husband

TrustAndObey

Guest

TrustAndObey

Guest

Sophia7's husband

TrustAndObey

Guest

Legend

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Legend

Legend

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Legend

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Legend

Legend

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency