What doctrines do we hold in common?

[EastCoastRemnant]

I dont agree with the Once saved always saved doctrine.

Thats good to hear!

 

[Byfaithalone1]

I dont agree with the Once saved always saved doctrine.

I don't either.

BFA

 

[VictorC]

It would appear that Scripture's admonishment for our unity didn't really have an impact on the audience.

Coming to a common ground understanding is ecumenicalism and causes satan to win, not lose. Remember Jesus came not to unite but to divide....

If you're gleaning this from Matthew 10:34-37, I would suggest that a review of that text is in order. Coming to the common faith we were entrusted with in unity has been the goal of those conveying the Gospel since its inception.

Jude 1
3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.
4 For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.​

Ephesians 4
1 I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called,
2 with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love,
3 endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling;
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;
6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
7 But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ's gift.
8 Therefore He says: "When He ascended on high, He led captivity captive, And gave gifts to men."
9 (Now this, "He ascended" ----what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth?
10 He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.)
11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers,
12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ,
13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ;
14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting,
15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head----Christ----
16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.​

Jesus acknowledged that divisions in any body would not last, and I would not agree with your contention that Jesus has a goal of dividing His own Body invested into us.

Matthew 12:25
But Jesus knew their thoughts, and said to them: "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand.​

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

I never said Jesus would divide His body but maybe your understanding of what constitutes His body is not clear. Just because someone says they are a Christian, does not mean they are a part of His church.

The division that His truth would accomplish was His remnant church from the world.

 

[VictorC]

I never said Jesus would divide His body but maybe your understanding of what constitutes His body is not clear. Just because someone says they are a Christian, does not mean they are a part of His church.

The division that His truth would accomplish was His remnant church from the world.

No one can tell who you're responding to unless you use the "quote" button to identify what comments you're addressing. Keep in mind that your comments are similar to those who regard Adventism as a departure from God's remnant, which makes your post even more confusing to dissect and address properly.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

No one can tell who you're responding to unless you use the "quote" button to identify what comments you're addressing. Keep in mind that your comments are similar to those who regard Adventism as a departure from God's remnant, which makes your post even more confusing to dissect and address properly.

Sorry for the confusion on the context of my post...

I'm not quite sure what you mean in the second part of your post.... I do not consider SDA to be a departure from the remnant, I consider the SDA to be the remnant. Now, to clarify, I don't believe that just because your name is on the books of the church that you are remnant, just as I believe that there will be those from outside the SDA faith that will constitute the remnant as they come to an understanding and belief of what God gave Adventists as the last day message.

 

[VictorC]

Sorry for the confusion on the context of my post...

I'm not quite sure what you mean in the second part of your post.... I do not consider SDA to be a departure from the remnant, I consider the SDA to be the remnant. Now, to clarify, I don't believe that just because your name is on the books of the church that you are remnant, just as I believe that there will be those from outside the SDA faith that will constitute the remnant as they come to an understanding and belief of what God gave Adventists as the last day message.

I just finished a post on the progressive congregational forum for you, and it might help explain why those advocating the unity of the one faith entrusted to us don't accept Adventism as God's remnant. The very first evidence are the distinctive beliefs codified in the SDA Fundamentals, 2/3 of which depend at least some language from Ellen White, and either contradict Scripture or assume tenets that aren't supported by Scripture.

These distinctive beliefs cause Adventism to depart from the remnant God established in our unity. It wasn't God who gave you your last days message. It was Ellen.

1 John 2:19
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.​

We are called to be Christians, followers of God our Redeemer in His adoption, and not a people calling for a return to the ministry of death mediated in the hands of Moses.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

It wasn't God who gave you your last days message. It was Ellen.

To me, thats like saying it wasn't God who gave us the Revelation, it was John.

I do understand that you don't believe Ellen White was a prophetess and because of that it is impossible for you to understand the SDA point of view.

The scripture that says that in the latter days, young men and women would be prophesying and old men dreaming dreams, do you think that has happened or are you waiting for a future end times prophet of God?

 

[VictorC]

To me, thats like saying it wasn't God who gave us the Revelation, it was John.

I do understand that you don't believe Ellen White was a prophetess and because of that it is impossible for you to understand the SDA point of view.

Actually, I'm one of those few outside of Adventism initially challenged by those in it to determine if they had a prophet inspired by God. I could ask you why Adventism is alone in seeking a "second and final phase of His atoning ministry" that is patently unBiblical, and yet this is codified in SDA Fundamental #24. It exists solely as an apology for 1844 as an event that can't be verified, contradicts the narrative of Hebrews 9 and 10, and suggests atonement is incomplete and didn't redeem our transgressions under the first covenant as stated by Hebrews 9:15.

Now look at Matthew 24.

23 "Then if anyone says to you, `Look, here is the Christ!' or `There!' do not believe it.
24 "For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.
25 "See, I have told you beforehand.
26 "Therefore if they say to you, `Look, He is in the desert!' do not go out; or `Look, He is in the inner rooms!' do not believe it.​

Adventism's reason to exist revolves around their message of Jesus entering into the MHP in 1844, into a location that Hebrews described as a fait accompli before it was written. After that, Hebrews 10:12-13 describes the itinerary of Jesus with the second advent the next item on His agenda, into which an event in 1844 can't be inserted. Adventism insists that Jesus entered into the inner room, can't verify it, and here we have a direct commandment by Jesus to reject this fable before it gets off the ground.

The scripture that says that in the latter days, young men and women would be prophesying and old men dreaming dreams, do you think that has happened or are you waiting for a future end times prophet of God?

The gift of prophecy is one that continues in God's church. The SDA church doesn't have a prophet in the present tense, and had its start in someone whose claim to inspiration is more than a little suspect.

I noted that you didn't offer a response to the post I wrote in the progressive forum.

 

[David Conklin]

>I could ask you why Adventism is alone in seeking a "second and final phase of His atoning ministry" that is patently unBiblical, and yet this is codified in SDA Fundamental #24. It exists solely as an apology for 1844 as an event that can't be verified, contradicts the narrative of Hebrews 9 and 10, and suggests atonement is incomplete and didn't redeem our transgressions under the first covenant as stated by Hebrews 9:15.

1) The Day of Atonement (Lev. 16) is hardly "unbiblical."
2) There's no evidence that "it exists solely as an apology for 1844."
3) Heb. 9 & 10 aren't talking about the Day of Atonement.
4) The price of our atonement which redeemed our transgressions was paid at the Cross.

Hebrews 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

The Day of Atonement (Lev. 16) is hardly "unbiblical."

If it is used as a basis for teaching that Christ's atonement was NOT comploeted once for all, then it is quite unbiblical.

BFA

 

[VictorC]

I could ask you why Adventism is alone in seeking a "second and final phase of His atoning ministry" that is patently unBiblical, and yet this is codified in SDA Fundamental #24. It exists solely as an apology for 1844 as an event that can't be verified, contradicts the narrative of Hebrews 9 and 10, and suggests atonement is incomplete and didn't redeem our transgressions under the first covenant as stated by Hebrews 9:15.

1) The Day of Atonement (Lev. 16) is hardly "unbiblical."

Where we disagree is that assigning the rites defined in Leviticus 16 to a time past when they were authorized is unBiblical.

2) There's no evidence that "it exists solely as an apology for 1844."

This is the "foundation and central pillar of the advent faith" that Ellen White wrote about based on a misinterpretation of Daniel 8:14, to assign a prophecy to 1844 for the second advent. In order to retain the date when the anticipated event failed, another event had to be created to fulfill the prophecy. This was done with the Shut Door doctrine, which was later replaced by the IJ. That was the sole motive for creating this event that Jesus warned us of in advance by stating "do not believe it".

3) Heb. 9 & 10 aren't talking about the Day of Atonement.

Chapter 9 describes Jesus following the example of the High Priest in the annual cycle entering into the MHP with blood, an event that happened only on the Day of Atonement.

4) The price of our atonement which redeemed our transgressions was paid at the Cross.

The sacrifice was provided on the cross, and the offering was offered on the Mercyseat in the Heavenly Sanctuary on our behalf. Entrance into the MHP is never done without blood from the sacrifice, as specified by Hebrews 9:7.

Hebrews 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Once those transgressions were redeemed under the first covenant, Jesus became mediator of the new covenant that is incompatible with the first: "He takes away the first that He may establish the second" (Hebrews 10:9). Jesus isn't a mediator of the first covenant that contained the rites of atonement, and after that first covenant is taken away, a "second and final phase of atonement" alleged by SDA Fundamental #24 has no rite of atonement existing to authorize any so-called "second phase". All these events were written in the past tense when Hebrews was penned; atonement is not added to or repeated.

Hebrews 10:12-13
But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool.​

The next item on Christ's itinerary is the second advent, into which an event in 1844 alleging His participation can't be inserted.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

What doctrines do we hold in common?

Crib . . . I still think you may have been onto something with this thread. I just took some time looking at the FBs of SDAism and I offer these statements as examples of beliefs that I hold in common with SDAism (this is not meant to be an all inclusive list):

1. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of God's will.

2. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation. He is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation.

3. God the eternal Father is the Creator, Source, Sustainer, and Sovereign of all creation. He is just and holy, merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness.

3. Forever truly God, Jesus became also truly man. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary.

4. The Holy Spirit draws and convicts human beings.

5. God is Creator of all things.

6. Man and woman were made in the image of God with individuality, the power and freedom to think and to do.

7. The church is God's family; adopted by Him as children, its members live on the basis of the new covenant. The church is composed of all who truly believe in Christ.

8. We are all equal in Christ, who by one Spirit has bonded us into one fellowship with Him and with one another; we are to serve and be served without partiality or reservation.

9. By baptism we confess our faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and testify of our death to sin and of our purpose to walk in newness of life.

10. The Lord's Supper is a participation in the emblems of the body and blood of Jesus as an expression of faith in Him, our Lord and Saviour. In this experience of communion Christ is present to meet and strengthen His people.

11. God bestows upon all members of His church in every age spiritual gifts which each member is to employ in loving ministry for the common good of the church and of humanity.

12. We are God's stewards, entrusted by Him with time and opportunities, abilities and possessions, and the blessings of the earth and its resources.

13. Marriage was divinely established in Eden and affirmed by Jesus to be a lifelong union between a man and a woman in loving companionship.
​

Perhaps there are other areas in which many of us agree? What's the harm in discussing our areas of agreement?

BFA

 

[Cribstyl]

Reviewed my conduct..........(I'm not perfect)

I'm not ashamed of my intent and dialogs in this thread.......... I only see whom I speaking to but some people act as if I'm against SDA.

The truth is SDA members often gang up with no tangable evidence......

 

[Stewartnz]

Interesting thread, Crib. There are quite a few among Adventists which will call any pursuit of "common ground", eccumenicalism, and zealously shun it.

"...for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? (2Cor 6:14-15) Of course the answer, ultimately, is "none", and "none".

But the line between spiritual Israel and Babylon is still 'broken in places', and there are still areas where communication is possible. (Although this will not always be the case, I believe.)

Ellen White makes what I think is an interesting comment on this point.
"The Lord calls for a converted ministry,--a ministry that will meet the people where they are, that will agree with them wherever they can, but that will not deny the truth. We are not to keep ourselves shut within four walls, so that our light cannot come to others. There is common ground where we may meet those not of our faith, where we may agree in principles and in regard to the lesson of Christ. Few will become combative over these holy principles.

(Ms 104, 1898, "Christ's Manner of Teaching") (6ManuscriptRelease p.72)

 

[Cribstyl]

Interesting thread, Crib. There are quite a few among Adventists which will call any pursuit of "common ground", eccumenicalism, and zealously shun it.

"...for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? (2Cor 6:14-15) Of course the answer, ultimately, is "none", and "none".

But the line between spiritual Israel and Babylon is still 'broken in places', and there are still areas where communication is possible. (Although this will not always be the case, I believe.)

Ellen White makes what I think is an interesting comment on this point.
"The Lord calls for a converted ministry,--a ministry that will meet the people where they are, that will agree with them wherever they can, but that will not deny the truth. We are not to keep ourselves shut within four walls, so that our light cannot come to others. There is common ground where we may meet those not of our faith, where we may agree in principles and in regard to the lesson of Christ. Few will become combative over these holy principles.

(Ms 104, 1898, "Christ's Manner of Teaching") (6ManuscriptRelease p.72)

Sheeze, I understand.........

The history Adventism shows that both William Miller and Ellen Harmon were born observing protestant doctrines. There are common doctrines that SDA have adopted from other churches rather the other way arround. SDA doctrines have evolved from the 1800s.

I have a ministry supporting mostly Adventist young men.
They feel isolated and unprepared for the world. I just love on them and help search for opportunity and access to use their God given talents and dreams. We play basketball, games and just hangout.
Im sure you have that age group that hang outside during worship hours, they dont talk much, they're not all rebels, they just need love and to be valued.

 

[Princessdi]

This crossed my mind, also Stwartnz. Eccuminical "common ground " is such a huge part of the SDA end time prophecy, any attempt at it is pretty scary.

Interesting thread, Crib. There are quite a few among Adventists which will call any pursuit of "common ground", eccumenicalism, and zealously shun it.

"...for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? (2Cor 6:14-15) Of course the answer, ultimately, is "none", and "none".

But the line between spiritual Israel and Babylon is still 'broken in places', and there are still areas where communication is possible. (Although this will not always be the case, I believe.)

Ellen White makes what I think is an interesting comment on this point.
"The Lord calls for a converted ministry,--a ministry that will meet the people where they are, that will agree with them wherever they can, but that will not deny the truth. We are not to keep ourselves shut within four walls, so that our light cannot come to others. There is common ground where we may meet those not of our faith, where we may agree in principles and in regard to the lesson of Christ. Few will become combative over these holy principles.

(Ms 104, 1898, "Christ's Manner of Teaching") (6ManuscriptRelease p.72)

 

[Cribstyl]

What doctrines do we hold in common?

Crib . . . I still think you may have been onto something with this thread. I just took some time looking at the FBs of SDAism and I offer these statements as examples of beliefs that I hold in common with SDAism (this is not meant to be an all inclusive list):

1. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of God's will.

2. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation. He is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation.

3. God the eternal Father is the Creator, Source, Sustainer, and Sovereign of all creation. He is just and holy, merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness.

3. Forever truly God, Jesus became also truly man. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary.

4. The Holy Spirit draws and convicts human beings.

5. God is Creator of all things.

6. Man and woman were made in the image of God with individuality, the power and freedom to think and to do.

7. The church is God's family; adopted by Him as children, its members live on the basis of the new covenant. The church is composed of all who truly believe in Christ.

8. We are all equal in Christ, who by one Spirit has bonded us into one fellowship with Him and with one another; we are to serve and be served without partiality or reservation.

9. By baptism we confess our faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and testify of our death to sin and of our purpose to walk in newness of life.

10. The Lord's Supper is a participation in the emblems of the body and blood of Jesus as an expression of faith in Him, our Lord and Saviour. In this experience of communion Christ is present to meet and strengthen His people.

11. God bestows upon all members of His church in every age spiritual gifts which each member is to employ in loving ministry for the common good of the church and of humanity.

12. We are God's stewards, entrusted by Him with time and opportunities, abilities and possessions, and the blessings of the earth and its resources.

13. Marriage was divinely established in Eden and affirmed by Jesus to be a lifelong union between a man and a woman in loving companionship.
​

Perhaps there are other areas in which many of us agree? What's the harm in discussing our areas of agreement?

BFA

This was the objective of this thread.

 

[Stewartnz]

Not wanting to initiate anything really, but if we were to dig into these ideas, I wonder just how unified we would be on them.

Point #3 is possibly the grounds for divergent views.

"Forever truly God, Jesus became also truly man."

As a man, did Jesus live with certain advantages over us?

Yes, Jesus was truly God, but as a man, did Jesus use His Divinity to His advantage?

... and I'm not sure how we would cope with point #7.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

To me the seventh point is refreshing from the structure as they don't claim the corporate body od Adventism is the church... we all know the church is the body made up of the believers, nothing more.

They do hold views today that I disagree with 100%. The issue of the trinity, which I understand is a taboo subject on this forum for some reason, is not what I believe and I can back it up with scripture, pioneer understanding and historical account.