Why do you consider yourself a Seventh Day Adventist?

[VictorC]

Victor, has Daryl answered your question as to why he is SDA to your satisfaction? It sounds as though you are crossing the line from asking him questions to arguing with him, and that's not the purpose of this thread.

The very title of this thread is "Why do you consider yourself a Seventh Day Adventist?", and Daryl has presented an orthodox appeal to salvation that isn't consistent with the SDA Fundamental Beliefs. It is natural to seek clarification on the inconsistency he has presented.

Daryl has yet to respond to the posts that have been presented to him regarding this, and so I remain unsatisfied.

Daryl has made perfectly clear, at least to me, that he disagrees.

Since you're "perfectly clear", then perhaps you don't mind explaining just what it is that Daryl disagrees with.

Victor

 

[Sophia7]

to the portion I highlighted I would ask "Why?" Who said that one must come to that point? Again I go back to my simple definition, if one chooses to observe the sabbath and is looking for the 2nd advent of Christ, they are in my mind a seventh day adventist.... what's the problem?

I debated back and forth in my mind for over a year on whether I should still be a Seventh-day Adventist, but there was a point when I finally decided that I couldn't call myself one anymore, and that was when I stopped observing the Sabbath (not when I stopped believing in the Adventist view of it because that had already happened several months earlier). Maybe for some people the "tipping" point is a different issue, and maybe for some there isn't one. I just knew that I couldn't consider myself an Adventist at that point.

 

[StormyOne]

I debated back and forth in my mind for over a year on whether I should still be a Seventh-day Adventist, but there was a point when I finally decided that I couldn't call myself one anymore, and that was when I stopped observing the Sabbath (not when I stopped believing in the Adventist view of it because that had already happened several months earlier). Maybe for some people the "tipping" point is a different issue, and maybe for some there isn't one. I just knew that I couldn't consider myself an Adventist at that point.

and that's cool, I understand what you are saying. At the point you said no more sabbath observance you stopped being an sda..... are you still an adventist i.e. looking for the 2nd advent of Christ or is that something you have also discarded?

I think I'll just identify myself as a Contrarian Christian Universalist.....

 

[sentipente]

and that's cool, I understand what you are saying. At the point you said no more sabbath observance you stopped being an sda..... are you still an adventist i.e. looking for the 2nd advent of Christ or is that something you have also discarded?

I think I'll just identify myself as a Contrarian Christian Universalist.....

My problem is that on matters of truth I find that I share more with non-Christians than with Christians. Christians are more concerned with the needs of the Christian community than they are with the welfare of the human race as a whole. This is unfortunate. I would not consider myself a Universalist but lean towards spiritual humanism because I am a humanist as Jesus was.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

to the portion I highlighted I would ask "Why?" Who said that one must come to that point?

Not me. And I don't believe SDAs must come to that point. However, I was responding to Soldier's assertion that Victor's post had abandoned the stated purpose of the thread. In fact, Victor's post is quite germaine to the stated purpose of this thread.

Again I go back to my simple definition, if one chooses to observe the sabbath and is looking for the 2nd advent of Christ, they are in my mind a seventh day adventist.... what's the problem?

I respect that this is your definition. I simply note that it isn't the denomination's definition. Perhaps progressives such as yourself might work to change the denomination's definition? Just a suggestion.

This scrutinizing reminds me of some in the black community who suggest that some black people are not "really" black.

If that is the case, then it isn't my criteria that we're measuring against. Rather, we are measuring against the denomination's stated criteria. Do you believe that should change?

what this thread has shown is that in religion people do the same kind of assessing, and in my opinion it is all moot...

It is moot. Whether or not you are a Seventh-day Adventist is meaningless to God. If you view yourself as an SDA, even if you may also disagree with one or more of the beliefs that it calls fundamental, that is fine by me.

Is it safe to assume that you disagree with one or more of the beliefts that SDAism calls "fundamental?"

BFA

 

[StormyOne]

Not me. And I don't believe SDAs must come to that point. However, I was responding to Soldier's assertion that Victor's post had abandoned the stated purpose of the thread. In fact, Victor's post is quite germaine to the stated purpose of this thread.



I respect that this is your definition. I simply note that it isn't the denomination's definition. Perhaps progressives such as yourself might work to change the denomination's definition? Just a suggestion.



If that is the case, then it isn't my criteria that we're measuring against. Rather, we are measuring against the denomination's stated criteria. Do you believe that should change?



It is moot. Whether or not you are a Seventh-day Adventist is meaningless to God. If you view yourself as an SDA, even if you may also disagree with one or more of the beliefs that it calls fundamental, that is fine by me.

Is it safe to assume that you disagree with one or more of the beliefts that SDAism calls "fundamental?"

BFA

your assumption would be correct.... there are several beliefs I disagree with.....

 

[Sophia7]

and that's cool, I understand what you are saying. At the point you said no more sabbath observance you stopped being an sda..... are you still an adventist i.e. looking for the 2nd advent of Christ or is that something you have also discarded?

I think I'll just identify myself as a Contrarian Christian Universalist.....

Yes, I'm still looking for the second advent.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Since you're "perfectly clear", then perhaps you don't mind explaining just what it is that Daryl disagrees with.

Certainly. Daryl posted:

From my understanding of the FBs of the SDA Church, as far as my salvation by faith in Christ alone goes, none of those FBs goes against what I have posted here so far.

What he is clearly saying saying here (and I hope he will correct me if I am misinterpreting him) is that he sees no contradiction between the SDA Fundamentals and salvation by faith alone. You then asserted that yes there is in fact such a contradiction, and and that point you are arguing with him, which as I pointed out, is not the purpose of this post.

The very title of this thread is "Why do you consider yourself a Seventh Day Adventist?", and Daryl has presented an orthodox appeal to salvation that isn't consistent with the SDA Fundamental Beliefs. It is natural to seek clarification on the inconsistency he has presented.

Again, he has stated that he believes it is consistent with the SDA Fundamental Beliefs, which means he doesn't see any inconsistency.

Also, I'm wondering if you still have questions, why you don't ask them? In post #36, the one I was responding to, I don't see a single question being asked, just criticism of SDA doctrine. That's when I began to wonder if this is turning into a debate thread.

 

[DarylFawcett]

SoldierOfTheKing has sufficiently expressed my own thoughts regarding this in his response.

I do not want to transition into debating in this thread. I answered the title question of this thread and that is all I intend to do. Any follow-up questions relating to that I will try and answer. I will not respond to anything else, especially where it mobes into the realm of debating.

 

[sentipente]

It is ludicrous for anyone to claim that what they believe about a reality that they are attempting to map could be fundamental. It may be important but it can never be known to be fundamental. Fundamentalism requires a complete acquaintance with the reality and none of us would know when we have achieved that state.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

SoldierOfTheKing has sufficiently expressed my own thoughts regarding this in his response.

I do not want to transition into debating in this thread. I answered the title question of this thread and that is all I intend to do. Any follow-up questions relating to that I will try and answer. I will not respond to anything else, especially where it mobes into the realm of debating.

I respect that and appreciate the dialogue.

BFA

 

[VictorC]

he has stated that he believes it is consistent with the SDA Fundamental Beliefs, which means he doesn't see any inconsistency.

In other words, perception as become the de facto standard for Adventist "truth", and it isn't open to discussion.
Does that about sum up your point?

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

The issue is not whether Daryl is right or wrong, but whether he has clearly stated his position, which he has.

Certainly his position is open to discussion, just not here.

 

[sentipente]

The issue is not whether Daryl is right or wrong, but whether he has clearly stated his position, which he has.

Certainly his position is open to discussion, just not here.

Why not here? Just curious as to how you came to that conclusion.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

1. It's off the topic of this thread.
2. This isn't the Debate and Discussion forum.
3. Daryl seems to have indicated that he's not interested in debating his position this thread.

 

[sentipente]

1. It's off the topic of this thread.
2. This isn't the Debate and Discussion forum.
3. Daryl seems to have indicated that he's not interested in debating his position this thread.

It is part of the topic. This is not the Trad section so No. 1 has no bearing. No. 3 could apply since there can be no debate if Daryl does not participate.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

This isn't the Debate and Discussion forum.

There is no "Debate and Discussion" forum in the progressive/moderate/former site.

BFA

 

[Sophia7]

There is no "Debate and Discussion" forum in the progressive/moderate/former site.

BFA

The FSGs currently allow debate here.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

It's a good question. I struggled with it myself for several months before finally deciding that I couldn't be a Seventh-day Adventist anymore.

The first time Moriah got a foretaste of what it truly meant to walk in the Spirit in the sense of Galatians 5:16, it completely nailed things. The satanic stronghold of toxic performance-based, volition-reliant soteriology crumbled to dust at one tiny breath from the nostrils of the True and Living God blowing through His shattered handmaiden. Moriah knew then and there if it ever called itself "Adventist" anything again, it would only be of the sort preceded by the adjective, Former.

That a single denomination could so completely brainwash and program a brand new Christian to create in them an absolute insurmountable TERROR at the thought of discarding its dogmas as "God's truth" twenty-three years after being taken over by demons, driven underground into hardcore occultism and having had personal favor with the prince of Darkness himself the likes of which it has never heard anyone else testify authentically -- when that same denomination, all along, had consistently conspired doctrinally to deprive Moriah (among countless others, no doubt) of the ONE AND ONLY THING NECESSARY for a successful and effective walk with Christ on EVERY occasion it sought to return to the Lord (and failed owing primarily to mistakenly believing this required returning to SDA-ism, it now realises) -- makes it FAR too heinous to contemplate EVER AGAIN lending one's time, resources, heart, mind, body, self, identity, energy, devotion, or anything else whatsoever to so spiritually corrupt an enterprise, whose consistent proliferation of nothing short of pure strife repeatedly testifies to the hue of its moral compass. Never again. NEVER again.

 

[Mankin]

Adventism's problem with its soteriology is that it is deeply connected with its eschatology so much so that the two almost become the same thing. Adventism generally believes in mainstream soteriology yet its eschatology intertwines with it and creates a new doctrine. As we are all aware, it is part of the official adventist's beliefs that eventually everyone will have to convert to the SDA church or be lost. If Adventism removes the eschatology from their soteriology, the problem will be fixed. However, many traditionals would become extremely furious about such a change for one reason. Adventism would lose the power of its unique message. No longer would its message be necessary to save people. They would just become another denomination in the crowd. Traditional Adventists would refuse to accept such a condition, because they would lose the assurance of being God's true church. They would just become another meaniless devision in Christianity.