Unity In Diversity Conference, June 2017

[Gregory Matthews]

See:

http://atoday.org/london-conference-to-tackle-adventist-unity-in-diversity/

[Gerr]

I eagerly look forward to their recommendations as to how they would deal with theological diversity of opinion. 

[Kevin H]

Our pioneers knew how to deal with unity in diversity. We wouldn't have his problem if we followed their example instead of wanting to be like the churches that threw them out...

 

[Gregory Matthews]

For more on this conference see:

https://adventistunity2017.com/

For the agenda see:

https://adventistunity2017.com/agenda-2/

For a summarized statement of the agenda for each day, see:

https://adventistunity2017.com/about/

For a list of speakers see:

https://adventistunity2017.com/keynotes-speakers/

For a PDF Brochure see:

https://adventistunity2017.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/unity2017_brochure.pdf

[Gerr]

On 3/24/2017 at 0:16 AM, Kevin H said:

Our pioneers knew how to deal with unity in diversity. We wouldn't have his problem if we followed their example instead of wanting to be like the churches that threw them out...

 

What did they do, Kevin?  I know they had Bible conferences, but anything else?

[Kevin H]

They also agreed on only a handful of landmarks, besides these, as long as they were not fanatical and willing to listen to other views, they were free to believe what they wished.

Many of our pioneers questioned the trinity, but unlike the Jehovah's Witnesses, we did not make that a part of our belief. If you wanted to join the church but was a Trinitarian you were still welcome to join.

The original list of our beliefs were basically an intersection where most of our members met. That meant that Brother so and so believed this point but may have had a few personal beliefs that were not in this intersection. If someone wanted to join our church, or at least knew what we believed it was the landmarks and this area of intersection.

We use to move our pastors around every couple of years so that our members could get exposed to different ideas that they might or might not find useful.

[Gregory Matthews]

In the early days of our developing denomination it held a group of what are often called "Sabbath Conferences,"  as they included discussion on the Sabbath.  Out of  these conferences we agreed on five (5) central beliefs.  Not 27+.   In no particular order  of importance these five were the doctrine of the:

*  Sabbath:  Is the 7th day of the week and is valid in NT times.

*  State of the dead:  The dead are  in a grave, rather than going to either heaven or hell upon death.

*  Sanctuary:  Is the idea that "end time" is now and Christ is preparing to receive the redeemed to live with God in eternity.

*  Soul sleep:   Upon death, no human part remains conscious until such a time as consciousness is restored by God.

*  Second advent:  The return of Christ to Earth the second time is sure and certain at which time the redeemed will live in eternity with God.

 

 

[Gerr]

6 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

In the early days of our developing denomination it held a group of what are often called "Sabbath Conferences,"  as they included discussion on the Sabbath.  Out of  these conferences we agreed on five (5) central beliefs.  Not 27+.   In no particular order  of importance these five were the doctrine of the:

*  Sabbath:  Is the 7th day of the week and is valid in NT times.

*  State of the dead:  The dead are  in a grave, rather than going to either heaven or hell upon death.

*  Sanctuary:  Is the idea that "end time" is now and Christ is preparing to receive the redeemed to live with God in eternity.

*  Soul sleep:   Upon death, no human part remains conscious until such a time as consciousness is restored by God.

*  Second advent:  The return of Christ to Earth the second time is sure and certain at which time the redeemed will live in eternity with God.

 

 

Do you think that list should suffice?

[Gregory Matthews]

Well, it was good enough for our early leaders, to   include EGW.

If you want to throw out that history, O.K.  But, where do you draw the line.

On a personal basis, I consider the baptismal 13, to be sufficient.

The so-called 27/28 have a place, but not to determine who either is or is not a SDA.  The 27/28 was never intended to be a creed and that is how it is being used by many today.

There is ample Biblical support for the idea that at some point we wait upon God and  God will work out what has not been given to us as our task.

 

 

 

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

while the conference might be interesting, in reality it seems to me like a colossal waste of time and money... the various factions of the world church (individual members, conferences, unions, divisions, etc) are going to do what they want to do, regardless of what some "Diversity Conference" decides to proffer.

Nothing like taking the focus off of the gospel itself and putting it directly on church politics and whether the *messenger* is male or female.

Really, it's hard to fathom how so many people have gotten sucked into what shouldn't even be an issue.  I've not interviewed him lately, but I think Satan is rather pleased that the role of women and the attendant issue of "diversity and unity" has become such a millstone around the neck of the church.

[Kevin H]

On the other hand Pam, having discussions like this is how God has worked with growing the church over the years.