At the Creation

[Gustave]

9 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

The Bible STOPS with the deaths of Paul and John.  There is nothing more.  How could I have a Biblical something specifically about that council.   

We have the Bible, and the Bible (I believe) does NOT support the doctrine of a Trinity, of "one being" or "one substance" existing as "three divine persons" .  

Therefore the bishops who voted at the Council of Nicea, were wrong - if indeed they voted from free will, and not from FEAR of Constantine, who may have told them HOW to vote.  

NOTE:  I am not saying that Arius was 100% right. 

This is the age-old conflict.  Will individual Christians obey "authorized" or "official" councils, or will they study the Word for themselves, with the help of Christ.   This is the priesthood of all believers, vs the "authorized" - "orthodox" priesthood.  

The "church" (congregational) authorities [the Sanhedrin] of the day,  actually KILLED the Son of God.   He did not submit to their authority, and neither did His disciples after Him.  He rejected their authority, BECAUSE they had departed from the truth of God, and obedience to God.   The same principle applies to all following councils.  

The Bible stopped, the Church didn't. Here's how it's Biblical. 

Acts 9, 17: And laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came, has sent me that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”  And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized,  and took food and was strengthened."

St. Paul said to St. Timothy: "You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also."

The fact that there has been a line of "Bishops" in Jerusalem continuing on from James shows that the Christians who learned the Faith at the feet of the Apostles understood thing vastly different than you do. These Bishops didn't appoint themselves OR is it your claim that they, in ignorance of Apostolic teaching, did just that? 

 

 

[Gustave]

26 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Proverbs 3:5 "Trust in the LORD with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; 6 In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct your paths." 

HE will direct you paths.  Not - the Orthodox Church will direct your paths.  

And in the case of Old Testament Religious Authority.

Deut 5, 27: Go near, and hear all that the Lord our God will say; and speak to us all that the Lord our God will speak to you; and we will hear and do it.’And the Lord heard your words, when you spoke to me; and the Lord said to me, ‘I have heard the words of this people, which they have spoken to you; they have rightly said all that they have spoken. Oh that they had such a mind as this always, to fear me and to keep all my commandments, that it might go well with them and with their children for ever!  Go and say to them, “Return to your tents.”  But you [MOSES], stand here by me, and I will tell you all the commandment and the statutes and the ordinances which you shall teach them [The Children of Israel], that they may do them [God's Commandments] in the land which I give them to possess."

This "Authority" of Moses was confirmed in the rebellion of Korah all the way through to the death of Christ. Prior to Jesus's death He was explicit that Moses' "Authority" had been passed down though succession. 

Matthew 23,2: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice."

That was an explicit command from Jesus Himself - the Scribes and Pharisees had religious authority and if you were following God you DID WHAT THEY SAID because they had the authority to teach - to BIND teachings and to LOOSE teachings. The caveat was that they didn't walk the walk themselves, they didn't practice what they preached. An example of this would be the Jewish religious authorities binding of starting Sabbath on the evening of the 6th day instead of the morning of the 7th. 

The language Christ used in Matthew 23 is unavoidable when we see that power SHIFT from those who sit on Moses' seat to those commissioned by Christ. 

Matthew 28,18: "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe ALL that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

The Authority the Scribes and Pharisees HAD was now gone, ALL Authority was given to Christ who commissioned His Apostles to "make MORE" Disciples. You can't command anything without authority and if this isn't what Jesus intended to convey He certainly selected some odd words to convey EVERYONE has the authority to determine what the Bible really means. I mean seriously, that would be laughable if it wasn't so serious. 

Like I shared with you previously, St. Paul wasn't one of the original 12 NOR was he the one selected to replace Judas yet we see that Paul held a "Divine Office" & had REAL Religious Authority over those he was instructing in the faith. 

2 Corinthians 1, 22: But it is God who establishes us with you in Christ, and has commissioned us;  he has put his seal upon us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee."

If your interpretation of Proverbs 3,5 was right you wouldn't see what you do in Matthew 23,2 OR what's below that plainly says that it's not an individuals private interpretation of Scripture that's truth BUT THE CHURCH. 

1 Tim 3, 15: "I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth". 

 

 

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, 8thdaypriest said:

2 Corinthians was addressed to "the church of God that is in Corinth, including all the saints throughout Achaia:"   It was addressed to the entire body of believers - not to any specific individuals within those bodies.  

God has "commissioned" all believers as ambassadors, and calls upon all believers to study what is true, and to share their faith.      

Without boundaries that would have been license for folks who didn't agree with the Council of Jerusalem to condemn the determination of that Council based on the individuals private interpretation. 

[JoeMo]

It appears to me that James was the first "leader" of the Church. I could find no explicit "order of succession" procedures in the Bible.  Catholics believe that Peter was the first pope.  The papacy wasn't even officially established until at least the third century - long after Peter's death.  In searching the scriptures, I could find no record of Peter ever being in Rome in order to be Pope; or Peter being crucified upside=down in Rome.  If Paul and Peter were "brothers in Christ", why didn't Paul even mention a greeting to Peter in the Book of Romans?

IMHO, there is no succession of leadership in God's true church.  Christ is the Head; and since He has eternal life, He will never be succeeded.

[Gustave]

18 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

It appears to me that James was the first "leader" of the Church. I could find no explicit "order of succession" procedures in the Bible.  Catholics believe that Peter was the first pope.  The papacy wasn't even officially established until at least the third century - long after Peter's death.  In searching the scriptures, I could find no record of Peter ever being in Rome in order to be Pope; or Peter being crucified upside=down in Rome.  If Paul and Peter were "brothers in Christ", why didn't Paul even mention a greeting to Peter in the Book of Romans?

IMHO, there is no succession of leadership in God's true church.  Christ is the Head; and since He has eternal life, He will never be succeeded.

According to the Bible Peter was the undisputed head ( under Christ ) for the Church.

 

[Gustave]

1 minute ago, The Wanderer said:

I would have to see you supply a specific text or passage that actually says this. I think thats what some of us here are asking. While Adventist history can be both interesting and challenging to analyze, I think it is a fair request for us to make. For some reason, your posting has not included scripture, yet you claim to be an "apologist" who does all his own work. I have no reason to think you are lying, but the fact remains there are web sites with similar pronouncements to your's; it may be that some of your materials are in fact from these places, and you have read them somewhere; and are not quite aware of where they come from. It is worth noting that in scripture; Jesus, and His true followers in fact did NOT follow the established religious leaders and church authorities, unless they could do it without violating anything in scripture.

 

We are not admonished anywhere in scripture to "follow the religious leaders and ecclesiastical authorities; we are told to follow Jesus who did not always allow the church leaders of His day & age; in fact, Jesus often admonished them for being so wicked and selfish Your efforts to appeal to such authorities and somehow make a direct connection to current Adventist church leaders is NOT reflected anywhere in the Bible. Jesus was a Protestant, and as such certainly had to defy publicly the church leaders of His day.

1st John 2, 19: "Children, it is the last hour;  and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come; therefore we know that it is the last hour. 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 it might be plain that they all are not of us".

That's an explicit reference in Scripture that someone can depart from ecclesiastical authority. 

As I showed a couple posts earlier, Jesus respected and commanded that those who listened to Him should practice & observe WHATEVER the Scribes & Pharisees commanded. Jesus said they taught truth but DIDN'T practice what they were preaching. Jesus also said that they had the power to loose what they had bound by simply writing an authoritative text but they wouldn't lift a finger to do it. You note that Jesus Commissioned His Apostles with the exact same power ( binding and loosing ) telling them to teach whatsoever He ( Jesus ) commanded.  That's absolutely ecclesiastical authority. 

[JoeMo]

1 minute ago, Gustave said:

According to the Bible Peter was the undisputed head ( under Christ ) for the Church.

Bible text reference, please.  Please don't quote Matthew 16:18 ("And I tell you that you are Peter [Greek - Petro, or small stone), and on this rock (Greek - Petra, or large boulder/mountain) I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.")  A petro and a petra are two different things.  Peter was a little stone that was washed away when the flood came (as when He denied Jesus). Jesus is the mountain or cornerstone on which the Church was built.

[Gustave]

3 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

Bible text reference, please.  Please don't quote Matthew 16:18 ("And I tell you that you are Peter [Greek - Petro, or small stone), and on this rock (Greek - Petra, or large boulder/mountain) I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.")  A petro and a petra are two different things.  Peter was a little stone that was washed away when the flood came (as when He denied Jesus). Jesus is the mountain or cornerstone on which the Church was built.

Scripture likens the Apostles to the Foundation of the Church with Christ holding that structure together. 

Ephesians 2, 19: "So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord".

Revelation 21, 13: " And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb."

I know you don't like hearing it ( or better said being reminded of it ) - Jesus DID say he was going to build His Church & there are two direct references to that text you requested I not mention. 

[Gustave]

30 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

I would have to see you supply a specific text or passage that actually says this. I think thats what some of us here are asking. While Adventist history can be both interesting and challenging to analyze, I think it is a fair request for us to make. For some reason, your posting has not included scripture, yet you claim to be an "apologist" who does all his own work. I have no reason to think you are lying, but the fact remains there are web sites with similar pronouncements to your's; it may be that some of your materials are in fact from these places, and you have read them somewhere; and are not quite aware of where they come from. It is worth noting that in scripture; Jesus, and His true followers in fact did NOT follow the established religious leaders and church authorities, unless they could do it without violating anything in scripture.

Jesus, prior to His death on the cross commanded the direct opposite of what you are claiming. 

Matthew 23,1: "Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples,  “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat;  so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice."

I'd like you to address this above Scripture that has Christ instructing both His disciples AND the crowds to follow the teachings of the "established religious leaders" that remained in force until Christ's Resurrection. 

You've yet to point me towards a anti-SDA website that hosts arguments I've made or even similar to what I've made. 

 

[Gustave]

6 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Gustave:  You have asked a great question.  I wrote an extended response to your question explaining the so-called 27/28/29 Fundamental Beliefs.  That extended statement has disappeared and evidently was not posted here.  I do not have time to re-write it.  I hope to do it later.

Briefly:   No the so-called 27/28 are not required to become and remain a member in the SDA Church.  But that requires more time than I can give to this now.

Sorry.

 

Would you liken the SDA Church to the state of Judaism at the time of the Incarnation? Pharisees believed in the immortality of the soul, angels and the resurrection of the Body while the Sadducees rejected all three of those things. Also I believe that the Sadducees accepted the first 5 books of the Old Testament as "Scripture" but rejected everything else. These differences were just the tip of the iceberg within Judaism but ALL these different beliefs were under the one tent that was Judaism. Is this how the SDA Church is? If it is and you can prove that then I have made a mistake in my conclusions. 

[8thdaypriest]

3 hours ago, Gustave said:

The Bible stopped, the Church didn't. Here's how it's Biblical. 

Acts 9, 17: And laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came, has sent me that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”  And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized,  and took food and was strengthened."

St. Paul said to St. Timothy: "You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also."

The fact that there has been a line of "Bishops" in Jerusalem continuing on from James shows that the Christians who learned the Faith at the feet of the Apostles understood thing vastly different than you do. These Bishops didn't appoint themselves OR is it your claim that they, in ignorance of Apostolic teaching, did just that? 

 

 

Leaders can be innocently ignorant of truth.  Just as Saul was, until the Damascus road.  

Gustave,  we have the ancient manuscripts.   We have the translations.  If we use those - to study them carefully, to compare Scripture with Scripture, we will understand truth with the help of Christ.  I cannot take another's word for what is truth - no matter who that man is.   I will listen to him, to what he has to say, but then I will compare his teaching with the Scriptures.   And I will pray earnestly for understanding.   

Jesus promised,   "If anyone wants to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God" (John 7:17). 

I claim that promise in prayer, every day.  

Church Councils or authorities are to be judged by their adherence to the truths of Scripture, by their obedience of those truths,  and by their reflection of the character of Christ Jesus.  

Isaiah 8:20 "To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this Word, it is because there is no light in them."   

We TEST them by the Word, and by their fruits.  

Will many Catholic priests and nuns be saved for the kingdom.  I believe so.   Many showed the character of Jesus, in their care for the poor and sick.   They followed Christ's command to "love one another".   Does that mean I can accept the authority of "orthodox" councils, and Popes, concerning what is truth.  No. 

Acts 5:29  But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than any human authority."   

[8thdaypriest]

3 hours ago, JoeMo said:

IMHO, there is no succession of leadership in God's true church.  Christ is the Head; and since He has eternal life, He will never be succeeded.

Yes!

[Gregory Matthews]

Earlier Gustave, asked a very valid question as to the so-called Fundamental Beliefs.  I wrote an expanded answer to his question.  However, that answer disappeared and was not posted.  I have promised to re-write my answer and I will post it here in this spot.  I expect to do so later tonight.  So, please wait a bit and you will see it here.  Again, thanks for asking, Gustave.  Your questions deserves an answer.  My response follows: 

 

 

There are two aspects to your question.  I will respond to both.

In 1980 the Seventh-day Adventist Church published a book loosely called the 27 Fundamental Beliefs.   This book was not intended to be a creed.  It was not intended to lay out the beliefs that a person must hold in order to become and to remain a member in good standing of the SDA denomination.  In 2015 a revised edition was published that is today loosely called the 28 Fundamental beliefs.   Today there is some push for a new edition with 29 such beliefs. 

While this publication was not intended to be either a creed of a set of requirements to become and to remain a member of the SDA denomination, it is true that in actual fact some congregations use it is such a manner.  The authority to determine who shall become and remain a SDA member rests with the individual congregation.  Some are using this book as such a test.

These books contain a single chapter dedicated to one of the 27/28 beliefs discussed in the book.    At the beginning of each chapter there is printed on one page, generally one paragraph, in Bold type that sets out a SDA belief.  Each of these 27/28 statements is a statement of an official SDA belief.  Nothing else in the book is a statement of official belief.  Each chapter that follows explains how SDAs commonly understand that official statement of belief and also how SDAs commonly apply that statement of belief to their lives.  That chapter intends to portray to some extent the range of understanding and application of the official beliefs that exists within Adventism.  It must be noted that some of us believe that today the range that exists within Adventism  is not fully reflected in the chapter.  But, some attempt is made to reflect that range.

I have stated that this set of 27/28 official beliefs are not supposed to be used to determine SDA membership, although some congregations may attempt to do so.

The requirements for membership are officially stated in the Baptismal vows.  Today these exist in two (2) forms.  Historically these have been stated as 13 doctrinal statements, not 27/28.  You can read the 13 if you access the website below and scroll down a bit you will find them in print.

https://www.slideshare.net/va4sda/seventhday-adventist-baptismal-vows-standard-13-presentation

However, a more modern version exists today in three (3) doctrinal statements

The following at those three (3) doctrinal statements:

1.  Do you accept Jesus Christ as your personal Savior and Lord, and do you desire to live your life in a saving relationship with Him?

2.  Do you accept the teachings of the Bible as expressed in the Statement of Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and do you pledge by God’s grace to live your life in harmony with these teachings?

3.  Do you desire to be baptized as a public expression of your belief in Jesus Christ, to be accepted into the fellowship of the Seventh-day Adventist Church,  and to support the Church and its mission as a faithful steward by your personal influence, tithes and offering, and a life of service?

NOTE:  I have presented the 27/28 as not being a creed and a test of membership in the SDA denomination.  Some will argue that # 2, above, sets that aside and essentially sets the 27/28 up to be a creed.  I can only say that there is disagreement on that point.

By official policy either of those two sets of vows may be used by a congregation to determine SDA membership.  It is expected that the person who wants to become a member will chose which set to use.

I said earlier, that SDA congregations have the authority to determine
SDA membership.  The official position is that either the 13 or the 3 that I have cited above are to be used.  I have also stated that some congregation may try to get membership to be on the basis of the 27i/28, even though that is not in compliance with SDA policy.

By the same token, there are also other congregations and clergy who will bring people into SDA membership under a more liberal, less restrictive set of norms.  That is frowned upon by SDA leadership, but it happens.

Gustave, I am attempting to be honest and open with you.  As such I have not wanted to overstate my case.  Therefore, you may see points in which you still may be shaking your head.  The reason is that the SDA denomination, is not a mono-lithic denomination in which authority flows down from the top, although some would like that to be.  All individual congregations do have power.  There exists within the denomination a wider range of belief that some realize.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave, has also asked another valid question that  I will quote below:

I am saving this space to respond to his question, which I will do later, either today or early tomorrow.  I want to respond first to the question he asked in the above post before I respond to his second question.

Please wait.   

Here is my response to his 2nd question:

Thank you for asking a good question, which I will attempt to answer.  Before getting to the heart of your question, I will make several generalized statements.

In his previously cited work, Bruinsma cites the Millerite Movement from which Adventism arose as drawing from some seventeen (17) different denominations (Page 38). In my opinion, this has led, from the beginning of this denomination, to the current day,  to a range of belief within the SDA denomination.  Up to the present, diversity has been accepted.  This range has often been described as a “Big Tent” philosophy.

The membership of this forum, as I describe it, consists of about 1/3rd who are traditional Adventists, 1/3rd who are on the edge of Adventism and 1/3rd who are not Adventist. 

I have typically described Adventism as consisting of conservatives, moderates and liberals.  In more recent times I have had to add a 4^th group, fundamentalists.  With the rise of this group, the Big Tent approach is under attack by some.

Some  have described Adventism in terms of some major person, such as Desmond Ford.  Ford was defrocked and removed from clergy status.  Attempts were made to remove him from membership, which failed.  He remained a SDA member, illustrating the power that a local congregation has to determine who is a member.  While I do not agree with every doctrinal position that Ford took, I do support his retention as a SDA member.

In contrast to some denominations. We do  not have a primary leader who can speak ex cathedra.  Our highest elected leader is the General Conference President.  While he  has major administrative power, he does not have the power to define SDA doctrine and belief.  The result is that there are major discussions going on in Adventism on some aspects of SDA belief and practice.

 For some time, SDA scholars have suggested that Adventism is divided into five (5) different groups.  However, those who have so divided Adventism have not agreed on how to define those five groups.  So, I will not attempt to define them.

Currently Adventism is undergoing major discussion in the following areas:

·         The role that women should have in spiritual nurture, and often stated in regard to ordination.

·        The role and function of the local congregation to include the boundaries that should be placed upon membership.

·        Our Biblical understanding of what the Bible teaches in regard to God as creator.

If I wanted to do so, I could probably add some additional comments. One   might be the role that the Roman Catholic Church has in Biblical prophecy  that would probably interest you, so I have added it here.  J  But, the three that I have listed above .  I consider to be the current most divisive points.

There are those who consider that the divisions that currently exist within Adventism on those three points have the potential to split this denomination.  I have some agreement with that positon.  Some even suggest that the current GC President, is attempting to lead to such a split.  I am not going to attribute that to him.  However, I will say that he sometimes presents himself in a manner that leads people to believe such of him.

So, to get to the heart of your question:   From its beginning, to the current day, the Seventh-day Adventist Church has consisted of several groups that differ in some ways in doctrinal understanding and in life style.   Will it split over these current differences?  I do not think it will split.  But, I could be wrong.

 

 

 

Quote

Would you liken the SDA Church to the state of Judaism at the time of the Incarnation? Pharisees believed in the immortality of the soul, angels and the resurrection of the Body while the Sadducees rejected all three of those things. Also I believe that the Sadducees accepted the first 5 books of the Old Testament as "Scripture" but rejected everything else. These differences were just the tip of the iceberg within Judaism but ALL these different beliefs were under the one tent that was Judaism. Is this how the SDA Church is? If it is and you can prove that then I have made a mistake in my conclusions. 

[Gustave]

2 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Leaders can be innocently ignorant of truth.  Just as Saul was, until the Damascus road.  

Gustave,  we have the ancient manuscripts.   We have the translations.  If we use those - to study them carefully, to compare Scripture with Scripture, we will understand truth with the help of Christ.  I cannot take another's word for what is truth - no matter who that man is.   I will listen to him, to what he has to say, but then I will compare his teaching with the Scriptures.   And I will pray earnestly for understanding.   

Jesus promised,   "If anyone wants to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God" (John 7:17). 

I claim that promise in prayer, every day.  

Church Councils or authorities are to be judged by their adherence to the truths of Scripture, by their obedience of those truths,  and by their reflection of the character of Christ Jesus.  

Isaiah 8:20 "To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this Word, it is because there is no light in them."   

We TEST them by the Word, and by their fruits.   

Will many Catholic priests and nuns be saved for the kingdom.  I believe so.   Many showed the character of Jesus, in their care for the poor and sick.   They followed Christ's command to "love one another".   Does that mean I can accept the authority of "orthodox" councils, and Popes, concerning what is truth.  No. 

Acts 5:29  But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than any human authority."   

That ( John 7, 17 ) is an important text you mention when it's paired with the prior verse.

"My Doctrine is not mine but His that sent me".

Verse 17 continues on by saying:

"If any man do the will of Him; he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God or whether I speak of myself" 

Luke 10, 16, John 17, 18, & John 20, 21 teach that we as Christians follow God by following who Christ established as Religious Authority over us. 

That Christ came and would save us was the express will of the Father and as Jesus said repeatedly, everything that happened to Him growing up and what would happen to Him pertaining to His death and resurrection HAD TO BE FULFILLED so that everything pertaining to Christ would be "according to the Scriptures". 

On the Subject of Authority

Hebrews 13, 17: "Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls........."

1 Thessalonians 5, 14:  "And we beseech you, brethren, to KNOW THEM who labor among you, AND ARE OVER YOU IN THE LORD, and admonish you". 

These texts and others, again, say that there is such a thing as religious authority (of the human kind) that trumps an individuals sincere belief. 

 

 

 

 

[Gustave]

48 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Leaders can be innocently ignorant of truth.  Just as Saul was, until the Damascus road.  

 

Acts 5:29  But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than any human authority."   

The Jerusalem Council said the determination ALSO came from the Holy Spirit - that would appear to be in keeping with Jesus' promise to keep matters of Faith and Morals ( Official Church teaching ) from error. 

"For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay [BIND] no further burden on you....." Acts 15, 28

That is precisely the binding and loosing power Jesus promised the Apostles collectively AND to Peter independently. 

 

[8thdaypriest]

NRS  2 Corinthians 5:18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us." 

EVERY BELIEVER - reconciled to God through Christ - has been given the ministry of reconciliation.   The word translated as "reconciliation" was "atonement" in the Hebrew.  "The priest shall make atonement for you".   This shows that every believer has become a "priest of God and of Christ".

Luke 10:16, John 17:18, and John 20:21 speaks of those "sent" into the world - by Christ.   This command is not limited to the first 12 Apostles or to the 72 "sent out".   All believers are "sent" into the world, to proclaim the truth of Christ.  And yes - if any believer is speaking by inspiration of the Spirit of God, then rejecting that message IS rejecting both God and Christ.  

Luke 10:16 “He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.” (NKJ)

John 17:18 “As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.”

John 20:21 So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.”
 

[8thdaypriest]

1 Thessalonians 5, 14:  "And we beseech you, brethren, to KNOW THEM who labor among you, AND ARE OVER YOU IN THE LORD, and admonish you". 

Here’s the NIV:  
1 Thessalonians 5:12 “Now we ask you, brothers and sisters, to acknowledge those who work hard among you, who care for you in the Lord and who admonish you. 13 Hold them in the highest regard in love because of their work. Live in peace with each other”.

[8thdaypriest]

Tired now.  Later.

[Gustave]

18 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

1 Thessalonians 5, 14:  "And we beseech you, brethren, to KNOW THEM who labor among you, AND ARE OVER YOU IN THE LORD, and admonish you". 

Here’s the NIV:  
1 Thessalonians 5:12 “Now we ask you, brothers and sisters, to acknowledge those who work hard among you, who care for you in the Lord and who admonish you. 13 Hold them in the highest regard in love because of their work. Live in peace with each other”.

"who care for you in the Lord" NIV

"And are over you in the Lord" KJV

"And are over you in the Lord" RSVCE

"and are over you in the Lord" RSV

"and leading you in the Lord" YLT

"and are over you in the Lord" NKJV

"and have charge over you in the Lord" NASB

"and are over you in the Lord" AKJV

"and are over you in the Lord" 1599 GNV

"who have been given the responsibility of urging and guiding you along in your obedience" Message Bible

The NIV says the same thing.

English definition of care "the provision of what is necessary for the health, welfare, maintenance, and protection of someone or something."

Strong's definition: "to take care of a person or thing" 

1st Corinthians 14, 13: "for if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the Gospel, I have begotten you." 

Rest well my friend, we'll pick it up later. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Note:  On page 8 I have responded to the first question that Gustave asked.  Later I will respond to his 2nd question.

 

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Earlier Gustave, asked a very valid question as to the so-called Fundamental Beliefs.  I wrote an expanded answer to his question.  However, that answer disappeared and was not posted.  I have promised to re-write my answer and I will post it here in this spot.  I expect to do so later tonight.  So, please wait a bit and you will see it here.  Again, thanks for asking, Gustave.  Your questions deserves an answer.  My response follows: 

 

 

There are two aspects to your question.  I will respond to both.

 

 

In 1980 the Seventh-day Adventist Church published a book loosely called the 27 Fundamental Beliefs.   This book was not intended to be a creed.  It was not intended to lay out the beliefs that a person must hold in order to become and to remain a member in good standing of the SDA denomination.  In 2015 a revised edition was published that is today loosely called the 28 Fundamental beliefs.   Today there is some push for a new edition with 29 such beliefs. 

 

 

While this publication was not intended to be either a creed of a set of requirements to become and to remain a member of the SDA denomination, it is true that in actual fact some congregations use it is such a manner.  The authority to determine who shall become and remain a SDA member rests with the individual congregation.  Some are using this book as such a test.

 

 

These books contain a single chapter dedicated to one of the 27/28 beliefs discussed in the book.    At the beginning of each chapter there is printed on one page, generally one paragraph, in Bold type that sets out a SDA belief.  Each of these 27/28 statements is a statement of an official SDA belief.  Nothing else in the book is a statement of official belief.  Each chapter that follows explains how SDAs commonly understand that official statement of belief and also how SDAs commonly apply that statement of belief to their lives.  That chapter intends to portray to some extent the range of understanding and application of the official beliefs that exists within Adventism.  It must be noted that some of us believe that today the range that exists within Adventism  is not fully reflected in the chapter.  But, some attempt is made to reflect that range.

 

 

I have stated that this set of 27/28 official beliefs are not supposed to be used to determine SDA membership, although some congregations may attempt to do so.

 

 

The requirements for membership are officially stated in the Baptismal vows.  Today these exist in two (2) forms.  Historically these have been stated as 13 doctrinal statements, not 27/28.  You can read the 13 if you access the website below and scroll down a bit you will find them in print.

 

 

https://www.slideshare.net/va4sda/seventhday-adventist-baptismal-vows-standard-13-presentation

 

 

However, a more modern version exists today in three (3) doctrinal statements

 

 

The following at those three (3) doctrinal statements:

 

 

1.  Do you accept Jesus Christ as your personal Savior and Lord, and do you desire to live your life in a saving relationship with Him?

 

 

2.  Do you accept the teachings of the Bible as expressed in the Statement of Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and do you pledge by God’s grace to live your life in harmony with these teachings?

 

 

3.  Do you desire to be baptized as a public expression of your belief in Jesus Christ, to be accepted into the fellowship of the Seventh-day Adventist Church,  and to support the Church and its mission as a faithful steward by your personal influence, tithes and offering, and a life of service?

 

 

NOTE:  I have presented the 27/28 as not being a creed and a test of membership in the SDA denomination.  Some will argue that # 2, above, sets that aside and essentially sets the 27/28 up to be a creed.  I can only say that there is disagreement on that point.

 

 

By official policy either of those two sets of vows may be used by a congregation to determine SDA membership.  It is expected that the person who wants to become a member will chose which set to use.

 

 

I said earlier, that SDA congregations have the authority to determine
SDA membership.  The official position is that either the 13 or the 3 that I have cited above are to be used.  I have also stated that some congregation may try to get membership to be on the basis of the 27i/28, even though that is not in compliance with SDA policy.

 

 

By the same token, there are also other congregations and clergy who will bring people into SDA membership under a more liberal, less restrictive set of norms.  That is frowned upon by SDA leadership, but it happens.

 

 

Gustave, I am attempting to be honest and open with you.  As such I have not wanted to overstate my case.  Therefore, you may see points in which you still may be shaking your head.  The reason is that the SDA denomination, is not a mono-lithic denomination in which authority flows down from the top, although some would like that to be.  All individual congregations do have power.  There exists within the denomination a wider range of belief that some realize.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm going to have to think about that a while Gregory - Also, how common would you say your understanding of this is - among existing clergy and laity within the Denomination? On one hand I can sort of see where you're coming from because YEARS ago I was invited to a "Explore Prophetic" seminar meeting at a SDA Church that's only a few blocks from my house. There were several SDA anti-Trinitarians there that were giving the SDA Pastor a hard time about the Trinity and I could tell he was embarrassed about it. 

Now to be fair I've seen some kooks at Catholic Churches I've attended - from Pious X zealots,  fanatical Douay Rheims only and militant Sedevacantist's ( who are generally VERY devout and VERY well read ). So, I'm not saying embarrassing things don't happen inside a Catholic Church because they indeed do.

What strikes me as different is that there isn't is a definitive source book that clearly states doctrinal positions the SDA Church has like one would find in the Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Lutheran, Methodist, etc. Church & it seems like there should be if the doctrines aren't being made up as they going along. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave:  Perhaps it will be helpful (or perhaps more confusing) when you see my response to your 2nd question, which I have not yet written.

As for me personally:  I consider myself to be a moderate, middle of the road SDA.   Conservatives often consider me to be liberal and liberal Adventists often consider me to be conservative.

I am a bit more conservative in my life and belief than I talk as I talk a bit more liberal than I am.  By this, I intend to mean that I am quite accepting of people who are more liberal than I am.

In any case, I am not  considered to be a fundamentalist Adventist by anyone, I think?

The fact remains that currently the SDA denomination exists with a range of belief  and practice..  But, I will say more on that in my 2nd response to your question.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

The following has been taken from the 1988 edition of the 27 fundamental Beleifs:

We have not written this book to serve as a creed—a statement of beliefs set in theological concrete. Adventists have but one creed: "The Bible, and the Bible alone." 

 

[Gustave]

7 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

The following has been taken from the 1988 edition of the 27 fundamental Beleifs:

[quote[We have not written this book to serve as a creed—a statement of beliefs set in theological concrete. Adventists have but one creed: "The Bible, and the Bible alone."  [/quote]

 

Saying that the Adventist Creed is the Bible is an obvious copout. 

Here is the Jehovah's Witness statement about the subject: (1) Bible: Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the entire Bible is the inspired Word of God, and instead of adhering to a creed based on human tradition, they hold to the Bible as the standard for all their beliefs.

Christadelphian: "Christadelphian beliefs adhere to no creeds; however, they do have a list of 53 "Commandments of Christ," most drawn from his words in Scripture"

LDS: "The Latter-day Saints have no creed, but are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time."

I could go on BUT

There seems to be a pattern here? 

This is where I'm going with the discussion on the Trinity and the historical creeds - I'm going to do my best to establish that it's very Biblical to believe that God had a religious authority established in the New Testament no different than the Old Testament - in fact the similarities are stunning. When one compares the statements found in Scripture pertaining to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and look at the first few Christian Creeds that addressed Arianism one could easily conclude that the Nicene Creed "systematizes" Scripture very well.