Leaderboard

There are several of us on this forum who's opinions differ from that of the SDA Church and prevailing SDA tradition. Some recent examples are the inerrancy of EGW, and the Trinity. While I agree that there are certain doctrinal beliefs "necessary" for salvation (e.g., belief in the God of Israel, belief that Christ is the only hope for salvation, a certain degree of conformance to the Laws of God). But there are other doctrines or strong traditions that we argue over that (IMHO) we don't necessarily need to believe to be saved. Do we have to believe EGW was an inerrant prophet to be saved? Do all Christians have to keep the 7th-day sabbath to be saved? Do all Christians have to believe in the Trinity (Three Persons in One God) to be saved? Do we have to believe in the pre-existence of Jesus to be saved? Do we have to abstain from unclean foods to be saved? Do we have to abstain from all alcohol and nicotine to be saved? There are many other examples of things that people passionately defend that maybe don't need such passionate defense. It might be necessary for some and not for others. For example, my honoring of the Sabbath feels like a necessary part of my personal doctrine to be saved. But that doesn't lead me to believe that all Sunday-Keepers are condemned; or that the Sabbath will be THE end-time issue. I'm not starting this thread to defend or condemn any non-mainstream points of doctrine. It's just that I think certain non-salvational topics and/or the people who support them can feel marginalized when they go "Outside the Limits".

There are many little details in the Bible stories, which one might not notice. On closer examination, those details help to validate the stories. Hissop for example. A mild little plant, which grows small flowers that last all summer. Awhile back I was experimenting, trying to find something that flowered, that deer wouldn't eat. I planted 5 different kinds in a bed one Spring, and the deer ate all but one right down to about an inch. The only one they didn't eat, was the Hissop, except that I bought it by a different name. When I learned that it was Hissop, I thought to myself. That's interesting, that God would choose a plant for important ceremonies - like Passover and the Red Heifer sacrifice, that wild animals wouldn't eat. I would love to hear examples of such small details which validate the Bible stories. I'm sure the students here can give many examples.

When you confine all discussion of God as a Trinity (or not) to a forum called "Outside the Limits" and place access to that forum almost at the bottom of your home page, you seem to be saying that such discussion is UNACCEPTABLE, and should not be viewed by visitors to this club. I would rather see access to discussions of the nature of our God under the regular "Theological Forum".

At first I liked the idea of having a place where people can freely discuss "outside the limits" topics. I'm not so sure anymore. In reviewing those topics, it seems like many of them come up as "rabbit trails" in other topics. I got to thinking - why did these topics need to be moved? Was the discussion upsetting or offensive to other members? Was there pressure from "above" to confine these topics to a marginal location? If the Trinity conversations are "outside the limits", shouldn't discussions supporting subjects like evolution also be segregated? Who will determine what is "over the line"? I dunno, maybe naming the group something besides "Outside the Limits" would help. That name somehow sounds like people who post there are doing something wrong. Every time I go there to post, I feel like I'm labelling myself as an infidel or a heretic or something. What do you think of a name like "Outside of the Box"?

Yes. There are isolated pockets of racial prejudice in the US. But it's not as rampant as you would have us believe. Just like there are pockets of great sin - of one kind or another. (There always have been, and always will be.) There are pockets of poverty (many associated with drugs, gangs and children living without fathers in the home). Every pocket of poverty is NOT black. Those who demonstrate - especially with damage to community businesses - defeat their own purpose. They CREATE fear and prejudice. They are like terrorists who think they can win through intimidation. I have a new definition of "racist". A racist is a person who makes everything ABOUT race.

I do not personally think of the Spirit as an "it". "God IS spirit, and those who worship HIM must worship in spirit and truth " (John 4:24). Turn it around. The Spirit is God. OK. Does that make a third divine being? I don't believe so. The "Spirit OF God" is the same as "the Spirit of the Father". Jesus said, "The Father who dwells in Me." HOW did His Father dwell in Him? As spirit. Folks want to confine God the Father to one place - sitting on the throne. They somehow do not understand that the Father is omnipresent. He is THE omnipresent SPIRIT.

The presence of "the Spirit OF Christ" gives miraculous witness of Christ. Yes. Doesn't mean a THIRD divine being is testifying. Can more easily mean that Christ glorified (now omnipresent) is giving witness of truth, and bringing to our remembrance all the things that He said, and guiding us. Christ did not "speak on His own authority" - so Christ with us and in us (as Spirit) would not either. The Son of God STILL serves His Father, who is also "His God" (Rev 1:6, Rev. 3:12). Jesus said, "For I have not spoken from my own authority, but the Father himself who sent me has commanded me what I should say and what I should speak." (John 12:49) John 16:14-15 "He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine. For this reason I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you." (John 16:15) The Helper to come would take from the Father, and pass it on to the disciples. But isn't that exactly what Jesus did? "There is ONE MEDIATOR BETWEEN God and man - the man Jesus Christ." (2Tim. 2:5) When you insert the HS as a THIRD divine being, you have inserted "God" between Christ and man.