Leaderboard

NOTE: The teaching of the SDA Church is that the written materials of the EGW writings were NOT dictated by God. It should be noted that both EGW and later editors have changed the wording of what EGW wrote.

? Sacrifice of praise ? Heb 13:15 By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.

Also see https://www.adventistreview.org/church-news/story13825-kenneth-o-cox-adventist-evangelist-passes-to-his-rest-at-84

See the attached obituary from Kenneth Cox Ministries. He was a wonderful man. He baptized my with into the SDA Church in 1978. He let me work with him behind the scenes in a couple other evangelistic series in New Mexico. He built and was the original pastor of the church where I was baptized. Rest in Peace, Elder Cox! https://www.kennethcoxministries.org/

Look unto Me ? Isa 45:22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.

To put "theologians" with "advanced" degrees, into a special class above the rest of "folks" (who study their Bibles avidly), is to set them up as the only interpreters of Scripture. We have all seen how the public schools have indoctrinated young students with evolution. The same can be said of the indoctrination of theology students. The pressure to conform to the doctrines approved by the particular institution of higher learning, will strongly influence the view adopted (or at least espoused) by the one seeking the higher degree, and seeking a position within the institution's wider system - whether educational or ecclesiastical.

Statements using the word "three" in reference to the "Godhead" did not appear in Mrs White's published writings until 1896 - 52 years after her "first vision" of 1844. It is difficult for me to believe the LORD would not have "shown" His "messenger" the trifold personage of God before 52 years went by - considering the majority of Christendom had been worshiping God as a trinity for over a thousand years. Would the LORD have allowed early church leaders to preach and teach that the Trinity is a "pagan doctrine" carried on by the Papacy, if this was a grave error? I spent 4 years - from 1992 to 1996, searching out hundreds of statements written by Mrs White on the nature of Christ, of the Holy Spirit, and of God. What I found convinced me that Mrs White's view was indeed changed concerning the nature of God, but not until she was in her 70s. If someone has an earlier statement, please do share it. I also discovered that the RH publishers changed the "it", written by Mrs White in reference to the Holy Spirit, to "He" when republishing many of her earlier writings. How is it acceptable to change the writings of the LORD's messenger? I personally do not look to Ellen White for inspired Biblical interpretation. I read her writings as I would any other commentary.

I probably should have been clearer as to my intent in writing what I wrote. The study of theology can take more than one direction. Biblical theology can be stated as comprising the teaching of doctrines from the position of what the 'Bible teaches. From this perspective, SDA clergy are generally well equipped to consider and discuss. This is due , as you stated to SDA clergy, in the U.S, generally having both a bachelor's and a master degree, which actually give a background of 6 or 7 years of training, as the Master of Divinity requires at least two years of schooling. Yes, there will be exceptions as some SDA clergy will lack that background. When I wrote that the majority of SDA clergy are not theologians, I was thinking of the field of historical theology. The standard SDA educational program for SDA clergy has little involvement with the development of Christin doctrine over the years. In actual fact, Gustave who is a member of this forum, probably has more training in historical theology than does the typical SDA clergyperson. That was my intended focus which I continue to hold.

Really bad article. Thought it was written by a college freshman. "Witnessing" has never been, for me, as described in the article. Best times of my life were spent witnessing e.g., doing prison ministry, passing out tracts in interesting places such as rock concerts and other public venues. I'd much prefer an article by someone who actually knows what they are talking about such as John Carter or Pastor Doug. Most companies have goals employees are expected to meet. When Ross Perot worked at IBM, he met his annual goals in a week. SDA clergy continue drawing their salaries for doing what? Baptizing a few children of members every year? A professional degree such as an M.Div or D.Min isn't required for that. As one SDA pastor said, the best way to grow a church is through membership transfers i.e., moving peas under a walnut shell around, riding the coattails of others. I personally baptized 8 people in a ~ year as part of a team with one paid ministerial professional, whose salary did not come from the sweat of church members. Granted, most SDA clergy are failures at evangelism or witnessing. Most simply don't know how to do it, although that's what they should be paid to do. Like what the Bible says "Those who preach the gospel should live of the gospel." Instead of writing books, the author should have been out knocking on doors to discover how he might serve his community. That's how Willow Creek started, a young pastor and his wife visiting their community to discover what the people though they needed. The ICOC attracted thousands of young people through friendship evangelism, including medical students, young lawyers, navy pilots. One young physician mentioned that another physician he worked with was an Adventist and spiritually was one of the most bitter and messed up people he had ever met. This same young doctor was part of a team evangelizing L.A. for the ICOC. He was discipling another medical doctor when I met him. The ICOC, the Mormons, the JW's have few professional clergy in their ranks but do a fair job of growing their churches. If I remember correctly, in parts of N.A., it costs about $100,000 for every new member who joins the SDA church. Get that? The cost of one new member exceeds the salary of a pastor. Those eight new members, many of whom are not even working, in a church with 2 or three pastors, cost nearly a million bucks. Most SDA clergy are being underwritten by the labors of other individuals. I'm not a CPA so it's hard for me to understand how any entity can continue under those circumstances.

A comment on the use of a word: People often fail to distinguish between a lie and what is false. To say that something is false, is to say that it is not true. But, in saying that something is false, one is not attacking the motive of the person who said it was false. To say that someone told a lie, attaches a motive to the falsehood that suggests that the person telling the falsehood, both knew that it was false and also intended to deceive the person being told.

Mixed fibers are also prohibited. Why such a fascination with Sodom, sodomy and sodomites? Why does Sodom get all the recognition? It's always Sodomites this and Sodomites that - it's always about Sodom and Sodomites. Didn't the Gomorrahans do as much to deserve to be similarly remembered and memorialized? Why doesn't anyone ever talk about Gomorrah? And when people do mention Gomorrah, it's always "Sodom and Gomorrah", never just Gomorrah. Gomorrah is either always forgotten or ignored, or it's simply the little side-kick of Sodom. It must have really sucked to have been a Gomorrahan.

I believe: Prior to the incarnation, God the Father and His divine Son were spirit. They were exactly alike. By taking upon Himself the limitations of human nature, the Son "emptied Himself" of His divine attributes (omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience). He became dependent upon His Father for any special insight or power. He must overcome as a man, to win back dominion of the earth for mankind. When He died, His Father had to resurrect Him. Galatians 1:1 “Paul, an apostle not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead,” When He was "glorified" by His Father, great divine power was restored to Him (without taking away His humanity). He was no longer restricted by a human physical body. His mind could mesh with that of His Father - so that He could share in omniscience, and could know what His Father knows.

Rachel has asked us to define "fundamentalism." That word must always be defined within an identified, specific context. E.G. Is it a political context? Is it a religious context? We will often need to be more specific than that. In a religious context, fundamentalism may be defined as a rigid, unchangeable attachment to a set of beliefs. If we were to use this statement in our definition of fundamentalism as applied to Ellen White, we would have to say that she was not a fundamentalist. Over the years of her ministry in the SDA denomination her beliefs changed and expanded in multiple areas. Examples of this would include: the Sabbath, the Trinity, payment of tithe, eating unclean foods and more. Another definition of fundamentalism, in a religious sense, would involve a strict literalism as applied to the Bible. SDAs are well known as stating the a basic principle of Biblical interpretation is to understand the text in a literal sense, unless it is clearly symbolic, or of some other sense that would not be literal. The Biblical books of Daniel and Revelation would include examples of passages that were symbolic. As applied to Adventism, this understanding is more complicated. In some parts of the Christian world, this view involves the idea that the original text was dictated, by God, word by word. SDAs and EGW reject this view. Ellen White's view on this is probably best contained in Selected Messages. As understood, by some SDA members, fundamentalism is the idea that in the early days of the development of this denomination, a core set of beliefs was developed that should remain unchanged to this day and on into the end of time. One of the problems that people with this view have is that there is not total agreement as to what beliefs constitute that core set. Some focus on a set of five basic beliefs. But, in addition to not total agreement as to what those five are, there is disagreement as to the boundaries as to how they should be understood. In any case, I will suggest that EGW rejected this view. She taught that spiritual truth was progressive. Throughout time the opportunities for increased understanding would increase. Gustave has mentioned a few ways in which he considers EGW to be a fundamentalist. I have some agreement with what he posted, and would probably revise other parts of what he wrote. But, that is not the major issue here. I believe that if EGW were alive and writing today, she would revise some of what she once wrote. IOW, I believe that she would tell us that the social (and other) context has changed and that in this time and place, she would revise her advice. On that basis, I would not consider her to be a fundamentalist, as sometimes defined. On another point, I prefer Kenan H's view on this to that of Gustave. NOTE: On another point, I really appreciate the discussion of this issue that is taking place here. Continue on, all of you to include Rachel, Gustave, and others.

Define "fundamentalist". Is this someone who believes the 27 Adventist "fundamentals" ? Is this someone who believes Ellen White was infallible? What is a "fundamentalist" ?

The "Father" - Father of whom? Answer: of Jesus. But the Holy Spirit was Jesus' "Father". Matthew 1:20 "But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, 'Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for that which has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.'" God had to bring His Son into this world. The Son of God did not incarnate without help - the help of His "Father". He did not simply dive into the womb of Mary and combine Himself with human DNA. He had help. Hebrews 1:6 "And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him." If you look back at verse 5, God says, "You are My Son, today I have begotten You." Yes, "God" calls His Son "God" (v.8) and "Lord" (v10). He also calls Himself "Your God" who has "anointed You" (v9) (speaking to His Son). My contention is that "God" the supreme and original divine being, beget a Son (a second divine being) out of Himself. The second divine being - is, was, and always will be - second to God the Father. The Father calls Himself "Your God" - God of/over His Son. Paul wrote, "God is head of Christ". And at the end of the great conflict, "He" (the glorified Son) delivers the kingdom to God the Father" (not to the Father and the Spirit) ICor 15:24. And then "the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all" ICor 15:28. Seems obvious "the Son" will be subject to "the Father". I don't see a third divine being in this picture.

And even among those who reject fundamentalism are more recovering fundamentalists with residual fundamentalism in our lives.

This side of heaven we have no possibility of knowing the mystery of God. My guess is that if we're fortunate enough to make it even the most saintly will, at best, only understand a minute fraction of the mystery of God. The finite cannot fathom the infinite.

This earth has been the lesson book - the live demonstration, of rebellion and lawlessness vs love - played out for all to see and/or experience. The lessons learned must be so profound that they remain permanently etched in the minds of those who are granted life eternal. Hence the reason they are sooooooooo very painful, for everyone - the innocent and the guilty alike. Yes we can agree, that one cannot love without the indwelling spirit of God. But He does not invade the personal "space" of created sentient beings without their permission. Those who are granted life eternal will be those who have invited, and greatly desired, and welcomed that indwelling - the melding of the divine mind with their own created minds. We have His promise that this indwelling will one day bring us to keep His law of love - perfectly. Even now, who of us really wants to sin. I don't. I hate it when I act petty, or rudely, or think selfishly. I so much want to be "like Him". It is so wonderful to realize that "He knows that we are flesh", and He loves us every one. It is so wonderful to contemplate a society in which I can fully trust everyone without reservation.

My personal belief is that Islam will be the counterfeit "Antichrist". When the real Antichrist shows up, he will destroy Islam in a powerful way and "rescue" Israel. The whole world will "worship" (serve) him, believing he is Christ returned. The recent whopping increase in UFO sightings ties in nicely. I believe the being who shows up to save the world from the brink of destruction, will claim to have "visited" this planet 2000 years ago - as Jesus, and also to have "visited" as Buddha, and as various wise teachers in every culture around the world. The New Age people call them "ascended masters". Certainly the whole "Star Trek" series has prepared minds to accept such an occurrence. Yes - the Pope would no doubt welcome him with open arms. The deception has to be almost perfect to bring all the human race to worship this being. Satan knows the prophecies. He will make it seem they have been fulfilled. I personally believe that Satan will be behind the 7 trumpets. Most folks know about the 7 last plagues. They don't understand that the 7 trumpets come first and are limited in scope. Which means they would easily be deceived into thinking that the 7 trumpets are the 7 vial plagues (which are universal in scope). nuff for now