Leaderboard

Mountain Views is an official publication of the Rocky Mountain Conference of SDAs. The current issue, with its 15 articles is devoted to the idea that Change is needed in the SDA denomination. I consider this issue to be of great value. The following link will take you to the current issue and the links to each of the 15 articles: https://ww.rmcsda.org/mountain-views-Spring-2021/ Ed Barnett, President of the Rocky Mountain Conference, in the article: "Adventism & The Need For Change,” says: "We need to shake off the cobwebs and realize the church has to change to keep up with the times.” Tim Gillespie, of the Crosswalk SDA Church in Redlands, CA, writing in the article “Adventism & Change?” challenges us as to what the mission of the individual congregation actually is today. Reinder Bruinsma, a Retired SDA Administer living in the Netherlands, in the article” We Need A Friend Not An Enemy” tells us that the main threat to Adventism is not the Catholic Church, but secularism. Nathan Brown, writing from Australia, Challenges us to reconsider the Three Angles Messages of Revelation 14. John Skrzypaszek, of the Ellen G. White Estate in Australia, writing in “Seventh-day Adventism, Pilgrimage, And Change,” challenges us to have our main doctrinal focus on Jesus Christ. Douglas Fortin, of the SDA Seminary, writing in “Is Change Good For The Church?” asks: “Have we become too big to fulfill the mission of the kingdom of God?” His discussion of the Moberg life cycle of denominations is also of interest. Are we now at the Stage Five (disintegration)? This is only the beginning. Other articles follow. The questions and challenges of this issue of an official SDA publication are worthy of consideration.

Gustave: We tolerate a much wider range of belief and practice that many people realize. * 'While it is true that the majority of SDAs begin and end the Sabbath at sundown, There are three (3) different times that SDA members actually begin and end the Sabbath. * While it is true that the official SDA teaching on the Trinity is orthodox, it is also true that the early founders of the SDA denomination had a mixture of beliefs that often included some Arian concepts of the Trinity. * There are elements of those Arian beliefs that have remained with the SDA denomination to this day. This forum used to have a vocal proponent of such as a regular poster. She no longer posts here. But, it was her choice to stop posting here. I wish that she had continued to participate in this forum. * There has been an element in Adventism that differs with the majority belief as to what happens to a person at death. * There is clearly a range of belief as to the role and function of Ellen White in the SDA denomination. All of these are accepted in Adventism as long as the person does not cause a public disturbance in our worship services. They can proclaim their view outside of the worship services generally without a problem as long as they do it in a positive manner. If they publicly attack the SDA Chruch, that might eventually result in disciplinary action.

Not a literal tent but the concept of what the High Priest did in a lessor degree being contrasted with Christ having done what He did. I take this to mean the Authors intent in Hebrews was to say, look, under the Old Covenant the High Priest only went before the throne once a year and took in blood not his own AND would have to do the same action over and over again. Christ was a ONE & DONE and He took His own blood into the area the High Priest went. This is the way I understand it and it seems to line up with Scripture.

Are you telling us that there is an actual tent in heaven? NOTE: I have inserted a reply to your previous question at the end of that post.

Here are a few other versions and how they translated that verse: KJ21 neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood, He entered in once into the Holy Place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. ASV nor yet through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption. AMP He went once for all into the Holy Place [the Holy of Holies of heaven, into the presence of God], and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, having obtained and secured eternal redemption [that is, the salvation of all who personally believe in Him as Savior]. BRG Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. DRA Neither by the blood of goats, or of calves, but by his own blood, entered once into the holies, having obtained eternal redemption. ESV he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. JUB neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the sanctuary designed for eternal redemption. KJV Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. MSG But when the Messiah arrived, high priest of the superior things of this new covenant, he bypassed the old tent and its trappings in this created world and went straight into heaven’s “tent”—the true Holy Place—once and for all. He also bypassed the sacrifices consisting of goat and calf blood, instead using his own blood as the price to set us free once and for all. If that animal blood and the other rituals of purification were effective in cleaning up certain matters of our religion and behavior, think how much more the blood of Christ cleans up our whole lives, inside and out. Through the Spirit, Christ offered himself as an unblemished sacrifice, freeing us from all those dead-end efforts to make ourselves respectable, so that we can live all out for God. There are many more, some saying "most holy," and some saying "holy!" Lets not forget that when EGW lived she used the KJV, I believe, and not some of the more modern translations? All I can say is, she either was a messenger of God or not!! Can't have it both ways! We can't say some of her writings were from God and the others she made up!! Because if that is the case than she is either a liar and than can't be believed at all, because we have no idea when she's telling the truth or telling us falsehoods??

The Nicean Creed was first formulated in 325 AD. It was later revised in 381 AD, which is the version commonly referenced today. Some will suggest that there have been revisions of this creed as late as 1995. This is not of major interest to me as language changes over time, even as short as 100 years and may need revision in order to properly understand it. NOTE: To those who prefer the KJV of the Bible: The English KJV of today is considerably different from the KJV of 1611. Probably few of us today would understand it as it read in 1611.

I'm free to form any belief provided it doesn't deny or contradict something that's been "defined". If I'm not mistaken isn't this true of the SDA Church as well?