Are there different varieties of belief within Adventism?

[Gerr]

Quote:

Jesus was not a "teaching" but a person.

True, but what we know about a person becomes a teaching!

Quote:

Jesus was not urging his hearers to search the scriptures.

Really? How do I get to know the person of Jesus today? How does He speak to me today? Of the Scriptures He says, [color:red] "These are the Scriptures that testify about me." Jn 5:29 NIV.

"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." Ac q7:11

"For everything that was written in the past was written to TEACH us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope." Rom 15:4 NIV.

Quote:

He was telling them that eternal life is not in the scriptures. That He knew all about it and He was right there.

"The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life." Jn 6:63 NIV

Quote:

"Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me ....and ye shall find rest unto your souls." Matthew 11:29 KJV

Again, learning from Jesus himself, not from the scriptures, is what he asked.

And since Jesus is now in heaven, how can I do that except through the Word?

Quote:

Being "right" having/believing the "correct" "teachings" is not what matters.

So what does? [color:red] "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death." Prov 16:25 ESV

Quote:

The more of one's spiritual correctness one can surrender - the more room for God to fill - and not with teachings - but with himself.

Sorry, but I would rather surrender my ignorance and be filled with His truth, wisdom, and knowledge!

Gerry

[Neil D]

Quote:

Jesus was not a "teaching" but a person.

True, but what we know about a person becomes a teaching!

[Woody]

The response to my 'wild' ideas has been much more positive than I had expected.

Quote:

How would that relate with this? Are you saying to be taught about Jesus would be to follow an idol?

"You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me." John 5:39 NKJV

Jesus was not a "teaching" but a person.

Jesus was not urging his hearers to search the scriptures. He was telling them that eternal life is not in the scriptures. That He knew all about it and He was right there.

"Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me ....and ye shall find rest unto your souls." Matthew 11:29 KJV

Again, learning from Jesus himself, not from the scriptures, is what he asked.

Being "right" having/believing the "correct" "teachings" is not what matters.

The more of one's spiritual correctness one can surrender - the more room for God to fill - and not with teachings - but with himself.

- twinkles from a dazzled mind -

/dAb

WELL SAID. No it was just plain beautiful and brilliant.

Honestly dAb ... Thank you. I love the way you said that. I am sure the wolves will be circling ... but there's room for all. What you have articulated is something we an benefit from understanding. Praise God.

[Nightingale]

How does one know it is the Holy Spirit who is leading them? There are other spirits who also would like to lead people. I dont see in Scripture where God leads people to different truths? Truth is always the same, although the Holy Spirit uses different ways to reach different people, the truth does not change.

People are at different places in their walk with God, but the truth remains the same. It will be progressive, but never lead to different beliefs.

We live in dangerous times. All manner of heresy is being taught. Only by following Scripture with much prayer for the leading of the Holy Spirit can we be sure of knowing truth.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

What is the biggest difference you've noticed in terms of belief coming from the church's thought-leaders, its writers, teachers, theologians, etc.?

I don't know that I can see any major differences coming through the church's thought-leaders, writers, teachers etc. This is my point. The official channels of communication have this grand, all encompassing idea that we are united in one belief and that the church is moving forward preaching the gospel to all nations. When what is really happening is that at the local church level we have major differences in belief and the way we do things that is nowhere as united as one would believe from our leaders.

How do you account for this? What are some of the most obvious differences that you find?

Do you believe that these differences at the local church level are justified on the basis of what the Bible or Ellen White say?

From your perspective, are the teachers and writers in the church suppressing or hiding or ignoring major differences in doctrine?

[John317]

...

I agree that there is precedent. I agree that the literal Word is necessary, both to teach and as a rule to fall back upon. But there is also room for us to understand the Person, Jesus, in some aspect, even in this life.

But what should we do when there is a contradiction between the rule of the Word and our understanding that is based on "this life"? For instance, there are people who believe that their personal experience leads them to believe the dead return to communicate with the living. Also, I have heard people say that God has told them that they should keep Sunday and they don't need to keep the Sabbath. Still others say it is not necessary to accept Jesus in order to experience salvation. I personally know Christians who believe there is nothing wrong with living with someone they're not married to. Are they right?

Quote:

Everyone of the prophets understood Jesus in some aspect that they were able to communicate thru the written word. Concider Abraham, when he was tested by God Himself, was able to distinguish God's voice and character when God asked him to sacrific his son on Mt. Moriah [sp]. It would have been very easy to say, "Well, it's written that I am not to kill. What I heard/saw could not have been God, since God does not allow us to murder, and sacrificing a human to any diety is a form of murder."

So far as we know, there was no written law before the time of Moses, so Abraham had nothing to read about God or about God's will. We are in a totally different situation today. God's primary revelation comes to us through the Bible. It is the rule of faith and teaching (doctrine) and correction for instruction in righteousness and makes us wise for salvation. See 1 Tim. 3: 15-17.

Abraham knew God's voice from years of experience with God. Abraham knew that God would raise Isaac back to life. Hebrews 11: 17-19. He knew that God would not allow Isaac to remain dead because of God's promise to bless the world through the progeny of Isaac.

If God truly told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, it would not have been "murder." In the same way, when the Israelites obeyed God in destroying the Philistines, it cannot truly be said that they committed "murder" in the Biblical sense. Did they kill? Yes, of course, but there is a clear difference between killing and murder. Every human society recognizes the distinction. Murder is the unlawful, willful taking of human life. Not all taking of human life meets that definition, wouldn't you agree?

[D. Allan]

Quote:

Honestly dAb ... Thank you. I love the way you said that. I am sure the wolves will be circling ... but there's room for all. What you have articulated is something we an benefit from understanding. Praise God.

Thank you, Redwood.

You have an open mind and heart.

[doctorj]

How do you account for this? What are some of the most obvious differences that you find?

Do you believe that these differences at the local church level are justified on the basis of what the Bible or Ellen White say?

From your perspective, are the teachers and writers in the church suppressing or hiding or ignoring major differences in doctrine?

Some of the most obvious differences at local church level are things like "vegetarianism" or the opposite, whether or not the SDA Church is the remnant or not, belief in Ellen White or shunning of Ellen White, and similar.

By and large I don't think there is Bible or Ellen White proof of these differences. Rather it seems to be a stance taken through logic or some other means.

I do not see any action on the part of leaders to address these differences. It seems that they do not want to enter into a local church "spat" but just keep on with their own agendas.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

Quote:

Jesus was not a "teaching" but a person.

True, but what we know about a person becomes a teaching!

So, Gerry, are you saying that each person is made from the same mold?

No such implication in my statement. What I am saying is that we know about Jesus becomes teaching/doctrine ABOUT Jesus. None of us know Jesus the way the disciples did who heard, saw, touched, ate with, Him. Two of the gospel writers were eye-witnesses. Mark may have have been eye-witness to many that he wrote about. Luke's was the result of careful research. What they wrote about and the rest of Scriptures are the basis for our teaching/doctrine about Jesus.

Now it is entirely possible that one could have it all correct theologically but not have a relationship with Jesus, maybe even idolize the teachings/doctrines themselves. I can understand D. Allan's point about that, but I am in total disagreement with what I understand the drift of his post to be that somehow truth doesn't matter. Just know the person of Jesus.

As Paul says: [color:red] "But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? Rom 10:14 ESV.

(or teaching for that matter). How can you have a relationship with someone you know nothing about? And how could one have a meaningful relationship that is based on a lot of misconceptions about that person?

It boggles my mind that somehow we want to get our knowledge/facts as accurately as we can in every branch of knowledge, but when it comes to theology, garbage will do!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

Is the Spirit of Christ only able to reach us thru God's Holy Word?

I would not for a moment try to limit the work of the Holy Spirit. [color:red]"Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son..." Heb 1:1,2 ESV.

The Holy Spirit works in many ways, but He will never contradict the Word and in fact will always direct us to the Word. If He did not do that, then each man can claim that last word. There's already enough of this.

Quote:

I agree that there is precedent. I agree that the literal Word is necessary, both to teach and as a rule to fall back upon. But there is also room for us to understand the Person, Jesus, in some aspect, even in this life.

OK, if you can tell me how I can know Jesus apart from the Word, my ears are wide open to listen.

Gerry

[Gerr]

Quote:

I do not see any action on the part of leaders to address these differences. It seems that they do not want to enter into a local church "spat" but just keep on with their own agendas.

Perhaps it is because it would detract from preaching/emphasizing the essentials?

Gerry

[Gerr]

Quote:

I am sure the wolves will be circling ...

Arf! Arf! Or is it, awoooooooooooooooo?

Quote:

but there's room for all.

Garbage and all!!![color:red]

"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death." Prov 16:25 ESV

"Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few." Mt 7:12-14 ESV

Gerry

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

How do you account for this? What are some of the most obvious differences that you find?

Do you believe that these differences at the local church level are justified on the basis of what the Bible or Ellen White say?

From your perspective, are the teachers and writers in the church suppressing or hiding or ignoring major differences in doctrine?

Some of the most obvious differences at local church level are things like "vegetarianism" or the opposite, whether or not the SDA Church is the remnant or not, belief in Ellen White or shunning of Ellen White, and similar.

By and large I don't think there is Bible or Ellen White proof of these differences. Rather it seems to be a stance taken through logic or some other means.

I do not see any action on the part of leaders to address these differences. It seems that they do not want to enter into a local church "spat" but just keep on with their own agendas.

The official doctrines of the church let it be very clear where the church as a whole stands on these questions. Also you can't study Ellen White without knowing the answer to these questions, either. They are clear as anything can be. But to accept those statements, one must of course accept Ellen White's authority as a true prophet of God/

Now what if a person does not accept Ellen White?

Well, first of all, thank God, our church does not make Ellen White a test of fellowship.

That is good because it would be wrong to believe in Ellen White for any other reason than that you studied her and know in your own heart and mind that she really was a prophet of God.

The church attempts to study and teach these things before members are baptized, but in the long run, it is up to the person to study and find out and become convinced through personal examination of the evidence.

Therefore, it really would not be a permanent solution for leaders to make pronouncements.

Think of it this way: did it do any good for Moses to claim he was God's prophet? No, it didn't do any good. There was still much rebellion in the camp of Israel, and that was even after the people saw God's miracles for years with their own eyes. It was after God Himself proved beyond doubt that Moses was His mouth-piece. There was still rebellion against God. So virtually all of those who came out of Egypt and who could have gone directly into the Promised Land died instead on the borders of the land of Canaan.

History is repeating itself. We are modern Israel and we are wandering in the wilderness. Some day a generation will be ready and go in. Will we be that generation?

[LifeHiscost]

Again, learning from Jesus himself, not from the scriptures, is what he asked.

Being "right" having/believing the "correct" "teachings" is not what matters.

The more of one's spiritual correctness one can surrender - the more room for God to fill - and not with teachings - but with himself.

/dAb

"If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine (teachings), whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself."

John 7:17 KJV Parenthesis mine LHC

"Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:"

Matthew 7:24-28 KJV

Regards!

[doctorj]

Now what if a person does not accept Ellen White?

Well, first of all, thank God, our church does not make Ellen White a test of fellowship.

That is good because it would be wrong to believe in Ellen White for any other reason than that you studied her and know in your own heart and mind that she really was a prophet of God.

This is a mystery to me. Why does the Church in general quote Ellen White, sell her books, and make a lot of her by running an Estate, keeping historic buildings, and yet not make the topic of Ellen White a test of fellowship?

Is she a prophet or not? If so, then why not make this a matter like any other belief of the Church? It just doesn't seem to add up to me! Make a big thing of Ellen White, but then make it a personal choice whether you believe in her being a prophet or not.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Now what if a person does not accept Ellen White?

Well, first of all, thank God, our church does not make Ellen White a test of fellowship.

That is good because it would be wrong to believe in Ellen White for any other reason than that you studied her and know in your own heart and mind that she really was a prophet of God.

This is a mystery to me. Why does the Church in general quote Ellen White, sell her books, and make a lot of her by running an Estate, keeping historic buildings, and yet not make the topic of Ellen White a test of fellowship?

Is she a prophet or not? If so, then why not make this a matter like any other belief of the Church? It just doesn't seem to add up to me! Make a big thing of Ellen White, but then make it a personal choice whether you believe in her being a prophet or not.

The Seventh-day Adventist Reform Movement does make Ellen White a test of fellowship. So also vegetarianism is made a test of fellowship among them.

The SDA position on these things goes back to the very beginning of the church. James White wrote early articles on that very question regarding making Ellen White's gift of prophecy a test. The basic reason is that the only tests must come out of the Bible itself. That was also Ellen White's position. She did not favor making her writings, or "the visions," a test of whether a person should be accepted as a member of the Adventist church.

Perhaps, also, making her a test would cause some people to claim they believe in her when they really don't. I am glad that members feel free to say that they don't believe in Ellen White or in her writings. If she was made a test, people probably would not feel so free to tell the truth about their beliefs about this.

By the way, when I say Ellen White is not a test in our church, I don't mean to give the impression that it hasn't ever been used as a test for ministers and even teachers in the church.

[John317]

...Is she a prophet or not? If so, then why not make this a matter like any other belief of the Church? It just doesn't seem to add up to me! Make a big thing of Ellen White, but then make it a personal choice whether you believe in her being a prophet or not.

Something similar occurred in Israel while they were in the wilderness. There were those who did not really believe that Moses was a prophet of God, yet they were allowed to remain in the camp and share in God's blessings. It was hoped that by this association and by study and experience, they would change their mind. I think that's similar to the way it is with the Adventist church in regard to Ellen White's prophetic ministry.

Did those who disbelieved in Moses' prophetic ministry make it into the Promised Land? I don't think very many had doubts of that. By the time they went over the Jordan River, most of them apparently had no question about Moses' position and role.

[John317]

Maybe then more people would actually study their Bibles. Could be interesting.

According to Ellen White, one reason God allows false doctrines to enter into the church is in order to cause people to study and find out what they believe and why.

[Woody]

Quote:

Is she a prophet or not? If so, then why not make this a matter like any other belief of the Church? It just doesn't seem to add up to me! Make a big thing of Ellen White, but then make it a personal choice whether you believe in her being a prophet or not.

Praise God our church is not this restrictive. Instead we want to be as inclusive as we can. You will find that our church is this way in many ways. Our statements of belief are crafted in such a way to include both sides of many doctrines. They are worded so that the EGW crowd can have some but not all of the bone. IF you want extremism ... you can go to the Historic Adventists or other groups ... like John317 mentioned.

You can be a legalist and be welcomed in our church OR You can be a liberal with an anything goes attitude and find that the church has wording and welcome for you.

I am not aware of any two SDA or Christians who totally have all the same views on every Christian issue. And so we should be loving and accepting of our diffences. Each person must come to their own personal understanding. Then when we See HIS Face ... we will have it all straightened out. No one will have complete knowledge until then. Which reminds me of a great song. Until then. I think I need to post that in WOD.

[D. Allan]

Quote:

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

Quote:

Jesus was not a "teaching" but a person.

True, but what we know about a person becomes a teaching!

To me "what we know about a person" is biography. In the case of Jesus, history. Why teach history as "doctrinal" teachings?

Probably in order to leave no room for possible questions about the autheticity of the history?

Do we have teachings about Abraham Lincoln? or Henry IV? Or Pocohantas? We call it history and history is alway open to reinterpretation. Unless it is re-shaped into doctrine, of course, in which case we can't call it history, probably. Doctrines, "teachings" are not required to be factual history, presumably.

[D. Allan]

Now it is entirely possible that one could have it all correct theologically but not have a relationship with Jesus, maybe even idolize the teachings/doctrines themselves. I can understand D. Allan's point about that, but I am in total disagreement with what I understand the drift of his post to be that somehow truth doesn't matter. Just know the person of Jesus.

But truth does matter.

That is why we must rid ourselves of the ego-driven need to possess it. Rather we must allow it to possess us. What anyone of us may believe and/or teach does not alter the actual reality that exists apart from our "teaching." Therefore: if we value truth we will be willing to admit that our opinions, and teachings may be not true. Therefore we can't push them on others.

Faith, however, is a different matter. It is concerned with spiritual truth. But still - it can't be pushed onto others. Every one has to have their own faith. Faith is a spiritual reality, not a material/historical reality.

/dAb

[Woody]

Quote:

But truth does matter.

That is why we must rid ourselves of the ego-driven need to possess it. Rather we must allow it to possess us. What anyone of us may believe and/or teach does not alter the actual reality that exists apart from our "teaching." Therefore: if we value truth we will be willing to admit that our opinions, and teachings may be not true. Therefore we can't push them on others.

Faith, however, is a different matter. It is concerned with spiritual truth. But still - it can't be pushed onto others. Every one has to have their own faith. Faith is a spiritual reality, not a material/historical reality.

/dAb

Wow !! I love what you have said here dAb. Beautiful. Just beautiful. If only we could realize this and really put it into practice. I am so glad that you have this understanding and have shared it here with us. Thank you.

[LifeHiscost]

WELL SAID. No it was just plain beautiful and brilliant.

Honestly dAb ... Thank you. I love the way you said that. I am sure the wolves will be circling ... but there's room for all. What you have articulated is something we an benefit from understanding. Praise God.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1 KJV

"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD" Amos 8:11 KJV

"`And that sown toward the thorns, this is he who is hearing the word, and the anxiety of this age, and the deceitfulness of the riches, do choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful." Matt 13:22 YLT

"`And that sown on the good ground: this is he who is hearing the word, and is understanding, who indeed doth bear fruit, and doth make, some indeed a hundredfold, and some sixty, and some thirty" Matthew 13:23 YLT

Regards!

[LifeHiscost]

People are at different places in their walk with God, but the truth remains the same. It will be progressive, but never lead to different beliefs.

We live in dangerous times. All manner of heresy is being taught. Only by following Scripture with much prayer for the leading of the Holy Spirit can we be sure of knowing truth.

"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." 1 John 4:1 KJV

"But the fruit of the [Holy] Spirit [the work which His presence within accomplishes] is love, joy (gladness), peace, patience (an even temper, forbearance), kindness, goodness (benevolence), faithfulness,

Gentleness (meekness, humility), self-control (self-restraint, continence). Against such things there is no law [that can bring a charge].

And those who belong to Christ Jesus (the Messiah) have crucified the flesh (the godless human nature) with its passions and appetites and desires.

If we live by the [Holy] Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. [if by the Holy Spirit we have our life in God, let us go forward walking in line, our conduct controlled by the Spirit.]" Gal 5:22-25 AMP Parenthesis brackets theirs LHC

Regards!

[Kevin H]

What you're advocating constitutes Babylon. Everyone's "truth" is just as good as anyone else's. "You're OK, I'm OK, Everybody's OK." In fact, don't worry about sinning-- God will forgive all sinning. Go on sinning willfully until Christ comes. Just love, love, love. Great news?

But is it really? Is that the gospel that we find presented in the Bible? Is that the Third Angels Message? Is this what we see in the books of Daniel and Revelation?

I think he was trying to make a joke about the history I gave of our pioneers. Satan's favorite method is not to have outright lies but to devide the truth in approxamately half and have some people defend part of the truth and be baffalled why their critics don't see these important truths they are defending, and to give the other part of the truth to another group who are equally baffalled by the first group. I understand the Desomnd Ford Issue and the so called "Historic Adventists" as captives of this where both sides are preaching approxamately half the truth but using their half of the truth agains the rest of the truth (and one point,the nature of Jesus they are both wrong on. Jesus had his own unique nature with things like and unlike Adam before and after the fall, but Jesus did NOT have the disposition to think he was for himself by esteaming himself more highly than his brothers, to serve self, to seek the highest place, or to generally make less of the outside world. The attitude which is the sinful nature)

Two major opposits of truth that Satan likes to split is Authority and Freedom. The issue of the Dragon in Revelation 12 is freedom at the expence of authority, read what Mrs. White says about spiritualism. It is not seances and ouji boards, they are only one advertising campain to speread spiritualism. Spiritualism itself is "Live as you please for heaven is your home." That final truth is with in you.

The other side of this issue is the beast of Revelation 13. This is authority at the expence of freedom. Everything uniform.

The demons have been expirementing with Dragon and Beast. While they like the philosophy of the dragon, they find it easier to use the beast because the dragon means that they have to give everyone their own deception.

Our pioneers were attempting to ballance the two. They were kicked out of churches who wanted to be more uniform.

The pioneers agreed that the Bible, not their inner voice, should be the final authority. They would study out and agreed upon a handful of pillars, then beyond these pillers there is freedom for different views. This would of course guard against some members brining in ideas such as dispensationalism. I have not seen the evidence but some have pointed out that dispensationalism was considered and rejected by the pioneers (or acually by Miller and the Millerite leaders)

A big part of the Investatagive Judgment is tha we are now living in a time where we can study the Bible such as never before and the explosion of Biblical knowledge since the mid 1800s. A Methodist Archaeologist who teaches at Hebrew University in Jerusalem says "My students often ask me if I'll be giving the same final exam that I gave last semester. My standard reply is 'The questions remain the same but the answers keep changing as we learn more about the Bible.'"

These discoveries need peer review. They tend to be interpeted behind the presupositons of the discoverer and the reviewers and we need to keep these in mind. It takes about 30 years for a new discovery to appear in a commentary.

Satan keeps trying to get Adventists to give up this view of the pioneers and to try to get us into either the authoritinism and uniformity of the beast or the freedom of spiritualism. By the way, the the dragon the beast and the false prophet are the jobs of the members of the trinity but outside of God's oneness. They are either independent of each other or in a weak alliance to serve their own purpose. Spiritualim is the role of the Holy Spirit at the expence of the Father and the Son. The Beast is the role of God the Father at the expenced of the Holy Spirit and Son, and the two horned beast is the role of the Son at the expence of the Father and Holy Spirit.

[melvin mccarty]

I wonder. Did all 28 "fundamentals" pass in a GC session unanimously? mel