An Appeal To SDA's On This Site

[Stewart (SDA)]

An Appeal to Seventh Day Adventists on this site.

It is clear that some people come to this site looking only to contend with the views of Seventh Day Adventism. They seek a contest, and appear to take pleasure in strife and debate.

Of course this site is by no means unique in this regard.

But what shall we do?

If any are interested, I have a few ideas that I would like to share.

My first thought is that:

if we allow any “root of bitterness” to enter into our expressions, then the danger is that it will be like a root of Oxalis. If we continually rise to the voice of provocation, then they will certainly see it, and cultivate it, and in the end we will have nothing left but fields of bitter plants.

Brethren, let us guard ourselves against any root of bitterness springing up.

It is better to avoid them, than to engage in a contest of wills. Because, of course, will against will is, as it were, flint against flint – neither will yield, and sparks will appear.

(Hebrews 12:14-15)

“Pursue peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:

Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled”

I do not ask for a passive/ do nothing approach to the persistent problem. The mouths of these foolish men should be stopped. But the weapons of our warfare are not worldly, fleshly weapons. Contempt, arrogancy, and spite are weapons that belong to the world. These are all the resorts of false religion. But pure religion, undefiled before God, has no part with such things.

The Bible appeals to us in various ways, to meet the assaults that will inevitably come.

Another of these is in Romans 16:17:

“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned; and avoid them.”

We should definitely "mark them" that would bring division and discord. Let us be in no doubt -- we may know them [i.e. recognize them] by their fruits. These will bring insults to trade, and the fear of God will not be seen in them. When they quote the word of God, for its partner the holy word is given an expression of profane contempt or arrogancy.

James 3:10-11

“Out of the same mouth proceeds blessing [to God] and cursing [to man]. My brethren, these things ought not to be. Does a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter? [No, it does not, can not.]”

The lesson from James is for those who seek to honor God, and curse men. The lesson ultimately, is that such religion is vain.

Let us not be counted among that group, but let us rather walk worthily of our high calling.

“I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that you walk worthy of the vocation wherewith you are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love”. Eph 4:1-3

Personally, I am encouraged to see more and more, a calm spirit that is unwilling to argue or contend. Thank you Lord.

“The servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,

In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth”. (2Tim 2:24-25)

________

Stewart

[Musicman1228]

Stewart,

Are you saying that there should be not challenge to commonly held beliefs, dogma and catechism? That we should all go along to get along?

I agree with you that the discourse should always be civil and done in a spirit of humility and kindness, but it is my observation that there is no learning unless there is a corresponding challenge to thinking. I believe that I am right with Jesus on this issue, who challenged the commonly held thinking of the Pharisees nearly every time He opened His mouth.

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. Matt. 10:34.

You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? Matthew 23:33.

Unity is only found through the truth, and truth is only found through diligent study, research and discussion. That is what I thought this forum was all about.

If you limit discussion to that which you already agree then where is the opportunity for learning?

[Stewart (SDA)]

Stewart,

Are you saying that there should be no challenge to commonly held beliefs, dogma and catechism? That we should all go along to get along?

I agree with you that the discourse should always be civil and done in a spirit of humility and kindness, but it is my observation that there is no learning unless there is a corresponding challenge to thinking. I believe that I am right with Jesus on this issue, who challenged the commonly held thinking of the Pharisees nearly every time He opened His mouth.

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. Matt. 10:34.

You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? Matthew 23:33.

Unity is only found through the truth, and truth is only found through diligent study, research and discussion. That is what I thought this forum was all about.

If you limit discussion to that which you already agree then where is the opportunity for learning?

Thankyou Musicman. I appreciate the points you have brought up.

No I am not saying that our teachings should not be challenged or questioned... in fact I think I frequently challenge elements in what has now become traditional teachings in the SDA church.

Yes indeed, there are times when doctrine SHOULD be closely questioned; but there are also times (according to the Scripture) when we should avoid getting into discussion and debate. Discretion and judgment is called for in deciding which situation we find ourselves in.

On the side of questioning doctrine, I think the following thought from Mrs. White is good:

"Suppose a brother holds a view that differs from yours, and he comes to you, proposing that you sit down with him and investigate that point in the Scriptures; should you rise up filled with prejudice, and condemn his ideas, while refusing to give him a candid hearing?

"The only right way would be to sit down as Christians and investigate the position presented in the light of God's word, which will reveal truth and unmask error. To ridicule his ideas would not weaken his position, though it were false, or strengthen your position, though it were true. [This is effectively the central point of my initial post.]

"If the pillars of our faith will not stand the test of investigation, it is time that we knew it, for it is foolish to become set in our ideas, and think that no one should interfere with our opinions." (Signs of the Times, February 6, 1893)

Regards,

Stewart.

[Stewart (SDA)]

Brethren, let us guard ourselves against any root of bitterness springing up.

It is better to avoid them, than to engage in a contest of wills. Because, of course, will against will is, as it were, flint against flint – neither will yield, and sparks will appear.

Perhaps I should clarify this.

"Brethren, let us guard ourselves against any root of bitterness springing up [in our own comments/ expressions].

It is better to avoid them [i.e. those people that come only to fight and criticize], than to engage in a contest of wills [with them]. Because, of course, will against will is, as it were, flint against flint – neither will yield, and sparks will appear."

___________

At this point I do not see that thoughts such as this closes the door to the examination and testing of doctrine.

Stewart.

[Dr. Rich]

And lets here it from EGW:

"The fact that there is no controversy or agitation among God's people, should not be regarded as conclusive evidence that they are holding fast to sound doctrine. There is reason to fear that they may not be clearly discriminating between truth and error. When no new questions are started by investigation of the Scriptures, when no difference of opinion arises which will set men to searching the Bible for themselves, to make sure that they have the truth, there will be many now, as in ancient times, who will hold to tradition, and worship they know not what." {CW 39.1}

"When the time of trial shall come, there are men now preaching to others, who will find, upon examining the positions they hold, that there are many things for which they can give no satisfactory reason. Until thus tested, they knew not their great ignorance." {CW 39.2}

"And there are many in the church who take it for granted that they understand what they believe, but, until controversy arises, they do not know their own weakness. When separated from those of like faith, and compelled to stand singly and alone to explain their belief, they will be surprised to see how confused are their ideas of what they had accepted as truth. Certain it is that there has been among us a departure from the living God, and a turning to men, putting human wisdom in place of divine." {CW 39.3}

And this one hits the nail on the head:

"Agitate, agitate, agitate! The subjects which we present to the world must be to us a living reality. It is important that in defending the doctrines which we consider fundamental articles of faith, we should never allow ourselves to employ arguments that are not wholly sound. These may avail to silence an opposer, but they do not honor the truth. We should present sound arguments, that will not only silence our opponents, but will bear the closest and most searching scrutiny. . . ." {CW 40.3} Enjoy! (SDA)

[Stewart (SDA)]

Yes, Dr. Rich I take your point here. But I do think there are balancing thoughts in Mrs. White as well.

Yes, we should agitate, and press certain issues at times, I do agree with that; but there are situations when silence is eloquence.

We need to discriminate, and know which situation is which. Can you agree with me on this point?

____________

"If someone says something that tends to provoke you, remember that at such a time silence is eloquence. Do not respond in a manner to retaliate. It will be better to say nothing than to speak unadvisedly...

Unless we are constantly on our guard, we may be caught unawares, and speak hastily. It may then be impossible for us to remove the impression from the minds of those to whom we have spoken, for some do not desire to get rid of such [negative] impressions. They seem to delight in cherishing evil.

Let us, by keeping our words in harmony with the instructions the Saviour has given us, not give them any occasion for offense.

As we come in contact with varying dispositions, we shall undoubtedly find great provocation to speak unkindly. But remember that at such times silence is often eloquence.

If you refrain from retaliating when you are provoked by others, you will surprise them. And, if repeatedly you preserve your dignity under provocation, they will realize that you are in connection with a higher Power."

(Upward Look p. 242)

[Dr. Rich]

Stewart, Yes of course I would have to agree. I guess people take me wrong sometimes for I still read EGW's books and actually enjoy them as much as Goldstein's. The same goes for Paul's, Luke's and the unknown writer of Hebrews and 1st and 2nd Peter. Yes, I read them and probably know more about these writings than 90% of Adventists--but that is because I am old enough and have the time to do all of this.

I am truly an agitator though and everyone who knows me can and do trust me to do this fairly. All I seek is fairness but this means to play by the right rules. If there is new truth that someone has, then I want to know about it. Personally, I have not seen or heard anyone for a long, long time present any new truth worth a hoot except a study group that I have been with for over 15 years. Now that is exciting! I would remain silent, but what good is a light that is covered by a bowl?

It truly puzzles me to read posts from people/SDA members who think that 'faith' means they don't have to know the truth. It also puzzles me as to why anyone would actually want to hush or silence others that do not agree with their present opinion! The main reason why I believe the way I do is because I have researched from many books presenting different ideas and opinions written by people who, for the most part, were highly educated – even though their understanding was not on par to mine.

Blessings, (SDA)

[Richard Holbrook]

Yes, I read them and probably know more about these writings than 90% of Adventists-- I have researched from many books presenting different ideas and opinions written by people who, for the most part, were highly educated – even though their understanding was not on par to mine.

Of course how could anyones understanding be on par with yours.

what you lack in knowledge and wisdom, you more than make up for in ego, and self agrandizement.

[Musicman1228]

Again, whenever someone can't refute the proof from Scripture and the words of Jesus they go into personal attack. For my sake as well as for others lets make our comments as impersonal as possible, and stick to the facts only. Does that sound fair?

[Gerr]

Thanks for the sage quotes.

When to contend for the faith and when to be silent - that takes wisdom, and a lot of prayer.

[Richard Holbrook]

Sure, where was the scripture quoted?

[Richard Holbrook]

Musicman, with all due respect there was nothing to refute. He was just going on about his knowledge.

[Dr. Rich]

Once upon a time, there was respect for elders. Reading accounts of this in the Old Testament is interesting. The commandment to show respect and honor to parents is also interesting.

Rich4truth, if you really say what your handle represents, then may I suggest you do a little praying for knowledge and the wisdom to understand this knowledge? I might add, you don't know me, but all I was doing was presenting FACTS that can't be disproved by anyone. Try it and see what happens.

[Richard Holbrook]

Dr. Rich, I'm sorry I disrespected you. I don't know what came over me. There is no excuse for being disrespectful to elders.

[Dr. Rich]

Apoligy accepted, and Happy Sabbath to you!

[BobRyan]

And lets here it from EGW:

"The fact that there is no controversy or agitation among God's people, should not be regarded as conclusive evidence that they are holding fast to sound doctrine. There is reason to fear that they may not be clearly discriminating between truth and error. When no new questions are started by investigation of the Scriptures, when no difference of opinion arises which will set men to searching the Bible for themselves, to make sure that they have the truth, there will be many now, as in ancient times, who will hold to tradition, and worship they know not what." {CW 39.1}

"When the time of trial shall come, there are men now preaching to others, who will find, upon examining the positions they hold, that there are many things for which they can give no satisfactory reason. Until thus tested, they knew not their great ignorance." {CW 39.2}

"And there are many in the church who take it for granted that they understand what they believe, but, until controversy arises, they do not know their own weakness. When separated from those of like faith, and compelled to stand singly and alone to explain their belief, they will be surprised to see how confused are their ideas of what they had accepted as truth. Certain it is that there has been among us a departure from the living God, and a turning to men, putting human wisdom in place of divine." {CW 39.3}

And this one hits the nail on the head:

"Agitate, agitate, agitate! The subjects which we present to the world must be to us a living reality. It is important that in defending the doctrines which we consider fundamental articles of faith, we should never allow ourselves to employ arguments that are not wholly sound. These may avail to silence an opposer, but they do not honor the truth. We should present sound arguments, that will not only silence our opponents, but will bear the closest and most searching scrutiny. . . ." {CW 40.3} Enjoy! (SDA)

Amen and amen!! I finally have a post from Rich - I can save!!

Oh confused Christian ghettos - RHO and RSO be thy name!

There are as it turns out - group-think oriented (supposedly SDA) sites that consider it a "virtue" to drive out independent Bible based thought that does not blindly mime whatever pablum they offer to the group.

They urge the point that non-SDA groups need to be "instructed" by them, but in fact they themselves embrace a spirit of popery unheard of in many of the non-SDA forums!

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Stewart, Yes of course I would have to agree. I guess people take me wrong sometimes for I still read EGW's books and actually enjoy them as much as Goldstein's. The same goes for Paul's, Luke's and the unknown writer of Hebrews and 1st and 2nd Peter. Yes, I read them and probably know more about these writings than 90% of Adventists--but that is because I am old enough and have the time to do all of this.

I am truly an agitator though and everyone who knows me can and do trust me to do this fairly. All I seek is fairness but this means to play by the right rules. If there is new truth that someone has, then I want to know about it. Personally, I have not seen or heard anyone for a long, long time present any new truth worth a hoot except a study group that I have been with for over 15 years. Now that is exciting! I would remain silent, but what good is a light that is covered by a bowl?

Much of that is of interest. But I have a clue for the 15 year group - slicing up the Bible and cutting out scripture is not "new truth" of any kind.

in Christ,

Bob

[Dr. Rich]

Yes Bob, I know it sounds and looks like slicing and dicing, but here is what I do know. Matthew 7:24-29 shows us that the foundation for building a belief system and understanding real truth is the words of Jesus--not the words from someone else even though they say they are of Christ! When the storm of truth comes, and it will, only those who have built their house upon this foundation will stand. And, this is the bottom line for the 15 years of study--I suppose.

[BobRyan]

The either-or fallacy you suggest is not supported in scripture. It would be like saying "Either Matthew is right or the Old Testament is right". Those types of flat-earth argument may be compelling to "some" but I have to think that the serious Bible students are not falling for it.

in Christ,

Bob

[Gail]

The either-or fallacy you suggest is not supported in scripture. It would be like saying "Either Matthew is right or the Old Testament is right". Those types of flat-earth argument may be compelling to "some" but I have to think that the serious Bible students are not falling for it.

So what happens when Jesus quotes from the Old Testament, which he did quite often?

[Parade Orange]

Thanku BOBRYAN!

I appreciate reading what Mrs White has to say! Love it when she is posted on a topic of interest.

[Dr. Rich]

WHAT? You lost me Bob. I thought what Jesus said in Matt. 7 was very clear. BTW-History shows us that people not only laughed at Galileo for telling people the earth was round, but they were so peeved with him they gave him a time out in a cell to re think his understanding. Now who is laughing? Well, the same is going to happen to the 144K. They will present the words of Jesus to a world who has been taught lies by people within all of the Christian churches. Some day soon, the storm will come—just make sure your foundation is secure with the words of Jesus.

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

The either-or fallacy you suggest is not supported in scripture. It would be like saying "Either Matthew is right or the Old Testament is right". Those types of flat-earth argument may be compelling to "some" but I have to think that the serious Bible students are not falling for it.

So what happens when Jesus quotes from the Old Testament, which he did quite often?

Jesus affirms the value and continued authority of "scripture" and the OT as well as the NT today is "scripture". In Christ's day of course - they did not have the Gospels nor the inspired writings of the Apostles - but the same principle applies to all.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Thanku BOBRYAN!

I appreciate reading what Mrs White has to say! Love it when she is posted on a topic of interest.

Actually - Ellen White predicts a progression in apostasy among some Adventists in which the first step that is taken is to reject her writings as inspired of God - and then the next step that will be taken is to start slicing and downsizing the Word of God into the the "trusted section" vs the "not trusted" or "not accepted" section.

We see it with our evolutionist friends from time to time - and we see it from "others" as well.

in Christ,

Bob

[Dr. Rich]

Hypothetically speaking, IF the seven messages to the churches found in Revelation 2 and 3 is actually seven messages to the Kingdom of Heaven in the end times, and the Kingdom of Heaven is now the SDA church, what is it that God tells them to repent from? Would not knowing about this be very important? It should also be pointed out that the majority spoken of in these messages are the ones that need to repent.