What IS the Adventist perspective?

[Gail]

There is such a wide diversity of thinking within the Seventh-Day Adventist ranks that how can we know just WHAT commonalities we do hold in unity?

What would you reckon would be common ground for people who go under the heading of the Seventh-Day Adventist church?

[Gail]

We may surprise those who are on the "outside" who think they know who we are!

[miz3]

Gail,

My opinion is that most SDA agree on the broad sweeping areas (although even here there are many exceptions). It is in the details mostly where SDA seem to go in a very wide pattern of directions.

To some they become so wound up in their particular details that they leave the SDA Church and found a new "off shoot movement" which claims to have new light from God and that SDA rejected the true light.

Clearly all SDA believe in the Second Coming and all SDA believe in the Sabbath! After that it is catch as catch can in regard to the details.

Isn't that why this forum exists so people can vent their details. If you want diversity you got it here.

[Gail]

Gail,

Clearly all SDA believe in the Second Coming and all SDA believe in the Sabbath! After that it is catch as catch can in regard to the details.

Is that a good thing, to be so diverse, or a bad thing?

I remember some years back, when it seemed like the denoination had an identity crisis.

Does diversity foster unity or division? I can't really tell from this place... LOL

[miz3]

Is that a good thing, to be so diverse, or a bad thing?

I remember some years back, when it seemed like the denoination had an identity crisis.

Does diversity foster unity or division? I can't really tell from this place... LOL

Again in my opinion:

Diversity of opinion can be a good thing or it can be a bad thing. It depends?

I do not think diversity on the "Big" items like the Sabbath, the Second Coming is good. Being diverse on the details of these items can be healthy. However, if you do not believe in the Second Coming and in the Sabbath then you should not be an SDA in my opinion.

As to the Doctrines:

Nature of God, Nature of Man, Nature of Salvation, Creation, Baptism, the Sanctuary Doctrine, Tithe, etc.

we may have some wiggle room on the big side and maybe a lot of wiggle room on the detail side.

This is a good discussion Gail. Even in regard to this, SDA have a broad opinion. I am sure there will be others who do not see this the same way I do.

[Pastor_Chick]

[...]

[...]

I remember some years back, when it seemed like the denoination had an identity crisis.

Does diversity foster unity or division? I can't really tell from this place... LOL

[Kevin H]

When the village of Washington NH was formed, the villagers could not decide what type of church to have. Some wanted a conservative church with only approved ministers and speakers. Others wanted a liberal church where the individuals could come and worship and have a wide spectrum of belief, to allow anyone to speak who they felt had a message and allow the church members to decide from their own study of the Bible whether the message was worthy or not. Because of this Washington NH ended up forming two churches. One for the conservatives with set beliefs and one for the liberals with various beliefs.

Then came Millerism (a continuation and development from the Advent movement of the 1700s that Sir. Isaac Newton was a part of, and was also a protestant development from the Franciscian order). All kinds of churches, liberals and conservatives first welcomed Miller, but then some churches did not see how they could fit Miller's ideas in with their creeds so they lost interest in him and turned against members who embraced Millerism.

These Millerites from a very wide diversity of religious background decided to form their own church where they would agree on a handful of pillars, and as long as they avoided fanaticism, be able to come and worship together with their religious diversity and not be told that their cherished belief did not fit some creed.

The Liberal Church in Washington NH was greatly effected by Millerism, and convinced by a Seventh-day Baptist that they should keep the Sabbath and many members started keeping Sabbath and it is considered the first Seventh-day Adventist Church (although there are possibilities that maybe where Miller made inroads with Seventh-day Baptist communities, such as Lincklaen Center, NY which may have had earlier Seventh-day Adventist Churches but we don't have the documented dates to know if they are before Washington NH or not.)

We have had movements of wanting to get away from our diverse roots and wanting orthodoxy, but our roots are in diversity Mrs. White gave a list of pillars and that is as basic as we can get.

Beyond that I believe that the true Adventist perspective are found mostly in reading 3 chapters and one article by Mrs. White: Patriarchs and Prophtes' "Why was Sin Permitted"; Great Controversy's "The Orgin of Evil"; and Desire of Ages' "It is Finished" and the article "God made Manifest in Christ". This is also further developed in a powerful but neglected book "Confrontation" It is the points in these chapters (and her writings about how inspiration works, found in say Selected Messages, the introduction to the Great Controversy, and dealing with say the issue of the daily, the reform dress, Testimony #11, and corrispondence between Ellen White on one side and Elder Washburn on the other, and Ellen White on one side and a bit more moderate than Washburn but still holding a different view than Mrs. White's Stephen Haskell, and corrispondence between Willie White and Elder Wilkerson) that is the foundation to nearly all if not all the posts I have ever posted. It is my seeing us getting away from this perspective and getting into Washburn/Wilkersonism or Haskellism, or the critics of the church that I see as pulling us away from our core message.

We will always have diversity and we will always have our core message.

[Tom Wetmore]

A key part of what you are asking suggests a need for unity. The quote just above refers to being in harmony with the mind of the Spirit. Scripture refers to being of one mind, of one accord, like-minded or being of the same mind as Christ. A number of versions translate that as having the same attitude as Christ.

For most of our Adventist history this has turned toward sameness, uniformity, being in agreement exclusively with regard to doctrine and beliefs, reduced to an intellectual exercise. This has resulted in friction over anything short of being unanimous, a speaking of truth in perfect unison. (We see this far too frequently played out here in all the passionate arguments and debates over even some of the smallest differences.) Of the more than 33,000 Christian denominations, the vast majority have formed over differences or disputes over one or just a few doctrines, and often just some minor portion of one point. It seems the most common Christian attitude is contentiousness.

I think this is a mistake and has completely missed the point made by the Scriptures to which I have alluded and the prevalent theme of unity in EGW's writings.

It is essentially, if not entirely, about attitude. Synonyms for like-minded, accord, and harmony are words like attuned, in tune, amicable, frictionless, agreeable, understanding, empathetic, sympathetic, congenial, compatible, peaceful.

To take just the obvious musical metaphor, a choir singing in harmony are not singing in unison but are blending of many voices singing multiple parts, even different words and in counter-point. But they are acting in concert, singing the same song, all following the lead of one conductor. And a good choir knows many songs that may sound very different with different themes and messages, but still sung with great harmony.

[CoAspen]

Quote:

...being in harmony with the mind of the Spirit. Scripture refers to being of one mind, of one accord, like-minded or being of the same mind as Christ. A number of versions translate that as having the same attitude as Christ.

Works for me!

[miz3]

Beyond that I believe that the true Adventist perspective are found mostly in reading 3 chapters and one article by Mrs. White: Patriarchs and Prophtes' "Why was Sin Permitted"; Great Controversy's "The Orgin of Evil"; and Desire of Ages' "It is Finished" and the article "God made Manifest in Christ". This is also further developed in a powerful but neglected book "Confrontation" It is the points in these chapters (and her writings about how inspiration works, found in say Selected Messages, the introduction to the Great Controversy, and dealing with say the issue of the daily, the reform dress, Testimony #11, and corrispondence between Ellen White on one side and Elder Washburn on the other, and Ellen White on one side and a bit more moderate than Washburn but still holding a different view than Mrs. White's Stephen Haskell, and corrispondence between Willie White and Elder Wilkerson) that is the foundation to nearly all if not all the posts I have ever posted. It is my seeing us getting away from this perspective and getting into Washburn/Wilkersonism or Haskellism, or the critics of the church that I see as pulling us away from our core message.

It is interesting that this quote above is the basis of SDAism.

Don't you notice that there is not one single Scriptural reference, there is only Ellen G. White for the basis of belief.

I find this shocking!

[miz3]

that is the foundation to nearly all if not all the posts I have ever posted.

I thought the Scriptures were to be the "foundation" of all we believe?

[Gail]

Thank you for your kind spirit in this thread. I am enjoying the unity that you all are showing here!

It's kind of interesting that Scripture gives the main idea about Sabbath as resting on the 7th day and doing no work, but leaves it fairly open to interpretation further than that- ie- what about play? Reading and viewing etc

To tell you the truth, I for one LOVE the different flavours of Adventism! I am blessed by both liberal and conservative viewpoints.

But I am blown away when I see the differing factions in harmony and love. That is the Holy Spirit's doing.

[BobRyan]

There is such a wide diversity of thinking within the Seventh-Day Adventist ranks that how can we know just WHAT commonalities we do hold in unity?

What would you reckon would be common ground for people who go under the heading of the Seventh-Day Adventist church?

The 28 Fundamental Beliefs.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: KevinH

that is the foundation to nearly all if not all the posts I have ever posted.

I thought the Scriptures were to be the "foundation" of all we believe?

Yes - that is one of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs.

in Christ,

Bob

[JawgeFromJawja]

A key part of what you are asking suggests a need for unity --- Of the more than 33,000 Christian denominations, the vast majority have formed over differences or disputes over one or just a few doctrines, and often just some minor portion of one point. It seems the most common Christian attitude is contentiousness ---

It is essentially, if not entirely, about attitude. Synonyms for like-minded, accord, and harmony are words like attuned, in tune, amicable, frictionless, agreeable, understanding, empathetic, sympathetic, congenial, compatible, peaceful.

To take just the obvious musical metaphor, a choir singing in harmony are not singing in unison but are blending of many voices singing multiple parts, even different words and in counter-point. But they are acting in concert, singing the same song, all following the lead of one conductor. And a good choir knows many songs that may sound very different with different themes and messages, but still sung with great harmony.

Great analogy, Tom. But not so obvious to one with minimal training and education in music. I copied this for my reference files.

[JawgeFromJawja]

"I thought the Scriptures were to be the "foundation" of all we believe?"

"Yes - that is one of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs."

Then how do the writings of Ellen G White relate to the 28 Fundamental Beliefs?

The wife of my youth and her family are the Adventists among my peers. Speaking as an outsider, (more or less - we've been married almost 52 years)I will observe again that the position of Mrs. White in Church doctrine is a destructively divisive issue that eventually will play great havoc with the Adventist message if not faced and dealt with realistically within the next decade or two. And to be quite frank, over the 53 years of my secondary association with the Adventist Church, I have found more and more Adventists questioning Mrs. White's significance. Your higher church leaders are asleep to the dangers of this issue. You the lay members must awaken them. It is your church, not theirs.

[miz3]

The wife of my youth and her family are the Adventists among my peers. Speaking as an outsider, (more or less - we've been married almost 52 years)I will observe again that the position of Mrs. White in Church doctrine is a destructively divisive issue that eventually will play great havoc with the Adventist message if not faced and dealt with realistically within the next decade or two. And to be quite frank, over the 53 years of my secondary association with the Adventist Church, I have found more and more Adventists questioning Mrs. White's significance. Your higher church leaders are asleep to the dangers of this issue. You the lay members must awaken them. It is your church, not theirs.

I could not agree more!

We are in very deep trouble!

[Tom Wetmore]

It's oddly ironic that there is a significant probability that the catalyst for the "shaking" in the church as predicted by EGW is a great controversy within the church over her, isn't it? Doesn't that make it a self-fulfilling prophecy?

[ClubV12]

As I recall EGW said something about the leaves on a tree as not being alike, and yet the whole of that individuality produced a beautiful tree.

Jesus made such a comparison as well, some trees don't have any fruit...

[Kevin H]

Miz3: I dare you to get a pile of 3X5 cards and write down every scripture reference in those 3 chapters. I think that exercise would show the scriptural foundation.

[Kevin H]

Originally Posted By: KevinH

that is the foundation to nearly all if not all the posts I have ever posted.

I thought the Scriptures were to be the "foundation" of all we believe?

Miz3 got to play the great trumph card... how quaint.

Once again this is where Mrs. White builds a foundation based on scripture and your trumph card is no greater than saying that Christians are wrong because a Christian named C.S. Lewis wrote a book called "Mere Christianity" while the Bible is the true "Mere Christianity" and why look at a tract called "The 4 Spiritual Laws" when the Bible, not a tract contains the spiritual laws. Enjoy your smugness and your chance to despise us.

[miz3]

Miz3: I dare you to get a pile of 3X5 cards and write down every scripture reference in those 3 chapters. I think that exercise would show the scriptural foundation.

Then you should have used all those Scriptural references instead of quoting Ellen White.

Then you would have demonstrated that the Bible is your FOUNDATION instead of giving the impression that Ellen White is your foundation.

When you quote Ellen White they way you do instead of all those Biblical references you claim are there you give people the impression that you and SDA have Ellen White as your foundation for what you believe. Is that what you want?

[Kevin H]

Why should I be ashamed? I have similar feelings about the 3 chapters in Sanctuary and the Atonement, C. S. Lewis' "The Great Divorce" and "The Magician's Nephew" Eli Siegel's "Self annd World" and "The Children's Guide to Parents or other Matters" William Glasser's "Choice Theory" "Getting Together and Staying Together: Solving the Mystery of Marriage" and "This Thing Called Love: The Indespensible Guide for the Single Woman" [by the way an excellent book for men as well]; Jack Canfield's "The Success Principles" Abraham Joshua Heshel's "The Prophets" All which I believe are presenting neglected Biblical truth (maybe the authors not even realizing this). I am not ashamed of what Mrs. White presented from the Bible in those chapters. The problem is that too many people don't realize that she has a core message and they keep picks things from her filler material or side issues that they focus on.

[ClubV12]

I don't have a problem quoting Ellen White either. Frankly, I don't get why people are SO paranoid it takes away from the bible in some way. We here the CONSTANT drum beat of, "BUT, we need the bible and the bible alone". Fine, sure, OK, I get it, "BUT" look around at all the other churches on the planet and the myriad of interpretations and misleading doctrines they hold. So what sets Seventh-day Adventists apart? A modern day prophet correcting, assuring, pointing to a correct understanding of the bible and interpretation.

If not for the Lords messenger "we" would be no different than any other church. Still keeping Sunday, clueless about the state of the dead, lost to the concept of the investigative judgment and a mishmash of 28 messed up fundamental beliefs.

Sure, the bible and the bible alone, pfffft, like you would have a clue where to start without Ellen White. Lot's of things are easy, AFTER, someone has told you where to look! Sure, THEN it's a piece of cake! There's a reason God raised up a messenger for our time, who just happened to be Ellen White. Make no mistake, it could have been someone else, this is of the LORD, not some human messenger. It's because we were to bone headed and ignorant to figure it for ourselves.

Don't need Ellen White eh? And pigs fly...

[CoAspen]

Quote:

Sure, the bible and the bible alone, pfffft, like you would have a clue where to start without Ellen White.

Sorry some feel this way! Makes a person wonder how people found God w/o EGW.

Quote:

Don't need Ellen White eh? And pigs fly...

Sorry, EGW would disagree with that statement, since she herself always said if people would study their Bibles she would not have been writing and preaching.

Quote:

If not for the Lords messenger "we" would be no different than any other church. Still keeping Sunday, clueless about the state of the dead, .......

Wow, and all this time I thought the Bible is where sabbath keeping came from and that the dead were dead!! Tis really amazing how people sell the Bible short along with the Holy Spirit!!!