Adventist View of God Quiz

[fccool]

This is not really a wright or wrong dogma discussion. Just would like to know what was taught in your local church on the subject (not what you currently believe), or the impression that you God when growing up, or learning these questions from your church. These are all true or false, for ease of comparing.

1) God has a literal throne in heaven that he occupies

2) The heaven is a physical location somewhere far away in our physical universe

3) There's a good chance that heaven is located somewhere in the region Orion's belt constellation.

4) God has literal body-parts, and "in the image of God" refers to not merely Character, but the physical aspects of God

[fccool]

These ideas are not usually discussed in great detail, but they occasionally seep through various sermons, guest speakers, and questions to pastors. These answers are based on what I've heard on multiple occasions.

1) T

2) T

3) T

4) Both T and F

[John317]

1) Yes, the throne of God is literal as is the heavenly sanctuary.

2) Yes, Heaven is a literal place somewhere far away in our physical universe.

3) Yes. Although we don't know its proximity to the Orion, we know it is in that general area of the universe.

4) It's true that God the Father has a literal body and parts, but we don't know what He looks like. No one should think that the Father has all the body parts that humans have.

[joeb]

This is not really a wright or wrong dogma discussion. Just would like to know what was taught in your local church on the subject (not what you currently believe), or the impression that you God when growing up, or learning these questions from your church. These are all true or false, for ease of comparing.

1) God has a literal throne in heaven that he occupies

2) The heaven is a physical location somewhere far away in our physical universe

3) There's a good chance that heaven is located somewhere in the region Orion's belt constellation.

4) God has literal body-parts, and "in the image of God" refers to not merely Character, but the physical aspects of God

I've never bought into anything just because it was taught at a church I attended. I've always studied out everything I believe for myself. Since my conversion I've always taken the Bible's advice and studied for myself. I'm a Berean at heart. Some things I've studied to a far greater degree than others because I had a much greater degree of interest in them personally, but everything I firmly believe in I've studied out for myself.

As to your little survey:

1. Yes. There is a lot of Biblical evidence for both a physical heavenly sanctuary and for a physical location for heaven.

2. Never gave much thought to that as I don't see this as being relevant to my salvation, nor relevant to the question of who God is.

3. The 2nd coming of Christ will first be seen coming through Orion. As to that being the location of God's throne that could or could not be true. Just because the 2nd coming will be first observed there doesn't mean it is the location of heaven.

4. This is, to me, a non-salvational issue so I haven't given it a lot thought. The creation story implies the use of hands, but it isn't the only possible explanation. A person who can speak things into existence doesn't require hands to form something out of clay. From the Bible I don't see enough evidence to make a clear case for me to have firm belief either way.

[Igakusei]

1) God has a literal throne in heaven that he occupies

2) The heaven is a physical location somewhere far away in our physical universe

3) There's a good chance that heaven is located somewhere in the region Orion's belt constellation.

4) God has literal body-parts, and "in the image of God" refers to not merely Character, but the physical aspects of God

I was taught:

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. Not necessarily in the belt, but beyond it if not.

4. Yes

[fccool]

Thank you for your responses. Once again, there will be a time and place for you to explain what you believe. This is not the time and the place. The issue is what your local church teaches on the subject, based on statements of pastors and elders, sermons, and guests who are invited to come and speak in your church.

Also, thank you for ignoring the typos :)

[joeb]

Thank you for your responses. Once again, there will be a time and place for you to explain what you believe. This is not the time and the place. The issue is what your local church teaches on the subject, based on statements of pastors and elders, sermons, and guests who are invited to come and speak in your church.

Also, thank you for ignoring the typos

Historically speaking, SDAs have never blindly accepted what was taught from the pulpit. We have always studied things out for ourselves. This is why SDAs have so many distinctive doctrines.

People came out of other denominations to start the SDA church because they could not stay in a denomination which taught unBiblical doctrines. Following Biblical truth was mission in life and they could not help but to follow the truth. This is a long-standing SDA tradition. The majority of SDAs I know would not go to their pastor to ask what to believe about a doctrine. They would go straight to the Bible to find out for themselves.

I've never heard an SDA pastor say anyone that they must take the pastor's word for anything along the lines of doctrine. Every pastor I've known has encouraged self-study. This is why asking what is taught from the pulpit is sort of meaningless to many of us. We hear something we question and we go to the Bible and SOP and study it out for ourselves. If we find it to be true we accept it. If we find it to be unBiblical we reject it.

[fccool]

Yet, these distinctive doctrines would have some consensus in local congregation? I hope we can agree.

That's why I don't really phrase the question in terms of what you believe, in order to avoid the issue of "what you believe is not what church teaches".

I understand that it's not a salvation issue, but I ask this out of curiosity, and to see if there is indeed a difference of SDA view of this issues on church by church bases. So far, as one would expect, there don't seem to be many.

[John317]

The issue is what your local church teaches on the subject, based on statements of pastors and elders, sermons, and guests who are invited to come and speak in your church.

My local church has never had anything to say on these issues. I've never heard the current local pastor or elder mention them, either.

As a kid in the SDA church, I grew up in a family which read the Bible and Spirit of prophecy morning and evening for worship, so I knew clearly what those sources say.

[joeb]

Yet, these distinctive doctrines would have some consensus in local congregation? I hope we can agree.

That's why I don't really phrase the question in terms of what you believe, in order to avoid the issue of "what you believe is not what church teaches".

I understand that it's not a salvation issue, but I ask this out of curiosity, and to see if there is indeed a difference of SDA view of this issues on church by church bases. So far, as one would expect, there don't seem to be many.

Of course there is a doctrinal consensus. The majority of SDAs have studied our doctrines and agree with them, or like me, they wouldn't be SDAs.

I was re-baptized at around 30 years old after spending more than a decade out of the church. I came back after realizing God loved me personally and wanted a relationship with me. I became an SDA again because there is no church that follow the Bible like the SDA church does.

[John317]

[phkrause]

Of course there is a doctrinal consensus. The majority of SDAs have studied our doctrines and agree with them, or like me, they wouldn't be SDAs.

I was re-baptized at around 30 years old after spending more than a decade out of the church. I came back after realizing God loved me personally and wanted a relationship with me. I became an SDA again because there is no church that follow the Bible like the SDA church does.

For me I never really left as not spending time at church. Kind of, off and on. I've always enjoy SS better than church service as it is. At the college church the past number of years they've had two different pastors that have done early and the regular service. I've really loved the early worship, much more informal without all the hulabaloo, the way I felt about it, than the regular service. And the same here about staying with the SDA church, I actually never had any inclination to go to any other church for those same reasons. The church I go to now is very small compared to the AUC college church, so no early worship here but its OK.

[Bravus]

Wake me when we get to the 'discussing our own beliefs' bit, but you can probably already guess that I'm pretty much the opposite on all elements...

[phkrause]

Wake me when we get to the 'discussing our own beliefs' bit, but you can probably already guess that I'm pretty much the opposite on all elements...

We'll give it a shot, but I think you'll probably over sleep. LOL

[John317]

When it comes to discussing our own beliefs, though, do we arrive at truth about God on the basis of human reasoning or on the basis of special revelation?

Human reasoning alone isn't going to get us far in our search to know what God or heaven are like. Our reasoning on these issues won't get us any further than the top of our skulls. We only know God through the Scriptures and through Christ. Reasoning is fine but when it comes to knowing the things we're talking about here, it has to be reasoning in the Scriptures, not outside of them.

[Bravus]

Sure. When it's that time, feel free to show the Scriptural support for your views.

[Bravus]

(PS That's a *really* annoying self-righteous habit you've got there)

[Liz]

Well I agree with everyone else one 1-3 but on number four, no. I was taught that "in the image of GOD" meant that we too had the power to create, such as through procreation. We can take what we have at hand and make something else. That GOD made himself in our "likeness" when HE became human to die for us.

Am I the only one who was taught this??

Sorry, I don't think I have any Bible verses to back that up.

[John317]

Please quote what you believe is a "*really* annoying self-righteous habit."

Or would you rather discuss it by PM?

[Bravus]

The habit of very consistently posting what I think can fairly be paraphrased as 'My views represent special revelation, your views represent mere human reasoning'. It reflects a lack of the key humility to acknowledge both the human reasoning that inflects your own views and the special revelation that informs the views of others.

[ClubV12]

Bravus says,

"My views represent special revelation, your views represent mere human reasoning."

Theres a lot of truth there Bravus, a LOT of truth. MY views, echo that of a prophet who enlightens us as to the meaning of scripture, thus they are views that echo scripture itself. Worldly views, that see no value in scripture, are merely the opinions of men. I'll take the former, without apology, and leave those who reject the concept of divine understanding to continue to beat upon the rocks of confusion in their effort to understand. Good luck with that....

Egocentric or confidence in the Lord? Guess that depends on what side of the fence your standing on.

[John317]

Special revelation is what God showed His prophets and apostles through dreams and visions, and this includes the dreams and visions given to His prophet, Ellen G. White. These are the only authoritative sources of knowledge of what God and of heaven are like. All else is mere opinion. If what anyone says is not in agreement with God's revelation through His prophets and apostles, it's to be rejected.

Isaiah 8:20

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

1 Cor. 14:37

If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord.

2 Tim. 3:15-17

and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. [16] All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righ teousness, [17] that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

2 Peter 1:19-21

And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, [20] knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. [21] For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

[Bravus]

So, fccool, looks like the poll results are pretty consistent, in that SDAs in general have been taught that God is a physical being with a physical body and a specific physical location within the universe.

I'd be interested to see people's evidence that they claim supports that position.

Want to unleash the hounds? ;-)

[fccool]

I'd certainly like to at least see that position being justified from the Bible. To re-iterate:

1) God has a literal throne in heaven that he occupies

2) The heaven is a physical location somewhere far away in our physical universe

3) There's a good chance that heaven is located somewhere in the region Orion's belt constellation.

4) God has literal body-parts, and "in the image of God" refers to not merely Character, but the physical aspects of God

[CoAspen]

Well...some have made the outline that others should follow...they think. Revelation of God is only through Bible writers and EGW. So I reckon the relationship question has been answered. And God no longer 'reveals' Himself to anyone!

From my background, I don't remember anyone having an answer for God having a physical form. The final answer most often given was, 'we don't really know'. I spent the majority of my education in SDA schools and lived in 3 different SDA towns, so I had a rather broad exposure to various traditional beliefs and ideas.