Which teachings are essential? Which are supportive?

[Lone Ranger]

3 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

May I ask HOW you see this particular "shred of doctrine?"

When I read it in one of your posts I initially passed over it without thought, because this was also my understanding. But on second thought I realized that I did not know of any texts to directly support this idea. There are several texts that can be understood as alluding to this, but, on the other hand there are about as many that state directly that Christ will "stand on the earth" when he returns. So it seems opinion is split on the question.

A quick internet search will reveal more on both sides of the discussion, with supporting texts. I do not intend here to start a deep theological discussion; it's just a passing comment. If one sees merit in pursuing this line I believe another thread should be started. 

[JoeMo]

7 hours ago, Lone Ranger said:

But on second thought I realized that I did not know of any texts to directly support this idea.

Just like there are no texts to directly support a Trinity or that we should worship (pray to) the HS, or that the papacy is the anti-Christ, or that Christianity has replaced Israel as God's chosen people.

[Lone Ranger]

35 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

Just like there are no texts to directly support a Trinity or that we should worship (pray to) the HS, or that the papacy is the anti-Christ, or that Christianity has replaced Israel as God's chosen people.

Absolutely right JoMo. Kinda makes one wonder if they are in the "Non-essential" category.

From my studies of the Early Church, Christianity is today (largely) Trinitarian mainly due to the majority of (early church) adherents siding  with Orthodoxy (Trinitarianism) rather than Arianism, and not from a solidly defensible Scriptural argument.

I do not personally pray to the Holy Spirit. I pray to the Father, in Jesus' name.

The Pope IS NOT the anti-Christ.

And Replacement Theology is on shaky ground. (Although in this case, there being many permutations of RT, one would have to define just what one meant by the term.)

[phkrause]

58 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

that we should worship (pray to) the HS

I know of nobody that says that we need to worship or pray to the HS!! No where have I read that either?? At least I've never read anything to that effect, even from EGW??

[Lone Ranger]

44 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

May I ask what is your definition of "Essential Doctrine?" The very phrase "nonessential doctrine" seems to suggest that NO doctrine is essential?? If I said that wrong, how would you define it?

A quick insight into my personal position (which is open to revision) is that "doctrine" in and of itself cannot possibly save us. A Person is more like what saves us to me. A quick preview as to why is that some of the disciples did not believe in the resurrection at one point, yet, they walked with Jesus "in the unity of The Spirit." It never says "in the unity of the doctrine."

What think ye?

If asking about my definition of "doctrine," I see doctrine as being an explanation or statement about a belief or  viewpoint. If I say "I'm saved by Grace," that's doctrine because it expresses my view on how I'm saved. Does this doctrine save me? No, I'm saved by Grace through Faith. So from that aspect NO doctrine saves anybody. It is one's belief (Faith) that saves.  If I say "Jesus is the Son of God" that is also doctrine. The doctrine does not save me; believing it does.

So, IMO, there are NO essential doctrines, and NO doctrine saves anybody. All are saved by Grace through Faith. But doctrine is useful for expressing our views, and hopefully some else will adopt those views (doctrines) that will lead them into a relationship with Jesus and they, too, will be saved by Grace through Faith.

If I say the second coming will be after the 1000 years, that is also doctrine, but nobody cares if Christ comes before the 1000 years, after the 1000 years, or during the 1000 years because THAT belief doesn't save anybody. So from that aspect it is "nonessential," but still doctrine.

[JoeMo]

2 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

What think ye?

The Kingdom of heaven is like advancing in a big business - It's not what you know, it's Who you know.

[JoeMo]

5 hours ago, phkrause said:

I know of nobody that says that we need to worship or pray to the HS!! No where have I read that either?? At least I've never read anything to that effect, even from EGW??

Nobody says it because to most people it is a "given" to pray to the HS.  For example, there are 19 hymns in the SDA Hymnal dedicated to the Holy Spirit - most of them prayers to it.  Nobody said we have to sing those songs, but we have no problem doing it - in spite of the fact that there is not a single instance of anyone praying to the HS.  They pray for the Spirit, and in the Spirit, but not TO the Spirit.

[phkrause]

15 hours ago, JoeMo said:

Nobody says it because to most people it is a "given" to pray to the HS.

Sorry but I just have to disagree that its a "given!" We should have a survey and see? I believe that not one person who posts on this forum will say that they pray or worship the HS! Have been an Adventist over 50 years, have never heard one sermon, or one pastor ever tell me we needed to do that. Actually have never even heard one other member ask or even suggest that! As far as the hymnal is concerned, I can't explain that!

[phkrause]

22 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

you are being "divided and conquered" pk...its a Pandora's Box calculated just for that purpose

probably ?