Why are you an Adventist? or What do you like about Adventism?

[Kevin H]

On 5/23/2022 at 2:54 AM, GHansen said:

HD, The reasons you go to SDA church are commendable. Fellowship is an important element of being Christian. What do you like about Adventism is a good question. Consider reading the Tyndale Commentary on Romans to balance your study of E.G. White. If you are feeling ambitious, Cranfield's Shorter Commentary on Romans is a good one.

Blessings on your journey.

Don't forget Sigve Tonstad's The Letter to the Romans: Paul among the Ecologists. Wonderful commentary.

https://www.amazon.com/Letter-Romans-Paul-among-Ecologists/dp/191092802X

 

[Kevin H]

There are many things I love about being a Seventh-day Adventist. Probably first is Mrs. White's Great Controversy philosophy: the three aspects of the trinity (The one infinite God breaking into time and space to reveal to us that he is the all powerful great God, Our personal approachable friend, and God's working with our subjective/existential situation.) That Lucifer has three deceptions, attacking each member of the trinity, saying that God really is not God but a cruel arbitrary tyrant who was of the same form and substance of everyone else, just higher developed and that we can put him down by enough force, and that we can grow to his greatness if we looked for truth in ourselves instead of his law of self-sacrificing love. The next two are based on how God claims to be both just and merciful.  Lucifer/Satan said that God can only be one or the other. Since he is a tyrant he will come down on the side of justice. And he turns this into the idea that if anyone sins God has to punish them for it. This attacks Jesus who died for us, and also leads to new ideas about not only  annihilation, but what is the nature of the destroying fire. Since Jesus died for us, Satan's third deception is that mercy destroys justice, so the law has been done away. You can go to heaven either no matter what you do, or if you please God by saying the magic words giving a history lesson about what Jesus did. This attacks the Holy Spirit who's job is to turn us into loving and lovable people. 

I love how the great controversy philosophy covered the whole universe, that all are growing in their relationship with Christ and that heaven is not some return to the pre-sin status quo. 

I find it fascinating how we grow. Other churches have leaders who just happen to like what that leader likes, and excuses the leader's actions. Our leadership was confronted with ideas that they had a hard time dealing with, such as how it took Mrs. White about 30 years from the health message vision to completely following it. A number, maybe even most of our leadership had doubts about the trinity. While other churches that formed at the time with similar views, the other churches made these views a test of fellowship. Our pioneers, with the same views, did not make their views a test of fellowship but you were free to join as a trinitarian or a non-trinitarian and it was a topic open to further study. (and as Mrs. White developed her great controversy philosophy, the trinity moved into the heart of the message.)

1844 is amazing. Now, while I don't comprehend all the details, a Dr. Waterman from Andrews did a study that showed that the year was a sabbatical year that lead into a jubilee, based on the early date of the exodus. These events were over history often a period of new beginnings. Granted with dates it is not usually just some sudden dramatic change, but ideas that grow and are in transition and we pick a date around this growth. The telegraph was invented, shortening communications.  other ideas and inventions. Two big events was not too long before the Rosetta Stone was finally deciphered opening the door to understanding ancient languages. And Edward Robinson had in the late 1830s had his first trip to the Holy Land and had just published his book and it was starting to be read. Robinson's book was the first scientific study of the geography of the Holy Land, opening up to the world both Bible as well as generalized archaeology. These mixed with the understanding of the Rosetta stone caused archaeologists and linguists to be able to read the many ancient texts that they discovered, thus bringing the ancient world to life. 

I love how our church developed. I love that we use historism instead of dispensationalism to study the Bible. (sadly, often we try to mix the historist's findings with a dispensationalism mindset.) We find historism used in the Bible. We find historism used by early church fathers, but fell out of favor as the leaders changed to reading the Bible as allegories. In the 1100s Joachim of Flore made a return to historism, and his ill-fated advice for a crusade to the Holy Land, at least got him educated into middle eastern thought, and the importance of this thinking as we study the Bible. He had a good relationship with one pope, but not the following popes. He told the popes that they could either use their job as a way to reform the church and return to the Bible, or else Satan will use them for his purposes. A Franciscan leader became fascinated with Joachim's work and many of the Franciscans read and studied and updated and applied his principles. His ideas influenced Wycliff. They gave the Protestants the strength to break away from the Papacy. Eventually, they moved into a protestant circle in England and formed an Adventist movement in the 1700s that Sir Isaac Newton was a member of. 

From there it jumped the pond where it met people, especially a man who was grounded into the ideas of the American Revolution, especially the views of Jefferson and Madison and how they were modified over the age of Jackson. These Jefferson/Madison-age of Jackson views started to be applied to religion, rather than politics, and applied to religion as it grew from Joachim via the Franciscans and England's Adventist movement. The two ideas joined together and we got Millerism. We would not exist if it was not for the ideas that were brought forth by Joachim, and we would be much different if the ideas of Jefferson/Madison age of Jackson did not happen. 

Adventism pointed to 1844, which I discussed earlier. The entry to an age were we get to investigate the pages of scripture as never before. 

Mrs. White encouraged Millerites to not give up the 1844 tradition and to say that their Millerite experience was not from God. She guided in the formation of the church. She guided in the formation of our health and educational system. She tried to fight against Fundamentalism but sadly lost that battle. However, most of us are at least on the liberal end of the Fundamentalist spectrum. And thus far there is still room in the church for us who are recovering Fundamentalists. 

I find it interesting that in the 1000s Hildegard of Bingham would write letters of personal testimonies to people, encouraging repentance,   preached for reformation and return to the Bible, and to give up superstitions and rituals in treating illness and to study for simple healthy principles. While she was remembered, she was not latched on to the same way the Franciscans latched on to Joachim. 

In the 1300s Julian of Norwich, also wrote letters of personal testimonies to people, encouraging repentance, preached for reformation and a return to the Bible, including focusing on the love of God instead of the fear of hell. Again she was remembered, but she was not latched o to the same way as the Franciscans latched on to Joachim. 

Millerism united Joachimism with Jefferson/Madison/Jackson. Mrs. White took this and added the health message, and her great controversy took the focus off the fear of hell and on to the beauty of Jesus, thus reviving the basic principles of the messages of Hildegard and Julian. (and had the Franciscans latched on to all three, they would have looked a lot more like Seventh-day Adventists than they actually did. Although, if they were to come alive today with the Adventists from 1700 England, and they were to visit different churches, there is one church where they would feel very much at home.)

I love our five points of Joachimism blended with Jefferson/Madison/Jacksonism, using the age of Bible archaeology and exegesis to bring us back to Bible teaching and thus make better application of Joachim's principles than he and the Franciscans and the English Adventists were able to do. 

I love how Adventism has much in common with the basic principles (not all the applications) of the philosopher/poet Eli Siegel, with his Aesthetic Realism, and psychiatrist William Glasser with his Choice Theory/Reality Therapy. 

I love how we (despite what we do in evangelistic meetings) have an openness of the faith and experience of others. We are not in the "Say the magic words and be saved" religion. We can respect people such as Billy Graham, Abraham Joshua Heshel, Marc Chagall etc. (Heshel's words and Chagall's art is overflowing with their love for God.) Having lived in Israel, having friends among the Israelis, Palestinian Muslims, and Palestinian Christians. Having had favorite former girlfriends from the Israeli Jews, Palestinian Christians, and from the orient makes me love the openness that is possible (and I wish practiced more) with in Adventism, that many other Christians do not have. 

It's late, so this is enough to start. 

[Humble Disciple]

On 5/26/2022 at 10:05 PM, Kevin H said:

We are not in the "Say the magic words and be saved" religion.

What is the message of SDA evangelism, if not accepting Jesus as our Lord and Savior? Getting that right seems more important than what foods one eats or doesn't eat. 

[Humble Disciple]

On 5/26/2022 at 10:05 PM, Kevin H said:

There are many things I love about being a Seventh-

Kingdom of Adventistan
Theological Townhall

 
Next Step: Optional Profile Information
Your profile is 0% complete!
Why are you an Adventist? or What do you like about Adventism?
By Humble Disciple,
Sunday at 11:50 AM in Theological Townhall

PREV
NEXT
Page 2 of 2  
Moderators
Kevin HEnthusiast
Kevin H
Posted Thursday at 07:48 PM
  On 5/22/2022 at 11:54 PM, GHansen said:
Don't forget Sigve Tonstad's The Letter to the Romans: Paul among the Ecologists. Wonderful commentary.

https://www.amazon.com/Letter-Romans-Paul-among-Ecologists/dp/191092802X

 

Like
 Quote
Moderators
Kevin HEnthusiast
Kevin H
Posted Thursday at 10:05 PM
There are many things I love about being a Seventh-day Adventist. Probably first is Mrs. White's Great Controversy philosophy: the three aspects of the trinity (The one infinite God breaking into time and space to reveal to us that he is the all powerful great God, Our personal approachable friend, and God's working with our subjective/existential situation.) That Lucifer has three deceptions, attacking each member of the trinity, saying that God really is not God but a cruel arbitrary tyrant who was of the same form and substance of everyone else, just higher developed and that we can put him down by enough force, and that we can grow to his greatness if we looked for truth in ourselves instead of his law of self-sacrificing love. The next two are based on how God claims to be both just and merciful.  Lucifer/Satan said that God can only be one or the other. Since he is a tyrant he will come down on the side of justice. And he turns this into the idea that if anyone sins God has to punish them for it. This attacks Jesus who died for us, and also leads to new ideas about not only  annihilation, but what is the nature of the destroying fire. Since Jesus died for us, Satan's third deception is that mercy destroys justice, so the law has been done away. You can go to heaven either no matter what you do, or if you please God by saying the magic words giving a history lesson about what Jesus did. This attacks the Holy Spirit who's job is to turn us into loving and lovable people. 

I love how the great controversy philosophy covered the whole universe, that all are growing in their relationship with Christ and that heaven is not some return to the pre-sin status quo. 

I find it fascinating how we grow. Other churches have leaders who just happen to like what that leader likes, and excuses the leader's actions. Our leadership was confronted with ideas that they had a hard time dealing with, such as how it took Mrs. White about 30 years from the health message vision to completely following it. A number, maybe even most of our leadership had doubts about the trinity. While other churches that formed at the time with similar views, the other churches made these views a test of fellowship. Our pioneers, with the same views, did not make their views a test of fellowship but you were free to join as a trinitarian or a non-trinitarian and it was a topic open to further study. (and as Mrs. White developed her great controversy philosophy, the trinity moved into the heart of the message.)

1844 is amazing. Now, while I don't comprehend all the details, a Dr. Waterman from Andrews did a study that showed that the year was a sabbatical year that lead into a jubilee, based on the early date of the exodus. These events were over history often a period of new beginnings. Granted with dates it is not usually just some sudden dramatic change, but ideas that grow and are in transition and we pick a date around this growth. The telegraph was invented, shortening communications.  other ideas and inventions. Two big events was not too long before the Rosetta Stone was finally deciphered opening the door to understanding ancient languages. And Edward Robinson had in the late 1830s had his first trip to the Holy Land and had just published his book and it was starting to be read. Robinson's book was the first scientific study of the geography of the Holy Land, opening up to the world both Bible as well as generalized archaeology. These mixed with the understanding of the Rosetta stone caused archaeologists and linguists to be able to read the many ancient texts that they discovered, thus bringing the ancient world to life. 

I love how our church developed. I love that we use historism instead of dispensationalism to study the Bible. (sadly, often we try to mix the historist's findings with a dispensationalism mindset.) We find historism used in the Bible. We find historism used by early church fathers, but fell out of favor as the leaders changed to reading the Bible as allegories. In the 1100s Joachim of Flore made a return to historism, and his ill-fated advice for a crusade to the Holy Land, at least got him educated into middle eastern thought, and the importance of this thinking as we study the Bible. He had a good relationship with one pope, but not the following popes. He told the popes that they could either use their job as a way to reform the church and return to the Bible, or else Satan will use them for his purposes. A Franciscan leader became fascinated with Joachim's work and many of the Franciscans read and studied and updated and applied his principles. His ideas influenced Wycliff. They gave the Protestants the strength to break away from the Papacy. Eventually, they moved into a protestant circle in England and formed an Adventist movement in the 1700s that Sir Isaac Newton was a member of. 

From there it jumped the pond where it met people, especially a man who was grounded into the ideas of the American Revolution, especially the views of Jefferson and Madison and how they were modified over the age of Jackson. These Jefferson/Madison-age of Jackson views started to be applied to religion, rather than politics, and applied to religion as it grew from Joachim via the Franciscans and England's Adventist movement. The two ideas joined together and we got Millerism. We would not exist if it was not for the ideas that were brought forth by Joachim, and we would be much different if the ideas of Jefferson/Madison age of Jackson did not happen. 

Adventism pointed to 1844, which I discussed earlier. The entry to an age were we get to investigate the pages of scripture as never before. 

Mrs. White encouraged Millerites to not give up the 1844 tradition and to say that their Millerite experience was not from God. She guided in the formation of the church. She guided in the formation of our health and educational system. She tried to fight against Fundamentalism but sadly lost that battle. However, most of us are at least on the liberal end of the Fundamentalist spectrum. And thus far there is still room in the church for us who are recovering Fundamentalists. 

I find it interesting that in the 1000s Hildegard of Bingham would write letters of personal testimonies to people, encouraging repentance,   preached for reformation and return to the Bible, and to give up superstitions and rituals in treating illness and to study for simple healthy principles. While she was remembered, she was not latched on to the same way the Franciscans latched on to Joachim. 

In the 1300s Julian of Norwich, also wrote letters of personal testimonies to people, encouraging repentance, preached for reformation and a return to the Bible, including focusing on the love of God instead of the fear of hell. Again she was remembered, but she was not latched o to the same way as the Franciscans latched on to Joachim. 

Millerism united Joachimism with Jefferson/Madison/Jackson. Mrs. White took this and added the health message, and her great controversy took the focus off the fear of hell and on to the beauty of Jesus, thus reviving the basic principles of the messages of Hildegard and Julian. (and had the Franciscans latched on to all three, they would have looked a lot more like Seventh-day Adventists than they actually did. Although, if they were to come alive today with the Adventists from 1700 England, and they were to visit different churches, there is one church where they would feel very much at home.)

I love our five points of Joachimism blended with Jefferson/Madison/Jacksonism, using the age of Bible archaeology and exegesis to bring us back to Bible teaching and thus make better application of Joachim's principles than he and the Franciscans and the English Adventists were able to do. 

I love how Adventism has much in common with the basic principles (not all the applications) of the philosopher/poet Eli Siegel, with his Aesthetic Realism, and psychiatrist William Glasser with his Choice Theory/Reality Therapy. 

I love how we (despite what we do in evangelistic meetings) have an openness of the faith and experience of others. We are not in the "Say the magic words and be saved" religion. We can respect people such as Billy Graham, Abraham Joshua Heshel, Marc Chagall etc. (Heshel's words and Chagall's art is overflowing with their love for God.) Having lived in Israel, having friends among the Israelis, Palestinian Muslims, and Palestinian Christians. Having had favorite former girlfriends from the Israeli Jews, Palestinian Christians, and from the orient makes me love the openness that is possible (and I wish practiced more) with in Adventism, that many other Christians do not have. 

It's late, so this is enough to start. 

Like 1
Like
 Quote
Humble DiscipleEnthusiast
Humble Disciple
Posted 10 hours ago
  On 5/26/2022 at 10:05 PM, Kevin H said:
We are not in the "Say the magic words and be saved" religion.

What is the message of SDA evangelism, if not accepting Jesus as our Lord and Savior? Getting that right seems more important than what foods one eats or doesn't eat. 

Like
 Quote

 
PREV
NEXT
Page 2 of 2  
On 5/26/2022 at 10:05 PM, Kevin H said:
There are many things I love about being a Seventh-day Adventist. Probably first is Mrs. White's Great Controversy philosophy: the three aspects of the trinity (The one infinite God breaking into time and space to reveal to us that he is the all powerful great God, Our personal approachable friend, and God's working with our subjective/existential situation.) That Lucifer has three deceptions, attacking each member of the trinity, saying that God really is not God but a cruel arbitrary tyrant who was of the same form and substance of everyone else, just higher developed and that we can put him down by enough force, and that we can grow to his greatness if we looked for truth in ourselves instead of his law of self-sacrificing love. The next two are based on how God claims to be both just and merciful.  Lucifer/Satan said that God can only be one or the other. Since he is a tyrant he will come down on the side of justice. And he turns this into the idea that if anyone sins God has to punish them for it. This attacks Jesus who died for us, and also leads to new ideas about not only  annihilation, but what is the nature of the destroying fire. Since Jesus died for us, Satan's third deception is that mercy destroys justice, so the law has been done away. You can go to heaven either no matter what you do, or if you please God by saying the magic words giving a history lesson about what Jesus did. This attacks the Holy Spirit who's job is to turn us into loving and lovable people. 

I love how the great controversy philosophy covered the whole universe, that all are growing in their relationship with Christ and that heaven is not some return to the pre-sin status quo. 

I find it fascinating how we grow. Other churches have leaders who just happen to like what that leader likes, and excuses the leader's actions. Our leadership was confronted with ideas that they had a hard time dealing with, such as how it took Mrs. White about 30 years from the health message vision to completely following it. A number, maybe even most of our leadership had doubts about the trinity. While other churches that formed at the time with similar views, the other churches made these views a test of fellowship. Our pioneers, with the same views, did not make their views a test of fellowship but you were free to join as a trinitarian or a non-trinitarian and it was a topic open to further study. (and as Mrs. White developed her great controversy philosophy, the trinity moved into the heart of the message.)

1844 is amazing. Now, while I don't comprehend all the details, a Dr. Waterman from Andrews did a study that showed that the year was a sabbatical year that lead into a jubilee, based on the early date of the exodus. These events were over history often a period of new beginnings. Granted with dates it is not usually just some sudden dramatic change, but ideas that grow and are in transition and we pick a date around this growth. The telegraph was invented, shortening communications.  other ideas and inventions. Two big events was not too long before the Rosetta Stone was finally deciphered opening the door to understanding ancient languages. And Edward Robinson had in the late 1830s had his first trip to the Holy Land and had just published his book and it was starting to be read. Robinson's book was the first scientific study of the geography of the Holy Land, opening up to the world both Bible as well as generalized archaeology. These mixed with the understanding of the Rosetta stone caused archaeologists and linguists to be able to read the many ancient texts that they discovered, thus bringing the ancient world to life. 

I love how our church developed. I love that we use historism instead of dispensationalism to study the Bible. (sadly, often we try to mix the historist's findings with a dispensationalism mindset.) We find historism used in the Bible. We find historism used by early church fathers, but fell out of favor as the leaders changed to reading the Bible as allegories. In the 1100s Joachim of Flore made a return to historism, and his ill-fated advice for a crusade to the Holy Land, at least got him educated into middle eastern thought, and the importance of this thinking as we study the Bible. He had a good relationship with one pope, but not the following popes. He told the popes that they could either use their job as a way to reform the church and return to the Bible, or else Satan will use them for his purposes. A Franciscan leader became fascinated with Joachim's work and many of the Franciscans read and studied and updated and applied his principles. His ideas influenced Wycliff. They gave the Protestants the strength to break away from the Papacy. Eventually, they moved into a protestant circle in England and formed an Adventist movement in the 1700s that Sir Isaac Newton was a member of. 

From there it jumped the pond where it met people, especially a man who was grounded into the ideas of the American Revolution, especially the views of Jefferson and Madison and how they were modified over the age of Jackson. These Jefferson/Madison-age of Jackson views started to be applied to religion, rather than politics, and applied to religion as it grew from Joachim via the Franciscans and England's Adventist movement. The two ideas joined together and we got Millerism. We would not exist if it was not for the ideas that were brought forth by Joachim, and we would be much different if the ideas of Jefferson/Madison age of Jackson did not happen. 

Adventism pointed to 1844, which I discussed earlier. The entry to an age were we get to investigate the pages of scripture as never before. 

Mrs. White encouraged Millerites to not give up the 1844 tradition and to say that their Millerite experience was not from God. She guided in the formation of the church. She guided in the formation of our health and educational system. She tried to fight against Fundamentalism but sadly lost that battle. However, most of us are at least on the liberal end of the Fundamentalist spectrum. And thus far there is still room in the church for us who are recovering Fundamentalists. 

I find it interesting that in the 1000s Hildegard of Bingham would write letters of personal testimonies to people, encouraging repentance,   preached for reformation and return to the Bible, and to give up superstitions and rituals in treating illness and to study for simple healthy principles. While she was remembered, she was not latched on to the same way the Franciscans latched on to Joachim. 

In the 1300s Julian of Norwich, also wrote letters of personal testimonies to people, encouraging repentance, preached for reformation and a return to the Bible, including focusing on the love of God instead of the fear of hell. Again she was remembered, but she was not latched o to the same way as the Franciscans latched on to Joachim. 

Millerism united Joachimism with Jefferson/Madison/Jackson. Mrs. White took this and added the health message, and her great controversy took the focus off the fear of hell and on to the beauty of Jesus, thus reviving the basic principles of the messages of Hildegard and Julian. (and had the Franciscans latched on to all three, they would have looked a lot more like Seventh-day Adventists than they actually did. Although, if they were to come alive today with the Adventists from 1700 England, Having had favorite former girlfriends from the Israeli Jews, Palestinian Christians,

Click and drag to move

No file chosen
Max total size: 1.95 GB
 Follow topic
Go to topic listing
Next unread topic

Theme  Privacy Policy Contact Us
The Kingdom of Adventistan
Powered by Invision Community

day Adventist. Probably first is Mrs. White's Great Controversy philosophy: the three aspects of the trinity (The one infinite God breaking into time and space to reveal to us that he is the all powerful great God, Our personal approachable friend, and God's working with our subjective/existential situation.) That Lucifer has three deceptions, attacking each member of the trinity, saying that God really is not God but a cruel arbitrary tyrant who was of the same form and substance of everyone else, just higher developed and that we can put him down by enough force, and that we can grow to his greatness if we looked for truth in ourselves instead of his law of self-sacrificing love. The next two are based on how God claims to be both just and merciful.  Lucifer/Satan said that God can only be one or the other. Since he is a tyrant he will come down on the side of justice. And he turns this into the idea that if anyone sins God has to punish them for it. This attacks Jesus who died for us, and also leads to new ideas about not only  annihilation, but what is the nature of the destroying fire. Since Jesus died for us, Satan's third deception is that mercy destroys justice, so the law has been done away. You can go to heaven either no matter what you do, or if you please God by saying the magic words giving a history lesson about what Jesus did. This attacks the Holy Spirit who's job is to turn us into loving and lovable people. 

I love how the great controversy philosophy covered the whole universe, that all are growing in their relationship with Christ and that heaven is not some return to the pre-sin status quo. 

I find it fascinating how we grow. Other churches have leaders who just happen to like what that leader likes, and excuses the leader's actions. Our leadership was confronted with ideas that they had a hard time dealing with, such as how it took Mrs. White about 30 years from the health message vision to completely following it. A number, maybe even most of our leadership had doubts about the trinity. While other churches that formed at the time with similar views, the other churches made these views a test of fellowship. Our pioneers, with the same views, did not make their views a test of fellowship but you were free to join as a trinitarian or a non-trinitarian and it was a topic open to further study. (and as Mrs. White developed her great controversy philosophy, the trinity moved into the heart of the message.)

1844 is amazing. Now, while I don't comprehend all the details, a Dr. Waterman from Andrews did a study that showed that the year was a sabbatical year that lead into a jubilee, based on the early date of the exodus. These events were over history often a period of new beginnings. Granted with dates it is not usually just some sudden dramatic change, but ideas that grow and are in transition and we pick a date around this growth. The telegraph was invented, shortening communications.  other ideas and inventions. Two big events was not too long before the Rosetta Stone was finally deciphered opening the door to understanding ancient languages. And Edward Robinson had in the late 1830s had his first trip to the Holy Land and had just published his book and it was starting to be read. Robinson's book was the first scientific study of the geography of the Holy Land, opening up to the world both Bible as well as generalized archaeology. These mixed with the understanding of the Rosetta stone caused archaeologists and linguists to be able to read the many ancient texts that they discovered, thus bringing the ancient world to life. 

I love how our church developed. I love that we use historism instead of dispensationalism to study the Bible. (sadly, often we try to mix the historist's findings with a dispensationalism mindset.) We find historism used in the Bible. We find historism used by early church fathers, but fell out of favor as the leaders changed to reading the Bible as allegories. In the 1100s Joachim of Flore made a return to historism, and his ill-fated advice for a crusade to the Holy Land, at least got him educated into middle eastern thought, and the importance of this thinking as we study the Bible. He had a good relationship with one pope, but not the following popes. He told the popes that they could either use their job as a way to reform the church and return to the Bible, or else Satan will use them for his purposes. A Franciscan leader became fascinated with Joachim's work and many of the Franciscans read and studied and updated and applied his principles. His ideas influenced Wycliff. They gave the Protestants the strength to break away from the Papacy. Eventually, they moved into a protestant circle in England and formed an Adventist movement in the 1700s that Sir Isaac Newton was a member of. 

From there it jumped the pond where it met people, especially a man who was grounded into the ideas of the American Revolution, especially the views of Jefferson and Madison and how they were modified over the age of Jackson. These Jefferson/Madison-age of Jackson views started to be applied to religion, rather than politics, and applied to religion as it grew from Joachim via the Franciscans and England's Adventist movement. The two ideas joined together and we got Millerism. We would not exist if it was not for the ideas that were brought forth by Joachim, and we would be much different if the ideas of Jefferson/Madison age of Jackson did not happen. 

Adventism pointed to 1844, which I discussed earlier. The entry to an age were we get to investigate the pages of scripture as never before. 

Mrs. White encouraged Millerites to not give up the 1844 tradition and to say that their Millerite experience was not from God. She guided in the formation of the church. She guided in the formation of our health and educational system. She tried to fight against Fundamentalism but sadly lost that battle. However, most of us are at least on the liberal end of the Fundamentalist spectrum. And thus far there is still room in the church for us who are recovering Fundamentalists. 

I find it interesting that in the 1000s Hildegard of Bingham would write letters of personal testimonies to people, encouraging repentance,   preached for reformation and return to the Bible, and to give up superstitions and rituals in treating illness and to study for simple healthy principles. While she was remembered, she was not latched on to the same way the Franciscans latched on to Joachim. 

In the 1300s Julian of Norwich, also wrote letters of personal testimonies to people, encouraging repentance, preached for reformation and a return to the Bible, including focusing on the love of God instead of the fear of hell. Again she was remembered, but she was not latched o to the same way as the Franciscans latched on to Joachim. 

Millerism united Joachimism with Jefferson/Madison/Jackson. Mrs. White took this and added the health message, and her great controversy took the focus off the fear of hell and on to the beauty of Jesus, thus reviving the basic principles of the messages of Hildegard and Julian. (and had the Franciscans latched on to all three, they would have looked a lot more like Seventh-day Adventists than they actually did. Although, if they were to come alive today with the Adventists from 1700 England, Having had favorite former girlfriends from the Israeli Jews, Palestinian Christians,

Also, by "favorite former girlfriends," are you referring to relationships that involved fornication? I'm not judging you for your personal life, but what does that have to do with what the Seventh Day Adventist church teaches? 

Also, when it comes to being romantically involved with non-Christians, doesn't the Bible say to not be unevenly yoked? 

[Kevin H]

5 hours ago, Humble Disciple said:

Also, by "favorite former girlfriends," are you referring to relationships that involved fornication? I'm not judging you for your personal life, but what does that have to do with what the Seventh Day Adventist church teaches? 

Also, when it comes to being romantically involved with non-Christians, doesn't the Bible say to not be unevenly yoked? 

First, private, but no. Special friendships that may have lead to deeper relationships if we had the time. As for the unequally yoked, we could have crossed that bridge if we got to them. All three of them were very deep into the Bible and love the God of the Bible. None were fundamentalists/dispensationalists. So while if our relationship did get to the point of marriage we would have needed to look a little closer. But they were/are sisters in God's word and the God of his word. 

The point was that the special friendship opened up life to deeper thinking and wider perceptions. A lot of  people who visit Israel only see the Jewish or the Arab perspective. They do not get a good perspective of the two. And the Christian Arab perspective is even a third perspective. Too many people, even with assumptions don't see any of these perspectives. A number of dispensationalists do not see the Jewish perspective, despite claiming to; they are just trying to bring about fulfillments for what they think is Bible prophecy so they can be raptured. 

Seventh-day Adventism has a stronger potential from others, such as the dispensationalists, to develop a perspective where you can less haphazardly listen to and respect all the views involved.

[Kevin H]

17 hours ago, Humble Disciple said:

What is the message of SDA evangelism, if not accepting Jesus as our Lord and Savior? Getting that right seems more important than what foods one eats or doesn't eat. 

After facing the reticule of Jesus not returning on October 22, 1844, many Adventists accepted the shut door theory, that only Adventists would be saved. But then we realized that others had a relationship with the Lord. We eventually developed good friendships with Seventh-day Baptists, and eventually moved on to Sunday keepers and even Jews. Mrs. White went from being a "shut door" Adventist into becoming a very popular preacher in non-Adventist churches on Sunday mornings.

Before I go on, a short review of the roles of the trinity: There is one God, eternal and infinite, outside of time and space. When God made time and space, if he just made life, he would have been too big for the life to comprehend him. Life depends on the relationship with God, but the infinite God would be too big for the creatures mind, so the creature would come to life then suddenly die for lack of the ability for a life giving relationship. Life and death would be like popcorn popping. 

God needed to enter time and space so that the creature could be aware of him. The creature needed to know that they were created creatures and God is the almighty, all powerful, all knowing, self existent creator, larger than what the creature is experiencing.  While the creature could start to comprehend that there is a great God there, life and death would still be like popcorn popping as the creature is given life, sees this overwhelming power and is suddenly scared to death.

God also needed to reveal himself in time and space in a way that is personal and approachable, a dear friend. Thus we have God the Son. Now if the infinite God only revealed himself as God the Son, God as personal and approachable. If the creature were to think about something that would have been dangerous, what makes this friend think his ideas are any better than mine, they make a wrong choice and while life and death would not have been like popcorn, creatures would be in a big risk of making wrong choices and not taking the warning from God the Son seriously (as we saw some doing when God the Son was on earth.)

Creatures need know that God is both the great all powerful unapproachable light/deep darkness, all knowing, yet their approachable friend. A friend that can bring them safely to God as power. 

But these two revelations of God are both objective revelations. Both God and creatures are both objective and subjective. God also needs to reveal himself in our subjective, existential situation. So we have the Holy Spirit. 

The Holy Spirit enlightens everyone on earth. All religions including "no religion" has a mixture of truth, error and superstitions. God's law is self sacrificing love, and all sin is selfishness. We are constantly making choices that are either reaching out to God as our personal friend, or trying to control power to serve ourselves. The Holy Spirit testifies of and points people to God the Son. 

Anyone who yields to the work of the Holy Spirit on the heart and thus reach out to whoever is out there, from however their personal background can comprehend, has accepted God as personal friend, God the Son, who we understand to be Jesus. 

Now the religions based on the Bible has more truth available to us, a better knowledge of this God, with Christians having the apostolic writings telling us about God the Son coming to earth. Protestantism having a better understanding. But salvation itself is based on our relationship with God, and that Jesus died for all of us. 

In Church history, until St. Augustine, Christians believed that the death of Jesus was so powerful that it saved all but those who actively reject it. St. Augustine changed it to everyone being lost unless they actively accept Jesus. Either way, rejecting truth of self sacrificing love is a rejecting what Jesus did for us. Yielding to the pleading of the Holy Spirit on the heart to choose self sacrificing love is accepting what Jesus did for us. 

My family helped with Cambodian Refugees. One we assisted was a dentist, Dr. Chan. Dr. Chan was a Buddhist. When he heard that the Khmer Rouge came to power, he threw his glasses to the floor and trampled on them. He went home got his family and fled to a part of Cambodia where no one knew him. He and his family pretended to be literate  common laborers. Eventually they were able to cross into Thailand into refugee camps. Baptist missionaries helped in the camps, and when hearing the gospel message Dr. Chan and his family became Christians. Next they made it to California where my Aunt assisted them. My Aunt would also bring many of the Cambodian refugees to church on Sabbath and got started the Long Beach Cambodian Seventh-day Adventist Church. Dr. Chan and his family became Seventh-day Adventists. 

One Sabbath my Aunt noticed that Dr. Chan suddenly went pail. He began shaking and got up and ran out of the church. My Aunt went to see what was wrong, and he was in the yard shaking and repeating "It's him..." As my Aunt approached him asking what was wrong Dr. Chan said "You may think me crazy, but ever since childhood I had a friend. Oh, I could not see him, nor hear him, but I knew that he was there and cared for me. When I heard that the Khmer Rouge came to power, I felt that it was my friend who influenced me to throw down my glasses and that he lead me and my family away from those who knew me, then to Thailand and then California. I know that I became a Christian in Thailand and a Seventh-day Adventist here, but today I realized something that never dawned on me before. This dear childhood friend of my is Jesus!" 

Some may not have an experience as vivid as Dr. Chan, but the Holy Spirit is still working with them and has those who yield to God's love. Had the Khmer Rouge killed Dr. Chan and his family before they met the Baptist Missionaries in Thailand; they had a living relationship with God as they understood him and would have awakened in the first resurrection. 

Sadly, too many in popular Christianity does not have room for experiences such as Dr. Chan's and see salvation only in becoming Christians and explaining what Jesus did for us. Knowing what Jesus did for us deepens and strengthens their friendship with their precious friend. But it's that friendship in the first place that saves them. 

[Kevin H]

On 5/28/2022 at 1:51 PM, Humble Disciple said:

Also, by "favorite former girlfriends," are you referring to relationships that involved fornication? I'm not judging you for your personal life, but what does that have to do with what the Seventh Day Adventist church teaches? 

Also, when it comes to being romantically involved with non-Christians, doesn't the Bible say to not be unevenly yoked? 

HD, it has been said that knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, that wisdom is that you know not to put a tomato in a fruit salad.

You asked me something very personal on a public platform, and in a way that if I gave this answer last night it would sound like I was covering up a "yes" answer, so I was open in saying "No, we did not have the type of relationship that you asked about." However, a question like that is something very personal. Between myself, God, and whether or not there is a third person. Outside of this the only two other possible people to be included may be a hurt spouse or a child where it effects their inheritance or health history. I think that it is safe to assume that you do not fit into one of these three to five possible situations. 

Canaanite religion and a good deal of paganism would have these be community issues. Canaanite superstition thought that they needed to come together and unite the life forces to help Baal and the gods of life gain victory over the leviathan, Mot and the gods of death. Their superstitions also made them think that they could steal some or all of someone's life force to bring what their victim's home would have had will now transfer to the abuser's home in Canaan. 

The Hebrew religion did not allow for this, and wanted to leave these to something private between the family members and God.  You showed the knowledge that around this situation there is the possibility of sin, but you did not show the wisdom to leave the question in the privacy where it belongs and not be called into public where a silence or a note like this could be taken as a confession of guilt. Your question was irresponsible, uncalled for, and outright mean.

The point of my post is that in the way the Lord has lead me, I have had the privilege of sharing friendships with some very dear people who superficial Christianity does not have room for, but who have a living relationship with God and who I believe that there is plenty of room in heaven for them. And that Adventism's views of issues such as the great controversy and the destruction of the wicked helps me to be able to see more people in heaven.  And that one of the things I love about Adventism is our powerful God who has plenty of room for heaven, and that the only ones who will not be there are those who's character is so controlled by selfishness that they will find it hell to live in His presence.