Adventist Online

It's been years since I have been a registered member of this website and it has been a clear fact that OFFSHOOTS are also registered here.

To clarify things further, those who are not under the the Seventh-day Adventist Church of the General Conference.

How should we react to them? Should we shun them? Should we befriend them? Their teachings are clearly oftentimes extreme.

Views: 2060

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I am intrigued to know just what you mean by an offshoot brother.

Some dear folks that I know, or know of, and who stand for the original teachings of our church as they were back in the days of the Advent pioneers and Ellen White, and after (through to the 1940's and later 1950's) and who continue to believe and teach the advent message as it was back in those times have become regarded as out of sync with certain things which have come in to our Advent message since the later 1950's.

For instance, Ellen white and the pioneers, according to the things that they wrote (hundreds of statements on this) believed that Christ, in His incarnation took upon Himself the fallen nature of Adam. But since the later 1950's that teaching has changed to His coming in the unfallen nature--the nature of Adam before his fall. But the Bible says that "in all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren." (Hebrews 2: 17) We are not like Adam in his unfallen state! And the Spirit of Prophecy upholds this "fallen nature" concept in several hundred statements. 

The most controversial book in our SDA Church--Questions on Doctrine, upholds the new teachings of the late 1950's, and it seems that those who don't accept the new concepts are often regarded as doctrinal offshoots! This is clearly wrong! They are standing for the original teachings of our church--"earnestly contend(ing) for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" as the Scripture says in Jude 1: 3.

May these few lines help to clarify this somewhat.

Armstrong, Branch Davidian, Shepherd's Rod, "Historical", and the plain mentally ill.  I think that is what he meant.

There are Adventist (Bob Trefz) who defend the Davidians. Non-SDA too claim the Davidians did absolutely nothing wrong, legally. No crimes were ever proven in a court of law. There are numerous videos made about Waco. Tho I would not support any of their Bible doctrines, and do find it odd he changed his name to David Koresh.

Heisenberg, your "mentally ill" is nothing more than opinion or name calling. There is no proof for such a thing. There may be some here who have been to doctors for mental health and are doing much better in the church today.

Not sure what you mean by historical or how that is a bad thing. Progressiveness is a corruption of the truth.

"Historical" as in the one's I knew.  Never bathed anywhere near Sabbath, so the air of BO made your eyes water.  They would argue you could only be saved by your own works.  If you had not worked to perfection on your own, without Christ, you would damned at the time of the sealing.  They would preach the health message, but be big as a house in some cases.  I do remember one lady marching up to the front of the church and pointing her big "kazoo" at the entire church, to chastise the organist for playing a hymn at actual time.  It was too "fast" apparently.  The kind of folks that would send news letters to the entire church castigating some member or another for living up to their standards.  The one's who didn't know the inside of a bible, but could misquote Ellen White with the best of them.

Those are the "Historical" or "hysterical" as I like to call them that I knew all too well.

Hartland and Wimer inst. too.

Roy,

I'm one of those nontraditional Adventists that sincerely believes you are wrong.

And I agree with Sister White about this. She wrote:

Be careful, exceedingly careful as to how you dwell upon the human nature of Christ. Do not set Him before the people as a man with the propensities of sin. He is the second Adam. The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon him; he was in the image of God. He could fall, and he did fall through transgressing. Because of sin, his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. He was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden.  {13MR 18.1} 

     Bro. Baker, avoid every question in relation to the humanity of Christ which is liable to be misunderstood. Truth lies close to the track of presumption. In treating upon the humanity of Christ, you need to guard strenuously every assertion, lest your words be taken to mean more than they imply, and thus you lose or dim the clear perceptions of His humanity as combined with divinity. His birth was a miracle of God; for, said the angel, "Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great and shall be called the son of the Highest; and the Lord shall give unto him the throne of his Father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing that I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."  {13MR 18.2} 

     These words are not addressed to any human being, except to the Son of the Infinite God. Never, in any way, leave the slightest impression upon human minds that a taint of, or inclination to corruption rested upon Christ, or that He in any way yielded to corruption. He was tempted in all points like as man is tempted, yet He is called that holy thing. It is a mystery that is left unexplained to mortals that Christ could be tempted in all points like as we are, and yet be without sin. The incarnation of Christ has ever been, and will ever remain a mystery. That which is revealed, is for us and for our children, but let every human being be warned from the ground of making Christ altogether human, such an one as ourselves: for it cannot be. The exact time when humanity blended with divinity, it is not necessary for us to know. We are to keep our feet on the rock, Christ Jesus, as God revealed in humanity.  {13MR 19.1} 

"I'm one of those nontraditional Adventists"  That is one of the few things I can agree with you on Shubee.  "Demon this and Demon that" I would hope that you relax and take the time to read the Bible and see the Love of Christ rather than the long radical rants about Ayan Rand and fake moon landings. 

Unquestionably, Ayan Rand taught the first demon's message, which has been widely accepted by deceived Seventh-day Adventists, Republicans and Libertarians.

I said nothing radical about fake moon landings. That's just your love of deceit talking.

Dear Shubee, I also believe the writings of Ellen White when she wrote the following, and these statements in no way contradict the ones you posted.

"Clad in the vestments of humanity, the Son of God came down to the level of those He wished to save. In Him was no guile or sinfulness; He was ever pure and undefiled; yet He took upon Him our sinful nature. Clothing His divinity with humanity, that He might associate with fallen humanity, He sought to regain for man that which, by disobedience, Adam had lost for himself and for the world. In His own character He displayed to the world the character of God."—The Review and Herald, December 15, 1896.

"He took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature, that He might know how to succor those that are tempted.—Medical Ministry, 181.{7ABC 450: 5}

"Letters have been coming in to me, affirming that Christ could not have had the same nature as man, for if He had, He would have fallen under similar temptations. If He did not have man’s nature, He could not be our example. If He was not a partaker of our nature, He could not have been tempted as man has been. If it were not possible for Him to yield to temptation, He could not be our helper. It was a solemn reality that Christ came to fight the battles as man, in man’s behalf. His temptation and victory tell us that humanity must copy the Pattern; man must become a partaker of the divine nature." {1SM 408}

What you posted is also true, which says..... "That which is revealed, is for us and for our children."

These statements do not contradict each other but help us to have a deeper understanding of this matter.

These statements do not contradict each other but help us to have a deeper understanding of this matter.

Roy,

You're asking the right person. And absolutely yes, there is no contradiction. A deeper meaning, I believe, comes from understanding a word I invented, which is to be used in the phrase:

Let me define the term offshoot as clear as the clear blue sky.

THOSE WHO WERE EVICTED OUT OF THE SDA CHURCH OF THE GENERAL CONFERENCE for not adhering to the church's doctrine, laws and by laws and other things that the defines the church.

I'm referring to the SDA Reforms, Davidians and other groups who are also not giving their tithes to the mission and conferences since they are not part of the system anymore.

NOT TO MENTION THAT I FIND THEIR WAY OF SALVATION AND SABBATH OBSERVATION TOO LABORIOUS.

Its not the teachings of any church we want to pay attention to. For being a member of any church cannot save us. Also as you've pointed out, the understandings that denominations have regarding teachings (doctrines) can change. They did so even during Ellen Whites lifetime.

What saves us is believing in Jesus as God, our Lord and Saviour and following Him. Jesus says in John chapter 5, that once we believe in Him (the one God the Father sent) we have (notice its past tense)everlasting life.

debating doctrinal issues may be interesting and help us to grow in understanding, but it doesn't save us. It's being saved to dwell in Christ in Heaven that is important.

RSS

Site Sponsors

 

Adventist Single?
Meet other Single
Adventists here:
Join Free


USA members:

Support AO by
using this link:
Amazon.com

 

© 2019   Created by Clark P.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service