Do we really want to return to the teachings of our founding fathers?
If James White and Joseph Bates wanted to be baptized into the SDA church today, they would be rejected because they couldn't be baptized into the church because of the 27 beliefs. SDA's are a progressive religion. true or False?
When asked if she was a prophet she never denied it but said she was more than a prophet. But its logical that if you claim to have visions from God and messages from God to His people, then that is the same as claiming to be a prophet. You cannot prophesy and not be a prophet. Does not make sense.
You have indicated in previous post that you are not interested in the foundational beliefs of the historical church, nor do you wish to investigate. Therefore, you probably are unaware of the early beliefs of the pioneers. Keith who has done this type of investigation, is aware that beliefs and he is absolutely correct, they would not be baptized in the church, because they did not believe in that the Holy Spirit was a part of the Trinity, and they believe that Christ was born from God, rather than existed eternally. They were also advocates of the sinful nature of Christ, indicating that he was born fully with the intention to sin, and was able to live perfectly.
These beliefs were a point of contention, after the questions on doctrine was published, which move towards evangelical position regarding the Trinity, the eternal presence of Christ, and the belief that Christ was born with the nature of Adam (sinless,) that was the unblemished redemption for us. Many historical SDA's, and leaders in the church did not agree with this reinterpretation of our beliefs, and those created a rift church. Today many historic Adventist, are in disagreement with church regarding these beliefs, and something that the Omega heresy referred to by Ellen White, is belief in the Trinity.
To be fair, it was EGW who shifted our positions to that of the trinity. She unlike the other pioneers was a trinitarian from the onset. She did grow in her understanding but if you the omega heresy was belief in the trinity, you got to be wrong. unless you have proof. i have found very trinitarian statements from her.
For clairty sake I don't believe in the Alpha or Omega heresies. In regards to the Alpha heresy (Kellogg,) in my research he did not appear to be mentally stable. Thus, his influence regarding breakfast far outweighed his influence on religion. And the Omega heresy was left open by Sister White, and as you indicated she grew up metodist and unlike most of her male mentors believed in the trinity (she laid low on this issue for some time though.) Therefore, I doubt highly that the Sister White would believe that the omega heresy was belief in the trinity.
Yet here is a link outlining this belief. Which is why I am deeply concerned about many of my brethren
I have seen your kind of research it amounts to digging up mistakes made and show them and say that the church is corrupt because it was build on these mistakes. If you can not find anything you misquote to make it look different to what it really say. Both you and Keith do this.
Hello Ian. I agree with you.
"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways [i.e. in the crossroads], and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein." (Jer 6:16)
There are few now that believe that we were raised up by a special work of God. Our "old paths" are not 'good ways', according to many of our people. The opinion of many seems to be, "knowledge has increased", but in my view, knowledge has dwindled far below what we once had. We have lost a great deal.
Not everything Gods church implements is in accordance with how he designed it to be. For example, we were counciled not to have a church manual, that the Bible was to be our only manual. Yet we have one. So while the church may implement changes not in accordance to Gods will, it s not necessarily correct.
Where did the council against church manual come from?
Jay is partially correct the early church asserted that the bible would be our only doctrine. However, they did create a manual soon after offical organization.
Yes I understand that, but who decided and on what authority that there should be no manual?
Keith, one of the strongest voices against having a Church Manual, was that of George Butler, GC president in 1883.
(Leon mentions the creation of a church manual "soon after official organization", but this is a reference to JN Loughborough's book, "The Church: Its Order, Organization and Discipline" (1907), which was, for the main part, a compilation of Ellen White's counsels. But while some treated it as a manual, it was never treated as such by the church. It was not until the 1930's that we adopted an actual Church Manual.)
Here is an interesting resolution from the General Conference held in 1883:
You are correct about the manual, thank you for the clarification.