Adventist Online

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?

Views: 506

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

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. 

God Bless,

Jay

Ian

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.

 

Leon

leon,

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.

mutinta

Hello Mutinta

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

http://www.thethirdangelsmessage.com/omega_deadly_heresies

 

Leon

Leon

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.

Ian

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?

Hello Keith

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.

Leon

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:

"It is the unanimous opinion of the committee appointed to consider the matter of the Church Manual that it would not be advisable to have a Church Manual. We consider it unnecessary because we have already surmounted the greatest difficulties connected with church organization without one; and perfect harmony exists among us on this subject. It would seem to many like a step toward the formation of a creed or a discipline, other than the Bible, something we have always been opposed to as a denomination. If we had one, we fear many, especially those commencing to preach, would study it to obtain guidance in religious matters, rather that to seek for it in the Bible, and from the leading of the Spirit of God, which would tend to their hindrance in genuine religious experience, and in knowledge of the mind of the Spirit. It was in taking similar steps that other bodies of Christians first began to lose their simplicity and become formal and spiritually lifeless. Why should we imitate them?
The committee feels, in short, that our tendency should be in the direction of the policy and close conformity of the Bible, rather than to elaborately defining every point in church management and church ordinances."

"On motion, this report with reference to Church Manual was accepted. It was then also Voted, That the President of the General Conference be requested to write an article for the Review, explaining the action of the Conference on the subject of the manual." -- Review and Herald, November 20, 1883; Year Book, 1883, pp. 33-36

Hello Stewart

You are correct about the manual, thank you for the clarification.

Leon

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