Adventist Online

My previous discussion was simple in nature and it really got messy when I red the posts.

People didn't get the simple nature of the question and started spilling everyone's blood not to MENTION OTHERS ARE SO OFFENDED with a single word and would demand a definition.

Christianity has become SOOOOOOOOO COMPLICATED.

So here's the catch.

WE ALL KNOW that matters regarding doctrine is not the perfect example of asking people how we should react to organizations we do not support.

HOW ABOUT THIS?

How would you react if your neighbor is an offshoot and you found out they don't have food to eat because of financial constraint? Or what if your office mate is an offshoot (sorry can't find other term except for offshoot so my apologies to the grammar sensitive people out there) should you not greet him or her even if you work under the same office?

How about if you are a teacher and your student is an offshoot or doesn't agree with the teaching of our church.

Personally I DO NOT AGREE AND DISLIKE THE WAY HOW THEY TREAT OUR CHURCH AND VIEW OUR DOCTRINES because I find them very bitter.

But how about things outside the concept of church and doctrine?

HOW SHOULD WE REACT TO OFFSHOOTS?

Views: 986

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Faithful SDAs believe in progressive revelation.  If we stuck with 1844 beliefs we would still support the Shut Door theory, in 1914 I don't think we had even formally accepted the Trinity yet.

Jill, progressive revelation (or greater light) according to the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy does not serve to deny the light of established truths that have stood as the firm platform of teaching for more than 100 years past. 

For instance, as I pointed out elsewhere here, the pioneers and E G White all believed that Christ, in His incarnation, took our fallen nature upon Him, and not Adam's unfallen nature which many have been teaching since the later 1950's. This kind of thing denies what God gave our people back then, and verified it via hundreds of statements in the Spirit of Prophecy and the writings of the pioneers. We can't just change the Advent message to suit ourselves, if we do, we are denying what God gave His church in its stronger days when, as we are told, the first and second angel's messages went to every mission station in the world. God was in the work, sending His truth to every tongue and people.

If you look at the history of religious movements over the centuries such as in the protestant reformation time, you find they started out with a pure message from God, but after the reformers passed away, errors came in and the biblical truths became corrupted and so the great system of babylon grew strong and ruled the great religions of the Christian world. This is the result of Satan's work to destroy the truth of God and bring in dangerous errors so that he can cause the Bible truth to be discarded and the people to believe a lie and be lost. He is a powerful foe and we can't underestimate what he is attempting to do in the religious world--especially among those who have the Advent message; the 3 angels messages of Revelation 14. His greatest delusions will be directed to God's true people to destroy the truth which he hates. From my observations, (here in Britain) our SDA church has all but forgotten what the Three Angel's Messages are. We are not the "people of the Book" as we once were in the days of the past. Modernism has gripped our movement, and the liberal element has a fast hold. It's a sad day for those of us who are life-long SDA's. 

I am truly sorry to have to say this, but looking aroung our church today it is all to clear. I may seem critical, but you know there are two kinds of criticism--constructive criticism and destructive criticism. Constructive criticism will uphold Bible and SoP truths and strive to restore them when they have been tampered with. Jesus had to cope with this in His day. The church leaders, the Pharisees and Saducees were teaching the people error such as what the Messiah would do when He came, and at the same time rejecting the Messiah who was amongst them and crucifying Him for claiming to be the Son of God. I'm sure you know all this as well as I do.

Satan's methods to deceive the people are much the same in our day. He suggests that our faith needs to be examined and changed to suit the modern times we live in but the Bible says that God does not change (Malachi 3:6), and Jesus is always the same (Hebrews 13:8). People change, as seen in the movements of history, but God's truth is always the same nevertheless.

I agree with the constructive vs destructive paradigm, but I am wondering what is the point when offshoots disagree with something to immediately call the church Babylon, subject to Satan's influence, not people of the book, etc.  That sound like destructive criticism to me.  Constructive criticism would be simply presenting a Bible text, interpreting, applying the interpretation, and explaining what the church needs to do to comply - all without snide - disparaging remarks and stomping all over the church some of us love.   The above post is classic offshoot and I wish you well.

Sister Jill, I did not and do not call the SDA church Babylon. I know that many are doing that these days. But to deny that there has been any doctrinal apostasy, (ie., change of doctrine) in our church is either to be in ignorance of this fact or to simply shrug it aside as unimportant. As I already mentioned, the matter of the human nature of Christ in His incarnation which is so vital to us as a people became fundamentally changed by certain church leaders back in the late 1950's, and this has never been rectified. Our teachings have, in this one matter alone undergone, and there are other ones too--have undergone substancial changes from the established teachings of the church for the previous 100 years between the 1850's and the 1950's.

If anyone who complains of the change of established SDA doctrine is to be regarded as an offshoot, then I don't mind being regarded as such, but I am in good company, because our General Conference President, Elder Ted Wilson understands about the doctrinal changes of the 1950's and does not accept them. A predecessor of his, Elder Robert Pierson who was president from 1966 to 1977 saw the same, and appealed to the church to return to its previous faithfulness and be ready for the Second Coming of Jesus.

In his appeal to the church he quoted Ellen G White who said.....

"We may have to remain here in this world because of insubordination many more years, as did the children of Israel; but for Christ's sake, His people should not add sin to sin by charging God with the consequence of their own wrong course of action." {Evangelism, 696; 1883}

This is genuine constructive criticism from the pen of God's faithful messenger to the remnant.

Also.....

"I am filled with sadness when I think of our condition as a people. The Lord has not closed heaven to us, but our own course of continual backsliding has separated us from God. Pride, covetousness, and love of the world have lived in the heart without fear of banishment or condemnation. Grievous and presumptuous sins have dwelt among us. And yet the general opinion is that the church is flourishing, and that peace and spiritual prosperity are in all her borders. The church has turned back from following Christ her leader, and is steadily retreating toward Egypt. Yet few are alarmed or astonished at their want of spiritual power. Doubt and even disbelief of the testimonies of the Spirit of God is leavening our churches everywhere. Satan would have it thus."—Testimonies for the Church 5:217. (Written in late 1880's)

In the light of these statements from the pen of inspiration, how can we say that only offshoots will be repeating such comments. If we are not careful we will be making God's faithful messenger to the remnant a critic who denounces the church. Is anyone who is saddened by the low spiritual condition of the church today, just as Ellen White was in her day and said so--is anyone such to be automatically regarded as an offshoot? I say, no! There is such a thing as genuine grief over the condition of God's church! That is godly concern, not destructive criticism! I hope we can discern the difference.

In Testimonies vol. 5 in the chapter on the Sealing, she speaks of those who are "sighing and crying" over the condition of both the church and the world, and how they will appeal to others to return to the things of God, and forsake the prevailing worldlness in the end time of the sealing message. THAT'S NOW IN OUR DAY, SURELY!

Maybe we all have something to learn from the experiences of the past and the state of things in the present. Israel of old were at times in apostasy and had to be taught a lesson by God by things such as going into captivity for many years. We are told that we should learn from the things that happened to them back then. I sincerely hope we will.

Roy said, "In Testimonies vol. 5 in the chapter on the Sealing, she speaks of those who are "sighing and crying" over the condition of both the church and the world, and how they will appeal to others to return to the things of God, and forsake the prevailing worldlness in the end time of the sealing message. THAT'S NOW IN OUR DAY, SURELY!"

This passage echoes Ezek.9:4 and is a very apt quote. Ezek.9 is used by a lot of "offshoots" to justify taking a position contrary to the SDA Church. However, my question is, what does it mean to "sigh and cry"?

Does it mean to write papers or distribute sermons condemning the leadership of the Church as agents of satan or Jesuits?

One of the other things that I like about the above quotes is that it describes those who are "sighing and crying" as still being in the Church not running outside and casting stones.

Quite right John. The sighing, crying ones are among God's true people who see how worldly the church has become, and are calling for revival and reformation, and the outpouring of the Latter Rain. Our current GC President is one such I see. But Sister White said it will not come until we have an enlightened people. {see Christian Service 253.2}

She also says this.....

"When the reproach of indolence and slothfulness shall have been wiped away from the church, the Spirit of the Lord will be graciously manifested. Divine power will be revealed. The church will see the providential working of the Lord of hosts.—Testimonies for the Church 9:46 (1909).{LDE 193.4}

Surely we should be longing, working and praying for that day to come. Meanwhile we surely need to strive for that higher level of spirituality that it is our privilege to reach.

I am afraid that it is painfully obvious that all is not well among us. After all, did not Sister White say that Christ would have come soon after 1844, but the church was not ready, and the Third Angels' Message was not given to the whole world as the first 2 messages had been. We are still in that situation it seems. How often do we hear the third angels' message preached with power in our meetings? Many don't seem to know what the term "third angels' message" even means! The church seems infected by the world. That is seen, or rather heard in the style of worldly type music that we hear in church all too often. I heard of a young woman who came into the church--a new believer, and when she heard some of the music that was being played, she said "I came out of the world to get away from all that kind of music, but it is here in the church too!" Why, oh why are we turning some away because of the worldly music in the church? I have been brought up in Adventism and at the age of 79 now I am saddened to see so many things that we never saw in our church in my young days. The level of spirituality generally is not better but worse. I speak from experience. I truly fear that many will be shaken out in the great shaking that the Ellen White writings foretell of. I truly am concerned for the Adventism of today--truly!

Surely we are living on borrowed time because God is so gracious and "not willing that any should perish" that He has let time go on longer than it would have done so as to save as many as possible. How good God is!

Roy, I just want to say that I appreciate your posts and that quote from Testimonies Vol 9 is so very apt. Sleeping virgins, eh?

Jill, after reading you and Roy's comments. I may have to agree with some of his comments.

I have nothing against attending the GC Church because the off-shoots that i've seen and dealt with tend to go with the extreme. 

Now, I am for with the progressive idea but it seems that we tend to forget our roots and lean towards very modern and secular ideas. For one thing, we are not preaching about the prophecies, the basic doctrines, the current events of what is going on with the Vatican, and etc. Jesus is a God of love but we need to emphasis that he is also a God of justice. We are making look that he is soft. Think about it. 

Powerful truth there Roy....

Jill, tell everyone what is your definition of "progressive revelation"

Jill, exactly how did the Adventist church formally accept the Trinity doctrine? Do you know why did the pioneers held a different view?

I think it was 1931, I wasn't there so I can't tell you exactly how it happened.  What difference does that make though?  The relevant question should be "Is the Trinity doctrine Biblical?"  Since the answer is yes, then it doesn't matter how we got there.  1844 would have been the best time to accept the Trinity, but better late than never. 

I realize some of you offshoot people don't accept the 28 Adventist Fundamental Beliefs.

RSS

Site Sponsors

 

Adventist Single?
Meet other Single
Adventists here:
Join Free


USA members:

Support AO by
using this link:
Amazon.com

 

© 2021   Created by Clark P.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service