Jump to content
Kingdom of Adventistan
pacunurse30

Do SDA's need an overhaul of endtime prophecy?

Recommended Posts

8thdaypriest
14 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

actually, NONE of the beliefs are "required" for "Salvation.

IF this is true, that would mean God will save EVERYONE - because it's not necessary to believe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wanderer
7 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Acts 16:31 So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household." (NKJ)

But believe WHAT?  that He existed - that He rose again - that He is the Messiah - that He was/is the literal Son of God - that He can save you from God's wrath - that He can give you eternal life? 

How many things ABOUT Jesus, does one need to believe?  I bet we could come up with 17 fundamental beliefs, just about Jesus. 

This is likely the best question of the week so far. After-all, scripture tells us that even demons believe. (James 2:19)  Yet, it is my humble opinion that all doctrines, (christian doctrines) ARE about Jesus. I cant think of any doctrine that does not meet that criteria. JOMo thinks we should just have a certain number of fundamentals, and it loks like you have stated we should have just 17 fundamentals. I know this general subject has been touched on in other threads. So, the next question is what beliefs do you see as ONLY being about Jesus? And, regarding demons believeing, Is that the kind of belief that Acts 16 is talking about, or, are there different kinds of believing, some good, some not? My, how we humans so love to complicate things. I wasnt going to say anything in reply to your post here, except for the following: "The gospel is simply wonderful and wonderfully simple." But then I realized, there are a lot of "IFs" developing from the comments. If James 2:19 tells us demons believe, then what, besides believing, is enough to truly and fully be saved? And what does the Adventist Church REALLY need to change in order to meet the requirement with/through their stated beliefs? Its odd to me how non-Adventists seem to think they know that answer better than church members, yet even they cannot say what we need beyond believing...I think people have somehow developed the word "doctrine" into some sort of religious dirty talk. There is simply no need for that anywhere in the Bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wanderer
14 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

IF this is true, that would mean God will save EVERYONE - because it's not necessary to believe. 

Why do we need any doctrine to believe in Jesus?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wanderer
2 hours ago, JoeMo said:

I simply stated my opinion that I don't have to drink all of the kool-aid.  Yes the church has a right to make as many defining beliefs as it wants; and I have the right to reject any of them that I don't see as Biblical. 

So are you saying that we can still have whatever beliefs we want, as long as we dont make people adopt them as a sort of prerequisite for baptism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest

The Hebrew understanding of "belief" is dynamic.  If one "believes", he then ACTS in response to what he believes.   The action flows from the belief.  Belief is not something that happens only in the mind.  It always results in action.  If one does not ACT, he has not believed.  

In what sense then, do demons believe?   What do their actions say they believe - about God? 

There are many things - about God - that one can believe.   That He exists - that He is love - that He will judge - that He will execute His judgment - that He is all powerful - that He sent His only Son - that He is one - that He can heal - that He will forgive - that He can change us -  etc. etc. 

Demons "believe" some things - about God.  They believe He exists, and they believe that He will ultimately destroy them.  That is why they tremble.  I doubt they believe that "God is love".   

To me, the critical - necessary action, is to open ones heart - giving Christ and His Father permission to enter, to effect change.   God pleads.  He calls our attention to the evidence.   Even Pharaoh felt the pulling of God's spirit, on his mind/heart.   But Pharaoh refused to open his heart.  He committed the unpardonable sin against the Spirit of God.  He hardened his heart. 

To be "born again" is to be filled with the Spirit of Christ.  Christ will then lead the person "into all truth".   The person does not start with every correct doctrine or action.  He starts by responding to Christ - by opening his heart.   Those who are "lost" (including demons) are lost because they refused to open their hearts to the indwelling of God.

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoeMo
19 hours ago, CoAspen said:

Should God be held responsible for the misuse of words/guidance/instructions for the human race?

He already took responsibility.  He sent His only begotten Son to pay the ultimate penalty for our misuse and abuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest
4 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

So are you saying that we can still have whatever beliefs we want, as long as we dont make people adopt them as a sort of prerequisite for baptism?

The "Fundamentals" are not so much "What We Believe" - or what you must believe to be saved - but rather what doctrines we plan to teach.   It's about the TEACHING.  To plan a teaching quarterly, or church affiliated school books - a denomination needs at least some understanding of the message they plan to convey.   To prepare ministers, (who teach from the pulpit) a "denomination" needs to refine its "message". 

That sounds good, except when you're an SDA trained/ordained minister, facing a crisis of faith - over a point of doctrine (say 1844 or the Trinity).   He can't give the "wrong message", or he will face revocation of his ministerial credentials and he may be dis-fellow-shipped.

All those seeking ministerial credentials (of whatever denomination) should have a back-up career, just in case.  Paul did. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest
2 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

He already took responsibility.  He sent His only begotten Son to pay the ultimate penalty for our misuse and abuse.

God knows we are mentally handicapped.   The rules were kept SIMPLE. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoeMo
5 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

So are you saying that we can still have whatever beliefs we want, as long as we dont make people adopt them as a sort of prerequisite for baptism?

We have the liberty to believe whatever we want.  The question is what is that belief based upon?  Faith is very personal to me; so I'm okay with believing or not believing things that may be required to be a card-carrying SDA.  As far as "prerequisites" go, It depends on whether you are baptized into the SDA denomination or simply baptized in the Name of Jesus.

The SDA Church can have as many fundamentals as it wants.  I'm thankful that they put up with crackpots like me who don't embrace all 28 Fundies.  That being said, I identify with SDA's because because I am committed to the truth proclaimed in their name. By God's grace I will remain committed to observing the 7th-Day Sabbath and my belief that Jesus is coming soon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wanderer
1 hour ago, 8thdaypriest said:

The "Fundamentals" are not so much "What We Believe" - or what you must believe to be saved - but rather what doctrines we plan to teach.   It's about the TEACHING.  To plan a teaching quarterly, or church affiliated school books - a denomination needs at least some understanding of the message they plan to convey.   To prepare ministers, (who teach from the pulpit) a "denomination" needs to refine its "message". 

That sounds good, except when you're an SDA trained/ordained minister, facing a crisis of faith - over a point of doctrine (say 1844 or the Trinity).   He can't give the "wrong message", or he will face revocation of his ministerial credentials and he may be dis-fellow-shipped.

All those seeking ministerial credentials (of whatever denomination) should have a back-up career, just in case.  Paul did. 

In some respects I would agree with this; but I would add that no pastor goes into that blind, they know full well what they are walking into.

I have said similar things before, regarding doctrine but I think it goes without saying that many people have a huge misunderstanding about what doctrine is and how it is intended to be used. There is certainly nothing wrong with doctrine - Jesus Himself encouraged it.

Quote

1Ti_4:6  If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.
1Ti_6:3  If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
Heb_6:1  Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
2Jn_1:9  Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

When I hear someone say *Oh now we dont want to get doctrinal now, do we* then I just think they have not read, or do not understand what scripture tells us about it. Its actually not optional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoeMo
3 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Its actually not optional.

You're right. The problem arises in how different people interpret "sound doctrine".  IMHO, there are sound Biblical arguments to support both sides of certain issues; for example - Trinity vs.Father and Son alone as the Godhead; historicist vs. futurist view of end-time prophecy, rapture or no rapture, salvation by works, salvation by faith, or salvation by a mixture of the two - the list could go on. I truly believe there are some "sound doctrines" that we will never agree on until the Kingdom.  Jesus Himself showed "disrespect" for some of the "sound doctrines" of the establishment Jewish church of His era.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wanderer

Ill have to reply in more detail later but you got me wondering...what determines a "sound doctrine?"  I believe I have an answer worth considering but "time is short."  Doctrinal pun intended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CoAspen

Many like to call the SDA church, Gods Church. But if we read the words of Christ carefully we see a much different meaning for church in the Bible. I believe the same goes for the word doctrine. What was Christ talking about and what was the understanding of the original words that we have transalted into 'doctrine'. We often want to use words and texts without considering the original meanings. As SDA's we were raised on what I call, 'text splatter'. Just not a good way to understand the meaning of Christs teachings.

For me, I filter everything through Christs words, He did not come to 'condemn the world but to save it', 'If you have seen me you have seen my father', 'two commandments, love your neighbor and love God', 'believe in me and have eternal life'. Those are doctrines I can live with, not those written by humans meant to impose a certain way of thinking. No fear, being afraid, is involved, but just the opposite. When we get beyond fear, than we are truly free.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B/W Photodude
14 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Why do we need any doctrine to believe in Jesus?

So, since we are busy believing in Jesus, what specific doctrines can we just ignore? Inquiring minds want to know!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wanderer
11 minutes ago, B/W Photodude said:

So, since we are busy believing in Jesus, what specific doctrines can we just ignore? Inquiring minds want to know!

My question was rhetorical, intended to agitate. My whole point is that there is not a single doctrine that we are licensed to ignore. When we say *context* what we really mean is we want to pick and choose. Of course, thats exactly what some in this thread are saying. BUT my other point is that WHAT WE DO with the doctrines is really messed up. We use them as a club, rather than to point to Jesus; and IF the doctrine does not do that it is not a Christian doctrine no matter how many Bible verses we quote. I have more to say on this aspect, with references, but I am out of time! Tomorrow is another day. I am sure there will be some mighty protests over the little bit I did write just now. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wanderer
3 hours ago, CoAspen said:

Many like to call the SDA church, Gods Church. But if we read the words of Christ carefully we see a much different meaning for church in the Bible.

Every church is Gods church For God has come to see and save that which is his people who are lost. in any church in any place God is not a giver of of freedom, unless you are one to truly see that there is a great crowd of witnesses

Every church is God's church For God has come to see and save that which people are lost. God is not a giver of freedom, unless you are one of the great crowd of witnesses

233/5000
Translate from: English
كل كنيسة هي كنيسة الله لأن الله قد جاء ليراكم ويحفظ ما فقده الناس. إن الله ليس معطي الحرية, إلا إذا كنت واحدا من حشد الشهود العظيم

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kevin H
On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 11:22 AM, rudywoofs (Pam) said:

bumping this topic.  It doesn't appear as though any concrete conclusion was made to the OP's question.   I think it's important.

Should the SDA church stop referring to the Pope (and by extension, the Catholic Church) as the antichrist ??

 Opening Post:

 

I was just writing on this post and when nearly done the computer crashed and the post disappeared. Actually Mrs. White overhauled our views, but we have taken part of what she says and ignore the rest. The overhaul we need is to catch up with her. 

I'll try to give an outline of my post that disappeared: 

1. Mrs. White wrote about her difficulty in trying to be fair. That one the one hand we need to express our concerns about the Roman Catholic church (which we saw in the dark ages, and today in countries where the Catholics are the dominant religion), yet she feared that her writings were too anti-catholic and frankly tells us that she does not feel that she gave a balanced view and that she has thus hurt many Catholics who love God.  (One thing that puzzles me, I do more listening while driving than reading, but in her 1888 Great Controversy there was a powerful line that I have not noticed in the revised edition. While she praised villages in Europe who embraced Protestantism, her highest praise went to the towns that allowed both Catholics and Protestants to live together and the citizens have free choice between the two).

2. She goes beyond Sunday laws to see the issue of liberty of conscience. That Sabbath and Sunday will bring the test to the Christian world (indicating that outside of Christianity other it will be other issues.)  She does not say just how Sabbath and Sunday will be the test (our traditions fill in the gaps). But the big issue is that at the end to go along with the system we will either have to compromise with something in our conscience, or else be tempted to force people to give up something in their conscience to go along with the system.  (Sadly we miss this, we picture the issues of Sabbath-Sunday being human courts and laws may push Sunday, but we have a higher court and law for Sabbath so let me club you over the head with the Sabbath and force you to join my side).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wanderer
26 minutes ago, Kevin H said:

. Mrs. White wrote about her difficulty in trying to be fair. That one the one hand we need to express our concerns about the Roman Catholic church (which we saw in the dark ages, and today in countries where the Catholics are the dominant religion), yet she feared that her writings were too anti-catholic and frankly tells us that she does not feel that she gave a balanced view and that she has thus hurt many Catholics who love God.  (One thing that puzzles me, I do more listening while driving than reading, but in her 1888 Great Controversy there was a powerful line that I have not noticed in the revised edition. While she praised villages in Europe who embraced Protestantism, her highest praise went to the towns that allowed both Catholics and Protestants to live together and the citizens have free choice between the two).

Any chance you could post some relevant references for this part of your post? That is exactly how I have been thinking about it, but I have not taken the time yet to document. I do know that if one does a search of her writings for rev 18:4 they will dind some relevant materials where she basically says there are true Christians even in the Catholic Church, the idea being taken from Rev 18:4 where God calls them "My People" BEFORE they have left their particular fold to join up with "Sabbath-keepers." I also think that Jesus has not yet come, because they have not yet come out, and they wont come out until all the  Sabbath-Keepers  Sabbath Stealers come out of their delusion. Too many are literally stealing that doctrine just to be correct/saved and they still have no idea that it is Jesus that saves. (John 1:29). No wonder those in other folds wont come out. Its because we wont either. (and I dont mean as in coming out of the church).

Edited by The Wanderer
grammar correction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kevin H

Sadly I do not have the references, but when I was in academy (must have been 11th grade) our Bible teacher read some of these statements. And we would come across them in both college and graduate school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wanderer
53 minutes ago, Kevin H said:

Sadly I do not have the references, but when I was in academy (must have been 11th grade) our Bible teacher read some of these statements. And we would come across them in both college and graduate school.

NP. Ill do a little digging tho because now you got me interested.  I have no ptoblem with those statements you made...just looking to dig deeper now. Thank you 😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kevin H

May I suggest the overhaul?:

First of all rather than an overhaul we simply need to keep our basic view but update it. In the 1800s a number of churches gave up historism and what was just brought up in the Powers Court conferences as a young pastor took a small part of what Joachim of Flore taught (and probably not his best teaching) and ended up rejecting the rest of what he taught and built a whole new way of viewing scripture that became known as dispensationalism. We need to be careful not to fall into this category. However there are things that we can update with in our basic framework.

Second, realize that the beast of Revelation 13 is ANY organized group that we can follow that can replace Christ in our lives. That the 7 heads are the 7 periods of history that cover from when the majority of God's people were taken into exile from being ruled by the son of David until we are again ruled by the son of David: Babylon, Medio-Persia, Greece, Rome, The Holy Roman Empire (including Papal supremacy), the deadly wound (a period of no great world empire and the crowns are on the horns), and the deadly wound being healed (Revelation 18 tells us that the last empire rather than being political and conquering by armies will be the world uniting through economic cooperation.

We need to maintain a balance between seeing the entire beast as the papacy and only the papacy and seeing everything the papacy says and does being automatically evil because it is the papacy, and the idea of throwing out the papacy as related to this beast completely. The papacy was very powerful under the 5th head. Too many of us expect to return to the 5th head. But through out the 6th head and as we are heading into the 7th head while we don't find the Papacy fulfilling our tradition of returning to the 5th head, we do find her being the moral voice for the 6th and 7th head. We can express our concerns about what the Papacy did under the 5th head. We can share concerns when the Muslims are following the same path that the Papacy did under the 5th head, same thing when we share concerns about liberal politics who try to push the religion of secularism on the rest of the country, or when conservative politics try to push evangelical Christianity on to the rest of the country, or when sub groups of Adventism want to announce that they are the only true version of Adventism and want to force their view of Adventism upon the rest of the church.  We can praise God for Vatican 2, but we can worry on how the Catholics have only implemented Vatican 2 in parts of the world where there is a plurality of religion and they have to compete with different Protestants among others, but in parts of the world where they hold more power they do not implement Vatican 2.   We can respect the Pope as the leader of a church, but be critical when he wants to be our leader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kevin H

Third: We need to go to what Mrs. White points out as the bigger issue in end time events, that is liberty of conscience. Too often we are just seeing the Catholics and Sunday Laws in everything.

Mrs. White was facing the possibility of Sunday laws. From Adventist concern over this God lead us from merely worrying about Sunday laws into the idea of liberty of conscience for everyone. She tells us that Sunday/Sabbath will play a role in bringing the last events with in the Christian world, but just as our tradition expects the whole beast to be the Pope and a return to the 5th head, so we see Sunday laws as everything  and we see it in a very un-liberty of conscience way:

We picture it as the government and courts are demanding us to keep Sunday or else we will be killed. Ok, but we have an even higher government and a higher court demanding us to keep Sabbath and while you might have to face the first death for not keeping Sunday laws, you will have to face the second death if you don't keep the Sabbath law. A "we carry a bigger club than you do".

Sabbath/Sunday will play a role in bringing the final test on liberty of conscience to a Christian population and there are implications that there will be other tests for other populations.

Fourth:  We tend to limit spiritualism to the state of the dead, Ouija boards, séances, and the occult. To Mrs. White these were one way of bringing spiritualism into people's thoughts. But spiritualism itself is the idea of "Live as you please for heaven is your home" It is the philosophy of existentialism. The idea that truth is all individualistic and that your existential experience if the final truth for you. What happens here is that we loose the power of the will and our feelings take over.

Now our existential experience is important, but it is NOT the final authority. And what we are finding in Mrs. White's writings is a framework of traditionally over history there is a fight between the power of the beast telling us what is right and we have to conform, or the power of our existential experience being the final authority.  But in the end we will find a union of Protestantism, Catholicism and Existentialism to get us to join with the great uniting of the world on economic cooperation and ideas trying to deal with natural catastrophic events, pushing everyone to join in even though they will either have to give up some principle of their conscience or to force others into going against their conscience.  We may have to wait to see just what the details will be, but her basic framework still stands.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×