Jump to content
Kingdom of Adventistan
Sign in to follow this  
Gregory Matthews

SDA Fundamentalism

Recommended Posts

Gustave
7 minutes ago, stinsonmarri said:

This is not Biblical.  Gentiles are Japheth children. Gen 10:5 You will not find it anywhere else in Gen Chapter 10. The KJV in error used this word to refer to heathen or other nations. You will only find that Paul was the one chosen to work with the Gentiles, nor other nationality or ethnic people will you find him writing to except the Book of Hebrew. All the other books are Greek and Indo-Europeans nations.

So we see that those who were of “the Sons of Japheth” produced what are called Gentiles. The European (that is, those known today as Caucasians) came from Japheth. Africans, for example, are not Gentiles, according to the Scriptures. How do I know this? Because the Scriptures that follow at Genesis 10:6 THEN proceed to speak about “the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan,” the progenitors of those of African descent. So only those who are from the lineage of Japheth are “Gentiles.” Those from Ham are not Gentiles. Who Are The Gentiles According to Scripture? BY R. JEROME HARRIS

 The connection between Japheth and the Europeans originates from Genesis 10:5, which states, “By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands.” Japheth – Father of the Europeans, by Moe | History of the Brotherhood, Meaning of Words

Japheth is the father of the gentile nations… reaching to the “outer limits” of civilization. HIS Story Our Story Part 3, by Pastor Dave Martin; The Crosscreek Church

These are some of the writers who differ in many things but all stick to the truth that Japheth is the father of the Gentiles!

Blessings!

That's not the context Ellen used the word Gentile in.

Ellen differentiated Seventh-day Adventists from EVERY other demographic (that plays football or other sports). 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you find some value to this community, please help out with a few dollars per month.

stinsonmarri
9 hours ago, Gustave said:

That's not the context Ellen used the word Gentile in.

Ellen differentiated Seventh-day Adventists from EVERY other demographic (that plays football or other sports). 

 

 

 

EGW is a human being, she is not THE MOST HIGH, nor did she write the Bible. She is not THE CREATOR and I would think THE CREATOR is THE ONE we should accept. EGW thought  as even most people today European fairy tales that covered up a lot of true and factual history. My mother said a lie is a lie it doesn't matter who tells it. The truth of THE MOST HIGH will not come back void! History backs up the Bible that's all that matters which is TRUTH!

It is believed that Ham's was cursed and that's a lie; Canaan was in the tent and he was curse. It is believed that David build Jerusalem, that's a lie, he extended it but he did not build it. It is believed that Melchizedek was YAHSHUA or Shem boy they both are a lie, he was a Canaanite from the Jebusite tribe, he was black and his tribe built Jerusalem. It was believed that YAHWEH not down the tower of Babel, that was a lie; they all left building the city. It was later build by the Afrikan Sumerians, then the Amorites way before the Chaldean took it over! It is believed that Abraham came from Ur near Babylon, that's a lie; the Bible specifically said the Ur of the Chaldeans and he stop in Harran which is near Syria. Abraham came from Urfa which is southern Turkey near the northern part of where the Euphrates River begins. This land is also call in the Bible Pandaram where Abraham sent his servant to find a wife for Isaac. There have been so many lies that have been told, it is unbelievable. The Gentiles myth is just another one!

Blessings!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gregory Matthews

A comment on the use of a word:

People often fail to distinguish between a lie and what is false.

To say that  something is false, is to say that  it is not true.  But, in saying that something is false, one is not attacking the motive of the person who said it was false.

To say that someone told a  lie, attaches a motive to the falsehood that suggests that the person telling the falsehood, both knew that it was false and also intended to deceive the person being told.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
phkrause
16 hours ago, Gustave said:

Here is another one. 

 

"In the night season messages have been given to me to give you in Battle Creek, and to all our schools... Thus Satan and his angels are laying their snares for your souls...'Be sober, be vigilant" [not in kicking football and educating yourselves in the objectionable games which ought to make every Christian blush with mortification at the afterthought] "be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour." Yes, he is on your playground watching your amusements, catching every soul that is off guard, sowing his seeds in human minds, and controlling the human intellect. For Christ's sake call a halt to the Battle Creek College, and consider the after-workings upon the heart and the character and the principles of those amusements copied after the fashion of other schools. You have been steadily progressing in the ways of the Gentiles, and not after the example of Christ. Satan is on the schoolground; he is present in every exercise in the school room. The students have had their minds deeply excited in their games, and are not in the best condition to receive instruction, the counsel, the reproof, most essential for them in this life and for the future immortal life." Fundamentals of Christian Education, pp. 220; 225.

Thanks Gustave, but that's not the one either. The one I'm thinking of has the reason's why she had issue's with Football! If it was sports in general she would've mentioned Baseball, Basketball, Hockey (which is just as bad as football), etc., but she didn't and the reason I believe is because football has done much damage to many players as has been shone in the passed number of years!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave
4 hours ago, phkrause said:

Thanks Gustave, but that's not the one either. The one I'm thinking of has the reason's why she had issue's with Football! If it was sports in general she would've mentioned Baseball, Basketball, Hockey (which is just as bad as football), etc., but she didn't and the reason I believe is because football has done much damage to many players as has been shone in the passed number of years!!

This one? 

"A view of things was presented before me in which the students were playing games of tennis and cricket. Then I was given instruction regarding the character of these amusements. They were presented to me as a species of idolatry, like the idols of the nations. There were more than visible spectators on the ground. Satan and his angels were there, making impressions upon human minds. Angels of God, who minister to those who shall be heirs of salvation, were also present, not to approve, but to disapprove." Counsels to Parents, Teachers, and Students, p. 350.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gregory Matthews
Quote

The Problem of Many Athletic Sports—Vigorous exercise the pupils must have. Few evils are more to be dreaded than indolence and aimlessness. Yet the tendency of most athletic sports is a subject of anxious thought to those who have at heart the well-being of the youth. Teachers are troubled as they consider the influence of these sports both on the student’s progress in school and on his success in afterlife. The games that occupy so much of his time are diverting the mind from study. They are not helping to prepare the youth for practical, earnest work in life. Their influence does not tend toward refinement, generosity, or real manliness. { AH 500.2}


Some of the most popular amusements, such as football and boxing, have become schools of brutality. They are developing the same characteristics as did the games of ancient Rome. The love of domination, the pride in mere brute force, the reckless disregard of life, are exerting upon the youth a power to demoralize that is appalling. { AH 500.3}
Other athletic games, though not so brutalizing, are scarcely less objectionable because of the excess to which they are carried. They stimulate the love of pleasure and excitement, thus fostering a distaste for useful labor, a disposition to shun practical duties and responsibilities. They tend to destroy a relish for life’s sober realities and its tranquil enjoyments.  (AH 500.4)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stinsonmarri
21 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

A comment on the use of a word:

People often fail to distinguish between a lie and what is false.

To say that  something is false, is to say that  it is not true.  But, in saying that something is false, one is not attacking the motive of the person who said it was false.

To say that someone told a  lie, attaches a motive to the falsehood that suggests that the person telling the falsehood, both knew that it was false and also intended to deceive the person being told.

 

Pastor: You are correct and I am truly sorry. I will like to ask all to forgive me. I do not want anyone to believe that EGW or others believed or knew certain things they stood for at the time were lies. It was very disrespectful how I presented that comment. Yes, many do not know what they were taught to believe it is not correct. I too were told many things that I once believed were true and know today it was incorrect. That doesn't make a liar and my mother always told me be careful how I used that word. Please everyone forgive me and I will address things not correct in a more humble and professional manner.

Happy Sabbath to All and be blessed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gregory Matthews

Stensonmari:  By posting what you did above, you have grown in the estimation of people reading your posts.  No one is perfect, neither you nor I.  Everyone may be wrong, to include both you and I.  You have grown in our estimation of you by posting what you said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kevin H
On 7/3/2019 at 1:56 AM, Gustave said:

I thought she was the fundamentalist? 

She was against playing football, having photographs and campaigned for people to wear odd clothing styles at the time. 

These are not the signs of being a Fundamentalist. If she was completely inflexible with a one size fits all mentality you might have an argument. But Mrs. White saw these as having dangers in some contexts but not all contexts. 

When I use Fundamentalism I am talking about the movement that started around the mid 1800s in response to modernism and seeing the Bible as purely a human book. In reaction people went to the other extreme and said that since the Bible is God's word it has to be totally perfect just as God is totally perfect. It must not have any errors of any kind, and must not have any contradictions. If any of them are found then we have to throw out the Bible. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kevin H

W. W. Prescott read one of the early books and started teaching it. When Mrs. White learned what he was teaching she asked him to come and work with her. Prescott along with A. G. Daniels and D. M. Canright were all given jobs that went against what these early fundamentalists were teaching. Prescott and Daniels basically gave up fundamentalism, Canright gave up Mrs. White and joined the most fundamentalist church there was. 

Mrs. White and Stephen Haskell had many intense talks over how inspiration worked. Haskell trying to convince Mrs. White that her visions worked and the writings produced worked one way and Mrs. White tried to convince Haskell that they did not work that way but another way. Both were frustrated that they could not convince the other, yet they remained close friends. 

Mrs. White was accused of aposticy and that she no longer believed that she was a prophet because she was teaching against what became known as Fundamentalism. 

The views of inspiration taught at the 1919 Bible conference, which got Daniels, Prescott and Willie in trouble in the 1922 General conference were what Mrs. White was teaching.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
phkrause
20 hours ago, Gustave said:

This one? 

"A view of things was presented before me in which the students were playing games of tennis and cricket. Then I was given instruction regarding the character of these amusements. They were presented to me as a species of idolatry, like the idols of the nations. There were more than visible spectators on the ground. Satan and his angels were there, making impressions upon human minds. Angels of God, who minister to those who shall be heirs of salvation, were also present, not to approve, but to disapprove." Counsels to Parents, Teachers, and Students, p. 350.

Thanks again but no! So I'm guessing that your able to get on her web-sit? For some reason I can't seem to get on!! Not sure if its this old mac, will have to wait till I get my other one back, the video went out on me, and its being fixed!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
phkrause
20 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

The Problem of Many Athletic Sports—Vigorous exercise the pupils must have. Few evils are more to be dreaded than indolence and aimlessness. Yet the tendency of most athletic sports is a subject of anxious thought to those who have at heart the well-being of the youth. Teachers are troubled as they consider the influence of these sports both on the student’s progress in school and on his success in afterlife. The games that occupy so much of his time are diverting the mind from study. They are not helping to prepare the youth for practical, earnest work in life. Their influence does not tend toward refinement, generosity, or real manliness. { AH 500.2}


Some of the most popular amusements, such as football and boxing, have become schools of brutality. They are developing the same characteristics as did the games of ancient Rome. The love of domination, the pride in mere brute force, the reckless disregard of life, are exerting upon the youth a power to demoralize that is appalling. { AH 500.3}
Other athletic games, though not so brutalizing, are scarcely less objectionable because of the excess to which they are carried. They stimulate the love of pleasure and excitement, thus fostering a distaste for useful labor, a disposition to shun practical duties and responsibilities. They tend to destroy a relish for life’s sober realities and its tranquil enjoyments.  (AH 500.4)

Those are more towards the ones I remember! Thanks GM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest

Certainly avid sports fans often seem to "worship" their favorite players.   The salaries paid to professional football players are certainly a shame. 

I was aware that Mrs White strongly frowned on any sort of competitive sports. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave
5 hours ago, Kevin H said:

These are not the signs of being a Fundamentalist. If she was completely inflexible with a one size fits all mentality you might have an argument. But Mrs. White saw these as having dangers in some contexts but not all contexts. 

When I use Fundamentalism I am talking about the movement that started around the mid 1800s in response to modernism and seeing the Bible as purely a human book. In reaction people went to the other extreme and said that since the Bible is God's word it has to be totally perfect just as God is totally perfect. It must not have any errors of any kind, and must not have any contradictions. If any of them are found then we have to throw out the Bible. 

 

We do have different definitions of the term. 

I understood 19th Century Religious Fundamentalism as Devout and strict Christians that stood and fanatically defended historic Protestant Doctrines, specifically the Trinity, full Atonement made by Christ at the ascension, etc. 

SDA's in the 19th Century rejected the Trinity and claimed the Atonement wasn't completed until 1844 from what I understand. 

Also, didn't William Miller formulate the 1st Adventist Conference to combat the ideas / teachings that were springing from the Adventists who adopted the Shut Door (who later became known as the Seventh-day Adventists)?

If Ellen classifies sports as the type of activity Gentiles engage in while affirms Adventists shouldn't what does that tell you?  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stinsonmarri
10 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Stensonmari:  By posting what you did above, you have grown in the estimation of people reading your posts.  No one is perfect, neither you nor I.  Everyone may be wrong, to include both you and I.  You have grown in our estimation of you by posting what you said.

You know Pastor, if you believe in the truth you should always stand and tell the truth when you have made a mistake. When you cannot admit your mistakes you are not capable of being heard no matter how correct it may be. We should never judge or put anyone down and we also should be very careful about how we choose our words. The wrong words which I am constantly making comments on in this forum, should be spoken correctly by me as well. The Bible says there is seems to be a right way but it is wrong and leads to sudden destruction. These are just a few Texts that reflect how we should word things that we say. Job 6:25; Psa 19:14; 64:3; Pro 7:24 When you stand for truth you also must stand when you do not use words in a correct manner. I ask all to continue to pray for me as I for you as well. Thank you for your kind words.

Blessings from your humble servant!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gregory Matthews

Gustave, has raised a very important point in his comment quoted below.

On the first point, it is true that a number early leaders in the  movement that became the SDA denomination were not Trinitarians.  James White, as an example was not.  There is debate as to actually where Ellen White was, and as to the extent to which she changed.  But, without debating some of the aspects of those issues, it can truthfully be said that in the early days of the developing SDA denomination she  was not Trinitarian and that over time her understanding developed into a Trinitarian understanding of God.  This should not be a problem to any student of SDA history.  The development of Christian faith and understanding is progressive and is not given to a person in a vision that occurs in an instant.  Rather, it comes from  on-going study of teh Bible and from an application of that Bible study to ones life.

The statement that Gustave has made below, as to a completed Atonement raises another issue that has plagued this denomination.  Classic Christianity has taught that the Atonement was completed at the cross.   Period.  Any group that appears to teach that the Atonement was not completed at the cross, immediately becomes suspect and  is generally considered to be outside of Christianity.  The SDA denomination  has been understood by many to have taught that the Atonement was not completed at the Cross.

This issue is due in part to the reality that the SDA denomination was not founded by theologians.  Rather it was founded by relatively simple Christians where were not versed in and did not understand theological terms.  To some extent, this issue is with the SDA denomination today.  I do not consider myself to be a theologian.  Further, I consider that the majority of SDA clergy are not theologians.  In reality, conversations that SDA clergy, to include myself, get into that are related to theology, often lead to limited communication and misunderstandings.

SDAs, have in the past, used the word "Atonement" as  to include the final end of things at the 2nd Advent.   IOW,  SDAs have used it to extend beyond the cross.  This has NOT meant that salvation was not completed/finished at the cross.  It has not meant that God had to do something more to effect our salvation than had been done at the cross.

I firmly believe that our salvation was effected at the cross and nothing more needed to be done to accomplish our salvation.

I differ slightly with what Gustave has stated below.  I do not understand this miscommunication to have resulted from an 1844 issue.   Rather, as I have stated it, I understand it to be related to SDA belief in the 2nd Advent.   That is how I have heard it.  I have not heard it associated with 1844.

 

SDA's in the 19th Century rejected the Trinity and claimed the Atonement wasn't completed until 1844 from what I understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GHansen
5 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Further, I consider that the majority of SDA clergy are not theologians.  In reality, conversations that SDA clergy, to include myself, get into that are related to theology, often lead to limited communication and misunderstandings.

With all due respect, Chaplain Matthews, this remark requires some scrutiny.  Most SDA clergy have a minimum of a bachelor's degree in theology and a three year masters degree in divinity. Normally, this requires the study of Biblical languages, church history, systematic theology and various other courses. While the actual quality of the training may be a matter of dispute, most would consider 5 academic years of training comprehensive. It may be true that the average pastor with that academic history is unable to discuss theology in a capable manner; that however,  is a shameful thing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gregory Matthews

I probably should have been clearer as to my intent in writing what I wrote.

The study of theology can take more than one direction.  Biblical theology can be stated as comprising the teaching of doctrines from the position of what the 'Bible teaches.  From this perspective,  SDA clergy are generally well equipped to consider and discuss.  This is due , as you stated to SDA clergy, in the U.S, generally having both a  bachelor's and a master degree, which actually give a background of 6 or 7 years of training, as the Master of Divinity requires at least two years of schooling.  Yes, there will be exceptions as some SDA clergy will lack that background.  

When I wrote that the majority of SDA clergy are not theologians, I was thinking of the field of historical theology.  The standard SDA educational program for SDA clergy has little involvement with the development of Christin doctrine over the years.  In actual fact, Gustave who is a member of this forum, probably has more training in historical theology than does the typical SDA clergyperson.  That was my intended focus which I continue to hold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest

Statements using the word "three" in reference to the "Godhead" did not appear in Mrs White's published writings until 1896 - 52 years after her "first vision" of 1844.  It is difficult for me to believe the LORD would not have "shown" His "messenger" the trifold personage of God before 52 years went by - considering the majority of Christendom had been worshiping God as a trinity for over a thousand years. 

Would the LORD have allowed early church leaders to preach and teach that the Trinity is a "pagan doctrine" carried on by the Papacy, if this was a grave error? 

I spent 4 years - from 1992 to 1996, searching out hundreds of statements written by Mrs White on the nature of Christ, of the Holy Spirit, and of God.  What I found convinced me that Mrs White's view was indeed changed concerning the nature of God, but not until she was in her 70s.  If someone has an earlier statement, please do share it. 

I also discovered that the RH publishers changed the "it", written by Mrs White in reference to the Holy Spirit, to "He" when republishing many of her earlier writings.  How is it acceptable to change the writings of the LORD's messenger?

I personally do not look to Ellen White for inspired Biblical interpretation.  I read her writings as I would any other commentary. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest

To put "theologians" with "advanced" degrees, into a special class above the rest of "folks" (who study their Bibles avidly), is to set them up as the only interpreters of Scripture.  

We have all seen how the public schools have indoctrinated young students with evolution.  The same can be said of the indoctrination of theology students.   The pressure to conform to the doctrines approved by the particular institution of higher learning, will strongly influence the view adopted (or at least espoused) by the one seeking the higher degree, and seeking a position within the institution's wider system - whether educational or ecclesiastical. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gregory Matthews

NOTE:  The teaching of the SDA Church is that the written materials of the EGW writings were NOT dictated  by God.

It should be noted that both EGW and later editors have changed the wording of what EGW wrote.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave
12 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Statements using the word "three" in reference to the "Godhead" did not appear in Mrs White's published writings until 1896 - 52 years after her "first vision" of 1844.  It is difficult for me to believe the LORD would not have "shown" His "messenger" the trifold personage of God before 52 years went by - considering the majority of Christendom had been worshiping God as a trinity for over a thousand years. 

Would the LORD have allowed early church leaders to preach and teach that the Trinity is a "pagan doctrine" carried on by the Papacy, if this was a grave error? 

I spent 4 years - from 1992 to 1996, searching out hundreds of statements written by Mrs White on the nature of Christ, of the Holy Spirit, and of God.  What I found convinced me that Mrs White's view was indeed changed concerning the nature of God, but not until she was in her 70s.  If someone has an earlier statement, please do share it. 

I also discovered that the RH publishers changed the "it", written by Mrs White in reference to the Holy Spirit, to "He" when republishing many of her earlier writings.  How is it acceptable to change the writings of the LORD's messenger?

I personally do not look to Ellen White for inspired Biblical interpretation.  I read her writings as I would any other commentary. 

 

Like you, I spent a significant amount of time looking into the Trinity question as it pertained to Ellen White and came to a different conclusion than you did about her evolution to Trinitarianism.

Consider the Case of Elder D.M. Canright who was decidedly Anti-Trinitarian and a contemporary of Ellen White.

On August 28, 1878 a lengthy article lambasting the Trinity Doctrine appeared in the Review and Sabbath Herald Church Paper. The article was attributed to Elder D.M. Canright and included many statements representative of the following few I'll quote.

"But Trinitarians contradict this by saying that the Son and the Holy Ghost are as much the true God as the Father is."

"nothing can be framed which more clearly denies the doctrine of the Trinity"

"God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, all of them of one substance and every way equal to each other and all three forming but one contradicts itself, contradicts reason, and contradicts the Bible. Anyone who is at all familiar with the teachings of the Trinitarians will readily see WE at all misrepresent them in the following statements."

These affirmations are not a surprise to Seventh-day Adventists as it is generally acknowledged by SDA Scholars that the SDA Church was unapologetically Anti-Trinitarian for many years after it's formation. What I've found that generally surprises folks is alerting them to the fact that D.M. Canright DIDN'T produce this article in a vacuum - Canright was assisted in the articles creation.

 

Would you be willing to guess who the below quote is attributed to?

"here, we have, after prayer and careful deliberation, decided VERY IMPORTANT MATTERS PERTAINING TO THE CAUSE. And here to, we have assisted him [D.M. Canright] in the revision of his VERY VALUABLE WORK entitled "The Bible from Heaven" AND his articles on the personality of God, the Divinity of Christ...…"  Review and Sabbath Herald August 22, 1878

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave
17 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

I probably should have been clearer as to my intent in writing what I wrote.

The study of theology can take more than one direction.  Biblical theology can be stated as comprising the teaching of doctrines from the position of what the 'Bible teaches.  From this perspective,  SDA clergy are generally well equipped to consider and discuss.  This is due , as you stated to SDA clergy, in the U.S, generally having both a  bachelor's and a master degree, which actually give a background of 6 or 7 years of training, as the Master of Divinity requires at least two years of schooling.  Yes, there will be exceptions as some SDA clergy will lack that background.  

When I wrote that the majority of SDA clergy are not theologians, I was thinking of the field of historical theology.  The standard SDA educational program for SDA clergy has little involvement with the development of Christin doctrine over the years.  In actual fact, Gustave who is a member of this forum, probably has more training in historical theology than does the typical SDA clergyperson.  That was my intended focus which I continue to hold.

I appreciate the vote of confidence but I'm probably just average. 

( I think ) Catechesis makes it easier as the historic Creeds systematize Sacred Scripture in a way that makes Scripture study less daunting and more recallable from memory. But that's just my take on it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gregory Matthews


Fundamentalism:    As I have read the various posts on fundamentalism,  I have had to refresh my understanding of the meaning of the word.  I have always understood that it  had a range of meanings.  However, in my personal understanding I have most often associated it with Darby, The Fundamentals, and the 1920s or so.

In reviewing the various meanings of the word, I have been drawn back to its origin and what is associated with it outside of the more   narrow view that I have most often associated with it.

This has been good for me.

Now having said that, in our discussion with Gustave, as to his application of that word to Ellen White, we should seek to understand how he has used it and not assume that he is using it in exactly the same manner that we might use it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave

I grew up in the country and back when everyone rode the "bus" to school I got to know (and become friends with) a guy who lived about a mile away. This guy's Family was Fundamentalist Baptist. This guy was always nice to everyone and his Family was very nice to me but when I say there were HARD CORE they were past what you're thinking. 'Little House On the Prairie', Walton's Mountain and God forbid Star Trek or CHIPS - these shows and frankly everything except maybe, sometimes, Walter Cronkite were not allowed on the T.V.

They were HUGE advocates on the Trinity, Salvation by Faith Alone and the Bible ONLY - the way they explained it to me was they were militant about the FUNDAMENTALS of their Church, which accepted, I think the Council of Nicaea. They rejected the mainline Baptists and only believed in Local Church Government. 

My point is that there was no problem with football, cricket, tennis or anything like that. I've known militantly strict Christian Reformed Christians, Lutherans and Catholics and none that I'm aware forbid common sports. I'm saying that Adventism was radically different and the fundamentalism was unique to that culture which forbid tennis, oysters and so on. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
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.

Sign in to follow this  

If you find some value to this community, please help out with a few dollars per month.



×
×
  • Create New...