Posted By: Daryl
Historic SDA? - 06/14/06 01:54 AM
Historic SDA?
What do you mean by historic SDA?
What do you mean by historic SDA?
Historic SDA?
Posted By: Tom
Re: Historic SDA? - 06/14/06 02:09 AM
Anyone with a rudimenatary familiarity with SDAism should know that we believe that the SDA church has been given a message, which is to prepare the world for the coming of Christ; that many from different faiths will here the message and respond; that the majority will not be SDA's. The strongest opponents will be ex-SDA's.
I don't think I wrote anything which should give the idea I believe anything different than this.
=====
Topic name change only. - Daryl
I don't think I wrote anything which should give the idea I believe anything different than this.
=====
Topic name change only. - Daryl
Posted By: Tom
Re: Historic SDA? - 06/14/06 02:09 AM
Daryl, you know Larry Kilpatric, right? He's an example of an historic SDA. http://www.greatcontroversy.org/ has tons of stuff to look at, if you're interested in knowing more.
=====
Topic name change only. - Daryl
=====
Topic name change only. - Daryl
Posted By: vastergotland
Re: Historic SDA? - 06/14/06 02:20 AM
Historic SDA, the way Ive been told it, it is a fringe SDA group who wish they had lived between 1844 and 1850... more or less...
/Thomas
=====
Topic name change only. - Daryl
/Thomas
=====
Topic name change only. - Daryl
Posted By: Tom
Re: Historic SDA? - 06/14/06 04:46 PM
Historic SDA's are Adventists who hold to certain positions which they believe are the traditional positions of the SDA church, such as:
1.The human nature of Christ
2.Christ's work in the Most Holy Place
They emphasize the last generation being prepared to meet Christ by having developed a perfect character.
Saying they are on the "fringe" is vague, as "fringe" is usually taken to mean on the periphery or on the outskirts, and historic Adventists tend to be in the center of the churches they belong to, often in leadership positions. If "fringe" is taken to mean holding marginal or extreme views, as viewed by the majority, that would be more accurate, but it is still rather a pejorative term IMO.
=====
Topic name change only. - Daryl
1.The human nature of Christ
2.Christ's work in the Most Holy Place
They emphasize the last generation being prepared to meet Christ by having developed a perfect character.
Saying they are on the "fringe" is vague, as "fringe" is usually taken to mean on the periphery or on the outskirts, and historic Adventists tend to be in the center of the churches they belong to, often in leadership positions. If "fringe" is taken to mean holding marginal or extreme views, as viewed by the majority, that would be more accurate, but it is still rather a pejorative term IMO.
=====
Topic name change only. - Daryl
Posted By: vastergotland
Re: Historic SDA? - 06/14/06 06:26 PM
Some who have identified themselves as Historic SDAs that Ive seen online have told me that they have churches compleately separated from the GC organisation. Someone even told me that when they have communion, it is closed, even to people baptised in regular SDA churches. If that isnt a fringe movement, I dont know what is.
/Thomas
=====
Topic name change only. - Daryl
/Thomas
=====
Topic name change only. - Daryl
Posted By: Charity
Re: Historic SDA? - 06/15/06 03:44 AM
I'm a historic SDA Tom, Thomas. Pastor Larry and I are pretty close on most things. I identify closely with the pioneers of Adventism as he also does. I'm a historic Jew too and I also identify closely with the ancient church in every age. But lets try to keep this on topic.
=====
Topic name change only, which now places this topic on topic as a new topic. - Daryl
=====
Topic name change only, which now places this topic on topic as a new topic. - Daryl
Posted By: Daryl
Re: Historic SDA? - 06/15/06 04:29 AM
As it was off topic from the Apostleship topic, I decided to break this off of that topic as a new topic, therefore, let this topic continue.
Posted By: Daryl
Re: Historic SDA? - 06/15/06 04:31 AM
So, are some of you, therefore, saying that the SDA Church is broken down into more than one element with one of them being the historic SDA element within the SDA Church itself?
Posted By: Tom
Re: Historic SDA? - 06/15/06 08:57 AM
Mark, historic Adventism takes the post-lapsarian position. It's also stronly Arminianistic. Your theology doesn't seem to fit either of these descriptions. I doubt you could find even one pioneer who shares your views on these issues.
I find it interesting that you feel you are in agreement with Larry on most things. I wonder if he would agree with your assessment. (I guess it depends on what you have in mind by "most things". In a sense, all SDA's agree on "most things.") Do you agree with his take on Last Generation Theology?
Thomas, there are those who claim the title "historic Adventist" which can mean anything, just like people can claim to believe the 1888 message, without any idea of what it actually says. So I agree with you on your point. I was using the term as the historic Adventists use it; that is, the ones who coined the term. The group that first comes up with the name gets to decide what it means.
I find it interesting that you feel you are in agreement with Larry on most things. I wonder if he would agree with your assessment. (I guess it depends on what you have in mind by "most things". In a sense, all SDA's agree on "most things.") Do you agree with his take on Last Generation Theology?
Thomas, there are those who claim the title "historic Adventist" which can mean anything, just like people can claim to believe the 1888 message, without any idea of what it actually says. So I agree with you on your point. I was using the term as the historic Adventists use it; that is, the ones who coined the term. The group that first comes up with the name gets to decide what it means.
Posted By: asygo
Re: Historic SDA? - 06/21/06 08:02 AM
FYI, if I remember correctly, Pastor Larry Kirkpatrick does not claim the "historic" label, though he holds many similar positions.
Like Bro Mark, I am in close agreement with Pastor K on most things. Our main differences are in the closely related topics of the nature of Christ, nature of sin, and nature of man.
However, I think our differences are mostly semantics. So far, when we discuss things in enough depth to understand each other's terminology, we find ourselves in agreement.
As for the "historic SDA" label, I think Bro Tom is correct in defining it as those who hold to our traditional positions. But I don't think it's necessarily the correct positions. Remember, the opposition to Jones and Waggoner in 1888 were also defending "traditional" positions.
Like Bro Mark, I am in close agreement with Pastor K on most things. Our main differences are in the closely related topics of the nature of Christ, nature of sin, and nature of man.
However, I think our differences are mostly semantics. So far, when we discuss things in enough depth to understand each other's terminology, we find ourselves in agreement.
As for the "historic SDA" label, I think Bro Tom is correct in defining it as those who hold to our traditional positions. But I don't think it's necessarily the correct positions. Remember, the opposition to Jones and Waggoner in 1888 were also defending "traditional" positions.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Historic SDA? - 06/21/06 04:26 PM
I agree Arnold with your points (mostly).
To give a specific example, Waggoner presented a position on the Covenants which Ellen White endorsed as "truth" and "clear as sunlight" on more than one occasion, but the position of the ones opposing his view has been the one that has remained with the church.
This is just one example among many. Pretty much, Jones and Waggoner didn't make any dent into our thinking, so your point is well taken.
I think the bottom line for the historic position is what LK terms "last generation theology." If one holds to the positions he's presenting on this, I think it would be fair to consider yourself an historic Adventist. Conversely, if one doesn't hold to it this position, one would be hard pressed to consider one an historic Adventist.
To give a specific example, Waggoner presented a position on the Covenants which Ellen White endorsed as "truth" and "clear as sunlight" on more than one occasion, but the position of the ones opposing his view has been the one that has remained with the church.
This is just one example among many. Pretty much, Jones and Waggoner didn't make any dent into our thinking, so your point is well taken.
I think the bottom line for the historic position is what LK terms "last generation theology." If one holds to the positions he's presenting on this, I think it would be fair to consider yourself an historic Adventist. Conversely, if one doesn't hold to it this position, one would be hard pressed to consider one an historic Adventist.
Posted By: Larry Kirkpatrick
Re: Historic SDA? - 06/22/06 12:45 AM
Have been very busy, so haven't been able to MSDAOL for awhile. As for "Historic Adventist," (HA) I am leary of the label;too many separationists use it. On the other hand, the dedicated Adventist young adults who compose the bulk of the Youth Conference movement use the term but rarely, if at all. Meanwhile, the term "LGT" (Last Generation Theology) is in common use today among the same.
I see the term LGT as saying much the same thing as "Historic Adventist" but updated. HA is associated in some minds with a negative view of the church, or with separationism, that LGT does not have. LGT believers would agree with most of the theology of HA, but differ with what has sometimes been seen as the bad attitude among HA. We see that there are dramatic problems in the organized church, but we are working around them and for reform, and believe that God has a hold on "the shaking." We do not have to shake the church for Him; we just have to labor in His lines and be faithful.
It should give some pause to realize that their attitudes have so tainted a term (like HA) that others do not want to be identified with it. I am not in any way trying to lay anything on Tom E or anyone else on this, but just pointing out why I find the term unhelpful. Basically, it is too associated with negativity for me.
Others have used the term "Last Generation Theology" as a pejorative, but I do not mind embracing it, since such use is based on but little more than someone's own bad attitude. LGT is a positive way of looking at things, as I have found and as many SDA young adults are finding. Powerful things are afoot, and they are happening inside the church. Sometimes, in spite of the church, but still within the church. God has His hand on the wheel!
So, if someone wants to identify my position more specifically than as SDA, it can be said that I am an LGT SDA. But You will not find me using the term HA. I think there was a more transitional time when HA was a valid label, and many faithful persomns used it. But today is a different day, and LGT stands for a similar but different outlook, especially with reference to negativity and positivity.
My two cents. LK
I see the term LGT as saying much the same thing as "Historic Adventist" but updated. HA is associated in some minds with a negative view of the church, or with separationism, that LGT does not have. LGT believers would agree with most of the theology of HA, but differ with what has sometimes been seen as the bad attitude among HA. We see that there are dramatic problems in the organized church, but we are working around them and for reform, and believe that God has a hold on "the shaking." We do not have to shake the church for Him; we just have to labor in His lines and be faithful.
It should give some pause to realize that their attitudes have so tainted a term (like HA) that others do not want to be identified with it. I am not in any way trying to lay anything on Tom E or anyone else on this, but just pointing out why I find the term unhelpful. Basically, it is too associated with negativity for me.
Others have used the term "Last Generation Theology" as a pejorative, but I do not mind embracing it, since such use is based on but little more than someone's own bad attitude. LGT is a positive way of looking at things, as I have found and as many SDA young adults are finding. Powerful things are afoot, and they are happening inside the church. Sometimes, in spite of the church, but still within the church. God has His hand on the wheel!
So, if someone wants to identify my position more specifically than as SDA, it can be said that I am an LGT SDA. But You will not find me using the term HA. I think there was a more transitional time when HA was a valid label, and many faithful persomns used it. But today is a different day, and LGT stands for a similar but different outlook, especially with reference to negativity and positivity.
My two cents. LK
Posted By: Daryl
Re: Historic SDA? - 06/23/06 03:06 AM
To keep this topic on track, I moved the last post from this topic and created a new topic on LGT out of it, as the whole post pertained to it, therefore, let the LGT be discussed there rather than here unless it is posted in comparison to this topic, as Pastor Larry's post was.
Posted By: bethybug
Re: Historic SDA? - 06/29/06 07:35 PM
My understanding of historic SDAs (knew nothing of them until recently and do not know much) is that they feel they must leave the organized conference SDA church due to changes that have come about over the years. These are beliefs that differ from what the early SDA pioneers believed. These are the specific things I have been told are THE reasons for formally leaving the organized church and becoming a Historic SDA.
Historic SDA's do not believe in the relatively new doctrine of the Trinity. They do not believe that Jesus is
Almighty God. They believe Jesus is Deity but is the Son of God. They believe that the Holy Spirit is God's spirit is not God. They believe that Ellen White's writings have been tampered with and have many changes in the newer books. Therefore they compare at great length and only subscribe to teachings in the early books that were printed when she was alive. They do not agree with the celebration style worship of many SDA churches today. They do not agree with the conference sending representatives to the WCC and forming unions with churches who do not obey the 10 commandments. They do believe in spreading the third angels message with a loud voice right now whether it offends people or not. They do not agree with any man or organization making decisions for them instead of God. That is my understanding of what they believe. If this is incorrect I am open to learning more.
Historic SDA's do not believe in the relatively new doctrine of the Trinity. They do not believe that Jesus is
Almighty God. They believe Jesus is Deity but is the Son of God. They believe that the Holy Spirit is God's spirit is not God. They believe that Ellen White's writings have been tampered with and have many changes in the newer books. Therefore they compare at great length and only subscribe to teachings in the early books that were printed when she was alive. They do not agree with the celebration style worship of many SDA churches today. They do not agree with the conference sending representatives to the WCC and forming unions with churches who do not obey the 10 commandments. They do believe in spreading the third angels message with a loud voice right now whether it offends people or not. They do not agree with any man or organization making decisions for them instead of God. That is my understanding of what they believe. If this is incorrect I am open to learning more.
Posted By: asygo
Re: Historic SDA? - 06/29/06 08:28 PM
That sounds about right, in general. Since "Historic SDA" is not an organized group, there is no set of beliefs that everyone adheres to.
Historic SDA is basically a label taken by those who strive to uphold the "historic" beliefs of the SDA church. As far as I can tell, each individual decides for himself how far back into history he wants to go, as there are several points in our history to choose from (1844, 1850's, 1888, 1901, 1915, etc.). It is not uncommon to find one who believes as U. Smith did re: the Holy Spirit, but disagree with him re: 1888.
Historic SDA is basically a label taken by those who strive to uphold the "historic" beliefs of the SDA church. As far as I can tell, each individual decides for himself how far back into history he wants to go, as there are several points in our history to choose from (1844, 1850's, 1888, 1901, 1915, etc.). It is not uncommon to find one who believes as U. Smith did re: the Holy Spirit, but disagree with him re: 1888.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Historic SDA? - 06/29/06 09:16 PM
The ideas about the Holy Spirit and the divinity of Christ would be a newer version of historic adventism. The original form were groups like the Firm Foundation, which hold to the views that the Holy Spirit is God and Christ is God. The other parts would fit. They would emphasize Christ's having taken our fallen nature, and the need for character perfection in order to meet Christ when He returns.
Posted By: asygo
Re: Historic SDA? - 06/30/06 01:24 AM
Quote:
The ideas about the Holy Spirit and the divinity of Christ would be a newer version of historic adventism.
Newer perhaps, but holding on to an older, more "historic" belief. Whenever I see one use past belief to support any point of doctrine, I wonder if/when the old Shut Door will be revived.
Some people go farther back, choosing to believe that the Messiah will set up an earthly kingdom. After all, the disciples believed that.
The way I see it, error is error, no matter how old, or how often repeated. Therefore, past belief, in and of itself, is not a valid point in support of doctrine.
Posted By: Daryl
Re: Historic SDA? - 06/30/06 02:00 AM
We also need to remember that the SDA church emerged from the Millerite movement. And William Miller was in error as to what would happen in 1844.
Posted By: asygo
Re: Historic SDA? - 06/30/06 08:28 AM
No matter how we romanticize our history, we must face the fact that we have much to learn and much to unlearn. One thing is as true today as it has always been: There is truth to gain and error to forsake. So, rather than accepting/rejecting a point of doctrine based on who did or did not believe it historically, we should use the unerring standard - the Law and the Testimony. Then, we wouldn't have to worry about historic/contemporary, conservative/liberal, etc. Everything will boil down to truth vs error.
Posted By: Claudia Thompson
Re: Historic SDA? - 06/30/06 09:20 AM
My idea of what a Historic Adventist is...
Basically they stick to the "Old Landmarks" of what we used to believe back in the days of Ellen White...
1. The definition of sin is the transgression of the Law and we must still keep the Ten Commandments.
2. The Spirit of Prophecy (the writings of Ellen White) are
3. The Sanctuary doctrine and the Judgment of 1844 is correct.
4. Jesus is God.
5. Dressing conservatively
6. Following the counsels on Diet given by EG White
7. Shunning the Celebration Movement and instead having conservative church services
8. Not using Neuro Linguistic Programming
9. That Jesus had the human nature yet overcame all sin
To me that is what they basically stand for.
Basically they stick to the "Old Landmarks" of what we used to believe back in the days of Ellen White...
1. The definition of sin is the transgression of the Law and we must still keep the Ten Commandments.
2. The Spirit of Prophecy (the writings of Ellen White) are
3. The Sanctuary doctrine and the Judgment of 1844 is correct.
4. Jesus is God.
5. Dressing conservatively
6. Following the counsels on Diet given by EG White
7. Shunning the Celebration Movement and instead having conservative church services
8. Not using Neuro Linguistic Programming
9. That Jesus had the human nature yet overcame all sin
To me that is what they basically stand for.
Posted By: Claudia Thompson
Re: Historic SDA? - 06/30/06 09:25 AM
Daryl,
I can't find the place to click on to modify your profile, could you please show me where that's at?
I can't find the place to click on to modify your profile, could you please show me where that's at?
Posted By: Tom
Re: Historic SDA? - 06/30/06 10:14 AM
That list made me laugh (because of 8). It seems pretty accurate to me. I'd also mention an emphasis on character perfection, to be ready for Christ's coming, and an understanding of sin which is behavioralistic.
Posted By: bethybug
Re: Historic SDA? - 07/01/06 05:25 AM
SM1p201 "As a people, we are to stand firm on the platform of
eternal truth that has withstood test and trial. We are to hold to the sure pillars of our faith...The lapse of time has not lessened their value."
SM1p206 "Many of our people do not realize how firmly the
foundation of our faith has been laid."
SM1p207 "I was in thie condition of mind until all the principal points of our faith were made clear to our minds,
in harmony with the Word of God."
Jer. 18:15 "Because my people hath forgotten me, they have
burned incense to vanity, and they have caused them to
stumble from the ancient paths, to walk in paths, in a
way not cast up."
Jer. 6:16 "Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therin, and ye shall find rest for your souls."
Job 24:2 "Some remove the landmarks; they violently take away flocks, and feed thereof."
Proverbs 23:10 "Remove not the old landmark."
eternal truth that has withstood test and trial. We are to hold to the sure pillars of our faith...The lapse of time has not lessened their value."
SM1p206 "Many of our people do not realize how firmly the
foundation of our faith has been laid."
SM1p207 "I was in thie condition of mind until all the principal points of our faith were made clear to our minds,
in harmony with the Word of God."
Jer. 18:15 "Because my people hath forgotten me, they have
burned incense to vanity, and they have caused them to
stumble from the ancient paths, to walk in paths, in a
way not cast up."
Jer. 6:16 "Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therin, and ye shall find rest for your souls."
Job 24:2 "Some remove the landmarks; they violently take away flocks, and feed thereof."
Proverbs 23:10 "Remove not the old landmark."
Posted By: asygo
Re: Historic SDA? - 07/02/06 06:23 AM
Here is the opening post of the Pillars/Landmarks thread I started a couple of months ago.
There are "Historic SDA" pillars that are not on this list (e.g. dress/diet reform, nature of Christ, etc.). I'm not saying these are not important, but I get the impression that some Historics have elevated them above where inspiration places them.
But it could very well be true that I just don't know of other lists in inspiration. If there are other pillars not on this list, I'd like to discuss them in the Pillars/Landmarks thread. Thanks.
Quote:Quote:
The passing of the time in 1844 was a period of great events, opening to our astonished eyes the cleansing of the sanctuary transpiring in heaven, and having decided relation to God's people upon the earth, [also] the first and second angels' messages and the third, unfurling the banner on which was inscribed, "The commandments of God and the faith of Jesus." One of the landmarks under this message was the temple of God, seen by His truth-loving people in heaven, and the ark containing the law of God. The light of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment flashed its strong rays in the pathway of the transgressors of God's law. The nonimmortality of the wicked is an old landmark. I can call to mind nothing more that can come under the head of the old landmarks. All this cry about changing the old landmarks is all imaginary. {1888 518.2}
I see here a very short list of landmarks:
- cleansing of the sanctuary
- three angels' messages
- commandments of God
- faith of Jesus
- temple of God in heaven
- Sabbath
- nonimmortality of the wicked
Is there anything else, based on inspired sources, that can be added to this list?
There are "Historic SDA" pillars that are not on this list (e.g. dress/diet reform, nature of Christ, etc.). I'm not saying these are not important, but I get the impression that some Historics have elevated them above where inspiration places them.
But it could very well be true that I just don't know of other lists in inspiration. If there are other pillars not on this list, I'd like to discuss them in the Pillars/Landmarks thread. Thanks.
Posted By: bethybug
Re: Historic SDA? - 07/02/06 05:35 PM
I have never seen this quote before. What is it from? I will check out that thread. That is a very good thought. Thankyou
Posted By: asygo
Re: Historic SDA? - 07/02/06 08:04 PM
It can be found in CW 30.2, LDE 44.4, 1888 518.2, 3BIO 404.1. I'm guessing the 1888 reference is the original.
Posted By: the1888message
Re: Historic SDA? - 07/03/06 01:27 AM
What is an Historic Seventh day Adventist?
Well they hold to the foundation of the Church when it was still the Philly church and what the founders taught.
They hold to the 1872 Fundamental Prinicples (Please do not confuse these with what is taught today.
They do not believe in the "trinity"! (this came into the church around 1955 or so)( read ministry Mag Oct 1993, the Church claims the founders could not be SDA's today because of this belief, #2,4,and5)
State of the dead
The second coming of Christ
The three angels message ( it is not watered done as it is today)
Christ is the "Son of God" and is part of the Godhead
They are not part of the world, although we live here
They do not join hands with the other domination's (as is done today)
They will not grasp the hands of spiritualism. (pagan, papal Rome, as is being done today)
They did and will not join with the government (as is done today)
They have and read the old writings
They use the KJV (and not a modern perversion)
They do not hypnotize their flock (as is done today, It happened to me)
They teach the straight truth and do not use "Greek" philosophy
They know the prophecies and do not change them
They believe that there is "new"light and that this "new" light will not change the old light in anyway.
They have one over them and that is Christ and not a form of government that is a mirror image of the Papacy, don't believe me? Check out some of the court documents, it is their words not mine)
They do not sue their brothers
They know what brotherly love is
They are not Laodicean which is about to be "vomited out" (Read R&H vol 1 page 19 middle column)
They are not the 5 foolish virgins (read R&H vol 2 page 419 first full paragraph first column)
We do not believe that the healing of the first beast of Revelation happened in 1927 or 1929 but instead we know it truly happened on March 14, 1800, as was taught by men like U. Smith (pre- 1880's) and S. N. Haskell and others.
If they are true Historic SDA's they do not keep feast days either, for this was not taught.
There is much more but I will end with this,
The Historic SDA's have not left the church that was founded. However, it is a fact that the modern domination has left what the church had all those years ago and in fact they have joined the world and join the governments of this world and they are no longer separate unto God, They are LAODICEAN and they left the Philly church.
Read R&H Vol 3 page 537 "Our Words"
I am A Historic SDA and I preach and teach in a Conference SDA church
David Roush
Well they hold to the foundation of the Church when it was still the Philly church and what the founders taught.
They hold to the 1872 Fundamental Prinicples (Please do not confuse these with what is taught today.
They do not believe in the "trinity"! (this came into the church around 1955 or so)( read ministry Mag Oct 1993, the Church claims the founders could not be SDA's today because of this belief, #2,4,and5)
State of the dead
The second coming of Christ
The three angels message ( it is not watered done as it is today)
Christ is the "Son of God" and is part of the Godhead
They are not part of the world, although we live here
They do not join hands with the other domination's (as is done today)
They will not grasp the hands of spiritualism. (pagan, papal Rome, as is being done today)
They did and will not join with the government (as is done today)
They have and read the old writings
They use the KJV (and not a modern perversion)
They do not hypnotize their flock (as is done today, It happened to me)
They teach the straight truth and do not use "Greek" philosophy
They know the prophecies and do not change them
They believe that there is "new"light and that this "new" light will not change the old light in anyway.
They have one over them and that is Christ and not a form of government that is a mirror image of the Papacy, don't believe me? Check out some of the court documents, it is their words not mine)
They do not sue their brothers
They know what brotherly love is
They are not Laodicean which is about to be "vomited out" (Read R&H vol 1 page 19 middle column)
They are not the 5 foolish virgins (read R&H vol 2 page 419 first full paragraph first column)
We do not believe that the healing of the first beast of Revelation happened in 1927 or 1929 but instead we know it truly happened on March 14, 1800, as was taught by men like U. Smith (pre- 1880's) and S. N. Haskell and others.
If they are true Historic SDA's they do not keep feast days either, for this was not taught.
There is much more but I will end with this,
The Historic SDA's have not left the church that was founded. However, it is a fact that the modern domination has left what the church had all those years ago and in fact they have joined the world and join the governments of this world and they are no longer separate unto God, They are LAODICEAN and they left the Philly church.
Read R&H Vol 3 page 537 "Our Words"
I am A Historic SDA and I preach and teach in a Conference SDA church
David Roush
Posted By: bethybug
Re: Historic SDA? - 07/04/06 08:49 PM
If these are your beliefs and this is what you preach and teach in the conference church....either no one is listening or I would say you will not be there long...OR maybe you will start a revival! I would be interested to hear what happens. What will you do if the conference should ask you not to teach these things?
Posted By: Redfog
Re: Historic SDA? - 07/05/06 03:10 AM
David I'm just curious, you preach and teach in a conference SDA church and yet in your profile you state you are not a member. How did that come about? I'm just asking and if you don't feel comfortable answering I understand.
Redfog
Redfog
Posted By: the1888message
Re: Historic SDA? - 07/05/06 04:17 AM
Quote:
David I'm just curious, you preach and teach in a conference SDA church and yet in your profile you state you are not a member. How did that come about? I'm just asking and if you don't feel comfortable answering I understand.
Redfog
It is fine to be curious and I have no problem answering your questions.
I am not a member any longer, for many reasons. I have not left the foundations that this church was founded on. I hold to the founder’s teachings and the KJV as the compass.
How did I come about preaching and teaching? Well, God moved my family and I some 1600 miles to our new place. I was visiting the local SDA church and after 2 Sabbaths they invited me to enter their pulpit and to preach. God has opened some doors.
I have another lady from another local SDA church (understand that 30-50 miles is local) that wasn’t to get Bible Studies started for a mid week service also and has asked me to be the teacher.
God is Great
I have a question, out of what I posted this is all that caught your attention?
Peace and Grace
David
Posted By: the1888message
Re: Historic SDA? - 07/05/06 04:19 AM
Quote:
If these are your beliefs and this is what you preach and teach in the conference church....either no one is listening or I would say you will not be there long...OR maybe you will start a revival! I would be interested to hear what happens. What will you do if the conference should ask you not to teach these things?
Well to answer your questions; these are my beliefs along with the true Sanctuary message the founders taught, and some others that they taught.
1) Will I be preaching in the SDA church for long? I do not know how much longer? I am a quest speaker and they have also asked me to teach the Sabbath School Lesson. I have another local church wanting mid-week studies, which will begin this week.
2) If they stop me, well that is in God’s hands not mine.
3) Will I stop teaching the old ways? Not until I am dead. And we know that time is not to far off. Remember that persecution will come from within the church first, or at least that is how it has happened in history and in the writings of the founders confirm this.
4) Revival???? “Are we hoping to see the whole church revived? That time will never come.” R&H March 23, 1887. Remember, that the church is Laodicean and not the Philly church. Christ is knocking at the heart of the people and not on the doors of the church.
5) People are putting down these modern catholic perversions that are called bibles and turning to the KJV for the truth. They are waking up and learning the old ways and they are saying that it has been years since they have been fed like this. They want the straight truth instead of the watered down things they have been being taught.
6) If they ask me to stop I will not, for this is why God sent me here. What can they do to me? Hire some more Catholic lawyers and sue me using tithe money as they have done former SDA pastors? I will continue.
“The world must not be introduced into the church and married to the church, forming a band of unity. Through this means the church will become corrupt, and, as stated in Revelation, “a Cage of every unclean and hateful bird””.Test. to Min. and Workers, pg 265, written on the steamer “Almeda” on the broad ocean, Nov 17, 1891
Peach and Grace
David
Posted By: Redfog
Re: Historic SDA? - 07/05/06 05:56 AM
No that was not the only thing that I saw in what you wrote but I was just curious about a former member being invited to preach in a SDA church.
I don't know very much about historic Adventists and tend to lend my support to the official church, even though there is no doubt it has many faults. Ultimately our Salvation does not depend on belonging to any particular church but is dependant on our having a relationship with the Creator. There will be people of all denominations (and none at all) that inhabit the New Earth.
Redfog
I don't know very much about historic Adventists and tend to lend my support to the official church, even though there is no doubt it has many faults. Ultimately our Salvation does not depend on belonging to any particular church but is dependant on our having a relationship with the Creator. There will be people of all denominations (and none at all) that inhabit the New Earth.
Redfog
Posted By: the1888message
Re: Historic SDA? - 07/05/06 12:48 PM
Quote:
No that was not the only thing that I saw in what you wrote but I was just curious about a former member being invited to preach in a SDA church.
I don't know very much about historic Adventists and tend to lend my support to the official church, even though there is no doubt it has many faults. Ultimately our Salvation does not depend on belonging to any particular church but is dependant on our having a relationship with the Creator. There will be people of all denominations (and none at all) that inhabit the New Earth.
Redfog
You are correct there are going to be many people who will be in heaven and not be SDA’s.
But no matter where you attend church or denomination should you not make sure that what it stands for is correct? One should never just follow blindly. I did for many years until I started searching for truth.
It is interesting that there are two different sets of beliefs, why? What changed and why did it change?
Peace and Grace
David
Posted By: asygo
Re: Historic SDA? - 07/06/06 03:38 AM
Bro David,
I have some questions for clarification.
First off, it looks like your list has many more points than the list of Pillars/Landmarks that EGW made. Is your list prescriptive (defining a set of beliefs that one must have in order to be "Historic") or descriptive (listing a set of beliefs that many Historics have in common, though some might not)?
Do they believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are fully equal in authority?
Do they believe that there was ever a time that either Jesus or the Holy Spirit did not exist?
Do they believe that the Holy Spirit is a distinct individual/person from the Father and Son, having His own life independent of Theirs?
How is today's different from the historic message?
How do you define "join" in that statement?
Does that leave EGW out, as she sometimes used the RSV (which, aside from the accuracy of the translation, touches upon the integrity of the manuscripts)?
In a nutshell, what's the difference between "straight" and "Greek"?
Was there ever a time in Adventism when there was no error to discard?
Is there a mechanism to show when "old light" must be discarded as "old error" in favor of new truth?
How does this impact the rest of our prophetic understanding?
In what way does this point of doctrine affect our ability to perfect character?
"But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus." (Acts 18:21)
"Paul greatly desired to reach Jerusalem before the Passover as he would thus have an opportunity to meet those who should come from all parts of the world to attend the feast." {AA 389.1}
"His plan to reach Jerusalem in time for the Passover services had to be given up, but he hoped to be there at Pentecost." {AA 390.2}
"At Philippi Paul tarried to keep the Passover." {AA 390.4}
These suggest that Paul kept the Passover and Pentecost. Is there something wrong with that practice?
From this, I get the impression that "Historic SDA" believers and today's SDA denomination are not in the same organization. Is that right?
I have some questions for clarification.
First off, it looks like your list has many more points than the list of Pillars/Landmarks that EGW made. Is your list prescriptive (defining a set of beliefs that one must have in order to be "Historic") or descriptive (listing a set of beliefs that many Historics have in common, though some might not)?
Quote:
They do not believe in the "trinity"!
Do they believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are fully equal in authority?
Do they believe that there was ever a time that either Jesus or the Holy Spirit did not exist?
Do they believe that the Holy Spirit is a distinct individual/person from the Father and Son, having His own life independent of Theirs?
Quote:
The three angels message ( it is not watered done as it is today)
How is today's different from the historic message?
Quote:
They did and will not join with the government (as is done today)
How do you define "join" in that statement?
Quote:
They use the KJV (and not a modern perversion)
Does that leave EGW out, as she sometimes used the RSV (which, aside from the accuracy of the translation, touches upon the integrity of the manuscripts)?
Quote:
They teach the straight truth and do not use "Greek" philosophy
In a nutshell, what's the difference between "straight" and "Greek"?
Quote:
They believe that there is "new"light and that this "new" light will not change the old light in anyway.
Was there ever a time in Adventism when there was no error to discard?
Is there a mechanism to show when "old light" must be discarded as "old error" in favor of new truth?
Quote:
We do not believe that the healing of the first beast of Revelation happened in 1927 or 1929 but instead we know it truly happened on March 14, 1800, as was taught by men like U. Smith (pre- 1880's) and S. N. Haskell and others.
How does this impact the rest of our prophetic understanding?
In what way does this point of doctrine affect our ability to perfect character?
Quote:
If they are true Historic SDA's they do not keep feast days either, for this was not taught.
"But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus." (Acts 18:21)
"Paul greatly desired to reach Jerusalem before the Passover as he would thus have an opportunity to meet those who should come from all parts of the world to attend the feast." {AA 389.1}
"His plan to reach Jerusalem in time for the Passover services had to be given up, but he hoped to be there at Pentecost." {AA 390.2}
"At Philippi Paul tarried to keep the Passover." {AA 390.4}
These suggest that Paul kept the Passover and Pentecost. Is there something wrong with that practice?
Quote:
The Historic SDA's have not left the church that was founded. However, it is a fact that the modern domination has left what the church had all those years ago... They are LAODICEAN and they left the Philly church.
From this, I get the impression that "Historic SDA" believers and today's SDA denomination are not in the same organization. Is that right?
Posted By: Dr.Glenn
Re: Historic SDA? - 07/06/06 06:08 AM
David:
You say that the "trinity doctrine" came into the SDA church around 1955. I believe it came into the SDA church shortly after 1929 when the deadly wound was healed (Rev. 13:3). Take a look at the SDA yearbooks shortly after 1929 that print the fundamental beliefs.
Dr. Glenn
You say that the "trinity doctrine" came into the SDA church around 1955. I believe it came into the SDA church shortly after 1929 when the deadly wound was healed (Rev. 13:3). Take a look at the SDA yearbooks shortly after 1929 that print the fundamental beliefs.
Dr. Glenn
Posted By: the1888message
Re: Historic SDA? - 07/06/06 12:37 PM
Quote:
David:
You say that the "trinity doctrine" came into the SDA church around 1955. I believe it came into the SDA church shortly after 1929 when the deadly wound was healed (Rev. 13:3). Take a look at the SDA yearbooks shortly after 1929 that print the fundamental beliefs.
Dr. Glenn
I have not looked at the yearbook from 1929, I know that they there were some changes begining as early as 1932 or so but nothing as solid as around the time the book " questions on dcotrines".
I will look at the yearbook, thanks for the information.
Did you know that the early SDA's taught the wounding was healed on 3/14/1800? This would fit with Sister Whites statement that Christ could have returned a couple of years after the 1888 GC had the church accepted that message instead of rejecting it.
PEace and Grace
David
Posted By: the1888message
Re: Historic SDA? - 07/07/06 04:58 AM
Bro David,
I have some questions for clarification.
First off, it looks like your list has many more points than the list of Pillars/Landmarks that EGW made. Is your list prescriptive (defining a set of beliefs that one must have in order to be "Historic") or descriptive (listing a set of beliefs that many Historics have in common, though some might not)?
The list that I gave is a list of things that I have learned from many studies. It is not intended to be a set of requirements to be a Historic Adventist. You should understand that Historic Adventist is not a denomination.
Quote:
They do not believe in the "trinity"!
Do they believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are fully equal in authority?
Do they believe that there was ever a time that either Jesus or the Holy Spirit did not exist?
Do they believe that the Holy Spirit is a distinct individual/person from the Father and Son, having His own life independent of Theirs?
1) The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are equal when it comes to the plan of Salvation. Outside of that there is the Almighty Father, there Christ the Son of God and there is the Holy Spirit, which God sends and Christ also sends to do the Will of the Father,
2) If you read Jer 8, one finds that Christ is “brought forth” from the Father before there was anything.
3) All things came from the Father. Are they independent of God yes and no? That will depend on how you perceive the term of independent life.
Quote:
The three angels message ( it is not watered done as it is today)
How is today's different from the historic message?
There is no force in it today for one. They are weak on the denunciation of Sin and turning back to God. How about that we should turn away from the world and not hold hands with it? Where is the warning that there they should not be a part of the world. And they do not hit the catholic churches and the USA’s rule in the prophecies. There are other things as well.
Quote:
They did and will not join with the government (as is done today)
How do you define "join" in that statement?
The Religious liberty department has at the very least monthly meetings with the white house and members of congress. The Religious liberty department also has a liaison to the U.N. They are a part of the WCC, although they deny it. The fact is that for about 20 years B. B. Beach was the Secretary for the WCC’s faith and order commission. B.B. Beach also voted along with 120 other WCC members and the Catholic Church on the book Baptism, Eucharist and ministries, for starters
Quote:
They use the KJV (and not a modern perversion)
Does that leave EGW out, as she sometimes used the RSV (which, aside from the accuracy of the translation, touches upon the integrity of the manuscripts)?
The “accuracy” of that translation, have you not looked at the history of the people who wrote the book? You really should and you will find that yet again the catholic church had a very large rule in the writing of the book.
This is interesting, W. C. White, Sister White’s son, has stated that when Sister White did use the RV she would spend hours comparing the quotes to the KJV and would only use the quote from the RV if it did not change the meaning. In fact there has been a study showing that Sister White used less than 5% from the RV the rest are from the KJV.
The KJV was used by the Holy Spirit to bring this church up; this was well before the RV came about.
Quote:
They teach the straight truth and do not use "Greek" philosophy
In a nutshell, what's the difference between "straight" and "Greek"?
In a nutshell the “Greek” is the teachings from the ancient Greek philosophers, or should I say the mixing of the scriptures and these philosophies. Learning from their writings. Pay attention to what is being taught even in the SDA schools. The “straight” truth does not include teachings from the “Greek” philosophers. This is just one point.
Quote:
They believe that there is "new"light and that this "new" light will not change the old light in anyway.
Was there ever a time in Adventism when there was no error to discard?
Is there a mechanism to show when "old light" must be discarded as "old error" in favor of new truth?
Trying to trap me here??
Yes there was, like when they where first day keepers, or eating pork. If you understood this you would not have asked that question. The pillars of the early SDA church cannot be removed. Nor should we leave them for they are solid in the scriptures.
Quote:
We do not believe that the healing of the first beast of Revelation happened in 1927 or 1929 but instead we know it truly happened on March 14, 1800, as was taught by men like U. Smith (pre- 1880's) and S. N. Haskell and others.
How does this impact the rest of our prophetic understanding?
In what way does this point of doctrine affect our ability to perfect character?
Well, if the dates are incorrect then the time line is off, will that not make a difference?
It does not affect our character. However it does show yet another alteration to our old way marks, much like the catholic church has done over the years.
Quote:
If they are true Historic SDA's they do not keep feast days either, for this was not taught.
"But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus." (Acts 18:21)
"Paul greatly desired to reach Jerusalem before the Passover as he would thus have an opportunity to meet those who should come from all parts of the world to attend the feast." {AA 389.1}
"His plan to reach Jerusalem in time for the Passover services had to be given up, but he hoped to be there at Pentecost." {AA 390.2}
"At Philippi Paul tarried to keep the Passover." {AA 390.4}
These suggest that Paul kept the Passover and Pentecost. Is there something wrong with that practice?
They kept the Passover and Pentecost, it seems that you do not know the old feast days and what Christ has changed. Study the old feast days, and look at what and how they where changed in the NT. Christ changed the Passover, this is very clear. Did they keep the Passover and Pentecost in the same way as the Jews? No they did not. Study it.
Quote:
The Historic SDA's have not left the church that was founded. However, it is a fact that the modern domination has left what the church had all those years ago... They are LAODICEAN and they left the Philly church.
From this, I get the impression that "Historic SDA" believers and today's SDA denomination are not in the same organization. Is that right?
Right, they are not the same nor can they be. The denomination today is a corporation and is proud of the fact that they are “Laodicean”, I have even read articles in the “ministries magazine” where they claim that you can rejoice in apostasy!!! A Historic Adventist (should I say, as I understand it) would never stand for being a part (member) of such an organization. As an HSDA we are trying to find what the Philly church had and learn from them the truths that were taught.
If this seems a bit pointed, that is not my intention. I believe in the old way marks and they have been changed.
Study that is all that I can ask.
Peace and Grace
David
I have some questions for clarification.
First off, it looks like your list has many more points than the list of Pillars/Landmarks that EGW made. Is your list prescriptive (defining a set of beliefs that one must have in order to be "Historic") or descriptive (listing a set of beliefs that many Historics have in common, though some might not)?
The list that I gave is a list of things that I have learned from many studies. It is not intended to be a set of requirements to be a Historic Adventist. You should understand that Historic Adventist is not a denomination.
Quote:
They do not believe in the "trinity"!
Do they believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are fully equal in authority?
Do they believe that there was ever a time that either Jesus or the Holy Spirit did not exist?
Do they believe that the Holy Spirit is a distinct individual/person from the Father and Son, having His own life independent of Theirs?
1) The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are equal when it comes to the plan of Salvation. Outside of that there is the Almighty Father, there Christ the Son of God and there is the Holy Spirit, which God sends and Christ also sends to do the Will of the Father,
2) If you read Jer 8, one finds that Christ is “brought forth” from the Father before there was anything.
3) All things came from the Father. Are they independent of God yes and no? That will depend on how you perceive the term of independent life.
Quote:
The three angels message ( it is not watered done as it is today)
How is today's different from the historic message?
There is no force in it today for one. They are weak on the denunciation of Sin and turning back to God. How about that we should turn away from the world and not hold hands with it? Where is the warning that there they should not be a part of the world. And they do not hit the catholic churches and the USA’s rule in the prophecies. There are other things as well.
Quote:
They did and will not join with the government (as is done today)
How do you define "join" in that statement?
The Religious liberty department has at the very least monthly meetings with the white house and members of congress. The Religious liberty department also has a liaison to the U.N. They are a part of the WCC, although they deny it. The fact is that for about 20 years B. B. Beach was the Secretary for the WCC’s faith and order commission. B.B. Beach also voted along with 120 other WCC members and the Catholic Church on the book Baptism, Eucharist and ministries, for starters
Quote:
They use the KJV (and not a modern perversion)
Does that leave EGW out, as she sometimes used the RSV (which, aside from the accuracy of the translation, touches upon the integrity of the manuscripts)?
The “accuracy” of that translation, have you not looked at the history of the people who wrote the book? You really should and you will find that yet again the catholic church had a very large rule in the writing of the book.
This is interesting, W. C. White, Sister White’s son, has stated that when Sister White did use the RV she would spend hours comparing the quotes to the KJV and would only use the quote from the RV if it did not change the meaning. In fact there has been a study showing that Sister White used less than 5% from the RV the rest are from the KJV.
The KJV was used by the Holy Spirit to bring this church up; this was well before the RV came about.
Quote:
They teach the straight truth and do not use "Greek" philosophy
In a nutshell, what's the difference between "straight" and "Greek"?
In a nutshell the “Greek” is the teachings from the ancient Greek philosophers, or should I say the mixing of the scriptures and these philosophies. Learning from their writings. Pay attention to what is being taught even in the SDA schools. The “straight” truth does not include teachings from the “Greek” philosophers. This is just one point.
Quote:
They believe that there is "new"light and that this "new" light will not change the old light in anyway.
Was there ever a time in Adventism when there was no error to discard?
Is there a mechanism to show when "old light" must be discarded as "old error" in favor of new truth?
Trying to trap me here??
Yes there was, like when they where first day keepers, or eating pork. If you understood this you would not have asked that question. The pillars of the early SDA church cannot be removed. Nor should we leave them for they are solid in the scriptures.
Quote:
We do not believe that the healing of the first beast of Revelation happened in 1927 or 1929 but instead we know it truly happened on March 14, 1800, as was taught by men like U. Smith (pre- 1880's) and S. N. Haskell and others.
How does this impact the rest of our prophetic understanding?
In what way does this point of doctrine affect our ability to perfect character?
Well, if the dates are incorrect then the time line is off, will that not make a difference?
It does not affect our character. However it does show yet another alteration to our old way marks, much like the catholic church has done over the years.
Quote:
If they are true Historic SDA's they do not keep feast days either, for this was not taught.
"But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus." (Acts 18:21)
"Paul greatly desired to reach Jerusalem before the Passover as he would thus have an opportunity to meet those who should come from all parts of the world to attend the feast." {AA 389.1}
"His plan to reach Jerusalem in time for the Passover services had to be given up, but he hoped to be there at Pentecost." {AA 390.2}
"At Philippi Paul tarried to keep the Passover." {AA 390.4}
These suggest that Paul kept the Passover and Pentecost. Is there something wrong with that practice?
They kept the Passover and Pentecost, it seems that you do not know the old feast days and what Christ has changed. Study the old feast days, and look at what and how they where changed in the NT. Christ changed the Passover, this is very clear. Did they keep the Passover and Pentecost in the same way as the Jews? No they did not. Study it.
Quote:
The Historic SDA's have not left the church that was founded. However, it is a fact that the modern domination has left what the church had all those years ago... They are LAODICEAN and they left the Philly church.
From this, I get the impression that "Historic SDA" believers and today's SDA denomination are not in the same organization. Is that right?
Right, they are not the same nor can they be. The denomination today is a corporation and is proud of the fact that they are “Laodicean”, I have even read articles in the “ministries magazine” where they claim that you can rejoice in apostasy!!! A Historic Adventist (should I say, as I understand it) would never stand for being a part (member) of such an organization. As an HSDA we are trying to find what the Philly church had and learn from them the truths that were taught.
If this seems a bit pointed, that is not my intention. I believe in the old way marks and they have been changed.
Study that is all that I can ask.
Peace and Grace
David
Posted By: asygo
Re: Historic SDA? - 07/18/06 07:04 AM
Bro David,
Some more questions and comments for clarification.
This one threw me off, since I was expecting a yes/no answer. It seems you are saying that there WAS a time when Jesus did not exist. Is that right?
Let me clarify. "Independent life" means that should the Father and Son cease to exist, for whatever reason, the Holy Spirit would continue to exist as a separate entity. With that definition, do you believe that the Holy Spirit has "independent life"?
No, not trying to trap you; just trying to figure out what you're saying. But you do seem a bit defensive for one claiming to stand on solid ground. Anyway...
It seems you misunderstood my question. Let me try again: Was there ever a time in Adventism when there was NO error to discard?
Or perhaps I misunderstood your answer. Do you mean to say that keeping the first day and eating pork do not constitute error?
Just a heads-up. Just because someone does not agree with your conclusions does not mean that such a one has not studied. It may be that you are not completely free of error in your understanding of truth.
Some more questions and comments for clarification.
Quote:
2) If you read Jer 8, one finds that Christ is “brought forth” from the Father before there was anything.
This one threw me off, since I was expecting a yes/no answer. It seems you are saying that there WAS a time when Jesus did not exist. Is that right?
Quote:
3) All things came from the Father. Are they independent of God yes and no? That will depend on how you perceive the term of independent life.
Let me clarify. "Independent life" means that should the Father and Son cease to exist, for whatever reason, the Holy Spirit would continue to exist as a separate entity. With that definition, do you believe that the Holy Spirit has "independent life"?
Quote:
Was there ever a time in Adventism when there was no error to discard?
Is there a mechanism to show when "old light" must be discarded as "old error" in favor of new truth?
Trying to trap me here??
Yes there was, like when they where first day keepers, or eating pork. If you understood this you would not have asked that question. The pillars of the early SDA church cannot be removed. Nor should we leave them for they are solid in the scriptures.
No, not trying to trap you; just trying to figure out what you're saying. But you do seem a bit defensive for one claiming to stand on solid ground. Anyway...
It seems you misunderstood my question. Let me try again: Was there ever a time in Adventism when there was NO error to discard?
Or perhaps I misunderstood your answer. Do you mean to say that keeping the first day and eating pork do not constitute error?
Quote:
Study that is all that I can ask.
Just a heads-up. Just because someone does not agree with your conclusions does not mean that such a one has not studied. It may be that you are not completely free of error in your understanding of truth.
Posted By: the1888message
Re: Historic SDA? - 07/18/06 12:56 PM
Bro. Arnold
“This one threw me off, since I was expecting a yes/no answer. It seems you are saying that there WAS a time when Jesus did not exist. Is that right?”
All I can say is what the word of God has to say on the matter, Proverbs 8 states that Christ was brought froth from the Father. I did not say it the Bible does.
“Let me clarify. "Independent life" means that should the Father and Son cease to exist, for whatever reason, the Holy Spirit would continue to exist as a separate entity. With that definition, do you believe that the Holy Spirit has "independent life"?”
I did not mention the Holy Spirit in my statement. From my understanding everything comes from God the Father and as creation is concerned it comes from the Father through Christ. The Holy Spirit is also of God and it is sent too men by both God and Christ. Can any of them “die” or “cease to exist” I would have to say no. The cross not with standing of course, for we know that Christ truly died and the world and nothing else ceased in its existence did it?
Does the Holy Spirit have independent life? I do not know, Christ called the Holy Spirit “him”, this could show that it would or could have independent life. However the Bible does not make it all that clear. So I cannot say one way or another other that is all I can say, other than he is the Holy Spirit of God.
“No, not trying to trap you; just trying to figure out what you're saying. But you do seem a bit defensive for one claiming to stand on solid ground. Anyway...
Glad to hear it, thanks. If I seem defensive, maybe I am. People have not always been straight up in their writing or questioning and have twisted what I have said. Or taken only part of what is said and made it seem as if I have said something totally different than what was said.
Make sense?
I do believe that I am on solid ground.
“It seems you misunderstood my question. Let me try again: Was there ever a time in Adventism when there was NO error to discard?”
There has been error and the Holy Spirit did in fact correct it.
”Or perhaps I misunderstood your answer. Do you mean to say that keeping the first day and eating pork do not constitute error?””
No they are error.
“Just a heads-up. Just because someone does not agree with your conclusions does not mean that such a one has not studied. It may be that you are not completely free of error in your understanding of truth.”
I may not be completely free in error, you are correct, all that I ask is what I ask of myself is for us all to study and come into unity as Christ prayed for.
Peace and Grace
Daivd
“This one threw me off, since I was expecting a yes/no answer. It seems you are saying that there WAS a time when Jesus did not exist. Is that right?”
All I can say is what the word of God has to say on the matter, Proverbs 8 states that Christ was brought froth from the Father. I did not say it the Bible does.
“Let me clarify. "Independent life" means that should the Father and Son cease to exist, for whatever reason, the Holy Spirit would continue to exist as a separate entity. With that definition, do you believe that the Holy Spirit has "independent life"?”
I did not mention the Holy Spirit in my statement. From my understanding everything comes from God the Father and as creation is concerned it comes from the Father through Christ. The Holy Spirit is also of God and it is sent too men by both God and Christ. Can any of them “die” or “cease to exist” I would have to say no. The cross not with standing of course, for we know that Christ truly died and the world and nothing else ceased in its existence did it?
Does the Holy Spirit have independent life? I do not know, Christ called the Holy Spirit “him”, this could show that it would or could have independent life. However the Bible does not make it all that clear. So I cannot say one way or another other that is all I can say, other than he is the Holy Spirit of God.
“No, not trying to trap you; just trying to figure out what you're saying. But you do seem a bit defensive for one claiming to stand on solid ground. Anyway...
Glad to hear it, thanks. If I seem defensive, maybe I am. People have not always been straight up in their writing or questioning and have twisted what I have said. Or taken only part of what is said and made it seem as if I have said something totally different than what was said.
Make sense?
I do believe that I am on solid ground.
“It seems you misunderstood my question. Let me try again: Was there ever a time in Adventism when there was NO error to discard?”
There has been error and the Holy Spirit did in fact correct it.
”Or perhaps I misunderstood your answer. Do you mean to say that keeping the first day and eating pork do not constitute error?””
No they are error.
“Just a heads-up. Just because someone does not agree with your conclusions does not mean that such a one has not studied. It may be that you are not completely free of error in your understanding of truth.”
I may not be completely free in error, you are correct, all that I ask is what I ask of myself is for us all to study and come into unity as Christ prayed for.
Peace and Grace
Daivd
Posted By: asygo
Re: Historic SDA? - 07/18/06 10:29 PM
Bro David,
Just a comment on "procedural" matters before going on. I understand what you said above. I have seen it on all forums, including this one. But this is one of the few forums I have found where people can disagree without becoming adversarial.
In particular, look at some of my exchanges with Tom Ewall (esp. in the nature of Christ thread). We have had disagreements on significant points, and we have also had significant misunderstandings. We ask a lot of questions because we want to better grasp what the other is saying. We may still disagree in the end, but at least we have a clearer picture of what we're disagreeing with.
I'm sure you believe you are on solid ground, as I believe I am. And I also trust that you are ever willing to correct your errors, as I am to correct mine. If we ever come across a point of disagreement, you can expect a lot of questions from me as I try to get a good view of your point. If your ground is more sold than mine, I would like to find out so I can move. If mine is more solid, it is my privilege as a watchman to let you know.
Quote:
"No, not trying to trap you; just trying to figure out what you're saying. But you do seem a bit defensive for one claiming to stand on solid ground. Anyway...
Glad to hear it, thanks. If I seem defensive, maybe I am. People have not always been straight up in their writing or questioning and have twisted what I have said. Or taken only part of what is said and made it seem as if I have said something totally different than what was said.
Make sense?
I do believe that I am on solid ground.
Just a comment on "procedural" matters before going on. I understand what you said above. I have seen it on all forums, including this one. But this is one of the few forums I have found where people can disagree without becoming adversarial.
In particular, look at some of my exchanges with Tom Ewall (esp. in the nature of Christ thread). We have had disagreements on significant points, and we have also had significant misunderstandings. We ask a lot of questions because we want to better grasp what the other is saying. We may still disagree in the end, but at least we have a clearer picture of what we're disagreeing with.
I'm sure you believe you are on solid ground, as I believe I am. And I also trust that you are ever willing to correct your errors, as I am to correct mine. If we ever come across a point of disagreement, you can expect a lot of questions from me as I try to get a good view of your point. If your ground is more sold than mine, I would like to find out so I can move. If mine is more solid, it is my privilege as a watchman to let you know.
Quote:
When God's people are at ease, and satisfied with their present enlightenment, we may be sure that He will not favor them. It is His will that they should be ever moving forward, to receive the increased and ever-increasing light which is shining for them. {GW 300.2}
Posted By: the1888message
Re: Historic SDA? - 07/19/06 04:02 AM
Bro. Arnold
I will have to agree with your last post to me. It is well written. I on the other hand have some difficulty putting my thoughts plainly in written words, which at times has caused some misunderstanding.
Thank you
Peace and Grace
David
I will have to agree with your last post to me. It is well written. I on the other hand have some difficulty putting my thoughts plainly in written words, which at times has caused some misunderstanding.
Thank you
Peace and Grace
David
Posted By: asygo
Re: Historic SDA? - 07/20/06 11:24 AM
Quote:
Proverbs 8 states that Christ was brought froth from the Father. I did not say it the Bible does.
Based on your understanding of what "brought forth" means, do you believe and teach that there was a time when Jesus did not exist?
Posted By: the1888message
Re: Historic SDA? - 07/20/06 12:36 PM
Quote:Quote:
Proverbs 8 states that Christ was brought froth from the Father. I did not say it the Bible does.
Based on your understanding of what "brought forth" means, do you believe and teach that there was a time when Jesus did not exist?
I have been asked that many times and I have the same answer. The Bible only states what it states. For me to go beyond that I cannot do for then I would be guessing at things that are not writing down for our knowledge.
If I say there was a time that Christ did not exist or that he already existed would be an implication on my part, which I have no right to make and no authority to make.
All I know is that, which is written. Is that Christ was brought forth and brought up and that He is the only Begotten Son of the Living God.
I know that He is not the Almighty God. He is the Son of the Living God and that is as far as I can take it. I know that there is no three gods in one as well for this is the foundation of the roman catholic church and all their dogma’s, for this is their claim.
Peace and Grace
David
Posted By: Larry Kirkpatrick
Re: Historic SDA? - 07/22/06 03:25 AM
What about the statements in the SOP that say there is a present truth for every generation? That would seem to indicate to me that Heaven still has some unpacking for us to do. Jesus did not even give all His teaching (John 16:12). We also have a statement that says that the prophets prophesied more for us (upon whom the end of the age is coming) than for themsevles (1 Peter 1:12). Texts like these suggest that we need to be attentive to what God is doing. I would not want to be a part of a church that felt it had arrived and that there is nothing further for it to understand since 1915. But then some of the points that are held by some so-called HA are in clear contradiction to EGW, so they must draw the line long before 1915 (death of EGW).
LK
LK
Posted By: the1888message
Re: Historic SDA? - 07/22/06 05:29 PM
So if this trinity doctrine or three gods is new light and it is correct then the “new” light would have to be accepted right?
Well, this “new” light (three gods in one, triune gods or trinity) is not very “new” it has its foundation so very strongly in paganism that it is sickening. Babylon had their triune gods and the child was born on 12/25. The Bible even speaks about the weeping for this child.
Egypt has their triune gods and one of them is also a child.
India has some 3 million gods and one in particular is a triune god that has one body, six arms and three heads.
In every pagan religion they have their triune, trinity, three gods in one. The Catholic Church even claims that this “trinity” doctrine is the foundation of all their dogma.
I find this quote from Sister White very interesting
1858 Great Controversy page 187 “They gave up their earthly treasure and their anxious gaze was directed to heaven, expecting to see their loved Deliverer. A sacred, holy joy beamed upon their countenances, and told of the peace and joy which reigned within. Jesus bade his angels go and strengthen them, for the hour of their trial drew on. I saw that these waiting ones were not yet tried as they must be. They were not free from errors. And I saw the mercy and goodness of God in sending a warning to the people of earth, and repeated messages to bring them up to a point of time, to lead them to a diligent search of themselves, that they might divest themselves of errors which have been handed down from the heathen and papists. Through these messages God has been bringing out his people where he can work for them in greater power, and where they can keep all his commandments.”
Notice that the saints diligently searched themselves and they threw off the errors that had been handed down to them n\and these errors came from where? Paganism and the catholic church.
Is this triune god “new light”? No it is not it is very old light.
Now if you would like to discuss new light (new light does not disagree with the old light) lets talk about it, I am open to new light.
Interesting that you pointed out the date 1915 why is that? I am a Historic Seventh day Adventist, I hold to the teachings of the founders and the Holy Word of God.
I have a question for you; are you implying that since 1915 the church has had “new light”? Could this “new light” be from leaders in the church that have been educated in catholic / Jesuit schools? Such as James Standish of the religious liberty dept., or the Pres of the GC who for at least one year was taking his doctorate of divinity from a catholic school where one of the teachers was the current pope? Or from such men as L. R. Froom who bowed down to the ecumenical men like Barnhouse and others and changed our religion? Arthur S. Maxwell who brought spiritualism into the “the bible story” books? Men who where involved and wrote the book “questions on Doctrine” which does away with the Ten Commandments and nails them to the cross. How about men like Prescott who force the new perversions of the Scriptures in the writings of the publishing houses of the SDA church.
If there is new light then it does not and will not go against the old Light that God and His Son and His Holy Spirit has given.
Do you have and or know of any “new light”? For there will be new light but there is a standard by, which it must be judged.
Peace and Grace
David
Well, this “new” light (three gods in one, triune gods or trinity) is not very “new” it has its foundation so very strongly in paganism that it is sickening. Babylon had their triune gods and the child was born on 12/25. The Bible even speaks about the weeping for this child.
Egypt has their triune gods and one of them is also a child.
India has some 3 million gods and one in particular is a triune god that has one body, six arms and three heads.
In every pagan religion they have their triune, trinity, three gods in one. The Catholic Church even claims that this “trinity” doctrine is the foundation of all their dogma.
I find this quote from Sister White very interesting
1858 Great Controversy page 187 “They gave up their earthly treasure and their anxious gaze was directed to heaven, expecting to see their loved Deliverer. A sacred, holy joy beamed upon their countenances, and told of the peace and joy which reigned within. Jesus bade his angels go and strengthen them, for the hour of their trial drew on. I saw that these waiting ones were not yet tried as they must be. They were not free from errors. And I saw the mercy and goodness of God in sending a warning to the people of earth, and repeated messages to bring them up to a point of time, to lead them to a diligent search of themselves, that they might divest themselves of errors which have been handed down from the heathen and papists. Through these messages God has been bringing out his people where he can work for them in greater power, and where they can keep all his commandments.”
Notice that the saints diligently searched themselves and they threw off the errors that had been handed down to them n\and these errors came from where? Paganism and the catholic church.
Is this triune god “new light”? No it is not it is very old light.
Now if you would like to discuss new light (new light does not disagree with the old light) lets talk about it, I am open to new light.
Interesting that you pointed out the date 1915 why is that? I am a Historic Seventh day Adventist, I hold to the teachings of the founders and the Holy Word of God.
I have a question for you; are you implying that since 1915 the church has had “new light”? Could this “new light” be from leaders in the church that have been educated in catholic / Jesuit schools? Such as James Standish of the religious liberty dept., or the Pres of the GC who for at least one year was taking his doctorate of divinity from a catholic school where one of the teachers was the current pope? Or from such men as L. R. Froom who bowed down to the ecumenical men like Barnhouse and others and changed our religion? Arthur S. Maxwell who brought spiritualism into the “the bible story” books? Men who where involved and wrote the book “questions on Doctrine” which does away with the Ten Commandments and nails them to the cross. How about men like Prescott who force the new perversions of the Scriptures in the writings of the publishing houses of the SDA church.
If there is new light then it does not and will not go against the old Light that God and His Son and His Holy Spirit has given.
Do you have and or know of any “new light”? For there will be new light but there is a standard by, which it must be judged.
Peace and Grace
David
Posted By: vastergotland
Re: Historic SDA? - 07/22/06 06:52 PM
Only something which exists can be corrupted, only something which is real can be counterfaithed. That someone else believes in a less perfected view of the trinity or that the trinitarian theme exists in other religions is no proof that the concept is false. If you where to be consistent on that line of arguement and throw out from your chiristian faith everything that also appears in the babylonian religion in a more or less degenerate form, you can just cut out everything before Abraham from genesis.
Posted By: the1888message
Re: Historic SDA? - 07/23/06 03:13 AM
Quote:
Only something which exists can be corrupted, only something which is real can be counterfaithed. That someone else believes in a less perfected view of the trinity or that the trinitarian theme exists in other religions is no proof that the concept is false. If you where to be consistent on that line of arguement and throw out from your chiristian faith everything that also appears in the babylonian religion in a more or less degenerate form, you can just cut out everything before Abraham from genesis.
It seems that you are using “Greek” philosophy or trying to at least. I have read much from Plato and others before my conversion. Your first line is much like how they write. Remember we are warned against such philosophizing by Sister White.
Anyway, instead of putting words in a structure that may well confuse the issue please put it plainly.
Sister White wrote, “The enemy of souls has sought to bring in the supposition that a great reformation was to take place among Seventh-day Adventists, and that this reformation would consist in giving up the doctrines which stand as the pillars of our faith, and engaging in a process of reorganization. Were this reformation to take place, what would result? The principles of truth that God in His wisdom has given to the remnant church, would be discarded. Our religion would be changed. The fundamental principles that have sustained the work for the last fifty years would be accounted as error. A new organization would be established. Books of a new order would be written. A system of intellectual philosophy would be introduced. The founders of this system would go into the cities, and do a wonderful work. The Sabbath of course, would be lightly regarded, as also the God who created it. Nothing would be allowed to stand in the way of the new movement. The leaders would teach that virtue is better than vice, but God being removed, they would place their dependence on human power, which, without God, is worthless. Their foundation would be built on the sand, and storm and tempest would sweep away the structure.
Who has authority to begin such a movement? We have our Bibles. We have our experience, attested to by the miraculous working of the Holy Spirit. We have a truth that admits of no compromise. Shall we not repudiate everything that is not in harmony with this truth?”
The “fundamental principles” are now counted as error by the church today. These principles did not teach a three in one god as is taught today.
Many today use “A system of intellectual philosophy” in their writings and preaching.
“We have our Bibles” What bible did they have and use to come up with what the Holy Spirit gave them? Not these new perversions.
Has the church “We have a truth that admits of no compromise.” They have been working with the catholic church for years, one place is in the hospitals. Working hand in hand with the WCC is another. How about sending our pastors to the Whore of Babylon’s schools? How about SDA ministers joining non-SDA ministerial associations? I could go on as I am sure you know.
This pagan / papal doctrine, which the SDA church did not hold to all those years back, which came into this church by worldly men would fall under this commission from God to Sister White to all believers “Shall we not repudiate everything that is not in harmony with this truth?”
How say you, “But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.”
Is there one God or three?
Peace and Grace
David
This triune god is no more than god splitting himself into three parts. The triune god comes from non other than the mystical, occultist and spiritualistic writings from many non-Biblical sources and belief systems.
--"In the heart of the Trinity [or One God] the Creator laughs and gives birth to the child. The child laughs back at the Creator and together they give birth to the Spirit." Meister Eckhart quoted in The Coming of the Cosmic Christ, p 218-19, by Matthew Fox.
--"The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Godhead--the infinite source of all. It is the Breath of Atman,--the infinite power of God. It is not separate from, but operative through the Christ--the Higher Self." Dictionary of All Scriptures and Myths, by G.A. Gaskell, p 366 (this dictionary uses the philosophic sacredly held writings of all religions such as Zoroaster, Philo, Swedenborg, Buddah, Hermes, the Qabbalah, etc., in order to derive the definitions--hence the definitions given are mystical and spiritualistic).
"I [Father of All Things] order you [Son of Light] to go forth, to become as a guide to those who wander in darkness, that all men within whom dwells the spirit of My Mind (The Universal Mind) may be saved by My Mind in you, which shall call forth My Mind in them....for I am the Mind of the Mysteries...'" The Secret Teachings of All Ages, p XL, by Manly P. Hall--33rd Degree Mason (Hall is quoting Hermes or Cush who was the interpreter of the Mysteries, or basically the founder of spiritualistic Babylonian religion. Cush was also the father of Nimrod, who founded Babylon and then based its Mystery religion upon the teachings of his father).
"The terms Father, Son, and Spirit are but symbols which stand for three manifestations of God...God goes forth from Himself in the eternal Son, returning to Himself in the Eternal Spirit." Dictionary of All Scriptures and Myths, by G.A. Gaskell, p 770 (this dictionary uses the philosophic sacredly held writings of all religions such as Zoroaster, Philo, Swedenborg, Buddha, Hermes, the Qabbalah, etc., in order to derive its definitions--hence the definitions given are mystical, occultic and spiritualistic in nature).
Posted By: Larry Kirkpatrick
Re: Historic SDA? - 07/23/06 03:40 AM
I am not here to defend the "Trinity" doctrine. I do believe, after extensive study of the biblical materials that there are three persons in one Godhead: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The biblical evidence is abundant and conclusive, even coercive. If you want to throw out the New Testament it will be much harder to prove.
Do you want to do that?
And then you will have to get rid of the testimony of the writings of Ellen G. White. Perhaps you are not one who has a significant knowledge of the life and ministry of Mrs. White. I mentioned that date because Mrs. White died in 1915.
It is testimony to your bias that you point to all negative things and no positive things from about that time to the present. Can you not think of any positive developments since the time you have (as Arnold has pointed out) arbitrarily chosen as the "Historic Adventist" period?
I have spoken and written against many of the things you have mentioned. I believe there is much light in certain points highlighted by M. L. Andreasen which he published in 1937. But I neither identified or labeled anything as "new light"--I simply pointed to the testimony of inspired writings that affirms that every generation is to be tested and there is to be a development of truth in that generation.
To be honest, few things are as heart-sickening to me as self-righteous critics marching around in their ignorance and painting the whole church darkly with their brushes. The only way we can move away from the three persons in one Godhead teaching would be to go into opposition of the writings of Ellen G. White, which the church (since 1980 I might add) insists are to be upheld as a "continuing and authoritative source" of truth.
You know not what road you are on or are endeavoring to lead others on. You would lead them away from God's light in the SOP and out of His church. LK
Do you want to do that?
And then you will have to get rid of the testimony of the writings of Ellen G. White. Perhaps you are not one who has a significant knowledge of the life and ministry of Mrs. White. I mentioned that date because Mrs. White died in 1915.
It is testimony to your bias that you point to all negative things and no positive things from about that time to the present. Can you not think of any positive developments since the time you have (as Arnold has pointed out) arbitrarily chosen as the "Historic Adventist" period?
I have spoken and written against many of the things you have mentioned. I believe there is much light in certain points highlighted by M. L. Andreasen which he published in 1937. But I neither identified or labeled anything as "new light"--I simply pointed to the testimony of inspired writings that affirms that every generation is to be tested and there is to be a development of truth in that generation.
To be honest, few things are as heart-sickening to me as self-righteous critics marching around in their ignorance and painting the whole church darkly with their brushes. The only way we can move away from the three persons in one Godhead teaching would be to go into opposition of the writings of Ellen G. White, which the church (since 1980 I might add) insists are to be upheld as a "continuing and authoritative source" of truth.
You know not what road you are on or are endeavoring to lead others on. You would lead them away from God's light in the SOP and out of His church. LK
Posted By: asygo
Re: Historic SDA? - 07/23/06 05:15 AM
Quote:
If I say there was a time that Christ did not exist or that he already existed would be an implication on my part, which I have no right to make and no authority to make.
Bro David,
Since you are not able to say definitely whether or not there was a time when Christ did not exist, I suppose this is not a "deal breaker" to Historic Adventists. Let me offer some inspired commentary on this point:
Quote:
From the days of eternity the Lord Jesus Christ was one with the Father... {DA 19.1}
Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense... The Lord Jesus Christ, the divine Son of God, existed from eternity, a distinct person, yet one with the Father. {RH, April 5, 1906 par. 6, 7}
Immediately following the RH statement, she quoted Proverbs 8:22-27. That fact should lead us to conclude that her understanding of "brought forth" did not prevent her from also believing that Christ "existed from eternity."
This text leads me to a series of questions:
- Do HA's in general, and you in particular, believe that "Christ was God ... in the highest sense" while being a distinct person from the Father?
- Assuming you believe #1, does that lead you to believe in a "diune" God - one God in two distinct Persons?
- Which Person is the one speaking in Genesis 35:11? ("And God said unto him, I am God Almighty...")
- Do you hold to the same view of the Trinity as E. J. Waggoner?
Posted By: asygo
Re: Historic SDA? - 07/25/06 10:45 PM
Quote:
Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour. (Isaiah 43:10-11)
Bro David,
I want to add a couple more questions:
- "before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me" - If the Father existed before the Son, how can this statement be true?
- Who was speaking in Verse 11?
Posted By: Colin
Re: Historic SDA? - 08/08/06 12:49 AM
Going back to your list under this heading
You, Tom and Mark should join me in that, since we all subscribe to the SOP-endorsed message/writings of Waggoner & Jones. Admittedly there's some discussion still on the Godhead issue about Jesus' eternal Sonship but I'll deal with that later. Larry is correct that HA has given itself a negative image, but the landmark doctrines and their supporting teachings are what gives Adventism its identity and that must include the 1888 message as preserved in the messengers' writings while expressed second handedly by EGW.
The organised church does test one's patience tremendously, but the Australian roots of HA exposed one sort of dilution of the truth, and they still have their part to play in helping the church to recover the clear teachings which are now dimmed and diluted. Sadly, both those HA and the LGT promoters (same message) share with the church at least confusion over if not resistance to the 1888 message - regarding the size and achievements of grace, so recovering the clear, straight testimony of the Laodicean and 3 Angels' message must involve a coming together with the 1888 Message Study Committee before they each and all ride off into the sunset separately.
Quote:I'm surprised you're happy to be an historic SDA, given your username on this forum...: I personally am neither an HSDA nor an LGT SDA - I'm an 1888 SDA.
What is an Historic Seventh day Adventist?
You, Tom and Mark should join me in that, since we all subscribe to the SOP-endorsed message/writings of Waggoner & Jones. Admittedly there's some discussion still on the Godhead issue about Jesus' eternal Sonship but I'll deal with that later. Larry is correct that HA has given itself a negative image, but the landmark doctrines and their supporting teachings are what gives Adventism its identity and that must include the 1888 message as preserved in the messengers' writings while expressed second handedly by EGW.
The organised church does test one's patience tremendously, but the Australian roots of HA exposed one sort of dilution of the truth, and they still have their part to play in helping the church to recover the clear teachings which are now dimmed and diluted. Sadly, both those HA and the LGT promoters (same message) share with the church at least confusion over if not resistance to the 1888 message - regarding the size and achievements of grace, so recovering the clear, straight testimony of the Laodicean and 3 Angels' message must involve a coming together with the 1888 Message Study Committee before they each and all ride off into the sunset separately.