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

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)?

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?

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

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

Bro David,

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.

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