Impressions Journal

don · 12-30-08 10:18 am

December 30, 2008 In the study Adventist History, I have learned to respect the work being down at the Adventist Archives department. Their work has opened up hours of study for me, and the learning of Adventist history. Several impressions: 1. Early Adventist workers seemed to have lived and breathed their work. This attitude transferred to new converts in new lands. By the year 1901, North American Adventists were losing some of their focus. The leaders wanted the new converts to have schools in their own lands so they could keep their focus and not become influenced by the affluence of America. 2. Our church's publications especially the Review and Herald and the Signs of the Times played a central role in educating and uniting the membership. 3. Imagine a home in the 1850's; no TV, no Radio. The Review and Herald arrives. In it are lengthy essays on matters of "Present Truth" and correspondence from fellow believers. I have read some of these essays and am intrigued with their thoroughness. I have imagined myself receiving the Review with an eagerness to see what James White, Bates, Andrews, EGW, and other have to say; taking out my Bible and comparing their conclusions with the Scriptures. 4. I note that those early Review and Heralds contain no doctrinal essays written by Ellen White. Her essays are more affective and experiential in nature. 5. I have been reading the non-trinitarian essays of White, Loughborough. J. H. Waggoner, and Stephenson. In one article James White compares SDA with SD Baptists. He does not consider the difference regarding the nature of God between the two groups to be major. I have concluded that James White felt bound to the clear texts which subordinate Christ without denying Christ's divine nature. I have read that the Christian Connection was strongly anti-trinitarian in doctrine. Yet, I see James White moving to the center on this. 6. The Adventist Archives through its various publications allows us to find many primary sources with which to do history. Some of these reveal strategies of thought, insights into how they went about their work. For example, G. H. Baber led in the establishment of the church in Chile. In one of his letters, he reports that he does not know the language but he can make available magazines which the people are eager to read. And, a doctor in Africa, Dr. Sturges' (Hubb's) father, I think, reports on the work in his clinic along with pictures. It is noted that the people are far more open to their teaching once they are helped physically. 7. G. H. Baber writes with colorful words about the land and its vastness; from Ecuador to the tip of South America. His descriptions easily link church history with geography. .

bob_2 · 01-01-09 11:35 am

Don said: Early Adventist workers seemed to have lived and breathed their work. I have experienced this same emphasis with PCA, yet we can be of such heavenly value we are of no earthly good. When every function has to be associated with a Bible study, we have taken our emphasis too far. We should be able to converse about the world around us, and its beauty and its flaws that need correcting. Some have said ATomorrow2 should not have a political section, because Religion and Politics don't mix. I disagree and feel we need to be involved, in a principled manner, in the world around us. Humor and satire within reason are also valuable and add to our discourse.

don · 01-01-09 6:18 pm

January 1, 2009 When every function has to be associated with a Bible study, we have taken our emphasis too far. Bible Study is a mental activity. Early Adventists had to do physical labor in order to afford their travel to the various conferences in order to engage in such mind work. Eventually, we read where the church sets before its people the need for the balance of the mental and the physical. we need to be involved, in a principled manner, in the world around us. The Adventism I grew up with tended to avoid engagement with "the world", thinking that true Adventism sticks to evangelism, etc. But, the very nature of Adventism leads us into the world: Our health, educational, and humanitarian ventures all engage us with others. Even our apocalyptic theology finds its food for thought in the news of the day as it seeks to evangelize "the world". At the end of the 1800's Adventists found themselves engaged in American society. From earlier experience, they had learned to present the organization favorably to government officials such as during the time of the civil war. At the end of the 19th century they actively opposed the use of alcohol in society. They also opposed other Americans who wanted Sunday legislation. The issues loomed in the public psyche. A. T. Jones, Percy Magan, Lulu Wightman, and others advocated the American dream even as they opposed Sunday Legislation. They went further. Their understanding of last days events prompted them to oppose American colonialism in the Philippines in the wake of the Spanish-American war. It represented to them the ugly two-horned beastly side of America. Do we want Adventism to enter the political arena as it did in those days? I think we would need to define much more clearly how to go about public activity before accelerating in those areas. Our lack of "doctrine" has led to some severe embarrassments to the church. We seem to enjoy government favor, even of dictators. Yet, we are slow to stand up to evil, as in the case of Hitler or Rwanda. We need to study how to oppose evil in the public square. What did Jesus do? What did Jesus advocate? What about Paul and the other apostles? .

don · 01-01-09 6:30 pm

I think we would need to define much more clearly how to go about public activity before accelerating in those areas. One further note to this: Here in Canada, Prime Minister Stephen Harper led what could be called a ragtag bunch of unsophisticated redneck conservatives. To control the image of the party, he insisted that most public statements be made by himself. Why? Because he thinks before he speaks, usually. Some of the rank and file, early on, spoke for themselves and caused public relations nightmares for Harper. Imagine, if the church encouraged a culture of engagement without the proper education and training. One reason why politics is so controversial is that both sides of an issue can seem right depending on your basic view of the world. .

bob_2 · 01-01-09 8:55 pm

So right, Don, take Prop 8 in California. 1. It initially appears a principled position is to be for it, which would be against Homosexual marriage on moral grounds. 2. The Adventists Against Prop 8 took that position because they "knew" they would be in the minority on Sabbath keeping and should not oppose other minorities, not even considering the Church's official moral position. Fellows with some gravitas, Chuck Scriven, David Larson, Lawrence Geraty, Julius Nam, Spectrum et al., and others. This is why a political section of this forum is needed to discus the back and forth of issues, to get to that principled position, or position based on an ulterior motive, which may not be wrong, but if if this latter position is taken to stave off the day of Jesus Second Coming, is that not strange indeed.

elaine · 01-01-09 10:41 pm

Prop 8 presents a paradox for Christians: To be opposed to gay marriage is based on their biblical understanding. OTOH, those who believe in religious liberty, feel that religion should have no part in deciding political questions; i.e., opposition to gay marriage if based on arguments from the Bible have no place in the political arena. Allowing rights for everyone equally without discrimination, has been part of our Constitution since its inception: there should be no discrimination (That is why Jim Crow Laws were overruled, and interracial marriage). How can we deny a specific group the rights that the majority enjoys? The Supreme Court has, in a number of cases, been the court of last resort to protect the rights of minorities. Majorities need no such protection. We all may be a "minority" depending on the situation. Something that should not be forgotten.

bob_2 · 01-01-09 11:30 pm

Is Marriage a religious issue. If yes what is it doing in the civic areana, if not why is the Church so consumed with it and adultery???? God will protect his minority at the end. We need not manipulate other minorities to thus side with us when the going gets rough. Our judgements on laws of a civic nature should be moral in nature, should they not, that is not necessarily religious, but moral.

don · 01-02-09 1:13 am

that is not necessarily religious, but moral Many laws which deal with love for our fellow humans overlap with religious law. Arguments if found in the Bible do not, by that, lose their validity in the public square. Gay marriage legislation reflects personal values. There are many ways to look at a matter. The Christian allows the Bible to inform his judgment. American constitutional law demands that natural, non-religious, rationale be employed in formulating laws. Regarding Gay Marriage: Which society will promote stronger community health; one where gays promise to be monogamous or where they don't. If sexual relations are going to happen, isn't it better to encourage faithful non-promiscuous relationships? I consider homosexual activity to be contrary to nature, but my society will be healthier if relationships are stable. .

pilgrim99 · 01-02-09 1:55 am

Elaine, I wish you a sincere Happy New Year! You said:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Allowing rights for everyone equally without discrimination, has been part of our Constitution since its inception: there should be no discrimination (That is why Jim Crow Laws were overruled, and interracial marriage). How can we deny a specific group the rights that the majority enjoys? The Supreme Court has, in a number of cases, been the court of last resort to protect the rights of minorities. Majorities need no such protection.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> You may not be aware of this, but, every adult in the United States currently enjoys the same right to marriage. This right, as with most rights, does have limitations. I have the right to keep and bear arms, but I can't keep a nuclear arsenal in my garage. I have the right to freedom of speech, but not to yell fire, in a crowded theater, unless there is an actual fire. There is freedom of the press, but not freedom to slander. There is also freedom of religion, but if my religion demands human sacrifice, that is prohibited. All human persons in the United States have the right to marry anyone, of the opposite sex, provided that they are not siblings, offspring, or parents, and that they are above a certain age. Why is this so hard to understand? There are no unfettered rights. I seriously doubt that the framers of our Constitution imagined that people of the same gender would want to 'marry' each other, and that they would claim this disease producing/spreading, depression inducing, and physiologically deviant behavior as a right. As for Jim Crow laws, that is a silly comparison. Race, within the human species, is an artificial construct. All humans are part of the same race, we differ in ethnicity, historical national origin and sometimes, historical native language. The Jim Crow Laws were rightly struck down. As Christians, in addition to following non - conflicting civil ordinances, we also follow the instructions of the Bible, regardless of our secular vocation, be it writer, lawyer, scientist, historian, technology salesperson, teacher, accountant, corporate executive, etc.<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what should not be done. They are filled with every kind of unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice. They are rife with envy, murder, strife, deceit, hostility. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, contrivers of all sorts of evil, disobedient to parents, senseless, covenant-breakers, heartless, ruthless. Although they fully know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but also approve of those who practice them. Romans 1:28-32 NET<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>A human being, of any ethnicity, can reproduce, with a human of any other ethnicity, from the opposite gender, given 'normal' conditions. I repeat, Jim Crow Laws, were rightly struck down, they were illogical and failed any scientific test. The habitual practice of any deviant behavior is always a choice. Society puts limits on all behavior. All may drink as much alcohol as they wish, however if they may not be intoxicated in public, or attempt to operate a vehicle while intoxicated. Yet many choose to do so, with unfortunate consequences, for themselves and their communities.

bob_2 · 01-04-09 4:14 pm

Don, Prop 8 was not about "monogomous relationships" but legalizing "Gay Marriage". I think you see the difference. If you are going to argue that point, take it all the way into the policing of monogamy, eh???

elaine · 01-04-09 10:27 pm

every adult in the United States currently enjoys the same right to marriage." Laws change. Not until 1967 did the last state remove the prohibition against interracial marriage. States decide how marriage is licensed, not the federal government. Massacusetts now permits same-sex marriage; and California's recent Supreme Court legalizing same-sex marriage is to be reviewed in the Spring. Such private actions that do not affect any but the two people involved, should not be left to the states to decide; just as the day you recognize as holy, or the church you wish to attend, the way you live inside your home unless it abuses another human or child. Some things should not be involved in state laws. How can the choice of marriage between two consenting adults be any business of any government? One's private beliefs in no way allows others to either approve or disapprove--unless we want to have "thought police" or police who spend time inspecting private bedrooms. Is this is where our government taxes should be spent? We should never impose our religious beliefs on anyone else, nor should they impose theirs on ours. Those same-sex individuals who wish to have permanent monogamous marriages should be applauded as that announces that they are not following the "gay lifestyle" that is so often associated with all non-straight folks.

don · 01-04-09 11:17 pm

How can the choice of marriage between two consenting adults be any business of any government? The Government considers society's well-being to be a prevailing interest. Procreation is a major concern in such an interest. The government can choose various means to enhance procreation; limiting marriage to heterosexuals is one means. To do so is not by any means a religious endeavour. The government claims the well-being of the family as its domain and the church does the same. It must also seek for the well-being of gay members of society. Where this all lands is a matter for statesmen and women to contemplate and legislate accordingly. .

pilgrim99 · 01-05-09 6:37 pm

Elaine, So I guess that you have no problem with two consenting same sex siblings 'marrying' each other then? If you have an objection to this sibling 'marriage.' what is the basis of your objection? I also assume that you also do not object to your next door neighbor keeping a nuclear arsenal in his garage, he has no plans to use the arsenal, but he does have a right to keep and bear arms. Are there no limits to our rights? Have we reached a period where each man does what seems right to himself? Society has rightly determined that marriage is between one man and one woman. As for their private actions not affecting anyone else, these are excerpts from Part 1 of <a href="http://www.equip.org/site/c.muI1LaMNJrE/b.2722559/k.AD11/DH0551_Homosexuality_Fact_and_Fiction.htm" target=_top>HOMOSEXUALITY: Fact and Fiction</a><blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Dr. Klamecki then continues, discussing the various bacterial diseases and viral diseases he regularly encounters with his homosexual patients — the most prominent being AIDS (the current figure is that 70 percent of Americans with AIDS are male homosexuals or bisexuals). In addition, he asserts that up to 86 percent of homosexual males use various drugs to enhance and increase their sexual stimulation.44 Is the homosexual lifestyle a healthy one? The information presented above just scratches the surface showing the pathological nature of these sexual practices. Much more could be shared (e.g., the homosexual is three times more suicidal than the heterosexual; a recent study shows the life expectancy of homosexual men and women without AIDS being about 33 years shorter than that of the heterosexual; and so forth),45 but space will not permit it. I believe that any unbiased reader would have to admit that homosexuality is neither a healthy lifestyle nor a natural one.... ....THE CHRISTIAN'S TASK Before closing I need to clarify that while I believe that homosexuality is anatomically aberrant, psychologically deviant, and morally bankrupt, it is also just as true that we are all sinners. The Bible states that we have all turned our backs on God and gone our own way. As Martin Luther once put it, we each "sin often and daily." Except for the grace and mercy of God, each one of us would be left in our own little world of sin, alone and helpless. The good news, though, is that God has reached out to us, coming down to become one with us in our humanity, dying and rising again — that we may be free from the bondage of sin. For anyone struggling with the bondage of homosexuality, or the bondage of any other sin, there is freedom available at the cross of Calvary. Our task as Christians is to lovingly reach out to all people with the gospel of Jesus Christ.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> Our Laws reflect our morality, and morality has an objective standard. The overriding question is, whose morality is being reflected by promotion of homosexual marriage? If you are a Christian, shouldn't you be in favor of laws that uphold the highest moral standard? Or are you approving of something which God disapproves? Why would you want to promote behavior that produces disease and shortens peoples lifespan? Don't you have any concern for your fellow man? We all have our favorite sin(s), that does not make them acceptable to society or to God. (Message edited by pilgrim99 on January 06, 2009) (Message edited by pilgrim99 on January 06, 2009)

elaine · 01-06-09 1:48 am

Comparing a neighbor harboring a nuclear arsenal and his marriage is ludicrous, and you should know that before posting such an absurd suggestion. The Bible morals allowed polygamy which was practiced throughout the Hebrew Bible, without God ever condemning it. If it is wrong for two siblings to marry, who do you think was Cain's wife (or wives) Since we have no information about Adam and Eve's daughters, then where did wives come from originally? With AIDS being such a prominent killer, wouldn't monogamy of both hetero and homosexuals be a way to prevent AIDS? Promiscuity of heterosexuals is also how AIDS is spread. Morals change, as no one today condones polygamy, yet the history of that practice is as old as the Hebrew Bible. Are you saying that homosexuality is immoral? Or, is it promiscuity? Both such promiscuity is condemned in the Bible, but there is a place of monogamy, isn't there, which is a good deterrent for promiscuity. There is nothing in the Bible about homosexuality as a condition, only promiscuious homosexual acts. Do you believe Lot was a righteous man by offering his virgin daughters for heterosexual acts instead of homosexual?

pilgrim99 · 01-06-09 9:30 am

Please note God's original instructions for marriage:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a companion for him who corresponds to him.” The Lord God formed out of the ground every living animal of the field and every bird of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man named all the animals, the birds of the air, and the living creatures of the field, but for Adam no companion who corresponded to him was found. So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and while he was asleep, he took part of the man’s side and closed up the place with flesh. hen the Lord God made a woman from the part he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. Then the man said, “This one at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one will be called‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” That is why a man leaves his father and mother and unites with his wife, and they become a new family. Genesis 2:18-24 NET<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> Please note that 'wife,' is singular, the word for wife is 'ishshah,' it's definition includes 'the opposite of man.' When the legal experts used their misunderstanding of the Law, Jesus corrected them, by referring back to the original instructions, he even clarified why Moses permitted the less than ideal relationship.<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Then some Pharisees came to him in order to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful to divorce a wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and will be united with his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?” Jesus said to them, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because of your hard hearts, but from the beginning it was not this way. Now I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another commits adultery.” Matthew 19:3-8 NET<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>Just because something is recorded in the Bible, does not imply approval. The good, bad and ugly are all recorded for our instruction, including the story of Lot. In the Bible, men who took multiple wives all lived to suffer the consequences, as did their families. At what point in Biblical history was the prohibition on incest given? Your argument in support of the sin of homosexuality is not with me, but with Holy Scripture. What other sins meet your approval?<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God. Some of you once lived this way. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 NET<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>The Apostle Paul says that some of the Christians addressed by the letter, once lived in the habitual practice of sin, not just homosexual sin, but sin in all it's gory detail. He goes on to show that freedom from the bondage of sin is available in Christ. If we care for our fellow man, we should be offering this freedom from bondage to all types of sin, instead of approving of someones favorite sin. The question remains, why would you approve of behavior that shortens peoples lifespan, contributes to a higher suicide rate, causes depression and spreads disease?

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#1 12-30-08 10:18 am

Impressions Journal

#2 01-01-09 11:35 am

Re: Impressions Journal

#3 01-01-09 6:18 pm

Re: Impressions Journal

#4 01-01-09 6:30 pm

Re: Impressions Journal

#5 01-01-09 8:55 pm

Re: Impressions Journal

#6 01-01-09 10:41 pm

Re: Impressions Journal

#7 01-01-09 11:30 pm

Re: Impressions Journal

#8 01-02-09 1:13 am

Re: Impressions Journal

#9 01-02-09 1:55 am

Re: Impressions Journal

#10 01-04-09 4:14 pm

Re: Impressions Journal

#11 01-04-09 10:27 pm

Re: Impressions Journal

#12 01-04-09 11:17 pm

Re: Impressions Journal

#13 01-05-09 6:37 pm

Re: Impressions Journal

#14 01-06-09 1:48 am

Re: Impressions Journal

#15 01-06-09 9:30 am

Re: Impressions Journal

Board footer