Minnesota Campmeeting - What a range of views??

bob_2 · 08-03-09 12:24 am

<a href="http://www.mnsda.com/article.php?id=74" target=_top>http://www.mnsda.com/article.php?id=74</a> Scriven, on the first weekend and Jerry Page and his wife on the second weekend. Opposite ends of the Prop 8 spectrum. Scriven allowing Spectrum to spin off and preach Adventists Against Prop 8 while Jerry Page,(went to Andrews with him)was at the opposite end of the spectrum regarding Prop 8. What does SDAism stand for, what is truth, is it subjective???

renie · 08-03-09 9:25 pm

Sounds like it was a good Camp Meetng, Bob. You and I like to hear both sides, don't we? That's why we hang out here.

don · 08-04-09 2:15 am

What does SDAism stand for, what is truth, is it subjective??? In the early days of Adventism, a consensus developed regarding views taken. With the millions of Adventists today, it is harder to forge new agreements. SDAism's stands (plural) are evident via:<ul><li>The Review; <LI>The various conference and union conference periodicals; <LI>Books published by church presses; <LI>Audio and Video presentations via the media and Internet; <LI>Discussions on various forums; <LI>Discussions at various business meetings from local churches to conferences to GC sessions. <LI>Institutions such as schools, hospitals, ADRA etc. present Adventism.</li></ul>SDAism stands for various things depending on... .

lijhakim · 08-07-09 1:12 pm

The classic SDA stand is to take the Bible and the Bible only as the rule for faith and doctrine. Administration has added the 27 fundamental beliefs. Scholars have explained in great depth (usually in "Greek") what those doctrines mean. The man in the street uses a rather limited understanding of truth to live by. The pastors preach what they feel the congregation needs. etc.

john8verse32 · 08-08-09 9:50 am

...The classic SDA stand is to take the Bible only as the rule for faith and doctrine... as well as for history, archeology, science, the age of the earth, and how loving God is...... all mostly disproven if one looks at it in detail... but then,, The pastors preach what they feel the congregation needs... and who needs to know how superstitious and scientifically ignorant were the authors of the Old Test.... and how tyrannical they claimed the God of the Old Test was.... <a href="http://www.spectrummagazine.org/blog/2009/07/10/intersection_tv_christians_and_science" target=_top>http://www.spectrummagazine.org/blog/2009/07/10/intersection_tv_christians_and_science</a> its as tho for all our past we were reading the Old Test with our beer goggles on. made it look so attractive.... <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/7/1728.jpg" alt="">

george · 08-08-09 10:43 am

Just wondering if Hubert meant to say the Bible as "the only rule for faith and doctrine," as opposed what he did say, the Bible "only as the rule for faith and doctrine"?

elaine · 08-08-09 11:27 am

All churches claim to use the Bible for their faith and doctrine. It's in their interpretation of Scripture that they vary. Each group has its particular "proof texts" and Adventists have made a fetish of "proof" for the Biblically illiterate that is convincing. For those who have a good knowledge of Scripture, those "proofs" are totally unconvincing; in fact, Adventists twist them to make them say what they wish. One example: Col. 2:14-17, where Adventists have convinced themselves and their adherents, that Paul was speaking of annual sabbaths, rather than weekly. Any clear reading shows that both in the OT and in the new when there is mention of Jewish festivals, they are sequentially listed: either annually, monthly, or weekly, or in reverse order. To do otherwise, would have Col. 2: 14-17 read: "In regard to an annual, monthly, or annual celebration," illustrating an eisegetical interpretation that is only unique for SDAs. There are more. Of interest is the favored SDA theologian, Samuele Bacchiocchi, in order to preserve the sabbath, has stated that Christians are now obligated to begin keeping all these Jewish ordinances until the end of time--this in direct contradiction to Paul's message! Yet he is the "darling" of Sabbatarians!

bob · 08-09-09 8:12 am

Until they are able to rid themselves of the pollution caused by Ellen White, they will never be able to understand that the 10Cs along with all the law was accomplished at the Cross. Mankind is not subject to those laws. We have much higher laws that are part of the New Covenant established at the same Cross and offered to all people, not just Israel.

elaine · 08-09-09 11:39 am

Too many Adventists are still guided by the OT. As one well-known pastor has observed: the four unique SDA doctrines are all straight from the OT, and none originate from the NT! Sabbath, tithe, IJ, dietary laws. None can be corroborated from the New!

renie · 08-09-09 1:47 pm

Thanks, you guys, for your understanding of the OT and the NT. It has been SO helpful to me. Elaine, this is kinda a different subject, but I well remember Samuele Bacchiocchi's unrelenting fight against ordination of women. I wonder how much his influence had on the final decision of the General Conference. Anyway, I can't see his name without remembering his role in stalling the whole thing.

elaine · 08-09-09 5:18 pm

Renie, for a thorough discussion of Bacchiocchi's beliefs about sabbath, "google" "Doctors MacCarty and Bacchiocchi Wreak Havoc with the Sabbath and SDA Theology" by Kerry B. Wynne. An in-depth discussion of the Bible texts traditionally used by Adventists, and Bacchiocchi's "strange" and ultimate resolution that the NT texts demand that all the Jewish festivals mandated in the OT are to be observed today! Unknown by most Adventists is the fact that the gentiles could not keep the Law of Moses until they had become circumcised (Lev. 24:22), which explains the Jerusalem controversy over this surgery. That a gentile who kept the sabbath without first being circumcised was to be stoned to deth,k according to traditional Jewish law; and that the gateway to keep the Torah, even for an Israelite was circumcision. That sabbath was not part of Noachian Law. God sent his prophets to rebuke many gentile nations, but there is no record in the Bible that God eer rebuked them for sabbath-breaking. The word "sabbath" is not mentioned anywhere in the Creation passage or anywhere in Genesis. There is no command that Adam and Eve should rest even on that one day, much less every 7th day thereafter. When God drove Adam and Eve out of the Garden, he gave them all kinds of instruction, but never mentione a word about sabbath observance. There is no mention of sabbath-keeping to Abraham by God when he akes a covenant with him. If there had been a sabbath in Eden, there would have been no need to give another "sign," that of circumcision, to Abraham. In fact, there is no mention of the abbath until Ex. 16, which is after the Exodus from Egypt. The Lord did not make this covenant with our fathers but with us,. with all those of us alive here today" (Deut. 5:2-3). Paul clearly states that these four things--diet, annual feasts, monthly feasts, and the weekly ssabbath--are not to be made a test of Christian belief and practice because they are merely shadows of things that were to come, whereas Christ is the Reality. To try to salvage Sabbatarianism, Adventists say that Paul could not possibly have meant a weekly sabbath here because the sabbath was a memorial pointing backwards to Creation. All the dietary laws, purification rituals, and the sabbath were all part of this sytem of commandments and regulations which was designed to minimize the association between the Jews and the gentiles. Now that Christ has come, all the former barriers have been removed. "Remember that you were at that time seprate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of primise, having no hope and without God in the world. "But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought neaer by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall by abolishing in his flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, that in himself he might make the two into one new man, thus establilshing peace" (Eph. 2:12-16).

lijhakim · 08-10-09 1:19 am

Sirje, Your statement:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:"Just wondering if Hubert meant to say the Bible as "the only rule for faith and doctrine," as opposed what he did say, the Bible "only as the rule for faith and doctrine"?<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>Compared with my statement:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:"The classic SDA stand is to take the Bible and the Bible only as the rule for faith and doctrine."<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> I am not sure that I see the difference. I will clarify it by saying that we used to take the Bible and the Bible teachings as a whole as our only "creed." The issue may arise as to the place of Ellen White. I believe that Ellen White received messages from God for the church. Where these dealt with theological or Biblical matters it makes an inspired commentary on the Bible -- but the Bible is primary. As you know, I have made study of the Everlasting Covenant this past five years. I have used an occasional quote from EGW mainly because it said what I wanted to be said so well. Otherwise I have used the Bible for the great majority of my project. In doing so, I have found that on this subject the Bible had a lot more to say about the Covenant than she did. When it comes to posting on this forum, I have used the Bible almost exclusively for documentation on theological topics. (Don't know if this is what you wanted, But here it is!)

george · 08-10-09 6:39 am

Hubert. It wasn't a big deal. Because of John's response, I thought he understood you to say that the ONLY use for the Bible is for faith and doctrine. I was just pointing out the difference in what I thought you meant and what John seemed to take from it. I guess it's the English teacher still at work here - a matter of punctuation. Sorry.

john8verse32 · 08-10-09 11:04 am

this is the quote I copied letter for letter from Hubert's post the previous day: The classic SDA stand is to take the Bible only as the rule for faith and doctrine... I did not adjust nor change it. Yet, the next day, after being questioned, the previous days quote appears to have been altered, apparently in an effort to improve the statement: The classic SDA stand is to take the Bible and the Bible only as the rule for faith and doctrine. Hubert: how were you able to do this retroactive change? or did my copy-past function work wrong?

lijhakim · 08-11-09 12:16 am

John, It is easy to edit a post and make a change. Any member can make the change within 30 or 60 minutes. If you have moderator privileges you can edit a post at any time. HOWEVER, I did not edit my post. All edits are noted and dated on the post itself. I think you might have missed those three words "and the Bible" which is easy to do. I made that statement as I wanted everyone on this forum to know where I stand, and to save them having to write it again! Seriously, you need to be careful how you read the Bible. One of these days you are going to slip up and take the Bible seriously. THEN you will have a HUGE amount of editing to do!!!

john8verse32 · 08-11-09 10:30 am

ya.... church signs keep reminding me.. <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/7/1738.jpg" alt="">

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#1 08-03-09 12:24 am

Minnesota Campmeeting - What a range of views??

#2 08-03-09 9:25 pm

Re: Minnesota Campmeeting - What a range of views??

#3 08-04-09 2:15 am

Re: Minnesota Campmeeting - What a range of views??

#4 08-07-09 1:12 pm

Re: Minnesota Campmeeting - What a range of views??

#5 08-08-09 9:50 am

Re: Minnesota Campmeeting - What a range of views??

#6 08-08-09 10:43 am

Re: Minnesota Campmeeting - What a range of views??

#7 08-08-09 11:27 am

Re: Minnesota Campmeeting - What a range of views??

#8 08-09-09 8:12 am

Re: Minnesota Campmeeting - What a range of views??

#9 08-09-09 11:39 am

Re: Minnesota Campmeeting - What a range of views??

#10 08-09-09 1:47 pm

Re: Minnesota Campmeeting - What a range of views??

#11 08-09-09 5:18 pm

Re: Minnesota Campmeeting - What a range of views??

#12 08-10-09 1:19 am

Re: Minnesota Campmeeting - What a range of views??

#13 08-10-09 6:39 am

Re: Minnesota Campmeeting - What a range of views??

#14 08-10-09 11:04 am

Re: Minnesota Campmeeting - What a range of views??

#15 08-11-09 12:16 am

Re: Minnesota Campmeeting - What a range of views??

#16 08-11-09 10:30 am

Re: Minnesota Campmeeting - What a range of views??

Board footer