| Author | Message | ||
| Praisegod Registered user Username: Praisegod Post Number: 150 Registered: 3-2004 |
wow, Jeremy, I didn't know there was ever a written statement of beliefs that was anti-Trinitarian. Do you have a link or copy of that? How did they get themselves out of that fix? Actually, if they ever did have this and then said, "Hey, we were wrong," I would hold a lot more respect for the leadership. Praise God... | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 70 Registered: 10-2004 |
I doubt if they ever admitted they had been wrong. In fact, I think it may have been a sort of gradual change to Trinitarianism. And they still endorse EGW's writings which contain many anti-Trinitarian statements and they tolerate anti-Trinitarians in the church. There are quite a few of them--some of them call themselves "historic Adventists" (or "historical Adventists"). I would say that a sizeable percentage of SDAs do not believe in the Trinity. Some of these people have removed their membership from the SDA church and/or attend off-shoot type meetings, etc. But I think these people are allowed to be members in good standing, and I bet they are even allowed to hold offices such as Sabbath School teacher, deacon, elder, etc., at least in some churches. I can't remember where I read that about their statement of beliefs, but hopefully I can find it again. Jeremy | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 715 Registered: 3-2004 |
Or, tongue in cheek, are they "hysterical Adventists"??? Diana | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 214 Registered: 4-2000 |
Diana, Historically, there were many "hysterical Adventists." Regrettably, you and I have posthumously venerated one or more of them for many years without shame. My late American history professor at Union College in the 1960s, Dr. Everett N. Dick, wrote his doctoral thesis on "The Adventist Crisis of 1843-44," the first such study by a trained historian. Consequently, both F. D. Nichol and LeRoy E. Froom suppressed the publication of the manuscript for many years. After Dr. Dick's death, the manuscript was finally put into book form by Gary Land of Andrews University. The title of the forbidden book is "William Miller and the Advent Crisis." Wow! Contrary to SDA apologists, Nichol and Froom, Dr. Dick revealed that a few Millerites did indeed wear ascension robes among other hysterical things. Also, the Millerites had "reading rooms" like the Christian Science Church has today. To his credit, William Miller never accepted the investigative judgment alibi for his failed predictions. He admitted his error and died five years afterwards. Dennis J. Fischer | ||
| 33ad Registered user Username: 33ad Post Number: 100 Registered: 10-2004 |
Praisegod, I would not want to have anything to do with an organization that suddenly say "Hey, we were wrong," and change the rules. The church that Jesus Christ our Saviour founded has NEVER had to go back and say "Hey, we were wrong!" God Bless Loren | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 716 Registered: 3-2004 |
I have learned so much history of the of the SDAs since leaving the church. I am glad to hear Miller never accepted the IJ and that he admitted his error. That is not something SDAs do, so far as I can see. I am so glad I belong to Christ now and He will not change or fail me. He is awesome. Diana | ||
| Dd Registered user Username: Dd Post Number: 189 Registered: 7-2004 |
Dennis, I have seen Christian Science Reading Rooms...what are they exactly and how were the Millerites reading rooms similar? Thanks for this interesting history. | ||
| Lydell Registered user Username: Lydell Post Number: 646 Registered: 7-2000 |
Haven't read through all this thread, but want to make a comment here. Actually Loren, I think we would have to say that throughout the history of the Christian church there have been times of having to say "hey, we were wrong" and then setting things right. We can get into this place of thinking that, for instance, the early Christian church, just automatically knew everything that was truth. But those folks had to really do some studying and learning and struggling after Christ's resurrection to grasp stuff, beginning with why the Messiah died instead of becoming an awesome earthly King as they had expected. They were, after all, just a bunch of humans. They knew the stuff Christ had said, but still had been sifting it through the filter of their preconceived ideas. His death and resurrection forced a major pardigm shift in their thinking. They had to learn. The church's great confessions of faith came about through struggle as well. I think you'd see the same thing in every denomination that has been established. It's a good thing when people realize they were wrong and set things right. That's why we are out of the SDA's right? Problem with SDA is that they won't examine and then change their wrongs. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 911 Registered: 12-2003 |
I can't rememberwher I read this--it was about five years ago--but I read that when EGW "wrote" the Desire of Ages and published it, that was the first time the church fathers saw clearly stated Trinitarian views in her writings. She had not discussed them with anyone before including them in the book, and the church was still Arian. When the brethren read her Trinitarian statements in D/A, however, they assumed that she had received new revelation, and the doctrine of the Trinity eased its way with no official discussion or explanation into Adventist theology. Dennis's point about her copying from strong Trinitarian authors probably explains the church's change in stance more than any other one thing. BTW, a few months ago Richard and I and another former SDA friend spent a few hours on a Sunday afternoon comparing the words of hymns in the old SDA hymnbook (pre 1980), the new SDA hymnbook, and a Christian hymnbook. We were absolutely astonished at how many songs had words changed from the way they appeared in the Christian hymnbook. Several hymns (including Come Thou Almighty King and Holy, Holy, Holy) were changed to reflect more trinitarian views in the newest (post 1980) hymnbook. References to the trinity were noticably deleted or changed in the old SDA hymnbook. (For example,the hymn "Holy, Holy, Holy" actually ends with the line, "God in three Persons, blessed Trinity." The old SDA hymnbook ends the hymn, "God overall who rules eternally." And there were many more.) Another consistent doctrine which received alteration in the Adventist hymnals, both new and old, was the doctrine of the spirit going to God at death. Interestingly, we discovered that certain references to Christ's blood were omitted in the new hymnal which sometimes were present even in the old one--and sometimes were omitted from both but were present in the Christian hymnal. It was a fascinating and revealing study. Most of us never thought of our hymns as being in any way different from other people's; after all, we were singing the same hymns! Wrong! They often appeared to be the same hymns, but the words were altered to be Adventist. Now I know why Adventists have their own hymnals! (It's almost like having their own Bible...) Colleen | ||
| Praisegod Registered user Username: Praisegod Post Number: 153 Registered: 3-2004 |
Interesting point about the hymns. I always enjoyed the gospel song "I'll Fly Away" although I knew why SDAs wouldn't even consider using such heresy. It wasn't long ago that I found out that Moses was the author of such heresy: Psalm 90:10 The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away. I found that quite amusing. Can't let Moses mess up the theology! Praise God... | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 724 Registered: 3-2004 |
It is even in their hymns. I always thought the hymns were the same because the melody and most words are the same. I like Praisegod's statement about "can't let Moses mess up the theology." Diana | ||
| 33ad Registered user Username: 33ad Post Number: 102 Registered: 10-2004 |
Hi Lydell, I disagree with you and agree with you. Since the day of Pentecost, the Disciples knew the truth as they had been taught. And, as promised, Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide the early church. The Church and its Doctrines have never been wrong. BUT... there have always been INDIVIDUALS in the Church who had to say they were wrong. Peter had to admit he was wrong. Further down the line many early church fathers had to say they were wrong. (Like Augustine). And the Early Church was always fighting HERESY. But to their credit, they would call a Church wide council (Ecumenical Councils)to discuss the heresies and what action to take against them. Those who were teaching heresy were asked to repent, or be dis-fellowshipped. (Excommunicated)But as a Church Body (The Body of Christ) they never had to say they were wrong. Please bear in mind that our New Testament was not handed out to new converts at their baptism in the early centuries. For more than 200 years there was only the Greek Old Testament and fragments of Epistles and Gospels, and the Word of Truth had to be handed down by word of mouth. The first complete listing of the new testament books was given by St. Athanasius in his Paschal Letter in A.D. 367. Imagine it! If the writing of the New Testament had been begun at the same time as the U.S. Constitution, we wouldn't see a final product until the year 2076! We have to have more respect for the Early Church for "Keeping the Faith" in the face of almost impossible odds. God Bless Loren | ||
| Hrobinsonw Registered user Username: Hrobinsonw Post Number: 84 Registered: 7-2004 |
Colleen, I am seeing so many differences right now. Since I read those two books it is like Neo finally realizing what the Matrix is all about. It all makes sense to me. From the Hymnals to the Clear Word Bible. I now view SDA's as their own community. And that community doesn't like me very much right now. And I understand why. To 33ad, That is some good stuff that you posted. I am in the act of trying to construct a model of the early church. If you have any more information or directions that you can point me in I would greatly appreciate it. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 920 Registered: 12-2003 |
Hrob, your assessment that Adventists are "their own community" is 100% accurate. They want to appear "mainstream" and "normal", but in reallity their bottom line motive is to gain converts (mostly from people already in other Christian churches) who will become part of the "remnant", the only true church--the reality of Adventism is completely the opposite of what they publicly profess. Loren, I agree with your post above. The particular issue I have trouble with, though, is the idea that a particular denomination claims tht it is the true church of the apostles, the only one which has retained true orthodoxy and original traditions. As I understand the New Testament, the true church of the apostles is everyone who has been born again. Those people are scattered throughout denominations and churches and don't all have identical practices. Pentecost was not just about the Holy Spirit guiding people. It was the beginning of the Church. The church is now God's temple; He personally resides inside the still-sinful flesh of every person who surrenders himself to Jesus Christ. That indwelling is the new birth; the Holy Spirit brings our previously dead spirits to life, and we are quite literally new creatures born of God. We are completely different from the non-born again world. We who are born again are the true church. And yes, just like the early church, we still must be on guard against heresies, deceptive teachings, and doctrines of demons. Those things will assault God's church until He returns. But, as Jesus said, the gates of hell will not prevail against His church. His new creatures, worshiping in spirit and in truth in all types of different Christian churches/denominations, are all being taught by God and by Scripture. Ultimately, God, not a body of believers who guard a particular legacy, keeps His church pure. He convicts people of turth and directs them to speak and teach. And we are all brothers and sisters in Christ, united by the Holy Spirit in fellowship that no human attempts can mimic! (Fellowship with other believers still amazes me--it's 180 degrees away from the "fellowship" of Adventism and its shared culture!) Praise God! Colleen | ||
| 33ad Registered user Username: 33ad Post Number: 105 Registered: 10-2004 |
Colleen, This is going to be a long post. You're also right and wrong. I think the problem with us Formers is that we always had 'The Remnant' thrust down our throats, so we're wary of commitment again. (Just like divorcees - I've been down that road twice) You are right when you say we are all brothers and sisters in Christ, united by the Holy Spirit in fellowship that no human attempts can mimic! But the fact remains, astonishing as it sounds, that Orthodoxy did not deviate from the time of the apostles till today. Their fight with heresy forced them to "fence the truth in" as it were. Mistakes were made, but each time the Whole Christian World came together in council to sort out the problem. And also, the decisions were never thrust on the laiety either. The whole church together had to study and decide and accept what was truth before it became "Canonical". The problem arose when the Bishop of Rome decided he could make his decisions on his own and make them law without consulting the church. That is when the Western Roman Catholic Church parted ways with the Eastern Church in 1054. The eastern church continued on as they always had, only making decisions on a church wide basis. By the 8th century no more 'new light' seemed to be uncovered, and they have kept their form of worship ever since. The heresies facing Protestantism today had already been addressed before the 8th century and could be countered by the church. In the west 500 years after the split, the reformers stood up to point out the heresies in the RCC. But by this time there was no communication between the Eastern and Western churches, and a lot of good doctrine had been corrupted or lost in the West. So the reformers had to start from scratch, and that is when the arguments started and havn't stopped. Each one wants to interpret scripture to suit themselves. Here is a link to an Ortodox aricle about this Colleen:http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/pomaz_status.aspx BTW, once you've read the article, browse back to the "For Enquiers" main page for many other in depth studies on what I have been speaking about. Hrob, go to this site (I'm sorry I can't do HTML so you have to copy & paste into the browser.)and click on "Church History". There you'll find loads of indepth info on the History of the Early Church. Happy reading. http://www.holytrinitymission.org/index.php God bless Loren | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 923 Registered: 12-2003 |
Loren, I have no desire to argue orthodoxy vs. Protestantism, but I have to say that I really disagree with the premise presented on the web page you posted above. I also followed a couple of the links to other pages. In short, I disagree with the implicit and nearly overt statement that one must belong to the True Church (read that Orthodox Church) in order to be part of the body of Christ. The page did state that those who have split from the Orthodox Church are not part of the true church. The page also stated that "truth" as taught, fought for, and preserved by the Orthodox Church is based upon Holy Scriptures and Holy Tradition. Further, that page and one of the linked pages was clear that those who do not find themselves honoring and communing with the "invisible church" which includes the saints and Mary the Mother of Jesus are splitting themselves off from God's true and full church--the visible and the invisible. Here's my bottom line: if Scripture is not enough to reveal salvation and the means necessary to become part of the true body of Christ, then we are fairly hopeless. There has to be some single source of truth and reality and authority that is OUTSIDE human tradition and teaching--something that has remained unchanged and unchanging, and something which is a common denominator for all believers. The web site you listed above even discusses whether or not the prayers of those outside the Orthodox Church are heard by God. It concedes they may be heard, but suggests that they are not as effective as those who also commune with the invisible church. I should be able to learn about Jesus and obtain salvation without any help from any organized church. Now, the reality is that my commitment to Jesus has made me much more willing to be connected with a visible body of believers. While I do think that many who are in the process of leaving the church feel that they never want to "belong" to any church or denomination again, I find that the desire to become a member of a local congregation is common and becomes quit a strong drive in many "formers". The reason, I suspect, is that the fellowship of the Spirit is compelling, and one realizes that one has a place in Christ's body. The Bible simply gives no direction to Christians to observe traditions preserved by any group of people. The gospel is clear in the Bible, and I know that we owe a great debt of gratitude to the church fathers who sorted out the canon from the "uninspired" works. But I do not believe an organization has the authority to claim for itself the title of the one true church. I believe all born again believers who are made alive by the Holy Spirit can claim to be part of the one true church--but the Biblical picture of that church is of diverse people around the world united by only the love of the Father, belief in the Lord Jesus, and the fellowship of the Spirit. Yes, organizational principles are given in order that believers can function in communities with respect for one another's gifts and responsibilities. But those local congregations took on the flavor of their geography. Jewish Christian communities still looked quite Jewish; many Jewish Christians still worshiped on Sabbath, etc. Gentile Christian communities were quite different. Nowhere, however, is there a hint in the Bible that the Body of Christ communicates literally with the saints in heaven. Further, the Bible gives no hint that we have a personal "patron saint" who will be our particular spiritual advisor/protector. While I believe the saints are with Jesus, it's quite clearly not Biblical that a test of belonging to the body of Christ must be that we acknowledge and commune with the "invisible church" in heaven. Of course there is one true church--but that church is all who are born of the Spirit. Romans 8:15-17 clearly states that we received the "spirit of sonship," and by him we call God our Father. "The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs--heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory." This confidence and promise of inheriting with Jesus the glory of eternity is the promise that we are part of the One True Church--the only true body of Christ: those who have been made alive in Him by the indwelling Holy Spirit. We do not become part of the true church by adopting Sacred Tradition. We become part of it by surrendering to Jesus. "His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knolwedge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires." (2 Peter 1:3-4) Loren, I am not upset with you. I appreciate your positive attitude and your love of Jesus. I just strongly disagree with the claims of the Orthodox Church and find them anti-Biblical and exclusive. The Bible is clear that there is only one way to the Father--but that one way is Jesus, not practices, not tradition, and not church membership. Orthodoxy teaches that one is not truly part of Christ's body apart from membership in the Church. The New Testament teaches that one is not part of Christ's body apart from the new birth--regardless of church membership. Colleen | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 77 Registered: 10-2004 |
I sadly must say that the Orthodox church is definitely a cult. They claim that they are the only true church, the only body of Christ, the only Christians, and that you have to be in their church in order to be saved! They believe in extra-Biblical authority. They preach a false gospel of salvation by works, which anyone who preaches receives the double curse of anathema in Galatians 1. They don't seem to be very different from the Catholic church in their main doctrines and practices. Jeremy | ||
| 33ad Registered user Username: 33ad Post Number: 107 Registered: 10-2004 |
Colleen & Jeremy, I thank our Lord that on this forum we can at least agree to disagree. I know that I can not convince you by argument on this matter. Just one text here: "2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." What traditions is Paul referring to here? Remember Jesus attacked the pharisees for holding to the traditions of men. Here Paul is speaking about the "Holy Tradition", sent by the Holy Spirit and kept by word of mouth until the scriptures were complete and available. That is why scripture can only be interpreted in conjunction with "Holy Tradition". Colleen, when I left the SDA's, I did not believe that we should belong to a church with a hierachy, etc. I was doing home church, as I believed the apostles were doing things that way. I 'kicked against the pricks' as hard as I could. I did not have a 'Damascus Road' experience, but the Holy Spirit took me in hand quite hard until the blinkers fell off my eyes. Jeremy, do you truly believe that God would entrust his word to a 'cult'? And keep the world in apostacy for 1500 years until the reformation? I think not. The only 'works' anyone has to do is what we do after Jesus enters our hearts. If I accept Jesus, and then go my merry way without caring for the widows, orphans, homeless, etc, my christianity is dead. That is what James meant and how Orthodoxy interpret it. The danger for us Formers is that we are afraid of anything the SDA's preached. Just remember that you only need 1% lies to 99% truth (These are just illistrative nimbers, not intended for accuracy)to make something suspect. But then one must go back and analyze the content thourghly before discarding it. Another thing that made me sit up and think was this, and I've posted it before. Which Church had more martyrs in the 20th century than all the previous centuries combined? And why? Answer, the Orthodox church, and satan hates it! I've said my piece, I'll agree to disagree and we can concentrate on the Basics of Christian living on the forum. God Bless Loren | ||
| Dd Registered user Username: Dd Post Number: 197 Registered: 7-2004 |
Colleen, Jeremy, Loren... You guys are an inspiration to me. I tend to be too non-confrontational (talk radio can make me quesy  ). You guys are disagreeing and I am not reluctant to read any of your viewpoints. I think that is because I have faith that what motivates all of you is your faith and love in the One who unites us all in His love. Thanks for sharing with us. | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 216 Registered: 4-2000 |
The Spirit-filled life is not about us directing the day-to-day process of sanctificaton, but rather our allowing Him to transform us. We don't have to be good to be saved, but we do have to be saved to be good. Dennis J. Fischer |
