| Author |
Message |
Melissa
Registered user
Username: Melissa
Post Number: 1194
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 10:46 am: |     |
What is your best guess on the proliferation of those views in the SDA pews? Are they the exception, the rule, evenly dispersed? |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 2955
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 12:15 pm: | |
Good question, Melissa. I think it probably varies with geography and demographics. For sure they are all represented, along with others much more liberal.
I do believe the confusion regarding the nature of Christ is rampant. I never knew exactly what to think about that. Also, the Michael the Archangel theory is twisted as Belva explained above: Jesus was Jesus (not an angel per se) and was, as such, head of the angels. It was an unsatisfying explanation that didn't deal with the implications of the belief, but then, cognitivie dissonance is a way of life for Adventists.
Colleen |
Belvalew
Registered user
Username: Belvalew
Post Number: 765
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 12:21 pm: | |
I may get thumped for saying this, but I think the average SDA in the pew is a well-intentioned individual, a little pompous on the outside and a little scared on the inside. Most have given over their powers of discernment to their pastors and the red books. Because of that "greater light - lesser light" mumbo-jumbo they believe that they can't figure out what the bible says anyway, at least not on their own, and besides they believe the bible to be thought inspired instead of the full word of God in written form, so they suspect that they can't trust what they read there. Therefore they bumble along, believing the pastor's sermons and whatever is in the Quarterly. Why do I say that, because I was that person, and a lot of the people I knew were that person. These people are sheep and they will be lead by the leader du jour. Adventism has told them that they are at risk by the hands of the rest of the Christian world, and that they cannot trust their own instincts and must be in the pew every week so that the group-speak can be fed into them on a regular basis. Oh, and all must bow down to the Lady of the Red Books.
Belva |
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1064
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 12:23 pm: | |
Melissa, to be fair I think most modern SDAs in the pews would be agast at the conversation over there. I would say by and large lay-SDAs have a fuzzy understanding of the nature of Christ and of the Trinity, but they do believe Jesus to be fully God, co-eternal and co-equal withe the Father. I think RS is attracting some real extremists for some reason. I do fault Adventism for never fully renouncing and repenting of their arian heritage and for allowing these pockets of arianism to continue with psuedo-acceptance of many, but I also want to be fair and say it doesn't represent the norm.
Chris |
Belvalew
Registered user
Username: Belvalew
Post Number: 768
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 1:25 pm: | |
Wow, roll out the paddy wagon and the jacket with the fancy sleeves -- Our boy WITL needs some rest for his weary mind! Here is a copy of his latest post on R/S:
----------
I wonder how many Seventh-day Adventists will have to die at the hands of neo-inquisitional Rome before its leadership realizes how great a compromise this spurious doctrine is. When persecution breaks out, SDA's will be betraying one another over whether they will submit over this RC central doctrine. This should not be the case. The pioneers understood this, the scriptures reinforce it, the SOP supports it (non-trinitarian), how long will you live in denial of this clear compromise with falsehood?
----------
If this isn't a clear case of certifiable paranoia, I don't know how else to describe it. Isn't this young man studying for the ministry? Horrors! How many congregations do you think he is going to be allowed to mess up?
By the way, the spurious doctrine to which he is referring is The Trinity. |
Jackob
Registered user
Username: Jackob
Post Number: 46
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 2:24 pm: | |
Yes, Chris, most will be agast. They don't understand that, to be true to the sda heritage, the consistent position is anti-trinitarianism. Not to be true to the pioneers, but to the doctrine which the church believes now, in this century, not 160 years ago.
Great controvesy through adventism and EGW lens begun with envy. Lucifer envied Christ because Christ was above him. Think about it: why an angel protest that the Lord God Almighty and Eternal was above him? It doesn't make any sense. It make sense only if Jesus is somehow in the same category as angels, if Jesus is Michael, if He has a beginning, and is not equal with God. Only if we don't believe in Trinity the theory of envy stands.
It's important to observe that the fact that the Father is above all angels, including Satan was not disputed by him.
Yet the Son of God was exalted above him, as one in power and authority with the Father. He shared the Father's counsels, while Lucifer did not thus enter into the purposes of God. "Why," questioned this mighty angel, "should Christ have the supremacy? Why is He honored above Lucifer?" {PP 36.3}
EGW said that it was not a change in position, it was a position which the Son had from the beginning. Strange is the fact that, in EGW account, the angels never said to Satan "Jesus is fully God, has no begining, is almighty". This ends the controversy: "You, Lucifer have a begining, and are not almighty. You has an inferior position to Jesus by default." Here is Ellen White
But angels who were loyal and true maintained the wisdom and justice of the divine decree and endeavored to reconcile this disaffected being to the will of God. Christ was the Son of God; He had been one with Him before the angels were called into existence. He had ever stood at the right hand of the Father; His supremacy, so full of blessing to all who came under its benignant control, had not heretofore been questioned. The harmony of heaven had never been interrupted; wherefore should there now be discord? {PP 38.3}
Observe the arguments:
1' Jesus is Son of God (no he is fully God)
2. Jesus was one with the Father before the angels existed (not from eternity, but before angels, sufficient to have a superior position)
3. His authority was never questioned
Never a hint about Son's eternal existence, never a hint about His almighty power. These atributes remove all terms of comparisions. But angels never bring them. All they do is to appeal to characteristics which are in harmony with the anti-trinitarian views. And all, are true. Jesus was the Son of God, He was before the angels, and His authority was never questioned.
I think that here Ellen White got us all, because, saying something which is truth she hided the fact that the great controversy theme is based on anti-trinitarian views. Even if adventism are agast at an anti-trinitarian views, they held the gret controversy concept based on anti-trinitarian views.
Sorry for wording, don't forget that I live in Romania, and the only place in which I speak, or write in english is here. So, be patient with me
|
Belvalew
Registered user
Username: Belvalew
Post Number: 769
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 4:22 pm: | |
Jackob, you are able to articulate the ideas very well. Never apologize for your command of the English language. We don't mind the way you word things. You have made an astute observation, and that is that without the arian starting point you cannot have "The Great Controversy."
Actually I don't believe the Bible ever really details what Satan's rebellion was based on, just that it took place and left behind the terrible consequence of dividing the angel population. Once banished, Satan sold the seeds of sedition on earth, and then you and I came into the equation via Adam and Eve.
There is too much scriptural evidence pointing to the deity of Jesus to deny it. |
Freeatlast
Registered user
Username: Freeatlast
Post Number: 452
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 4:31 pm: | |
Jackob, I personally would rather listen to you fumble with the language in order to speak the truth to me than the most articulate SDA apologist who tells me only slick lies in perfect English.
If Jesus is not God, then I'm toast. |
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1066
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 5:05 pm: | |
Jackob, I think you are dead-on in your analysis of the Great Controversy themes and their dependence upon arianism. Nice commentary!
Chris |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 2958
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 7:47 pm: | |
Jackob, I agree. I believe you are absolutely correct in your evaluation of the Great Controversy. If Ellen had really believed in Jesus' divinity, there would be no Great Controversy.
In reality, Adventism is a subtle variation on the heresy Mormons and others embrace, that Jesus and Satan were brothers; they had a "fight", and Jesus essentially was/will be the winner.
Colleen |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 366
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 7:29 am: | |
Chris,
I agree that many SDAs in the pews wouldn't agree with the extreme views posted on RS. But I would also bet that these same people in the pews would still appoint these people as leaders and teachers within their churches so long as the upheld, sabbath, EGW, and SDA lifestyle questions. I also agree that the SDA church does a very poor job of teaching members about the nature and divinity of Christ.
Jackob,
Let me take your assessment a few steps further. In SDA thinking Jesus (Michael) and the angels that follow Jesus battle Satan and the angels that him. A direct parallel.
In the Day of Atonement typology (as taught by SDAs) Satan and Jesus are symbolized by identical goats. This just becomes another case of declaring them equivalent.
Jesus (Michael) dare not pronounce a judgment against Satan (Jude 9). Could this be because of their relative equal status? |
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1067
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 7:42 am: | |
Ric, Sadly you are probably correct that the extremist on RS would have no problem being accepted in most SDA churches as long as they held to the SDA distinctives. I agree that it seems to be at least marginally acceptable to compromise essential Christian doctrine as long as you cling to SDA distinctives.
Chris |
Belvalew
Registered user
Username: Belvalew
Post Number: 771
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 3:07 pm: | |
If you have been following the events on R/C then you know that everybody has divided and dissolved into petty arguing. Sound familiar?
I'm proud of Pastor O'Ffill for standing up for the Trinity based on that being a part of his baptismal vows. WITL turned around and accused him of behaving like a boy scout and adhering to a precept just because it was in the bylaws. The saddest statement was a reflection of the normal Adventist approach to things. Find a topic, pick it apart, make it personal, then show that if the faithful don't live up to that precept they will be lost. How did the word "Lost" get to be so popular within the Adventist lexicon? |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 1030
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 11:55 pm: | |
We see the downplaying of the importance of sound doctrine even in evangelical circles with the embracing of those who deny the Trinity in its classic and true sense, and an example of this is the acceptance of outspoken modalists such as T.D. Jakes and musicians Phillips, Craig, and Dean. And then you have the compromise of evangelicals with counterfeits such as Roman Catholicism and, yes, SDA. I wonder at times what mainstream evangelical Christianity will look like in the future if the Lord does not come back relatively soon. However, Jesus has promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the true body of believers who are true to scripture, His true church. |
Insearchof
Registered user
Username: Insearchof
Post Number: 26
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 3:57 pm: | |
I was browsing R/S today and it appears that Guibox has decided to stop posting on the R/S forums. From what I was able to gather in the times I spent browsing the forums over there, he was often the lone voice of reason and balance in what appears to be an ultra-conservative SDA forum.
I for one will miss his point of view.
InSearchOf |
Belvalew
Registered user
Username: Belvalew
Post Number: 782
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 10:04 am: | |
I agree. The fact is that Guibox is a practicing Adventist and will sometimes worry about those who have been studying their way out of error (my word, not his). He is still growing in grace and is more and more willing to accept the scriptures themselves, alone. It's not the first time that faithful posters have been shunned away from that site. |
Susan_2
Registered user
Username: Susan_2
Post Number: 2075
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, December 10, 2005 - 11:23 pm: | |
I recently was reading the Amazing facts booklet about jesus being michael the archangel. I was reading this at a SDA's house, the booklet was on the table. I asked the relative if she believed Jesus was/is michael. I got the answer tgat she didn't have an opinion on it. It is a subject of total non interest to her. i gently pushed the issue and finily was told she saw no problem with the teaching that Jesus could be michael. As a former teacher of many years she frequently would have students in her class that had the same name. Several boys might be in the same class named juan or there might be several boys named Jorge or several girls with the same name. So, she saw no problem that jesus and Michael the Archangle might have the same name, Michael to God. I told her there are numerous names and titles in the Bible for Jesus such as the messiah, the Alpha and the Omega, the Chriat, there are many but that jesus is never called Michael. I was told it just plain doesn't matter and someday when she gets to heaven if she gets couruious about it she will find out. It just is too weird for me trying to make heads or tails from a conversation with SDA's on almost any subject.
|
|
