Rules of logic. Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Former Adventist Fellowship Forum » ARCHIVED DISCUSSIONS 6 » Rules of logic. « Previous Next »

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
  Start New Thread        

Author Message
Jim02
Registered user
Username: Jim02

Post Number: 121
Registered: 5-2007
Posted on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 6:36 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I have been reading up on some of the beliefs of a Church I am considering attending.

A recurring theme I see is various denominations present logic strings that appear to make some sense but then when it is to thier advantage depending upon the subject tehy often use the opposite logic string to justify a point.

For example, a common one is, X is so because it is never mentioned in scripture.
Or Y is so because scripture does not tell us specificaly that it was to be discontinued.

Now depending on the subject, they use whatever works for them.

Example: They argue to discontinue the 7th day Sabbath by saying it was not commanded in the NT, but argue to retain the tithe even though it too is not commanded in the NT. Thus , the same church(s) defeat their own arguments by using two standards for establishing a point.

I mentioned before, I do not think there is a single church that has it's doctrine consistantly presented with logic and integrity of the rules it stands on. You can't have your cake and eat it too, so to speak.

Yes , I understand , fellowship is more important and our walk with Christ is paramount.

My problem is I am tired of these scenarios where they assume a spirtual leadership and authority based upon flawed reasoning and errant doctrines. All this sets me up for more spiritual abuse.

A Baptist(among others) church is preaching Sunday sanctity and endorsing restricting purchases on Sunday, a form of forcing the conscious, yet their own charter proclaims individual liberty of conscious and a separation of church and state. In other words, I see these various churches not even preaching what they supposedly say they believe or not practicing what they say they believe becuase it is unpopular and unworkable.

I do not want to sound judgemental. This is about achieving a conviction on the basics, in order to find a church to call home.
Flyinglady
Registered user
Username: Flyinglady

Post Number: 3888
Registered: 3-2004


Posted on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 7:41 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I knew my church advodcated tithe paying, but the preachers do not preach it or make it a salvation issue. The way I learned it as an SDA was that if we did not pay tithe, it was a salvation issue. In other words, I would not make it to heaven. I would never attend a church that said Sunday was Sabbath. Pray about a church. Go to many, talk to the pastors about what you see is New Covenant and Old Covenant. Then pray some more.
God has something for you, some where.
Diana
River
Registered user
Username: River

Post Number: 955
Registered: 9-2006


Posted on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 8:13 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Know what you mean about the faulty logic Jim.

I wouldn't put up a bet that you will find a perfect fit, I can tell you that all the protestant churches are based on the below fundamental.
The four pillars of the Christian faith.

1. Believe that Christ died and rose the third day. 1 Cor 15:1 and Romans 10: 9,10
2. Sola feida (think I spelled that right) faith alone.
3. Christ deity.
4. Absolute and complete atonement for our sins at the cross.

Look at it like a four legged stool, you can sit firmly on this stool and the legs will hold. Examine it logically and with the Bible.

This is the foundation of the protestant faith, the pillars upon which the protestant faith rests on, notice that I did not say catholic.

Some churches such as Adventist would like to sound as if they belong to the protestant church but they are a sham.
A Roman Catholic will tell you he is Catholic he does not try to hide at least.

In the military (At least in my day) you were ask if you were Protestant or Catholic or Jewish, you had no other check box with which to answer this question.

So which is it Jim, if you extract either one of those four pillars or legs up there you are not even protestant. An Adventist is not a protestant, a half Adventist is not a protestant.

In order to claim the name Christian you have to have those four fundamentals regardless of the other baggage you might carry along with it.

I challenge anyone to try to extract a leg or pillar using the Bible from these four fundamentals of the protestant faith.
If you find a church that does not hold all four of these fundamentals they are not protestant, they may claim to be but they are a sham.
Look at the logic and see how one affects the other.
Again I wish you the best in finding a place where you can feel at home.
River
Jim02
Registered user
Username: Jim02

Post Number: 122
Registered: 5-2007
Posted on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 8:36 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

River you wrote the following list of four pillars.

The four pillars of the Christian faith.

1. Believe that Christ died and rose the third day. 1 Cor 15:1 and Romans 10: 9,10

SDA agree.

2. Sola feida (think I spelled that right) faith alone.
SDA hold a study on Righteousness By Faith that pretty much includes this.

3. Christ deity.
I cannot speak for the 1800s , but current teachings include the Trinity and the Diety of Christ.

4. Absolute and complete atonement for our sins at the cross.

The teach that as well.

So , I am not getting the point here.
River
Registered user
Username: River

Post Number: 956
Registered: 9-2006


Posted on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 9:09 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jim, the sda TRY to include those things, but they pollute it with E.G W, IJ, Sabbath only worship, works salvation, eating habits of the rabbit, it doesn't hold up under their SDA doctrines and beliefs, they are a sham mimicking those four pillars. All they can do is mimic.

You have to know your Bible in order to get the true meaning of those four pillars.

Now before I get exasperated with you and say something I will regret later, I am going to shut up and leave you at it lest we end up going around and around, I am just not prepared to go in circles that lead nowhere but would only upset us both. Been there, done that and got the T shirt.
River
Reb
Registered user
Username: Reb

Post Number: 216
Registered: 5-2007
Posted on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 9:13 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

River is 100% right, Jim.
Jim02
Registered user
Username: Jim02

Post Number: 126
Registered: 5-2007
Posted on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 9:28 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Run Silent Run Deep,

message recieved.
Jwd
Registered user
Username: Jwd

Post Number: 280
Registered: 4-2005


Posted on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 10:56 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Try Sola fide. :c) (by faith alone)

A difficulty I have discovered when it comes to "logic and reason," and we know that is rittled with holes. Truth is not always logical and reasonable, especially to the carnal mind. And often I determine my own standard of what is logical and reasonable to me; which "can be" far from that which is ultimate truth.

For instance, where is the logic in 2 Cor 5:21?
This suddenly becomes the "foolishness" to the unregenerate mind. Not at all logical and certainly not reasonable. Yet it comes from God's pre-dawn purpose (Cp.Eph 1:4).

But getting back to what I started to say. I have discovered other churches, Sola Scriptura churches, even, who have Biblical interpretations I believe stem from "theological presuppositions" rather than contextural, balanced hermeneutics
and exegesis. Adventism has (IMHO) a foundation of "theological presuppositions" behind some of it's key teachings.

A group of men, or one man, or one "prophet" comes up with what he/they think is the truth. They then go in search of Scripture and pick out all the texts which "seem" / "appear" to support my presupposition (my own interpretation, which is often based more upon subjectivism, than objective balanced weighing of the evidence of Scripture itself; not my perceptions of what is the truth I want to be revealed); and thus a Corn Field theology labelled the Investigative Judgment arises; and people will virtually come to blows over defending it.

Bible truth must harmoize (be logical and reasonable) with the WHOLE of Scripture; but, in my conviction, must yield always to the final APEX of Scripture authority, in Jesus Christ in the New Testament. Not the Old defining the New, but the New defining the Old.

Jess
Stevendi
Registered user
Username: Stevendi

Post Number: 146
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 10:59 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Adventism is religion. Religion is man-made. The Gospel is God-made. I do not need religion. I need God. I hope that's not too complicated for all us theological brain surgeons out here. Do not panic when you read this, do not call 911. Do pray.

steve

(Message edited by stevendi on June 29, 2007)
Laurie
Registered user
Username: Laurie

Post Number: 20
Registered: 6-2007
Posted on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 1:38 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Adventism absolutely does NOT teach Absolute and complete atonement for our sins at the cross.

The IJ is the second phase of the atoning ministry of Jesus. This is stated in no uncertain terms in the actual doctrine of the SDA church.

Great Controversy Page 489
The intercession of Christ in man's behalf in the sanctuary above is as essential to the plan of salvation as was His death upon the cross. By His death He began that work which after His resurrection He ascended to complete in heaven.

Ellen is stating that His death BEGAN the work of salvation.

Here's another one:
"But, according to the unerring word of God, every man will be judged and rewarded according as his works have been, and we are admonished to so speak and to so do as 'they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.' When sin has been repented of, confessed, and forsaken, then pardon is written against the sinner's name; BUT HIS SINS ARE NOT BLOTTED OUT UNTIL AFTER THE INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT." The Signs of the Times, May 16, 1895

No comment needed on that one.

Laurie
River
Registered user
Username: River

Post Number: 960
Registered: 9-2006


Posted on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 1:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jess, I knew I misspelled that but it was all Steves fault.
River
Laurie
Registered user
Username: Laurie

Post Number: 21
Registered: 6-2007
Posted on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 1:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Nothing gets me going like hearing someone say that adventism teaches completement atonement for our sins at the cross.

Straight from the SDA website:

24. Christ's Ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary:
There is a sanctuary in heaven, the true tabernacle which the Lord set up and not man. In it Christ ministers on our behalf, making available to believers the benefits of His atoning sacrifice offered once for all on the cross. He was inaugurated as our great High Priest and began His intercessory ministry at the time of His ascension. In 1844, at the end of the prophetic period of 2300 days, He entered the second and last phase of His atoning ministry. It is a work of investigative judgment which is part of the ultimate disposition of all sin, typified by the cleansing of the ancient Hebrew sanctuary on the Day of Atonement. In that typical service the sanctuary was cleansed with the blood of animal sacrifices, but the heavenly things are purified with the perfect sacrifice of the blood of Jesus. The investigative judgment reveals to heavenly intelligences who among the dead are asleep in Christ and therefore, in Him, are deemed worthy to have part in the first resurrection. It also makes manifest who among the living are abiding in Christ, keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, and in Him, therefore, are ready for translation into His everlasting kingdom. This judgment vindicates the justice of God in saving those who believe in Jesus. It declares that those who have remained loyal to God shall receive the kingdom. The completion of this ministry of Christ will mark the close of human probation before the Second Advent.

It infuriates me....He entered the second and last phase of His atoning ministry. It is a work of investigative judgment which is part of the ultimate disposition of all sin.

There is no second phase of atonement. Atonement was complete at the cross. PERIOD!

Laurie
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 6169
Registered: 12-2003


Posted on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 2:19 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

So true. Jim, the SDA church does not actually teach those four pillars. On the surface they have doctrinal statements that sound orthodox, but they are deceptively worded, and in practice, Adventists are not taught the toatlly completed atonement (which includes the assurance of salvation as per Ephe 1:13-14 and Romans 8:14-17).

They are not taught the unambiguous divinity of Jesus. While on the one hand they CLAIM he is eternal and fully God, in practice they teach he could have sinned, He didn't know whether or not He would be able to complete His mission, and that had He failed, the universe would have spun out of control. They actively teach that God took a risk in sending Jesus, and that the Godhead would have been fractured if Jesus had failed.

Absolutely NONE of this stuff is Biblical. Jesus as a man may not have been able to see clearly what would happen, yet He still taught His disciples that he would rise the third day. God is eternal and indestrucible and not able to sin...God did NOT risk the Trinity when Jesus came. The way Adventists teach and understand their "innocuous" statements of belief bear no resemblance to the way Protestant churches teach thes same doctrines.

No, Adventists merely CLAIM to believe. In practice, they teach something very different. The founding roots are the secret, Jim. Adventism did not spring from the apostolic church. Protestantism did. Adventism sprang from the heresy or Arianism, and that Arian root still nourishes and shapes the practical understanding of Adventist doctrines.

Colleen
Bobj
Registered user
Username: Bobj

Post Number: 215
Registered: 1-2006


Posted on Saturday, June 30, 2007 - 9:53 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Laurie

The IJ puts man at the center of his own salvation--it all depends on the sinner--Jesus only makes it POSSIBLE for him to be saved, and therefore makes his salvation just another form of idolatry.

In the OT, when a sinner brought a sacrifice to the priest, the LAMB was examined to make sure IT was perfect (and therefore qualified to serve as the sinner's substitute) not the sinner who throughout his entire life had to repeatedly and continually bring sacrifices for his sin.

Contrast this to the IJ, in which the SINNER is examined to see if HE is perfect and can stand before before God without sinning and without the Saviour as Mediator. Of what value is Jesus if he is not available at such a moment?

It's may seem subtle, but it's outright idolatry--the same humanistic, sinner-centered, do-it-yourself--just try harder--stuff. Calvinists make a good point when they say that the Arminian God is not worshippable.

Bob
River
Registered user
Username: River

Post Number: 968
Registered: 9-2006


Posted on Saturday, June 30, 2007 - 3:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Good points Bob.
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy

Post Number: 1895
Registered: 10-2004


Posted on Sunday, July 01, 2007 - 1:37 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Bob wrote: "In the OT, when a sinner brought a sacrifice to the priest, the LAMB was examined to make sure IT was perfect (and therefore qualified to serve as the sinner's substitute) not the sinner who throughout his entire life had to repeatedly and continually bring sacrifices for his sin."

Yes, and praise God that now Jesus' ONCE FOR ALL sacrifice has TAKEN AWAY (SCAPEGOAT) our sins ONCE FOR ALL, something the animal sacrifices could never do.


quote:

"For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near.
2Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins?
3But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year.
4For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
[...]
10By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins;
12but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD,
13waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET.
14For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.
15And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying,
16'THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM
AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD:
I WILL PUT MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEART,
AND ON THEIR MIND I WILL WRITE THEM,"
He then says,
17'AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS
I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE.'
18Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin." (Hebrews 10:1-4, 10-18 NASB.)




PRAISE JESUS!!! HALLELUJAH!!

Laurie wrote: "Nothing gets me going like hearing someone say that adventism teaches completement atonement for our sins at the cross."

Oh, I know!

The early SDAs, including EGW, taught that there was NO atonement at the cross. See this link that Gilbert posted on another thread (see the section at that link entitled "SDAs on the Atonement").

And regarding the SDA teaching: "It infuriates me...."

Me, too! And what infuriates me even more is that they teach that neither of the two supposed "atonements" of Jesus are enough--they don't actually TAKE AWAY our sins--that SATAN has to atone for our sins in order for our sins to be remembered no more and, as EGW says, in order for us to be "freed from the burden of [our] sins"!!!!!!!!!!! What satanic BLASPHEMY!!!! I just can't comprehend how anyone could have a problem with someone calling Adventism a satanic cult! This teaching is worse than satanism itself. The work of the Scapegoat in taking away our sins is what saves us! And they say it's Satan NOT Jesus!!!!

It's too awful to write about...

See this previous post of mine for more on how horrific this SDA heresy is of satan bearing the sins of the saved and paying the penalty/punishment for them as the "scapegoat."

Jim wrote:


quote:

River you wrote the following list of four pillars.

The four pillars of the Christian faith.

1. Believe that Christ died and rose the third day. 1 Cor 15:1 and Romans 10: 9,10

SDA agree.




No, they don't. They believe that Christ ceased to exist for three days. And that on the third day, "the Father" re-created Him. They deceptively call this the "resurrection"--even though they have a vastly different definition than the Christian/Biblical definition, and even the definition Jesus Himself gave of His resurrection!

The official SDA Fundamental Belief statement #7 "Nature of Man" says:


quote:

"Though created free beings, each is an indivisible unity of body, mind, and spirit, [...]"

--http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html




And their official Fundamental Belief statement #26 "Death and Resurrection" says:


quote:

"Until that day death is an unconscious state for all people."

--http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html




The first two following quotes are from chapter 2 of the SDA Church's official belief book, Seventh-day Adventists Believe, the third quote is from chapter 25 of that book, and the last two are from EGW:


quote:

"Sinners will never comprehend what Jesus' death meant to the Godhead. From eternity He had been with His Father and the Spirit. They had lived as coeternal, coexistent in utter self-giving and love for one another."

"Christ became man to die for the race. He valued selflessness more than self-existence."

"Christ promised the thief at the cross "'Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise'" (Luke 23:43). Paradise obviously is synonymous with heaven (2 Cor. 12:4; Rev. 2:7). As the translated text reads, Christ would go to heaven that Friday to be in the very presence of God, and so would the thief. Yet on Resurrection morning Christ Himself said to Mary as she fell at His feet to worship Him, "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God" (John 20:17, KJV). That Christ remained in the grave over the weekend is indicated by the words of the angel: "'Come, see the place where the Lord lay'" (Matt. 28:6)."

"<SB 17 (John 10:18). All of Christ Remained in Tomb. <EB--Jesus said to Mary, "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father." When He closed His eyes in death upon the cross, the soul of Christ did not go at once to heaven, as many believe, or how could His words be true--"I am not yet ascended to my Father"? The spirit of Jesus slept in the tomb with His body, and did not wing its way to heaven, there to maintain a separate existence, and to look down upon the mourning disciples embalming the body from which it had taken flight. All that comprised the life and intelligence of Jesus remained with His body in the sepulcher; and when He came forth it was as a whole being; He did not have to summon His spirit from heaven. He had power to lay down His life and to take it up again (3SP 203, 204)." (Ellen G. White, S.D.A. Bible Commentary Vol. 5, page 1150, paragraph 6.)

"I say unto thee today, Thou shalt be with Me in Paradise. Christ did not promise that the thief should be with Him in Paradise that day. He Himself did not go that day to Paradise. He slept in the tomb, and on the morning of the resurrection He said, "I am not yet ascended to My Father." John 20:17. But on the day of the crucifixion, the day of apparent defeat and darkness, the promise was given. "Today" while dying upon the cross as a malefactor, Christ assures the poor sinner, Thou shalt be with Me in Paradise." (The Desire of Ages, page 751, paragraph 3.)




[Notice that not only does Ellen change the placement of the comma and the capitalizations, she also removes the word "Verily" (although she did include that word when quoting it on the previous page). Not only this, but she also has to change the word order--instead of it saying as the KJV reads, "shalt thou," she has to change it to "Thou shalt" in order for it to even make sense!]

Also, Adventists, like Ellen, commonly use the verse where Jesus says He had not yet ascended to His Father, to say that Jesus did not have an existence for those three days that He was dead. Additionally, Adventists, like Ellen, change the verse about being in Paradise that day because they do not believe that Jesus had an existence while dead (or that the thief continued to exist after dying).

These blasphemous teachings are a denial that Jesus is the one true God.

And if "Jesus" ceased to exist, then that means that he was merely "re-created" after three days. According to Adventism's teaching, the "Jesus" they worship and that they believe is alive now cannot be the same "Jesus" that they believe "died" (ceased) on a cross. Instead, he has to be a new, re-created "Jesus" who has not even existed for as long as Moses, Enoch or Elijah have!

Therefore, the SDA "Jesus" is a created being who was created on a Sunday in A.D. 31.


quote:

2. Sola feida (think I spelled that right) faith alone.
SDA hold a study on Righteousness By Faith that pretty much includes this.




Some Adventists may say they believe in salvation by "faith alone"--but they re-define "faith" to include "works"!

The official SDA Fundamental Belief statement, #10 "Experience of Salvation," says:


quote:

"10. Experience of Salvation:
In infinite love and mercy God made Christ, who knew no sin, to be sin for us, so that in Him we might be made the righteousness of God. Led by the Holy Spirit we sense our need, acknowledge our sinfulness, repent of our transgressions, and exercise faith in Jesus as Lord and Christ, as Substitute and Example. This faith which receives salvation comes through the divine power of the Word and is the gift of God's grace. Through Christ we are justified, adopted as God's sons and daughters, and delivered from the lordship of sin. Through the Spirit we are born again and sanctified; the Spirit renews our minds, writes God's law of love in our hearts, and we are given the power to live a holy life. Abiding in Him we become partakers of the divine nature and have the assurance of salvation now and in the judgment. (2 Cor. 5:17-21; John 3:16; Gal. 1:4; 4:4-7; Titus 3:3-7; John 16:8; Gal. 3:13, 14; 1 Peter 2:21, 22; Rom. 10:17; Luke 17:5; Mark 9:23, 24; Eph. 2:5-10; Rom. 3:21-26; Col. 1:13, 14; Rom. 8:14-17; Gal. 3:26; John 3:3-8; 1 Peter 1:23; Rom. 12:2; Heb. 8:7-12; Eze. 36:25-27; 2 Peter 1:3, 4; Rom. 8:1-4; 5:6-10.)"

--http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html




Notice that part of salvation is living a "holy life" and that our "assurance of salvation" is based on "abiding in Him" (defined by Adventism as "keeping the commandments") and becoming "partakers of the divine nature" (again, defined by Adventism as living a holy life/"keeping the commandments").

This is salvation by WORKS. Period. Straight from their Fundamental Beliefs. And belief #24, quoted above by Laurie, is even more explicit:

"It also makes manifest who among the living are abiding in Christ, keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, and in Him, therefore, are ready for translation into His everlasting kingdom. This judgment vindicates the justice of God in saving those who believe in Jesus. It declares that those who have remained loyal to God shall receive the kingdom." (http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html)


quote:

3. Christ deity.
I cannot speak for the 1800s , but current teachings include the Trinity and the Diety of Christ.




This has been discussed at length before, and in short, they do not teach the Trinity or that Jesus is FULLY (all of) God. When they say "fully God and fully man" they simply mean "fully divine and fully human." In other words, Jesus is only "fully divine" just as He is "fully human." In other words, just as there are other humans even though Jesus is fully human, they teach that there are other gods (divine beings) besides Jesus, even though He is "fully divine"! In Adventism, "fully God" simply means "fully a member of the God group/Godhead."

But actually, their official Fundamental Belief statement (#4 "Son") doesn't even say "fully God"! It says "truly God" and "truly man"!

The official SDA Fundamental Belief statement #2 "Trinity" (sometimes changed to "Godhead" in official SDA publications!) says:


quote:

"2. Trinity:
There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation. He is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation. (Deut. 6:4; Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 Tim. 1:17; Rev. 14:7.)"

--http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html




At first glance, this statement may appear to be somewhat orthodox-sounding. But in fact, what it says is not very orthodox at all, and their statement is actually heretical in itself. It states, "There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons."

Notice how their "one God" is defined as "a unity of three co-eternal Persons." As Christians, we don't worship "a unity of three"--we worship one living God (one Being, three persons)! They define "one God" as a "unity [group] of three" Persons!

(And if you look at the official minutes here of the 1980 GC session [where the Fundamental Beliefs were adopted], as recorded in the Adventist Review, it is clear that the men discussing it were Tritheists and that they were using certain words to deceive Christendom. They even admitted to such deception regarding the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, as I posted previously here.)

So even what their official statement is saying is that there is a "group" or "family" of three "Persons"--and this group is called "God" and there is only "one" group. In fact, in some ways their current statement of Fundamental Beliefs is LESS orthodox than the pre-1980 statement of beliefs, even though that statement did not say Jesus is eternal. Interestingly, in 1980 they DELETED their previous (1931) wording about Jesus, where they had said that he was "of the same nature and essence as the Eternal Father." (Of course that was deceptively stated--even back then they didn't mean the same thing Christians mean, that God is one Being!)

The official SDA belief book, Seventh-day Adventists Believe, is very clear in its teaching of Tritheism (three gods), especially in chapter 2, "The Godhead." I have posted analysis that I've done of that book previously elswhere, and can post it here if anyone is interested.

Additionally, their official "Summary of Doctrinal Beliefs" which is part of their official "Baptismal Covenant"--and which is published in their official Church Manual, teaches a polytheistic "Godhead." See my post here, and the post following it.


quote:

4. Absolute and complete atonement for our sins at the cross.

The teach that as well.

So , I am not getting the point here.




Number 4 has been addressed above.

If the SDAs teach these 4 pillars of the Christian faith, then why leave Adventism???

Jeremy

(Message edited by Jeremy on July 01, 2007)
Laurie
Registered user
Username: Laurie

Post Number: 22
Registered: 6-2007
Posted on Sunday, July 01, 2007 - 4:19 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Bob

That was a very beautiful post. I had never thought of it in those exact terms - the lamb being examined and found perfect, just as Jesus was our perfect substitute. I mean, I knew all those things, I just never thought of it all together like that in relation to the IJ. I had to read that one out loud to my husband!

I think I may be a little different than a lot of former adventists. Ellen White was not discussed in my home as a child. I don't recall my parents ever talking about her. I was educated in the SDA school system for 10 years so I got a heavy dose of it there. I decided in the first grade that she was not a prophet from God and that I would never accept anything that came solely from her. And I never did. Especially the IJ. Through the 10 years of school and 40 years of church and sabbath school I was definetely exposed to this doctrine and I have studied it extensively in order to defend my position with SDA's - especially my mom. But I have never felt like I was deceived by Ellen. I feel like the SDA church tried and tried to deceive me all my life, but I knew at the age of 8 that I would never have anything do to with her and I never pretended to believe in her at home, school, or church. I did not become vocal in speaking out against her until I was about 40. Kinda pitiful - why would I stay there all those years? I think the answer would be the Sabbath. On that one - I was most definitely deceived. Hook, line and sinker on that one. And it was only in the last few years I discovered her (Ellen's) role in sabbath keeping, the history of the beginning of the church, her visions on the sabbath, etc. None of that was taught to me. That was most definitely deception on the part of my teachers, the church, everyone.

Just my thoughts.

Laurie
Laurie
Registered user
Username: Laurie

Post Number: 23
Registered: 6-2007
Posted on Sunday, July 01, 2007 - 4:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Just one more thought. We had communion this morning at church. We sang a quiet, simple song that said "Oh, the blood of Jesus, it washes white as snow." I was thinking about this post as I sang that and was so thankful to be in a church that did believe atonement was complete at the cross.

Laurie
Flyinglady
Registered user
Username: Flyinglady

Post Number: 3905
Registered: 3-2004


Posted on Sunday, July 01, 2007 - 4:34 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Bob,
I was reading the other day from Leviticus about how the Lamb was selected for the day of atonement. I just did not see it as plainly as you have written it. The Lamb was examined to see that it was perfect, with no defects. Then it could be used. Jesus was/is perfect, with no defects. I am still learning and want to learn it all, right now!!!
Thanks for making it plain to me.
Diana
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 6178
Registered: 12-2003


Posted on Sunday, July 01, 2007 - 11:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Laurie, thanks for sharing your personal experience with disbelieving Ellen. I understand your total immersion in Sabbath withtout understanding what Ellen had to do with it.

What you posted described so well what I've come to see as one of the most pernicious aspects of Adventism. Ellen's falseness underlies all Adventist doctrinal understandings. Even their doctrines that superficially sound orthodox have a subtle and devastating twist underneath. I don't know any Adventist who really sees the full influence of Ellen on his/her beliefs. I know neither Richard nor I had any idea how completely our understanding of ALL doctrines were shaped by Ellen.

Colleen
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 6179
Registered: 12-2003


Posted on Sunday, July 01, 2007 - 11:20 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jeremy, your post above is fabulous. I hope you all take the time to read it carefully. I know that all those quotes from SDA doctrinal publications are a bit confusing and hard to follow, but Jeremy's choice of quotes and analyses are extremely insightful and revealing.

Although Adventists claim to hold orthodox beliefs about the Trinity, Jesus, death, resurrection...in fact, none of those claims is valid. Their underlying definitions and beliefs re: the nature of God and Jesus and the nature of man makes Adventist theology completely untenable. While most of us had no idea of these "technical" realities as we processed out of Adventism, as we become grounded in God's word and the truth about Jesus, the heresy of true Adventist theology becomes more and more clear.

Thank you, Jeremy...again, I urge you to read his post above carefully. Using Adventists own publications, he shows that they do not acknowledge Jesus as fully God despite their public claims, and it becomes clear why Adventists cannot experience the security of knowing they are saved.

I believe that my own desire to serve Jesus as an Adventist is much more an indication of God's calling and election of me than it is an indication that Adventism taught me the truth about Jesus. God saves people before they can articulate the truth about Him. He persistently and faithfully teaches them the truth after they are born again, but His calling and election are sure, no matter where they originate.

Adventism does not give people the truth about Jesus. But Jesus reveals Himself to people within all manner of false churches and religions. He asks us to follow Him without looking back when He brings us to new life. We can trust His timing, and we can trust Him to re-teach us about Himself as we follow where He leads.

Colleen
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis

Post Number: 1135
Registered: 4-2000


Posted on Monday, July 02, 2007 - 7:08 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Excellent post, Jeremy. I downloaded it for informational and sharing purposes. Truly, not even one salvific doctrine of the Christian faith has not been tainted (changed) by Adventism in some way.

Dennis Fischer
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy

Post Number: 1898
Registered: 10-2004


Posted on Monday, July 02, 2007 - 1:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I just keep seeing more and more how horrendous the SDA "scapegoat" teaching is! When you think about the true Biblical doctrine of the Scapegoat (Jesus Christ), and that the work of the Scapegoat in taking away our sins is what saves us--then you realize even more how blasphemous the SDA teaching is.

Look at Hebrews 10:4:

"For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins."

EGW/SDA say: it is impossible for the blood of Jesus to take away sins. That is the ultimate blasphemy!!!!

And yet, that's not all. It gets even worse.

EGW/SDA say that only the blood of Satan takes away the sins of the righteous.

NOOO, I can't stand to even write that!!!!!!!!!!!

(EGW actually does teach that Satan has flesh and blood, so my above statement of what they teach is totally accurate. EGW teaches that Satan sheds his blood in hell--paying the penalty for the sins of the righteous. It's too horrendous to even think about, though.)

Ellen's eternal punishment is certainly going to be of a very severe variety. I can't think of a doctrine that could possibly be worse or more blasphemous than what EGW wrote about the "scapegoat."

Folks, get a grip: Ellen was NOT a Christian. She was a false prophet.

Someone who blasphemes JESUS the Worthy Lamb of God and His precious blood in such a way, cannot expect to have no consequences:


quote:

"For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
27but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES.
28Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
29How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?
30For we know Him who said, 'VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY.' And again, 'THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE.'
31It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (Hebrews 10:26-31 NASB.)




Jeremy

(Message edited by Jeremy on July 02, 2007)
Jorgfe
Registered user
Username: Jorgfe

Post Number: 324
Registered: 11-2005
Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 8:46 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Either goat could have been offered as a scrifice. That means that they both had to be without blemish.

A.F. Ballenger had some fascinating thoughts about the subject of the scapegoat in his publication, "Cast Out for the Cross of Christ". See http://www.ex-sda.com/cast-out.htm, and search for the sub-heading "Why Two Goats". He unfortunately believed something happened in 1844, but he takes exception with Ellen White's notion that either of the goats could represent Satan.


quote:

And right here, through a misunderstanding of the sanctuary, a sad mistake has been made. Not understanding the foregoing, some have taken a position regarding the day of atonement, which really makes Satan man's Savior instead of Jesus Christ. The reader will certainly admit that if Satan suffers any or all of man's guilt, which man deserved himself to suffer, to that extent Satan becomes man's savior. But the devil is not man's substitute and savior. That place and glory belongs alone to Jesus Christ, "who gave himself for our sins."

For fear the reader may think l am wrongly stating the position, I will here quote from standard works wherein it is declared that the devil and not Christ, is the one who is really punished for man's guilt. I shrink from bringing to light these terrible quotations and should this paper fall into the hands of any of the enemies of my people, let me say here that while thus making Satan to be the substitute and savior of men is a logical result of a misunderstanding of the sanctuary service, yet it has not been logically followed by all those who preach the glorious gospel of the blessed God among them.




quote:

Before leaving this point, let me emphasize the fact, that if Satan bears the guilt of the sin which man himself should have borne, but did not bear, either in himself, or in his substitute, Christ, then Satan becomes to that extent man's substitute and savior. But God forbid that we should give to Satan the credit of that great salvation which was wrought out by Jesus Christ, when he suffered the penalty of the world's sin upon Calvary; and rob the Son of God of the glory which alone belongs to him, the marks of which, in his hands, feet, and side, are to constitute his unspeakable glory throughout the ceaseless cycles of eternity.



Gilbert Jorgensen

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration