Is this a threat for Steve? A prophetic vision for him? A mere information resulting from the current theological-political church climate? Bits and bites, here a little, there a little, cryptic.
I’m a second generation SDA.
Went through 16 years in SDA schooling.
Employed by and taught in an SDA Academy almost 25 years.
However I have and do read Ellen White, but I also study the
66 letters to me in what is called The Holy Bible.
I do live in the 21st Century. Ellen was influenced by the Life
and Times of the 19th Century. So as SDAs we have to
attempt to adjust 19th Century thinking and social ways to
the 21st Century.
In the 150 years of SDAism Biblical Scholarism has steadily
So the understanding of the 66 letters to me has improved my
ability to understand what they are saying to me.
The SDA Creed from the beginning has been “The Bible and
The Bible Only.” So it is important to continually improve in the
understanding of what it is REALLY telling me.
What about “Not this Adventist” is unclear?
I assume you’re using magic or a crystal ball to tell you the future. That is frowned upon, as is deriding others because they don’t believe the same things you do.
Steve doesn’t appear to have “affirmed a profession” (what does that mean?), but he will likely continue doing whatever he pleases despite your predictions for the future to the contrary.
What are the “the doctrines articulated in the GC.” Do you have a list, you know, so we can all make sure we’re following them?
Yes, the local church is the final authority regarding membership of the SDA church. Only local churches can add to or remove people from membership.
Everyone interprets what they read by other posters to suit themselves.
My position is this. Everyone has a right to explain what they mean as many times as it is necessary so as not to be misunderstood.
The article is about “Church Identity, Unity, and Authority.”
In this context, if the SDA church is not Babylon, then neither is Rome.
None of the three things mentioned can be defined by anyone.
Least of all, the leaders in the SDA church.
So I stated that EGW has defined the SDA church in the Great Controversy.
And all I get is “What?” “What do you mean?” “I am confused.”
“I don’t know how to interpret what you have stated.”
“Where is the list she stated?”
Well, I guess you will have to figure it out for yourself what I meant as it seems pretty clear to me.
I reread your comments. You didn’t write that.
You wrote similar things, such as the somewhat offensive:
Shouldn’t the bible do that?
Come on Bill, don’t mislead others like that. You know better. In terms of membership, the local church is indeed the final authority.
Just one example: After Glacier View Des Ford lost his credentials, but not his membership (at PUC). There is documentation that the GC pushed the PUC’s church a couple of times toward disfelllwshipping him. But the local church said “No” and its word prevailed. Only many years later, when the Fords moved back to Australia, THEY asked to be disconnected from the SDA Church.
He should have lost his membership, George.
It only shows the rebellion against properly ordained authority the local church manifested.
Parallel to this modern rebellion against the GC.
If you don’t want to willingly subject yourself to properly ordained authority in the church, then “hit the road.”
Only if you can show the authority is bogus and even then, like Luther, he would have left the church if they had not thrown him out.
Bless Dr. Ford’s heart if he finally separated from the SDA church. Brinsmead admitted he no longer agreed with EGW and basic Adventism.
A little self evaluation and honesty coupled with some integrity would be a refreshing new attitude for many who post on this forum.
Of course modern Adventism does not discipline anyone including practicing homosexuals. We just “love everybody and we have no standards or self identity to defend.”
This is why the liberals are winning over the church community with a false application of grace that has no affinity to the bible or Protestant Christanity and certainly not endorsed by EGW as you well know.
LOL… Bill, your authoritarian discourse is basically funny. Thought I am sure you wanted it to be taken seriously. But sorry, that is impossible.
Happy Sabbath Bill!
Bill I don’t know you but I admire your zeal and persistent effort to show everyone here who does not agree with “the doctrines and theology of EGW” is not an SDA. I thought that the " Adventists hold 28 fundamental beliefs organized in six categories—the doctrines of God, man, salvation, the church, the Christian life & last day events". Did you know that the SDA church makes this claim:
“We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White may be used as the basis of doctrine”
Has this changed? And what about this claim?
The Spirit of Prophecy and the Bible. The writings of Ellen White are not a substitute for Scripture. They cannot be placed on the same level. The Holy Scriptures stand alone, the unique standard by which her and all other writings must be judged and to which they must be subject.
So Bill my friend I think before we entangle ourselves on the EGW frenzy it is important to make it clear what is the true position of the church when it comes to their prophet.
This does not sound like the Early NT church which allowed Gentiles to opt out of Jewish practices while permitting Jewish Christians to continue their Hebrew faith with all the Mosaic laws. They were to accept each other’s differences in respect to their conscience.
Your idea sounds more Papal in the concept you must conform to Cannon Law for it cannot be changed. God changes a lot thing. Consider all the OT requirements that are no longer required. This should teach us not to be so certain in absolute terms in regard to the practice of faith. Agree?
Frank, I hope you are not taking things out of context here. The transition from the OT Jewish faith and practices to the NT Christian faith was 100% consistent with the doctrines defined in the OT… The things that God “changed” as you commented were done for our own understanding and benefit, foreshadows of antitype and type, symbolism, Etc, not doctrine. God Himself says: “I change not”.
It is us humans who are subjective, selfish and lacking in understanding so @Billsorensen is correct in that we are not free to assume we can change whatever we want based on our own wants and perspectives, and this doesn’t mean we don’t accept any change.
The only major disagreement I have with Bill is that the SDA Church is not based on the GC or EGW, but rather it is based on on the Bible, and the Bible only, and of course on its’ author, Jesus. I think we can all use a good measure of individual humbleness in this forum and accept that the SDA Church and its’ leadership are the best human agency of God, even as imperfect as it may be.
I should add: Never read it. I don’t know anyone from my generation who has.
George, I said EGW is in harmony with the bible and the bible is the final authority.
I only refer to the GC as her understanding of the bible that all SDA’s agree with.
Those who first reject EGW’s view in the GC, soon reject the bible as well.
Dr. Ford is classic and Brinsmead is not even a professed Christian he has gone so far outside both EGW and the bible.
And as I affirmed, as Luther and the Reformation finally forced Rome to admit they do not accept the bible just so, God will eventually force all who abandon bible Adventism to admit the same thing.
They abandon the bible and opt for some “Spirit ethic” that they claim is the final authority to lead all true believers. That is, “The Holy Spirit” told us this or that. And the Spirit can not error, thus the church is infallible.
Protestantism demands the Spirit must be subject to the bible. But no, now the bible is subject to the Spirit.
But as Isaiah has said, “To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no (truth) light in them.”
This is bible Protestantism. Anything else is Catholic mysticism.
Modern Adventism is opting more and more for RCC mysticism.
So our “safety net” in all this church confusion, is God will force all who abandon the bible to say so, just like the RCC has done.
This is what God has been doing down through history from the Reformation to our day. We see many Protestants abandon the bible when the bible Sabbath was presented. And now they are running home to “mama” to find their spirituality.
Yes, the bible is the final authority. And EGW is in harmony with the bible. So those who reject EGW will also reject scripture. They will also reject the bible Sabbath, as many already have who were former SDA’s.
What I have stated here repeatedly is not obscure. You may oppose it and not believe it, but don’t claim you don’t understand what I said.
That’s an unsupported assertion on your part - one you’ve made several times. There are plenty of EGW statements that do not appear to fit bible teachings.
Many of her eschatological statements appear to have been lifted from Dante’s Inferno instead of the bible, for example. It’s a common mistake many Christians make.
Some 50 cases on point. Some great reading!
A few of my favorites:
It goes on and on and on…
This is undisguised heresy. Besides being also an oxymoron. No other source but the Bible can define what true Bible SDAs believe. Sola Scriptura.
Tim, so I got it wrong all these years. I thought it was “the” men of the local church that had the final authority?
Right again my friend!!
And, since we are on an article about conference, I heard that there is a conference going on at PUC this weekend, with many theologians participating in a review of Des Ford’s positions.
As close as I am geographically to this event, I have not been involved. Why would I want to mix myself up in such heresy? Seriously, though, I just had too much else going on. I sing in a men’s chorus and we were singing today in another area church. I was wearing black as usual, in support of women’s ordination. I wish I had had the time to be at the Des Ford thing, but I cannot be everywhere at once. My wife, who was singing in the PUC Choir in the PUC Church today, did say that the sermon included a reference to Des, though.
I am sure Spectrum will have something to say about it soon, right @webEd?
Apparently it’s a review of the merit of Des’ contribution to the SDA theology. I am curious, will they get warnings in the mail now? …