I may run the traditional “LGTarian check questions” very soon. I am starting being suspicious… again… 
4 Likes
Last Generation Theology is in the DNA of Seventh-day Adventism, liberal and conservative, for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, til death do us part, amen.
No way to make an end run around this one.
It’s a biggie.
In my opinion…
6 Likes
This I address to all who responded and found my post somewhat hypocritical. There is a big difference between me, who holds a personal view of the Godhead that is more in line with historic Adventism , and in general keeps private except when asked to explain or defend, and many here who I see gathering together on a specific public forum to disparage, criticise, and reject the very foundation upon which Adventism was established…a prophetic church called to continue the reformation with a prophetic message. You suggest to me washing machine salesmen who criticise not just the company that pays them, but also the very machine they are selling. And not just privately. But publicly, in an open forum read and quoted by opposing companies trying to sell similar machines.
I do apologise for saying…time to leave… that is uncharacteristic of me and had no intention of wording it so bluntly. The question I have though is why stay? Yes, many have left, and I hold no animosity toward them…and I disagree with any idea that any should be marginalised or disfellowshiped due to a difference in theology. But I do not understand why so many would choose to stay while holding such open animosity seemingly toward not just a small aspect of theology, or method, or practice, but against the whole mission and message of the very structure itself?
Way too often “asking questions” is mischaracterized as, “animosity” or “enmity” or even “rebellion.” Adventists traditionally do not tolerate well people who ask questions. It is common seeing people telling others to leave when they ask tough and realistic questions.
4 Likes
I don’t see anything tough or realistic about challenging historicism and the SDA church’s prophetic place in history. Reject those, and what is left is Jesuitism…unless you were serious when you advocated abandoning prophecy altogether…I personally have no problem with the “imminence” of Adventist eschatology. It is neither God’s nor is it the message’s fault that Christ has not come yet…the bride has always had issues with her wedding garment. But that issue is being resolved as we speak…I pray and hope that people on this forum are a part of the solution to the those fitting issues, and not a part of the problem.
Can you please refresh my memory and show where I suggested such thing?
Would you please answer a couple of questions? Just Y/N, no explanation needed:
- Are you implying that Christ did not come back yet because of some human fault? - YES ____ … NO ____
- Do you endorse LGT? - YES ____ … NO ____
1 Like
And out of line with historic Christian faith. Arianism, which the early Adventists subscribed to, was a known heresy. So are views that see the Spirit as an impersonal force. Which is worse, being out of line with a sectarian understanding of Christian faith, or something regarded as universally understood within historic Christianity? Something that diminishes Christ or the Spirit as fully divine.
Whichever you choose, the point is that you, who questions universal Christian teaching, and others, who question Adventist self identification and doctrine, are both operating under the same premise…age and the majority do not make error into truth. If your church is giving you the grace and room to question, without calling you a Christian heretic, shouldn’t you be just as gracious in allowing others the same freedom, before saying that they should just up and leave?
Frank
2 Likes
The pot calling the kettle black. How quaint
2 Likes
Good point. God does not nor, has he ever expected his people, individually or collectively, to forego the use of their intellect in the service of following him. In fact it’s quite to the contrary. God’s desire for his creation to not call into question that which they don’t agree with or don’t understand. What was it he said? Study? Ask? Where does this aversion to question asking come from?
4 Likes
Maybe from Ellen White. Woe to those who questioned her. 
A link to some of her reactions to those who did.
https://www.nonegw.org/egw56.shtml
4 Likes
Shhhhhh!!! …the man behind the curtain…
4 Likes
Very reminiscent of Scientology, don’t you think?
Fannie Bolton source documents:
http://www.imsmedia.org/downloads/doc_view/1875-the-fannie-bolton-story-by-ellen-white
3 Likes
I’ve always felt so sorry for her situation with EGW. It sounds like the most horrible relationship.
Thanks for the link. So much condemning, blaming and shaming in her writings…like a dreadful soap opera, but with only one side of the story. Interesting, but a little goes a long way.
5 Likes
Yeah, I know…I can only take so much of the Fannie Bolton story.
Projective identification. She was Ellen’s foil, it seems. She was as bad as Ellen was good.
No surprise she lost her mind with all the impossible double binds laid on her, with no one to raise a finger to free her mind.
Dreadful.
1 Like
None of the pioneers were Arian. Nor am I. All fully agreed with the traditional view that Christ was 100% divine, as I also do. Your reaction is typical of those who misunderstand, and malign non-trinitarians based on your own misapprehension of their beliefs. Arians, such as JWs, do not accept the deity of Christ. Our pioneers did. I could offer quotes from them if asked.
As for the holy Spirit, at first the pioneers did believe him to be an impersonal force…this they later changed to him being a person, but not in the same manner as we accept the Father or Son being persons. Before disqualifying them and myself as heretics, I suggest you do some research and study for yourself.
We agree that in the Godhead there is the Father, Son, and holy Spirit. What we do not agree with are the formulas commonly used as creeds to describe their relationship and existence with one another, and then use those creeds and formulas for criteria in judging another’s Christian status and worth as a fellow believer.
I would ask you a question. Why is the doctrine of the trinity essential to the acceptance of Christ’s full divinity and deity, that simple revelation of scripture doesn’t already accomplish?
On another note, no where did I suggest that discussion on doctrine and asking hard questions of the church undesirable. I would love the opportunity to present my beliefs to the entire congregation on the Godhead. But what I see on this forum is not restricted to just hard questions. Oh that it were so. But sadly, what I read is open condemnation and criticism, which I find unworthy of brothers and sisters who claim my church as their own.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ While not perhaps in so many words, you have personally abandoned prophecy as being too hard to understand and are publicly suggesting to your friends here they ought to follow suit.
No. I won’t answer just yes or no. You are not asking …you are probing. Sorry, not interested.
Well…he never did say that he was a Christian before he became an SDA. Perhaps, Blake was a Pagan, Hari Krishna, or…or whatever. 
1 Like
This will be our secret…
1 Like
Oh…perhaps “entitlement” as well.
"I pray and hope that people on this forum are a part of the solution to the those fitting issues, and not a part of the problem."
As we sincerely hope and pray that you are not as well…but I do have some suspicions.
4 Likes