Print
Former Head of National Council of Churches Speaks at Andrews Seminary Symposium—Part II
On February 2, at the annual Seminary Scholarship Symposium at Andrews University, Dr. Michael Kinnamon gave a talk entitled, “The Ecumenical Movement and Why You Should Be Involved.” Then Dr. Nicholas Miller, professor of church history and director of the International Religious Liberty Institute, responded. (A brief summary of Dr. Kinnamon's first presentation at the seminary today is here.)
In his introduction of the speaker, seminary dean Dr. Denis Fortin shared how he came into contact with Dr. Kinnamon. In the late 90s, Fortin was teaching a class on interchurch relations. He wrote an article for the Adventist Review in 1998 on the upcoming World Council of Churches. The same week dean Fortin got a phone call saying the WCC wanted an Adventist perspective on end times and mission and asked him to write a paper. He wrote on the Adventist perspective on eschatology and mission. Fortin went to the meeting to present his paper on Adventism, the end time and the three angels messages. He presented the Adventist teachings on Babylon, Mark of the Beast, the Sabbath and other Adventist distinctives, giving the Adventist perspective on eschatology and mission.
He made it clear in the introduction that the lecture by Kinnamon would not be about how we see the ecumenical movement, but how Dr. Kinnamon sees it.
Kinnamon opened with things he appreciates about Adventists: Our network of schools and emphasis on education for all, promotion of religious liberty, history of volunteer service, insistence on keeping the Sabbath, support of hospitals and concern for holistic health and celebration of the diversity of the global human family.
He then shared what he doesn’t appreciate as much: The lack of Adventist engagement in interchurch relations.
Kinnamon presented seven points on what ecumenism is in opposition to how it has been misunderstood:
- Ecumenism is not a movement aimed at creating the unity of the church.
- Ecumenism is by no means the same as tolerant cooperation.
- Ecumenism is not a matter of tinkering with the church through compromise, but a matter of conversion and repentance as well as a way of respecting and understanding one another.
- In seeking to manifest the unity we have in Christ, ecumenical churches refuse to separate theological truth from social justice; they integrate theology and justice.
- Ecumenism isn’t meant to be a movement of experts meeting at conferences in major cities. It was originally a lay-led movement.
- Ecumenism cannot be identified with the various structures that give it expression.
- Ecumenism or inter-church unity, is not to be confused with interfaith relations (1).
Following these seven points, he suggested two reasons why he believes Adventists resist involvement in inter-church dialogue: (a) An under-emphasis on the “givenness” of the church (2) and (b) an over-emphasis on your own hold on truth.
He told us that we promote unity, but only of our own kind. Kinnamon brought up Laodicea and its belief that it has prospered and that it needs nothing from others. In relation to this he told us, “I greatly appreciate footwashing as an ordinance of humility. It is a recognition that we have all sinned and all have need of our neighbor. Isn’t that same humility demanded of the church”(3)?
He closed by both complimenting and challenging us: “I like who you are and it’s a joy to be here. My concern, if I can put it that way, is with your grammar. “Adventist” is a wonderful adjective, but an idolotraus noun. You are not Seventh-day Adventists, but Seventh-day Adventist Christians.”
Following Kinnamon’s presentation, Dr. Nick Miller responded first by thanking him for his summary of our complacent and often lazy thinking towards ecumenism. He mentioned positives and then areas of contention with Kinnamon’s presentation.
In the process, he included two pertinent quotes from Ellen White:
There are now true Christians in every church, not excepting the Roman Catholic communion (4).
Our ministers should seek to come near to the ministers of other denominations. Pray for and with these men, for whom Christ is interceding. A solemn responsibility is theirs. As Christ’s messengers we should manifest a deep, earnest interest in these shepherds of the flock (5).
Miller asserted that Adventism was ecumenical in it beginning, with Millerites joining the Advent movement while remaining in their churches and then with the Seventh-day Adventist Church later being comprised of people from numerous denominations.
Dr. Miller then stated that the Sabbath provides three challenges to joining the ecumenical movement. First is a practical matter: there is a barrier to worshipping regularly with other Christian groups. His second point was historical and prophetic. We are concerned about the history of united groups pressuring minority religious movements. We feel that some practices of the majority may be enforced by law. Finally, a more theological reason was given. The Sabbath is more than a day for us. “We believe the Sabbath is something we learn only because God tells us. In keeping it, one has a special mark of submission to God’s authority.” Ecumenism tends to say in practice that those things that are important to the majority should be important to everyone.
Miller challenged us to be cautiously ecumenical on particular issues. Miller pointed out that early Adventists worked with like-minded Christian groups to oppose slavery, promote temperance and advocate religious liberty. We can join with others on issues related to shared values, but not compromise or do anything that could cause us to lose sight of our distinctive mission.
In a brief rejoinder to the response, it became clear that Adventists are probably a long ways from fully joining inter-church dialogue. Kinnamon asked if Saturday is the key, or if to make more of an impact on other churches we can speak about Sabbath-keeping with the question of the particular day as a secondary issue. The tension in the room rose and a resounding “no!” could be heard throughout the auditorium. Kinnamon then said that if we hold to the "no," then we are outside the ecumenical movement as it had been discussed.
Multiple written questions were posed during the following Q&A time. One person asked: Are ecumenists willing to listen to our message? Kinnamon responded: “I don’t know. But I know one sure way they won’t.” He paused and his point was clear. He continued: “If you’re at the table, you can bear witness. Would the churches as a whole hear all of your distinctive beliefs? I don’t know, but I’d like to have you try. I don’t know where the Spirit blows, but I do know that if you don’t share it, they won’t hear it.”
Appropriate to the centrality of the topic of Sabbath to the discussion, at the end of the program, the dean gave Dr. Kinnamon a copy of The Lost Meaning of the Seventh Day by Sigve Tonstad.
—A recent theology graduate of Walla Walla University, Landon Schnabel is studying at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary in Berrien Springs, Michigan.
- To help explain what this meant, Kinnamon made it clear that he was not there as an interfaith speaker. He told us that we are of the same faith. Interfaith dialogue with other religions, Muslims, Jews and others is important. But it is not the same as ecumenism. The goal of ecumenism is the recognition the koinonia, the fellowship, Christians have with one another.
- In support of this, he pointed out the church does not appear until number twelve of the fundamental beliefs and the statement makes it sound like a voluntary gathering of like-minded believers. This emphasis on what we do obscures the Bible’s teaching that the church is a gift of God’s grace, not something that humans do. Kinnamon said “the church is not just an outcome or instrument of the gospel, it is a central part of the good news itself because the way we live as the one body of Christ is to be an embodiment, a sign to others, of God’s reconciling love.” He continued to say that “to be a Christian is to be incorporated into the community of Christ’s gracious welcome.” Furthermore, “Christians bear witness to the unity of God not by just what we say and do, but also by what we are; by the way in which we live with one another.”
- Interestingly, he told us that “there are a number of ecumenically involved churches that claim to be the true remnant. The Orthodox insist that membership in a council of churches does not necessarily mean they accept the other churches as churches in the full theological extent of the word. The orthodox, however, are able to participate in councils with integrity because they recognize that the boundaries of the church are charismatic, not canonical. It is the presence of the spirit, not canon law or doctrine, which determines the contours of the church.”
- The Great Controversy, 449.
- Counsels for the Church, 313.
User login
Recent
- Joe Erwin Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- dl Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Anonymouswon Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- dl Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- dl Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Carrol Grady Should Seventh-day Adventists be Republicans?
- Sirje Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Fred Eastman The Role of Institutions in Evangelism – A Call to the Adventist Business Community
Newsletter
Organizations
Fri, 08/31/2012 - Sun, 09/02/2012
Job Dybdahl, Sigve Tonstad, Harri Kuhalampi
Sat, 09/08/2012
|
San Diego Adventist Forum
Sigve Tonstad, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Religion, Loma Linda
University
Current Issue
Not yet a subscriber? Subscribe today!
Listening to the presentation, I thought he gave us a well needed slap in the face. I felt the response provided an affirming tone with a block of caution, but the rejoinder seemed to be the most devisive in this presentation. I do wonder, why wouldn't we want to sit on the council, even if we withdrew when things don't work out? Any thoughts?
"Kinnamon asked if Saturday is the key, or if to make more of an impact on other churches we can speak about Sabbath-keeping with the question of the particular day as a secondary issue."
There is no question in my mind that it is the Sabbath, being the correct 24 hours, that is the key issue that separates Seventh-day Adventists from the rest of the body of Christ.
It would be interesting to know how many loyal SDA church members have seriously considered why so many born again Christians worship on Sunday. Have we taken the time to honestly study the Sabbath and the Lord's Day with these fellow Christians? Have we read any books on the topic written by preachers and schollars who worship on Sunday in honour of the resurrection of the Lord?
Are we afraid that Paul might have been right when he spoke about each person being assured in their own mind about esteeming one day above another or every day alike? (Romans 14:5).
I challenge anyone on this forum to prove to me "sola scriptura" that Sunday keeping is the mark of the beast and that the seventh day sabbath is the seal of God. Please keep in mind that I have been worshipping on Saturday for almost 73 years and have some idea where scripture finishes and human reasoning starts.
Dr Kinnamon has reminded me that the body of Christ is the church of the twice born and knows no denominational boundaries.
Ray
Kudos to the seminary for organizing this symposium. Thanks, Spectrum for your reporting on it.
I had some comments about Dr. Miller's response to Dr. Kinnamon, and the three challenges that he mentions to ecumenical dialogue and activity. I wasn't clear if Dr. Miller was being descriptive or prescriptive with his analysis. I think as a descriptive analysis it is correct; Sabbath is the issue for many Adventists engaging other Christians, but I don't think any of the challenges are truly detrimental to ecumenical dialogue and activity.
On the first issue, some non-Adventist churches now hold Saturday and Sunday services. If they don't, there's nothing wrong with going to two church services on one weekend, or even taking a break from church on Saturday (i.e. going hiking or on a picnic) and then going to church on Sunday. Or perhaps you could attend a Wednesday night evening.
Secondly, on the fear of being "peer-pressured", as Dr. Kinnamon intimates, true dialogue is a two way street. You might change your views. So might "they." But you have to be at the table to talk about it. Are we so insecure about our beliefs and practices that we are scared to expose to the text of conversation with our peers?
Thirdly, those things that are important to "everyone" are important. I'm reminded of the dictum that "we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all." This refers, minimally, to the views affirmed by the Eastern Orthodox, Catholics, and all major branches of Christianity when it comes to God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, as well as practices like communion and baptism. Adventists are Christians to the degree they are able to affirm and practice these things. It's not an either/or. Orthodoxy or Sabbath. We need to learn to hold belief in and practice of the Sabbath in relation to our emphasis on "mere Christianity," not instead of it.
Lastly, I concur with Landon that it seems clear from this exchange "that Adventists are probably a long ways from fully joining inter-church dialogue." It's not going to happen at the administrative level; it is up to local church and pastors to be the body of Christ on this issue.
Oh, and one more point. The reason to enter into dialogue and activity with other Christians is simple. Jesus instructs us to treat others as we would want to be treated. If we want to others to listen to "our message" openly and respectfully, we should do the same for "their message."
Thank you to Spectrum and Landon Schnabel for reporting on the Seminary Scholarship Symposium and for providing an excellent summary of the lectures presented by Dr Kinnamon and Dr Miller's response.
Following the seven points of what Ecumenism is, according with Kinnamon, and accepting Miller's assertion that Adventism was ecumenical in it beginning, I can see that in our core believe, we are not anti-ecumenical, but interpreting John 10:16 (I have other sheep, too, that are not in this sheepfold. I must bring them also. They will listen to my voice, and there will be one flock with one shepherd), we are hoping and planning that somehow in the near future, people from many denominations (even from different religions), will join “us” forming the true sheepfold and the bride of Lord Jesus Christ. I wander if this future movement is not our version of ecumenism? In fact our view can be another translation of the UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO (Decree on Ecumenism), where restoration of unity among all Christians, is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. It emphasizes that Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only.
“However, many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ Himself were divided. Such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages the holy cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature.” (UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO – Introduction)
The main debate is trying to prove who forms the main fold – “we or they”? What would be our arguments presented to “the others” (and not to ourselves) for convincing them that the “true ecumenism” is not to be form on the “enemy’s” ground, but on our own “yard”?
“I do wonder, why wouldn't we want to sit on the council, even if we withdrew when things don't work out? Any thoughts?” – Alex
Alex, Alex, Alex, have you completely lost your mind? This is crazy-talk. Don’t go there! Whatever you do, please don’t go down that road. Turn around brother before it’s too late. Repent of this evil you are suggesting. Banish the thought (the sooner the better) of talking with other Christians, so-called “Christians” that is, at some sort of “council” or whatever or whenever. We’re not supposed to do that: “Come out of her my people.”
Haven’t you ever heard of a book called “The Bible?” Read it, especially the stuff that deals with prophecy, and there’s a bunch of that in there. And it’s not all that hard to understand like everyone thinks. I just finished a Revelation Seminar and it was all explained in six short nights by a guy that really knew what he was talking about. He’s an expert in bible prophecy, just ask him. When it comes to prophecy, there’s nothing this guy doesn’t know. And when I say “nothing,” that’s what I mean. He had a power-point presentation that would knock your socks off. In fact, it scared the living daylights out of all nine of us.
This guy knew everything there was about The Beasts: Image to the Beast, Image of the Beast, Image to and of the Beast, The Image of the Image of The Beast, The Beast from the Sea, The Beast from the Land, The Large Beast, The Small Beast and the scariest of all, THE TERRIBLE BEAST that smashed everything. This guy worked up a real sweat when it came to explaining that particular Beast. Like I said, when it came to Beasts, this guy knew his stuff and it was all straight out of the bible, none of that “proof-text” nonsense. I was impressed, scared, but impressed. When he finished he told us to go and tell others about what we learned. I hope I can remember it all.
This guy also talked about Babylon. He knew everything about Babylon. This is where my concern for you comes in. You see, Babylon is prophecy-code for “other churches.” I bet you didn’t know that. The bible is full of codes, and don’t try and figure them out on your own. You need help. You have to go to an advanced class in bible prophecy to find this stuff out. It’s kind of complicated, but here’s a link: http://www.amazingfacts.org/television/prophecy-seminars/the-prophecy-co...
I probably won’t read it. I’ll just listen to what the prophecy guy says. But I digress, getting back to Babylon. Now that you know “the code” you should also know that we don’t talk to “those people.” No way. You see, we have The Truth and they don’t -- pure and simple. They’re just a bunch of confused people who claim to be Christians, but we know better. We teach, because it’s in the bible, “Come out of her my people.” We are God’s people, and “they” aren’t. It’s in there, read it. It’s also in there that we have “The Seal” and they have “The Mark.” We learned that on the first night of the Seminar. The bottom line is: Those so-called Christians who attend other churches have nothing to offer us. We have everything to offer them.
So, I think it would be a good idea to invite Dr. Kinnamon to one of these Bible Prophecy-Code Seminars. No doubt he’s smart enough to understand all that stuff, and no doubt he’d be impressed. I wish I could see the look on his face when he finds out that he and all his ecumenical friends are Babylon, and they have The Mark to boot. When they find what we really believe, what we REALLY believe, no doubt they’ll want to learn more -- no doubt.
In the mean time Alex, we don’t need to reach out and talk to “those people.” They will soon find out that we have The Truth and they’ll come running. Our churches will be filled up in no time -- as soon as the Sunday-law is passed. That’s what the prophecy guy told us, all nine of us.
tg
It is amazing to me that people from other denominations still volunteer to talk to Adventists or to interact with them (us). Considering what our church preaches about them, and how much mud is thrown on them via EGW's books, they have enough reason to just dismiss us completely and ignore any attempt we may make to talk to them. It seems that the SDA's "cultic" mentality is not yet well known to them!
George,
Do you think it might be because--perish the thought!--they are Christians?!
As an alumnus of SDATS, this recent event made me thankful for my education there.
The leadership of Dr. Fortin and others facilitates a balanced environment that I personally find refreshing.
The unique insights we hold as Adventist Christians are neither downplayed or caste in a separatist attitude from the larger Christian circle.
I didn't know Dr. Fortin, but I think I know him well now.
It requires character (=GUTS) to do the right thing despite the delusional orientation of some guy "upstairs" that think we SDAs should alienate ourselves from other (inferior) human beings that are not God's "remnants"....
TJG,
Thank you for your well meaning response. However, I have a few problems with it.
1. I made the comment, "I do wonder, why wouldn't we want to sit on the council, even if we withdrew when things don't work out?" This was in response to Dr. Kinnamon's argument that even though our distinctive beliefs may not be accepted, we'll never have any influence if we don't at least try.
Let this be clear. I believe in Ellen White and her prophetic warnings fully. I did not intend that comment to be taken as my support of joining the NCC or WCC. I was purely wondering if we could join and when we run into conflicts of interest that require compromise, that we respectfully withdraw ourselves from the councils? I honestly don't know the answer and want some perspective on it.
However, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as if you feel we must separate ourselves from our larger Christian body in all ways. This reminds me of God speaking to the Israelites in exile through the prophet Jeremiah. They knew the prophecies and that they were only there temporarily, and yet God said, "Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare" (Jer. 29:7, ESV). We know time is short, but we still need to be actively engaged in our larger communities--even if for selfish purposes of guarding our "church borders" from attack. Why can't we sit at a table and voice our concerns also?
2. "Have you ever heard of a book called 'The Bible?' Read it."
Yes I have, and yes I do :-)
3. "I just finished a Revelation Seminar and it was all explained in six short nights by a guy that really knew what he was talking about. He's an expert in bible prophecy, just ask him."
I have personally preached two Revelation Seminars. I'm glad you know a guy who knows what he's talking about, but do you know what you're talking about? I'm not trying to be mean in any of my response to you, but this is a problem in our church today. Everybody's heard something from somebody. In a serious discussion, that's unacceptable. I want to hear from you.
4. "so-called Christians"
As both speakers pointed out in their presentations, Adventists are not the only Christians. Ellen White affirms this, the Bible affirms this, and I whole-heartedly agree that until we see them that way, we won't learn how to love them as brothers and sisters. I get scared to read some of the ultra-left and right winged comments on this site, but I don't want to run away from those comments and hide in a box. They deeply concern me because of my love for my Adventist sisters and brothers, and I feel the same way about my Christian sisters and brothers. Because I love them, I want to share what I feel is a correct understanding of Scripture.
Please forgive me if I come across as defensive or aggressive. I love you the same way that I wish we could love other Christians of other faiths.
Also, please forgive me if you were being sarcastic. I've actually heard people talk like that before.
Alex, is it possible you missed TJG's point?
:-P Yes. I feel dumb now. I literally woke up and read that with one eye open. I'm really not a morning person.
George I agree. Tom Z
Alex, your expressions of love and respect for Christians of other faiths is something we all should cherish.
Looks like some Catholics are enjoying poking their fingers in Adventist's eyes after being on the receiving end of anti-Catholic pedophile priest attacks... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmEd03zHMOA
Dear TJG:
You.
Are.
High.
Larious.
HA
Alex:
Rumor has it that you’re not a "morning person." I understand. So, we’ll try it again. I must warn you though, this requires both eyes to be wide open. So, proceed at your own risk. Here we go:
A: TJG, “Thank you for your well meaning response.”
T: You’re welcome.
A: “However, I have a few problems with it.”
T: Like what?
A: “I made the comment, ‘I do wonder, why wouldn't we want to sit on the council, even if we withdrew when things don't work out?’ This was in response to Dr. Kinnamon's argument that even though our distinctive beliefs may not be accepted, we'll never have any influence if we don't at least try.”
T: Try what? Trying is for the birds. We don’t need to try anything. We already have The Truth. What more do you want? If they want it, let them come and get it.
A: “Let this be clear. I believe in Ellen White and her prophetic warnings fully. I did not intend that comment to be taken as my support of joining the NCC or WCC.”
T: Hmmm… it sounded like it to me. I’m suspicious of you Alex, very suspicious. Don’t you know that the NCC and the WCC are full of Jesuits that are trying to infiltrate our government and especially our church? I read that somewhere. It must be true. You need to get up to speed on this.
A: “I was purely wondering if we could join and when we run into conflicts of interest that require compromise, that we respectfully withdraw ourselves from the councils? I honestly don't know the answer and want some perspective on it.”
T: Join, compromise, withdraw -- you're kidding me. Don’t you know that once you’re in one of those so-called councils you’ll get The Mark and you can’t get out? Don’t ask me how it all works, that’s just the way it is. Enough of this. When are we going to get to the Beasts?
A: “However, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as if you feel we must separate ourselves from our larger Christian body in all ways.”
T: No correction needed. Of course we’re supposed to separate ourselves from other Christians, so-called. And what’s this “large body” you’re referring to? There’s no “large body.” It’s just US. Ever heard of “The Remnant?” That’s US! Not THEM! That’s all you need to know. If they want to join us, fine. If not… well, what can I say? They’re toast. Separating ourselves from other Christians just goes with the territory. Ted knows all about it.
A: “This reminds me of God speaking to the Israelites in exile through the prophet Jeremiah. They knew the prophecies and that they were only there temporarily, and yet God said, "Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare" (Jer. 29:7, ESV).”
T: I don’t know about this kind of stuff. Besides, “praying for the welfare of a city,” doesn’t sound very Beasty. The prophecy guy never mentioned this.
A: “We know time is short, but we still need to be actively engaged in our larger communities--even if for selfish purposes of guarding our "church borders" from attack. Why can't we sit at a table and voice our concerns also?"
T: Yea, I know. Time is short. Time is short. I’ll be surprised if we’re all here next Wednesday, at least according to my chart the prophecy guy gave me. I study it all the time. We don’t have the time to sit at any “table” and voice our concerns. That’s not on the chart.
A/T: "Have you ever heard of a book called 'The Bible?' Read it."
A: Yes I have, and yes I do :-)
T: O Yea. How much do you know about the Beasts? So far you haven’t even mentioned one beast, not one stinking Beast! I’m growing a beard here waiting for you to get to the Beasts. I tell ya. Come on Alex. The Beasts are all through the bible. They’re every where. Jesus talked about them all the time. If you read the bible like you say you do, you'd know that.
A: “I have personally preached two Revelation Seminars. I'm glad you know a guy who knows what he's talking about, but do you know what you're talking about?”
T: I’m cut to the quick. I'm flopping on the floor like a fish. Of course I know what I’m talking about. What are you talking about? You know that link I gave you, well, I clicked on it and now I know all the prophecy codes. Bet you don’t know ‘em.
A: “I'm not trying to be mean in any of my response to you, but this is a problem in our church today. Everybody's heard something from somebody. In a serious discussion, that's unacceptable. I want to hear from you.”
T: Hey Alex, you being mean is not a problem in our church today, trust me. And you are hearing from me, but I'm not sure you're listening. This is serious stuff!
A: “As both speakers pointed out in their presentations, Adventists are not the only Christians.”
T: Blasphemy! You must of got this from your "ecumenical friends." A true Seventh-day Adventist would never talk this way. (I sense some Jesuit influence here...)
A: “Ellen White affirms this, the Bible affirms this, and I whole-heartedly agree that until we see them that way, we won't learn how to love them as brothers and sisters.”
T: You want "brothers and sisters," only look within the Adventist church.
A: “I get scared to read some of the ultra-left and right winged comments on this site, but I don't want to run away from those comments and hide in a box.”
T: Scared. You want scared. Study them Beasts. They'll scare your pants off. I’ll take a box any day.
A: “They deeply concern me because of my love for my Adventist sisters and brothers, and I feel the same way about my Christian sisters and brothers. Because I love them, I want to share what I feel is a correct understanding of Scripture.”
T: Hmmm…
A: “Please forgive me if I come across as defensive or aggressive. I love you the same way that I wish we could love other Christians of other faiths.”
T: I got a little choked up when I read this… what a wonderful statement.
I love you too Alex, and my church. I long for the day when we will freely and openly associate with other Christians. I would be the first one to sit down at that table. I'm with you 100% -- if you read between the lines, with both eyes open.
tg
Brother TG,
You no doubt had a great Revelation seminar. But what is the point of such priceless knowledge without the love of Christ? Jesus of Nazareth did not keep the truth just for Himself and His friends. He sought out the lost in His unending love for them. Read it, it's there. Such prophetic knowledge that is kept to ourselves as Adventists and not shared with "the lost" is useless, unChristlike, and will cause spiritual obesity because our knowledge as Adventists is not being shared or exercised. A clear knowledge of the prophecies paired with a ruthless discord from the "confused" will keep us from attaining the fruit of these prophecies. Let us manifest a Christ-like love for the lost and confused and maintain a humble and loving distinction from them where truth and love strike no cord in their hearts.
"This guy knew everything there was about The Beasts: Image to the Beast, Image of the Beast, Image to and of the Beast, The Image of the Image of The Beast, The Beast from the Sea, The Beast from the Land, The Large Beast, The Small Beast and the scariest of all, THE TERRIBLE BEAST that smashed everything. This guy worked up a real sweat when it came to explaining that particular Beast."
The mental picture I got reading this was of *Monsters Inc.* if we Adventists are providing some kind of energy through our fear, we could switch to a more positive process. More than nine people might like it.
____________________________________________________
"be reverent in behavior, not slanderers nor enslaved to much wine, teachers of that which is good" titus 2:3
The funny, but sad, thing is, that it's even possible for anyone to take TG seriously. Yes, Alex, there are some who would actually post some of this stuff, but if you're a regular poster here, you should recognize a spoof by now.
Sirje
Sirje
Yes a spoof as funny as a lobotomy. Tom Z.
Luke 9:49-50
John ... said, "Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name; and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow along with us. But Jesus said to him, "DO NOT HINDER HIM; FOR HE WHO IS NOT AGAINST YOU IS FOR YOU."
Sirje
As grandchildren appear in my life, I'm reminded how small is their world. As babes their only concern is to be fed and kept dry. Later, it's about how they feel and what they want. Our job, as adults is to broaden their world - to open up new places; new people; new experiences; and later, new ideas. The Adventist perspective needs to grow up - its world is just too small. Our world view is all about US; and the focus and goal of every effort is to call attention to the SDA church much more than Christ, and the gospel (if not exclusively).
I was baptized at sixteen. It wasn't until years (decades) later that I came to fully realize how much "Christ, and Him crucified" needs to be the sole thrust of the business of doing church. The evangelistic service that brought me into the church was all about the Sabbath and the distinctiveness of the SDA church. In the early years it caused me to see other Christians as not part of what what we were about. In fact, they would be the ones who give Christ the rundown of all their accomplishments only to be told, "I knew you not." How utterly sad that is.
The scope of Christianity is broader than our habitual trek between home, church, and the ABC. That Laodecean self-satisfaction sits heavy over the denomination. Only recently, has Adventist academia ventured out of itself to encompass other people of faith as having something to say to us; but the ghosts of 1844 keep pulling us back into our insular identity. Actually that's not true. The academics, who have made it their life to studied the Bible and its history, have long struggled with Adventism (Questions on Doctrine - the original version), but the quasi-theologians who majored in the business of running a church, have imagined they are in charge, and have tried to silence growth, which has to happen, or we die. It's not all about us, but about Christ, and there are other denominations who are doing a lot more to promote Him, rather than their own distinctiveness. We're still wrangling about who's the follower of who, and "who is going to be sitting on the right hand" while others are running past us ministering to real needs around the globe.
Sirje
I agree with almost every thing that Dr. Kinnamon suggested. However, I believe that we, as seventh day Adventists, must talk, participate in certain activities with other Christian traditions, even listen carefully to their biblical doctrine and interpretations, but Never Never Never join with full membership the ecumenical movement. It's contrary to the clear revelation of God expressed in the Bible and EGW writings. If our prophetic understanding is correct, we really know where this movement is going.
"If our prophetic understanding is correct, we really know where this movement is going."
A very big "if", Rodrigo.
I look at this guy and think, is this really one of Gods elect?
Theurgy - Sat, 02/04/2012 - 05:57
I look at this guy and think, is this really one of Gods elect?
Who is "this guy?" Are you talking about YOU looking in the mirror???
TJG
Well done brother I could not do better myself. Pure sarcasm from the word go and so believable too to the poor saps that can't read between the lines. Some here surprise me for being so dense thay can't recognise when their chain is being yanked or their leg pulled.
When someone says they regard EGW as a prophet they loose my respect immediately as it is a gullible frame of mind that will swallow anything. And yes been there done that.
@Rodrigo::
" Never Never Never join with full membership the ecumenical movement. It's contrary to the clear revelation of God expressed in the Bible and EGW writings. If our prophetic understanding is correct, we really know where this movement is going."
This is the best advice someone can give on this subject, ever!
We, the remnant people, have no business with those who had no clue about our special God-given mission. They don't even understand the important role of the SOP in shaping our understanding of the Biblical truth. So, why to get into a promiscuous relationship with them?
If our prophetic understanding is correct, we really know where this movement is going."
That is the critical assumption.
Sirje
Yes, an assumption completely vague and undefined. He just forgot to tell us where is it actually going.
It's almost telling someone, "You won the prize" without any other detail.
Well, but it seems that people like Blazen understand the "hidden language"... and know what it all actually means.
May be some of us are blind to the obvious and cannot see "the obvious truth"... I am almost convinced that this is what is happening....
Those of you saying that you don't know where it is going, better start reading more about it and learning. Any Adventist that reads the SOP has no excuse for being ignorant about this issue. It's been clearly shown to Ellen White.
Why do you refuse to understand it? The message is clear! Only unbelievers seem to not get it right, and keep fussing about it. It's becoming tiring...
TJG
If I were Alex, I might be so embarrassed that I would not come here again. You have to know the people here in order to get what is said sometimes, and I think you blind-sided him. I don't think it was a credit to you. I understood the sarcasm from the beginning, but he did not, and that is not his fault.
I personally don't see any problem with getting involved with other denominations, and as a pastor of an SDA church, i do on occasion. I taught a Methodist Sunday School for about 4 years when a physician and organized with them an outreach to the community that was a blessing to all. Belonging to the Council might be OK, who knows?
We need not be afraid, for we have the truth. Nor should we be arrogant, for we don't have all of it. I have been blessed by the Catholic site "First Things", and numerous other denominational writings etc.
But just because they have truth, which they do, does not mean that we do not, nor do we need to soft pedal what we know.
I am comfortable as an SDA. I like what we teach, and am happy I was raised one.
And I do think we have something to tell to the world with our Rev. Seminars and the beasts, for no other church is saying it. Sure it can be confrontational. So was Jesus. Deal with it.
God has called us to do a job. Others are not doing it. So we have to. End of the world coming, you know.
It seems that many here don't see the dangers of ecumenism. One, ecumenism doesn't mean the same thing for everybody. For the Catholic church, for example, it is a way to bring back the other Christians under the banner of the "Mother Church" (remember what pope Benedict XVI said about the Catholic church being the only true church). So, for them, "unity" means "under the leadership of Rome" (which is not necessarily what Protestants means by unity). We can see the effects of ecumenism on the Protestant denominations when we see them defecting to Rome (like many Anglican clergymen are doing as we speak) or when we see them abandoning some key doctrines in order to get closer to Rome (like the Lutherans).
Two, ecumenism presents the danger of neutering our church and prevent us to fulfill our historical mission. Indeed, if we are part of the ecumenism movement, there are many things that we will not be able to do anymore or with great difficulty. For example, it will be more difficult to present the "Three Angels" message about Babylon. Also, how will we be able to present our message concerning Revelation 17? Also evangelism will be more difficult because if we join the ecumenical movement, we will be asked not to engage in what they call "sheep stealing", that is, we will be asked not to "steal" members from the other denominations. This situation is already happening in some countries in Europe.
This being said, it is true that we have to try to have good relationships with the other denominations which is a delicate balancing act. They are many sincere Christians in the other denominations and even if we say that we have the truth we have to remember that the truth is not just in doctrines only, it is also in behavior, relationship and service.
@Anon7: This being said, it is true that we have to try to have good relationships with the other denominations which is a delicate balancing act.
I consider it extremely difficult to pretend having both.
We either have good relationships with other Christians, with mutual respect and cordial treatment, and stop throwing mud on them calling them beast and so on, or we just keep the status quo and stay separated and immersed in out own religious pride and cultic culture.
Can't have both.
Yes George, if only we could be all be as humble as the critical spectrumites. Humble means having a high opinion of oneself, right?
John, the problem is created when people start discussing theology.
But, when I say "good relationships" I am thinking of real and human friendship, where we leave religion on the side. Everyone can have their personal beliefs but this does not mean they have to fight about them in a inter-denominational relationship.
I can be friends with any person from another religion and go out for lunch with them with no problem. We don't have to start the friction about religion all the time with everyone. Can't we be just normal people, not being obsessed with proselytism 24/7?
I could easy go out for lunch with you, provide that: 1) We abstain from talking about religion, and 2) You pay the bill!!! :):) (Though I am open about #2, and I can get it as well...)
-----------
The Spectrum environment, of course, is different. This is the place where we express what we believe, and where we expose our humbleness...
George, my paternal Grandparents were Roman Catholic, one of their children converted SDA, one to LDS, one to Messianic Jew, and one to Evangelical Free. So I know something about let's check our theology at the door and get something to eat. :-)
Make that JW not LDS.
George Tichy wrote: The Spectrum environment, of course, is different. This is the place where we express what we believe, and where we expose our humbleness...
Humbleness my foot. You are humble and tolerate everyone as long as:
1. They don't agree with the Adventist position.
2. There is no mention of Ellen White or Ted Wilson
If there is any inkling of disagreement with homosexuality or any mention of Ellen White or Ted Wilson, watch the humility fly out the window and watch the hatred come out.
Pago, I think you missed the Sarcasm, I don't imagine George actually claims to be humble on Spectrum.
John Mark, I probably did. I only quickly skimmed the comments after being away a few days. However, those who stand for something are often accused of arrogance and a lack of humility here. Whereas to be vague and uncertain seems to be a virtue and is labelled humility.
I wonder....when Jesus made himself a whip our of rope (it obviously took some time and planning to do) and then proceded to drive out the money-changers from the temple, was that an act of humility or arrogance?
"However, those who stand for something are often accused of arrogance and a lack of humility here. Whereas to be vague and uncertain seems to be a virtue and is labelled humility."
Are you kidding? From what I've seen they really don't like the vague and uncertain schtick. That doesn't allow them to back you into a corner and have their aha moment. And I certainly have never seen George be vague or uncertain. Indeed half of the "liberals" on this site actually seem to be fundamentalists who got confused by what the term liberal means by their Adventist upbringing. There's a handful of actual liberals too, but I think I'm the only one that plays the vague and uncertain game and I don't think I have generally been labelled as virtuous or humble. :-)
Just drinking a cup of delicious tea while reading your guys' discussion about my humbleness. I am proud of you!
This is so funny....
Actually it was about more than about you, but that humility can distort things... Personally, though I consider myself to be the most humble, I take great pride in that.
John, I am humbly proud of you - and increasing!
Now, Pagophilous' humility cannot be matched by neither one of us...
So, let's just play cello and drink some tea (decaf for you!).
Yes, of course. I love peach tea, we can pretend it was decaf to protect my image.
I won't tell your peachy secret to anybody on the Spectrum blog. Promise!
I like the Brazilian CHÁ MATE, very popular down there. It has some caffeine..., but you can tell my secret to anyone - it will not surprise anybody!
I learned to like it when I lived there (for 40 years), and since I am a conservative (as you well know) I tend to "conserve" the traditions.... Besides, it helps me to stay alert to those comments about my humility, etc. :):)
Sounds good, we can start a Caffeine Anonymous, got to think of something to call it besides CA though.
After my first wife died I dated a Catholic lady. She would come to my S.D.A church on Sabbath Mornings and then we would then go to her Catholic Church for mass later on in the afternoon
As this satisfied the weekly rituals of mass attendance
My take was how I could expect her to come to my church if I was not willing to go to hers.
WE eventually got married and she was baptised. Interesting enough the Catholic Priest was supposed to come and do a joint service with my S.D.A. minister but he never turned up.
If we isolate our selves how can we expect to win people to Christ??
Came across this German saying the other day
“There is no such thing as the ‘TRUTH’ only our interpretation of the TRUTH"
Every denomination claims to have the ‘TRUTH’?
Just about very denomination claims to be the fastest growing church just go and have a look at their web sites.
So who just does???
Corram:
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
The other two questions would probably be open for debate.
God bless
“If I were Alex, I might be so embarrassed that I would not come here again. You have to know the people here in order to get what is said sometimes, and I think you blind-sided him. I don't think it was a credit to you. I understood the sarcasm from the beginning, but he did not, and that is not his fault.” – Allen Shepherd
Good Morning Allen:
So, you think I “blind-sided” Alex and you need to come to his rescue. What a guy. Well, rather than get right into it right now, let me first say that we have some common ground. You believe that we should be talking to other churches and so do I. You wrote: “I personally don't see any problem with getting involved with other denominations….” Neither do I Allen, neither do I. We’re on the same page here brother. In fact, I appreciated you elaborating on this a bit when you wrote: “I taught a Methodist Sunday School for about 4 years when a physician and organized with them an outreach to the community that was a blessing to all.” Although your statement is somewhat confusing (typo I’m sure), I get it and commend your efforts.
If only our entire church had this kind of attitude toward other denominations. If so, then maybe us being labeled as a “cult” would go away – a big maybe I know. As you know, that’s how we’re viewed by the “other sheep,” a cult. Now please don’t write back and say this isn’t true, blah, blah, blah, blah -- save it. Most of us here didn’t fall off the turnip truck yesterday. We’ve been around a while and know the score. The truth is, we lean very heavy in that direction, and when I say heavy, that’s what I mean:
1. We have a “leader” (prophetess) that claims to speak for God. Her writings hold strict authority over us in respect to, finances, wills, diet, dress, amusement, associations and the list goes on and on. This is very cult-ish.
2. If a pastor, administrator, anyone in leadership, takes issue with Ellen, guess what? They’re out. They can take issue with the bible all day long, but not with Ellen. Feel free to argue otherwise.
3. We are not sola scriptura, bible only. We say we are, but the truth lies deep within our cultic writtings:
On February 7, 1887, the General Conference passed the following resolution -- "That we re-affirm our binding confidence in the Testimonies of Sister White to the Church, as the teaching of the Spirit of God." SDA Year Book for 1914, p. 253
"Our position on the Testimonies is like the key-stone to the arch. Take that out and there is no logical stopping-place till all the special truths of the Message are gone...Nothing is surer than this, that the Message and visions belong together, and stand or fall together." Review and Herald Supplement, August 14, 1883.
"It is from the standpoint of the light that has come through the Spirit of Prophecy (SDA code for EGW’s writings) that the question will be considered, believing as we do that the Spirit of Prophecy is the only infallible interpreter of Bible principles, since it is the Christ, through this agency, giving real meaning of his own words." G.A. Irwin, General Conference President, from the tract The Mark of the Beast, p. 1.
Hey Allen, guess what? We have our own Pope. Feel free to argue otherwise.
4. We believe we are superior because of our unique teachings and we know God’s will better than “they” do. After all, we’re The Remnant, especially chosen by God and “they” aren’t. I crack up when I hear this because the word used for remnant simply means “what’s left over.” There’s no special significance to it. So in essence, our claim to fame is: “Hey everybody, we’re what’s left over.” Now there’s something to shout about.
5. We consider those who leave The Remnant as lost and without salvation. We justify their leaving as a fulfillment of prophecy, “the brightest lights will go out…”
I could go on and on showing how similar we are to a cult, but you get the idea. My point is simply this: We are more of a cult than not. If it walks like a duck, squawks like a duck, then it’s probably a duck. We’re “a duck.”
I know you’re a strong believer in Ellen White and our goof-ball doctrine known as the Investigative Judgment. You think it’s great. You believe Jesus moved from the holy place to the Most Holy Place of the Heavenly Sanctuary on October 22, 1844 (sure He did.) That’s when the “investigating” began (sure it did). All those who have ever claimed the name of Christ come up for “review” (sure they do). If there’s one sin remaining on the books, you’re out! (sure you are). No one receives Eternal Life without going through the Investigative Judgment (sure they don’t. Say that to the multitude that went to heaven with Jesus. I guess they’re there on a contingency basis until 1844. Sure they are). Yes indeed, it all makes perfect sense. Not only that, it’s all sola scriptura (sure it is).
Anyway, you’re a “28’er,” I’m not. I believe in most, but not all of our teachings. I think we need to change some of them, starting with this goof-ball teaching. The truth is simple: October 22, 1844 is not the fulfillment of any biblical prophecy. In your response, feel free to jump on your pogo stick (aka “proof-texting”) and make your case. Like most of us on this site, I’ve heard it all. Feel free Allen, pogo stick away.
Now, about me “blind-siding” Alex: did you happen read Alex’s comment regarding Dr. Kinnamon’s talk? Hmmm? In your enthusiasm to quickly come to Alex's defense and give me the old “one two,” did you neglect to read his take on Kinnamon? In case you missed it, here it is: “Listening to the presentation, I thought he gave us a well needed slap in the face.” Alex - Thu, 02/02/2012 - 23:06.
Well Allen old buddy, my comments were simply an extension of this metaphor -- nothing more, nothing less. I used our stupid Revelation Seminars, paying proper respect to all The Beasts, to “slap us in the face” and point out some of the obscurities to our approach to evangelism, so-called. Revelation Seminars are not the way to go.
Now, I could have written: “Yes, I agree with you Alex. We should talk to other churches. Signed TJG,” but why take the time to state the obvious. Of course we should, and the sooner the better. If and when we do sit at the table with our dear brothers and sisters, I hope the LGT folks don’t show up. When Kinnamon and his/our friends find out that we actually believe Jesus hasn’t come back because we’re still sinning they’ll walk out -- can’t blame ‘em. And guess where LGT comes from Allen? That’s right, EGW, not scripture, unless of course you’re proficient on the pogo stick while doing The Twist jumping out of an air plane. That's what it all comes down too.
Anyway, I didn’t bind-side anybody. Just read the comments from Ray, Harry Allen, hopeful, Sirje, George and abe thompson. None of these folks were blind-sided. Alex is every bit as sharp as these folks, he just had an off-day. We all do. He didn’t need you to come to his defense, but I’m glad you did so we could spend a little time together.
Listen to Abe Thompson:
TJG
“Well done brother I could not do better myself. Pure sarcasm from the word go and so believable too to the poor saps that can't read between the lines. Some here surprise me for being so dense they can't recognize when their chain is being yanked or their leg pulled.”
Well Allen, when we put on these Revelation Seminars, that’s what we do. We yank the public’s chain and pull their leg. It's far better to sit at the table and talk to our brothers and sisters in Christ -- sheep not of this fold.
tg
TJG
Well, I am complemented by your post. There is too much to answer, and as you say, you did not fall off the turnip truck last week, so I would just be repeating old arguments you are familiar with. I haven't pogo sticked for a while. Too old.
Thompson's comment about the "poor saps" to a certain extent induced me to post, for Alex seemed so sincere.
I like that you include yourself among benighted SDAs by using "we" throughout.
A few observations;
1. I think you give Ellen more credit than she deserves. She was certainly instrumental in the formation of the church. But I think she is far from "Pope" material, regardless of the statements of President irwin. i sure don't see her that way. My arguments in her favor are more practical. Following her has lead us to become world class educators and physicians. I cannot prove it, but I bet Loma Linda sends more doctors to undeveloped nations than any other medical school in the US. And besides we live longer etc.
2. I don't have a problem with seeing Jesus at the right hand of God with the ascension. But I think his function changed in 1844. The heavenly sanctuary can be seen as metaphorical. The Bible writers do seem pretty concrete in their description, and I would not fault someone for taking that stand, but there seem to be places where it cannot be taken that way.
3. SDA's as a cult. i know we are viewed that way, but I don't think it is so much Ellen and the IJ that puts us there. It is the Sabbath and our teaching on death. Just keeping the Sabbath is offensive. Our following the commandment naturally puts others on the defensive, even if we are silent. Have you not seen that? So, of course we are a cult.
4. On being the Remnant. You see, I don't believe that this makes us better than anyone else. All of us have our troubles. But i think we do have a message for the world, and have been called to give it to them. When you see a fire, you yell "Fire!" Doesn't make you better, just as the Jews were not better, but only the ones God called who are willing to give the message. I sense you have a certain bitterness about this, that we are putting ourselves over others. its just that we have a job, not an elevated position. And we aren't doing the job that well anyway.
I consider it a privilege to discuss the issues with one whose name is written in the Book of Life.
Allen: Here are a few observations on your observations:
Under #1 you write: “I think,” “I think,” “I sure don’t,” “I cannot,” “I bet.” This is in contrast to my response supported by official SDA publications. With all due respect, this is not an “I think” fest. Unless you can document your position, and/or provide rational arguments, you would be better off spending time on that pogo stick. For example, here is a rational argument: A) The Pope interprets scripture for Catholics. B) EGW interprets scripture for SDA’s. C) EGW is SDA’s Pope (A=B=C, A=C). Support for this conclusion is as follows:
"It is from the standpoint of the light that has come through the Spirit of Prophecy that the question will be considered, believing as we do that the Spirit of Prophecy is the only infallible interpreter of Bible principles, since it is the Christ, through this agency, giving real meaning of his own words." G.A. Irwin, General Conference President, from the tract The Mark of the Beast, p. 1.
Apparently you don’t like Irwin’s comment, nevertheless, he’s right. “Our position on the Testimonies is like the key-stone to the arch. Take that out and there is no logical stopping-place till all the special truths of the Message are gone...Nothing is surer than this, that the Message and visions belong together, and stand or fall together.” Review and Herald Supplement, August 14, 1883.
What’s the difference between the Pope speaking ex cathedra and EGW speaking through her visions and Testimonies? Answer: No substantive difference. Therefore, EGW is our Pope. You have no rational argument against this conclusion.
Under #2 you write: “I don’t have a problem,” “I think his function changed,” “The sanctuary can be seen,” “Bible writers do seem,” “I would not fault,” “there seems to be places.” Allen, you like the word “I” and “seem,” but there’s no substance. Your personal take on our sanctuary doctrine is of no value in a meaningful dialog. In fact, your views contradict our official teaching on this doctrine. You have no scriptural support for your statement: “But I think his function changed in 1844.”
Under #3 you state that you believe our teachings regarding the Sabbath and the state-of-the-dead put us in the “cult category” more so than EGW and the IJ. Just the opposite is true. Relying on “extra-biblical” writings for authority is the primary reason we are considered a cult. Look it up.
Under #4 you don’t believe our claim as being the Remnant “makes us better than anyone else.” You are viewing this on a personal level, I’m not. As people, of course we are not better than anyone else. Obviously we're all sinners. That’s not what I’m referring to. Our church teaches that WE are The Remnant, like this is something of biblical significance. It’s not. It simply means “what’s left over.” There is no significance to it. In practice we teach, and always have, “we have The Truth.” By default this means “they” don’t. This is the context I was referring to. You write: “But I think we do have a message for the world, and have been called to give it to them.” So Allen, what message we have we been “called” to give?
You also state: “I sense you have a certain bitterness about this.” No, I don’t. I simply want our church to be truthful and quit trying to pull the wool over our eyes.
I too consider it “a privilege to discuss the issues with one whose name is written in the Book of Life.”
tg
TG,
Next time you write something so brilliant, let me co-author it: just add my name at the end... :):)
I bet the "people upstairs" don't like you that much. You are committing two sins:
1) Presenting "inconvenient" facts as they are,
2) Making too many people to think objectively and rationally.
I too consider it “a privilege to discuss the issues with one whose name is written in the Book of Life.
tg & George
No problamo
Actually the Sabbath is the Lord's Day:
Exodus 20:10 But the seventh day [is] the sabbath of the LORD thy God:
Matt 12:8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day.
Clearly Jesus is our Lord, and His day is the Sabbath day.
Don't be confused by the Catholic Church calling the 1st day of the week the Lord's Day, we must go the the Bible to get a correct/Biblical defination of the Lord's Day.
God's Blessings
I find far more meaningful writing and practice about Sabbath outside Adventism.
We got fixated on the exact day and what not to do and how evil everyone else is going to church on Satan's day and often missed the plot and depth, beauty and meaningfulness.
Where exactly does this Sabbath start? Greenwich mean time calculations? The 180th degree of a g
Human invented idea? The only ones observing the ancient sabbath coud be those where the bible was written. The demarcation line for which day of the week it is could be anywhere on each side of the original land, not just the European construction time and day zones.
TJG, whose name is in the book of life.
OK, I have used the more vague wording to avoid being seen as intransigent. But IT SEEMS I have only made myself less clear.
1. EGW is not our pope. You quote Br. Irwin, a president of the GC. His statement is his opinion. It is not the church's position just as any of Teddy's statements are not necessarily considered church positions either. EGW herself said that the Bible was to be our standard. #17 "(the writings of EGW) also make it clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested" That is our official position regardless of that the RH supplement said. We are to test her writings against the Bible, not the other way around. I personally respect her interpretations, but they are not anything like the Pope speaking Ex Cathedra. Our official position is clear.
2. I wasn't giving a Bible study on the matter. But I can say something about your specific question of Jesus change of function in 1844.
It is clear that there is an investigative or pre-advent Judgement. Paul teaches it ( II Cor: 5:10) , as does Solomon (Eccl 12:14). Jesus has several functions in the NT. Advocate, Priest and Judge among others.
When does Jesus take his judgement seat before which we all appear (II Cor 5:10)?
One could argue that the judgement occurs when we die, that is, he took the seat immediately at his ascension. . But the Bible tells of a vast judgement scene where the books are opened described in Dan 7 after the little horn arises. Now most often, God is thought of as the one on the throne, but Jesus says that the Father judges no man, but only the Son (John 5:22). So it must be that Jesus is the Judge, or at least has some part of this judgement.
And Rev 14:7 says that a message is to be given to the world before the second coming: "The hour of his judgement has come." So there is a specific time of judgement that God wants proclaimed. But when?
Since we Adventists correlate the judgement scene of Dan 7 with the cleansing of Dan 8:14, there we have Christ changing his function at a specific time, 1844. Not being a Judge before, and taking the judge's seat in 1844. So there I am on the Pogo stick; you forced me onto it. You are welcome to challenge any of these ideas.
3. I deny that we are using extra-biblical writings to support our doctrines, so would not consider us a cult in that regard. Martin in his book "Kingdom of the Cults" after investigating us says we are "heterodox" but not a cult. He apparently did not see EGW as such a problem as you or perhaps others do.
4. The Remnant. You know from my previous posts that I do not have a problem with other denominations having truth. They do. Catholics have truth, from which we can benefit. You see the term as exclusionary while I see it as descriptive. We are the remnant in that we have held to the truth more constantly than the others. But that does not exclude them from God. Or truth.
EGW position is quite instructive in this matter. She praised Dwight L. Moody on several occasions. She encouraged us to work with other ministers when we could and pray for them.
But there is another issue here, and it is the issue of self identity. Our church is growing because it has a strong sense of self. We stand for something. Many Protestants have abandoned their roots, their reason for existence, trying to be inclusive. They thus loose a sense of why they should be. Having a strong sense of self does not mean that others are bad or wrong or outside of truth. But it does give the members purpose. So our identity as the remnant, proclaiming the 3 angel's messages give us a firm foundation, and keeps us from just being another church.
In response to Ray's Comments:
"I challenge anyone on this forum to prove to me "sola scriptura" that Sunday keeping is the mark of the beast and that the seventh day sabbath is the seal of God. Please keep in mind that I have been worshipping on Saturday for almost 73 years and have some idea where scripture finishes and human reasoning starts."
Perhaps a reading of "Rome's Challenge" found in various places on the internet is in order here. It is interesting that you include the term "sola scriptura" for it was at the Counsil of Trent that the archbishop of Reggio made the exact point that current-day Protestants were hippocrites since there could be found absolutely no "sola scriptura" evidence for the transfer of the solemenity of the seventh-day to the first day yet they continued to follow Rome in this traditional manner. With the "exception" of the Seventh-Day Adventists, the paper written in the 1800s states, Protestantism is essentially hippocritical and falls short of "sola scriptura".
I am proud to be part of the exception. Seventh-day Adventists are scripturally consistent: this as judged by Catholics.
http://www.romeschallenge.com/