The 3abn Massachusetts Lawsuit Poll Options

[Rosyroi]

Great points, Clay and I almost totally agree with you. My only exception is that the type of seed is also vitally important. If you plant bad seed, you tend to grow a weed, IMO.

I really appreciate those GOOD seeds.

I prefer listening and watching the evangelists on tv gaining my spiritual blessings without having to go to a meeting, find a place to park, go inside look for a place to sit, visit with all my friends who are there, then sit through the meeting, leave, visit, find the car, go home. I can do my housework or eat a meal or just sit there. Less stress for me.

JMHO

Rosyroi

This post has been edited by Rosyroi: Jul 5 2007, 09:16 PM

[mystery- man]

One of the wonderful things about Adventism and true Christianity is the ability to discuss things in a Christian matter.
And with the invention of the internet that ability is increased 100 fold. I will not try to defend our church I will simply leave that to God, after all He isn't dead. The facts be told the church has caused itself much pain by denying things that have been preached from it pulpits for years and years (the protestant churches constitute fallen Babalyon and the Catholic church the Harlot sitting on seven hills, and on and on). Double speak is what the Adventist Church has mastered, talking out of two sides of their mouth. While from the pulpit the church holds to certain beliefs behind the doors and in the public sector they pronounce to believe another thing. I was an elder for over 25 years and I also have heard all kind of things from the pulpit, except when it comes to tithe there is very little room for compromise, that will definitly get you kicked out of the church.

Truth preached with conviction will stir things up and cause persecution in the which most do not want. The adventist church is all about survival instead of the savior. We have the truth but the people we have hired to take it in a large portion are hirelings that are only interested in the bottom line (Money). It kills me when people report to have such a love for the church and want to trumpet how they will save Her. The church means nothing without the savior this is the thing the Jewish people did not understand, they were willing to kill Jesus to save the church.

[PeacefulBe]

I really appreciate those GOOD seeds.

I prefer listening and watching the evangelists on tv gaining my spiritual blessings without having to go to a meeting, find a place to park, go inside look for a place to sit, visit with all my friends who are there, then sit through the meeting, leave, visit, find the car, go home. I can do my housework or eat a meal or just sit there. Less stress for me.

JMHO

Rosyroi

Rosyroi,

I understand your sentiment and I think there is a small place for TV evangelism. However, while it is an interesting concept to multitask while listening for the message the Holy Spirit has for you in the seclusion of your comfort zone, just think of how worthwhile the sacrifice of driving to that meeting in the flesh might be, even with the annoyances of parking and seating searches, if you were to physically connect with one or more others face to face! Imagine, God using you to be a blessing to others while you are also being blessed!

[Pickle]

Then I suggest that you go sit in the corner and meditate until you DO see something wrong with making any statement about not needing "those kind of people in the church".

I am an Evangelical Seventh-day Adventist, so I am thorougly saturated with the doctrine of substitutionary atonement. But I know a goodly number of people who are good Seventh-day Adventist Christians who hold to models of salvation other than this one... and I would certainly not even THINK of them as not being the kind of people we want in our church!

Perhaps, WB, you did not quite catch what I was saying. I didn't say we don't need people in the church who don't believe that Jesus died in our place for our sins. I said we don't need people in the church who don't believe that Jesus died in our place for our sins even though the Bible and the SOP say so.

When people join the Adventist Church they vow before God and man that they believe that the Bible is the only rule of faith and practice for the Christian. When someone knowingly believes something directly opposed to what the Bible teaches and refuses to repent, they are violating that vow.

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (Heb. 10:26-31)

Now if God can in essence say He's not going to have in heaven people who count the blood of the covenant that sanctifies us an unholy thing, I think that I can make the statement about such people that I did under the circumstances that I did, circumstances that I really didn't describe.

In that phone call out of the blue, besides being somewhat threatened with a lawsuit, I was told that I was wrong for writing an unpublished document about a particular heresy since the person teaching that heresy had kept people from leaving the church and had brought people into the church. The caller's tirade had been going on for sometime by that point, and that is how I responded to such an absurd reason for the caller's demand that I become a dumb dog that will not bark.

And this brings us back to 3ABN and Danny Shelton, and the reticence that some people have had in dealing with this issue. Church discipline has become so unpopular, even though it is taught in Scripture. In some quarters church members can believe whatever they want, live with whomever they want, do whatever they want, and fear no consequences even though their beliefs or conduct fall into one of the categories of grounds for church discipline as found in the Church Manual. And those who dare speak up are opposed, threatened, and, rarely, sued.

I asked the meaning of the shaking I had seen, and was shown that it would be caused by the straight testimony called forth by the counsel of the True Witness to the Laodiceans. This will have its effect upon the heart of the receiver, and will lead him to exalt the standard and pour forth the straight truth. Some will not bear this straight testimony. They will rise up against it, and this will cause a shaking among God's people. (1T 181)

This suggests to me that before the end the straight testimony would have been crushed out and then revived, and that the revival of such would be strongly opposed. If we have gotten to the point where those who would speak out against child molestation, fraud, unbiblical divorce, lies, and cover up are said to be working for Satan, as I was recently told, then I think the above is in process of fulfillment.

This post has been edited by Pickle: Jul 6 2007, 05:50 AM

[Pickle]

... Branch Davidians, who are an offshoot not of the Seventh-day Adventist Church but of Shepherd's Rod.

It dawned on me this morning that this may not be precisely accurate. Rather than being an offshoot of Shepherd's Rod, the Branch Davidians, who followed the leadership of Ben Roden, were the largest fragment of Shepherd's Rod, which fragmented after the death of Victor Houteff.

[Panama_Pete]

It dawned on me this morning that this may not be precisely accurate. Rather than being an offshoot of Shepherd's Rod, the Branch Davidians, who followed the leadership of Ben Roden, were the largest fragment of Shepherd's Rod, which fragmented after the death of Victor Houteff.

Although the names are familiar to me, I had to go read about this subject because I never did pay attention as to who broke off from whom.

Below is a reprint from the Adventist Review . The article agrees with your memory, Bob, although it is the condensed version and doesn't mention Roden by name.

http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/I...chdavidians.htm

This post has been edited by Panama_Pete: Jul 6 2007, 06:55 AM

[Voktar of Zargon]

QUOTE(watchbird @ Jul 5 2007, 09:52 PM)
Then I suggest that you go sit in the corner and meditate until you DO see something wrong with making any statement about not needing "those kind of people in the church".

I am an Evangelical Seventh-day Adventist, so I am thoroughly saturated with the doctrine of substitutionary atonement. But I know a goodly number of people who are good Seventh-day Adventist Christians who hold to models of salvation other than this one... and I would certainly not even THINK of them as not being the kind of people we want in our church!

QUOTE (Pickle replied Today, 07:24 AM)
Perhaps, WB, you did not quite catch what I was saying. I didn't say we don't need people in the church who don't believe that Jesus died in our place for our sins. I said we don't need people in the church who don't believe that Jesus died in our place for our sins even though the Bible and the SOP say so.

When people join the Adventist Church they vow before God and man that they believe that the Bible is the only rule of faith and practice for the Christian. When someone knowingly believes something directly opposed to what the Bible teaches and refuses to repent, they are violating that vow.

Some Adventist's want to call themselves non-denominational without really being so. Some want to call themselves Adventist while being in reality non-denominational. Some want to call themselves "Evangelical" and open church membership to those who don't even believe in the substitutionary atonement.
Some want to call themselves Adventist and not even believe in "Sola Scriptura". Holding two mutually exclusive concepts in the mind as equally true (in one and the same person) has often been referred to as a form of psychosis. (loss of touch with reality) It is disingenuous to call yourself one thing while actually ascribing to something totally different.

The church doors should be open to all faiths, or lack of faith. Church membership should not be so open, unless we have decided to thoroughly abandon the distinctive identity upon which our church was founded - and adopt a new amorphous identity.
This is a fearful prospect since, "We have nothing to fear for the future, except as we shall forget the way the Lord has led us, and His teaching in our past history."
Our church originated as a movement based upon certain very distinct and non-negotiable theological premises. Without these beliefs there would never have been an Adventist church. To open church membership and belief to a theological plethora of mutually exclusive and thoroughly incompatible theological systems is intellectual madness in the name of compassionate progress.
Jesus asked the rhetorical question, "Can a house divided against itself stand?" Truly the church in North America appears as if it is about to fall.

[runner4him]

QUOTE(watchbird @ Jul 5 2007, 09:52 PM)
Then I suggest that you go sit in the corner and meditate until you DO see something wrong with making any statement about not needing "those kind of people in the church".

I am an Evangelical Seventh-day Adventist, so I am thoroughly saturated with the doctrine of substitutionary atonement. But I know a goodly number of people who are good Seventh-day Adventist Christians who hold to models of salvation other than this one... and I would certainly not even THINK of them as not being the kind of people we want in our church!

QUOTE (Pickle replied Today, 07:24 AM)
Perhaps, WB, you did not quite catch what I was saying. I didn't say we don't need people in the church who don't believe that Jesus died in our place for our sins. I said we don't need people in the church who don't believe that Jesus died in our place for our sins even though the Bible and the SOP say so.

When people join the Adventist Church they vow before God and man that they believe that the Bible is the only rule of faith and practice for the Christian. When someone knowingly believes something directly opposed to what the Bible teaches and refuses to repent, they are violating that vow.

Some Adventist's want to call themselves non-denominational without really being so. Some want to call themselves Adventist while being in reality non-denominational. Some want to call themselves "Evangelical" and open church membership to those who don't even believe in the substitutionary atonement.
Some want to call themselves Adventist and not even believe in "Sola Scriptura". Holding two mutually exclusive concepts in the mind as equally true (in one and the same person) has often been referred to as a form of psychosis. (loss of touch with reality) It is disingenuous to call yourself one thing while actually ascribing to something totally different.

The church doors should be open to all faiths, or lack of faith. Church membership should not be so open, unless we have decided to thoroughly abandon the distinctive identity upon which our church was founded - and adopt a new amorphous identity.
This is a fearful prospect since, "We have nothing to fear for the future, except as we shall forget the way the Lord has led us, and His teaching in our past history."
Our church originated as a movement based upon certain very distinct and non-negotiable theological premises. Without these beliefs there would never have been an Adventist church. To open church membership and belief to a theological plethora of mutually exclusive and thoroughly incompatible theological systems is intellectual madness in the name of compassionate progress.
Jesus asked the rhetorical question, "Can a house divided against itself stand?" Truly the church in North America appears as if it is about to fall.

Thank you for pointing out the church doors should be open to all but membership is another matter which is what I understand Pickle was talking about. We have actually created quite a problem in the church by not standing for what we hold dear...our foundation...our beliefs. We now have within the ranks people who are not sure what to believe...we seem to have thrown out church discipline......open sin is allowed...we are blowing in the wind and with the wind. While we need and must embrace all who walk through the church doors with love and acceptance, we must lead them to the altar of Christ where they will find redemption and know the possiblity of a renewed life full of hope. As we study with them I believe that firm foundation of beliefs must become theirs and then although the wind blows they can stand firmly on the Rock and not be shaken.

[mikell]

Our church originated as a movement based upon certain very distinct and non-negotiable theological premises. Without these beliefs there would never have been an Adventist church. To open church membership and belief to a theological plethora of mutually exclusive and thoroughly incompatible theological systems is intellectual madness in the name of compassionate progress.
Jesus asked the rhetorical question, "Can a house divided against itself stand?" Truly the church in North America appears as if it is about to fall.[/color]

Amen to what you wrote! This quote from EGW came into my mind when I read your piece here. In Early Writings we read:

"While I was praying at the family altar, the Holy Ghost fell upon me, and I seemed to be rising higher and higher, far above the dark world. I turned to look for the Advent people in the world, but could not find them, when a voice said to me, "Look again, and look a little higher." At this I raised my eyes, and saw a straight and narrow path, cast up high above the world. On this path the Advent people were traveling to the city, which was at the farther end of the path. They had a bright light set up behind them at the beginning of the path, which an angel told me was the midnight cry. This light shone all along the path and gave light for their feet so that they might not stumble. If they kept their eyes fixed on Jesus, who was just before them, leading them to the city, they were safe. But soon some grew weary, and said the city was a great way off, and they expected to have entered it before. Then Jesus would encourage them by raising His glorious right arm, and from His arm came a light which waved over the Advent band, and they shouted, "Alleluia!" Others rashly denied the light behind them and said that it was not God that had led them out so far. The light behind them went out, leaving their feet in perfect darkness, and they stumbled and lost sight of the mark and of Jesus, and fell off the path down into the dark and wicked world below."

Just look at again what EGW warned about those Adventists who denied the fundamentals of our faith of the Midnight Cry – the 1844 Investigative Judgment message of the Atonement that light want out on their feet, and thus “leaving their feet in perfect darkness, and they stumbled and lost sight of the mark and of Jesus, and fell off the path down into the dark and wicked world below.”

You were 100% correct, “Our church originated as a movement based upon certain very distinct and non-negotiable theological premises. Without these beliefs there would never have been an Adventist church.” Sadly, there are those among us who seek, “To open church membership and belief to a theological plethora of mutually exclusive and thoroughly incompatible theological systems is intellectual madness in the name of compassionate progress,” is more than that for those who will follow such madness -- their very own souls are at stake here! They for sure will fall, "Off the path down into the dark and wicked world below!”

[Pickle]

Amen, Voktar.

And to clarify, since R4H points out a potential misunderstanding, I have encouraged and will continue to encourage anyone and everyone to attend, and do my best to make them feel welcome, as long as they aren't disruptive.

But when it comes to church membership, there are some non-negotiables. And sola scriptura is one of those, for without that everything else crumbles.

If only Adam and Eve had remembered that God's Word is the final word, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in today.

I remember the little kid who would sass his mom something terrible, but when my mom babysat him he didn't dare sass her. It was, "Yes, Mrs. Pickle," this and "Yes, Mrs. Pickle," that. The day came when he told my mom, "I wish you were my mother."

Having reasonable standards and boundaries, and having reasonable consequences for crossing those boundaries, is a very loving thing. Not having such isn't really loving at all.

[Richard Sherwin]

Amen to the last four posts.

[YogusBearus]

Amen, Voktar.

And to clarify, since R4H points out a potential misunderstanding, I have encouraged and will continue to encourage anyone and everyone to attend, and do my best to make them feel welcome, as long as they aren't disruptive.

But when it comes to church membership, there are some non-negotiables. And sola scriptura is one of those, for without that everything else crumbles. If only Adam and Eve had remembered that God's Word is the final word, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in today.

Excellent Bob! There isn't a thing above that I can't support 100%. It's great when we can come full circle and find agreement.



-bear

[Brick Step]

After the blessings of another wonderful Sabbath day, I nervously came here to check the direction being taken by the posts on this thread. My Sabbath day was not spoiled! Amen, and praise God!

[Clay]

Pickle said:

But when it comes to church membership, there are some non-negotiables. And sola scriptura is one of those, for without that everything else crumbles.

Adventists don't practice this, and don't believe it. What is sola scritura? The bible and the bible only. That is not what we do. We do the bible and Ellen White. Self-deception what a marvelous thing...

[SoulEspresso]

Pickle said:
Adventists don't practice this, and don't believe it. What is sola scritura? The bible and the bible only. That is not what we do. We do the bible and Ellen White. Self-deception what a marvelous thing...

Not even that. Try Bible + EGW + tradition.

Unfortunately whenever a group takes on authorities "on the same level" as Scripture those authorities are used to interpret Scripture, therefore superseding it. In practice, tradition thus supersedes EGW, and EGW supersedes the Bible. Of course, you have to watch what people actually do to see this--and ignore what they say.

Would that we actually were Sola Scriptura.

This post has been edited by SoulEspresso: Jul 7 2007, 05:41 AM