| Author |
Message |
    
Daniel J. Rzodkiewicz (Djrz)
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 7:41 pm: |       |
". . . our doctrines are biblical and we have proved them again and again. Not by EGW, but by the bible."
Oh, so since you don't explicitly cite EGW, then you must not be quoting her even when what you use as evidence and how you interpret the Bible is directly from EGW not the Bible.
(Such as "Obedience to the law is evidence of true gospel faith." Found nowhere in the Bible, but found dozens of times in various forms in EGW.)
I see. . . got it. |
Robert Dale Lackey (Boblackey)
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 8:43 pm: | |
Bill Sorenson. You are right. I don't get it. I'm not trying to overthrow anything. Especially the SDA church.
I thought I was defending you, Cliff and Ulrike to have the right to continue the Adventist church the way it is officially presnted to the public.
I have read your posts often and have often seen you write that true bible adventism is explained by EGW. So no false dilemma here.
Is it not true that if there is a fuss in the Adventist church over Biblical understanding a clear quote from EGW should settle the matter?
Yes EGW is the final authority in the SDA church. She explains the Bible and true doctrine to prevent the true SDA from being tossed about by every wind of doctrine and Biblical understanding.
OK. Let me say it this way. Maybe I'm not cutting enough slack for traditional Adventists here. The Bible is the final authority, but it's EGW's understanding of the Bible that is final.
And that one can NOT be a true Adventist and be in conflict with EGW.
You really think Ford had any chance of winning that war while being in direct contradiction to EGW? Not as long as the church maintains the postion that EGW is authoritative and a continuing source of truth. If they had let Ford win, then presenting EGW as an authority and a prophet would have collapsed. Is Tom Norris going to have any chance to reform the church when the fact of the matter is EGW believed in the IJ/1844 doctrine. It is clear as a bell in her book GC.
That is ONE thing that puzzles me about Tom Norris. He is always talking about how traditional Advenitsts have NO chance of having EGW on their side if she were alive today and that she would not support their false gospel presentation and three angels messages presentation by the SDA church today. But when I point out to him that EGW clearly taught and believed the IJ/1844 doctrine, he then denounces her as having NO authority on matters of doctrine and that ONLY the apostles can make doctrine for the church today.
That Tom Norris sees EGW as being in his corner is strange indeed.
Ford doesn't even do that. Ford just flat says in his book"1844 and the Investigative Judgement" that EGW is WRONG. Ford goes on to say that there are historical and theological mistakes in her books. Yes Ford does say EGW is a wonderful gift to the SDA church but her books should never be allowed to have doctrinal authority and should be pastorial in nature or the denomination violates the Bible ONLY principle. And he tells people to read "Steps to Christ". But he doens't claim that EGW would be on his side IF she were alive today. Ford knows that EGW would not agree with his theology. Tom Norris seems sure that EGw would abandon her former position and side with him IF she were alive today. I don't believe she would. |
Bill Sorenson (Billsorensen)
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 9:18 pm: | |
(Such as "Obedience to the law is evidence of true gospel faith." Found nowhere in the Bible, but found dozens of times in various forms in EGW.)
I see. . . got it.
I doubt if you "got it" Daniel. That concept is simply historic Reformation doctrine and theology.
Sorensen |
Daniel J. Rzodkiewicz (Djrz)
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 9:59 pm: | |
We were talking about EGW vs Bible.
So you bring in a red herring and expect me to be swayed by your "doubt?"
Hmm. Failed to answer the charge. Thought I would be impressed with "simply" combined with an irrelevant subject that does not address your claim or my counter argument.
Got it again.
Need to present any other "simply" ideas?
Proceed. |
Bill Sorenson (Billsorensen)
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 10:09 pm: | |
Is it not true that if there is a fuss in the Adventist church over Biblical understanding a clear quote from EGW should settle the matter?
Yes EGW is the final authority in the SDA church. She explains the Bible and true doctrine to prevent the true SDA from being tossed about by every wind of doctrine and Biblical understanding.
OK. Let me say it this way. Maybe I'm not cutting enough slack for traditional Adventists here. The Bible is the final authority, but it's EGW's understanding of the Bible that is final.
Robert, please listen carefully. All our fundamental doctrines are understood by me, Cliff, and Ulrike and I believe we would all say we can clearly defend these doctrines from the bible alone. I know I can.
And I assume the others would confess the same thing.
It would seem that many of you on this forum must necessarily have had a false view of EGW and her ministry. And now you impute your own false concepts of EGW to every SDA.
But only someone who has not read her works extensively would come to the conclusion you and many others seem to have about her ministry.
She pointed to the bible again and again as the sole final authority for the Christian community.
Now apparently, some of you believed SDA doctrines in the past even when you were convinced they were not scriptural. That is tragic. But you must have believed these doctrines solely because EGW said so.
It was Cottrell who said we could not prove the IJ except by EGW. What a sad commentary for a man who claimed to be a bible scholar. Des Ford admitted he never believed in the SDA position on Heb. 9. But he still took money as a SDA bible teacher. Is that duplicity or what?
And why did they make these statements? After the Brinsmead awakening and many leaders were exposed as doctrinal novices, it was assumed you could say anything you please. So Ford, Cottrell and others became vocal in their unbelief. And the church soon decided for the sake of political and economic expediency they would be very careful not to define anything doctrinal that could be used as a "testing truth" to determine what was necessary to be a church member.
I don't have to be a prophet to tell you that soon the 7th day Sabbath will go by the wayside as many of our other doctrines have done.
Look at the Damascus Road fiasco with Fredricks. The article in the Review said, We have no conflict with what he was teaching. They knew he was a avid follower of Ford. What then did they object to?????
He was keeping some of the money they claimed as theirs.
What a confession, "We don't give a •••• what he teaches, as long as we get the money."
Do I believe in reform? You bet. Let bible Adventism be proclaimed in the spirit and power of Elijah and John the Baptist and there will be a final division and shaking like never witnessed in the church before.
Will Bill Sorensen solve the problem? No.....it is a "God size problem" and He knows how to do His work completely and throughly when the time comes. And that time can not be too far in the future.
In the mean time, most of you here "worship, you know not what."
And as Jesus said, "Ye know not the scriptures nor the power of God."
And as a Christian, I don't impute rebellion, even to Dr. Ford. But I must necessarily impute ignorance and eventually, if there is no repentance, ignorance turns to rebellion. Just like the Jews who crucifed Christ.
Sorensen |
Ron Corson (Roca88)
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 10:38 pm: | |
This thread especially after Cliff's declaration of my morally reprehensible behavior has been my dilemma for the past several years. Yes I know Cliff did not single me out in particular but I feel I fit in the category that he has labeled morally reprehensible. I have had less trouble staying in the SDA church since I find the number of people who hold to the traditions of Bill Sorenson, Urike and even Cliff to be less then 50% of the SDA population. Now of course that is a subjective determination, I realize that I am greatly influenced in my perception by the people in the SDA church who I become best acquainted with and as with most friends the common areas of interest attracts together.
For instance of the two main Sabbath School classes at my church one I find uncomfortable because I think I will offend them with some of my thoughts and the other I feel free to say what I think. Yet even though the one I find uncomfortable has mostly traditionalists I know that several of the teachers of the group are more like me. So while I may think of that group as being more traditional it may simply be that many in that group just like a less stimulating SS class. There are a lot of people who really hate to hear other opinions on religion because they think that it is an argument. And to them arguing is bad. While to people like me arguing is the best way to learn new things and stimulate thinking.
There certainly have been times when I thought there was no way I could stay in an SDA church. Yet other times it works out well.
So the question comes down to can I have an impact on people in the SDA church? Can I help them to see God from what I think is a better perspective? My culture and background makes me more suitable for such a task then if I went to any other denomination. Now it may be that somewhere there is a church which agrees more with the way I theologically believe. But I have not seen one. That does not mean the SDA church is the best choice, only that it is my cultural predisposition. So if the SDA church changed in certain ways I would feel better about it. So it is to that end that I work. My goal is to find or create a church that I could feel good about taking my non Christian or even Christians of other denominations too without fear that they will hear something contrary to what the Bible teaches or hurtful to their denomination. And mainly a church that represents God in the best possible light.
So as Martin Luther who was teaching in the Catholic university yet proclaimed the problems with that religious system, I feel that standing up for what you believe and articulating it in a persuasive fashion is not morally reprehensible, but it's the height of Christian responsibility. It is always easier to run away, but those who run away are far less likely to ever really change anything. I think standing up for what you believe is moral wherever it needs to be done. I think it is immoral for those who provide a paycheck for work to think that they can dictate what that person must believe otherwise they will be fired. But I guess that is where Cliff and I have a very large difference of opinion. I do think his method would lead to less growth of knowledge in the church and ultimately be destructive. He probably thinks it is the only way to keep the church safe. Because to him safe is not the pursuit of truth but the protection of cherished past beliefs.
moral
1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical <moral judgments>
b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem>
c : conforming to a standard of right behavior
d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation>
e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>
2 : probable though not proved : virtual <a moral certainty>
3 : having the effects of such on the mind, confidence, or will <a moral victory> <moral support>
morally \-e-le\ adverb
(C) 1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated |
Sirje Walkowiak (Sirje)
| | Posted on Friday, July 18, 2003 - 4:42 am: | |
Yes, well, Ron, like you say, it all depends on what the goal is - to guard what you have or to grow. Growth is always dangerous. I'm sure the Methodist(?) church Ellen White left thought she and others were going bonckers at the time and so it's been throughout history - growth means change and change is painful.
As to whether to stay or leave the church - that's a very difficult question and I was really upset with Cliff for making such a glib remark. Obviously, for him, belonging to a church is simply a matter of cold calculations of doctrine. For me, it's where my heart is.
If the truth be told, there is no church that has it all right and thre is no "group" that can issue a ticket to heaven. The entire ecclesiastical system of church services is archaic and needs to change, like the Review article mentioned on anothr thread suggested, (relating to other cultures).
There is so much that could be gained from an exchange in small groups but that, too, is "dangerous" to the church. They must keep the entire group coralled within the perameters set by the church, so that every member reads the same lesson each week, no matter what the personal needs of a particular group or individual may be. Granted, most churches have at least one class that studies some other material, relevant to the group, but that leaves out a whole lot of people, who just sit there like bumps on the proverbial log and would bust a vessel if they had to come up with an original thought.
Sirje |
Pierre Paul Legault (Pierrepaul)
| | Posted on Friday, July 18, 2003 - 7:00 am: | |
I'm not really sure where to post this. But since the issues currently being discussed on this thread are so far removed from it's original topic (Mr. Goldstein's article) I suppose here is as good a place as any.
I was active in the SDA Church for almost 30 years. I read and studied all of the sabbath school lessons. I taught a sabbath school class for at least 10 of those 30 years. I listened to close to 1,500 sermons. I have met tens of thousands of other SDAs. I have discussed doctrinal questions with hundreds of SDAs. I served on church boards, conference boards, pastor selection committees. Yet I never, ever once did I hear the names Ford, Cotrell, Brinsmead, Glacier View, etc. mentioned.
Pardon my ignorance, but who were these people such that their names evoke such powerful emotions? Do they have any influence outside of the dozen or so people who frequent this internet forum? Do they have any standing outside of Seventh-day Adventism? Would the "average" pastor have heard of these names?
Are there any written sources which discuss the views of these men from a dispassionate, objective, non-partisan point of view? |
Sirje Walkowiak (Sirje)
| | Posted on Friday, July 18, 2003 - 7:17 am: | |
NO, and yes. The church spoke little about these people and their issues. It all took place "under the radar" in the ivory towers of Adventism.
When I emerged from the "outer regions" of civilization, name Newfoundland, Canada, I came accross a itty, bitty tape that was being passed around and talked about in whispered tones. It was the recording of the PUC bombshell, delivered by Des Ford. But before that, I was presented with another tape that came from CUC (Washington DC version), of a CUC radio interview with Ford, that blew my mind. After that - silence in the "tents of the three angels".
I knew immediatley that you wouldn't want to breathe the name because I made the mistake once, and got an immediate reaction. Then the purges followed - Smoots Van Royan among a host of others who were, as quitely as possible, given the "left foot of disfellowship" or something like it, to the point that Southern College emmerged without "certain faculty". And the beat went on. Most people doing their weekly thing in Adventist church didn't have a clue, except that there "was this heretic Ford ("or was it Brimsmead") that was in hot water with the church.
So, I'm not surprised you never got in on the fun.
Sirje |
Sirje Walkowiak (Sirje)
| | Posted on Friday, July 18, 2003 - 7:42 am: | |
P.S. What article, Pierre? Did Goldstien write an article?
Sirje |
Ron Corson (Roca88)
| | Posted on Friday, July 18, 2003 - 6:30 pm: | |
This from the Review E-letters on Goldstein article, brought a smile to my face anyway.
e-letters
ANOTHER KIND OF EPIPHANY
In his column, "Pizza Epiphany" (June 26, 2003), Clifford Goldstein wrote: "I could hear the racket: 21 years of scaffolding and edifice crashing around me (a personal Copernican revolution is noisy). The epistemological center of gravity was wrenched away from me to a reality that existed outside my mind. Transcending the relativity, subjectivity, and contingency that hijack every human experience, objective reality--originating in something--had to exist. Which meant, then, that truth had to as well. Heresy had become orthodoxy over a pizza."
Someday I might be able to understand Goldstein's writing. Then I'll have arrived at some sort of Platonic reality bifurcated by the unknown eonic stressors of the paleolithic matrix.
Actually, it's not bad writing--lots of action to describe the thought process. It would do really well in a speech and works better read aloud than silently. But then I still have to figure out what a "personal Copernican revolution" is, and I can't relate to how noisy it might be. I'm thinking mental breakdown, but maybe it's something else.
Of course, writing at the level of an overextended college nerd isn't a bad thing. The Review's got to have something to keep the eggheads interested too (or at least capable of impressing their friends with their ability to wax eloquent about the vagaries of navel lintage); so if it's just a page a month, go for it.
If Goldstein can find truth in a slice of pizza, more power to him. At least it's not in a bong.
Paul Beach |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page