I think I need to start a fresh...again...

[dubiduwap]

" And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. "

... hehe sometimes of all the voices in your head the softest one is our comforter. The one that sounds just a little away from our own ambitions, sometimes far away ^^


"your Father in heaven will give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!" Sometimes perhaps we have to cry to Daddy

 

[epistemaniac]

thanks for the welcome...

sorry if I was not clearer on this particular issue.... in any case, it really does not matter if I consider SDA to be a cultist.... the main point I was trying to convey is that if a person wants to know a "Christian" view on a certain matter of doctrine, while granting that the word "Christian" may itself be problematic, at the very least, one should go to what is, by anyone's perspective, more of a mainstream writer within Christianity in order to get a broader perspective. There is certainly nothing wrong with reading EG White as long as you know.... and in this case especially it seems the writer of the OP would not have known this.... who EG White is and what group she represents, prior to reading her. Or said another way, if one wanted to know what the "Classical" or "Historical" Christian perspective on a given subject might be, one ought not go to a sub group within Christianity that did not even exist until the mid 1800's. Thats all....

blessings,
ken

Lastly I would not want to confuse you further, but just know that Ellen G White was the founder of what many within the ranks of orthodox Christianity considers to be a cult, eg the Seventh Day Adventists or SDA. At the very least, even if one would want to say that the Seventh Day Adventists are not a cult per se, even granting that point, at the very least you should know that when you do read her, she is not a representative sample of what classical, historical Christianity believes. Secondly I would say to be very careful with N.T Wright as well. He is embroiled in a very important contemporary controversy concerning one of the most important central doctrines of Christianity, namely justification. Justification is a doctrine which seeks to answer how a sinful human being can hope to stand before a holy righteous God. This concerns the very heart of Christianity, forgiveness. His definition of justification is very very different from what historic Protestantism (even back to Augustine) has said about this doctrine. At the very least, just as with EG White, you should know that this individual is at odds with classical historic Christianity on a central doctrine.

PS Ravi Zacharias is a great teacher!!

blessings,
ken

Take it here Ken: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=35556

Oh, BTW welcome to the forum.

 

[epistemaniac]

is the confession of the Trinity necessary for salvation?

this is a tough one for me... I am inclined to say yes for at least 2 reasons...

the first is that the historic church has taught that the confession of the Trinity is a condition for salvation..... see the early Athanasian Creed for instance.....

secondly, there is only one God that actually possesses existence, there is only one true God.... if this one true God's nature is in fact triune, then to believe in and confess a God that is not triune is, in effect, to posit a false god, one that does not possess existence, one that is, in the end, merely an idol. How then can one be saved by believing in an idol?

I realize that we finite humans cannot possibly ever hope to fully define God, and that it is a very good thing that our salvation does not depend on our ability to exhaustively define God's nature or essence!!! However, since the biblical witness, that which Jesus Himself declared to be God's very word to man, describes God as triune, then the triune God is the God of Scripture, the only God there is, and is the God one ought to confess as being the only true God.

blessings,
ken

 

[RND]

thanks for the welcome...

sorry if I was not clearer on this particular issue.... in any case, it really does not matter if I consider SDA to be a cultist.... the main point I was trying to convey is that if a person wants to know a "Christian" view on a certain matter of doctrine, while granting that the word "Christian" may itself be problematic, at the very least, one should go to what is, by anyone's perspective, more of a mainstream writer within Christianity in order to get a broader perspective.

Isn't the "broader way" the path to destruction?

There is certainly nothing wrong with reading EG White as long as you know.... and in this case especially it seems the writer of the OP would not have known this.... who EG White is and what group she represents, prior to reading her.

As far as I know, and from everything I've read from EG White the only "group" she represents are Christians, the body of believers in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Or said another way, if one wanted to know what the "Classical" or "Historical" Christian perspective on a given subject might be, one ought not go to a sub group within Christianity that did not even exist until the mid 1800's. Thats all....

blessings,
ken

Brother Ken, the same thing could have been said at one time regarding Luther, Calvin, Wesley, et al.....

As far as I know, from all that I have ever read from Mrs. White she was passionate about one thing - the Lord Jesus Christ.

Again, if you'd like to discuss further I'd suggest going here: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=35556

The quote, and link to Steps to Christ were for Kenan's edification and assistance with his dilemma are not posted so you could take personal pot shots at things you have no knowledge of. I'd read the book myself if I were you. At least this way you won't appear so hopeless uninformed.

 

[cyberjosh]

I've had this happen to me before, and I'm mad at myself for having it happen again. I've let so many conflicting ideas and interpretations of the Bible, the nature and of God and the nature of Jesus (i.e. is he man or God, etc.) go to my head that I've come to this sort of bastardised, self-contradicting faith consisting of ideas from Judaism, Unitarianism, JW, Mormonism, Anglicanism and Mainline Protestantism.
...
I need help with ripping down my current faith and biases, and developing a new, philosophically sound faith. I basically need the works, I don't know what to believe in at this point.

Any help would be a appreciated

Thank you for sincerely sharing your thoughts and your current position in your life with us. I can feel your pain to a degree because I too constantly wrestle intellectually and doctrinally with many things about the Word, and in the past - many years ago - I had also had sucidal thoughts but also could not bear to do it.

But don't count yourself out because of your background or any strange ideas you may have encountered along the way. I think you would be inspired by the story of Augustine, one of the greatest Church Fathers of early Christianity. He, for the majority of his adult life, was follower of Manicheanism which is a dualistic, almost gnostic, Zorastrian pseudo-Christian religion led by a man named Mani who claimed to the Paraclete (Helper - the Holy Spirit) that Jesus promised to send. He got into deep error and deception, and when he started loosing faith in Manicheanism he then tried all manner of philosophy and his soul was restless. But eventually, due to his Mother's faith and prayer, the evangelist and orator Ambrose's preaching, and God working in his life he experienced an amazing deliverance from his self-made prison.

From a book I have called "Saints and Non-Saints" it says this about Augustine:

*It's a bit long but worth the read*

"At this period he was introduced to a now lost work by Cicero entitled Hortensius, which affected him profoundly and caused him to vow to make the attainment of truth his lifelong quest. He knew instinctively that his mother's religion [Christianity] was likely to bring him to his ideal, yet his pride kept him from accepting her Savior. He had tried to understand the Scriptures, but he declared, "What I came upon was something not grasped by the proud, nor revealed to children....And I was not of the nature to enter into it or bend my neck to follow it. When I first read Scriptures....they seemed to me unworthy compared to the majesty of Cicero."

In this frame of mind, he was an easy target for Manicheans. This Eastern sect was founded on the teachings of Mani, a Persian born about 216 who considered himself the prophet of Jesus Christ and the promised Paraclete. His teachings, then considered to be a Christian heresy, were actually a completely independant, dualistic religion that originated in the Zorastrianism of Persia. Presenting good and evil as two kingdoms constantly engaged in warfare, the Manichee viewed salvation as possible to those who allowed the divinity within them to triumph over the evil. This triumph was possible primarily through the attainment of wisdom.

It was this emphasis on wisdom that attracted the nineteen-year-old Augustine. The Manichean answer to his questions concerning the origin of evil also won him. Further, Manichees freely criticized the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, and held self-denial and moral purity in high esteem. Augustine became an eloquent champion of Manicheanism, although he never renounced the material world in order to become one of the "Elect or "Perfect Ones," on account of the strong attachment to worldly pleasures that he was unable to break. As a Manichean Hearer (a sort of layman), Augustine was permitted to marry, own propery, and had only to fast occasionally.
...
Augustine became restless in Tagaste after about a year and sought a wider sphere of influence and experience in Carthage, to which he moved in 375, his widowed mother joining the household there. This period of his life was characterized by ardent study and the publication of his first works on philosophy. During this period, Augustine's adherence to Manicheanism began to relax as he started to doubt its vague and superstitious tenets.
...
Yet, in spite of his ability to dominate intellectual discussions, Augustine was unsure of his own beliefs. His mind was in turmoil. He desired absolutes. He toyed with Epicureanism and the skepticism of the Academics, and for a time leaned toward Neo-Platonism. The ideas propounded by the literature in which he immersed himself stimulated his thoughts but left his soul restless and still searching.

The prefect of Rome, Symmachus, impressed by Augustine's oratorical genius, recommended him for a position of professor of rhetoric in Milan....In Milan, Augustine could not help hearing of Bishop Ambrose, a prominent Christian leader and a powerful speaker. Monica was delighted when Augustine began to join her at Chruch to hear Ambrose preach, even though his avowed reason for attending the services was to observe the great preacher for the sake of oratory alone. Augustine recorded the impression these early visits made: "Salvation is far from sinners, of the sort I then was. Yet little by little I was drawing closer, though I did not yet realize it...Along with the words, which I admired, there also came into my mind the subject matter, to which I attached no importance. I could not seperate them. And while I was opening my heart to learn how eloquently he spoke, I came to feel, though only gradually, how truly he spoke."
...
Ironically, though Augustine was close to accepting the beliefs of Christianity, he was perhaps in a worse moral condition than at any preceding time in his life... Augustine became increasingly more distraught as he contemplated the enormity of the power that sin had over him. His boyhood friend Alypius, who shared his lodging, was surprised at Augustine's intensity when he burst out, "What is the trouble with us?...The unlearned rise up and take heaven by storm, and we, with all our erudition but empty of heart, see how we wallow in flesh and blood!"

Augustine rushed into the garden to try to still his soul's disquiet. He knew what he must do to have peace, yet he hesitated....He threw himself under a fig tree and wept for sin, still unable to make a decision to renounce it forever. He asked himself, "How long shall I go on saying tomorrow and again tomorrow? Why not now, why not have an end to my uncleanness this very hour?"

At that moment he heard a child's voice from a neighbor's house, singing over and over, "Take and read, take and read". He stood up immediately, interpreting the little chant as "a divine command to open my book of Scripture and read the passage at that I should open." He opened his copy of the Pauline epistles, hoping, as he had heard was Antony's experience, that he would find a passage that would bring him to the point of conversion.

"So I.... opened it and in silence read the passage upon which my eyes first fell: 'Not in rioting and drunkenness not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof (Romans 13:13-14)"

The Word of God illuminated Augustines heart at that moment. He wrote, "All the darkness of uncertainty washed away." Calmly now, he testified to his friend Alypius, and the men hurried into the house to tell Monica the happy news. With his conversion in the spring of 386, Augustine found his goals and desires completely changed. He broke his engagement, resigned his position, partly because of ill health, and wrote to Ambrose requesting baptism, which was then scheduled for Easter of the following year."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Habegger, Christa. Saints And Non-Saints. Ambassador Productions Ltd., 2007. Pg. (49-53)

I left off alot for brevity's sake but he experienced a true conversion after most of his adult life not really knowing what he believed, but knew he was searching for it. He was caught in multitudinous errors and his personal life was fleshly (I left off the part about his marriage and divorce among other things). But nonetheless, with the mess he has made of His life God took his searching and restless soul and revealed Himself to him. God can do the same for you if you will but ask, seek, and pray for God to work in you. He will not disappoint.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[epistemaniac]

thanks for the welcome...

sorry if I was not clearer on this particular issue.... in any case, it really does not matter if I consider SDA to be a cultist.... the main point I was trying to convey is that if a person wants to know a "Christian" view on a certain matter of doctrine, while granting that the word "Christian" may itself be problematic, at the very least, one should go to what is, by anyone's perspective, more of a mainstream writer within Christianity in order to get a broader perspective.

Isn't the "broader way" the path to destruction?

There is certainly nothing wrong with reading EG White as long as you know.... and in this case especially it seems the writer of the OP would not have known this.... who EG White is and what group she represents, prior to reading her.

As far as I know, and from everything I've read from EG White the only "group" she represents are Christians, the body of believers in the Lord Jesus Christ.

[quote:2irm2873]Or said another way, if one wanted to know what the "Classical" or "Historical" Christian perspective on a given subject might be, one ought not go to a sub group within Christianity that did not even exist until the mid 1800's. Thats all....

blessings,
ken

Brother Ken, the same thing could have been said at one time regarding Luther, Calvin, Wesley, et al.....

As far as I know, from all that I have ever read from Mrs. White she was passionate about one thing - the Lord Jesus Christ.

Again, if you'd like to discuss further I'd suggest going here: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=35556

The quote, and link to Steps to Christ were for Kenan's edification and assistance with his dilemma are not posted so you could take personal pot shots at things you have no knowledge of. I'd read the book myself if I were you. At least this way you won't appear so hopeless uninformed. [/quote:2irm2873]

RND, you are confusing my statement of "broader (historic or classical) Christianity" with the "broader path of destruction", this is an example of the informal logical fallacy known as "equivocation" or ambiguity.

Obviously, the 2 concepts (the "broad path of destruction" and "broader historic Christianity") are not the same things. For instance, say that all of a certain set of believers, lets call them for the sake of the discussion "classical" or "historic" Christians, and that all believers within this set adhere to the "narrow way" of salvation, that no one can go to the father but by Christ, that none shall be saved but those who have faith in Christ, that any one who rejects the Son will be rejected by the Father, that.... (insert other articles of the Christian faith)..... Clearly, since all these believers in this class adhere to the "narrow way", there is nothing that indicates that this is a situation of anyone in this class of believers forsaking the narrow way for the broad path of destruction.

Further you seem to be missing the point that the original question seemed to me (admittedly, as in all such communication, this is my subjective opinion) to be a question about Christianity as a whole, on a historical level, and not about exceptions to historic Christianity, either in longevity or in doctrine. So for instance, suppose someone wanted to know about "political parties of the United States of America". I would not answer this question by providing incidental or minority examples from within the history of the United States of America politics as an answer to their question... I would not tell them "hey, go check out the Whig political party as good example of American political systems", and by "good" I mean of course "representative". And "representative" of Christianity is what I would not call the SDA. That is all I am saying. Supposing that SDA is within the realm of orthodoxy, a point I am not even considering really, given it's recent development within Christianity, it still would not or should not, on this basis alone, be given as an example of "historical Christianity".

you said

As far as I know, and from everything I've read from EG White the only "group" she represents are Christians, the body of believers in the Lord Jesus Christ.

"1. Ellen G. White was the founder of the Seventh-day Adventist church.

Answer: The Seventh-day Adventist church was founded by Joseph Bates, Ellen G. White, and James White (not Ellen G. White alone).

Resources: Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia, vol. 10, 1996 ed., p. 170; vol. 11, pp. 873, 890."

"From 1861 to 1881 Ellen White's prophetic ministry became increasingly recognized among Sabbatarian Adventists. Her frequent articles in the Review and Herald (now the Adventist Review) and other church publications were a unifying influence to the beginning church. She supported her husband in the church's need for formal organization. The result was the organization of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in 1863." (Wikipedia)

"In order to understand the background of Seventh-day Adventist history and theology, let us look at the three segments of Millerism, which eventually united to form the Seventh-day Adventist denomination. Each of these groups held a distinctive doctrine. The group headed by Hiram Edson, in western New York, proclaimed the doctrine of the sanctuary "as embracing a special or final ministry of Christ in the Holy of Holies in the heavenly sanctuary," thus giving new meaning to the message "The Hour of God's Judgment Has Come." The second group, headed by Joseph Bates, whose main following was in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, advocated the observance of the Seventh-day Sabbath "as involved in the keeping of the commandments of God." The third group, in Maine, emphasized the "Spirit of prophecy" or "the testimony of Jesus," which they believed was to be made manifest in the "remnant" (Revelation 14:6-12; also Revelation 12:17; 19:10) or "the last segment of God's church of the centuries." Between the years 1844 and 1847, the thinking of these groups crystallized and was actively declared and promulgated in the writings of their respective leaders: Hiram Edson, O. R. L. Crosier, Joseph Bates, James White, and Ellen G. White." (Kingdom of the Cults, The)

Thus it is wrong to even speak of "an" SDA or "the" SDA, since there are, in fact, factions within the SDA itself. In any case, hardly anyone disputes, or at least ought to dispute, that EG White was a founder of the SDA.

you said

Brother Ken, the same thing could have been said at one time regarding Luther, Calvin, Wesley, et al.....

At one time in history, perhaps this could be said. I would dispute this, but that is another matter. But I am responding at THIS TIME in history. And as such, I feel continued justification in thinking that SDA is not representative of historic or classical Christianity simply by virtue of it not existing except for the last 100 plus years, while the Christian church has existed for several thousand years.

I am not disputing Mrs. White's individual personal commitments or beliefs.

blessings,
ken

 

[RND]

RND, you are confusing my statement of "broader (historic or classical) Christianity" with the "broader path of destruction", this is an example of the informal logical fallacy known as "equivocation" or ambiguity.

No confusion Ken. Classical Christianity loves to use Satan's brush to paint God as a petty, vindictive and vicious God - a bogyman ready to pounce and to destroy the very creation He made, that He died for, and that gives Him so much pleasure.

"Broader" Christianity? No thanks.

Obviously, the 2 concepts (the "broad path of destruction" and "broader historic Christianity") are not the same things. For instance, say that all of a certain set of believers, lets call them for the sake of the discussion "classical" or "historic" Christians, and that all believers within this set adhere to the "narrow way" of salvation, that no one can go to the father but by Christ, that none shall be saved but those who have faith in Christ, that any one who rejects the Son will be rejected by the Father, that.... (insert other articles of the Christian faith)..... Clearly, since all these believers in this class adhere to the "narrow way", there is nothing that indicates that this is a situation of anyone in this class of believers forsaking the narrow way for the broad path of destruction.

What you are describing isn't the "narrow way" Ken, what you are describing the "narrow minded way." Tell me Ken, do you think God made the American natives with the sole purpose of simply destroying them?

They lived on this continent at the exact same time as Christ, with absolutely no chance of knowing Him, hearing Him, or reading the Torah. Are they all "lost?" Or, is it possible that they easily responded to the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ by being much more in tune with their environment?

Further you seem to be missing the point that the original question seemed to me (admittedly, as in all such communication, this is my subjective opinion) to be a question about Christianity as a whole, on a historical level, and not about exceptions to historic Christianity, either in longevity or in doctrine. So for instance, suppose someone wanted to know about "political parties of the United States of America". I would not answer this question by providing incidental or minority examples from within the history of the United States of America politics as an answer to their question... I would not tell them "hey, go check out the Whig political party as good example of American political systems", and by "good" I mean of course "representative". And "representative" of Christianity is what I would not call the SDA. That is all I am saying. Supposing that SDA is within the realm of orthodoxy, a point I am not even considering really, given it's recent development within Christianity, it still would not or should not, on this basis alone, be given as an example of "historical Christianity".

I wouldn't use the SDA position as pointing to anyone other than Jesus Christ. In your example, you'd be quite happy to only point to your understanding and beliefs regarding political parties in the country. That "self serving" and "self righteous."

you said

As far as I know, and from everything I've read from EG White the only "group" she represents are Christians, the body of believers in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Thus it is wrong to even speak of "an" SDA or "the" SDA, since there are, in fact, factions within the SDA itself. In any case, hardly anyone disputes, or at least ought to dispute, that EG White was a founder of the SDA.

This happens in every church and every denomination does it not?

you said [quote:27u7c2k1]Brother Ken, the same thing could have been said at one time regarding Luther, Calvin, Wesley, et al.....

At one time in history, perhaps this could be said. [/quote:27u7c2k1]

"At one time...." I rest my case.

I would dispute this, but that is another matter. But I am responding at THIS TIME in history. And as such, I feel continued justification in thinking that SDA is not representative of historic or classical Christianity simply by virtue of it not existing except for the last 100 plus years, while the Christian church has existed for several thousand years.

Modern Seventh-day Adventist are more closely related to "original Protestantism" than any "modern Christian" could hope to be Ken! You could ask 100 so-called protestants why they are "protestants" and what they are "protesting" and you'd likely get 100 different answers.....that isn't the case with SDA's.

I am not disputing Mrs. White's individual personal commitments or beliefs.

How could you?

 

[Adullam]

What of the church that Jesus Christ founded through the Holy Spirit around 33 AD or so?

 

[RND]

What of the church that Jesus Christ founded through the Holy Spirit around 33 AD or so?

Which one? The true or the one overrun with paganism which is home to the beast?

 

[epistemaniac]

I had said

RND, you are confusing my statement of "broader (historic or classical) Christianity" with the "broader path of destruction", this is an example of the informal logical fallacy known as "equivocation" or ambiguity.

you say

No confusion Ken. Classical Christianity loves to use Satan's brush to paint God as a petty, vindictive and vicious God - a bogyman ready to pounce and to destroy the very creation He made, that He died for, and that gives Him so much pleasure.

Then you have admitted the point. Classical Christianity is representative historically, SDA is not. Whether or not you happen to subjectively agree with "classical Christianity" is irrelevant to the OP.

you say

"Broader" Christianity? No thanks.

Again, irrelevant to the OP. You do seem to be a bit hung up on the word "broader" don't you lol? Its ok... really... it will be alright.... just do not __assume__ that when someone else uses a word that you can pour your own subjective meanings into a word, then force someone else to accept that your meaning is theirs, for that is the classical foundation to a straw man, which is quite easily burned up, along with those who are not part of the narrow path.

I said

Obviously, the 2 concepts (the "broad path of destruction" and "broader historic Christianity") are not the same things. For instance, say that all of a certain set of believers, lets call them for the sake of the discussion "classical" or "historic" Christians, and that all believers within this set adhere to the "narrow way" of salvation, that no one can go to the father but by Christ, that none shall be saved but those who have faith in Christ, that any one who rejects the Son will be rejected by the Father, that.... (insert other articles of the Christian faith)..... Clearly, since all these believers in this class adhere to the "narrow way", there is nothing that indicates that this is a situation of anyone in this class of believers forsaking the narrow way for the broad path of destruction.

to which you reply

What you are describing isn't the "narrow way" Ken, what you are describing the "narrow minded way." Tell me Ken, do you think God made the American natives with the sole purpose of simply destroying them? They lived on this continent at the exact same time as Christ, with absolutely no chance of knowing Him, hearing Him, or reading the Torah. Are they all "lost?" Or, is it possible that they easily responded to the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ by being much more in tune with their environment?

LOL!!! I get it now... I am narrow minded, while you are .... what exactly....? Open minded? A harbinger of truth? I see now that this discussion and objection, and eventual digression has likely been merely a platform for you to engage in what appears to be a pet objection of yours to classical Christianity's beliefs, one of which is the conscience eternal torment of all unbelievers. While I do have the satisfaction of knowing that your objection proves my point, namely that the SDA, or at least some members of the SDA, deny a historical doctrine of the Christian faith. Remember, whether or not this doctrine is even true is completely and totally irrelevant to my point. You and whatever members of the SDA that happen to agree with you on this issue are thusly out of step with historic Christianity, end of point.

However, this question of yours concerning Native Americans, which typically can be reduced to something like "what is the fate of the innocent native who never heard the gospel?" whether they be American Indians, African Pygmy's, Australian Aboriginals, etc or some such similar objection to the doctrine of eternal punishment is not really the focus of this thread or my response to the OP, which you have seriously derailed. My apologies to the writer of the OP that this has happened.

I had said

Further you seem to be missing the point that the original question seemed to me (admittedly, as in all such communication, this is my subjective opinion) to be a question about Christianity as a whole, on a historical level, and not about exceptions to historic Christianity, either in longevity or in doctrine. So for instance, suppose someone wanted to know about "political parties of the United States of America". I would not answer this question by providing incidental or minority examples from within the history of the United States of America politics as an answer to their question... I would not tell them "hey, go check out the Whig political party as good example of American political systems", and by "good" I mean of course "representative". And "representative" of Christianity is what I would not call the SDA. That is all I am saying. Supposing that SDA is within the realm of orthodoxy, a point I am not even considering really, given it's recent development within Christianity, it still would not or should not, on this basis alone, be given as an example of "historical Christianity".

to which you reply

I wouldn't use the SDA position as pointing to anyone other than Jesus Christ. In your example, you'd be quite happy to only point to your understanding and beliefs regarding political parties in the country. That "self serving" and "self righteous."

First, I see that you are again engaging in misdirection and faulty reasoning. Who ever said anything about ever directing anyone away from Jesus Christ!?!? Please do not accuse me of ever pointing anyone away from my Lord and master.

Secondly. obviously you are not understanding my point in the example. Once again, it is not necessary to discuss any of the SDA' doctrines AT ALL. The mere fact that they are, historically speaking, not a representative sample of Christianity is the only point I am making. Please do not take so personally this point. I am not impugning your beliefs, Ellen G White's beliefs, the beliefs of the SDA, etc. I am only stating, and this is something you have admitted, that the SDA, on certain doctrines anyway, is out of step with classical historic Christianity. At any rate, given that the SDA did not even begin to exist until the mid 1800's is enough to prove my point.

you said

As far as I know, and from everything I've read from EG White the only "group" she represents are Christians, the body of believers in the Lord Jesus Christ.

I replied

Thus it is wrong to even speak of "an" SDA or "the" SDA, since there are, in fact, factions within the SDA itself. In any case, hardly anyone disputes, or at least ought to dispute, that EG White was a founder of the SDA.

you said

This happens in every church and every denomination does it not?

Of course. Don't read any more into what I said than what it is I said. In this case, I merely said that one cannot speak of "the" SDA position on any particular doctrine. This is not a negative or positive critique of the SDA's beliefs, its just a historical fact.

you say

Brother Ken, the same thing could have been said at one time regarding Luther, Calvin, Wesley, et al.....

I replied

At one time in history, perhaps this could be said.

to which you say

"At one time...." I rest my case.

Again, "your case" is not the point of this thread. It is helpful, however, that you admit that it is a personal subjective case.

I said

I would dispute this, but that is another matter. But I am responding at THIS TIME in history. And as such, I feel continued justification in thinking that SDA is not representative of historic or classical Christianity simply by virtue of it not existing except for the last 100 plus years, while the Christian church has existed for several thousand years.

you replied

Modern Seventh-day Adventist are more closely related to "original Protestantism" than any "modern Christian" could hope to be Ken! You could ask 100 so-called protestants why they are "protestants" and what they are "protesting" and you'd likely get 100 different answers.....that isn't the case with SDA's.

This is false, as you have already admitted to the fact that there are differing and disagreeing factions within the SDA. Again, though, that is not the point of this thread.

I said

I am not disputing Mrs. White's individual personal commitments or beliefs.

to which you replied

How could you?

I did not see the need to go into her beliefs as that was not the subject of this thread. Now, if you would, please, let us respect the wishes and intent of the OP, and leave this discussion.

blessings,
ken

 

[RND]

I had said

RND, you are confusing my statement of "broader (historic or classical) Christianity" with the "broader path of destruction", this is an example of the informal logical fallacy known as "equivocation" or ambiguity.

you say
[quote:ni9fiqrm]No confusion Ken. Classical Christianity loves to use Satan's brush to paint God as a petty, vindictive and vicious God - a bogyman ready to pounce and to destroy the very creation He made, that He died for, and that gives Him so much pleasure.

Then you have admitted the point. Classical Christianity is representative historically, SDA is not. Whether or not you happen to subjectively agree with "classical Christianity" is irrelevant to the OP.[/quote:ni9fiqrm]

I have admitted nothing other than "classic Christianity" is as close to the truth of the Bible as a muddy puddle is clean pristine water.

you say
[quote:ni9fiqrm]"Broader" Christianity? No thanks.

Again, irrelevant to the OP. You do seem to be a bit hung up on the word "broader" don't you lol? Its ok... really... it will be alright.... just do not __assume__ that when someone else uses a word that you can pour your own subjective meanings into a word, then force someone else to accept that your meaning is theirs, for that is the classical foundation to a straw man, which is quite easily burned up, along with those who are not part of the narrow path. [/quote:ni9fiqrm]

Brother, you said that the the "broader view" of Classic Christianity is right - not I, in an attempt to marginalize my views. I'm just simply saying that the "broad" view of "classic Christianity" leads to destruction.

I said
[quote:ni9fiqrm]Obviously, the 2 concepts (the "broad path of destruction" and "broader historic Christianity") are not the same things. For instance, say that all of a certain set of believers, lets call them for the sake of the discussion "classical" or "historic" Christians, and that all believers within this set adhere to the "narrow way" of salvation, that no one can go to the father but by Christ, that none shall be saved but those who have faith in Christ, that any one who rejects the Son will be rejected by the Father, that.... (insert other articles of the Christian faith)..... Clearly, since all these believers in this class adhere to the "narrow way", there is nothing that indicates that this is a situation of anyone in this class of believers forsaking the narrow way for the broad path of destruction.

to which you reply

What you are describing isn't the "narrow way" Ken, what you are describing the "narrow minded way." Tell me Ken, do you think God made the American natives with the sole purpose of simply destroying them? They lived on this continent at the exact same time as Christ, with absolutely no chance of knowing Him, hearing Him, or reading the Torah. Are they all "lost?" Or, is it possible that they easily responded to the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ by being much more in tune with their environment?

LOL!!! I get it now... I am narrow minded, while you are .... what exactly....? Open minded? A harbinger of truth? I see now that this discussion and objection, and eventual digression has likely been merely a platform for you to engage in what appears to be a pet objection of yours to classical Christianity's beliefs, one of which is the conscience eternal torment of all unbelievers. While I do have the satisfaction of knowing that your objection proves my point, namely that the SDA, or at least some members of the SDA, deny a historical doctrine of the Christian faith. Remember, whether or not this doctrine is even true is completely and totally irrelevant to my point. You and whatever members of the SDA that happen to agree with you on this issue are thusly out of step with historic Christianity, end of point.

However, this question of yours concerning Native Americans, which typically can be reduced to something like "what is the fate of the innocent native who never heard the gospel?" whether they be American Indians, African Pygmy's, Australian Aboriginals, etc or some such similar objection to the doctrine of eternal punishment is not really the focus of this thread or my response to the OP, which you have seriously derailed. My apologies to the writer of the OP that this has happened. [/quote:ni9fiqrm]

Ken, the derailment is all yours! You are the one that decided to corrupt this thread by saying essentially to the OP, "Maybe you should listen to those SDA's."

Several times I have given you a link to a thread where you could "ax" you questions and you have yet to accept that offer. It appears to me you are quite "comfy" in taking over this thread.

I had said
[quote:ni9fiqrm]Further you seem to be missing the point that the original question seemed to me (admittedly, as in all such communication, this is my subjective opinion) to be a question about Christianity as a whole, on a historical level, and not about exceptions to historic Christianity, either in longevity or in doctrine. So for instance, suppose someone wanted to know about "political parties of the United States of America". I would not answer this question by providing incidental or minority examples from within the history of the United States of America politics as an answer to their question... I would not tell them "hey, go check out the Whig political party as good example of American political systems", and by "good" I mean of course "representative". And "representative" of Christianity is what I would not call the SDA. That is all I am saying. Supposing that SDA is within the realm of orthodoxy, a point I am not even considering really, given it's recent development within Christianity, it still would not or should not, on this basis alone, be given as an example of "historical Christianity".

to which you reply

I wouldn't use the SDA position as pointing to anyone other than Jesus Christ. In your example, you'd be quite happy to only point to your understanding and beliefs regarding political parties in the country. That "self serving" and "self righteous."

First, I see that you are again engaging in misdirection and faulty reasoning. Who ever said anything about ever directing anyone away from Jesus Christ!?!? Please do not accuse me of ever pointing anyone away from my Lord and master.

Secondly. obviously you are not understanding my point in the example. Once again, it is not necessary to discuss any of the SDA' doctrines AT ALL. The mere fact that they are, historically speaking, not a representative sample of Christianity is the only point I am making. Please do not take so personally this point. I am not impugning your beliefs, Ellen G White's beliefs, the beliefs of the SDA, etc. I am only stating, and this is something you have admitted, that the SDA, on certain doctrines anyway, is out of step with classical historic Christianity. At any rate, given that the SDA did not even begin to exist until the mid 1800's is enough to prove my point.
[/quote:ni9fiqrm]

Right, I have seen and understood what you have done to this thread. I offered a quote, good council and a link to a great book full of wonderful advice to the OP to which you decided to dig a hole for a landmine, and trot in with a "deflection bomb" about what SDA's views are and how the don't measure up to your (rather flawed) views of "classic Christianity."

Could you point me in the direction where you offered any assistance to the OP other than your deviation?

you said [quote:ni9fiqrm]As far as I know, and from everything I've read from EG White the only "group" she represents are Christians, the body of believers in the Lord Jesus Christ.

I replied

Thus it is wrong to even speak of "an" SDA or "the" SDA, since there are, in fact, factions within the SDA itself. In any case, hardly anyone disputes, or at least ought to dispute, that EG White was a founder of the SDA.

you said

This happens in every church and every denomination does it not?

Of course. Don't read any more into what I said than what it is I said. In this case, I merely said that one cannot speak of "the" SDA position on any particular doctrine. This is not a negative or positive critique of the SDA's beliefs, its just a historical fact.[/quote:ni9fiqrm]

Then using your logic one cannot speak of the Calvinist position, the Methodist position, the Lutheran position or the Catholic position because there are "factions" within those groups as well. Which is a silly argument frankly.

you say
[quote:ni9fiqrm]Brother Ken, the same thing could have been said at one time regarding Luther, Calvin, Wesley, et al.....

I replied

At one time in history, perhaps this could be said.

to which you say

"At one time...." I rest my case.

Again, "your case" is not the point of this thread. It is helpful, however, that you admit that it is a personal subjective case. [/quote:ni9fiqrm]

Right, my first post, which you felt justified in contending with Ken is the point the OP was looking for. You have offered nothing to edify this OP other than you bloviating nonsense.

I said
[quote:ni9fiqrm]I would dispute this, but that is another matter. But I am responding at THIS TIME in history. And as such, I feel continued justification in thinking that SDA is not representative of historic or classical Christianity simply by virtue of it not existing except for the last 100 plus years, while the Christian church has existed for several thousand years.

you replied

Modern Seventh-day Adventist are more closely related to "original Protestantism" than any "modern Christian" could hope to be Ken! You could ask 100 so-called protestants why they are "protestants" and what they are "protesting" and you'd likely get 100 different answers.....that isn't the case with SDA's.

This is false, as you have already admitted to the fact that there are differing and disagreeing factions within the SDA. Again, though, that is not the point of this thread. [/quote:ni9fiqrm]

Right there are "factions" everywhere. SDA's just happen to be more "accurate" protestants because we know what we are protesting.

BTW, I know the OP's point and commented to it. You are the one KEN that decided to attack my post, not the other way around.

I said
[quote:ni9fiqrm]I am not disputing Mrs. White's individual personal commitments or beliefs.

to which you replied

How could you?

I did not see the need to go into her beliefs as that was not the subject of this thread. Now, if you would, please, let us respect the wishes and intent of the OP, and leave this discussion.
[/quote:ni9fiqrm]

Look like I take the last word on this then Ken, I commented directly to the OP. You decided you had to attack Adventist beliefs in you response to the OP - hey, that's your business. But don't accuse others of derailing something that was not derailed by anyone other than yourself.

 

[Elijah674]

I've had this happen to me before, and I'm mad at myself for having it happen again. I've let so many conflicting ideas and interpretations of the Bible, the nature and of God and the nature of Jesus (i.e. is he man or God, etc.) go to my head that I've come to this sort of bastardised, self-contradicting faith consisting of ideas from Judaism, Unitarianism, JW, Mormonism, Anglicanism and Mainline Protestantism.

As a result of this intra-contradicting and confusing faith I've created, I've become completely disillusioned by God and, basically, I've become a wreck of a misanthropic and apathetic kid who has, as of the past few weeks, been having suicidal thoughts. But I'm not here to talk about that because I know that even if I think of doing the deed, I know I'll won't do it because I know I could never take a life, even mine.

I need help with ripping down my current faith and biases, and developing a new, philosophically sound faith. I basically need the works, I don't know what to believe in at this point.

Any help would be a appreciated

Hi, Elijah here. A number of years back(??) I had been active on this forum. One of the many subjects posted had one on.. 'How to study the bible' . (if I remember correctly) Any how, in the DEAD THREADS, the subject is still there perhaps? This is where one needs to start from as I see it. Stay AWAY from the Arm of Flesh of Jer. 17:5 & Use Christs Words of Matt. 4:4 & the Inspiration of 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Then 'we' will not go wrong! Rom. 8:1 + Rom. 8:14! :yes