from the group The Great divide.Tim Gill Wrote this to Professor Martin Hanna from Andrews University Martin Hanna is also a pastor . Martin said this.But I will not cease to defend the authority of the Bible as the rule of faith and practice. I will not cease to defend the authority of Ellen White as the lesser light pointing us back to the greater light of Christ and the Bible. I will not cease to defend the 28 fundamental beliefs of the SDA church which represent the views of the world delegates from around the world. Anyone who can honor the Bible, Ellen White, and the doctrines of the SDA church should not find it to hard to get along with anything I write here. Just for the record, I will repeat again. The daily could be paganism. The 2520 could be a day-year prophecy. The glorious land could be the USA. 1989 and 9/11 could be significant dates in prophetic history. However, I do not think that anyone should elevate these views to the level of fundamental pillar landmarks as a test for apostasy in Gods church. Accepting or rejecting these views has nothing to do with whether one is a true SDA or an apostate SDA.... .RESPONSE Martin, I can accept everything you have stated here, but I do have some comments and a question for you. I think further to all that you have stated above, we could also all agree that revelation is progressive. ie: we have been witness to a further fulfillment of Bible prophecy from what the Advent pioneers understood. I think we could all agree that God continues to lead his church. As a people and as a movement above all others we have been truly blessed. Anyone with any degree of understanding regarding SDA church history must also acknowledge that as a denomination and as a movement, we have been given specific warnings regarding the blessing that have been bestowed upon us. Some of those warnings are specifically regarding apostasies that would enter the church. So that ANY DENIAL that there is apostasy within the church is a denial of the SOP and the word of God. I would suggest that this apostasy is specific to denominational leadership and teachings because if it were just a few members, while it would be unfortunate, it would not be all that significant. Further, we have been given specific insight into the form this apostasy would take within the denomination, and that it would attack the pillars and platform. I would suggest that we ought to recognize within our movement a repeat of the history of ancient Israel. I believe the SOP brings this out clearly. The Bible is clear on how that all turned out. Not well. Ancient Israel was Gods denominated people, as we are Gods denominated people. Ancient Israel did not know the time of their visitation. We run the risk of not knowing our time of visitation. I could go on, but I think the point has been made. I know of no one who would advocate teaching errors -even with those with whom I disagree. However, exactly what constitutes truth somehow remains elusive. My personal position on this is that the 1843 and 1850 charts were a clear representation of Gods leading of his people and SHOULD represent a fundamental belief. Those charts are specific charts that bear the stamp of Gods approval, and attempting to place his stamp of approval on charts in general does not wash, in my opinion. That is like saying that God blessed a day, and any day will do. God did not bless a day. He blessed the 7th day. God did not endorse just any chart, he endorsed the 1843 / 1850 chart specifically. Righteousness by faith as presented by Waggoner and Jones SHOULD represent a fundamental belief. Primarily because we have been given VERY CLEAR endorsements of these things by SOP. I recognize that righteousness by faith is embedded within other of the 28 fundamental beliefs, but it is not understood or taught clearly - perhaps unintentionally. I am personally less clear on the need for corporate repentance, but irregardless of the necessity of corporate repentance it is my position that ALL should maintain a spirit of repentance and as Adventists we should be corporate in maintaining this spirit - both laity and leadership. I honestly do not see this spirit within the church and I am unapologetically critical of leadership as a result. So my question is this. At what point does a denial of the faith once delivered to the saints become apostasy?
Posted on: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 00:56:22 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015