| Author | Message | ||
| Chyna |
here are some questions I have thought up to prickle SDA's because they sure have been prickling me, some I got from here (ahem, bill), and maryann :), please add to them :) 1. why do SDA scholars neglect and dismiss the opinions of other great theological scholars? 2. why did the SDA release the Clear Water Bible? which changes the meaning of verses in the Bible? 3. why does the SDA church disfellowship members? entire churches? 4. why does the SDA church insist on a private school system? 5. is the issue of Sabbath more important that fellowship with other believers? 6. if the issue Sabbath is so important, then why is it not commanded in the new testament? 7. if Sabbath is so important, why did Paul, Peter and John not write to the Gentiles to observe it? There was a dispute whether new believers needed to become circumsized to be truly righteous. 8. what is the "Lord's Day"? 9. If Ellen G. White is a prophetess? why aren't all her words true? Her reasoning for not eating meat is because it makes you carnal. Whereas God commanded Peter to eat unclean meat. 10. Why does Paul write not to judge anyone according to what they eat or drink, or as to what day they observe if it is a sin to break the Sabbath?? if the early church wanted to be holy and follow God, then why would Paul give a liberty that would permit sin? 11. do you look down on "Sunday keepers?" 12. did you know reformation theology (the protestant movement) and the Adventist church are directly against each other in theology? 13. do you believe that Jesus died for all your sins past present future? 14. do you have assurance of your salvation? 15. why did the SDA church disfellowship Desmond Ford for saying that Investigative Judgement is not biblical when they couldn't find a single Adventist scholar who could read Hebrew that would support IJ from Daniel? 16. why are there bitter former adventists? if you think all the posting is lies, what is their motivation for spreading them? 17. why do you think SDAism has earned the label of a cult from some parts of mainstream Christianity? 18. if you left the adventist church would you still be Christian? 19. would you still have fellowship with other SDA's if you left the church? in Him, Chyna | ||
| Darrell |
Hi Chyna, here are a few minor corrections and comments regarding your questions: 2. It is the "Clear Word Bible", actually now just published as the "Clear Word". Even some Adventists (rightly) complained that it was really not a Bible. 9. The context of Peter's vision about unclean foods is not about eating, it is about accepting Gentiles whom God has declared clean. There are other useful texts pertaining to foods, however, such as Mark 7:19, Romans 14, Col 2:16-23, and 1 Tim 4:1-5. (Does anyone else have some others?) 15. By now there is a whole generation of Adventists who have never even heard of Desmond Ford or the issues he raised. | ||
| Maryann |
Hi Chyna, GREAT THREAD! 20. Why did the early Christians prior to 324 AD(for the most part) keep the 1st day of the week? 21. If the early Christians did NOT make a big deal out of the Sabbath/Sunday issue (and they were VERY close to the time of Jesus and the Apostles), why should we??? 22. Why most wont SDA's address directly the issue of the "forever and eternal" Sabbath of Hebrews 4? 23. If SDA's are the "special remnant" and have such a "special" message, why do they keep themselves SOOOOOOO "isolated and insulated" from the "world that so desparately" needs the truth that "only they" have?? | ||
| Maryann |
Oops, I hit the wrong button and posted before I corrected;-(( That's what I get for watching the Olympic goings on while writing;-)) | ||
| Lydell |
Chyna, 13, 14 and 18 are the ones to begin with. First you always have to nail down whether or not they are actually saved, as so few are. Number 18 is important because it reveals how deeply they are enmeshed in the basic SDA mindset and tells you where to begin asking the rest of the questions. As Bill has pointed out, if they aren't saved, none of the rest of the issues matter. Still, it's a pretty darned good list. | ||
| Maryann |
24. Who is Jesus? 25. Did Jesus have a sinful human nature? 26. Could Jesus have been God if He could have sinned? 27. Did Adam (before the fall) have the same nature as Jesus? 28. If Adam and Jesus had the same nature...what then? 29. If any part of Jesus' human nature was sinful, could He have also been God? 30. Could God's perfect nature and man's sinful nature co-habitated in one body for 33 years? 31. If Jesus had a sinful human nature, where is it now? In heaven? In hell? Dissovled? 32. If Jesus' sinful nature stayed at the cross, did Jesus die for Himself? 33. Is understanding the nature of Christ the most important thing to you? | ||
| Max |
Hi Darrell, you wrote: ^^The context of Peter's vision about unclean foods is not about eating, it is about accepting Gentiles whom God has declared clean. ^^ I absolutely agree. God wasn't really telling Peter personally to start eating ham, shrimp and lobster tail. But he was telling him to accept Gentiles who were eating these ritually unclean foods. I'm guessing that those Gentiles comprised over 99% of the early church by the end of the first century AD, at least within Paul's missionary field, which is now Europe and Turkey. In that sense, then, the vision was indeed about food. Agree? | ||
| Darrell |
OK, Max, I agree that part of Peter's accepting Gentiles is accepting that they eat "unclean" foods, but I still would say that the vision means so much more, that it is not correct to say it is PRIMARILY about food. Agree? For example, a person could be racist even if he didn't care what a person of another race eats. But I see your point that part of the Peter's attitude toward Gentiles could have been "I can't associate with people who eat swine." | ||
| Max |
Darrell, I agree absolutely. The kingdom of heaven is not meat and drink. Peter's vision was primarily about who is acceptable in the Christian ecclesia ("those called by God to worship him") or church. Peter was a church leader. Peter had so much influence -- much more than Paul, at least at first -- that he could keep Gentiles out on the basis of their uncircumcision, eating habits, worship day, etc. That's why Paul had to grab him by the lapels, get in his face, and tell him to stop acting hypocritically -- first eating with the Gentile Christians, then withdrawing from them when the SDAs from Jerusalem came around. Without this vision I don't think Paul's influence would have been enough to turn the tide. But after the tide had turned, Gentiles started entering the church in huge numbers: They didn't have to be circumcised, they didn't have to eat kosher, they didn't have to keep the Sabbath, they didn't have to pay tithe, they didn't have to wear tassels at the hems of their togas, and they could shave the sides of their heads if they wanted. Makes sense to me. How about you? |
