Comment on Don’t Change Our Belief on Creation, the Words of Scripture Suffice by John.
If this site does not share the opinion and still has a problem with the GRI, might they then create their own Model, complete a thesis then prepare the dissertation to defend the thesis of the model?
That would be more constructive than all the negativity the site projects!!
Recent Comments by John
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
There is no need of re writing. One cannot take one FB out from the remaining 27. If those who agree with this and have stated that they are all intertwined seem to ignore #20, “Joyful observance of this holy time from evening to evening, sunset to sunset, is a celebration of God’s creative and redemptive acts..”
Yet this does not surprise me as #11 is strongly ignored “No longer do we live in …., fear of evil powers”
The thing that is a surprise to some degree (or should it have been expected?), is in earlier posts/replies it was deemed the church has a hierarchy type of organization and that was part of the problem per say. Yet now the organization structure (the correct structure) is used to support the continued agenda. Talk about Lukewarm!!
The site (and now its sister site) has and continues to operate independently of that structure and discipline is asserts to speak of. The comments of brother Jon L. to have liberty to do as they please and not have their independence abridged seems more conducive of the site(s) than those they oppose or seek to correct.
Para or discordant independence is the question?
Comments contained in this thread, as well as previous ones, make it clear. I would see clear to start my own church fails on several points. What would this new church do with the scriptural point of having the SOP? Would it do as others have done and steal it from the Seventh-day Adventist church and claim it as thier own?
Would it claim to be a remnant of the remnant? That fails scripture in that the woman on the moon gives birth to ONE child, a man child and has no other offspring. If there is a claimed offspring from Adventism then that church as well as Adventism itself (whether historical, pioneered, modern, foundational, etc) is all not of the man child. The whole movement from its inception is false.
The whole thing reminds me of these statements:
“There are little companies continually arising who believe that God is only with the very few, the very scattered, and their influence is to tear down and scatter that which God’s servants build up. Restless minds who want to be seeing and believing something new continually, are constantly arising, some in one place and some in another, all doing a special work for the enemy, yet claiming to have the truth.They stand separate from the people whom God is leading out and prospering, and through whom He is to do His great work. They are continually expressing their fears that the body of Sabbathkeepers are becoming like the world; but there are scarcely two of these whose views are in harmony”. NL vol.1 pg 55
“Let everyone who reads these words give them thorough consideration, for in the name of Jesus I would press them home upon every soul. When anyone arises, either among us or outside of us, who is burdened with a message which declares that the people of God are numbered with Babylon, and claims that the loud cry is a call to come out of her, you may know that he is not bearing the message of truth. Receive him not, nor bid him Godspeed; for God has not spoken by him, neither has He given a message to him, but he has run before he was sent.” GW pg 41
Holly Pham: There is nothing “comical” about Conferences doing whatever they want, despite the worldwide delegates voting the opposite.
Sister Holly, there has been no GCS vote that is against a conference that I know of. Can you give reference to such votes you mention specifically? I do ask for refrain from bandwagons and other fallacies that are not conducive to honest discussions. Those and personal comments only highjack a discussion.
Sean Pitman: Of course secular scientists are going to define anything that challenges their perspective as “pseudoscience”
This would be an inaccurate claim/statement, no scientific theory/perspective or model can be classified as science unless it can be challenged. This is at the base of any model and is critiqued in order to be classified as a model.
BobRyan: it is the decision of at least 2/3 of the Conference constituency
Would you have the minutes reporting such? Um I dont belive it was a decision by delegates rather the conference acting in absence of a session. If it would come up/have room on the next agenda I have no idea.
Holly Pham: This same philosophy is present in the Pacific Union Conference and elsewhere. We will do what WE decide we want to do, despite what has been voted by the world Church.
Sister Holly, Umm, no I do not claim such nor ever have or will. Ironically, this site has. That is truly comical.