LOL, Nan. I'm sure we'd understand each other! You and I are on the same wavelength!

Do you think it is just possible that too much importance may be attached to some of the "fundamentals" Is some of it just to justify our existence?
mel

Which of the Seventh-day Adventist fundamental doctrines do you seriously question or think should be jettisoned?

Are you familiar with what are called "the pillars of our faith"? Are you solidly in support of those?

Either way, would you like to explain what you think?

Am I to conclude that your answer to my questions is "no"
mel

It would be good to know what you have in mind and why. I have no idea what "fundamentals" you are talking about or why you think they are a problem.

Definitely no problem in here, Jeannie - and I guess we had better let this thread return to its original intent!

QR frame:

I don’t often visit Townhall, as it is simply not my cup of tea. I prefer my tea hot and bracing - but would rather have coffee; however, having had a bit of exposure to Brinsmead – I thought I’d peruse the Desmond Ford thread. A couple of things piqued my interest, they being:

>>Desmond Ford wants an apology. Good one. I want an apology from Desmond Ford for perverting the gospel of Christ and for leading people into the darkness of New Theology. Because of him and his protégé, Jack Sequeira, my brethren have been seduced and now they go about like Krishna Hindus who think they have found enlightenment. They think they have found a shortcut to understand things and to being ahead of the game. They think they see things more clearly than everyone else, and now they have a sense of purpose to "enlighten" the whole SDA church, when really they are being led by seducing spirits.<<

More than ‘interesting’ – I found the above to be a bit turgid – fascinating; and compliment its author. I find most fascinating the assertion of the last sentence – seemingly, left-handedly composed to lend to and enshrine a certain sense of the ‘infallible’ to a .Org’s dogmas and doctrines.

Infallible, eh? The Protestor’s Bull?

>>They could be building on the foundation already set, but instead, they entice people to their own new foundation. They could be focusing their time and attention on getting the message that we have, to the world, but instead they are trying to concoct a new message and they are forever focused on Adventists, not the world. They dwell in darkness, and instead of coming to the light, just keep coming up with more and more absurd new interpretations that only mangle and mutilate every doctrine of Christianity.<<

Ba’al, the god of veggie-tation. Shut door. Unitarianism. [...] I think it rather doctrinaire... Actually, the .Org has as much a history of organic evolution re dogmas and doctrines, as any other Protesting .org – or, for that matter – the RCC. Anyway,

Matt 13:52 Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe [which is] instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man [that is] an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure [things] new and old.

Folks, THAT’S “new”! – and “old”.

>>If the Lord starts casting out devils in the church now, we would discover them to be demoniacs who are seduced by New Theology.<<

I mean, “demoniacs”!? Colorful, at the least.


>>He confused a lot of people about the Investigative Judgment and caused many to lose faith in Ellen White and to drop out of the church. For me, it doesn't seem like good fruit.<<

Actually, many of my friends and family are SDA. I find myself comfortable in associating with them. I’ve mentioned that my mother was SDA.

For me, the primary stumbling block to a commitment on my part to SDA’ism is their dependency upon EGW – to its distraction from Holy Writ – y’know, fruits and such.

>>Dr. Ford ...

His reasoning for rejecting it is basically four-fold:

1) Ford says Jesus entered the Most Holy Place in heaven as soon as He ascended to heaven in 31 AD.

2) Ford says that God has nothing to learn from the Investigative Judgment and therefore it is unnecessary.

3) Ford says that Christians do not come under judgment.

4) In Ford's view, Ellen White was simply wrong in what she wrote about the Investigative Judgment, a central doctrine of the church and of her writings. Yet Ford continues to champion Ellen White as a true prophet of God.<<

Fact of the matter is – the IJ is both dogmatic and a construction. It seems, by the immediately above, that Dr Ford deconstructs the issue quite handily, no more.

To tell the truth, whereas the .Org's construction of an IJ dogma depends upon a multitude of texts, passages, and inferences. Dr Ford’s deconstruction sums it up with just the simple points proffered above and actually, rings truer than the thud proffered by the constructionists.

Dr Ford was not treated fairly at Glacier View IMO. The "bretheren" came not to listen or discuss the issues but to defend the tradition at all costs. The church does not stand or fall on the traditional understanding of the IJ and sanctuary. They are not not the everlasting gospel. It is possibly more a face saving problem.
mel

I wouldn't deny that some things were done at Glacier View that shouldn't have happened.

Do you know of anything in particular that happened which showed unfair treatment beyond the one you mention here?

It may be true that the majority of the brethren didn't come to listen or discuss but to defend the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment. I'm sure the delegates went there with strong convictions about the subject.

It sounds like you believe it is not all that important to us as a church. Could you explain briefly how you see it and its relationship to the church's message?

We could look at the origin of the doctrine. You and I both know that there was no judgement scene in the COI's yearly day of atonement. There were not books opened etc. The people did not come before a judge. The judgement scene that Daniel saw is not dated is it? To tie a judgement scene to the COI;s yearly "day of atonement" is a 'construct' as jasd says. I remember as a young person how terrified I was that my name might pop up in judgement without me knowing and I'd have some forgotten "sin" on the books. That, along with the hellfire preachers, (the adventist version of course) really soured me on the whole thing until I finally heard the real gospel. I was past 20 years old by that time. I know those good folk back there in 1844 were desperate to make some sense out of their predicament but I think it possible they added one more mistake instead.
mel