Hey,
What’s the message behind your putting cordial in quotes?
Thanks,
Johnny

Johnny,

There’s no “message” of any kind except that I’m quoting the headline of the article I’m referring to where it says “Cordiality Marks….” But if you’re asking if I’m being sarcastic here, I can see how some might read it that way.

To remove any misunderstanding I’m gonna go ahead and revise the title of the post.

Cool,
Saw this article in my google alerts email and my eyebrows did go up. Sometimes I get the impression that these dialogues are, in view of QOD, an attempt by certain factions to define Adventism inward through outward dialogues. That they are as much interested in defining what Adventism is within itself as they are defining it in relation to, say, Presbyterians.

I am interested in hearing how these contemporary intra-Christian dialogues are viewed by someone who has spent a great deal of his life work on QOD.
cheers,
johnny

In hindsight I’d say that my prior comment describes the World Evangelical Alliance discussions, where we’d possibly move towards signing a statement on scripture more narrow/ strict than the one we’re currently articulating officially.

I like what I’m reading on the Presbyterian conversations.

thanks,
johnny

Other than the Roman Catholics and Episcopalians, the Presbyterians have some of the coolest church buildings. I know the church is not about buildings, but I’m a sucker for inspiring architechture, reverberant acoustics, and fine pipe organs playing great hymns! More specifically, “The Church’s one foundation is Jesus Christ her Lord” (especially as a part of John Ness Beck’s, ‘Upon This Rock’). Is the church’s one foundation the sacrifice of Christ (nailed to a cross and nailed to a wall), or the teachings of Christ?

How about one equmenical question, “Do you agree to make the teachings of Jesus first and foremost in your church, from top to bottom?” If the answer is yes, then issue a press release to that effect, and do it. If the answer is no, then don’t walk, run, to the nearest exit!

Yes, Mr. Vickham,
Run!
No Red-Letter-Theology for me.

–Wondering

Wondering: I’m wondering if you have a problem with what Jesus had to say, or if you have a problem with Tony Campolo, Jim Wallis, Sojourner’s, et.al., with their aggressive social-political agenda attached to select phrases of Christ, and using the term Red Letter Christian? Or all of the above, or non of the above?

What I am refering to is having most, if not all, sermons based upon the teachings of Jesus, in context, utilizing careful exegesis, not isogesis, and cross referencing related texts in the Old and New Testaments. And then implementing the underlying principles and concepts throughout each Christian organization.

By definition, a Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ. Not a follower of Moses, Paul, Apollos, Luther, Graham, Peale, Schuller, Wimber, Warren, White, Smith, the Pope, or the Anti-Christ.

There would be no Christians or a Christian church wre it not for Paul and the apostles. Jesus was born, lived and died as a Jew and NEVER rescinded orf abrogated a single Jewish law or ritual given by God to the Hebrew nation.

IOW, simply delete everything in the NT beyond the Gospels? What would we have then but another Jewish sect, of which there wre already many in the first century?

Elaine: The Desire of Ages, Christ’s Object Lessons, and Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing by Ellen White are examples of an approach to scripture which places the life and teachings of Jesus at the center, where they belong. These books include voluminous Old and New Testament references, which the scripture index in each book reveals.