The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Ben Carson

Ben Carson is the darling of many conservative Christians. This morning, I read that he is a 7th Day Adventist. I wonder if that will dampen some of his supporters, and should it or not?

Supporters for what John exactly? A run for the presidency in 2016? I don't think that the establishment GOP will put him up for that and will rerun another of their favorites. Also, he has not established himself as a credible candidate yet. I like many of his views but doubt he would win an election at this point. And I doubt that his religious views will weigh heavily in people's minds when they vote. I mean look at what we've got in the presidency now. Also, I have heard that some people attribute Romney's loss to his being a mormon. I don't. I think the man is a RINO and not a conservative at all.

Though all that you say is true and I agree with, I was thinking would it dismay some of his ardent, Bible-believing Christian supporters. With me not being a vocal supporter, somewhat a silent, sideline admirer, I think less of him now.

Now should I, is theology so important in these matters? I kinda think that bad theology will show itself out in time, but we are all desperate sinners.

Besides probably being strong arminians, soul sleep, and worshipping on Saturday are their any other erroneous doctrine in the 7th Day Adventists?

You haven't mentioned the most serious error--their belief in extra-biblical revelation, primarily through their prophetess, Ellen G. White. "As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth and provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction." SDA official statement, emphasis mine.

So, how many errors do you want? Besides those you mentioned:

1. Christ's atonement is incomplete. He entered the Most Holy Place in 1844 to start completing the atonement.

2. "... as the books of record are opened in the judgment, the lives of all who have believed on Jesus come in review before God. ... When any have sins remaining upon the books of record, unrepented of and unforgiven, their names will be blotted out of the book of life,..." The Great Controversy p. 483.

3. "It was seen, also, that while the sin offering pointed to Christ as a sacrifice, and the high priest represented Christ as a mediator, the scapegoat typified Satan, the author of sin, upon whom the sins of the truly penitent will finally be placed." The Great Controversy p. 422.

4. "Those who are living upon the earth when the intercession of Christ shall cease in the sanctuary above are to stand in the sight of a holy God without a mediator" The Great Controversy p. 425. To clarify--this isn't talking about those left after a "rapture." They believe that all of them who are alive when Jesus comes must be sinless to be saved.

5. Obviously, then, they teach that Christians can live sinless lives.

6. They teach that unbelievers, Satan, and the fallen angels will be annihilated (as do Russelites (JW's)). Satan bears the believers' sins away at that time (#3 above).

7. Like the Russelites, they believe that Jesus is Michael the Archangel, but, unlike the Russelites, they are Trinitarian(?) and believe the three Persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit make up the Godhead. James White, E.G. White's husband and an early leader of the movement, was Arian, as was Uriah Smith, another early leader. Both these men's books are still circulated by the SDA.

8. They believe they are the only true church. All other Protestant churches are apostate.

9. They believe that worshiping on Sunday is the "mark of the beast" spoken of in Revelation.

That should do for starters.

Personally, I always vote according to my conscience and NOT whoever the establishment puts up and endorses because in nearly every case, the 'poster boy' candidate is fraught with undesirables.

More directly in regard to your question, I always vote for a candidate who I think is best qualified for the office/position they are running for regardless of their professed religion. There are exceptions, of course. Put another way, I would vote for an atheist who was qualified for the office and respected Judeo-Christian ethics vs. a professed Christian who didn't have a clue about the office.

Lastly, I don't believe much of what ANY politician says and there isn't one that I would trust. But again, I NEVER vote for either a candidate who allegedly has the best 'chance' of winning... nor do I ever vote for the 'lesser of two evils' of those running. I vote according to my conscience for the person I first believe is most qualified and then consider how evil they are.

Do I 'like' Ben Carson? I do like some of the ideas he has. But would I vote for him to be president of this country? Decidedly not because I believe he lacks the skills and knowledge for that office and I don't see any indication he would surround himself with those who do know what he doesn't know.