Omelas

[RC_NewProtestants]

That I can agree with.

So let me ask which is a better strategy for change in the church. Is it to highlight the issues with EGW or just let people forget her entirely?

Or will the GC efforts of promotion prevent the latter from happening?

Strategy depends upon the audience so it need not be the same method for everyone. In many ways we are much like the Mormons. They have an abundance of prophets but they don't really pay much attention to what they had said. The anti-Mormon ministries spent more time talking about the prophets then did the Mormons and it brings some out but not enough to stop the growth of the religion.

The Adventist church is still growing, but the growth is not because of the teaching of the IJ. It may be related to the claim of remnant status but there are a lot of churches that claim remnant status. It is a good marketing ploy and I think it works on many people.

I think the Adventist church is growing in third world countries is because we are fundamentalist and so we introduce them to a religion that is black and white and we pretend that we have all the answers. As knowledge increases though such as in the Western world the fundamentalism no longer works black and white does not work. The Traditionalist SDA still holds to the black and white view of EGW. As if it is all of God or all of Satan. True EGW thought that herself but she was poorly educated and surrounded by poorly educated leaders and the effect is that she said stupid things. Many of them things that leaders of other churches were also saying.

The fact is we are not in the black and white world anymore. Never were there but we pretended that we were. The GC is still promoting EGW in that mind set. Only now we are finding leaders in the SDA church who are moving away from that view and it was the leadership that was trying to institutionalize the black and white concepts.

For more on the black and white world see my recent blog article at
http://cafesda.blogspot.com

 

[NightEternal]

I think the Adventist church is growing in third world countries is because we are fundamentalist and so we introduce them to a religion that is black and white and we pretend that we have all the answers. As knowledge increases though such as in the Western world the fundamentalism no longer works black and white does not work. The Traditionalist SDA still holds to the black and white view of EGW. As if it is all of God or all of Satan. True EGW thought that herself but she was poorly educated and surrounded by poorly educated leaders and the effect is that she said stupid things. Many of them things that leaders of other churches were also saying.

The fact is we are not in the black and white world anymore. Never were there but we pretended that we were. The GC is still promoting EGW in that mind set. Only now we are finding leaders in the SDA church who are moving away from that view and it was the leadership that was trying to institutionalize the black and white concepts.

RC took the words right out of my mouth.

I know some Adventist who live and die by Amazing Facts and eat, sleep and breathe Doug Batchelor. They are quite happy to resign themselves to black and white thinking, because that is how Doug presents issues. They just assume Doug knows it all and that only unvarnished truth falls from his lips 24/7.

These people are blissfully unaware of the content of the wealth of material on the internet exposing and dealing with the problem areas of Adventism. And that is the way they have deliberately orchestrated things, because while they know there is stuff there, they refuse to look at any of it and relegate it to just attacks against the church and a pack of lies.

Why? Because Doug told them so and warned them to not look at any of it lest they be drawn away from the 'truth'.

Then someone like Bob Pickle puts out an apologist book defending Adventism and these same unaware, uninformed, gullible people swallow Pickle's explanations hook, line and sinker, never having once themselves personally read the legitimite concerns or in any way grappled with, dealt with or considered them in any serious fashion for themselves.

http://www.pickle-publishing.com/books/response-to-video.htm

This book is mass distributed and the general membership is once again lulled into false complacency, unable and unwilling to consider that the critics indeed have a case in many areas and issues: "See?!! We were right all along and the critics were wrong! PICKLE SAID SO! We ARE on solid foundation and there really AREN'T any problems with EGW! HOORAY!!!"

The party line is laid out and the bleating sheep follow, assuming the 'truth' is rock solid based on what the .org and the apologists feed them. They have convieniently been conditioned to wallow contentedly in the mire of false assurance, protected, coddled and cocooned in thier warm SDA birth sac, contentedly suckling on the theological breast of Doug Batchelor, never once having checked out the issues for themselves to see if their church is indeed built on a firm foundation.

The Bereans of the Bible would puke at such a disgraceful state of affairs.

 

[NightEternal]

And I agree with Night on many things (he is just a bit dramatic)

Thanks for the plug Jon and for the...er...compliment?

I don't see why being dramatic is a bad thing. That is the way I am online and in real life. I talk in an animated manner, using my hands, vocabulary and voice inflection for maximum efficiency. Ever since I was a child I spoke in a dramatic fashion. It is my character and personality and I do not consider it a bad thing even if others are uncomfortable with it.

I would rather the content of what I am saying be considered then the package it comes in, truth be told.

Of course, if people in this place don't like the packaging (and most of them don't), they report incessantly and the mods who also find the vehicle of the content distasteful will rule it RV.

But that does not mean I am willing to change who I am just to make them comfortable. No way. No amount of pressure tactics and reporting will force me to remove a part of who I am just because some feel I should be less straight-forward and blunt.

 

[Adventtruth]

Do I think a person can stay and support the Adventist church after learning the truth? Bob Dylan sang "we all gotta serve some body the devil or the Lord".

Adventtruth, with all due respect, I do not buy this idea that very, very few people in Adventism know the gospel. I know many who have read Luther and the reformers like I have and we know the gospel of salvation!

Neither do I appreciate ultimatums, nor do I appreciate the implication that I have somehow 'sold out' or that I have no integrity for staying even though I DO know the gospel! And to claim that I am serving the devil just because I do choose to stay borders on absolute demonization and paranoia of all things Adventist.

You would think we were discussing the church of Satan the way you guys are carrying on!

And I served God by speaking the gospel to some. But I myself was dying. I continued to spread the gopsel, but was not hearing the gospel...not in church aleast. I listen to sermons on CD and the net, read books, and read my bible, but I was not in the fellowship of those who knew the gospel, I was not hearing the gospel from the pulpit. And I knew this.

I can discern when there is a convoluted understanding of salvation being presented from the pulpit. I can see when salvation by law-keeping is being put forward and I can see when justification by faith is being polluted with righteousness by works. It isn't hard to detect when you know Luther and Paul.

I just keep what is good and discard the rest. I also consider the source if the pastor is TSDA.

Furthermore, I have heard many nonTSDA Adventist preachers get it right or at least very, very close. To say that every single pulpit in Adventism is barren of the knowledge of the gospel-that's just...I mean come on, that is just Collen Tinker FAF rhetoric and it's a highly absurd claim!

Sorry, but my own personal understanding of the salvation gospel and my own theological knowledge is not dependent upon what is being said from the pulpit or what some preacher's opinion happens to be.

Some one told me It was not enough to teach it, and not hear it. I needed the fellowship of it. This is when the compelling power of God began to move on me. The more I thought about it, the more I was compelled to move so I did. So for me I could no longer stay. I told those who would listen the gospel.

This just has not been my experience, flat-out. I have socialized with many SDA's who have a handle on the gospel. They understand justification is a work done totally outside and apart from anything we do.

I just don't know where this is coming from. How can it be maintained that there is no fellowship of the gospel ANYWHERE in Adventism?

It's just not true. I don't know what else to say.

Hi NE.



I hope your day is going just fine. My intent is not to get into a spitting contest. As I told you in the past, I agree with almost all of what you write here at CF. But in this one posting to me, and if you are reacting to what I said only, well I think you are over reacting.

I never said that very, very few people in Adventism know the gospel. I never gave you an ultimatum, nor have implicated you in my posting at all, that you have sold out, or that you have no integrity, or that you are serving the devil. Infact, I have said nothing of you nor did I have you in mind when I wrote that posting. I simply gave my experience while being in her for 20 years... I suggest you take a step back and not be so subjective to the issues. You have an over-reaction to my posting. Its as if you have a deep suspicion of others motives, I suspect you feel threatened by formers and there objective views, which lend nothing to bias, but to facts. I too love the Adventist church as much as you, after all she birthed and nourished me, being the only church I was of.

I discribe my personal conflicts with Adventism because of the hostility of the message it brought to my relationship with God in Christ. It became a progressing disturbance to me, to see that such a system could bring so much doubt to those who bought into what was sold. It was convolution to many....finding it harder and harder to reconcile EGW, SOP, and bible doctrines under one umbrella. Many can't and settled for what was being sold.

About serving the Devil, you have taken it out of context with a twist. I suggested no where in that posting that all who stay serve the Devil. I stayed in her and served God...I even said so. But you must admit, there are many in her who are serving from wrong motives...just look at the whole Ford thing. Ford was hung out to dry becasue he taught the truth...and many of them who wanted him out knew this. What about those who do stay, know the truth and yet say nothing, but goes along with false theology?

I have not even suggested that every single pulpit in America is barren of the gospel...where are you getting that NE? And who is Collen Tinker any ways?

But let me tell you of my experience. I have lived in two different Cities as Adventist. The first city has 13 SDA churches. The second City has 3 SDA churches. In the first city, you can get all of the Adventist doctrines...all 28 of them. But I have yet to see the gospel of God unpacked from teh pulpit. In the second city, pretty much the same. Oh yeah you get Jesus sprinkled in at the end of the service, after the law was preached, or an Amazing facts sremon on the State of the Dead, or after a sermon on Daniel 12:1,2...but you never ever got the gospel of Christ unpacked from the pulpit. I spent much time teaching about reconcilation, and other truths, and unpacking the gospel, but you know thats milk to many...many wanted to hear about Jacobs time of trouble, the little time of trouble, and such things as the death decree. The pastor always wondered why no one came to prayer meetings. Lets see, it started at 7pm, then we had testimonies for 20 minutes, then we had prayer for ten minutes, and then we had a good old 30 minutes to read through Counsels on Diets and Food by EGW. Oh and after we finished that book, we read "Thoughts from the MT of Olives." One year we read from the book "Preparation for the Final Crisis" by Fernando Chaij. And he wondered why only a few came out.

I am not bitter at the church any more. I was terribly hurt at one time, but I am healed by the grace of God. I stay around to teach the truths of the gospel and answer questions if any have them.

I know you are all for a clean break, if you should decide to go in that direction, and thats good. But I'll throw a life line to any one who feels as if they are sinking. And there are those who are sinking. After all, at one time I was sinking....and I got the life line some one threw me.

It is a good thing that you have others in your church to whom you can relate. But let me warn you, all Adventist churches are not like that...It is possibe to be lonely when there is no other to share in the gospel with you... Christianity is not an Island...and I'll tell you where its coming from....experience...I lived it.


AT

 

[NightEternal]

My intent is not to get into a spitting contest.

Nor was it mine.

As I told you in the past, I agree with almost all of what you write here at CF. But in this one posting to me, and if you are reacting to what I said only, well I think you are over reacting.

Possibly. But I don't see how it is not easy to deduce why I arrived at the conclusions I did.

I never said that very, very few people in Adventism know the gospel.

That seemed to be the implication.

I never gave you an ultimatum, nor have implicated you in my posting at all, that you have sold out, or that you have no integrity, or that you are serving the devil. Infact, I have said nothing of you nor did I have you in mind when I wrote that posting. I simply gave my experience while being in her for 20 years... I suggest you take a step back and not be so subjective to the issues. You have an over-reaction to my posting.

You said: Do I think a person can stay and support the Adventist church after learning the truth? Bob Dylan sang "we all gotta serve some body the devil or the Lord".

I do know the truth about the problems in Adventism. I do know all of the issues with EGW and church doctrine and the inherent problems they have. I know the real truth about the White Estate and thier agenda.

Yet I have chosen to stay.

What am I supposed to conclude based on your statement?

Its as if you have a deep suspicion of others motives,

I trust no one Adventtruth, except my own family and my wife, nor do I have any delusions about the inherent goodness in people.

That is what has helped me to survive this long in life.

I suspect you feel threatened by formers and there objective views,

Not at all. I just take issue with some of the gross, broad generalizations I have seen come from some formers, especially on FAF.

They are neither accurate or fair.

which lend nothing to bias, but to facts.

Not in every case and not with every former.

I too love the Adventist church as much as you, after all she birthed and nourished me, being the only church I was of. I discribe my personal conflicts with Adventism because of the hostility of the message it brought to my relationship with God in Christ. It became a progressing disturbance to me, to see that such a system could bring so much doubt to those who bought into what was sold. It was convolution to many....finding it harder and harder to reconcile EGW, SOP, and bible doctrines under one umbrella. Many can't and settled for what was being sold.

I understand.

About serving the Devil, you have taken it out of context with a twist. I suggested no where in that posting that all who stay serve the Devil. I stayed in her and served God...I even said so.

I was just dealing with your statement:

Do I think a person can stay and support the Adventist church after learning the truth? Bob Dylan sang "we all gotta serve some body the devil or the Lord".

Perhaps I misunderstood the intent of the statement.

But you must admit, there are many in her who are serving from wrong motives...just look at the whole Ford thing. Ford was hung out to dry becasue he taught the truth...and many of them who wanted him out knew this. What about those who do stay, know the truth and yet say nothing, but goes along with false theology?

Perhaps it would be best to establish what is under discussion when we use the term "know the truth."

Know the truth about what? The true gospel of salvation? I know it well. The problems in Adventism? I know there are problems. Know the truth about Glacierview? I know about that as well, although it is now well after the fact and I would have been in no position to help Ford had I known at the time anyhow. All I can do is expose the duplicity and corruption of that event now, today, and I have done so, even on this very board:

http://christianforums.com/t5196534...ated-into-the-church-with-a-full-apology.html

Originally Posted by NightEternal
The Adventist administration has never officially apologized for it's disgraceful treatment of Desmond Ford at Glacierview. We had a man in our midst who courageously preached the pure Reformation Gospel and he was exiled and treated as a pariah for his troubles.

He is still a pariah to this day. Abandoned by the church he loved, he has had no recourse except to remove his name from the books and apply at a Baptist teaching institution. Of course, he is having problems qualifying because of his firm stance on the Sabbath.

Will the Adventist church do the honorable, right thing and repudiate it's past actions of tyranny? Or will it continue to hide itself in its pontifical robes and lash at out at anyone who dares to challenge the status quo or think for themselves? I think we know the answer to this. The church has never nor will it ever admit to any wrong-doing with Ford. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. But there is a reckoning coming for any church who treats a teacher of the Gospel of Paul and Luther in such a fashion.

Make no mistake, an injustice has been committed, and the perpetrators hid behind theological integrity when the real reasons were less than honorable: Try dirty church politics and corrupt social engineering for starters.

Yes, Ford is exiled for teaching what many contemporary Adventists today have come to believe anyhow: That the IJ, as taught in its traditional form, is a legalistic, antichrist doctrine that rapes the assurance of salvation.

This fine man is treated as garbage while Graham Maxwell and his moral influence heresy continue to parade through Adventism denying the blood atonement. Men like Larry Kirkpatrick and Kevin Paulson continue to spew thier 'sinful nature of Christ' heresy with no voices of protest heard.

What a farce. God weeps at this disgusting spectacle.

Originally Posted by NightEternal
The stigma that surrounds his name was too much for any sort of meaningful fellowship to take place in our churches.


After the assassination his reputation has endured, the only SDA churches that will have him are a few in Southern California and some in Australia. These places all have to have him speak without the endorsement of the official church and usually it is done without any knowledge on the part of the GC.

All of this has to be done discreetly and behind the scenes, or the local ministers who are hosting him could lose thier jobs.

And this is a normal, healthy way to do things in a supposedly Christian organization??

Belief in the IJ should never have been made a test of membership, let alone a test of employment within the church. It is ridiculous that it has been.

These are the tactics of Rome, and they have no place in a free-thinking, tolerant denomination.

Have you actually read his research and his Glacierview document, or are you just parroting the ultra-conservative party line in regards to him?

If people are so weak that they cannot defend thier understanding or feel it will be so terribly threatened by one man's research, they deserve to be led down a wrong path. They were never grounded to begin with.

Why not? Are your beliefs not strong enough to face challenge? If they are not, you better find out now.

Only the churches that agree with him welcome him, and most of these are found in Australia and Southern California. The churches open-minded and progressive enough to have him speak can be counted on two hands. Not one conservative church would ever have him. I have been to churches where all that was needed was to have his name mentioned and the congregation went white with looks of disgust on thier faces.

Do you honestly think that the average layperson who has been indoctrinated with Ford demonization by the right-wing would ever welcome the man into thier church, much less be seen inviting him to a potluck dinner?

Unofficially, Ford has been ostracized and cold-shouldered from almost every SDA church and conference on the planet. It is an unspoken assumption known to all that to be seen with Ford is to endanger your Adventist integrity.

I suppose that is to be expected, since not one administrator at Glacierview read his research.

The damage is done in spades, and Ford could not enjoy fellowship in many of our churches even if the GC blessed it. But of course, this will never happen, so we need not speculate any longer.

If you could be a member of a denomination where only 30% would be caught dead being seen with you, would you want to be a part of that, much less label it as 'enjoyable fellowship'?

Glacierview was a fraud and a sham and a disgusting display of dirty church politics. No honest discussion on Ford's research was ever done by the admin. They did not even look at his document. The majority of the scholars who did read his document agreed with Ford. These same scholars wrote and signed a petition to Wilson decrying and protesting the firing of this fine man.

The whole meeting was arranged to save the presidency of Keith Parmenter and Neal Wilson and to make an example of Ford. Parmenter and Wilson were under serious pressure from the fundamentalists who wanted Ford out.

Wilson was a Judas, sacrificing his friend Ford on the altar of tradition over honest research.

If you think Glacierview was even remotely about theology, I can only shake my head in disbelief.

History bears out that nothing of the sort took place except by the scholars, who agreed with Ford's research. Ford's conclusions were rejected by the admin on the basis of EGW's endorsment of the IJ, nothing more.

That is fact.

Since it was never going to happen and never will, it is pointless to speculate. By your own admission, the GC will never accept Ford's views. I submit that was the exact same attitude the admin went into Glacierview with.

Spiritual abuse and doctrinal fear tactics are most definitely forms of persecution, and one Rome wields quite well. So is forcing a church employee to choose between conscience and integrity or termination from employment.

The pope speaks ex-cathedra on matters of doctrine and no one dares to question or change what he has endorsed.

If the church really wants to allow thier ministers, scholars and teachers to be true students of the Word and base thier research on the Bible and the Bible alone like they claim to, they had better be prepared for whatever results may come of it. Not punish them by ripping away thier livilihood because they don't come to the same conclusions as the admin.

Still, many fundamentalists seem to think that it is entirely acceptable to indulge in these tactics of Rome with impunity and with a free conscience.

I am saying that if the IJ doctrine is as airtight and solid as you seem to think it is, there should be no fears that anyone will be swayed or fooled by Ford's research. So yes, if the doctrine proves to be built on shifting sand, it should be blown away by the wind, and anyone who attaches themselves to it in spite of the evidence should go with it.

Of course, the censorship-happy mods here forced me to edit out my posts, so you would never know from that butchered thread.

Are we implicating the admin who know the issues and don't do anything about it? Very well. I agree. Let's expose them and nail them to the wall.

I have not even suggested that every single pulpit in America is barren of the gospel...where are you getting that NE?

From this:

And I served God by speaking the gospel to some. But I myself was dying. I continued to spread the gopsel, but was not hearing the gospel...not in church aleast. I listen to sermons on CD and the net, read books, and read my bible, but I was not in the fellowship of those who knew the gospel, I was not hearing the gospel from the pulpit. And I knew this.

Now, it could be you were just referring to your own local church and not the church as a whole. If that is the case, than I misunderstood what you were saying.

But I HAVE heard other formers make this outrageous claim that the gospel is not being presented from any pulpit in Adventism, because the whole system is founded on a false, corrupted version of salvation and the church, by nature, cannot ever present the gospel properly.

Perhaps that is not the case you are making.

And who is Collen Tinker any ways?

http://64.226.233.122/stories/tinker.html

Webmaster of Former Adventist Forum and a close worker with Dale Ratzlaff. Rabid anti-SDA/EGW.

 

[Adventtruth]

Guys, you are pushing too hard, too much and too fast with me, I telling you right now. Think of what it took for you to get to the point you are at right now!

I am not there. I may never get there and I may die in this church. The bottom line is that I am feeling pressure to leave.

I have put myself and my forum reputation on the line and went to bat for the formers with the Trads when they have claimed your agenda was to try and convince others to leave the church. That is no small thing when you consider the vindictiveness they are capable of if you cross them.

But these last few threads and posts from you guys....

This business of there being no other option for me but to leave the SDA church as well as reject EGW in totality, as if there was absolutely no redeeming value to be found in either...it's just too extreme, it's too much for me.

I'm just saying, be careful, because you are running the risk of proving what they claim as correct even though it may not be.

You may not be overtly trying to convince me to bail, but it sure feels like those undercurrents are present.

Please prove me wrong.

Im sorry NE. I had no idea that you had pressure from the formers to leave. I now understand why you never returned my PM. I too have asked you question related to why you are SDA. But I had no idea of your pressure. Sorry.

AT

 

[tall73]

Im sorry NE. I had no idea that you had pressure from the formers to leave.

He has the same pressure that he puts on the trads and the senti puts on me--questions and discussion of belief.

I have never told Night to leave the church. And he has made plain that he makes his own decisions.

 

[tall73]

Here is the question another way. At what point are you so out of step with Adventism that there is no point?

This was something I wrestled with. It was not as soon as I had one issue, as the trads seemed to want. It was not when I rejected all of it, because I haven't rejected everything. Clearly it is different for different people.

Here is one guy who just blows my mind. These are a few selections from an interview:

:http://culturaladventist.blogspot.com/index.html

On your blog you say that you don’t believe in God...

Yes, I don’t believe in any of the gods. I don’t believe in Thor, Zeus, Krishna or the Christian God. I don’t believe in fairies either.



What is it like to live as a Cultural Adventist?

As I said earlier, I don’t call myself a “Cultural Adventist” because I don’t feel like I’m separated from the church in any way. I know far too many Adventists who are on parallel paths to mine, meaning that they too are only interested in the truth. They believe in God but only to the extent that God is Truth.

Having said that, my life hasn’t changed. People may fear that having no belief in god will change them a great deal, but they are absolutely terrified that they will remain the same.



Other essential requirements?

I’m going to explore this more in my blog but essentially Adventism is a “Truth Seeking Movement.” To be Adventist is to be a seeker of truth within an Adventist community, period. This does not mean that all truth-seekers are Adventist (that would be absurd). It just means that the movement was founded on and organized around the value of “truth above all things.”

Do you think you will be more open about your point of view or attempt to explain yourself to others at some point?

Maybe. I don’t ever see myself brining it up in conversation without being asked. That would just be silly. Will I become some sort of crusader? No. There are too many more interesting things to do.

Is there anything you would like to say to the readers?

My greatest hope is that lifelong Adventists who are thinking about leaving the church on honest theological grounds will read what I have to say and realize it is OK to stay. The church is full of people like us. If it were not the church would be a very different entity than it is now.



This interview reveals that the one being interviewed no longer believes in God, but feels comfortable remaining an Adventist. That is obviously a different threshold than others.

 

[NightEternal]

He has the same pressure that he puts on the trads and the senti puts on me--questions and discussion of belief.

I have never told Night to leave the church. And he has made plain that he makes his own decisions.

Tall, I have already clarified that I am convinced neither you nor Free have that agenda.

My reaction was more in reponse to Adventtruth than anything else.

There was an underlying, subtle pressure in his post, whether you choose to see it or not. It had nothing to do with questions or discussions of belief which I have no problem with, but statements and generalizations that are easily interpreted to come off a certain way;

Do I think a person can stay and support the Adventist church after learning the truth? Bob Dylan sang "we all gotta serve some body the devil or the Lord".

I do know the truth about the problems in Adventism. I do know all of the issues with EGW and church doctrine and the inherent problems they have. I know the real truth about the White Estate and thier agenda.

Yet I have chosen to stay.

What am I supposed to conclude based on your statement?

It felt like an ultimatum and it felt personal, even if it was not intended that way.

 

[Eila]

This interview reveals that the one being interviewed no longer believes in God, but feels comfortable remaining an Adventist. That is obviously a different threshold than others.

I don't get it either, but that mindset is out there. I was told by a family member that it would be better to be a non-Christian than to go to a different church. Remaining in the church without a relationship with God is preferable to leaving the church to many. I think those ideas are not as uncommon as one might think.

 

[tall73]

Tall, I have already clarified that I am convinced neither you nor Free have that agenda.

My reaction was more in reponse to Adventtruth than anything else.

There was an underlying, subtle pressure in his post, whether you choose to see it or not. It had nothing to do with questions or discussions of belief which I have no problem with, but statements and generalizations that are easily interpreted to come off a certain way.

It felt like an ultimatum.

If I were in your place I likely would have taken the comment about serving someone that way.

But I will let you and AT work that out.

 

[Adventtruth]

NE...this is my statement in context.

Do I think a person can stay and support the Adventist church after learning the truth? Bob Dylan sang "we all gotta serve some body the devil or the Lord". And I served God by speaking the gospel to some. But I myself was dying. I continued to spread the gopsel, but was not hearing the gospel...not in church aleast. I listen to sermons on CD and the net, read books, and read my bible, but I was not in the fellowship of those who knew the gospel, I was not hearing the gospel from the pulpit. And I knew this.

I stayed in her and served God...By your interpretation of what I said, I would have been serving the Devil as well.

Know the truth about what? The problems in Adventism? I know there are problems. Know the truth about Glacierview?

Im talking about integrity to the whole of who we profess to be. Do we have a union with Christ? Are we in Him? Are we associated with Him?Glacier View was but one isolated example of what goes wrong when we seek to glorify self or a system void of integrity. No one is perfect...I am far from it, but I will not seek to distroy what Christ has given.

I have not even suggested that every single pulpit in America is barren of the gospel...where are you getting that NE?

From this:

And I served God by speaking the gospel to some. But I myself was dying. I continued to spread the gopsel, but was not hearing the gospel...not in church aleast. I listen to sermons on CD and the net, read books, and read my bible, but I was not in the fellowship of those who knew the gospel, I was not hearing the gospel from the pulpit. And I knew this.

Now, it could be you were just referring to your own local church and not the church as a whole. If that is the sase, than I misunderstood what you were saying.

Yes you mis-understood me. My experience is to my membership.

AT

 

[tall73]

But I HAVE heard other formers make this outrageous claim that the gospel is not being presented from any pulpit in Adventism, because the whole system is founded on a false, corrupted version of salvation and the church, by nature, cannot ever present the gospel properly.

Some do. I think they tend to be the ones who personally did not hear it and associated that experience with the whole church.

I saw both ends of it. I had a preacher for a time who spoke every week on righteousness by faith, and it made a real difference to me.

Come to think of it , that was during the 80's even when there was legitimate concern over some who preached the gospel.

 

[NightEternal]

Alright, I consider the matter resolved and closed then.

 

[NightEternal]

Developments in theology

1888 issue marked the begining of Adventist church apostasy in the rejection of the spirit of prophecy. 1888 issue also opened a way to the new theology of 'righteousness by faith alone' which the bible does not support.

The 'Questions on Doctrine' represent a drastic departure from (Historic) Adventism, in an attempt to comform to mainstream Christianity.

GC conceded to Walter Martin and changed key issues on the nature of Christ, Atonement at the cross...

The Desmond Ford controversy of late 70s, early 80s did not bring anything new. Ford merely repeated Dudly Canwright's arguments. Ford did however polarized the disagreement among the Adventists on the sanctuary doctrine, the pilar of Adventism. Before Ford went public with his argument after he was discovered by a visiting elder, for almost 20 years, as an educator, Ford privately taught thousands of pastor of his believes. Because of this, the rejection of our sanctuary doctrine is wide spread among Adventist ministers and scholars.

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=42333829&postcount=2

Oh, PLEASE.

It's posts like this that remind me why I believe change will never be forthcoming in the church.

 

[Adventtruth]

In all fairness NE. I now understand how you came to the conclusions you did about my posting. I did send you PM's asking why you are Adventist and what holds you to her. I even suggested that you believe what I too believe, so why remain in her. But I never thought for one second that it was pressure to leave, nor was that my intent. So when I went public with that one posting, you saw it as a land mine or bomb being thrown your way. Im sorry, but that was not my intent. Please forgive me.

AT

 

[NightEternal]

No worries. You are forgiven.

BTW, I got PM's from Sarah and Annie both asking asking me basically the same question not long before yours came in. Not to mention the PM's I get from some Trads also asking me that question, although not in nearly as nice a manner as you three did.

So, maybe I was feeling like I was being expected to justify my decision to stay somehow.

 

[tall73]

Developments in theology

1888 issue marked the begining of Adventist church apostasy in the rejection of the spirit of prophecy. 1888 issue also opened a way to the new theology of 'righteousness by faith alone' which the bible does not support.

I would be interested in hearing more on his thoughts on this point.

 

[NightEternal]

Be my guest. I have already lost my appetite for about three days just from that one quoted excerpt alone.

 

[sentipente]

He has the same pressure that . . . the senti puts on me--questions and discussion of belief.

I have never told Night to leave the church. And he has made plain that he makes his own decisions.

This is intriguing, considering JM's conclusion that I may be farther from traditional Adventism than you are.