Pastor leaves Adventism

[freeindeed2]

Even if people were flocking to our churches I do not see mega churches as the answer, as the church grows you start a new church not flock to the existing church to increase the membership from 600 to 2000, a church of 2000 could make at least 4 or even 8 churches.

I have mixed feelings on the whole 'church planting' thing. Why do we need 10 separate, small, struggling Adventist churches in a city when 2 larger ones would suffice?

I like huge churches. It is a powerful force for influence in the community and it raises our profile in the area exponentially.

Maybe its an American thing you like to supersize things? -lol

Actually, I'm Canadian.

Adventism can be pretty formal and over structured some members would have a heart attack if say we decided to have Sabbath School all day or something.

I hear you. You know, I am totally NOT a morning person. I once suggested to the church board that we hold church service Sabbath afternoons instead of in the morning for those who despise mornings. I made the point that there would be a much better turn out for Sabbath School, because people aren't dragging themselves out of bed, bleary-eyed and crabby at the God-forsaken hour of 7:30 a.m.

Well, as you can imagine, that went over about as well as a lead balloon. Cries of protest were raised.

Having church in the morning is not Biblically based mind you. It's not even remotely scriptural. It's all just tradition, the way things 'have always been done.' No one even questions it, it's just accepted.

Actually, I would prefer Friday evening services myself, as I am most alert and 'on' at night. But, that's just too radical a concept for some.

I was able to accomplish switching things up many times, but ALWAYS to the beating of the 'protest drums' (oops, didn't mean to say 'drums' here:o...it was a figure of speach).

 

[NightEternal]

First, I love the "Borg" reference. Awesome.

Second, from my observation and experience, it goes beyond the problem you illustrated above. It is not ONLY that people are heavily influenced and taught but not convicted, though I'm sure that goes on as well. It's that those who do this heavy influencing and "teaching" seem to want to BE conviction for others. There is no room given for God to work, and no allowing for the possibilities discussed in principle in Romans 14. Rather, the various stripes of theological bully rule the roost, and want to play "Heavy Handed Holy Spirit" with everyone else, browbeating conviction into them through fear and mental intimidation. The natural spiritual process is thwarted and in some cases wholly aborted. There is no opportunity for growth precisely because everything is a freaking foregone conclusion: "this is the only right way to see X." It's impossible to grow organically, in a spiritual sense, where the outcome is fixed; it inhibits the process of getting there. The search for truth thus ends up inevitably being replaced by a series of fixed, immobile propositions to be assimilated by rote mechanism and which ultimately MUST be accepted "or else". People simply CANNOT grow spiritually as whole people under such a configuration. It's a recipe for disaster.

There is so much that is presisely dead-on here, it would take more time than I can spare to go through it and comment.

Excellent Moriah! This is the bottom line. And things only get further complicated when one does manage to forge thier own journey for 'truth' and thier conclusions lead them to different conclusions than the accepted party line.

We assume that everyone who studies the Bible will come to the same conclusions regarding jewellry.

Sorry, they do not.

We assume that everyone who studies the Bible will come to the same conclusions regarding vegetarianism.

Sorry, they do not.

We assume that everyone who studies the Bible will come to the same conclusions regarding worship styles, theater-going, drama, etc.

Sorry, they do not.

Many in the church need to realize that the outcome is NOT fixed. And when that reality plays itself out over and over again, that is when sides are taken and the battle begins. And those of us who actually believe the Bible does not forbid the wearing of jewellry are pelted with Joe Crews pamphlets.

Like what Joe Crews believes is going to even remotely change our minds on the matter.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Justification and rationalization of cherished sins is compromise and nothing else. I'm not saying you have to be this or that to be saved, the Bible and the One who inspired it is. Don't listen to anything I say, listen to what God and the Bible tells you. If the Lord convicts you to walk a certain way and if you refuse then you may have a problem later on. That is between you and your creator.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

And this is the problem those of us who see what's going on run into whenever we try to tell someone else who doesn't see about it. It always ends up going THERE when THERE is just another red herring, straw man, NON ISSUE. You are still drowning in your static foregone conclusions which are prisons and strongholds and falsehoods themselves!!! You assume that your understanding of Scripture is the sum total of the revelation of God, it can go no further, there can be no deviation, and you stalemate yourselves with it -- and the more someone tries to show you REALITY the more stubbornly you dig in your heels and refuse to budge. Clinging in desperate FEAR! FEAR to consider the tiny little maybe, maybe just maybe you don't have the FINAL WORD on all of it. MAYBE JUST MAYBE some of the things (I do NOT say ALL) you have cherished for 156 years are nothing but the fallacies of untempered youthful zeal and uneducated literalism.

If you REFUSE to see, there is nothing more that can be done; your institution will perish in its ineffectuality, and none shall come to your aid, because you reject each that tries out of hand with the same stale arguments you have used to construct the dead system that doesn't work. You are so buried in your black-and-white thinking that you IMAGINE any other way to be "compromise" -- and therefore "dirty" -- and so you imprison yourselves, and shut up the gates of Heaven, refusing to enter yet not permitting anyone else to pass either!!

It's madness, I tell you. MADNESS. No wonder Jesus called this sort blind guides!!!

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

This is the bottom line. and things only get further complicated when one does manage to forge thier own journey for 'truth' and thier conclusions lead them to different conclusions than the accepted party line.

We assume that everyone who studies the Bible will come to the same conclusion regarding jewellry.

Sorry, they do not.

We assume that everyone who studies the Bible will come to the same conclusions regarding vegetarianism.

Sorry, they do not.

We assume that everyone who studies the Bible will come to the same conclusions regarding worship styles, theater-going, drama, etc.

Sorry, they do not.

And what is worse and most stultifying is this, NightEternal: WE ASSUME THAT IF THEY DO NOT COME TO THE CONCLUSIONS *WE* HAVE ADOPTED, THAT THEY ARE THEREFORE DECEIVED -- AND HENCE DECEIVERS WHO HAVE NOTHING TO OFFER US BUT ARE ONLY SEEKING TO DESTROY OUR SO-CALLED "FAITH" -- AS IF FAITH DEPENDED ON ROMANS 14 ISSUES IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! The one thing we COULD conceivably all come to the same conclusion on is to all unite on the platform of Romans 14 and once and for all STOP trying to nail into stone some one-size-fits-all dictate as to what constitutes GOD'S view on the matter and ACCEPT that GOD'S VIEW *IS* ROMANS 14 for crying out loud!!!!!!!

Sorry to "yell" but good bloody grief, the very stones are SCREAMING and men hear them not!!!!!!

Many in the church need to realize that the outcome is NOT fixed. And when that reality plays itself out over and over again, that is when sides are taken and the battle begins. And those of us who actually believe the Bible does not forbid the wearning of jewellry are pelted with Joe Crews pamphlets.

Like what Joe Crews believes is going to even remotely change our minds on the matter.

No, but if they cannot change your mind they will settle for this: TORTURING YOUR SPIRIT AND MOLESTING YOUR CONSCIENCE.

 

[djconklin]

We assume that everyone who studies the Bible will come to the same conclusions regarding {edited here-->} {pick your issue}.

Sorry, they do not.

This assumes that they did so honestly and from a pure conscience. Again, to paraphrase C. S. Lewis: "When people say that they have "intellectual problems" with {pick your issue}, you can bet its moral."
===

Many in the church need to realize that the outcome is NOT fixed. And when that reality plays itself out over and over again, that is when sides are taken and the battle begins. And those of us who actually believe the Bible does not forbid the wearning of jewellry are pelted with Joe Crews pamphlets.

Like what Joe Crews believes is going to even remotely change our minds on the matter.

No, but if they cannot change your mind they will settle for this: TORTURING YOUR SPIRIT AND MOLESTING YOUR CONSCIENCE.

The outcome of wilful and deliberate sin is fixed. And I would agree that handing anyone who has resolved to go against what the Bible teaches isn't going to do any good. But, to ascribe what is in the booklets solely to Joe Crews reveals a basic misunderstanding. No one that I know of has shown that everything he has in his booklets is heresy--kind of hard to make that claim stick when he quotes Scripture.

Anyone who is truly a Christian would not deliberately torture the spirit and conscience of their fellow man. Anyone who has done so needs to be re-converted at a basic and fundamental level--we are ALL created in the image of God and called to become children of God, so you have no just cause in attacking anyone, for any reason, anywhere, period.

I have heard all sorts of "horror stories" from both sides--have you ever noticed that they are short of such things as names, dates and places? They claim it is because they didn't get permission to tell the story--well then, why are you DOING IT!?! More likely, it is because no such event took place in the first place--especially in the terms used to describe it. On a DIFFERENT forum (I have to emphasize certain things because some people miss them) it was claimed that in an SDA church certain things were being taught. I checked and found that there were about half a dozen churches in that city (I think it was Spokane, but I could be wrong now) and so I asked which church was it, naming all of them (as I recall)--that was the last time that poster ever posted anything on the forum.

 

[NightEternal]

So Conklin, assuming that both parties have studied with a 'pure conscience' (whatever that means), how do you explain the different conclusions arrived at? How do you explain the fact that two people can look at the same texts dealing with wine, and one arrives at abstinence and the other arives at moderation? Both sides have thier proof texts to back up thier position, both sincerely believe they are right.

Same texts and word studies, two totally different conclusions.

I know many SDA's who have no gripe one way or the other in this matter and have no desire to drink alcohol even in moderation, but thier studies have led them to conclude that the Bible does not teach abstinence.

This could apply to a number of things BTW, not just wine. Tithe for example.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

I have heard all sorts of "horror stories" from both sides--have you ever noticed that they are short of such things as names, dates and places? They claim it is because they didn't get permission to tell the story--well then, why are you DOING IT!?!

I'm not here to spread stories and rumours. I'm engaging in this discussion to point out the problems I have either experienced firsthand or observed. I am not interested in singling out specific persons who can then always be readily dismissed as "the few bad apples" one is supposed to overlook in favor of the general trends because I have seen the general trends as well. In fact I've seen the stagnation, mold and rot inherent in the structure itself; it is not even a matter of individual "bad apples" (though yes, they are out there). It is a combined ontological and epistemological issue that proves problematic to even address because of the filters that are so firmly embedded concerning anything one might use TO address it (e.g. the Scriptures for starters). I think Jesus said it best -- and left a hefty cluebrick behind which is NOT suited for those in glass houses -- when He said, "What sayeth the Law? How readest thou?" but His wonderfully wise subtlety is yet another thing of beauty lost on the dry bones of the mindset mired in literalist filters.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

read Romans 14!!!!!! Read It, Beg God For Enlightenment And Read It A Million Times Over Till The Light Does Come On!!!

 

[djconklin]

So Conklin, assuming that both parties have studied with a 'pure conscience' (whatever that means), how do you explain the different conclusions arrived at?

1) I have trouble believing that anyone would have trouble understanding what a "pure conscience" means.

2) I wouldn't make the assumption that they have actually studied.

How do you explain the fact that two people can look at the same texts dealing with wine, and one arrives at abstinence and the other arives at moderation?

1) They didn't look up the texts.
2) They started with a pre-concieved poinmt of view and aren't willing to surrender to the facts.
3) They din't look at the original language to make sure that the translation they were using was correct.
4) Most don't know who to use good sources to double-check what is the facts.
5) Most don't look at all of the texts and use them in balance.

Both sides have thier proof texts to back up thier position, both sincerely believe they are right.

Since the Bible isn't written like a theology book, you will have people using individual texts here and there--that is NOT proof-texting. So, to even assume that that is what BOTH sides is doing doesn't do justice to the facts at hand.

Same texts and word studies, two totally different conclusions.

See the above 5 points.

I know many SDA's who have no gripe one way or the other in this matter and have no desire to drink alcohol even in moderation, but thier studies have led them to conclude that the Bible does not teach abstinence.

I don't know who you know. See the above points about assuming people have actually studied.

This could apply to a number of things BTW, not just wine. Tithe for example.

Again, most people have not actually studied. They started with a pre-concieved point of view--such as in the plagiarism claim, EGW was a millionaire, FB actually wrote Steps to Christ, that when she went to Australia she brought along about a dozen servants, that EGW said "only sabbatarians will be saved", that EGW made repeated claims that Jesus was coming in specific years (the critic who made this claim "merged" Millerites with Russellites--as if they were both the same), that the SDA church makes a "mint" from the sale of EGW books, that EGW said only vegetarians will be saved, etc. The list of false claims/whoppers goes on and on.

They didn't study; they either made it up as they went along or they have simply repeated what they have been told by some other former who claimed to have studied the issues.

 

[Jimlarmore]

And this is the problem those of us who see what's going on run into whenever we try to tell someone else who doesn't see about it. It always ends up going THERE when THERE is just another red herring, straw man, NON ISSUE. You are still drowning in your static foregone conclusions which are prisons and strongholds and falsehoods themselves!!!

What falsehoods? The Bible tells us that there is a way that seems right to a man but the end thereof is destruction. The way I am reading you seems to me to be a very modernistic way of thinking, more of relativity and less of salvatory certainty. You have not said anything specific that may be this new revelation from God that I would reject because I am blinded by my stale and pharseeical way of thinking, just that it "may exist". Please pray tell sister enlighten me. As long as it is from the Bible I will certainly study it out and see where you are coming from.

You assume that your understanding of Scripture is the sum total of the revelation of God, it can go no further, there can be no deviation, and you stalemate yourselves with it -- and the more someone tries to show you REALITY the more stubbornly you dig in your heels and refuse to budge. Clinging in desperate FEAR! FEAR to consider the tiny little maybe, maybe just maybe you don't have the FINAL WORD on all of it. MAYBE JUST MAYBE some of the things (I do NOT say ALL) you have cherished for 156 years are nothing but the fallacies of untempered youthful zeal and uneducated literalism.

I think I am reading some anti E.G. White between the lines here yet I have not mentioned her once in this discussion, let's stay with the Bible only if you don't mind. As far as having more truth beyond the Bible and my interpretation , maybe you need to be a little more specific so we can have a real discussion of your issues instead of beating around the bush. You are right about one thing though there are certain aspects of what the Bible teaches that don't allow for deviation.

If you REFUSE to see, there is nothing more that can be done; your institution will perish in its ineffectuality, and none shall come to your aid, because you reject each that tries out of hand with the same stale arguments you have used to construct the dead system that doesn't work. You are so buried in your black-and-white thinking that you IMAGINE any other way to be "compromise" -- and therefore "dirty" -- and so you imprison yourselves, and shut up the gates of Heaven, refusing to enter yet not permitting anyone else to pass either!!

It's madness, I tell you. MADNESS. No wonder Jesus called this sort blind guides!!!

Be rest assured sister that spiritual Israel will go thru to the end and meet the Lord when He comes the second time. Is there black and white issues in the Bible? , you bet. Is there truths in the Bible that are uncompromising and certain, ?YEP!! Is there a certain way that Christians should conduct their lives according to the Bible? Yep again. If you consider the truth of God found in the Bible as a stale dead system then so be it. Sign me up for the stale dead system.

God Bless you sister, I'll be praying for you,

Jim Larmore

 

[djconklin]

read Romans 14!!!!!! Read It, Beg God For Enlightenment And Read It A Million Times Over Till The Light Does Come On!!

Will do! Right now! Bye!

 

[NightEternal]

I have trouble believing that anyone would have trouble understanding what a "pure conscience" means.

In the context you used, there is plenty to be troubled about. You have all but claimed that anyone who has reached a different conclusion than you have was never impartial about the issue to begin with, but you were. Furthermore, it was never an intellectual issue for them but rather moral, but not so for you. How much sense does it make to ascribe moral problems to people who have no moral problems whatsoever with the topic under question?

There are issues that are left to individual consciences for a reason. Let each be convinced in his own mind.

What I gather from your post is that the conclusions reached which do not reflect your own were never reached through honest study, and the person in question never actually, really studied to begin with. They only read into the text what they wanted it to say. Furthermore, your conclusions are the only ''true' ones from a Biblical standpoint.

That seems to me a completely arrogant position to take.

We agree to disagree then.

 

[Jimlarmore]

Roman's 14 starts out saying "He that is weak in the faith we should receive but not to doubtful dispute." So we can clearly see the context for not judging our fellow man is set in this text. It is specifically talking about "the weak in the faith" which could be new converts or anyone who may be struggling with living a Christian life. This is not the only set of texts in which Paul tells us not to judge others. Look at Col 2 in it's entirity and you will see this basic same theme also. Many like to use that chapter to dismiss the 7th day Sabbath observance, yet it's clear that is not what Paul was saying. However, I do think it is telling us we shouldn't judge those who do not keep the 7th day Sabbath.

I have agreed totally with Moriah that our church family needs to handle our new converts with care and avoid conflicts which is what Paul is basically saying in this chapter. However, unless I am mistaken I feel that she is concerned more with the fact that I embrace absolute truth as the Bible teaches it. That there is truth beyond the Bible that those like myself seem to refuse to see.

I may be misinterpreting her and if I am I apologize and await correction.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[NightEternal]

I don't know who you know.

In fact, you are familiar with two: Sophia and Tall. Both are individuals who have no desire to drink alcohol, yet Sophia has posted her studies on this forum which led her to believe the Bible does not teach abstinence.

So, the argument that it is a moral issue rather than intellectual with her is no good, as she does not drink. The arguement that she did not honestly study the issue properly is also no good, because she clearly showed she had studied the issue out in detail.

In fact, from what I have seen, Sophia is more Biblically versed than some pastors I have encountered.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

I have agreed totally with Moriah that our church family needs to handle our new converts with care and avoid conflicts which is what Paul is basically saying in this chapter. However, unless I am mistaken I feel that she is concerned more with the fact that I embrace absolute truth as the Bible teaches it.

You are SORELY mistaken!! Because, news flash, you do NOT embrace absolute truth as the Bible teaches it to begin with. You BELIEVE yourself to be doing so, and according to your limited perception and experience, so it seems to yourself. But you cannot even HEAR yourself in these statements? You are making YOUR mind, and YOUR understanding of scripture, the measure of truth here, and I am so totally NOT buying that!!!! What I am concerned with is precisely this, and it is a disease rampant in Adventism NOT because Adventists are necessarily more arrogant or myopic than other Christians, but because, like I said, the seeds of this stagnation are inherent in the structure itself. It is virtually INEVITABLE that anyone entering the SDA church WILL be taught to perceive and think of things precisely in this same fashion, thus effectively CEMENTING and TREPANING the blinders onto the sides of their heads and never able to step outside themselves for a breath of OBJECTIVITY!!!!!!!!

NightEternal, help me, can't you please explain this better than I am doing??? I cannot bear it!!

 

[Jimlarmore]

In fact, you are familiar with two: Sophia and Tall. Both are individuals who have no desire to drink alcohol, yet Sophia has posted her studies on this forum which led her to believe the Bible does not teach abstinence.

You could say the same thing about polygamy. Take the entire Bible on this my friend. Do you see alcohol consumption being a part of what we will do in heaven? Is it a part of what would be considered a pious life style or a life style that is preparing us to stand before our creator at the second coming?

So, the argument that it is a moral issue with her is no good, as she does not drink. The arguement that she did not honestly study the issue properly is also no good, because she clearly showed she had studied the issue out in detail.

In fact, from what I have seen, Sophia is more Biblically versed than some pastors I have encountered.

I think there are enough verses in the Bible that would lead us to conclude God does not want us to consume alcohol on a regular basis. Anything that is a mocker and raging is not comensurate with the nature of a loving God or His children.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Don't miss the point of Romans 14 -- notice WHICH ones are dubbed the "weaker brethren". If I didn't know better, I'd say there's a finger in there pointing a direct beeline to the most self-absorbedly theologically obstinate and lifestyle strict, rather than the casual worldling wrestling with music choices.

 

[Jimlarmore]

You are SORELY mistaken!! Because, news flash, you do NOT embrace absolute truth as the Bible teaches it to begin with.

I don't want to get into a negative and hateful debate with you over the Bible. That kind of thing serves only the enemy of our souls. If I offended you I apologize again. I do seek present and real truth as God has given to us in the Bible. However, I can't see who you can conclude I don't embrace the absolute truth in the Bible since we haven't even discussed anything specific about the Bible yet.

You BELIEVE yourself to be doing so, and according to your limited perception and experience, so it seems to yourself. But you cannot even HEAR yourself in these statements? You are making YOUR mind, and YOUR understanding of scripture, the measure of truth here, and I am so totally NOT buying that!!!!

I'm very sorry you feel this way as I have not intended you to take anything I have said that way. I may indeed have a limited perception but if you could please get specific on Biblical issues instead of being so vague in what you are saying we could get some where.

What I am concerned with is precisely this, and it is a disease rampant in Adventism NOT because Adventists are necessarily more arrogant or myopic than other Christians, but because, like I said, the seeds of this stagnation are inherent in the structure itself. It is virtually INEVITABLE that anyone entering the SDA church WILL be taught to perceive and think of things precisely in this same fashion, thus effectively CEMENTING and TREPANING the blinders onto the sides of their heads and never able to step outside themselves for a breath of OBJECTIVITY!!!!!!!!

I'm sorry but I have to respectfully disagree. I have been in many churches in my life and have at one point in the past embraced agnosticism. The SDA church follows the Bible as close as any I have found so far. If you have a problem with the basic tennents of the adventists church you have a problem with the basic tennents of the Bible. It may be true that some in our church may try to guide some of in an inappropriate manner but as a whole I have found our church family to embrace free thinking and new ideas to spread the gospel of Christ to the entire world.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

p.s. on an edit: I think it would be nice for Moriah to list the things that she feels the church is doing that is against the Bible or is just plain wrong in the way it is structuring itself.

 

[NightEternal]

You could say the same thing about polygamy. Take the entire Bible on this my friend. Do you see alcohol consumption being a part of what we will do in heaven? Is it a part of what would be considered a pious life style or a life style that is preparing us to stand before our creator at the second coming?

I am prepared to stand before my Creator because Christs merits and His righteousness stand in my place. Not because I have 'purified' myself through pious lifestyle.

I can almost picture you climbing the monestary stairs on your knees with Martin Luther.

Do not take the focus off the real question here. The question is does the Bible teach abstinence? I contend it does not. Does it teach the dangers of drunkenness? Most assuredly.

I think there are enough verses in the Bible that would lead us to conclude God does not want us to consume alcohol on a regular basis.

Correct. So we agree abstinence is not taught in Scripture? Maybe not.

Anything that is a mocker and raging is not comensurate with the nature of a loving God or His children.

Mocking and raging are clearly being used here to refer to drunkeness.

We agree to disagree then.

 

[NightEternal]

NightEternal, help me, can't you please explain this better than I am doing??? I cannot bear it!!

You're doin' just fine Moriah. Even brought up some things I had not considered before.