Hi reddogs. Just some of my thoughts, take them for what they are worth!
Quote:
Originally Posted by reddogs
Adventist who leave the church seem to follow nearly the same order in their experience. The fact that so many of the church left followed the same path needs to be looked at.
This is true. Each case is unique however, with different factors playing differing parts at different levels. Formers themselves will tell you that.
First they look at the "wisdom of man" that negates the Spirit of Prophecy, or the belief in the church as the "remnant".
I think we as a church would be misguided if we did not admit there are some problems that need to be addressed with the SOP. It is unfortunate that many feel the need to totally abandon her instead of perhaps re-evaluating how inspiration works.
As for the remnant, it is too bad so many in the church are wary of taking on that mantle. Revelation clearly spells out how one can identify God's remnant people and there is only one church that fits the whole description.
Nevertheless, perhaps it isn't so much a denomination as a people that the Lord will lead out.
This opens them to question Adventist theology so they look for a variation and some find it and start to follow Robert Brinsmead and Desmond Ford who use the message of righteousness by faith to try make null and void the scriptures understanding in Adventist thought.
Brinsmead and Ford preached the Gospel of salvation. They may have went off track in some areas, but in salvation, righteousness by faith and justification, they were solid and on the money. It has been said that no one preached the Gospel as clearly as Ford did, and many Adventists to this day remember his powerful proclamation of the Good News fondly. Even some of Ford's opponents will concede this.
It should be remembered that Ford never had an agenda to bring down the Adventist church. That is a false charge many label him with. What he wanted was reform, but he loved the church and his stand at Glacierview was because of this love he had for the church.
Once their faith is influenced by this line of thought then the person starts to look for 'cracks' in the Adventist theological so they can justify their leaving.
I have to disgree with this assertion. It seems to be a misconception many in the church hold though.
From my interaction with some formers, it was the opposite. The cracks in Adventist theology appeared first, and then they decided they had to leave.
They will say that Adventists follow the gospel of Ellen White rather than Jesus Christ.
Some in the church do unfortunately, and when one has spent enough time in the denomination they will eventually come across these individuals. The problem is the blanket condemnation and labelling of all Adventists as a result of the extremist, misguided few.
They feel they are following the Protestant Reformation view of the Bible and the Bible only as the only authority in testing the theology of Adventism
Should not this be necessary? We should not be afraid of this sort of testing. If our doctrine is not firm and built on solid ground, it is time we knew it, amen?
and that any new light from inspiration even if in harmony with the Bible is a corruption of "truth".
If it is in harmony with the Word, then we need to stand behind it. Those who would blanketly condemn everything inspiration has set forth as false simply by virtue of the fact that it came from EGW, are clearly in the wrong.
Then they will attack the word of God by calling it faulty or not to be understood,
Actually, many formers have a very high regard for the Word of God. Verbal inspration and the infallability of the Scriptures are positions held by many.
they will bring up that Adventists use the KJV so they can give the verse, “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.” Rev. 22:14, which supports Adventist thought.
Hm. I have not encountered this.
They also have a problem with Rev 12:17 and 19:10 that reveal that one of the distinctive marks of the remnant church is the Spirit of prophecy. Rev 12:17 says that two distinct marks of the remnant seed of God's church is that they 1) keep the commandments of God and 2) have the testimony of Jesus. Among churches that keep the Sabbath, the SDA church is the only one that has a prophet. Among churches that claim to have a prophet, the SDA church is the only one that keeps the Sabbath, so they must destroy faith in the Spirit of prophecy before they can fully get at the belief in keeping the commandments. They claim it is easier to “prove” Adventist theology from the KJV so they try and make a case for other "better" translations. With more of these "comtempary" translations it sometime changes the word "commandment" to a more obscure reference so it hides the true meaning, but this is used as proof that the understanding by Adventist theologians is faulty.
Interesting strategy.
Then they go after the aurthorship of Steps to Christ, Great Controversy, etc...
This is a problem area that we would do well to not ignore. The fact is that EGW relied on many people to put her books together. At best what we have are EGW's thoughts mixed in with the literary sources she used as well as extensive editorial help.
Then they go after the aurthor herself to destroy any belief in any of the light that she shines, they must wipe out any of the direction or expansion on the scripture and prophecies that she gives, as they must wipe out all belief in her role as a messenger of God
This, unfortunately, is true. Sad, but true.
to justify to their apostasy.
This is a personal judgment call I am not prepared to make. It implies we know the heart of the former when we certainly do not. I would submit that many desperately looked for reasons and validation to stay in the church, but could not honestly reconcile the conclusions they were coming to and SDA belief. The cognative dissonance they were experiencing became too much to bear.
Adventist that are walking down the steps to apostasy then must decide on Ellen White. Either she was a true prophet, or inspired "messenger of God" or she was not.
A third option is also available which is not so black and white: She was inspired of God, but not in the rigid, dogmatic confines many have attached to inspiration. A balanced, realistic view of thought inspiration will go a long way in repairing the damage done in the area of EGW. See George Knight, Alden Thompson and Graeme Bradford for more details...
If she was, then they know they must all return to Adventism for she repeatedly states that those who leave the Adventist church and turn against it are endangering their souls. So they must justify their apostasy by claiming she was not, then they dont need not be bound by her many statements on those who turn against Adventism.
Is salvation found in an organization or denomination or in Jesus Christ?
I might agree that those who turn against the SDA church and violently oppose it are placing thier souls in danger, for obvious reasons. However, to say that those who leave out of a sense of integrity because they are simply convicted on matters differently than what the SDA church teaches are bound for the lake of fire is a bit much. They are fully convicted through thier honest study of the Bible and have acted accordingly. God knows thier heart and He knows where thier spiritual journey has led them and why. I leave thier cases with Him where they belong.
This is no little matter for Adventists. It must be resolved. Point number 17 in the Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists states:
"One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White. As the Lord’s messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction."
You know, James White and EGW herself said that her writings should never be made a test of membership. How sad that the corporate church has ignored that counsel.
They state that problem is that the SDA church has two sources of truth, and though the church claims that the Bible is the standard, in practice it is usually the Bible interpreted by Ellen White which thus is a corruption.
There is much evidence in the church that this is true on many levels of the denomination. I fail to see how anyone who has been in the church for any amount of time could miss this. I have been to many Sabbath schools where EGW was constantly consulted to validate something said in the Bible, as if the Word was not enough to stand on its own merits.
In fact, we just had an article in the Review recently called 'Are We Protestants' where this very problem was lamented.
Then they attack the Adventist use of the principles of hermeneutics, which deals with the presuppositions principles and of interpretation.
We Adventists do presume a lot, don't we? How many of our people have incorrectly assumed something was in the Bible when it was, in fact, something from EGW they had read into the text?
They lay the claim that Adventism taught their members to study the Bible by the “here a little and there a little” method, and that this is the method often used to prove most of the teachings of Adventism. So any teaching of Adventism is corruption and thus they are justified to reject them and leave the church and thus the steps to apostasy are complete.
The proof-text method is vastly inferior to taking the Bible as a whole in its full context. No serious student of the Word should dispute that.
I have personally seen many use these steps and it always leads to leaving the church at its end, now the problem is once they leave where do they go. Many are reaching this stage and I feel sad as they wont take any counsel at this point, yet feel they are heading somewhere, they just dont know where. This is a problem that they have yet to truly solve, as I find them either following a path against the church and its followers or completely letting go of all belief, or worse turning against God and any religion or to the occult or other vehicle of belief against God.
We need to pray for them and ask God to continue lead and direct in thier lives as well as keep them open to the voice of the Holy Spirit. It's pretty much all we can do.
So how do we resolved this crisis of belief, how do we bring understanding to those who I feel are earnestly seeking truth, how do we bring unity to the believers, or is it foretold by God's prophecy and we are helpless to stop it?
Good questions.
I enjoyed your comments, they were enlightening. I wrote this thread with great sadness as someone close to me has followed these steps and from what I have read in this forum and from my free thinkers in my bible study group I can see the pattern clearly in my minds eye. So I wrote it down to see what others thought and I apprieciate your candor and honesty, and want to go over them and ask you a few questions.
What changed that caused people to see "cracks in Adventist theology ", did the theology change, did the fundemental beliefs change, did the church turn 180 degrees from the pioneers views, not to my knowledge. So if nothing has changed then it is some people's viewpoint that has changed not the theology.
Then there is "following the Protestant Reformation view of the Bible and the Bible only". I feel that God contiuniously communicates with us, it is the believers that seperate themselves from God, Jesus testimony and the Holy Spirit such as in the Dark Ages so there were few prophets and inspired writings to give them light. But now that we have come out of that thanks to the Reformation, if God gives us any new light from inspiration (IJ and Sanctuary come to mind) even if in harmony with the Bible, many still condemn it as it if came from Satans hands himself.
As for the part "they will attack the word of God by calling it faulty or not to be understood," I went to some of the former SDA believers sites and found that. They either said that SDA's were 'giving away KJV bibles' to solidify their theology or to 'stay away from them' and go to comtempary bibles that didnt use the word "commandments".
Now as for EGW, if you read her spiritual writings it is clear that they are inspired, and in harmony with scripture. Sure it has some of her humanity in it but so do the New and the Old testament. Their is no reason to "go after the aurthor herself to destroy any belief in any of the light that she shines, ... wipe out any of the direction or expansion on the scripture and prophecies that she gives, .. wipe out all belief in her role as a messenger of God". If you are fighting against what is from God you are endagering yourself spiritually, if you are fighting against a plain old women, she is still a Godly woman and her writings are a blessing and should not be attacked and destroyed with the zeal of Nazi Black Shirts at a book burning.
As for "proof-text method is vastly inferior", I read the whole bible, thus that is how we read it in my bible study group and how I teach at my lesson study classes, from scripture that deals with the matter not just the text the lessons give. Maybe they used "proof-text method" in the theology classes at Southern but I didnt take those courses and have been away from church and God for a while so maybe I missed that part, but I believe in God's truth which Jesus taught not some doctrine or man's tradition, and it starts with loving God, then your fellowman and that is what I fight for......
Your Brother in Christ
Red
Upvote
0
