Here is an even more complete statement of faith that Lutheran and Reformed theologians signed called the Cambridge Declaration that is even stronger than the T4G statement in my opinion:

April 20, 1996 “The Cambridge Declaration”

Evangelical churches today are increasingly dominated by the spirit of this age rather than by the Spirit of Christ. As evangelicals, we call ourselves to repent of this sin and to recover the historic Christian faith.

In the course of history words change. In our day this has happened to the word “evangelical.” In the past it served as a bond of unity between Christians from a wide diversity of church traditions. Historic evangelicalism was confessional. It embraced the essential truths of Christianity as those were defined by the great ecumenical councils of the church. In addition, evangelicals also shared a common heritage in the “solas” of the sixteenth century Protestant Reformation.

Today the light of the Reformation has been significantly dimmed. The consequence is that the word “evangelical” has become so inclusive as to have lost its meaning. We face the peril of losing the unity it has taken centuries to achieve. Because of this crisis and because of our love of Christ, his gospel and his church, we endeavor to assert anew our commitment to the central truths of the Reformation and of historic evangelicalism. These truths we affirm not because of their role in our traditions, but because we believe that they are central to the Bible.

Sola Scriptura: The Erosion of Authority

Scripture alone is the inerrant rule of the church’s life, but the evangelical church today has separated Scripture from its authoritative function. In practice, the church is guided, far too often, by the culture. Therapeutic technique, marketing strategies, and the beat of the entertainment world often have far more to say about what the church wants, how it functions and what it offers, than does the Word of God. Pastors have neglected their rightful oversight of worship, including the doctrinal content of the music. As biblical authority has been abandoned in practice, as its truths have faded from Christian consciousness, and as its doctrines have lost their saliency, the church has been increasingly emptied of its integrity, moral authority and direction.

Rather than adapting Christian faith to satisfy the felt needs of consumers, we must proclaim the law as the only measure of true righteousness and the gospel as the only announcement of saving truth. Biblical truth is indispensable to the church’s understanding, nurture and discipline.

Scripture must take us beyond our perceived needs to our real needs and liberate us from seeing ourselves through the seductive images, cliches, promises and priorities of mass culture. It is only in the light of God’s truth that we understand ourselves aright and see God’s provision for our need. The Bible, therefore, must be taught and preached in the church. Sermons must be expositions of the Bible and its teachings, not expressions of the preacher’s opinions or the ideas of the age. We must settle for nothing less than what God has given.

The work of the Holy Spirit in personal experience cannot be disengaged from Scripture. The Spirit does not speak in ways that are independent of Scripture. Apart from Scripture we would never have known of God’s grace in Christ. The biblical Word, rather than spiritual experience, is the test of truth.

Thesis One: Sola Scriptura
We reaffirm the inerrant Scripture to be the sole source of written divine revelation,which alone can bind the conscience. The Bible alone teaches all that is necessary for our salvation from sin and is the standard by which all Christian behavior must be measured.

We deny that any creed, council or individual may bind a Christian’s conscience, that the Holy Spirit speaks independently of or contrary to what is set forth in the Bible, or that personal spiritual experience can ever be a vehicle of revelation.

Solus Christus: The Erosion of Christ-Centered Faith

As evangelical faith becomes secularized, its interests have been blurred with those of the culture. The result is a loss of absolute values, permissive individualism, and a substitution of wholeness for holiness, recovery for repentance, intuition for truth, feeling for belief, chance for providence, and immediate gratification for enduring hope. Christ and his cross have moved from the center of our vision.

Thesis Two: Solus Christus
We reaffirm that our salvation is accomplished by the mediatorial work of the historical Christ alone. His sinless life and substitutionary atonement alone are sufficient for our justification and reconciliation to the Father.

We deny that the gospel is preached if Christ’s substitutionary work is not declared and faith in Christ and his work is not solicited.

Sola Gratia: The Erosion of The Gospel

Unwarranted confidence in human ability is a product of fallen human nature. This false confidence now fills the evangelical world; from the self-esteem gospel, to the health and wealth gospel, from those who have transformed the gospel into a product to be sold and sinners into consumers who want to buy, to others who treat Christian faith as being true simply because it works. This silences the doctrine of justification regardless of the official commitments of our churches.

God’s grace in Christ is not merely necessary but is the sole efficient cause of salvation. We confess that human beings are born spiritually dead and are incapable even of cooperating with regenerating grace.

Thesis Three: Sola Gratia
We reaffirm that in salvation we are rescued from God’s wrath by his grace alone. It is the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit that brings us to Christ by releasing us from our bondage to sin and raising us from spiritual death to spiritual life.

We deny that salvation is in any sense a human work. Human methods, techniques or strategies by themselves cannot accomplish this transformation. Faith is not produced by our unregenerated human nature.

Sola Fide: The Erosion of The Chief Article

Justification is by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone. This is the article by which the church stands or falls. Today this article is often ignored, distorted or sometimes even denied by leaders, scholars and pastors who claim to be evangelical. Although fallen human nature has always recoiled from recognizing its need for Christ’s imputed righteousness, modernity greatly fuels the fires of this discontent with the biblical Gospel. We have allowed this discontent to dictate the nature of our ministry and what it is we are preaching.

Many in the church growth movement believe that sociological understanding of those in the pew is as important to the success of the gospel as is the biblical truth which is proclaimed. As a result, theological convictions are frequently divorced from the work of the ministry. The marketing orientation in many churches takes this even further, erasing the distinction between the biblical Word and the world, robbing Christ’s cross of its offense, and reducing Christian faith to the principles and methods which bring success to secular corporations.

While the theology of the cross may be believed, these movements are actually emptying it of its meaning. There is no gospel except that of Christ’s substitution in our place whereby God imputed to him our sin and imputed to us his righteousness. Because he bore our judgment, we now walk in his grace as those who are forever pardoned, accepted and adopted as God’s children. There is no basis for our acceptance before God except in Christ’s saving work, not in our patriotism, churchly devotion or moral decency. The gospel declares what God has done for us in Christ. It is not about what we can do to reach him.

Thesis Four: Sola Fide
We reaffirm that justification is by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone. In justification Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us as the only possible satisfaction of God’s perfect justice.

We deny that justification rests on any merit to be found in us, or upon the grounds of an infusion of Christ’s righteousness in us, or that an institution claiming to be a church that denies or condemns sola fide can be recognized as a legitimate church.

Soli Deo Gloria: The Erosion of God-Centered Worship

Wherever in the church biblical authority has been lost, Christ has been displaced, the gospel has been distorted, or faith has been perverted, it has always been for one reason: our interests have displaced God’s and we are doing his work in our way. The loss of God’s centrality in the life of today’s church is common and lamentable. It is this loss that allows us to transform worship into entertainment, gospel preaching into marketing, believing into technique, being good into feeling good about ourselves, and faithfulness into being successful. As a result, God, Christ and the Bible have come to mean too little to us and rest too inconsequentially upon us.

God does not exist to satisfy human ambitions, cravings, the appetite for consumption, or our own private spiritual interests. We must focus on God in our worship, rather than the satisfaction of our personal needs. God is sovereign in worship; we are not. Our concern must be for God’s kingdom, not our own empires, popularity or success.

Thesis Five: Soli Deo Gloria
We reaffirm that because salvation is of God and has been accomplished by God, it is for God’s glory and that we must glorify him always. We must live our entire lives before the face of God, under the authority of God and for his glory alone.

We deny that we can properly glorify God if our worship is confused with entertainment, if we neglect either Law or Gospel in our preaching, or if self-improvement, self-esteem or self-fulfillment are allowed to become alternatives to the gospel.

A Call To Repentance & Reformation

The faithfulness of the evangelical church in the past contrasts sharply with its unfaithfulness in the present. Earlier in this century, evangelical churches sustained a remarkable missionary endeavor, and built many religious institutions to serve the cause of biblical truth and Christ’s kingdom. That was a time when Christian behavior and expectations were markedly different from those in the culture. Today they often are not. The evangelical world today is losing its biblical fidelity, moral compass and missionary zeal.

We repent of our worldliness. We have been influenced by the “gospels” of our secular culture, which are no gospels. We have weakened the church by our own lack of serious repentance, our blindness to the sins in ourselves which we see so clearly in others, and our inexcusable failure to adequately tell others about God’s saving work in Jesus Christ.

We also earnestly call back erring professing evangelicals who have deviated from God’s Word in the matters discussed in this Declaration. This includes those who declare that there is hope of eternal life apart from explicit faith in Jesus Christ, who claim that those who reject Christ in this life will be annihilated rather than endure the just judgment of God through eternal suffering, or who claim that evangelicals and Roman Catholics are one in Jesus Christ even where the biblical doctrine of justification is not believed.

The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals asks all Christians to give consideration to implementing this Declaration in the church’s worship, ministry, policies, life and evangelism.

For Christ’s sake. Amen.

Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals Executive Council (1996)

Dr. John Armstrong
The Rev. Alistair Begg
Dr. James M. Boice
Dr. W. Robert Godfrey
Dr. John D. Hannah
Dr. Michael S. Horton
Mrs. Rosemary Jensen
Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr.
Dr. Robert M. Norris
Dr. R.C. Sproul
Dr. Gene Edward Veith
Dr. David Wells
Dr. Luder Whitlock
Dr. J.A.O. Preus, III

Stan, thank you for posting this. What a great declaration of solidarity with the gospel of Scripture! This is the kind of message that either strengthens or offends, as we’ve seen on HS. These quotes in particular were especially timely:

“We deny that the gospel is preached if Christ’s substitutionary work is not declared and faith in Christ and his work is not solicited.”

“God’s grace in Christ is not merely necessary but is the sole efficient cause of salvation. We confess that human beings are born spiritually dead and are incapable even of cooperating with regenerating grace.”

Greg

Stan,

Great link and quote!  Riddlebarger has hit the nail on the head.  The problem with all of these groups isn’t a question of whether or not they are cultic, but that they place man at the center of the universe instead of God.  Cultic or not, a man who is trusting in his own merits for salvation is still lost.

Greg

So, the list of Fundamentals has been reduced to 28 to 18?

Article XVII

...We deny that any church can accept racial prejudice, discrimination, or division without betraying the Gospel.

Wow, that’s charitable and mighty brave of them. And only 40 years after religious liberals and seculars were called Communists by many conservative evangelicals for fighting (and in some cases dying) for the rights of racial minorities in the “bible belt” south. 

Glenn,

You can’t criticize evangelicals for owning up to what has happened in the past and what may be the heritage in some geographical segments of the church.  40 years or 4 years, it’s still good to affirm that racial prejudice, discrimination and division betrays the gospel.

Regarding 28 fundamentals being reduced to 18, I guess you could look at it this way, but at least there is no hint of the gospel-denying investigative judgment or affirmation of an extra-biblical authority found in these 18 statements of belief.

Oh by the way, welcome to the For the Gospel!

Greg

“You can’t criticize evangelicals for owning up to what has happened in the past and what may be the heritage in some geographical segments of the church. 40 years or 4 years, it’s still good to affirm that racial prejudice, discrimination and division betrays the gospel.”

Well, yes I can.  And I’m not really sure how much they’re really owning up to in this affirmation/apology. In any event, Christianity seems to want itself declared as some sort of infallible moral guide and in my judgment, the church has usually lagged behind the rest of society in ensuring justice.

“Regarding 28 fundamentals being reduced to 18, I guess you could look at it this way, but at least there is no hint of the gospel-denying investigative judgment or affirmation of an extra-biblical authority found in these 18 statements of belief.”

I’m not a fan of the IJ, but “gospel-denying”? Says who? Walter Martin? There are verses in Matthew (12:36) that could be understood as depicting some sort of investigative judgment. I agree the idea of our every word or thought being scrutinized doesn’t sound like “good news.” But the bible suggests it is occuring. How do you read this verse?

But it does seem that, as with SDAism, the theology here is a little more than just “Jesus”. It seems inevitable that creeds expand into checklists of some kind.

“Oh by the way, welcome to the For the Gospel!”

Thanks, just came across your site.

Your emphasis seems pretty Calvinistic. And from what I recall, Calvinism usually links its Justified by Faith Alone doctrine with some notion of Predestination. Do you subscribe to that and if so, in what way?

I checked off “Adventist Reform” at the Adventist Affiliation prompt for this site because traditional and evangelical SDAism were the other two types and I don’t think I’d identify myself with those two camps. But I’m not familiar with any entity or movement known as Adventist Reform. I think of myself as a progressive, non-denominational Christian who goes to an SDA church.

I guess the only issue I take is with this:

Article XIV

We affirm that the shape of Christian discipleship is congregational, and that God’s purpose is evident in faithful Gospel congregations, each displaying God’s glory in the marks of authentic ecclesiology. We deny that any Christian can truly be a faithful disciple apart from the teaching, discipline, fellowship, and accountability of a congregation of fellow disciples, organized as a Gospel church. We further deny that the Lord’s Supper can faithfully be administered apart from the right practice of church discipline.

I fail to see how this statement in particular is accurate or fair: “We deny that any Christian can truly be a faithful disciple apart from the teaching, discipline, fellowship, and accountability of a congregation of fellow disciples, organized as a Gospel church”

My brother-in-law and his wife consider themselves Adventist but want nothing to do with the corporate structure of the church. They haven’t been to church in over 6 years but I would say that they are much more faithful to God in their worship and study then most who sit and warm a pew every week

Sure it is beneficial to have like believers for support but to make this such an important emphasis and requirement to be considered a ‘faithful disciple’ is inaccurate. To also say that the ‘Lord’s Supper cannot be faithfully administered outside the church’ smacks of Catholicism. Jesus told us, not the body of the church itself, to ‘eat and drink in remembrance of me’.

Hey Glenn,

I will answer your questions in more detail later this evening, but for now I want you to know I’ve created a new user profile choice: “Adventist - progressive.” From your description, you definitely do not fit in with the SDA Reform Movement (see http://www.sdarmgc.org).  You can change your user profile information by clicking “user profile” in the blue box on the right and then clicking “edit” and “Personal Information.”

I realize these Adventist distinctions are all quite fuzzy, but I thought you might like another option!

Greg

P.S. I have some thoughts for you too, Guibox, for now see Hebrews 10:24-25.

[quote author="glennspring"]Well, yes I can.  And I’m not really sure how much they’re really owning up to in this affirmation/apology. In any event, Christianity seems to want itself declared as some sort of infallible moral guide and in my judgment, the church has usually lagged behind the rest of society in ensuring justice.

You are welcome to your opinion and yours is worth as much as mine.  I hope you would agree with me that an affirmation/apology for the past sins of the church is better than no apology.  Furthermore, I don’t think you need to look very far in this world to see that the people living in so-called “Christian” countries enjoy tremendous “common graces” merely by association with that society.  As an example, Muslims in North America and Europe, by and large, are treated with much more respect than Christians in parts of the Middle East or Islamic countries in Asia.

[quote author="glennspring"]I’m not a fan of the IJ, but “gospel-denying”? Says who? Walter Martin? There are verses in Matthew (12:36) that could be understood as depicting some sort of investigative judgment. I agree the idea of our every word or thought being scrutinized doesn’t sound like “good news.” But the bible suggests it is occuring. How do you read this verse?

Walter Martin is “on the record” as considering Adventists a heterodox Christian church (as opposed to a cult), a position he adopted after an exhaustive analysis of their writings and doctrines.  He was fully aware of the historic doctrine of the investigative judgment and its implications, yet he extended the hand of Christian fellowship to Adventists.  Later in his life he began to express some reservations about Adventism, particularly with the church’s handling of Ellen White’s writings (in his words, some Adventists considered her the “infallible interpreter of Scripture").

The reason I apply the label “gospel-denying” to the historic doctrine of the investigative judgment is because of its teaching that every thought, action, unimproved opportunity, and sin (past, present or even future–beyond death), if unconfessed, will stand against the professed Christ-follower in the investigative judgment, thereby disqualifying him from heaven.

This historic doctrine, as taught by the Adventist pioneers and endorsed by the writings and visions of Ellen White, absolutely denies the gospel because it says that the sinner can never know his standing with God or whether he is really saved.  As Desmond Ford used to say, this doctrine “cuts the nerve of Christian assurance” for the Adventist, because his name could have already come up in the judgment and he could already be lost, going about his life hoping to one day die with all of his sins forgiven.

The IJ contradicts the basic tenet of the gospel that a sinner can receive forgiveness for all sins (past, present and future) by placing his faith in the finished work of Jesus’ atonement (which happened on Calvary, not in 1844 or at the present).  Please see this page from the “Message for Adventists” link above for some texts which refute the historic IJ.

This is not a “tempest in a teapot” that can be easily dismissed as being “just as bad as all of the problems in mainstream Christianity,” because the gospel–the very thing Jesus came to this world to deliver to humanity–is fundamentally obscured by the historic IJ.  Jesus said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.” (John 5:24 ESV) The IJ says otherwise.  Jesus said, “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.” (John 6:37 ESV) The IJ again disagrees with these plain words.  Jesus said, “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.” (John 10:14-15 ESV) The IJ says that Jesus doesn’t really know who his sheep are until he finishes the work of investigative judgment.

So we see that, even with a superficial treatment, the IJ does indeed fundamentally alter the greatest truth man can possibly possess: that we can be certain our sins are forgiven once we have placed our faith in Jesus.  How great the assurance of a Christian who reads the words of Jesus and believes that his sin will not disqualify him from eternity with the Savior!

Regarding Matthew 12:36, this text in no way alters the biblical gospel and the words of Jesus above, nor is it an endorsement of the Adventist investigative judgment doctrine.  As you pointed out, we should be careful about forming a doctrine based on one text.  There are many, many texts providing assurance to the Christian who is truly saved by Jesus (all of Romans 8 comes to mind).  Matthew 12:36 in no way nullifies these texts.  By employing careful biblical hermeneutics, we know that one text cannot invalidate a host of others (or vice versa).

My understanding of this text is that our words will indeed justify us before men.  Compare this text with James 1:26, James 2:21-24 and James 3:6.  The tongue reveals the condition of the heart, and if the heart is not justified, the evidence will be in the words we speak.  As an interesting aside, it is this same point Jesus was making in telling his disciples that it is not the foods entering the mouth that defiles a man, but what comes out (Mark 7:14-23).

On the day of judgment, it will be very clear by the words I have spoken in my lifetime that I am not worthy of heaven, but I can rest in the promise that “there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1).  The difference between saved and lost on the day of judgment will be a “not guilty” verdict for all who are in Christ, while the lost will be condemned by their own actions, even their own tongues.  The historic Adventist doctrine of the investigative judgment knows nothing of this, as even one unconfessed sin will disqualify the professed believer from their eternal reward.

[quote author="glennspring"]But it does seem that, as with SDAism, the theology here is a little more than just “Jesus”. It seems inevitable that creeds expand into checklists of some kind.

Jesus is the heart of the gospel.  Without his finished work of atonement, salvation would not be possible and there would be no good news.  Theological understanding is not at odds with “just Jesus,” because accurate theology will always point back to him.

[quote author="glennspring"]Your emphasis seems pretty Calvinistic. And from what I recall, Calvinism usually links its Justified by Faith Alone doctrine with some notion of Predestination. Do you subscribe to that and if so, in what way?

This is a very broad question and I’m not sure I can do it justice in a short period of time.  Do I believe in justification by faith alone?  Absolutely.  Do I believe that God is sovereign?  No question.  Do I believe that Christ was slain from the foundation of the world for my sins?  Without a doubt.  Is God the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, who is omnipotent and omniscient?  Undeniably so.  If God knows the beginning from the end, existing outside of time, can he know who is saved at this moment, inside of our time?  Yes.  God’s sovereign “fingerprints” are found throughout Scripture.  Does this make me boast or denigrate those who don’t see things as I do?  No, it gives me cause for ultimate humility.

Glenn, thanks again for your questions and for taking the time to share your observations.  If anything was unclear or you have further questions, please ask.  I am not infallible and I covet a greater understanding of the things of God, so please let me know if you think I’m off base.

Greg

Greg,

Thanks for the clarifications and the addition of “progressive adventist” to the user option list.

I noticed you quoted a number of verses from John’s gospel. It reminded me of a talk given by Alden Thompson of Walla Walla called The Adventist Church at Corinth.

http://people.wwc.edu/staff/thomal/writings/sdacorinth.htm

It basically takes the Paul-versus-Peter-verses-Apollos conflict in the Corinthian church and develops an Adventist schema from it. Paul the “justification by faith” proponent, Peter the perfectionist, and Apollos, who among other things, is more philosophical. The basic idea is that the church is comprised of people with different perspectives of the gospel.

Traditional Adventists, besides relying on Daniel and the Revelation, tend to get much of their theology from Matthew. Matthew doesn’t seem to talk much about assurance, but he is concerned (perhaps trying to correct the anti-law impressions from Mark) that people recognize the importance of “doing” and not just believing (5:48; 7:21; 12:36). The verses you quoted from James fit well with this perspective.

Luke, on the other hand, is much more about demonstrating God’s grace (or at least it seems that way to me). The essense of Luke’s gospel being, again in my eyes, the beauty of the Prodigal Son parable.

John has other points of emphasis--establishing Jesus’s authority and as the verses you pointed to emphasize--the assurance of salvation and the promise of a heavenly reward for his disciples and followers (14:1-3).

I don’t mean to suggest that each gospel writer had a completely unique point of view or that the gospel accounts are mutually exclusive. But each writer, combined with the writings of Paul, does I think, highlight different dimensions of the gospel.

My impression has been that for many former Adventists, it is the assurance angle that is critically important, and not finding that in the Adventist church, they departed.

On the other side are the perfectionist adventists, the bearers of the Last Generation Theology passed down from M.L. Andreasan and currently held by Dennis Priebe and the writers at greatcontroversy.org.  For these writers, grace is essentially inoperative and authors such as Philip Yancey are scorned. These writers like to dwell on Matthew’s calls to perfection and duty as typifying the Adventist “distinctives” and “present truth”.

It seems like both approaches have developed a theology, a template of sorts, and force the rest of scripture into that template, by either interpreting seemingly contradictory passages to fit their schema or by downplaying of de-emphasizing others. In this case, if Assurance is the primary value, and if it is assumed that nothing else in scripture can contradict that or mitigate it, than every other portion of scripture ends up being defined to fit that paradigm. But while I agree assurance is “good news” I’m not so sure it is the be-all-end-all of the gospel.

In short, I tend to fit more with the grace-centered advocates, but I also find much in scripture that points to the multi-dimensional role of grace, a grace that transforms I guess you might say. And I tend to see a greater role for Free Will than that implied by the Calvinistic idea of God’s over-riding sovereignty.

Speaking of which, wasn’t SDAism itself largely a byproduct of Free Will Methodism? At least many of its founders came from that tradition. And is that part of the issue here, Adventist-Methodist Free Will adherents with former Adventist-Calvinists? Maybe too much of an over simplication but given the importance attributed to “assurance” you talked about, I wonder if that isn’t much of what the debate is about.

Partly why I raise the issue of Calvinistic predestination is, one of the elements of Last Generation Theology (which as far as I can tell, is not directly advocated in the 28 Fundamentals) is that obeying the Ten Commandments and being perfect is necessary to reassure the “heavenly inhabitants” that we are “safe to save”.

While I think Des Ford is correct to depict this doctrine as hideous and loathsome (can’t remember his exact words but that’s the gist of it), I have to admit there’s a sort of perverse logic to LGT’s concern. In your theology, or your understanding of correct theology, do Christians keep sinning in some form even after they are “saved” or born again? And if so, what is supposed to happen in heaven and in the new earth when still-sinning Christians are admitted? Will Christ still be mediating for us? [try to leave aside for the moment if you can the many holes in LGT like what about people like Luther who harbored feelings of anti-semitism, etc and how LGT advocates think Luther gets to heaven].

Good comments glenn and lots to think about. I liked this quote:

It seems like both approaches have developed a theology, a template of sorts, and force the rest of scripture into that template, by either interpreting seemingly contradictory passages to fit their schema or by downplaying of de-emphasizing others. In this case, if Assurance is the primary value, and if it is assumed that nothing else in scripture can contradict that or mitigate it, than every other portion of scripture ends up being defined to fit that paradigm.

Isn’t this the fundamental gist of doctrinal differences? Take for example the doctrine of eternal torment. Many come to the table with the belief that ‘sinners deserve to be punished’. Hence, when they find texts like Revelation 14:10,11 and Revelation 20:12-15, it is all they need to base their theology around. They then make sure that everything else ‘fits their schema’ and find inventive ways to make that which contradicts fit and not contradict. What happens is that one moves further and further away from logical exegesis and objective analysis.

I believe the same has happened with the traditional SDA interpretation of Daniel 8:14.

Thanks, Guibox.

“A priori” theological reasoning is particularly galling where the issue of “unclean meats” is discussed in Adventism. Mark 7:15-23; Romans 14 and other verses are essentially “over-written” in traditional SDA doctrine to make them fit what comports with the health message. It’s the church authority (in this case, SDAism) basically saying, “no, the verse doesn’t really say that.” But it does say that.  I agree that bible passages shouldn’t be interpreted out of context and entire doctrines shouldn’t be derived from one verse.  But that shouldn’t be a license for church authority to interpret the Bible for the rest of us.

It’s almost like refighting the reformation all over again. The individual is not, or shouldn’t be, beholden to a church’s, or a pastor’s, or some independent ministry’s interpretation of scripture. 

“I believe the same has happened with the traditional SDA interpretation of Daniel 8:14.”

A classic case in point. Adventist propaganda has always been that the “founders” meticulously and methodically studied scripture, comparing scripture with scripture, before reaching their conclusions (and are thus implied to be, in essense, infallible). But the reality was they were working from a script of 15 or so date-proofs that confirmed for them the 1843/1844 date, so when the predicted event didn’t happen, many in the group attempted to preserve as much of their emerging tradition as possible by keeping the 2300 day interpretation intact, but just changing what occured on that day (conveniently, to an event that occured in the heavens and couldn’t be verified). Of course, there were others among the Millerites who apparently did so re-evaluate their understanding in light of the failure of the predicted event to occur and readjusted their theology accordingly.

And finally, I don’t mean to say that people don’t or shouldn’t rely on heuristics, categories or schemas to process information. It’s human nature, we all do it, trying to make sense of a complex world.  It only becomes a problem when the model, schema, or heuristic is declared to be infallible and unchanging. Then objectivity (as much as that term can ever be realized) and truth-seeking vanishes and one simply becomes an advocate, an apologist for an institution or system. 

[quote author="glennspring"]It’s almost like refighting the reformation all over again. The individual is not, or shouldn’t be, beholden to a church’s, or a pastor’s, or some independent ministry’s interpretation of scripture. 

Glenn, this is well said.  Both you and guibox have made some good observations here.  Many Adventists who ultimately leave the church have an “a ha!” moment when they realize that much of what they believe the Bible teaches has been filtered and homogenized by their church, particularly with respect to the writings of Ellen White.  Coming with that “heuristic” approach, then, becomes an obvious impediment for a straightforward reading of the biblical text.

When I left Adventism, the Bible seemed like a new book to me, with precious truth springing off of each page, unfettered by doctrinal preconceptions or a need to reconcile the words with Adventist teaching.  Under these conditions, one begins to sense the real presence of the Holy Spirit originating and feeding a desire for God’s revealed Word.

I’ll have more to say later, after work.

Thanks again to both of you for your observations.

Greg