Well said, glennspring. This is not an ‘SDA’ problem as so many would like to think.

phen, it is easy to say ‘the problem is with the doctrine’ but that can be said for most of Christendom.

Not that this applies to you phen, so don’t take what I am going to say personally. Frankly, I question the experience of any former-SDA who leaves the church and abandon pretty much all the doctrine while claiming that ‘once they took off the EGW blinders, the doctrinal errors came forth’ and somehow they realized that orthodox teachings on everything were true all along.

Anybody who goes to that extreme were either brought up in a completely restrictive SDA fundamentalist home or went in expecting infalliblity to the point that they feel ‘deceived’.

To say that SDAs got it wrong with the IJ and the role of EGW is one thing. To say that SDAs got it wrong with the IJ, EGW, the Sabbath, annihilation, denial of immortality of the soul, the law and its role, vegetarianism, all prophetic interpretation, evangelistic methods and pretty much everything SDA under the sun is completely irrational or people just simply associate these things with EGW and when she is proved ‘wrong’ the rest is wrong too.

Sorry if I’m being a little frank here, but I just don’t have much tolerance for the elitist attitude that the SDA church is nothing more than a legalistic, grace-squelching cess-pool of cultic theology where when one finds fault with one thing, the rest must be suspect.

There are so many former-SDAs out there like this that all credibility and rationality is gone, IMO.

Believe it or not, some of us see the error, some of us have come to grips with it, some of us feel the need for more grace oriented preaching, some of us have a different perspective on it...but we still believe the SDA church has more doctrinal truth than most churches out there.

Many formers have a hard time accepting that there are clear level-headed thinkers that can deal with the very things that sent them running. Like the fundamentalist-SDAs, the attitude is ‘all or nothing’.

I just don’t, and don’t think one has to, subscribe to that way of thinking whether it be from a former-SDA or a quack-uber conservative SDA.

Posted anonymously by: Phen

That’s the thing right there,Guibox . When you say “some of us see the error, some of us have come to grips with it… but we still believe that the SDA church has more doctrinal truth than most churches out there,” I say good for you.
You still believe,I don’t.
I saw the error and I asked people about some of it. Most of the time they didn’t want to talk about certain “touchy” subjects in church or anywhere for that matter.
If you ask a direct question, it is swept aside or down right ignored. There is a set pattern to the lesson study books. They change little. There are some lesson studies that people decided to do on their own in a departure from the main lesson. Good for them, but that is not the norm in the church. Have you ever asked a question and it was as if you committed the proverbial “unpardonable” sin?
I would never dispute that there are “clear level- headed thinkers” that do deal with the things in question, but how long is a person to stay tied to these things without getting any substantive answers? If a person can ask about troubling texts, and a pastor can say to you “everything is wrong about that” and “they are going against the people who keep the commandments of God and who have the testimony of Jesus,” what can a person conclude? Is that a discusion?
I agree that the things discussed above can be said of any doctrine in “Christendom” but we can only talk about our own experience. I did not leave another Christian church, so that is not my interest, our discussion here is about Adventism.
I see here a place where people comment on their experiences and take part in a discussion that’s all. I have tolerance for anyone who differs from me, and yes the SDA church is “legalistic,” it does have “cultic theology” and everything IS suspect when one sees that some things don’t add up to what the bible says. Having said that, and not exactly the way you said it, you are entitled to your beliefs. And no, I am not taking it too personally. We are all God’s children and with that in mind I can call you brother/sister.
Basically,I no longer put much stock in any church organization, my focus is in Jesus Christ. I know you will say the same about Jesus Christ.

[quote author="Phen"]Basically,I no longer put much stock in any church organization, my focus is in Jesus Christ. I know you will say the same about Jesus Christ.

I agree with you about Jesus.  Which of course still leads me to ask--what church do you go to now? What are the people like and what are the services like? (I hope I’m not re-asking something you’re already addressed elsewhere). Is there a sunday school study there like sabbath school?

[quote author="Phen"]If you ask a direct question, it is swept aside or down right ignored. There is a set pattern to the lesson study books. They change little. There are some lesson studies that people decided to do on their own in a departure from the main lesson. Good for them, but that is not the norm in the church. Have you ever asked a question and it was as if you committed the proverbial “unpardonable” sin?

It’s funny you should mention this.  I was the sabbath school superintendent and a sabbath school teacher at the church I used to attend. Although I loved sabbath school, or at least the idea of it, I was growing tired of the lessons for the reason you mentioned--very packaged, formulaic, not real bible studies, just tools for regurgitating the same old stuff. One of the last lessons I led out in was during the most recent lessons on the sanctuary and I basically junked the quarterly’s plan that week in favor of handouts that had--in four different bible translations--the verses in Daniel that in one way or another addressed the abomination of desolation. What seemed reasonably clear to me, and what I was hoping we could engage more thoroughly as a class, was that not all of the passages appeared to reinforce SDA teaching. And if the passages were all related, all talking about the same thing, than what did we make of this? But I kind of struck out. I tried to tred carefully, but it must have been somewhat obvious I was challenging orthodoxy on this subject and I think at least some people were a little uncomfortable.

At my current church, I found out the young adults were having the same issues I was having with the quarterly that period and soon decided to embark on their own study. Most recently we’ve been working through the minor prophets. And the discussion have been very good and open.
So I’ve been fortunate in this area to have some options for church.

Well, I am just catching up on this thread after returning from the “Critical Care Medicine” convention in sin city Las Vegas.

I am really blessed reading all the responses.

Guibox,

My original posting on this thread was on the experience of the Chagalls who had been in many of the new age cults, and then became converted to Christianity. They tried the SDA church first, and the Holy Spirit seemed to convince them that SDA was just another cult.

I wasn’t sure if David Chagall was still alive, but I received an email reply from him this week, and he remains convinced that SDA is definitely an apostate church preaching a different gospel. He also had some further stories about George Vandeman. It seems clear that Vandemann had one agenda, and that was to keep the false gospel of 1844 and legalism alive.

An updated and more complete version of “Sunshine Road” will be published in the near future.

Again, I was raised in the cultic branch of SDA. But I was also influenced heavily by Dr. Walter Martin. I have to admit, that the classification of SDA and Catholicism seems like a different issue than Mormonism and JW, but when I read the Chagall’s experience, and read Jess’s experience, and then remember my own childhood, I find myself going back and forth some on this issue.

Also, my recent reading of progressive SDA blogs lately, also make me question whether Adventism is even close to mainstream Christianity. I see those who are called “evangelical SDAs” becoming more liberal.

But rather than classifying SDA in the same category as Mormons and JWs, I think I would use the term apostate church for Catholicism, SDA, and liberal Protestantism.

I am considering going to a forum meeting in San Diego tomorrow, where another very progressive SDA is going to speak--Dalton Baldwin. It seems like this professor doesn’t believe in most of the Old Testament. He doesn’t believe God ever asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.

So, I will go and ask him some tough questions tomorrow--like, if he believes in the Virgin birth and literal resurrection of Christ from the dead.

I really do have to question how a true Bible believing Christian can stay in the SDA church. Sorry Guibox, but even though I agree strongly with you on the doctrine of annihilation--this is not enough to justify a system which is as opposed to the doctrine of salvation by grace alone as so many have testified. Sabbath-keeping and vegetarianism also have no merit. Even scientific studies cannot prove that vegetarianism is any healthier than a mediterranean diet consisting of lean meats, fish, and red wine. Resting one day in seven is excellent for physical health, but has no spiritual merit.

Stan

Stan,

Welcome back!! In one piece I hope.

If you go to the forum in San Diego tomorrow, please feel free to fill us in on your observations. I would look forward to hearing your take on it.

This is a comment to all those that have posted on 4TG.

I really appreciate the tone and consideration each one has demonstated in these discussions. This is safe place for discourse and I want you all to know that even when understandings differ, I sense that everybody here continues to learn, and enjoy the fellowship. I know I do.

Randy

Thanks Randy,

Yes, I did avoid “losing my shirt” in the town of “Lost Wages”.

Thanks for your comments regarding the tone.

I also appreciate Guibox, Glennspring, and all other current SDAs who post, as well as former SDAs. Most of us have been down a difficult road when wrestling with issues of faith. I just pray that the Holy Spirit will continue to guide us into all truth.

Stan

I’d just like to echo what Randy said about our tone.  We don’t need to look too far to find forums where people can meet to congratulate each other on their orthodoxy, but there are few places where Adventists and ex-Adventists can talk to each other without descending into hostilities.

If we believe God is sovereign, we’ll be content to allow Him to convict others about staying or leaving Adventism, all the while giving a ready defense for the hope that is in us, doing it with gentleness, respect and a good conscience (1 Peter 3:15).

I also think we need to be careful about putting too much stock into specific practices such as diet, days of worship, and other non-essentials that Christians are given liberty to observe or not.  The bottom line is “What do you think of Christ?”, not “What about vegetarianism?” or “What about the Sabbath?”, etc.

Here is something I read in Romans this morning that may be helpful to keep in mind.

Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good. Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor. Do not be slothful in zeal, be fervent in spirit, serve the Lord. Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality.

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. (Romans 12:9-18 ESV)

It is my prayer that we may submit ourselves to these words, not forgetting what the apostle Paul also said in Romans 16:17-20.

Greg

Good morning “band of brothers,”

I like the ring of that. :c) I ditto Randy’s request, Stan, to hear your “take” on the SDA Forum meeting.  I receive their notices but have never attended, but have received some tapes and printed info on occasion.  It’s hard for me to adjust to being terminated for “only” preaching the true Gospel while currently men can hold such unorthodox beliefs and proclaim them publically and in print, and still remain in their “good and regular standing” of church membership and employment.

There are some good thoughts posted above, but the “java”
is ready, my wife awaits me and we shall, without doubt, spend a few hours in our daily “Java and JEHOVAH” time,
reading God’s Word, discussing it, studying, reading devotionals, commentaries, just digging and feasting until we are full, and caping it off with conversational prayer.
You all are now on my large prayer list.

Soli Deo Gloria
May your “rest in Jesus” satisfy completely,

Jess

Hi Jess, I’m more of an espresso guy myself, so this morning I had Espresso with Elohim!

Your story is a witness to the reality that many people leave, or are forced to leave, Adventism for the sake of the gospel, not merely as a reaction to something in their upbringing.  I am encouraged that the good news has sustained you and your wife through some very hard times.

I will also keep the “band of brothers” in my expanded prayer list, praying that we can all experience Jesus’ sabbatismos each day.  The women reading this are welcome to crash our party!

Greg

[quote author="Stan Ermshar"] I really do have to question how a true Bible believing Christian can stay in the SDA church. Sorry Guibox, but even though I agree strongly with you on the doctrine of annihilation--this is not enough to justify a system which is as opposed to the doctrine of salvation by grace alone as so many have testified.

Hmmm...My dear Riverfonz. This seems like a bit of a departure from your earlier acceptance of true Christians who stay in the SDA church.

I wonderif it has occurred to a few of you that there are many that just don’t plain old agree with Luther’s take on justification by faith alone or Calvinist stance on Christ’s sacrifice sealing our salvation regardless of our choice and yet:

1) still believe that our works don’t save us and we are saved by Christ’s blood and grace?
2) do not believe in ‘works’ and ‘grace’ working together like Catholicism does

I just received Bacchiocchi’s part 2 of his newsletter ‘The Achievements of the Cross’ and frankly in it’s analysing and critiquing the problems with both the Catholic and Lutherian view of salvation by faith, makes more sense to me from reconciling scripture with itself than any of the two views.

And yet, I didn’t get the feeling of ‘salvation by works’ or the examples of the perfectionist claptrap that has been posted here from the pen of Dennis Priebe

Perhaps this can be posted and analysed here from all you good folks to see where and why you agree and disagree with Dr. Bach.

Guibox wrote:

“Hmmm...My dear Riverfonz. This seems like a bit of a departure from your earlier acceptance of true Christians who stay in the SDA church.

I wonderif it has occurred to a few of you that there are many that just don’t plain old agree with Luther’s take on justification by faith alone or Calvinist stance on Christ’s sacrifice sealing our salvation regardless of our choice and yet:

1) still believe that our works don’t save us and we are saved by Christ’s blood and grace?
2) do not believe in ‘works’ and ‘grace’ working together like Catholicism does

I just received Bacchiocchi’s part 2 of his newsletter ‘The Achievements of the Cross’ and frankly in it’s analysing and critiquing the problems with both the Catholic and Lutherian view of salvation by faith, makes more sense to me from reconciling scripture with itself than any of the two views.

And yet, I didn’t get the feeling of ‘salvation by works’ or the examples of the perfectionist claptrap that has been posted here from the pen of Dennis Priebe

Perhaps this can be posted and analysed here from all...”
-----------------------------------------------------------

Guibox,

Actually I am just questioning how a true Bible believing Christian can stay in the SDA church, once he sees the basic errors of the sanctuary doctrine, 1844, and the Investigative Judgment? This is not a departure from my beliefs stated previously that there are many true Christians in Adventism. I have the same views toward Roman Catholicism. But I don’t believe there are many true Christians in Mormonism or JW, because they clearly teach a different Jesus. At least Adventists and Catholics believe in the Trinity, and the full deity of Christ.

Both RCC and SDA obscure the true and pure gospel of justification by faith alone. Romans 3 through Romans 5 are abundantly clear. From what you say, Guibox, you have problems with this very basic and essential doctrine that is the very foundation of the gospel. In fact, if you would like to start another thread on this topic and submit Bacchiocci’s paper and link to it, then I would be very interested in reading it. It might make for a good topic of discussion.

If we compromise on the basic doctrine of justification by faith alone--it was this very doctrine that Luther discovered from the Bible, which spawned true revival and literally changed the world-- then we compromise the very basic doctrine which separated true Christianity from the false gospel of Roman Catholicism. Dr. Sam B may have been highly influenced by the Jesuits whom he studied with in their university. It is interesting that John Reisinger points out in his article “Two Religions” that it was the Jesuits who sent missionaries to undermine the very basic truths of the Reformation gospel in America.

Also, Guibox, when I posted what I did late last night, I had just finished reading a very strong email from David Chagall, the author of “Sunshine Road” who in very strong words still condemns the SDA church as an apostate church. Remember their story. They went from one new age cult to another, but they were both converted to true Christianity from Judaism and New Age backgrounds. They go to a Sabbath keeping church because of their Jewish background which did just happen to be a historical conservative church led by George Vandeman. After studying Adventism for at least a year, they almost get baptized in SDA, but then their consciences were enlightened by the Holy Spirit, that “this is just another false religion” with a cult-like mentality. They then were led to a Sunday Bible believing evangelical church, and they remain faithful to this day 23 years later, and they still believe they left SDA because it is a different gospel.

Now, admittedly, the story above might have been different if the Chagalls had found an evangelical SDA church, and maybe their views would be softer today on Adventism. But I know that thousands have also left the Adventist church because the gospel is not presented clearly and is distorted. Randy G, JessD, Phen, Greg, and myself, all have come from different backgrounds and experiences in Adventism, and we have all concluded that Adventism either preaches a different gospel, or it at best distorts the gospel.

As John MacArthur in his book “The Gospel According To Jesus” said so well ‘the very basic dividing line between true teachers and false teachers, is the uncompromised view of Justification by Faith Alone vs. the compromised view of a mixture of justification and sanctification’.

After reading Martin Luther’s commentary on Galatians when I was a young Christian 20 years ago, I also became convicted that Luther’s view on Justification is clearly what the Bible teaches, and I knew that I could never compromise this view. I realized that in Adventism I was brought up in a Roman Catholic gospel. There is no power in a gospel like that. Can you imagine a preacher giving an invitation to follow Christ by saying “Give your life to Jesus today, and if you remain faithful to the end, and become sanctified enough to pass the Investigative Judgment, then you will be saved! No, indeed, here is what the Bible says in Romans 10:8,9 paraphrased from memory:

“If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, YOU WILL BE SAVED!”

Notice, it doesn’t say, ‘you might be saved if you can stand before God without a mediator in the tribulation, and then pass the Investigative Judgment! It also doesn’t say, “you will be saved if you can resist the devil enough”

No, this is an unconditional promise to all those who have truly been born again. Unless a person is truly born again, he cannot have Jesus as Lord, and cannot have the promise of salvation.

Guibox, I apologize if my original post above was starting to sound like some other web sites. I value your participation and insight, and even though we disagree on some issues, we also agree on others. I guess the issue of Justification by faith alone is one of those doctrines that can never be compromised or negotiated on, and I have remained very passionate about for many years. This is why I feel the way I do about SDA and RCC.

Stan

Posted anonymously by: Phen

This may be off topic but I could not resist.
I read part of the above mentioned newsletter(couldn’t bring myself to complete all the rhetoric).
It made me chuckle about his mention of the oncologist in Kalamazoo who he thought issued “blunt directives, which ignored other possible conventional and unconventional treatments, reminded me of those old time professors who have lectured from the same set of old yellow notes for the past 30 years.They are too lazy or self confident to upgrade themselves.”
Interesting that a lot of people think the same way about how the SDA church handles those who “see” something different from the conventional SDA thinking!Shut up and take our treatment or get booted out.
Thank you Lord Jesus that you are the way, the truth and the life.
To answer Glenspring,my belief now is that the church is just a body of believers that love Jesus and are not necessarily housed in a building. I will attend concerts and things that relatives invite me to attend.I know all about not neglecting the assembly and all that. Isn’t this forum an assembly? God is so good, he uses whatever method so people can still touch people.
I see a lot in the bible where God was even more concerned with feeding the hungry, taking care of those who need help and other things and not necessarily pampering the toddlers.They need to read for themselves and grow up into Christ by taking of his word, wrestling with it for themselves and developing spiritual muscles, so they can defend the faith they believe and know why they believe it, not just repeat what the “giants” tell them.

Could either Guibox or Phen link us up to that article both of you mentioned by Bacchiocchi. In fact it is worth a separate thread of discussion.

Stan

Posted anonymously by: Phen

Here it is. Hope this works.

Phen, I fixed the formatting on your link.  For future reference, there are some instructions on how to format links and text style here.  You can also simply paste a website address in and it will show up as a link without any additional formatting.

Perhaps it would be better to follow Stan’s suggestion and open a new thread dedicated to this.  Guibox, could you pull out the Bacchiocchi quotes you would like us to evaluate and put them on a new thread?  This way, we can all read them without wading through a PDF file.

Greg