[quote author="New Mexico"]
By making belief in Mrs. White’s authority mandatory for new members, it has eliminated those who would like to join the church but don’t believe in her.  Although I’m a fourth generation Adventist, I know my children will never be members of the SDA church for that reason.

I must politely disagree with this. Nowhere does it say that a belief in ‘EGW as an authoritative source of truth’ as stated in the Fundies is a requirement for baptism. There are so many different views by baptized SDAs that it would be ludicrous to nail a person down to one view that many in the church don’t share and require it of a person.

Here is what FB #15 on baptism requires:

It is by immersion in water and is contingent on an affirmation of faith in Jesus and evidence of repentance of sin. It follows instruction in the Holy Scriptures and acceptance of their teachings.

At the 2005 GC in St.Louis, the 13 baptismal vows were summarized into three short points. Look closely at number 2 which might seem to support the view that we must believe in EGW as a requirement):

1. Do you accept Jesus Christ as your personal Savior and Lord, and do you desire to live your life in a saving relationship with Him?
2. Do you accept the teachings of the Bible as expressed in the Statement of Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and do you pledge by God’s grace to live your life in harmony with these teachings?
3. Do you desire to be baptized as a public expression of your belief in Jesus Christ, to be accepted into the fellowship of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and to support the church and its mission as a faithful steward by your personal influence, tithes and offerings, and a life of service?”

Nowhere does it say ‘to accept that EGW is an authoritative source of truth as expressed in the FBs’ At the least, one might be required to believe in the concept of spiritual gifts, the spirit of prophecy being one of them, to be baptised, not that one must accept one specific view of EGW and her role in the church.

[quote author="New Mexico"]
However, I do have to say that labeling any organization even the Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormans a “cult” bothers me.  Neither one of those organizations are a threat to my life or liberty.  I’m much more concerned about another religion which doesn’t appear in Walter Martin’s books which saws off people’s heads with rusty knives.  That is the religion I worry about.

Look at what was stated about some of the controversies about SDAism on religioustolerance.org:

Cult Status: Several prominent theologians, including ex-members of the Seventh-day Adventists, have stated in the past that the SDA church is a cult. In doing this, they do not imply that the church is a mind control cult or a doomsday cult, but simply that some of their beliefs deviate from those of traditional, conservative Christianity. Some attackers have quoted isolated writings of some members of the church and incorrectly asserted that the thoughts represented official church doctrine. Some of the criticisms include:

**That the writings of Mrs. White are considered on a par with those of the Bible: inspired by God and infallible.

**That the SDA church bases some of its doctrine on the writings of Mrs. White.

**That the atonement of Christ was not finished at crucifixion.

None of the above criticisms are valid. Most Christians and Christian organizations now regard the Seventh Day Adventist church simply as a non-cultic denomination with some unique beliefs

Yes New Mexico, I am from Loma Linda graduating from med school 76 B. For other questions feel free to email me at

I know what you are saying about labeling even JW’s or Mormons a cult. Cult is not really a Biblical term, but Paul was very concerned about the proliferation of false teachings as evidenced in Galatians 1:8,9:

8"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.”

So Paul was concerned about those who would add requirements of salvation to the basic simple gospel of grace. The book of Galatians should be a solemn reminder of the seriousness of adding works of the law to the gospel.

Stan

I must politely disagree with this. Nowhere does it say that a belief in ‘EGW as an authoritative source of truth’ as stated in the Fundies is a requirement for baptism. There are so many different views by baptized SDAs that it would be ludicrous to nail a person down to one view that many in the church don’t share and require it of a person.

Here are the authoritative fundamental beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist church which deal with inspiration:

1. Holy Scriptures:
The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God’s acts in history. (2 Peter 1:20, 21; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Ps. 119:105; Prov. 30:5, 6; Isa. 8:20; John 17:17; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:12.)
http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html

18. The Gift of Prophecy:
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. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.)
http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html

When they are baptised, the candidate is quizzed before the congregation and must make vows to the congregation.  The church manual states why they have to make these vows:

Baptismal Vow and Baptism
Baptismal Vow—Candidates for baptism or those being received into fellowship by profession of faith shall affirm their acceptance of the doctrinal beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in the presence of the church or other properly appointed body. (See p. 31.) The minister or elder should address the following questions to the candidate(s), whose reply may be by verbal assent or by raising the hand.
http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/church_manual/Seventh-day-Adventist-Church-Manual-17th-edition.pdf p. 32

Here are the relevant vows:

8. Do you accept the biblical teaching of spiritual gifts and believe that the gift of prophecy is one of the identifying marks of the remnant church?
11. Do you know and understand the fundamental Bible principles as taught by the Seventh-day Adventist Church? Do you purpose, by the grace of God, to fulfill His will by ordering your life in harmony with these principles?
http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/church_manual/Seventh-day-Adventist-Church-Manual-17th-edition.pdf p. 33

A alternative version of the vows reads as follows:

2. Do you accept the teachings of the Bible as expressed in the Statement of Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and do you pledge by God’s grace to live your life in harmony with these teachings?http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/church_manual/Seventh-day-Adventist-Church-Manual-17th-edition.pdf p. 33

In addition to the vows, the candidate is expected to make a series of commitments which includes the following statements:

8. I accept the biblical teaching of spiritual gifts and believe that the gift of prophecy is one of the identifying marks of the remnant church.
11. I know and understand the fundamental Bible principles as taught by the Seventh-day Adventist Church. I purpose, by the grace of God, to fulfill His will by ordering my life in harmony with these principles.
http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/church_manual/Seventh-day-Adventist-Church-Manual-17th-edition.pdf p. 35

I agree with you to the extent that for someone who doesn’t know much about Mrs. White, a pastor might baptize him with the expectation that when he becomes “rooted and grounded,” he will accept her.  However, it is highly improbably that someone who knows a great deal about her and tells the pastor he completely rejects her prophetic authority will be baptised.  How can anyone accept the “fundamental Bible principles as taught by the SDA church” and reject EGW?  I suppose someone could cross his fingers behind his back and focus on the word “Bible” and claim they claim the “Bible” principles but not the “man made” principles such as Mrs. White and hope the pastor didn’t use the Alternative Version of the vows which explicitly states “the Statement of Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.” Besides the Statement of Fundamental Beliefs, what definitive list of “fundamental Bible principles” does the church teach?

I know personally I could not stand before the church and make all those promises that I know and accept the fundamental Bible beliefs of the SDA church when I know full well I reject one of the church’s most important fundamental beliefs which specifically mentions Mrs. White as a prophet with authority.  I realize the experience of people in other places may be different than mine in NM.  To me if I have to play sematic games to join a church, I’d just as soon remain outside.

I know what you are saying about labeling even JW’s or Mormons a cult. Cult is not really a Biblical term, but Paul was very concerned about the proliferation of false teachings as evidenced in Galatians 1:8,9:

It is probably no big deal.  My point is, why do we not call the Hindus, the Buddhists, the Muslims, and yes the Roman Catholic church “cults?” What criterion do we use when we label a group a “cult?” I agree about the importance of the gospel, but none of those groups hold the gospel as I understand it.  To me a “cult’ is a dangerous group which practices mind control techniques on it’s members.  I understand Walter Martin used the word differently, but still don’t understand his criterion for choosing some groups and not the others I have mentioned.

Yes New Mexico, I am from Loma Linda graduating from med school 76 B. For other questions feel free to email me at

Thank-you for the answer. 

[quote author="guibox"]
I must politely disagree with this. Nowhere does it say that a belief in ‘EGW as an authoritative source of truth’ as stated in the Fundies is a requirement for baptism. There are so many different views by baptized SDAs that it would be ludicrous to nail a person down to one view that many in the church don’t share and require it of a person.

Guibox, “New Mexico” has posted the baptismal vows which do indicate that affirmation of the fundamental beliefs is required of new members.  It’s just common sense that a member baptized into a church would agree, in principle, with the beliefs of the church they are joining.  Fundamental belief #18 is very clear that Ellen White is a continuing and authoritative source of truth.  If a prospective member doesn’t believe this, he should not be baptized into the Adventist church.

Greg

[quote author="Greg"]
Guibox, “New Mexico” has posted the baptismal vows which do indicate that affirmation of the fundamental beliefs is required of new members.  It’s just common sense that a member baptized into a church would agree, in principle, with the beliefs of the church they are joining.  Fundamental belief #18 is very clear that Ellen White is a continuing and authoritative source of truth.  If a prospective member doesn’t believe this, he should not be baptized into the Adventist church.

Greg

I believe I have posted the three alternate views that were accepted by GC for baptism. nothing in them states that accepting EGW in the way that the fundamentals say it is a requirement for baptism.

Whether a person would want to join if they don’t believe in the FBs is not the point.

The problem is that I can still believe that EGW is an ‘authority’ and even a ‘source for truth’ without believeing that she was verbally inspired or an exegete of scripture and history. I believe that EGW was inspired. I believe that God revealed to her some very good counsel (that was not plagiarized) in a way that most Christian writers today could not express better. I believe her counsel was valid for specific people in specific situations and not necessarily a blanket statement for everybody even in the 21st century.

Just because my view of inspiration doesn’t agree with the official statment of the church (which didn’t exist in the 1931 FBs, BTW) doesn’t mean that I still couldn’t be baptized.

Do you agree with everything in the church you follow?

According to the FB #15 as I quoted, being baptized isn’t all about ‘joining the club’. It is 1) repenting of sins, 2) willingness to follow Jesus Christ. According to the FB and the 3 alternate criteria for baptism, there is nothing saying that I must or should agree with FB #18 as is worded.

[quote author="guibox"]
I believe I have posted the three alternate views that were accepted by GC for baptism. nothing in them states that accepting EGW in the way that the fundamentals say it is a requirement for baptism.

Whether a person would want to join if they don’t believe in the FBs is not the point.

I must respectfully disagree with you on this point.  Even if there are a hundred “alternate” baptismal vows, the doctrinal statements of a church are still important because they describe what the church stands for.  If a prospective member cannot endorse these statements, he’s doing himself a disservice by joining because he’s compromising his beliefs and lending his credibility to a church he cannot fully support.

[quote author="guibox"]
The problem is that I can still believe that EGW is an ‘authority’ and even a ‘source for truth’ without believeing that she was verbally inspired or an exegete of scripture and history. I believe that EGW was inspired. I believe that God revealed to her some very good counsel (that was not plagiarized) in a way that most Christian writers today could not express better. I believe her counsel was valid for specific people in specific situations and not necessarily a blanket statement for everybody even in the 21st century.

This goes back to the topic of the thread–the sanctuary and investigative judgment doctrines.  Ellen White gave prophetic endorsement to these doctrines.  These are the only distinctive doctrines of the Adventist church and form the denominational “platform of truth” according to Ellen White.  These doctrines strike at the heart of justification by faith alone and the gospel of Jesus Christ by removing the assurance believers have in Christ.  Desmond Ford knew this and so have many others, before and since.

I don’t want to nit-pick at Ellen White and rehash all of the arguments against her because the anti-gospel stance she endorsed in the doctrine of the investigative judgment is more fundamental than anything else.  The Word of God gives the strongest warnings for anyone who would tamper with the gospel (Gal. 1:8-9, for instance).  Even if some of what Ellen White wrote was good counsel, she still undermined the gospel by teaching the investigative judgment.  The Adventist church continues to publish and promote the books containing this teaching and many people still take them very seriously, further obscuring their view of the gospel.

[quote author="guibox"]
Do you agree with everything in the church you follow?

Yes, and if I find that they are teaching error when compared to the biblical standard, I am free to move on to another church that does not.  Many within Adventism do not realistically have this option because they believe they would be leaving the remnant church.  I can give you story after story of friends who have left Adventism for agnosticism or atheism because they found this more reasonable than joining a Christian church, since they had been conditioned to believe these “Sunday churches” were part of Babylon.

Greg

I believe I have posted the three alternate views that were accepted by GC for baptism. nothing in them states that accepting EGW in the way that the fundamentals say it is a requirement for baptism.

Whether a person would want to join if they don’t believe in the FBs is not the point.

For me whether someone can join the church without accepting the Fundamental Beliefs is exactly the point.  The vows I posted came directly from the General Conference Headquarters.  They say specifically that the vows are designed to be certain the baptismal candidate knows and believes the “doctrinal beliefs” of the SDA church.  I don’t know how someone could honestly stand up in front of the congregation and vow that they accept and intend to follow the beliefs of the church when they reject one of the Fundamental Beliefs.

In my family this is not a hypothetical argument.  We have prepared our children to worship with other church groups specifically because of this situation.  We reject Mrs. White’s prophet authority and therefore although the SDA church is our heritage we have no alternative but to look to another church for our children.

This rigid creedal structure called the Seventh-day Church which we see today is not the one which my great-grandfather joined and worked.  At that time the SDA church maintained that “the Bible is our creed.” Although the church pretends the Fundamentals aren’t a creed, by forcing all new members to accept them before baptissm, they have established one of the most rigid creedal organizations in all of Christendom.

By demanding that everyone accept Mrs. White’s prophet authority, the church has clearly stepped away from the Bible.  SDA ministers love to rub other minister’s faces in Sunday, and love to brag about how much more Biblical the SDA teachings are, and yet they force people to accept Mrs. White without any Biblical support whatsoever.  In all the many years I’ve been in the church, I’ve yet to see one Bible text which states, “In the last days, I will send a prophet which you must accept, her name will be Mrs. white.  You will know the true church because it will be the one which accepts Mrs. White’s prophetic authority as one of it’s fundamental beliefs which all new members must vow to believe.” Indeed, since I have been unable to find this text where the Bible has made belief in any specific modern prophets any type of test whatsoever, I am forced to the conclusion that Fundamental Belief number 18 is a completely “man made” doctrine which is absolutely unBiblical.

The problem is that I can still believe that EGW is an ‘authority’ and even a ‘source for truth’ without believeing that she was verbally inspired or an exegete of scripture and history. I believe that EGW was inspired. I believe that God revealed to her some very good counsel (that was not plagiarized) in a way that most Christian writers today could not express better. I believe her counsel was valid for specific people in specific situations and not necessarily a blanket statement for everybody even in the 21st century.

I don’t work myself into a lather about what other people believe so long as they respect my freedom to believe differently.  Since the Bible has not made made belief in any specific modern prophet a test, I can not accept it when someone tries to bind my conscience regarding a modern prophet called Mrs. White.  I’m perfectly willing to tallk, to reason, with them and will listen to what they have to say, but I will not allow someone to try to force me to accept an extrabiblical belief like that.

In the years I’ve been an SDA I’ve never tried to force someone who disagrees with me to be silent but the believers in Ellen White have gone to great lengths to make sure I don’t speak in church since they can’t stand it that I don’t accept her.  Although I’m a physician who is well known and respected in my community, I haven’t been allowed to preach or teach in the local SDA church for 15 years because I don’t accept Mrs. White’s authority.  I finally stopped going to Sabbath School because the members would get too distressed when I would speak up.  The lengths to which Ellen White devotees will go in order to silence other members who don’t accept her authority is quite amazing.

I’m not sure that this unfortunate behavior is really new, since John Harvey Kellogg was probably disfellowshipped largely because he didn’t accept Mrs. White’s authority.  However, when I was young, the church was led by spiritual giants like HMS Richards senior, who was a Bible believing Christian of the first order.  At that time, the ministers tried to base their sermons on the Bible, and on the Bible only.  That is the church into which I was baptised and to which I still belong, even if only in memory.  The church I was baptised into actually followed the dictum, “the Bible is our only creed.”

As I have indicated, I don’t like to call any group a “cult,” even those who are clearly not Christian, unless they are practicing dangerous mind control techniques on people or unless they use coercion to force people to follow their teachings.  The gospel is “good news” and we Christians have such a positive message to give the world, there is no need to dwell on the negative.  Of all the religious groups, I have found none which has such a positive message for the world, “God loves us so much he gave His only begotten Son to die for us.”

The more and more I study it, the more and more I see how far we have gone from what the church used to be, New Mexico. You are correct. From the statements and attitude I’ve seen from HMS Richards Sr, he would have been branded an apostate from many conservative SDAs...and this was in the 20s and 30s.

You would think that if any era of the church would be uber-conservative it would have been the 20 or 30 years since the turn of the 20th century. Yet even in the 1800s we had James White adamantly opposed to any sort of creed. We have people like A.G. Daniells who knew EGW intimately (well, not like THAT!) saying that EGW was not an exegete in scripture or an authority on historical matters (and he said she admitted this), and we have HMS Richards who preached the gospel and using his common sense and logic, found the balance between SDA standards and Christ instead of falling into absolute legalism over it.
So how in the world did we end up in the situation we are in in the 21st century?? The church has moved backwards. The church was the closest to normality 70-80 years ago!

Something is wrong with this picture. 

New Mexico and Guibox,

I have been away for a few days, but I appreciate your comments above.

I think the evidence is that HMS Richards Sr. was clearly a true Christian preacher, and he spawned a lot of other excellent preachers. But since the Desmond Ford purge in 1980, I think any glory that SDA could claim has clearly departed now. I don’t see any favorable signs right now. They know that the traditional teaching of EGW on the Investigative Judgment cannot be upheld, so instead of honestly dealing with this, they re-invent the doctrine by saying God’s character is vindicated by the IJ (this strikes in the face of God’s sovereignty) and try to find some way to salvage an unbiblical doctrine.

For you New Mexico, it looks like the solution is finding another church that is faithful to the gospel, even though we don’t agree with all the doctrines. I just slightly differ from Greg, in that I don’t accept every single doctrine of the PCA church I attend, as I won’t accept Sunday Sabbath or eternal torment, but everything else I agree with, and nothing I disagree with is central to the gospel. But with SDA, I see a difference since the only unique doctrine is the IJ and 1844 which actually tampers with the gospel in a way that I am very uncomfortable with.

However, I am not necessarily an advocate of all SDAs suddenly leaving especially if they can be an influence for the gospel as long as you can stay and be an influence.

Stan

[quote author="Stan Ermshar"]
However, I am not necessarily an advocate of all SDAs suddenly leaving especially if they can be an influence for the gospel as long as you can stay and be an influence.Stan

I think (like the Catholic church during the Reformation), the SDA church as a whole doesn’t have a stranglehold on doctrine and church membership like they did during the 70s and early 80s. The fact that there is so much that many conservatives would call ‘apostasy’ going on in the church today with no serious repercussion shows that they have basically thrown their hands up, calling it ‘prophecy fulfilled/the great shaking’, and stopped trying to ‘kick everybody out’ (though that does go on on a smaller scale). The current trend seems to be appealing to those who disagree to ‘go elsewhere’.

Frankly, despite some of our prophetic interpretation I disagree with, if I left the church now it would be because of politics and abuse not theology. You can still take the IJ and 1844 and put it on one side and the amount of error I see in many other churches still tips the scales. As a matter of fact, were it not for our wonderful church family we have here, my wife and I would probably go back to the NT ‘church home groups’ and avoid the organized church all together.

Hi Guibox,

Respectfully, theology is a study about God. And how we think about God is extremely important.

The gospel is primary.

But I agree with you that the politics and corruption in SDA are also horrendous.

Stan

[quote author="Stan Ermshar"]
Hi Guibox,

Respectfully, theology is a study about God. And how we think about God is extremely important.

The gospel is primary.

But I agree with you that the politics and corruption in SDA are also horrendous.

Stan

And this is why I am bringing up the ‘eternal torment’ and how serious it is. Some say ‘I’m sure glad that this is not an issue of salvation’ which is basically a cop out because they can’t properly explain the contradictions. To me this has to be one of the most serious attitudes one can take, to cavalierly dismiss something like this without feeling any need to reconcile the contradictions but still avidly promoting it as truth.

Well, it may not be an issue of salvation for them, but for someone else it very well may be. Misrepresenting the character of God is a serious thing. Especially when someone claims that this is the ‘truth’ and all others that preach contrary to that are ‘doing the works of the devil’. This is a seriously gross misrepresentation of who God is and contrary to what many say, it could very well be an issue of salvation to someone who sees the misrepresentation of it all and turns away because of the error.

Okay, I’m going to stop talking about eternal torment now unless it is a separate topic!  8)

Guibox,

Again I must politely assert that the argument you are proposing is a red herring.  Whether hell lasts 5 minutes or 5 millenia does not change the gospel message.  Hell is still a terrible reality spoken of by Jesus and the apostles using the strongest language.  If someone is bothered by eternal torment they will certainly object to the wrath of God lasting for any period of time, no matter how finite.  The reality of hell is biblical and should not be minimized; the recorded words of Jesus refer to hell more often than heaven.

Furthermore, there is no comfort in knowing that the sinner is annihilated because he will still consciously experience the wrath of God.  If this makes us uncomfortable, we should contemplate God’s holiness and his justice.  If our sin does not demand his righteous wrath, then Jesus died for no purpose!  Without God’s righteous judgment and wrath, there is no reason for atonement.  Again, whether one believes hell is eternal or finite does not change the fact that we are commanded to preach the gospel and literally pull sinners from the fire.

“But you, beloved, build yourselves up in your most holy faith; pray in the Holy Spirit; keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life. And have mercy on those who doubt; save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh.” (Jude 20-23 ESV)

Contrast the controversy about eternal hell with the investigative judgment, where the reality of the gospel is fundamentally distorted.  God says that as far as the East is from the West, our sins will be removed from us (Psalm 130:1-4), yet the doctrine of the investigative judgment says our sins are meticulously recorded to be reviewed in front of the entire universe.  Jesus says that whoever believes in him has inherited eternal life (present tense) and will not come into judgment (John 5:24) yet the doctrine of the investigative judgment says you cannot ever really know you are saved until the books are opened and reviewed.  Remember that after this doctrine was formulated, generations of Adventists were taught that even one unconfessed sin could disqualify a Christian from inheriting the kingdom.  Whether today’s Adventist believes this or not, the church is still struggling under the weight of it.

Greg

Greg, while I will agree with you the fundamental flaws of the IJ in its historical form, I guess we will have to agree to disagree on whether annihilation and eternal torment can be comparable in reflecting or distorting the character of God.

To me annihilation is merely a carrying out of the sin principle. We are sinners condemned to death. Were it not for Christ’s intervention, we would simply suffer the wages of sin. The fires at the end of time, though obviously ‘painful’ are merely the means to an end and punishment is secondary to eradication of sin which takes sinners down in its wake.

Eternal torment on the other hand serves no purpose whatsoever but to punish with no sense of fairness, logic, justice or mercy. It shows that by sinning, man condemned himself to a fiery torture that already existed and serves simply to punish the ‘wrong doers’.

What we have here is a fundamental flaw in the loving nature of God that the entire gospel emanates from. We cannot accurately preach the saving gospel of a God who ‘loved sinners so much that He gave His son’ to ‘save us from the effects of sin’, when the illogistics of it is that He did not come to save us from the effects of sin but a fiery hell of His own creation for the sole purpose of punishment. He also made the wicked immortal so they could feel the full effects of this hell.

I again must voice my strong opinion that such a doctrine does nothing but take away the joy of the gospel (that Christ came to remove my death penalty my sin brought on to give me life) to an entire gospel of fear (By sinning, man has condemned himself to God’s own fiery punishing creation and if I do not choose Him, I have thus placed my life in His vindictive hands’)

Dang it! There I go again talking about eternal torment when I said I wouldn’t! 

Guibox, I totally hear where you are coming from.  From a logical standpoint, it’s difficult to reconcile God’s love and his wrath.  If we are being honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that there are just some things we don’t understand, such as how God can choose some for eternal life while passing over others.  But as the apostle Paul says in Romans 9, what right does the pot have to ask the potter “Why have you made me like this?” All I can say is that God is totally sovereign and whatever he does is right.  I don’t pretend to have all the answers to these questions, because knowing the answers is tantamount to knowing the mind of God.

But let’s at least agree on one thing: the basic message of the gospel should never be debated.  We should not attempt to minimize God’s grace, the great price he paid on the cross, and the gratitude we who are born again should have for him.  When a church begins to tamper with the gospel such as the historic Adventists have done in promoting the investigative judgment, the magnitude of God’s grace is diminished and the gospel is fundamentally altered.  Put another way, the good news is no longer good news if being “saved” qualifies you for a comprehensive investigation before the entire universe!

Praise God that we can say, with the psalmist:

“If you, O Lord, should mark iniquities,
O Lord, who could stand?
But with you there is forgiveness,
that you may be feared.” (Psalm 130:3-4 ESV)

Can we at least agree on this? 

Greg