I posed this question at ProgressiveAdventist forums a while back. No one commented on it, but the idea has re-emerged here in our discussion on the Sanctuary thread.

http://progressiveadventism.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=66

Hi Glenn,

While I don’t have an easy answer for you, your post and New Mexico’s comments have given me food for thought.  I’m very familiar with the distinction between law and grace found in dispensationalism, but I had not thought about Adventism fitting this paradigm because of their emphasis on the old dispensation of law.  I guess in that respect, they would fit more into the “restorationist” camp, but New Mexico’s post yesterday gave me something new to consider.

One wonders whether the early Adventists were reacting to their dispensational roots by forming a restorationist movement, but the heavy dependence upon something new beginning in 1844 gives the appearance of restorationism wrapped up in dispensationalism.  This is all very confusing, of course.

In a way, Adventism functions more heavily in the dispensational mode because the premise is that the church has “the most truth” of any Christian in the history of the church.  For instance, until the testing truth of the Sabbath and Sanctuary were fully realized by the Adventist founders, Christians were operating with less than complete knowledge about God’s will for humanity.  How could Martin Luther, for instance, be so strong on the gospel of grace while not apprehending the great “truth” of the sanctuary doctrine?  How could the apostle Paul not warn the church of the investigative judgment that would begin in 1844?

Adventism cannot rightly claim the title of restorationism, because they claim something new began in the 1800s.  So functionally, maybe they have unwittingly embraced a dispensational position.  But in doing this, they ignore that Jesus Christ is the final and complete revelation of God’s will for humanity.  “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.” (Hebrews 1:1-2 ESV) If Jesus Christ is the final word of “these last days”, any new truth that comes along must be measured by the final revelation of Jesus.  If the new teaching does not measure up to God’s Word and particularly, Jesus’ life and teachings, it is highly suspect.  For example, Jesus never referred to an 1800-year period when he would be relegated to the Holy Place nor did he foreshadow a period of time when sinners would be left to stand on their own merits without his mediatorial work.

Glenn, thanks for stimulating my thoughts on this.

Greg

Very interesting topic Glenn!

Since you and I are familiar with the arguments on Revival Sermons about living in “The Day of Atonement”, I found this quote from Dennis Priebe on the link you provided to be very interesting:

Quote:
“People sometimes wonder why Seventh--day Adventists advocate “higher” standards than those found in the Bible, such as vegetarianism, and abstinence from alcohol, dancing, and jewelry. Are we just being Victorian, and should we abandon some of these outdated standards? The truth is, if we examine the Bible carefully, we can find several things that God permitted because of His mercy and because of the blindness of men’s eyes. In other words, God adapted His ideal will for mankind to the less than ideal cultures in which He found His people. To put it simply, He permitted things that we are not comfortable with today.

God permitted and even blessed the practice of polygamy in the Old Testament. In fact, the twelve tribes of the chosen nation came directly out of a polygamous marriage. God allowed and even gave laws regarding the practice of slavery in the Old Testament. Today we view slavery with great abhorrence as a moral evil, but the Israelites kept slaves on a regular basis. God permitted and even encouraged the armies of Israel to engage in bloody battles, sometimes commanding that they destroy the enemy completely, right down to the livestock. If we wanted to find proof texts allowing us to do all of these things, we could easily find them.

The only way we know that these things were not God’s ideal will is by studying the principles in the whole Bible, particularly in the New Testament. We see that God took His people where they were, sometimes in primitive cultures, and led them on gradually toward His ideal will. He revealed and commanded things only as His people were able to understand and respond to new truths. It would be a terrible mistake for us to ignore later revelations of God’s will and go back to doing things which He permitted because of the hardness of men’s hearts. Therefore we would not think of practicing polygamy, slavery, and warfare today.

This is the reason that we can find evidence that God allowed meat-eating, drinking, dancing, and jewelry in certain instances in the Bible. In all of these cases, we can also find evidence that these were not God’s ideal will, but this is often ignored when people want to do certain things which the church opposes. It is relatively easy to find texts which will allow the practice of all these things.

The most important principle which should govern our choice of lifestyle today is the Day of Atonement principle. On this most serious day, in which we live, are we going to ask what is allowable? Are we going to ask what the minimum requirement is for being a Christian? Are we going to go back to the times of ignorance and primitive beliefs to determine our way of life? Or will we focus on the maximums rather than the minimums? Will we seek to live as close as is humanly possible in a world of sin to the way of life in the rest of God’s perfect universe? Are we willing to let God’s grace save to the uttermost, to do the most possible in human lives scarred by sin and ignorance of God’s will?

There is an important principle in Ecclesiastes 3:1-4. “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to he born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance.” In other words, things are not always wrong in and of themselves, but they are inappropriate at certain times. There was a time for killing and breaking down, but now is the time for healing and building up.

The real question for us is, On the Day of Atonement, when everything is on the line for us and for Gods name and His government, is this the time for laughing and dancing? Or is the appropriate time for such behavior when the great controversy is over, and God has refuted all of the false charges brought by Satan? There will be abundant time to laugh and dance on the sea of glass, when the victory is won, but that is not today. The issue is, very simply, what is timely and proper for the Day of Atonement. We read earlier that the Day of Atonement was a time to afflict our souls, to confess our sins, and to walk humbly before God. Is not weeping and mourning more appropriate spiritual behavior right now than laughing and dancing?”
-----------------------------------------------------

Wow! This is incredible. So, because since 1844 we are now living in “the Day of Atonement”, then, that explains why it was OK to eat meat and drink wine in Paul’s day, but not today. At least, an extreme conservative like Dennis Priebe now admits that Paul allowed for drinking wine. But now they come up with a reason, and a twist I never heard before. No, the Bible was not talking about grape juice after all, as Sam Bacchiocchi claimed very disingeniously, but it was real wine, so now we are living in a different time period since 1844

I never thought of this before. Oh, yes, Larry Lyons got upset at me over there, because I thought square dancing was OK, and he admitted that it may not be wrong in itself, but in light of living in the Day of Atonement, then the angels would not approve of this kind of fun. Wow!

So, Glenn, Conservative SDAs have taken dispensationalism to a new and different level.

Stan

I don’t recall ever really hearing this view growing up, but I remember hearing someone say it--we’re living in the Day of Atonement, so we shouldn’t really be eating tuna fish, etc--at a small conservative SDA church I attended in the early 1990’s in NJ. 

Of course there were a lot of general references to the fact that we needed to be prepared for Jesus’ second coming so we needed to be scrupulous about things, but it wasn’t spelled out in such specific, dispensationalist terms. 

Posted anonymously by: John Douglas

Shades of the ‘Testimonies’

Ah! That’s the Church I remember so well from 35 years ago when I joined. Of course none of this was initially evident and when it did pop up I thought it was a local anomaly. It has taken all this time to fully understand just how dysfunctional the entire denomination truly is. I excuse myself by reasoning that I spent most of the time in the liberal left coast church, but the signs were there if I had wanted to see them. Thanks to the internet and great forums such as this one, now I see. For the SDA Church to eschew EGW and the subsequent IJ would be to lose their identity as the ‘remnant’ church and suppositories of ‘truth’. All they would have left would be just the ‘gospel’ and their identity would just ‘Christian’.

No joy in Mudville

JONVIL

John, I agree with your observations.  If all a Christian is left with is the revelation of Jesus Christ in the gospel, he still has everything.  If an individual or a church believes this is “settling” for something, they don’t see how all-encompassing the gospel really is.  Paul endeavored to know only “Christ and him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:2), but now we have churches endeavoring to teach “Christ plus [insert your favorite “testing truth” here]”.

Along those lines, yesterday I ran across a Mormon website displaying the slogan “Truth Restored”, where they are selling a “restored gospel”.  There is a definite parallel to Adventism here in the idea that the Christian church is apostate and must be separated from, under the unique prophetic insights of the “restored” church.  There are several videos on the Mormon site that are fascinating to watch because they show how laypeople buy into the false teachings of Mormonism purely on the basis of their own emotion.  One woman even volunteered that she had been an “intellectual Christian” for most of her life, but Mormonism appealed to her emotional side in a way that was “so much more powerful” than the intellectualism of Christianity.

The truth of Christianity is rooted in history and in facts that are understandable and not self-contradictory.  Too many people make the error of boiling Christianity down to a leap of faith without reason, setting the stage for any group that comes along proclaiming a new “truth” based on non-verifiable prophetic claims.  What is really precious is the very foundation of Christianity–Jesus Christ and his gospel–but the new teachings deflect attention away from Jesus and insert a desire for something unique that most Christians have missed.  These groups thrive on the need for people to feel special or to have hidden insights.  Simply being a Christian is apparently not special enough.

Greg

[quote author="Greg"] There are several videos on the Mormon site that are fascinating to watch because they show how laypeople buy into the false teachings of Mormonism purely on the basis of their own emotion. One woman even volunteered that she had been an “intellectual Christian” for most of her life, but Mormonism appealed to her emotional side in a way that was “so much more powerful” than the intellectualism of Christianity.

I’ve wondered what the appeal of Mormonism is? I undertand they are growing much more rapidly in the U.S. than the SDA church is.

I do think they are more systematic in their approach (the two year missions, for example), and although they are very secretive, they seem to be more “evangelical” than Adventism. Just an impression.

Posted anonymously by: John Douglas

Greg wrote:

“Too many people make the error of boiling Christianity down to a leap of faith without reason”

I believe this to be symptomatic of the change in our society’s thought process from objectivity to subjectivity over the last 50 years or so. We have become a nation of ‘feelings’. “Get in touch with your inner child, feel good about yourself, warm fuzzes, touchy feely, truth is relative” now permeates the national consciousness.

I do not believe that this trend is reversible and I have absolutely no idea on how to combat it personally but I know that God can, but as long as people stubbornly cling to emotions as an indicator of value this will continue to be the result:

“One woman even volunteered that she had been an “intellectual Christian” for most of her life, but Mormonism appealed to her emotional side in a way that was “so much more powerful” than the intellectualism of Christianity.”

You can substitute Mormonism with Purpose Driven, Emergent, JW, EGW…

God’s word is objective truth

The existence of Jesus is an objective reality

My belief in God’s promises and my assurance of salvation by God’s grace through faith in Jesus is a result of reason not emotion!

Isa 1:18 “Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the LORD, “Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool.

JONVIL

I actually believe the Adventist church is a hodgepodge of often incompatible beliefs, however the sanctuary teaching with the close of probation etc. clearly came from a man who was a dispensationalist.  Here is one sample comment in which his dispensationalism is very evident.

I think we have misunderstood the 7th verse, We have understood or explained the 6th verse as the language of the angel, but the 7th as a declaration of John; whereas both verses are the language of the angel, the 7th being a qualification or explanation of the 6th, showing the manner in which time should close. The angel of the Philadelphia church, having “an open door,” gave the midnight cry with the solemn assurance of this oath. He swore, or positively declared, “That there should be time no longer, but in the days of the verses of the 7th angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets."--There are “days"(plural) in which the 7th angel begins to sound. Whether these days are literal or symbolic\, which is most in accordance with the character of this book, they denote a short period of time, in which not only the 7th angel begins to sound, but the mystery of God is finished also. Thus we see that the mystery is finished, not in a point, but in a period, and while the mystery is finished, the 7th angel is beginning to sound. What is the mystery to be finished? “The mystery which was kept secret since the world began, but is now made manifest.” The riches of the glory of this mystery is Christ in you, the hope of glory, Col. 1:27. “The mystery of Christ, which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, so it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the spirit; that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel;” Eph. 2:4-6. It is the dispensation of the grace of Christ in the Gos. Dis. It is the period of hope and heirship. While we hope we pray for the object of hope, and that is glorify—as exhibited on the Holy Mount, immortality, the Kingdom and society of Jesus. Until these are obtained we hope; and while we hope the mystery is not finished.--Again, we are heirs during the mystery of God, and when that is finished, we shall become inheritors. We must therefore conclude that the mystery of God will end with the mysterious change from mortal to immortality; 1 Cor. 15:51-54. Then as the Dispensation of the fullness of times begins with the 7th trumpet, and the Gos. Dis. reaches to the resurrection, it is manifest that the Dis. of the fullness of times, begins before the Gos. Dis. ends.--There is a short period of overlapping or running together of the two Dispensations, in which the peculiarities of both mingle like the twilight minglings of light and darkness.

This was also the manner of change from the Dispensation of the Law to the Gospel. Gabriel said to Daniel, “Seventy weeks are determined upon they people and upon thy holy city.” It is presumed that all agree that these 70 weeks reached to the end to the legal dispensation and no further. The Messiah came at the end of the 69 weeks and began to preach the gospel, (Mar. 1:14,15; Mat 4:23) which Paul calls the New Covenant. And he confirmed this covenant with many for one week, the laast one of the 70. Hence, the legal Dispensation ended seven years after the Gos. Dis. began; and this last symbolic week of one was the the first of the other; and while one was being finished, the other was being introduced and confirmed or established. Whether that period is an express type of the crisis period between the God. Dis. and the Dispensation of the fullness of time or not, it furnishes a strong argument from analogy, corroborating the plain testimony of the Word, that there must be such a period. I see no evidence that the latter must be of the same length of the former: To learn its length we must have recourse to other sources of evidence. Yet there is a striking similarity between them. At that time the world and the mass of God’s professed pe9ple were unbelieving, and greatly indifferent about the transpiring events in the Providence of God, momentous as they were. The adherents to the new era were a sect everywhere spoken against. They had little or no reverence for the old and commandment nullifying traditions of Judaism. They were called movers of seditions, endangering the peace and nation; drunken, because filled with the Holy Ghost; and mad because mighty in truth. They had peculiar faith; and their preaching and conduct were such as to cause the professors to accuse them of breaking the law; and finally they denounced and excluded the whole Jewish nation of religionists in mass for their infidelity.--The teaching and practice even of our Saviour and the apostles appeared to them contradictory--at times they seemed to recognize the authority of the law, and then again totally to disregard it, and insist upon the new order of things. He resolved their ten commandments into two, dismissed the woman without being stoned according to the law, forgave sins without the legal sacrifices, healed without inquiring to offer according to law, and that even on the Sabbath day; and yet declared that he came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. Again when he had healed a leper, he charged him to go and show himself to the Priest and offer for his cleansing those things which Moses commanded. He also ate the Passover according to law. Both he and his apostles, on some occasions excluded, and on other admitted the Gentiles to privileges, which according to the law could be enjoyed only by the Jews. Thus they recognized the precedents and claims of both dispensations at the same time; one entering and displacing the other, not instantly, but gradually, by a succession of events, each distinct in itself, but all connected in harmony, transpiring in fulfilment of prophecy, and forming the circumstances of the Advent, which was one distinct event, and the nucleus of the rest. A little before his crucifixion Jewsus came as King to Jerusalem, the Metropolis and Capitol of that Dis.; the City was under his absolute authority for a time; he had declared its house desolate and now entered and cleansed the temple.

The true position of Seventh-day Adventists is not dispensationalism in any sense.  Scripture teaches quite plainly that we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone. Eph 2:8,9 That salvation reality applies to every human being from Adam to the last human born in this world.  Adventists, like myself, have fully accepted this salvation reality.  Unfortunately, not all Adventists understand this truth because of the subtle galatianistic legalism that even now still remains among professors of Adventism.  There is only one way to the Father....through the shed blood of Jesus...that applies to all human beings, bar none.

The question is, even though we cannot “help God” to save us by any of the fruits of the gospel (ie. repentance, confession, temperance, etc.) do we or do we not have a choice in receiving the absolutely free gift of salvation in Christ OR are most subscribers to this forum advocates of the hyper Calvinistic teaching of Sovereign Blueprint theology that teaches a limited atonement?

Blessings,

Aeoleanharp

Gal 6:14 But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.

Hi Aeoleanharp, thanks for sharing your thoughts and welcome to 4TG!

I affirm your understanding of the gospel and your reference to Ephesians 2:8-9.  I agree with you that many Adventists don’t understand this truth because of the emphasis on certain works that must be performed to differentiate the Adventist from the rest of the Christian world.  This ultimately leads down the same path of the Galatians, where they insisted on circumcision in addition to faith in Christ in order to accept brothers into Christian fellowship.  But as the apostle Paul forcefully declared, anyone who teaches the formula “Christ plus _____” is teaching a “different gospel” which is really no gospel at all (Galatians 1:8-9).  Paul went further than this, saying that anyone who preaches this gospel is accursed, using the strongest language possible to emphasize his point.  It’s interesting that he used much harsher language in dealing with the Galatians compared to the way he treated the wayward Corinthians who were openly engaged in all manner of immoral behavior.

No amount of Sabbath-keeping, purity of diet, wearing of certain clothes, avoiding jewelry, etc. will stand in our defense on the day of judgment.  If we are relying on these things in addition to the finished work of Christ, our trust is still to some degree within ourself.  As the apostle Paul said, if righteousness could be obtained through the law, then Christ died for no purpose (Galatians 2:20-21).  The problem with Adventism is not necessarily that they worship on a different day or have a different standard of diet or dress, but that many Adventists come to see these identifying doctrines as the way to the Father, rather than flowing out of being saved by the Father through faith in Jesus.  We are on very dangerous ground if we think our good works will somehow recommend us to Christ, and we cheapen the price he paid on Calvary if we believe our good works supplement his finished work.

The next point you make about hyper-Calvinism and the sovereignty of God is an important one.  While many who participate on this forum would identify themselves as adherents of Reformed theology (known as Calvinism within the Christian world), I don’t know anyone here who subscribes to a hyper-Calvinistic position.  Furthermore, we also have Arminian brothers here who we differ with, but nonetheless respect.  Hyper-Calvinists teach that anyone subscribing to an Arminian position cannot possibly be saved, but Calvinists would never teach such a thing.  One of the most famous Calvinists was the preacher Charles Spurgeon, who had the highest regard for the Arminian preacher John Wesley even though they disagreed strongly on their understanding of God’s sovereignty.

Hyper-Calvinists believe that man is ultimately a passive agent and his actions are all predetermined by God, so the issue of obedience and even evangelism are left for God to accomplish with or without man’s input.  Calvinists, on the other hand, believe that while God sovereignly saves, it is our responsibility to live a life of obedience to him and to preach his gospel to the entire world.  We do not know who God will save in this process, but we understand that God works through our preaching of the good news to save sinners.  This is encapsulated by the apostle Paul in Romans 10:14-17: “How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!’ But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, ‘Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?’ So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.”

Lastly, Spurgeon himself fought against the hyper-Calvinists of his day and offered some sage words in this regard:

[quote author="Charles Spurgeon"]
I do not think I differ from any of my Hyper-Calvinistic brethren in what I do believe, but I differ from them in what they do not believe. I do not hold any less than they do, but I hold a little more, and, I think, a little more of the truth revealed in the Scriptures. Not only are there a few cardinal doctrines, by which we can steer our ship North, South, East, or West, but as we study the Word, we shall begin to learn something about the North-west and North-east, and all else that lies between the four cardinal points. The system of truth revealed in the Scriptures is not simply one straight line, but two; and no man will ever get a right view of the gospel until he knows how to look at the two lines at once. For instance, I read in one Book of the Bible, “The Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.” Yet I am taught, in another part of the same inspired Word, that “it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.” I see, in one place, God in providence presiding over all, and yet I see, and I cannot help seeing, that man acts as he pleases, and that God has left his actions, in a great measure, to his own free-will. Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act that there was no control of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to atheism; and if, on the other hand, I should declare that God so over-rules all things that man is not free enough to be responsible, I should be driven at once into Antinomianism or fatalism. That God predestines, and yet that man is responsible, are two facts that few can see clearly. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one part of the Bible that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find, in another Scripture, that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is only my folly that leads me to imagine that these two truths can ever contradict each other. I do not believe they can ever be welded into one upon any earthly anvil, but they certainly shall be one in eternity. They are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the human mind which pursues them farthest will never discover that they converge, but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring.

Source here.

For more on the distinctions between Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism, see Phil Johnson’s primer.

Aeoleanharp, I realize some of this terminology might be new to you or perhaps I did not word my explanation clearly.  Please let me know if you have any additional questions, and again, welcome to 4TG!

Greg

Thanks Greg for the voluminous reply.  I am familiar with all the terminology in your post and am delighted to see that Spurgeon, who I know was a believer in Calvinism was not a hyper-Calvinist.  It is well known that God used him mightily to covey much spiritual truth in perfect harmony with the gospel of grace.

I am a reformer of sorts within Adventism and having read the articles of belief signed by yourself and 3 others I am pleased to see your positions.

What you have expressed regarding the many works peculiar to Adventism (health reform, diet, modesty in dress, temperance etc.) contribute absolutely nothing to the salvation status of any individual but nevertheless are indeed the fruit of the Spirit expressed in the lives of believers as works of faith.  These works of faith are demonstrative, (not meritorious for salvation), of the presence of Christ in the life of the believer.  When Christ is thus revealed in the lives of those who have responded to the gospel, people are drawn to Him through said believers and God is glorified.  The truth of justification by faith lays the glory of man in the dust.

True believers in the gospel of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone are growing in number among Seventh-day Adventists. 

In your profile form none of the descriptions of “kinds” of Adventists are fitting for myself or other Adventists of like mind.  We are independent thinkers who rely upon the Bible alone as the final authority for all teaching and doctrines.  Ellen White is the most misunderstood religious figure in modern history IMHO.  Her enemies castigate her without having read her full commentary on many subjects by selective excerpts that can convey error without contextual relevance to her entire comments on a subject.  Scripture can also be thus wrested and truth perverted.  I am not of the camp that exalts Ellen White to infallibility but I also do recognize that there is much excellent light and Biblically based truth in her writings and commentary.  She was not a theologian...she was a godly woman who was used by God to help guide and form the core beliefs of Adventists. 

Again, for me, the Bible alone is the measuring stick of truth.  If any of Ellen White’s writings are contrary to contextually, hermeneutically, exegetically FAIR AND ACCURATE expressions of Scriptural truth then I can easily dismiss such writings as error, recognizing that Ellen was not perfect or infallible.  Part of the great problem within much of Adventism is that there are too many who have mistakingly elevated her to such an unwarranted position and status.

In any event I look forward to edifying and stimulating conversations within this forum.

Blessings,

Aeoleanharp
Gal 6:14 But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.

Hi Aeoleanharp,

Welcome to 4TG!

I concur with Greg that we are not hyper-calvinists, as their theology is every bit as bad as more extreme Arminian theology which is historical Adventism.

You wrote this:

“True believers in the gospel of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone are growing in number among Seventh-day Adventists.”
--------------------------------------------------------

Do you have documentation that this statement is true?

I would rejoice if this is indeed true. It seems like the real evangelical SDAs left around the time of the lynching of Desmond Ford. I live in SoCal, where I see liberalism, and cultural Adventism as winning the day. There is a strong affinity for SDA churches here to align themselves with the Rick Warren seeker-sensitive gospel, which makes little of the wrath of God, and the certain judgment of God.

Do you believe in the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment?

Stan

Hello Stan

Thanks for the warm welcome.

You asked me two questions:

“Regarding the growing number of Seventh-day Adventists who believe in the gospel of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone are growing in number among Seventh-day Adventists.”

1st Question: Do you have documentation that this statement is true?

I have no poll verification or written documentation but I do know that more and more of the Adventists in my sphere of contacts are definitely increasing in number.  Any honest student of Scripture will believe the genuine gospel if it is clearly shown to them from the Word of God.

2nd Question: Do you believe in the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment?

Not as traditional historic SDA’s teach it but indeed as truth revealed in the Scriptures.  It is quite frankly very encouraging. Understanding it from Scripture as part of the final eschatology leading up to and beyond the Second Coming of Jesus brings tremendous clarity and assurance of the objective facts of the gospel as the foundation for the subjective experience and fulfillment of the gospel promises to those who have received the free Gift of Christ and His righteousness.

By the way, not only in SoCal but in much wider circles throughout North America, Adventists are being led and drawn into the Rick Warren apostasy which is part of the Emergent Church phenomena that not only denies the necessity of the Atonement but welcomes cross-less and Christ-less spiritual movements (ie Buddism, Hinduism, Islam, etc) into its fold!

Not only is this movement dangerous to Adventists but to any and all Bible believing Christians who believe in sola Bible, sola grace, sola faith, sola IN CHRIST, sola Glory to God.

Is there any discussion of the “Emergent Church” in this forum?

Blessings,

Aeoleanharp

Gal 6:14 But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.

Hi again Aeoleanharp,

BTW, how did you get your screen name?

I must admit, that you are a little different than most SDAs I have met, and fit seemingly a different category. Most “evangelical SDAs” have actually become more liberal, and accept the Seeker Sensitive movement.

But you appear to be a more conservative evangelical SDA, and this is why I would be so interested in corresponding with you on this in email

I would have to ask, what still keeps you in the SDA church, where, at least officially Ellen White’s version of the IJ is still held up as official dogma?

There are still very difficult passages from Ellen White to just explain away.

Do you believe a person will be lost if he doesn’t keep the literal Sabbath as a 24 hour day?

Stan

The SDA Church uses a dispensational approach in its understanding of the Seven Churches of Revelation. It furthermore, validates that approach by identifying itself as the Remnant Church or the substrate for the Remnant Church. While not dispensational in the classic sense--its eschatology contains elements of a unique style of dispensational analysis. Therefore, its Soteriology is colored by its understanding of last day events--particularly in relation to a “final generation”. In this sense the Seventh-day Adventist Church is both dispensational and legalistic. That does not mean to denigrate many fine Christians within its fellowship nor does it mean that they should be shunned or not welcomed into the fellowship of believers. Salvation is not in what we know but in whom we believe.  If anyone believes in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and trusts in Him alone for their salvation, they are fellow Christians.