In the spirit of searching and in the spirit of “semper reformanda” (the church is always reforming) I decided to share this short excerpt from the SDA biblical research institutes’ study on the remnant church concept from Revelation. This has long been one of the issues I held with my church, so for a while it has also been the product of study and prayer. During that study I read this article from the Biblical Research Institute. Before I ask for opinions or open dialogue I would like to mention my motives in posting this. By no means do I want to add fuel to the fire that many use to harshly criticize the SDA church even to the point of calling it a tool of the devil. I would like all discussion on this to be in the spirit of Christlike searching and speaking the truth in love. WIth that said I would invite you to read the excerpt below.
in the previous sections we have analyzed the lack of consensus on the concept of the remnant among some Adventists, the solutions suggested by them and the biblical background needed to clarify this issue. As we now attempt to further clarify the topic of the remnant we should keep in mind that we have become who we are today because of our peculiar message and identity. A radical redefinition of those elements could be extremely damaging to what we are attempting to do in the world. Therefore, if an element of discontinuity is present in our attempt to clarify what we mean by the title “remnant church,” this element must retain at the same time a very strong continuity with our past experience and theology. With this in mind we must now look at the remnant in the book of Revelation and its application to the Adventist Church.
This is taken from a paper written by Angel Manuel Rodriguez from the Bibilcal Research Institute on the Remnant Church.
I would like opinions on the following potentially troubling nuance that I see in this passage. I do not think it is outrightly expressed but there is a potential for a hidden might I even say subconscious thought process contained within the line of reasoning used in this passage of what is in essence a reluctance to too drastically redefine or reform present beliefs because it would damage the church and its ability to be a force in the world. Where I think the danger could come in (and feel free to correct me if im wrong) is what if a certain belief proves to have a certain unscriptural nuance to it or even be completely unscriptural would the church then be reluctant to change it due to it being inconsistent with “past experience and theology?” I would think it would be very important to examine everything by the bible and if it is determined to need refining we should repent and refine even it is fundamentally damaging to the church. Any opinions on this? I would ask that we examine this carefully instead of falling to the trap of criticism without thorough research. Perhaps an examining of the entire document along with this statement in context would be beneficial. (especially to insure my strong anti remnant concept feelings have not clouded my judgment )
Thanks for the link. Simultaneously, official Adventism finds its “remnant” teaching comforting and discomforting. They are experiencing alot of pressure from inside Adventism as well as from the Evangelical world. The whole issue boils down to the fact that they believe in having the exclusive franchise from heaven.
Our Catholic and Mormon friends believe the same way. Adventists are now between a rock and hard place because if they redefine “remnant” in any way it nullifies Ellen White’s statements. In short, they are stuck with what they have. Otherwise, it would have a serious domino effect and self-destruct their entire belief system.
ChiaPet, you quoted the following from the SDA BRI:
.. in the previous sections we have analyzed the lack of consensus on the concept of the remnant among some Adventists, the solutions suggested by them and the biblical background needed to clarify this issue. As we now attempt to further clarify the topic of the remnant we should keep in mind that we have become who we are today because of our peculiar message and identity. A radical redefinition of those elements could be extremely damaging to what we are attempting to do in the world. Therefore, if an element of discontinuity is present in our attempt to clarify what we mean by the title “remnant church,” this element must retain at the same time a very strong continuity with our past experience and theology. With this in mind we must now look at the remnant in the book of Revelation and its application to the Adventist Church.
Then you stated:
I would like opinions on the following potentially troubling nuance that I see in this passage. I do not think it is out rightly expressed but there is a potential for a hidden might I even say subconscious thought process contained within the line of reasoning used in this passage of what is in essence a reluctance to too drastically redefine or reform present beliefs because it would damage the church and its ability to be a force in the world.
If you know me from my other posts on this forum; you would be aware that I am neither SDA nor former-SDA. This background or lack of affiliation is perhaps an advantage when looking at statements such as those you quoted above. I’d like to assure you that first and foremost on my mind is to hold a Christ-like respectfulness, concern, and love when proffering opinions on this forum.
ChiaPet, Is the “troubling nuance” that you’re sensing, that you think the BRI author is saying: “We must be careful to not shake the table upon which the house of cards is built!” ?
I must admit that this was my impression.
I don’t know how to say this without the appearance of prideful thinking but here goes…
I must also admit that I would be shocked if my church leadership were worried about: “if an element of discontinuity is present in our attempt to clarify what we mean by” (any published doctrinal statement...)! I don’t know precisely how the process works. But If there was scripture found that showed clearly that we (the church) had made a doctrinal error, I assume that church leadership would then debate it, and prayerfully decide if a change in doctrine was merited.
I believe that the inherent stability of having a sole source of scriptural authority makes this possible. As the inspired Word and the actual Word of God, the Holy Scripture is infallible. We need not fear the Word of our Lord, only the error of men.
ChiaPet, If I’m way off the mark on this please forgive me and correct me!
I think you got it exactly. That is why someone speaking from an objective standpoint is important. What you described as being afraid “to shake the table on which the house of cards is built” is the exact same impression I got when I first read the paper. Ive really always had the thought process that the idea of the remnant was a little to exclusivist for my taste, and I dont think I am by any means alone in that thought within Adventism. I read that paper because I was looking for more biblical support then is usually given for the idea of the remnant; and to be honest I thought the same thing you mentioned when I read the section that I quoted. Which I think, while attempting to stay in the spirit of Christlikeness, is potentially a very dangerous thought process.
I’m not sure how truly “objective” I am in all of this as I have a brother (whom I love greatly) that has been a Seventh-day Adventist since the early 1980s.
There have been references made in this forum to the “tearing down of the pillars” when referring to the words or actions of those who disagree with SDA doctrine. Based upon what we are discussing here, I would say that the SDA “pillars” are placed on at least two different foundations. Adventism has at least a veiled connection to “faith in Christ” as the sole path to salvation and the Father. This is a foundation of solid rock upon which all true Christians depend. However, at least one SDA pillar is founded on Ellen G. White’s writings and doctrine. I think that this foundational duplicity, is a major source of instability and strife for the Seventh-day Adventist.
We can certainly see the struggle. It does look to me that the author Rodriguez clearly sees the problem with the traditional teaching. The one encouraging note, is that I doubt that we would see a Mormon official writing in the same way as we see Rodriguez writing. Reading between the lines, Rodriguez clearly sees the problem with the traditional position. If Adventism wants to truly escape the “cultic” label, then it must abandon the idea that they are the remnant church of Bible prophecy. Any such an idea is an affront to the gospel.
I just wanted to set the record straight that it was ChiaPet that started this chain and shared the link to the BRI report…
I see that your post was done in the late hours, I hope that your beloved Marti is continuing to improve! My prayers are with you both, especially during the Easter holiday…
ChiaPet, I personally don’t have a problem with the article. I doubt many others have actually read it before commenting, however, the writer first examines the OT references to remnant, NT references to remnant and then Revelation references. He then examines the churches stand, EGW comments and logic. He finally draws the conclusion that the historical view makes sense. I agreed with him.
I’m encouraged that people in our church have different views and that these views are considered and tolerated. Seems to me a very balanced approach.
Thanks for the link, I thought it was a great read.
Like with the Bible, Adventist apologists pick and choose whatever appeals to them--even from their revered prophetess. Consequently, with such a low, humanistic view of inspiration, the White Estate found it necessary to create the so-called “thought inspiration” alibi due to the many contradictions and heresies found in the writings attributed to Ellen White. Moreover, the SDA Church has officially replaced and deleted key words in some of their doctrinal statements (i.e., the words “all-sufficient” and “unerring” were REMOVED from their statement on the authority of Scripture).
For example, in their 1957 doctrinal book entitled “Questions on Doctrine” (page 11) the words “all-sufficient” and “unerring” were rightly used to describe the Holy Scriptures. However, subsequent official SDA doctrinal pronouncements have carefully omitted those important words. Official Adventism does not believe that “inspired” equates to being “God-breathed.” Of course, I realize that the QOD book was only published to deceive Dr. Walter Martin and the Christian world so that they could get their name off the cult list. Truly, some religionists have no shame or remorse in their underhanded way of doing things.
Wondered if you knew if there were any Adventists in an official (or unofficial) way, in Waco, trying to help the negotiators to perhaps understand the mindset of the Davidians. I remember seeing someone in an official capacity distancing the Adventist church from them, but did anyone try to help?
It is my understanding that official Adventism did not want any part in being even remotely perceived as having any commonalities with the Branch Davidians. Seventh-day Adventist public relations directors worked diligently to get the public to think that there were no meaningful similarities of belief between the two groups. However, both groups still share the same extrabiblical authority, day of worship, state of the dead, eschatology in many ways, US vs. THEM mentality, remote and sheltered campuses, health message, ad infinitum.
Truly, the Adventist apologists could have been a major help to the FBI in resolving and/or understanding their strange beliefs and lifestyle. More than 90 percent of the Branch Davidians were reportedly staunch believers in most points of Adventism, and some were still technically members of the SDA Church as well. Of course, the late David Koresh was once a member of the SDA Church and even attended an Adventist school.
Interestingly, the LDS (Mormon) Church is acting very similar with the current crisis in Texas with the Fundamental LDS polygamous group. In truth, the LDS share the same prophet and extrabiblical writings with the FLDS offshoot movement. Recent polls indicate that Mormons currently lose as many members, in the United States, as they gain. Like with Adventism, most members now reside in third world countries where access to information technology is either limited or unavailable.
Thanks Dennis...just as I suspected it would be. I would have been shocked to have heard of anyone from the SDA church trying to help out. It’s all about keeping their image untarnished. It’s not about doing the right thing.
Like with the Bible, Adventist apologists pick and choose whatever appeals to them--even from their revered prophetess. Consequently, with such a low, humanistic view of inspiration, the White Estate found it necessary to create the so-called “thought inspiration” alibi due to the many contradictions and heresies found in the writings attributed to Ellen White. Moreover, the SDA Church has officially replaced and deleted key words in some of their doctrinal statements (i.e., the words “all-sufficient” and “unerring” were REMOVED from their statement on the authority of Scripture).
For example, in their 1957 doctrinal book entitled “Questions on Doctrine” (page 11) the words “all-sufficient” and “unerring” were rightly used to describe the Holy Scriptures. However, subsequent official SDA doctrinal pronouncements have carefully omitted those important words. Official Adventism does not believe that “inspired” equates to being “God-breathed.” Of course, I realize that the QOD book was only published to deceive Dr. Walter Martin and the Christian world so that they could get their name off the cult list. Truly, some religionists have no shame or remorse in their underhanded way of doing things.
Dennis Fischer
I guess Adventists are guilty then, like your denomination, for trying to follow the example of Jesus, in being selective in what we say, to whom, and when. There is nothing wrong with that; it is quite Biblical to do so.
The article being referred to above re The Remnant Church has been selectively quoted and referred to by so called Reformation Theology adherents, ignoring the actual and expressed context of same by the author. He is not expressing confusion or doubt about the Adventist position on this point:
However, it is our duty to keep the Christian world properly informed concerning who we are and what our mission is. Any misconception in their minds must be eliminated. If what we claim to be is true, then, we have no choice but to reach out to the Christian world in an effort to share with them, in a winsome way, what we stand for, avoiding as much as possible alienating them. Yet, there is the possibility that some Adventists may have overreacted to the accusations of our evangelical friends modifying our image beyond what would be compatible with the mission assigned to us by the Lord
)
