Dear Friends on 4TG,

This evening I had a long and interesting conversation with one of my Adventist friends who is questioning.

This past fall he was asked to teach the lessons on the 1844 Sanctuary Doctrine at his local church. He declined as he stated that he had some challenges with the historic understanding, and in good conscience could not teach it.

Complaints and accusations were made about his ability to hold church office given this revelation, and this past week he was grilled as to his beliefs by the Church board Chairman, Pastor, and Conference President, for 2 and a half hours. He was quite taken aback that his relationship with Christ was not taken into consideration, or that he lives an honorable Christian life. This treatment has him seriously questioning whether he can maintain ties with an organization that has this type of inquisition on such a dubious understanding of Scripture.

Please pray that the Lord will continue to lead Him as he grapples with a church that puts questionable doctrines ahead of the sincerity of a person’s Christian walk.

On another note, I received a call from the church that I submitted my resignation letter to 17 months ago. They have finally completed the paper work, and the Chairman and Pastor have asked for a meeting to, I guess to give me the official disfellowship apostacy document.

I said I would be happy to meet with them as I have never met the Pastor, and look forward to a time of sharing.

I am asking for your prayers that my witness will be Spirit led, and that some understanding might come of this meeting.

I am not clear as to what their expectations are, so I have prepared a small package of material that I found helpful in my study and solidified my position to leave Adventism.

It includes,

1) a supportive letter from one of the Adventist Review Editors, regarding my challenging several Adventist doctrines.
2)An excellent commentary on Romans 14 by Dr. Mike Andrus.
3)A compilation of commentaries on Colossians 2:16-23 from the website preceptaustin.org, along with comments by Bruce Goettsche and John MacArthur.
4)John Reisinger’s The Believer’s Sabbath
5) An interesting 27 page article called “The Christian and the Ten Commandments”
6)Greg Taylor’s book on the New Covenant
7) Raymond Cottrell’s “Sanctuary Doctrine--Asset or Liability”

I ask for your prayers as these gentleman will be challenged to even consider reading this material. I noted in my letter of introduction to the material that I am not the first to leave Adventism over theological differences, and I will no doubt not be the last.

I am presenting this material to them in hopes that they will gain a better understanding as to why people leave.

I am also going to emphasize that I am not looking for debate. If they choose to read the material or not is between themselves and God. I will entrust it’s influence to the Holy Spirit, and they can determine in their own minds where they stand regarding these doctrines.

I appreciate your prayers regarding this meeting,

Randy

For those on this board that are still Adventist, and especially those employed by the denomination, I think this serves as a warning that maintaining your anonymity is a very wise decision. I find that necessity repugnant, and disturbing in this day and age, and in countries that pride themselve on free speech and freedom of religion.

Randy,

As you can well guess, seeing that we move in the same circles and you know where and for whom I work, I am very disturbed by this revelation. Most likely I would know the person, the pastor and church you speak of and I assumed so, but never confirmed, that the spirit that persecuted Des Ford is still active and alive in our church.

The sad thing is, that the only reason things like this occur is because people verbally make their problems known. I can count on at least one hand off the bat people in our circles (most likely in the same church as this gentleman) and including myself, who chose not to teach that quarter in our churches (or were very selective of which week to do) due to the same reasons.

Honestly, I don’t think the pastors would have any time to give the third degree to all those within six degrees of separation of this man in our Adventist community who have issues with this doctrine. We are more and more like the Catholic Inquisition as time goes on.

What can we learn having different views in the church?

“Keep your mouth shut and there should be no problems”.

What are we? Communists??

Randy, if you feel fit or that it is appropriate, I would like to know who the people are involved...though I can probably already guess the church.

PM me if you’d like.

As for your meeting with my pastor to confirm your resignation, he is a decent guy and a good thinker. I always enjoy his sermons. He is an evangelist so they are interesting, dynamic and interactive.  He has a very nice family too. It shouldn’t be anything uncomfortable with him.

Guibox, in light of how the church is even treating Randy, it seems like the unique doctrines DO TAKE PRECEDENCE over any possible relationship to Christ. I have to say that what RandyG is facing, is indeed the dark side and cultic spirit of Adventism. I know there are fine Christians in the SDA church, but it is getting more difficult for me to avoid thinking about regarding Adventism as definitely bordering if not outright in the Kingdom of the Cults. Southern Calif Adventism is different, but in many places it is a liberal social club. I will though, continue to pray for the church of my youth, that they will come to see the light of the gospel, and truly join the larger body of Christ.

Stan

I must agree with Stan on this one.  I think we’ve been pretty charitable about the Adventist church in our discussions here in the past.  I don’t have an axe to grind about whether to classify the church as a cult or not.  Personally, I am much more interested in whether individual Adventists have heard the gospel without all the denominational strings attached and whether they have been born again (John 3).

But when we keep hearing about people coming under scrutiny because of their lack of willingness to recite the party line about the sanctuary doctrine, now 25 years after Glacier View, it’s more than a little disturbing.  If the church has moved so far away from making the sanctuary doctrine a test of fellowship, why is this still happening, even in geographical areas that are supposed to be more “progressive”?

At some level, people know that the sanctuary doctrine is at the foundation of what the Adventist church teaches.  All the unique denominational claims are indeed built upon this teaching.  Throw Ellen White into the mix and you’ve got a volatile combination.

Where are the modern-day Adventists who are willing to stand up and say “Enough!” Where are the theologians who know the biblical languages and know that the sanctuary doctrine cannot be supported by Bible study alone?

Guibox, as you said, this is starting to resemble communist Russia, where people were afraid of speaking their conscience for fear of retribution.

Greg

As I mentioned on another thread (and I agree this probably deserves its own thread of attention) I find the church’s reaction in this brother’s particular case to be pretty unusual from my experience.

But I can sympathize with this brother’s position as the last set of Sabbath School lessons I was involved with teaching was the latest 1844 quarterly, which I guess was about a year ago or so. And there were parts I certainly had difficulty being faithful to, in so far as it was being depicted in that week’s lessons. And that, in part, led me to take a break from teaching.

What’s doubly confusing about all of this is I doubt you can find one Adventist in five, or one SDA in ten who can tell you what the doctrine actually is. The Cliff Goldstein approach is basically to go through the mathematics of the date, and talk about why Antiochius Ephinanes cannot be the desecretator of the temple in Daniel 8, etc. Beyond that, there’s not much there. It’s a sort of circular rationale. 1844 is important because it validates the church’s existence, the purpose of which is to...state how 1844 and the 2300 day prophesy validates the church’s existence.

This, the matter of 1844 validating the church’s existence, may lay at the heart of why this brother is being challenged to this degree, as opposed to anything related to the IJ itself.

And that this brother holds some sort of church office (besides teaching?) may also be a matter of concern to some, not so much his church membership per se (which I certainly hope would not be at issue).

And again, this is all a bit unusual in my recent experiences in the churches I’ve attended where there is some fluidity involved with regard to the Sanctuary doctrine and how people actually understand it. All the same, I was uncomfortable enough with the traditional stance to take a sabbatical from teaching (on my own accord I might add--there weren’t any complaints about me that I know of).

A final note; I’ve been making a few trips to the ABC here recently and have noticed what I believe to be a burgeoning of new SDA literature on the sanctuary, probably driven by the growing doubts about the doctrine among the membership, if not among many in the church’s elite itself.

[quote author="glennspring"]
And that this brother holds some sort of church office (besides teaching?) may also be a matter of concern to some, not so much his church membership per se (which I certainly hope would not be at issue).

But this is what I was saying. The issue is not what this man believes but that he made the unfortunate mistake of saying it out loud. If the church heirarchy even knew half of what people who hold church office really believed or thought, they’d run screaming for cover never mind screaming for resignations.

Once it is vocalized, the cat is out of the bag and no amount of attempts to compromise are accepted. Somehow, this persons discretion to use their judgment in what they say and teach is now in question, even though they never ‘said or taught’ what they believed in their heart before.

It is encouraging hypocrisy. Kind of the same policy as homosexuals in the military.

This happened to Des Ford. He made it quite plain that he was never going to ‘air’ or ‘teach’ his personal views again and respect the code. That was not enough for them. Even though Ford could have kept his mouth closed and nothing would have changed in the way he approached his teaching even though he felt the way he did.

As in the case of Ford, so in the case of the brother Randy speaks about. It is only enough for the church leaders to now know that brother so and so feels this way, even though his methodology would not change in the least from before to after the revelation.

I am told by my mother and father that I had a favorite blanket.  I carried it everywhere.  It became tattered, torn, and worn. My mother kept cutting off the ragged edges until I was carrying only a 4 inch square of blanket, but I still wouldn’t let go until--our dog got a hold of it and torn it into little threads.

The SDA church is down to the 4 inch square stage and are fighting to keep the “dogs of doubt” away. That means “cutting” off all stringers. I recall, the Constituency Meeting prior to the Board Meeting in which the purge occured at SMC. I was elected to the study committee to bring in the report. The object was to impower the Church to take what ever action necessary to stem the heresy at Southern.  I was in the minority. The Chairman read the report to the entire delegation. Prior to the vote there was a brief period of “discussion”.  I asked for the floor, I told the story of the new personnel director at a cottom mill in the south who set a goal of every employee contributing to the United Way. One employee was proud of his record of having never contributed to United Way. The employee was called into the personnel director’s office.
The director invited the employee to take a seat. He then pushed two pieces of paper in front of the employee. The Director said: “One is a contibution to the United Way, the other is your resignation! You may sign either, I don’t care which.” The employee came out of the office and was immediately was surrounded by employees who asked: “Did you Sign, Did You Sign?” The employee said, “Yes, of Course!” They responded: “Why?” The employee said: “No one ever explained United Way like he did!” After a short pause, I said: “No body every explained the Investigative Judgment like our chairman just did!” Even Neal Wilson, had to stifle a laugh.  Now Clif Goldstein has given the local elders power to purge once again. Never-the-less the secruity blanket of Dan. 8:14 is down to its final 4 inches.

Wow, Thank-you for your prayers and thoughtful comments. To briefly clarify, I believe this gentleman’s membership was not being questioned for personally challenging Goldstein’s depiction of 1844 BY DECLINING to teach that quarter. But rather, whether he was fit to continue holding a teaching position, and maintaining the church office he currently is in.

There are 7 SDA churches in this community, and I have not been specific out of respect for his privacy. What I find additionally disturbing, is that the members of the inquisition wanted it all to remain hush, hush. So much for open dialogue and discourse.

As mentioned in Cottrell’s paper, Adventists have been disfellowshiped over the years for merely thinking that the Sanctuary doctrine is suspect, let alone even privately questioning it, as is INFERRED here by declining to teach it.

Glenn, the continued endorsement of this doctrine is not only because it justifies Adventism existence, but more importantly is the fact that it was endorsed through vision by Ellen White. If you let go of the questionable fundamental belief, you dismiss the legitimacy of Ellen White’s prophetic gift, and considering her a “continuing and authoritative source of truth”. Both quite devastating to the continued existence of the Adventist Church as we all know it, but also quite ironic, in that neither have an ounce of importance regarding your or my salvation.

Guibox, I am sad to say this situation is closer to home than either of us would care to believe. Enough said.

Thank-you all again for your comments and thoughts,

Randy

Guibox, that was very deep, true and insightful.

Glennspring, I’d add that one of the problems is that Adventism was set up on top of the Sanctuary. The founders began the church’s existence on 1844.

[[popping back out to continue working & changing diapers]]

Good evening 4TG friends,

I would like to thank-you for your prayers, and give a brief report of the meeting I had with the local Adventist Pastor and Board Chairman.

They had wanted to deliver the official letter that action had been taken on my request to have my membership dropped. So I invited them to stop by my office after work. Which they did.

I had never met this Pastor before, and was quite impressed in that he seems like a very nice fellow. I have known the chairman for years and he is a great guy too.

I thanked them for their kindness in delivering the letter personally and then invited them in to sit by the fireplace so I could share a few thoughts.

I think I caught them a little by surprise, as I read a 3 page letter I had prepared, basically covering the items I mentioned in the first post on this thread.

After I shared my thoughts and explained the materials I was sending home for their consideration, I asked if they would be willing for me to offer a prayer.

I thanked God for them and their Christian influence, I asked for the Holy Spirit to guide them in their study of the materials I had presented to them and I thanked the Lord for continuing to guide us into truth, and to safe guard us from error.

The Pastor said he would definitely read the Cottrell paper.

We made some small talk about the rationale of having Cliff Goldstein write the lessons on 1844, as he is more of a mouthpiece than a theologian.

I suggested to the chairman that as his daughter teaches New Testament in the Seminary at Andrews, he could call her if he was troubled by the commentaries on Romans 14 and Colossians 2:16-23 that I sent along.

Over all I think they were a little speechless, but a kind and loving spirit was there in our sharing.

Again, thank-you for your prayers,

Randy

Praise God Randy for that report!

You may have planted an important seed in that meeting. God has promised that His Word will not return void.

Stan

Randy,

I’m glad things went well and I’m glad that you got a good impression of my pastor as I figured that he would handle himself with tact and respect.

Posted anonymously by: Larry

RandyGerber said:

the continued endorsement of this doctrine is not only because it justifies Adventism existence, but more importantly is the fact that it was endorsed through vision by Ellen White. If you let go of the questionable fundamental belief, you dismiss the legitimacy of Ellen White’s prophetic gift, and considering her a “continuing and authoritative source of truth”. Both quite devastating to the continued existence of the Adventist Church as we all know it, but also quite ironic, in that neither have an ounce of importance regarding your or my salvation.

Hold on a minute Randy. The SDA sanctuary doctrine does have alot to do with your salvation, or lack thereof. Galations 1:8 twice states that if you teach any other gospel than what Paul got it vision, then you or an angel teaching it would be damned. So there is salvific value there.

The problem with SDA sanctuary hallucinations is that they claim in the “SDA’s Believe” book, page 316, that “the Levitical priesthood illustrates the saving ministry Christ has carried on since His death”. That in itself is a baldfaced LIE about the very tail end of the gospel, where Jesus offered his blood once and for all, then became a priest for us in the ORDER OF MELCHIZIDEC so stated in Hebrews no less than 7 times!

The devil knows what is in scripture, and he knows how to get people damned, by preaching another gospel. He has done a pretty good job within that particular organization. Even EGW states on page 17 of Early writings that she saw in VISION that the plan of redemption came together AFTER the fall of man, not before as mentioned in 1 Peter 1:20. So here is the “prophet” tweaking the extreme opposite end of the gospel. Ya think the devil had nothing to do with that? He knows Galations 1:8 !!

Larry, point well taken.

I guess I was being a little timid in my statement.

Thank-you for pointing out with clarity, the results of preaching and teaching ANOTHER Gospel.

Randy

One of the things, as I think I have mentioned before, that I have noticed about anti-Adventist cult groups, is how they always seem to specialize in generating “true” reports which do nothing but defame the character of individuals, or organizations within their target group.

What are the main features of such reports?

1) They criticize someone’s character and motive, sometimes with stoic anecdotal references to hated doctrines, but the major offensive is always on the personal integrity level. This website is rife with such insults to the truth.

2) They come without evidence

3) It is always claimed they don’t need/can’t provide evidence for such stories.

4) Such reports never contain the gospel; only condemnations; and the condemnations being based solely on the fact of their targetted denomination being Adventist, the sincerity of their walk with Christ is axed from the picture.

5) Claims of being “charitable to Adventists” even while the venom is pouring from your doctrinal fangs.

“Questioning Adventism” stories always act as if such things never happen in other churches, within other denominations. You take the same spirit that went after Ford to new heights, under the guise of “truth” to do to your Adventist targets, what you accuse them of doing at one time, or presently to you. The Bible has a name for that.

Protestant 101 - 14 August 2009 11:16 PM

1) They criticize someone’s character and motive, sometimes with stoic anecdotal references to hated doctrines, but the major offensive is always on the personal integrity level. This website is rife with such insults to the truth.

If the Adventist church is guilty of promoting false doctrine or doctrine that undermines the gospel—as in the case of the investigative judgment—they should be criticized strenuously. You may think this is personally-motivated, but the real motivation comes from Scripture (Gal. 1:8-9).

Protestant 101 - 14 August 2009 11:16 PM

2) They come without evidence

There’s plenty of evidence to support the anti-gospel doctrines of Adventism, some of it found on this thread. You can’t make evidence go away by claiming it doesn’t exist.

Protestant 101 - 14 August 2009 11:16 PM

3) It is always claimed they don’t need/can’t provide evidence for such stories.

See the answer to #2.

Protestant 101 - 14 August 2009 11:16 PM

4) Such reports never contain the gospel; only condemnations; and the condemnations being based solely on the fact of their targetted denomination being Adventist, the sincerity of their walk with Christ is axed from the picture.

The gospel is front and center on this website, contained at the top of the home page and in the title. You must first hear the bad news before you can grasp the good.

Protestant 101 - 14 August 2009 11:16 PM

5) Claims of being “charitable to Adventists” even while the venom is pouring from your doctrinal fangs.

You’ve been shown a great amount of charity in your time here, but for some reason you failed to reciprocate.

Protestant 101 - 14 August 2009 11:16 PM

“Questioning Adventism” stories always act as if such things never happen in other churches, within other denominations.

So because bad things happen in other churches, we’re supposed to be quiet about it when it happens in our own?

Greg