| Author | Message | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 2055 Registered: 6-2006  |
I'm asking this question because I wonder if SDA members look to the church as their ultimate authority over their lives. Growing up as a never-been, church to me has been a gathering place, where friends and family worship together as well as the educational part of Sunday School/Bible study. Being that the church is made up of believers, there's an attitude of "how can I serve this congregation", as well as what does this particular church offer. I may go to a Lutheran church but consider myself a Christian first and foremost. In reading posts from formers here, I'm seeing people looking for the perfect church. Not so much "what can I bring to the congregation" as much as "how are they going to treat me?" and "what's going to happen there?". Am I off-base? In dealing with formers as well as my own husband/SDA family, I'm trying to wrap my brain around how the average SDA considers church in the first place. (I do realize that part of it is just plain cultural). I guess if I can understand that, I can certainly be more helpful. My second question is, how are we as believers supposed to view church? Authority? No authority? Thanks, Leigh Anne | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 7853 Registered: 9-2006  |
Leigh Anne, It seems to me that when people exit the SDA church that they go looking for something that will replace that authority they have lost. I would say it is and it is an ultimate authority in their lives, or to put it another way, the church is the hierarchical figure. With us its God, family, then church. With them it is Church, family and the whatever they perceive as God. When formers become formers I don’t think they themselves realize that they begin to look around for the replacement father figure of the church. When they don’t find it they become confused for a time. No, I don’t think you are off base at all, in fact, I have never seen the time when you were off base about much of anything, you being yourself. My own opinion is that the church has no authority whatsoever in my life, never did, never will, I don’t see that as any purpose of the church. I see the church as a place where a person might draw strength from and lend strength too. At the end of the day, these churches built of sticks and stone are only an indication of Gods presence in the world. Buuutt…then maybe it just how it looks to me as a never been.  River | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 9708 Registered: 3-2004  |
As a person who was a life long adventist until 8 years ago,I did not know what to look for in a church. So I asked God and He told me where to go. It is a large church and has gotten larger in the past 8 years. At this church I learned we are not to travel this Christian path alone. I learned to "give" by volunteering to do various things. I learned the church does not have all the answers but Jesus does. I am a Christian first and I am glad for that. Hope this answers some of your questions. Diana | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1721 Registered: 7-2004  |
As a convert rather than a lifer I think my view imight be different too. I do think SDAs have been impacted by the "Remnant Church" mindset. That is, there is one best, or at least better, church to select. Even after leaving this mindset lingers. But it does seem to fade after a few years in a healthy setting. | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 956 Registered: 8-2008 |
Part of it as well may be fear of the new church arising from the extreme spiritual abuse present in SDAism. This was the case for me. Christian churches do not exercise that same level of authority over their members, but many formers don't realize that, and as well, wounds take time to heal. | ||
| Foofighter Registered user Username: Foofighter Post Number: 222 Registered: 7-2005 |
I was a convert as well, so I'm sure that can make a difference, but I wasn't looking for any authority type situation at all. I just wanted to go to church, learn, get SDA'ism out of my life and be "normal" again. The first church we attended, the Pastor preached from the Bible verse by verse. How refreshing! It was fantastic. It has been hard to find one we've enjoyed as much as that one, because we moved, and we are now in a really small town (1200 people). So we listen on line, and we also attend an Alliance church, which we've enjoyed very much. The people are warm and friendly. Carol | ||
| Martin Registered user Username: Martin Post Number: 153 Registered: 11-2008 |
I think part of the problem is that when you leave, if all you've known in your life is the SDA church, you've acquired certain ideas of what "church" is supposed to be... The baggage you unwillingly carry when you start this new journey. If I stop for a minute and think about it, after more than 3 years out of the SDA church (which, compared with other formers is very little) I realise that my way of thinking, my perspective on life has radically changed. This has also affected how I do see church, what I might expect from it, what I might be willing to offer... But I still find, from time to time, unexpected thoughts popping into my mind. For example, last Sunday I got a lift to church with some friends and there was the radio playing some pop music, and nearly unconsciously I thought something around the lines of how bad it was having all non-Christian music on the Sabbath day. Even if a former has already been changed by Christ by the time they begin attending other churches, there will be things that will take much longer to change. We probably want them to fade away quickly, but God might have other plans for us. On other things, about churches that want to run your life, the question is that it is not an exclusive trait of the SDA institution. Unfortunately there are others that, doctrinally, might define themselves as good old conservative, Bible-believing churches and may still be committing the same spiritual abuse on their members. The former SDA might fear this, after a lifetime of the same, and will enter a new congregation cautiously. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1723 Registered: 7-2004 |
Caution is good, fear isn't. A challenge when we first leave is the idea that we left a church because of it's error, how can we join a church knowing it has error ( or at least something we think is an error). Some of this stems from not having a good sense of the concept of essential and non-essential beliefs. True Christians share a number of core essential beliefs. Some non-denominational churches try to keep these core beliefs as the only doctrines of the church (unfortunately in the desire to be all things to all people, some of these have begun dismantling the Trinity doctrine and the inerrancy/authority of Scripture in ways that resemble SDAism). The remaining churches may have additional doctrines, but recognize that, while they believe the doctrines to be true, these doctrines don't distinguish whether a group is Christian or not. This is a foreign concept to SDAs. All the other churches are whores and daughters of whores out to destroy God's truth and, ultimately, kill God's people. | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 962 Registered: 8-2008 |
This is a good point. However, it is important to understand that even within orthodox Protestantism, people disagree on the relative importance of several topics that are non-essential to salvation. For instance, the fact that conservative Lutherans have a very different view of the Lord's Supper than most Protestants, and will require you to affirm your agreement to their particular view before partaking of it (even if you are a committed born-again Christian), indicates that they consider this much more important that other evangelicals do. I of course disagree with this view of practicing communion that is closed to other Christians, though I find my view of the Lord's Supper is not entirely in disagreement with theirs (mine is a bit closer to historic reformed Presbyterianism in that I don't view it as merely a "symbol", but I don't believe Christ is physically present "under" the elements, as Lutherans do). One thing, in regards to this, is that when you visit another Bible-believing church like a Lutheran one, that you respect their views rather than react in a prideful way to a perceived "error." We were taught a lot of spiritual pridefulness as SDAs, and it is unacceptable to have that pridefulness in regards to other true Christians. As such, though I disagree with Lutherans on closed communion, I see them as born-again followers of our Lord and my brothers and sisters in the faith. I understand they believe they have strong Biblical support for their view of communion and in practicing closed communion, and I don't begrudge them their view as if they're in gross error. In fact, there are parts of Lutheran theology that are sadly absent from most evangelical Christian theology, which other Christians would be well to examine, most notably the Lutheran concept of means of grace, which stands in opposition to the modernistic rational-materialistic concepts that some evangelicals unwittingly bring to Biblical texts (again, some, not all). (Message edited by bskillet on April 03, 2012) | ||
| Starlabs Registered user Username: Starlabs Post Number: 106 Registered: 5-2011 |
As a lifer who has been out about 5 years or so, I'm still not part of a church which for me is radically different from when I was in the SDA church. I went almost every week and I was very active in positions. It was a place for me to go and socialize by catching up with people I hadn't see all week. For the most part I never liked the sermons because they made me feel guilty without hope given. I was basically coming to put "in my time" for the week. Have I found another church? No. Have I seriously looked? No. But to the few Non-denominational churches I went to, they did not preach the gospel. Does that mean they all don't? Of course not. But the one and only criteria that I must have in a church is they must preach God's word and not mangle it. Since being out of SDA I do spend more time with God by studying my Bible, listening to good preachers on podcasts, listening to Christian music all done on others days besides just "gasp" the Sabbath. So I'm growing in Christ. | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 963 Registered: 8-2008 |
This is the best criteria for choosing a church. The church MUST preach the Gospel. A lot of Christians seem to fall prey to this concept that the Gospel is one of many "principles" that constitute part of a Christian's general mental education on the faith. So they teach it from time to time to make sure the believers still have the basic concepts down pat, but they don't preach it regularly. The problem with this is that the Gospel is referred to by the Bible as "the power of God for salvation." The Gospel isn't simply some facts that we spout off. When the Gospel is proclaimed, God's power goes with it, into the very heart of the born-again believer, reproving, correcting, enlightening, and comforting the believer. The regular proclamation of the Gospel, even to those of us who know it by heart, is vital for the Divine work of sanctification in the believer. It isn't merely facts on paper. It is GOD'S POWER! "Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth." --John 17:17. In context, Jesus means "the Word" as the truth of Himself. This, as I alluded to earlier, is part of the Lutheran concept of the proclamation of the Gospel as a "means of grace." Other Christians would do well to listen to them. (Message edited by bskillet on April 03, 2012) | ||
| Animal Registered user Username: Animal Post Number: 997 Registered: 7-2008  |
What then constitutes the Gospel??? | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 2056 Registered: 6-2006 |
Animal, the gospel is Jesus' death and resurrection (His dying for our sins and conquering death on the cross). Paul explains "the one and only gospel in 1 Corinthians 15. | ||
| Animal Registered user Username: Animal Post Number: 998 Registered: 7-2008 |
AMEN...AMEN....AMEN !!!! Can I hear another Amen?? | ||
| Skeeter Registered user Username: Skeeter Post Number: 1867 Registered: 12-2007  |
"Are churches meant to run your life ? " NO ! IMO....Churches are for sharing fellowship in the worship of God, for making Christian friendships, to bring feelings of peace in an un-peaceful world, places for learning the truth of God's word and how we can apply it to our own lives and in helping others. Churches should INFLUENCE our lives for good, but not "run" them. | ||
| Marysroses Registered user Username: Marysroses Post Number: 283 Registered: 4-2007 |
I know when I attended an Adventist Church, there were a lot of unwritten behavioral rules and a tremendous amount of social pressure to conform to them. Clothing, Sabbath activities, friends, kind of work, etc. was subject to peer scrutiny. And my all time favorite, how close can you dance to wearing jewelry without actually wearing jewelry. (that pendant watch a bit too blingy there?) And of course if you move, the new congregation probably has an entirely different take on those unwritten rules. People being people, there is some of this in all congregations and denominations. I just think because of the extreme pressure to conform within adventism, it leaves a deep scar. | ||
| Hec Registered user Username: Hec Post Number: 1887 Registered: 3-2009 |
Is this is the gospel, then the SDA movement has the gospel. What need is there to leave them? Hec | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 2057 Registered: 6-2006 |
Hec, adding to the gospel (Sabbath truth, spirit of prophesy, the IJ, membership into "the remnant") as a means of salvation is not the gospel. Leigh Anne | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1461 Registered: 5-2007 |
I was a Catholic as a child. Divorced parents caused a lot of confusion. Mom was Baptist, Dad was Catholic. Since we lived with Mom, there was a falling away (Distance and no one to take us to a Catholic Church.) At 18, I joined the SDA. Common denominators? Security, Safe Place, Correct Beliefs, Authority, Purpose, Blessing. Now as an Adult, 39 years later: Looking for a church. Yes , you guessed it. Security, Safe Place, Correct Beliefs, Authority, Purpose, Blessing. What is in it for me? Is that the motive? Ok, can you eliminate any of the above as a bad reason? To Serve and worship God, To love one another, to be healthy in Mind, Body and Soul, do we eliminate any of the above? But what are the road blocks people run into. In my personal experience; If I go to this church, am I safe? Will I be manipulated, decieved, abused, rejected, disqualified. I knwo most churches would not do that, but some do. Some do it unintentionally some by an extreme conservative interpretaion of scripture, legalism. The Doctrines, do I just walk in the door and look at the doctrines after the fact? I have learned about all the tests. The Gospel, Orthodox beliefs, Faith Alone, Scripture Alone and so on. There are changes to endure, drums in church, sanctuarys used as common place multi-use space. Alot to absorb, some things seem disrespectful. Then there is Authority, that is the biggest confuser of all. They all claim to have God's Spirit, People from all faiths will say God told them to do or go , but I have to take that as an intuitive personal event that person experienced. If all claim the same authentication, then all Christian churches are blessed or only a few, or none. We get back into tests. So I wonder, ok , maybe looking for Authority is a false premise. But that leads back to the Early churches, laying on of hands, Apostolic succession and on it goes. I can spend years (and have) trying to just get past this one. If I find the right church, or the church God leads me to, (Notice I want to believe God leads me there) , but then why do people hammer me to pick one, that puts me back to doing the choosing, and that puts the requirement for discernment on me, when I want to lean on God for that, Authority.....Not guessing, not my best guess and hope I am pleasing God. Not an accidental and by default condemed mistake. Afterall, I have been told if I go to the wrong Church I would be accursed for false doctrine. If I am in the right church, a healing restoring church, then I can hope to serve and have a purpose, to be a part of the collective, to belong. To do some good. To grow and to share. What is the blessing? To make peace with God, to fill to empty places, to know Joy and perfect love that casts out fear. Seek first the Kingdom of God. God comes first, I seek him everyday. Fellowship, being a part of the Church comes second. Jesus said feed my sheep. His sheep hear his voice. That is what leads back to listening for authority in a church. If I follow a church, I am following Christ. If I know it is His voice. SDA runs deep, so does Catholicism. It is core. It is anchoring. When we have lost reference to that certainty, we cannot navigate unless we hear His voice. Occupy till I come. I guess that is what I'm trying to do. Keep searching, praying, waiting for His guidance. | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1462 Registered: 5-2007 |
Are churches meant to run your life? They are meant to guide and set boundries. To edify, instruct, nurture and adopt into the family of the Church of God. I think if you have the church, the running of your life tends to take care of itself....and all these things will be added.... | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 965 Registered: 8-2008 |
Hec, SDAism teaches Jesus ceased to exist between the Cross and the resurrection. This is because of their false view of human nature and Christ's Divinity and the Trinity. As such, the SDA church does not teach that Jesus rose from the grave, but that an entirely new person, created on Easter Sunday, came to life and was given the impression it was Jesus. Even the basic death and resurrection formulation they got wrong. If Jesus ceased to exist, that means He Himself couldn't have risen from the grave. Since there was no more "He Himself" in existence. (Message edited by Bskillet on April 03, 2012) | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3885 Registered: 10-2004  |
Absolutely, Bskillet. Also, did Jesus really "die for our sins" if our sins are still there and are not actually blotted out until Satan bears them? That is NOT the Gospel! Jeremy | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1463 Registered: 5-2007 |
Can anyone quote a teaching that Christ ceased to exist , from SDA source? I have not seen that, or I forgot if I did. Jesus said he had power to take his life back up. I learned that IN the SDA. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3886 Registered: 10-2004 |
Jim, Adventism teaches that both Jesus' deity and humanity ceased to exist. Here is a quote from SDA scholar Edward Heppenstall's book The Man Who Is God:
There is even more heresy throughout the rest of the chapter, where he even teaches that Jesus had no divine consciousness or attributes even while living!: http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/mangod/manch5.htm Here are some other EGW/SDA quotes on this topic:
Jeremy | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3887 Registered: 10-2004 |
In fact, Ellen White says that Jesus was so "dead" that the angel who replaced Satan resurrected him! (Meaning it would have been Satan who resurrected Jesus if Satan had not fallen, according to EGW!) "Now, priests and rulers, where is the power of your guard? Brave soldiers that have never been afraid of human power are now as captives taken without sword or spear. The face they look upon is not the face of mortal warrior; it is the face of the mightiest of the Lord’s host. This messenger is he who fills the position from which Satan fell. It is he who on the hills of Bethlehem proclaimed Christ’s birth. The earth trembles at his approach, the hosts of darkness flee, and as he rolls away the stone, heaven seems to come down to the earth. The soldiers see him removing the stone as he would a pebble, and hear him cry, Son of God, come forth; Thy Father calls Thee. They see Jesus come forth from the grave, and hear Him proclaim over the rent sepulcher, 'I am the resurrection, and the life.' As He comes forth in majesty and glory, the angel host bow low in adoration before the Redeemer, and welcome Him with songs of praise." (The Desire of Ages, 779.3) Jeremy | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 13559 Registered: 12-2003  |
Thank you, Jeremy. It's just incomprehensible how the SDA organization has managed to sustain these blatantly unbiblical statements as the foundation of their doctrine—all the while intoning, "All our doctrines are from the Bible." These things are heretical. Colleen | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 698 Registered: 2-2003  |
So an angel raised Jesus from the dead? So when the Bible says God raised Jesus from the dead, and the Father did, and Jesus raised himself, by the Spirit (therefore - the whole Trinity was involved) it does not really mean it. And when Jesus said to the thief he would be with him in Paradise that day, he was not really serious. Isn't it helpful to have all these extra details from Ellen which help us to understand that the Bible does not really mean what it says? OK, enough of that... As far as John 20:17 is concerned, by the way, it is just another example of taking a verse blatantly out of context. Jesus was talking to Mary, who had just met him after his resurrection, and he is almost certainly not referring to what happened between his death and resurrection. It does not fit the context, how was Mary supposed to figure out that that was what he was talking about, and why would she have been interested anyway? In any case, as the NIV puts it, "I have not yet returned to the Father," is in the perfect tense in the Greek. The perfect refers to a past action with a present result, so "I have not returned" means I have not gone to heaven so as not to come back. Jesus seems simply to be reasuring Mary that he is still there, he has not left yet, so go and tell the disciples about the resurrection. He is probably not saying, "Well Mary, I know you are in a highly emotional state, and you have just realised who I am, but I should just like to give you some theoretical information about what happened to me while I was dead." If he had meant that, it would in any case be in the simple past or aorist tense. "I did not ascend to the Father (while I was dead, and then come back to be with you now."). So, for the SDA explanation, the verb tense is wrong and it is irrelevant in the context anyway. Just my humble opinion. End of rant. Adrian | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 7858 Registered: 9-2006 |
Interesting rant Doc! |
