| Author | Message | ||
| Tealeaves Registered user Username: Tealeaves Post Number: 239 Registered: 5-2004 |
Everybody I have talked to around here (Vancouver WA) that has dealings with the SDA's in our area has said an eerily similar spiel about the "SDA church changing, and becoming more mainstream now in their beliefs." Meanwhile, the last time I had dealings with the SDA church, (about 8 years ago) they seemed to be closing ranks and "getting back to roots" with the EGW stuff. So which is it? Or is it both? Is the church splitting and heading in 2 directions? Anyone have any info on this? -tanya- | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 928 Registered: 7-2003  |
Tanya, "The church is changing" is a defensive statement that is bandied about a great deal. It's simply not true. Some SDAs are somewhat embrassed by certain aspects of Adventism so they use this well worn defensive phrase to try and justify being a part of this group. However, when you closely question them, I believe you will find that many still cling to the same old SDA distinctives. Let me give you some examples that I have experienced in talking to people that insist "the church is changing". 1. They want to downplay the significance of EGW, but will refuse to admit she is a false prophet. 2. They want to minimize or redefine the Investigative Judgment, but refuse to admit that absolutely nothing happened in 1844. They refuse to admit that Miller, White, and others were just plain wrong from start to finish in regards to the whole 1844 debacle. 3. They like to say things like "The Sabbath isn't a salvation issue", but refuse to refute the blasphemous teaching that the Seal of God is the Saturday Sabbath (rather than the Holy Spirit as the Bible teaches). They also refuse to refute the unfounded teaching that worshiping on resurrection day is the Mark of the Beast. 4. They like to say that "The Beast" is not a person or persons, but "a religous system". However, when pushed hard enough they'll admit that the religous system they're talking about is Catholicim and the Pope. 5. They like to say that it doesn't much matter to them if we're with the Lord at death or if we merely sleep and it's like waking up at the second coming. However, when pushed you find out that they cling tenaciously to the false doctrine of soul sleep. While they say it doesn't matter to them, they really mean that they don't mind the thought of sleeping because they won't know the difference. They will affirm that the idea of a spirit that lives on is one of Satan's lies. 6. They like to say that they don't eat pork or shellfish "mainly for health reasons". But when pressed they will admit that people who refuse to give up pork shouldn't be batized. Oh yes, the church is changing. But it's not what they believe that's changing, it's the words they use to obscure their true beliefs that have changed. I would challenge anyone to live in peace, harmony, and joy within Adventism while openly denying and opposing the 6 abberant doctrines I've listed above. I guarantee you will not last long. Until this group publicly repents of these abberant doctrines, disavows EGW, and begins to actively educate it's members about the historical errors and false teachings in Adventism, the group cannot truly be said to be changing. Chris | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 872 Registered: 10-2004  |
Great post, Chris! I like the idea of referring to Sunday as "resurrection day" when talking about the Mark of the Beast. I'll have to try that if I'm talking to an SDA about it.  Jeremy | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 929 Registered: 7-2003 |
I use "Resurrection Day" intentionally when talking to SDAs for the following reasons: 1) SDAs assoicate the name "Sunday" with pagan sun worship [funny that they don't do the same in regards to the pagan worship of Saturn]. 2) SDAs argue that the term "The Lord's Day" really means Saturday Sabbath [I don't think this assertion is historically supportable, but it can easily become a tangent argument]. 3) The term "Ressurrection Day" is Christ centered, should not be offensive to any Christian, is nearly indisuputable in terms of it's accuracy, and keeps the focus on what Christians are celeberating when they gather together. Chris | ||
| Cindy Registered user Username: Cindy Post Number: 713 Registered: 7-2000 |
Chris, Very excellent post-clearly showing the reality behind any profession of a "changing" Adventism. cindy | ||
| Heretic Registered user Username: Heretic Post Number: 150 Registered: 2-2005 |
Chris, Thoughtful, well-reasoned posts as always. Thanks for those. I'd like to add that any attempts by an SDA to downplay the significance of Ellen G. White's testimonies flies in the face of what just went down in St. Louis at Ellenpalooza '05, er, I mean the GC Session. The church has made it clear where they stand on Ellen. Heretic | ||
| Windmotion Registered user Username: Windmotion Post Number: 173 Registered: 6-2001  |
I think Chris is correct with regards to the leadership. Unfortunately for them, the leadership has to carefully balance a line between the evangelicals (who say the church is too conservative) and the historics (who say the church is too modern) Too much leaning in one direction and the other side will leave in droves. I have seen Web sites from historic Adventists that are quite dismayed that the church believes in the Trinity for example or that Adventist leaders actually sit in the same room with Catholics. I haven't seen any "evangelical adventist" Web sites. I guess they tend to just leave. But the leadership doesn't want to abandon those folks either because that would negatively affect their cult status in Christiandom. SDA leaders are in fact between a rock and a hard place. Unsympathetically, Hannah | ||
| Cindy Registered user Username: Cindy Post Number: 715 Registered: 7-2000 |
Hannah, I really love your various sign-offs you put before your name. I've never been so creative! It is fun to read your posts. cindy | ||
| Windmotion Registered user Username: Windmotion Post Number: 176 Registered: 6-2001 |
Oh no, now you are putting pressure on me to be creative! My palms are sweating already! My heart rate is accelerating! Just kidding! Glad you like them! Exclamatorily! (Yes I swear that is a word!) Hannah | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 280 Registered: 7-2004  |
I wonder at times if the SDA church isn't headed for a split or shakeup. Certainly the doctrinal issues pointed out by Chris are very true, particularly in the leadership/structure of the church. But sometimes the attempts to sound more mainstream with the words chosen have resulted in gusts of fresh air reaching the members. And those "gusts" bring the seeds of the Gospel. When I look at SDAism I see a mostly silent, but extremely large, schism. The seeds of Gospel truth have led many people to question EGW's authority and the IJ/sanctuary. And as far as the lifestyle/dietary elements of SDAism, all one needs to do is watch the elaborate dance that occurs when a small group of SDAs go to dinner together for the first time. All in an attempt to determine if it is OK in the present company to order the crabcake and have a glass of wine. I think historical, conservative SDAs recognize this as well and see the end of a unique and distinctive church if the trend is not stopped. And for the group the importance of EGW just grows. It seems that the gap keeps spreading wider and wider, but at the same time most of those involved won't acknowledge or even look at this gap. | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 935 Registered: 7-2003 |
You must live in a more liberal area than me, there's no dancing around here, let alone over those things :-) Actually, I'm saying that a bit tongue in cheek. What I observe is that the baby boomers would be absolutely appalled by the thought of a glass of wine or a crab cake under any circumstances. However, quite a few in my generation (Gen X) would have a hot dog or glass of wine as long as they were with the right company or didn't get "caught"........I don't know of many that would go for the crab though :-) Chris | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 282 Registered: 7-2004 |
No, I think of the area was more liberal there wouldn't be the need for such dancing around the question. No one would come out and say, "would anyone be offended if I ordered..." Instead it was just a long series of subtle questions, perhaps with references to someone they know, or "once I..." in order to judge the other people's reactions. And it wasn't just GenX or younger--though it was certainly more common among this group. Although I do recall one friend who started that conversation a little more directly by asking outright "Has Christ set you free?" No dance needed! You are right though, more would probably order the wine than a shellfish. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2330 Registered: 12-2003  |
Chris, you're so right about the unalterable SDA tenets that people try to avoid admitting. In So. California, the whitewashing goes even a bit deeper. Here, there are many SDAs who insist salvation is by grace alone, that no work can contribute to salvation. They insist Sabbath is merely a way to demonstrate one's love for God. They go further; many claim that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. Therefore, ALL are saved unless they deliberately CHOOSE not to be saved. Universalism is quite prevalent in these parts. Those that hold universalist tendencies see God's wrath as nearly non-existent. They say He is Love and Grace and Mercy. His wrath is not for people. There's just no way a person can really experience the miracle of salvation is one doesn't understand that God's wrath against sin is real and eternal. So, while the words sound more mainstream, the underlying concepts are as far off as they've ever been, either in a historical SDA position or in a liberal direction. And you're right, Chris, about their clinging to EGW, the Sabbath, and soul-sleep. Those things shape everything else. Even if people disclaim their importance, those things twist the shape of the gospel. Underlying all the prevalent heresies inside Adventism, I believe, is the heresy that a person does not have a spirit that survives death. Without a literal spirit, they can argue that a person is not born condemned (as my very conservative MIL claims). People, they say, are born with a "sinful nature" but are not "guilty". they are not "guilty" until they commit a sin. (Exactly what a "sinful nature" is, then, they cannot really say.) This belief leads to the second astonishing claim they make: Jesus was born with a "sinful nature" but was "without sin" because He never broke the law. See where this heretical belief in a non-literal "spirit" takes one? It makes sin "genetic" or somehow "human". Therefore, Jesus had to have a "sinful nature" because He was Mary's son. Instead of seeing that our sinfulness is determined by a literal spirit being apart from God and in slavery to Satan, requiring the Holy Spirit to bring it to life, they see sin as a sort of "tendency" humans inherit. They will even say that a human's spirit is dead and apart from God, but they will not admit that dead spirit condemns them to eternal death. Conversely, they cannot see that Jesus was the only human ever born who was born spiritually alive without the need for rebirth by the indwelling Holy Spirit. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. He was never apart from God. It's so convoluted. They deceive both themselves and those to whom they speak. It's all in the words. Colleen | ||
| Jwd Registered user Username: Jwd Post Number: 57 Registered: 4-2005 |
<It's all in the words. Colleen > And, if I may add, the interpretation given to those "words." So many words. Now an official "G.C. Confession" organized into 28 tightly, intricately convoluted statements. I find myself lately making continual comparison between their long, 28 point "confessional" (granted, my preferred term here) and the 12 word sermon our Blessed Lord preached Himself that was His "good news." (Mk 1:14,15). Which source holds the greater authority? Which message holds the key to eternal life? (Sigh!) Jess | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 1895 Registered: 11-2002 |
Using the term Resurrection Day does no good with most the SDA's I know. This is because they believe in a Wednesday cruisfixtion and a Saturday after sunset resurrection. My SDA loved ones do not in any way believe the Friday to Sunday in the grave. This is because they totally believe where the Bible says three days and three nights it has to mean a completely 24 hours for each day and night. They will get nearly combative about this saying that God made the days 24 hour time periods and therefore God would be a liar if the Bible says three days and three nights and it wasn't a full three 24 hour time period. They also believe that the regular way Christians believe this was put in by the Catholic Church to fool the Christians into observing Sunday. So, I cannot use the term Resurrection Day with my kin. And, of course to them Easter is the most pagan holiday of all holidays. It is very sad. | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 938 Registered: 7-2003 |
Yes, that is too bad Susan. Have you ever tried explaining to them that the expression "three days and three nights" was a common Jewish idiom that would have been very well understood in that culture?
| ||
| Seekr777 Registered user Username: Seekr777 Post Number: 225 Registered: 1-2003  |
Susan that is interesting about the, "Wednesday cruisfixtion and a Saturday after sunset resurrection". I've never heard about that amoung my SDA friends. I've read about it with some nonSDA's. Things get more and more weird. I'm not surprised but I'd not heard about it. Richard rtruitt@mac.com | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 437 Registered: 4-2000  |
Susan, I understand that Charles (Chuck) Swindoll believes in a Thursday crucifixion. Swindoll is a former president of Dallas Theological Seminary, well-known author, radio speaker, senior pastor, etc. Dennis J. Fischer | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 889 Registered: 10-2004 |
Susan, even if the Resurrection was Saturday evening, the Resurrection was still the first day of the week according to the Bible. So if they are going to call sunset Friday to sunset Saturday "the seventh day" then tell them that you can call sunset Saturday to sunset Sunday "Resurrection Day"! I hope that made sense! Jeremy | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 941 Registered: 7-2003 |
Good point Jeremy. Even if Chuck Swindoll is right about "Good Thursday", the Bible still clearly says that Jesus rose on the first day, something every Bible believing Christian agrees on (including Chuck). Chris |
