| Author | Message | ||
| U2bsda Registered user Username: U2bsda Post Number: 641 Registered: 11-2004 |
It seems like there are swings within Adventism - more works-based to more grace-based to more works-based. But someone said something to me recently that I think was right on. The move to grace-based wasn't really grace-based, but a way for people to be able to do what they wanted on Sabbath. What do you think? | ||
| Pegg Registered user Username: Pegg Post Number: 232 Registered: 2-2006 |
Well, it certainly has made my folks life easier, being grandparents to non-SDA children. They struggle with it intermittently, but overall it has been a great help in coordinating the Sabbath Keeping and Family Relations Thingies. On a wider level, I have 2 opinions about why the movement toward more grace-talk has come about. 1. I would like to believe that the laity of the SDA church realized something was missing from their relationship with God. It used to be that when lifers (these are current SDA's children and good friends!) left it was always to leave God altogether. Recent converts might return to their church families, but life-long SDAs simply did not. I can honestly say that, while the majority of my high school and college acquaintances are not practicing SDAs, until about 4 years ago I knew of NO ONE who had continued practicing any form of religion after leaving SDA. Pegg  | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 7375 Registered: 3-2004  |
I grew up in Southern California in the 1940s, 50s, 60s. During that time it was a historical, quote EGW instead of the Bible period. It was like that in all churches I attended when my ex and I moved to the east coast to NJ, Connecticut (1968-1970), Montreal Quebec, and then down to Virginia. That was in 1975. I quit going to church regularly in 1980 after our divorce. When I went to church the occasional time it was the same old thing. The different churches started changing sometime after I quit going regularly. The SDA church here in Las Vegas is a Celebration church with a band and drums and lots of loud, vigorous music. The dress was/is more casual. I cannot remember a sermon preached there. What I have noticed is that individual pastors, teachers, lay people have learned about grace. The problem is they mix it with adventist doctrine and no one to very few people get it. That is why so many adventist say, yes we have grace and we keep the sabbath because we love God. The problem is the corporate church has not changed and still has the 28 FBs. I guess as long as a person shows up for SS and church, pays their tithe and does not loudly disagree about EGW, they are still considered SDA. These are just my observations. Diana L | ||
| 8thday Registered user Username: 8thday Post Number: 1134 Registered: 11-2007  |
I can agree with "we have grace and keep the Sabbath because we love God" if they drop the little footnote about it being the Seal of God and refuge from the Mark of the Beast. I agree Diana - no matter how much you talk about grace.. you can't have it both ways. The Sabbath can't just be a loving choice if your life depends on it. To me, their version of "grace" is nothing more than not being picky about the rules of HOW they do things. Letting go of the Victorian age cultural guidelines, and talking alot about the "spirit of the law". Doesn't mean they actually understand and teach the gospel. Sondra | ||
| Pegg Registered user Username: Pegg Post Number: 236 Registered: 2-2006 |
I agree. Anyone is free to worship on any day. Paul says to leave disputable matters alone. I have assured SDAs over and over that no one is asking them to give up their precious Sabbath. If they are blessed by making observance on that day and the Spirit is leading them to do it, who am I to stand in the way? It's the "Keep the commandments of God", Seal of God, Mark of the Beast stuff that's the deal breaker. This is what sent me out of SDA and it is the absolute reason I could never return. Paul says, Romans 4:4-5 Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.This negates any other requirement aside from faith. I will not apologize. It includes ALL of the 10 commandments. It includes even other NT commands aside from belief. Romans 11:5-6 - So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace. Praise God! I Would Like To Tell You What I Think Of Jesus... Pegg | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 10269 Registered: 12-2003  |
There have always been people who begin to see the gospel is different from Adventist doctrine. The interesting thing none of us learned in SDA school is that there have always been people--not necessarily many but existing nonetheless--who have questioned Adventism and tried to preach the gospel, but they have been silenced. Before the internet, these things could be "contained". This undercurrent of questioning culminated with Barnhouse/Martin and the SDA leadership. There were some SDA leaders who realized Adventist theology was noticably deviant from the biblical gospel, so they "rewrote" it for two reasons: they placated Martin and Barnhouse so they wouldn't call Adventism a cult, and there were certain theological points they wanted to introduce into Adventist teaching. Long-term, the result was that Martin and Barnhouse were deceived, a fact that the church actually acknowledges (see George Knights introduction to the reprinted Annoted Edition of Questions on Doctrine), and the church was thrown into confusion and many people polarized over the "gospel-sounding" words in Q on D. Bottom line: Adventist theology has never changed. The church has not renounced any of its original teachings. Over the top of the historic Adventist foundation, however, there has been a "movement" for Adventists to build a superstructure that sounds more evangelical. Q on D actually gave that permission. Of course, the "grace generation" that grew up in the 80's and early 90's, however, has less foundation in Adventism itself. Make no mistake--they are still firmly Adventist, and in certain parts of the country, the old historic Advetism has always been taught. But the young adult generation has lost the knowledge of the specifics of the "distinctives". The church is swinging back toward a more traditional emphasis--which is actually more honest. The problem with the "grace generation", however, is that they THINK they don't believe the cultic "stuff", but underneath they still believe the four foundational things: the eternal significance of the Sabbath, soul sleep which really denies the human spirit, the great controversy worldview which includes our helping to vindicate God's reputation to a universe questioning whether or not He is fair, and some degree of respect for Ellen White. None of these things is biblical, and they alter Adventists' whole view of reality. Pasting "grace" on top of these things still does not yield the gospel. It yields syncretism, and the confused members are still in bondage. Colleen | ||
| Nowisee Registered user Username: Nowisee Post Number: 87 Registered: 5-2009 |
Good, good posts! I agree, U2, that calling it grace-based doesn't make it so--it CAN"T be grace-based until the church repents of it's false doctrines. Works & falsity & EGW ideas are still interwoven in just about every aspect of even the liberal churches I've visited. So, no it's really not grace, as I see it. It's veggie-grace. Like Colleen says, the SDA 'grace generation' is still firmly entrenched, but like one angry relative admitted to us (re our new beliefs), she doesn't really know anything about the IJ, but firmly upholds EGW & the IJ. She seems to show her freedom &grace by wearing jewelry when she wants. But believe the gospel of the Bible--horrors!!!!! Isn't it interesting that the church, who condemns other Christian as Babylon, would be willing to borrow an aspect of their 'false' ministry to stop the bleeding... | ||
| Jonvil Registered user Username: Jonvil Post Number: 302 Registered: 4-2007 |
Beware of the Adventist definition of grace! It’s been my observation on CARM that there are two broad applications of grace being used by SDAs. One is that grace is a power enabling them to actually ‘keep’ the big 10, the other is God’s winking at their good intentions to do so and, by taking up the slack of their failed efforts, declares them perfect Law keepers. Of course this is centered on Sabbath keeping with the presumption that if you keep the Sabbath you’ve kept them all and are victorious over sin. On a side note, with all my reading, internet and other, Adventists are not the only ones with seriously messed up theology, the American church is in a tailspin. John | ||
| Pegg Registered user Username: Pegg Post Number: 237 Registered: 2-2006 |
You are right, John! I believe this is one of the reasons that SDA finds Christian churches easy pickin's for their evangelism - my own church not excluded. In 9 months of visiting/attending at least 15 churches within my geographic area I found NONE with whom I fully agree in practice. I settled on my church family because their open "creed" is the closest of any I found and the pastor the closest to sharing my views. However, this openness of creed leads to a wide variety of beliefs and practice within the body. This in turn makes delineating and teaching specific belief (especially application) difficult. The only answer to this that I know is to give more attention to preaching the Gospel and less to application. If we disciple BELIEVERS, the Spirit can guide application in the believers life. Pegg | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 986 Registered: 7-2007 |
With the dead weight of Ellen white dragging them back towards works, the SDA church cannot get too far towards grace. And they cannot cut that dead weight loose, because then that would destroy the whole SDA church! | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 530 Registered: 8-2008 |
Funny, when I say this kind of stuff some people on this forum want to come after me. I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees it. American Christianity, at its core, seems to believe that it can earn God's favor through religious performance. American is the most religious industrialized nation on earth specifically because its church rejects the Gospel's indictment of religious thinking. If the church is popular with the self-righteous and unpopular with "sinners," then its gospel is wrong. See 1 Cor. 1:26-31. | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 533 Registered: 8-2008 |
I was one of those "grace generation" SDAs. I would say that salvation was a free gift and I was justified by faith, but I also thought that if I ever gave up the Sabbath, I would lose that salvation. In other words, I thought salvation was freely given by grace, but once I had it, I was required to keep the Sabbath in order to keep that Salvation. | ||
| 8thday Registered user Username: 8thday Post Number: 1140 Registered: 11-2007 |
Brent.. you are NOT the only one who sees it. I am struggling daily to not jump ship. (referring to post 530) | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 2964 Registered: 10-2004  |
Colleen, I also agree with your post above. No matter what "flavor" of Adventist, they all hold to the foundational things. And I would also add Arianism (in one form or another) to that list. Jeremy | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 10288 Registered: 12-2003 |
Oh, Jeremy--you're right. They do all see Jesus as not fully all of God. And I agree that there are serious issues within Christianity that jeopardize the gospel. Colleen | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 996 Registered: 7-2007 |
Anybody who adds "have-to-do-this-in-order-to-be/stay-saved" to the gospel is an Adventist-waiting-to-happen. I'm glad that the pastor of the church where I go, understands the gospel! | ||
| Pegg Registered user Username: Pegg Post Number: 245 Registered: 2-2006 |
Humans at their core believe this! We should not be surprised. My natural (wo)man is no different. Yes, our Church Families are a mess. The church in Corinth was too. What about the Galatians? Hebrew Christians? Both groups were lusting after the law. It's what the books are about. If the Galatians weren't being swayed, do you think Paul would have written like he did? Paul didn't go off looking for another Family. He called these messed up children of God "saints" and his "brothers". The Body of Christ has always been a motley bunch. Just look at Acts 15. Read 1 Corinthians again. Read 2 Corinthians. Believers banded together for worship and to spread the Gospel is how it has always been done. The alternative is to forsake assembling. This has been forbidden. We have to realize that the devil will always bring our nature around to works. He wants God's people to direct glory to themselves instead of their Father. He knows the buttons to push, and it's not hard. I don't know the answer, but I don't think it's to give up on our Church Families. Look at the counsel that was given to the believers of the Seven Churches in Revelation. They were warned that their churches were a mess, they are told that God will discipline his wayward children, but Believers are not told to forsake their churches. Pegg (Message edited by pegg on August 25, 2009) | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 538 Registered: 8-2008 |
What was forbidden was, under the threat of persecution, rejecting a fellowship of grace to return to a fellowship of the Law. The problem most people have when they start applying Paul's solutions to modern churches is that first century fellowships were much different than ours today. For one, they did not have a one-man clergy system. The single Pastor was a creation of the Church Fathers and enshrined by the RCC. Rather, in the Bible "pastor" is, linguistically, a synonym for "elder." For two, the Christians knew the difference between being the church, and going to church. Church was not a place they went. The word they used for church, ekklesia, meant a gathering of believers. They didn't go to church. They were the church. Consequently, church was not defined as an institution with a building somewhere that we are forbidden from leaving. Most Christians don't even realize that the idea of a special building specifically for church gatherings didn't come about until the 4th century. Before that, all believers met in homes. My point is, church was defined relationally, as a group of brothers and sisters who together constituted the household of God and the body of Christ within a particular area. Thus, to leave them was to abandon your family in their pain. Biblically speaking, you can leave one of the buildings people call a church, yet still spend time with the same friends you had within that building, and you would never have, in a Biblical sense, left the church. It is obviously quite different now, when "church" means a corporation, incorporated under the laws of its state and the federal government, run by a particular pastor, with a particular building as its place of business, governed, not principally by Scripture, but by a set of by-laws, often with a denominational heirarchy that comes with a set of authoritative requirements that supersede the local body's interpretation of Scripture. My wife and I were at Olive Garden last Saturday when we overheard a pastor talking about his church in the same way a businessman talks about his business. He talked about it as if it was an exercise in marketing and organizational politics (manipulation), rather tha a community of God's love knit together by the Spirit. Clearly, this was a man who did not see his church as a family of believers who need love and acceptance and cherishing. If I could, I would tell everyone to leave his "church" immediately, since it was obviously not a fellowship of grace like that described in the Bible. Consequently, it was not protected by the admonition in Hebrews 10:26. I agree that the idea is not to give up on our brothers and sisters. The idea, presented by Paul, is to "throw out the slave and her son," which means a whole lot of "pastors" like the one I mentioned (the sons of the slave woman of Sinai) should lose their jobs. A lot of problems can usually be traced to the top. Anyone who sees a church as his career, rather than God's family, is not safe to have around Christians. The church is God's family. He is particularly fond of His little babies and He wouldn't much like it if some "pastor" saw His kids as merely a means of attaing career goals. (Message edited by bskillet on August 25, 2009) | ||
| Pegg Registered user Username: Pegg Post Number: 246 Registered: 2-2006 |
Brent - Just because some (perhaps many) churches (groups of Christians meeting together - how does WHERE they meet make a difference?) - have become corrupted, doesn't mean that all churches should be tarred with the same brush. I agree that it is exceptionally difficult to find a believing Church Family to worship with. I know that the one He gave me isn't perfect, but they are His children and my Family. We may be pitiful at it, but what we are trying to do is glorify our Father. Pegg | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 541 Registered: 8-2008 |
Oh, I totally agree Pegg. What I am saying is that a lot of churches have become corrupted because people don't understand their identity in Jesus Christ. |
