| Author | Message | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 340 Registered: 7-2004  |
The pastor of my parents' Lutheran church wrote a 20 page paper on SDAism for a district pastoral conference nearly 10 years ago. Although he wasn't able to uncover all of the SDA double meanings and hidden doctrines, some of the statements that he made were very revealing. I am taking the liberty of posting a couple of the better quotes here. I was amazed at the penetrating clarity of this description when so many "cult watchers" have been duped by the public face of SDAism. | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 1955 Registered: 3-2004  |
Ric_b, Thanks for sharing that quote. I did not know about Adventism until I left it for good, then God took the veil off my eyes and sent the Holy Spirit to teach me and I can now see what my former church teaches. God is surely awesome in how He brings each of us out of Adventism. Diana | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2817 Registered: 12-2003  |
Ric_b--that is an amazing quote. That man truly had discernment. I'm still amazed that so many cult watchers have missed this "slipperiness" the pastor describes in the quote above. Wow. Colleen | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1033 Registered: 7-2003  |
Hey Ric, do you have the full paper in a format that could be e-mailed? Chris Lee ambulater@neb.rr.com | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 343 Registered: 7-2004 |
Chris, I wouldn't feel right distributing the whole document without first having permission. Perhaps I shouldn't have even posted the quote and raised the issue. Among the interesting points he made: The SDA view of being made in God's image is that Adam looked like God physically. But since God is a Spirit it couldn't be referring to the physical resemblance, but to the Spiritual--the holiness of God that man had before the Fall He concludes that SDA have confused the topic of justification by faith because: a) the IJ/sanctuary doctrine denies justification by faith b) the emphasis on what the believer does through choice in coming to God; and c) the idea that holiness of character is needed in addition to justification by faith. The SDA teaching on the Remnant Church effectively denies that God has a larger church of all believers, despite the caveats that SDAs hedge their exclusivity with in their writings. He concludes that SDAs are legalists. That they view folowing the law as a means to an improved relationship with God and a means for obtaining increased faith. He questions the whole sanctuary/IJ content, specifically looking at Satan as the scapegoat, how there could be sin in the Heavenly sanctuary, and why an almighty God would ever need to vindicate Himself. Ultimately he concludes that they "talk the talk" of the reformation, but they don't "walk the walk". Some of the things that I think he still missed in this review: He concluded from his review that SDA believe in verbal inspiration (and apparently innerrancy). That is probably a common mis-understanding in reading SDA literature prepared for "outsiders". He concludes that SDAs are very mainstream in their view of the Trinity. I have to question that when few church statements will even use the word "Trinity" and instead will only say "Godhead". I would agree that modern SDAism is fine with each of the Three as God. But I am not certain about the idea of Triune God. Maybe I am overly bothered by the avoidance of the word "Trinity" by SDAism. I think he missed that SDAs teach the core element of the Great Controversy to be whether God's Law is fair, whether it can be kept by man. This core element of the GC provides the glasses through which most of SDA doctrine needs to be understood, but it was absent from his paper and subsequent discussion. Luther strongly affirmed that the law can not be kept, which EGW identified as the charge of Satan (and suggests that all who agree with this charge are promoting Satan's claim). I think that he missed what SDAs mean when saying that "Jesus assures their final victory over sin." He appeared to understand this to be an affirmation of Christ's obedience in the place of sinful man and the complete sufficiency of His sacrifice. One would need to be considerably more immersed in SDAism before they would know that this really means that "true believers will no longer sin in order to demonstrate their readiness for heaven." He refers to SDA beliefs as plainly Arminian. I might argue that they are semi- or even fully Pelagian. He concludes that SDAism affirms the belief of original sin, but I think most of us know just how contentious that doctrine is within SDAism. It may be acceptable to believe in original sin and be an SDA, but it is certainly not the case that SDAism promotes or upholds that belief. So much of SDA error is hidden by their use of common Christian terms. It is often hard to see past the term and understand that SDAs do not mean the same things when they use the same words. It was very refreshing for me to read this because I become so tired of people who are convinced that we formers are simply "over-reacting" and so what if SDAs have a few distinctive beliefs that may be a little off, why cause division. | ||
| Seekr777 Registered user Username: Seekr777 Post Number: 333 Registered: 1-2003  |
Ric, I'd also like to have the entire article if possible. Richard rtruitt@mac.com | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2821 Registered: 12-2003 |
Thanks, Ric--what an amazing document--and I agree with your concerns with what the document apparently does not say. You are so right when you say, "So much of SDA error is hidden by their use of common Christian terms. It is often hard to see past the term and understand that SDAs do not mean the same things when they use the same words." Absolutely true. Colleen | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 958 Registered: 3-2005 |
Thank you Ric_b. This illustrates that there are still some discerning voices out there. I would not be surprised if that pastor gave you permission to distribute, and if he does, I will sign up. Stan | ||
| Jerry Registered user Username: Jerry Post Number: 484 Registered: 6-2002 |
Ric, Since you posted only a small quote, and you made it clear that you were not the author and gave a general indication of who wrote it, you are on fairly good ethical ground. It might have been better to more clearly identify the author. However, you do not need permission if it was a small excerpt and it was reasonably well attributed as your quote was. (Perhaps we can all think hard and come up with an example of an author who did not entirely meet any standard of ethical attribution of quotes.) <<wink wink>> Passing on the entire document would be a different matter, of course. | ||
| Dinolf Registered user Username: Dinolf Post Number: 13 Registered: 8-2005 |
Quote from Ric_b "He concluded from his review that SDA believe in verbal inspiration (and apparently innerrancy). That is probably a common mis-understanding in reading SDA literature prepared for "outsiders"." Ric, please explain - I also feel this is a official standpoint of SDA, but is it really? About the Trinity. Getting more into different aspects of church history, and you have a good example in your mail about Pelagianism, I feel there is a major question about the wiev of the Trinity. While SDA have a sytematic theology that origins in the creation (God/Jesus as creator setting the sabbath and plan of salvation) we have another s›stem of theology that focus on the cross and Jesus as the center point of theology and salvation. Many SDA¥s I meet have a problem to talk about Jesus as full God and also realizing he was a full human. A example I recall is the story about Satan beeing jealous to Jesus. He tried to confront a lesser person in the trinity. That makes me understand that SDA do not see Jesus as full God. It is so true that SDA makes up their own understanding along the way to adapt to the statements of EGW... /Dinolf | ||
| Seekr777 Registered user Username: Seekr777 Post Number: 335 Registered: 1-2003 |
I'm curious in how you feel SDA do not feel Jesus in not fully God? | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 36 Registered: 7-2005 |
If Jesus was fully God, Satan would not have been jealous to Jesus, because between a creature and his Creator is a enormous difference in essence and in status. Creator is infinite, the creature is finite. How can a finite being be jealous that an infinite one is above him, and is in charge of everything? But if Jesus has a beginning in time, He is a finite being. This creates the place for comparision, because it brings Jesus to the level of finite beings. He is now on the same level as the angels. And the question appears: WHY is He in charge? What are His accomplishments, and what is His qualifications for such a high position? The high position is equality with God, an infinite being. But if Jesus is an infinite being, the ground for comparision is eliminated from the start. His status belongs to Him naturally, because He is in the category of infinite beings. He is at the right place, and doesn't need any other qualifications, because He is qualified simple by His existence from infinite, which places Him in the category of infinite beings. I hope nobody will stumble at the plural form I used, I don't want to advance the idea that are multiple infinite beings, but I use the plural to define a category. The category of infinite beings has only one member, GOD. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 344 Registered: 7-2004 |
Dinolf, SDAism teaches that God inspired the thoughts of the writers, but that the writers selected the actual word on their own. This is contrasted with the general Evangelical position that God inspired both the thoughts and the selection of the words. The Fundamental Beliefs carefully avoid saying anything about whether the words of Scripture are inspired, or only the ideas. They also avoid whether or not Scripture might have errors. I looked at the Official Statement of the SDA church regarding the Holy Bible and again the discussion of inspiration is missing: http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/statements/holy-bible.html The Fundamental Beliefs and the Official Statements provide the public face of SDAism and are carefully crafted to sound as mainstream as possible. However, if one digs a little deeper the teachings can be found. For instance this little article on the Dynamics of Inspiration from the EGW estate: http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/dynamics.html
There your have it, not only is verbal inspiration directly rejected, but the words written in Scripture are "imperfect". IMO SDA understanding of inspiration is based on approaching the subject backwards. Rather than looking to what Scripture teaches about inspiration and comparing EGW to that teaching, SDAs have started by understanding EGWís inspiration and applying that model to Scripture. As a result SDAs conclude that Scripture is imperfect and fallible. Without Scripture as an unwavering guide, any doctrinal position or practice now becomes possible. You might also notice that the basis for this belief about inspiration is referenced to EGW not to a passage from Scripture. SDAs will frequently create a strawman about the idea of verbal plenary inspiration suggesting that this amounts to dictation. Thie website gives a good overview of different positions on inspiration. I am including a brief quote, but there is plenty more of value to read there. http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=667
| ||
| Pauls Registered user Username: Pauls Post Number: 30 Registered: 9-2005 |
its seems to me that until "Questions on Doctrine", and then the publishing of the "Fundamental 27" (er..28) it would have been hard very hard to pin down SDA theology--its somewhat amorphous in many areas....I don't think this is so much of a oover-up, or to the existance of "levels" like 333rd degree masons, as it is due to the fact that SDAs believe in ongoing revelation of truth and have not wanted to make a definitive statement of a creed which would be inflexible with regard to future revelation of new truth....i have heard many SDA sermons which took differing views and reflected different theologies on many doctrinal issues-- and none of those pastors was defrocked or disciplined--so there is some tolerance for difference of opinion....as long as it does not challenge the core issue: EGW, Saturday Sabbath, IJ, and the GC lens...so as a practical matter, although they have shied away from a formal creed, there is a de facto creed in EGW Sabbath, IJ, etc... The publishing of the fundamental 27 really nailed the last nail on the coffin of new revelation and doctrinal flexibility because the man in the pew is thinking this is the "last word" on truth. I know a lot of people were upset when 28 was added--like what, did we not have "All" the truth before. why do we need another? and a lot of grumbling about "man made" doctrines that are cropping up, etc.... And questions remain from those in the pew who did not understand the intent of the publishers of the 27.... Plus, on top of this, you have all the local pastors and elders and good doers out telling people what they think they believe which may have little to do with what the professional theologians or administrators are saying....so who really speaks for SDA? At least with catholicism the pope does. But with SDA we have so many voices out there! i think a lot of peopl who visit this web site and relate their experience with SDA theology are reflecting what some elder, pastor or do gooder told them--and that person was actually stating their "logical" conclusion of the matter without studying it in detail for themselves....and that a lot of misinformation is communicated by well meaning ignoramuses.... case in point: the nature of Jesus and trying to explain how the great controversy between God and Satan began...to some but not All, it is a logical conclusion that if Jesus was the express image of God, Satan should have known the difference and not challenged Him for leadership....however that is pure guessing by the do gooder--and ends up with a position that is closer to mormonism--which teaches that Jesus and Satan are brothers involved in a family quarrel--and actually, mormonism teaches we are all spirit brothers who are sent to earth, with bodies, to test our loyalty to Jesus... Adventism has no such explanations....as far as I know, Adventism merely teaches that Christ was the only begotten son of the Father, equal to and one with Him in all eternity, with all the power and attributes of God....forever.. as to what it all means--"only begotten" who is eternal seems to be contradictory--SDA do not have an official explanation... it also seems they are very clear that Jesus was the active force in creation (Jesus took charge of the big picture concepts John 1:3, while the Spirit hovered over the earth and did the actual creative "work" Gen 1:2) and that this was a cause of contention between Christ and Satan....and that the old testament epiphanies--such as the burning bush--were Christ--(ex 3:14, John 8:58)as was the cloud that followed the Jews (1 cor 10:1-4)...this theology is opposed to those who see a harsh God of the old testament and the loving Jesus of the New Testity ....SDA say it was the same "entity" within the 3 God members...in both testaments... As for trinitarian--SDA is pretty clear that there are three co existent, equally eternal, equally powerful, equally omminiscient "beings"(i.e. they have thoughts, intelligence feelings, etc. and are not just forces like wind, water, and fire) they act in unison to carry out their joint plans.....however, so many attributes of God are beyond human comprehension, all humans can do is create puny metaphors to describe the grand truthes that were perceived by the prophets...... | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 345 Registered: 7-2004 |
Richard, I'm not sure I would go quite as far as saying the SDA doctrine doesn't acknowledge Jesus as fully God. Perhaps a more accurate conclusion would be that SDA doctrine presents some confusion on this subject. Some are perfectly clear that Jesus is fully God. Others present some doubts about whether this is the case. The example cited above is one such case. The insistence on the idea that Jesus is Michael the Arch-angel is another. The idea from the sanctuary doctrine that Jesus and Satan are the two identical goats lends further credence to the idea that Jesus and Satan are relative equals. The idea that Jesus sacrifice might not have been sufficient, that He might have failed, casts some questions on the full Divinity of Christ. Each of these ideas may be small by themselves, but as they are added together it creates a schizophrenic theology. Consider that the unique doctrines of SDAism were all formed during the time when the church leaders (including James White) were clearly arian in their beliefs. As a result it isn't too surprising to find ideas within the doctrines (like the two identical goats representing Christ and Satan) that are arianist flavored, even when the official church position on the Trinity has advanced during that time. | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 37 Registered: 7-2005 |
Interesting is the fact the adventist great controversy theme was formed in a period in which leaders of the church were anti-trinitarian: Joseph Bates, James White, Uriah Smith, JH Waggoner, EG Waggoner, JN Andrews, RF Cottrell. I suggest that everyone should read Spirit of Prophecy volume 1, the chapter 1, The Fall of Satan. "The great Creator assembled the heavenly host, that he might in the presence of all the angels confer special honor upon his Son. The Son was seated on the throne with the Father, and the heavenly throng of holy angels was gathered around them. The Father then made known that it was ordained by himself that Christ, his Son, should be equal with himself; so that wherever was the presence of his Son, it was as his own presence. The word of the Son was to be obeyed as readily as the word of the Father." notice the word confer. God confered special honor to His Son, but Satan was jealous. Why? "But Christ was acknowledged sovereign of Heaven, his power and authority to be the same as that of God himself" The power of Christ was not the power of what He really was, God himself, but the same as that of God himself, and His presence as God's presence. After this announcement, Satan spoke with the angels, saying that "never would he again bow down to Christ; that he would take the honor upon himself which should have been conferred upon him, and would be the commander of all who would submit to follow him and obey his voice. There was contention among the angels. Satan and his sympathizers were striving to reform the government of God. They were discontented and unhappy because they could not look into his unsearchable wisdom and ascertain his purposes in exalting his Son Jesus, and endowing him with such unlimited power and command. They rebelled against the authority of the Son" I think that at this point the things appear more clearly: Satan fought to obtain the glory wich he thinked God must have conferred to himself. This explains the use of the verb conferred: it doesn't mean just recognize what somenone has, but giving him what he has not. In other words, the Father announcement means not that he announced what was real, but effectively exalting the Son to a position that He previously hadn't. Ellen White speaks plainly : "...exalting his Son Jesus, and endowing him with such unlimited power and command. They rebelled against the authority of the Son" Exalting, endowing, giving a position which the Son have not, equality with God. Which means that Jesus was not fully God. In another occasion, in 1904 ellen White said: "The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty" (ms 150, SDA Bible Commentary Vol. 5, p. 1129) I don't know why she writed this if she was trinitarian, because if she really was, like me, I don't know how I can explain my affirmation, if I said the above words. Today adventism have a trinitarian doctrine, but clings to the great controversy theme which is based on anti-trinitarian premises. | ||
| Violet Registered user Username: Violet Post Number: 297 Registered: 2-2001 |
So what was Satan upset about that caused him to fall? This is one area (of many)I have not studied post adventist. | ||
| Weimarred Registered user Username: Weimarred Post Number: 111 Registered: 1-2005  |
Pauls (Richard?), Ric_B, Jackob, Violet, To be fair, there have been many views of the nature of Jesus throughout the ages, even amongst Christians. At the extreme, some say He never existed. Others, that He existed as a man, but never as God. On the flip side, some view that He is God, but never came to earth as a man (some scholars argue that this is what Paul believed, and/or that this was the view of the author of Hebrews). Obviously, the most common Christian view is that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, that Jesus was wholly a man, and that Jesus always has been and always will be God. From a simplistic view, if Jesus was not wholly God, how would His sacrifice have been sufficient to sanctify mankind? If Jesus was not a man at His sacrifice, how could we as humans pass from mortality into immortality at our sanctification? I think that to proclaim yourself as a Christian, you have to profess that Jesus has been and is wholly God always, and that He was wholly a man at His sacrifice. Again, to be fair, as an Adventist, my understanding was that Jesus always has been God (i.e. not a creation of God the Father), and that He was a man at His sacrifice. Yet still, I do remember being confused by the words of EGW as to the early nature of Jesus. She almost seemed to be saying that God the Son was a creation of God the Father, which made absolutely no sense to me. It was almost as if she was attempting to explain (regardless of ìhow it came to herî) how original sin came to be. (And when I say ìoriginal sinî, I mean the original sin in the universe, not the original sin in the garden.) Like you, Violet, Iíve always been perplexed by this, even when professing Adventism. If eternal bliss is so blissful, why would anyone want to sin in the first place, and by natural extension, why must all of us humans suffer on account of it? I still have not found a personally satisfactory answer for this one, so I am certainly open to thoughts on this. The resurrection is a whole other discussion as well, but suffice it to say that it only makes sense as a necessary part of the sanctification process. At any rate, the nature of Jesus is so integral to modern Christianity, period, that I find it difficult to accept that there can be much, if any, ìnew revelationî as to the very basic nature of Jesus. At the very least, a lack of a concrete doctrine on this issue should be a warning to any Christian considering joining the SDA church. -Tom | ||
| Pauls Registered user Username: Pauls Post Number: 33 Registered: 9-2005 |
while i also perceive and beleive Jesus as always God, fully God, there is the issue of the NT itself--Jesus is constantly talking about His Father as someone superior to Himself--although HE also says He is the express image of His Father...and in John 10:18 Jesus talks about receiving a "Commandment" from His Father which gives Him power to resurrect Himself from death..... This seems to imply that at a particular point in Time, the "commandment" which conferred power was given....John 1:1-3 also talks about Jesus who was God who by His Word created the world--an event which also implies a definite point in time....before which it was NOT. We always talk about the attributes of God: Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, we need a 4th Attribute: Mysterious. We can never fully penetrate the "mystery" of God. As to how sin entered, this is a Mystery as well--which God himself has not chosen to reveal...some is revealed in Eze 28:13-19 and Isa 14:12-16. parents of wayward children often feel great guilt, but it is clear that our heavenly Father, who we would say by virtue of being God must have been the perfect parent, still had wayward Lucifer and still "lost" his first two human kids--Adam and Eve...obviously the mystery of iniquity is still at work in the hearts of man! We also understand that all creation, at creation, was good. how did it get bad. It is also interesting to understand that this mystery of iniquity will be completely eradicated in the new earth.. yet God will preserve all the human elements that made sin possible the first time around...that is an incredibly delicate balance to maintain from a human perspective.... | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2831 Registered: 12-2003 |
Good point, Tom. Violet, the whole idea of Satan being jealous of Jesus is from Ellen, not the Bible. Rveleation 12:7-8 says, "And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven." Ellen, of course, identifies Michael with Jesus--this identification would put "the dragon" (Lucifer) as an equal combatant with Jesus. But Jesus is NOT Michael the archangel. The other passage that is interpreted to tell the story of Satan is Isaiah 14:12-14. This passage identifies the "son of the morning" (translated Lucifer in the Latin vulgate) as desiring to set his throne "above the stars of God" and as wanting to make himself "like the Most High." This passage, though, identifies Lucifer as chalenging Godóthe one eternal God. Ellen portrays Lucifer as challenging Jesus, not the Father, and Jesus and Lucifer fight together, and Jesus wins. That idea is blasphemy. Jesus does not and did not engage Satan in a battle which Jesus managed to win. Jesus, one Person of the Triune God, humbled himself, became obedient as a man to the Father, and forever resolved the curse of sin. He was and is in no battle with Satan, and Satan has never been in doubt that Jesus is God the Creator. Satan was and is, of course, trying to deceive creation about the justice and mercy of God Himself--but no "part" of the Triune God has ever been in a battle with Satan, and Satan has never had a breath of a chance of winning any battle against God. Ellen did identify Jesus as an angel in several places (see references in "Tell Me the Old, Old Story" in the Jan/Feb Proclamation). Her entire picture of "the great controversy" is unbiblical and is based on a diminishing of Jesus' identity. Colleen |
