| Author | Message | ||
| Borgch Registered user Username: Borgch Post Number: 3 Registered: 8-2006 |
I apologize for the length of this post, but I wanted to share an insight about Adventism that I recently discovered during a conversation with an Adventist pastor friend of mine: I recently had a revealing conversation with a good friend of mine who is an Adventist pastor. It started by him bringing up that he was going to preach from Colossians 2 in the near future, and that it would be difficult to properly explain this chapter (in which Paul essentially warns against cults). I told him that I like the chapter and am "fired up about it". That got the ball rolling... We've been good buddies since high school and I hope and pray that we always will be. But, sadly, from the conversation, I came to understand that to most traditional Adventists, there will always be confusion about what it means to be "in Christ" but "not under the law"--as all new covenant Christians should be, according to the Bible (See Romans 6:14-15; Galatians 3:23 and 5:18). Part of this difficulty arises from the fact that most traditional Adventists do not think it is possible, or ever necessary at all as part of doing the will of God, to break a single letter of an old covenant law (one of the 10 commandments) without breaking the principle behind it. Let me explain: I think everyone would agree to the inverse--that it is possible to break the principle or "spirit" of the law without breaking the letter. For example, most who call themselves Christians would agree that harboring hatred in one's heart breaks the sixth commandment (thou shalt not murder), as explained by Jesus, but that it does not break the letter of the sixth commandment. However, I have yet to meet a traditional Adventist who thinks it possible to break the letter of the old covenant law without breaking the bigger principle behind the law. They don't see how this is possible. And because they don't see how it is possible, the meaning of the phrase "walking in the Spirit" is somewhat confusing to them as well. After all, no situation could ever arise in which it might be necessary to break the letter of the law in order to obey the higher principle or Spirit behind the law. (Of course, with that attitude, why do we need the Spirit if we have the law? Yikes, that's a scary thought!) I presented the to my friend the following two scriptural illustrations that prove that it is not only possible to break the letter of the law without breaking the larger principle behind the law, but that God Himself did it and commanded His people to do it! Example 1 LETTER OF THE LAW Exodus 20:13 You shall not murder. THE SPIRIT BEHIND THE LETTER OF THE LAW Matthew 5:21-22 21 ìYou have heard that our ancestors were told, ëYou must not murder. If you commit murder, you are subject to judgment.í 22 But I say, if you are even angry with someone, you are subject to judgment! If you call someone an idiot, you are in danger of being brought before the court. And if you curse someone, you are in danger of the fires of hell. ...AND... 1 John 3:15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. (NASB) GOD COMMANDS THE LETTER OF THE LAW, BUT NOT THE SPIRIT OF IT, TO BE BROKEN Deuteronomy 7:1-2 "When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; 2And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:" (KJV) Deuteronomy 20:16-18 ìBut of the cities of these peoples which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive, 17 but you shall utterly destroy them: the Hittite and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite, just as the LORD your God has commanded you, 18 lest they teach you to do according to all their abominations which they have done for their gods, and you sin against the LORD your God. (NKJV) 1 Samuel 15 Then Samuel said to Saul, "The LORD sent me to anoint you as king over His people, over Israel; now therefore, listen to the words of the LORD. 2"Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt. 3'Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'" (NASB) Ö and if you continue reading 1 Samuel 15, you find that Saul received a severe rebuke for not completely fulfilling this command. Can you deny the fact that God commanded genocide (mass murder) in the above cases in violation of the letter (but not the spirit) of the sixth commandment? I can't. Example 2 LETTER OF THE LAW Exodus 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. THE SPIRIT BEHIND THE LETTER OF THE LAW The rest of the second commandment goes on to expand and explain this apparent command against sculpting (which appears to be something of an extension of the first commandment): 5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 6And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. GOD COMMANDS THE LETTER OF THE LAW, BUT NOT THE SPIRIT OF IT, TO BE BROKEN Exodus 25:10, 18-20 10 ìHave the people make an Ark of acacia woodóa sacred chest 45 inches long, 27 inches wide, and 27 inches high... 18 Then make two cherubim from hammered gold, and place them on the two ends of the atonement cover. 19 Mold the cherubim on each end of the atonement cover, making it all of one piece of gold. 20 The cherubim will face each other and look down on the atonement cover. With their wings spread above it, they will protect it. ...AND... Numbers 21:8-9 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a standard; and it shall come about, that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, he will live." 9And Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on the standard; and it came about, that if a serpent bit any man, when he looked to the bronze serpent, he lived. (NASB) When I pointed out these examples to my friend, he said that I was "twisting scripture". What have I twisted? I can certainly tell you that if I were an Israelite that happend to have an ability for sculpting and I had just heard the giving of the law and the penalties to go along with it, there's no way I'd ever sculpt an image of any living thing without an explicit command from the Lord to do so! Interestingly, my Adventist pastor friend was more than ready to admit that the 10 commandments and accompanying old covenant laws were given to "spiritual three year olds". But, for some reason, he seemed unwilling to admit that new covenant believers who are "a royal priesthood, a holy nation" (1 Peter 2:9) not "under the law" (Galatians 5:18) may at times be required by the Holy Spirit to follow the above Biblical examples in breaking the letter of the old covenant law for the sake of upholding the greater principle behind the law. In fact, he wouldn't even admit that the examples presented above were, in fact, violations of the letter of the old covenant law. Unfortunately this kind of denial of plain Biblical facts is rampant among Adventists. It has to be in order for Adventism to be self-propagating. Although it is not an exactly analogous example, we read in the Gospel of John that Jesus bypassed the letter of the law, with regard to the penalty for breaking the law in the case of the woman caught in adultery. John 8:1-11 Jesus returned to the Mount of Olives, 2 but early the next morning he was back again at the Temple. A crowd soon gathered, and he sat down and taught them. 3 As he was speaking, the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in the act of adultery. They put her in front of the crowd. 4 ìTeacher,î they said to Jesus, ìthis woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?î 6 They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. 7 They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, ìAll right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!î 8 Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust. 9 When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the woman. 10 Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, ìWhere are your accusers? Didnít even one of them condemn you?î 11 ìNo, Lord,î she said. The Pharisees were correct about the due penalty for adultery given in the law of Moses. But Jesus, who is greater than the law--having the authority to do so--simply chose to forgive her. And she would be forgiven. The letter of the law of Moses was violated, but the Spirit behind the law was vindicated and glorified. So I concluded that it is possible to break the letter of the law without breaking the larger principle behind the law. Unfortunately my generally lucid, critically thinking Adventist pastor friend simply refused to accept these clear Biblical examples laid out above; he thought I was somehow "twisting scripture"--and I suspect that most traditional Adventists would feel the same way--that is, that once we come to faith in Christ we begin keep the law (letter and all) as a manifestation of our faith. (Unfortunately for traditional Adventists, Galatians 3:12 says, "However, the Law is NOT of faith; on the contrary, 'he who practices them shall live by them.'" (NASB) Emphasis supplied.) But when you understand that it is somtimes possible to break the letter of the old covenant law (including the ten commandments) without offending the Spirit of the Law, then you know what it means to be "in Christ" but "not under the law". It's very plain and very simple. But until the true possibility that breaking the letter of the law without breaking the Spirit of the Law is acknowledged, there will forever be confusion about the consistency of being "in Christ" but "not under the law". | ||
| Mwh Registered user Username: Mwh Post Number: 192 Registered: 4-2006  |
Very very interesting, thanks for the enlightment  Jesus I love you! | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 1494 Registered: 7-2003 |
There is no way they could acknowledge such a point without the whole SDA house of cards tumbling down. The 10 Cs is their foundation. Without it, particularly the 4th, what would they do? They are no longer special, unique, above the others, etc. They would be just another group of Christ-followers (if you consider them that), who fail, succeed, grow and eventually die. There is no particular reason for someone to be one without their hold on the old covenant law. It's one of those scale things.... Too much else gets voided if what you said is true. And they can't face all they would lose by acknowledging all they need and seek is in Christ alone. There is a boasting in their lawkeeping, it's an ego and arrogance thing that is unlike anything I've encountered. It blinds them. | ||
| Snowboardingmom Registered user Username: Snowboardingmom Post Number: 187 Registered: 11-2005 |
Borgch, You are so right!! It is so interesting and ironic, because yesterday I had a conversation with a SDA friend of mine from Academy, and her husband (he was a theology major in college), and we talked about this very thing!! We were on the phone for about 2 hours. I was ready to pull my hair out in trying to explain to them the "spirit of the law" vs. the "letter of the law", and being in Christ and not under the law. These friends are usually extremely bright, intelligent people, but they could not understand this simple biblical concept. Then the conversation led to the Spirit of Prophecy (they unknowingly kept quoting Ellen White rather than scripture, and I would call them on it). When we started talking about Ellen White, then I really started getting frustrated. The conversation ended well, and our friendship is deep, and I believe will continue to be despite our differences in theology. But even so, I've been feeling kind of bad and actually a little disturbed about the conversation with my friends yesterday. It's been bothering me quite a bit, actually. I haven't really been able to shake it nor pinpoint why it's so upsetting to me. I didn't understand until I read your comment: "And because they don't see how it is possible, the meaning of the phrase "walking in the Spirit" is somewhat confusing to them as well. After all, no situation could ever arise in which it might be necessary to break the letter of the law in order to obey the higher principle or Spirit behind the law. (Of course, with that attitude, why do we need the Spirit if we have the law? Yikes, that's a scary thought!)". You're right, Borgch, that's a very scary thought! And I think that's what's so upsetting to me. I just want to rip the veil from their eyes and hearts, so they can see! I'm really concerned for them. They don't know that all they need is Christ alone. Like Melissa said, their ego and arrogance have blinded them. They know who Jesus is, but they don't KNOW Him. There's a big difference. Thanks for your post, Borgch. I'm still a little bothered, but at least I can articulate "why" now. Grace | ||
| Mwh Registered user Username: Mwh Post Number: 193 Registered: 4-2006 |
"There is a boasting in their lawkeeping, it's an ego and arrogance thing that is unlike anything I've encountered. It blinds them." Melissa This so reminds me of, "Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God; if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truthó you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? As it is written: "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."" Romans 2:17-24 I will boast of Jesus! | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4779 Registered: 12-2003  |
Grace, I understand your frustration. Interestingly, Richard and I had a conversation with an Adventist friend yesterday, also. We had lunch with a couple who asked for our stories. The frustrating outcome was almost exactly like your conversation, Grace. She admitted Ellen was the biggest problem for her, but she has learned to live with Ellen by "redefining" inspiration. After all, we don't have every little thing Isaiah and Jeremiah ever said, and further, they said hard-to-understand stuff too. When I said that my problem was her "I was shown" for plagiarized statements and attributing God with deception, she said, "Yes, but what about the Bible writers who borrowed from other Bible writers?" She said she believes salvation is by grace alone, not by works, and she doesn't have to keep Sabbath to be saved. She essentially said that she believes everything we doóbut she's disturbed by Proclamation and she was definitely having trouble with Richard's saying we prayed for God to replace the spirit of Adventism with the Holy Spirit. All the words are redifinedóand the bottom line is exactly what you and Borgch have said: they have no understanding of living by the Spirit. That was the very conclusion we came to in thinking through our conversation. There is a gap between knowing the right words to define the gospel and insisting on keeping Ellen in a position of significance. You really can't hold both to the TRUE gospel and also nto Ellen. Colleen (Message edited by Colleentinker on October 15, 2006) | ||
| Insearchof Registered user Username: Insearchof Post Number: 94 Registered: 8-2005 |
That excuse that is always thrown up about 'Bible writers who borrowed from other Bible writers' as some sort of justification that it was acceptable for EGW to do the same with writers of her day just bothers me to no end. All other issues aside, it needs to be made perfectly clear that EGW did NOT consider contemporary Christian writers as the 'same' as she was. They were part of 'Babylon', 'apostates', etc., NOT 'other Bible writers'! To use this reasoning is to compare apples and oranges, not apples and apples. ISO | ||
| Snowboardingmom Registered user Username: Snowboardingmom Post Number: 191 Registered: 11-2005 |
Colleen, It's so true what you said about not being able to hold onto both the true gospel and Ellen White. It's truly impossible. With my friends, they couldn't separate the two, and in trying to reason with them I realized how IMPOSSIBLE it truly is. How can you argue with Ellen's logic when that's all they really know? Any scripture I give them, or even "think-through" type of reasoning is all tainted by their knowledge of Ellen's writings. The ironic thing is, like your couple friends, they know there are issues with Ellen. But yet, these "issues" are just not big enough of a deal. I get frustrated with that comment (which I hear often), "I essentially believe everything you do..." followed by their confusion and inability to understand why it was necessary for me to actually leave. Afterall, they didn't have to. They feel they are able to live with the problems, the discrepancies, etc, and still be an Adventist. Why couldn't I? The truth is, what they believe is nothing like what I believe. It may sound the same to a third party, but it's not. I know. As an Adventist, I used to tell myself the same thing. It wasn't until I took that step, like the Steven Curtis Chapman song says, "Sink or swim, I'm diving in", that I realized how much I had been fooling myself. Leaving that identity, trusting in no one but Jesus, showed me how enslaved to my Adventist identity I really was. But I had no clue until I was on this side of the cross how decieved I was. And you can't ever fully see it until you're willing to just "dive in". I very much understand the fear, and the excuses, etc. It's so scary to even "go there". But it is so worth it when you do! If only they could see it! Grace | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4785 Registered: 12-2003 |
Grace, you said that so well. You totally expressed my experience, too. Until one fully commits to calling Ellen a false prophet and praying to know what the Bible says without they underlying influence of her Biblical interpretations, one has no idea how enslaved he or she is. I also thought I had the real deal until I took the risk and followed Jesus completely out. It wasn't really my decision to leave Adventism per se that was crucial; it was my decision to follow Jesus and to walk through the doors He opened. One can't just leave Adventism and find freedom. It only happens when Jesus becomes more important than everything else, when even our rationalizing that the details are "no big deal" must be submitted to the Lord Jesus. Oh, I did experience answers to prayer, clear signs of God's work in my life, etc. as an Adventist. But not until I was willing to let Him be my ONLY identity was I able to see the twisted doctrines that kept me bound and partially blind. He is so faithful! Colleen | ||
| Timmy Registered user Username: Timmy Post Number: 72 Registered: 8-2006  |
This thread reminds me of a conversation we had with our pastor and HEAD elder while we were in 'transition.' The issue had come up about the new testament not seperating the ten c's from the rest of the law. When it talks about the law it seems to be talking about the WHOLE law. Then the HEAD elder...about 65 years old, born and raised in the church...said, "The Bible says that Christ is the embodiment of the law. So keeping the law shows loyalty to Christ." We just stared at him, then the pastor said, "Um...that...isn't in the Bible." It dawned on me that alot of these people really don't know the difference between Bible and Ellen! They have read her for so long that they THINK they have Bible based ideas, they don't realize that it isn't even close. Like the saying goes... 'those are some tough nuts to crack!' | ||
| Bigal Registered user Username: Bigal Post Number: 16 Registered: 9-2006  |
Yesterday I related to an Adventist couple and good friends of mine that I have finally realized the new covenent and it has transformed my life. Their comment back to me was "I don't think you have to believe in the sabbath to be saved." Yet they continue to attend an Adventist church and profess to be Adventist. This is difficult for me to understand. Has something changed in the Adventist church since I left it? Maybe my friends just really do not know what they believe or what Adventist believe. I am leaning toward the latter in this. I say this because one comment I got was "I really need to get a bible and start reading it." I guess I felt disarmed for any further discussion about the greatest commandment and how my rest(sabbath) is now everyday in Jesus. Is this similar to what you felt Grace? My only conclusion is to continue to show the law accomplished, show love. Alan | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4790 Registered: 12-2003 |
Alan, yes, something HAS changed in Adventism. It is part of their "morphing" to counter what those "anti-Ellen websites" are saying. The "new Adventism" IS saying that Sabbath-keeping isn't necessary to be saved. They will likely say, in another breath, that if one is saved, they will keep the Sabbath as a sign of loyalty and thanks to Jesus. In our maverick western outpost here in California, there are Adventists who will even say they won't lose their salvation if they don't keep the Sabbath. Some "evangelical" Adventists, even in the East(!), say that because the 28 Fundamentals don't specifically say that Sabbath is tied to salvation, Adventists are free to believe whatever they wish about that subject: they can personally attach the two, or they don't have to. The bottom line is that Adventist practice is not changing, nor is their "visceral" conviction about the Sabbath. What is changing is their public words. The deception is even more profound than ever before. Officially, the church still teaches Sabbath sacredness. Schools, evangelistic meetings, etc. teach Sabbath-keeping. But individuals are all over the map regarding their personal beliefs. Ellen, of course, is the common undercurrent that hangs them all together. They won't renounce her, and they won't renounce the Sabbath. They just invent new ways to talk about these things so young people will not be confused by all the internet "disinformation". Further, the church is starting a specific campaign to introduce Ellen back into the school curriculae for elementary SDA students. They are most definitely resurrecting the distincitves. They're just speaking of them differently. Colleen | ||
| Snowboardingmom Registered user Username: Snowboardingmom Post Number: 192 Registered: 11-2005 |
Bigal, yes, "disarmed" is an excellent word to describe my conversation with my friends. You just can't argue with their logic because it's all over the place and with no scriptural foundation. And like Colleen said, the Adventist Church has changed in it's "delivery". I really notice it in my generation (30's) and with my friends that are actively involved in the church and regularly attend leadership seminars put on by the church. To add to this (looking at it from another aspect of changing things), the Clear Word Bible is used as the primary Bible in a lot of the Adventist school systems now (especially the younger grades). Although it's claimed to be just a "paraphrase", it's becoming more popular and accepted as a Bible study tool. So even if they never mention Ellen throughout the school year, they are still taught her -- only this time under the guise of the Bible!! How confusing will that be to sort through for the younger generation coming through Adventism? Adventist theology is definitely the same underlying thoughts and teachings, just different words and modes of delivery. In my opinion, this is more deceiving. I know that sounds cynical, but I just see more and more confusion in my friends as a result of these "evangelical changes". It's sad, it's frustrating, and it's scary!! On a lighter note, Bigal, I've been meaning to ask you -- where are you scuba diving at? Both my husband and I used to scuba dive a lot. Now we have a toddler, and one on the way, so we're more land-bound . Grace | ||
| Bigal Registered user Username: Bigal Post Number: 18 Registered: 9-2006 |
Colleen and Grace, Yes, I can see that the deception could be more profound. It seems very difficult to lead my friends towards the light when they don't have a scriptural base to argue from or with a convoluted base. Grace, that picture was taken last December off of Lanai, Hawaii. What a wonderful testament to our God and Creator. I am always amazed at the underwater world each time I dive(somewhere tropical that is) Alan | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 2905 Registered: 3-2004  |
On CARM I see a lot of the "changes" in the theology of the SDA church. The younger folks are being taught different than I was. What I keep reiterating is that the 28 fundamentals have not changed in spite of what they say. One member, in fact, did not know a 28th fundamental had been added. I had to refer him to the official SDA web site for him to see it himself. It can be very frustrating, but we keep on praying for them. Diana |
