| Author |
Message |
River
Registered user
Username: River
Post Number: 2836
Registered: 9-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 04, 2008 - 8:42 am: |     |
Ramone says,
When it seems impassible, look to Him and let Him speak to you of His Son, whom He gave for all of us, and let Him fill you with His sorrow (Zech.12:10).
Thank you so much for those words Ramone, I have been sitting here thinking for the past few minutes.
I just realized how to pray and I prayed this "Lord break past the teachings".
I realized too that I need to break past the frustration into the prayer of faith.
You words helped me to do that this morning.
The Lord bless you so much for that Ramone, you are truly a brother.
Patria, you have a blessed way of looking at things, I learn so much from you.
Bless you this morning.
Bless everybody, I gotta go cook a mess of pottage.
River |
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos
Post Number: 1542
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 04, 2008 - 9:08 am: | |
River, bless you, too, especially for that message from your heart...
...and for that last line that made me laugh out loud.
In His love for you!
Your brother Ramone |
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos
Post Number: 1543
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 04, 2008 - 9:19 am: | |
Patria!
Sister, I don't mean to sound like I'm arguing or anything. What I mean in what I'm saying here is that I think I grew up possibly with a kind of semi-muted teaching of the SOTD doctrine. Or maybe it is/was that I didn't get a lot of the arguements that Adventist apologists use. So what I hope to add to this discussion (and the forum overall) is another perspective on the SOTD thing that I think is not taken so often, because I think we do tend to get into the ontological (is that the right word?) arguments about the SOTD and see it as a root problem -- when for me it wasn't a root problem. I don't know what that the "majority" of Adventist experience is in that matter, but I don't think my perspective was necessarily unique.
Speaking of "Adventist apologists", one argument I remember reading in an SDA study Bible (or something of the like with notes at the back) was how the word "spirit" or "soul" was talking about the whole person, like a Hebrew expression for a "person" in general, not a part or component of a person. I think I've heard this kind of line stressed generally more often in Adventist apologeticts than the specific distinction of the "body + physical, inanimate breath" argument.
As an example, I'll mention this. I was going to post this in a separate thread, and maybe I'll do that now if someone else hasn't already. There's a new book by a former Adventist about Adventism, and I saw a review of it by an Adventist on a blog (http://thinking-christian.blogspot.com/2007/12/book-review-its-all-about-jesus.html)
The author of the review criticized the book because:
quote:Scholars such as Clark Pinnock, and others, have increasingly come to see the SDA doctrine of annihilationism and unconsciousness of the person in the intermediate state as more consistent with the holistic view of Hebrew thought about the person.
I left this comment in reply, which last I checked was "awaiting moderation" before being posted, and may or may not end up being posted:
quote:The problem is that it doesn't take a theologian to understand what the Bible says clearly about the state of the dead.
Nor does it take a theologian to look at plain historical documentation like that of Josephus (http://earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/ant18.html) which speaks of how Jews viewed the "state of the dead" during the time of Christ.
Additionally, it doesn't take a theologian to merely go talk to Jews today and find out what they believe is "Hebrew thought" about the state of the dead, and discover that they believe in consciousness after death today, too, just as they did in the past. (google "Judaism101" for more on this topic).
One needn't be a theologian to learn that annihilationism and soul-sleep came from George Storrs' teaching during the Millerite movement (and ironically that Miller himself rejected both beliefs).
One needn't be a theologian to learn that annihilationism didn't appear until the fourth century in a book from Arnobius of Sicca, and that it was condemned in the Second Council of Constantinople in 553.
The weight of Biblical evidence, historical evidence (both Christian and Jewish) spells out clearly what "Hebrew thought" is on the matter.
Now it does take a theologian to find a way to disagree with 1) the Bible, 2) Jewish history, 3) Judaism today, and 4) all of early Christian history!
Oops, my bedtime.
Blessings in His love!
Ramone
P.S. I missed the Romans 12 thing, I think? |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 8215
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 04, 2008 - 5:38 pm: | |
I remember when the SOTD "thing" reached critical mass for me. As an Adventist, I had been coming to believe more and more that the Holy Spirit was not to be feared and that He would fill us and change us. I was never sure exactly how that worked; I believed that the Holy Spirit primarily functioned in my mind. (The common teaching is that Adventists need to get educated and observe the health message so they will be clear-headed and better able to "hear" the Holy Spirit because their minds are exercised and informed by [proper SDA] education and are healthy.)
I continued to believe—without questioning—that at death our breath went to God and our bodies went to the grave. I had a vague understanding of "new birth"—I wouldn't have been able to explain it, either in concise terms of what it meant or how it affected me. But I knew it was something "real" because the Bible said so. I also knew it had something to do with conversion and accepting Jesus and involved becoming more "spiritual". It just wasn't clear, and it seemed unrelated to the state of the dead—and unrelated to the security of salvation.
During the time we were studying our way out, I found a book in our own bookcase that I had never read, much less really noticed. I had, in fact, had it for a couple of decades and had no memory of how I got it, but I knew I had moved it with me several times without ever noticing it. It was called A Mighty Wind and was written by Indonesian evangelist Mel Tari. It described the great revival in Indonesia that occurred in the 60's.
Much of the book I don't remember now, but I do remember I was reading a chapter where Tari explained what happened when a demon-worshiping Indonesian heard the gospel and accepted Jesus. I remember that he had a diagram describing the person's spirit (I don't now remember exactly how he illustrated it) and what happened as the person accepted Jesus but had deep attachments to the evil spirits of his native culture and religion.
Tari made the point that the person needed to consciously renounce the evil spirits in addition to accepting Jesus, because is he did not, the spirits, who had a claim on him, would harrass him and his own spirit would become a spiritual battle ground as the Holy Spirit indwelled him. In other words, the person could not retain some loyalty to the spirits and also receive the Holy Spirit without being plunged into spiritual crisis.
[Parenthetically, this reality that Tari described became clear to Richard and me when we realized that there was a spirit of Adventism we had to renounce. If we failed to acknowledge the true nature of the claim and power and bondage of Adventism, it would always have a hold on our emotions, and we would continue to go through repeated cycles of guilt and fear and spiritual bargaining. We had to be willing to surrender ALL the claims of Adventism and ask the Holy Spirit to replace those claims in our own hearts.]
As I read that chapter in Tari's book, I remember suddenly "seeing" with startling clarity that the spiritual battle he described could NOT be happening in one's respiratory system. In other words, a spiritual battle going on in a person's spirit could not be happening in their "breath". Further, since the demons and the Holy Spirit are "spirits", this conflict in a human "spirit" had to be occurring in something other than the brain.
I remember the feeling of my adrenalin startling me into a sort-of hyper-awareness as I realized clearly for the first time that spiritual knowing and spiritual reality has to happen in a literal human spirit. Spirit cannot mean "breath" nor "mind". It has to be the place where we experience the Holy Spirit as well as spiritual bondage when we are in the kingdom of darkness.
When I realized that, I suddenly understood what the "new birth" actually was, and I realized that what goes to God is not "Breath" but actually our "spirit". This understanding led to me understand that my inherent sinfulness was not in my genes but was a dead spirit, and this understanding eventually led me to understand that Jesus' sinlessness was because of His original living spirit conceived by the Holy Spirit.
All the basic doctrines of sin and salvation are connected to the reality of "spirit"—and Adventism has occluded the clarity of the basis of who we are and who Jesus is by this heretical teaching.
Colleen |
Patriar
Registered user
Username: Patriar
Post Number: 733
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 05, 2008 - 9:27 am: | |
Ramone:
That sure is an interesting quote by Clark Pinnock. I'm seriously baffled by it. Is he saying that annihilationism and the unconscious state are the same thing?! And is he doing that out of ignorance or on purpose? I am not asking out of a mean heart, but a seriously seeking one. To suggest that annihilationism and the intermediate state of unconsciousness are the same thing provides an easy way for theologians within SDAism to speak either side of the issue. True soul sleep, which is actually embraced in some (though small circles in evangelical Christianity) IS an unconscious, but alive soul who is with God. Annihilationism is what Adventist doctrine actually subscribes to because breath without a body can no longer exist. The respiratory system is required for breath to move as it was created to do.
Patria
(Message edited by patriar on June 05, 2008) |
Patriar
Registered user
Username: Patriar
Post Number: 734
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 05, 2008 - 9:31 am: | |
Colleen:
Yes, yes. I know what you mean. Realizing the nature of man affects the nature of Jesus completely, which in turn affects savlation RADICALLY. In turn, John 3, 4, 5 Ephesians 1, 2 etc., etc., etc. all the sudden can be taken at face value! Hallelujah!
What a joy. Thank You, Jesus!
I always say that if He'd shown me His grace all at the same time, it would have killed me. It would have crushed me with the weight of it's magnificence. It's too much....just too much. Coming from complete despair, to complete and utter security is beyond comprehension and beyond description.
Patria
(Message edited by patriar on June 05, 2008) |
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos
Post Number: 1546
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, June 05, 2008 - 9:56 am: | |
Colleen, that was an awesome testimony! Thank you for sharing!
Patria, haha, I didn't pay much attention to that quote except to note that it endorsed SDA doctrine as being more holistically "Hebrew".
Looking at the quote again, I'm guessing that the author of the review (whom I assume is not Clark Pinnock himself) probably looped together the two related doctrines -- the SOTD and annihilationism. I don't think they were saying that they are the same thing, but rather just naming the two which always seem to go together because they are the two big departures from Christianity in the "after life" category, which are somehow sold as being more "Hebrew".
The existential/ontological argument of whether annihilation & the unconscious state are the same thing -- it isn't something that I ever considered as an Adventist, nor something that I heard any Adventist verbalize or teach on while I was an Adventist. Since leaving I may have heard it once or twice here or there, but generally this particular path of logic is something I've only heard mentioned here by former Adventists.
That said, I haven't been into listening to the Adventist apologetics about the SOTD/annihilationism issue, and somehow the idea of them being seen as the same thing may not be too far out in left field for them. **shrug** Not my department.  |
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1494
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 05, 2008 - 11:20 am: | |
The intermediate state of all people and the final state of the lost are most definately linked in SDA theology. The argument in both cases is that when the breath has left the body the person ceases to exist as a person and is no more. SDAs believe this is what happens in both the first and second death. So the current state of EVERYONE who has died in the history of the world is exactly identicial to the eternal state of all the damned. There is no difference.
Chris |
Patriar
Registered user
Username: Patriar
Post Number: 735
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 05, 2008 - 1:25 pm: | |
AHHHH I see. He COULD be saying that the Adventist belief is annihilationism and OTHERS believe in the "intermediate unconscious state". Ok light finally dawned.
Sorry. That really confused me. I asked because of my relative who keeps maintaining that she was taught in the adventist system that the soul is just unconscious after it dies...it is not annihilated. Has anyone else run into this issue?
Patria |
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1495
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 05, 2008 - 5:14 pm: | |
Well, who knows what your aunt may or may not have been told? However, if she thinks that is what Adventism officially teaches in its school systems, she is just dead wrong. I have before me my SDA college level text book which I was issued at Union College not so long ago in the early 90's. It's called "Christian Beliefs" (how ironic) and here are some excerpts from the chapter "Man's Condition in Death".
quote:God, in His own way, preserves a picture of the total personality of each individual-the results of the person's use of the combination of body and spirit. But it is clear that the Bible nowhere teaches the existence of the spirit as a separate conscious entity. (pg. 139)
At death, then a man loses all consciousness. His body disintegrates and becomes like the dust of the earth… No distinction is made between the manner of death of the righteous and the wicked. As one dies, the other dies. (pg. 140)
Personal identity is preserved by the God who will create new bodies for the redeemed at the resurrection. Even though the new bodies will not be of the same particles of material as our earthly bodies, the individuals who have perfected Christlike character here are those who will be rewarded. (pg. 142) [emphasis mine]
There you have it. At death the righteous and unrighteous are exactly the same. They are both non-existent. A picture of their personality exists in God’s memory. If they had reached a certain level of perfection in life, then He will someday recreate them with a new body which is not linked to the old body. This is utter heresy from start to finish and it is exactly what is being taught in SDA college classrooms no matter what your aunt might say.
Chris |
River
Registered user
Username: River
Post Number: 2845
Registered: 9-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, June 05, 2008 - 6:05 pm: | |
One Adventist I know recently made the statement that God "Saves" out data and even stated that God uses computers to "recover" the file to make an exact copy or some such non-sense, its so crazy, you can't get the same story from one Adventist to another, I reckon they just kind of make it up as they go along.
I reckon they spend most of their time worrying over what and what not or lack there of, actions to take on Sabbath.
One Adventist friend told me he was going to have his daughter who is a carpenter build him some cabinets and he talked about this for a week or two.
His Daughter lives in L.A. so she came up and was going to come over and measure for the cabinets, she was leaving on Saturday morning to get back home so she called him and said "Dad, I'll come by Saturday morning and measure for the cabinets" this was about the middle of the week, so I reckon he worried about it all the rest of the week so Friday morning he told me he was going to call his daughter and tell her not to come "I am just not going to let her measure anything on Sabbath morning", so add one more can't do, no measuring devices on Sabbath.
Its the same old thing that the people were caught up in while Jesus walked the earth.
Matthew 23:24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
Matthew 23:38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
And thats just about how this mans house is because the perfection promised by the Adventist church has not materialized even though he is 75 or 76 years old. He longs for peace in his soul and does not have it. He is disappointed with his life the way it has turned out because they preached to him to try and attain perfection all those years like a carrot waved on a stick before the horse he keeps saying just another inch or two and I will have it but his hope is fast fading because he knows deep down in places he won't admit to that the years have failed him and when he moves the carrot moves.
Very sad, perhaps I am wrong and I truly do hope so, to find that I have misunderstood would seem like a blessing.
By the way he still doesn't have the cabinets and that was at least summer.
River |
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos
Post Number: 1547
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, June 05, 2008 - 9:31 pm: | |
quote:...you can't get the same story from one Adventist to another, I reckon they just kind of make it up as they go along.
I reckon they spend most of their time worrying over what and what not or lack there of, actions to take on Sabbath.
River, I think you've actually hit the nail on the head here. Views of the SOTD vary within Adventism, so it's difficult to say which one is an "official" position, or which one "Adventists" teach. What I've observed (non-conclusively) is that EGW made some statements but did not think about things too deeply, and since then subsequent generations have embraced those general statements while filling in the gaps for themselves.
The easiest example of this is the finer points of "how to keep the Sabbath". Ellen White did have a lot of rules (she, too, seemed to make them up as she went along), however I think most Adventists have jettisoned the "list EGW's rules" approach. Rather, the general rule "rest on Sabbath" is held along with some general assumptions ("helping" jobs can be done - nursing, et al), but individuals, families & congregations largely fill in the gaps for themselves. However, there's a lot of comparative pressure involved (which is the hallmark of legalism), so one group's rules end up affecting a neighboring group as well (such as "no swimming on Sabbath").
With the SOTD issue, it seems as if EGW may not have gone into the "memory card" issue, so to speak. I think it's generally a post-EGW argument, though I may be completely wrong about that. However, in the parts of her writings that I've read which mention the SOTD, I haven't yet noticed that argument made. I'm not sure if she mentions the idea that soul-sleep & annihilation are the same thing (that the righteous' first death is "annihilation" followed by resurrection). From the writings I've seen of hers, it might be able to be inferred. However in general I don't think it seems to be an argument that she was making, but rather a fill-in-the-gap argument that some/many apologists have made to defend her statements/beliefs. Additionally, it seems to be a non-"official" argument -- something that people (including apologists) have used to fill in the gaps in their minds/arguments/defenses about the general SOTD teaching from EGW and early SDA.
The "memory" argument seems to be something that post-EGW apologists might think of if they were challenged with deeper logic than EGW exhibited. It seems like they wouldn't have thought of it on their own, but rather would've come up with it after someone pointed out a flaw in their/EGW's general SOTD belief. I.e., it seems like an additional foolish argument concocted to defend an original foolish belief, the result being that one paints oneself further into a corner.
Again, I may be mistaken, but this is just how it's seemed to me. **shrug**
These are just my general observations, and I haven't done an in-depth search about this through EGW's writings, etc. In part, these preliminary observations have arisen because I've seen the "memory" argument (and some other arguments) put forward more among former Adventists asserting the Adventist position more than I've heard the argument from Adventists themselves in my own experience. Yet although all experiences vary, I can't completely discount my experience as being a solely "minority" experience because I grew up in Silver Spring, attended Sligo SDA, was a 3rd or 4th-generation Adventist on both sides, and served as an SDA student missionary.
Blessings in Jesus!
Ramone
(Message edited by agapetos on June 05, 2008) |
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1496
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 06, 2008 - 8:23 am: | |
Ramone,
I don't really want to argue with you brother, but just because a lot of Adventists aren't aware of what is written in SDA textbooks and commentaries and what is taught in SDA university classrooms, it doesn't mean it's not official teaching.
We either hold Adventism, as a belief system, accountable for what is published in it's official publications and taught in it's classrooms or we might as well give up an embrace Adventism as a system as part of the Body. After all, there are no doubt many individuals Adventist who have more orthodox views on various subjects. So these more evangelical Adventists argue that Formers are being too hard on Adventism in referring to it as "cultic". They claim Adventism is just another denomination like any other and they provide their own personal interpretations to justify their assertion. They say things like, "Well I've never believed that and I don't think that's really an official view." Their intent is to make Adventism as a system seem less cultic then it really is.
So how are we to evaluate a system of belief? Do we base our assessment on what is related to us by a few people who are not very aware of what Adventist doctrine really teaches, or do we base our assessment on what is put in print in SDA textsbooks and taught in their seminary classrooms? Which is a more objective approach?
To be consistent, I personally believe we need to judge Adventism *as a system* by the objective evidence in print while allowing for the fact that certain individual persons within the system may or may not believe or even know all of what is taught. What I am sure of is that we cannot let the system itself off the hook by dismissing the printed materials that the system produces and teaches from. If there is no objective evidence to judge the system by, then I really think we should disband this FAF ministry because it is engaged in a groundless attempt to bring people out of a system which may very well be okay (or so the SDA apologist who discount SDA printed materials would tell us).
Chris |
Flyinglady
Registered user
Username: Flyinglady
Post Number: 5406
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 06, 2008 - 8:52 am: | |
Chris, on CARM I remind people that even though their personal beliefs are different, to a slight/big degree, the church's beliefs are still there embodied in the 28 fundamental beliefs. They are asked why, if they do not believe the FBs, they are SDA.
Diana from the south. |
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 1430
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Friday, June 06, 2008 - 12:37 pm: | |
Additionally, some devout Adventists try to tell us that we really never understood Adventism in the first place. If we had properly understood them, they argue, we would never have left them. Still others, when confronted with precise quotes, will say that we are quoting EGW out of context. Amazingly, there are other Adventists (hoping you don't know alot about their religion) who try to argue that what we believe that Adventism teaches is not really factual and not something they personally believe nor something they have even heard of before. Time after time, I have come to realize that this latter technique is really yet another form of deception.
The uninformed about Adventism are indeed easy prey for their ultimate deception that consists of an outright lack of integrity. This certainly doesn't mean that all Adventists are liars, but many devotees attempt to make lying into some sort of virtue under trying circumstances. I am repeatedly shocked when notable SDA apologists lie to me about their belief system. Ignorance breeds ignorance. We need to be fully informed about Adventism to properly expose their toxic-faith system.
By the way, it doesn't hurt to know far more about Adventism than most loyal adherents do. The real truth is that I know more about Seventh-day Adventism now than when I was still a devout member. Admittedly, one must have THICK skin when ministering to cultic people. They are experts in trying to attack and belittle you--thereby hoping to negate your Christian testimony. All in all, their various unscrupulous assaults are all about damage control.
Dennis Fischer
(Message edited by Dennis on June 06, 2008) |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 8222
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 06, 2008 - 3:59 pm: | |
Chris and Dennis, I agree completely. We must be willing to deal with Adventism separately from individual Adventists. Individual Adventists are all over the board in their knowledge of the church and personal beliefs.
Adventism as a system, however, has one foundation, one prophetess, one set of extra-biblical "inspired" writings, one official set of beliefs, and one unified system of evangelism which specializes in "sheep stealing". It is what it is, and no amount of denial on the part of members alters what it is. We have to identify what it actually is.
Even those who don't know what it actually teaches are affected by those teachings. Some are just foggy about what is true--but that fogginess is still inhibiting.
Ramone, your article on throwing out the foundational Adventist altar summarizes what I'm trying to say here!
Colleen |
Larry
Registered user
Username: Larry
Post Number: 458
Registered: 5-2007
| | Posted on Friday, June 06, 2008 - 5:12 pm: | |
quote:try to argue that what we believe that Adventism teaches is not really factual and not something they personally believe nor something they have even heard of before. Time after time, I have come to realize that this latter technique is really yet another form of deception.
Excellent post Dennis. I would add that they one thing that all adventizm does promote is fanaticism. The "we are right, no matter what" is a form of self-deception, practiced by the whites, internalized, wrongly condemning those who would not time-set, and voila, you get adventizm.
Fanaticism: intense, uncritical devotion to an idea, day, or person. (tailored to fit adventizm. There could be other objects like places, times, events, etc.) hmmmm. maybe times and events could be in there too. 1844 movement in the sanctuary! |
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos
Post Number: 1556
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 - 10:53 pm: | |
Sorry I haven't gotten back to this thread in awhile!
Chris, I completely agree with you (and you too, Dennis & Colleen). What I was saying earlier was (1) definitely my own experience and (2) a kind of suspicion I have about how SDA apologists/commentators have arrived at a more developed, ontological version of the SOTD doctrine. Simply from what I've read in EGW, I haven't seen her go into that much detail -- it seems like her theology and intellectual thoughts about the matter had not developed that much.
This doesn't mean it's not what the SDAs believe, for many obviously do -- whether or not I have or haven't heard it from them. But it could mean that there are many Adventists who do not know if this line of thought, particularly if it is not an "EGW" argument (again, I say this only as a suspicion, because I haven't read even close to a third of her writings).
What this means is that when we speak about certain arguments or lines of reasoning, it's best to attribute them to their sources rather than blanket them for all Adventists.
As Dennis mentioned, there is an incredible variety of Adventists who re-invent "Adventism" for themselves. It's a mess. A big mess. When you talk to one Adventist over here, you'll find they disagree with other Adventists over there. In talking to them it's best to quickly discern what this or that particular Adventist holds to be foundational authority.
For Adventism as a "system", which I do agree needs to be addressed, it's a little tricky indeed. The easiest two things to reference are (1) the works of the Adventist founders and (2) official GC statements. I think these two are the hardest to disagree with. I'd like to put seminaries in there, but there is some diversity (that is, confusion) in all Adventist universities and divergeance of agreement, belief and doctrine.
I think this is likely because there is a very fundamental aspect of Adventism which all Adventists seem to practice:
"Explain it yourself"
I don't know where this originated, and I don't know if the words "explain it yourself" fully encapsulates this practice. But I think you'll know what I mean...
For example, it's when you start to fill in the "gaps" about Sabbath information... when you start to supply your own interpretation... "God did it because (insert reason)"...
It's when you say, "What the Sanctuary means to me is (insert rationalization or privately interpreted meaning)"...
It's when you say, "Ellen White is important because (insert any modern explanation apart from what she said about herself & writings)"...
I hope this paints the picture (and I apologize if it doesn't!). What Adventism somehow teaches us to do is to come up with our own explanations for places that it (a) just doesn't make sense, (b) isn't developed or well-thought-out enough, and (c) is in clear contradiction with Scripture.
Apparently this practice has been with Adventism since the beginning -- I think it encapsulates a vast bulk of EGW's assertations, for example (however she went the extra mile and gave her statements Divine credentials).
But I don't completely know how we all learned to do this... it just happened. Maybe it just happens when you have big "gaps" in the system of belief and yet simultaneously hold the system to be Divine and "the truth" and the best system out there.
What ends up happening, of course, is that everyone's private interpretations end up becoming near "gospel" to them. The way I've explained something to myself becomes the rock on which I stand, but I don't often consciously realize this, so I still maintain the illusion that what I believe (1) is what Scripture teaches and (2) is "Adventism" or "true Adventism".
I think the more-developed explanations of the SOTD may fall into this "explain it yourself" category. Things generated this way do get spread around, and certain explanations are more popular than others. Some even become institutionalized. However, according to SDA's original writings and official GC beliefs, I'm not sure if the SOTD is spelled out in that developed way. Again, I'm guessing this may account (partially) for why I didn't hear the developed SOTD version (or I might've been dozing off in class or Sabbath school, or God might've plugged my ears -- probably all three!).
Whatever the case, I don't mean to be hair-splitting here. It's just that anchoring "Adventism" in GC and EGW (or early SDA) makes things a little easier. For me, anyway.
Blessings in Jesus -- free from confusion and overwhelmed in His love!
Ramone |
|
