| Author | Message | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 870 Registered: 7-2004  |
Even as I knew that SDA doctrine was horribly messed up, I made plenty of rationalizations that allowed me to conclude that the SDA church wasn't really as bad as it might seem. And many of these rationalizations stayed with me as I left. It wasn't really until I started discussing SDA beliefs with SDAs on CARM and researching what SDA scholars had to say on the subjects that I realized just how wrong these rationalizations were. So I used to believe: 1) that EGW was sincere, but misguided woman who was easily manipulated by the people and culture around her--but now I must conclude that Scripture doesn't allow that conclusion about a person claiming to have visions from God, she must be evaluated as a prophet in which case the only conclusion is that she is a false prophet. 2) that the only SDAs who had a messed up theology of the Trinity were the historical nutcases who insisted on using the word "Godhead"--but then I learned that mainstream SDA theologians used carefully worded language to sound mainstream while still teaching that Jesus and the Father were distinct Beings made out of the same kind of substance, but that they are not one in substance and Being, but only one in agreement, and that is most certainly NOT the doctrine of the Trinity 3) that the great controversy theme was a reasonable viewpoint for understanding the story of sin and redemption, as long as the ideas weren't taken to the extreme--but then I came to realize that very premises of the great controversy stripped God of His sovereignty 4) that the dietary law were health laws rather than laws reiterating the distinctiveness of God's chosen people from all the other people 5) that SDA doctrine was basically Christian just too legalistic before I realized that if it isn't the Gospel that the Bible teaches, it isn't any gospel at all that's a decent start. perhaps I'll add some more one later if the idea sparks any interesting followups. | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 800 Registered: 8-2008 |
I used to believe that Special-K loaf was edible, but now I know different. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12475 Registered: 12-2003  |
Wow, Rick...these are great. I love the way you've structured your "before and after" realizations into singles sentences. You've hit the nail exactly on the head, so to speak. Interestingly, I pretty much have exactly the same "before and afters". The more I read and study the Bible--and the more I read and hear SDAs speak, the more clear it becomes that Adventism is not biblical Christianity, no matter how cleverly they use evangelical-sounding phrases. It's a culture of deception. Colleen | ||
| Foofighter Registered user Username: Foofighter Post Number: 154 Registered: 7-2005 |
Bskillet, I've been on a low-carb, low-fat diet of my own sort of design, and have been craving a big bowl of Special-K loaf and mashed potatoes!!!!!!!!!!! Ohhhhhh...why did you have to bring it up? Carol | ||
| Hec Registered user Username: Hec Post Number: 1711 Registered: 3-2009 |
Carol, do you want the gravy too? Hec | ||
| Foofighter Registered user Username: Foofighter Post Number: 155 Registered: 7-2005 |
Mmmmmm gravy! Yes, please. | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 801 Registered: 8-2008 |
Carol, wouldn't a nice beefy meatloaf soothe your craving and your diet? Cracker Barrel's meatloaf is to die for! | ||
| Paulcross Registered user Username: Paulcross Post Number: 183 Registered: 4-2005 |
I used to believe... 1) That the Remnant was the SDA church only to discover that remnant describes the saved people of God drawn from many peoples (Jew and Gentile - Romans). It seems that SDAism formed their remnant on an exclusive and "elitist" interpretation the OT prophets. 2) That the story in Daniel about the "refusal to eat the kings meat" was primarily there to emphasis the need for following the "dietary laws" to maintain spiritual purity. Can you guess what I discovered? (Romans 14, Colossians 2 and Acts 10,11) Ric_b, I am amazed at what I see God doing in my life what I look back to where I have come from. Paul Cross | ||
| Jonvil Registered user Username: Jonvil Post Number: 529 Registered: 4-2007 |
It's amazing that it wasn't until after I left that I learned about the true SDAC. I didn't leave because of Sabbath, Ellen, legalism, 1844/IJ, diet... I left for the Gospel, it was then I discovered all that other ---- had absolutely nothing to do with it. To be really original: 'Better late than never'. | ||
| Honestwitness Registered user Username: Honestwitness Post Number: 1150 Registered: 7-2005  |
Even though I disagreed with much of SDA doctrine almost from the very beginning of my 16 years in the church, I used to believe I could stay in the SDA church and affect change from within. Then, I finally realized my head was sore from bashing it against a brick wall. I've been out since 2005 and my head is finally healed. | ||
| Animal Registered user Username: Animal Post Number: 911 Registered: 7-2008  |
How did the brick wall fair?? | ||
| Freeatlast Registered user Username: Freeatlast Post Number: 753 Registered: 5-2002  |
I used to believe that I wasn't going to Heaven, didn't have eternal life, and would never see Jesus. I used to believe that my inability to eradicate sin in my life was going to get me thrown into the lake of fire. I used to believe that I was a stubborn, stiff-necked rebellious bad little boy and that most of my friends were better behaved than I was. I used to believe I wouldn't have enough courage to suffer torture during the Time of Trouble. I used to believe that I didn't have enough faith in Jesus and that was why I continued to struggle with certain "pesky" sins. I used to believe that listening to Journey and Led Zeppelin, drinking tea with my English grandmother, eating a pork hot dog at a kid's Birthday party, and reading Sports Illustrated on Sabbath would render me "unsafe to save". I used to believe that listening to Journey was worshipping Egyptian gods because their album covers had a scarab beetle on them. I used to believe my business was failing because I wasn't tithing. I used to believe that my name had already come up in the IJ and that was why Jesus wasn't giving me more power to conquer sin. I used to believe that my dad, mom, uncles, aunts, cousins were all holier than me and wished I could be as righteous as they were. I used to believe that if I could only "DO" better, then I would "FEEL" better. I used to believe I couldn't buy life insurance, register anything except 1AO for the draft (Conscientious Objector), vote for any Catholic running for office, and that I needed to move out of the large city of Los Angeles in favor of a more rural area as soon as I could. I used to believe that Spades and Crazy 8's were sinful, but Uno and Rook were OK. I used to believe watching a movie in a theater was sinful, but waiting for it to come out on VHS or ABC's Movie of the Week was OK. I used to believe that all of my family and most of my friends were going to be reviewing my sins when they got to Heaven to understand all the reasons I didn't make it there with them. I used to believe that I was a dirty, rotten, filthy, stinking sinner and that was why Jesus would never save me. Now I believe that I am a dirty, rotten, filthy, stinking sinner and that is EXACTLY why Jesus chose ME to save! (Message edited by freeatlast on April 08, 2011) | ||
| Hec Registered user Username: Hec Post Number: 1713 Registered: 3-2009 |
I used to believe that all churches have some sort of wrong doctrines. No one had it all right. But the SDA was the Closest to the truth. Hec PS: this is a favorite argument of SDAs when then get corner on the fact that they don't have "all the truth." Hec | ||
| Gregkleinig Registered user Username: Gregkleinig Post Number: 26 Registered: 12-2010 |
I used to believe that if I wasn't courageous enough to let my family suffer persecution because I refused to bow down to false Gods, ah la Shadrack, meschack etc; then we would all be lost. Then I discovered that Namaan was given the all clear by Elisha to go in with his king and bow before a false God. God understands. The Aussie | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 1175 Registered: 7-2004  |
Interesting you bring that up, Greg. Our Scripture reading at church last Sunday was the entire story of Namaan. I had never read those verses before where he was given a pass to bow before a false god under those circumstances and was quite surprised. Funny how that was left out of the Arthur Maxwell Bible Story set! | ||
| Hec Registered user Username: Hec Post Number: 1714 Registered: 3-2009 |
Please, stop messing up with my head. It's not Christian. Here Naaman is asking the prophet permission to disobey a direct commandment AND the prophet seems to give him permission to do it. Now, is it appropriate to disobey God's commandment to avoid trouble? Do prophets have that authority? What if that prophet would have been EGW? Wouldn't we say that that proves that she is a false prophet (Isa. 8:20?) Hec | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3650 Registered: 10-2004  |
Hec, Naaman doesn't say that it's not a sin--in fact, he acknowledges that it is something the Lord must "pardon" him for. Also, it was an involuntary bowing:
Jeremy | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 872 Registered: 7-2004 |
Continuing with my list. I used to believe: 6) that the viewpoints expressed in Questions on Doctrine were a realistic expression of the varied SDA understandings reflecting the changing understaning of the church then I realized that the church hasn't progressed one iota in that direction in over 50 years and am forced to conclude that this was yet another evangelism deception by SDAs 7) that the kids Bible story books were relatively harmless then I saw how the unique extra-Biblical SDA ideas were infused into story after story. Now I believe that these are the most dangerous of SDA deception tools | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 581 Registered: 7-2005 |
Ric, ditto for point 6. I haven't much information about point 7. Can you clarify how you came to point 6 from your previous view? Forgive me for manifesting a peculiar interest in anything related to QOD. I even wrote my resignation letter having it in mind. Gabriel | ||
| Hec Registered user Username: Hec Post Number: 1715 Registered: 3-2009 |
Jeremy, your explanation doesn't clarify anything to me. Too short. Not enough details for my deteriorated brain. He | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3651 Registered: 10-2004 |
Hec, The text says that Naaman's master, the king of Aram, forced him to bow by making him go into the house of Rimmon and leaning on his hand. It wasn't something that Naaman was choosing to do--his master forced him to do it. And yet Naaman still said, "the LORD pardon your servant in this matter." And Elisha says, "Go in peace," showing the gracious, forgiving nature of YHWH, the God of Israel. Also, Naaman was not an Israelite, so he was not under the Ten Commandments. He was a foreigner who had just been healed by this God of the Israelites, YHWH, and he realized that YHWH was the only true God. Jeremy EDIT: Here is what the Jamieson, Fausset & Brown commentary says on this verse:
(Message edited by Jeremy on April 09, 2011) | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 873 Registered: 7-2004 |
Gabriel There was never one point that led me to that conclusion. And I'm not talking about whether the authors themselves believed what they wrote, but they couldn't have, in good faith, expressed that this was either the common belief with the SDA church or the official belief within the SDA church. So the most reasonable two choices are that the authors were knowingly trying to pass off their personal beliefs as the actual beliefs of the church or that the authors were trying to make SDAism sound better than it truly was. But both of these are deceptive practices. SDAism has a long history of being willing to deceive others in order to proselytize, and that behavior has never changed. So a deceptive book on the subject is not out of character. The book was not published for very long, and when it was finally republished it was not by one of the big SDA publishing houses, but rather as an interesting historical document by a university press. Despite several rounds of changes in the fundamental beliefs, none of the issues described in the book ever made inroads for official doctrinal change. SDAism has been officially and publicly proclaiming a return to it's roots. The seminary and religion professors have all trended away from the positions in QOD for the last 3 decades. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3652 Registered: 10-2004 |
I don't think that QOD, at least as Martin understood it, even reflected the beliefs of the authors. For example, Froom, the main author of the book, wrote an article, around the same time that QOD was published, which stated that the atonement was not completed. I don't know why this didn't bother Martin or why he let them get away with it. Jeremy | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12486 Registered: 12-2003 |
I agree, Jeremy. I believe that Martin, a young man in his 20's at the time, was actually disarmed and deceived by the older men from the SDAs which whom he had those meetings. He was inexperienced, and he failed to realize that people who were not truly Christian could speak the right words and pray with him for God's blessing and truth and clarity as they pursued those meetings. When he met with the Mormons, they unhesitatingly told him what they believed. They were likely noticeably "separate" and calculating...but the SDAs disarmed him, posing and speaking as "true believers" to him. He made the decision NOT to speak to former Adventists as part of his research because they would have an "agenda". To me this is really an evidence of his youth and inexperience. It never dawned on him that Froom et al, whom he called "Christian brothers", could be deceiving him. But they were. If any of you haven't read it, the article in last Fall's Proclamation on Walter Martin and the Adventists is really good: http://www.lifeassuranceministries.org/proclamation/2010/3/waltermartin.html Colleen | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 582 Registered: 7-2005 |
The best explanation I came with in regard with Walter Martin's lack of reaction is that he relied on the adventist's inconsistencies in the first place in order to affirm that they are not a cult. From this perspective, further information pointing the contradictions just endorsed the initial evaluation. I think that only an explicit repudiation of QOD and a dropping of "finished atonement" language would indeed persuade Walter to change his mind. As long as adventists seems ambivalent on the issues with internal fights over QOD he thought that there is enough proof regarding internal divisions on the gospel. He reasoned that these internal divisions are generated by at least one camp who is genuine evangelical which struggles with the traditional adventist. For the sake of what he perceived as an evangelical camp, he refrained from labeling the entire church as a cult. Regarding him not speaking with ex-adventists. As formers we are still even today regarded as less credible witness when we speak about adventism. It is assumed apriori that we come from conservative lunatic-fringe adventism which doesn't represent officially the church and our reaction is against this extreme, non-official position. Consequently is irrelevant as far as the official position is concerned. The adventist leaders are smart enough to position themselves as evangelicals and create the appearance of distance from the lunatic-fringe. There is indeed internal divisions within adventism, but the division is not caused by a fight between the evangelical gospel and the traditional adventist gospel, but between different versions of the same adventist gospel, between the old-type adventism, and new-type adventism. Unfortunately this division is perceived as evidence of the existence of an evangelical genuine camp. This is why I'm never focusing on old-type traditional adventism but on new-type when I deal with adventist issues. I want to deal with the best of what adventism puts on the table. If people can see that this is not enough to make them clean, their credibility sinks. @Ric
You came to point 6 on the same road I came. You notice that the change was only at the surface and despite some adjustments in non-essential, the hard-core of the system was left intact. Gabriel | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 878 Registered: 7-2004 |
Another addition. I used to believe: 8) that SDAism had great respect for the Bible even if their understand of it had been slightly warped at times by EGW then I realized that SDA pastors and theologians would impugn the Bible in order to defend EGW. Because SDAism has made EGW's inspiration the standard they have systematically lowered their regard for Scripture to match the mounting evidence for errors, cultural influence, and plagiarism in EGW's writing. | ||
| Jonvil Registered user Username: Jonvil Post Number: 530 Registered: 4-2007 |
It's kind of obvious when you think about it, (big) if they believed the Bible was the only source of truth, the SDAC would cease to exist. |
