| Author | Message | ||
| Lucias (Lucias) |
On the front page of this site is a link titled "Adventism: A Thumbnail Sketch" It was pretty good I thought but one bullet glares out at me. I've put it below. I was raised and educated an SDA thru college and I'm quite sure that saying the bible is Errant will get you tossed out the front door of most congregations. So can someone clarify this one for me ? They do not believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God. They believe it has errors and contradictions in it which they have to interpret in the same way they have to edit and interpret Ellen White. Some say the Bible is inerrant because God wanted those mistakes and contradictions to be there. | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
The official SDA word (I believe) is that the Bible is the INSPIRED (as opposed to inerrant) word of God and is the source of all truth and doctrine. Generally they don't expand on what they mean by "inspired", but they likewise teach that EGW was inspired in exactly the same way the Bible writers were inspired. The words, they say, are each man's words as he interpreted the Holy Spirit's inspiration to him. The words are not sacred; only the teachings behind the words. This interpretation seems logical on the surface, but the problem comes when you say, "Oh, Paul didn't mean THAT literally--he was writing for a specific culture and time." Christians don't, I believe, think God dictated words to the Bible writers, but they do believe that God had his protection over the messages he gave and saw to it that the writers understood what they needed to know in order to state what God wanted stated for all time. Adventists believe that the Bible writers' interpretations of the Spirit's inspiration was subject to their limited understanding. Today our understanding is deeper and broader, and we can see where they were wrong. The difference is subtle, but it is profound. Inspired is not identical to inerrant. About two or three years ago I heard a Sabbath School program from LLU Church being broadcast on Saturday morning. The speaker actually gave a talk explaining how we can bring our understanding to the Bible and correct for the cultural biases and innacuracies that have come to us through those sincere but limited writers. (I am summarizing in my own words, but I listended to him give several examples of where we've had to "edit" or "correct" passages to make the texts work today.) Further, the belief is that just as EGW, who was "inspired" in the same way the Bible writers were inspired, has had to be edited and corrected for her early understandings, even so we can and must interpret the scriptures. When we left Adventism, we had a long talk with a religion professor at a LARGE SDA institution with whom we had worked on a publication. One of the things he actually said to us was, "One of the understandings you'll take with you from Adventism is that the Bible is NOT inerrant." He elaborated a bit further about the narrow and basically unenlightened view of evangelicals that the Bible is inerrant. There is a church here in So. Cal. which has the statement on its website that the Bible is the "inerrant" word of God. (This church is marketing itself without using the name Adventist. It's posing as a community church.) Richard emailed the pastor and asked why they are saying the Bible is inerrant when that is clearly not the church's position. The pastor responded that she does, indeed, believe it's inerrant; God INTENDED for those mistakes and contradictions to be in it. So, Lucias, I understand your shock, but the truth is that Adventists do not believe in an inerrant scripture. They believe in what they call "thought inspiration," and they include EGW's inspiration in the same category as the Bible writers'. They make statements that sound as if they hold the Bible to be ultimately sacred and reliable, yet when they get to the business of establishing and explaining doctrine and practice, they play fast and loose with the text, taking texts out of context, explaining what Paul REALLY meant, etc. I remember when I was in school being taught that the "Christians" who believed God inspired the words of the Bible were wrong. We were right; God inspired the THOUGHTS of the Bible, and the prophets and writers had certain limitations on their understandings because they were merely human. As wasóinevitablyóEGW. It's a subtle distinction, but it has profound implications for how they use and study scripture. Praising God for his living word, Colleen | ||
| Dennis (Dennis) |
Here is another doctrinal paradox in Adventism: "1. That the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were given by inspiration of God, contain an ALL-SUFFICIENT revelation of His will to men, and are the only UNERRING rule of faith and practice (2 Tim. 3:15-17)." (emphasis added) Quoted from QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE, 1957, page 11. This book was published, by the Review and Herald Publishing Association, through negotiations and discussions the SDA leaders had with the late Dr. Walter Martin, an Evangelical cult watcher in the mid-1950s. Hank Hanegraaff, the Bible Answer Man, was Dr. Martin's successor. Adventists quickly let this book go out of print as many SDA leaders felt that it sold the Adventists out to the Evangelicals. Many leaders felt the book was a mistake for the Adventists. However, the book helped get Adventists off Dr. Martin's cult list. It is a classic piece of literary deception as shown above. Some SDA apologists later made a big deal about the book not being approved by the General Conference in session as the sole authority to change any doctrinal statement. Being that stance is technically correct, Adventists could comfortably revert to the pre-1950s doctrinal positions. As a bonus for all the trouble, they were finally off the major cult lists for the first time in their history. The Adventist leaders simply deceived Dr. Martin who was a very young, inexperienced investigator at that time. After all, how could a devout Evangelical disagree with the inerrancy and all-sufficiency statement quoted above? The biblical all-sufficiency and inerrancy statement had to go because of Ellen White's extrabiblical writings. Otherwise, they would be trapped theologically. The whole system, without Ellen White's authoritative support, would soon come crashing down. Another bazaar paradox is that Adventism claims to be the "final link" of the Protestant Reformation. Without sola gratia (grace), sola fide (faith), sola scriptura (Scripture), and solo Christo (Christ), Adventism cannot be regarded as truly Protestant. Leading people into Arianism and an assortment of other heresies, is certainly NOT the "final link" of the Protestant Reformation. Dennis J. Fischer | ||
| Susan_2 (Susan_2) |
Colleen, I read your Thumbnail Sketch twice now. I o not mean so sound unkind to youat all, but really don't you think in your Thumbnail Sketch you're being a bit too nit-picky and harsh? Some of those doctrines you mention I really don't even think your average pew-warming Adventist even knows anything about their doctrinal significance. Or,is that just your point, that the denomination has one set of doctrines and they LET the devoted tithe/offering paying members believe whatever they want? I really think most SDA's are even aware of mot the teachings/doctrines you listed in your article. My informal survey of the SDA's I know ay they are SDA because that's the only Sabbath-keeping church around for them to be involved with. They just don't get much into the other stuff, except maybe when it comes to eating meat. What do yu think? | ||
| Loneviking (Loneviking) |
Susan, you can find a number of 'groups' within a local congregation, and it's true there are those who are basically cultural SDA's. But is Colleen nitpicking? No way! I was third generation when I left and I left over this very issue. This doctrine is specifically in the '27 Fundamentals' book that followed 'Questions on Doctrine'. Many SDA's that I grew up around emphatically believed in 'thought inspiration' and the need to 'reinterpret' what Scriptures said. This belief colors much of what the SDA church thinks and practices. Women pastors are in the SDA church because of this---the argument is that Paul's standards for pastors being men is cultural or that Paul was a misogynist. It's also the reason why SDA's just don't study the Bible by itself---they always have a guide, and usually it's EGW, or at the least some other great and trusted mind of the SDA church such as Graham Maxwell. This idea of though inspiration is what has, ironically, split the church into at least three camps. When you can reinterpret Scripture allowing for the errors of mankind you either: 1. Go extremely liberal and focus on a social gospel---which says nice things but is totally lacking in power. 2. Look for an authority to tell you what Scripture says---which is exactly what EGW says her work was. This results in the narrow, rigid conservative mindset of the far right in the church. 3. Then there is a large middle ground that tries to form a compromise with both views and update/get rid of the embarrasing stuff of the past. These are the cultural SDA's that you seem to be encountering. They follow whatever direction the theological wind is blowing from the GC at the present. Clear as mud? Bill S. | ||
| Cindy (Cindy) |
Susan 2, I agree with you that many average Adventists don't even realize the significance of their distinctive doctrines. Many remain in the "church" because of family reasons and/or cultural comfort... And they can usually leave the actual teaching of these "special" "remnant" doctrines like 1844, etc.... to the professional evangelists and pastors....(thankfully, for they are too convoluted for most to even understand or explain!) And, for those old members and new converts alike, there is a very real spiritual truth stated in 2 Corinthians 3:14-17: "But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom." Preaching and focusing on the Old Covenant's 10 Commandments--specifically the "holiness" of the 4th, a Seventh-DAY Sabbath rest--instead of seeing the reality and fulfillment of all the types and shadows in a PERSON, Christ! (along with the correspoonding "seal of God", the promised Holy Spirit) definitely blurs the Glory of the New Covenant of Jesus! Thanks for the sketch, Colleen. :-)) Grace always, Cindy | ||
| Susan_2 (Susan_2) |
Dear Bill, WHO IS GRAHAM MAXWELL? | ||
| Susan_2 (Susan_2) |
Wow! Cindy, that text you wrote in Corinteins is the perfect text for this topic. You sure are smart to have found a text that so pefectill sums it up. I'm impressed. | ||
| Dennis (Dennis) |
Susan 2, Your assertion that "pew-warming" Adventists do not really know many doctrinal details is most accurate. This is especially true of cultural Adventists (those born into it). It may come as a surprise to many that even the official apologists do not know many facets of Adventism. We must realize that Adventism is incredibly complex. Many historical and theological facts about Adventism are intentionally withheld in their formal training. I have had ongoing doctrinal discussions, with experienced SDA leaders and college professors, since leaving Adventism almost daily. I have an online chaplaincy ministry largely geared toward Adventists. I try my best to maintain a genuine friendship with them--although that is frequently impossible. It hard to talk with someone that knows everything. I keep up with their current events as well. This enables me to talk with them in an in-house manner as much as possible. I never cease to be amazed at their ignorance of SDA dogma. Some have complained to me that they don't want to get into any doctrinal details--those really hard to explain. They claim it would require too much of their time. There is no doubt that probing deeply into the esoteric, SDA doctrines will require an immense amount of time. False teachings always require extensive, elaborate explanations. Once the honest-hearted Adventists realize the total, big picture about their unbiblical teachings, they will renounce all connections to their church. Many remain entrenched in Adventism for social, economic, cultural, and family reasons. Therefore, many do not care what doctrinal positions exist. Others dream of reforming Adventism from within. The real problem with such a stance is that Adventism is not worthy of reforming. Being founded on outright deception, there is no valid reason for their existence. Obviously, as former Adventists, we have studied details that most current members are unaware of. I certainly know alot more about Adventism today than when I was still a member. God is calling many out of Adventism in His own time. May God continue to abundantly bless the effective ministry of the Former Adventist Fellowship. Dennis J. Fischer | ||
| Susan_2 (Susan_2) |
Dear Dennis, What you post on here is always so interessting. Frankly, I have NEVER thought of myself as SDA. Yes, it was the church I was raised in from birth but I remember specifically making a promise to myself in 5th grade, at age 11 that when I grew up and I could go to any church I wanted (I believed at age 11 my parents would be THRILLED for me to pick out a church to go to that I really liked. I believed this because I was bombarded at a early age about FREEDOM OF RELIGION and I thought that included me. I have since been told that doesn't include me. That's another story though.) However, whn one really does study th SDA doctrines one will find much error when comparing them to what is taught in the Bible. Now, on to something I am wondering about. In the past two days I have gone with my mom to three SDA servies. In fact, many non-SDA's were at these meetings as they were advertised in the papers locally. Some fellow named Tim Standish who is by ethnicisty Australian talked about evolution vs. creation. It was so extremely interesting. This study he is working on is called The Geoscience Reasearch Institute`. It is apparently fully funded by Amerian tax money but happens to be on the Loma Linda University grounds. But, Mr. Stanish who i an Adventist himself and has two ph.d"s in monecular biology and is so smart it just makes me gasp in awe of him, he says the universe and all it's elements are at least 14.8 billion years old, give or take several billion or even trillion on the side of age. He said, at this point in time it doesn't matter, we're all here and he's a scientist studying what is inside cells. My Q. is: Has the SDA church gotten over it's 6,000 year old earth belief? I remember distinctly as a kid being taught that. BTW, if any of you have the opportunity to go to his presentations I hope you go. | ||
| Loneviking (Loneviking) |
Susan, Graham Maxwell is an author, theologian and frequent speaker in churches all across Adventism. It's hard to believe you grew up SDA and don't know about him. He wrote (as one example) a very popular two volume set called 'God Cares' detailing the SDA understanding of Daniel and Revelation. If you want to know more about him, you could go to the Review site and then link over to the SDA yearbook which lists persons and biographies within the SDA church. Also, the GeoScience Research Institute is in Loma Linda but it's funded from a variety of sources. Ultimately, most of the funding is channeled through the G.C. My brother-in-law is employed there and is a geologist by training. He says that the staff members are pretty well divided over the issue of how old the earth is. It's pretty hard to ignore the evidence in the earth around us, but some folks feel a need to do so to defend their belief in God. As for your question---the answer is no! Tim is doing these programs on his own and the opinions are his own. If I remember right, he's a member of the Standish clan which includes Collin and Russell Standish who probably aren't too thrilled at what Tim is teaching! | ||
| Susan_2 (Susan_2) |
Yes, I have heard of Collin & Russell Standish although I'm not too up on their work. I do though really admire Tim Standish and the work he's doing with the Geoscience Institute. The only author who is named Mawell that I can think of is the Uncle Arthur fellow who wrote the bedtime story books. My parents (ages 93 & 81) have never had SDA books in their house other than the free ones the FFT or the VOP sends them through the mail. My mom has always insisted she gets too much readng material anyway without going and buying books. She was always having to study for her extended education units for her teaching crediantial every few years so she could get her raises, they have always gotten the newspaper, Time magazine, Prevention Magazine, Nutrition Action Magazine and Cat Fancy Magazine and these are just the ones off the top of my head, and then, of course, The Review. No time for all those other books. And, I don't think my prents go for that stuff anyway. They've always told me if there was a Seventh-day Baptist church around here that is where they'd attend and when we lived near Fresno they attended Valley Community Church, which was pastored by a fired SDA minister who was/is a wonderful gosple oriented person as well as being a nice person. Colleen, I believe I read you are in the Riverside area. I also have read that there is a very large Baptist church in Riverside that the entire congreation several years ago switched to Sabbth worship services. The church didn't know how to impliment the change so some SDA pastors as well as some SDB pastors came and helped them change over. Have you ever been to that church or do you know anything about it? When I was little we were always told the stories in the children's magazines were totally 100% true. Well, and this is very sad and tragic story, we became very close to a person who wrote for the Junior Guide and The Primary Treasure and Our Little Frend. One of the main authors for those magazine at that time. It came out that his stories were fiction. He was called on it and in humiliation and disgrace committed sucicide leaving behind a very young wife and a baby. Knowing these people very closely, my parents have never had much SDA reading material in their home, figuring it's most likely fiction anyway so they don't want to spend their hard earned $ on it. So, I never heard of Graham Maxwell. My mom bought all the books so far by Dr. Ben Carsn and she gets them at the local Barnes and Noble. We went to campmeeting every year when I was growing up and I don't ever remember my mom even going into the big bookstore at campmeeting. We went to go to meetings, visit with friends & family and to eat, not to shop.My parents always told me growing up they went to the SDA because the SDA church is right about Sabbath. That it is better to go to a Sabbath-keeping church that is right about the Sabbath and wrong about everything else than a Sunday keeping church that is wrong about the day but might be right about everything else. I always wondered then how come they didn't find a Sunday church they liked to go worship with and just keep Sabbath alone at home. It's totally a Sabbath thing. | ||
| Richardjr (Richardjr) |
I could be wrong, but I believe it is Graham's brother C. Mervyn Maxwell who wrote the "God Cares" series. | ||
| Dennis (Dennis) |
Richardjr, You are correct, Richard. Dr. Graham Maxwell is the late Dr. C. Mervyn Maxwell's liberal brother. Mervyn was one of my conservative college professors in the mid-1960s at Union College. He had an earned doctorate in church history from the University of Chicago. Unfortunately, I still remember alot of those quotations from Ellen White that I had to memorize for his Bible class. I still have an 8 x 10 photograph of Arthur Maxwell ("Uncle Arthur") and myself shaking hands at a literature evangelist convention at a Minneapolis hotel. Dennis J. Fischer | ||
| Susan_2 (Susan_2) |
Dear Dennis, Did you do a major or a minor or extensive study in church history? I have taken several Christian history classes from our regions recently retied bishop and the classes have been very interesting. I have been wanting to take some Christian history classes over at the Lutheran College in Thousand Oaks, Ca. The Lutheran college is just down the stree from the big, huge headquarters of Faith For Today. | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
Uncle Arthur is the father of Graham and C. Mervyn and Malcolm (formerly president of PUC) and, I think, one or two others, but I can't remember for sure. Susan, there is a VERY large Baptist church near us in San Bernardino. I don't know of any split; however, that doesn't mean one might not have happened at some time in the distant past. The only Seventh-day Baptist church I know of in the area is a tiny one in Riverside. It has a small congregation, and it's the place Desmond Ford used to hold his meetings when he came to Southern California. To my knowledge there are no other seventh-day keeping Baptist churches around--certainly, at least, no large ones. As concerns the Thumbnail Sketch--you're right; most Adventists don't know those things. That is precisely part of the problem. The fact that they don't know them does not make them unimportant. Those beliefs and the deception from which they were formed still holds the church in a thrall of bondage and blindness. As long as a requirement of the law (the Sabbath, for instance) is the focus of observance and practice, Jesus cannot be the center. All those other strange doctrines color the denomination and make it a place where people cannot easily find the true Jesus or freedom in the gospel. For example, if (to use a really unpleasant but clear illustration) your husband were systematically embezzling a good sum of money from his employer every year but told you simply that he had gotten a good raise, would that fact affect you or not if you didn't know about it? You might say that if you didn't know about it, you would be innocent and acting in good faith, being a supportive and loyal wife. The truth, however, is that even though you didn't know about the ongoing theft, your relationship with your husband would be shallow and limited, because no one can habitually commit and cover up a known sin in one area of his life and be open and vulnerable in the other parts. You would be prevented from growing in closeness and intimacy with your husband because he was living in known deception. Further, the law holds you jointly responsible, at least initially, for debts incurred by your spouse. If, on the other hand, you knew about the embezzling but ignored it, saying to yourself that he was good to you and was at least honest with you, your relationship with him would be no better. Not only would he be embezzling, but you also would be ignoring and hiding the truth. Any way you look at it, if you live in an environment in which deception and dishonesty are being practiced, even passively, you are unable to be free, to grow, and to be emotionally and spiritually vulnerable. Even if that environment is a church, you are being stunted and victimized by deception. I spoke recently with a young on-the-way-to-becoming-a former Adventist who had recently undergone a couple of hours of "grilling" by a half dozen similarly young Adventists. These young people confused the searching one by insisting that Sabbath was going to be important at the end of time. They could offer no bible texts to support this claim, but they used the argument that they were going to keep Sabbath just in case it was an important end-time event. If it wasn't, at least they'd be safe. The searching one asked how one was to keep the Sabbath. They replied, "Follow the Bible." When the searching one questioned how closely one was to follow, they said, "It's between you and God, but you must follow the Bible." The searching one said that if the Bible were really to be followed, they would be in serious violation because they shop, eat out, play, etc. on Sabbath. They had no answer but told the searching one he/she was being deceived and was leaving the truth. Those young Adventists have no idea what Adventism really embraces. In fact, these same young Adventists said they didn't believe EGW, but they were adamant that they had to keep Sabbath because it would be the test at the end of time. You see how confusing it is? Even those SDAs who do not know the details of Adventism are bound in chains of deception and spiritual bondage that they cannot identify or even sense. Without being able to explain the hidden, dark background and secrets of Adventism, it's impossible to explain to anyone why it's not a viable evangelical church. It's those very hidden, deep secrets and shameful doctrines that keep Adventists confused about what the Bible really teaches and keep them from embracing the certainty of salvation. Those unbiblical doctrines do not stem from the Bible or from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The come from "another spirit" (see 2 Corinthians 11)--or Satan. There is a spiritual claim on Adventism and on Adventists. If we cannot expose and name the deceptions, they lie buried and fester from the inside, rotting away all hope from those who are bound by them. Praise God for truth, for revealing himself, for making his word come alive, and for making us alive with His Spirit! Colleen | ||
| Terryk (Terryk) |
Thanks for that research and advice. I think that is what bothers me the most is that people are in this church and do not know what it represents. It is hard to imagine you call yourself a SDA and do follow or know their beleifs. I realy did not know that their were so many who did not even know what I was talking aobut I wondered what church have they been going to. Or that famious statement you do not have to beleive in Ellen White what a lie she was a big part of what it is today the ignorance they always quote this scripture to all the sundays keepers my children will be lost for lack of knowledge well I think they better look in that mirror. Terry |
