| Author | Message | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 51 Registered: 7-2004 |
Did anyone happen to see a recent Adventist Review article titled "The Big Picture", about understanding "the great controvery"? It's in the 9/23/04 issue, and the link is listed: http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1539/story3.html Even though we're formers, we are still on the mailing list (do you all still get "gifts"?) Anyway, I thought this was such an interesting article because it looks like it's trying to be an answer to the message SDA's seem to be hearing about the problems with historic SDAism and 1844. Their first answer to the conflict about the IJ doctrine says "The first thing to say is that we should never discard any truth revealed in the Bible." I guess that will keep those SDA's in line and stop their questions! It's interesting how the article says the IJ doctrine is not the least bit necessary to have as a doctrine, but it is wonderful because it helps Christians to see the big picture about God. That is such a watered down version of the original IJ doctrine! It used to be so important for everyone to make sure they got all sin confessed and removed before the close of probation. And now it's only important to believe in as a doctrine, in the sense that it "vindicates God" and shows the big picture of His justice. I think it's an attempt to tell SDA's not to worry about what the formers and others are saying about how wrong the historic view is, because the SDA church has it "right" today! If you stop to think about it, I'm pretty sure 99% of today's SDA's would never have joined the SDA church the way it was taught during EGW's time. And yet the way these very doctrines are presented today, hardly any SDA's can see what the problem is with it. I recall several years ago when I was first questioning some things, I kept telling myself "well, The Great Controversy scenario is certainly correct, that's the one thing I know for sure I believe in, and SDA is the only church that has that right, so it must be the right church." Did the "great controversy" theme used to hold such a big sway on other formers? | ||
| Dd Registered user Username: Dd Post Number: 150 Registered: 7-2004 |
I cannot remember exactly what the Great Controvery is really about...I have been told it is the history of the church. Is that from Acts onward or is it the history of the EGW church - visions, 1844 "mistake"...? I went looking for my book and could not find it recently because I had just been informed that my 7th grade daughter was going to read it in her Bible class at school! I know...I know...BUT now that I've told you the bad news....here's the good news....my husband is having his eyes opened wide!!! I've told you on this forum several times that before we moved here we had our children in a non-denominational Christian school - what a nurturing, Christ-centered place! For more reasons than I want to type out, we moved to where we are presently (a large SDA-mecca). We felt the area was diverse enough (different SDA "levels" and a fairly large non-SDA student population) that they would stay away from doctrines - WRONG!! After this school year started, I found out that the Jr. High students only have Bible 2 out of 4 quarters! Finding out that instead of being in Scripture they were reading "The Great Controversy" was the last straw! I have been very vocal to the Principle and Vice-Principle (they just basically nodded "yes" to everything I said, smiled, patted my back and said, "Thanks for stopping in.") It looks like we will most likely be moving back to where we came from and dropping our SDA membership - TOGETHER!! We still have not worked out the details and are not 100% the move will work out but I just had to share after reading Raven's post! Please pray that we will be receptive to God's opening and closing of doors. I trust in His leading - sometimes I just am not looking with clear vision! | ||
| Dd Registered user Username: Dd Post Number: 151 Registered: 7-2004 |
I was just thumbing through the latest issue of the Gleaner (conference news magazine)...there is a new book out from Amazing Facts (for only 18.95 - S&H additional  ). "GOD AT RISK: THE COST OF FREEDOM IN THE GREAT CONTROVERY". The ad has a quote from Malcom Maxwell, Ph.D. -- "Timely and useful...an insightful and remarkably comprehensive survey of the great controversy--the major rebellion against God from within His own family." M-m-m-m...rebellion against God from within His own family....does that mean us formers...? Could it be we are against God because we are for Jesus? If so...count me in....GIVE ME JESUS!!! | ||
| Pw Registered user Username: Pw Post Number: 157 Registered: 6-2004 |
I never did quite understood the scripture support the SDA church uses for the IJ theory. The dates they conjured up out of the book of Daniel was beyond my understanding at the time...AND STILL IS TO THIS DAY. That was one aspect that was easy to dismiss once I left, and yet they somehow they keep "spiritualizing" it in one way or another even after it has been proven invalid. The Jehovah Witnesses did the same thing with the 1844 date. Obviously it's all speculation based on one person's interpretation. The more I look back on their teachings, the more absurd they become. To be honest, I don't know how this sect even survived all this time, so sad that people can't get past the deception. | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 52 Registered: 7-2004 |
In a nutshell, the SDA great controversy theme is about how sin started with war in heaven between Satan and Jesus, and Satan accused God of being unfair and Satan was jealous of Jesus' position and wanted it. Once the whole package of sin is completely played out, and everyone makes their final choice, God will be vindicated that He was correct and fair and the devil wasn't. Then, at the 2nd coming, and more completely after the millenium, there will be a complete and permanent eradication of sin, which of course includes permanent annhilation of all who have chosen evil. Of course there are many additional "insights" thrown into this concept by EGW, hence her book "The Great Controversy". These additional insights include such things as Jesus is Michael the archangel, and Satan was jealous that Jesus was included in the plan to create Earth and he wasn't, and there's the idea that Satan and Jesus are on the same or similar level. And now this article I referred to seems to make it sound like if you believe in the great controversy concept, you have to believe in the IJ, because the IJ does such a beautiful job of completing the vindication of God that the whole "great controversy" was about in the first place, etc. | ||
| Praisegod Registered user Username: Praisegod Post Number: 130 Registered: 3-2004 |
It seems to me that this article will make historic Adventists quite upset. It says that God does not need a pre-advent judgment. It also says everything was completed on the cross. However, I know that SDAs have always said that without the IJ there is no reason for the church to exist. There is also an attempt to placate the ones who say God is a loving God only. I see a lot of philosophizing without scriptural backing. Perhaps it's another attempt to smooth ruffled feathers on all sides to keep them from examining anything too closely. I'm praying that each of these kinds of articles gets at least one sincere seeker to start examining everything. Praise God... | ||
| Pw Registered user Username: Pw Post Number: 159 Registered: 6-2004 |
The Jesus/Satan being equal concept is the same strategy the Mormons use. They claim they were brothers. All in all, it's all a lie no matter how they are dishing it out. Anyone who denies Jesus as coming in the flesh (or being God himself) is a deceiver...clear and simple. | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 958 Registered: 11-2002 |
You mean to tell me after all these years and having been born into and raised SDA I totally missed it? I have thought all this time the terms Great Controversery and Investigative Judgement were two different terms mening the same thing. Once again I have totally missed it. You mean to tell me those are two different doctrines? It sure does not make any sense to me at all. Awhile back in one of the SDA magazines was an article about a lady who had converted to SDA. The author of the article pointed out that what lead this lady to the SDA truth is that she is an accountant, therefore really good at figuring out number calculations and when shown the IJ calculations it all made sense to her so she immediatelly requested membership in the SDA organization. Please, humor me but when I read that I honestly busted up laughing. I just kept thinking, "Well, o.k., no wonder it never made sense to me. I'm not a math major." The Gosple of Christ Jesus is easy enough so us who are not mathamatitions can "get it". | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 46 Registered: 7-2004 |
Actually the math of the Gospel is quite simple. We deserve nothing. We are given everything as a free gift through Christ. Not the kind of equation that accountants work with! | ||
| Tracey Registered user Username: Tracey Post Number: 57 Registered: 9-2004 |
Amen Ric_b! | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 960 Registered: 11-2002 |
Ric_b, Thanks for the Bibical math even I can understand. I always enjoy your imput and insight. | ||
| Vchowdhury1 Registered user Username: Vchowdhury1 Post Number: 46 Registered: 7-2004 |
Ellen White copied 80% of "The Great Controversy" from a book by J.A. Wylie, called "The History of Protestantism" (1876). She was not "inspired" to write this book, she was a blatant plagerist! She never gave credit to J.A. Wylie in her book (Reference Walter Rea's book, "The White Lie). I hate to say it, but "The Great Controversy" as far as I'm concerned, can be filed with the rest of her so called "books", under "T" for Trash. | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 607 Registered: 3-2004 |
Another AMEN to Ric-b. I have said before that I studied the IJ and even read the Great Controversy. What I read in the GC scared me into trying to better myself, by myself, which I have since found out cannot be done. After I studied and read and passed tests, I forgot all about it. Every so often, something comes back, like, when my brother was visiting me in May he asked about a "gray cloud in the sky" that appears and as it gets closer it is Jesus and the other is about Jesus coming through the middle star of the belt of Orion. Those are not Biblical, but are EGW. I told him that and he accepted it. Thank God, we are beyond all that now. God's plan is so simple, even I can understand it and it is awesome. Diana | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 178 Registered: 4-2000 |
Vchowdhury1, I applaud your excellent analysis of the writngs attributed to Ellen White. Sadly, she remains a major distraction, in SDA circles, from centering their faith in Jesus Christ alone. The small percentage of her writings that were not plagiarized are best characterized as a multiple guess type of inspiration. Ellen White's problematic and blasphemous role, as a latter-day coredemptrix in salvation, is officially verified by the SDA Church requiring that candidates for baptism confess her as being the "Spirit of Prophecy" BEFORE they can be baptized into Christ. Dennis J. Fischer | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 962 Registered: 11-2002 |
I just was at my moms and I read the article we are discussing. Did you notice in that issue of the Review in the Letters section are about a half-dozem letters of praise to EGW? One letter even mentons the problems Dale Ratzlaff is causing. The thing that really stood out for me was the statement that God didn't need the truth of the 1844 thing to know who are His and who are lost. Do SDA's have even a clue as to how stupid that sounds? It comes across as the SDA's wanting to inform God of correct doctrine. | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 53 Registered: 7-2004 |
Yes, I noticed those letters too, and that's what made me look through the rest of the Review which is how I came across that article. Usually, I skim the letters and then toss it, because I don't want to read things that aren't uplifting. Those letters really struck me that the wave of people questioning, or at least hearing about questioning, the SDA foundation is certainly growing! | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 753 Registered: 12-2003 |
Raven, that insight is exciting. I believe the wave of questioning IS growing, and I just praise God for that! I'm certain that our continued prayers are part of the battle. Dennis, I love the way you so bluntly called EGW a "latter day coredemptrix in salvation". You are absolutely right. The fact that so many SDA's--particularly younger ones--do not really understand her role does not negate the fact that she IS a point of SDA belief, and she absolutely shapes every doctrine in the SDA church. Even those who think they have relegated her to a secondary or even non-important role are still very much shaped and owned by her and her interpretations. What you don't know really CAN hurt you. I now believe that the Great Controversy theme--the great pride of Adventism, even liberal and evangelical Adventism--holds the core heresy of the church. As Raven said, the GC is predicated on the idea that Jesus and Satan are locked in an ongoing contest of wills and strength. They are somehow "equal" in their intrinsic power. That is blasphemy. Satan is a created being, and Jesus is his creator. They are locked in no equal struggle. Satan is raising a lot of dust to obscure the fact that Jesus has already defeated him--and Jesus was able to defeat him precisely because He was his creator. Only God could break the power of evil and restore peace with God to anybody. On top of the unthinkable notion that Jesus and Satan are fighting over humanity, the Great Controversy also suggests that WE will help Jesus to win. We are the ones who will "vindicate God"--excuse me? We are creations of God; in fact, all the universe is God's creation. To whom, exactly, does God need vindicating? And how would we ever be able to vinidcate the sovereign, omnipotent, omnsicient God if such a thing were even an option? The Great Controversy also includes Satan as a co-sin bearer. He, according to EGW, is the scapegoat on whom all the world's sins are laid at the final judgment, and he is punished more than everyone else for causing us to sin. In other words, Jesus' suffering for our sins didn't really take care of them. They are still unpunished. Satan will bear the final punishment for our sins. It really makes me upset when I analyze the true meaning of the pleasant, sweet-sounding, oversimplified Adventist version of what's REALLY going on in the spiritual realm. It's all doctrines of demons, and it exalts Satan to an admirable, pitiable position. The Great Controversy (as well as other of EGWs books such as Spiritual Gifts and Early Writings) are downright blasphemous and demonic. (Do you think I stated that subtely enough? I'm putting my soapbox away as I write...) Colleen | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 505 Registered: 7-2003 |
I'd get you a step ladder if you'd like to raise the box a little higher! I have had so many arguments with the ridiculous position that God is going to prove the "my daddy's bigger than yours" argument of two 4-year olds. It really shows the ignorance of God's sovereignty and reduces him down to some arm wrestler over the keys to the kingdom. It sounds so much like pre-school games. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 48 Registered: 7-2004 |
Colleen, I've been having this very discussion on CARM. Several SDAs were taking it so far as saying that it will be our perfect characters that vindicate God. In spite of my years in SDAism, this was a shocking statement. Our perfectness saves God. Seems backwards somehow. And the repeated idea that we judge God really gets me on my own soapbox. God has some answers from Job that seem appropriate. The whole idea that we are capable of judging the actions of the Almighty is ludicrous. It also begs the question of whether of not we trust God. Clearly proponents of the new & improved IJ doctrine assume that we don't or are incapable of trusting God. To me that is what faith is really about. Not believing that these is a God, but trusting God. Of course that means I am talking about faith as a personal and emotional rather than logical. And SDAism is all about the supremecy of reason and logic. But in my experience, God isn't understood through our wisdom. | ||
| Sabra Registered user Username: Sabra Post Number: 220 Registered: 10-2001 |
I guess they have to really be far from God to think that He has to be somehow vindicated. I went round and round with an SDA on this and I frankly, didn't know the doctrines. I think God erased what I did learn of that nonsense and I was appalled that he actually believed God was going to be on trial. He said things like "God has to prove that He is just." I'm like, "To whom?" He is the Great I Am, who is going to question Him? Not me! It is a lack of respect for God and an ignorance to the sovereignty of God. The religion is blasphemous. Oh, I wish the house would fall! |
