Collegedale Community Church Attempts To Regain Seventh-Day Adventists

[John317]

April 14, 2009

Collegedale Community Church Attempts To Regain Seventh-Day Adventists

posted April 13, 2009

It is estimated there are hundreds of thousands of former Adventists across the country; many of which reside in

Chattanooga. In an effort to reintroduce those who have left the

church and others across the area, the Collegedale Community Church is taking a different approach aimed at changing the mindset of the public and the traditional stereotypes commonly associated with the Seventh-day Adventist denomination.

As an example, Jerry Arnold, senior pastor at CCC, has invited the widely-known progressive Adventist, Dr. Smuts Van Rooyen from California, to speak on April 17 and 18.

Dr. Van Rooyen will give three presentations while in Collegedale.

“We, like all denominations, worldwide are seeing an attrition of

parishioners leaving the church environment possibly because they are

questioning the relevancy or feeling the lack of support of spirituality in these really tough times,” said Pastor Arnold.

“Dr. Smuts has a progressive message of hope, open mindedness and building a relationship with God and our fellow man regardless of how you have chosen to presently live your life. Our overall mission is to not only invite you back into the Adventist family but also to consider going back to wherever you feel comfortable worshipping."

Dr. Van Rooyen serves as the senior pastor at Glendale City Seventh-day

Adventist Church in Glendale, Ca. He began his term in California in 1990 after being dismissed from the denomination for nearly ten years after openly disagreeing with or questioning some of the beliefs and traditions held by many within the denomination.

Dr. Van Rooyen’s presentations will cover: “What Am I Supposed to

Believe?,” “Romans 5: Much More vs. Much Less,” “Romans 6: A Whole New

Redefined Me,” and “Fully Secured: How to Feel Your Relationship With

God is Secure.”

Presentations will be made on April 17 at 7 p.m. and April 18 at 8:30 a.m., 10 a.m., 11:30 a.m. and 7 p.m.

For more information about Dr. Smuts Van Rooyen’s guest appearance or about the Collegedale Community Church, please call 423 396-5464.

[Woody]

Yes. Smuts is a great speaker. I've heard him numerous times. I have a friend who lives in Glendale and has him as a pastor.

[Haldog]

For me the key phrase in that statement was “We, like all denominations, worldwide are seeing an attrition of

parishioners leaving the church environment..".

Denominations yes, church's no! The non-denominational segment of the church body is growing.

IMHO, as soon as a denomination lays down a set of fundamental beliefs they then are constrained by them and the denomination ends up having to twist the bible to make it fit within their pre-determined beliefs of what something must really mean.

I hope the non-denominational church's continue to lead the way and denominations continue to lose.

[Gerr]

Are you saying there are no teachings in the Bible that could be nailed down with certainty?

[aldona]

For me the key phrase in that statement was “We, like all denominations, worldwide are seeing an attrition of

parishioners leaving the church environment..".

Denominations yes, church's no! The non-denominational segment of the church body is growing.

IMHO, as soon as a denomination lays down a set of fundamental beliefs they then are constrained by them and the denomination ends up having to twist the bible to make it fit within their pre-determined beliefs of what something must really mean.

I hope the non-denominational church's continue to lead the way and denominations continue to lose.

Amen to that.

The SDA church did not formulate its body of fundamental beliefs until after the death of Ellen White.

Our pioneers were always strongly against the idea of having a "creed" to tell us what we are to believe. They saw it as the first step towards apostasy (or the process of a church turning into a "beast").

We have confused "faith" with "facts". I read an Adventist writer once who wrote that "We have gluttonized at the tree of knowledge for so long that we have lost our hunger for the fruit of the tree of life."

aldona

[Haldog]

Are you saying there are no teachings in the Bible that could be nailed down with certainty?

Absolutely not!

I liken it to the "minimum height" requirements at amusement parks. The local amusement park here in Kansas City has set 48" as the minimum height to ride certain rides.

God has determined a minimum standard for salvation. Romans 10:9 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." Simple as that.

What I see denominations doing is adding additional requirements to become saved. They all seem to do it. SDA's in particular say we must keep the 10 commandments. The bible never says that believers must do that, but the denomination adds it.

Shalom

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

Are you saying there are no teachings in the Bible that could be nailed down with certainty?

Absolutely not!

So which of the SDA "Fundamental Beliefs" do you think should be striken out from the realm of certainty?

[Kevin H]

Are you saying there are no teachings in the Bible that could be nailed down with certainty?

Good question but there is something about how it is asked that makes me a little uncomfortable. The truth here is high and narrow between the dragon of Revelation 12 and the beast of Revelation 13. There is spiritualism which says there is no right or wrong only what's right or wrong from your own expirenece, truth is what is true for you. Exentationalism. The beast is that we have clear cut truth and you folow it; The beast is any orginazation that lays down clear cut truth that the followers are to simply obey. The papacy is a good example, but it is not the beast in it's entirety.

Therefore the phrase of the question just gives me a feeling like it's asking "So who shall we follow spiritualism or the beast?"

To Mrs. White there is a definet truth. God works with people both as individuals and as groups. We are at different stages of growth. There is always a group or two that is on the cutting edge, such as Yahwehism and later Judaism and eventually Adventism.

But both are limited to where the person is, and where the group is. There are things where we are on the right track but don't have the final word, views that may-- no Mrs. White pictures it as WILL-- have to be modified as we have a better understading of the Bible.

For example in the Bible we find a development from Henotheism (where you worship the highest God only, but that the other gods exist) to where the highest God created the other gods, to the understanding that if the other gods were created then they are not really gods and the truth of angels, demons and Monothieism developed. Yet we still can learn this truth clearer.

Some of our truths may be a step in the path to get away from error but while on the right track may not yet be at the final destination of truth.

Spiritualism is the saying that truth is only personal and there is no ultamate truth, The beast says that the truth is cut and dry and your job is to obey. Sadly in todays world we are finding too many people asking who shall we follow, spiritualism or the beast, with secularism trending to follow spiritualism and Christians tending following the beast.

[fccool]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

Are you saying there are no teachings in the Bible that could be nailed down with certainty?

Absolutely not!

I liken it to the "minimum height" requirements at amusement parks. The local amusement park here in Kansas City has set 48" as the minimum height to ride certain rides.

God has determined a minimum standard for salvation. Romans 10:9 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." Simple as that.

What I see denominations doing is adding additional requirements to become saved. They all seem to do it. SDA's in particular say we must keep the 10 commandments. The bible never says that believers must do that, but the denomination adds it.

Shalom

I think that denominations are bogus for one and one reason only: SALVATION IS AN INDIVIDUAL MATTER. It's not a matter of what building or club you attend on Saturday mornings, but do you trust God to change and renew your mind.

The problem with denominations is that they trust DENOMINATIONS to do the mind renewal, so denomination becomes sort of a God proxy for interpreting, and following God's will.

I always find it amusing how denominations proclaim "It's absolutely clear from the Bible that....", and yet you need denominational explanation to arrive at that "clear" conclusion.

One of my gripes about Adventist church is that it claims to be a "movement", yet it is one of the best examples of denominationalism... where pastors won't marry non-adventist and adventist, or they won't baptize you unless you are absolutely in agreement with all of the denominational beliefs.

[Woody]

Agreed. The same thing can be said about EGW quotes. One person will quote her saying something and then the next one of opposite belief will say .... yeah BUT have you read where she says THIS ....

They both will state "Ellen White clearly states ..."

Makes one Schizo.

[Tammy]

I too, have heard Smuts. He is very powerful, very convincing...and very dangerous. He does not believe that it is possible for us to overcome sin, before Jesus returns, which is exactly what many want to hear. There will be a "revival", but it won't be from the Lord.

[Jeannieb43]

Dr. Van Rooyen does NOT preach it is impossible for us to overcome sin before Jesus comes. Rather, He believes God will save us even if we have not become perfect, as long as we are living in His power in our lives, and we are totally committed to Christ. In other words, perfection is not possible in this life; God will make us perfect when we are translated.

And re: an earlier statement on this thread.... Dr. Van Rooyen did not lose his ministerial license in the SDA church because of not believing some of the teachings of the church, but rather it was a purely political thing: He stood up for Desmond Ford and against the political machine which had stripped Dr. Ford of his credentials without a hearing -- definitely contrary to Christian legal procedure and contrary to the GC president's prior promise to Dr. Ford. All Van Rooyen did was stand up for someone who was being mistreated procedurally.

And history has now shown that the fiasco at Glacier View in the early '80s was one of the lowest points in Adventist history. Many other theologians, inside and out of the church, have written about the poor treatment of Dr. Desmond Ford. It's a dark day in our church's history.

But Dr. Van Rooyens faith in God never wavered, through all of the rejection and loss of his livelihood. He became stronger through it all. He was much later invited back to be an administrator at an Adventist church, with some part-time preaching, and through this, after about ten years, he was called back into full and regular ministry again. [All this took place more than 20 years ago.] He is one of the most powerful, intelligent, and well-read ministers in our denomination. And he's thoroughly grounded in the doctrines.

[Kevin H]

where pastors won't marry non-adventist and adventist...

I really like your post, however one clearification: Our pastors are not allowed to marry any of 2 different religions, but can marry any 2 of the same religion; They can marry 2 Baptists or 2 Methodists, 2 Catholics, 2 Jews, 2 Hindu, even 2 athiests. Maybe some were half asleep durring this lecture in the college and seminary class and think they can only marry 2 Seventh-day Adventists. But the church just wants to encourage people being more spiritually yoked.

But otherwise your post is right on. Part of us is still a movement, but we have become too much of a denomination. As I heard in one sermon in college "What happened to Jane?" "Oh haven't you heard, she's been institutionalized" "What happened to the Seventh-day Adventists Church" "Oh, haven't you heard, it was institutionalized in the 20th century."

[Gail]

Yep- now we see as in a glass, darkly- but then face to face. How nice Heaven will be, when we can see truth clearly and grow correspondingly. As we near the end I'm noticing more and more questionings and confusion.

[nuff sed]

I really like your post, however one clearification: Our pastors are not allowed to marry any of 2 different religion.

I think that you are mistaken in the above statement. It has always been my understanding that an Adventist pastor may marry anyone not of the Adventist faith to anyone else not of the Adventist faith. What he is NOT supposed to do is marry an Adventist to a non-Adventist. This, however, has been largely ignored.

[Kevin H]

In both a pastoral practics class at AUC and I also heard this while at the Seminary, Adventists ministers were to only marry people of a like religion. Again not sure how closely it's followed. Maybe they say "But they are both the same religion, they are both non-Adventists"

[fccool]

I'm well aware of the fact that Adventist pastors will marry two protestants. I wanted to show that pastors will not marry a non-denominational Christian... even a Sabbath keeper, and someone who is Advenstist. I think it's one of the best example of denominational exclusivity.

Ironically, this ideal is sheer hypocrisy because Adventist ministers have no problem of recognizing union of non-adventists outside of the church as Marriage with big M.

[nuff sed]

Seventh-day Adventist pastors "do' marry Adventists to non-Adventists on occasion. It happened in my family.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

it happened in my family today, though not in a church setting

[fccool]

I'm glad that some pastors do see it as problematic.