The Paradox of Adventism

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: ClubV12

Beleiving in Ellen White is not a test of faith. BUT, depending on your position; Education and time within the church structure "fighting against" her prophetic gifts could be a test of faith at some point for some people.

It may not be a test of faith, but it has been a test of employment in two (of three) church job interviews I have had in North America.

Trust me ... it TOTALLY depends upon the conference you interview in. For some conferences ... just the opposite is true.

[ClubV12]

What?? For some Conferences it's NOT true??

Who are these uncircumised Phillistines of which you speak? :)

[Woody]

What?? For some Conferences it's NOT true??

Who are these uncircumised Phillistines of which you speak?

Just send me a PM and I will fill you in on all the juicy details.

[ClubV12]

Ha Ha, I think I'll put away my sling shot and let this one pass...

[Woody]

Hey. U can trust my gossip. I'm in the know.

[Haldog]

I noticed the Hebrews quote of Ellen's a couple pages back. There is something in this that SDA's as a church miss.

Hebrews 1:1-2 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

My point is that God only spoke to His people by prophets in the past, prior to Christ. Now He speaks to us through Christ and the indewelling of the Holy Spirit.

I'm not saying there isn't a gift of prophecy, but that the office of prophet is no longer a legitimate office. It was for the Old Covenant people. We now have Jesus and no longer need a prophet as a go-between.

[Gerr]

I noticed the Hebrews quote of Ellen's a couple pages back. There is something in this that SDA's as a church miss.

Hebrews 1:1-2 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

My point is that God only spoke to His people by prophets in the past, prior to Christ. Now He speaks to us through Christ and the indewelling of the Holy Spirit.

I'm not saying there isn't a gift of prophecy, but that the office of prophet is no longer a legitimate office. It was for the Old Covenant people. We now have Jesus and no longer need a prophet as a go-between.

ESV | Re 1:1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw.

[Overaged]

I noticed the Hebrews quote of Ellen's a couple pages back. There is something in this that SDA's as a church miss.

Hebrews 1:1-2 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

My point is that God only spoke to His people by prophets in the past, prior to Christ. Now He speaks to us through Christ and the indewelling of the Holy Spirit.

I'm not saying there isn't a gift of prophecy, but that the office of prophet is no longer a legitimate office. It was for the Old Covenant people. We now have Jesus and no longer need a prophet as a go-between.

We "had Jesus" in The Old Testament too. Also; The Holy Spirit is mentioned as being present in the first few verses of Genesis.

[Overaged]

It does not matter what she called herself, or refused to call herself. If she claimed to receive visions and messages from God... then she automatically has a claim to a prophet.

What evidence would you use for this assertion? Or is it just an opinion you have, or have read somewhere?

[fccool]

Overaged,

I don't quite understand your point??? It's somewhat puzzling.

What makes a prophet? Prophet, or "navi" literally means a spokesperson (for God). That's the literal meaning of the Hebrew word. What other evidence do you need?

If E.G. White claims that she has a message from God that He directly told her repeatedly through visions... she claims to be a prophet.

2+2=4

[Overaged]

Overaged,

I don't quite understand your point??? It's somewhat puzzling.

What makes a prophet? Prophet, or "navi" literally means a spokesperson (for God). That's the literal meaning of the Hebrew word. What other evidence do you need?

If E.G. White claims that she has a message from God that He directly told her repeatedly through visions... she claims to be a prophet.

2+2=4

LOL; well we are even then my friend. I also don't understand your point - quite.

I thought we were talking about how Ellen White sees herself, in light of others calling her a prophet? I did not think we were discussing weather or not she was a prophet. At any rate; the simple claim of being a prophet is not nearly enough to prove that someone is a prophet. The Bible spells out some tests for that. Are you aware of any of these?

[fccool]

Let's get back to the topic:

How are you as Adventist dealing with the fact that:

1) There's a possibility that church position is wrong about certain important issues

2) The church actively refusing to give any platform for evaluating these issues without prior bias

3) There may be serious implications of believing things that are untrue in perspective of Christian faith

For example, let's say that Adventists zero in so much on papacy being end of days Antichrist that they dismiss other developments unrelated to Sunday law as not something worthy of consideration.

It almost laughable that dogmatism can exist to such extend that Christ himself would say "That's not what it means", and be called "wrong" .

Wouldn't it be more sensible to concentrate on issues that real Christianity is all about, which is support, love, forgiveness, confidence, empowering to help other people? Instead of liturgy, dogmatic trivia, and Saturday meetings to chat, eat, sing and listen to a lecture?

What is the eventual goal of Christianity? Is it to turn the humanity into dogmatic and obedient clones of the organization... or is it providing information that can help empower, enlighten, and help people to be more free, more healthy, less stressed, more loving and more empathetic?

Is it really giving them a split personality that they constantly at odds with, or should we strive to make them better understand each other, and live in harmony.

Is dogma really more important than human beings that it supposed to "save"?

[Overaged]

Let's get back to the topic:

How are you as Adventist dealing with the fact that:

1) There's a possibility that church position is wrong about certain important issues

2) The church actively refusing to give any platform for evaluating these issues without prior bias

3) There may be serious implications of believing things that are untrue in perspective of Christian faith

For example, let's say that Adventists zero in so much on papacy being end of days Antichrist that they dismiss other developments unrelated to Sunday law as not something worthy of consideration.

It almost laughable that dogmatism can exist to such extend that Christ himself would say "That's not what it means", and be called "wrong" .

Wouldn't it be more sensible to concentrate on issues that real Christianity is all about, which is support, love, forgiveness, confidence, empowering to help other people? Instead of liturgy, dogmatic trivia, and Saturday meetings to chat, eat, sing and listen to a lecture?

What is the eventual goal of Christianity? Is it to turn the humanity into dogmatic and obedient clones of the organization... or is it providing information that can help empower, enlighten, and help people to be more free, more healthy, less stressed, more loving and more empathetic?

Is it really giving them a split personality that they constantly at odds with, or should we strive to make them better understand each other, and live in harmony.

Is dogma really more important than human beings that it supposed to "save"?

If I am getting too personal; just say so, but it seems to me you simply have a beef with the Adventists church, perhaps because of some past negative experience? Your objections to same seem to suggest this, as your points are very generalized, and not specific enough to address correctly. I used to think and post as you do about the Church, but then I learned to go beyond that. Adventist leaders have consistently and publicly stated that our beliefs are open to better understandings as they arise and they have a review process in place to facilitate this. I don't really see much problem with this.

Phrases such as "dogmatic, obedient clones" may infact suggest a different set of questions you should be asking? Perhaps, you want to explore the nature and role of doctrine in the life of Christians? I am not sure. Please let me know.

[fccool]

That's usually the assumption, and I don't blame you. I.E., all of the criticism is not because there's something going on worth evaluating, but it's because someone had negative experience and seeks "revenge" and "beef to settle".

"Dogmatic, obedient clones" is a metaphor. Just like the metaphor that was used in this thread like "Human heart is deceitful". They don't really mean the actual organ, and I understand it. By dogmatic, obedient clones I don't literally imply brain-dead obedience. I imply the conformity to organizational standards that are not permitted to be properly re-evaluated to help churches to function better.

Sure, we can help explore the purpose of doctrine in the lives of Christians, but what's the purpose when such doctrine has a set and established "correct and unchallengeable" answer? What will such discussion alter, unless we assume that there's a possibility that the doctrine is wrong?

And this is the entire point of the thread.

[Flyboy]

I understand what is being said and I agree with it to some degree. We can only search for truth so long as it doesn't contradict existing "truth". In other words, there is no real continuing search for truth, yet nearly every church leader today would deny such an accusation, as naturally they would. This is why I have asked, on other threads, questions that make a lot of people uncomfortable.... trying to push the envelope.

[wayfinder]

I understand what is being said and I agree with it to some degree. We can only search for truth so long as it doesn't contradict existing "truth". In other words, there is no real continuing search for truth, yet nearly every church leader today would deny such an accusation, as naturally they would. This is why I have asked, on other threads, questions that make a lot of people uncomfortable.... trying to push the envelope.

Flyboy, you are very perceptive and not on rails, it would appear. I have been pushing the envelope on this forum for almost two years and as far as I can tell, it has not moved one iota. The idea that "new truth" will not contradict existing truth, is, in my estimation, an oxymoron. If nothing we discover can possibly change what we already know to be true, than why bother to search. In the imortal words of Pontius Pilate "what is truth"? With-in the Seventh-day Adventist Church you find many "truths" some more historic and others more modern, but what makes truth true, that is the question.

[fccool]

Very good point, Wayfinder... and I think this is VERY IMPORTANT one!

Truth is the objective reality out there. In terms of faith, "truth" is the objective reality that can't be directly verified. Right now, there's no direct way to verify if many claims of Adventist faith. It's a CLAIM on truth by certain group of people... just like Bible is likewise a claim on truth by certain group of people.

It's individual's decision to trust that claim or not based on certain evidence, but different people are presented different "evidence" in terms of verifying such claim.

I've never seen or heard God. I've never seen an angel. I've never witnesses a supernatural occurrence. I certainly don't dismiss the possibility, but I have every right to be skeptical when one says that they've experienced such events. Or, perhaps, I should trust every person who knocks on my door?

That's why the "impudent" approach to truth is somewhat baffling. On one hand, we have people who ask others to be open-minded and considerate of possibilities. On the other hand such people will dismiss any possibilities outside of their constructed dogma that they want to convey not only as "possible", but as absolute and incontrovertible TRUTH. On top of that, the rhetoric for people who disagree is generally "You are always welcome to leave, if I did not believe in A/B/C I'd leave and find other church".

[ClubV12]

My take on "new truth" is that it's "old truth" with a new and more profound understanding.

1844 is an excellent example. William Miller studied for years the 2,300 day/year prophecy of Daniel to make sure his math and historic events were as accurate as possible. He was right, but he had no idea WHAT it meant! He personally rejected the idea that it pointed to the 2nd coming, but as far as I can tell offered no alternative explanation. It was a "people movement" that interpreted it to mean the end of the world. Not all agreed with that view point, some took the correct position on rejecting the idea based on "we know not the day or hour."

How did this happen? Ellen White said it was God holding His hand over the meaning, obscuring it from understanding. It was not yet time for the book to be opened. It was also specifically a test for the faithful at that time. Many departed their faith because they had sold everything and were left destitute and discouraged, from which they could not recover their faith in God.

Hiram Edson was the first person to get a glimpse of understanding on the issue. He had what some call a vision, some refer to as an epiphany, others may call it insight. Whatever it was, he was on the right track and published a little tract on the subject. Which came to Ellen Whites attention and she arranged a meeting with him to discuss it further. Eventually she herself had a "revelation" on the subject which shed further light on the matter. Slowly and over time, this was the foundation for understanding the Investigative Judgement. Which isn't all together "new light" but more of an understanding of "existing but unrevealed" old light.

Once you know where to look, it's much easier to find something and to understand it. Which is why "new light" builds on the principles of "old light" with new clairity.

[skyblue888]

Right on ClubV12.

In "A Word to the Little Flock," published by James White in Brunswick, Maine, May 30, 1847, there is a statement by Sister White on the sanctuary. It is dated April 21, 1847, and written from Topsham, Maine.

"I believe the Sanctuary to be cleansed at the end of the 2300 days, is the New Jerusalem Temple, of which Christ is a minister. The Lord showed me in vision, more than one year ago, that Brother Crozier had the true light, on the cleansing of the Sanctuary, etc., and that it was His will, that Brother Crozier should write out the view which he gave us in the Day-Star, Extra, February 7, 1846. I feel fully authorized by the Lord, to recommend that Extra to every saint. I pray that these lines may prove a blessing to you, and all the dear children who may read them." Signed E.G. White.

Here is the article:

"But again, they say that the atonement was made and finished on Calvary, when the Lamb of God expired. So men have taught us, and so the churches and world believe; but it is none the more true or sacred on that account, if unsupported by Divine authority. Perhaps few or none who hold that opinion have ever tested the foundation on which it rests.

1. If the atonement was made on Calvary, by whom was it made? The making of the atonement is the work of a Priest, but who officiated on Calvary?--Roman soldiers and wicked Jews.

2. The slaying of the victim was not making the atonement; the sinner slew the victim, Leviticus 4:1-4,13-15, etc., after that the Priest took the blood and made the atonement. Leviticus 4:5-12, 16-21.

3. Christ was appointed High Priest to make the atonement, and He certainly could not have acted in that capacity till after His resurrection, and we have no record of His doing any thing on earth after His resurrection, which could be called the atonement.

4. The atonement was made in the Sanctuary, but Calvary was not such a place.

5. He could not according to Hebrews 8:4 make atonement while on earth. "If He were on earth, He should not be a Priest." The Levitical was the earthly priesthood; the Divine Priesthood, the heavenly.

6. Therefore, He did not begin the work of making atonement, whatever the nature of that work may be, till after His ascension, when by His own blood He entered the heavenly sanctuary for us." Crozier, Day-Star Extra for February 7, 1846, pp.40,41

This, then is the "true light", which the Lord showed Sister White in vision, had His approval, and which she felt fully authorized to recommend to every saint

sky

[ClubV12]

"The Lord showed me in vision, more than one year ago, that Brother Crozier had the true light,..."

I THINK that would place the revelation (vision) to which she refers in late 1844. I think her first vision was December of 1844? What she wrote concerning that vision does not mention the IJ or Brother Crozier. It's interesting to note that some of what she saw in vision was not written or reported on until some time had passed. When, upon the passing of time, the revelation made sense and understanding was given of what she had been told earlier.

[skyblue888]

That vision was to show that the atonement was not made on the cross though it was the sacrificial atonement. The atonement did not begin until Jesus ascended up on High but not before He received the Father's approval that His sacrifice was accepted. It is written that "God bowed in acceptance of the sacrifice."

Then Jesus began the atonement by pleading the merits of His shed blood in behalf of all but especially those who believe that the merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in their behalf.

So Christ, before the Father, was pleading the merits of His blood in the first appartment of the sanctuary above until the 22nd of October 1844 when He moved to the second appartment to make the final atonement. He is still pleading the merits of His shed blood but the final atonement has yet to be made.

There has been a long delay on account of unbelief on the part of the Advent people.

sky

[Dr. Rich]

There is a major mistake that many have made which is to believe that the death of Jesus was the "Atonement". This mistake was given to us by Saul/Paul who was not an eyewitness of the ministry of Jesus or of His death.

The Passover event was in the spring and the Atonement was in the fall. Jesus said that He was the true Passover 'Lamb of God' so lets not confuse this with what happened in the fall at the Atonement.

Do some researh and you will find that the Passover lamb's death was NEVER to cleans or remove anyone's sin. It only made it possible for those first born males who OBEYED the words of God and placed the lamb's blood where it was supposed to be placed, to be saved from the angel of death. It had NOTHING to do with anyone's sin! Please remember that!

Therefore, Jesus' death also made it possible for ONLY those who obey the Commandments and His testimony (Rev. 12:17), and who overcome sin, to excape the second death. Yes, Jesus' blood purchased a Kingdom AND Priests (Rev. 5:9-10) but not those who refuse to obey.

The true Atonement is just like the three-step process and this was always in the fall--just as when Jesus will come in the clouds. 1) the High Priest had to have his sins cleansed--as Jesus was our High Priest and said He has become sanctified (John 17:19). 2) Priest tribe has their sins cleansed--and these are the first fruits known as the 144k who are sealed by God prior to the time of trouble and are known as the bond servants of Jesus Christ who are the only ones who fully understand all of Revelation (Rev. 1:1).

Step 3) the whole kingdom of Israel had their sins cleansed which represents the 5 wise virgins (being the servants for the bride) which are sealed by God and are those who teach and prepare the BRIDE from every nation and race all over the world during the time of trouble (Rev. 7:9-15) And that my friends is how the end of the world and salvation happens! The time of trouble starts at the Spring equinox in 2016 and lasts for three and a half years. Check it out yourself because the template is right there in plain sight found in the book of Revelation. Oh, is there a problem with this?? If you don't understand it don't blame me, blame yourself (Dan. 12:10) It's your own choice!

[Tom Wetmore]

That "new truth" is often rejected is a manifestation of the Semmelweis reflex...

[Overaged]

That "new truth" is often rejected is a manifestation of the Semmelweis reflex...

LOL, ha ha! You made me laugh Tom! I can see you have been studying! (not sure if it's 'new truth' or not) But using that metaphor does narrow the distance between handwashing, and theology.

I find the mentality of paradox = error a bit boring and intellectually, fairly low on the totem pole of intelligence, to be honest; not saying this about you in any way, but to the idea of the subject of this thread.

LOL; it would be interesting to see you describe "new truth."

[Overaged]

That vision was to show that the atonement was not made on the cross though it was the sacrificial atonement. The atonement did not begin until Jesus ascended up on High but not before He received the Father's approval that His sacrifice was accepted. It is written that "God bowed in acceptance of the sacrifice."

There would certainly be a wide difference between not understanding something and "unbelief." The Father's "approval" was pretty clear in Luke 3:22 ; and the "atonement" was quite obviously "finished when Jesus said those words. "It is finished" means just that. (John 19:30). Perhaps you are thinking of future *application" of that atonement to individuals?

It is worth noting that when some people read the Bible; they honestly think that all the animals lived within walking distance of Noah's Ark.