Are there different varieties of belief within Adventism?

[doctorj]

What is the biggest difference you've noticed in terms of belief coming from the church's thought-leaders, its writers, teachers, theologians, etc.?

I don't know that I can see any major differences coming through the church's thought-leaders, writers, teachers etc. This is my point. The official channels of communication have this grand, all encompassing idea that we are united in one belief and that the church is moving forward preaching the gospel to all nations. When what is really happening is that at the local church level we have major differences in belief and the way we do things that is nowhere as united as one would believe from our leaders.

[carolaa]

Can you give some examples of doctrinal differences that you see on the local level?

[ChildofChrist]

I see conservative and liberal.

Of course, there are ultra-conservatives. They are the ones that usually wear suspenders vs belts; long dresses rather than street length which most main stream women do wear but then there are the ones where women wear pants. And the young ladies wear 'short' dresses rather than those that are more modest.

The music can be conservative or liberal. With or without the songbooks. When the projector has words up for worship service...they are often mid-road. Drums etc are considered 'celebration' and that is ultra liberal.

The SS lesson last week was about Paul, being all things to all people. I believe that when regular hymns and more modern music are both offered, there is nothing wrong with that and improves the worship service offering something for everyone.

I recall one of the first times that I attended a Sunday service. Turned out to be 'holy rollers' I did not believe that they were giving the Father the respect that He is owed Amd when I was a lass, I did not understand "Amen" being called out every so often. As I grew older, I could not begin to put it into Ultra Conservative nor liberal.My current pastor will frequently request Amens so he knows that we are really listening.

[ChildofChrist]

As far as Sister Ellen, Some folks tend to quote Sister Ellen more than the Scriptures.

Some churches pound their followers with Sister Ellen and forget the Scriptures. She would not appreciate that. I am a lesser light to the greater light.

I guess at one time you could place me in that catagory, but I am studying to increase my faith from the Bible only. It is when your 'interest' may not believe in the Bible that I find that extremely frustrating. The common ground is missing.

[doctorj]

Can you give some examples of doctrinal differences that you see on the local level?

For one, many at my church do not think the Seventh-day Adventist Church is the "remnant". According to these people, the "remnant" will be a few people gathered together away from any banner of "church". They will literally be a "remnant" of people who will have a very important part in the last day events. That is one example.

[Ron Corson]

Originally Posted By: John317

Sounds like you probably asked a common question, one that the teacher was certain someone would ask.

May I ask what your question was?

My question was "Surely the idea of "perfection of character" is not to be realised in this life?"

The Answer I was given: "In His teachings, Christ showed how far-reaching are the principles of the law spoken from Sinai. He made a living application of that law whose principles remain forever the great standard of righteousness--the standard by which all shall be judged in that great day when the judgment shall sit, and the books shall be opened. He came to fulfill all righteousness, and, as the head of humanity, to show man that he can do the same work, meeting every specification of the requirements of God. Through the measure of His grace furnished to the human agent, not one need miss heaven. Perfection of character is attainable by every one who strives for it. This is made the very foundation of the new covenant of the gospel. The law of Jehovah is the tree; the gospel is the fragrant blossoms and fruit which it bears." [1SM 211.2]

That is the biggest reason that such quotes should not be used. First it is not based upon the Bible and second what does she even mean. Is she talking about accepting the perfection of Christ, that is what the first part sounds like. Third what does she mean by Perfection of character. Right now there is a a powerful movement in the SDA church who believes that because of EGW quotes she is teaching sinless perfection known by many as Last Generation Perfection or Last Generation Theology.

The sad fact is there are a lot of lazy Sabbath School teachers. So you have to work to get them to think and get them to explain what they are thinking. What makes an interesting class is not generally the teacher but how people in the class participate.

[Bravus]

I think there's a distinction between issues of worship *style* (e.g. type of songs, service structure, types of instruments, technology) and issues of doctrine (although some have tried to make worship style a doctrinal matter). It's true, though, that in general there is a correlation between more contemporary worship style and more liberal theology. Not always the case though - the church I attended in Perth *rocked* in terms of having a really good band with a good drummer and an excellent electric guitarist, but was very theologically conservative on pretty much all points (although it did have female preachers fairly regularly). IMO the doctrinal issues are more important than the style ones.

[Kevin H]

It seems to me that the picture the General Conference would have us believe is that Adventist the world over have a standard set of beliefs. What I can see in my little world where I have visited from time to time three different churches is that there are very different "Adventist" audiences.

Does anyone else get that feeling from where you are that there are some very different audiences within "Adventism"? Or am I just not understanding how we are all the same?

The poet / philosopher Eli Siegel said "All Beauty is the making one of opposits." and we see opposits in your question that in high points of Adventist history are one and at low points fight.

Our pioneers came from a large background: Conservatives, liberals (maybe more liberals) Methodists, Baptists, etc. As they accepted Miller's message their home churches no longer had room for them. They then formed a group that had a small list of landmarks that they agreed on, but outside of this small list they wanted the right to dissagree with each other without fear of being thrown out of the new group as they were from their home denominations. As long as they were not fanatic and accepted the few pillers there was the freedom to worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience.

When the town of Washington NH was formed they could not decide on what church to have. Some wanted a conservative church where the speakers all held the party line. Others wanted a liberal church where everyone who thought they had a message could give their views and that the members were free to evaluate and make up their own mines on the value of the message. This second church is what became the first Seventh-day Adventist church. In writing our set of beliefs they try to have a wide variety of viewpoints hammer out language that they could live with. For example when the 27 fundamentals were developed in the late 1980s the doctrine about the cross was written so that the historic adventists, the adventist theological society (ATS), graham maxwell and other groups could all say those words, even though they interpet the words differently. Then the ATA had a book on the 27 that gave it more of an ATS leaning, but this ATS interpetation was not the final word but the 27 designed to be able to be slanted to most of the subgroups in the church.

At times people in the church had tried to make us more uniform. This was part of the issue of 1888, the Review wanting to take over Pacific Press, and the aftrmat of the 1919 Bible Conference/1923 General Conference. Mrs. White faught against those trying to make us more uniform.

[Woody]

There needs to be room for all in God's Church. The fine details of truth will be worked out when we See His Face.

[Gerr]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Wouldn't that just be dandy. While some members are teaching the visible return of Jesus, others will be teaching that His coming is secret. While I'm teaching that there will be an end to sin and sinners, others will be teaching everlasting suffering in hell. Your openness may be commendable, but if there's not enough confusion in the Adventist church because of disparate beliefs, think what chaos your proposition would bring!

Gerry

[carolaa]

Maybe then more people would actually study their Bibles. Could be interesting.

[John317]

What you're advocating constitutes Babylon. Everyone's "truth" is just as good as anyone else's. "You're OK, I'm OK, Everybody's OK." In fact, don't worry about sinning-- God will forgive all sinning. Go on sinning willfully until Christ comes. Just love, love, love. Great news?

But is it really? Is that the gospel that we find presented in the Bible? Is that the Third Angels Message? Is this what we see in the books of Daniel and Revelation?

[doctorj]

What you're advocating constitutes Babylon. Everyone's "truth" is just as good as anyone else's.

I don't think the Adventist Church is as poorly unified as depicted above -- Babylon -- but there are some differences, particularly in interpretation of our fundamental beliefs. Such as the one I stated before . . . Is the Adventist Church the Remnant or is the Remnant going to be a subset of people who come out of churches including members from the Adventist Church?

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

What you're advocating constitutes Babylon. Everyone's "truth" is just as good as anyone else's.

I don't think the Adventist Church is as poorly unified as depicted above -- Babylon -- but there are some differences, particularly in interpretation of our fundamental beliefs. Such as the one I stated before . . . Is the Adventist Church the Remnant or is the Remnant going to be a subset of people who come out of churches including members from the Adventist Church?

I agree with you that it is not as poorly unified as that, either. I was saying it would become Babylon, spiritual confusion, if the views expressed were put into action-- that of allowing every possible view to be accepted as representative of the church.

I am in favor of freedom of expression in the church, but when it comes to the church representatives such as teachers, preachers, pastors, evangelists, etc., there has to be basic harmony or else we cease to have a unified message. We need to give the trumpet a clear sound, not a sound that calls both for retreat and advance, as it were.

I believe the Adventist church is the remnant church in the sense that God raised this church up in these last days to do a certain work-- specifically, of uplifting God's downtrodden law and to point to Christ's work as our mediator in the heavenly sanctuary, in order to prepare a people for Christ's return. However, there will be yet another remnant which will consist of those who go through to the end, stay true to God all during the time of trouble, receive God's seal, survive the seven last plagues, and are actually ready when Christ returns. That is the way the concept "remnant" was used in the Old Testament as well. You had only a remnant of Israel that returned from Babylon to Jerusalem, but only a remnant of those were ready for the Messiah when He came.

[doctorj]

I am in favor of freedom of expression in the church, but when it comes to the church representatives such as teachers, preachers, pastors, evangelists, etc., there has to be basic harmony or else we cease to have a unified message. We need to give the trumpet a clear sound, not a sound that calls both for retreat and advance, as it were.

I agree on this point. There needs to be some semblance of order in the way the leaders of the Church present the message. BUT sweeping differences under the carpet is not a good way to maintain a good clear sound! This I feel is sometimes done. When someone challenges the church there are several ways the church handles these differences. Ignore the differences, stand-down a minister or other worker who is challenging the church, dis-fellowship them and so on. What I am saying is that we should not ignore differences and carry on like nothing ever happened.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

I am in favor of freedom of expression in the church, but when it comes to the church representatives such as teachers, preachers, pastors, evangelists, etc., there has to be basic harmony or else we cease to have a unified message. We need to give the trumpet a clear sound, not a sound that calls both for retreat and advance, as it were.

I agree on this point. There needs to be some semblance of order in the way the leaders of the Church present the message. BUT sweeping differences under the carpet is not a good way to maintain a good clear sound! This I feel is sometimes done. When someone challenges the church there are several ways the church handles these differences. Ignore the differences, stand-down a minister or other worker who is challenging the church, dis-fellowship them and so on. What I am saying is that we should not ignore differences and carry on like nothing ever happened.

Well, I don't think we should sweep differences under the rug, either, but there are some differences that we should not make such a big thing about.

Ellen White had what we would call major doctrinal differences with her husband, but she did not see them as important at the time, because there were other matters of far greater significance in accomplishing what they were trying to do. (They were concentrating on the foundational pillars and Third Angels Message.) One of those difference between them had to do with the nature of Jesus' divinity. James White was basically an Arian in his view of Christ. As Ellen White wrote more clearly on the subject, White and other Arians in the church stopped pushing their Arian views.

I think that there are some things about which it is natural or normal for two or more people to have slight differences. For instance, details in how people understand aspects of prophetic interpretation and even in some of their views of Paul's theology.

According to Ellen White, leaders do a disservice to the church and to Christ when they emphasize their doctrinal differences. It would be better for us to talk unity than to push our individual views on nonessentials or on those details that are unimportant. Of course, not everyone is going to agree on what is unimportant or nonessential.

For me personally it seems to me that we all ought to be in agreement on the Fundamental Beliefs as they have been voted on and passed by the world church in General Conference. I'm not talking about all the details as they occur in individual chapters in the book Seventh-day Adventists Believe, although I believe it is a very good exposition of the Bible evidence for SDA beliefs. I'm referring to the fundamental beliefs themselves as they've been passed. I've gone over those carefully many times and I don't find anything in them that I disagree with.

[LifeHiscost]

Originally Posted By: LifeHiscost

Of course I'm talking about the ability to unite while sin still is part of our character makeup. If we can be united while sin resides (as opposed to reigns), then I believe we're still on the same page.

If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not)... 1 Kings 8:46 KJV parenthesis theirs

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." 1 John 1:9

KJV

Regards!

No question about it as far as I'm concerned-- we will have sinful flesh right up the Second Coming. So, yes, I am talking about being united while sin is still part of our character makeup. Human probation doesn't mean that people will be absolutely sinless. It means people won't change sides after that point. It is like Rev. 22: 11 says.

"...he who is unrighteous -- let him be unrighteous still, and he who is filthy -- let him be filthy still, and he who is righteous -- let him be declared righteous still, and he who is sanctified -- let him be sanctified still..." Revelation 22:11 YLT

"Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy" Jude 1:24 KJV

"' He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches He who overcomes will not be hurt by the second death.'" Revelation 2:11 NASB

I'm confident, John317, "....of Him we are workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to good works, which God did before prepare, that in them we may walk." Ephesians 2:10 YLT

Flawless, no! Accounted perfect and worthy through the blood of Jesus. Praise God!

Blessings!

[Woody]

What you're advocating constitutes Babylon. Everyone's "truth" is just as good as anyone else's. "You're OK, I'm OK, Everybody's OK." In fact, don't worry about sinning-- God will forgive all sinning. Go on sinning willfully until Christ comes. Just love, love, love. Great news?

But is it really? Is that the gospel that we find presented in the Bible? Is that the Third Angels Message? Is this what we see in the books of Daniel and Revelation?

What do you expect from someone who is the Devil . Babylon ... The Devil ... it's all the same. Name Calling. No biggy here ...

[LifeHiscost]

I like your post very much, Life. You always come up with good insights and very appropriate Bible verses, I think.

Thanks, John317. If it's good, it's God.

"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights" James 1:17 KJV

Cheers!

[D. Allan]

There are of course different varieties of belief in Adventism, and that is a good thing. People must feel free to believe as they believe. Otherwise there is overt and/or subtle coersion, which can kill one's soul. We must agree to disagree, is the only thing we must agree on.

I don't consider myself "Adventist" any longer. Isn't "Christian" enough? Or even just "lover of God?" That is better yet.

All teachings must be surrendered along with all the other selfishness and junk. The church is made of people only. Yet some of the saints are willing to see people suffer in favor of teachings. It doesn't seem Christian to me. It may be good "Adventism" but then "Adventism" isn't Christian, in that case.

- crumbs from a toasted mind -

-dAb

[Woody]

Good post to ponder dAb ....

[doctorj]

I don't consider myself "Adventist" any longer. Isn't "Christian" enough? Or even just "lover of God?" That is better yet.

No "Christian" is not enough. After all people in the Roman Catholic Church consider them to be Christian. Being an "Adventist Christian" is what it is all about. An Adventist Christian sees things quite differently and that is a good thing. We need to be seen to be different from other Christians. We do have a message to communicate with the rest of the world that is unique. We have a mission to accomplish and that is to communicate the Three Angels Message, the Third Angels message is one that centrally is about justification by faith.

"Several have written to me, inquiring if the message of justification by faith is the third angel's message, and I have answered, 'It is the third angel's message in verity.' "—The Review and Herald, April 1, 1890.

This is what makes the difference about the Adventist Christian message!!

[John317]

Quote:

There are of course different varieties of belief in Adventism, and that is a good thing. People must feel free to believe as they believe. Otherwise there is overt and/or subtle coersion, which can kill one's soul. We must agree to disagree, is the only thing we must agree on.

I don't consider myself "Adventist" any longer. Isn't "Christian" enough? Or even just "lover of God?" That is better yet.

Thanks very much for your thought-provoking post.

The term "Christian" would be good enough except for the fact that we live at a time in history when that term is applied to such a broad spectrum of people that it doesn't distinguish us from anyone else. It doesn't differentiate our message. It would be like calling yourself an "artist." OK, fine, but what kind of artist? What do you do? Are you a portrait painter, one who paints abstracts or scenics, maybe a writer, a sculptor, a photographer, etc.?

There was a time in the days of the apostles when simply going by the name Christian said it all, but that is no longer the case, unfortunately.

I don't think the Adventist church should pressure anyone to agree to any doctrines, although I know this does happen, especially in the cases of some ministers, pastors and teachers. We must come to belief in any truth on the basis of individual as well as group study, discussion, prayer, and reflection.

That being said, it is also true that membership in the Seventh-day Adventist church is not a right. It is a privilege open to those who meet certain qualifications. The main qualification is that an individual believe in the basic teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist church and have a desire to join. No one is pressured to be a member, or at least no one ever should be. Everyone is free to join in worship, song, prayer, and fellowship.

It is the same with any other Christian group that I know of. I sometimes attend other church services, including Catholic (where relatives go), Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormon. I am free to study with them and worship with them, but if I were to show an interest in joining, I'd find that they'd require me to demonstrate a knowledge of their beliefs and tell them that I believe them.

It is the same in the Seventh-day Adventist church, and I believe that such a requirement is entirely reasonable and justified. That is how it was when I joined. If that was not the case, and if anyone could join who has an entirely different set of convictions or beliefs, in time the church would no longer be Seventh-day Adventist. It would evolve into perhaps a club or some other organization but it would no longer have distinctive Seventh-day Adventist teachings; and at that point, the question might well arise what is our reason for existing as a separate denomination from, say, Catholics or Baptists or Methodists, etc.

Quote:

All teachings must be surrendered along with all the other selfishness and junk.

Not sure what you mean here. Could you give an example of the teachings you refer to? It seems that you include "all teachings" of the church and the Bible, but I find it hard to believe that this is what you mean to say.

It is certainly true that we should be willing to sacrifice our selfish interests for the good of the entire church, but does that mean that the teachings of the church-- say, about Christ or the Second Coming-- are to be sacrificed on the alter of expediency, for the sake of unity?

I doubt you mean to say it, but the teachings of the church seem to be equated with "other selfishness and junk."

Perhaps you mean to say that we should not argue about unimportant or non-essential doctrines and teachings but should be unselfish and willing to let teachings prevail that we don't necessarily agree with.

Quote:

The church is made of people only. Yet some of the saints are willing to see people suffer in favor of teachings. It doesn't seem Christian to me. It may be good "Adventism" but then "Adventism" isn't Christian, in that case.

Your are right that the church consists of people, people who have accepted the gospel of Jesus and believe in Him and in His teachings. But what happens if the people stop believing in Jesus or stop teaching what Jesus taught? What happens when someone in the church says he believes Jesus is dead? Is such a person still a member of Christ's church? What happens when the majority of the members no longer believe Jesus is alive? Does it matter? I think these things show that although the church is made up of people, it wouldn't be the church of Christ if it were not teaching the truth as it is in Jesus Christ. It might be something else but it wouldn't be the same church that Jesus founded. Its teachings are important, not simply an after-thought or something that is only partly relevant. The teachings are like the glue that draws us and keeps us together and gives us reason for being.

I think of the teachings as something we should be willing to suffer and even, if necessary, die for. Is that too strong a language? I am thinking of what Peter and Paul went through and what they wrote about in verses like Acts 20: 24-32. I'm also thinking of the millions who have suffered and died for their beliefs; the many around the world who are suffering now because of their faith in Christ; and the suffering that the Bible says believers will go through in the time leading up to the Second Coming. I wonder seriously if I and my church are ready and willing to suffer for the teachings we hold? Or would we throw them over the minute we see the necessity of suffering for them?

But I do completely agree with you that we shouldn't be in the business of making other Christians suffer at all. Instead we really ought to be doing everything we can to alleviate suffering.

[LifeHiscost]

It is when your 'interest' may not believe in the Bible that I find that extremely frustrating. The common ground is missing.

Granted it can be frustrating, but often because it is believed we are in a competition with others, especially with those who profess to be Christian. Why should we think others should all think the way we do? It is true if we didn't think we were right we wouldn't care what they thought. However Jesus gives us all the right to make our own decisions. In the end no one will enter the kingdom because someone else made our mind up.

We are all, those who have accepted Jesus as Savior, a work in progress and need other members of the body of Christ to exchange ideas of Jesus love, that we might possibly learn something we didn't know before of the plan of salvation. That is of course, unless we already know it all.

And if it isn't a believer, but a seeker for Truth, then it seems to me that we/they would be better served if we could somehow reveal we cared more for their interests than we do our own.

Do I reveal a good example of that mindset all the time. Obviously not. However I am working on it for the Lord's sake, for He cares just as much for the person who believes different than I, as He does for me.

"And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." Matthew 25:40 KJV

Blessings!

[LifeHiscost]

All teachings must be surrendered along with all the other selfishness and junk.