Beyond Belief: X-SDAs leaving for non-SDA doctrine

[joeb]

Our Unity is not in following any one of us and holding in esteem.

Our unity is in all of us following Him to the letter, because we know He is the Truth, the Way and the Life.

When He is the only Master in the soul temple then it will happen.

The one thing most responsible for breaking down Him being the Master at all times is self gratification in some form or other to please and gratify self.

SELF, SELF, we must keep subserviant to the one and only safe Master in us!

Christ in us is our only Hope!

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

From what you've said here, Gibs, I do believe you've missed the object lesson taught by the experience of the Jews. They attempted to follow "to the letter" rather than "by the Spirit", and they completely failed in the mission God gave them.

We cannot keep self subserviant to God, for we are incapable of overcoming the sin within us. Only He can do that for us. All we can do is surrender self to Him. And if we find we're unwilling to do that in any instance in which self pops up we need to be willing to be made willing.

[BobRyan]

Doctrinal confusion is the number one reason AND the fastest growing reason for leaving the SDA church according to that study reported by the Review.

http://www.adventistreview.org/issue.php?issue=2013-1508&page=18

How do you suppose we got to this point?

in Christ,

Bob

[joeb]

Doctrinal confusion is the number one reason AND the fastest growing reason for leaving the SDA church according to that study reported by the Review.

http://www.adventistreview.org/issue.php?issue=2013-1508&page=18

How do you suppose we got to this point?

in Christ,

Bob

When the love Christ in the church grows cold what else can we expect? The only thing that ever binds the church together in thought, action, and love is the love of God.

[Tom Wetmore]

Are differences of interpretation, doubts and questions really "doctrinal confusion", or just legitimate differences, doubts and questions?

The phrase, "doctrinal confusion" does not appear anywhere in the article. The word "confusion" only appears once in the article and doesn't actually describe the former members themselves so much as being confused, but more precisely as creating confusion to others by constantly dwelling on being "former Adventists."

On anything close to "doctrinal confusion" of the former members, the article makes the clear point that the source of some of their misunderstanding about what we believe is what in fact they were taught while they were among us. They were taught incorrectly by some of us about what we believe.

To your specific question, one way we have gotten to this point is that among our own people we have those who spread erroneous teaching about what we believe, incorrectly representing it as what Adventists believe, sometimes rather zealously. Some people eventually learn the Truth despite that, but others stop to think about it, do their own study and recognize that what they had been taught by Adventists as wrong and leave as a result.

But I do think even that is misrepresenting that even that is the number one reason people are leaving.

One significant point the article made was that many of those who do leave over relational problems do so because of the reaction or response they got to raising questions, concerns or expressing differing views. When the reaction is that these people are "confused" and just need to be set straight and and their questions are not taken seriously, it becomes a relational issue too. I dare say that in the previous studies that was not fully accounted for. I suspect that many in the past left because they were treated badly, but for the reason that they expressed a doubt, or asked too many questions about some of our doctrines. It may be that things have not changed so much as how we are analyzing the data.

[ClubV12]

The word "doctrine" of course has a specific meaning, but I see people using, here as well as the Churches I've attended, to have a broader meaning. Including some of the counsel of Ellen White as well as issues the Church itself has not entirely resolved (like Daniel and Revelation). "Theology" might be a better term, but I do agree "doctrinal issues" are a big factor.

I recall early on in a bible study someone made a comment that was not accurate. I knew it wasn't accurat because I had just read up on the subject in Great Controversy. When I said thats not what the Church teaches, I got slammed pretty hard. I was told thats what our schools teach. I responded with, "Then our schools are wrong." Thats when the dynamite went off and things got real ugly real quick. Angry people, mean spirit, very uncomfortable. The issue wasn't exactly "doctrine", it was over a couple of details of the judgment, more like a theology position?

So, what if I had left over that (it was VERY embarrasing).

Would you say I left over doctrine?

Or

Would you say I left because of being humiliated, embarrased, treated rudely or something of that nature?

[Gibs]

Not many of us have left over just one time of disagree-ance, but of many and with many audiences with them. Mine went on for several yrs. and many with me.

Many home churches broke out all over America and especially in our conference here.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[BobRyan]

The word "doctrine" of course has a specific meaning, but I see people using, here as well as the Churches I've attended, to have a broader meaning. Including some of the counsel of Ellen White as well as issues the Church itself has not entirely resolved (like Daniel and Revelation). "Theology" might be a better term, but I do agree "doctrinal issues" are a big factor.

I recall early on in a bible study someone made a comment that was not accurate. I knew it wasn't accurat because I had just read up on the subject in Great Controversy. When I said thats not what the Church teaches, I got slammed pretty hard. I was told thats what our schools teach. I responded with, "Then our schools are wrong." Thats when the dynamite went off and things got real ugly real quick. Angry people, mean spirit, very uncomfortable. The issue wasn't exactly "doctrine", it was over a couple of details of the judgment, more like a theology position?

So, what if I had left over that (it was VERY embarrasing).

Would you say I left over doctrine?

When you read the article the people interviewed who claim they left over doctrine - did not claim to have ugly exchanges with people in church. They simply stated that they do not believe the Bible doctrines of this denomination.

The "old school thinking" for decades has been "well doctrine was not really the problem - the real problem is that somebody got cross-wise with some other individual in church - and so they took their toys and went home. Or else they simply lost interest in Christianity".

in Christ,

Bob

[ClubV12]

For me, it was actual doctrine, in the strictest definition of the word that caused me a lot of problems as a new believer. But it wasn't the doctrine itself, I accepted it. It was the confusion over the details of that doctrine. To many different versions of the details from to many different people left me wondering if the entire doctrine should be thrown out! Good people, well educated, raised Adventist, college educated, smart, leaders in the Church. And THESE people can't agree on the details I just read in their own book? Pretty easy at that point to conclude it's all a cunningly devised fable. And what other doctrines should we also throw out? Frankly, I stopped asking questions, felt like I couldn't trust anybody.

[BobRyan]

Are differences of interpretation, doubts and questions really "doctrinal confusion", or just legitimate differences, doubts and questions?

[BobRyan]

Here is a perfect example of the doctrinal confusion issue so glaringly obvious - few of us could ignore it.

“I could no longer stay within a system,” wrote one respondent, “that I knew to be unbiblical and with which I disagreed. . . . The ‘tipping point’ came when I realized we couldn’t expect our sons to tell us the truth if we were modeling a lack of integrity by being active members of a church they knew we no longer believed

in Christ,

Bob

[ClubV12]

Lets take the example you use, Bob, in your last post.

The lady says the doctrine is unbiblical. How did SHE arrive at that conclusion? Perhaps, the same way we see people here doing that. By not accepting the proof texts Adventist use to support their doctrine or applying a different interpretation than the Church does.

You know with some, you can "argue" the point of interpretation till the cows come home and people still see it a different way, rejecting your interpretation. Is that what happened to this lady? What is the root cause of someone not accepting the same interpretation of verse's that verify a doctrinal point?

State of the dead, for instance, is pretty hard to misunderstand when presented correctly. Same with the Sabbath, you can make a very strong case for it. I wonder what doctrine she had a problem with?

Toms question is valid: Is it, "legitimate differences, doubts and questions" that is the problem with doctrine?

[BobRyan]

Lets take the example you use, Bob, in your last post.

The lady says the doctrine is unbiblical. How did SHE arrive at that conclusion? Perhaps, the same way we see people here doing that. By not accepting the proof texts Adventist use to support their doctrine or applying a different interpretation than the Church does.

You know with some, you can "argue" the point of interpretation till the cows come home and people still see it a different way, rejecting your interpretation. Is that what happened to this lady? What is the root cause of someone not accepting the same interpretation of verse's that verify a doctrinal point?

State of the dead, for instance, is pretty hard to misunderstand when presented correctly. Same with the Sabbath, you can make a very strong case for it.

And yet I just spent an hour on the phone with a baptist lady who insisted that no matter how clear the Bible evidence - no matter that Isaiah 66 says all mankind will keep Sabbath and worship God from Sabbath to Sabbath - still no Sabbath keeping for her because God does not require it. And because if she looks at Col 2:14-17 a certain way she might be able to imagine a way out of Sabbath keeping.

The "any-ol excuse will do" pattern pops up all over the place. And once employed it is tough to refute.

There is no doctrine we hold that some group does not sincerely reject.

But in the case of ex-SDAs -- these are not Baptists leaving the SDA church - these are ill-informed doctrinally-confused SDAs choosing to become baptist.

in Christ,

Bob

[o2bwise]

Well, I think our denomination is jam-packed with cognitive dissonance. It really ought to be resolved and needs to be.

Adventism preached a soon return -and- a remnant perfected in character before the literal return of Christ. 160+ years after 1844 and the faithful continue to be far from perfect and that passage of time doesn't seem all that "soon."

If one were to ask an Adventist what the foundation of our faith is, most would not have a clue.

Tony

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

What is the Adventist church without EGW?

As far as fundamental doctrine, wer could be waht we are today without EGW. She didnot give us fundamental Christian doctrine. She didnto give us the Sabbathkl. She didnot give us the State kof the Dead.

In other areas we would not be whatt we are today without EGW.

We are endebted to her for our emphasis in: education, publishing and clinical care. We would not have our hospitals, our schools and publishing plants without her.

WE would be in missions. However, because of her we have a greater emphasis.

[ClubV12]

That is accurate Gregory (far more accurate than your typing by the way, new keyboard?). Adventist doctrine was indeed established through various agencies AND confirmed through rigorous bible study. Each step carefully, slowly taken over time.

Tony (o2bwise) your comment about Adventist preaching the soon return of Christ, and yet here we are a 150 years later. They said the same thing to Noah, who for 120 years said it was gonna rain.

And one day, it did! And one day, He WILL return. Until then, I'll go with Paul's advice, "occupy". Live as if it could happen tommorow, but go ahead and plant the apple tree anyway.

[Tom Wetmore]

Bob, get out the dictionary and look up the words. Confusion and disagreement are not the same thing. To have doubts, different interpretations, raising questions, holding different opinions are not the same as being confused about the subject at hand.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

. . . (far more accurate than your typing by the way, . . .

You should have seen it before I corrected it!

My wife tells me that my vision is not what it once was.

Oh well, that is just my wife talking.

[BobRyan]

Bob, get out the dictionary and look up the words. Confusion and disagreement are not the same thing.

[Tom Wetmore]

Communication is greatly enhanced by speaking the same language. Speaking the same language requires working from the same generally recognized meanings of the words used. Confusion results from ascribing special meanings to words than used by others speaking that language. You might as well be speaking in tongues.

Here is the problem with the phrase you are using. It is a condescending characterization. It displays an attitude of superiority toward those that raise questions or disagree. "Oh you poor confused soul..." Rather than honest response to sincere questions or differences, it labels the one raising the question simply as having a problem or worse, being a problem. You might as well brand them as being apostate heretics and throw them out. A very significant point in the article is that this attitude toward these people drives them out of the church. Not finding honest answers, being ignored or shunned for being different also sets an unwelcoming climate for others to voice their own concerns or differences of opinion even.

[Gibs]

Bob did you ever think maybe it could be confusion of the one staying? It can work both ways.

I assure you, I personally don't find I am confused. Well there is a saying, "Don't confuse me with the Facts."

Well for me, I have found the facts dispell any confusion if received.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[BobRyan]

Bumping this up - for the sake of a returning member to the Board who has been ex-SDA for some time now.