The Adventist Mind

[Gregory Matthews]

Writing an hour ago, Kevin Straub posted a comment that I believe deserves its own thread.  So, I quote it below--Gregory Matthews

'I am of the conviction that the "Adventist" hermeneutic pertains to the very oracles of God: the Spirit of Prophecy, the Law (with the Sabbath) and the Sanctuary. Particular emphasis on the Sanctuary. This must be the overlay, the filter, through which we understand all of inspiration. I very much appreciate the article by Canale which emphasizes this point "A Close Look at the Adventist Mind" http://www.perspectivedigest.org/article/82/archives/17-4/a-close-look-at-the-adventist-mind "

 

In short I encourage you to read the article by Canale and comment on it.

[Gregory Matthews]

I have not had the time to digest all that Dr. Canale has said in the above article.  I suspect that I will agree with some and disagree with some.  Regardless, Dr. Canale is an important spokesperson for one segment of Adventism.  He can not be summarily dismissed.  It is for that reason that I have posted his article here.

 

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I found the article tediously difficult to wade through, and abandoned it after about one third of the way...

[debbym]

he utilizes definitions i am not extremely familiar with.  i would like to make an attempt to summarize.

He has made a construct of  theological methodology as a three fold vehicle in which protestantism continues to be in some ways attached to and increasingly returning to Catholicism.

He understands that Luther's move away from the ecclesiastical authority of Rome was not the completed reformation, and he identifies steps by reformers to continue this change, but identifies ongoing systematic intellectual mechanisms by which the reformation is not only now eventually failing but digressing in a return to Catholicism. this is fascinating. 

He has made observations that current theological methodologies have been incorporated that appear to reinforce the distinction of Adventism acknowledging specifically the uniqueness of the Sanctuary  doctrine, among other various doctrines but then leaves them still as peripheral, and disempowered.  These methodologies retain strings intrinsic to Catholicism   This is because the center of the Protestant or Evangelical world still is not completely removed from Rome and is able to return back to the "Mother" church.

What does not allow us to do this is  having a hermeneutic derived from an understanding of Christ in the sanctuary that sees every truth about Christ being fully connected from the beginning of Scripture to the end. 

he quotes Froom ... " In Movement of Destiny, Froom singles out the sanctuary as the most separative Adventist doctrine. According to him, neither the early church nor the Reformation taught this doctrine. Nonetheless, he did not suggest that Adventists should abandon their understanding of the sanctuary but sought to soften its divisiveness by ignoring its hermeneutical role."

Froom is further credited...

"  This change in the understanding of the hermeneutical conditions of theological methodology requires a change in the material condition. Since evangelical theology does not build on Scripture alone, progressively Adventists no longer developed their theological understanding from Scripture alone but also from the multiplicity of theological sources used by evangelical and Roman Catholic theologians. "

By adopting the systems from the "theological traditions of Protestantism" for their functional hermeneutics there is a corruption of our identity and loss of understanding the scope and current thrust of Adventism in the world today.  In this way we lose everything distinctive about our position and relationship the the rest of Christianity in the world today.

the author writes 

" At the beginning of the 21st century, the supernatural power/praise paradigm of ministry of evangelicalism is replacing the Bible study/theological understanding paradigm of ministry of earlier Adventists. As a result of this mostly unrecognized phenomenon, the Protestantization of Adventism is reaching the pews around the world. According to the Protestant ministerial paradigm, God grants salvation by His supernatural decision and power. Consequently, the ministerial method becomes the proclamation of the Cross as complete atonement, justification, and the assurance of salvation. As a result, those Adventist ministers who follow the Protestant paradigm no longer see the need for Bible studies as a condition for baptism, spirituality, or salvation.
        Because the evangelical understanding of the gospel continues to play the macro-hermeneutical role in theological method, Adventists feel free to drink from evangelical theological reflection and ministerial practices. In this way, evangelical theologies and ministerial practices will shape Adventist thinking and lifestyle for years to come.
        The limited and partial phenomenological analysis of selected evidence leads only to initial conclusions calling for further research and verification. The Protestantization of the Adventist mind and lifestyle is real, ongoing, broad-reaching, and intensifying. Disconnected from the doctrinal formulations of the church, the Protestantization phenomenon takes place at the existential level of thinking, feeling, and acting. "

and he then concludes

" Adventists must develop the sola scriptura systematic theology project at the scholarly level. This requires a shared understanding of the conditions of theological methodology and a solid commitment to scholarly research that challenges the strong houses of Christian theology to establish Christianity upon an eternal basis. This project should include the development of Adventist theology in neglected scholarly disciplines, such as fundamental, biblical, systematic, and ministerial theologies.
        In a time when Protestant leaders are going back to Rome, Adventist leaders, administrators, pastors, and scholars should be going back to Scripture and using the sanctuary doctrine as the hermeneutical key to understand the complete and harmonious system of biblical truth. When the inner logic of God’s Word, through the educational ministry of the Holy Spirit, penetrates our hearts and we treasure it in the inner recesses of our spirits, we will no longer experience doctrine as “brain” knowledge but as the transforming and saving power of God through the Holy Spirit. Then the church will be of one mind, and Adventism will fulfill its God-given final mission. "

[Gregory Matthews]

Debbym has done well in her attempt to summarize some of what Dr. Canale  said.

I will suggest that the following statement by Dr. Canale is of interest:

This answer superficially enumerates similarities in doctrinal issues, but it does not address divergent theological positions, systems, and theological methods embraced by Adventists and Protestant denominations. Thus contemporary readers may arrive at incorrect conclusions. They may infer that Adventists and evangelicals share the same theological understanding in all doctrinal points with the exception of a few minor eschatological issues. Moreover, they may also deduce that these minor divergences do not affect the understanding of the “eternal verities,” that is, most of the content of evangelical systematic theology. From this simple answer to a complex question, an increasing number of Adventists today assume their beliefs are evangelical, notably, the central doctrines of Christianity. One can see why they feel free to use evangelical books to learn their theology and ministerial paradigm.

[Gregory Matthews]

Here is another statement of interest:

Quote

The Protestantization of Adventism came into existence by way of a progressive forgetfulness of the biblical system of theology from which it came. Like the Reformers, Adventists have become distracted with church business and neglected their emerging theological thought. With the passing of time, they have forgotten the hermeneutical role of the doctrine of the sanctuary in its theological methodology and replaced it with the evangelical hermeneutical principle of justification by faith. Moreover, like the Reformers, Adventists have overlooked the sola, tota, prima scriptura principle, and embraced the plurality of theological sources on which the Roman Catholic theological system stands. QOD’s superficial affirmation that Adventism shares most Protestant doctrines opened the gates to the global dissemination and progressive intensification of the Protestantization of Adventism.

 

[debbym]

yes i have witnessed this blurring of the boundaries of what is sound spiritual material drawn from popular evangelical writers used for SDA devotions and exhortations. I am really impressed to see some academic work speaking to this issue.

 

[debbym]

14 minutes ago, debbym said:

he utilizes definitions i am not extremely familiar with.  i would like to make an attempt to summarize.

He has made a construct of  theological methodology as a three fold vehicle in which protestantism continues to be in some ways attached to and increasingly returning to Catholicism.

He understands that Luther's move away from the ecclesiastical authority of Rome was not the completed reformation, and he identifies steps by reformers to continue this change, but identifies ongoing systematic intellectual mechanisms by which the reformation is not only now eventually failing but digressing in a return to Catholicism. this is fascinating. 

He has made observations that current theological methodologies have been incorporated that appear to reinforce the distinction of Adventism acknowledging specifically the uniqueness of the Sanctuary  doctrine, among other various doctrines but then leaves them still as peripheral, and disempowered.  These methodologies retain strings intrinsic to Catholicism   This is because the center of the Protestant or Evangelical world still is not completely removed from Rome and is able to return back to the "Mother" church.

What does not allow us to do this is  having a hermeneutic derived from an understanding of Christ in the sanctuary that sees every truth about Christ being fully connected from the beginning of Scripture to the end. 

he quotes Froom ... " In Movement of Destiny, Froom singles out the sanctuary as the most separative Adventist doctrine. According to him, neither the early church nor the Reformation taught this doctrine. Nonetheless, he did not suggest that Adventists should abandon their understanding of the sanctuary but sought to soften its divisiveness by ignoring its hermeneutical role."

Froom is further credited...

"  This change in the understanding of the hermeneutical conditions of theological methodology requires a change in the material condition. Since evangelical theology does not build on Scripture alone, progressively Adventists no longer developed their theological understanding from Scripture alone but also from the multiplicity of theological sources used by evangelical and Roman Catholic theologians. "

By adopting the systems from the "theological traditions of Protestantism" for their functional hermeneutics there is a corruption of our identity and loss of understanding the scope and current thrust of Adventism in the world today.  In this way we lose everything distinctive about our position and relationship the the rest of Christianity.

the author writes 

" At the beginning of the 21st century, the supernatural power/praise paradigm of ministry of evangelicalism is replacing the Bible study/theological understanding paradigm of ministry of earlier Adventists. As a result of this mostly unrecognized phenomenon, the Protestantization of Adventism is reaching the pews around the world. According to the Protestant ministerial paradigm, God grants salvation by His supernatural decision and power. Consequently, the ministerial method becomes the proclamation of the Cross as complete atonement, justification, and the assurance of salvation. As a result, those Adventist ministers who follow the Protestant paradigm no longer see the need for Bible studies as a condition for baptism, spirituality, or salvation.
        Because the evangelical understanding of the gospel continues to play the macro-hermeneutical role in theological method, Adventists feel free to drink from evangelical theological reflection and ministerial practices. In this way, evangelical theologies and ministerial practices will shape Adventist thinking and lifestyle for years to come.
        The limited and partial phenomenological analysis of selected evidence leads only to initial conclusions calling for further research and verification. The Protestantization of the Adventist mind and lifestyle is real, ongoing, broad-reaching, and intensifying. Disconnected from the doctrinal formulations of the church, the Protestantization phenomenon takes place at the existential level of thinking, feeling, and acting. "

and he then concludes

" Adventists must develop the sola scriptura systematic theology project at the scholarly level. This requires a shared understanding of the conditions of theological methodology and a solid commitment to scholarly research that challenges the strong houses of Christian theology to establish Christianity upon an eternal basis. This project should include the development of Adventist theology in neglected scholarly disciplines, such as fundamental, biblical, systematic, and ministerial theologies.
        In a time when Protestant leaders are going back to Rome, Adventist leaders, administrators, pastors, and scholars should be going back to Scripture and using the sanctuary doctrine as the hermeneutical key to understand the complete and harmonious system of biblical truth. When the inner logic of God’s Word, through the educational ministry of the Holy Spirit, penetrates our hearts and we treasure it in the inner recesses of our spirits, we will no longer experience doctrine as “brain” knowledge but as the transforming and saving power of God through the Holy Spirit. Then the church will be of one mind, and Adventism will fulfill its God-given final mission. "

 

[Gregory Matthews]

In my original response, I stated that I agreed with some and disagreed with some of what Dr. Canale had written.

I do not limit my posting to what I agree with and no one should ever assume that I agree with everything that I either reference or  cite.  But, as I said, Dr. Canale represents, and very well, a segment of Adventism today.

I wonder if any will b willing to engage in a discussion here on what he has said that gives solid  reasoning for why one should either agree or disagree.

NOTE:  I may have asked for something that I am not able to do. 

 

[debbym]

i hear Him saying we need to get back to bible study as a foundation for faith and love to God, and he says the pioneers derived truth directly from scripture without traditional Protestant methods for deriving truth. There is a great evangelical movement ongoing as in the Billy Graham crusades.  It brings many people to a decision about Christ and then they go to their churches for traditional instruction.

The hope is that their walk will lead them to be ready to meet Jesus when he comes, that their experience will be progressive and enable them to meet each test that will come progressively deeper till we see Jesus come in the sky.

But that is not their focus.  That is not the focus to traditional Protestantism or Catholicism 

I do not see the popular Gospel as preparing people to meet Jesus but as an encounter with Christ that results in bringing comfort and hope to live better lives and be happier and solve daily problems better.  It seems a focus on making this life better.  It seems an offer to everyone a warm fuzzy from God. This is not the light of seeing every human being as sin broken and yet divinely favored and loved and redeemed, and so lets let everyone know that Christ has provided everything we need to stand before God and be ready when Jesus comes.

Canale says, "  These simple observations on evangelical and Adventist theological methodologies may help Adventists to understand two pivotal points involved in their relations with evangelicals. " and   "Imperceptibly, church leaders accommodate Adventist life and mission to the evolving theologies, liturgies, and ministerial paradigms of American evangelical culture. Consequently, evangelical theologies and practices are increasingly shaping Adventist thinking. "

He seems to be suggesting that we are not retaining our God designed mission and  distinct identity among other Christians.  i can see this.  we are caught up in some headship theologies, and power and authority issues that are not Spiritually healthy leading us to depend on humanity rather than on God.

i do personally see the focus of general Christianity as a cultural generator, with prosperity, happiness, and  success meeting the demands of life at every stage as social markers.  We would all like to have the Good lives of Good people in Good churches.  And new Adventist  members typically are broken into the culture and not necessarily into the theological movement.

i cannot say it is because of the thought leaders of our churches.  i am not sure the responsibility can be placed there.  On the borders of Canaan the priests carried the ark into the Jordan getting their feet wet, and all the rest of the people followed safely on dry land.  The priests represent the laity and the ministers, the body of Christ on earth. The ark represents the Most Holy Place.  There is the sanctuary truth, the righteousness of God preparing us and empowering us to go forward.

In each Christian life some shadows will fall.  I do not know if it is my theology that empowers me to witness and live beyond the trials.  I am studying, and my faith is growing, so perhaps it is more closely connected to my studying then i would causally understand. The proof of the pudding is not in my social and life success, the proof is in the reality of God being true, and him being faithful to everything he has promised in whatever struggle i am in before, during, or after . And the revelation of this in my life is my witness.

so how do i see my thinking, as an example of an Adventist mind, as being impacted by evangelical theologies.  when i feel i have arrived by just having a good life, and my enemy being my hardships, and thinking i just need to be good, and to be more compliant and co-operative and do all my society expects of me.... ... this would be partially the prosperity Gospel.   In contrast am i seeking the Lord and accepting the voice of God in my soul exposing my need of God, and His complete provision for my needs.  And having faith and love towards God in the promises fully provided by Christ.

hmmm 

[debbym]

The Jewish leaders and people who did reject Christ rejected Him because they were looking for a king that would fulfill their political ambitions and longing for national greatness as an indicator God's favor was with them, to lift them above the fallen nations around them.  They were looking for fulfillment of the desires of their human ego.

When God did bless them they took those blessings to themselves to lift up themselves rather than giving God glory, and witnessing to the fallen nations of His goodness to them, as sinners, and His love for them as sinners.  This left them without the power of God to live Godly lives.  They took the blessings of God and consumed them on the alters of their desires, and would end up worshiping idols to further gratify themselves.  This is what we will always eventually do without receiving the gift of surrender to His will for us and not our own.

When we receive the blessings of God as a source of the fulfillment of our desires, rather then a deliverance from ourselves... we frustrate the grace of God.  When we encounter the Cross of Christ and are satisfied that by the Cross our lives are made better, and do not allow Jesus to save us from the power of sin in our past and our present and our future, when we deny that he is the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the earth, and the present mighty Intercessor for all mankind,  then we miss what he came to do for us and for the world. (sorry, i know long sentence.)

If the Lord is not made our righteousness then we have no righteousness at all.  If the Lord is not made our wisdom we are foolish still, indeed.  If the power of Christ's kindness towards us does not lead us to repent and turn from ourselves and live by the power of His love then we are self serving.

The conundrum is this.  I am saved by Christ yet remain a sinner.  God walks with sinners, and continually blesses them in order that they might live, but live not merely for themselves, but live in His strength and witness to His power to save us from the power of sin even while we live as broken earthen vessels. This is what Jesus did, Jesus lived by faith and drew from heaven what he needed every day to live for God's glory.  We are offered Christ's life, we are offered His faith and His righteousness, His ways and not our ways.

Where and how do we obtain this? From a Faith that penetrates behind the veil, that  enters into the presence of God in the Most Holy Place, where Jesus intercedes for us, with a mighty intercession by His blood.  It is for us to look and live.

A faith that is merely satisfied to live a trouble free blessed life, is not a faith that leads to ongoing deepening surrender to the will of God.  I believe there are different theologies that have different end results in the life.  Did Jesus come to helps us have a pleasant life on earth?  or an eternal life here and in heaven, in the face of everything life may throw at us either in prosperity or in trouble?

[Gregory Matthews]

The Wanderer said below:

That is a major reason that I moved that comment from the Trinity thread to here where I began a new thread.

In short; I can comment for now that I do not appreciate what he said, and how he implicated what he said. I do not see "the sanctuary doctrine" as the central pillar, and therefore, not really applicable as "an Adventist Hermeneutic," But I will have to explain more next post.

[Gregory Matthews]

In his article, Dr. Canale mentions both what he calls a "central pillar" of Adventism and he applies that pillar to what he calls an "Adventist Hermeneutic."  I will suggest that if we identify doctrine X as a central pillar of Adventism, it does not mean ipso facto that doctrine X is also a central part of an Adventist Hermeneutic.  It is this point that I would want to see developed more before I could accept it.

Adventist historians who study our early denominational history commonly accept the idea that there were five (5) central pillars upon which the early Adventists united and agreed were central to our developing belief system in regard to what distinguished us from the denominations from which we came.  This last pint is essential.  Those five (5) pillars of faith were not at the core of Christianity, by any definition.  But, our early Adventists did not believe that they needed to define the core elements of Christianity.  They came form Christian denominations and simply believed that they were already united as to core beliefs.  What they thought needed to be done was to define those beliefs that they thought thy could unite upon and that were different from the beliefs of the denominations from which they came.

It must be said at this point that our early denominational leaders were not theologians.  As a result they did not realize that they were actually not united on the core beliefs of Christianity.  They just thought that they were.  A number of our early leaders came from what was called the Christian Connection.  As such they apparently held a doctrinal belief that placed they outside of mainstream Christianity.  In our denominational history a number of years passed before we as a denomination began to deal with this issue.

Regardless, the following are the five (5) doctrinal beliefs upon which the developing SDAs were able to agree and which differed to some degree  from the denominations from which they came:

* Second Advent;  With us, the idea was that the coming of Christ was near as opposed to in the far distant future.

* State of the Dead:   The idea that upon death, one did not go directly to heaven or hell as a burning fire.

* Soul Sleep:  The idea that upon death an independent, conscious soul did not exist.

* Sanctuary:  While this was accepted, some differences existed which prevail to this day.

* Spirit of Prophecy:  Major differences in understanding existed in those early days and remain to this day.

 

NOTE:  Those early Adventists had five (5) central pillars of faith.  They did not have 27/28/29.  The role of women in spiritual nuture was controversial, but not considered a central pillar of the faith.  Differences in understanding creation were not considered central to the faith.  Folks, we today have added much to what our early denominational leaders felt was necessary to our developing church.

 

 

[debbym]

with our increase  in colleges and books, and technical expose' on understanding the bible we are still living with the same faulty human condition, and in need of the same renovation as the pioneers of our faith, in someways not much has changed.

Our understanding of the bible is dependent on being inspired by the same one who inspired the writing of the Bible.

Differences in hermeneutics or methods of studying the bible result in completely different views of God and His relationship to man.

from this website https://www.adventist.org/en/information/official-statements/documents/article/go/-/methods-of-bible-study/  ,a website on SDA method of Bible study we read this.

"In the "Introduction" to The Great Controversy Ellen G. White wrote:

The Bible, with its God-given truths expressed in the language of men, presents a union of the divine and the human. Such a union existed in the nature of Christ, who was the Son of God and the Son of man. Thus it is true of the Bible, as it was of Christ, that "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." John 1:14. (p. vi)

As it is impossible for those who do not accept Christ's divinity to understand the purpose of His incarnation, it is also impossible for those who see the Bible merely as a human book to understand its message, however careful and rigorous their methods.

Even Christian scholars who accept the divine-human nature of Scripture, but whose methodological approaches cause them to dwell largely on its human aspects, risk emptying the biblical message of its power by relegating it to the background while concentrating on the medium. They forget that medium and message are inseparable and that the medium without the message is as an empty shell that cannot address the vital spiritual needs of humankind.

A committed Christian will use only those methods that are able to do full justice to the dual, inseparable nature of Scripture, enhance his ability to understand and apply its message, and strengthen faith."

----------------------

i would add in reference to the sanctuary teaching holding a hermeneutic or a method for understanding the bible, 

The sanctuary teaching is  about the connection of earth and heaven, of God and man, and encompasses time from the beginning to the end.  The throne of God is in the sanctuary now, but will eventually be placed in the center of the New Jerusalem a dwelling place for man for eternity.  Our hearts are to be a place where God is enthroned today.  This understanding of the timelessness and prophetic meanings of the Sanctuary at the time of the end was very pivotal to the faith of the early advent believers. All they had understood about the Bible as Christians was held up to a new light.

The sanctuary was an instruction book on God dwelling with sinful man. God was with us when we were created, and God is in us, a part of the fabric of humanity in the incarnation, and will dwell with us intimately for eternity. God wants us to know Him and walk with Him and be recovered from sin and live for eternity.  The reality of redemption, overcoming, being ready for Jesus to come and being available to us by faith and faith alone, is a precious and wonderful truth.

[8thdaypriest]

In the 25 years since I resigned my membership in the SDA Church, I have retained several of the distinctive doctrines held by SDAs. 

1.  I agree that the Sanctuary doctrine is distinctive.  Mainline protestant churches do not spend ANY time on the Ancient Tabernacle.  Messianic and Hebrew Roots congregations DO. 

But if the writer identifies the teaching on 1844 as equivalent to "the Sanctuary doctrine"  then I must disagree.  It IS distinctive.  I believe it is also wrong. 

2.  I have retained the SDA teaching of the desolate earth during the upcoming 7th millennium, with Satan held captive on earth during this period.  This is a very distinctive SDA doctrine.  I know of no other denomination teaching this doctrine.  And I believe this doctrine will be essential, in the coming last days, to save "the elect" from deception by the Evil One. 

3.  Also distinctive (I'm not sure how distinctive) is the teaching that the name "Israel" now describes New Covenant Israel - the congregation (church) of Jesus Christ.   Most protestant churches apply the name "Israel" only to Hebrews descended from Jacob.  They make it about DNA, rather than faith alone.  This will also be crucial in the upcoming deception of the last days.

[8thdaypriest]

On 11/26/2016 at 2:52 PM, 8thdaypriest said:

In the 25 years since I resigned my membership in the SDA Church, I have retained several of the distinctive doctrines held by SDAs. 

1.  I agree that the Sanctuary doctrine is distinctive.  Mainline protestant churches do not spend ANY time on the Ancient Tabernacle.  Messianic and Hebrew Roots congregations DO. 

But if the writer identifies the teaching on 1844 as equivalent to "the Sanctuary doctrine"  then I must disagree.  It IS distinctive.  I believe it is also wrong. 

2.  I have retained the SDA teaching of the desolate earth during the upcoming 7th millennium, with Satan held captive on earth during this period.  This is a very distinctive SDA doctrine.  I know of no other denomination teaching this doctrine.  And I believe this doctrine will be essential, in the coming last days, to save "the elect" from deception by the Evil One. 

3.  Also distinctive (I'm not sure how distinctive) is the teaching that the name "Israel" now describes New Covenant Israel - the congregation (church) of Jesus Christ.   Most protestant churches apply the name "Israel" only to Hebrews descended from Jacob.  They make it about DNA, rather than faith alone.  This will also be crucial in the upcoming deception of the last days.

I should mention that this earth - as the "uninhabited place" during the upcoming 7th millennium ALSO came from the Sanctuary teachings.