Variations in SDA Belief

[JoeMo]

10 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

They had Moses to teach them and he was one who spent a lot of time with God face to face learning all about what the Sanctuary was all about.

Maybe back in Moses' day. But 500 years later, I don't think that was the case.  If the average Jew understood the sanctuary model given in the OT, they never would have allowed Christ to be crucified, IMHO.

[R. G. White]

11 hours ago, JoeMo said:

Also, are we ready for Jesus to come, whatever the actual scenario turns out to be?  Are we faithful to believe that God is in control even if we are not?  If we truly love and believe in/depend on our Lord Jesus, His Spirit will guide us into all truth.  Currently, I could be mistaken, you could be mistaken, or we both could be mistaken.  We may not be "uniform" in our personal beliefs, but we are "united in our search for the Way, the Truth, and the Light.

Well said, and fair. I would only point out that I have not ventured out on my own in terms of doctrine, although there is doubtless a time and place for doing that. If I am mistaken on this point, then the whole SDA Church is a false movement, and arguably God has no visible church in the world.

[JoeMo]

5 minutes ago, Lone Ranger said:

Jesus was revolutionary in that he combined these two themes into one, and then claimed to be BOTH Messiah/Restorer of Israel AND Sacrificial Lamb of God, something that no OT writer had done.

One could say that Isaiah 53 combines the 2 themes; but most Jews I know don't "understand" Isaiah 53.

[JoeMo]

2 minutes ago, R. G. White said:

If I am mistaken on this point, then the whole SDA Church is a false movement, and arguably God has no visible church in the world.

I don't think that the SDA church was a false movement at all - any more than I think the Protestant Reformation was a false movement.  Martin Luther was a beer-swilling Jew hater; yet, he is considered the originator of the protestant reformation (and rightly so).  One sign of the end is that knowledge will increase; and IMHO that includes spiritual knowledge.  The establishment of the SDA Church was just one more step in the progression of God's people.  But ... as in all religions that reach "critical mass", the church has become a business rather than an outreach; so solvency is as or more important than keeping up with the signs of the times.

[B/W Photodude]

While the Bible does not always record all of the lives and practices of the good people of those days, there were schools of the prophets even in the days of Elijah. They were so in tune with things that even the schools knew that Elijah was going to be taken to heaven alive. There were always people who were dedicated to God and I have no doubt that they knew the symbolism of the sanctuary message. Also there were many books back then that did not become part of the Bible. You can find them mentioned all thru the Bible. 

Many of the understandings of the sanctuary message also come from the Old Testament. Because there is a knowledge deficit today regarding the sanctuary message does not mean there was one then. God does share His secrets to those who search for Him.

[B/W Photodude]

22 minutes ago, Lone Ranger said:

The sanctuary was how sins were forgiven, and, separate and unrelated, "Messiah" would someday come to restore Israel.

But the sanctuary was so much more than just how sins were forgiven. It is a symbol of the entire Christian experience, be it justification, sanctification, and even glorification. Which is why serious study of the sanctuary message should not be just glibly passed by as some relic of the Old Testament.

[Lone Ranger]

14 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

One could say that Isaiah 53 combines the 2 themes; but most Jews I know don't "understand" Isaiah 53.

True on both counts. However:

1. This understanding may be a result of hindsight. IOW it seems pretty obvious now.

2. Isaiah lived 830ish years after Moses. By this time the two themes were well established in an uncombined state.

So I maintain that the "average Israelite" saw no symbolism in the sanctuary service.

[R. G. White]

11 hours ago, JoeMo said:

B/W,

I agree that the sanctuary message as presented in the OT is a very detailed model of the plan of salvation; but only using my 20/20 hindsight do I see the symbolism.  I would imagine that the average Israelite had no clue that the annual cycle of feasts was a model of the plan of salvation; especially after the split between Israel and Judah; and the worship of foreign gods (even by the priests) became prevalent.

What I'm not so sure of is the "trimmings" added by Adventism (e.g., the Investigative Judgement, the Closed Door, the End of Probation, and absolute sinless perfection of God's Church prior to translation).  I haven't heard a message preached on these subjects for years.  I don't fault people who do believe this; I just don't believe it myself; nor do many of the SDA's I know.

Seeing that teaching the gospel to Israel (and the world) was God's entire purpose in instituting the earthly sanctuary and its ceremonial law, I have to think that it did succeed in accomplishing something, at least for a time. In other words, someone must have understood its significance and received a benefit from it. Eventually, of course, the Jewish people entirely lost sight of why they were going through the motions, and tried to turn it into righteousness by works, and that is when God chose to sweep that entire system of worship away. Today, we look back to the cross. We do not sacrifice animals nor keep the annual feasts.

Adventism did not add the investigative judgment. We discovered it in the Word. Not everyone who names the name of Christ is really a Christian. Of course every case would have be investigated and decided for weal or woe before Christ could come the 2nd time, bringing His reward with Him. (See Revelation 22:12.) Just as obviously, probation would have to close before the cases of the living could be decided, and the close of probation is clearly found in Revelation 22:11. I do not understand this as an arbitrary decision to close off anyone's opportunity to repent, but a recognition on God's part that everyone who is ever going to repent has already done so. In other words, earth's harvest is ripe. For those who have blasphemed the Holy Spirit, Jesus taught that there is no forgiveness. Their door has closed. For the rest of us, while the door to the Holy Place is closed, the door to the Most Holy is wide open. So never fear.

Your comment about absolute sinless perfection has me thinking. When earth's harvest is ripe, those who are with Christ may very well have been brought to the place where, upheld by God's grace, they are entirely victorious over the sin in their lives. They've learned how to walk on water by faith. However, this could never mean that they are absolutely perfect in themselves. The closer we come to Christ, the more sinful we appear in our own eyes. No, they are perfect in Christ, even as justification by faith makes us counted as being perfect in Christ, even now, regardless of our remaining defects of character.

Romans 8:29 and Ephesians 1:3-6 teach that, for those whom God foreknew would be willing to receive His grace, we are predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son (i.e. perfect in Christ). This is God's promise that, by the power of His love, we can be wholly transformed in character, to the praise of His glory. And I've used that last phrase intentionally. It's not so we can be justified. We are justified freely by the atonement of the cross. We long to be made perfect in love so that we can give glory to God. There is absolutely no place for creature merit.

[R. G. White]

27 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

I don't think that the SDA church was a false movement at all - any more than I think the Protestant Reformation was a false movement.  Martin Luther was a beer-swilling Jew hater; yet, he is considered the originator of the protestant reformation (and rightly so).  One sign of the end is that knowledge will increase; and IMHO that includes spiritual knowledge.  The establishment of the SDA Church was just one more step in the progression of God's people.  But ... as in all religions that reach "critical mass", the church has become a business rather than an outreach; so solvency is as or more important than keeping up with the signs of the times.

I appreciate your perspective. The state of the SDA Church today is indeed rather sorry, but I trust that God still has His plans for its purification.

[Lone Ranger]

38 minutes ago, B/W Photodude said:

But the sanctuary was so much more than just how sins were forgiven. It is a symbol of the entire Christian experience, be it justification, sanctification, and even glorification. Which is why serious study of the sanctuary message should not be just glibly passed by as some relic of the Old Testament.

Be that as it may, that is not the point I am advancing. IMO the early Israelites did not see or recognized, and would have rejected, any "symbolism" in the sanctuary.

In fact, the reason for the sanctuary is clearly given by God: "Let them build me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them," He DOES NOT say "Let them build me a sanctuary, that I may outline/symbolise the plan of salvation."

[B/W Photodude]

2 hours ago, Lone Ranger said:

Be that as it may, that is not the point I am advancing. IMO the early Israelites did not see or recognized, and would have rejected, any "symbolism" in the sanctuary.

In fact, the reason for the sanctuary is clearly given by God: "Let them build me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them," He DOES NOT say "Let them build me a sanctuary, that I may outline/symbolise the plan of salvation."

While many may not have seen it as many were never really converted. Even seeing some of the glory of God and hearing His voice, they would not believe. Unfortunately today, for whatever reason, many will not believe. However, I do believe that many got the message of the sanctuary. Possibly there are reasons why it is not as plain as day, but requires serious study to understand.

However, you seem not to know how close you are to the core message of the sanctuary. As you quoted, "Let them build me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them," This is like the words of Paul when he wrote, "My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you," Galatians 4:19

[Lone Ranger]

1 hour ago, B/W Photodude said:

However, you seem not to know how close you are to the core message of the sanctuary. As you quoted, "Let them build me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them," 

Oh I am quite aware.

However, we are not here addressing MY awareness, but that of the early Israelites.

[pierrepaul]

On 5/17/2019 at 1:07 AM, Morwenna said:

Let me reformulate my question: To what degree must a person's beliefs align with SDA Fundamentals in order to call themselves (and be considered by the denomination) a Seventh-Day Adventist?

• Is it permissible to drink alcohol, and still be a SDA?
• What about eating a pepperoni pizza? Would that be a disqualification?
• Working on the Sabbath (even in a non-medical field, but perhaps in a support staff position)? Automatic excommunication?
• Disbelief in Trinitarianism?
• Belief in transubstantiation?
• Belief in infant baptism?
• Multiple wives?
• Disbelief in Ellen White's prophet status?

It seems to me that one or two of these things may not necessarily exclude a person from the SDA faith; but perhaps, a multitude may. My question then, how much is required/ how much is too much?

The following is from my personal experience. Since SDA membership is a local congregation matter, practice varies from congregation to congregation.

Alcohol - I know of no congregation that disfellowshipped members for alcohol consumption. But they would be excluded from leadership positions. I suppose though, were a member to be "in your face" about it, such as ordering wine at the restaurant with other members, bringing beer to the church-family picnic or pouring a scotch for oneself during a pastoral visit, the congregation would likely take disciplinary action. I wouldn't recommend bringing one's own fermented wine to communion.

Working on the Sabbath - again likely this would exclude one from leadership positions, but I doubt the church body would be moved to disfellowship. But if one is being disruptive, such as taking business calls on sabbath and loudly discussing and negotiating business matters on the phone during the Sabbath fellowship luncheon, the congregation may take action. I wouldn't recommend passing out business cards and advertisements in the church lobby after the service.

Trinitarianism - no one cares if you keep your views to yourself. But if you're disrupting sabbath school with anti-trinitarian views, and if during sabbath afternoon fellowship you won't shut up about arianism or whatever one's pet theory is, the congregation may take action.

Transsubstantiation - if you keep your beliefs to yourself, no one will care. If, during communion you yell out "hoc est corpus meum", the congregation may take action.

Infant baptism - if you baptize your baby at home, no one will really care. But if during a baby dedication you rush to the front of the church to sprinkle the baby with water before the deacons can intercept you and wrestle you to the ground, the congregation may take action.

Multiple wives - sex, divorce, adultery, etc. are about the only things that I've seen resulting in a disfellowshipping. I believe few congregations in North America would countenance polygamy.

EGW - I've known many SDAs who don't acknowledge EGW as a prophet. As long as they don't disrupt sabbath school class or pester people with their pet theories, no one cares.

[Morwenna]

 

Thanks everyone; knew I could count on you all.

[JoeMo]

11 hours ago, R. G. White said:

Adventism did not add the investigative judgment.

Why does God even need to do an investigative judgement?  He know all things - past, present, and future; He always has.  He foreknow who was and wasn't going to be saved before the foundation of the world.  He did not predestine anyone's salvation; we all have a free will.  God just knew what we would choose before we knew it.  He doesn't need to investigate anyone or anything.

[R. G. White]

4 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

Why does God even need to do an investigative judgement?  He know all things - past, present, and future; He always has.  He foreknow who was and wasn't going to be saved before the foundation of the world.  He did not predestine anyone's salvation; we all have a free will.  God just knew what we would choose before we knew it.  He doesn't need to investigate anyone or anything.

Transparency. Daniel 7 not only describes the scene, but it gives the context of the investigation. Enough clues have already been given, earlier in the chapter, to positively identify the bloody persecutor of the "saints" (God's own holy people) as the papacy, an organisation of professing Christians! So the context indicates a situation of "Christians" against Christians, making it necessary to identify who are the real Christians, and who are the hypocrites. The outcome, as stated at the end of the chapter, is that judgment is given in favour of the saints of the Most High. In other words, the real Christians are vindicated, and their hypocritical persecutors are condemned and stopped in their tracks.

The whole process happens in the presence of the angels, and presumably the intelligences of other worlds, so all can see the justice of God's verdict concerning each individual. Obviously, this has to be an individual judgment, in order to be fair, not a summary condemnation of all Catholics for instance.

[Lone Ranger]

46 minutes ago, R. G. White said:

Transparency. Daniel 7 not only describes the scene, but it gives the context of the investigation. Enough clues have already been given, earlier in the chapter, to positively identify the bloody persecutor of the "saints" (God's own holy people) as the papacy, an organisation of professing Christians! So the context indicates a situation of "Christians" against Christians, making it necessary to identify who are the real Christians, and who are the hypocrites. The outcome, as stated at the end of the chapter, is that judgment is given in favour of the saints of the Most High. In other words, the real Christians are vindicated, and their hypocritical persecutors are condemned and stopped in their tracks.

The whole process happens in the presence of the angels, and presumably the intelligences of other worlds, so all can see the justice of God's verdict concerning each individual. Obviously, this has to be an individual judgment, in order to be fair, not a summary condemnation of all Catholics for instance.

Transparency?

For who?

For the angels? The angels, good and bad, have watched this little drama from the beginning. How stupid are they?

For the "intelligences of other worlds"? IF they exist, and IF they can watch, they can clearly see what has happened on our world.  I repeat--"How stupid are they?"

For Humanity? There are no humans at the IJ, so it is clearly not to demonstrate God's transparency to humanity. No humans are aware of the event, so how can it demonstrate anything to people who do not know it is happening. (I say "no humans" because the number of people that think this is happening, out of about 7 BILLION, is so infinitesimally small as to be "not statistically significant.")

For Satan? He already knows. (But does not care)

For the record, IF the IJ is happening (and, for the record, I for one do not believe in an IJ) it is clearly not to show "transparency."

Just my opinion.

[R. G. White]

23 minutes ago, Lone Ranger said:

Transparency?

For who?

For the angels? The angels, good and bad, have watched this little drama from the beginning. How stupid are they?

For the "intelligences of other worlds"? IF they exist, and IF they can watch, they can clearly see what has happened on our world.  I repeat--"How stupid are they?"

For Humanity? There are no humans at the IJ, so it is clearly not to demonstrate God's transparency to humanity. No humans are aware of the event, so how can it demonstrate anything to people who do not know it is happening. (I say "no humans" because the number of people that think this is happening, out of about 7 BILLION, is so infinitesimally small as to be "not statistically significant.")

For Satan? He already knows. (But does not care)

For the record, IF the IJ is happening (and, for the record, I for one do not believe in an IJ) it is clearly not to show "transparency."

Just my opinion.

I don't wish to bring such solemn truths down to the level of opinion, so I'll not say much more. The Bible indicates that the thoughts of men's hearts will be revealed in this judgment. So there will be much that no one had been able to observe that will be publicly examined. God has been accused by the highest former official in His government, and only He knows the level of transparency that it will take to fully vindicate His character in the eyes of all, to where even His enemies will voluntarily bow the knee.

[Lone Ranger]

All very solemn and lofty sounding, but

1. After years of holding to the IJ, and EXTENSIVE Bible study, I have arrived at the conclusion that Scripture does not support the doctrine of the IJ, and it is simply an SDA fabrication.

2. I have heard ALL the arguments.

3. I do not wish to derail this thread, so I'll not say much more.

4. Feel free to start (or resurrect) another thread on this topic. I'll be happy to join you there.

5. Hopefully you can fair better than "dedication" over at Maritime.

[JoeMo]

11 hours ago, R. G. White said:

Enough clues have already been given, earlier in the chapter, to positively identify the bloody persecutor of the "saints" (God's own holy people) as the papacy,

That may have been true in the Middle Ages.  I don't see that happening today.  The chief persecutor of Christianity and Judaism by far in today's world is Islam.

[B/W Photodude]

On 5/27/2019 at 6:04 PM, pierrepaul said:

Working on the Sabbath - again likely this would exclude one from leadership positions, but I doubt the church body would be moved to disfellowship. But if one is being disruptive, such as taking business calls on sabbath and loudly discussing and negotiating business matters on the phone during the Sabbath fellowship luncheon, the congregation may take action. I wouldn't recommend passing out business cards and advertisements in the church lobby after the service.

I found I had an easier time having Sabbaths off when I did not work for SDA institutions. Can you imagine asking your superviser at Loma Linda for the Sabbath off? When I worked at one non-Adventist hospital where we had self-scheduling, I maybe had to work one Sabbath a year! Another one once amonth.

On 5/27/2019 at 6:04 PM, pierrepaul said:

Multiple wives - sex, divorce, adultery, etc. are about the only things that I've seen resulting in a disfellowshipping. I believe few congregations in North America would countenance polygamy.

Actually, the Bible does not actually prohibit polygamy. You just cannot be a leader of the church with more than one wife. This becomes an issue if you are doing missionary work in a country where polygamy exists. Would you really ask the man to cut loose some of his wives who have made their lives with him and his family? Maybe you could make a case for no more wives. 

[pierrepaul]

A pastor of ours once explained to us the church's position on polygamy and I believe it is both biblical and makes sense. I believe that we counsel polygamist husbands not to marry additional wives once they've joined the church.

In Canada, polygamy runs afoul of section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada. It's illegal even if the additional relationships are not marriages (i.e. a man who lives with his wife and live-in mistress is breaking the law). Section 293 does not prohibit ordinary adultery since the adulterous affair is not considered to be a "conjugal union". There is no exception for immigrants coming in with multiple wives. A curious case would be a man living in Canada in illegal polygamy (one "legal" wife and another live-in "2nd wife") but who is from a culture which allows polygamy. Now he joins the church with his two wives. On one hand the man should not abandon the 2nd wife; on the other hand, he is breaking the secular laws of the federal state. This is simply a thought experiment; I'm not aware of any such situation having ever arisen.

• 293 (1) Every one who

  • (a) practises or enters into or in any manner agrees or consents to practise or enter into

    • (i) any form of polygamy, or

    • (ii) any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time,

    whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage, or

  • (b) celebrates, assists or is a party to a rite, ceremony, contract or consent that purports to sanction a relationship mentioned in subparagraph (a)(i) or (ii),

  is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

[Lone Ranger]

On ‎5‎/‎27‎/‎2019 at 9:34 PM, R. G. White said:

Enough clues have already been given, earlier in the chapter, to positively identify the bloody persecutor of the "saints" (God's own holy people) as the papacy,

This statement reveals a lack of awareness of the current condition of the Catholic Church, and the changes ushered in by Vatican II. It begs the question(s): "Do you actually KNOW any Catholics personally? are they knowledgeable regarding their church? have you discussed the Catholic Church's  current position with them? or is your knowledge of the RCC derived from SDA/SOP/EGW? There have been fundamental shifts in RCC viewpoints, doctrine, and directives that Protestants should be aware of, especially if said Protestants are trash-talking the RCC.

I am not myself a Catholic, and I do not attempt to present as an authority on Catholic matters; I'll leave that to Gregory. However, when I have a question regarding the RCC, I do not look to SDA/SOP/EGW for answers. Instead, I set up a meeting with my friend Mike M., who is the Director of Religious Education for the Archdiocese in which I live.

The (pre-21st century) view that "The Catholics" are going to persecute God's people is out-dated, and no longer valid. A simple reading of the Biblical text (ie: the characteristics of the Beast/persecuting power) and basic knowledge of the RCC will immediately debunk that theory.  There is another group that is a much better fit. This is, however, a discussion for another thread.

[Lone Ranger]

36 minutes ago, Lone Ranger said:

 I am not myself a Catholic, and I do not attempt to present as an authority on Catholic matters; I'll leave that to Gregory.

WAIT!

I meant Gustave, not Gregory.

My bad.

[JoeMo]

Thanks for that LR.  I was a "good" Catholic for the first 20 years of my life.  Vatican II occurred while I was in Catholic High School; and I was very pleased at the time to see the positive changes made.  Most of my family and several old friends are still practicing Catholics; and none of the ever put down my SDA faith.  Several years ago, I went to Mass with my mom (now deceased); and was invited to bring the bread and wine to the altar during the Offertory I advised them to invite someone else, because I wasn't Catholic.  The deacon asked if I was a believing Christian; and I said yes.  He then repeated His invitation.

I think traditional SDA's need to back off of their denigration of the RCC and the Papacy and focus on the reality of the times in which we live.  Who has killed more Christians and Jews over the past 75 years - the RCC or Islam?  Who continues to preach for the destruction of Israel and it's staunchest ally (America) - the RCC or Islam?  While EGW had every justification in her day to point to the RCC and the papacy as the antichrist, there is absolutely no justification to do that now.  Times have changed.

I want to be clear - I am not pointing a finger at the majority of moderate Muslims living in North America who want the same thing as most Christians - to practice their religion in peace and let others do the same.  But radical fundamental Islam is actually practicing what the post-Medina part of the Quran and the majority of the hadiths preach.