You write:

..."He probably won't get invited to speak for the union presidents meeting ever again, but he's at that point in life where he can point out the elephant in the room, speak truth to power and go home to enjoy his grand kids. He is in a position to know--better than almost anyone alive--and he has the tools to see reality and be honest about it. "

What do you think these leaders would have against his book, because he talks against beastly preaching? I have not noticed the SDA church as a denomination putting up those anti-Catholic billboards, and even prophecy seminars are a whole lot different then the Beastly preaching of years ago.

No this book is entirely in line with the prevailing thoughts of the Adventist leadership. That is Adventist eschatology and historicism are completely right. We can all hold on to the Pre-Advent Judgment and Ellen White and traditional Adventism. Just try to not preach against other Christian churches as much remember that everything revolves around Jesus. (Actually that was a mixed message because he speaks against other churches as liberals who have left Christianity while at the same time decrying beastly preaching. But even that is totally consistent with todays Denominational leadership.)

 

 

Monte:  This is a great piece.  Your first paragraph confirms from your own experience George Knight's central thesis:  Many of our pastors and teachers are uncomfortable, and in some cases unfamiliar, with Adventism's traditional apocalyptic message.  Many would like to jettison the message that Jesus is coming again, soon, to end this world and take us to heaven.  Instead, they want to preach peace, comfort and security in this world, an anti-biblical but soothing message they believe to be more agreeable to their parishioners.  The apocalyptic gives urgency not just to feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, comforting the afflicted, but to every other Christian duty, including spreading the gospel.  Without it, the healthy outward focus degenerates into inward navel gazing and stagnation. 

I think what bothers me about the Adventist apocalyptic vision is its basic reductionism. It essentially passes over the trillions of people who have ever lived in this world, over the untold number of conflicts over values, interests and priorities between and within nations, ethnicities, religions, sexes, etc, and basically says something like "all you really need to know is to keep the Sabbath, observe the health laws, and you'll be ready for Jesus to come and basically blow the whole earth and mankind project up and start over again with people like us."

There doesn't seem to be any real attempt to grapple with the complexities of life and society's many and varied differences over time and space. In a way it seems to promise a sort of short cut to get us into that world "where there will be no more tears, no more death", etc, without actually making us try to learn to bring that kind of world about. The essential problem I think mankind faces is the ability to get along together with our differences while at the same time trying to ensure that people are allowed some basic kind of justice and dignity. And I don't really see where Adventist apocalyptic seriously considers that.

Some of modern SDA preaching and teaching plays down or ignores the focal point of the second coming. Namely, Jesus is coming to take His children home and destroy the wicked. Jesus is not coming to solve world problems and instigate a "new world order". Yet this seems to be the implication at least in some SDA evangelism. It is implied, when Jesus comes, He is going to solve all your problems. Take away your pain and suffering with no reference to the saved or unsaved. Such an idea prepares the world for Satan as the antichrist who is more than willing to fulfill such idealistic human dreams with little or no emphasis on repentance and a spiritual preparation for the close of probation. Sad to say, this is becoming more and more the SDA emphasis. Bill Sorensen

Good work, Monte. George is refining his message as the years go by. His plea for revisiting Adventist focus on the end-times and our responsibility during these interesting time is something that he and others note with regret. We have been in recent years, as Bull and Lockhart pointed out in Seeking a Sanctuary, almost anestetized toward "preparing a people to meet the Lord in our day." A growing emphasis favors "we don't know when He will return" and so let's us just "occupy till He comes." Another group emphasizes, in some mystical way, that everyone is ready for heaven, if they "accept" the evangelical position that Jesus died and forgives our sin for accepting that fact. Somehow, as George points out, we must revisit the Adventist appeal to honest seekers everywhere that character transformation is the other half of the gospel equation. Now, even making note of that fact, will show that George's topic requires more than passing interest. Cheers, Herb

 

 

 

David, did you intend to place "feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, comforting the afflicted" in contrast to "spreading the gospel"? As I read Ellen White and understand the Adventist doctrine of wholism ('the state of the dead"), these are one and the same thing. In fact, isn't that what Christ is clearly saying in Matthew 25?

I very much appreciate your observation. It is a vitally important perspective, especially for the people who will probably skip over it. Is it possible that the real "remnant" are those followers of Jesus who are so invested in His bottom line--a world without death, injustice and suffering--that they work for it now, energized by His promise of a New Earth to come? To me, the whole point of Matthew 24-25 (the two chapters) is that as we wait for Jesus to return, we must be about His kingdom values; social justice, the sacredness of life, and the joy of creative service.

Bill, have you read Revelation 21? Does it not say very explicitly that Jesus will bring about "a new earth where there is no more suffering or death"? I have never heard or read any Adventist preacher who disconnects this from personal salvation. In fact, the last parable in Matthew 25 strongly implies that those who do not see the connection, eschew the "social gospel" for an emphasis on personal salvation alone, will be in the lake of fire.

Thank you, Dr. Douglass. The historic challenge of Adventist faith is to live every day as if it were today that Christ will return and that includes (as Matthew 24-25 makes clear) the stewardship of being prepared for a long delay. Jesus wants to find us with our hands full, doing His work on this Earth, when He arrives!

To: Monte

Re: being the magic button of healing

 I think Sari Fordham makes much this same point in her essay on what it means to be Adventist (in particular, her response to Larry Kirkpatrick's essay in the same issue).

On June 12th, 2009 Monte Sahlin says: Bill, have you read Revelation 21? Does it not say very explicitly that Jesus will bring about "a new earth where there is no more suffering or death"? I have never heard or read any Adventist preacher who disconnects this from personal salvation. In fact, the last parable in Matthew 25 strongly implies that those who do not see the connection, eschew the "social gospel" for an emphasis on personal salvation alone, will be in the lake of fire.

Reply: Actually, there is no such thing as "corporate salvation". Each of us are "saved" individually and "personally" or not at all.

This reality seems to elude many who hope that by being connected to some instrumentality, they will somehow be saved.

Yes, individuals join together for the sake of effeciency in witnessing. This is commendable. But does not imply corporate salvation for any individual who has joined the group.

Each person is a "church" in themselves and will be judged accordingly.

Not until the 3rd coming will Jesus create a new heavens and a new earth. The second coming is not for the purpose of a creating some perfect social order where all the world problems will be solved.

Some SDA evangelists do not carefully make this point clear in their presentations which they should do to avoid confusion when many look for a thousand years of peace and prosperity at the second coming.

We need to be very definitive in what and how we present the SDA understanding of this issue.

Bill Sorensen

Monte:  I wouldn't say they're one and the same thing. Good works will never save anyone, nor is that the teaching of Matthew 25.  But those who know they are saved by grace will model that grace to others, often in the form of meeting people's physical needs (such as food and clothes).

I've just started to read Knight's book--it's quite a mess. One thing that puzzles me is that, in criticizing what he believes to be Adventism's drift away from doctrinal certitudes, he makes no reference to Adventism's yearly, and sometimes more than yearly, evangelistic broadcasts/meetings. You can't be around a typical SDA church without falling over an Amazing Facts series, where Adventist specialness is celebrated. So I'm not sure where Knight gets this idea that Adventism has somehow retreated into the world of moral and doctrinal relativism. Partly as a result, he doesn't express any awareness about the extent to which Adventism's doctrinal absolutisms have possibly alienated some of its membership and help contribute to the stagnation of Adventism in North America that he does recognize.

I appreciate the high level of discussion. I don't think Monte means that the social gospel is the main purpose of the Christian church in any age. I  have no idea what is meant by "doctrinal absolutism" in Adventism. All I know is that the NT refers to our Lord's second coming and His church's responsibility, in the last days (for there will always be "last days") is to prepare people everywhere to be translated, not merely to live ten years longer. And the NT is explicit about the people God expects to welcome into His new earth. That is the metanarrative, that is the world-view of the NT. Is that what is meant by "doctrinal absolutism"?  Cheers, Herb

Hi Dr. Douglass,

What I mean is I don't know what, or who, Knight is writing against. He seems to think Adventism is (at the local church level, globally, nationally?) soft-pedaling its traditional, end-time prophetic message. But which Adventists, if any, are doing this?  Organizations such as Amazing Facts and It Is Written are still engaged in traditional SDA evangelism on a continual basis, not to mention individuals such as Kenneth Cox, David Asscherick, among others, all of whom get wide exposure on 3ABN and dwell at considerable length on Daniel and Revelation. If Knight is worried about the stagnation of Adventism in North America (a valid concern) I don't think the issue is a failure of the church to highlight its distinctive, end-time apocalyptic prophecies. Maybe Knight has in mind some of his academic colleagues, whom he may believe are less than enthusiastic about traditional SDA interpretations or priorities. But Adventist scholars are not, by and large, in the business of evangelism. So if Adventism is stagnating in North America, either the problem lies in its evangelistic outreaches, or in its failure to retain its second, third and fourth generation cohorts.

Glenn: You talk sense. I too think that George should be more specific as to whom he is referring to. I think he is bouncing off many churches where they never hear a sermon on why the Second Advent has been delayed, or,what kind of people will receive the "latter rain," or "loud cry," etc. Of course, that is Adventist shorthand that was once common stuff in church media and preaching. If we leave it up to the evangelists, we are kidding ourselves; they can't get into very many specifics in the short campaigns of today. If young preachers are not trained on specific Adventist topics that make us  last-day messengers of God's final appeal, pray tell, how would new and old church members know why they even exist. The seventh-day Sabbath surely becomes only a social day for maintaining old friendships.  What do you think?  Cheers, Herb

Glennsprings says......."Organizations such as Amazing Facts and It Is Written are still engaged in traditional SDA evangelism on a continual basis, not to mention individuals such as Kenneth Cox, David Asscherick, among others, all of whom get wide exposure on 3ABN and dwell at considerable length on Daniel and Revelation."

Reply: Did you notice that the ministries are for the main part independent ministries and not "officially" sponsored SDA ministries? As ministers, they may draw their personal pay from the church, but not their evangelism. And this is only a small number of independent ministries. Jeff Reich, John Carter and the list is almost endless of individuals not sponsored by the denomination. Some are liberal like John Carter, but most are mainline conservatives who basically defend and uphold the traditional doctrines with a conservative application and interpretation in practical spirituality.

John Osborne, the Standish brothers, John and Marshall Grosboll and a host of others. No, the conferences have few if any evangelists anymore and evangelism is "outside" the organized church for the most part.

George Knight's concerns are legitmate and real. The "social gospel" is the main focus of organized Adventism.

Bill Sorensen

Bill certainly can not be ignored. He is drilling a little deeper. Conferences are outsourcing their evangelism needs to Amazing Facts evangelists, for the most part, because they seem to produce wide-awake, baptism-ready, candidates. They expend a lot of energy in doing personal Bible work during their meetings. Relationship-evangelism is their over-riding passion.  The flip side is that the regular pastor no longer functions like pastor-evangelists did for the past century. That would require another column by Monte. Bill has plenty of reasons to note the social gospel emphasis in that many sermons he hears, probably, are generic Sunday sermons on Saturday.  Cheers, Herb

Well, I'm not sure how independent AF and IIW are. They're run by SDA pastors, they baptize people, or are responsible for having people baptized, into the SDA church, they work in cooperation with SDA churches, etc.

In any event, what the person in the pew sees is an SDA evangelistic series sponsored by his or her SDA church, in which the apocalyptic prophecies are given a central place. And to the extent that organizations like AF and IIW (and others) are considered or thought of as independent, that seems to me to be a sign of vitality, not a cause for concern. Some form of independent support--if that is what is meant by independent--indicates that the church's mission and message is not overly dependent on a central bureacracy in Silver Spring.

My overall point being, again, any book that suggests that the SDA apocalyptic message is being, or is danger of being, neutured, should at some point address how SDA evangelism is actually being conducted in SDA churches throughout the country or around the world.

Having said all of this, I count myself a big George Knight fan. I've read and enjoyed many of his numerous books on Adventist history as well as the many Bible commentary volumes he edited or wrote himself, first in the form of the Amplified Bible series (which apparently was discontinued) as well as the more recent series he seems to be writing himself. The SDA church is lucky to have him.

I think any objective observer would conclude that Seventh-day Adventism is becoming more and more generic as the years go by. One world government calls for a "me too" political system as well as economics and religion. Will historic Adventism fail? The answer is, in my opinion, yes, and no. All of God's instrumentalities have "failed" in the past and yet, out of the failure came on going success. Judaism failed, yet God's purpose was carried forward inspite of this fact. The basic reason "movements of God" fail is due to a non-biblical self serving concept of "unconditional election." This is the spiritual mentality of Adventism today and is the mother of the spiritual declension in the church. It genders a non-challenging demand for accountability where no one dare attack the statis-quo. Why? You may have your influence challenged, damaged and totally undermined by a leadership that holds its members captive by threats of censorship. People are generally superstitious and fear for their acceptability in church when they consider the church unconditionally elected. Many consider their salvation tied to the church instrumentality. With this in mind, who dare challenge "The church" without fear of damnation. As long as this attitude prevails, the church will necessarily fail as it has always done in the past. Once this attitude is abandon, people will then challenge "the church" for apostate activity, and the church can eventually succeed. But I think Adventism must eventually fail before truly spiritually minded people eventually realize there is no "unconditional election" for the church and act accordingly. Isn't this how it always happened in the past? Bill Sorensen

Of course for some people any sermon that doesn't mention the beast power is cause for believing the church is "fallen". When the church showcases an evangelistic series every Fall it's only natural that many pastors are going to choose to focus on other Biblical topics and Bible books other than Daniel and Revelation during the rest of the year.

In the end I didn't actually see Knight hinting at feeding the hungry, but rather emphasizing the preaching--Jesus' "primary ministry".  Knight writes about "proper balance", but I came away thinking social justice is not nearly as important to him.  Of course he refers to Ellen here and her admonition to focus on the apocalyptic because other Christians are taking care of the humanitarian.(Could it ever be taken care of?  All the more reason to join the effort, to me..)

I'm probably unbalanced the other way: the sheep and the goats and the least of these in Matthew 25 looms very large to me; the Dorothy Days and GM Hopkins' "...for Christ plays in ten thousand places . . .  throught the features of men's faces."    I'm glad time has given me an appreciation for this, because I didn't catch (or maybe, simply heed) the social gospel vision growing up in the church. (And yet, as much as the social gospel speaks to me, I'm undoubtedly more goat than sheep.)

 Another thought . . . People don't often catch the apocalyptic vision preached at the one time of the year at evangelistic meetings, because these meetings are in the evenings and very few members attend.(Though I witnessed my pastor skillfully and very clearly preach the 2300 day prophecy the other night in our current Share Him crusade.) 

It does seem that more and more of us joke about the 28, the beasts, the Remnant, etc. with an attitude of knowing a better way to believe and worship.  And even though I sometimes agree, I still find myself turned off by the arrogance, wondering why they seem to be trying to change Adventism instead of leaving it.

Kevin Worth (P.S. Hi Glenn!)

Monte,

It has been years since I have seen you, I really appreciate your comments and insight, as someone who lives in the world of Social Justice and Community Service every day, I understand what God desires us to be doing every day until He returns!! I only wish our Leaders would! Well, God will raise up men and women who will act in these last days!

I am enriched by the various perceptions, all concerned with the validity of the Adventist Church today. Many ways to suggest a relevance, but it seems to me,until we remember why our church began in the first place, in the middle of the nineteenth century, we will never, never, have  a reason to stick together, unless we are hungry for a social club that meets on Saturday morning.

I think that is why George wrote this book. We were not to become another church. We were and are a Movement and its job is to run out of business as fast as possible. Our mission is twofold: to prepare the world for the return of Jesus and to prepare a people from that big world for His eternal kingdom.  Everything else unfolds from that double mission.  Cheers, Herb

Herb, I doubt many SDA's have a clear preception of the final purpose of bible Adventism. Historically, the pioneers understood the issue before Jesus comes is "moral perfection" or "Character perfection". This idea has been abandon by many if not most. And thus we have no stated goal for the church community. For some, the idea still flits across the top of the brain, but few have any idea of what moral perfection means by definition nor application. Since no one seems to be able to define it, it is simply abandon. Rev. 14:1-5 was a big deal in the past. But pretty much ignored in the present............ Brinsmead was the first theologian in Adventism to tackle the issue of original sin and moral perfection. He made some good points but still failed to find the parallel and contrast of the sinful nature and moral perfection. Whether people know it or not, it was Brinsmead who split the church on law and gospel and Dr. Ford simply followed his lead. Neither could harmonize the legal and moral aspects of the law and both eventually abandon trying. When the Investigative judgment is placed in the setting of a "legal" meritorious righteousness, it misses the whole point of Adventism and moral perfection. This is what Dr. Ford did and Brinsmead eventually followed.......RDB was more honest than Ford and quickly followed the final implications of their final theology. He abandon the bible. Had Ford and his followers been more "honest", they would have done the same. And they will in the end.......I don't have time to explain all the ins and outs of this issue. Suffice it to say, No one can emulate what the ceremonial law typifies and Jesus fulfilled for us. None the less, we can emulate and follow the example of Jesus and thus attain moral perfection before the close of probation. To deny or abandon this concept is to eventually abandon the bible and the ultimate purpose of redemption. Sin and repent until Jesus comes is not the bible message. And the pioneers understood this idea and advocated it. We should see that Seventh day Sabbath is an inherent part of this concept, and those who abandon and deny the concept will necessarily abandon the Sabbath as well. Eventually, anyway. Moral perfection is biblical and mandatory before Jesus comes. Bill Sorensen

Richard L. Noel, DMD

Herb, it is true that the conferences are outsourcing because they have become only what Monte has called "utilities".  They are no longer leaders in anything significant.  Sadly they are the worst at encouraging open honest-hearted dependence on the Bible as the way of Christ.  They have become defenders of the status quo.  Is it any wonder that they are failing spiritually and financially.  Some have even degenerated into what I would call a conspiracy against the Holy Spirit by their opposition to Bible Study and to following the promises of God by enforcing the dictates of the denomination.

Duplicate comment deleted.

Did EGW know what "moral perfection" meant in her own mind? Do you know what she meant by "moral perfection"? If we can't answer these questions, how can we have a clue of what the SDA mission is? For at least some people, the answer was an "objective given" and needed no special explanation. As time went by, a more definitive answer was and is needful........Like Adventism in general, its theology was not formulated in a vaccuum. Some things were objectively known and the need for a definitive explanation was not necessary. For instance, it was assumed that people already knew the gospel and believed it. No need to define what was already known and believed. After 40 years, it became apparent such a definition was needful since the overwhelming emphasis was on a Christian's moral obligation to obey the law to be ready for the judgment. Without a clear understanding of the gospel, legalism could easily be concluded by such an emphasis. Neither does this mean early Adventism was based on legalism. It is the reality that what is accepted by implication, must at some point be clearly defined. And this principle is especially necessary since sin has entered God's kingdom. God assembled the heavenly host and affirmed that Jesus was as the mind of God. His authority was absolute. This was no new concept. But it was necessary to state it in light of Lucifer's rebellion. Paul said..."The law is our schoolmaster to lead us to Christ......" This is not a new thought. It was believed and accepted by all true believers from Adam to John the Baptist. It had to be re-stated in light of Christ's rejection by the Jewish nation as a whole. "The bible is our only rule of faith and practice." Is this "new" with the reformation? Of course not. But it had to be stated as a confession of faith in light of Rome's attack on the bible. Objective givens must be clearly stated when they are challenged, misunderstood, or ignored. And the pre-Advent judgment is not "new" either. The only thing "new" is the date 1844 as the beginning of the final judgment. Nothing in the bible is presented in a vaccuum. It is assumed you already know some objective givens and often simply re-affirms these truths or adds something relevant. The new testament is written with the understanding you already know and believe the old. It then simply affirms that Jesus is the Messiah predicted and shows the implications of that reality. Probably the most devastating reality to those who believed in Jesus was the fact that His coming was to be in three stages, not just one. Even Jesus could not persuade them otherwise it was so deeply entrenched in their minds. And only "after the fact" of His death and resurrection did they slowly but surely begin to realize their mis-understanding. Nothing in the O.T. implies a 3 stage coming. How could they believe otherwise? I guess we don't do much better. But only as we understand that truth is not articulated in a vaccuum but rather in the context of some objective givens, can we begin to put the pieces together and preceive a unified whole. Bill Sorensen

Bill, the only evangelistic ministry in your list that is an independent ministry is 3ABN. Amazing Facts is a ministry of the Northern California Conference. It Is Written is a ministry of the North American Division of the General Conference. Kenneth Cox may be officially on retired status (I don't know.) but he has a long and distinguished career as an evangelist employed and supported by the denomination. The other individuals have a variety of status; some hold credentials from the denomination, some are lay members and some are no longer part of the Adventist Church. There are scores of individuals among the Adventist clergy who consider their primary calling as evangelism and many of them spend a significant amount of ther time, if not all of it, in public evangelism. They may not be as visible as certain individuals and they may not embrace controversial issues in the way that some do, but that does not make them less effective as evangelists. In fact, there is some evidence it makes them more effective.

I think you misunderstand the way the denomination deals with the work of evangelists. I started in the ministry nearly 40 years ago at the Voice of Prophecy, the most venerable of Adventist evangelism organizations. At that time (and according to Howard Weeks' doctoral dissertation since 1946) evangelists were loaned from conference to conference to enable them to be used more widely than just one local conference. This "loaning" procedure provides pastors and congregations with a much wider set of resources to choose from. It continues to this day with little change. This procedure may also give the appearance that the evangelists involved are independent ministers and not regular denominational employees. Despite appearances, that simply is not true.

"On June 25th, 2009 Monte Sahlin says: Bill, the only evangelistic ministry in your list that is an independent ministry is 3ABN. Amazing Facts is a ministry of the Northern California Conference."..........reply......Are you telling me AF is controled by the denomination? They have the authority to tell pastor Batchelor when and where he will do evangelism? And how is it AF and 3ABN were considering merging reciently? And do they control Jeff Reich, John Carter, and how about Weimar? In the KC area where I live, I don't think I could name 6 church sponsored evangelists who came here in the last 30 years. Some pastors do evangelism and in doing so, often ignore their duties as church pastors. Certainly, some independent ministries work with the conference. But they are financed mainly by people who contribute to them directly and not through the organized church. Many recognize "the church" is failing on almost every front and is little more than a "me too" Protestant community. There is very little accountability or discipline except when you challenge the statis quo. And what would happen if Doug Batchelor "pressed the battle to the gate" on his conviction concerning women's ordination? And dress reform, jewelry, and worship styles including music?........With the attitude of "unconditional election" the church holds for itself, it must utterly fail before it can eventually succeed. Repentance is impossible as long as unconditional election is embraced and endorsed. So "the church" can't, and won't repent. Just like the Jews and just like the early church eventually endorsed. Adventism stands on the same platform. Thus, every evil is not only tolerated, but endorsed and promoted as long as "the church" can advance in power and influence in the world. Move over Rome, we stand on the same ground. Bill Sorensen

Bill: I am puzzled by your use of "unconditional election." I think I know but I want to be sure.  Your point that many of our churches don't hear distinctive Adventist sermons, emphasizing the distinctive mission and message for which we exist, is an observation that many are making.

 Some ask, why? Many ask also, why don't ministers trained at the Seminary emphasize the timely and most relevant issues that determine the direction of the church in "these last days?"

Others opine that the Adventism is a movement and not another church. They say that Adventists have only a double reason for existence: to prepare the world for the return of Jesus and to prepare a people to be translated (always will be a last generation).

This double vision/purpose is built on a sound biblio-historical foundation. Many note that the Advent has been sadly delayed (as the Bible predicted it would be, but not of God's design) and that a recognition of why the delay should be the number one iten on the Adventist agenda.

 I would like Monte to give us another blog on what Jesus must be waiting for, in terms of Peter's appeal (2 Peter 3:11-14). I know he can do it.  Cheers, Herb 

Bill: I am puzzled by your use of "unconditional election." I think I know but I want to be sure.".........

My reply: Unconditional election is a subtle error. It assumes "the church" is infallible, even if the individual is not. So an individual could be lost by seperation from "the church", but the church itself must necessarily succeed.

It assumes God will not let "the church" fail. While our historic message is biblical and "infallible", "the church" is not. If and when the church abandons the message, it eventually becomes the antichrist and takes the place of Christ in the minds of the people. The people are intimidated by "the church" and fear loseing their salvation if they challenge the church on spiritual issues that are salvational. Thus, people sit in the pew, knowing what is happening is wrong, but won't challenge what they know is error especially if they are threatened in any way by "the church."

So they tolerate the celebration movement in the church, even if they don't agree with it and oppose it. With this attiude, "the church" must necessarily fail unless and until enough people say "enough is enough" and demand accountability of the leadership on every level.

This probably won't happen. More likely, "the church" will fail and truth will continue on another level as it always has in the past. The Sabbath issue will eventually create a final seperation. And most will follow "the church" they have learned to worship in the place of Jesus and His truth.

Bill

Well said   Bill, I just never heard it put that way!  Perhaps, IMO, you may be pushing your logical point too far. Remember my recent  book, A Fork in the Road?  That book surely reflects a very sad moment in the history of our church. Leaders, for the most part, are truly dedicated to their task. Many simply admit that administrative duties often keep them from studying out the issues involved. They turn their thinking over to a committee, etc., and then the committee issues a report that satisfies very few, But the Lord expects each one to do his/her duty with a smile on our faces. Courage, Herb

On June 27th, 2009 Herbert Douglass says: Well said Bill, I just never heard it put that way! Perhaps, IMO, you may be pushing your logical point too far. Remember my recent book, A Fork in the Road? That book surely reflects a very sad moment in the history of our church. Leaders, for the most part, are truly dedicated to their task. Many simply admit that administrative duties often keep them from studying out the issues involved. They turn their thinking over to a committee, etc., and then the committee issues a report that satisfies very few, But the Lord expects each one to do his/her duty with a smile on our faces. Courage, Herb

Reply........How we relate to "the church" will depend at least to some degree on how "the church" has related to us. And this will also influence how we interpret the bible and how we see Jesus and His ministry to the Jews. As long as you can "function" without any serious threat to your own influence and ministry, you will not take seriously the possibility that the church can or will fail. To you, it is probably more of a remote possibility than a real threat of significant importance. If you take a dynamic personal stand on any issue that challenges the church, and demand accountability on what ever level of authority you have, you will soon "hear the dragon roar" and it won't be Rome. So, Herb, you interpret the bible in a way that allows you the freedom to exclude the SDA church. I interpret the bible in a way that makes Adventism inclusive in a real dynamic way and makes her a candidate to be the final antichrist. Such an idea is beyond the ken of most workers for the church and members as well. But if "the church" is to succeed, it can only do so, if such an idea is not only a real possibility, but a concluding fact unless "the church" accepts this as a reality and acts accordingly. If not, "the church" will necessarily fail and the idea of "unconditional election" for the church makes any real dynamic repentance an impossibility. Can the Jews as a nation repent? NO. Can Rome repent? NO. Can Adventism repent? NO. All because of the same reason. Unconditional election of the church. And for this reason, every evil is tolerated and advocated with no possibility of any dynamic reform. Pluralism is accepted and promoted. No need to repent. "I'm OK, you're OK" just don't challenge "the church" and warn of final failure and apostacy. Bill

Bill: I sense a lot of pain. Some of us know something of that pain. But I refuse to confuse my personal understanding as a member of the body of Christ with a misplaced definition of the "church" being the body of Christ. I see too well the regular committee meetings where members wait to see how the "chair" is thinking before they vote (of course, in agreement with the "chair.")  At times, I and others have had to work out the issues in some other way. And there always seems to be another way. (James 3:17, NKJV). My daily strength comes from listening to the Lord through His various instruments and not especially leaning on some committee opinion. I think that is true for many in all levels, in all departments of the "church."  Thanks, for the chat, Bill. Cheers, Herb

Herb said......"Bill: I sense a lot of pain. Some of us know something of that pain."..........reply........I guess the process of being "born again" is always accompanied by some spiritual "pain", eh Herb. I guess I don't see that "pain" as negative but simply a part of the process of moving from the deception of sin to a clear understanding of the bible. I hope your "process" will be as rewarding as mine. Thanks for your comments. Keep the faith. Bill

Yes, Bill, Amazing Facts is controlled by the denomination. Look at the bylaws of the organization: Who elects the governing board? Under General Conference Working Policy C-47 it must be a group from within the governance structure of the denomination. Dig a little deeper before you draw conclusions.

On June 30th, 2009 Monte Sahlin says: Yes, Bill, Amazing Facts is controlled by the denomination.".........Reply.........If you say so. It would explain why Doug is reticent to advance in a more dynamic way his own personal view and spirituality in opposition to the denomination. I still have reservations as to whether the denomination "controls" AF. But even if they do, there are still many independent ministries they do not control. and there are thousands of church members they don't control either. Although, they do control the majority even of those who do not agree with the church and its spirituality in many areas. If and when people "buy" unconditional election of the church, they will tolerate anything and everything. Bill Sorensen

How do we view the church's role in society? Unless "the church" presents a standard that is in harmony with the bible instead of people and their individual spirituality, the church can not represent Christ nor His message or His kingdom principles.

Meaning this, people may do many things in their private lives that can not be endorsed and supported by the church. So, people may drink coffee, tea, and/or cola drinks and still be Christians on some level.

They may attend movie theaters, or watch movies on TV at home that the church can not approve or endorse. They may do things on the Sabbath not approved by the church. We could list many things people do in their private lives as church members that the church can not approve nor endorse.

When "the church" abandons its role as the high standard bearer and patronizes sin for the sake of numbers and/or popularity, it is in the process of committing the unpardonable sin. Adventism, in the name of "the gospel" has abandon its God given role to uphold and maintain this high spiritual standard and has lowered the norm of true spirituality so low, that no one can or will be shut out of heaven because of sin.

Repentance is not necessary for acceptance nor a qualification to be ready for Jesus to come. We preach to the world. We condemn theologically Catholicism, apostate Protestantism and those who do not "see" what we see. So, we have the Sabbath, state of the dead, and second coming theology correct while abandoning other biblical truths. And we chide those groups as biblically unsound. And so they are. None the less, they hold many truths, even Rome. Who teaches the Trinity, law of God, vicarious atonement and many other biblical concepts, not the least of which is the binding claims of the marriage vows. "Present Truth" for the SDA church is not the Sabbath, state of the dead, nor second coming issues.

Present Truth for Adventism is Celebration worship styles, dress, jewelry, music and women elders. We sweep these under the rug as non-salvational issues. Just as other denominations sweep under the rug Adventist issues that they consider non-salvational at best, and legalism at worst.

Adventist duplicity is showing. Or, as some may ask, "Who made SDA's the 'jello sheriff' (Bill Cosby phrase) of theology and what is important and what is not?" It's a valid question. And in light of our own duplicity, who will really take seriously our "claim to fame" as having a last day message to prepare people for the second coming?

Even the Catholic church knows women elders is not biblical. As well as more than a few other Christians in the various denominations.

"Triumphalism" comes with "unconditional election" and is not very impressive to any spiritual minded individual. The church must eventually fail before it can succeed. Jesus did not choose "professional" religious teachers to prepare for His mission. It is not likely He will today either.

Keep the faith,

Bill Sorensen

"Professional" did not exist as a category at the time of the New Testament. It is a category that was invented more recently. Christ was recognized as a Rabbi [Teacher]; you will him addressed with this title in the gospel accounts. There is also the episode when Peter was asked why Christ did not pay the temple tax. This was a challenge of his Rabbi status. Rabbis were not required to pay the tax. By not paying it Christ recognized that He had the status of a Rabbi. You will recall that in that episode, He did not pay the tax, but enabled Peter to do so since Peter had got himself into trouble by making inaccurate statements.