New Book by Noted Adventist Thinker Deals with Doubt and Issues
August 1, 2016: Throughout North America and Europe, as well as among educated believers in the southern hemisphere, there are growing numbers of Adventists and other Christians who struggle with serious doubts about the church and their faith. Many have quit going to church or find themselves “on the margins,” perhaps connected more by family ties and the hopes they remember from their youth than traditional commitments. It is these people that Dr. Reinder Bruinsma speaks to in his new book, Facing Doubt which was released today.
Published by Flanko Press in London instead of an official, denominational publisher, the slim volume begins with a brief analysis of current trends in Christianity and the Adventist faith in particular. Bruinsma deals honestly with doubts about Christian basics and with the questions many have about the denomination and many of its doctrines. He writes about his own doubts, his concerns about present trends in the Adventist Church and his own questions about particular Adventist teachings, as well as issues raised by others.
He is also straight-forward about the fact that he has decided to stay and work for a more mature faith and fellowship in his denomination. Bruinsma grew up in the Adventist faith and has given the denomination his life; born in Europe, working on three continents as a pastor, academic and church administrator. He retired in his native Netherlands recently after serving as a union conference president.
A well-known scholar in history and theology, Bruinsma has published 20 books and hundreds of journal articles. He believes that the Adventist denomination has a future if it can allow for more diversity of opinion and more successfully address the real issues of the 21st century.
In an appeal from his heart, Bruinsma explains his reasons for staying with the Adventist movement and appeals to those who feel marginalized to constructively deal with their doubts, find new inspiration in their faith and meet the challenges of renewing the faith community (and perhaps reconnecting with it).
Part One reviews the widespread crisis in Christianity, recent trends in the Adventist religion, fundamental doubts about faith and the personal dimension of belief. Part Two describes the leap of faith, reasons to leave or remain a part of the church, what doctrines are a “must” and how to deal with our doubts at an individual level.
Facing Doubt: A Book for Adventist Believers ‘on the Margins’
This book can be obtained in both paperback and eBook editions from Amazon.
Well, it would have to come from a European SDA wouldn’t it? Their ‘Adventism’ was always a bit suspect. I knew as a teenager that they let their kids play soccer on a sabbath afternoon. No wonder they are now riven with doubts. And a belief that the church has no future unless ‘it can allow for more diversity of opinion and more successfully address the real issues of the 21st century.’ Somehow, given the trend seen in recent GC meetings, I have my doubts.
I trust the “[European] ‘Adventism was always a bit suspect. . . I knew as a teenager that they let their kids play soccer on Sabbath afternoon. No wonder they are now riven with doubts” was said in jest. The Adventist Church was moving in a positive direction during the GC Presidency of a distinguished European churchman and scholar prior to the 2010 “election” and 2015 “reelection” of the current American GC President who is allied with those seeking to wrench the Adventist Church back to a dark highly sectarian 1930s Adventism. Fortunately, this agenda has met with a lot of push-back.
Dr. Bruinsma is to be congratulated for his principled stands and his willingness to stay with the Adventist Church and work inside to move us in positive directions and assist in the remaking of the Adventist Church as a meaningful faith community in the modern World. All this in the face of a 19th Century mind set currently controlling the levers of power at the GC. The 2020 GC can’t come too soon to allow the church to be saved from the effects of a Fundamentalist GC administration.
Not so much ‘jest’ Dr Taylor as trying to anticipate what might be the reaction of a conservative NAD or Australian member. Do you think, just maybe, that the election of Elder WIlson was in fact a reaction to the more ‘progressive,’ shall we say, direction your Euro GC Pres wanted/appeared to be taking the church? One can see that the Euro’s have certainly not toed the party line since San Antonio.
But I mean no disrespect to Dr Bruinsma. I do not know what his situation was, vis a vis his local conference in 1981, but it is fairly unlikely that he was faced with a hairy-chested conference president, supported by Union and Div Presidents, requiring that their suspect ministers sign on the 27 Fundaments. Lucky for him. Or not. By that time, I was already of the view that I could not in good conscience support the traditional SDA teachings, so it would be wrong of me to continue to expect to be supported by the tithe. I now realise that very few SDAs have the foggiest idea about the IJ, how it came to be, its derivation from scripture and how it relates to the ‘system of truth’ that EGW describes as the bedrock of Adventism. And that is the situation in the ‘educated’ first world. Maybe one reason there isn’t much ‘doubt’ amongst the church at large is that there isn’t much understanding of Adventism, period. For those who do have doubts, the range of trigger points is vast. WO, YEC are but two. The IJ battle seems already lost.
Serge, for the benefit of the uninformed, I’ll give a brief overview of the development of the IJ in Adventist circles:
James White first wrote about in a January 29, 1857 issue of the Advent Review.
In the 1860s J.N. Andrews wrote a pamphlet called “The Sanctuary of the Bible” which referred to the IJ.
Uriah Smith in 1877 wrote “The Sanctuary and the 2300 Days” in which he wrote at length about the IJ,
EGW wrote about it in her 1884 Spirit of prophecy, vol 4. This is her first at length exposition of the IJ
1888 EGW expanded on the topic of the IJ in “Great Controversy”
Smith wrote again~1889 on the subject in a pamphlet called “The Parable of the Ten Virgins. This pamphlet is remarkable for its heavy emphasis on what has become known as Last Generation Theology. Smith described a people who would be so spirit empowered they would no longer need a Bible or the Spirit of Prophecy but would live with the Day Star in their hearts
Smith’s emphasis is on the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer and the indwelling Christ, i.e. sanctification which he specifically mentions, is a bit different than EGW’s emphasis on the sacrifice of Christ, in the 1888 edition of GC
Hansen: Thank you. You have a good eye for detail. I checked again and the reference in the Valentine and Whidden volume says “Advent Review September 1850.” It appears that we may have a typo or worse. This suggests a need for further research especially in light of your other comment.
The European Adventism became very “suspect” to me the day I learned they allow church members to walk on the beaches on a Sabbath day! What’s next, eating out in restaurants or even cooking a meal at home?
Man, talk about apostasy!!!
Serge, i tend to think that Bruinsma is on target for his inclusiveness belief. The GC must know unless they see the Light, and accept WO, and give sanction to the knowledge they have not exclusive receiving of the Holy Spirit of God, they will be facing losing North America, Europe, and Australia, the nucleus of the founding generations progeny. If this
sore is not healed by 2020, there will be a schism, that will never heal. The Investigative
Judgement, Headship, Earth’s creation of “recent origin, of approx. 6000 years”, is not the glue that maintains membership, it is the Sabbath.
Inclusiveness is a wonderful thing, Earl. But historic SDAism (just ask Bill S) is a ‘system of truth’ (EGW’s words) whose bedrock is made of all that you mention: IJ, Sabbath, material nature of everything, second Advent. YEC is necessary for Sabbath veracity. Now that a Euro willingness to be less stringent or strident on these things has entered in (‘the spirit of doubt?’), it all gets a bit ‘wishy washy,’ again, as Bill S might say. Those’ like Elder Wilson, who ‘stand by the old landmarks,’ will not surrender easily. Save yourself the grief, I say.
It would seem that most any disinterested observer of “historic” or traditional Adventism would agree with Mr. Agafonoff with regard to most of the characterizations of that segment of Adventism.
However, I did have one question. This is the phrase “. . . material nature of everything . . .” as part of the list of beliefs or characteristics of historic Adventism. I’ve never had anyone suggest that traditional Adventism believed in the “material nature of everything.” Could Mr. Agafonoff please expand this part of his comment? What is an example of that characteristic in traditional Adventist theology?
Dr Taylor, your perspicacity shines once again. The typical four pillars of Adventism are IJ, Sabbath, 2nd Advent and non-immortality of the soul. Its this last one which differs from almost all other churches and is largely a result of James White’s ‘naturalist’ philosophical beliefs that anything which exists is made of matter. He argued, mostly in the R&H with anyone who was interested, against ‘immaterialism.’ This applies to the nature of God, and is the reason he is considered an anti-Trinitarian Arian. Ellen adopted the Trinity doctrine after James’ death, but she never disavowed her anti-immaterialsm. Even the Holy Spirit is considered to be made of some kind of material substance. All this is documented in Thomas McElwain’s work, EGW: A Phenomenon of Religious Materialism.
Examples of this include the nature of God (the NT teaches that God is Spirit, Adventism holds, at least in practice, that God is three material beings, Father, Son and Spirit.) The nature of man, similarly, is virtually Sadducean, ie, man is a material body only. The NT, however, is adamant that man’s true nature is spiritual.
Another area this plays out, but is unrecognised, is in the depiction of spiritual beings as material forms. Pictures (which used ot be called engravings) of Jesus, Angels, the Ancient of Days are all to be found in SDA literature. This blatant breaking of the second commandment is permitted due to this ‘materialism’ belief.
May I thank Mr. Agafonoff for his very helpful answer. The perspective on one of the major theological elements of early Adventist theology needs to be unpacked in greater detail and the role of James White in the evolution of early Adventism needs to be more appreciated. Without James’ editorial skills, it has been suggested that Ellen’s earliest writings could have been dismissed as the strange ramblings of an under educated, histrionic woman. How much of the early EGW corpus is actually the result of James’ “creative” rewrites of EGW rambling statements needs additional research. We know that his Christian Connection background greatly influenced the early period in Adventism in a number of ways. Also, he, at first, rejected the whole idea of the Investigative Judgement calling it non-Biblical. I have never seen any discussion of what changed his mind. His wife or someone/something else? LIke Ellen, he apparently had periods of depression. Who would not have reacted that way if you had a wife like Ellen saying she was getting her information directly from heaven?
Erv, James White was the first Adventist writer to coin the term “Investigative Judgment” aside from Elon Everts, with whom he had discussed the issue. Everts had a “communication” on the subject published in the 1 January 1857 edition of the Advent Review. On January 29, JW had a complete article on the subject.
I’d be very interested in seeing where JW rejected the IJ or called it unBiblical. From what I, by computer searching the pioneer writings,found, JW was the first [aside from Everts] to write on the subject. He was later followed by Uriah Smith and J.N. Andrews. EGW didn’t enter the fray at any length until 1884, nearly 30 years after JW’s first article.
For Hansen: I first ran across the interesting historical detail about James White in the Valentine and Whidden edited book “Adventist Maverick” (2014) which is about George Knight.
The statement is in Chapter 8 written by Paul Evans. On page 103, Evans comments that “Adventist historian Richard Schwarz . . . had already pointed out that James White at first ‘flatly rejected’ the concept of an investigative judgment.” The reference for this statement is Schwarz 1979 “Light Bearers to the Remnant . . .” page 170. [I have not as yet checked the source of the Schwarz statement] There is another quote from James White that “This view [supporting the Investigative Judgment doctrine] is certainly without foundation in the word of God.” The reference is to “James White. The Day of Judgment. Adventist Review, September 1850, p. 49” which is quoted in George Knight, A Search for Identity, p. 81.
I’ve been working backward to see if it can be determined why James originally took that position and then what changed his mind. Any ideas?
Not to answer that specific question re IJ, but one that no-one has ever explained to me. According to Hansen’s reckoning, it was 13 years after the IJ commenced before the Remnant started to get their ideas together concerning it. Curious.
But my question is this: if the IJ is the culmination of the 2300 year/day prophecy, and a day stands for a year, why does the IJ, which lasted a single day in the type, continue on for 170 years and counting? It seems to me that this extraordinarily long antitypical ‘Day’ of Atonement somehow ruins the logic of this ‘system of truth.’ Bill, anyone, … suggestions?
Erv, The first issue of the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald was dated November 1, 1850,so there is an immediate problem with the reference you cited.
The office of Archives and Statistics has digitized the old ARSH, so they are there for all to study. I bought the EGW Estate disc with the pioneer writings and did a computer search for “investigative judgment.” The JW and Elon Everts articles are the first mention of it. Arthur White also supports this view that Everts had discussed the doctrine with both JW and EW and the first articles in the Review followed (Early Years, vol 1, 353,354)
I’ve posted the actual articles from Everts and JW, plus an overview of the history of the doctrine here:
I hope to get the early material from Smith and Andrews up soon.
http://www.cleansanctuary.blogspot.com
Hansen, you’ve done a great service to truth seekers in posting those early documents on the IJ. It would appear that Everts did the initial thinking over what might be happening post-1844. But as he said, it was more than ten years after the event. It was then 40 years before ‘the prophet’ ventured to offer her privileged heavenly communications on the subject. And remarkable for how similar her views were to an amalgam of the other early authors’ speculations on the subject. It would appear, Dr Taylor, that this is one occasion where Ellen was following James’ thinking.
It also shows that mistaken assumptions lead to wildly false conclusions. Or, if your aim is slightly off, you can miss the target by a wide margin. I refer to what appears to be Everts and JW’s ‘primal’ text for a post-1844 judgement. It is 1Peter 4.5,6,17. They completely misunderstood those texts, and thus the whole doctrinal catastrophe began its cascade into error. In vv 5,6 they took ‘the quick and the dead’ to be physically living and dead. Wrong! And v. 17, ‘the time is come that judgement must begin at the house of God,’ JW said, ‘I take that to be prophetic…’ (presumably of 1844), when the text clearly refers to Peter’s own day!
As the idea evolved, they mistook Yom Kippur for the ‘day of judgement.’ They remained completely ignorant of the ten days of Rosh Hashanah which immediately preceded it. These were in fact the days of judgement.
Serge, There is some rather sophisticated explication of Scripture involved in the IJ doctrine. I agree that the reference to the judgment of the living and the dead in 1 Peter appears a bit dodgy but that is only one of several lines of argument. The reference to the sitting of the judgment in Daniel 7 combined with the references to the wedding parables in the gospels merits serious consideration.
While a lot of us have issues with the connotation of the expression “investigative judgment,”a review of the judgment motif in the torah does support the concept. Judgment in israel was normally of an investigative nature. The facts of a case had to be discerned before a decision could be reached. Before a person could be admitted to a city of refuge, the situation which brought him there had to be carefully investigated. He would either be justified and admitted to a place of safety or condemned, to presumably face the avenger.
The inspection of the wedding garment also lends credence to the idea. For the Christian, an IJ isn’t a problem. since we have a promise to never face our sins again. I certainly reject the idea of a nitpicking God scrutinizing every detail of our life. That kind of thinking is absolutely toxic.
Smith’s pamphlet on the parable of the 10 virgins certainly provides a background, if not the origins of, LGT/sinless perfectionism. It is directly connected to his understanding of the IJ. I hope to post it or the relevant parts, soon.
Hansen: “There is some rather sophisticated explication of Scripture involved in the IJ doctrine.”
I heartily disagree, Hansen. From the earliest, through to the more recent elongated efforts of the likes of G. Hasel et al, the IJ doctrine is beset with the prejudice of those desperately seeking ot account for a mere human disappointment, but with a fervour which only belies the psychological unbalance of the seekers, rather than the clear and unambiguous nature of the idea which had to be dragged out of context as rough and unsophisticatedly as any error of man ever was.
You showed us how Everts and JW both misunderstood the contexts of their pretexts, ie, 1Pet4.5,6,17. JW declared v.17 to be prophetic when it is clearly not. Which was later supported by EGW. And it was Hasel, I believe, who without so much as a quiver of an embarrassed upper lip declared Dan 8.14 to be a ‘contextual island,’ for without such bald assertion, no case can be made for such an abuse of the text. If you want truly sophisticated, rational, scriptural understanding of the IJ, read what Cottrell has submitted on the theology of the idea, and more, on the church’s specific obfuscation of the clear truth which denies the IJ any part in the canon of Christian truth. For balance, I think you should include Cottrell’s ‘The Sanctuary Doctrine – Asset or Liability’ in your ‘cleansanctuary blog.’ http://www.rethinkingadventism.com/support-files/cottrell_1844.pdf
In HIS last prayer; before being taken.
John 17:
9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.
11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
13 And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.
14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
HE did not pray for the world, only those that were HIS; those the FATHER gave HIM. The inclusions and exclusions belong to the FATHER, the judgement is HIS. The Church is growing in the rest of the world; without such schism. Maybe we should try taking the people out of the world, instead of trying to give the world to the people? The world only offers suffering and death.
But in verse 15 Christ said they are not to be taken out of the world. Why do you ignore the words of Jesus after quoting them?
Monte, I kind of am simple here; you will have to explain.
“But in verse 15 Christ said they are not to be taken out of the world. Why do you ignore the words of Jesus after quoting them?”
15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
CHRIST could ask for anything, but HE did not, because within Love HE knew the world (and we) needed them; not the other way around. That is why HE prayed to keep them from the evil of the world. Can you imagine where we would be without HIM, them and those HE sent to watch out over us?
Is your contention not the opposite, that you can take on the world and all it’s evil? Then within all the ideologies you promote, you contend that satan is such a great deceiver that others should not be held responsible for their transgressions? Removing all of the protections GOD has placed in Love?
Which way is it; do you need HIM or not? Are you stronger and smarter than satan? Are you scared of satan (well you should be) and need everyone on the front line out there to protect you? Even those we are commanded to protect; sacrificing our wives, families, children, Churches, communities and Countries? Maybe if you put your Trust and Faith in HIM, you would not demand the absolute Sacrifice of everyone; THE ONE SACRIFICE would be sufficient?
Looks to me, Monte, that you took the comment out of context. Why?
Whoever you are hiding behind “sufferingsunfish,” I don’t think I took anything out of context. Whoever “Conviction” is suggested taking people out of the world after pasting in a lot of verses that included a plain statement by Jesus that He did not intend to take His followers out of the world. Why quote Scripture and then ignore it? It makes no sense.
John 17:16 “They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.”; the next verse. It explains it all. We are not of the world if we are HIS.
You state “Whoever “Conviction” is suggested taking people out of the world after pasting in a lot of verses that included a plain statement by Jesus that He did not intend to take His followers out of the world.”
You point is mute, we are not of this world to start with. HE and therefore we are only here because of Love for those still stuck in this world.
For those in the margins, come away from the edge. BELIEVE what the Bible actually says and you will find it starting to make sense. More sense that trying to reconcile the ever-changing scientific interpretations and an ever-changing societal (im)morality with God’s eternal word.
Leo,
Believing is far more complicated that just making a choice made in a moment. A person needs reasons to believe so it is the product of a relationship in which trust is built over a period of time so just telling them to believe is the quickest way to drive them away.
While trusting causes doubts to fade away, learning to trust God and letting Him resolve your doubts is a process that happens over a period of time. Far too often we expect people to believe because we do, or because we can show them a Bible verse, instead of learning how to nurture in them a trusting relationship with God so they become able to believe more.
The “just believe” statements from the supposed saints in the church played a major role in driving me into the spiritual darkness of doubt. I compare my experience with how God resolved my doubts to being trapped in a totally-dark room without a hint of light anywhere. Had God just busted-down a wall and suddenly exposed me to the full glare from the sun or His truth, I would have wanted only to hide from Him. Instead, God poked a pin-sized hole in the wall of my doubts and gave me just enough light for me to realize He was there and that He loved me before slowly enlarging the hole to where what remained of the wall just disappeared.
Please, learn to nurture faith and stop telling people to believe until you can give them a testimony about how God has rescued you from doubt.
I offer my congratulations to Bruinsma for having the courage to take his work to a non-Adventist publisher because such an honest discussion would never be allowed at a church-controlled publishing house. Perhaps his observations will stimulate recognition that faith is not such a “cookie cutter” experience as they church tries to make it. Many have been driven out of the church because the intolerance of simple-minded doctrinal zealots makes the church an unsafe place to express any doubt, or to wrestle with it until they have found resolution.
We all have times of doubt and weakness. So, what if, instead of condemning people for having doubts, we saw their weakness as opportunity to nurture those who are weaker and teach them to follow God’s leading even in their times of spiritual darkness. Such nurturing will by contrast expose the evil nature of the spiritual zealots who think they have the answers to everything and that they have been divinely-commissioned to argue that opinion with everyone.
EGW’s first printing of “Steps to Christ” was done by Fleming Revell rather than an SDA printer.
Zealotry rules. With Adventism the junk yard dog blocking intellectual elasticity is its continued, unabated, commitment to Ellen White as the Prophet. The future of Adventism doesn’t rest on mental a pretension that that fact doesn’t matter. It does. And her function is the ultimate, infinite impediment that ricochet’s most thinkers out of the Adventist orbit. The function of her as pope, court of last doctrinal resort, and ultimate authority about everything, is the ecstasy drug for zealots. (Ellen functioning as the Spirit of Prophecy is part of Adventist DNA.)
There may be a European mindset void of her American influence, and that may be the reason Bruinsma can float doubts past the iceberg of the church without deadly collisions.
I don’t think Adventism will ever be able to officially allow the kind of dissent and accommodation he suggests. It’s a terminal dysfunction.
Wasn’t it Bruinsma who, in an itherview with Bill Knott when Bruinsma was President of the Netherlands Union, said it was OK to be members of the SDA church so long as an unmarried couple were living in a committed relationship?
Based on the Biblical record it’s obvious that Adam & Eve were “living together in a committed relationship” for quite a long time. Or can anyone actually prove with Biblical material that they were not? …
May I ask if “Sufferingssunfish” what is the problem with having SDA members who are living unmarried in a committed relationship? There are many younger members of SDA Churches in a particular region of the US are not married but living together but, as far as I know, no one sees this as a problem. Do you live in a region of the world where this is a problem? If so, could you articulate what exactly would be the objection?
A formal marriage ceremony and commitment is rather new in this world’s history. Long before the church became involved and called it a sacrament, parents chose for their children and that was a formal commitment.
In many cultures and past times, a couple decided to live together and were recognized by the villagers as a family.
A betrothal was similar to marriage, and while Jesus helped to celebrate a wedding, there is no record of his parent’s being formally married.
Today, it’s much ado about nothing; it is accepted that a couple will decide to live together and if they separate there is often not the financial problems of marriage. Why should others’ be so concerned? Even today there are bridal gowns designed for pregnant brides, and many babies today are claimed to be premature or full term.
Is this the biblical standard of how to ‘get married?’
Ge 24:67 And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death.
Come on Serge. How about the rest of the story? You know the part where Abraham sent his servant to find a bride for Issac. The servant found Rebecca; then he contacted her family; the family discussed the matter and offered her the opportunity to join Issac or decline. That’s when the marriage took place. Gold was also given to her. The family was also assured that she would be well cared for, which the gold demonstrated.
Maybe that is why the Jewish ceremony takes place under a canopy. Symbolizes Sarah’s tent? Just guessing. I think the canopy goes back to at least the time of Christ.
There are a lot of older SdA couples living together sans marriage as it disrupts retirement and other pensions which are far more important than a mere marriage license. Can anyone quote a Bible text on why such couples are sinning?
Hebrews 13:4 “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.”
1 Corinthians 7:2 “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.”
Does this kind of not remove the honor and commanded protections? I agree on the civil license issue, it means no more than the paper it was written on; without the commitment before HIM, the third person in the marriage who joined them.
Matthew 19:9 “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”
Mark 10:
11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
Sometimes the past also has impacts.
Others do watch us and we are suppose to be the example. I have seen couples go to other countries to be married, just to set that example.
A difficult question Elaine and we always need to remember we have THE ADVOCATE that is always there. But I would contend our reflections and intentions should always be pure when approaching and we should always understand that others have that approach.
Elaine,
You ask a practical question that a lot of the religious are afraid to either ask or answer: what is God’s definition of marriage and how both the church and society should relate to it. Scripture speaks of a man and a woman “cleaving together” and becoming “one flesh.” It says nothing about wedding ceremonies, specific vows or legal contracts. So it appears the church has some wrestling to do with the topic so that how we read in scripture is applied to marriages and we find ways to deal with the social issues that often are construed for the purpose of attacking both the church and marriage.
Hebrews 13:4 – Marriage [is] honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
1 Corinthians 6:18-20 – Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
1 Thessalonians 4:3-4 – For this is the will of God, [even] your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:
Can Mrs Nelson or Dr Taylor show where the Bible says that couples can live together without getting married?
Genesis 2:
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
Genesis 3:
16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
20 And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
They were one, joined by HIM; far beyond commitment or relationship.
I am surprised that “Conviction” has posted a gross heresy. He/she calls God a “HIM” when we all know that the church has declared that God has no gender. I hope that “Conviction” will recant this heresy at the earliest possible moment.
God reveals Himself as the Father and the Son. Those terms specifically represent a ‘gender’ as you call it. ‘Him’ is the pronoun Jesus used to refer to His Father. It doesn’t matter what the church pronounces if it is contrary to scripture.
And which church do you serve Erv? My BIBLE and the FB’s state differently.
The arrogance of knowledge instills the ignorance of wisdom.
The arrogance of knowledge instils the ignorance of wisdom?? I find it an absurd statement, making a mockery of the generally accepted meanings of words.
Interesting quote: “The arrogance of knowledge instills the ignorance of wisdom.” May I ask if could “Conviction” please provide the name of the author or did “Conviction” think of this him/herself?
Unfortunately, you will probably receive some kick in the butt, but no real answers to your question(s)…. That’s the way it is, isn’t it???
If a good kick in the butt is what is needed; I am sure HE will provide it. HE is pretty good at meeting all of our needs; but it may not be what we want. We should be thankful for HIM, HIS guidance and HIM taking the time to teach us.
Most of the time we are just children, appreciate nothing, see nothing and dismiss the sacrifices of others; especially HIM. That’s the way it is, isn’t it?
Conviction,
You keep talking about all the things God wants to teach us. What evidence can you give us to believe that your testimony about God’s working in your life is giving anyone an example to follow? That they are responding and becoming believers? If not, all you’re doing is making following God seem like ideologic foolishness that is inapplicable to life and following God look ridiculous.
William, you are one of the examples. You are the hope that the fruits and efforts are for HIM. The task is daunting, but we will not give up; because we Love you.
1 Corinthians 13:
1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
You have stated it before, but still miss the meaning. Charity is Love for HIM; not ourselves. Charity is Love for others; again not for ourselves. It is not about us, it is about HIM and those HE Loves. Always has been and always will be. You can sell everything you have and provide all the works you have, yet without Charity; it is nothing. Either we Love HIM and HIS enough to understand that; or we don’t. We change nothing; we are unable to or do anything without HIM. If we look to or at only us, we only interfere; as incapable as it gets.
Conviction,
You are simply wrong. Charity is NOT our love for Him, it is how we reflect the love we have received from Him in our actions toward others. It is NOT deluging people with cut-and-pasted Bible verses that say nothing about a topic of discussion and can be read as accusing others of disobeying God and drive people away from God, something which you seem incapable of repenting from.
I do not know of another that the quote belongs to; so I guess it belongs to HIM? Does everything not belong to HIM anyway?
To be helpful here, Conviction …
Google “The arrogance of knowledge instills the ignorance of wisdom” in quotes and there is no such passage in the billions of pages Google has indexed. It is a Google original, and thus of your personal creation.
I like it, by the way. There is a certain wisdom to it, for sure. If ironically.
Very insightful.
Many thanks.
Conviction,
What does it matter who a quote belongs to if you are incapable of giving someone even the simplest of testimonies about your experience with God to give someone an example of applying faith and connecting with God? If you can’t apply what you are saying to life in even a single way that helps someone else, are you not wasting your words? Does that not speak volumes about your inability to apply them in your own life?
I gave the credit of the quote to HIM William. Did you want credit for it, then take it; just like you do every else. We do not testify of us, we testify of HIM and give HIM the glory; as commanded.
Acts 10:
42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.
43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins
Galatians 6: 14 But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.
John 2:
24 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,
25 And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.
HE will be the Judge of the quick and dead. What else is there to testify of? HE does not need the testimony of man; HE knows us already.
Ephesians 2:
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast
Do you preach our works save us?
2 Corinthians 1:12 For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward.
We Love you though and will still keep trying to get you to see through your blinders.
I, for one, am really looking forward to reading Dr. Bruinsma’s book. He is a great Christian gentleman and a deep thinker, and I’m expecting blessings from his book.
I think there is some ‘wisdom’ in the idea that arrogance about what we know blinds us to what we might understand.
Socrates certainly thought the beginning of wisdom was realizing you really can’t know hardly anything.
Maybe my problem is with the meaning of ‘arrogance.’ We tend to limit it to an overbearing, haughty, superior attitude. Its root meaning is from ‘arrogate,’ which means to assume a position to which one is not entitled. Arrogance would mostly apply to those who are ignorant, but claim to know a thing. As Bernard Shaw said, ‘he thought he knew everything, but actually knew nothing. He was definitely cut out for a political career.’ (remind you of anyone?)
Proverbs 8:
5 O ye simple, understand wisdom: and, ye fools, be ye of an understanding heart.
6 Hear; for I will speak of excellent things; and the opening of my lips shall be right things.
7 For my mouth shall speak truth; and wickedness is an abomination to my lips.
8 All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them.
9 They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge.
10 Receive my instruction, and not silver; and knowledge rather than choice gold.
11 For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it.
12 I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions.
13 The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.
14 Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom: I am understanding; I have strength.
Pretty straight forward Words from HIM. HE offers a lot to lean on and gain, but we must have Faith in HIM and deny ourselves. Otherwise and as always, we cause all the problems; without HIM. We ate from the tree; but the knowledge was of good and evil. Accumulated knowledge continues to be good and evil; because the resultant, regardless of intention, can turn out either way. HE can use anything for good and we have proven time and time again we can use anything for bad. Look at where we are for proof.
The quote is from Serge Agaf. “The arrogance of knowledge instills the ignorance of wisdom”. Would Serge tell us is this jewel of his origin?
Not mine, Earl, I was quoting Mr C. I can’t make head nor tail of it. I must be too iggorant. Or should that be arrogant? Whatever….. I give up.
Someone has said on a previous blog (Mr Schilt perhaps?) that “the higher the education, the higher the indoctrination” – or something to that effect. I tend to agree with this. When liberals claim it is their “education” that makes them doubt our teachings, it is more the indoctrination of the school of thought and worldview that they are exposed to, and subsequently accede to, that is the determining factor.
Then of course there are others who because of the buying power afforded to them by a good education, tend to allow worldly living to influence their faith thereby creating doubt. Of course both groups don’t/won’t call this doubt. They’ll probably call it reasonable thinking, progressive thought or something like that in order to justify their doubt.
“He [God] has not removed the possibility of doubt; faith must rest upon evidence, not demonstration; those who wish to doubt have opportunity; but those who desire to know the truth find ample ground for faith.” [Education, Page 169]
Can Dr Taylor please share with us the church’s declaration that “God has no gender” and it is therefore heresy to refer to God as Him?
Dr Taylor asks “what is the problem with having SDA members who are living unmarried in a committed relationship?” The problem is they are living in sin and should be removed from membership – but I guess liberals need the votes of fornicators to bolster their lobbying at places like San Antonio.
Trevor, If two older people live together and do not enjoy the marital privilege, for example, a widower and his former wife’s sister,are they still living in sin? How is that different from two men living together in Christian friendship?
I have always been amused with the phase “living in sin” to mean two people, usually of the opposite sex, living together without have a piece of paper saying that they are married. I thought that religious traditionalists believe that we all — with the exception of them, of course — are “living in sin.” I assumed that they believe that “we have all sinned . . . etc.” The other favorite phrase on this topic is “living together without benefit of clergy” which I’ve always thought assumes that the clergy is conferring some benefit to the couple. Can Mr. Hammond perhaps enlighten me as to what that “benefit” might be?
And Mr. Hammon bringing up the term “fornicators” focuses upon what is probably the real thing that traditionalists seemed to obsessed about – – you know, the three-letter word that begins with “s” and ends in “x. ” My, my, my. As my grandmother used to say “Methinks someone is protesting too much.”
Thank heaven– In the local Adventist churches I am familiar in the region where I live is not the business of the church to inquire as to the living relationships of members. If it did and the membership their took the advice of Mr. Hammond and his co-believers, the number of active members of the church under the age of 30 would be drastically reduced.
This comment is coming from someone married 57 years–to the same super-wife (that piece of information was for the benefit of Mr. Hammond)
Marriage is a universal institution. It is and has always been practiced by all nations and tribes. You can talk about exceptions, but they just prove the rule. Marriage exists to protect and provide for the daughters, the sisters. To insure legitimacy for the children the woman bears. It usually has been a transaction-like affair with a bride price and dowry.
The bible doesn’t seem to care much about how they come to be one flesh – the bible doesn’t speak against the transaction aspect – but it is surely obvious God hates divorce. Cohabitation without commitment; is a sin. Marriage is how we demonstrate commitment – we demonstrate it legally. We bind ourselves by law with a sacred contract.
Let me ask a question: Why don’t people insist their children get married? It would be ugly around here if one of my adolescent daughters someday announces she is going to live with a guy. There wouldn’t be any honor killings, but… there would be no peace and tranquility either. I don’t allow it.
“It would be ugly around here if one of my adolescent daughters someday announces she is going to live with a guy. There wouldn’t be any honor killings, but… there would be no peace and tranquility either. I don’t allow it.”
But if one of your daughters marries without your consent, you could be risking losing a daughter and future grandchildren (it’s happened, you know).
Reply
But seriously, most women today are marrying in their late 20s and demographers are worrying that late marriage and parentage will greatly diminish the population, a.k.a. church members and consumers.
Reply
I would be much more likely to consent to an unhappy match consummated in marriage than I would to something so casual as ‘shacking up.’ I know for a fact, a good many good Seventh-day Adventists, got married because they ‘had to’ in the old days. It wasn’t a good situation to be in, but I would take it over all this living together.
Being ‘married’ in a church, or by a clergyman, nevertheless carries, along with the blessing of the relevant church community, a strong civil aspect. The clergyman must be authorised by the state to pronounce a couple ‘married.’ But should that couple decide against seeking to announce their love/union before the congregation, the civil law, (at least it does in Australia) will soon pronounce them man and wife. After a mere six months of said cohabitation, they are to all intents and purposes, legally married. Said man has thusly acquired for himself, knowing or ignorantly, for richer or poorer, better or worse, etc etc, a ‘common law’ wife. De Facto. He has by this cohabitational act conferred on her all/at least half of all his worldly goods, and she has recourse to legal enforcement of those rights after said six month period of cohabitation, as does any wife who is in legal possession of the certificate of marriage . The ‘certificate of marriage’ merely advances the period of her ‘rights’ by six months. After six months, the ‘sin’ is discharged, or so it would appear.
I made a special trip, fortunately only a three hour drive, to consult with an SDA pastor, whom I trust. I told him that I had doubts.
He was very empathetic, informing me that Adventist MEN , over seventy ( there I have given away my age!) were frequently suddenly questioning. For whatever reason, this does not seem to afflict Advemtist women, in his opinion.
This pastor always talks the “party line” that is, conference ordained beliefs, when preaching from the pulpit. He does allow an occasional meeting, off the church premises, called “the Saint Thomas club” , where parishioners can come to voice any doubts, fears, and concerns that they may have, without fear of recriminations, or judgementalism.
What a healthy, transparent, refreshing idea! Regrettably,very few pastors would be able to competently manage such a symposium.
My doubts center on two areas:
The Investigative Judgement, a doctrine unique to Adventism and never endorsed by any other Christian group, nor theological seminary. I do not find this essential to my salvation, when all other Christians find it suspect.
EGW’s Great Controversy doctrine is a very TOXIC concept, where she portrays God as being consumed, obsessed, with His own “vindication”, to the entire neglect of six millenia ( and counting) of abject human suffering, anguish and agony.
Meanwhile, “the universe” the jurors, have to be obtuse not to have decided LONG AGO, after 6000 of atrocities.
Robin,
I rejected the traditional SDA view of the IJ many years ago because I could not find a basis for it in scripture. Rather than drawing-out the meanings in scripture, that doctrine grew from forcing meaning into scripture that the authors never meant. The concept of the “cleansing of the sanctuary” to an orthodox Jew meant when it was rededicated after being defiled, so it is not a judgement at all but a re-establishment of true worship. This concept comes into sharper focus when you take a macro view of the doctrinal evolution that happened through the course of the Protestant Reformation where discovering and embracing one doctrine led to more study and the discovery and embrace of another doctrine. The pinnacle of that doctrinal discovery process was a return to the seventh day of the week as the true Sabbath of God. But such a simple and obvious meaning is difficult for a people to accept when they’ve been raised on a twisted concept.
I’ve been asked in the past why I remain in the church when I reject the IJ because staunch defenders of the IJ view it as essential to being Adventist. The simple answer is that there is far more to being Adventist than the IJ and I think anyone who fails to see the larger gift God has given us in the other doctrines assembled in the SDA church needs some high-powered spiritual glasses to help them overcome their spiritual myopia.
Adventism was born in the minds of good apocalyptic minded men and women and promoted with a sincerity that created an honest expectation of certain earth purifying events. It morphed into an embarrassing, publicly witnessed disaster. Those good, well intentioned, leaders, the Millerites, et. al., were destined to slink back into eventual, shamed, anonymity.
Instead, a line of face-saving lies was developed to resurrect the deluded promoters and their deceived followers. The disgraced people and movement were imaginatively levitated above the morass to be God’s chosen people. They reinvented themselves as God’s special apocalyptic emissaries appointed to oversee the end of the world.
The IJ was one of a host of face-saving devices invented to support the new, doomed, laughable, fantasy.
It isn’t difficult to see why thinking people, along with all Christian organizations, don’t take theological Adventism seriously. No one should.
I would hardly think ‘lies’ is the right word Bugs. They weren’t intentionally trying to deceive anyone, which is the best threshold definition for ‘lie’.
I would think all the strenuous efforts on the part of thinking people like yourself in refuting ‘theological Adventism’ becomes a conundrum if your statement is true: At least you seem to take refuting it quite seriously. Why so serious, Bugs?
Not “seriously refuting”, William. Just incredulous that people still believe this stuff considering its background.
Bugs,
I understand where you’re coming from because you are far from alone in expressing the same thoughts as other former Adventists whom I know. In leaving the church there appears to be a tendency to want to shed everything a person was taught, but in doing that much is often abandoned that is of great value. It is because of the doctrinal nuggets of great value that I remain.
William, I respect your decision (I don’t pretend to understand it) to be a part of Adventism. For me, I didn’t shed anything just because I was taught it. I spent approximately ten years analyzing and evaluating what I believed to see if there was anything theologically or experientially to bind me to the church. In the end, I concluded there wasn’t. I have said elsewhere I give credit for my life of moderation, my good health, my lifetime of non-smoking and other anecdotal values to my Adventist experience.
William, Your conclusion that the pinnacle of the doctrinal discoveries brought forth by the Reformation was the Sabbath is an incredible one. If you can draw a straight line from either Luther or Calvin to the SDA church, please do.
The entire concept of judgment in torah is of an investigative nature. A judgment is a decision based on the facts of the issue in question. Different punishments were doled out based on the investigation. In the OT, people might be killed or beaten or justified, based on the outcome of the investigation.
People were admitted into the cities of Refuge based on on investigation.
People who have issues with God might have reason to fear an investigation into their lives. Those with an appreciation of the death and resurrection of Christ, his imputed righteousness and cleansing spirit, need not fear.
Hansen,
I don’t know how much of the Torah or other Jewish writings you have studied, but in my extensive studies with both rabbis and on my own, I find not that God is investigating us, but that God is pursuing us and wooing us so He can save us. The whole point of cleansing the sanctuary was so that God could again reside among His people and actively work to cleanse them from their sins. The restoration of the Sabbath is the completion of that process of reconciliation and it is the people whom God returning to being able to enjoy fellowship with Him as He designed.
William Noel,
Back story: I studied Hebrew with an Orthodox Jew and was the only non Jewish member of the torah study conducted by the chaplain at Cedars Sinai Med Center; and then there is my collection of OT books from Jewish publishers such as Art Scroll and the Stone Edition of the Torah. For fun, I used to go to Venice beach, set up a visual aid across from the synagogue and give talks on the Messianic implications of the sanctuary service. Kosher enough for you? What about you? [I’ll use the Hebrew since you have “extensive” knowledge.]
Deuteronomy 25:1 says the judges must decide [שׁפט] the case and then justify or condemn. How would they decide?
Even in the English, it is clear. They INVESTIGATED. They were to investigate and inquire thoroughly as the texts below evince:
De 13:14 then you shall investigate [דרשׁ] and search out and inquire thoroughly. If it is true and the matter established that this abomination has been done among you,
De 17:4 and if it is told you and you have heard of it, then you shall inquire [דרשׁ] thoroughly. Behold, if it is true and the thing certain that this detestable thing has been done in Israel,
De 17:9 “So you shall come to the Levitical priest or the judge who is in office in those days, and you shall inquire [דרשׁ] of them and they will declare to you the verdict in the case.
De 19:18 “The judges shall investigate [דרשׁ] thoroughly, and if the witness is a false witness and he has accused his brother…
William N, Hansen, William A, Bugs, … I’ll try to summarise a response to your recent and interesting posts.
Psychology underlies all of your issues. First, that of the disappointed ones, struggling to make sense of it. Read Everts’ letter to JW. Reveals a deep inner struggle to come to terms with 1844 failed ideals.
Then there is the misreading of 1Peter 4.5,6,17. v4, ‘preaching gospel to the dead’ – how could they derive ‘investigation’ from that? By taking it too literally. The ‘dead’ are all of us, dead in sin. John 1, ‘this is judgement, that Light is come into the world, and men love darkness.’
Next they mis read Dan 8.14 to equal Yom Kippur. Context remains the sticking point still. And now we learn that Rosh Hashanah precedes YK for 9 days. See the wikipedia article. It was a time of Investigation.. books are opened, names written, sealings for life and death are made…. all before YK.
Most importantly though, is our own psychology. How do we relate to the Gospel? Our own psyche will tell us what we imagine the gospel to be. Are we independent agents who stand in some morally neutral ground, free to choose good or evil? Or are we ‘of our father the devil… and the desires of our father we will do?’ Who can free us from the body of this death? Do we take a Torah approach, and work hard on improving our actions? Or do we take that which the TOrah and prophets could only foresee, …?
Cont…
For Paul, the Gospel is to recognise that we now exist in a state of death, separated from God (sin is separation, not just the acts which result from that state of non-being). Each sin reminds that I am dead. Its the inevitable wages being paid. But the Gift…… the gift is LIFE. Not perpetuation of physical life, but a receiving of the life of God Himself, Spirit LIFE. I AM DEAD! ‘It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives!’ His blood represents His LIFE which now becomes mine. We become a new house, not renovation of the old one.
What is left to investigate? God knows Himself when He sees it. ‘Sins,’ ‘actions,’ are no longer the focus of attention. Only one criterion applies….. who is the source of your life? There is no need, at the wedding, to ‘investigate’ who is wearing what. Its perfectly obvious. (Smith’s use of this parable of hte wedding garment and mixing it up with the timing of the wedding, plus EGW saying that the bride is the city and not the church are but examples of the messed up thinking which results from continuing to apply Christianity as just a better version of Torah Judaism, with its emphasis on what I do, not who I am).
Its a ‘new and living way.’ Its a way in which we partake of the divine nature, we are ‘filled with all the fulness of God.’
The idea of IJ is the devil’s way of keeping us in thrall to our fear-ridden fallen nature. What I do vs Who I AM. Dead, or Living?
If one prominent theologian, Dr Desmond Ford, who was allowed to sow the seed of doubt regarding the IJ 1844, who also joined hands with other enemies of Adventism, like Walter Rea, on television and other forums, to openly attack the church and Ellen White, then imagine how much worse the situation is now with numerous Adventist theologians having bolted the stable, many of whom sit in high places, who are promoting unbiblical practices such as WO, gender bender theology, transvestite elders, lax church standards and so forth. If Dr Ford’s followers are still promoting his theology as we see here on these boards, and then I’m afraid that together with the liberal theology being promoted by many of the radical Pied Piper theologians within Adventism, more of our unsuspecting lukewarm membership will be led astray to their doom. How sad to note that this is happening right in our seminaries. These theologians will be found wanting in the Investigative Judgment. They have been seduced by nominal Sunday Church – once saved always saved gay is ok- theology.
Say what, Trevor?……. those who have left the church are now responsible for the actions of others who are within the church? It does not compute. You wanted to shake them out. They left. But now they are causing the internal calamities you despise? I think it is far more likely that the SDA church is simply experiencing the law of cause and effect. Its original doctrinal mistakes are now bearing fruit. Error is a pernicious thing indeed. I suggest you be careful in trying to shake out any more. Imagine the consequences then!
Mr Agafonoff
Firstly, you’ve missed my main point that if just one theologian like Dr Ford can bring so much doubt among a significant group under his influence then imagine the damage being done by more than one theologian in influential positions. Many of these theologians who have departed from traditional Adventist beliefs were exposed during the events leading up to SA.
Secondly, who says all Dr Ford’s followers have left the Adventist church? The association of Adventist forums largely comprises of his followers – and Atoday is no exception sir.
In the 1970’s Ministry magazine was sending complementary copies to ministers of various denominations. Editor J.R. Spangler was concerned about the backlash from various clergy, most of whom were under the impression that Adventism was a legalistic cult; therefore he chose a champion among SDA scholars to write articles championing the gospel of Christ and him crucified, which he duly published in Ministry,to influence the non SDA clergy in a positive direction. Dr. Ford wrote those articles, which can still be read in the Ministry Magazine archives of 1978.
At the ATS meeting on righteousness on RBF a few years ago, Dr. Pfandl devoted his entire presentation to Dr. Ford, asserting that he was probably the best theology teacher he ever had, that his understanding of the gospel was not an issue at Glacier View, etc.
Dr. Ford, in his 88th, years continue to bless people with the gospel, while most of his opponents have been eaten by worms
On the flip side, Hansen, Ford says unequivocally that the IJ is an idea contrary to the gospel. Not only does it undermine the certainties of the gospel, but in the SDA version at the completion of the IJ, there comes a short period where the believer ‘must stand in the sight of a holy God without a mediator.’ Despite the promise of the mediator who said ‘I will NEVER leave you nor forsake you.’ The ‘Sabbath test’ and its accompanying ‘seal’ are works-based fallacies.
SDA conservatives must find scapegoats because the IJ paradigm just isn’t working out for them. Blame someone, anyone, but the real culprit, ie, false beliefs.
Amen Serge
HE did tell Israel in Moses “Be strong and of a good courage, fear not, nor be afraid of them: for the LORD thy God, he it is that doth go with thee; he will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.” (Deuteronomy 31:6 and to 8).
Hebrews 13:5 “Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.”
Joshua 1:9 “Have not I commanded thee? Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the LORD thy God is with thee whithersoever thou goest”
1 Chronicles 28:20 “And David said to Solomon his son, Be strong and of good courage, and do it: fear not, nor be dismayed: for the LORD God, even my God, will be with thee; he will not fail thee, nor forsake thee, until thou hast finished all the work for the service of the house of the LORD.”
Luke 21:
34 And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares.
35 For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth.
36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.
2 Corinthians 5:
10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good…
I always thought Ford offered the Adventist church a graceful place to stow away some of its heavier eschatological baggage. We seem to have no choice now but to politely try and ignore it, it remains in the front room, and we all have our little well-established pathways around it.
William,
Fortunately, the chorus of those who preach, teach and debate about the IJ seem to be diminishing in volume and number as they increasingly are delivered to their graves and those who remain are being ignored or disputed by those who have studied scripture and reached other conclusions. This process does not diminish the scriptural evidence about God’s promise to judge the world, it simply is letting us see a clearer picture of actual judgement and redemption.
Serge,
“Psychology underlies all of your issues” That’s an absolutely ridiculous statement in the face of the OT passages which clearly teach that judgment was/must be preceded by an investigation. That fact doesn’t validate 1844, the IJ, LGT or Adventism. Perhaps it has nothing at all to do with those things; nevertheless, it is Biblical. Moving into Matthew 22 in the NT, we have the inspection of the wedding garment, a “prooftext” used by EGW and others to support the IJ doctrine. Again, all it does is illustrate the investigative nature of events in Scripture. I’m actually surprised that the pioneers used so little of the torah to “prove” that judgment was preceded by an investigation.
If God wants to investigate me, bring it on. The imputed righteousness of Christ should resolve any problems. If you don’t believe that, then perhaps you should roast in hell because you obviously don’t understand the gospel. Of course the HS working in my life is an assurance God has given that I will receive the fullness later, when my body is transformed by his presence.
I recently came across a tract from post Vatican 1 [1870] written by James White. It was about the judgment. Not once did he mention an “investigative” judgment. Maybe he had given up the teaching. EJ Waggoner certainly did, if he ever believed it. Is it possible that God struck JW with a stroke and then slew him because he gave up a central teaching of Adventism? Who’s next?
Hansen: ‘If God wants to investigate me, bring it on.’ Sounds a bit arrogant to me but whatever.
Fact is, the God of the New Testament does not want to investigate/judge anyone. He’s given that job away.
John 5. 22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:…
24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
So any OT concepts of the investigating God are hereby updated by the Lord Himself. Note the absolute similarity of language here and that of 1Peter 4.5,6
This is not some future event. This is ‘Today.’
Serge, “Bring it on” is arrogant, when you massacre the context, which draws attention to the imputed righteousness of Christ. There’s nothing “arrogant” in trusting in the spotless righteousness of Another, when God begins investigating you. None of us have the slightest chance of salvation apart from that righteousness
“The divine Intercessor presents the plea that all who have overcome through faith in his blood be forgiven their transgressions, that they be restored to their Eden home, and crowned as joint-heirs with himself to the “first dominion.” [Micah 4:8.] Satan, in his efforts to deceive and tempt our race, had thought to frustrate the divine plan in man’s creation; but Christ now asks that this plan be carried into effect, as if man had never fallen. He asks for his people not only pardon and justification, full and complete, but a share in his glory and a seat upon his throne. { GC88 483.3 } ….
“Jesus does not excuse their sins, but shows their penitence and faith, and, claiming for them forgiveness, he lifts his wounded hands before the Father and the holy angels, saying, “I know them by name. I have graven them on the palms of my hands. ‘The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.” [Psalm 51:17.]” {GC 88, 484}
Serge,
I rest in God’s promise that those who have not accepted salvation are already condemned. That simplifies the issue: you’re condemned until you are redeemed and God knows who He has redeemed.
But do we not attempt to place this within our own understanding? Does HE not already know? Does HE not just “execute” Judgement (John 5:27) in granted authority; because we have already judged ourselves?
1 Corinthians 6:
1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.
5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?
6 But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.
Is this not the same example in the Body? If we belong to HIM are we not HIS; called and chosen, because HE already knows? Did HE not know Abraham would rule his family in righteousness already?
Should the world be the judge of the world? Does it not continually happen for us alone; because HE already knows? Is it not only for us; to help us grow as and into the Body? To achieve repentance and forgiveness in the sanctuary of ourselves; no matter where the Final Sanctuary might be? Is IJ not for our perfection and definitely not HIS?
My 15 year old daughter asks such.
“A well-known scholar in history and theology, Bruinsma has published 20 books and hundreds of journal articles. He believes that the Adventist denomination has a future if it can allow for more diversity of opinion and more successfully address the real issues of the 21st century.”
More diversity of opinion?? WOW does that lead to unity or discord?
Can we all just join hands together and disagree agreeably?
That ought to motivate a bunch of members!!
Here is an example…
Ask a dozen SDA scholars…”What is the gospel?”
Those that always mention Dr. Ford as the reason so many left the church could do the same for Luther. Martin Luther convinced millions to leave the church. Was he working for God and were all those who left the one church at that time, deluded? Or were they following their conscience and the true Gospel Luther preached?
Those that always mention Dr. Ford as the reason so many left the church could do the same for Luther. Martin Luther convinced millions to leave the church. Was he working for God and were all those who left the one church at that time, deluded? Or were they following their conscience and the true Gospel Luther preached?
Did all the thousands who left their former churches to join Adventism, were they deluded?
“God’s purpose in giving the third angel’s message to the world is to prepare a people to stand true to Him during the investigative judgement.” [Ms 154, 1902, Ellen White]
Those who reject the IJ also reject the Third Angel’s Message and Adventism altogether. Desmond Ford’s acceptance of an alternative view held by the apostate Sunday churches and his eventual departure from Adventism shows where doubt can lead even the very elect.
Everyone that has rejected the IJ that I have come across including Dr Ford, misrepresent the IJ teaching by carefully not mentioning that we believe the in the IJ and Christ’s entering the last phase of his work in the Heavenly Sanctuary – by faith. Yes that’s what I said – by faith. The experience of the IJ is based on Christ’s works not ours and it is by faith that we have an Advocate, Priest, Judge and Saviour in Christ our all in all. That is why the faithful Christian is not afraid of judgment, death or unworthiness; but they enter boldly by faith in Christ Jesus. His imputed and imparted righteousness is made manifest within us through the Holy Spirit thereby saving and sanctifying us – by faith of course – in Him. Those opposing the IJ never mention this. They do so in order to cast doubt on this doctrine in favour of the Sunday church apostate alternative which is built on the once saved always saved prosperity trample on the Sabbath wear your earrings man made turf God’s law gospel.
Trevor,
Prophets are not infallible and that is one point on which I think Ellen White was wrong. The message of the Third Angel is warning about God’s judgement on the beast and all who worship it. The text in Revelation says nothing about God’s people being judged. So, no, I am not rejecting the Third Angel’s message by not believing the IJ. Rather, I am affirming scripture because I have studied what it says.
Dear Mr Noel,
Which verse are you referring to when you speak of the judgement in Revelation?
Trevor,
Let it suffice to say that I have studied judgement from Genesis through Revelation and have been forced to conclude that it is not possible to support the IJ when using scripture alone. Add that actually working to bring people into a saving relationship with Jesus is a far higher priority for me than wasting my time arguing about things like the IJ with people who are already convinced of their views, so I will not pursue the topic further.
Romans 2:
5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
Why do you store up wrath against Judgement? Why do you have indignation toward the prophets?
2 Corinthians 5:
10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.
Revelation 20:
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
Looks to me like judgement was given; along with reward. How much did you study?
Conviction:
You wrote”Why do you store up wrath against Judgement? Why do you have indignation toward the prophets?”
Only a person who does not know the people they are accusing and who is either not in their right mind or demon-possessed,would make such a false accusation.
We know you from your words. We know that you do not wish to promote Doctrine. We know that you cannot justify your positions against Doctrine. But then you wish to spread your doctrine; in our Churches?
You state “The text in Revelation says nothing about God’s people being judged”; but Revelation 20:4 specifically states otherwise. You make things up as you go; assuming some privilege. You are unable to reverence the FATHER or CHRIST; yet plead others are without works when they do. You plead others are insane or possessed who Love you and are trying to help you. You have complained against your parents, the Church, the Prophets and about everything else that stands for good and stood for you. Are you really that special and privileged? Do you not drive the nails in farther in HIS Sacrifice; by teaching others that bad is good?
HE is there for us, looking out for us; not the other way around. I cannot make it without HIM and cannot figure out how you think you can. If you are made for HIS Works you would be doing them; but all we hear about is you. We Love you, but here is where others should hear about HIM; not you. If we discuss in personal, it should be about what we see of HIM; not about us. If you wish to discuss within Doctrine, then please do and use the BIBLE since it is our only Creed. Otherwise state who and what you represent beforehand. Do not expect us to allow stumbling blocks.
Beautify said Trevor. Much better than I could explain my daughter questions to her. You should try teaching teachers. As we know, the callings are HIS call; but I think you would be good at it.
Dear Mr Noel
You say: “The text in Revelation says nothing about God’s people being judged.”
Which verse are you referring to sir?
Hi Trevor,
Since Mr. Noel is otherwise occupied, I’m reading Revelation 14:7 for one: Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.
This statement calls on all to take note that God is judged worthy of fear, glory, and worship.
I grew up thinking this statement is about God judging his creation, whether humanity or the fallen angels. I now sense it to be far more momentous. This is the hour in which God is judged (certified, validated, declared universally) in every possible way as uniquely and alone worthy of fear, glory, and worship.
This passage is about justifying how God treats his creation, not how the creation has treated God. I know, it may feel wrenching to even imagine this as a reversal of a long held way of seeing the world.
I remember the day Dr. Earl Hilgert posed a question in an after-vespers discussion group when I was a senior at Andrews University, finishing my 16th year of Seventh-day Adventist education. That question was: What if it were true that there is nothing you can do to merit salvation? I nearly vomited my stomach wrenched so violently.