Doubting the Adventist Elder’s Intentions
I am reaching out seeking your advice on a situation that has come up regarding my journey out of Adventism. A church lady who is also an elder in the Adventist church I used to attend and a firm believer and defender of E. G. White had reached out to me showing concerns for my absence from church these months and checking on my overall well-being.
This person is someone who I would have had a friendly relationship with while I was actively attending the Adventist church. I shared with her in a phone conversation the concerns I had with the doctrines of Adventism and the fact that I no longer considered myself to be an Adventist as I do not believe in the “special truths” of the organization. She wanted me to share the specifics of my concerns, and I told her I no longer believe E. G. White to be a prophet of God, nor do I believe in the great controversy theory, the investigative judgment, the Sabbath, and the state of the dead and the doctrine on the soul.
I told her I have come across videos and literature that have helped to start me on a journey in truth-seeking and reading and understanding the Bible more for myself. She asked me to share those with her, which I did, and I asked her to give me her feedback and share her perspective. She asked me which issue I had the most concerns with, and I told her E. G. White in general, the investigative judgment, and our understanding of the gospel.
She suggested we do a biblical study on the investigative judgement. I told her I would prefer to have a conversation on that once she would have looked into the materials I will send her; she agreed to look at them. We had set a date to have this conversation a month from now—which will be in August—to allow her some time to go through the information.
During our conversation she seemed genuine and open minded, and so I was not opposed to having further dialogue with her.
Today she sent me a message asking if I could have the study with her this Sunday coming. I was shocked as I am certain she would not have had the time to go through the materials that I had shared with her just last night as promised. She seem to be more eager to have the study on the IJ than she was in looking into the materials I would have shared with her.
While I am not opposed to having a conversation with her on the issues I raised earlier, I did set the grounds that any conversation on those issues will only be had once the materials that I shared are read prior to such conversation. I am just seeking for your feedback as now I am not too certain about the intentions of this church sister.
—VIA EMAIL
Response: I 100% share your doubt about the intentions of this lady. What you describe is a common occurrence when a person leaves Adventism. The warmth, the concern, the “curiosity”, the push to have conversations urgently—these are all typical reactions from Adventists who feel they have to rescue someone who appears to be slipping away from Adventism.
You are right to be on guard since this woman already broke the terms for engagement that you set out and to which she agreed. You are accurately noticing that she wants to study the IJ with you but is NOT interested in studying the materials you asked her to peruse. As my husband Richard always says, words are “cheap”; what people actually DO reveals their true internal commitment and intention. This lady is revealing her true motives: she is looking to engage you in Adventist arguments to overwhelm you with Adventist proof-texts and to essentially “corner” you with those convoluted Adventist arguments that leave people nearly unable to respond.
Somehow Adventists learn to argue, to use out-of-context proof-texts in such a way that, even though you sense they’re illegitimately connecting texts and assigning ideas, the answers to their arguments require more depth and discernment than most people are able to summon up on the spot. In other words, this invitation for a conversation THIS WEEKEND is a trap. She clearly hasn’t and can’t peruse the materials you gave her before then, and she clearly isn’t interested in learning your objections. She’s only interested in bringing you back and in winning the argument.
This attitude of the Adventists when a person leaves for the sake of the true gospel somehow makes them frantic. I believe that the franticness, the (annoying) persistence and insistence on having access to you, of having in-person conversations, is a hint of the spirit of Adventism which both claims and drives them. Adventism, which is founded on doctrines of demons, is driven by a spirit that keeps its members locked into believing those unbiblical doctrines. The reason it is so hard, so difficult to leave Adventism, is that there is a real spiritual battle around each of us. When we believe in the real Jesus and His finished work and begin trusting His word and trusting Him to apply His word to our lives, the darkness of Adventism tries to derail us. The spirit of Adventism does try to keep us confused and fearful and off-balance. Often this spiritual battle takes shape within the framework of “friendships” that appeal to our emotions and feelings of obligation. They seek conversations and pose as interested in understanding WHY we left.
Yet the true motives of these relationships reveals themselves. The Lord is faithful, and He protects us and helps us see the dangers and traps these people sometimes set for us.
You are seeing clearly, and you need to know that you are under NO obligation to have this conversation with this woman. She agreed to study your material, and she clearly broke that promise and is seeking to entrap you with a sooner conversation which she will drive with her own agenda. She is not seeking a mutual meeting in which she will seek to understand what you have come to understand. Instead, she is seeking to turn your attention backwards toward what you already know from your own time in Adventism, and she knows all the buttons to push which will generate the old Adventist guilt and the familiar interpretations and mental “pathways” in which you used to think as an Adventist.
From my perspective, I would say you would be entirely justified to let her know that you no longer agree to have this conversation with her. She agreed to the terms you requested, but she broke her agreement and clearly wants to argue Adventism with you. She’s not curious; she’s on a mission to get you back.
You can be respectful while still withdrawing your agreement to talk.
Now, you are able to decide what you want to do and to do it with grace. I just want you to know that this woman’s reaction is not surprising, and I want also to confirm that you are seeing and sensing correctly that she’s not interested in understanding but in coercing you.
I will pray that you will have the Lord’s insight and grace to help you not take the deceptive bait and to handle this the way He wishes you to handle it. He knows what’s needed, and you can trust Him to protect you and to guide you in this.
Feedback on Progressive vs. Historic Adventism
I am a former Adventist of one and a half years. I left after 53 years of service to this sect/cult. I invite you to read this article and give me feedback.
Please pray for my two boys that still in the Adventist Church.
—VIA EMAIL
Response: The article you sent is a great example of how progressive Adventists are attempting to re-write classic Adventism while not giving up their underlying Adventist worldview. It’s ironic, because while they say that EGW is “classical” and wrote for her time, still they hold onto an essential great controversy worldview and still believe that the final “test” will be somehow about the Sabbath! It’s ironic.
The gospel is utterly missing.
I have heard Jon Paulien; we have listened to his Revelation talks both from the Ohio Conference and its special prophecy seminar from 2008 and his talks as well as Randy Roberts’ sermon series on Revelation held at LLU Church a couple of years ago. While these progressive Adventists are trying to distance themselves from the improbability of a Sunday law, they are still ignoring the finished atonement of the Lord Jesus and the call for people to believe in the pure gospel: the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus alone.
Have you listened to our Former Adventist Podcast series through Revelation? I believe you would find it helpful if you haven’t.
Jon Paulien believes that the “remnant” of Revelation is not the Adventists per se (as classic Adventism claims) but that it will be composed of Christians, Jews, and Muslims. He believes each one of these three contributes essential “truth” to the world: Christians bring the cross, for example, while Jews contribute the law and Muslims contribute “revelation”, or visionary contributions. He believes each of them contributes other essentials as well, but these are examples of his view.
Paulien is very ecumenical, yet he and the rest of these progressives (including LLUC pastor Randy Roberts) are committed to the seventh-day Sabbath. They don’t identify the mark of the beast, but they don’t teach the idea that the mark of the beast will be related to not believing in the Lord Jesus and being born again. Their speculations are not gospel-related.
In some ways, I find these progressives to be more dangerous than classic Adventists because they are often more unrelated to the language of the cross and of the Jesus than even Adventism. Now, I believe Adventism is spiritually bankrupt and is from the domain of darkness, but so it progressive Adventism. Progressivism is more “intellectual” and “philosophical” than is classic Adventism, but it is just as gospel-bereft. In fact, Classic Adventism naturally gives birth to this sort of progressivism because it does’t ground people in truth.
I believe, based on the people I have watched over the years, that classic Adventism leads ultimately to one of two natural conclusions: either people take it really seriously and spend their lives trying to be holier, more observant, and more perfected—a trajectory which ultimately leads to mental illness and even death—a tragedy I have actually seen. Or it leads into progressive agnosticism or atheism. Some, like these progressives in the article you sent, spin into agnosticism of a “religious” kind. They move farther and farther away from the gospel, from the sufficient blood sacrifice of the Lord Jesus and from trust in the sufficiency of Scripture, and embrace philosophical structures that allow them to retain the Adventist lifestyle of Sabbath, the health message, and employment in a religious setting, but their religiosity is almost like an “inoculation” against the gospel. They believe the Bible is NOT inerrant but is a source of religious ideas which can be combined with other sacred texts and spun into creative syncretistic religious ideas. They make God in their image, and they believe in a god of their own creation.
The article you sent is an ironic “showcase” of classic, historic Adventists criticizing progressives—yet underneath, in spite of their different conclusions about end-times, they share a worldview. They are all Sabbatarians; they all give lip service to some form of the health message; they all acknowledge EGW as important for SOME reason. The progressives say she is a classic prophet—but they still consider her to be a prophet, a voice from God for her day. The historicists insist she IS a prophet—but they both cling to her and her worldview. They both see humans as having no immaterial spirit. They both believe in annihilation. They both believe in the essential great controversy worldview.
They are like two siblings who have deep differences between them: they’ll pick at each other and fight one another, but if anyone slanders the parents, they band together and defend the “family”. They share a gene pool.
The only way anyone escapes the quagmire of Adventism—either the historic end of the continuum or the progressive, agnostic end—is if a person really desires to know truth and meets the Lord. Otherwise, the person remains deeply Adventist despite their personal “beliefs”. The worldview is what shapes the person, and this article showcases the conservative end criticizing the progressive end—and in reality, the two are not all that different. In the ways that count, they are the same. They share the same view of reality, and they both remain spiritually dead, citizens of the domain of darkness.
Their need is the same: the gospel that was once for all delivered to the saints. They need to know their Substitute who has done everything necessary for their salvation. †
- September 7–13, 2024 - September 5, 2024
- We Got Mail - September 5, 2024
- Paul Teaches Us To Love - August 29, 2024
Excellent counsel Colleen given in We Got Mail . I queried Graeme Bradford about a comment he made on Understanding Revelation with Jon Paulien . Graeme did not answer the question but his answer has stayed with me . The Understanding Revelation series under goes 3/4 reviews before it goes to air . What we hear and read, including the Sabbath School Lesson is heavily censored by the Adventist Church . The spirit of Adventism is one of absolute CONTROL . The level of control is so extreme that it is obviously demonic. Satan, the enemy of God, the author and founder of Seventh Day Adventism leads a very controlled organisation. The spirit of control is necessary to keep the truth from ever coming in.