It's always been about image and how it looks to others. The SDA church has clean-cut people that stand apart from the world. The problem with this is that it lulls members to think they've "arrived" when they've cleaned up their act.

Why were sepulchres white washed?

Add J. R. R. Tolkien to the list of Christian smokers, tho' he seems always to have been a pipe man, and never to have smoked cigarettes.

Just for starters it should be said that everyone can quit smoking. Those that cant, aren't willing (or dont want to) go through the withdrawal symptoms especially in this day and age with the medical abilities we have, saying one cant quit smoking is a hollow statement.
However the real lunacy comes from comparing Krispy Kremes with Cigarettes as if both were equally addictive and both put the same financial strain on a family which we all know they dont.
While a general healthy state is encouraged in all, it is only reasonable and biblically sound to differentiate physically addictive behaviours from those of general health.

It is interesting to read this piece in light of the many articles which paint Christians as hypocritical if they dont support federal health care.
On the one hand they say its unchristian if you dont pay for everyone's healthcare and at the same time say requiring people to give up smoking AS a Christian is too much to ask.

Quite a corner they have backed into.

I find this whole discussion, that has gone on, and on, and on...ludicrous and pompous....God must roll his eyes.

Greetings,

Thank you for linking to our blog. We like to have a bit of fun speaking about our love of tobacco pipe smoking and fine quality crafted ales.

May the peace of the Lord be with you

Our self perception as a denomination and as congregations will inevitably determine the prerequisites we set for membership.

If we view our organization as a support group for the spiritual struggler, we'll welcome the struggler and not be put off by behavioral lapses. If we view our organization as a fraternity for those who (almost) have it together spiritually, we'll seek to disassociate ourselves from those who fall short of whatever standard we've set. And, of course, the standards will inevitably focus more on sins of overt behavior rather than sins of the mind and spirit. In other words, we're more likely to condemn smoking than pride.

Jim

Loren,

"If fat people aren’t required to give up KrispyKremes before baptism, should smokers be kept out of church membership?"

A consistent question. It is my opinion that both are related to "addictive" behavior.

It is also my opinion that neither should prevent Baptism.

I once had a patient who was a Baptist preacher who was very overweight tell me that "his most beseting sin was quite visible." Others have behaviors that are better hidden and less visisble.

He died at 60 from hypertension along with other complications of Type II diabetes.

A "lovely man" that I certainly hope to see in heaven. I certainly won't protest to God for his or my not realizing "all I should be" in every aspect of my life. Neither am I dismissive of my failures. It's a journey...not an event.

It's also interesting how we make the temple, initially related to sleeping with prostitutes as "specific sin" begin to apply to "everything we deem unhealthy" as if it were of equal import.1 Cor.6:15-20.

regards,
pat

A timely and worthwhile article - thanks Loren.

I don't think anybody would suggest that smoking is a good idea. The question is whether it should be a basis for excluding people from church membership.

Michael has suggested that anybody who really wants to quit, can do so. The evidence suggests that while this is true for the majority, it isn't for everybody.

In any event, our stance is inconsistent. The main objections raised against smoking tobacco are:

- It's harmful to health
- It costs a lot
- It's physically addictive

Over-eating and lack of exercise is harmful to health, but wont result in membership being denied. Prestige cars are a complete waste of money, but a lot are on display in most Adventist church car parks on a Saturday morning. Coffee is physically addictive, but is now generally accepted by Adventists.

To me, its just plain wrong to deny membership on the basis of tobacco use. To do so completely distorts the gospel message.

Robert Sonter

Oh, I do get tired of self-righteousness sometimes...

I remember an article by Jim Coffin some time ago in the REVIEW about baptizing a man who had a terminal illness, who hadn't been able to give up smoking, and who wanted very much to be baptized before he died. Blessings on Jim!

It is a big relief to me to know that I will be judged by a merciful God who knows my weaknesses and life circumstances and inherited tendencies, and not some of my fellow church members.

PS Hi, Jim. I had this page open for some time before posting, so didn't read all the posts that had been added since Michael's.

What is sad, is the convoluted idea that if you are baptized, you are somehow "saved".

The church need not lower a single standard to patronize anyone who has trouble gaining a victory over some sin. Neither do we claim that a person is "saved" or not, just because they do not qualify for our church membership. They can come to church if they like, and fellowship if they enjoy a SDA community. They don't even have to be a member to participate in communion.

So why all this paranoia about baptism? Like we should lower our church standards to patronize someone who fails to appropriate the grace of God in victory over some sin.

Why not baptize drunks, or other drug addicts? Why should they keep the Sabbath to join a SDA church? Why have any standards at all?

It is obvious that you can not make a definitive list of all the possible sins people can and will commit, and then exclude anyone and everyone who does not come up to this definitive standard. But neither does it mean we need to patronize everyone, no matter what level of Christanity they may or may not have attained.

As SDA's we hold higher standard of morality than most Christian communities. For this we need not apologize nor lower the standard.

Neither do we assume that just because they are not a SDA, they are not a Christian. If they desire to join the SDA church, let them accept our high level of morality, and if not, let them wait until they do.

I say, "high standard of morality" with tongue in cheek in light of the low standard of morality that has been accepted in the last few decades for the sake of popularity and compromise.

Just a closing comment. If EGW had a deep concern for some evangelism in her day where the law was presented without Christ in the law, we should have a deeper concern today where Christ is presented without the law.

I think she knew it was coming. See Walton's book "Omega II".

Bill Sorensen

Just to add a famous quote from Anonymous: "The church is a hospital for the spiritually ill, not a museum for saints."

"So why all this paranoia about baptism? Like we should lower our church standards to patronize someone who fails to appropriate the grace of God in victory over some sin.

Why not baptize drunks, or other drug addicts? Why should they keep the Sabbath to join a SDA church? Why have any standards at all?"

Very well said, Bill.It is sad that we allow the pages of this blog to trivialize the gospel which brings us freedom from sin thru the power of the Holy Spirit and indeed to knowingly destroy our bodies, isn't that a sin?

Thank You for sharing, Loren. How thought-provoking!
Of course, I would agree that our church has standards of acceptable unhealthy behavior. For example, the previous pastor of our church was a very, very large man (as was two of his youth daughters). However, it would be unacceptable if he was, say, a smoker. And, who's to say that my ex-pastor's (food) addiction was any more of a hindrance in comparison to a smoker?

As someone who's considered drugs (cigarettes, etc) in the past, but choose to do food instead, I believe that God holds us responsible for our "temple." I believe that we can't respect God as our Creator (in entirety), if we can't respect ourselves as the creation. It's impossible to be spiritually in tune with God, if we aren't physically in tune. But, like all things, it's about conversion. Please follow my weight loss blog, why don't you? I'd really appreciate it! www.mywickedwickedways.org

Lovingly,
Alexia
www.mywickedwickedways.org

I would like to ask "Your Friend" a question: if you were to be in charge of what you consider to be an ideal church, would people who use drugs (including alcohol and tobacco), still be welcome to attend your church? Would they be attracted to keep coming to the church or would they detect the feeling that they aren't wanted?

Would you apply the concept that the church is a hospital for the spiritually ill to your church?

In other words, we're more likely to condemn smoking than pride.
Posted by: Jim Coffin (not verified) | 28 November 2009 at 12:24

That's quite true Jim. There are areas we are supposed to encourage and advocate. There are others we are supposed to stay away from.

1 Samuel 7 But the Lord said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward cappearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.
Of the two, being overweight is much more on the countanance side rather than the chemically addictive drugs side. Certainly pride would be accounted to the heart where we are cautioned is Gods area of responsibility.

If one truly believed the biblical counsel here,

"Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body," (1 Cor. 6:19-20)

then the admonition would be to call for the baptismal standards to include obesity and other things rather than advocate the abolishment of the smoking standard just because the obesity one isn't followed.

How will having no standards in health, smoking or otherwise fulfill 1 Cor. 6:19-20?

The suggestion of dropping the smoking aspect because the obesity aspect isn't of equal stature is an attempt at humanistic rationalization rather than biblical principal.

In Jims case of accepting a dying man in on profession of faith or baptism, was entirely correct. It would have been just as correct a decision if it was a heroin addict or a pornographer or obese since the applicable requirement of going and sinning no more would be a no brainer. There are a lot of bad habits one gives up when they no longer take breath.

That said, Any church should practice the pattern of Belong, Believe and Become, in its interations with people who wish to attend services and participate in the fellowship of the church.

Many people experience a need to belong to a group or movement. Belonging is not experienced through baptism, just like you dont go through specific rituals just to hang out with your friends.
As one matures and studies one grows to "Believe" and that leads to the steps in volved to "Become" a member.

Now since everyone agrees that SDA membership is not a gold ticket to heaven and that Christ has sheep in many folds then why the stink about smoking as a baptisimal standard?

Michael,

If you take your reasoning to its logical conclusion, people should only ever get baptised on their death-bed. At that stage they've attained perfection, as there is no longer any opportunity for them to sin. This mentality was popular in early Christian Rome and was the reason Constantine was baptised only just prior to his death. I thought we'd learned a bit since then...

Robert Sonter

This conversation proves yet again that baptism should be separate from church membership. It seems that NOBODY should be denied baptism if they request it. Who are we to question another person's need to be baptized (as in the case of the dying smoker). How can we, or any church board, take on the responsibility to determine who qualifies to follow Christ in baptism?

Church membership is another matter. As with any private club, if the church wants to admit to its membership only slim non-smokers and non-drinkers, it can go ahead and do that. It might also specify what cars are permissable, and how many TV sets should be in the house (if any); and why stop there, the list could go on to include meat-eating, card-playing, the size of RVs, hair styles and skirt lengths (oops, that's already been tried some time ago). Well, you get what I mean.

This conversation also proves that men still "look upon the outward appearance" and can know nothing about the condition of someone's "heart".

I'm with Sirje on this one.
Separating baptism from church membership would not only solve this problem. Internal church politics would change drastically because of the void created by the absence of using baptisms as a triumphalistic method of self promotion. That might not be that much of an issue in the States or Europe, but developing and third world countries are adamant users of this method.
I hope that I will live to see the day this happens.
Best regards
Hamlet

Why not wine?

Here is some more - admittedly anecdotal - evidence. I think it merely underscores the need for pastoral sensitivity when dealing with an individual. Any principle, at 10,000 feet, is a lot easier to affirm. But in the trenches, not so easy.

This is taken from a letter to the Adventist Review, Feb 26, 1998:

'I guess some people have to walk in the shoes to understand. In 1986 I was baptized a smoker. I didn’t know if I should be, but I told my pastor a phrase that had been going through my head all day — if you believe in Me, be baptized — so he baptized me. I praise God for that pastor. If he had not done this for me, I would never have continued with the church, or more important, with God.

How long is enough for a church to say “That kind of behavior is not acceptable”? Who are we to judge where someone’s heart is? If I didn’t smoke, what would my unacceptable sin be then? How long is too long to have unacceptable sin? Does Christ put a time limit on it? I am so grateful that people aren’t God. There would be no one in heaven.'

Robert,
All Constantine proves is that one doesnt want to give up something until their death bed. It speaks more of them than the church. Further since being baptized doesnt save you, and they are on their death bed, whats the loss? Its Gods decision not ours.
Second, if not smoking, then why observing the Sabbath? No doubt that would be widely hearlded on Spectrum. Why any of the baptismal vows?
Why are their vows? Why vow anything if you percieve it as something you will eventually get around too, if it works out, and you feel like it?
Its interesting Rich's story in the Review doesnt even mention if the guy ever got around to not smoking.

Robert,
"Why not wine?"

I think the Bible does give specific behaviors that are "completely prohibited."

This leaves "many other activities" that are left to the individuals conscience. Those who use these liberties should be conscious of not deliberately offending those who don't. The "non" side of the equation should learn to "not judge" unless they have "specific" textual evidence for doing so.

What organizations often think of as "shoulds" should not be treated as if they were biblical imperatives. I guess they are entitled to have their own club but should not judge "in these areas" not explicit.

I maintain the Bible does not prohibit Alchohol in all of it's forms if done moderately and without "drunkeness" and under the proper conditions. Of course all God's gifts such as "foods and sex" can be abused and addictive. If they were not in some form desirable they likely would not be misused in the first place.

My take.

Regards,
pat

Michael,
"Why any vows?" Exactly, why ANY vows? The only necessity for baptism is a request. Did John the Baptist read a list of vows before he baptized? Even at that, John's baptism was temporary since he declared that "He (Jesus) will baptize you with the Holy Spirit". There is no record of Jesus baptizing anyone with water, had He done so, I still can't imagine He would have had a list of beliefs in His back pocket.

If you're talking about church membership, I'm sure the 28 Fundamental Belief gives the church all the creed it can use.

My mother lived a life of condemned misery for decades because she could not stop smoking.

She went to church, but as an unbaptized second-class citizen who "knew" God was condemning her, because she was taught that.

By some miracle, she was able to stop for two whole years, was baptized and counted a gathering at Glacier View as the high point of her whole life. Finally she could belong.

The sun shone on my mother for two whole years.

Not long enough.

Should I scatter her ashes at Glacier View?

EDIT: adding Loren Seibold's comment here:

So if smoking wouldn’t keep one out of heaven, should it keep one out of church membership?

That's just the point, Loren. The Pen of Inspiration, everyone's Favorite Author, the one who is going to save Adventism from veering into extreme fundamentalism (convince me, David Larson) says...

Ellen White: The Sanctified Life

Tobacco

James says that the wisdom which is from above is “first pure” (James 3:17). If he had seen his brethren using tobacco, would he not have denounced the practice as “earthly, sensual, devilish”?

In this age of Christian light, how often the lips that take the precious name of Christ are defiled by tobacco spittle and the breath is polluted with the stench.

Surely, the soul that can enjoy such uncleanness must also be defiled.

As I have seen men who claimed to enjoy the blessing of entire sanctification, while they were slaves to tobacco, polluting everything around them, I have thought, How would heaven appear with tobacco users in it?

God’s word has plainly declared that “there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth” (Rev. 21:27). How, then, can those who indulge this filthy habit hope to find admittance there?

Men professing godliness offer their bodies upon Satan’s altar and burn the incense of tobacco to his satanic majesty.

Does this statement seem severe? Certainly, the offering is presented to some deity. As God is pure and holy, and will accept nothing defiling in its character, He must refuse this expensive, filthy, and unholy sacrifice; therefore we conclude that Satan is the one who claims the honor.

Jesus died to rescue man from the grasp of Satan. He came to set us free by the blood of His atoning sacrifice. The man who has become the property of Jesus Christ, and whose body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, will not be enslaved by the pernicious habit of tobacco using.

His powers belong to Christ, who has bought him with the price of blood. His property is the Lord’s. How, then, can he be guiltless in expending every day the Lord’s entrusted capital to gratify an appetite which has no foundation in nature?

http://www.littlebookopen.org/books/sl/sl03.htm

Can Ellen White save us from "veering into the most extreme form of fundamentalism," as David Larson suggests?

http://www.spectrummagazine.org/blog/2009/11/24/reviewing_review_knott_t...

Can Ellen White save us from Ellen White?

Thank you for the above EGW quote Maggie.
And some wonder where the dogmatic intolerance comes from...
As usual, it's from the "continuing and authoritative source of truth".
Very sad indeed...

Maggie,

I am often amazed that many will not acknowledge that they "pick and choose" from the writings. I think it is to maintain credibility among SDA's that would otherwise "shun them."

I appreciate "some things" of EGW and openly reserve the right to disagee on others on which I can find nothing "explicit" from scripture. I as Randy don't accept a "continuing and authoritative source of truth" that some feel Ellen had.

Take that which is good...think about some things...discard the obvious new interpretation that opposes proper "Christian Liberty" by making "musts" of the "new interpretation."

regards,
pat

Pat - and that is exactly how EGW can "save us" from fundamentalism. By learning to "see her" as a how prophets in general work - how they grow - learn - change - contradict other prophets - how they use what is common in their cultural environment and times - speak to their contemporaries in the thought forms of their day - Taking was what is good and not putting "new wine" into old wine skins.

Fundamentalists make a "god" out of Scripture - they think that the words of Scripture are the keys to the kingdom and they cast the words in stone as an idol.

Michael,

"Second, if not smoking, then why observing the Sabbath?"

I don't see how the two are related, but would be very happy to debate the applicability of the seventh-day Sabbath in a more appropriate context.

"Why are their vows?"

That's a very intersting question, but I think the problem is with the number and specificity of the vows, rather than vows per se. Vowing to uphold a very specific set of beliefs and behaviours almost precludes the idea that you will learn anything new during your remaining lifetime.

Robert Sonter

Donna,

I am familiar with the term "bibliolatry" as used by "liberal theology." Their resulting "idolatry is their reframed conceptual paradigm of fallible and ever changing scripture" which suits their own purposes.

It (LT) resist the thought that there is such a thing as prophetically "Inspired scripture" that reveals God's authoritative will through words and propositional statements.

It worked for more than 18 centuries as "canon" and now we are to believe their superior intellect/criticism to change scriptures validity.

They and you are entitled to your view. I will continue the "conservative grammatical historical biblical" method of the Protestant Reformers. It is not the same as the pejorative term "fundamentalism/literalism without consideration of genre etc." which is often thrown out as the only alternative to "liberal variability."

My personal mantra is that it is equally wrong to overstate or understate the inspired words of scripture by "external sources of authority."

regards,
pat

PS. What my understanding of Dave's proposition of "SDA fundamentalism" lacks clarity without proper definition. It needs to be defined rather as the use of a method of scriptural interpretation plus EGW for "authority for faith and practice" in "actual practice." "Literalism" also needs appropriate definition.

This whole discussion reinforces my belief that baptism and church membership should not be linked. If you profess Jesus as your Saviour and accept His forgiveness then I believe you qualify for baptism. Church membership is, in my opinion, a completely different issue. It should be based on agreement with the doctrines and mission of the SDA Church. That, however, should not mean that you think anyone outside of this church is not saved. According to the Church Manual you have to make a profession of faith which includes acceptance of all our doctrines BEFORE you are baptised into our church. This issue comes close to home for me for my children are being constanly pressured to be baptised. They love Jesus and understand that He died for them so I see no reason why they should not be baptised. But before our church will do this, they must accept all the doctrines and I feel they are too young to understand what they are committing themselves to. It is sad that the only way they could be baptised on profession of faith in Jesus (as in the New Testament) would be to go to another church.

I have an idea. Why don't we just admit that it is we ourselves who are saving ourselves from "veering into the most extreme form of fundamentalism," by, well, growing up.

That way we don't have to spend the next 100 years figuring out how to rightly divide the word of SOP Truth.

If we have to spend all this energy rationalizing Ellen White, I'm not sure we can say we've escaped extreme fundamentalism, as we are forever joined at the hip to it by towers of abstractions with their foundations in the clouds somewhere.

If we simply take personal responsibility for what we believe (what a concept!), we have our foundations rooted in our own bodies where they belong.

My very body, like Balaam's donkey, won't let me go to EGW's (or the Bible's) extremes.

I do suffer witches to live, and I don't condemn my mother to hell, no matter what the Bible & EGW say.

Talk about offerings to "his Satanic Majesty!" And yes, Randy, it is sad indeed to see someone you love languish their life away because of the words of a dead woman who continues to hold a subculture in thrall.

The fact that all this rationalization is deemed necessary tells me the subculture is still in the EGW trance.

PS: I edited Loren Seibold's comment into my post with the EGW tobacco/Satanic Majesty quote above.

I find myself in some sympathy with both sides here. As I said above, I am grateful that my being born into this church has shielded me from tobacco use, and I have no doubt Ellen White was divinely guided to encourage us against it.

Still, I'm struggling with the idea that we should be ecclesiastically segregated by our mastery over certain sins. I am optimistic that Michael and others are right, that anyone who wants to quit smoking can. (Having never smoked, I can't give a personal testimony of that.) But until that happens, what is the nature of their fellowship with Christ, and with us?

Loren

Loren, do you believe my mother gave offerings to His Satanic Majesty (good grief!) for most of her life and is therefore damned, per EGW?

You didn't know my mother, of course, but surely you're not going so far as to believe that twaddle from a 19th-century woman who couldn't live up to her own teaching for most of her life.

(I'm not sure whether I should believe that EGW ever lived up to her own teachings, actually.)

Can we get this down to planet earth here?

Let's say my mother is alive and sitting next to you crying (as usual) because she's damned and unbaptizable.

She had a name. It was Willa. She was tall and had red hair and blue eyes. She was a real person. Jim Coffin might have chanced to see her at Sunnydale when he was my friends' kid brother.

What then? There is a real person sitting there beside you, crying her heart out, as usual.

What then?

PS: My mother held me aloft and gave me to God as an infant. She smoked throughout her pregnancy with me. I weighed five pounds. Her favorite song was How Great Thou Art. We played that at her funeral.

Now since everyone agrees that SDA membership is not a gold ticket to heaven and that Christ has sheep in many folds then why the stink about smoking as a baptisimal standard?

We all know what happens to people who "leave The Truth," once they know it, Michael.

I really think that the tobacco issue is a very delicate one because you have a nasty addictive smelly habit and yet people who are in a delicate stage of Christian growth, and how dare we offend one of these sheep that needs nurturing. Jesus said it would be better to put a mill-stone on the neck of the offender, and throw him into the sea, than to offend one of these struggling souls who needs tender nurturing. There is a tendency for some SDAs to hit these poor souls over the head with Ellen White quotes against tobacco.

By the way, it took Ellen White 25 years to give up eating meat! Her pledge was made in 1869 to give it up. She had written: "Is it not time that all should aim to dispense with flesh foods? How can those who are seeking to become pure, refined, and holy, that they may have the companionship of heavenly angels, continue to use as food anything that has so harmful an effect on soul and body?", but in 1873 she had some deer and duck, in 1878 some venison for Christmas, in 1880 some chicken, in 1882 Oysters and Herrings, 1887 she requested chicken at a SDA camp-meeting, and 1890 back to eating oysters again. (See http://www.ellenwhiteexposed.com/contra6.htm)

So if "our prophet" had such a struggle giving up what she considered to be "so harmful an effect on soul and body", shouldn't we be more understanding when allowing people to change at their own pace when coming into our church? Shouldn't we at least give them 25 years to settle in, following the example of our founding prophet.

By the way Maggie, may be this was David Larson's example he wanted to give to the SDA fundamentalists?

Maggie and Loren,

Maggie, I appreciate your seeing, I suggest, the "apparent inconsistency" in Dave's comment on EGW.

I disagree with you regarding scripture as an equivalent analogy to EGW.

Loren,

One of the difficulties I see with "our church" is "discernment and proportionality." Many see foods,smoking and drink as important as soteriology and our view of Christ and the cross.

Thus some begin to see Muslims and not eating pork and certain lifestyles as equivalent to worshiping the same God as we do...even without Christ as our savior and substitute.

Some see service, even without Christ as substitutionary Savior, as equally Christian.

Thus "Left and Right SDA's touch" in a sense.

Shall I go on as how "our SDA lifestyle" instead of Christ becomes the focus of much "SDA Christianity?"

regards,
pat

The implied motto of the SDA "Health Message" is:

"Start livin' to beat hell!"

Kenneth James

... that is exactly how EGW can "save us" from fundamentalism. By learning to "see her" as a how prophets in general work - how they grow - learn - change - contradict other prophets - how they use what is common in their cultural environment and times - speak to their contemporaries in the thought forms of their day - Taking was what is good and not putting "new wine" into old wine skins.

********************************************************************************************

Donna...

Why would we need EGW to save us from fundamentalism when what is being said above finds its roots in Paul's writings... "Do not put out the Spirit's fire. Do not despise prophesies. Test all things; hold fast to that which is good; avoid every evil form (of teaching)." A balanced view of inspiration with its accompanying hermeneutical framework and solid biblical exegesis, should keep us from the extremes of obstinate fundamentalism on the one hand, and unbridled liberalism on the other.

Additionally, the above sounds more like Alden Thompson and Graeme Bradford's view of EGW and her writings, rather than her own view of herself. Reading the balance of what she thought of her output reveals to me a more mixed, and at times much less flexible view of how her writings should be handled than you, Dr. Thompson or Dr. Bradford are suggesting...regardless of her own general views of inspiration. At times, I also feel as if EGW's views of inspiration are pushed by some as the solution to biblical literalism and fundamentalism, in order to justify views of Scripture that she herself would vehemently oppose.

I raise these points only to suggest that the solution being advocated, and the resulting views of Scripture being sought, do not find such undiluted support from EGW's writings as is possibly being assumed. IOW...she was much more of a biblical literalist, and at times fundamentalist in practice, than many progressives care to admit.

Interestingly, while other conservative denominations deal with biblical fundamentalism, we have seemed to deal with the greatest pockets of fundamentalism within Adventism around the writings of EGW. Yet, progressives rally to her more liberal views of inspiration as the solution to all our ills. Could it be, that it is not simply a misunderstanding of her writings that is the problem, but that we are also dealing with the proverbial wax nose?

Just some thoughts...

Frank

Why not wine? http://spectrummagazine.org/files/pictures/picture-1451.gif

Frank, you said:

"A balanced view of inspiration with its accompanying hermeneutical framework and solid biblical exegesis, should keep us from the extremes of obstinate fundamentalism on the one hand, and unbridled liberalism on the other."

Agreed. Yes it should. But has it?

Was Ellen White herself a "literalist." Probably so, like most in her generation... This is one of the reasons why I say we need to look at her prophetic gift and example as we approach the study of biblical writers. They also spoke and wrote in the context of their times and in the thought forms of their day.

While I agree that the "conservative grammatical historical biblical" method of the Protestant Reformers (and of our friend Pat) is not the same as the pejorative term "fundamentalism/literalism", this method readily lends itself to a fundamentalist approach. It is based on the idea that the Biblical text is to be accepted at face value and not subject to external norms and assumes all writers are in harmony with the whole.

Obstinate fundamentalism and unbridled liberalism may be extremes to be avoided but there are serious problems with the "grammatical historical" method as well - suspension of common sense and loss of intellectual integrity to name a few. These values I learned at the feet of Ellen White.

"Still, I'm struggling with the idea that we should be ecclesiastically segregated by our mastery over certain sins. I am optimistic that Michael and others are right, that anyone who wants to quit smoking can. (Having never smoked, I can't give a personal testimony of that.) But until that happens, what is the nature of their fellowship with Christ, and with us?"

Loren

What we see, Loren, is an antinomian spirit that has permeated Adventism in the last few decades. A seperation of Christ from the law. As though, believing in Christ liberates us from the necessity to "keep the commandments of God".

This is obvious in most of the posts concerning "the law" and baptism. Any denomination states a minimal standard of Christian conduct to be considered for admission into their church fellowship.

No church I know of, stops people at the door and tells them they can not fellowship in their church until they come up to this minimal standard.

This is what many "liberals" claim that historic Adventism enforced in the past. This is a blatant mis-representation of our historic faith with the purpose and intent to claim the SDA church was not a gospel oriented church from the beginning. I think in some cases, it is a deliberate lie and not just an ignorant mis-representation.

No one stands at the door to keep "sinners" out of the church, nor do we tell people they can't come to our church unless they reach a certain standard.

Adventism has always been a loving and kind fellowship where "whoever will may come" with some minor exceptions of course. Yet, these exceptions have now been declared as the norm for historic Adventism and people "buy" this lie of the devil because it suits their antinomian sentiments and gives them a feeling of self justification in rejecting the truth.

Yes, myself, and others disagree with the idea that we should "push" immature and unqualifed people into positions of influence and authority and place them on the platform without instruction as to how a mature Christian leader should act and dress in representing a mature leadership.

This is simply more of the antinomian spirit that has come into the church by way of a false gospel that demeans the law and today we have novices in church leadership who are either in ignorance doing these things, or deliberately undermining the true Christian faith.

It is a powerful spirit of evil with Satan and his angels behind the scenes working to destroy and overthrow bible Adventism. And having marvelous success, I might add.

Not everyone is deceived, but we are all effected by it in one way or another. You can't go the church and not be affected by the celebration spirit that is not biblical nor in harmony with the true faith of our fathers.

Your whole article is a "false delimma" that pits law against gospel. No one is "saved" by baptism as though faith in Christ and obedience to His word is a non issue.

It is a ceremonial Catholic view of baptism as though, somehow baptism saves a person and so we must necessarily baptize anyone and everyone just because they ask. We ask qualifying questions and rightly so. We give instruction and explain some minimal outward qualifications with the understanding they are to become more and more mature in their walk with Christ in understanding and doing His will.

If the pastor feels they are not mature enough, he does not baptize them. This is not a judgment as to whether they believe in Jesus nor if they are "saved" or not. God will decide that. But it is a judgment as to whether they have reached a mature understanding of the commitment to the church fellowship and how to conduct themselves as church members.

And we need not lower the standard a nickels worth because some flaming liberal wants to do away with the law and attack the church's standards. Remember, the church standards are the bare mimimum, not the maximum.

Jesus said we must "sell all" that we have to be His disciple. It requires "all" not some minimual standard. And any one who is "born again" understands this reality and seeks to come up higher and higher, not lower and lower. Yet this is what some are advocating in the church today.

If a person asks for baptism and the pastor feels they are not ready, he rightly works with them until they are. Well, at least historically they did.

Bill Sorensen

Donna....

What I am seeing is that you are picking and choosing exactly what values you are taking from EGW to support your views of inspiration and how to handle the biblical text and its interpretation and application. IOW, it's a hermeneutical framework that finds some validation from EGW, but also finds much that opposes it within her writings and thought. Thus, literalists can find just as much support from her as well.

Which leads me to the sense that the solution to fundamentalism does not within her writings. To me, it would be more honest to say that it lies within a progressive view of inspiration that can be supported in small portions of her thought.

The rest, to me, continues to reveal a wax nose.

Thanks...

Frank

Perhaps this question might be diagnostic: could we (or should we) say to someone who can't overcome tobacco, "We can't accept you into church membership in the Seventh-day Adventist church, but you can join the Methodist church, and we will cheer you on, and assume you'll be in in heaven with us"? Is it important that they fellowship with us overcomers, or will they do fine with others who accept Jesus Christ but don't have the same high expectations? A friend of mine used to say about Seventh-day Adventists, "We're like the Marines: we want a few good men." Is he right—are we to be exclusive?

Loren

Bill,

Thanks for your comment. You're correct that there are those who set the law against the gospel. That's not what I'm saying: I'm very much in favor of our being overcomers. I don't agree, though, that the whole article represents a false dilemma. Things like smoking come into the argument when we start considering the major points of the Christian life. The fact is, we haven't mastered the most important expectations of our faith (being kind, generous, unselfish and loving, like Jesus was). But being a non-smoker really doesn't impress me much if one is mean, judgmental and angry which, sadly, I see rather prevalent among Seventh-day Adventists.

Personally, I find working on my own character flaws, problems more central than smoking, even, keep me occupied, without excluding anyone else for their sins!

Loren

God, I am thankful that I am not like these horrible, smelly, tobacco-using people.

Is this not the attitude? Seeing others's sins as so abominable, just because we have not been hooked, or started such a habit? Even the long SDA Stop Smoking Clinics had less than 50% long-term rates, and some smokers, females especially, had much more difficulty giving up the habit.

Like Sirje said, we have abused the Bible principle for baptism. No longer is it sufficient to be a believer in Christ, but Adventists have added almost impossible hurdles to church membership. How would Paul have looked at the burdens we now add to being a member of the "True Church"!

I had an uncle (by marriage), a life-time smoker, who said shortly before his death, that he wanted very much to be baptized, but was unable to give up a lifetime smoking habit. He was such a good man, that many Adventists could never emulate. Imagine! One sin, the sin above all others in the SDA hierarchy of sins that could keep him out of heaven! Not for one minute should we ever believe such a thing. If it were true, most of the patriarchs and saints who have lived would not be there, only me and you, and sometimes I seriously doubt that you will make it. ;-)

Maggie,

I find a great deal of good in the writings of Ellen White. Her anti-smoking stance did many of us a great deal of good. I can't defend the tone of everything she said, though, and the statement you quoted from her is particularly unfortunate. You are right that, no matter what we say, we Adventists have sometimes been unkind to people like your mother; at the very least, we've done too little to lift the burden of guilt, which is what the gospel is about.

Loren

One of my professors, when asked what Ellen White thought of this or that idea, used to respond, "Which Ellen White?" The Ellen White right after 1844, of the Ellen White of the early 20th century? The Ellen White of Steps to Christ, or of The Sanctified Life? There does seem to be changes in her thinking over time.

LGS

I do so apologize, Loren, for high-jacking your column with this train of thought on inspiration. It bugs me when others do this.

Frank,

You are approaching what I am suggesting. When you say, "literalists can find just as much support from her as well" as can those who use "key texts" for "proving" Biblical points of view. I am not looking for passages which prove or disprove a certain position - I am looking at the method and way she approached topics - how she understood the world around her - why she wrote on certain topics.

An example: In her day, women couldn't vote, they were legally considered children, they were just gaining access to higher education - a very different world than that we live in. In her day, the realm of a woman's influence was the home. She sought to elevate that position - to make it honorable - and to raise women's sense of self-worth and value. BUT when 100 years later, people take her words literally and use them to support their position that women's place is in the home not the work place,her work is dishonored. Reading her literally often gives a total mis-reading and understanding of her intentions.

Frank, you said, this "leads me to the sense that the solution to fundamentalism does not within her writings." This is correct. Fundamentalism is not challenged by "quoting" from Ellen White. It is not "within her writings", not with her actual words but by approaching her work from an understanding of the problems she was confronted with, how she dealt with it within the confines of her societal context. THEN by use these same skills and evaluating methods and applying them to Scripture.

We have been given a "prophet" to study - up close and personal. Proper appreciation of her prophetic role should help us as we approach Scripture.

Well, of course, the gospel itself is primarily about motive and attitude. But I find it amazing how many people think they are qualified to "judge" everyone elses "motive" and then quote the scripture "judge not, that ye be not judged".

Considerable duplicitity in my estimation.

I could only wonder if people challenged Noah, Elijah, Jeremiah, John the Baptist, Luther and Jesus Himself about their "bad attitude". No doubt Ahab thought Elijah had a bad attitude and the Jewish leaders certainly judged Jesus on this same issue.

The bible challenges us continually about motive. And yes, we all need an "attitude adjustment" from sin to holiness.

Liberals always say, "You are to judgmental and should be more kind, loving and patronzing in your witness."

Read the rebellion of Korah in PP. The people "loved" Korah and hated Moses because Moses was to challenging and demanding while Korah was so loving and kind and condecending and "all the people are holy" and need no challenge or chiding to conform to God's will.

Moses was far to exacting and demanding. Just so, the liberals hate EGW because she points out their "darling sins" and won't give them any slack in their carnal ways and doings.

No doubt, as Paul says, "The carnal mind hates the law and won't keep it."

The carnal mind will manufacture a reason that obedience is not necessary and surely God won't "punish" those who rebel and attack His kingdom.

Let's see how far we can "dumb down" the law and still claim to be Christians.

And by the way, Loren, we help the smoker overcome with love and assurance and don't point them to an apostate Protestant church for acceptance to a lower level of spirituality.

Neither should we assume that if we baptize a smoker, they will somehow experience some "magic" victory as though baptism is some "hocus pocus" ceremonial form that will automatically deliver them from evil.

Yes, the Christian experience is a fluctuating morality around an infallible objective standard. The church should be an illustration of the standard and people should look to the church for a higher and higher level of obedience by way of exhortation and example.

When "the church" no longer represents this high level of spirituality, it is no longer God's church. The gospel derives its meaning and power from the law. And when the law is diminished, so is the gospel.

They live and die together. For where one is gone, so is the other. What need is there for the gospel as an ongoing dynamic reality if the law is either lowered or worse yet, denied?

Bill Sorensen

I have never smoked, and I know a few SDA's who do, and thankfully some have quit eventually. If all of us were questioned about all of our bad habits we know about or are'nt aware of maybe none of us would be baptized. Thankfully God takes us where we are in the beginning and not up the road some place in our journey with him.

Hi, Loren.

What smoke you have created! (smile)

This week I heard an anecdote from one of our mutual favorite colleagues back in the day:

His family is committed to evangelism among Native Americans. This autumn, as he was ministering in a local community more than one inebriated person attended the meetings in the church. When they came to the time of prayer one of the attenders (I'm not clear about whether this was a member or not) volunteered to pray, but they would not permit him to do so.

Long ago they had addressed the issue of alcohol abuse in the community by making a rule: You can come to church if you're drunk, but you can't pray from the platform if you're drunk.

Now... how could we extend that rule to all of our other sins? You can come to church if you are _________ but we won't allow you to pray on the platform if you are currently practicing or experiencing the effects of _________________.

(I'd like to sit around a table with you and Carmen and have fun with this.)

" how could we extend that rule to all of our other sins? You can come to church if you are _________ but we won't allow you to pray on the platform if you are currently practicing or experiencing the effects of _________________.

Let people fill the blanks for other people's sins, and there would be no church to attend.

Elaine--

Sorry I didn't include a ;-)

-- Tim

Great story, Tim. We'd enjoy the visit about that (and other things) too.

LGS

Perhaps our churches could be modeled after "Survivor", where we vote one another out of church membership, until only the purest remains.

If everyone were screened for "inward decay of the head," perhaps the SDA church would dwindle to nothing?

Loren, I believe the "Survivor" model has in some form been executed.

Posted by: lorenseibold@am... | 29 November 2009 at 9:25

Maggie...You are right that, no matter what we say, we Adventists have sometimes been unkind to people like your mother; at the very least, we've done too little to lift the burden of guilt, which is what the gospel is about.

Loren

With respect, Loren, why is it unkind to inform people that smoking is worshipping Satan and will damn them to hell when the Spirit of Prophecy told us that explicitly, and that we should call sin by its right name?

Why shouldn't my mother have been told that? It was straight from the unquestionable authority of the Pen of Inspiration. Why should her burden of guilt have been lifted?

Posted by: lorenseibold@am... | 29 November 2009 at 9:35

One of my professors, when asked what Ellen White thought of this or that idea, used to respond, "Which Ellen White?" The Ellen White right after 1844, of the Ellen White of the early 20th century? The Ellen White of Steps to Christ, or of The Sanctified Life? There does seem to be changes in her thinking over time.

With respect, Loren, I must tell you what the Spirit of Prophecy said about such ideas which question "unquestionable authority":

Ellen White, 1904

We are God's commandment-keeping people. For the past fifty years every phase of heresy has been brought to bear upon us, to becloud our minds regarding the teaching of the Word--especially concerning the ministration of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary, and the message of Heaven for these last days, as given by the angels of the fourteenth chapter of Revelation.

Messages of every order and kind have been urged upon Seventh-day Adventists, to take the place of the truth which, point by point, has been sought out by prayerful study, and testified to by the miracle-working power of the Lord.

But the waymarks which have made us what we are, are to be preserved, and they will be preserved, as God has signified through His Word and the testimony of His Spirit. He calls upon us to hold firmly, with the grip of faith, to the fundamental principles that are based upon unquestionable authority.

Ellen White,1905

I am instructed to say that these words we may use as appropriate for this time, for the time has come when sin must be called by its right name.

We are hindered in our work by men who are not converted, who seek their own glory. They wish to be thought originators of new theories, which they present claiming that they are truth. But if these theories are received, they will lead to a denial of the truth that for the past fifty years God has been giving to His people, substantiating it by the demonstration of the Holy Spirit.

Ellen White makes a number "fifty years" statements.

Ellen White knew nothing at all about "which Ellen White?"

When did Ellen White ever retract a single thing she ever said?

With respect, Donna, this issue is all about inspiration, and nothing else.

Many, many people have lived out the direct effects of Ellen White's teachings, in this case, specifically about tobacco, my mother among them.

This isn't academic, or about "being unkind," and it's not off-topic.

Maggie said....

"Ellen White makes a number "fifty years" statements.

Ellen White knew nothing at all about "which Ellen White?"

When did Ellen White ever retract a single thing she ever said?"

And you know you are right, don't you Maggie? But "the church" has to pretend she "changed her mind" so they can "dumb down" the law and justify it. And at the same time claim they are loyal to EGW and her ministry.

And you and I both know "they", who ever "they" are, don't have the spiritual honesty to admit they don't believe in EGW, so "they" make up scenarios that help them justify their duplicity.

Why don't they ask, "Which bible do you mean?" Since the bible itself is just as confusing to them as EGW.

And let me say, Maggie, I am sorry you have such a hard time understanding EGW. And you have the same problem with the bible, don't you?

I hope you find the true answer before it all comes to an end.
How have you been?

Bill

Who can deny that Ellen White's statements have been used in the manner illustrated here? To expect those who quote her to date every single word is not only impossible, what would be the effect other than to question everything she has ever written? Most conclude it is far easier to ignore everything she has written.

The equivalent is already used in the Bible: there has been selective use, especially of the Old Testament, in demanding that certain texts are relevant and to be followed today, while others given at the same time are considered obsolete and no longer to be obeyed.

If this is confusing, is it not true that this has been used consistently since Adventisms origin? And that it is still the pattern?

To maintain sanity, many have thrown it out and personally chosen actions that are far more sane and in keeping with respecting one's own humanity as well as others.

Please, please, you pastors, why haven't you truthfully faced and answered these questions that have been asked since Canright? How can you dissemble and face yourself in the mirror? If this is strong, it's about time that this whole fiasco is confronted.

Bill, reread my last post. I think you'll see that I understand Ellen White quite well. She expresses herself exceedingly clearly, don't you think?

Regarding Ellen White not retracting anything she ever said, in 1860, she wrote this to Willie:

The Lord loves those little children who try to do right, and he has promised that they shall be in his kingdom.

But wicked children God does not love.

He will not take them to the beautiful City, for he only admits the good, obedient, and patient children there. One fretful, disobedient child, would spoil all the harmony of heaven.

When you feel tempted to speak impatient and fretful, remember the Lord sees you, and will not love you if you do wrong. When you do right and overcome wrong feelings, the Lord smiles upon you.

http://www.ellenwhiteexposed.com/sl/youth.htm

She made provision for the continued publication of this material in her 1915 will.

Which Ellen White, indeed?

Bill, you know and I know that I am right. That's why we've always gotten along, don't you think? I tell it like it obviously is.

I would not go as far as you to call people dishonest for making up these elaborate scenarios, though the thinking doesn't seem grounded to me, but I will just leave it at...

"Your cognitive dissonance dollars at work."

I agree with Loren Seibold, David Larson and many others, I'm sure, that EGW (or someone!) said a great many lovely things, worthy of contemplation.

I just don't buy the Thundering Old Testament Prophet role she cast herself into, and into which template David Koresh poured himself also, it seems to me.

I see us all as a priesthood of believers, with no one's communication privileged above others. If my mother had been empowered to think for herself, her life would have been immeasurably better, as would the lives of her children, I believe.

In any case, anti-tobacco literature pre-dated EGW:

1835:

Tobacco is one of the most powerful poisons in nature. Even the physician, some of whose medicines are so active that a few grains, or a few drops, will destroy life at once, finds tobacco too powerful for his use; and in those cases where it is most clearly required, only makes it a last resort. Its daily use, in any form, deranges, and sometimes destroys the stomach and nerves, produces weakness, low spirits, dyspepsy, vertigo, and many other complaints. These are its more immediate effects.

Its remoter effects are scarcely less dreadful. It dries the mouth and nostrils, and probably the brain; benumbs the senses of smell and taste, impairs the hearing, and ultimately the eye-sight. Germany, a smoking nation, is at the same time, a spectacled nation. More than all this; it dries the blood; creates thirst and loss of appetite; and in this and other ways, often lays the foundation of intemperance.

In fact, not a few persons are made drunkards by this very means. Dr. Rush has a long chapter on this subject in one of his volumes, which is well worth your attention. In addition to all this, it has often been observed that in fevers and other diseases, medicines never operate well in constitutions which have been accustomed to the use of tobacco.

http://www.teachushistory.org/second-great-awakening-age-reform/resource...

http://www.teachushistory.org/second-great-awakening-age-reform/resource...

Reminds me of EGW talking about tobacco as a "slow, insidious, but most malignant poison," but, helpfully, nothing about worshipping "his satanic majesty" was included in the above.

1833: Advice to Young Men not to Smoke
by William A. Alcott

Background Notes

This essay appeared in The Young Man's Guide by William A. Alcott (1798-1859), one of the many books of advice literature this prolific author produced during his lifetime. The first edition was published in 1833, and two years later was already in its sixth edition - indicating its *enormous popularity.*

"More than all this; it [tobacco] dries the blood; creates thirst and loss of appetite; and in this and other ways, often lays the foundation of intemperance. In fact, not a few persons are made drunkards by this very means. Dr. Rush has a long chapter on this subject in one of his volumes, which is well worth your attention."

http://www.teachushistory.org/second-great-awakening-age-reform/resource...

Ellen White, 1890:

Tobacco weakens the brain and paralyzes its fine sensibilities. Its use excites a thirst for strong drink, and in very many cases lays the foundation for the liquor habit.
--Christian Temperance and Bible Hygiene

Hi Maggie, now that you can edit your posts, you can close the em tags properly :)

Somewhere after "Christian Temperance and Bible Hygiene" Otherwise you might not be allowed to join the Church!

Comment deleted

Pauli

The self - application of nicotine by smoking, especially cigarette smoking (you are also smoking a paper of special chemical preparation !)generally is desasterous. OK.

I am grateful to God that I wholeheartedly and with a good conscience can join Loren Seibolds testimony. OK.

SDAs have made a moral issue out of smoking : "Such a fine and kind lady, you know, and the I find out : She !!! smokes !!!!" (Quotation out of a sermon).

Can you imagine me being deeply disappointed, hurt, injured : A beloved teacher, a man of noble charcter, of piety and probity, courageously helping me getting the Sabbath off in school - - And then I made a crushing discovery : He smokes a cigarette then and now !

Out of my knowledge about the state of the art and my experience I have to question Michael (Posting 27/11/09) :
Especially nicotine with its multiple effects on the balance of hormones and transmitters very often cannot be successfully withdrawn, the original balance not to be restored ; Linda Ferry with Zyban only could meet one of the various imbalances. The formula "If you really and earnestly have the will, then you can - - " is a - may I say - SDA cherished issue of quite negative ethical/moral implications

It is phariseism to the utmost.

To Bill Sorensen : Oh, WE haver higher standards - - - - and by cultivating them we simply do not have to waste our interests on still being mean or hurting or dishonest.

You know of the convert witnessing about "Now no more smoking in my office!" and not saying a word in concern of "No more partaking in harrrassment on the workplace - - ". The Adventists admiring looks to Islam because of "No pork, no alcohol, they are sooo close to our message !" simply is saddening - or alarming.

I invite you to humbly and brotherly share the horrible experience in a more or less (!!) successful withdrawal of nicotine or morphine/heroine or benzodiazepines.

How would you meet a convert or a Prodigal Son who at last is on a substitutional treatment with longtime opiates and all its daily or weekly or at least monthly humilating procedures ?

"But wicked children God does not love."

Actually, Maggie, there is objective and subjective "love".

The word "love" is very comprehensive in meaning and used in various contexts. There is no need for confusion on this matter. I think EGW probably should have used a different word and she did in later writings. None the less, her point is valid and the word "love" is not wrong in the context of her meaning.

People who look for confusion will find it. And this applies equally to the bible.

We need no human interpreter of God's word, either by the Catholic church or any other church. Any honest soul who seeks truth by way of the bible with a willing mind and honest heart to know what is true will find it.

The Holy Spirit creates the Christian community by way of the bible.

The old testament in general presents a stern unrelenting God of law and judgment. The new presents a more condecending God of love and forgiveness. It is the same God. With plenty of mercy in the old testament and plenty of law and judgment in the new.

Unless we yield to the paradox of God's kingdom, we will never know Him nor the peace He offers in His Son.

Sin is both ignorance and rebellion. Ignorance God deals with continually as we grow in knowledge and understanding. Rebellion has its limits and God will finally deal with it once and for all.

The carnal mind hates God's law. But most of all, it simply hates God. For God's law is a revelation of Himself.

We can not harmonize justice and mercy in any rational carnal human reasoning box. We can only see how it works "in Christ".

The sinless angels are in Christ. They never rebel against this principle and find peace and fellowship with God and experience a certain kind of "forgiveness" for any ignorance they have about God and/or His kingdom.

God can not create beings equal to Himself. Yet, in a certain sense, this is what "justice" would require. Since we are less than God, we find fellowship with Him by way of His Son. Even the angels are bound by this principle. And this is the principle Satan rebelled against.

The great controversy is between Christ and Satan, and we will either side with one or the other.

The plan of salvation is a restoration, not some inovation. And the restoration is full and complete when we accept this principle now and forever.

No created being ever "merits" heaven. That is impossible. We would have to be equal to God for this to be a reality.

Yet we have a moral obligation and responsibility so weighty, that our eternal destiny is determined by our choices and decisions. This reality is never canceled. And this also was one of the issues Satan rebelled against.

Once we grasp something of the real issues, we either accept or reject them. Remembering this, the paradox is never resolved, except in the person of Jesus our Savior.

Find the faith and keep it, Maggie.

Bill

The word "love" is very comprehensive in meaning and used in various contexts. There is no need for confusion on this matter. I think EGW probably should have used a different word and she did in later writings. None the less, her point is valid and the word "love" is not wrong in the context of her meaning.

**************************************************************

How about the fact that she basically said the exact opposite about misbehaving children about 30 years later? IOW...not only did her views change, it very well bears out that she had a more judgemental conception of God earlier in her own experience, leading to deficient views like this...no matter what the context or word usage.

Why is it so hard for some of us to admit her humanity...on any issue? Why is it so hard for us to admit that those who are gifted by God can be wrong on a host of things...no matter what the gift? It is why we, as the body, are called to "test all things," and to "hold fast to that which is good." This instruction is given by Paul in the context of not despising prophecy.

Somehow, many will apply this to everyone else...except to EGW.

Thanks...

Frank

probably the best Christian solution...referring back to Jim Coffins idea?

any church should be a support group, not an exclusive club.

btw....does anybody know where the next non smoking, non drinking, non jewelry/lipstick wearing, non meat-eating SDA sexaholics anon meeting will be held... ????

my, ah, ah, cousin wants to know.

is Glacier View available for rent in case San Fran is booked??

We expect that humans will at some times be inconsistent: what they were adamantly opposed to, on becoming better informed, may now have completely changed their minds. This is what it means to be human: ability to learn from past errors or mistakes.

However, when one is designated a prophet by a church, and is held up as the last word on all possible matters, the changeable nature of pronouncements become so confusing that one is forced to dismiss it all as it becomes impossible to verfy the date of such sayings, and which came first: the complete reversal, or the continued principle?

Some have found that the only way to be human, and not a robot (as Maggie's mother became to the detriment personally, and family), is to refuse to read or listen to the Red Books as harmful to one's mental and psychic growth. Adhering to them is to stultify and render one a captive of another's thoughts, as Maggie perfectly illustrates.

Michael's last line above has been helpful to me.

I think he meant to chide other contributors about the fact that we are inconsistent. We come off very unforgiving of some and forgiving of others. Why is that?

Here's how I tentatively sort things out at this stage of my life: The sins that we ought to watch most closely are those which impact others against their will.

In other words, if someone wants to smoke in their own home, or out in the middle of nowhere, it's really not something I'm going to concern myself with. But to smoke in _my_ presence could be unfair and unwanted.

What people do in their bedrooms is of little concern to me. But when sex is non-consentual or with an undiscerning person (a minor), then it is of concern, and we have an obligation to protect the innocent.

If someone wants a glass of wine (or more than a glass) at home, then I'm not going to get involved. But loud public drunkenness or driving under the influence is an issue because it threatens others.

What one says in private is of little concern. What one says in public is of more concern, because it clearly effects others.

Those of us in leadership--pastors, parents, church officers and leaders--need to be aware of our ability to misuse power. For me those are the sins that the church body has an obligation to monitor and protect the innocent.

I do realize that a person's sins against their own bodies are not inconsequential, and some of us have watched relatives slowly harm themselves with substance abuse of various kinds. But it's just not possible or fruitful for me to live my life keeping score of others most of the time. There are a limited number of people that I can really rebuke in love. Most other rebukes have to do with my own insecurities and problems.

Tim, would that all pastors and members accepted the positions you have taken.

"Live and let live" may not be consistent with our philosophy, but there is much to be said for a very simple motto. Only when others are being harmed by actions, should there be non-acceptance. I can certainly agree with your premises as being far more productive of sustaining relationships than the condemnation of multiple "sins" always found in others.

Posted by: Chris Plewright | 30 November 2009 at 3:07

Hi Maggie, now that you can edit your posts, you can close the em tags properly :)

Somewhere after "Christian Temperance and Bible Hygiene" Otherwise you might not be allowed to join the Church!

A new species has been found! In addition to religious and intellectual fundamentalists, we now have formatting fundies!

(Were you so upset that your breath was coming in short pants?)

Actually, I kept hitting 'edit' trying to get out of italic hell, but nothing I did fixed it.

So...I guess I'm doomed to perdition.

Been nice knowing you perfectly formatted people....

Actually, Maggie, there is objective and subjective "love".

Actually, Sorensen, I don't believe that. =)

Dear Maggie,

Short pants? I'm wearing jeans!

Please don't leave because of ignoramus like me. I like reading your posts.

I'm not leaving...just doomed, doomed I tell ya!!! I want to wear rings and be an elderly salsa dancer, and now...besetting sins of formatting!

And...on December 21, 2012, Pluto will be sitting conjunct my Capricorn Sun, with Chiron conjunct my Pisces Moon.

Doomed! Up in Christian Smoke!!!

Ask Sorensen. :)

Bill,

Perhaps you could expand on "objective and subjective love."

My understanding was that love is patient and kind, and keeps no record of wrongs, and that God loves us all, even when we are far off, like the Father of the Prodigal son.

I would agree that God does not love and relish in our sin, far from it. But He does love us so much that He sent is only Son to make amends for sin, not to condemn us, but that believing in Him we might be saved.

Michael, you said:

If one truly believed the biblical counsel here,

then the admonition would be to call for the baptismal standards to include obesity and other things rather than advocate the abolishment of the smoking standard just because the obesity one isn't followed.

In this passage in his letter to the Corinthians St Paul is talking explicitly about sexual immorality. The preceding verses say:

5Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."[b] 17But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.

18Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.

What is the justification for applying this verse to any sin other than sexual immorality?

That said, I agree that honouring our bodies, is a good thing to do. However this must be in a spiritual sense, not a purely physical sense, for our bodies are the Temple of the Holy Spirit, thus we must be spiritually clean, not in the best physical shape of our lives. In fact, Christ calls us to fast (both explicitly and by example), and St Paul tells us to master the flesh. It is not that the flesh is evil, we are created by God, and it is good. But through fasting we master our appetites (for all sorts of things, food, sex, drink etc)
and so grow in self control.

Just some thoughts,

Clement

"Bill,

Perhaps you could expand on "objective and subjective love."

You may love someone who does not love you. You could even do many nice things for them and show that you care. But unless there is a response in kind, it will only remain objective.

Subjective love is a two way street.

God loves Satan. But He will still destroy him.

Our emotions can not be the basis of all our actions. Love is more comprehensive than that. Love is a principle. And it includes justice as well as forgiveness.

People generally want forgiveness to exclude justice. This God can not and will not do. Even the death of Jesus for our sins is only appropriated in the end for those who believe, repent and return to loyalty to God.

God must be trusted to do the right thing. Believers do, and unbelievers don't. Simple as that.

We don't have all knowledge. But we have adequate knowledge and understanding from the biblical record to know enough to make a decision to trust God and follow His councel.

Our decision is objective and subjective. So, many factors play a role in our decision. We are saved by faith, hope, fear, assurance, grace, justice and other factors.

In the end, we choose to trust God, or not. The angels in heaven have and had this same decision. Lucifer took a third with him who chose not to trust God and claimed life without faith or trust.

God must be responsible for everything and we have no accountability is Satan's final argument. And if we don't responded as God desires, it is His fault. But if He is all wise and powerful, He will cause all to respond in the end as He desires.

An appealing argument that convinced much of heaven. But it destroys the moral being of man and takes away the high quality of life God intends for His created beings. If our decision has no ultimate value, then our life has none either.

The higher the consequences of our decision, the greater the reward for making the right one. And thus the quality of the decision increases the quality of life.

Those who do not want this responsibility, God will simply honor their request and put them away. Those of us who understand the value of the decision in relation to a quality of life, seek continually to understand and make the right one for our benefit and those we want to influence.

And our happiness is intensified as each right decision is rewarded by a clearer and clearer understanding of the benefits. Namely, eternal life vs. destruction.

In the end, we all choose and act in reference to whether we want a quality of life and live, or no life at all.

We must resist Satan's lie that God is solely responsible for all that happens and in the end, God will save everyone. Universalism is a powerful argument and carries the majority of the human family to destruction.

With out the bible, we would eventually all believe it.

Bill Sorensen

"Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body," (1 Cor. 6:19-20)

What is the justification for applying this verse to any sin other than sexual immorality?

Posted by: Clement (not verified) | 01 December 2009 at 10:25

Because of the reasons given. "...your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit...".
If you were to construct a temple for the 3rd member of the Godhead, what would it be? Just the first shack you came across?
If you look closely additional rational is given.
18Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.
Obesity would definitely be inside and against ones own body. Just because in the context he is speaking, it is concerning sexual sin does not mean that nothing else applies.

2nd. "Therefore honor God with your body." That is an inclusive statement without qualifiers or descriptors. It doesnt say Therefore honor God with your body in the area of sexual morality. The principal is complete as stated.

Lastly, people believe the obesity thing is true. Otherwise why would they complain about smoking and use obesity to justify it?

The Spectrum blog is the easiest to use and read. HOWEVER---the formatting I've never gotten the hang of it. It would be handy to be able to use italics, underlining and all the rest, but will someone help the electronically challenged in deciphering just how those formatting clues work? They make no sense as they are shown below.

What does and all the rest really translate? Help, somebody who's practiced at using them. OOops, looks like merely typing them resulted in ?

Here's how I tentatively sort things out at this stage of my life: The sins that we ought to watch most closely are those which impact others against their will.
Posted by: Tim Mitchell (not verified) | 30 November 2009 at 5:37

You wrote some good stuff there Tim. I see Elaine agrees. I dont want go off subject to far, but consider if you can say that and Elaine will still believe it where it concerns Government run health care.
If the principal is valid it should still work.
Perhaps you'll write an article considering how much of a sin it is to impact others against their will as it pertains to health care for further discussion.

"One day I looked up at him and said, “If you smoke cigarettes, you won't go to heaven.” He said to my mother, “Will you shut your kid up?” turned and went upstairs to his balcony office."

Loren, that reminds me of the time my little one informed his grandma that she wasn't going to heaven because she ate hamburgers.

Children are Nature's fundamentalists. Daddy said it, I believe it, that settles it.

If one were in a particularly indulgent mood, such things might sound somewhat cute coming from the mouth of a little one.

Obviously the store proprietor you informed of his slide into perdition was not in an indulgent mood. My son's grandma already believed she was doomed to perdition for smoking, so why not eat hamburgers?

Somehow, hearing that from the mouth of my child started to wake me up. Something just didn't seem right. My child was obviously parroting his parents. Was I just parroting others also, or did I really believe that? I decided, at length, that I did not.

When my father was sixteen, he discovered that his father had hung himself in the barn, and he was made to cut his own dead father down from the barn rafters. As if to prove that God's truth trumps all other considerations, the local preacher (not SDA) soon informed my grieving adolescent father that his father was burning in hell eternally for the sin of suicide.

My father thought it over and decided that if hell was good enough for his father, it was good enough for him. He never changed his mind.

It took me a long time to realize that, given his level of education and emotional development, that was a pretty darned good decision.

I so regret that he and my mother were not empowered to think for themselves and question what the religious people told them.

As it was, their spirituality was hijacked by people who were as certain of what they were saying as the two four-year-olds dooming people to hell mentioned above were.

A religious milieu that keeps people emotional children is not a healthy environment. Stunting people's emotional, spiritual and intellectual growth is surely sacrilege of the most blasphemous variety.

People who smoke and eat meat can obviously have a rich experience of God - witness C.S. Lewis. Can you imagine Lewis being born into an Adventist family and community?

Would Lewis have come out unscathed, or would he have surrendered his development to those whom he supposed were in the know, leaving himself spiritually impoverished and the world poorer for it, as it is poorer now because my parents capitulated to the Religiously Certain?

As Jared Wright (on another thread) continues to explore what makes good theology, I hope he will factor in the actual human experience that Adventist religious beliefs have created.

Ideas have destinations.

No one can doubt that believing that God did not want us to suffer witches to live led to horrendously evil human consequences.

BELIEFS CREATE ACTUAL HISTORY!

WE ARE ALL RESPONSIBLE FOR THE GOD WE ARE WILLING TO WORSHIP!

[Chris, I am in italic hell again, - see - it even carries into the next post! Please grant me absolution! Please let me join your chuch! No wait....]

Web eds: I edited out all the < em > tags in the above post and it, as well as this post, still show up in italics on my screen. (The 'Preview' screen looks fine.) Looks like Michael is also in italic hell. Thanks.

I think if one cut and pastes quotes to start a reply it continues the problem on to the next post.

I guess not. No quotes in that last one.

</em>

LOL. HTML addicts anonymous! HAA. Yay something I know about.

I put a closing </em> at the beginning of this post, so it closes whatever ems were left open from above.

<em>for italics use em tags</em>

Each and every <em> needs a matching closing </em>. If the <em> is not closed with an </em>, then every post after it gets em'd. I think this time Elaine didn't put in the end </em>, or something along those lines. See how it follows into the Posted by: Elaine (not verified) | 02 December 2009...

And, the next step just to confuse everyone if you are curious how I show writing the square brackets to render in the html, I actually wrote something that looks like the following in this message:
&#60; for <
and
&#62; for >
and
&#38; sometimes needed for &

Chris! Wonderful, smart, inspired Chris! You got me out of italic hell - I fixed my post above, and Michael's too! (Do you think there is a spiritual lesson there somewhere?)

Thank you! Can I join your church now?

No wait....

PS: I wondered how you made that show up without spaces:

< / em >

I still can't do it.

Smart people are just so...smart.

I've had no trouble with formatting.

But then, I'm a compulsive, rule-observant Seventh-day Adventist.

:-)

There you have it.

I'm doomed...doomed I tell ya!

Don't worry: you'll have plenty of company in HTML hell.

But, Judge, I mean Loren, I closed all my < / em >'s, honest I did!

Let the record show!

Don't cast me into outer darkness, puleeeeze!

Tim,

I think many of us function in with regard to our fellow church members in the way you describe, though you articulate it better than I would have. We don't go around hunting for others' personal sins. For which I'm glad.

It has some complications, though: people who keep such things private often walk around in a state of guilt, and that issues forth in lots of unhealthy acting-out in church and family. I have an Adventist friend who has a rather non-official-Adventist lifestyle that she keeps private—but it becomes clear that she isn't feeling covered by grace in these things: she just feels that she is constantly disappointing God, and hopes He'll cut her some slack when she dies. She's out of harmony with the "family"—which she can't leave, either. That's just to say, keeping secrets is complicated.

Loren

One more thing: I keep hearing that we can do both/and, with regard to the big sins (judgmentalism, hatefulness), and the lesser ones (smoking). I haven't found that to be true. I rarely find people who are very concerned about many small individual behaviors who see the big picture that includes kindness and grace. I think many Adventists would be very upset if they were assigned to follow Jesus around for a day and see where he put his emphasis.

Loren

Thanks Maggie, I needed the cheering up, you are delightful.

I wonder if blowing smoke is allowed? I promise not to inhale. Just kidding, I'll take all the love I can get.

To avoid spaces, that's what the codes are used for:
i.e. use &#60; for a <
and use &#62; for a >

and then don't need spaces in between.
e.g.

&#60;/em&#62;
shows up as
</em>

Not sure why you would really need it, except for talking about html with someone on some blog site.

Dear Maggie, when that final HTTP 404 comes up on the search for your soul, I will try to get God to repair your code. Honest, I will.

I told y'all there was a spiritual lesson here somewheres.... ;-)

Dear friends,
We do not need the writings of Ellen White to determine obvious health principles. The early Seventh-day Adventist Church was not alone with their health teachings, regarding alcohol consumption, smoking and dietary reform. The Mormons and others taught the same priniciples.
The question isn't what Ellen White said or how people interpret Scripture. The question is what is the Biblical application? And further more, is it attainable for everyone?
The Bible say, that with Christ, we can do all things. The fact is that we all sin, every day. It's Jesus and His robe of righteousness that fits us for heaven.
I am a minister's daughter and am well aware of the church's postion on substance abuse of any kind.
I am also aware that some people are able to quit smoking cold turkey and many others quit, only for a time.
We had an elderly man who had been a chain smoker. He was baptized and did not smoke for 20 years. One Sabbath, he asked his church family to pray for him, because he was having the overwhelming desire to smoke.
This example gives us a huge window of understanding. I can't begin to understand the complex neurochemistry of the brain and resultant patterns of addiction. Only God knows that.
This one thing that I know, is that many people in our church stopped coming because they started smoking. They felt like failures. They felt that they wouldn't be loved and accepted. If that is how they were treated, it was a criminal offense. Jesus would never treat someone that way.
Nothing can separate us from the love of God (or church fellowship for that matter. Nothing that we eat or don't eat, nothing we drink or don't drink, nothing we smoke or don't smoke, can separate us from our Father in heaven.
Therefore, the church should be a place, like AA, where people can be honest about their problems, asking for prayer, asking for help. It needs to be a place where people feel safe and a place where they feel the love of God and His unconditional acceptance, through their church family.
In our Sabbath School class, people share some real personal issues in our Sabbath School. We stop discussion and pray with them when they do. One class member reminds them that everyone in the class is screwed up, one way or another.
As a church, I believe that health issues should not be a test of fellowship. If that is the case, we'd better be checking everyone's blood pressure, cholesterol, body weight, consumption of sugars, fats, and lack of sleep, due to excessive computer surfing.
The most important thing is that we never focus on the mistakes that people make or the mistakes that the church has made. It is critical that we focus on the Holy One, who will one day glorify these mortal bodies and take us home.
In the meantime, Jesus asks us to love and accept each other, just as we are. When the flood came, it was time to be IN the boat!

"His unconditional acceptance, through their church family."

There is no such thing as "unconditional acceptance". Faith and repentance are the first requirement for acceptance.

Also, a recognition of our need for these requirements.

"Whosoever will may come". But no one will come to Christ unless they see and understand their need to repent. They also understand that repentance is a requirement for acceptance with God.

"Unconditional acceptance" would mean we need not believe, repent, or obey God's law. But this is how salvation is presented in modern Adventism. Small wonder the church is degenerating into oblivion.

Certainly, if people come to find help to repent and live a new life, the church should be ready to do all they can for those who seek to know Christ and do His will.

The SDA church has traditionally done this in the past. Not now. We just accept anyone and everyone, whether they feel a need to repent or not. And they are told there is no need to repent because there is "unconditional acceptance" by God and the church.

Only if we "Confess our sins" is He "faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

People now feel no need to repent. Why should they? If they are told they are "unconditionally accepted" (and this is supposed to be the 'good news' according to modern Adventism) then there is no need to repent.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.

Can a person repent without Jesus? NO. The Holy Spirit works long before a person is converted and "born again". And this is the results of Jesus' ministry in heaven. So there are pre-conditions and post conditions. But there is no "unconditional acceptance".

Never has been, never will be.

Bill Sorensen

the church should be a place, like AA, where people can be honest about their problems, asking for prayer, asking for help. It needs to be a place where people feel safe and a place where they feel the love of God and His unconditional acceptance, through their church family.

**************************************************************

Connie...

Amen and Amen!! Thank you for blowing through the smoke, :) and putting things in the wonderful perspective of transparency, safety, love and compassion. If that would be the atmosphere we breathe in our church fellowships, our growth, spiritually and in every other way, would be through the roof.

Any one struggling with an addictive habit needs to feel safe to come out and share the struggle. All strugglers need to, because we're as sick as our secrets...and that includes all of us. Unfortunately, we have set up a dynamic in our churches that breeds hiding and covering up, because of the threats of disfellowship, and the corresponding stigma we have placed on certain outward behaviors etc.

If I recall, the first thing that the man and woman were depicted doing after eating the fruit, is the same... covering up and hiding. Somehow, 12 step groups seem to encourage just the opposite. And healing happens!

Maybe we could learn from outside our walls?

Thanks...

Frank

Bill,

I have to agree with you on this particular issue that there is no biblical basis for "unconditional acceptance." The Bible does present "conditions."

The prodigal in context "came to his senses" and came home saying "I have sinned."

I feel it is more a psychotherapy concept by Carl Rogers of "positive regard" and Rogerian "person-centered therapy."

That said, God is full of "stedfast love" and it is the HS that "seeks us" as the "hound of heaven" and brings us to repentance.

Some also cringe with the idea of "grading sins."

However, I suggest scripture does it with associated penalties in the OT... and we should also. The issues under SPECIFIC discussion here on Loren's strand HOWEVER, I suggest, are but "implicit" wrongs (smoking, overweight, foods and drink).

They should be distinguished from "explicit" behaviors that scripture identifies with sinful behavior and how they are considered by the church body.

I suggest MUCH depends on the "attitude" of the struggling individual as relates to "explicit" sin. Are they willing to acknowlege their "explicit" activity is wrong? Or, Are they rather arrogant and dismissive of their wrong wishing to point out that "we are all sinners."

All these things are related in how the church should embrace one on life's difficult journey. I suggest along with you that the term "Unconditional Acceptance" is an
"overstatement."

Paul certainly wasn't of that "unconditional" attitude in the explicit sin and associated attitude of the individual and church in 1 Cor.5:1-6.

regards,
pat

PS. AA does not practice "unconditional acceptance." they are required to accept rules of order and "acknowlege" their need and "powerlessness." Check out 1-11 of the "conditions."
http://www.aa.org/en_pdfs/smf-121_en.pdf

While AA has rules, it does not eliminate an individual when he "falls off the wagon," and neither should the church. If it did, we would all be outcasts.

Elaine,

ATTITUDE..or they certainly will!

regards,
pat

Some of you place so much emphasis on what WE have to do to gain acceptance with God. I think it's the other way around - it's God all the way - searching for us, wooing us, giving us the desire to repent, giving us faith, reading the slightest inclination of our hearts toward Him, loving us while we are still sinners. When we try to work up our own faith and repentance, we are never successful.

Carrol,

I agree, some do..."So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy." Rom.9:16.

BUT, the Bible teaches the necessitiy of a response to that searching and wooing and it is called "faith in" THE promises and stipulations of God. It is also given as a "measure of faith."

The Grace that calls and instructs is all of God. Non the less our "willful" response is required. As I have mentioned to Dave, they are two sides of the same coin.

regards,
pat

PS. AA does not practice "unconditional acceptance." they are required to accept rules of order and "acknowlege" their need and "powerlessness." Check out 1-11 of the "conditions."

********************************************************************************************

Yes Pat...

AA says that the only requirement for membership is the desire to stop drinking. There is the condition. Beyond that, the first step begins with the words, "We admitted..."

There it is in a nutshell, the desire to stop the self destructive behavior, and the freedom and safety to admit that one has a problem, that one needs help, with no fear of censure or rejection. That is how healing begins and progresses in 12 step programs.

The difference I see in a church denomination like ours from 12 step programs, is that we have created an environment where people who are struggling with such addictive behaviors...be it smoking, uncontrolled drinking, pornography, etc., cannot admit their problem for fear of being judged and stigmatized. Unfortunately, I've seen these very attitudes displayed by some on this thread. The ones who can't "get the victory" are often viewed by such as lacking in willingness or willpower...something that betrays a total misunderstanding of how addiction works.

I realize that I'm not really addressing the main point of whether or not a smoker should be baptized. I guess for me, the bigger issue is are we as the body of Christ, the place for people to come to find healing from their ill, baptized or not? The fact that God needed to raise up the 12 step movement in church basements, says something about the deficiency of what has gone on for generations in the sanctuaries upstairs.

Fortunately, many churches today are now getting the point of how to deal with these issues and those struggling with them. The discussion on this thread makes me wonder if we do.

Thanks...

Frank

Years ago, when reading the Bible, I came across the verse that says, "Bear one another's burdens..." and I thought - we can't bear each other's burdens unless we share them and church is the last place I would go to share my burdens... sigh...

Frank and Donna, I don't know if you have read this wonderful anecdote by Chuck Swindoll. It is bittersweet to me—evoces what I believe we could be if we really were the church God wants us to be.

Loren

Frank,

"There it is in a nutshell, the desire to stop the self destructive behavior"

Agreed...desire, that's an admisssion and an attitude.

Have you ever read "Sin- Overcoming the Most Deadly Addiction" by Keith Miller?" Interesting read based on the 12 Steps.(Not without it's own problems.)

Frank, You have long followed my posts and myself yours.

I stated above, I am in favor of baptizing "smokers" and the "overweight"..and they are "implicit" behavior problems of "the temple."

God's love is stedfast but it is not "unconditional."
I think of Ps.145:18-20.

"18 The Lord is near to all who call upon Him,
To all who call upon Him in truth.
19 He will fulfill the desire of those who fear Him;
He will also hear their cry and will save them.
20 The Lord keeps all who love Him;
But all the wicked, He will destroy."

And,Then the Lord passed by in front of him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; 7 who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.”Ex.34:6,7.

Thank God that "in Christ" we are saved from the wrath that is to come."8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. 10 For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. Rom.5:8-10.

"He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 “And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil. 20 “For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 “But he who practices the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.” Jn.3:18-21.

These thoughts are NOT "unconditional love." They are related to response, attitude and faith in Christ's stedfast love and sacrifice today.

Regards,
pat

Pat...

I wasn't disagreeing with you. Just kind of casting what you said in different terms and then responding to some general themes that I've seen popping up on this thread.

Thanks...

Frank

Frank,

I also believe in Christ's stedfast love and longsuffering. In the church we should all do likewise.

We are to forgive one another just as He has forgiven us. At some point that forgiveness is associated with confession and a proper attitude. I believe that goes with our response to God and one another.

Unlike the song that says, Love is not having to say I'm sorry...I believe scripture teaches true human Love says, "I'm sorry."

That is what true confession and repentance is all about. It is a godly sorrow that says God is correct in what He explicitly says... "Let God be true and me a liar."

I believe that is the attitude He seeks...and the healing begins!

Regards and Peace.
pat

I'll take all the love I can get.

You got it, kiddo, and yeah, me too, Chris! (I just typed your name 'Christ' - do you love it?)

Everybody whose love tank is filled to overflowing by fellow humans raise your hands.

Anybody?

Helloooo? Anybody out there?

Hmmm....

What's that about?

Oh, yeah. Our God has conditional love for us. We gotta have the right attitude and all that. Be properly repentant. Overcome the world the flesh and the devil, just so God will know we're, like, serious. Get our doctrinal ducks in a row.

God doesn't love wicked children, remember?

If there are so many hurdles to feeling loved by God, then feeling loved by humans is nigh on to insurmountable.

What we all need is to feel unconditionally loved and supported. We can leap tall buildings in a single bound when we do.

We don't need to be more intellectual. We just run to our heads when our cold, lonely, shriveled little hearts are such bad company.

I loved the Chuck Swindoll link, Loren - thanks - so good, and so true.

The only person in this world who hears the good, the bad and the unvarnished ugly from me is the person who used to make me feel the most judged: my TSDA ex-husband. Oh, we're not going to get married or anything, but he is my true, true friend who only wants the best for me. He simply does not judge me, ever. He's still TSDA. He still officially believes mostly like Sorensen, but he never hits me upside the head with EGW any more, ever, and I know he's not even tempted.

(It's been a long, long time since Sorensen told me I was doomed too, come to think of it. Ever since I saw your smile in Kansas City, Sorensen, I've known you're an ol' softie. You can't fool me.)

So that just shows that it's the heart that unites people, not the doctrine. Bob and I don't talk very deeply about religious things, or anything, really, but he prays for me, often, on the phone when I have concerns (OK, when I can't reach up and touch bottom), and when he prays, it helps!

Recently he participated in an annointing service in which a person was cured from an incurable, fatal disease, with before and after MRIs to prove it. But I already knew his fervent, freely offered prayers were effectual because they help me so palpably.

I know that God's love is absolutely pervasive and ever-flowing, no matter what we do. And when I forget, Bob's prayers pick me up out of the mud again.

I truly believe the church could be that way if we could get over being so scared of each other, and so stuck in our intellects, and most of all, if we truly believed in God's unconditional love.

I admit, I'm still scared to have conversations with Adventists (except Bob) anywhere but online, with lots of witnesses! I've been backed in corners, tongue-lashed and consigned to hell so many times I have the nervous system of a prey animal - I bolt and run! One time I climbed out a back window to 'escape' a preacher coming in the front door! Mercy.

But I don't think it has to be that way.

We can all take all the love we can get, and once we believe that God's love is absolutely unconditional, things will start looking up all around, I believe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT7x3VnrqbA

I'll Praise You in This Storm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHdcyue0bSw

Maggie,

If God's love is "unconditional" then who are these "wicked" He destroys? And...it isn't just "passive."

I am willing to learn. Give me some biblical basis/source for "unconditional love."

Stedfast,Longsuffering, faithful...yes! "Unconditional...No."

regards,
pat

PS. Is there any relationship to the U,I in "Tulip" in this discussion and how? Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace.

"God doesn't love wicked children, remember?"

Well, Maggie, do you fault the bible, too?

"Jacob have I love and Easu have I hated."

The statements by EGW and/or the bible are not written in a vaccuum. They are in a particular context. and when we consider the context, there is no need for confusion.

People look for inconsistencies to affirm them in the unbelief. Ole John Alfke is classic. All you have to do is read a couple of lines of his posts and you know he wrote it.

By the way, I have never consigned you to oblivion. God is judge. We are all fragile in a thousand ways. But we must believe the bible is clear in its warnings and declarations and so we must take them seriously.

It is God's word, not mine. And His hand is held out to save.

"God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world (that's because the world is already condemned) but that the world through Him might be saved."

God will not "punish" the ignorant. Only the rebellious. The ignorant are enlightened and put away their rebellion if they want to be saved. If they choose to remain ignorant, then it is the equivelent to rebellion. Because they say, "I don't know, and I don't want to know."

Every one who is lost at last will stand around the new Jerusalem and then confess, "I knew I was wrong, but didn't want to admit it." And they admit they fooled no one but themselves.

Sin is such and insidious delusion. Self deception is easier than we think. When the Jewish leaders rejected Jesus, at first they thought they were right, then they hoped they were right, and finally they bent every effort in spite of the evidence against them, to prove Jesus was wrong and they were right.

The bible warns us repeatedly against doing the same thing, but we find massive doses of affirmation by other unbelievers who equally, "hope they are right" even when deep in their souls, they know they are wrong, but won't admit it.

Repentance is a "God size problem" that has no easy solution. For a person to "change their mind" is no easy matter. Especially when we find others who are more than willing to "help us" in our unbelief.

The bible record is clear. Even the most devoted and earnest "saint" at times, lost their hold on truth because of unbelief. We are not better than them. Hopefully, we will learn something of their experience and be on guard against our own "evil heart of unbelief".

Jesus is faithful, we are not. Our goal is to press toward the goal. So, in my opinion, our best is to be "commited to the commitment". And as we work toward this goal, our faith and assurance grows.

Or as EGW has well said, "When we do our best, He becomes our righteousness." And even this is relative on our part, isn't it? Who can say, "I have done my best?"

None the less, God is faithful.

Keep the faith.

Bill

I always found it interesting that Jesus asked for forgiveness for the Roman soldiers as they were crucifying him. They didn't seem to be particularly repentant. I wonder if they were forgiven, or if Jesus perhaps just didn't understand very well how that is supposed to work ;) Can people be forgiven by God when someone else asks and they aren't repentant? Beats me.

I understand that most of the Bible does point to repentance etc. and it certainly fits with our concepts of justice and fairness. But every once in awhile, just when we think we have it figured out, we get things like that and we have to understand that things don't always work they way we think they do. Helps in the humility department.

If Jesus tells us to forgive 70x7, which = endlessly, how could He, himself, do any differently? Is God asking us to forgive better than He is able? But, as someone pointed out, to have forgiveness, requires a need to be forgiven, and that has to come from an acknowledgment of something that needs to be forgiven. Is it that we can't forgive ourselves and so we can't accept God's acceptance either?

Personally, I have a problem with God running out of patience or forgiveness, and drawing a line in the cosmos, saying "I can't take this any more - let the judgment begin!" If anyone runs out of time, it would be us. Once we arrive at a point when the "still, small voice" no longer speaks, and we breathe our last breath, it might be time to say, "Let him who is filthy be filthy still ..." Even then, some choices have not been choices at all, but rather, generations of inbred destructive reflexes. The cute little baby that grows up to abuse does so because he was abused; and the alcoholic drinks because that's what his mommy did when he waddled after her wanting to be held. We may see these as excuses for bad behavior but that's because our legacies have been better, and our reflexes have led to success and seeming "self-control".

My husband grew up in a strict vegetarian home, and when on his way to basic training, he decided he would have to learn to eat meat, since even the vegetable fare was dotted with meat; but he couldn't swallow his first hamburger on the plane (maybe that wasn't the best intro to meat :) ). His mom was, obviously proud that her son maintained his life-long principles. His knee-jerk revulsion to meat seems no more moral than someone elses drink at the end of the day to quiet daily stresses when both stem from learned behavior.

Don't we attribute God's impatience to mirror ours? Did the Hebrew authors of the scriptures imagine God's response to perceived sins to mirror theirs? Is this where we get God's condemnation of sinners, even as they contradict the endless love of the Gospel?

Incidentally, the statement ("Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.") appears only in Luke 23:34 and in later manuscripts. Whether it was an authentic saying of Jesus or not, it mirrors a concern in the early Church and expressed by some here if forgiveness of sins has a universal, unconditional application.

With regards to harmful behavior that seems to affect only the person concerned, don't we tend to follow a double standard, forbidding the active participation in congregational activities and leadership by baptised members while allowing and promoting the involvement of those who have never or not yet been baptised?

Sirje, I really enjoy your posts!

Posted by: Bill Sorensen | 02 December 2009 at 6:33

Well, Maggie, do you fault the bible, too?

"Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated."

*****

Posted by: pat travis | 02 December 2009 at 6:01

Maggie,

If God's love is "unconditional" then who are these "wicked" He destroys? And...it isn't just "passive."

We can be sure that God will have us out! Whatever we harbor in our hearts will show up in our doctrine! That, I believe, is the genius of the Bible. It is our mirror, always our mirror.

Hebrews 4:

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

God is not willing that any should perish. Are we willing that any should perish?

Matthew 18:

Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants.

And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents.

But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.

The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.

Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt.

But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest.

And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.

And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt.

So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done.

Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:

Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?

And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.

So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

Our 'punishment' or our 'reward' is to live out our view of God, whatever that happens to be at the moment.

If we, in our zeal for God, are sticklers for justice, justice is what we shall receive - at our own hands!

When I crash in flames, it is my judgment, not God's that takes me down, and ironically, you might say, it is the grace of my TSDA ex-husband that enables me to see the grace of God again.

Oh, he intellectually believes God is going to burn "the wicked," but his heart is somewhere else entirely or he would have written me off long ago.

He's on his knees an hour every morning.

Maggie,

God is not willing (desirous) that any should perish... (left off)...but all come to repentance.

Look, it isn't about me or what I desire. It is simply not deconstructing language in order to get "one's desired outcome." It is simply trying to present what scripture says on a topic by a consistent exegesis, or for that matter a simple straight forward honest reading. I simply do not find any "unconditional" love or forgiveness presented. I would personally love it from a human perspective if it were there.

I think what we overlook is how offensive sin is to God. It is sin and doubt of His love and justice that creates the problems in our world according to scripture. He has declared Himself to be "just and the justifier of those believing in Christ." Shall we refuse such good news that demonstrates His love? Faith is the "conditional" response.

He has provided the just and loving way. Believing on the Lord Jesus Christ you have been, are being, and shall be saved. That is "conditional" while as his saints we can rest assured that we are kept by his unchanging grace and the promise of His Spirit. Now that is Love.

regards,
pat

Look, it isn't about me or what I desire. It is simply not deconstructing language in order to get "one's desired outcome."

**************************************************************

Pat...

Well said! It seems that those who desire universalism of some sort do deconstruct simple, straightforwrd statements from the Scriptures, in order to construct a palatable theology.

But I wonder, what kind of a God would it be who would welcome into eternity, those who resisted him with all their might in this life? What kind of God would it be, who would welcome into his kingdom the Hitlers and the Maos and the Stalins, the committers of atrocities, and the oppressors of the poor and the weak, without some kind of acknowledgement of wrong, and request for forgiveness? What kind of God would it be who continued to allow the misery, injustice and chaos that is part of this world order to reign indefinitely, and put no stop to those who are bent on destroying themselves and others?

In the end, the wicked of every stripe are depicted as making one final charge upon the city of God, even after it is clear that their cause is lost. It reveals the sheer insanity and malignity of sin...a rebellion against God that looks to destroy him and his people...even to its dying breath. God acts to save his cosmos, and in another sense, to put those in rebellion out of their misery.

Ultimately, God is hailed by the entire cosmos as being just in his judgements. Faith trusts him on this. The cross is the evidence we need. It tells us that he did all he could to save everyone. It also tells us that the one who has infinite wisdom and compassion to save, will also exercise the same wisdom and compassion in his judgements.

We need to trust him on this as well.

Thanks...

Frank

Frank,

As usual your wording is superior to mine.

"And when the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison, 8 and will come out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for the war; the number of them is like the sand of the seashore. 9 And they came up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and fire came down from heaven and devoured them. 10 And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. 11 And I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. 14 And death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. Rev.20:7-15.

regards,
pat

By today's standards, many of the great men and women of faith in human history would have a hard time being members of the church based on things much worse than smoking (just to list a few):

Noah: at least one episode of intoxication
Abraham and others: polygamy
Judah: slept with a prostitute who turned out to be his daughter in law
David: adultery and polygamy
Solomon: worship of cruel gods that require child sacrifice
.......
Martin Luther: nickname - "King of Hops"
EGW: Oysters ;-)

I like this statement about the danger of establishing a creed and I think that this general philosophy could be expanded to include how we view certain behaviors as well:

"The first step of apostacy is to set up a creed, telling us what we shall believe. The second step is to make that creed a test of fellowship. The third is to try members by that creed. The fourth to denounce as heretics those who do not believe that creed. And, fifth, to commence persecution against such." (R&H 10/8/1861)

Let me see if I have this right - the wicked (some who have never heard about the Christian God, Jesus, or judgment; while others have heard but have rejected even the idea of a God) have just come back to life (from having been dead!) and possibly seen the New Jerusalem coming down from space, get together to attack the GOD who is making all this happen, whom, until now, they didn't think even existed. Who in their right mind would take on God at this point? You might think Hitler might, or Stalin or Attila the Hun, but the neighbor down the street who just can't believe those telle-evangelists or even Amazing Facts - he is going to choose to fight this celestial power? Or how about the various Popes?

I don't know, but there's something wrong with that picture.

Actually, there is something wrong here. When Satan starts to deceive again there seem to be nations scattered to the four corners of a flat earth.

Or maybe this is more symbolism like the rest of the book of Revelation???

Proverbs 25:2

It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

Psalm 25:14

The secret of the LORD is with them that fear him; and he will shew them his covenant.

Isaiah 28:

Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.

For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

Deuteronomy 32:2

My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass....