Erv: I appreciate your thoughtful, timely questions which may, or may not, be all you want to say on the subject. For me, the Greek word translated "remnant" in KJV and "the rest" in NKJV, simply means God's "last-day loyalists" after its long history of contending with Satan, the antagonist of the chapter  After all, there will be "last-day loyalists," don't you think?

 As I see it, Adventists believe that being faithful, thus loyal, to God's side of the Controversy means that we rightly represent His principles and expectations in the final Act. All that hangs on how well Adventists understand and proclaim God;s promises and challenges.

Of course, I don't know any Adventist who thinks that membership in the Adventist Church guarantees their membership in those who are faithful and loyal to God's expectations in this last Act. Knowing the truth and living it is the knife edge that separates those within the Adventist Church as well as those outside from those who respond eagerly and loyally to God's last-day invitation. After all, God will not entrust eternal life to rebels, would you think? Cheers, Herb

Regardless of the verbage, the intent seems to identify the Adventists as being the only ones who are "loyal" to God and accept the last-day invitation.   Even the "last day" as envisioned  is an Adventist belief unsupported by a clear Bible reading, but a unique interpretation.   

IOW, the last day events as outlined by Adventists seems to effectively exclude all others.  Or, is there an alternative scenario?  Personally, this seems to eliminate all those who are not "loyal" as being rebels.  Is this truly what is intended?  If so, I would reject such a picture of a god who is represented as having such an exclusive qualification for heaven.

The word remnant by it's very definition is what's left at the end of something that was once much larger, like a carpet or fabric remnant.  Also the remnant at the end is what  went on the bolt of cloth  FIRST.     So it is reasonable to believe that the end time remnant will be like  those of the early church at Pentecost.   Ellen White alludes to that when she wrote that "prior to the visitation of God's judgements upon this earth there will be a revival of primitive godliness unseen since apostolic times".  Primitive means it's simple and uncomplicated, not Stone Age theology. The book of Acts is a good place to find the  characteristics of the apostolic church. 

 HMS Richards was once asked to define the gospel in one sentence.  He said it was simply wonderful and wonderfully simple. Somehow we have got away from that and have gotten altogether too smug in this  "we (SDA) are the remnant church" bit.   To the onlooker outside our ranks it smacks of spiritual arrogance.  That we capitalize the term  "spirit of prophecy" when we quote something God's messenger wrote to this church , is even more offensive.

 I do not believe that the institutional Seventh Day Adventist is the remnant church. It is certainly an organizational tool that God has used to spread the gospel and prepare a people to stand in the great day of the Lord.  Too many Adventists think that at the end there will be 2 camps made up of SDA's(the remnant) who keep the Sabbath and Catholics(the beast)who enforce Sunday worship.  Did it ever occur to those who insist that the remnant church is the institutional SDA church, that before the great controversy between Christ and Satan plays out it's final act, that our institutions( churches, publishing houses, educational centers, hospitals) will be shut down and most likely seized by the state.  

 The reason Jesus likens us to sheep is probably because we, like sheep are prone to wander if we don't follow the Shepherd.  Left to themselves, sheep will follow  the one at the head of the line and go wandering off to any number of dangerous places.

 We are admonished to "Study to show ourselves approved unto God, a workman that need not be afraid, rightly dividing the Word of truth." One faithful follower of Jesus, under the guidance and power of the Holy Spirit can withstand and prevail against  all the hosts of darkness. 

I have a distinct aversion to any particular church describing itself as the remnant.  It is suggestive that God is limited in some way to a particular corporate entity, when the message of the gospel commission was for the gospel to go to all the world.  No one particular creed received that instruction - it is an imperative of anyone who accepts Christ as Lord and Saviour.

I have long felt that the claim of being "the" remnant church lacks the mark of humility. And since the church seems to have forgotten its belief in progressive truth, it may well be that another "remnant" will have to be raised up to champion God's continued revelations.

As for sheep, I think we have too many. It was Ellen White who urged us to be thinkers, not mere reflectors of other men's thoughts. 

Carrol

I think that Ton nailed it as he usually does. Any way we read the NT, there will be a last generation (call it whatever one may want) and there will be a "last" of whatever the early Christian church had been. The Bible describes the last days as confrontation between those loyal to God and those who say No to His invitations. As I said earlier, membership in any church is not what God looks for in His remnant but those who are saying Yes to whatever they understand is the will of God; they are living faithful to what they believe. Revelation describes this group as His commandment-keepers buoyed by their faith in Jesus and what Jesus had faith in. Anything else may be interesting but does it fit the template?  Of course, merely to be an SDA is no guarantee that one is a member of the "remnant."  IMO, cheers, Herb

I sincerely wish to thank Dr. Douglass for his first comment.

However, I regret that I must admit that I do not understand his response in light of what seems to me to be very clearly stated, standard Adventist doctrinal statements. Perhaps that is my problem. Perhaps I do not understand what Fundamental Belief 3 and 18 are supposed to communicate.

Dr. Douglass says: "As I see it, Adventists believe that being faithful, thus loyal, to God's side of the Controversy means that we rightly represent His principles and expectations in the final Act. All that hangs on how well Adventists understand and proclaim God's promises and challenges."

If that is the entire, total, and complete statement and explanation of the orthodox Adventist understanding of what the "Remnant Church" concept as stated in Fundamental Belief 3 and 18 means, then I can move on to some other topic because, at least for me, the problem with that doctrine has been solved.

But--and this is a major "but"--it seems to me that the standard or traditional Adventist position makes a much more extreme assertion that is, to me, very problematical by combining in a proof text manner Revelation 12:17; 14:12 and 19:10 to create a highly-problematical triumphalistic understanding.

Please let me be specific and ask a direct and specific question:

"Is it or is it not the standard, conventional, and/or traditional SDA understanding of the Adventist "Remnant Church" concept that the SDA institutional church TODAY IS the "Remnant Church" that is defined in Revelation 12:17?

(I very much apologize for the use of capitals. I don't like people who use capital letters like this. But in this case, I will make an exception for myself, because I would like to focus on the words "TODAY" and "IS."

If the answer to that question is "No", then I will confess that I have, since 1980 when this wording was introduced, totally and completely misread and misinterpreted the wording of Fundamental Belief 3 "Remnant and Its Mission" and Fundamental Belief 18 "The Gift of Prophecy." If such an orthodox and well-informed Adventist as Dr. Douglass tells me that my understanding of the orthodox Adventist understanding of "Remnant Church" is incorrect, then I will be very relieved.

I hope that is what he will say. I look with great interest in his and the comments of others on this topic

I am most certainly no Biblical scholar. But it seems to me that the word "remnant" in scripture is employed to describe those who remain steadfast in their faith and identity through great persecution and affliction imposed because of that faith and identity.  It is never used to describe those who have true beliefs or doctrines. Nor is there any reference that would warrant consideration of a corporate church body whose existence and structure is empowered by "Caesar".  Thus, I do not see how the SDA Church ever has, or ever can, be considered A Remnant, much less The Remnant described in Revelation 12.

The Church has proclaimed that Sabbath keeping plus Spirit of Prophecy equals remnancy, a rather silly, forced redefinition of remnancy, given the totally different meaning given that term in the Old Testament. The Church's interpretation is embarassingly self-serving, since there is nothing in Scripture to suggest that remnancy has anything to do with salvation. Quite honestly, I do not aspire to be among the Remnant. I greatly enjoy the protections of religious freedom afforded me here in America. But I would hope to be among The Remnant should obedience to God put me on the radar screen of those who might be inclined toward using the rack and thumbscrews against Christians. 

 As usual, Dr.Taylor is articulate, direct, and unambiguous. And that is just fine with me for then I know what the question really is asking. He opines that, in his experience, the institutional Seventh-day Adventist Church TODAY considers itself "the remnant" of Rev. 12:17. He bases his concern on his understanding of Fundamental Beliefs 3 and 18. (For those following in the latest arrangement of the "28", they are now Beliefs 13 and 18.)

In the Dec. 2009 Review, Mark Finney, in his inimitable manner, gives a Bible study on the Seal of God" and refers to Revelation, and only gives the definition in Ephesians as who assomplishes the receiving of the seal, rather than identifying that the seal is given by God through the Holy Spirit.

He then chooses OT texts (Is. 8:16; Eze. 20:12) to confirm his thesis that the Sabbath is to be a sign--and thuse segues into Rev. 14:7 to finally write: 
 

"The seventh-day Sabbath is God's eternal seal of His creative authority.  In earth's last hour it will become the visible sign of our loyalty to Him." 

This unique eisegesis of scattered texts (here a little, there a little) only demonstrates that determining that the Sabbath is the final crux of the end of all things, is a continuation of the paranoia of the early Adventists when they felt they were under attack for leaving their former Christian churches.  They made Sabbath the ultimate doctrine, and the continuation of this very poor interpretation:  an interpretation not "discovered" throughout all the ages of theologians notwitstanding. 

This is akin to the lone "doctor" who finds a hidden "cure" for cancer that no one either before or after has been able to discover!

Potential converts would do well to seek alternative explanations, but  because the average person has little or no knowledge of the Bible, he can easily be swayed to believe what the "experts" tell him is the "true" meaning of such esoteric texts as John wrote in Revelation.

I suspect most would agree that contented ovines in pleasant green pastures is an infelicitous metaphor to evoke the Remnant of Revelation 12, who have endured great persecution. Perhaps the graphic is intended to depict the post-millenial remnant.

But I am surprised that Erv does not recognize "sheep" for the positive metaphor that it is throughout most of Scripture - at least when sheep listen to and follow the voice of The Good Shepherd. Where the SDA Church has gotten into trouble has not been with its "sheep theology", but its "shepherd theology".

Like paleoclimatologists who have manipulated and selectively used proxy data to create a temperature record that advances a religious cause (AGW) through political means, SDA Church leaders have made the Church proxy for the Good Shepherd, manipulating Scripture for self-serving purposes. And just as the elitist academic herd blindly followed the self-appointed guardians of temperature proxies, so Christians have often blindly followed the self-appointed guardians of The Good Shepherd.

As a wolf who would love to scatter the flock, Erv has a good instinct for the weakest links in SDA theology.  Certainly the doctrine of Remnancy is one of them.  But it is unfortunate that he seldom demonstrates sufficient objectivity to recognize that the pathologies of religious bodies are endemic to all fields of knowledge and belief, including science.  He goes after the motes that are in the eye of the SDA Church, while ignoring the beams that are in the eyes of the mental environment from which his taunting emanates.  Would that his passion for Biblical honesty and diversity of thought within Adventist clerical circles extended to Adventist academia and the religion of scientism, which too frequently poisons its wells.  

If you only looked at the end of what Herb wrote you might really think that he actually agreed with Taylor's statement. But that is not what the rest of his paragraph said. His paragraph alluded to the Adventist idea that they are proclaiming the three angels messages. Surely by now we all know that that the "three angels messages" are not meant to be taken as written in Revelation but are meant to express the beliefs of the Adventist church. Hence Herb says:

"The simple point remains, that according to Revelation, the "remnant" will be proclaiming the identifying teachings listed in the "28."

Of course you would be hard pressed to find Revelation proclaiming the Adventist 28 so the good old method of circular reasoning is used or as many of us have come to call it the code words that Adventists use the three angels messages. The more fundamentalist of Adventist the more they use that. In any case here are some Adventist Review quotes to demonstrate that they do intend to say that the Seventh- day Adventist  denomination is indeed the remnant.

--

9. We published:
a. The Spirit of Sacrifice and Commitment, a collection of stories of Adventist pioneers and the establishment of our church. Produced to help church members reaffirm their place in the remnant church and renew their support of it. (This book sold more than 10,000 copies in its first month of sales.) http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=41

One of the final meetings of the conference focused on preparing a consensus statement from the Bible Conference participants addressed to church leaders, professional colleagues, and members worldwide. The statement calls on each of these groups to join in the affirmation of the primacy of Scripture in the life of the church, to recognize the ongoing importance of the gift of prophecy to the Advent movement, and to work together with Adventist scholars to fulfill the mission of the remnant church. http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=635

No, in fact the church’s Statement of Fundamental Beliefs, now numbering 28 with the addition of one called “Growing in Christ” adopted at the St. Louis General Conference session in 2005, reflects the broad center of Adventist belief about Scripture on which stand millions of clear-headed and warm-hearted members of God’s remnant church. They do not recite it as a creed, nor do they search its 4,416 words for either loopholes to avoid what Scripture teaches or hooks on which to hang their doubts. They use it as it was intended to be used—as a tool for mission—a compact and biblically supported reference by which to help men and women of good will understand the truths of Scripture as taught and lived by the Seventh-day Adventist Church. http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=2934

Next, try to say to yourself--and believe--that the pastor is a human being just as you are and that he is also a struggling Christian. Beyond that, though, remember that this remnant church with its special message is far greater than one worker in it. Could you really give up all these great truths because of the failure of another human being? I can’t agree with author Marshall McLuhan that “the medium is the message,” as far as the Adventist Church goes--not entirely. The message is far greater than the channel of communication that carries it. http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=1808

Strong forces are threatening to tear apart our families. Theological disputes and philosophical differences have the effect of directing our focus away from the mission of the church. Diversity, which should be one of the strengths of the church, has the potential in some parts of the world to separate and divide. Our fast‑paced postmodern society has people in such a hurry that it crowds out time for reflection and study of the Scriptures, leaving a generation with limited and questionable moral guidance. Respect for authority and commitment to organization  is at an all‑time low. How then does the remnant church of God remain united in this new millennium with all of the forces that are vying to pull us apart? What is God’s purpose in having a united church?  http://www.adventistreview.org/2001-1537/wop-intro.html

And finally to prove beyond a doubt that the Adventist church does indeed make the "stretch":

SIGRID SCHULZ: I have a question covering line 6 on page 87. I believe that Seventh-day Adventists know the Bible and are looking forward to heaven, but I don’t believe that we will be the only ones. There are also other Christians who will be in heaven later. I would like the sentence changed to read: “I accept and believe that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is part of the remnant church.”

CALVIN B. ROCK: You move to amend line 13 to read “I accept and believe that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is part of the remnant church of Bible prophecy”?

SIGRID SCHULZ: Yes.

CALVIN B. ROCK: The amendment is before us. We will discuss the amendment and then vote on it. Are there those who wish to comment?

DANIEL BELVEDERE: I do not believe we are part of the remnant. We are the remnant.

DENTON RHONE: I believe that if we vote that motion this morning, it will tend toward fragmenting the church. I believe that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is the remnant church, and we need to stand in that conviction.

LASSEW RAELLY: If we vote the amendment as stated, we are indeed going to be voting a rift in our understanding of Bible prophecy. So I speak against the amendment.

CALVIN B. ROCK: I request that we restrain ourselves from applauding. It is not really statesmanlike, and if you would help us by restraining yourself we would appreciate it. Thank you.

JOHN FOWLER: Brother Chair-man, I speak against the motion. Claiming the status of being the remnant church is not theological arrogance, but rather a humble acceptance and an affirmation that we as a church have been called in these last days for a very specific purpose.

CALVIN B. ROCK: I think maybe we have heard enough statements against the amendment.

JAMES ZACKRISON: Mr. Chairman, I’m sorry, but I cannot resist the temptation of saying simply that my grandfather and grandmother were married by Uriah Smith at Battle Creek, Michigan. And for three generations, we have believed this is the remnant church and continue to believe that. Therefore, I’m against this motion.

ALFRED BIRCH: I believe that we need to consider whether it is appropriate to have this discussion. This is one of the fundamentals doctrines of the church.

CALVIN B. ROCK: You are correct, and I sense from the speeches that have been made that it is fairly clear as to how the delegation feels. But let’s ask you to vote. [The amendment was defeated.] Now, that takes us back to the main motion that Dr. Veloso placed before us. Are there any other comments on this item?

http://www.adventistreview.org/2000-bulletin6/actions-proceedings.html

   The SDA is not the remnant church at all. They don't even interpret the fourth commandment correctly. The phrase "of the week" is not to be found in the fourth commandment or any quotation of it. This prhase is not found in the creation account.

    In the creation account the Hebrew word "yom" is used two different ways directly in connection with the sabbath command (Gen. 2:1-4). It is used of 24 hour periods and a period greater than 24 hours.

    This omission of the words "of the week" is by intent due to the Divine design for the application of the sabbath.  God's design is to apply the Sabbath command to periods of time that are different than the seventh day "of the week" and to periods of time greater than 24 hour periods. Hence, if God had included that restrictive statement that would have confined the application to one particular 24 hour period in the week.

   Leviticus 23 is graphic proof that God's design for sabbath application not only exceeded the seventh day cycles in the jewish month (7,14,21,28) but also was applied to first day cycles (1,8,15,22).  It was by design applied to longer periods (Year) preceded by six equal periods of "years."  It was applied to the 50th year which would be a "first" year after the 49th year sabbath.

    Significantly, Leviticus 23 and its feasts are types of the New Covenant under Christ who rose on the first day of week not the seventh day of the week.

   The SDA attempts to skirt this fact by suggesting that the Jewish first day occurred with the evening of Saturday (evening and the morning) thus on Saturday.  However, this is technically inaccurate. Jesus did not rise any time between 6 p.m. to 3 a.m. on the first day of the week but between 3 a.m. and 6 a.m. our Sunday morning and the Jewishing "morning" of the first day of the week.

    Absolute proof for this is the fact that Jesus defined the Greek term "proee" translated early and the technical term for the fourth watch of the night in Mark 13:35 where he used it as such.  This is the precise term that the same writer uses to pin point the time of his resurrection in Mark 16:9. Also this is the same term repeated in every instance where the women came to the tomb. This is the same term to describe the watch assigned to his tomb which passed the women going to the tomb to report what they had seen in their watch to the officials in the city.

    Therefore, the SDA cannot possibly be the "remnant" church (the remanant is not called "church" in Revelation).

First, I would agree that we should reject any idea that: "Merely believing in the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus constitutes the "remnant."

Second, there appears to be agreement when Dr. Douglass' states that "this message [the idea that there will be a remnant loyal to God at the end of the age] is surely not to be defined as the institutional Seventh-day Adventist church."

To make sure that I understand this comment in its completeness and totality, please let me recast a part of sentence I previously employed. I understand Dr. Douglass' statement to mean that he agrees that "The SDA institutional Church today is not the "remnant" that is identified in Revelation 12:17"

It would be helpful-at least to me-if he would confirm our agreement on this point. I suppose I am the only one that really cares (otherwise known as being "picky") about the specifics of the wording here, but I have found it is usually helpful to make sure that those exchanging points of view on complicated topics have a common understanding of the words they use.

Thirdly, the last thing I want to do is to put words in Dr. Douglass' mouth but I would like to ask if both of us then also agree with Nate Schilt's comment that "The [Adventist] Church [proclaiming] that Sabbath keeping plus Spirit of Prophecy equals remnancy [is] a rather silly, forced redefinition of remnancy?." If "silly" is perhaps a little strong, or considered pejorative by some, might we substitute "unbiblical" for "silly"?

Alas, after all of these seeming agreements, it would seem that there may be a point about which we may not entirely agree and will thus we probably will continue to need to dialogue so I can understand his point of view.

Dr. Douglass states: "The simple point remains, that according to Revelation, the "remnant" will be proclaiming the identifying teachings listed in the '28.' Two questions immediately come to mind:

First, surely he cannot mean all of the current Adventist Twenty-Eight Fundamentals. Is that correct?

Second, it would appear that he must then mean that, in his view, the "remnant" identified in Revelation 12:17 will be proclaiming the essential measures contained in the current SDA Fundamental Beliefs 13 and 18. Would he please clarify his point here?

As before, I look forward to having Dr. Douglass continue to be willing to examinee in detail this interesting, and, to many Adventists, very vexing topic. I would very much appreciate it is he would be so kind as to concur or dissent from the two and perhaps three characterizations above of where we seems to agree and where we appear to disagree.

As for Nate Schilt's comment, may I quote one part: "As a wolf who would love to scatter the flock, Erv has a good instinct for the weakest links in SDA theology. Certainly the doctrine of Remnancy is one of them . . . Would that his passion for Biblical honesty and diversity of thought within Adventist clerical circles extended to Adventist academia and the religion of scientism, which too frequently poisons its wells."

I can see why my good friend Nate Schilt, Esq. is a highly successful and very well regarded member of the legal profession. Ordinarily, he has a fine way with words and ideas.

However, in light of his charges that I am a "wolf who would love to scatter the flock." I first thought I might wish to reconsider my opinion of him. Wolfs in the Bible have a very bad reputation. They do bad things and are symbols of bad behavior. Then I recalled some beliefs concerning the wolf held in the Middle Ages namely that wolves can either be God's agents to punish sinners or the Devil's agents sent to test the faith of true believers. Both of these ideas have possibilities. I will further consider my status as a wolf.

Moving on to more substantive topics: First, I would certainly agree that all human institutions-of which organized institutional churches are one-have a difficult time with objectivity when it comes to their own ideology. I assume that all reasonable people would agree to that proposition. Second, as for his point about the "religion of scientism," here we must be careful to carefully define "scientism," especially because Nate here links it with "religion" and with the Adventist scientific academy.

I would define "scientism" as meaning an absolute commitment to ontological naturalism which would argue that the only reality is a physical reality. I have found that it is difficult to explain to certain individuals the very important distinction between ontological naturalism (i.e., scientism) and methodological naturalism. (i.e., science). I know that I don't have to explain this to Nate. He is well-aware of the distinction.

So it is on this basis that I am surprised by his assertion that the "religion of scientism" poisons the wells of Adventist academia. I have never met an Adventist academic scientist-even, by any measure, the most "liberal" ones-who would defend ontological naturalism, i.e., scientism. I would assert that the Adventist academy has a number of problems, but that is not one of them.

I would very much appreciate it if Nate would present evidence that scientism (correctly defined) is a problem in the Adventist academy.

Ron has laid out the problem well. I could not have done better. But my previous answer remains: 1) The institutional Adventist church is not the "remnant." 2) Individual Adentists may or may not be the "remnant," depending on their heart and head response/loyalty to the gospel principles they espouse. 3) Jesus will have to say to too many, "You talk so much about your religion but I never knew you for what you said you were" (Matt 7.23). 4) Obviously, many write and speak about the remnant without being careful to distinguish between the official, institutional church and the people who are judged to be faithful in their allegiance. 5) Many, many in the "eleventh hour" will see the authenticity of Adventist teachings and join those who are proclaiming the "remnant" message. 6) Most of those quoted at the GC Session meant that their Adventist beliefs were the corpus of what Revelation says that last-day church would believe--and I surely agree with them. Except they could have been clearer!

One of my problems of making up doctrinal statements on the open floor of the GC Session is that the audience uproar for or against a motion creates a reality that obscures careful thinking. I saw it happen when certain issues were discussed in the 1980 GC Session. I tried to show ambiguity on certain core issues and all I got from one of the editors of the motion was a stony face.

But such is life that we all have to deal with. I again say that Drs Taylor and Corson are correct in their observations but probably not on their apparent conclusions. Cheers, Herb

"But when He saw the multitudes, He was moved with compassion for them, because they were weary and scattered, like sheep having no shepherd." Matthew 9:36 (NKJV)

The scriptural sheep motif is meaningless if focused exclusively on the sheep. It is almost always connected with a clear implication that sheep need a shepherd.

As a lifelong SDA, I can easily imagine that our Savior views SDAs (along with many others) as a multitude without a shepherd. We are (sub) culturally conditioned to recognize a variety of spiritual authorities (Ellen White, renown SDA preachers, the 28 fundamental beliefs), but we remain sheep without a shepherd. Like the Israelites of Jesus day we have developed trust and confidence in human interpretations and are weary and scattered in our spiritual journey, sheep without a shepherd.

When I study Jesus' teachings in the gospels, the apostle's teachings, and the "revelation" of Jesus, I believe the remnant refers to those who recognize the Good Shepherd's voice and follow him even when many follow another course. They are the remnant that still hear his voice and follow. They are obedient. The obedience that characterizes the remnant is not codified behavior based on scriptural commands, but an established habit of recognizing the Good Shepherd's commands (voice) and submitting to His will.

It appears clear from what Jesus taught his earthly disciples, and later revealed to John, that the obedience (and loyalty) that God seeks depends on the work of the Holy Spirit. After the Pentecost, the same spirit, that inspired the prophets of old, speaks to every repentant heart that recognizes Jesus (the Good Shepherd) as Lord. To use the scriptures to subjugate the sheep to human authorities instead of leading them to Jesus puts religious leaders on a dangerous course.

The scriptural sheep motif emphasizes that the most important thing we do is decide who to follow. Scripture teaches that there is only "one way" for the lost sheep to be saved and that is to follow the Good Shepherd. There is no substitute for the miraculous connection with the Risen Christ made possible by the Holy Spirit. While law, doctrine, and the scriptures play a role in guiding and molding our journey to Christ, they can never be a substitute for our receiving and being transformed by the "mind of Christ".

The traditional teaching and thinking of SDAs brings us almost to Christ, but stops short because we succumb to spiritual pride. The under shepherds parse words to justify the 28 fundamental beliefs and pretend our views on the remnant and the spirit of prophecy are innocent and scripturally sound. But, Jesus would ask us to evaluate the fruit. Exclusivity and self righteousness are common place in SDA congregations. The outward badges of loyalty or obedience that we focus cannot take the place of a submission to God's will in all things. The true test of our loyalty to God is the surrender of our most cherished sin and selfish desire.

Younger generations of SDAs have greater and greater difficulty absolving the denomination for its self serving interpretations of scripture. They can no longer ignore that SDA teaching foster attitudes they consider reprehensible in the secular world, let alone among those who claim to be followers of Christ. Sadly, those who believe they are working to preserve Adventism are making sure that those who heed the Good Shepherd’s voice will feel compelled by their conscience to fellowship elsewhere.

Someone accused Erv of wanting to scatter the sheep. I have no way of knowing what anyone's true motives are that have written here in this blog. But, as a follower of Christ I know that the wolves that Jesus warned us about are the ones wearing sheep's clothing. Those who best fit that description in my mind are those who insist that what to most people appears as spiritual pride and arrogance is really a mark of God's high calling. I confess there are times when their explanations sound credible until I examine the fruit.

Herb wrote:

--

But such is life that we all have to deal with. I again say that Drs Taylor and Corson are correct in their observations but probably not on their apparent conclusions. Cheers, Herb

--

So the evidence that is provided by our observations is correct, [yet] our conclusions of the evidence is in error though. Interesting since the observations we are making are based upon the conclusions of the people who are saying the SDA denomination is the remnant. I suspect the exception to our conclusions is that not every SDA is part of the remnant.  I would certainly agree that not every SDA is part of the remnant but then I would have accepted the proposed amendment that said the SDA church is part of the remnant, which of course would have solved both of the problems--that the SDA church has some exclusive  claim to be the remnant and that not all SDA's are part of the remnant. But of course that amendment to the church manual went down in flames because they said their history was that the SDA church was the remnant. And after all we are discussing what the SDA church is saying an not what us lowly dissidents are saying. 

I am curious how our observations have given us the wrong conclusion however.

A pleasure it is to chat in this blogosphere! In replying to Ron's last question I can only say that it may be an unnecessary stretch to say that the remnant IS the corporate, institutional Seventh-day Adventist Church. Not a good algebraic equation. I can only say, in my current command of language (which is never completely adequate) that God says that He will have a group (remnant) who will be faithfully proclaiming His full gospel message which, to respond to, will satisfy hearts and minds regarding His love and justice (fairness)--in contrast to the zillions of voices who think and live under a different code. The difference in thought and action will be so distinctly,manifestly obvious that Jesus calls it the difference between sheep and goats. The sheep are the remnant because they loyally follow the voice of the Shepherd, listen carefully to His directions, making sure that they are not following the voice of the Usurper.

In response to Dr. Taylor's eagle eye, I can only say that 13 and 18 are part of Revelation's description of Christ's appeal to end-time inhabitants of Planet Earth. In other words, such are part of the Remnant message.

I concur with Rudy that spiritual, denominational hubris is one way to identify those who have not yet joined the message with both heart and head--reflecting as much as possible the head and heart of Jesus as He proclaimed the gospel. Cheers, Herb

In John 10:14-18, Jesus describes Himself as the good shepherd. He said “I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. 15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. 17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.” [Bold added.]

Jesus identifies that He has sheep that were not of the fold He was dealing with at that moment, that He must bring these other sheep to this fold, that there shall be one fold and one shepherd. The fold he was dealing with was the Jews. Other sheep not of this fold would be gentiles who recognize His voice and are willing to listen to and gladly follow all His instructions. It seems clear that the Jewish Jesus intends to lead as many gentiles as possible to the Jewish fold by the sound of His voice, and there shall be one fold composed of those who believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Jesus does not indicate that He will abandon the Jewish fold and start another fold, nor that the other sheep not of this fold will dominate or replace the members of the fold He is dealing with when they join this fold, but will become one with them. Making the claim that the SDA Church is the remnant church seems to be at odds with what Jesus taught in John 10, which places that teaching at cross-purposes with the great commission of Matthew 28, and must be an insult to the Father and Jesus. Jesus here confirms the promise, covenant, and sworn oath given by God to Abraham that his descendants will continue to be His chosen people after His death and resurrection, and those not of that fold will hear His voice and join with them.

As stated by a previous post, the remnant must come from the original material. How is the SDA Church a remnant of the original material?

Cordially, Jerbro

Herb,

You said, "spiritual, denominational hubris is one way to identify those who have not yet joined the message with both heart and head".

What is your definition of "the message" in this context?

Thanks, Rudy: All I meant was that one can have even a complete understanding of the gospel being both pardon and power and still not appropriate that mental awareness into his "heart's" response--the end of which should be character transformation. That's why Rev 14:12 is so laser-like clear: If we don't join the commandment-keeping with the faith of Jesus, we surely have a disunctional gospel witness.  What do you think?  Cheers, Herb

Sorry Rudy, that word should be "dysfunctional."

Ho, Tom: Simple question--are you suggesting that the list of names you provided has no bias or preconceived paradigms evident in their work? And that no apologist can be objective as any on the list you provided?  Many of those names are personal friends and so I know them as much as they know me. Remember in Spectrum some years back when LaRondelle and I revealed the weaknesse in Paxton's "famous" book? I don't think you are saying that some apologists can't be as objective as some "scholars." That surely would be a stretch, dont you think?  Cheers, Herb

Adventists have emphasized Revelation as the sole and ultimate measurement of those who will make up the saved.

 Yet there are many parables that Jesus told that have a different emphasis:  Matt. 25: 31-46; and the entire 25th chapter is devoted to enlarging and dramatically illustrating those who will be ready for His coming.  Those are not the only descriptions of those who will enter the kingdom; so putting all one's eggs in the basket of this one verse in Revelation, ignores all the other, often different methods of salvation.

The reason to strongly emphasize "keeping the commandments" is a self-serving choice because the SDA church has always been critical of all the other churches which, in the SDA mind, is refusing to obey the Fourth Commandment as they have decided is absolutely required for salvation; to do otherwise would be worshiping the beast (again, the beast is the Roman Catholic church only by their internal definition).  This does not reflect that John's Revelation had the early church's welfare under the persecution of Domitian that had begun and was referring to the Roman's power at that time when there was no Roman religious authority.  Apocalyptic writing was not written for millennia later but assurance for those undergoing persecution at the time this was read to give assurance to those hearing this message.  All the early Christians expected the Second Coming in the very near future, not an interminable time far into the future. 

Maybe Luther was right:  Revelation contains so many symbols that there are endless interpretations, all of which may be mere speculation. Each generation hopes to see his own time as the "time of the end."

Herb, it seems to me, by your definition, anyone who is faithful to the testimony of Jesus is part of The Remnant, regardless of whether they have endured great tribulation. Generally speaking, the Adventist Church in North America has safely grazed pleasant green pastures since its inception.

If I said, "Here are the veterans of America; here are the faithful and brave soldiers who have stood up for our country," I would not be describing loyal American soldiers who have faithfully served their country from a comfortable army base in the U.S. I would be describing soldiers who have fought on the battlefronts. You seem to suggest that Remnant is simply the sum of an equation: commandment keeping + spirit of prophecy = Remnant. Is that a fair reading, given the implication throughout scripture that the Remnant are accorded special recognition because of the hardships they have endured for God?

Was John giving a new definition to the term "remnant", or was he using it in the Old Testament sense that it was understood by his readers?  If the latter, how can you jettison what seems to me a key ingredient of a robust word that surely connotes a meaning far more rugged than, "We have the Truth."?

Erv,

I would define "scientism" as a belief in the supremacy of the assumptions and methodologies of the physical and biological sciences, and their applicability to the humanities, sociology and psychology. These assumptions and methodologies hold theories regarding the evolutionary origins of humanity, determinism, and human nature as a tableau rasa, to be self-evident truths. Would you not agree that these "truths" permeate the classrooms of progressive centers of Adventist education? I certainly did not mean to limit my concerns about scientism to the science classrooms of Adventist education. In fact I think its most insidious impact is felt outside the science classrooms, in the religion and humanities departments. 

What difference does it make that SDA progressive academicians may believe in some sort of non-physical reality (conveniently evoked by the God metaphors of Judeo-Christian tradition) if the assertions they make about their own discipline, history, human nature and the world all emanate from, and pay homage to, the mental fixtures of methodological naturalism and philosophical materialism?  

Rather than get hung up on semantics (the correct definition of "scientism") I would prefer to engage on the question of whether science is any less corruptible and prone to ovine qualities than religion. I daresay Erv would find more free thought and diversity of opinion in the pews of the Loma Linda University Church than in most institutions of higher learning.  

Nathan and Erv: Finally, finally, I sense that I am talking to men who can identify the issues behind the issues--that is, think in terms of presuppositions. You identify these positions well and I feel at home.

\Nathan: your concern for the meaning of "remnant" as used in Rev 14:12 (in the context of Revelation 12, 13 and before 15-17) is profoundly important. I wish I could say everything in one sentence or in one blog. You are, however, are adding my exegetical/eschatological understanding of "remnant." "Remnant" surely describes those faithful commandment keepers and loyal followers who have gone through the toughest, most insidious temptations of Satan, probably of all time. But no soldier goes into Normandy beaches without plenty of training--two years at least. But they also learned that nothing really prepared them for lthe hedgerows, esp off Omaha Beach before reading St Lo. We do have the warning that those "last days" would be so deceptive,that even the "elect" would be tested.

As far as scientism, etc., is concerned, from my viewpoint, Erv is as transparent and fair as one can get, working from "scientism's" world view. And I respect his continuing questions that expose the errors of those who try to contend with him without thinking through their own Jello armor.  Have I been stating the issues correctly? Cheers, Herb

Herb,

You asked “What do you think?”

I think you are playing it safe. I was hoping you would weigh in on the “practical implications” of the remnant teaching. It may be possible to craft a theoretical position that appeases traditional SDA thinking and sounds free of “spiritual, denominational hubris”. However, I think the careful crafting will always be lost in the application for the bulk of SDAs. I think the faith of Jesus is the reason for the remnants obedience. The heart and its true motives are hidden. I think any interpretation that leads to the belief in a visible, humanly identifiable remnant will encourage people to focus on externals. I believe such an interpretation is in direct conflict with a large body of New Testament teachings.

Elaine,

I would expand on your concern about the emphasis on “keeping the commandments”. It seems particularly inappropriate to assume that the remnant’s commandment keeping is focused on the Decalogue. Obviously, God made “law” a central element of the first covenant, but Jesus’ teachings and the rest of the New Testament make it clear that faith in Jesus is the key to pleasing God under the New Covenant.

The obedience God is really interested in is that which results from the transformation that results from abiding in Christ. God never intended that we should grow up to be simply “law keepers”. The need to interpret and apply God’s law is unavoidable. We have a choice to live by the teaching of the Old Covenant which focused on “law keeping” or to nurture an inner communion with the Spirit of Christ that is the ultimate and infallible interpreter of God’s will.

Nathan,

Have you considered all the possible onslaughts against faith in Jesus in spiritual warfare?  Adventists who have “safely grazed the green pastures” may be facing the ultimate test of faith. Some of Jesus’ teachings seem to suggest that there is great danger in prosperity that can only be overcome by God’s work. I’m not sure the scriptural motif regarding a remnant is just about enduring hardships, but that God will preserve a remnant that trusts him despite any of the enemy’s attacks on their faith.

Praise the Lord for His mercy and goodness!!!

It seems likely that at some point Seventh-day Aventists latched onto Revelation 14:12 as a self-identifying text because it lent credence to the ongoing role of the 10 commandment law and, therefore, Sabbath-keeping.  (I am weary of religions/denominations that self-identify themselves as special) 

I have grown curious why our Adventist church has focused on the 10 commandments much more so than did our Savior.  It is almost like we want to retain a focus which Jesus spent a lot of time trying to change.  In the sermon on the mount and in his dialogue with the lawyer about the greatest commandment, he constantly tried to redirect people's attention to the law of love for God and man.  It feels like we keep trying to push the other direction, back toward the 10, in order to "prove up" our Sabbath keeping. I believe Jesus promoted a higher law than the 10 commandments, asking humanity to elevate its understanding of the laws of the universe.  For theological purposes, we tend to focus on the lower law.  

What if we reinterpreted Revelation 14:12 to say that the law mentioned there is the law of love that Jesus, John, Paul and Peter promoted, not the 10 commandments?  What if we reinterpreted Revelation 14:12 so that it describes a remnant who are the most loving, kind, courteous, giving, generous, healing, compassionate people on the planet?  You know, kind of like Jesus?  Now a remnant like that might be transformational.  Such an interpretation could cast a wider net of inclusion in the remnant.  It could include all the sheep Jesus mentioned in Matthew 25 where he differentiated between the sheep and the goats based on the loving treatment of mankind shown by the sheep.  

Ed, you made my point! I think you will find every book I have written is a carbon copy of your post, and I thank you. If we all focused on what God wants to achieve with His PLan of Salvation, we will end up exactly as you have put it.

Elaine, we are in the same hymnal but not page, if I read your post right. Where do you find in Ellen or in any of my books that commandment keeping is the goal of Rev 14:12? Since God gave His commandments to uneducated Hebrews, through the clarity of Jesus and NT writers, we have a constant emphasis on "Be holy because your Father is holy." The commandments are the hedge that tells maturing Christians where being Holy does not go. And if we do, and we do, our holy God/Savior/Spirit has promised their pardon but also their power to keep us on their side of the hedges. Revelation 14 describes people who follow the Lamb wherever He leads, even to the point there is no guile in their lives. Apparently, in Revelation 7 where these same people are for God is still waiting and through whom He promised heavenly intervention in getting their message out to all in every land, to eveyone wistfiully looking toward  heaven   for answers and hope. I think we are saying the same thing.

Nathan, you too describe your hopes as I do. Faith is exactly the bull's eye that Satan has on those who have committed their hearts and heads to following their Lord. We all have our daily skirmishes that will prepare us for tomorrow and the next week, even for the swelling of the Jordan. This is not denominational hubris--just the battle plan that Satan had laid out but God has given us the Enigma Code.  Cheers, Herb

Herb, we are much closer in our beliefs than it would appear; however, the differences may be considerable, dependent on how they are interpreted.

 If commandment keeping is not the emphasis in Rev. 14:12, the SDA church has greatly over-emphasized this in their writings and teachings.  I do not have EGW's books at hand, but if I am in error, please show where the observance of the commandments is on the back shelf in Adventist doctrine.  Having sat through innumerable evangelistic meetings and sermons as a PK, has commandment-keeping been sidelined and not demonstrated as the separation between all the Christian world and those who will be saved? 

Like Elaine, I am crystal clear that we have a deep history in Adventism of emphasing Ten Commandment-keeping in our discourses on Revelation 14:12. As a matter of fact, I can't recall ever hearing a sermon or class on Revelatin 14:12 that focused on the commandments lauded by Jesus in Matthew 22:36-40.

The temptation to use Revelation 14:12 to claim remnant status is apparently just too great.  There it is, fat and juicy, just waiting to be claimed.  We are the folks who keep all the commandments! Ergo, we are the remnant! 

It is interesting to speculate what the impact would be if Adventist teaching suddenly focused exclusively on the Matthew 22 law as the commandments mentioned in Revelation 14:12.  

By the way, I no longer use the Fourth Commandment as the rationale for Sabbath keeping.   That command is merely a reminder of something that happened long before there were any Hebrews.  The real deal is Genesis 2 where God sanctified a chunk of time.  This approach potentially avoids debates with other Christians about the status of the law, particularly in the light of Galations 3.  Makes a nice link to the first angel's message too. 

Ed, we're on the same page----except when you refer to Genesis where God sanctified time. 

Can you show that God required man to observe His rest on the seventh day at that time?  Can you show any texts until the Exodus where anyone observed the seventh day?  Can you define exactly when the Genesis Creation account was first written? 

Then, and only then, will there be conclusive evidence that God gave man sabbath as a day to rest before Sinai.

Dr. Douglass,

You say "But these "teachings" are there for one purpose--to prepare people to whom eternal life can be entrusted.  No rebels in the hereafter! ...."

Sheep theology is deplorable and the analogies really need some work. As humans we are not sheep, period. From your words it almost sounds like the only people that will be entrusted with eternal life will have the mentality of sheep? After all "no rebels." So we are not going to debate in the eternal kingdom? Maybe the hereafter will not be a kingdom after all with God as the dictatorial "King." Maybe there will be diverse views and gentlemanly arguments in the hereafter?  Maybe we will argue with God himself. Why not? I am not Gods yes man nor am I a sheep. If eternal life can only be entrusted to those you speak of then I would request, please God leave me alone and let me sleep for eternity. Not being resurrected IMO is not a threat. I say that because  I did not care before I existed and I will not care after I do not exist again. Its that time in between where all the fun and controversy exists. So if I exist again I want to argue and debate, and yes some may consider others in the kingdom "rebels." But, maybe Gods Kingdom will operate just fine. I may be wrong but when you or any theologian speaks of Gods Kingdom, I suspect that you have no clue as to what you are talking about. I know I do not.

Regards

Doctorf 

Doctorf,

I share some of skepticism and passion, but the use of sheep as metaphor or analogy comes from Jesus himself. When we acknowledge how little we understand God's realm (kingdom or otherwise) we are probably also acknowledging we are a lot like sheep. We need someone who does know to lead the way (the Good Shepherd).

Rudy,

I understand your point but its a bad metaphor no matter who uses it. Other methaphors that appear to be useless are "God has a blue print." Right, I have never witnessed one for myself or anyone else. So I would not know if I was following Gods blue print or not. How about we are free moral agents who to a great degree determine our own outcomes. I could go on but you get the point.

Kind regards 

Good people, I am having some difficulty following the argument that commandment keeping in some way is contrary to freedom in the way we look at our lives and the future life. God's commandments, even as Jesus endorsed them, are simply God's paternal way of showing where the boundaries are in this mixed up world. Bounderaries save us from all kinds of trouble and warning signs are good to observe. The NT seems unified and secure in the thought that the end will be composed of sheep and goats (no matter how we dislike metaphors). What separates them or how are they identified? Commandments, no matter how much we may quote them, etc., are valueless unless they are the framework which are made visible and human in reflecting the life of Jesus. He was the commendments personified. Commandments are surely not the end of goal of the Adventist distinctives in the last days. But they do help others to know where the boundaries are as they learn how to walk with Jesus in receiving His grace of pardon and His grace of power for transformed lives. Is that off the wall? Cheers, Herb

Ed, I appreciate your honesty in declaring that you enjoy the "option" of observing sabbath.  That is far different from most ministers who love to "prove" that sabbath should be kept even though it was never ordained for Christians.

When should the OT have the final word over the NT, which has always been presented as God's last word and that all the OT should be viewed through the lens of the New?  Do we dismiss Paul and his instruction to the Christian church, or do we use the OT rules for our conduct today?  If so, that brings up more confusion:  Levitical rules still applicable?  Some are, some aren't. 

Herb,

Your emphasis on the Great Controversy theme may not be “off the wall”. It is, however, a reiteration of a paradigm extrapolated from Scripture by Sr. E. G. White. Paul often frames the conflict as one between spirit and flesh. The sheep and the goats are those who walk after the spirit and those who walk after the flesh. Revelation contrasts those who have the seal of God with those who have the mark of the beast, again, if you will, sheep and goats.

 The NT often contrasts those who believe in Christ with those who do not. A very strong case may be made from various NT writers that obedience in the NT refers to our faith in Christ, not whether or not we comply with the Decalogue. I’d be interested in seeing any reference in the writings of John, for instance, which equates the commandments with the Decalogue. John set forth two commandments: faith in Jesus Christ and love for our fellow man. He equates the commandments with the teachings of Christ, not the Decalogue.

A big problem with the Adventist articulation of salvation is the Great Controversy theme. While it may be rightly derived from Scripture, many passages of Scripture which are used to support it do not have that support as their primary purpose. Passages in John’s writings, regarding the commandments, are often used by Adventists with reference to the Decalogue when that was not their original intent.

The result has been poorly informed congregations and clergy who are more interested in supporting/rehearsing E.G White’s perspective than in understanding the original message of the Bible writers.

It’s a major reason Adventists have been derided and dismissed by many as legalists, perfectionists, and cultists.

www.cleansanctuary.blogspot.com

Herbert, my problem with the primacy of commandment-keeping in religion is that it focuses attention on oneself.  It makes me ask myself the wrong questions.  How am I doing?  Am I making any progress?  Am I failing?  It makes the whole thing about me. 

Focusing on keeping the Decalogue commandments is largely an exercise in avoidance of proscribed actions.  I don't think one can move to the deepest levels of spirituality through avoidance of negative acts.  Certainly there has to be growth in something that is on the positive side of the ledger. And I think that growth can only come through the mysteries and invisibilities of being attached to the Vine, to the point that when we get it right, we may not even know it.    

Two books have had an enormous impact on my attitudes on this subject.  One is Geoge Knight's little gem I Used to Be Perfect (which I appreciate Andrews University for re-publishing).  The other is the chapter in Steps to Christ where Ellen White suggested that we not focus on ourselves and how we are doing. 

So my question is, Which story do you lead with?  If you lead with the keep-the-commandments story, the focus almost inevitably turns inward.  If you lead with the love-your-neighbor story, the focus almost inevitably turns to relationships.  That's where I discover my real challenges lie, and where I need the most grace.  

Elaine, we are inconsistent about the OT, aren't we?  The older I get, the more I shake my head about what seems to be different universes in the OT and NT.  I even thought recently about lightening my load by only carrying the NT around. 

For me, the challenge is to try to understand what in the OT is of perpetual significance.  That seems tricky because in the OT God tended to indicate that some things, things which are long gone, were perpetual.  I guess it all calls for a bit of exercise of judgment. I freely admit it is an area where I have far more questions than answers.  Sounds like you might have some answers.  

Ed,

You flatter me by suggesting I have answers to the dichotomy between the two   testaments.  I only have answered them to my satisfaction, and many others will certainly disagree.

It seems totally inconsistent, IMO, for Adventists to proclaim the Christian message which was never Jesus' intention (he was only sent to the house of Israel to change their concepts of obedience to the Torah), and to follow the OT in some areas, but not all.  Has anyone ever confided the secret selective process of determining which of the 600 OT rules, all given by God, that are to be observed in perpetuity and those that were only given to the Israelites for  their sole identification and practice?

Christianity began with the Jews, but before the beginning of the second century, the Jersualem (Jewish-Christians) are never heard of again:  it is as though they disappeared and the church was, from that time forward, a Gentile church.  The NT is very clear that it was no longer necessary to observe the Jewish laws (which was the controversy over forcing former pagan Christians to first be circumcised, allowing them to observe  the Torah) and only then did the church grow.  Had the Gentiles been made to submit to circumcision, there would never have been a Christian church but merely another Jewish sect.  History bears this out that Jews, even today, are the only group that is defined both by ethnicity and religion.  Christianity opened up a new religion no longer bound by ethnicity, but open to all--a revelatory system not previously so organized.

 Thus, there is a hybrid Jewish/Christian church today that attempts to merge both the OT and New for their religious doctrines.  Like oil and water, it has never mixed and never will. Until it can determine which part of the Bible is to be their last word and testament, it will   never truly be a completely Christian denomination.

hlfnlsn said, "I think anyone who has a difficulty identifying themselves as sheep in relationship to God, has some serious authority issues and a substantial amount of arrogance."

I tend to agree with that observation.

hlfnlsn also said, " if it [SDA Church] is not the remnant, then please point me to the church that is."

As far as I can tell, scripture never equates the remnant to either "the church" or "a church". So, it seeems a bit presumptuous to assume that it is possible to point to "the church" that is the remnant. Those that insist that the remnant can be equated with their denomiation (a very modern definition of church that is foreign to the scriptures) may have a serious problem with authority of the scripture and a substantial amount of arrogance.

God has and always will have a Remnant people, from every corner of the earth. He knows who they are. these are people who respond the Holy Spirit in their loyalties to God and their relationships with other people. 

The idea of putting the words remnant and church together is, it seems to me, the creation of public evangelists who wanted to make a strong case for becoming SDA members. It is more about psychology and sociology than Theology. But evangelists are not the problem here it is our collective laziness allowing the message of the evangelist to hijack the true depth of Biblical Theology. Using the phrase "remnant church" is a easy way out of total commitment to the radical claims of Christ in every aspect of our lives. We can say we belong, but never allow the Spirit of God to truly transform our thinking and behavior. 

A few years ago my daughters Bible teacher in Academy was teaching that the Seventh-day Adventist Church was the "Remnant Church or Prophecy." This, he said was based on the teachings of Ellen White. The first problem is of course the fact that she herself only wanted to point to the written and the LIving Word of God as the source for faith. But, I went the Ellen White on-line archives and typed in "Remnant Church." She never once used the two words together! She talked about Remnant people and in a few cases seemed to be referring specifically to the group of believers to which she belonged, but never referred to the the remnant as the institutional church.  

 The purpose of the Church, and by that I mean, the organization started by Christ to include all who call on his name, is to point people to Jesus as Savior of the world and allow his Spirit to transform their lives so he can claim them as his remnant. The Seventh-day Adventist Church has an understanding of God has gifted us with his presence in time and place. The Sabbath and the Sanctuary should both be taught as God's commitment to be with us. Instead we have twisted them to teach that we are his remnant church and if someone will be saved in the "last days" they must believe and practice as we do. We think we are rich - with spiritual knowledge - but we are poor and blind and naked. 

I am very saddened by the implications of the recent publication of the "Remnant Bible" and believe that it will further drive us into a self-centered religion devoid of the Savior who died for all. 

The concept of us being it has built a wall between us and them. In a world that wants to believe that no one can claim absolute truth, the more narrowly we define ourselves the less likely we will influence our world. Jesus said, "I am the truth." His desire is to draw us to his side, and then through us draw others. Any doctrine or teaching that does not support Christ's claim as the Savior of the world will be counter productive to proclaiming the Good News. When we say, We are the remnant, the emphasis is on us and not on Christ. By claiming we are, we put ourselves in the place of God, which is of course our sinful human nature rising up and following the ways of the author of sin. By making claims of self-importance we are driving thousands of our young people away who are nurtured in postmodern thinking. They need to hear us direct the idea of truth to the only one who has the right to make that claim. 

We have built an institutional empire on the idea that we are special and separate. We have built walls in the form of schools, hospitals and churches that allow us to go from cradle to grave with minimal interaction with the world around us. Of course, why do we need to, since we are "the remnant?" This singular concept, has in my mind, all but destroyed our potential for being agents of Christ today. Fortunately many, who find their spiritual home in the Seventh-day Adventist Church are indeed followers of Christ and not of the institution. The concept or the remnant church however is pervasive and leads many into a self-serving religion.  

I believe their is hope for Seventh-day Adventists who mistakenly place their faith in their church instead of their Savior. Jesus died for them just as he did for the rest of the world. His goal is to save everyone. He still walks with us seven days each week. He still longs for our love, our obedience and our worship. 

Blessings,

Kirk 

It may be too late to jump in at this point but perhaps it would not hurt to restate my convictions. When I became an Adventist, I never looked back. To where would I go? Been there and done that! I don't go to SS and church to have my ego polished--I go to discuss and hear others who have been listening to the same Lord that I have learned to trust irrevocably. Of course, I do not find equal freshness and clarity each seventh day. But I do bring to SS and church the zing and gratitude that I have learned through the week of reading and trusting the stuff that makes sense.

 Yes, I have found EGW to be as biblically solid and prolific as any worthwhile religious writer. In fact, I surely get more Bible in her articles than I do in other books that are highly praised. Throughout my theological career of reading shelves of the basic in Christian history, I can say without fear of being upended that no one out there has given us a more integrated, coherent,and mentally fulfilling metanarrative than her unfolding of the Great Controversy between Christ and Satan.

I have discovered that those who may disagree with the Great Controvery Theme that I refer to either (1) never read her long enough to make a fair judgment, or (2) find that it conflicts with their own metanarrative. All that is OK but we all have to live with what we think matters most. The real question is not where we want to be five years from now but where we want to be 5000 years from now. Am I making sense?  Cheers, Herb

Herb, As one who does not appreciate the ministry of EGW, I must respectfully disagree wity your assessment of what characterizes us. I have read EGW voluminously, more than 50 of her books in their entirety. I am nearly finished with an evaluation of her remarks regarding "impute" and its cognates, close to 400 references, which I have collated. Certainly, she had some good things to say. Certainly, she had some very troubling things to say, things which on their face, do not harmonize with the teachings of the Bible. It may be that, on a certain level, harmony may be found. That level, however, is unavailable to most people who read EGW as a devotional writer. How what she said may harmonize with Scripture at deeper levels is not explained. She provides little Scriptiural explication to back up some of her remarks.

The consequence of her methodology is that Adventists get certain ideas from her, then go about Scripture to find prooftexts to support the theory. I dare say that may of these people are not really honest in what they are doing. They say the Bible teaches such and such in these texts. Really what they mean is that these texts support what EGW said. In fact, the passages often do not support what that person claims. The passages are jerked from their context. Violence is done to Scripture. EGW is at the bottom of the matter.

Honestly, I don't know where EGW got some of the ideas which she set forth. She made some remarks regarding justification which I would put in the same category with her amalgamation statements. They sound bizarre. On the other hand, I find that the writings of Luther and Melanchthon on justification are usually supported with solid Scriptural exposition. They were quite realistic in their assessment of the impact of human nature on human perfection in this life. Many things EGW wrote do not appear realistic. She usually provides a rather superficial explication of Scripture, if any at all. She simply makes assertions.  Perhaps you can direct me to her in depth explications of Paul's justification theology in Romans 4 or Galatians. Maybe I read the wrong 50 books of hers? Was 50 books not enough? I hand copied hundreds of statements on 3x5 cards. Did I miss something?

I have seen the influence EGW has had on Adventist ministers and the SDA church at large. You are certainly aware (?) of the recent revelation that a major underlying issue at Glacier View was the doctrinal authority of EGW. Perhaps that was really the overriding  issue on the admin end?

 That undercurrent permeates much of Adventist theology.  

Hanson: I always appreciate what you write wherever I see your inputs because I can "see" an honest man speaking clearly as to what is on his mind. Your disclosure of enormous reading in EGW is most revealing. If I could get your email address I would share with you some of my stuff re the Great Controversy Theme in EGW on the subjects you mention.

With your knowledge of Luther and Melanchthon I am sure you noted the great difference between the two on justification. M's view is what has saddled the common Protestant view of justification, not Luther's.

So much modern scholarship reveals all this, beside the reading of these two men in their own works. I try to keep the one question in front of me: What does God intend to accomplish with His Plan of Salvation? IMO, EGW's GCT is the only theological  understanding that meets my mind.

I was at Glacier View. I well understand the different paradigms that prompted the various participants and of what they later wrote. I still remember the afternoon when Heppenstall stood up in the audience trying to show that Des (the speaker) where he was wrong. Des answered::"I wouldn't be here if it weren't for you." A very telling thrust!  The Heppenstallian hegemony has thrown a fog over 50+ years of Adventist thinking on such subjects as (but not limited to) righteousness by faith.

Do you have A FORK IN THE ROAD? Keep writing. Cheers, Herb

Herb,  I haven't noticed a great divergence between Luther and Melanchthon. Melanchthon is fairly easy to get a handle on. His published material can be fairly studied in a relatively short amount of time. There are a couple of editions of the "Commonplaces,"  in English translation, written years apart, which can be compared to see the development of his thought. Then there is the "Apology to the Augsburg Confession." He also wrote commentaries on Romans and Colossians which are available in English translation.

Melanchthon circulated a disputation type document- justification by faith rather than love- around the time he was finishing the "Apology." His justification thought is succintly presented there. 

There does appear to be a certain rigidity in the "Formula of Concord." I'm not sure if the spectrum of Luther's thoughts on justification are included in that document. Probably not. Chemnitz and others are responsible for that work, not Melanchthon.

Aside from Christian Liberty, Luther's sermons, collected in several volumes, provide a rich field of study for those interested in his thoughts on justification. His Genesis commentary on Abraham contains some of his clearest teaching on justification. Again, I see no great divergence between him and Melanchthon in the area of justification.

The Reformation framed the controversy regarding salvation as a conflict between law and promise.  I find this paradigm much more useful than the GC paradigm. Adventist theology usually comes down decidedly on the side of law. The Reformers emphasized the promises. EGW does too...sometimes.