Don: A few weeks ago I asked Kiran to look at the 28 fundamental beliefs of Adventism, and find how grace can be seen in each of these fundamentals, not because I’m trying to proselytize anyone to Adventism (although I think it’s been a very helpful thing for me) but because I wanted to see what insights we can gain about grace from looking at our fundamentals.
I also want to mention that Michael is not quite finished with his talks on the resurrection and crucifixion, but we’re giving him a break for a couple of weeks. For those of you who haven’t had a chance to hear Michael’s essays on the crucifixion, I think you’d find them quite profitable to read. He’s done a beautiful job.
Kiran: I want to start today’s lesson with a quote from Ellen White.
“Let the subject be made distinct and plain that it is not possible to effect anything in our standing before God or in the gift of God to us through creature merit… Let the subject be clear that the righteousness of Christ is our only hope of salvation.” — Ellen G. White, Faith and Works, p. 19
In Adventist literature, “Righteousness of Christ” is synonymous with “Salvation by Grace”. In this quote, Ellen White emphasized that the subject of Salvation by Grace alone must be made very clear.
How many of us, especially those raised in the SDA Church, can say with confidence that we clearly understand grace as taught by Scripture? Do our doctrines clearly convey the meaning of grace? And how many of our end-time prophecies, often central to evangelistic meetings, effectively communicate a clear understanding of grace?
Without a doubt, many Seventh-day Adventists recognize significant gaps in our understanding of grace within the church body. I want to ask: Have we, perhaps unintentionally, obscured grace through our doctrines or misplaced emphasis?
Today, we begin a journey, not to diminish SDA doctrine, but to elevate grace. Not to attack, but to reflect deeply: Are there ways our application of belief might confuse the message of salvation by grace through faith alone?
Before we go any further, it’s important that we clarify what we mean by grace. Within this class, I know there are a variety of understandings, and that’s okay. For the purposes of this series, let me define two questions.
What is Grace?
Grace is God’s unmerited favor, His generous gift freely offered to all sinners through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We don’t earn it, deserve it, or add to it. It is entirely a gift.
Paul said, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.” (Ephesians 2:8–9)
What does Grace accomplish in our lives?
In my understanding, Grace accomplishes at least six key things. This list may grow longer as I understand more:
- Grace secures forgiveness of all our past, present, and future sins (Hebrews 10:14, Colossians 2:13)
- Grace brings the abiding presence of God into our hearts (John 14:23),
- Grace adopts us into God’s family as sons and daughters (Romans 8:15, John 1:12)
- The power (dynamis) of Grace teaches and empowers us to live godly lives here and now (Titus 2:11–12, Galatians 5:22–23)
- Grace empowers us for mission and good works, so that we live not in passivity but in purpose (Ephesians 2:10, 1 Corinthians 15:10) and
- Grace promises our resurrection or transformation with incorruptible bodies, reuniting us with God for eternity (1 Corinthians 15:52–53, 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17)
This definition isn’t intended as a complete definition but a practical one we can explore together. Therefore, this definition allows us to assess whether our doctrines, practices, and emphases clearly reflect this grace or if, perhaps unintentionally, we’ve complicated a gift meant to be simple and free.
Whenever we talk about grace, the natural follow-up question is: What is my part? How does obedience fit in if everything is by grace?
The simplest way I can explain it is like this:
SIN (capital “S”) is not just bad behavior. It is the absence of God, a broken relationship with the Creator. When we live apart from God, we inevitably act out that brokenness in specific sins (small “s”), whether they seem small (like a white lie) or large (like injustice or cruelty).
Once a person realizes they are in SIN, the instinct is often to fix themselves. But like a plant potted in darkness, we cannot grow by our own effort. We need the Light.
In Christ, God sent the Light into our darkness
John said, “In Him was life, and the life was the Light of mankind. And the Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not grasp it”. (John 1:4-5)
Jesus doesn’t just invite us to the light; He is the Light. And like that plant, when the light enters, growth becomes natural. Not forced. Not artificial. But inevitable.
Jesus said, “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5).
Therefore, obedience is not a checklist; it’s a consequence of connection with God. It is the fruit of the restored relationship. As the presence of God reenters our lives through grace, the power of SIN is broken, and over time, the specific sins begin to fall away.
Paul said, “For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under the Law but under grace.” (Romans 6:14)
So, our part is to remain in Him, and His part is everything else.
Research Question:
For today’s class and the next few sessions, we will explore a thoughtful question:
How do the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church stand when viewed through the lens of the gospel of grace? Which beliefs fully resonate with the message of salvation by grace through faith alone, and which might, perhaps, unintentionally introduce tension or confusion to that message?
This is not an attempt to challenge our identity, but to deepen it. If grace is the heartbeat of the gospel, it is only fair that we examine our beliefs in light of it, not to discard what is precious, but to sharpen what is eternal.
A Quick Overview of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs
The SDA Church organizes its 28 fundamental beliefs into six categories:
- God (Beliefs 1–5): Trinity, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and the Bible.
- Humanity (6–7): Creation and the Fall.
- Salvation (8–10): Great Controversy, Christ’s life, death, resurrection, and our experience of salvation.
- Church (11–18): Nature, mission, and authority of the church.
- Christian Living (19–22): The law, Sabbath, stewardship, Christian behavior.
- End Time Events (23–28): Christ’s ministry in heaven, second coming, death, resurrection, and new earth.
Among the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, beliefs 1 through 10 align closely with the foundational doctrines affirmed by most Protestant Christians, particularly regarding the nature of God, humanity, and salvation. Beliefs 11 through 18 generally support grace-based principles, though some nuances may benefit from closer theological reflection. In contrast, beliefs 19 through 28 reflect distinctively Adventist emphases and, at times, may appear to diverge from the central message of grace.
For example:
- Belief 13: The Remnant and Its Mission – May risk an exclusive interpretation that limits the reach of grace to a specific group.
- Beliefs 18–20: The Gift of Prophecy, The Law, and The Sabbath – Risk shifting the focus from grace to performance or identity markers.
- Belief 24: Christ’s Ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary – Can introduce uncertainty about the finality and completeness of Christ’s atoning work on the cross.
- The emphasis on sanctification and perfectionism can unintentionally blur the line between the fruit of salvation and its condition, potentially leading to a performance-based mindset.
Today, let’s focus on a couple of the fundamental beliefs that look a little different when we view them through the lens of grace.
FB# 8. The Great Controversy
This belief presents a narrative of a cosmic conflict between Christ and Satan, centered on God’s character, law, and authority. It offers a clear explanation for the origin of evil, the nature of suffering, and the purpose of redemptive history. Many Adventists find profound meaning in understanding their spiritual journey as part of this larger story.
Rooted in biblical passages, the Great Controversy emphasizes God’s character as love and justice. It highlights the moral freedom given to all beings and addresses the reality of evil in a way that affirms human choice and divine patience.
While this framework resonates with many, especially evangelicals who emphasize spiritual warfare, others raise theological concerns. Some critics suggest that the controversy model may unintentionally portray God as needing to prove Himself to the universe, potentially reducing divine sovereignty and portraying the cosmic conflict as an even contest between good and evil.
When viewed through the lens of grace, this belief invites deeper reflection.
Certain interpretations, particularly within strands of Last Generation Theology, shift the emphasis from Christ’s finished work on the cross to an ongoing cosmic battle. In this view, resolution depends not only on what Jesus has done, but on a final generation of believers who must perfectly reflect God’s character.
As a result, grace can feel conditional, tied to our ability to fully uphold the law. This repositions the gospel from a promise received to a performance rendered.
This interpretation is challenged by the clear testimony of Scripture:
“By one sacrifice He has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.” — Hebrews 10:14
When obedience becomes the means by which God is vindicated, the gospel risks becoming a performance-based system rather than a grace-based invitation to rest in Christ. Paul warns against such distortions:
“Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?” (Galatians 3:3)
FB#11. Growing in Christ:
This is how it is defined:
By His death on the cross Jesus triumphed over the forces of evil. He who subjugated the demonic spirits during His earthly ministry has broken their power and made certain their ultimate doom. Jesus’ victory gives us victory over the evil forces that still seek to control us, as we walk with Him in peace, joy, and assurance of His love. Now the Holy Spirit dwells within us and empowers us. Continually committed to Jesus as our Saviour and Lord, we are set free from the burden of our past deeds. No longer do we live in the darkness, fear of evil powers, ignorance, and meaninglessness of our former way of life. In this new freedom in Jesus, we are called to grow into the likeness of His character, communing with Him daily in prayer, feeding on His Word, meditating on it and on His providence, singing His praises, gathering together for worship, and participating in the mission of the Church. We are also called to follow Christ’s example by compassionately ministering to the physical, mental, social, emotional, and spiritual needs of humanity. As we give ourselves in loving service to those around us and in witnessing to His salvation, His constant presence with us through the Spirit transforms every moment and every task into a spiritual experience. (1 Chron. 29:11; Ps. 1:1, 2; 23:4; 77:11, 12; Matt. 20:25-28; 25:31-46; Luke 10:17-20; John 20:21; Rom. 8:38, 39; 2 Cor. 3:17, 18; Gal. 5:22-25; Eph. 5:19, 20; 6:12-18; Phil. 3:7-14; Col. 1:13, 14; 2:6, 14, 15; 1 Thess. 5:16-18, 23; Heb. 10:25; James 1:27; 2 Peter 2:9; 3:18; 1 John 4:4.)
When we examine this belief through the lens of grace, we find that it gets many things right. It places Christ’s victory on the cross at the center, emphasizes the empowerment of believers through the indwelling Holy Spirit, speaks to the transformation of the believer, and affirms freedom from fear. It also portrays sanctification not as legalistic striving, but as a relational response to Jesus’ presence and work in our lives.
However, there are a few subtle omissions that deserve reflection.
- The belief mentions freedom from “the burden of our past deeds,” but it does not clearly speak to grace’s power over present and future sin, which could leave the reader wondering whether ongoing failures are still covered by Christ’s righteousness.
- Additionally, while the opening emphasizes Christ’s triumph, the latter half becomes increasingly human-focused: “We are called to grow… communing… feeding… meditating… singing… participating… ministering… giving ourselves… witnessing…” These are beautiful and appropriate responses, but without continued reference to Christ’s sufficiency and grace as the foundation, the emphasis can shift subtly from God’s work in us to our work for Him.
- The belief also affirms transformation and Christlikeness but makes no mention of the ongoing covering of Christ’s righteousness for those who are still in the process of growing (Hebrews 10:14). For believers who struggle with assurance, this silence can be unsettling.
- Finally, there is no acknowledgment that growth is often imperfect, nonlinear, and marked by setbacks. The tone of the statement is mostly triumphal, which, while inspiring, may unintentionally alienate those in seasons of weakness or doubt who need reassurance that grace remains present in the struggle.
But what happens when a belief that is centered on Christ’s victory becomes too centered on human activity? Let’s explore that in the context of the remnant.
FB #13 The Remnant and its mission:
This belief teaches that while the universal church includes all who truly believe in Christ, God has called a special remnant in the last days to uphold the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. This remnant has a prophetic mission: to proclaim the nearness of the judgment, offer salvation through Christ, and prepare the world for His second coming, as symbolized in the three angels’ messages of Revelation 14. Every believer is called to participate in this worldwide witness.
When we examine this belief through the lens of grace, we find a strong and commendable foundation. It affirms that the universal church is not limited by denomination but consists of all who believe in Christ, a vital acknowledgment that honors the inclusivity of the gospel (Romans 10:13; Galatians 3:28). The focus on mission, proclaiming salvation, repentance, and Christ’s soon return, is fully in line with the New Testament’s call for Spirit-empowered witness (Acts 1:8). In this sense, the remnant identity can be understood not as exclusivism, but as a purpose-driven calling to proclaim God’s mercy in the final moments of earth’s history.
However, this belief becomes more complex when the concept of a remnant is closely linked to specific identifying marks, particularly the keeping of the commandments and the possession of prophetic insight. While Revelation 14:12 speaks of those who “keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus,” the belief doesn’t clarify whether this obedience is the result of grace or the requirement for inclusion. Without this clarification, the language can be interpreted as suggesting that God’s favor rests on those who meet certain behavioral or doctrinal standards.
This risks shifting the emphasis from grace as the foundation of identity to performance as the boundary of inclusion, which subtly undermines the sufficiency of Christ. To remain aligned with the gospel, the idea of a remnant must be understood as a people defined by their response to grace, not by their achievement of faithfulness. Christ is the center of the remnant, not the remnant itself.
Discussion questions:
- Can God’s character be “vindicated” by our obedience, or is it most clearly seen in His mercy toward the disobedient?
- How can we encourage discipleship that is rooted in grace, rather than fueled by pressure or fear?
- If someone outside the SDA Church asked, “What makes you part of the remnant?” would your answer focus more on Jesus or on church identifiers?
Carolyn: This topic has intrigued me all my Christian life. I’ve always wondered—do we follow Christ, or do we follow the church?
Sharon: I really appreciated Kiran’s first question: “Can God’s character be vindicated by our obedience, or is it most clearly seen in His mercy toward our disobedience?” I think it’s both. God’s character is vindicated if we give Him all the credit—through His Spirit—for our obedience. If our obedience flows from remaining in the light of His glory, then yes, His character is vindicated.
But the emphasis matters. Is it on ourselves and our accomplishments—which the church, culturally, often pushes us toward—or is it about remaining in His light? Whether obedience or disobedience, any light we shine is due to the presence and power of the Holy Spirit, not our own ability to stay obedient. And trying to do that on our own is a disaster.
As for the second question—how do we encourage discipleship that’s rooted in grace rather than fueled by pressure or fear? I think discipleship is about the maturing of our relationship with Jesus, and that maturity comes with life experience. I think of the song: “Trust and obey, for there’s no other way.” The trust part leads to obedience. But if discipleship isn’t rooted in grace and is instead based on our works, it’s a disaster. It becomes the blind leading the blind. True discipleship points people to the flawless and matchless grace of our Savior.
And to the third question: If someone outside the Adventist Church asked, “What makes you part of the remnant?”—would I answer by pointing to Jesus or to the church? Well, the church is a disaster. If anything is “remnant” or specially chosen, it has to be the character of Christ. Anyone who has worked closely with the church knows it’s just a human organization. It’s only as strong as its members’ walk with Jesus in love and righteousness.
To define the remnant as the institutional church, as described in our fundamental beliefs, would be a mistake. There are amazing, beautiful Christians of all faiths—and even people of other religions like Muslims and Buddhists—who reflect Christ-like behavior. I love your analogy of the plant that turns toward the light. There are people who’ve never heard the name “Seventh-day Adventist,” who walk in the light and reflect God’s love in all their interactions.
So for me, the remnant is about the character of God and has little to do with any religious organization. That’s what I would share.
David: Beautifully said, and I agree. I wonder if membership in a church or religion could be considered a kind of “work”—as if by joining and attending a church you’re doing something Paul would say has nothing to do with grace. That certainly aligns with what Sharon just said about God’s grace being given to all humanity.
Donald: I’d add this: having grown up in the church and worked for it my whole life, I’ve often seen faith and grace filtered through the lens of the church. But the church is not the priority—God-in-Christ is. Grace is the priority.
But it doesn’t take long for us to fall back into thinking the way Kiran’s last question implies—about the remnant. Is the remnant the people, or is it the church? When people think “remnant,” they usually think of an organization. It’s like carrying a card that says “SDA”—just as I’ve carried membership cards for photography clubs. Someone might see that and think, “Okay, this person is an Adventist.” But that’s a label, not the essence of faith.
The organized church provides membership and structure. But I wonder how much time the organization—and especially the upcoming General Conference—will spend focusing on that, rather than on grace-filled Christian living. I get it, they represent the institution. Still, I wonder if the proportions are right.
Context matters. For me, everything I’ve done has been within the parameters of the church. But someone like Connie, who hasn’t been immersed in it her whole life, might hear all this and think, “What are these people even talking about?”
C-J: Donald, you’d be wrong about that. From my perspective, there’s a continuity in my belief system. I’m not so into the prophecy side of things, maybe because I believe God is eternal and not bound by time the way we are. But in terms of values, belief systems, and where energy is invested, the church is critical.
It’s a place where people can come together with others who are like-minded, who share a similar value system, and who use a common text to examine themselves—asking, “Am I living what I say I believe? Am I living in a way that honors my God?” So, honestly, everything I’ve learned here lines up with what I believe and experience.
Donald: I would say you’re right, Connie. But that little phrase you used about prophecy—that’s huge. I think I sent a sermon to both Dave and Don a couple of months ago that asked, “Why do we exist as a church?” And the answer it gave was: because of prophecy. If we’re not part of a prophetic movement, then why are we here? That’s the unique identity of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
So I understand what you’re saying—everything looks pretty good—but prophecy is still the core, the kernel.
C-J: I think all religions have that prophetic element because we’re wired for it. Our brains need something to anchor to. We need a place to go, and we need people to affirm the tradition. I was in a non-denominational church that received a prophecy—that if they walked with God according to His law, He would prosper the church and draw in people of all kinds. It wasn’t about man’s doctrine; it was about God using what was happening.
Carolyn: One thing that’s always been in my mind: Are we doing what we do for the church, or for God? And then comes the question—are we being a stumbling block? That’s what’s caused me to waver. I don’t mean the church being a stumbling block, but we ourselves. Especially when it comes to obedience—if we don’t really believe in something, yet we do it so we won’t cause someone else to stumble. That puts a whole different spin on the idea of living under grace. I wonder: should I do this, or will it make me a stumbling block?
C-J: I think that whole idea of a stumbling block can turn into condemnation. But God says, “There is now no condemnation for those who believe.” If you walk the best you can on any given day, mindful of where your love is rooted, the rest will follow. It’s like leading a horse—where the head goes, the body follows. If your heart and intentions are aligned with what you’ve been taught, grace is sufficient.
David: Kiran has shared his conversion story a few times. Kiran, I want to ask: in your conversion, which came first—God, or the church?
Kiran: Definitely God—and His grace. Later came the indoctrination. Then came the painful unlearning of doctrine to rediscover the simple truth: Jesus loves you, paid for your sins, and wants to take all your sins and give you His goodness. That’s all my friend told me when he introduced me to the SDA church. I said the prayer, I felt something change, and he said, “Now let’s go to church. Let’s learn about the Sabbath, about prophecy.” Then I started reading Ellen White, and that’s how my journey began.
David: So your conversion began with the realization of a relationship with God—of being loved. Did church membership change that?
Kiran: The books and my friend emphasized that God had taken my sins and forgiven me. But then it turned into an expectation—that I should live a holy life. He wiped my slate clean, gave me the power to live rightly—so now live it. And if I failed, He was disappointed in me. So I kept failing, and that image of God changed into a tyrant: “Why are you asking me to do something impossible?” That led me to depression. I wondered—what’s wrong with me, or with what I believe?
So it wasn’t a one-day transformation. It took 14 or 15 years to reach that place of despair. And then it took several more years to return to that original faith.
Don: I think another metaphor deserves repeating: adoption. Adoption is a unilateral act. Babies don’t choose who adopts them; the parents do. God is the Adopter. That metaphor captures grace, belonging, and the church. I’ve said this before, but it’s worth repeating—the plan of salvation is that God takes care of us, and we take care of others. That’s the mission of the church.
The church isn’t responsible for getting you saved—whether by beliefs or rituals. Salvation is up to God. Our role is to care for each other. But we get it backward—we think the church’s mission is to save us through correct doctrine. The church doesn’t have that power. The church should be the place where we expand our mission of goodness and care.
Donald: The conversation we’re having now is very different from what we would’ve had in the 1970s—or certainly the 1950s—about what the church is. Back then, the church gave us guardrails for life. Yes, part of it was about service, but a big part was about building the church and proselytizing. That word—“proselytizing”—and the concept of mission work has evolved a lot over the last 30 years.
Today we realize that locals often do a better job of mission work than outsiders coming in from places like the Northeast U.S. Maybe I’m stuck in the past—that’s possible. The next generation of Adventists may not carry the same baggage we did. Maybe they’ll really live out what you, Don, just described.
But I also know that Daniel and Revelation are still central in Adventist discussions. They made us unique. And there’s nothing wrong with that. But if we were to let go of those things, it might be hard to hold onto that uniqueness.
As Kiran said, most of those 28 beliefs are good. As Connie also noted, there’s nothing really to object to in them. But for those of us who’ve been in the church a long time, prophecy has played a prominent role. Maybe it’s just me—but I don’t think I’m alone.
C-J: But is that a human, self-fulfilling prophecy? I think Paul struggled with the same issue. If I’m rooted in Judaism and I’m a Pharisee, then of course I’m right—because all this prophecy affirms me. That struggle seems to repeat itself in all churches: “This is our identity, these are our tenets, this is how we practice them, and this is how we spread the message”—whether it’s through humanitarian work or doctrine.
But for me, my relationship with God transcends all that. Churches can be torn down. Books can be taken away. Doctrines can change over time. But a relationship with God cannot be touched. It’s intangible—sustained by divine grace.
And if you are in relationship with divine grace through the Holy Spirit, all you really need is the Ten Commandments. You can sit across from someone and ask, “Tell me about yourself,” and in that conversation—without naming your belief system—your connection with the Divine will show. Your character will be revealed.
As Paul said, and I can attest, “There is no good thing in me.” Anything good that comes from me is because I’ve yielded to the Spirit saying, “Do this, that others may see transformation.” That witness—the church cannot provide it. A building can burn, a book can be lost. But your relationship with God—nobody can take that from you.
Kiran: I just remembered something. Michael, I don’t know if you remember this—back in the day, when I was doing campus ministry in Michigan, we were taught how to evangelize using specific lessons. They said, “Start with Daniel chapter 3 or 4.” And I think the first person I tried that on was you.
We sat together, and I taught you about the statue in Daniel. It was great—you liked it. But when we got to the mark of the beast, I realized—“Wait, what am I doing?” Imagine if I had started by sharing who Jesus is and how deeply He loves you. That could’ve changed everything.
And that’s the fundamental problem I see in Adventism. We don’t start with Christ. We talk about the Pope. We talk about the Catholic Church. Not even about atheists—but about the “brethren” of Christ. We miss the heart of the message.
Michael: I remember liking the statue lesson. But the mark of the beast—yeah, that was too much. I wasn’t supporting the Catholic Church—I had already left it. But I also didn’t think it was “the devil.” I didn’t like it, sure, but I didn’t demonize it.
What stood out to me then, and still does, is that when you’re introducing someone to the church, you start with the love of God and Jesus. But once you’re in, that love fades into the background. Then it’s all about doctrine and how you have to behave.
I’ve brought this up before. It feels like there’s a bait-and-switch—you enter through grace, but once you’re inside, it becomes all about fundamentals. So what are we supposed to do? Is that what the church is? And if you don’t affirm the fundamentals, do you not belong?
Don: I don’t think it’s either-or. It doesn’t have to be grace versus church. The challenge for any denomination is to demonstrate that membership in the church can be a way of embodying God’s eternal grace in a powerful, convincing way.
But too often we make it binary: either you’re a church defender, or you’re a grace person. I believe it can be both. And maybe that’s part of Kiran’s mission—helping us see that integration more clearly.
Anonymous: Church can be virtual—it doesn’t need a building, or a set of rules, or those funny formalities. You can be a member of Christ’s church if you love God, follow His Word, and walk humbly with Him. Maybe that happens in our little circles—with family, friends, neighbors. It doesn’t have to be some big institutional church.
You can do humanitarian work on your own. You don’t need church membership for that. I see pastors on TV trying to spread the good news—and that’s great—but the real church is built in our hearts, spiritually, not physically.
And when it comes to prophecy, it’s not a good place to start. It turns people away because they don’t understand it. Honestly, I don’t feel like I need to answer all these theological questions. I know God’s grace covers me. I don’t have to live in fear.
Last week, reading the lesson, something stood out to me—Michael talked about the goat. I thought it was the name of the goat, but I guess it was actually the place. Still, the image hit me. The people confessed their sins, laid hands on the goat, and it was sent away. And it dawned on me: that goat is me. I’m the guilty one, but I was set free—to go out and live. Meanwhile, the other goat, the good one, represents Jesus.
That’s the whole message—clear as day. I’m the guilty one, and someone else dies for me. No matter how long we’ve been Christians, we’re always learning as we go, living and growing. It’s God who opens our eyes and deepens our understanding.
So to me, this Christian experience—it’s not about the church. Maybe I learned things from church, but most of what I’ve come to know has come from the Bible itself. I could’ve read it on my own, but I ended up following the church’s interpretation. And they’re human, just like me. Their interpretation might not be right. So for me, it’s more about experience—relationship—than about an organized institution with fixed rules. We’re complicated creatures.
C-J: I think the church is about hospitality—a place to go for food, shelter, nurturing, wisdom. It’s a place that reflects God’s hospitality. The belief system, on the other hand, is a demonstration of the relationship we have with God.
Yes, we all make mistakes, but the goal is to preserve that belief system and bear witness. If we’re at war with other forces, spiritual or otherwise, then the church exists to preserve that witness. But fundamentally, the church is a place of welcome—a reflection of divine hospitality.
Donald: I think those of us who’ve been Adventists most of our lives recognize the look of an evangelistic brochure. We can say whatever we want, but the brochure makes clear what the church’s priorities are. Maybe the sensationalism draws people in.
Second, I think it would be interesting for you to look at Spectrum. Apparently, the recent meetings in Washington—the last before the General Conference—covered some of the issues that will come up, including the rise of home churches. Since COVID, they’ve really taken root. And now the church is trying to figure out what to do—what connection, if any, those home churches have to Adventism. Are they valid if they aren’t rooted in a formal SDA congregation?
And third—last point, I promise—what if we had two cards in our wallets? One that says, “I’m a Christian,” and another that says, “I’m a Seventh-day Adventist.” And we held both dearly. But that’s not the way it is. Right now, we have one card that says “Seventh-day Adventist,” and it subsumes our Christian identity.
If we could separate the two, maybe we’d feel more at peace with grace.
Reinhard: Every Christian denomination uses the same Bible. The difference is in doctrinal teaching. I came to Adventism from another denomination, but I felt there was something extra here—something that comforted me.
Of course, every Christian is on the receiving end of grace—there’s no question about that. Each church has the right to interpret scripture, guided by the Holy Spirit. As Connie said, it’s about that personal relationship.
For me, the Adventist Church gave me something more—especially in terms of prophecy. And yes, Ellen White contributed a lot to that understanding. It gave me a sense of security. Like going to war with more weapons—you feel better equipped. That’s how I feel compared to other denominations.
And it changed my life. Before, I had habits I couldn’t break, despite advice from my former church. But after joining the Adventist Church, I was able to change. I see that as a blessing.
When it comes to the Bible, again, everyone has access to grace through the Holy Spirit. Salvation comes from God—He knows each heart. Let that stand.
And yes, we all have our own principles for how we relate to the church. If we ask Kiran’s last question—do we believe in God or the church?—of course we believe in God. But the church helps us know Him better. It’s the vehicle, the institution that provides information, worship, and spiritual growth.
Like this discussion we’re having—it’s part of our journey to know God more and share His love with others. That’s what I wanted to say.
Don: We’ll have an opportunity to pick this up next week.
* * *
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.