-
Website
http://reinventingsdawheel.blogspot.com/ -
Original page
http://reinventingsdawheel.blogspot.com/2008/09/remnant-only-adventists.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
Thank you very much for your thoughts. They are very fitting. There is no room at all for denominational arrogance. Any type of grace that God bestows on us should be received with humility and love.
At the same time, Jesus didn't seem to back down when the Samaritan woman tried to insist that her faith was just as valid as the His. Jesus quite plainly stated that "salvation is of [from] the Jews." Am I implying that only Adventists have salvation, and thereby we are the only ones that can dispense it? No. But I believe, denominationally, God has blessed us with a tremendous opportunity to not only herald the fourth commandment and the three angel's messages, but be the epitome of love - the fulfillment of the law (though this doesn't exclude any emphasis on the literal ten commandments).
Lastly, you say that you cannot find anything in scripture that defines the remnant, but the verses in Revelation you alluded to seem to be pretty clear: "Those who keep the commandments of God and the Testimony of Jesus Christ. . . [and] have the faith of Jesus" (Rev 12:17; 14:12). If I know the joy of Adventism, why would I allow others to keep on making "mud pies" in a slum, when I can invite them to a "holiday at the sea," to use a C.S. Lewis analogy.
What you wrote really resonates with my soul. I firmly believe that the only way to the Father is through Jesus Christ, and that the only way the world will know we are disciples of Jesus is by our love for others. (After all these are principles spoken by God Himself.) Everything else falls in line behind those things.
Yet, I sense need of caution here. Why? If there is nothing special about our faith, what's the point of even being an SDA? What do we have to offer? (Huge conundrum for me...the offer part.) I believe there is much to value about our message, yet struggle with how it is often delivered by "the faithful."
I guess this is something that each individual needs to search out with "fear and trembling" so to speak, remembering that Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath and the other doctrines that define who we are, right?
The Adventist church has a remarkable vision. It believes wholeheartedly in education, a healthy life-style and in living the good life as it is outlined in both the Old and the New Testaments. And it wraps this holistic lifestyle up in its own particular view of what it is truly to be a Christian - which it spreads through the literature which it publishes, the weekly Sabbath school lessons, the evangelistic outreach program as well as through individual members as well as the many institutions which it sustains through its member's generous offerings. And all praise to a group of people who fervently believe that the Sabbath rest is for the good of humanity and speaks meaningfully and uniquely to a world which in many senses has forgotten that ‘in the beginning God’.
The Adventist message offers a great deal of hope to millions of people around the world – and I believe the world is far better for it. I know this is so because I was an Adventist myself for thirty-two years – and a missionary part of that time. And may I mention that I am very proud to have been associated with such a vision – I saw doctors, teachers, evangelists and laymen all beckoning men, women and young people toward a better lifestyle. Of course the SDA church has made mistakes along the way – just like any other Christian church, but I challenge anyone to fault the Adventist lifestyle.
But do tell me Steve - what is so arrogant about the remnant view - Christians at large speak of Jesus as 'the only way to eternal life' (and quote the Gospel of John copiously in doing so); thus making themselves a remnant amongst the multiplicity of non-Christian voices shouting out their particular brand of religion. Surely that could be considered the very height of arrogance – after all, the Abrahamic faith certainly has not reached every heart and mind, so we have to surely suppose that the millions who die daily are not in the least excluded from the ‘Kingdom of Heaven’ if they have followed their own sacred path faithfully.
Unless you are sincerely wishing to point out that Adventists have a nasty strain of self-righteousness – which I do not believe the majority have, any more than other Christians may – then I find your use of the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector both silly and disingenuous.
I have no problem with the idea that SDAs have a perspective on the Christian life that is of value to other Christians. But, in my view, there is a vast difference between this and claiming that a particular denomination is the remnant.
So please don't understand me to be suggesting that the SDA perspective has nothing to offer. It surely does - just like other Christian denominations.
What I do not accept is that there is some inner circle of Christians that God has uniquely blessed that somehow sets them apart from the rest of Christianity - the view that Paulsen clearly, to my mind, subscribes to.
Yes... throughout history and at the end of time, there will be those who keep the commandments of God (whatever they are - a discussion for another time!) and hold to the faith of Jesus. But in the time of John, when he penned Revelation, those people already existed. They were all Christians who, under persecution and oppression, remained true to God. They were not constructed as members of a "denomination" or holders of particular doctrines.
I don't think God gives a toss about institutional religion (which denominationalism is); God is only concerned about ruthlessly caring for those who want to live within the grace and love of God.
Specifically in Adventism, Ellen White, particularly in the the early years, specifically labelled all other denominations as either nominal Christians or as the "Synagog of Satan." These attitudes continue to play out within Adventism, particularly those that hold Ellen White as absolute.
Personally, from my observations, there is no such thing as a remnant. I don't see evidence that any group provides a better chance of being good. What I observe is that individuals choose to transform or stay in fear and self protection.
All I see within the desire to define a remnant is fear and self protection. And that desire has been at the root of tremendous cruelty and persecution of other outside groups throughout history.
What, exactly, do you mean by the "universal nature of the human spirit"? I have no idea what you are implying by this.
I can understand your concern, and it has long been a problem to me. No matter how you read it such an idea does bring about arrogance to any group blinded by self righteousness. It has been thus throughout history. Maybe that is part of the test--recognizing our "specialness" but realizing that it puts quite a responsibility on us and a need for true humility. Many people can't pass such a test. After all the Jews were special as well.
On the other hand when it comes to true spirituality, sacrifice, and dedication, there are Christians and others much more loyal to God and trusting.
I believe the remnant will be made up of all religions. Logistically in the end times they couldn't all officially put their names on some denominational role. (Don't you remember the EGW quote that more nonSDA than SDA would be saved?)
The "144,000" (symbolic) will have no guile, but be sincere and have love. They are saved because Christ died for them from the beginning of the world. Here is our mistake as a church and as Christians--believing that only those who hear and understand who Christ is will be saved. What kind of a God would make knowledge the test?
The "Sabbath test" is for those who know and understand its significance as righteousness by faith--rest in Jesus.
The lifestyle principles we have learned do not save us but are given so that we may serve better and longer, be less materialistic than the world and more ethical.
I submit this as my understanding but am sure I have much more to learn.
It basically means what it says. Every person has a spirit that is connected to everyone. Humans and all conscious beings have deep connections in that what ever happens to my brother or sister is happening to me. This idea that we are all separate is an illusion.
Jesus addressed this when he spoke of judgment. When I judge others, I am judging myself. Or when I do acts of kindness or mercy to others I am doing it to Jesus. And if I have the spirit of christ then I have a connection to all if you want a more Christian terminology.
If one is open to it, one can feel what others feel. Why do you think that Jesus wept when he came into the presence of grief? Why do you think Jesus appealed to empathy in his statement to do to others as we would have done to us?
We are connected and when we create walls where there really are no walls, we close ourselves off as well. That's why many Christians don't "get it."
Christianity, as it is practiced since the western world defined it, is closed down. And this remnant idea or the idea of chosen ones is simply another way to close people off from one another. It is based on fear rather than love.
Do you believe God has a remnant?
Is it wrong to be happy that you are following God? How many were still following God during the time of Elijah? Was it 5000 who "hadn't bowed the knee to Baal"? Don't you think that remnant should have been filled with joy that they were following God?
I do believe that the SDA church (at least right now) is the remnant, and I don't think it's fair to say that all who believe that have an arrogant attitude of "Thank God I'm SDA and not like other Christians".
Doesn't the Bible say the correct attitude of those in the remnant towards those outside the remnant should be "Babylon has fallen, come out of her"?
If we believe our doctrines are correct, aren't we obliged to teach others what God has revealed to us? To "go into all the world and preach the Gospel"?
Of course, "Gospel" does not equal "Sabbath observance" or "join SDA church"...but that Christ died for our sins and offers the gift of salvation to those who follow Him.
So if following Him is required to obtain salvation, then following Him is an essential part of the Gospel and we should teach others how God truly wants us to follow him, which includes, but is not limited to, keeping the 4th commandment.
These are just some thoughts I had after reading your post. :-)
Todd
Richard, everything you say is against FEAR; does that mean you live a FEARLESS life? I'm sure your studio has EXIT signs and your car has breaks. Fear is part of our odyssey, it protects us.
Shawn, I think your traditional SDA thinking needs refreshing, we all know what it stands for...
For now I'm glad to think that I'm part of God's Remnant, but I'm not telling anyone we're the only ones, the chosen frozen.
Thanks for you questions... I will try to answer them:
When you say that you "used to" believe you were part of the remnant, does that mean you don't believe it anymore?
I actually said that 'I used to believe I was part of an elite group that God had specifically chosen to be the most significant group of people at the end of the world.' The group I was referring to, of course, was the SDA denomination. I no longer believe that the SDA denomination has that status.
Do you believe God has a remnant?
I believe the remnant are all people who remain faithful to Jesus at any time in history. At the end of time, there will be a group of people who remain faithful to Jesus. Fundmental Belief #13 is written in such a way that it must apply to the SDA denomination in its current form. I don't believe that the remnant group of people will be equivalent to a denomination.
Is it wrong to be happy that you are following God?
Of course not.
How many were still following God during the time of Elijah? Was it 5000 who "hadn't bowed the knee to Baal"? Don't you think that remnant should have been filled with joy that they were following God?
Of course. But I don't think they were interested in saying they were the only group who were the remnant.
I do believe that the SDA church (at least right now) is the remnant,
You have a right to believe that, of course. I don't happen to agree with you.
and I don't think it's fair to say that all who believe that have an arrogant attitude of "Thank God I'm SDA and not like other Christians".
The moment a group of people claim to be THE remnant I think that group is arrogant.
Doesn't the Bible say the correct attitude of those in the remnant towards those outside the remnant should be "Babylon has fallen, come out of her"?
Yes. But this wasn't written to a denomination. It was written to all who follow Jesus.
If we believe our doctrines are correct, aren't we obliged to teach others what God has revealed to us?
We all have a right to believe what we think is correct - otherwise we wouldn't believe it! So, if you think the SDA denomination IS the remnant, then by all means say so. But I don't agree with that view and believe it is an arrogant position to take, especially when it sets up one group of people to the exclusion of others who claim to follow Christ.
To "go into all the world and preach the Gospel"?
Of course. All Christians are invited to share the gospel.
Of course, "Gospel" does not equal "Sabbath observance" or "join SDA church"...but that Christ died for our sins and offers the gift of salvation to those who follow Him.
I agree.
So if following Him is required to obtain salvation, then following Him is an essential part of the Gospel and we should teach others how God truly wants us to follow him,
Firstly, following Jesus is not required to obtain salvation. Salvation was objectively obtained for every human being when Christ died. We follow Jesus BECAUSE our salvation has been obtained for us apart from what we do.
Secondly, yes, we are to proclaim the salvation Jesus has obtained for everyone and invite all to live in the reality of that knowledge by becoming a disciple of Jesus.
which includes, but is not limited to, keeping the 4th commandment.
The fourth commandment is not an essential part of the gospel. At the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 when the early church made a decision about what was essential for Gentile believers, the Mosaic covenant was dismissed. Paul states quite clearly that the gospel is about the good news of Jesus Christ's incarnation, death, burial, and resurrection. He doesn't mention the Sabbath as being an essential part of the gospel.
These are just some thoughts I had after reading your post. :-)
Thanks. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts.
Steve
Of course, now that I've read your answers I have a few more questions, so I hope I'm not bugging you.
"I believe the remnant are all people who remain faithful to Jesus at any time in history. At the end of time, there will be a group of people who remain faithful to Jesus. "
I totally agree. So I guess what I believe is that Adventists are the remnant church, though the entire remnant is not made up exclusively of Adventists. I agree with you that everyone that is following all the light God has revealed to them is part of the remnant. But I believe that the Adventist church has received more light than any other denomination that I know of. Obviously the fourth commandment cuts down a lot right off the bat.
"But I don't think they were interested in saying they were the only group who were the remnant."
You know, now that you mention it, I think you're completely right!
"The moment a group of people claim to be THE remnant I think that group is arrogant."
What if the group claims to be PART of the remnant?
"Firstly, following Jesus is not required to obtain salvation. Salvation was objectively obtained for every human being when Christ died. We follow Jesus BECAUSE our salvation has been obtained for us apart from what we do."
Of course I understand that we don't follow commandments to be saved, but because we are saved.
BUT...I don't understand how you can say following Jesus isn't a requirement of salvation. If it wasn't, then everyone would be saved and no one would be destroyed. If we don't follow Jesus, are we still going to be saved?
"the Mosaic covenant was dismissed"
Does that mean you don't think Christians should keep God's 10 commandments? That sounds like people who say that the commandments were nailed to the cross, etc, and that we don't have to follow God's commands.
Again I want to thank you for your great answer and say sorry for asking so many more questions. :-)
Todd
My singing buddy: I don't think we "all know what" my "traditional SDA thinking" stands for. I guess I'm out of the loop. Please enlighten me as to what you are referring.
Well I think I posted on a number of things other than fear so "everything I say" is not about fear. And no, I don't live a fearless life.
Andre Posted "I'm sure your studio has EXIT signs and your car has breaks. Fear is part of our odyssey, it protects us."
I don't use the exit because I'm afraid. I use it to exit the building. I don't have to use the brakes in my car out of fear. I can do all these things from common sense and intent.
Fear is only useful for brief periods of time when we are directly confronted with danger. In most other cases it interferes with the execution of wise decisions. It is particularly harmful in the quality of one's life experience.
My points have been directed at the tendency of Christian belief to be based on a fear or avoidance rather than the proactive nature of love. I enjoy my life far more from a sense of passion about life rather than fear of punishment or abandonment, both of which are major themes of the Biblical God's reactions to our behavior.
Thank you so much for this thought provoking and very relevant post. I do think that the belief that we are "the remnant" meaning, the only remnant deserves analyzing and questioning. As SDA's many of us cling to this and it causes us to have a dismissive attitude towards the sincere and Holy Spirit inspired efforts of Christians in other denominations to serve Christ and draw others to him.
Shawn, I don't understand you statement about other Christians making "mud pies in a slum" while SDA's are on a "holiday at the sea". I know that you were quoting CS Lewis here but I don't get it.
Ellamae, I really appreciated your comments and to me they are dead on with what I believe. I think it's poignant that you posed the question about the knowledge of Christ being the test for salvation for all people. I've been wondering about that myself lately.
Gordon, you say that you were an Adventist for 32 years. Why are you no longer one? You sound like you are a big fan of the denomination so it's surprising to me that you use the past tense to describe your affiliation with it.
Steve, I'd be interested to here your response to Todd's second set of questions. Especially the ones about the Mosaic Law and Acts 15. That is fascinating stuff to me...it goes so far against the SDA grain of beliefs. It makes me wonder how one can still be an SDA yet be such a non-conformist.
Thanks for the conversation! And, no, you're not bugging me :-)
Italics are quotes from your post - other is my responses.
So I guess what I believe is that Adventists are the remnant church, though the entire remnant is not made up exclusively of Adventists.
I would, of course, disagree with this essentially. In my view, no denomination can be identified as the remnant. Why can't we just say that the remnant consists of all those who follow Christ in distinction from those who don't?
But I believe that the Adventist church has received more light than any other denomination that I know of.
I'm not sure how we can quantify such a thing. Nor do I feel a need to worry about who has more or less light given to them. All truth is God's truth wherever it is found. To concern ourselves with comparing amounts of light once again, in my view, smacks of elitism and arrogance.
Obviously the fourth commandment cuts down a lot right off the bat.
Adventists were certainly not the originators or the initial recipients of the Sabbath doctrine!
If what you are saying is that, for you, the Adventist belief system provides what you understand to be the best statement of biblical truth that you know of -- then I don't have a problem with that. Personally, I don't feel the need to make that comparison. I don't subscribe to any one statement of truth. One of the reasons our Adventist pioneers resisted a creed was that they realised that such a creed would limit growth in understanding and be used to judge people who disagreed with it -- their fear having come to reality within Adventism.
Why not just state what we believe and leave it at that?
"The moment a group of people claim to be THE remnant I think that group is arrogant."
What if the group claims to be PART of the remnant?
Of course I understand that we don't follow commandments to be saved, but because we are saved.
BUT...I don't understand how you can say following Jesus isn't a requirement of salvation. If it wasn't, then everyone would be saved and no one would be destroyed. If we don't follow Jesus, are we still going to be saved?
I believe that, when Christ died for all and forgave the sins of all, every single person who ever lived, is living, and will live, is objectively saved. When people hear the gospel and accept the invitation to live within the reality of that knowledge, they subjectively experience the benefits of what Christ has already provided. It doesn't actually change their objective saved status.
In my view, the only way for a person to be lost is to persistently, consistently, for their whole life, reject whatever revelation they have received about God (even if they do not explicity hear about God) whether that be by a direct gospel proclamation or just listening to their conscience.
Clearly, a lot more could be said but that will have to do in this short space! :-)
"the Mosaic covenant was dismissed"
Does that mean you don't think Christians should keep God's 10 commandments? That sounds like people who say that the commandments were nailed to the cross, etc, and that we don't have to follow God's commands.
I believe that Christians need to follow God's commands. But, in my view, God has revealed his requirements to God's people at different times, in different ways, modifying what God requires at that time.
In my opinion, the entire Mosaic covenant was done away with at Calvary and we are now to follow the commands that Jesus gave - to love God and neighbour. Jesus is the "law" for Christians and the gospel is what we are to evaluate our actions by.
Again I want to thank you for your great answer and say sorry for asking so many more questions. :-)
I love questions!
Great to dialogue.
Steve
I am not sure what you mean by the following, please explain:
"In my opinion, the entire Mosaic covenant was done away with at Calvary and we are now to follow the commands that Jesus gave - to love God and neighbour. Jesus is the "law" for Christians and the gospel is what we are to evaluate our actions by."
Do you consider the Ten as the Mosaic convenant or are you talking about the Jews as God's chosen people? Or the myriads of laws given them for their time?
Weren't the Ten from the beginning at Creation as referred to in the Sabbath? And isn't the Sabbath an on-going symbol of the rest in Christ? As I recall the Ten were in the Ark seperate from the laws of the time.
Now I don't want to sound so Sabbath-centered that it becomes a kind of idol, but it does seem to have a place in true worship along with the other commandments.
When we talk about Christ's commands--they are the same in specifics--love for God and for others--that seems plain from my perspective. They are the fruit of salvation (not the root). When one is saved they grow closer to keeping the commandments as they understand them.
Commandments also act as the guide that leads us to God as noted in the NT. Imagine being a missionary in a pagan culture that believed their god wanted them to kill, worship idols, steal, etc. There is no other way to teach other than through God's commandments. They wouldn't know what following Christ meant, and I'm not sure it is clear to a lot of people without the Ten. Breaking the Ten has come to be the way of life for contemporary people who still claim to believe in God.
I DO AGREE with you idea of objective and subjective salvation.
Good job of explaining that.
Ellamae
Todd
As usual - quotes from you are italicised; my responses in normal text)
I am not sure what you mean by the following, please explain:
"In my opinion, the entire Mosaic covenant was done away with at Calvary and we are now to follow the commands that Jesus gave - to love God and neighbour. Jesus is the "law" for Christians and the gospel is what we are to evaluate our actions by."
Do you consider the Ten as the Mosaic convenant or are you talking about the Jews as God's chosen people?
I don't believe there is any biblical basis for distinguishing the Ten Commandments from the rest of the Mosaic covenant other than it being an overall summary of the rest of the covenant. In other words, I believe the 10 commandments are equivalent to the Mosaic covenant. I base this conclusion on the following passages of Scripture (emphasis supplied):
'He [Moses] was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.' (Ex 34:28)
'He declared to you his covenant, which he charged you to observe, that is, the ten commandments; and he wrote them on two stone tablets.' (Deut 4:13)
Also have a look at Deut 5:2-22; 9:9-12, 15; 10:4; 1 Kings 8:9, 21.
Or the myriads of laws given them for their time?
The covenant consisted of all the laws given at that time.
Weren't the Ten from the beginning at Creation as referred to in the Sabbath?
In my view, the 10 commandments were not given at creation. Firstly, there is no mention in Genesis 1 and 2 of the 10 commandments being given then.
Secondly, Deut 5:2-3 states that 'The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. Not with our ancestors did the LORD make this covenant, but with us, who are all of us here alive today.'
Mt Horeb is, of course, another name for Mt Sinai. This text seems to me to make it clear that the covenant was not made before Sinai. And if, as I have argued above, the covenant is equivalent to the 10 commandments, then the 10 commandments cannot have been given before Mt Sinai.
And isn't the Sabbath an on-going symbol of the rest in Christ?
Well... we have certainly made it that. I believe the Sabbath was a specifically Jewish requirement having two underlying events that were celebrated: creation and the Exodus. Hebrews, as I understand it, refers to the Sabbath rest as something that is available in Christ. Now that Christ is here, the foreshadowing of Christ in the Sabbath commandment has been fulfilled. We rest in Christ every moment of every day.
That is not to say that we do not celebrate that rest. However, it is interesting to note the equivalent symbols in the Mosaic and New covenants:
MOSAIC <---> NEW
----------------
ENTRANCE INTO COVENANT:
Circumcision <---> Baptism
ONGOING SYMBOL OF COVENANT RELATIONSHIP
Sabbath <---> Lord's Supper
As I recall the Ten were in the Ark seperate from the laws of the time.
That is because the 10 Commandments were the covenant. The represented the whole covenant, so they had pride of place.
Now I don't want to sound so Sabbath-centered that it becomes a kind of idol, but it does seem to have a place in true worship along with the other commandments.
Paul certainly does call for Christians to gather together for worship, encouragement, etc. True worship, though, is about honouring and glorifying God.
When we talk about Christ's commands--they are the same in specifics--love for God and for others--that seems plain from my perspective.
For me, love for God and for others are the eternal commandments of God. The specific detailed "rules" have changed at various times in history. All of the hundreds of commands in the Mosaic law were just as much required of God at the time as was the Sabbath. The question for me now is what does God ask in our time -- the Christian era?
They are the fruit of salvation (not the root).
According to Galatians, the fruit of the Spirit never list obedience to the Mosaic law as a product. The Sabbath is never mentioned in the list (which is surprising if it was so important). In an interesting turn of phrase, Paul says that the fruits of the Spirit (love, joy, peace, etc) are good because there is no law against them.
When one is saved they grow closer to keeping the commandments as they understand them.
I would prefer to say that, when one is saved, one grows closer to obedience to God as they understand God. Whether or not one considers a particular day more or less holy than another should, according to Paul in Romans 14, be a matter of personal conscience.
Imagine being a missionary in a pagan culture that believed their god wanted them to kill, worship idols, steal, etc. There is no other way to teach other than through God's commandments.
Why couldn't they just tell the story of Jesus and who he was and how he taught? I think I could do that without any reference to the 10 commandments. In fact, the 10 commandments are a very limited articulation of Christian ethics. Jesus and the gospel are much richer and more powerful. It is interesting to me that the Ten Commandments never mention love (although other parts of the Mosaic law did).
They wouldn't know what following Christ meant, and I'm not sure it is clear to a lot of people without the Ten.
Maybe we think that because we have relied too much on the Ten to be our guide. I think that learning about Jesus and the gospel is all the foundation we need to know how to behave.
Breaking the Ten has come to be the way of life for contemporary people who still claim to believe in God.
I think, more importantly, the fuzzy focus on Jesus and the gospel has led to the loss of a Christian ethic.
I DO AGREE with you idea of objective and subjective salvation.
Good job of explaining that.
Thanks... the distinction (not original with me) has been very helpful to me.
Well... I have tried to be very frank about what I think. I look further to further dialogue!
Cheers
Steve
Go back to the one where it states that most saved will not be Adventists. On the other hand I don't think remnant and salvation are the same thing. I have been told that "remnant" means the rest of a piece of cloth and not necessarily the smallest. Pehaps that makes it more inclusive.
This arrogance comes from a different era, I believe. You will find the more educated (and contemporary)do not see it in that way. After all it isn't politically correct is it? Referring to a remnant movement rather than one particular denomination would make more sense. I don't see any denomination having spiritual supremacy. It just always seemed to me that the doctrines I learned and chose show a more loving picture of God than some others. Does that make me arrogant? I hope not.
I know that I am a bit late to the conversation but I thought that I would post a few thoughts that I have had on this subject.
I recently graduated from the seminary and before I arrived the issue over our understanding of the Remnant almost caused me to leave the church (SDA). Therefore, I made sure that I would investigate this issue very carefully when I was there. I will share a few things that I shared but first let me state that I will not address all the issues that have come up during this conversation. I could post on each issue but frankly I am too tired to write more than I have to.
The first thing that I discovered is that there is a difference between retro Adventism and modern Adventism. Retro Adventism had a different perspective on the remnant than the modern church has on this subject. Retro Adventists did not equate membership to a certain denomination with membership to the remnant. Our pioneers were from a broad spectrum of denominations when they discovered these truths so they made the acceptance of truth the division between the remnant and non-remnant. Furthermore their belief in the remnant did not cause them to become elitists. I know this because Ellen White's twin sister never accepted the Advent message but Ellen did not treat her like she was lost. They understood that the acceptance of these truths was only a salvation issue when the Sunday worship was enforced.
What I learned from this study is that we should not confuse the remnant with a denomination. The remnant will be those who are crazy about Jesus and not just his commandments (legalists). They will accept the truths of God's word but they will not cause them to become elitist in their thinking. Brian McLaren gives a good perspective on this in his book entitled "A Generous Orthodoxy". He explains this concept through the example of Moses on the mountain of God. God was angry with the Israelites and told Moses that he would destroy them and make a great nation from him. Moses response was - "No, it would be better if you left me out and accepted the Israelites." This should be our attitude.
I could also talk about what the phrase "spirit of prophecy" means and add my comments on the issue of the old and new covenant but I think that that will have to wait.
Anyway, I hope that some of this was helpful. And I hope that most of my comments are clear - I am writing without my glasses!
Blessings,
Jon