It was never my intention to stir up controversy, even while debating with my instructors at the Southern Religion department or at the Seminary. I simply spoke out when I heard a fallacy or points that went counter to what I knew Scripture taught. I was not simply being argumentative, and would have preferred to be able to silently affirm what I was taught.

I accepted Christ as my Savior in 1991 – written in the front of my Bible in the obituaries “Deaths” page is “Old self – summer 1991”. Prior to that I was an avowed New Ager, and had studied a variety of Eastern and occult schools of thought in my search for truth. My search eventually brought me to examine the claims of Scripture, and it was there that I found a Savior more precious than life itself.

The reason that I could drop my New Age theories and instead believe what the Bible communicated was that I was brutally honest with truth. I applied all the logic that my temperament supplied to every claim. I was already frustrated with the various Eastern teachings of reincarnation, for example, because they often taught conflicting and illogical positions. Physical observation of the material world just didn’t support many of the claims of the New Age, Hinduism, or Buddhism. The Bible, on the other hand, was very straightforward in its presentation of truths. It was rooted in the stream of history, and taught a position on the nature of man that was easy to verify – observation strongly supported the idea that man was fundamentally sinful and helpless to resolve his own situation.

When I arrived on the campus of a Seventh-day Adventist college (now Southern Adventist University) I was very thrilled with what I had discovered so far in my journey through the Bible. I had studied in depth the books of Romans and Galatians and had come to understand for the first time in my life Justification by Faith, grace, and the true purpose and role of the law. I had wrestled with the programming of my childhood and youth that taught legalism and a strict interpretation of doctrine and had come to know peace by resting in Christ. I had struggled to resolve the differences between what I had been taught growing up in Adventism and what I was now seeing for the first time clearly in the Bible – I had decided that there just was a legalistic element in Adventism rooted in a long standing tradition of error and misunderstanding, and hoped that this element was slowly being weeded out.

These differences became more pronounced when I started taking theology classes at Southern. I was thrilled to be studying at one of our best institutions under what I could perceive were very godly and dedicated instructors. I sat in virtual awe during the first weeks of Exegesis class taught by the chairman of the Religion Department. I clearly recall feeling like, “Wow! I’m sitting here in a real theology class being taught by the Chairman.” It was a naïve thought, but demonstrates my attitude and mood in the early days at Southern.

The first real shocker that I experienced was in this Exegesis class. The word Exegesis means to study a passage such that the true message it is communicating is heard and understood. The word is derived from Greek, and “Ek” – the “Ex” part – means out, or out of. To let the meaning come out of the passage. The instructor had in the early weeks effectively hammered home the importance of letting the passage speak for itself – a concept that I was fully harmonized with, and was very important given my previous journey out of error into truth.

An assignment was given to refute the points that had been written by a lay theologian in a “letter to the editor” of a local paper. The writer was attempting to refute the teachings of Adventists and trying to show that the law had been done away with. Our assignment was to take the article home, and over the weekend dissect, analyze, and prepare to discuss it on Monday. One of the verses used by the writer was Col. 2:14, and he had used the King James translation to demonstrate that the law had been nailed to the cross.

I dug into the assignment with vigor and enthusiasm. I looked up each verse, followed the logic of the writer, and even attempted to dig through the Greek of Col. 2:14 – I had not yet started Greek classes. I looked at a wide variety of sources, and pondered the passage deeply. Out of it came a beautiful picture of the Gospel and what God accomplished for us on the cross. Far from saying that the law had been nailed to the cross, the passage declared that our death decree had been, in Christ, eliminated. This passage harmonized perfectly with Paul’s other teachings on the Gospel in Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians. I loved the passage, and felt sadly for the writer of the article that they missed such a powerful message by focusing on an unclear and erroneous translation in an attempt to prove their point.

Monday morning shocked me awake. Our instructor, as he gave his refutation of the article – without asking for our involvement or findings – said that what Col. 2:14 was really saying is that the ceremonial law, and not the moral law, was nailed to the cross. He expanded by reminding us that there were two laws: the moral law which is eternal, and the ceremonial laws, that were done away with on the Cross. I objected in class, but did not in any way sway the instructor’s position. I continued my objection, more strenuously, after class. Nothing. Amusingly, the instructor attempted to “correct” my misunderstanding by pulling commentaries out of the library. Each failed to support his position, but rather boosted mine.

It is beyond the scope here to examine the case in depth, but this should suffice as an illustration of what started me along the path of disagreement with Adventist theologians and doctrine. I debated this verse with the instructor for the next 2 years, but never dislodged him from his position. I saw this as a test of intellectual and doctrinal honesty. I felt that he saw it as evidence of my unwillingness to abide good doctrine.

I later discovered that he had changed his position when I read his recent writing on the passage – he essentially presented the same interpretation of the passage that I had held. Yet, he had always made me feel that I was wrong and wrong to continue to debate it.

This was not a competition. This was not a debate where I desired to win. This was the search for truth and intellectual honesty. This was simply doing Exegesis the way that he had taught that it should be done. Indeed, my observation was that this dualistic thinking pervades our schools of theology. On the one hand they urge right thinking and right study, and criticize other denominations for not following correct thinking. Then they turn around and follow their own method of study that breaks their previous rules. These, however, are acceptable, because of one primary reason: the results harmonize with Ellen White.

After this class I listened with more care to the professors, and studied our doctrine more critically. I challenged professors and speakers to provide Biblical evidence for statements that they made, and noted that they often repeated texts and arguments that had been repeated for 120+ years by our theologians – and often misquoted the same verses that had previously been misquoted.

Over the years I was desperate to be able to prove Adventist doctrines direct from Scripture without needing to depend on Ellen White or any of our early theologians. I wanted to avoid the same errors of presentation and find a way to clearly and effectively present our positions right from the Bible. In some cases I was successful. In too many others I simply could not.

It is important to stress that my attitude was one of a learner and who honestly believed in our history and had a fondness for Ellen White and our experience. I wanted to support our doctrines. I wanted to be able to answer the questions raised in my classes. I wanted to refute our detractors. But I wanted to do it only from the Bible. I was not studying to find flaws, I had already recognized the flaws and wanted to study to understand and to be able to present without needing to resort to the traditional arguments that often lifted passages out of context and relied on marginal translations of words or passages.

In short, I wanted to present our truths while being true to conscience and context. I was wrestling with Scripture so I didn’t have to wrest a passage out of context to prove a point.

I failed. The more I studied the more flaws I found. The sum of these flaws was a failure to find Biblical support for doctrines declared to be the pillars of our church: the 2 apartment theory that teaches that Christ went into just the Holy Place on ascension and performed antitypical “daily” ministry until 1844. That in 1844 Christ moved from the Holy Place into the Most Holy Place to begin antitypical Day of Atonement ministry. That we must keep the law to be saved. That on the cross Christ only made provision for salvation, but according to our works we are fitted with our readiness for heaven and salvation. That we are saved by faith plus works – make no mistake, though our modern theologians will vehemently deny holding this position, effectively this is what Adventism has been teaching for 150 years.

These, and so many other smaller teachings that found no support in their supporting texts, have moved me from a basic belief in Adventist doctrines to a belief that these doctrines were never correct to begin with.

I am now asked if I have left the Adventist church. I respond that I can not call myself an Adventist, because the Adventist baptismal creed will not let me. Some years ago my membership “letter” went up in flames when the church that held it in Frederick, Maryland, burned down. They did not have any sort of contingency plan for such a disaster, and after that had no record of my membership. Later, when I was a pastor, the church wanted me to transfer my “letter”, which no longer existed. I was told that I could be made a member by profession of faith – something strange for a licensed pastor! However, I could not in good conscience do so and I avoided the subject. Were I to now be asked to affirm the beliefs as spelled out in the baptismal creed, I could not in good conscience do so. I, therefore, can not call myself a Seventh-day Adventist.

The articles on this site that have been written by me are answers to questions that I’m asked, and are an attempt to make available materials that speak when I am not available to speak. I am not attempting to attack Adventists and have no interest in controversy. But I feel that truth is important and must be defended. As my Adventist friends discover that I attend “a Sunday Church” (North Point Community Church here in the Atlanta area), they start assuming all sorts of things. They assume that I have backslidden, and that I have been deceived. They assume that I now believe in the “Rapture” as presented in the Left Behind series (I don’t). They assume that I believe we can do whatever we want (I don’t). They assume that I have left because I’m angry (I’m not). They assume that this is just the natural result of being rebellious and contentious (no, it is the natural result of asking good questions and insisting on correct answers), and they assume that I’ll eventually march with the demons to kill Adventists (I admit being quite frustrated at some of them, but no).

In fact, it is ignorance about other perspectives and belief systems that cause many of our Adventist family and friends to react so violently toward us. Many, I suspect, feel that there are serious problems with Adventist beliefs and are afraid that there may not be good answers. But having not studied for themselves, and being afraid to look intently for themselves, they react strongly against us with very traditional points of argument. These, generally, will not confront me, but rather confront my wife. I can only assume that they do not confront me because they are afraid that an intense debate will ensue and questions will be raised that they can not answer. They are right. Many of them have not and will not actually study for themselves. Instead they are convinced of their rightness and lob traditional Adventist spin at my wife.

We have not sought controversy, we are simply humbly seeking truth and being honest when we find it. I’m not on a crusade to rescue people from the clutches of Adventism, but I do want to provide resources that help to answer some of the more daring claims.

If you have questions about anything you find here, or about what I believe, I hope that you ask me and not someone else. I am, after all, the best resource for understanding what I believe – just like you are the best earthly authority on you.

Topics

• Adventism
• Theology
• Gardening

Snapshot

“Why have I 'abandoned' the Seventh-day Adventist movement and now write against it? Am I one of the bright lights who Ellen White prophesied would go out? Well hardly bright, yet if this is what you choose to believe at least let me speak for myself and explain why I have left.”

Feedback Form