@Kurlee I am someone who practices Adventist without EGW and I reject her as a prophet. There is a significant silent portion of the church who is doing so now. And while the rejection of EGW changes how we practice our faith many it doesn't make make it possible to easily be absorbed into another faith.
Our beliefs on marriage and baptism is in line with most Protestant denominations so unless we are trying to adopt a more catholic viewpoint on those issues EGW's removal would have no impact.
Our belief that the law can stand without EGW. Most believe that we think keeping the law is a salvation act but that isn't an official teaching of the church. And actually all denominations Cathloic and Protestant keep the law-are not the 10 commandments the law of God? We believe you are saved by grace and Christ's blood alone. It's just the the word "law" has gotten a bad connotation. The same denominations that reject the law to accept grace will preach the commandments which are the law of God. We just believe keeping the biblical Sabbath and observing dietary laws lead to a fuller life but it isn't a prerequisite for Salvation.
Our dietary teachings can stand without EGW as they are just basically good nutrition with a plant based diet. Plus SDA tend to have a longer lifespan than the the average American. Most people SDA will tell you that eating this way doesn't get you into heaven but it can make your stay here on earth more pleasant. Most diets now recommend a plant based whole food diet for better health. Sure there are people who go over board but that's the case with anything.
As far as jewelry and makeup many SDA wear it in some form or another to the frustration of the church. And while I don't believe in a national Sunday law I will point out that there are religious liberty issues for anyone who is a Sabbatarian.
Like I said the church is changing and evolving. But unfortunately the ones who are the most vocal are usually not representative of the direction the church is going in or even correct in what they are putting out as truth. Like I've heard some well meaning SDA tell people that eating unclean foods is a salvation issue or you have to believe in EGW to be saved- all which are NOT taught by the church.
I believe that you can disagree with someone's denomination in a respectful manner. It bothers me to see another SDA bash someone's service to Christ because SDA are often bashed because of their belief system.
Just to clarify, I'm not SDA, if that's what you're implying. I am just familiar with the doctrine. Secondly, could you please point to me where I'm being disrespectful. If I'm missing it, I'm open to hearing how.
What you're saying in theory is VERY true, but in practice it's quite a different story. For example, SDA churches CANNOT marry an SDA and another Christian. Pastors are not allowed to marry the couple in an SDA church. Look at where that teaching came from.
When it comes to diet, it's not salvific, but the "health message" (vegetarianism), which comes from EGW is huge. You're not forced to, but let an SDA say that they eat shrimp or pork because it's not salvific or serve it. The results wouldn't be pretty. My experience has been that many will say they are saved by grace alone, but sin is considered breaking the "law", which is Sabbath (or other things) by cooking, shopping or watching TV on Saturday. Common language is "Sunday churches" as if we are not Christians, too. So how are you saved by grace alone if you are sinning by going to the store or watching TV on Saturday?
Lastly, baptism is intrinsically linked to church membership. To be baptized, you have to declare you believe in the "Spirit of Prophecy", which is code for Ellen G. White; agree that the SDA is the remnant church and that the law (which is actually, theologically more than the 10 commandments) is still binding on Christians and you plan to follow it (check out the baptismal vows and 27/28 fundamental beliefs). If you've been baptized before elsewhere, it isn't recognized and you need to declare all the things that I just described to be a member (profession of faith). I could go on and on, but like I was saying in an earlier post, EGW and SDA are so deeply interwoven that even when you think you've removed her or have rejected her personally and privately, you're unconsciously still following/co-signing her teachings.
All I'm saying is, I respect and understand your faith more than you think, but I can clearly see how despite many people's sincere efforts, these kinds of teachings and the way they are wrapped up, which are for the most part implicit, can lead people to see things in a particular way and act in ways that are off-putting to other Christians. When you check into the root of these controversial biblical interpretations, which seem Sola Scriptura, you'll be surprised.
I genuinely believe SDAs have the best of intentions and are very sincere in their faith, but the doctrine can cause challenges, IMO, and many avoid confronting issues head on. I think at this point, we should agree to disagree. My intention is not to bash anyone, but most people have no idea why these posts keep popping up here and there or what the links in OP's siggy are about. There is an undercurrent there and I think they should know. I'm speaking from a theological perspective and not as an attack. Shouldn't we be able to unpack these things?
