The Worlds We Make

(Frank Peacham) #21

It seems to me that this viewpoint was a holdover from Ancient Rome, where emperors was regarded as head of state religion and were thought of as Gods. While the Catholic church is centered in Rome, it would only be natural for them to embrace the current culture of ideas. Traditions live long and die hard.

We have our traditions of undemocratic elections of Conference-Union-Division-GC officers. A small committee of wealthy influential elected from a body of elected delegates, choose our leaders. Twice removed from democracy. I wonder how this ever got started? Maybe this undemocratic method, of election of officers is more Roman, where bishops elected the new Pope?

(Frank Peacham) #22

Don’t forget the Muslim view, the Quran is literally the word of God. It’s purely divine.

(Patrick Travis) #23

Frank, some may take issue with me but I feel blessed to have attended RTS for my M.Div. degree. I had Reformed theologians such as Roger Nicole and Reformed OT scholar Bruce Waltke. Apologetics, Ethics and Christian Philosophy under Ronald Nash. Dr. Farrell, once editor of Christianity today taught me Church History 2 covering post Reformation history.
Farrell was not apologetic for all of “Geneva’s errors” but did ask we should consider it within it’s time. Servatus was under a “death decree” from the RCC before going to Geneva. It was the “council of 25 in Geneva” of which Calvin was not in that chose the death decree. Calvin only became a citizen of Geneva in which he lived 5 yrs. before his death and did not have a “free hand in Geneva.”
Farrell said that scholar Francois Wendel who wrote a history on Calvin stated on pp. 79 & 309 that Calvin recognized the need for a separation of church and state. I have YET to see the “perfect church” or theologian but I believe Calvin’s Institutes are an amazing work from a truly amazing scholar prolific in the languages, church fathers and biblical interpretation. The educational background of these folks was impressive. I suggest they can serve as a “big picture general mold” of the Christian faith to work from to arrive “sometimes” at something better in areas.
Farrell claims that in the English Parliament during the American Revolution it was stated that the “damn Calvinist have run off with our bride” showing the importance of Calvinism in American theology and understandings of legitimate power of the state. Calvinism’s emphasis on covenant and written law along with other secular emphasis of Locke, Montesquieu, Blackstone, etc. were the basic idea of a written constitution and Bill of Rights which limits the scope of both Church & State.
So I think that Ellen had read a historian who likewise felt that the Protestant faith and work ethic along with the concept of Republic…not pure democracy was the background for a rule of law and faith that helped America prosper.
One can discount all of this by the blight of slavery but they must still find a better civil framework and demonstrate where it has existed in the “times of the gentiles.”

(Patrick Travis) #24

Frank, remember we are talking about the “words” that make up one’s “worldview, groups, faith etc.” My faith is based on my understanding of the word’s of scripture and general summations in the Protestant great confessions. I find myself still a “sinner” among other sinners.
I do not believe the Koran to be inspired. It is quite ok with me that Muslims do…it is their right. I don’t believe Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism are light path’s to God as understood by Christians. I personally discount that “religious inclusive” view. That said, I do believe in “civil inclusivism” of all faiths in the present age. I do believe in a “common grace” that has many correct observations of the world and human behavior that has been noted by many sources. I have lived in countries of all these dominant faiths.
If I take the “words” of Christ in Jn.14:6 seriously for Salvic faith, then when he say’s "no one comes to the Father but through me. And, Jn.8:24 “If you do not believe I am he you will die in your sins.” I must deconstruct words to make it say something “inclusive.”
If I choose to be a Muslim,Buddhist, Hindu, Jew, Atheist etc. That is “my faith” and to me it’s disingenuous to try by inclusive sentimentality to make all lead to the same place.

(Patrick Travis) #25

Frank, in heaven I suggest there will only be 1 God, in “3 persons thinking as 1” and “one religion.” As far as the OT, the people agreed to the terms of the covenant. The prophets were to point out the blessings and curses of disobedience vs. obedience to covenant. They were not forced to accept covenant but having accepted they were under obligation if they were to be considered his nation/people.

(Sirje) #26

When I was a kid, I used to try to put myself into another person’s shoes - not in a philosophical way, but actually pretend to be seeing what they were seeing, going down the street or whatever. I still do that sometimes, wondering what they’re thinking and where they are coming from and going to. It is a fact that none of us live in the same environment - even members of the same family. At least one sister/brother lives in a family with the other as a member. That changes things.

Members of a church family share space and ideas with others who are there within a different construct than what we are. It seems almost impossible to get along with understanding, unless we make the relationship somewhat fluid - certainly not set in cement.

On another vein, it seems that on the quantum level when two entities (particles) form a relationship, they are influenced forever by the other no matter what distance apart they may be. I wonder if that applies to people as well. My mom died when I was a junior in college; but I know she is still influencing me. I think that makes it vital to form a relationship with God, and be forever influenced by Him.

(Patrick Travis) #27

“To have faith in a religion, any religion,” continues Wiman, “is to accept at some primary level that its particular language of words and symbols says something true about reality.” That I can agree with.

Exactly, why else embrace a faith? Just a social adventure? There is also another dimension, I suggest, we all consider. Everyone wants that evasive word “Peace.” To what degree does the worldview we embrace and seek to follow affect outcomes? What worldview and “words” we embrace give meaning to Js.4:1; Js.3:14-18. Are the ethics of all worldviews the same? Is there any correlation between shortcomings to those worldview ethics that prevents peace? Is biblical law antithetical to love? Am I completely loving or do I find myself in ways yet “unloving” and out of perfect harmony with those things that make for peace. Now multiply that by civilization and I suggest why in the present age the best we can hope for is relative order and not Shalom. I suggest we sinners are never completely loving and always fall short of peace.
Thank God in Christ that we can “be reckoned righteous though unrighteous” with the hope of a new order of Peace to come with a new heaven and earth. That doesn’t solve the present dilemma but it might change our expectations and how we treat others.

(Frank Peacham) #28

Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

In regard to Calvin Will Durant in his Story of Civilization, Part VI states Calvin ideals like this: “Church and State are both divine, and are designed by God to work in harmony as the soul and body of one Christians society: the church should regulate all details of faith, worship, and morals; the state as the physical arm of the church, should enforce these regulations…The ideal government will be a theocracy, and the Reformed Church should be recognized as the voice of God.”

Perhaps you recall Sebastian Castellio who was rector of the Latin School in Geneva (1541). He was shocked by Calvin’s defense of Servetus execution. Under an assumed name in March of 1554 he published the first modern Classic on toleration: Should Heretics be Persecuted? His voice was out of tune with the time. Having lost his income, rejected by Calvin, he died in poverty at forty-eight (1563). Calvin pronounced his early death as just judgment of a just God.

On Servetus: He pleaded with Calvin to have mercy. Calvin offered none. He asked to be beheaded in which Calvin was inclined to support. But aged Farel, reproved Calvin for such toleration and the council voted to burn him alive. He was fasted to the stack by iron chains and his last book was bound to his side. When the flames reached his face he shrieked with agony. After half an hour of burning he died.

Calvin could have stopped it, but he did not. It seems to me that culture of the times, trumps all theology. Calvin was a man of his times. What about us?

(Patrick Travis) #29

Thanks for your reply. According to Farrell he did not have “power” to stop it. He did suggest beheading which was less painful but it was denied by the council of 25. I am not an apologetic to any of the abuses that existed at the time but Calvin did recognize the need to separate powers, civil & religious and “the two tables”. Now admittedly he was inclined to see the state likely in a fashion similar to the Judges and Kings in the OT where the state was the judgment arm to uphold “the covenant.”
That view is not held today by Calvinist and the existence of theonomist is indeed an anomaly today/ not that there are not some of anything… amillenialism has been the primary view for more than a century among most Calvinist. Actually, the more liberal/progressive theological view of the early 20th century as held by “Christian Century” prior to WW1 was in a sense a different hope for peace on earth to become a reality prior to the coming of Christ. The other major view of the necessity of Christ coming for lasting peace was considered more “fundamentalist” by the new “liberal/progressives” that were heavily influenced by the “German theological views” beginning in the previous century. This caused a schism at Princeton with the resulting formation of Westminster Theological Seminary. (added)By the way Roger Williams was a “Reformed Baptist” with the two table concept for “church/state.”

PS. Farrell introduced me to a quote by Niebuhr, "You know that devastating definition of religious liberalism that Richard Niebuhr had? H. Richard Niebuhr defined American religious
liberalism as a movement that had a "God without wrath who
brought men without sin into a kingdom that was without
judgment through the administration of a Christ without a
cross.“This was a devastating critique.” Ultimately “Religious liberalism” deteriorates into nothing more than a variation of secular humanism.

(Frank Peacham) #30

I don’t know what you mean? A boy was circumcised on the 8th day was adopted into the covenant. Seems like he had no choice. For females their life was bound up with their fathers wishes then their husbands. If we could ask them, I doubt they would even considered they had a choice.

At this point you are probably correct. However, Calvin supported a system that punished citizens for not attending church, not naming their children Biblical names and worst of all not accepting Calvin’s view of faith and its practice. Dissenting views were not tolerated, more then that were punished by jail or banishment. What amazing me, from my liberal/modern perspective, is that Calvinism spread faster and further than Lutheranism across Europe. The American Puritans were Calvinist. I guess at that time people loved strict religious practices, making them feel they are among the elect. Sadly Calvin’s religious views of the unelected created murder and abuse of Native American. Going so far as to selling young Native Americans into slavery in Barbados.

(Discussion all in fun)

(Patrick Travis) #31

Well I guess you also have a problem with the fall of Adam and Eve and all creation suffering…but that is the significance of “words” in the Faith one accepts. Israel accepts “their Father Abraham” along with the covenant promises. The descendants accepted the Mosaic covenant. “You” became a citizen of your country of origin by your family origin…and, by extension obligated to the laws of that country as did the child circumcised on the “8th day.” So, headship is not rocket science.:slight_smile: so yes, by extension children were responsible to covenant blessings and curses. You could leave and join Egypt, Philistines or Babylon if they would have you. :slight_smile:
John Eliot was a Puritan missionary to the American Indians. As mentioned, Roger Williams was a “Calvinist” Reformed Baptist that recognized the 2 tables for “church & state” realms.
If we are going to simply nip at the periphery and blame all ills on some issues and not a body of work then all future advancement would be impossible.
By the way Atheist/agnostic Stalin killed more than 50 million people. By extension of your above reasoning of actions by some to some Indians, all agnostic/atheist & communist are murderers like their kindred Stalin. :slight_smile:
FYI, Calvin never personally claimed or taught that he or anyone else knew who the “elect” were. It was known only to God and perseverance was an external “visible” marker of who they “might” be.

(Frank Peacham) #32

Agreeded. Yet it was standard fair to be anxious and worried if you were among the elect. Since it was held that a church going person could appear to be among the elect but was not chosen by God before their birth. Worse yet, the unelected could not cross over into the elect camp, even if they wanted to. The elect were sure to be saved no matter what. However if you sinned, in some way, maybe you were not elected to be saved.

The early pilgrims did believe that Indians could be converted. For a long time they kept converted Indians on an island away from the Pilgrims. There are historical accounts that Bradford led raids against Indian camps burning women and children alive in their tents. Indians retaliated and killed white settlements, creating a race culture war. After many attempts to convert the Indians resulted in the murder of the missionaries, Boston Divines declared that most Indians were unsavable savages.

Thankfully not all Calvinist accepted Calvin’s view that the State was obligated to enforce the morals of the church. But most early American settlers did. Just as today most SDA’s do not follow EGW dietary advice to not consume hot spices, vinegar in foods and coffee or tea.


I’m reading a book called ‘The Sin of Certainty’ by Peter Enns.
One of his thoughts is that we should use the word ‘trust’ (in God) instead of belief. He thinks that trust better describes our relationship.
He writes, ‘Working on the lifelong habit of cultivating trust has meant learning to express my faith with words that rarely came to mind before - and that I might have mocked if they had - like journey, pilgrimage, and mystery. I know these ancient words of Christian wisdom can sometimes sound trendy and insincere, but not for me. They are my letting-go-of-control words. I’ve needed to be intentional in using different vocabulary not simply for describing my faith but for reconstructing it. The way we talk is not only a byproduct of how we think; vocabulary actually affects our mental architecture.’
Thus, our understanding and use of spiritual words can affect how we build on what we think and believe.
Here is an example. Several months ago, a commenter remarked on the use of the term ‘sanctification’ in the book of 1Corinthians. He wondered how Paul could write that the Corinthian believers, ‘who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus’ (past tense - see 1:2 or 6:11) were still as ‘men of flesh’, not ‘spiritual men’, but mere ‘infants in Christ’ still on milk and unable to partake of ‘solid food’. Paul related that the church suffered from all kinds of immorality - arrogance, malice, wickedness, idolatry, drunkenness, fraud, incestuous relationships. So, his words leave us with the conclusion that God’s efforts at sanctification of this group failed miserably, which means that in reality God couldn’t deliver what He said He had already done! Thus, how can we trust God to carry out His promises to us? It appears He really isn’t omnipotent but rather impotent. Our entire ‘theological architecture’ is affected.
But what if we are misunderstanding the words in this letter?

I have come to the realization that the term ‘sanctification’ has two Biblical meanings.
Here is a simple definition of sanctification: ‘the act or process of acquiring sanctity, of being made or becoming holy’. Notice that it can be an act or a process, two very different things.
The first definition is a one-time act by God, man or even an object that sets apart a person or thing for future holy purposes. For example, the seventh day by God (Gen 2:3), a field by a farmer (Lev 27:19), the tabernacle, its altar and vessels by Moses (Num 7:1), an offering by the temple altar (Matt 23:17), food by the word of God and prayer (1Tim 4:4,5), us by the blood and body of Jesus (Heb 13:12; 10:1), the Lord in our hearts by us! (1Peter 3:15).(Some more modern and less literal versions of the Bible substitute the words dedication or consecration for this meaning of sanctification.)
The second and more widely used definition is the lifelong process of the believer learning the ways of God, of being trained in holiness to be more useful to God. I see it as nurturing the seed of Christ planted within and surrendering to Him which produces faith in the promises of God, e.g., 2Tim 2:21; 1Thess 4:3-5; 5:23 (despite some interesting past comments, I still see these ones as valid examples of definition #2).
The problem occurs when people try to use the second definition when the first applies. An example is 2Thess 2:13: ‘But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth;’. I was told by an Adventist apologist who believes in salvation by faith plus works that this verse proves his view, that salvation comes partly by the degree of our success in becoming holy. I think he has misunderstood this verse because he applied (incorrectly I believe) the second definition of sanctification instead of the first. To me ‘sanctification by the Spirit’ means this verse says that the Holy Spirit acted to set us apart (i.e., sanctified us) to accept the faith by which we are saved. See also, for example, Acts 13:48 ‘When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.’ Because we are now carnal in nature, this initial action by the Holy Spirit precedes our belief. Acts 16:14 says, ‘A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyratira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.’

Adventists don’t use the first definition because they don’t agree with Calvinism which states that because of our fallen state we are incapable of coming to God. (Yet Scripture says ‘Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be’ (Rom 8:7) and ‘But the natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.’ (1Cor 2:14)). Calvinists believe that God acts first and must regenerate us (which I see as really the first definition of sanctification).

The point I’m trying to make is an obvious one - our understanding of words is a crucial element of our theology. Often it can be difficult to apply words designed to describe our physical world to the spiritual realm and is it not also true that our misunderstanding of words (or ignoring those that disagree with us) can lead us away from truth?


A question: how do you reconcile the Adventist belief in man’s free will with the Calvinist predestinarian view to which you must have been exposed at a reformed theological seminary?

(Patrick Travis) #35

Thanks for your question Dave. First of all thanks to the Author on THE IMPORTANCE OF WORDS!
The short answer is “I don’t try to reconcile them.” I draw from the strengths of each to inform my understanding.Not an either or but both.
First “Elect and foreknowledge” are biblical terms. Look at Jn.15:16 ;Jn.13:18.;Rom.8:29-30 as samples. The problem as one of my late Profs. R.C. Sproul explained it was not for “serious biblical exegetes” about election BUT is it “Double Election” /Presentient Election.
Election is the Christian teaching of God’s calling in Christ through the Holy Spirit to salvic Grace received by Faith “alone”. “Double election” is the hard Calvinist view of “some certain ones being elected to be elected.” So solid Armenians would acknowlege that it is only through the HS calling that anyone would ever be drawn to accept Christ. Pelegians would argue there was not really a fall and “total depravity” of mnkind’s will that would prevent anyone from just deciding of himself to seek Christ. “Extreme free will”
So my space is that no one knows the exact point of how God’s callling (which is always first through the Spirit) interfaces with mankinds responsibility and ability to respond. I suggest it is too complex for a simple formula. (Calvin did not make the acrostic TULIP.) If I err it is towards God’s “calling us and keeping us” not mankinds “free will” which was spoiled in the fall. After all he called us while we were in darkness and in trespasses and sins. Eph.2.
Some Armenians are more like humanist in their views. Mankind’s fall either didn’t exist or it was limited so that mankind can have the free will to “just follow” any God one chooses. Mankind/humanity thus retains the ability to perfect itself. This basically is the worldview/thinking of many secular humanist that hold to lasting peace on earth as a possiblity. Theology matters not just sentimental “love and hope.”
Consider these words of Rom.9:16-20, "So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. 19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Rom.9:16-20 NAS
And, Rom.8:31-39…31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? 32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? 33 Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; 34 who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was [a]raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. 35 Who will separate us from the love of [b]Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 Just as it is written, “For Your sake we are being put to death all day long; We were considered as sheep to be slaughtered.”37 But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.Rom.8:31-39
When have you last heard that exposited in an SDA church?:slight_smile: You would offend BOTH SDA theological liberals and conservatives on some part as both in some fashion reject “forensic Justification” just as the RCC does.
PS. In closing “I was/am” a 5th generation SDA on my mother’s side.I am not presently in fellowship in the SDA church. I’ve Heard, seen, and experienced many things. The most painful being those views that expelled Desmond Ford and consider “justification” as “mere Justification” on the road to much greater things that perhaps we can also as humans in some part glory in. My biggest problem that remains…is not an institution but “myself” :slight_smile: Also, I am not trying to wow with Greek words not knowing your background., just words I hope have easy meaning to you and possibly others!

(Patrick Travis) #36

Dave, you seem sincere so there are 2 uses of “sanctify/ed in scripture” and one use is set apart for God’s holy purposes and the other use/word simply means holy.
Ask your perfectionist friend the meaning of Heb. 10:14, which in Greek literally reads using the proper verb tenses, “. " For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are being made holy.” Care to explain that?
There is Only one biblical explanation. We are "reckoned righteous/holy/set apart though yet sinners in ourselves and in the “process/growth of Holiness which we will never fully attain this side of heaven.” Why and How? That act some SDA’s call “mere Justification” by faith (alone)…You know, the “new theology.”:slight_smile:


@1QOL, @DaveMoffatt, this is a good thread of discussion. At the core of the discussion regarding Armenian vs Calvin is the discussion of your “saved state”. In order to discuss the “saved state” of the individual you must discuss the “sin state” of the individual, and in order to discuss that… you get to the bottom line which is… how you define sin.

There are two polemic schools of thought…

  1. sin is the transgression of the law and by that ONLY definition this puts SDA thought (especially armerian) into non-assurance… meaning at any point… (since SITTOTL)… if you die while “in sin” — ie… “transgression state”… to bad for you… you are lost… NOTE this is intrinsicly OBEDIENCE based and is the “thought basis” (causal of LGT theory/practice). This if logically followed… fits right into the IJ premise, specifically our individual “obedience” as a pre-marker/condition for God’s soon return, and this also antithetically juxtaposes the “live without a mediator” motif.

  2. whatsoever is not of faith is sin - this view takes into account the “relational aspect” of where you are on your “journey/self discovery of truth with God” in a REAL relationship with God - depending on how you view limited/unlimited atonment, depravity, and pre-destination… this tends more to influence the “other end of the saved spectrum”… that you are “once saved always saved” (calvinism) (which is the flip side of the obedience coin because even though the premise is “relationship based”… it’s “application” is a one time event.


My journey through these conflicting concepts only allows me biblical wise to consider the following text as a biblical premise, based on God’s declared imperative in the NT. I must believe that he IS and rewards those who “diligently seek him”… so I must resolve the “sin state” within that context.
Basically learning to accept grace as a gift – IS not naturally easy, nor is being vulnerable with God, actively accepting grace is a humbling activity, which by default is relational with God, therefore “sin” is relation-ally tied to “faith” not to obedience/death (my rags are filthy).

with kind regards,

(Patrick Travis) #38

Hi Grace Vessel,
Thanks for your thoughts. Actually the parameters of sin do involve both “Transgression of God’s will/law as made known in scripture AND what is not of Faith is sin.” I suggest within those very broad parameters there is “a relationship” aspect that develops due to God’s calling and our response through Faith, which is by nature “relational.”
The problem is when we began using words not defined as such by scripture, I suggest, we lose some focus, So one may say he has a relationship but based on what? Is it not the above words that describe how we move into a true unique relationship with God? Isn’t “being reckoned righteous apart from works” (in His Sight) being in a “special relationship” with God. We lost “our perfect relationship with God” when Adam and Eve were removed from the garden. So how was that “relationship” to be restored?
“Traps abound” in wondering is my relationship, love, trust/faith, seeking real and good enough because an honest appraisal of oneself should show we are “yet lacking.” Thank God in Christ that "5 Therefore, having been justified by faith, ]we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and ]we exult in hope of the glory of God. Rom. 5:1,2


Thanks for your response to my question, Pat.
Just to fill you in a bit, I was an Adventist for some 19 years. When I first became one, l would often converse with several Calvinist Christian friends at work. They showed me many Biblical passages that corroborated their view. You mentioned a couple such as Rom 8 & 9 and Eph 1. Needless to say, being a new Arminian Adventist, my faith was supported by the assumption that each of us has the unfettered ability to choose his path. I would often reflect on what my Calvinist friends showed me and compare it to what I had been taught in Adventism but I simply couldn’t see how they both could be valid. To me they were mutually exclusive.

Several years later I decided to get serious about studying Scripture on my own. I tried to set aside (as best I could) all that I had been taught and start over in an attempt to be as open as possible to what the Bible was telling me. (BTW, with reference to your comment on Greek, I managed to teach myself a few Greek words which only reinforced my new understanding. (Hebrew remains a mystery.)) I was not averse to reading extra-Biblical material and came across an article that profoundly changed my thinking. It said that the important issue is not freedom/election but rather God’s sovereignty/man’s authority. I also discovered that when God’s plan for humanity is complete, the theology the article’s author espouses makes the debate ultimately irrelevant:

As I have proceeded on my spiritual journey I have come to understand that salvation is more and more God’s doing and less and less man’s. That seems to parallel your experience.
I am no longer an Adventist. My current understanding about God is just not compatible with Adventism.

(Patrick Travis) #40

Hi Dave,
Thanks for your response. I glanced at the article and the ministries website. I am happy you have found a home you are comfortable with where it seems Christ is primary. There are no perfect organizations. It seems all as default have emphasis on their unique position.
I noticed the ministry “might” have a few “dispensational” issues regarding OT Israel at a “quick glance” of beliefs. Perhaps not.
May I suggest a book by the late Hans LaRhondelle
“The Israel of God in Prophecy” printed by Andrews University Press. I don’t know if it is still available.
Reformed faiths are perhaps the strongest antagonist to dispensational theology.
The NT church is the “Israel of God” and there is no split for Jews or Greeks. Actually, on that point SDA’s are solid.
Regards to you and blessings to us both,