| Author | Message | ||
| Lisa_boyldavis Registered user Username: Lisa_boyldavis Post Number: 97 Registered: 3-2005 |
I had a discussion with a lady at my current church about some of the things I've been experiencing with the change of leaving the SDA church. She does not necessarily hold the views of my current church, but made the statement that she thought that SDA's were black and white thinkers, very similar to fundamentalist Christians in that they are legalistic and dogmatic and beyond the deeper things of God. It confused me to think of those two together as a major reason we left Adventism is that my husband and I see ourselves as fundamentalist in our views on abortion, issues of war and peace, traditional marriage, etc... I really found SDA's to be much more self serving and liberal in ideology as a means of protecting "religious liberty". It seems for some folks that the New Covenant is impossible to wrap their minds around without throwing out the concept of right and wrong. Give me some feedback if you have any. Lisa | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 991 Registered: 3-2005 |
Lisa, This confusion and perception about SDAs reflects the inconsistent and wide diversity among them. You will find the black and white fundamentalists in SDA on the Revival Sermons website. If you go to a Loma Linda Sabbath School class, you will hear outright liberalism that denies any basic truth of Christianity. They are pro-abortion, and many of them would approve of gay marriage. They deny that God knows the future. Most of evangelical Christianity is "fundamentalist" with regard to the issues of abortion etc. But fundamentalism in another sense is what I left behind in Adventism, and that is adding man-made rules to scripture to legislate behavior. That is also called legalism, and represents the same spirit of Adventism. However, most of evangelical Christianity does not understand the New Covenant in its truest sense. There is a website that I have posted before which defines what New Covenant theology is, and that link is at www.ptitx.org/News/whatis-NTC.htm This clearly states that right and wrong are defined by the gospel rather than by the Decalogue. There is so much confusion regarding the decalogue and the rest of the pentateuch in most churches today. Stan | ||
| Lynne Registered user Username: Lynne Post Number: 76 Registered: 10-2005 |
The church appeals to the common sense of the world at large and does show more of an open, liberal appearance on the outside. Perhaps that is somewhat a liberating feeling for an adventist, being unique, not prejudice with a white robe and cap, not a phony fundamentalist christian. The world will certainly embrace you more these days. However, when I was baptized adventist 16 years ago, the church clearly disarmed me. I didn't have what Ephesians 10-20 calls the Whole Armor of God which opened me to the wiles of the devil. I didn't have the helmet of Salvation, so the devil aims for the head and I learned and believed the false doctrine, my waist was not girded with truth. I was brainwashed in the church. I was improved by laws, and born again into the laws, we are not given a new life in the spirit. I didn't have the sword of the spirit. I was told the spirit and the flesh are one believing in soul sleep. I was totally disarmed. I became a secular religious person. SDAs live by laws, and each individual has their own idea of which laws are important and which are not and to what extent. Some even fight over such nonsense in sabbath school. Doesn't every adventist have their own black and white view on this? When I was going to church, I sure did. I personally think Religious Liberty is just another Ellen White fear factor. Oh my, the Sunday keepers are going to persecute, hunt down and kill you, so you better support this Religious Liberty stuff so we adventists will have our Saturday Sabbath a little longer, not that we believe it, but we aren't ready to die!! Be ready today, Christ is coming today, tomorrow, next week... What about that sin I committed today that I just keep doing? Was it a sin? Will I ever get it right? (affirmations of the church, or is that just the left over buzz in my head!). To the outside world, it appears to be about freedom to worship on Saturday (good PR), but, to the brainwashed adventists, it is about fear. The Seventh-day Adventist church is about as much about faith and biblical truth as evolution is to science and biblical truth. The devil has a grip on the minds of some of the smartest people. | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 739 Registered: 7-2004 |
Thanks to Tivo, I've been able to watch Gene Scott's study on Romans (comes on at 1:00 a.m. in my area), and he made mention of the fact that most Christian churches try to have their cake and eat it too by trying to realize Grace while holding onto some form of law keeping, and they use James as their poster boy (Show me your faith, and I'll show you my faith by my works). He had a great explanation of the term "antinomianism" or "anti-law" by talking about fundamentalism's obsession with keeping a portion of Sinaitic Law, the decalogue. Many of you will recall the tangle we got into with the posters on R/S over this very issue and how they labelled FAFer's as "antinominanists." Most fundamentalists will try to push keeping the law as a way the Christian can express his love for the Savior. The truth is that Paul was always right, the law is an educator, nothing more. If the law is to be your salvation then you must keep every minute detail to the fullest, all of the time. Fail, even in the most minute detail, and you are lost. God, through Jesus always knew that mankind could not be saved by the law, but mankind has never been willing to admit that to be true. For all of those who love the law and are trying to keep it as a love offering to Jesus, you are lost already and just unwilling to admit it. All have already fallen short. You don't get any second chances with the law--it has already condemned mankind, every last one of us. Even if we understood how to perfectly keep the law, which we don't, we've already done something that is contrary to the law so we already stand condemned for all time. Try to have a discussion about that fact with any "law-abiding" fundamentalist, not just SDA's, and you can guarantee you will end up in a mud-slinging contest. Any efforts to prove your own worthiness based on your own ability to abide by the law is an automatic denial of Grace, and also automatically cuts the Holy Spirit out of your life. Accept the fact that you are saved by Grace, through the intercession of Jesus Christ, and you open your life to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the process of being made righteous is begun, only to be fully realized when Jesus assumes His throne when he comes again. I know I'm preaching to the choir, but the lock-horns struggle between fundamentalism and grace will be with us to the end of time. (Message edited by belvalew on November 11, 2005) | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2901 Registered: 12-2003  |
Lynne, I loved your take on having been "disarmed" by Adventism. You are right; with no helmet of salvation or belt of truth (or even the true sword of the Spirit and certainly no breastplate of righteousnessÖ) we were completely vulnerable to deception and whatever currently intriguing theological idea came along. Stan, you're right about Adventists being "all over the board" in relationship to liberalism and fundamentalism. In practice, however, adding an extra-Biblical source of authority to their pack makes them spiritually liberal even while they're religiously fundamental. Because of their focus on certain "peculiar" behaviors, they have a pretty fundamentalist religion. In terms of their perception of justice, mercy, and grace, however, they're very liberal. (God will save the sincere no matter what they believe; God "would never" punish a person eternally; Jesus basically died to take care of sin so I don't have to "worry about it" anymore--just so I "do good"; Sovereignty? What's thatÖ? etc.) The term "fundamentalist" needs defining. Islam is a pretty fundamentalist religion, for example. So is true evangelical Christianity. The point is, to what fundamentals are we loyal? If we're loyal to Jesus and His inerrant word, it's makes a very different kind of person than does loyalty to anything not "God-breathed". Colleen | ||
| Patriar Registered user Username: Patriar Post Number: 209 Registered: 3-2005 |
I agree...and further all legalism (SDA's and Evangelical Christians) tries to take the place that the Holy Spirit should have in our lives. Legalism tries to dictate our actions while the Holy Spirit is actually Who will effect and affect the believer's actions. I personally feel that the desperate need for Christians to hold onto the Decalogue is because they're so afraid of leaving OTHERS behavior in God's hands. I mean it's easy for me to know what's inside my head, but to leave the entire Church, let alone my children, in the hands of the Holy Spirit...well that's HARD! It's much easier to lay out a list of rules and expect believers to live by them. It's also easier in the sense that the expectations are "clear" in the Decalogue. I believe the New Covenant makes a believer have to pry harder and deeper into the Word in order to understand it and to understand what it is that God asks of us which is to surrender to Him and let Him guide my actions; but not just my actions in the NC, but also my thoughts, feelings, hopes, dreams, etc. Does that make any sense? Patria | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 1998 Registered: 3-2004  |
If the Children of Israel could not keep the commandments from Sinai, how can we? We Can't!!! I would much rather let the Holy Spirit work in my life and leave every one else to God. He can take care of them much easier than I can. He is so awesome. Diana | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 744 Registered: 7-2004 |
Patria, you have struck the nail squarely on the head. Paul was upset with the apostles who came up with the short list at the Jerusalem Counsel (the one where they talked a lot about food -- nothing strangled, nothing offered to idols, no blood -- and then required sexual purity). Paul was not against those things, he simply wanted people to trust the Holy Spirit to transform them so that they would conform, via the Holy Spirit, to the true nature of the indwelt Christian. The minute you start giving a person a list of dos and don'ts you give them an easy-out as far as searching the scriptures and trusting Jesus for the transformations in their life. We all know how many behavioral lists we dealt with in Adventism. It was amazing some of the things that were allowed and forbidden. "You can wade, but you cannot swim on the Sabbath." "At campmeeting you better be sure to buy your meal chits on Friday because without the chit, they won't give you your meal at the cafeteria." I could go on forever reciting the ridiculous! I do understand what it is like, though, to lay your child in God's hands when you are teaching them about Jesus. I remember clearly the time I spend with each of my kids telling them that all law was fulfilled in Christ, and that they had no further obligation to the Law, but that their focus should be on getting to know Jesus and allowing him to motivate their activities and motives. I made it clear that Jesus died for all of our sins, even the ones we have yet to commit. I also made it clear that that fact does not give us license to sin, just keeps us covered for when our inadequate humanity cannot live up to heaven's demand. My kids are good kids, but they sometimes test the limits around them. I'm proud to say that they have learned from their mistakes and are now much more willing to put their lives in Jesus' hands. They have tasted and know that He is Good. We are all at various points on the path, and some of us have simply had more opportunities than others to know the Love of God. You can't be confronted with His Love and come away unchanged! Belva |
