| Author | Message | ||
| Schasc Registered user Username: Schasc Post Number: 47 Registered: 10-2004 |
I read a article in the Adventist review by Clifford Goldstein that I wanted some feed back on. In this article he gives an account of a fictional king from the country of Antinomia whose son needs to be punished for a crime that he committed.(vandalizing a statue in the capital) In this little senario he mentions 2 possibilities. 1) The king changes the law so his son is not punished or 2) Since the laws of the land demand that the punishment be strictly enforced (no exceptions), the king takes the punishment for his son. In this way the "demands of the law" are met and the son is spared the punishement of the law. He than extends this analogy about what God did for us. He asks the question: Wouldnt it have been easier for God to change the law like in the first senario? When you think of all the suffering the Christ had to go through as he took on our guilt and shame wouldnt it have been less costly to just "lower the bar"? Here is a quoted portion of his conclusion: "Lets be reasonable. If God didn't change the law before Christ died on the cross, why do it after? It would have been like the King of Antinomia changing the law about vandalizing the statue after he had already paid the penalty for its violation. Why not change it beforehand and save himself the punishment? In the same way Jesus's death shows that if the law could've been changed, it would've been gefore, not after, the cross. Nothing, then, shows the continued validity of the law more than does the death of Jesus, a death that occurred preciselyt because the law couldn't be changed. Some argue that Christ fulfilled the law, and then changed it. That would make sense for a bad law, but not for one that Paul - the New Covenant's greatest inspired teacher - called "holy,...and just, and good" (Rom. 7:12), a law that the New Covenant itself "establish[es]" (Rom. 3:31). All this is interesting in light of the arguments that the New Covenant somehow changed the law - i.e., nullified just the fourth commandment (all other nine appear intact). But, again, the question arises: How could the death of Christ change the law when that death proves that the law can't be changed? Thus the one thing that beyond all else proves the immutability of the law (and hence the Sabbath) is the one thing used to try to prove its temporality. The irony of it all." Sorry for the long quote, but I wanted to get your reaction to what was said. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Thanx schasc | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 852 Registered: 7-2004 |
This is the constant argument of Adventism--that the law cannot be changed. The law, indeed, cannot be changed, but instead it was fulfilled. They avoid like the plague the use of the word FULFILLED. Again, the only part of the law that Adventism addresses is The Ten Commandments. There were 613 laws in the Torah (law), some were moral, some were ceremonial, and the two types were often mingled together. The Sabbath is a ceremonial law that was contained in The Ten. If the law still has power over you, then you should still be making offerings, celebrating all of the feast days, washing your hands in a particular manner... You get the picture. The law was a school teacher meant to teach us about the character of God. Persons of discernment can see that character perfectly reflected in Christ Jesus. The law has also been compared to a shadow, and every shadow is attached to that which casts the shadow; follow the law and it will bring you to the feet of Jesus. This argument is very similar to proof texting. Separate and confuse. Separate a small portion of the law from the rest of the law, and confuse the people you are talking to. Maximize the trivial, and trivialize the truth. The truth is that Jesus is manifest in the New Covenant, and in the New Covenant God's law is written on the walls of human hearts. This fact is manifest in the life of faith, not works. The closer you live to Jesus the less likely you will be living a life that is not in concert with His will. Be at Peace Belva | ||
| Vchowdhury1 Registered user Username: Vchowdhury1 Post Number: 144 Registered: 7-2004 |
Schasc, Christ did not change the law. Rather, he fulfilled it for us. If we could be saved just by following the law, it would not have been necessary for Christ to come down and die for us. All we would have to do is to follow the law to be saved. In the scenerio that Clifford Goldstein suggests, the king did not fulfill the law, but simply took the punishment for his son. Christ did much more than just that for us. He not only took our punishment, but he also fulfilled the the law for us because he knew that we could not follow the law perfectly. Remember, also that Christ was accused of breaking the law himself, especially that of the Sabbath by the high priests. SDA's beleive that the 10 Commandments are part of the "moral" law (I think the Catholic Church is the one that divided the law into "moral" and "ceremonial" laws. Correct me if I'm wrong) There is no place in the new testament where Jesus, the disciples, or the apostles divided the law into moral and ceremonial aspects. The law was the law. period. Let's say, if the "sabbath" were part of some moral law. There would be absolutely no excuse for breaking it. And we know that the sabbath is broken the vast majority of the time. The penalty for this was death. Thank God for Jesus! | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3136 Registered: 12-2003  |
Belva and Val, right on! You are SO RIGHT that the law was not changed; it was fulfilled. Goldstein's argument fails to deal with the eventuality that the son (for whom the father took the punishment) might actually have vandalized that statue AGAIN after the father took the punishment. According to Goldstein's argument, the law would still be in place as the standard for behavior and practice; either the son would have to be punished for his second offense, or the father would have to take the punishment again. The New Covenant, however, functions on this side of the fulfilled law. Jesus' death pays the penalty for our sins in the future as well as in the past. If the law were still our authority, we would still be under sentence for breaking that law again. With Jesus as our authority, the One who replaces the law, His death is eternally significant; it has the power to pay the price demanded by the law and to release us from its curse and demands. Because of His sacrifice, He has "earned" the right to replace the law--to be the law's fulfilment--for eternity. His blood is eternal. Oh, the law's demands still exist for those outside of Christ. Those who do not accept Jesus in saving faith are still under the curse of the law. When they accept Jesus, however, they are no longer under the law. They now live under Christ by the law of the Spirit (Romans 8:1-4). A better analogy than Goldstein's is to think of a person born in Brazil. Brazilian law governs him. If he moves to the USA and becomes a US citizen, however, Brazilian law no longer has any jurisdiction over him. US law now governs him. Brazilian law exists--but it only has jurisdiction over those living in Brazil. Those who have changed their alleigiance and citizenship live under a new law. Hebrews 7:12 says, "For when there is a change of the priesthood [from levitical to Jesus who is like Melchizedek], there must also be a change of the law." Colleen | ||
| Insearchof Registered user Username: Insearchof Post Number: 44 Registered: 8-2005 |
Colleen, I find that the example you use of the Brazilian that becomes a U.S. citizen no longer being subject to or under Brazilian law to be an eye-opener. I had not considered it that way before! I have read Galatians three times in the past few days just trying to digest what Paul is really saying. It is mind-boggling for this SDA to accept what I am actually reading... Still struggling to uderstand it all, InSearchOf | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3142 Registered: 12-2003 |
InSearchOf, I'm praying for you. Galatians is powerful and paradigm-shifting. I have to give proper credit for that Brazilian law idea to Richard. A few years ago he was having a conversation with a reactionary, historic Adventist, and as he was speaking, that analogy came to his mind. He told me about it with a sense of awe--he said he believed God helped him to think of it right when he needed to explain clearly the difference between living under the law and living in the new covenant. God is so faithful. Colleen | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 542 Registered: 4-2000  |
When accused of breaking the Sabbath, Jesus declared that, "My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working" (John 5:17 NASB). The Apostle John reports that Jesus was guilty of breaking the Sabbath by saying, "...He not only was breaking the Sabbath..." (John 5:18 NASB). The Ten Commandments were NOT a sufficient moral compass or guide for the Hebrew people. This is why the Extended Laws were needed as well. For example, one could still live a very profane life while attempting to adhere to the Decalogue. The Decalogue itself does not prohibit wife beating, drunkenness, homosexuality, polygamy, etc. Incorrectly, Adventist apologists repeatedly claim that the Ten Commandments cover every possible sin. Consequently, they insist that these divine pronouncements are the standard of judgment and fully reflect the character of God. Dennis J. Fischer | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3155 Registered: 12-2003 |
So true, Dennis. Great observation. Colleen | ||
| Anotherseeker Registered user Username: Anotherseeker Post Number: 24 Registered: 8-2005 |
A Blessed New Year to everyone on FA Could someone explain Matthew 24:20 when Jesus speaks about the time leading up to his coming. WHY would he say " But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter,neither on the Sabbath day" if the Sabbath is now a Spiritual application and not a LITERAL DAY?? Thoughts or scriptural references please | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 404 Registered: 7-2004  |
For the same reason that they wouldn't want to pregnant or nursing and would pray that it wouldn't be in winter. Any of those would make fleeing Jerusalem quickly more difficult.
This would be particularly true if the gates of the city were closed.
You might also care to look at these two articles. The first is more general about Matt 24, the second deals specifically with your question. http://www.wcg.org/lit/prophecy/matt24.htm http://www.wcg.org/lit/law/sabbath/matt2420.htm | ||
| Esther Registered user Username: Esther Post Number: 277 Registered: 5-2004 |
I'm not sure that this is a perfect explanation, but in reading the verses it seems that Jesus was referencing either the destruction of Jerusalem or the very end and the conflict in jerusalem. If that's the case then Jerusalem would indeed still be observing the sabbath...and especially if it's with the destruction of Jerusalem, more than likely the gates would have still been shut on the sabbath day. Even if this isn't the case, it would still need explanation. If Jesus is actually saying that that day shouldn't be on the Sabbath, then there's two questions to be asked. 1) Is God bringing about the end of time ON Sabbath? or 2)If we can't flee on Sabbath, then that infers a more old covenant approach to Sabbath keeping. Should we be enforcing death penalties for Sabbath breaking? And, then, we should also be staying IN our homes on the 7th day and most definately NOT attending church. Just some thoughts | ||
| Anotherseeker Registered user Username: Anotherseeker Post Number: 25 Registered: 8-2005 |
Thanks for your post Ric i will certainly read those articles Thankyou | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3165 Registered: 12-2003 |
Greg Taylor addresses this question in "Discovering the New Covenant". He points out that Jesus, addressing the Jews, was referring to the coming attack/destruction of Jerusalem. The gates of the city were shut on Sabbath to keep out foreign traders and commerce and to keep the faithful separated from he life in the world. If the city were attacked on Sabbath, Jesus knew that none of the trapped Jews would be able to flee because the gates would locked. By the time the enemy had breached the walls, it would be too late for the Jews to get out. Jesus was not making a statement here about Sabbath-keeping. He was making a statement about trusting God for the trials that were coming. One of the things I'm noticing is that when the religious observances of Adventism were my central focus, I could read almost any part of the Bible and interpret it to mean I had to "behave" and struggle. When I approach the Bible looking for God's word and will regarding my relationship with and toward Him, everything has a completely different, more profound, more "real" meaning. We are to trust God, have faith in His promises, throw ourselves on His mercy, live in reality, not denial, and follow Him. It's not primarily about our behavior and practice. Colleen | ||
| Dinolf Registered user Username: Dinolf Post Number: 28 Registered: 8-2005 |
I want to turn back to the first question about the country of Antinomia story. When reading a book by Migliore - Faith Seeking Understanding (p 182-187) he writes about three systematic ways to understand the work of Christ. During history we can find traces of all three. These are: 1. The cosmic conflict or Christ the Victory. Christ is fighting a battle against the devil forces and won the victory on the cross. (according to SDA this is the major system of beliving i.e the "great contorversy" and EGW's frequently referring to the work of the Devil - my not) 2. The Anselmian satisfaction theory. Here we have the system of atonement that Gouldstein discuss. In some way the consequence of sin had to be treated juridically, and Christ paid the ransom. This is, I quess, the mainstream christianity major theory. 3. The moral influence theory. "Christ showed Gods love to us in such a compelling way that we are constrained to respond in wonder and gratitude. The atoning work of Christ is complete only when it is appropriated in the act of faith and allowed to transorm ones lifes" Each of these systems have its positive and negative sides since they all try to tell a story that is based on a meta-story we cant explain or understand in its fullest meaning. Migliore recommend that we try to understand the atonement based on influence of all these three stories - and that we base our christian lifes on the practical example of the life and stories of Christ told in the gospels. Migliore give a interesting example of the influence of these systems in our christian song-heritage. "A Mightey Fortress is our God", "O Sacred Head Now Wounded" and God of Grace and God of Glory" is examples of these three systems. My friend Martin had in another thread a question about systematic theology in adventism. According to this view taken from Migliore, SDA is found mostly in the comsic conflict system. As I see it, this explains a lot of how SDA think and why they react as they do according to the quest of protecing truths for example... /Dinolf | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 20 Registered: 1-2004  |
I've been learning about the Eastern Orthodox understanding of Salvation recently, and sometimes I'm surprised just how closely some of their teachings parallel the historic SDA teachings. EO are not ashamed to say that salvation is not by "faith alone" and I heard almost the same from meetings at Hartland Institute, an SDA "independent ministry". The article I linked to in my other recent thread is like "half" the EO teaching on how we are saved... some of that article's weak points are addressed in other EO beliefs. The reason I have any interest at all in the EO is simply that they've managed somehow to preserve the Christian worship and teachings almost entirely intact and unchanged since at least 400 A.D. and to me this is extremely impressive. Like you will find that the divine liturgy they frequently use was written down about 1600 years ago. The reason the historical consistency impresses me is that because of my reading the early Christian writings I was able to understand that it would be extremely unreasonable to suppose that Christians ever taught Sabbath keeping. But if I can discern Christian teaching on one subject from these ancient Christians, why shouldn't I try and find out what else they taught and did? Jeremiah | ||
| Dinolf Registered user Username: Dinolf Post Number: 30 Registered: 8-2005 |
Jeremiah: Interesting observations about the Eastern ortodox church. I¥m not surprised you find parallells to other theology systems, like the SDA-teachings. Most of the SDA-development was based on influenses from other churches, mostly methodist/puritanism. Other questions discussed along SDA-history is the question about Arianism (nature of Jesus) and Pelarganism (salvation by works). Actually the EO was split from the western church on the question of the nature of the Holy Spirit in connection with the Trinity. So - there is no new questions about theology that has not been on the agenda earlier in history. I even think that there is quit adeqvat support in history about sabbatkeeping traditions, but that does not mean that they where free from the questional teaching of salvation by works... Reading church history and the development of christian faith is interesting, and helps one self to se things in a bigger context. So keep on your studies in the EO, or whatselse you are led into. My main challange has been to settle down in a personal relations with Jesus - that stands up for the important questions in life - and the only way is a unconditional descipleship in serving for the Kingdom. In serving the Kingdom i'm a part of the Body of Christ that includes a lot of different christian churches. I beleive that SDA is one part of that Body, but NOT the only part. I hope you have a good platform for practising your christian life as well. Bless /D | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 21 Registered: 1-2004 |
In my local Eastern Orthodox church there's a former SDA named Matthew Gallatin who also was for many years a Calvary Chapel pastor. He's written a book "Thirsting for God in a land of shallow wells" about his life story of why he converted to EO. One very interesting point he makes in his book is that while Protestants seem to think they can build an experience and relationship with God by studying deeply and learning more about God, EO believers first experience God in the life of the church and then that experience teaches them things about God. Completely backwards from what we're used to! It's a VERY thought provoking book... check out the reviews on Amazon.com if you're interested. Jeremiah | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3171 Registered: 12-2003 |
I've read articles (I think perhaps I've read Matthew Gallatin's articleóthe name and situation sound familiar) by people who have left evangelicalism for the EO tradition. I have some funadmental concerns with their stories/experiences. First, the EO tradition, like the Catholic church, believes that "sola scriptura" is heresy. They believe that no one can individually read Scripture and come up with reliable truth because, they argue, people "interpret" Scripture. Thus, they argue, each person has his own Scriptural interpretation with no regulating foundation for establishing real truth. Each person has his own "truth", they argue. They also say that the evangelical, reformation claim that the Holy Spirit interprets Scripture to each person is just an argument to cover over a subjective reading of Scripture. They say, therefore, that "tradition"óthe historic teaching of the church which the EO claims came from the apostles themselvesóis the standard for interpreting Scripture. Church tradition, therefore, is the standard by which Scriptural interpretation must be gauged. The way the church interprets Scripture is the "truth". There are several problems with the idea that we first experience God through the life of the church and from that experience learn about God. One fundamental problem is that Jesus taught the opposite approach. He called each person to follow him and to leave behind family, houses, landsóHe called people to individual commitment to Him. He said that He did not come to bring peace but a sword, that belief in Him would divide families. He clearly taught that whoever believed in Him would have eternal life. He called James and John to leave their father in the fishing boat and follow Him. He told Nicodemus that unless a person was born again of the Spirit he could not enter the kingdom of heaven. Never did Jesus or the apostles call people to join a "church" or group and thence become part of the body of Christ or God's familyl. Rather, the appeal always was to each individual to repent and to accept Jesus. THEN they would be sealed by the Spirit (Ephe. 1:13-14) and adopted as God's children (Romans 8:13-16). Catholics and EO believe that salvation is through the church. Biblical Christianity teaches that salvation is through Jesus individually. The EO and Catholic churches, of course, would argue that no one can really know Jesus apart from the church. The Bible, though, teaches that one becomes part of the body after one individually repents, accepts Jesus, and accepts forgiveness and the new birth. Evangelical Christianity is seen as a threat to the Catholic and Orthodox traditions. It sees salvation as individual as opposed to corporate. It sees salvation as happening between a person and God; the Catholic/Orthodox position is that one is not saved apart from the churchówhich it interprets as its OWN church. The Bible identifies the body of Christ as all those who are born of the Spirit because of accepting Jesus. The Catholic/Orthodox traditions teach that they are the body of Christ and one become part of God's family by becoming part of them. (Actually, it's very much like the Adventist position.) Several years ago Richard found a Catholic website that analyzed the various churches' teachings of salvation. This site stated that the Catholic church accepted and recognized Adventist baptism because it baptized converts into the church as opposed to baptizing them individually into Christ. On the other hand, this site said that the Catholic church did not recognize evangelical baptism because it was individual and did not view salvation as tied to becoming part of the church. The Reformation brought the concepts of the sola scripturaówhich the EO and Catholic traditions vehemently denyóback into public view. One doesn't build a relationship with Jesus by joining a church. One builds a relationship with Jesus individuallyóas one builds a relationship with a spouseóby dedicating time and oneself to knowing Him through His word. We become part of the church by the indwelling Spirit which unifies us in Christ. Colleen | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 22 Registered: 1-2004 |
Back when the Christian church was started, there weren't a thousand different denominations to pick from. In fact, back when the church started, there wasn't a New Testament yet. Paul and others had yet to write the epistles and gospels. So it would in my opinion be difficult to say that the church believed in sola scriptura before the "scriptura" part was written... unless they only believed in the Old Testament, but then they wouldn't accept the authority of the writers of the New Testament before it was written. In my opinion the Catholic church is trying to look "evangelical" more and more since Vatican 2... But I haven't seen any tendency towards that from the Orthodox, so far. Back when there was just one church, in the beginning right after Pentecost, I think it was necessary to become part of the church in order to be saved. In fact it was probably impossible to be a follower of Jesus and not be part of the church. If only there was just one Christian church today! Jeremiah | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3181 Registered: 12-2003 |
There IS only one Christian church today, Jeremiah! It is the church spoken of throughout the epistles, the body of Christ. It is not possible to be a follower of Jesus without being part of that church. Just as at Pentecost and onward, one accepts Jesus and immediatelyóthenóbecomes part of the church by the indwelling/sealing of the Holy Spirit. Denominations are just not part of the Biblical model. The true Christian church is the same today as on the day of Pentecost: it is all those who are born of the Spirit after accepting Jesus. The apostles taught the gospel of Jesus, based on their first-hand experience, and showed how He was the fulfillment of their written Scripture: the Old Testament. In fact, Peter referred to Paul's epistles as Scripture in 2 Peter 3:16 where he talks about unstable and ignorant people distorting his writings "as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." Just as at Pentecost, the "thing" necessary for salvation was believing in Jesus and receiving the new birthóthe seal of the indwelling Holy Spirit. That event marked their automatic inclusion in the church. It was not the membership in the church that facilitated their salvation. Rather, their belief in Jesus and their new birth facilitated their salvation and ushered in their automatic inclusion in the church. It's the same today. We now search for congregations that nurture us and honor the Word of God, but denominations are not part of the model of salvation at all. Colleen | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 23 Registered: 1-2004 |
This sounds like a "relativism" to me... for the simple fact that Christians who both claim the Holy Spirit and the new birth end up believing opposite things about who God is and what God is like. If a Calvinist gets to heaven and discovers that God actually gives free will to His creatures, would the Calvinist have been worshipping a false God of his own interpretation for his whole life? Just how incorrect an image of God can we form in our minds from our study of the Bible, and still be in the body of Christ? My former girlfriend believes the Apostles were SDA. If I go down the road and ask the Baptist minister, he'll say they were Baptist, not SDA. Both people have differing opinions from my own. Both people claim to have been led by the Holy Spirit through study of the Bible to their conclusions. Are they both somehow mysteriously correct? Are they both worshipping a God of their own creation? These are the kinds of questions I must deal with... The claims of Orthodoxy are that it has preserved the faith exactly as originally given to the church, because of the promise of Jesus that the gates of hell would not prevail against his church. Therefore a person does not have to make their own interpretation the ultimate standard of what is truth, but can trust an authority outside of themselves, that being what the Church has always believed, everywhere, at all times. But then I guess even with Orthodoxy, a person has to decide for themselves whether or not to accept those claims... The historical arguments that show continiuity of doctrine and practice within Orthodoxy are quite strong from what I've seen. I hope you can see that these are legitimate questions I'm asking, even if the answer is right in front of me and I'm just missing it...  You could have this discussion for edification of the many viewers of this forum, so they can see we aren't leaving many stones unturned! Jeremiah | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 1246 Registered: 7-2003  |
To me, one who is truly born again will recognize the Christian church before their denominational affiliation. Having been raised in the baptist church, they didn't think they were the only Christians, and to me a true denomination doesn't either (that's a cultic concept ... "we're the only Christians"). So, they're not "just like SDAs" in that respect. Maybe that's splitting hairs to a greater point you're trying to make, but to Colleen's point TRUE Christians are going to be defined by the gospel, not by points that are typically labeled non-essentials. Jesus isn't going to ask us what our beliefs are to get into heaven. Our position in Christ isn't determined by my "right" or "wrong" beliefs, no matter how sincere. My position in Christ is based upon my willingness to use my faith to accept his grace to cover my sins. It is impossible, and implausible, to expect any one person will know the "right" answers to everything. We are not God. Those of us who are truly transformed by the saving relationship with Christ do not discontinue being sinful, fallen humans. We still are prejudiced by our experiences and history to what is true. It is only the work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts and minds that makes us anything close to understanding. That takes time and lots of grace for people to grow, sometimes disengaging serious error from their past, and allowing the Holy Spirit to take over all strongholds. It is really daily learning to surrender our will, and as we surrender our "beliefs" change. There is truth, but it's really found in statements like "the Bible says...." more than "I think....." How I understand a passage today may change from tomorrow, but that doesn't mean the scripture has changed. I have because of the work of the Holy Spirit and my willingness to let him lead. I'm not convinced there has yet been a human who has figured it all out. So, though there are great authors who I enjoy reading and learn a lot from, they are still fallible. We have to be careful relying on anything other than the work of the Spirit and the Word of God in our lives. | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 2180 Registered: 3-2004  |
One thing I am reminded of is when we were writing on the R/S website, the SDA members there said all the FAs said the same thing. We did not live near each other, but we had studied the Bible and were taught by the Holy Spirit. There fore we learned the same thing. When it comes to what is essential for salvation, Christians agree. Jesus come to this earth, died and was resurrected and is now at the right hand of God. When we love and accept Him, His blood covers our sins and we are saved. There are differences with non essentials, but I do not worry about those as long as I have the essential-Love and acceptance of Jesus. He is so awesome. Diana | ||
| Anotherseeker Registered user Username: Anotherseeker Post Number: 26 Registered: 8-2005 |
Well i had a conversation with a stalwart Adventist Senior at the SDA church i attended and was trying to explain to him why i have decided to leave SDA After i had said a few things he asked "So what is your faith now then?" Which i thought was a very telling question I responded that i am a CHRISTIAN to which he of course could not really say anything That confirmed to me that to be an SDA...... IS YOUR FAITH which is NO FAITH at all as far as i am concerned. Then he started to talk about Christ coming back for A PEOPLE... A CHURCH and i said that i agree that he is coming back for his church and NOT a denomination. Then he was about to start Ellen. G Whiting me and i said that i would be happy to share my Biblical findings with him another time but that i would not proceed with the conversation any further without opening the word of God. He continued some Adventism speak and i AGAIN said that i would be happy to go to his home and discuss and share but not without Scripture. I have noticed a commom thread since i left and have told an SDA that i no longer attend the church They are ALL interested in what i have to say and ALL wish to continue further but NONE of them make any effort to bring it up again. The "Trying to be a bit more Liberal" SDA's and i am only thinking about ONE person that i know..even they seem to think that because of the Sabbath law you should still attend a church that keeps Sabbath I can tell that when i speak that they see that i have a point but somehow i still dont have a point because you have to do Sabbath to continue to make your Christianity count. I sense alot of fear in Adventism and generational holds..to the point that even new converts very quickly adapt the Adventist "speak" and start to defend the message more than defending Christ. | ||
| Pheeki Registered user Username: Pheeki Post Number: 726 Registered: 1-2003 |
Very good observation, Another. I know that most of the SDA I know are willing to concede that some of the doctrine and Ellen White is bunk but the Sabbath is never ever questioned. After all, that is what saves you...don'tchaknow~ | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3188 Registered: 12-2003 |
I agree, Melissa. I believe that those who are born from above, as Jesus and the apostles discussed and described it, know that they are part of the body of Christ. The Christians I have come to know since leaving Adventism do not see their denominations as defining the "true church". I know none of our pastors would consider the "original" church to be "their denomination". As you say, Melissa, that is cultic thinking. If the Bible is not our only rule of faith and practice, if the Holy Spirit is not our only consistent teacher, then we are on our own to decide what the gospel is. As Diana pointed out, people who know Jesus and are born from above have the same understanding of the essentials of salvation. The non-essentials may vary, but they do not divide the body. As one of the people on the WCG video said, a church may have many practices unique to it. Once a church becomes a cult, all those practices become necessary for salvation or proper worship. Christians who are born of the Spirit all agree that Jesus and His finished work is the way to God and the means of salvation and eternal life. Those are the essentials of salvation. They also understand that they may disagree with one another on many theological subjectsóbut once they are sealed by the indwelling Holy Spirit, we can absolutely trust Him to teach us what is true and what He wants us to know. No, true Christians do not see any denomination as defining truth. They see Jesus as defining truth and the Bible as the revelation of Him, and true Christians might exist in many different denominations. Colleen | ||
| Tisha Registered user Username: Tisha Post Number: 174 Registered: 3-2005 |
As Diana and Colleen both said, there is room for differences of opinion (interpretation) in theological discussions. Often the Bible doesn't fully explain and there is leeway in those non-essential things. But the Bible is clear when it comes to the essentials for Salvation. When I started attending a Christian Church (as opposed to the SDA Church!) I loved the attitude as summed up in this quote "In essentials, unity--in non-essentials, liberty--in all things, charity". That is something that I never heard of in the SDA Church. There was no liberty or charity - everything they taught was ESSENTIAL, even when those things contradicted each other! That made unity impossible also! But boy do they try. What a mess! No wonder I felt so confused all the time. It is such a relief to KNOW the essentials and let the rest go, at least for a time. And even when I come to hold a certain viewpoint, there is charity from others and no fear that I will jeapordize my salvation if I am wrong. There is the liberty to grow, evolve, come to new or fuller understanding - all without changing that essential belief that Christ's death on the cross is what saves me - not anything else! And the best part is to know that I am in unity with all those other Christians who hold that essential belief! Praise God - What Unity, Liberty and Charity we have in Him! -tisha | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3204 Registered: 12-2003 |
Amen, Tisha! Colleen |
