| Author |
Message |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 1209
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 23, 2006 - 9:26 am: |     |
Here is the direct link to that opening post on gay marriage--this is unbelievable. www.spectrummagazine.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=13
This is something you would read from the liberal episcopalian or Methodist web site, but to even ask the question about whether Genesis is even concerned about gender of marriage is astounding.
Stan |
Jorgfe
Registered user
Username: Jorgfe
Post Number: 80
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 23, 2006 - 11:48 am: | |
The reference to the actual Sabbath School Lesson Comentary is at http://www.spectrummagazine.org/onlinecommunity/sabbathschool/060116fulton.html
I think the fact that the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists turns a blind eye to SDA Kinship International (http://www.sdakinship.org/resources.htm) where the name Seventh-day Adventist is emblazoned on the masthead, while at the same time using the full legal resources of the General Conference (using tithe money) to sue little tiny independent SDA Churches who also use the name Seventh-day Adventist, speaks volumes. |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 3267
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 23, 2006 - 11:54 am: | |
Gilbert, I find Davidson's comments to be, again, "obscurantist". First, while there is a schism between the Adventist church and Ford, he IS still Adventist, and the church (or at least a local branch of it) has used him to come and defend the Sabbath in public meetings. Second, Ford, in spite of his excellent scholarship on the IJ, has never let go of Ellen. He still considers her to have been used by God at least in some ways.
Your observation that his comments are devoid of mention of being part of the body of Christ and of the role of the Holy Spirit pretty much sums up Adventismóeven morphed Adventism that tries to appear "mainstream" or "evangelical". While some congregations try to share resources and projects like the Crosswalk Church and the Catholic church I mentioned above, their focus is more "social gospel" and bridge-building than gospel-focused.
There's really a lot of blurring and compromise going on. It all just adds to the underlying deception...
Colleen |
Jorgfe
Registered user
Username: Jorgfe
Post Number: 81
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 23, 2006 - 9:14 pm: | |
Colleen, you are so right!
It seems like many of these Adventist theological discussions boil down to a very simple decision. Is the reader going to:
1. Use the Bible to interpret all other soures of information, including Ellen White, Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, Pope, Bishop, Pastor, etc.
or
2. Use their cherished interpreter including Ellen White, Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, Pope, Bishop, Pastor, etc. to interpret the Bible for them.
It is actually that simple.
When I read tirades such as http://www.greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/kir-dfx.php3 by Larry Kirkpatrick, it is obvious that he subscribes to #2. The very fact that he has to resort to quoting Ellen White demonstrates that he can't support his position from the Bible alone. For that matter he can't even share this important extension to the gospel to any other part of the Body of Christ that doesn't subscribe to the divine inspiration of Ellen White. This sounds more like Mormanism all the time.
It is obvious that writers like this are frightened by the thought of readers studying the Bible on their own. It is imperitive that they understand first what Ellen White said on the subject so it can be rightly interpreted. That sounds like the Catholic viewpoint of papal infallibility, except here we have the Seventh-day Adventist viewpoint of Ellen White infallibility.
The book of Hebrews is so plain on this subject that my 10-year-old child can understand it. Can you imagine a doctrine -- yea, a new gospel that makes the Gospel of Christ's conmpleted Atonement on the cross, incomplete until 1844, being the exclusive domain of a small sect. How come none of the apostles knew that the "rest of the gospel" would not be given until 1844, oops--1851?
==== Ellen White false doctrine ====
"The Scripture which above all others had been both the foundation and the central pillar of the advent faith was the declaration: 'Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.' Daniel 8:14.22
The subject of the sanctuary was the key which unlocked the mystery of the disappointment of 1844. It opened to view a complete system of truth, connected and harmonious, showing that God's hand had directed the great advent movement and revealing present duty as it brought to light the position and work of His people.
In the future, deception of every kind is to arise, and we want solid ground for our feet. We want solid pillars for the building. Not one pin is to be removed from that which the Lord has established. The enemy will bring in false theories, such as the doctrine that there is no sanctuary. This is one of the points on which there will be a departing from the faith."
The time is near when the deceptive powers of satanic agencies shall be fully developed. . . . Satan is striving continually to bring in fanciful suppositions in regard to the sanctuary, degrading the wonderful representations of God and the ministry of Christ for our salvation into something that suits the carnal mind . . . Thus he would rob us of our faith in the very message that has made us a separate people, and has given character and power to our work." |
Jorgfe
Registered user
Username: Jorgfe
Post Number: 82
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 23, 2006 - 9:31 pm: | |
When I read these statements above from Ellen White I feel an eerie power that must be similar to that of playing with a Ouiji board. The authority with which it is written, combined with the smooth blending of truth and falsehood makes it sound so genuine. A mere human is not going to dream this up by themselves. The deception is frightening. I am thankful that the book of Hebrews is so plain. I am so thankful for the Bible, and the discernment that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit gives us.
Gilbert |
Raven
Registered user
Username: Raven
Post Number: 355
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 4:33 am: | |
Gilbert,
You are so right about the eerie power of Ellen White's words and the smooth blending of truth and falsehood. It is shocking, and those very type of statements are a big part of what makes it so frightening and unthinkable for many SDA's to even think of looking at issues without the EGW lens.
The "wonderful representations of God and the ministry of Christ for our salvation" is nothing but the IJ doctrine, and she calls degrading that into "something that suits the carnal mind." So the finished work of Jesus on the cross, grace alone, "suits the carnal mind." Wow! |
Flyinglady
Registered user
Username: Flyinglady
Post Number: 2229
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 6:01 pm: | |
Looking at the writings of EGW now, I am shocked/angry that she was/is so deceptive. I want to scream to all SDAs, that is not true. All you need is Jesus.
Diana |
Jorgfe
Registered user
Username: Jorgfe
Post Number: 86
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 7:00 pm: | |
Diana -- I agree completely. Another aspect that is really sad is that most SDA's either don't want to be disturbed from their current state of ignorance, or like Larry Kilpatrick, they use Ellen White to interpret the Bible. Most just don't see what the big deal is.
I really wonder what is covered in a typical SDA baptismal class. How do they cover, for example, the Investigative Judgement (since Ellen White says this is the cornerstone for the entire SDA belief system)?
Gilbert |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 3275
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 9:33 pm: | |
Gilbert, I don't know what they say in baptisimal classes now, but I'm quite certain they don't teach new members what Ellen actually says in Great Controversy. At least in some places, I'm sure they call it the "pre-Advent judgment" and they explain that it is all about revealing the fairness of God's decisions so the universe can see He is trustworthy.
I'm so disturbed by the blatant denigrading of God's sovereign authority as well as by their deliberate whitewashing of their actual doctrines and beliefs.
Colleen |
Flyinglady
Registered user
Username: Flyinglady
Post Number: 2236
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 6:20 pm: | |
On the link in another thread, on this forum, is a format the SDAs should have for a baptismal class. A few of the comments made is that rotating church members, in the baptismal class, are not to bring up EGW, the IJ, or other questionable items/subjects. Very controlling. If it is the truth, why be afraid of it???
Diana |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 3283
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 10:28 pm: | |
Great question, Diana.
Colleen |
Dt
Registered user
Username: Dt
Post Number: 82
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 11:35 am: | |
Amen, Diana.
If, as EGW said above, the Sanctuary Message is necessary for our salvation and understanding our Christian duty, isn't it imperative that they understand it fully prior to baptism?
DT |
Jorgfe
Registered user
Username: Jorgfe
Post Number: 95
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 12:05 pm: | |
Dt - that is a very good question. I will have to remember that one. Certainly the subject that is "both the foundation and the central pillar of the advent faith" should be central to any baptismal study.
Gilbert |
|
