| Author | Message | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 923 Registered: 7-2004 |
One more thing that I forgot to mention -- during this whole period of time, one year, the righteous who are still alive, and running for their lives, will be in the position of living perfect lives, because Jesus will have declared that he will not intercede anymore. Some Adventists will say that it is only by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that this can happen, others will tell you that these survivors have perfected their own characters. | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 2131 Registered: 11-2002 |
WOW, Belva. That is so very complacted. My understanding has always been based on the text where jesus says, "Believe on me and you will be saved." I just never could get it. I do remember learning that the righteous during that time would be living without sin and without Jesus as their mediator. So often growing up I would tell the grownups that this or that in our religion didn't make sense. I always got the same answer. It went like this, "Susan, you are such a smart and bright little girl so don't worry about it. Be thankful God gave you parents who know the truth. When you grow up you'll understand it." Well, I grew up and the more I tried to understand it the more I'd get a headache. So, at age 17 I wanted to be bapitized by Profession of Christian Faith but the SDA minister I went to refused telling me that was against his policy. I then decided to not get bapitized if I'd have to be a member of the SDA church but this nice minister came up with the idea of me letting him bapitise me and then I could write the church a letter requesting my name be removed from the church registry. This is exactialy what I did. However, over the years I have written to that particular church as well as the conference office asking if my name is on any of their membership lists anywhere and I have never so much as even once gotten a reply to my inquiries. | ||
| Lars Registered user Username: Lars Post Number: 12 Registered: 7-2005 |
Re: The SDA propthet's time of trouble The exchanges about the time frames of the SDA time of trouble are interesting. No one in the SDA belief system could explain the applicability of GC, p. 615 to the SDA's sealed by sabbath observance. Were they "inhabitants of the earth" or not? Their prophet writes that when the time of trouble arrives, "The inhabitants of the earth know it not." If you don't know when it starts, how do you put a time frame on it? Always wondering. Larry | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 2132 Registered: 11-2002 |
If you don't know it's going on how will the SDA's know when they need to flee to the mountains and the hills? I always thought it would be better if someone is fleeing from persucation to get a yaught and flee to the high seas. I like my idea better. Also, when the Sunday laws come I also have never gotten a consistant answer from Adventists about this. Some say it will be just the United States that will be enforcing the Sunday laws. My reply then is why not just split and immergrate to another country. Some SDA's tell me the Sunday laws will be in the modern, first world countries such as the USA, England and Westeran Europe to which my reply is always then why tough it out? Why not immergarate to South or Central America or somewhere else that won't be affected by the laws. And, then of course, there are those Adventists that say the Sunday laws will be worldwide to which I reply "hogwash" or in the case of Adventists "vegewash". The Moslems, the Hindus, the Buddhists and all the others that deal with non-Christian religions would not be prone to instituting Sunday laws. Seems to me the only people to know about the forthcoming Sunday laws are the Adventists. I also get a bit of a fun at my tacky humor when Adventists tell me this or that about something that they are overstressing about when I tell then, "Oh, just go say 15 Hail Ellens and get over it." Seems the SDA's in my life totally hate hearing that. To them it truly comes across as blasphomas. And, I think I'm funny. Needless to say, me and many of my kin do not discuss the SDA religion. I think they all just feel so sorry for me knowing that I'll be ending up in the lake of fire. One greatly loved one told me that she doesn't mingle with non-Sabbath-keepers because she doesn't want to get emotionally attached to people she knows will not get eternal life because they don't keep Sabbath and it would be too emotionally hard on her if these lost folks were to die. It's so very sad. | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 924 Registered: 7-2004 |
They know that it has begun, and it is time to run away and hide when the Sunday law, accompanied by a death decree for those who do not cooperate with it, goes into effect. Count one year from that point in time, and you will see Jesus returning on a cloud with all of the holy angels surrounding him. That paragraph is not my current belief, it is simply my Adventist past kicking in. By the way, the minister that I mention in my last post(s) told me that there is just the barest possibility that those time periods are not "year for a day" and that they could be literal, so you would have the Sunday Law/Death Decree -- the falling of the seven last plagues -- and the return of Jesus all within a literal 24 hour period. Okay, back to normalcy. There will be no Sunday law. Most of the people on this earth don't care which day you worship on, or even whether or not you worship. As I mentioned before, try getting the internet to cooperate with a Sunday law. (  ) | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 88 Registered: 7-2005 |
Colleen, I think that God is engaged in a cosmic struggle with a created being because he has ambitious, He has a reputation which needs clearing. It reminds me of the duellists of Alexandre Dumas. Stan, Colleen, how do you explain the idea that the unfallen angels have doubts about the character of Satan until the death of Christ? It was not enough the death of hundreds of people to prove that sin brings suffering and death, and sin is evil? Can they have simpathy for Satan, believeing that he has good intentions, when the results were evil? More, is it neccesary to see the works of evil to recognize it as evil? The great controversy said that the sin must developed, must have a fruti, for clearing the doubts of all about it's real nature. But the fallen angels and Satan had not this knowledge, and, of course, they just have been mistaken out of lack of knowledge. In this way, we even can have simpathy for poor Lucifer, because he doesn't know what he was doing. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3340 Registered: 12-2003  |
Belva, I am impressed! You really know your stuff! I certainly never had the sequence down that well. I'm chuckling to myself as I read thisóBelva, the passionate, articulate defender to Jesus and the New Covenant--well, I can see why you're so passionate about Jesus; you actually knew all that scary stuff so well it must have always been in the back of your mind. Wow. Praise God for freedom! Colleen | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1287 Registered: 3-2005 |
Jackob, Regarding unfallen angels having doubts about Satan before the death of Christ, I guess I hadn't heard that before, do you know where you heard that? (Probably its in GC, but I haven't seen that in the Bible). Stan | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 89 Registered: 7-2005 |
Ellen White talked not about doubts, but about simpathy for Satan and his cause, which evaporated only at the cross, but even after the cross it was necessary to let evil flourish because the contrast between Jesus and Satan was not totally clear. From this assertion I have concluded that in the mind of angels existed some doubts about the fact that Satan was a murderer, even if sin brought death for thousand years until Christ. After the death of Christ, the sympathy of angels evaporated, because they believed now without a doubt that Satan is a murderer. "Satan saw that his disguise was torn away. His administration was laid open before the unfallen angels and before the heavenly universe. He had revealed himself as a murderer. By shedding the blood of the Son of God, he had uprooted himself from the sympathies of the heavenly beings. Henceforth his work was restricted. Whatever attitude he might assume, he could no longer await the angels as they came from the heavenly courts, and before them accuse Christ's brethren of being clothed with the garments of blackness and the defilement of sin. The last link of sympathy between Satan and the heavenly world was broken. {DA 761.2} Yet Satan was not then destroyed. The angels did not even then understand all that was involved in the great controversy. The principles at stake were to be more fully revealed. And for the sake of man, Satan's existence must be continued. Man as well as angels must see the contrast between the Prince of light and the prince of darkness. He must choose whom he will serve." {DA 761.3} You observe that even after the cross, angels needed to understand more, and see more clearly the contrast between the two. I hope I responded to your question, I'm waiting your opinion. | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1288 Registered: 3-2005 |
I guess the answer Jackob is that these statements are found in Desire of Ages and not in the Bible. I have no idea where those ideas expressed above came from. I don't really have a good answer for you. Stan | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 90 Registered: 7-2005 |
Of course Stan, this thing was not in the Bible. I put the question to emphasize how wrong is to believe in great controversy theme. When I mentioned your name and Colleen', I wanted you just to continue your evaluation of great controversy theme from the sovereign God perspective. I'm sorry for not being clear at this point. | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 926 Registered: 7-2004 |
Colleen, you are right. All of that stuff is piled in bales in the back of my mind. I now view it as a protection against getting roped in again. In it's current condition (mere information) I can take it out, look at it, maybe even have a chuckle or two, then put it back in my memory dust bin. I don't know how all-encompassing some of the data I hold there is, but I do know that when an Adventist starts pulling out that stuff to show to me the error of my ways, I've already got it tucked away in a house of mirrors sort of place that I call "The Real Doctrines of the Adventist Church." In there are things like, "Ellen White said that Adam and Eve were larger than we are today, they were fully twice as tall as modern men." "Ellen White says that eating meat will excite your base passions." "Ellen White says that ..." You know the drill. You can take just about any of the unique SDA beliefs and put an "Ellen White says" in front of it and now you have all the reason you need for that belief to be applicable to people today. I praise the day when I was able to look at that stuff objectively and call it the rubbish that it is. Only Jesus! Belva | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 2274 Registered: 3-2004  |
It is interesting to me that I do not remember all this "stuff" until it is mentioned and my memory banks open and I know what is being spoken of. I am glad God gave me that ability. That way I can remember from what God took me and Thank Him profusely for where He has me. He is so awesome. Diana | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 576 Registered: 4-2000  |
Sadly, the SDA "Great Controversy" theme teaches that Calvary was not sufficient to reveal the contrast and difference between Christ and Satan. Something more than the Cross is necessary to vindicate God's justice. This is indeed a view from the Archdeceiver himself. Dennis J. Fischer | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3347 Registered: 12-2003 |
Dennis, I never thought about it that way before. You are absolutely right. Colleen | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 94 Registered: 7-2005 |
Dennis you are right, it's sufficient to read the paragraph I quoted above from Desire of Ages. This was my question: is not the contrast enough seen until Christ? | ||
| Heretic Registered user Username: Heretic Post Number: 245 Registered: 2-2005 |
Here's another Cliff Goldstein article, this one about former Adventists. At times he almost seems to get it. It's archived on their site now, so I'll post the whole thing here: Goldstein writes: In my early days as a Seventh-day Adventist I heard this mantra: "No one ever leaves the Adventist Church over doctrine, only over personality disputes or the like." Keep dreaming, folks. People leave us, all the time, over doctrine. We fool ourselves, consoling ourselves into believing otherwise. Everyone's an exception, so who can pigeonhole anyone? But from the stories I hear, and from the testimonies (that's a new spin on the word, eh?) given, the scenario's often like this: A third- or fourth-generation Adventist, educated in our schools, and with strong ties to the church, struggles with legalism and the assurance of salvation. Over time he or she discovers grace, gets an understanding of justification by faith, and before long--usually with help from the Internet--starts throwing out one after another of our beliefs: the pre-Advent judgment, the Spirit of Prophecy, and the Sabbath. Also, despite the notion that those who leave become atheists, demon worshippers, or homeless degenerates, many join other Protestant churches and, it seems, are doing just fine, thank you. Finally, far from interpersonal relationships being the cause of their departure, it's the relational ties that, at least according to their own accounts, often create the biggest hurdle to leaving. How, then, might we process this unfortunate phenomenon? To begin, we must remember that people leave churches all the time; this isn't just a Seventh-day Adventist problem. As far as legalism goes, well, what conservative church that upholds any standards doesn't struggle with legalism to some degree or another? Also, many who leave complain about Ellen G. White statements that (taken out of the broader context of her writings, I might add) seem to sound in conflict with justification by faith. But one can do the same thing with the Bible, especially with statements by Jesus Himself (see Matt. 19:17; Matt. 12:37; Luke 13:27; Matt. 18:23-34; Luke 14:33; Luke 6:46-49). Then for some reason, not really hard to fathom (because if you stick with the Sabbath, where else do you go?), once these folks discover justification by faith, as sure as two is less than three, they'll soon conclude that the new covenant defines violation of all Ten Commandments--except the fourth--as sin. In the end, what can we do? Not much, not really. People will always leave the church for a myriad of reasons, doctrinal or personal, regardless of whatever changes we make. At the same time, however, we could do a few things that might help stem, at least somewhat, the numbers of those "deducted" from our church books. First, we have to place the gospel, salvation by faith in Christ alone, as the absolute center of all our beliefs. Though great progress has been made here, we still have a way to go. Christ our substitute, whose righteousness is credited to us by faith alone as our only hope of salvation, must permeate every doctrine. There's a power in the gospel not found in the health message or in teaching about the scapegoat. Second, we should do everything possible to ground our members in the distinctive aspects of our message from the Bible alone, without Ellen G. White. However convinced of her prophetic gift, I'm persuaded by the strength of our positions because I took the time, early on, to get grounded in things such as the 1844 pre-Advent judgment, the state of the dead, and the Second Coming--all from the Bible, without a comment from Ellen White. I can't begin to tell how that strengthened my faith, not just in the doctrines but in her prophetic gift as well. Finally, when people leave, let's love them, let's keep in touch, let's not judge and call them "apostates." Even worse, let's not hurl Ellen G. White quotations at them about people who "fall away." Instead, let's use these sad experiences to, as Paul said, "examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith" (2 Cor. 13:5, KJV) and ask what we might've done differently, if anything, that would have helped keep these souls among us. Most important, let's not do anything that, should they change their minds, would make it harder for them to come back. | ||
| Heretic Registered user Username: Heretic Post Number: 246 Registered: 2-2005 |
Here is just one curious paragraph: "First, we have to place the gospel, salvation by faith in Christ alone, as the absolute center of all our beliefs. Though great progress has been made here, we still have a way to go. Christ our substitute, whose righteousness is credited to us by faith alone as our only hope of salvation, must permeate every doctrine. There's a power in the gospel not found in the health message or in teaching about the scapegoat." It all sounds fine and dandy, and to an evangelical there's probably nothing there that sounds out of line with true Christianity. But to those who are familiar with the system you realize the type of righteousness he's referring to here is imparted righteousness and not imputed righteousness. You can proclaim that gospel all day long but in the end people are still going to flee once they learn the truth. And to fully embrace the biblical gospel, it would require completely repudiating the Investigative Judgment thus yanking the stool out from under EGW's position as "authoritative source of truth" in the church. You know as well as Cliff Goldstein that it just ain't never gonna happen. | ||
| Loneviking Registered user Username: Loneviking Post Number: 439 Registered: 7-2000 |
Yeah, some of us over on Atomorrow have told Cliff that. That's usually when he disappears for another three or four months. Sigh.... | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3482 Registered: 12-2003 |
So interesting. I'm still convicted that I need to pray for Goldstein. I do think there are things about Adventism that eat away at him, too. To dovetail with Heretic's comment, one really can't reform a cult. To try to place Jesus' substitutionary atonement and "righteousness by faith" at the center of the church would never make it spiritually healthy. You can't build a stable building on a broken foundation. Yes, they would be assuming imparted righteousness, and people would still leave once they found the truth. It's not only a definition of doctrines that's the problem; there is the very real problem of a woman who is not merely a prophet but who, according to her own words, was "more than a prophet". No matter how they try to redefine her (a notable devotional writer, etc.), they HAVE Ellen, and Ellen defined the doctrines. They would have to renounce Ellen in order even to try to build a sound gospel core. Colleen |
