| Author | Message | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 1412 Registered: 9-2006  |
Ephesians 1:22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Ephesians 1:23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all. There is a church invisible and then there is the visible church, local church, the visible indication of the church invisible. To say that the church is completely invisible and cannot be seen is just not justifiable. A question might be, Is the Adventist church a visible indication of that church? Or is it a visible indication of a false church? To say I don’t know the answer is acceptable, but to say there is no answer is, I believe unacceptable. I don’t think the answer of “well, it is a part church” would be quite right, one is either the church or he is not the church, there can be no half measures. You can’t be “half saved” although sometimes I see things that make me wonder.  If so that there is a visible church and a false visible church, then we need to know how to identify (make distinction) between the true and the false church. Namely because the one who is making his way out of the false church or (cult) (most specifically Adventism) will be trying to land someplace and he does need a place to land. His ground he has walked on has fallen away, in some cases, even his lively hood so we need to have intelligent answers and not just push our church we attend, that would just be pushing our own agenda. Although it might be considered a poor duck that won’t quack for his own pond. My Mamy used to say that. If we can’t identify the true church ourselves, then how can we guide the one emerging from a false church (cult), in fact how can we even say it is a false church he is emerging from? Now the questions really gets sticky, if there are Christians in that false church, then how can it be a false church? Well, there are non-Christians who appear in the true church, so does that make it false church? So can we identify a false church by the presence of a Christian? Is that how it is identified? There is a Christian all over the world, the presence of Christian is the salt of this earth, the only light in a dark world, that is so because Christ resides in those Christians. We put salt on our eggs, but we don’t dump it in one spot and neither did Christ dump all the Christians in one spot. He called his disciples the “salt of the earth”. He said “If the salt loses its savor, how can it be salted?” So could we term a false church the “salt that has lost its savor and is not salty and fit for nothing?” Somebody is going to say “Well River, it sounds like you have lost yours.” It kind of boils down to what the church should be doing doesn’t it? I might give it names and analogies. 1. Body of Christ-Col. 1:18 2. Temple-Eph. 2:20-21, 1 Pet. 2:4-5 3. Bride-Rev 19:7;21:2,9 4. Priesthood-1 Pet.2:9 5. Holy Nation-1 Pet. 2:9 6. Flock-Acts 20:8;1 Pet 5:2-4 These are some of the ways we might say it is the church, but how do we tell the false from the true? Its obviously not identified because of the presence of a Christian or non-Christian or even whether or not we agree with some of the visible churches beliefs or not, otherwise we would more or less have to fall back on the premise that the church is completely invisible. If you do that I have to ask the question “Then how in the world do you know if the church still exist today, we might have had the rapture for all I know. You can’t really see electricity flowing down a wire, but a burning light bulb is a pretty good indication of its power and that a charge is present on the wire. As an aside, that is one of my arguments against the Adventist church and even some of the Evangelical organizations, no Holy Spirit power, and if there is no Holy Spirit power there is no real charge on that wire. Of course Colleens light has went out (inside joke) she lost her “Charge” when she left the Adventist church, according to them. Or is it when she left she got a charge out of it? If I had all the answers I wouldn’t be bringing these thought up, so don’t wait for the answers to all this. An interesting idea that came along was that when the Adventist separated and became, well, Adventist, the salt lost it savor and it might be said that generations have now been sprinkled (doctored?) (doctrined?) with nothing but what is fit to be thrown on the ground, no longer fit for Christian “Salt”. Now you folks have a nice day. River | ||
| Honestwitness Registered user Username: Honestwitness Post Number: 320 Registered: 7-2005  |
River, recently I was pondering this same question about the Adventist church. I asked God to share with me His mind about the Adventist church. Immediately into my mind came the thought, "1 Corinthians 12:18." So I opened my Bible and turned the pages, anticipating what God might be about to tell me. As I ran my finger down the page and stopped at verse 18, I was pretty surprised by what it said: "But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him." Now I didn't take this to mean that the Adventist organization as a whole necessarily has God's approval, but rather that He has His people even in the Adventist church. And He is the One who has put them there. He obviously has infinite reasons for doing this, reasons that I can't see with my finite mind. What I took away from that revelation is that God wants me to simmer down a little bit and not be so zealous to be yanking every soul out of Adventism in my hurry to make things right in His kingdom. He will take care, in His own time and His own way, to awaken His elect and remove any veils that may be hanging down over their minds. I think we are better off to leave to God whatever judgment He wants to bring on the Adventist organization and instead focus on the Adventist individuals God may bring into our sphere of influence. Honestwitness | ||
| Benevento Registered user Username: Benevento Post Number: 162 Registered: 4-2005 |
What a wonderful experience, Honest Witness. We do get impatient don't we? I will pray that I don't miss opportunities when they come my way! Peggy | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 4253 Registered: 3-2004  |
HW, Since not to long after leaving the SDA church I have seen that God has each of us exactly where He wants us, for whatever His reasons are. That does not mean that I do not pray for them. I just do not try to play God and nudge them a bit. So, I leave each person for whom I pray to God. I am human though and every so often I ask Him to hurry it up. Diana | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 6720 Registered: 12-2003  |
Honestwitness, I agree. God's people are planted all over. We showed the video "Lifting the Veil of Polygamy" to our parents this afternoon—and I was struck again by the impact of the testimonies of those interviewed who eventually left their fundamentalist Mormon communities. The amazing thing was that most of the people interviewed left before they knew Jesus—but they realized that what they were in was destroying them. Some of them even left believing that they would go to hell because they had been taught that would happen if they left, but they were so desperate for something different that they left. The thing these people all had in common was a desire to know the truth. Each one of them began, eventually, to search Scripture for answers. I was struck by the fact that they had a deep desire to have internal integrity. They could not live with the significant cognitive dissonance. One woman said with tears that she begged God to show her where truth was; if it was back in fundamental Mormonism or even mainstream Mormonism, then that's where she would go. But all she wanted was to know what was actually true. I am so struck by the fact that God's elect are everywhere—placed there by His inscrutable sovereign will. He awakens them, as HonestWitness said, in His time as He will. But we are asked to speak what we know. God redeems our past by giving us clarity and discernment and insight to help those caught to know the truth. I remember one of our FAF members saying that years ago, Gary Inrig told him that God allows error to creep into the church (or into the Christian community) so that people will have cause to search the Scriptures to clarify truth. If there were no error to guard against, we could easily become lazy and stop testing and studying as the Bereans were commended for doing. But River, your question is good. I believe that there are several "marks" of false or dead or apostate churches. One is a low view of Scripture. One is a lack of intentional expository preaching. One is a lack of the presence of the Holy Spirit—often intangible but powerful in His effect in people's hearts as they worship. It is not the presence or lack of presence of true believers—God takes care of drawing His people to Himself and moving them where they need to be. But the essential marks of a true church are the correct identity of the Trinity, the centrality of Jesus and His cross, and the upholding of Scripture as the inerrant source of truth. When Jesus is honored as the Source of worship and His word as the source of the truth about Him, He convicts people of the meat (and not only the milk) of the gospel. He reveals Himself as the Sovereign God who holds authority over all reality. He knows His own; He calls His own, and He saves His own. Even evil is His monkey. Colleen | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 1417 Registered: 9-2006 |
Folks, I apologize, I didn’t write that clear enough, in fact, that is so unclear even I couldn’t make out where I wanted to get to, I laid the background to the principle I want to get to, but I didn’t get to the question I wanted to address. All I did was drift around and throw everybody off, so please let me try again. Folk come out of Adventism with the question “Where do I go to church?” We should be able to give them intelligent answer to this question. I know we can’t tell anyone what church to attend, we can push our own agenda, our own church, but that doesn’t seem to me to be quite fair to the situation. We ought to be able to lay down the marks of a working Bible based church without making it too long and complicated and where the inquirer can readily get hold of it and use it in his search for a place to land. Now the typical answer might be “Well, pray and the Lord will guide you” and that’s well enough, but my point is that he might have sent them here for help, God uses his people to minister to his people and we need to be able to give intelligent answer. I am just going to be working on this, beg your pardon for the confusion, if I can come up with a set of guide lines I will submit them to the forum for critique providing I can come up with something that looks halfway like it might be useful. River | ||
| Larry Registered user Username: Larry Post Number: 144 Registered: 5-2007 |
Honestwitness, allow me to make a point with one of your paragraphs:
Could be changed to:
Feel free to substitute the following terms if you will: Mormon, Church of Satan, Jehovah Witness etc. The problem I see is merely that God allows the devil to play with our free wills and snare people. God sends His antidote, the Holy Spirit, to call out those who will or choose respond, but I do not agree that God put them in a sinful mess. To me that has the ring of:
| ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 4256 Registered: 3-2004 |
At the FAF reunion this year Gary Inrig gave a talk about what to look for in a church. I cannot remember them at all. I will have to listen to that talk. Diana | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 6725 Registered: 12-2003 |
River, good question. I have pondered this question a lot, and I think Gary Inrig had a good short list in his talk at the last FAF weekend (available here http://rtinker.powweb.com/faf2007/GaryInrig2007.mp3) about how to choose a church. He said the three non-negotiables need to be: 1. Embracing an orthodox view of the Trinity 2. The centrality of Jesus and the cross 3. Holding a high view of Scripture as the inerrant word of God He said that there are secondary concerns that are significant enough for some people that they would need to find a church that also embraces those. But, he said, true Christian fellowship true Christian fellowship is possible where these three things are embraced. Those three things imply certain things: 1. For example, the orthodox view of the Trinity would rule out any oneness Pentecostal leanings, any church that views Jesus as non-eternal, less-than-God, progressing from man to God, weak or fallible, etc. 2. Holding Christ and the cross central would exclude a church that taught law-keeping as necessary either for being saved or staying saved or as an added componenet to the whole "salvation package". Further, it would exclude a church that made a primary focus on seeking after the manifestations of the Holy Spirit rather than teaching Jesus and His death, resurrection, and the eternal, completed work of our salvation. Where Jesus and His completed atonement are upheld as the central focus and goal of one's life, the Holy Spirit will be at work because it is the Holy Spirit who makes Jesus real to us. It is through the power of the Spirit that Christ dwells in our hearts through faith (Ephesians 3:14-19). This view would also exclude embracing a particular church or practices as part of salvation. 3. Holding the word of God as the one source of knowledge of God, His inerrant and eternal word to us, will exclude churches that do not embrace absolute truth. Holding to the inerrant word of God will preclude liberal churches that see the Bible as needing cultural interpretation, as a dated manuscript no longer meaningful as it is written. It will preclude churches that edit Paul, rationalize clear teachings such as homosexuality, and hold a low view of God's sovereign power and authority. Churches that consider themselves "emergent" that try to find common ground with non-Christians and establish "faith communities" without Christ as the center would thus be excluded. Further, holding the Bible as the single inerrant source of God's revelation of Himself as enlivened by the Holy Spirit when we read it would exclude churches that embrace extra-biblical sources of authority whose words interpret Scripture. Thus, no prophets, popes, or messengers claiming authority to explain God's word to the laity would be embraced. This is a short list, River—I thought Gary gave an easy-to-remember framework by which a great many things can be evaluated. Colleen | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 198 Registered: 7-2007 |
I think that most anyone who leaves the SDA church would know better than to pick a church that has a prophet or other people to interpret the Bible for them. I think they would pick a church that goes by what the Bible says; - and a former would have gotten a fairly good idea of that, - at least the basics of the Bible, or they'd still be an Adventist. As for myself; I was just going along - pretty much content as an Adventist because I thought it was the "one true church" and I simply didn't know any better. I had been raised it in. Then the Lord used someone to point out to me the falseness of Ellen White. That enabled me to "see" for myself what the Bible really did say. I discovered that I was in a religion that refused the freedom that Jesus brought in by His blood and went back to parts of the covenant that God had made with Israel. (Read Galatians to see what Paul had to say, concerning people going back under the old shadows.) I'm thankful that my friend allowed the Lord to use her to reveal the truth to me and saddened that no-one knew enough about the Bible and what Adventists believe, to show me this decades ago! (Of course it isn't easy to lead someone out of a false church. My friend fasted and prayed a long time for me.) Dianne | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 213 Registered: 5-2007 |
My own experience with this question, "where to from here"? , has been a sense of bewilderment. I was going at it full throttle, then wore myself out trying to discover the truths. This was followed by the emotional wandering. I don't consider myself agnostic. But I am jaded. I have lost my sense of continuity and it seems to me that the closest we have is the Catholic Church is the only one with any resemblance of continuity. But that is a whole other debate. Mostly, I have slowed down because rushing does not help. Mistakes continue to happen, I guess wrong most of the time and I have no verification system available. The ones I trusted have apparently not worked well. The instinct here is to be wary. Something just is not right here............ | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 1419 Registered: 9-2006 |
Colleen, I heard Gary Inrig’s talk and it was excellent and I do mean excellent. This tape could be a very good guide to someone seeking a church, one of his points (I did take notes) but just to take example of one of his points. The church is a pillar and foundation of the truth, a fortress for the truth. Another point, it is central and strategic to what God is doing in the local community. And one other of his points, it is impossible to obey God’s command without being involved in a local church. He made many other points which I won’t try to cover, but just to say the talk was excellent and sound. However, this is still not what I am attempting to answer although these points hold the answer. Take for example, these things would be impossible for me to know about a church right away, right off the bat, he covered that also. He said “It is not enough to be in church that is doctrinally correct, he stated the need for Orthodoxy, Orthopraxy and Orthocardia. But we cannot walk into a church and recognize these things right away on a great many of occasions. What I had in mind was a more simpler approach or guide, for example the person looks at the particular church doctrine of interest and say “well that all looks good, how can he walk in and recognize whether or not it is in fact a church or a para church? In other words is it a working church, fulfilling the needs of the community as per Gary Inrig’s statement “central and strategic to what God is doing in the community? This is the idea. 1. W- Worship. 2. I - Integration (foundational Bible teaching) (Sunday school) 3. F- Fellowship 4. E-Evangelism Either one of these things go missing and you have a Para church. And I think I just answered my own question. Oh well, I’m slow to get there, but I usually eventually get to where I want to go. Thanks again for the link, I want to give him a second, maybe even third listen, he articulated very well what a church should look like from the inside. I do want to add this, although brother Inrig’s teaching is an excellent teaching, a person still may not be able to find a local church within his community that comes up to all those standards, more especially the ones living in those outlying areas of the country and so many of us have to take what we can get. What would be hard to settle for is attending a church where one of the basic things a working church needs (to be called a working church) is missing. For instance, if I had to settle for meeting in some home once a week for Bible study and fellowship, that is not a church, it is a Para-church. However in some parts of the world this might be all they can get. I would just prefer a full working church and I can tell right away as to whether or not it is a church or a Para-church. Even in my part of these United States, the pickins are slim, I am thankful for a full working church to attend. One more thing Gary said that I would like to point out, God’s corporate presence in a group of people, not just in individuals, we talked about this on the forum recently. As one guy put it like this “He said he went to the lord in prayer about how he couldn’t get into a certain church and the Lord told him “Don’t feel bad I have been trying to get in there for years and they won’t let me in either” River | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 1420 Registered: 9-2006 |
Jim, Just hang in there and try to relax in Gods hands, all this will work out. You love the Lord don't you? Then just continue day by day to be devoted to him, he will see you through. He is our rest, our salvation, our redeemer, our buckler and our shield. River | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 202 Registered: 7-2007 |
Jim; pray and read read read the Bible - prayerfully over and over again. Particularly focus on the New Testament because that's where the Adventist church really has messed up on and that's the covenant that Jesus brought in by His blood. God will lead you into all truth. Dianne | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 6726 Registered: 12-2003 |
Jim, it takes time. For two years we met at home with our neighbors. It was helpful for awhile, but it was not a long-term healthy solution. The transition is very disorienting, but truth is absolute, and you will find yourself anchored as you trust the Lord Jesus. This process, Jim, is exactly parallel to the debriefing required after someone has been subjected to severe brainwashing. We have to learn a whole new paradigm, a whole new view of reality. This process cannot be rushed, but we can keep plodding steadily forward by continuing to ask God to teach us truth. Our willingness to know and embrace actual truth and reality partly determines the amount of time it takes to process and become grounded. It takes at least two years, often more. And even when we become grounded, we still find that we learn things that we formerly learned "wrong". Praying for you, Jim... Colleen (Message edited by Colleentinker on September 04, 2007) | ||
| Honestwitness Registered user Username: Honestwitness Post Number: 323 Registered: 7-2005 |
Larry, I've thought a long time about your post above. I appreciate what you're saying, but I just can't bring myself to agree that the Adventist church is on the same par with Voodoo or the Church of Satan. I support you in the need to continue to point out error, wherever it occurs, and I believe God uses those He hasn't yet called out to set an example by questioning the erroneous teachings. If no one within the system questions the teachings, all its members will be automatons, never questioning anything, and will end up like the followers of Jim Jones. I remember when I was in the Adventist Church, God used several "questioning" Adventists to catalyze my own questioning and my eventual exit out of the system. I take your caution seriously, and will keep it in mind. Nevertheless, I still believe God is in control and he doesn't waste anything, even for those still in the system. Just to put your mind at ease, I DON'T believe God put his hand over the date, thereby testing the integrity of the early Adventists. I believe that whole episode was human error, plain and simple, and the leaders of the movement should have humbly admitted their error. Honestwitness | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 712 Registered: 11-2005 |
Honestwitness, you mentioned Unfortunately that is precisely the position that Ellen White demanded in her day, and Seventh-day Adventist Church leaders require today. As you already know, Ellen White errupted in a volcano of scathing rebuke against anyone who questioned what she said or wrote. Desmond Ford's treatment shows that this same spirit is still alive in Seventh-day Adventism. That is why it is such a "shock" for us former Adventists when we are introduced to a genuinely Christian fellowship where we are taught to actually search the scriptures and validate what we are being taught. Here are some examples of how she would silence the opposition: During her early attempts at visions in the 1840's many of the Adventist people began to question why her predictions had failed. Here's how she dealt with them. Ellen White thought she could count on the president of the Iowa conference, B.F. Snook. She wrote a very complimentary endorsement of him and his family. But then B. F. Snook and W.H. Brinkerhoff began to openly question her divine inspiration! She had no choice but to issue a scorching rebuke. Here is how she responded. When H.E. Carver wrote some uncomplimentary statements about Ellen White an Adventist minister got involved. That meant that she had two people to deal with -- Carver and the Adventist pastor. Here's how she dealt with the Adventist pastor. D.M. Canright was a real disappointment to Ellen White. He was a close associate of Ellen. James and Ellen trusted him. He was part of the upper leadership of the SDA church for 25 years. He was a high church official, an insider, whose high position in the church allowed him access to information that most others didn't know about. But then he started questioning her visions! She had no choice but to move into high gear with damage control. Here is one of her finest pieces. A.T Jones was another one. Initially Ellen endorsed him as God's messenger. What more could a person want? But then he and others began to question her prophetic ministry. In 1906 a number of concerns had been raised by the brethren in Battle Creek regarding Ellen's ministry. And so she wrote a letter to the brethren asking that their concerns be written out and sent to her, and she would respond. This is what she wrote: The brethren obeyed her request, and sent a letter detailing their concerns. Ellen realized that she had backed herself into a corner, and so she had no choice but to pronounce that it was not the Lord's will for her to answer these questions. But then A.T. Jones turned on her. Since he was familiar with these events, he also soon began to question her prophetic ministry. She had no choice but to "deal" with him. Here's how she handled him. When Ellen would really get in a tight spot she would just tell the person who criticized her that they have been "weighed in the balance and found wanting." The problem with A. T. Jones was that she was afraid that his Satanic influence would spread. She had to do damage control, and so she wrote this: Albion Fox Ballenger was a Seventh-day Adventist minister in England. While studying the book of Hebrews he discovered that he could not establish the SDA doctrine of the Sanctuary from the Scriptures. His conscience bothered him so much that he decided not to preach on the subject again until he could explain it from the Scriptures. After spending many months studying the subject, he decided that Ellen's writings were in error. Against Ellen's urgent advice, he made his studies public. Naturally he was expelled from the Seventh-day Adventist Church. He wrote Ellen this letter: Obviously he didn't understand that preserving Ellen's reputation was the most important thing. It was obvious that he was lost. Ellen had to contain any influence that he might have. Here's how she did it:
As you can see, Ellen White had "ways" of dealing with those who questioned her. I propose that the Seventh-day Adventist Church, who today considers her to be a "continuing, authoritative source of truth", hasn't really changed their attacks on SDA employees who question her teachings today. It is the Seventh-day Adventist "jugular vein". Desmond Ford is a prime example. Gilbert Jorgensen | ||
| Susans Registered user Username: Susans Post Number: 481 Registered: 8-2006 |
Gilbert, It is because of letters and writings like you just posted (I've read these before) that confirm my belief that EGW was not deluded, misguided, brain damaged (although all of these might be partially true) but that she knew exactly what she was doing, and she did it in her later years. Manipulated by others who took advantage of her weakness? Come on! She sure did have her "ways"! They were vicious, vindictive, soul and reputation destroying ways. Lies, in many cases. One reason why I believe she was influenced by a demonic spirit guide. You are right, it's the SDA jugular vein way of dealing with opposition. It's her legacy to the church who still considers her that continuing, authoritative (how about despotic) source of "truth". Susan | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 1428 Registered: 9-2006 |
yeah, And I challenge anyone if they don't believe to go in there and challenge them on just on White alone. They'll throw you out on your ear so fast it will make your head swim. River | ||
| Susans Registered user Username: Susans Post Number: 482 Registered: 8-2006 |
Absolutely, River! Susan | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 2115 Registered: 10-2004  |
Wow, Gilbert, thanks for sharing those quotes. I hadn't read some of those before. Those quotes certainly prove that EGW knew exactly what she was doing. Jeremy | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 6739 Registered: 12-2003 |
Yes, thank you, Gilbert. I've also thought that her scorching slander of men honestly seeking truth is the bottom line "proof" that she knew what she was doing. We might say her earlier years were the result of manipulation and secretaries' editing, but there's no explaining away her outright slander that ruined the careers and reputations of many men. She did these things after James was dead, and by then she was well aware of her own power. She chose to protect herself and ruin them. I find it fascinating that she blatantly accused Ballanger of operating under Satanic influence—when he was clearly following the clear words of Scripture. Somehow claims like that validate the dark source of her own "testimonies". Colleen | ||
| Susans Registered user Username: Susans Post Number: 490 Registered: 8-2006 |
Well, Colleen, if I remember correctly didn't she herself say the Testimonies were either from God or from Satan? "By their fruits you shall know them". Susan |
