| Author | Message | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 1415 Registered: 9-2006  |
Mary, that is so exciting, to be able to look with brand new eyes, to taste and sample the things of God without being laden down with the traditions of these institutions. There are advantages to that and also disadvantages. I tend to think though that whether one is a brand new sampler or whether one has belonged under certain doctrines for a long time that we would tend to gravitate toward a place where our gifts, whatever they are will be able to find an outward expression. Take Maryroses for instance, you don’t mind me using you as a for instance do you Marysrose? Long as I don’t take your food. With my gifting I would not be able to find outward expression in her church, neither would she mine. She has found a place where those gift/s can find an outlet. If we have to stuff our gifting down it is going to make us feel at a loss, later that may change as God adds to those gifts, but if we have found a place where those gift/s can be used then we are comfortable. It seems to me to just work out that way, you may feel that I am wrong and that’s o.k. too, but for me to deny my calling in gift/s I just could not be satisfied. Its not that I use my gifting perfectly, its just that I am able to find outward expression of them. So, each of us has our own ideas and it simply may be the result of that gifting coming into play, gifting is like water on a hot stove, it may lay there and just steam away but pretty soon it is going to boil over. If we don’t find expression for whatever God give us, it lays there and steams until finally we are liable to boil over. So I imagine it is best not to let those gifts simmer on the back burner of some institution that will not allow us to express those gifts, remember the parable of the Talents? River | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1252 Registered: 4-2000  |
Treasurehntr, Understandably, Adventism has ill-eqipped new formers to decipher truth from error. I know the feeling after my wife and I collectively spent over 100 years in Adventism. However, biblical Christianity is not a free for all. It is not potluck where we take or leave whatever we desire. There are important salvific, biblical absolutes. Contrary to popular opinion, there are not MANY roads to heaven. There is only ONE Gospel and ONE God. There is only ONE heaven and ONE hell. Most important of all, there is only ONE Savior and Substitute. Transitioning from being merely a HOPE-SO Christian to a KNOW-SO Christian makes a world of difference. Unfortunately, we live in an age of "do-it-yourself" religion. Most people think they are basically good already. Talking about sin is out of style in many circles. Thus, with such views, there is a lessening need for a Savior. It becomes even more confusing when new formers notice the vast array of divergent views (sometimes even wild ideas) among former Adventists. This adds even more confusion and uncertainty to their dilemma in getting the Gospel right. All in all, there is no substitute for personal, prayerful Bible study. The Bible is God's voice speaking to us. Don't be afraid to delve into meaningful theology (i.e., Christology, soteriology, hamartiology, pneumatology, et cetera). Don't let these big words intimidate or scare you. Check them out! The Internet is a great resource as well. In the truest sense, EVERY Christian is a theologian. In awe of God's Word, Dennis Fischer (Message edited by Dennis on September 03, 2007) | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 4252 Registered: 3-2004  |
Thank you Dennis for saying "Adventism has ill-equipped formers to decipher truth from error." That is why I prayed about where God wanted me when I left the SDA church. I did not want to be deceived again. I am also so thankful the SDA pastor, at the last SDA church I attended, challenged our SS class to read the NT without anything else, even EGW. I am forever thankful to him. Every church I attended preached Jesus Christ, but I did not really feel comfortable until I went to the church God directed me to. I cannot help but exclaim, He is so awesome. Diana | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 768 Registered: 6-2006  |
Martin, I'm not sure if you meant to post that, (I know you always mean well) but Marysroses is a practicing Catholic, and I doubt very much that she believes she's "lost". I don't agree with everything the Catholic church teaches but I don't believe she's lost either. In love,  Leigh Anne | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 6721 Registered: 12-2003  |
Indeed, as Dennis said, Adventism ill-equips people to discern truth. The beauty of learning the gospel and being born from above, though, is that God Himself opens the Bible to us and teaches us Himself when we want to know the truth. It is a powerful desire to want to replace our Adventist theology with another "system". It is really important that we submit ourselves to the Lord Jesus and ask Him to teach us truth. He absolutely does this. It is not possible for someone to leave Adventism and develop a completely new theological paradigm within a few months. There are so many many things to unlearn or even to learn for the first time. More than anything we all need to learn what the Bible really says. I have found that there are certain central truths that God consistently reveals to people as they submit their lives to every word of Scripture—but these things do not all emerge at the same time. God builds truth into us one step at a time—and his "building blocks" are all laid on top of the foundation that is Jesus Himself. God first reveals the gospel—that is generally what creates the cognitive dissonance that leads people out of bondage. Concurrently He reveals the heresy of a false prophet. When people can embrace those two realities, they generally find that their former paradigms are destroyed. As they learn to let go of the prophet and cling to Jesus, other things become clear: the reliability and inerrancy of the Bible, the nature of man (having body plus spirit—not merely breath), the reality of our complete inherent depravity, the reality of God's justice and mercy, the complete sovereignty and authority of God, the absolute completeness of Jesus' redmption of us, the reality of His discipline and equipping...and it goes on. When a person first leaves a cult, it is crucial that they become involved in a Christian church as soon as possible. I have seen God clearly lead people initially to churches where they are taught for a period of time before again clearly leading them to another church where they become more deeply rooted in expository preaching and Bible study. For example, a family we know first attended a local Bible church after leaving Adventism. For three months they attended this particular church, and as God had it planned, the pastor taught a summer series on the New Covenant. After spending about three months in that church, they realized they needed to find a place that had better provision for their children, and they eventually joined another evangelical church that features deep expository preaching and has a large and well-developed children's ministry. They still tell of this experience and say that God led them to that first church before He continued directing them where they now attend. It is extremely important for people who are just "discovering" the gospel to learn to trust Jesus and the Bible. They really have to learn to transfer their habituated dependence upon a system of belief to a Person—the One they can always trust. New believers are naturally baby Christians, and they can't be shoved prematurely into the "meat" of the gospel before they have been nourished on and weaned from the milk. There is One God and One mediator between God and men: the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim 2:5), and He is completely faithful to know, to call, to teach, and to sanctify His own. The timing is God's—we can trust Him. Colleen | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 200 Registered: 7-2007 |
I'm thinking that the Adventist church is perhaps 99 percent error, but that they use that little 1 percent of truth they have to lure people in. Some of the prophecies are perhaps correct. The devil wouldn't use pure evil to lure people into a cult. Doesn't it make sense that he would use a little honey mixed with the poisen to lure people into a cult? Marysroses; JoAnne, whom the Lord used to bring me out of the Adventist cult recognized that it was a cult because she learned, coming out of the cult of Catholisism; that Jesus plus ANYTHING, the Bible plus ANYTHING, equals a cult. The Catholics have the pope instead of Ellen White. The Catholics have the catacism instead of Ellen White's writings. They are BOTH in error. The gospel is offensive to those who are perishing. If I didn't love you or care about you, I wouldn't care what lie you believed; but a true Christian HAS to tell you the truth and the truth will set you free. Dianne | ||
| Larry Registered user Username: Larry Post Number: 149 Registered: 5-2007 |
Am I the only one here who thinks Colleen has an unpublished book inside her head? | ||
| Reb Registered user Username: Reb Post Number: 660 Registered: 5-2007 |
For the record I would like to say that I DO NOT consider the Roman Catholic Church to be apostate. In fact, the Catholic-bashing in the SDA church was one of the many things that turned me off on it. There are some things, such as the Pope in the RCC that I disagree with but I do not in any way consider it to be apostate. It certainly has much more truth and much less error than the SDA. | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 698 Registered: 11-2005 |
Perhaps this is not the place to ask, but I have always been curious why Seventh-day Adventism seems to single out its venom for the Roman Catholic Church (western Catholicism) while ignoring the Greek Orthodox (eastern Catholicism)? They both have the same roots prior to 1054 when they split. They both have leaders (eg Popes -- see http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2004/36145.htm). While I don't remember the specifics at the moment, the excellent book "The Sabbath and the Lords Day", by H. M. Riggle (http://www.ratzlaf.com/Qstore/Qstore.cgi?CMD=011&PROD=1001721730) points out that the meeting where Sunday observance was discussed that the Seventh-day Adventists frequently attribute to the Roman Catholics was actually a meeting held by the Greek Orthodox Catholics, and that the Roman Catholics didn't even attend it since it was too far away. Ellen White claimed in Early Writings that but no one seems to be able to unequivocally identify who the pope was. Many Seventh-day Adventists blame Constantine of changing it in 321 AD, evidently unaware that he was never a pope! The book by Riggle lists in entertaining detail all the various different parties that Seventh-day Adventists blame for supposedly "changing" the Sabbath to Sunday. It shows how various different Seventh-day Adventist pioneers had their own favorite "straw men" that they each blamed, and how their writings even disagreed with each other. This is an excellent book! Gilbert Jorgensen | ||
| Marysroses Registered user Username: Marysroses Post Number: 141 Registered: 4-2007 |
Hi Gilbert, I agree the SDA have their history really mixed up. If you are referring to the Council of Laodicea, yea, no one from Rome made it! lol. Of course, east and west were united at that time. It wasn't a situation of disagreement, but rather it was a regional council. Thats why its not listed as one of the ecumenical councils. Also, often overlooked by SDA, the sabbath was mentioned by the council favorably as a creation memorial. What was condemned was insisting that Christians had to keep it as a matter of law like the Jews. There are some Eastern Rite Catholics (not Orthodox, but eastern Christians in union with Rome) and a few western monasteries, and maybe some Orthodox but I don't know them well, who still sometimes observe the Saturday sabbath as a time of rest in addition to the Sunday Feast, which is a memorial of the Resurrection and NEW Creation, being the 8th day. Adventists never talk about the first fruits offering in the OT, which happened on the 8th (first) day. Jesus is even referred to in the NT as the 'first fruit'. Anyway, I'm getting on an off topic rant. Adventists who insist that the Sabbath was 'moved' are ignoring the Catholic theology of Sunday. It is *NOT* sabbath on another day. Its a FEAST and celebration. No time of fasting such as Lent is ever allowed to overshadow the weekly Resurrection feast on the liturgical calendar. MarysRoses | ||
| Marysroses Registered user Username: Marysroses Post Number: 142 Registered: 4-2007 |
Dianne, I appreciate your concern for me. I understood when asking to post here, that many would not be very sympathetic with my personal beliefs, and the last thing I want is to disturb those who believe differently by being overzealous in defending my views, which are not those of the majority of people posting here. I'm not antagonistic towards protestants. If I could pull my mother back from Adventism, even so far as her returning to her Baptist roots, I'd be overjoyed. I like what River said, that we all have our gifts and we are where we can use the particular ones we have. (I hope I understood you River) Its important to remain open to the Holy Spirit, we are not finished works and will never be on this earth. I agree with Dennis, there is one truth. We word it as One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism. Baptism unites us, even if the visible Church is sadly divided. I believe those divisions are the result of sin. I am not personally responsible for the sins of my Church, past and present, but I am sad for the wounds my brothers and sisters have caused and pray that the wounds to unity of the Body of Christ may be healed. I'm sure my perception of Truth differs from Dennis, but I do care about truth, and I do love those who don't necessarily see things the way I do. Dianne, if you'd like to discuss with me further, my email is on my profile in the member's only section. God Bless, MarysRoses | ||
| Larry Registered user Username: Larry Post Number: 150 Registered: 5-2007 |
MarysRoses, I have heard that Catholicism teaches one must belong to the Catholic church in order to be saved. Can you verify just whether there are such teachings? Do they teach that the Pope has spiritual authority over members? My thinking is that maybe, just maybe, Catholicism is a little like adventism in that people are free to pick and choose from the grand buffet of beliefs condoned by the church. I'd rather not go private by taking it to email. | ||
| Marysroses Registered user Username: Marysroses Post Number: 143 Registered: 4-2007 |
I offer email not because I'm ashamed of my beliefs, but because I'm trying to honor the purpose of the board and not get it bogged down in debating Catholic/Protestant issues. Yes, I'm sure you've heard the statement that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. What is overlooked is our definition of who that includes. We believe there is only one Baptism and one Body of Christ that we are baptized into. "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist." http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt3art9p3.htm There are many non-Catholics that are definitely Christian and will be saved. As far as picking and choosing, People tend to do that. Some things are not dogmatic and not essential to salvation. On those issues there is freedom. On the essential teachings, to publicly renounce them is to put oneself out of communion with the Church. This is a typical question that is impossible to answer satisfactorily. We are hypocrites if we have freedom on some issues, but we are too controlling if we have some core doctrines that are non-negotiable. As far as the Pope having spiritual authority. I'm not really sure what you mean by that. Of course he is our leader and has final say on matters of doctrine and morals. Some say that Catholics are not allowed to study the bible. That would be false. Study is encouraged, its even allowable to develop personal opinions on non-dogmatic issues. What is not allowed is teaching personal ideas about the bible that contradict Church teaching to others. This makes total sense to me. All you have to do is read a few Christian debate boards to see how much variety there is in ideas about interpreting the bible. Submission to legitimate authority is humbling and freeing, not oppressive. God Bless, MarysRoses | ||
| Reb Registered user Username: Reb Post Number: 662 Registered: 5-2007 |
Gilbert, have you ever noticed that while Ellen was spewing venom towards the Catholic church and it's "apostate Protestant daughters" she NEVER mentioned ONE WORD in ANY of her books that I have read about the Eastern Orthodox Church. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 700 Registered: 11-2005 |
Reb, what it tells me is that she didn't really understand what she was talking about. In fact it is interesting that she would say in Early Writings, that her mind was "locked", and she didn't understand the very material that she was supposed to be conveying to the brethren! I would definitely agree. My personal viewpoint is that she basically "parroted" what those around her were saying. If you have read some of the original manuscripts of her writing, you would come to the conclusion that much of it was incoherant. There is a significant difference between what she wrote, and what her "editors" produced from her writings when they were done. Gilbert Jorgensen | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 204 Registered: 7-2007 |
Yuk! And to think that I "bought" her writings, hook, line and sinker! No wonder they have to introduce Ellen White slowly to new converts, bit by bit as to not discourage them from becoming Seventh-day Adventists! I was raised in it, raised to believe that her writings were true and that they upheld the Bible. It really takes the Lord's power to remove the blinders and see that all those "proof" texts have been taken out of context. Dianne | ||
| Reb Registered user Username: Reb Post Number: 664 Registered: 5-2007 |
You got it exactly right, Gilbert. | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 701 Registered: 11-2005 |
Another thing that Ellen White would do is to liberally spinkle Bible references throughout her writings to make it appear as though they supported what her editors had just written. In many cases the verses that are used as a reference don't really lend much, if any, support to the text they follow. They may use some of the same words but that is about it. To really understand what Ellen White wrote your mind must be free from conflicting thoughts. Gen 6:5, Job 17:11, 20:2, Ps 94:11, 139:23, Prov 15:26, Isa 55:7-8, Matt 9:4, 15:19, Heb 4:12 Seventh-day Adventism does the same thing. They repeat the word Bible over and over. Doug Batchelor is a good example of this. Gilbert Jorgensen | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 6729 Registered: 12-2003 |
My comments are not about Catholics but about Catholicism in general, just as my comments about Adventism are not about individual Adventists. The understanding of salvation—justification and sanctification—within Catholicism is very similar to that of Adventism. Certain "things" are required, even though they may allow that some are saved without these things because they have not been adequately taught. As MarysRoses' post above suggests, the Catholic Church sees itself as the True church, and all Christians, wherever they are, are actually part of that True church who just haven't yet officially become part of it. They actually call Protestants "separated brethren". (Does that idea sound familiar?) The Catholic church sees itself as having spiritual authority over all Christianity, and even though Protestant churches are in rebellion or apostasy or even just plain ignorance, still the Catholic church sees itself as having the divine authority to call the people in those churches to itself, deciding whether or not they have received "proper" baptism and whether or not they are qualified to take communion in common with them. I believe that all of us who have been Adventist see the familiar assumption here...In fact, just last week my MIL said that everyone who gets to heaven will be Seventh-day Adventists once they're there. The authority of the pope, however, is a problem we can't overlook. He is an extra-biblical authority whose word is the last word on Scriptural interpretaion and application. Again, we all know about that. To be sure, the Catholic church, unlike the Adventist church, has its original roots in the apostolic traditions, but the excesses and traditions that attached themselves to the original doctrines created something that ceased to reflect apostolic Christianity. Hence the Reformation. The Reformation happened for a reason—and the fact that the Catholic Church has roots in apostolic truth doesn't mean that today it practices or teaches that truth. Reb, I was just pondering your post above from yesterday--and I have to disagree with you. While the doctrinal statement about the Trintiy and Jesus and the cross and the Scriptures may be orthodox, there are so many interpretations and additions pasted onto that statement that the power and sufficiency of that orthodox beginning has been effaced. There are truly saved people within Catholicism, as there are within Adventism. But the system no longer offers the simple gosple of the NT. Of course, this is a former Adventist forum, so we're not going to spend a lot of energy discussing Catholicism. But the issues are serious, and we owe it to ourselves to understand them. For further reading and information, John MacArthur has some excellent sources. Here are links to some (the last link is to audio files): http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sf-rcc-b.htm http://www.ondoctrine.com/2mac0095.htm http://www.gty.org/product.php?productcode=296 And MarysRoses, this is not a criticism of you. We love you... Colleen | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 2111 Registered: 10-2004  |
I agree, Colleen. As has been discussed before on this forum, the difference between Adventism and Catholicism is that Adventism was founded on/rooted in ancient heresies (such as Arianism, Gnosticism, etc.) and has never been a true Christian church (and has remained in those heresies to this day), while Catholicism was founded on/rooted in true Christianity and has apostatized and teaches false doctrines including a false gospel. In other words, Adventism is a false religion, while Catholicism is an apostate church. The Catholic Church, though now apostate, does have much orthodoxy preserved in it, however. And where orthodox doctrine has been corrupted, there is a difference between that and Adventist teaching, which started with false doctrine and tried to add on some orthodox-sounding words/phrases. (In other words, the two processes are backwards/opposite from each other and this shouldn't be ignored, in my opinion.) Adventism, of course, has never had any orthodox Christian doctrines--you can't start with heresy and progress to truth! And you can't embrace truth without renouncing and repenting of the heresy. Probably a simpler way of saying what I was trying to say in the above paragraph would be: with Catholicism, all you have to do is remove the heretical debris that's been piled on and you can go back to the foundation of truth. With Adventism, there is no foundation of truth and you must renounce and discard the entire foundation and building and start with a new foundation--the true Jesus Christ alone. Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on September 05, 2007) |
