| Author |
Message |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 3139
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 10, 2010 - 10:08 pm: |     |
Bob,
You asked:
quote:What I'm really getting at is this: leaving all other parts of the discussion aside, are there churches that deny apostolic succession that still hold to the real presence?
Yes, the Lutheran churches.
Jeremy
(Message edited by Jeremy on February 10, 2010) |
Bobj
Registered user
Username: Bobj
Post Number: 451
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 10, 2010 - 10:18 pm: | |
Thanks Jeremy.
I've got some homework to do on this topic!
Bob |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 10934
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 10, 2010 - 11:28 pm: | |
Bob, you quoted Ignatius:
quote:To the church at Ephesus, Ignatius wrote that they were “to obey [the bishop] and clergy with undivided minds and to share in the one common breaking of the bread—the medicine of immortality and the sovereign remedy by which we escape death and live in Jesus Christ forevermore” (20:3)
The problem with this statement is that, no matter what Ignatius may have understood, his words make the eucharist the means by which a person "accesses" forgiveness and the presence of Christ in himself, thus giving him life and access to Christ.
Jeremiah, you also explained that the eastern understanding is that by means of the eucharist we participate in Jesus' humanity and thus in His victory over sin and death.
Actually, the Bible teaches NOT that we participate in Jesus' humanity but the He participated in ours:
quote:Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people (Hebrews 2:17).
Moreover, the Bible further teaches that we gain the victory over sin and death by believing in Jesus, not by participating in His humanity and body by means of the eucharist:
quote:…and after he brought them out, he said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household" (Acts 16:30-31)
quote:"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life" (John 4:25).
Jesus gave us His presence not by means of physical food, such as the eucharist, but far more directly and powerfully by sending us the Holy Spirit. He promised before He died:
quote:"I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you" (John 14:16-18).
And Paul says,
quote:For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba, Father!" The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ…(Romans 8:14-17a).
We receive the Spirit not by means of the eucharist but as God's seal on us when we place our faith in the Lord Jesus:
quote:In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory (Eph1:13-14)
Communion or the eucharist is never explained as a means by which we experience forgiveness, life, victory over sin or death, or as a means of experiencing the presence of Jesus. The Holy Spirit is the great gift of God to all who believe, and communion is our "family meal" which we share to remember Him and to honor His death and to look forward to when He drinks it with us again.
I do not believe that the belief or disbelief in the literal presence of Jesus in the eucharist should be a point of division in the body of Christ. True born again Christ-followers can be found in both traditions. I believe, however, that we must take our instruction from the Bible, not primarily from church fathers or commentators. Of course, the church has left a rich tradition of writings by godly men and women, and we can benefit from those, but if they do not teach things that can be proven from Scripture, we have to say, I stand on Scripture.
The Holy Spirit was Jesus' promise to guide us into all truth, and He has not failed. Pentecost and the subsequent outpouring of the Spirit on the Samaritans and the Gentiles revealed God's mystery of the church, and we are part of that mystery. The God of all indwells the mortal tents of all who believe in Jesus, and He transfers us from the domain of darkness to the kingdom of His beloved Son (Col 1:13).
I do see one thing that EO and RCC share--and even Episcopal and Lutheran have this to some degree: a tradition of authority by which doctrine and practice are defined. This authority rests in the church fathers or in certain later theologians or reformers...and for sure these men are great Christians and should be respected and "paid attention to". But these men's and organizations' traditions cannot be our foundation.
Scripture alone, as we submit ourselves to the Lord Jesus and listen to His own Spirit as He reveals Himself through His own word is where we find the revelation of God and His will.
Colleen |
River
Registered user
Username: River
Post Number: 5988
Registered: 9-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, February 11, 2010 - 5:59 am: | |
Right Colleen.
You know yall, I get angry upset, agitated, masticated, and just about every other kind of tated.
And God lets me stew in it for however many hours, then his Holy Spirit washes over my heart to soften it yet again, and all the upset I feel, just washes away as if it had never been. No pun intended.
He has got to be trying to show me something. Get something through my hard head.
I read in Thessalonians I 5:5 You are all sons of light and sons of the day. We are not of the night nor of darkness.
Thessalonians I 5:6 Therefore let us not sleep, as others do, but let us watch and be sober.
Thessalonians I 5:7 For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk are drunk at night.
Thessalonians I 5:8 But let us who are of the day be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love, and as a helmet the hope of salvation.
Thessalonians I 5:9 For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,
Thessalonians I 5:10 who died for us, that whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with Him.
Thessalonians I 5:11 Therefore comfort each other and edify one another, just as you also are doing.
I find when I am upset, I am not sober, but drunk on the world of the flesh. God forgive me.
Brother Lonevikeing, you say its a knee jerk, and I claim its a spat. Along with the Bible, as I think it pertains to us that we should live together in him, I guess its a knee jerk!
Right now I can't get up a mad enough to disagree.
I so realize, that I get a little too passionate, and carried away, and the Holy Spirit himself gets me 'dialed back'.
I hope you can love me as I love you all, and I know you do, for you are Christs own. Its just been such a hard thing for me to learn to live loved.
Right now I don't care if you are Lutheren,EO, or a two headed toad. Truely he does lead me beside the still waters and he restores my soul, praise his wonderful name.
River |
Loneviking
Registered user
Username: Loneviking
Post Number: 707
Registered: 7-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, February 11, 2010 - 6:24 am: | |
Oh, these things can be proven by scripture. The problem is that there are texts that support one viewpoint, and texts that support another viewpoint. I showed you texts that say that if you participate in the Eucharist in an unworthy manner you are sinning against the body and blood of Christ. You show me texts that seem to say that the Eucharist is merely a symbol. So which is it? How do we decide?
Wouldn't it make sense to read the Patristic writings and see what the early church taught about these things? And if your belief and practice are at variance with what the early church did, you should start asking yourself 'why'.
The same holds true for other issues such as Baptism. Is it truly a washing for the saving of your soul? Or is it the decisional theology of the so-called Romans road? You can go over to CARM where there's an entire sub-forum where folks throw opposing quotes back and forth with great enthusiasm. But, the writings of the early church leave no doubt that Baptism was the washing of regeneration spoken of in Titus, and that it brought salvation.
So many Christians seem to have this idea that as of 100 a.d., the Bible was completed, bound together in it's present form and everything that happened afterward in church history is probably heresy of one sort or another. The truth is much different. |
Jeremiah
Registered user
Username: Jeremiah
Post Number: 451
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 11, 2010 - 8:16 am: | |
Colleen,
You said
quote:Communion or the eucharist is never explained as a means by which we experience forgiveness, life, victory over sin or death, or as a means of experiencing the presence of Jesus.
However, the body and/or blood of Jesus is said to be effective for these things. Also, in Orthodox theology, where one person of the Trinity is, the others are. Just because we encounter Jesus in the Eucharist does not mean we don't also need the Father and the Holy Spirit. It is a common tendency to think about Orthodox theological statements in an either/or fashion when coming from a Protestant background, but that is not usually what we intend to convey.
Belief in Orthodoxy has more to do with actual practice and participation than mental assent. You can be Orthodox and doubt. You can be a Geologist and doubt. True knowledge is gained by experience. Things that are consistent become believeable. A person may have more or less mental capacity and it doesn't prevent them from being a Christian. A baby doesn't mentally assent to Jesus being the Son of God, but at some point in his life, he will probably be able to, or not. We leave judgment to God.
Jeremiah |
Bskillet
Registered user
Username: Bskillet
Post Number: 674
Registered: 8-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, February 11, 2010 - 8:27 am: | |
quote:Wouldn't it make sense to read the Patristic writings and see what the early church taught about these things? And if your belief and practice are at variance with what the early church did, you should start asking yourself 'why'.
You are assuming that the patristic sources had a perfect understanding, and that there was no change in practice between the writing of the Bible and the patristic sources, an assumption that is without grounds. |
Jeremiah
Registered user
Username: Jeremiah
Post Number: 452
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 11, 2010 - 8:35 am: | |
Brent,
Let me say it with a little more clarity. In the time when Acts was written, bishop and presbyter were being used interchangeably. At the same time, James was functioning in the definition of the word "bishop" as used 30 years later. So James would have been called either bishop or presbyter in the time in which he lived, but when the word bishop later got a more narrow definition, James was posthumously called a bishop because that is how he lived.
Jeremiah |
Loneviking
Registered user
Username: Loneviking
Post Number: 708
Registered: 7-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, February 11, 2010 - 8:41 am: | |
Bskillet:
You are assuming that the patristic sources had a perfect understanding, and that there was no change in practice between the writing of the Bible and the patristic sources, an assumption that is without grounds.
-----------------
You've given me an opinion, and haven't given any basis for that opinion. What is the basis for this opinion? How much of the ECF's have you actually read? |
Bskillet
Registered user
Username: Bskillet
Post Number: 675
Registered: 8-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, February 11, 2010 - 8:42 am: | |
quote:Let me say it with a little more clarity. In the time when Acts was written, bishop and presbyter were being used interchangeably. At the same time, James was functioning in the definition of the word "bishop" as used 30 years later. So James would have been called either bishop or presbyter in the time in which he lived, but when the word bishop later got a more narrow definition, James was posthumously called a bishop because that is how he lived.
Or we could apply Ockham's Razor and come to the simpler conclusion that you are just reading back a later practice into the text, which is almost exactly what you said anyway. |
Jeremiah
Registered user
Username: Jeremiah
Post Number: 453
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 11, 2010 - 9:22 am: | |
quote:Or we could apply Ockham's Razor and come to the simpler conclusion that you are just reading back a later practice into the text, which is almost exactly what you said anyway.
Feel free to believe any way you please about James, but I think you should read the Wikipedia article on "James the Just" so you at least realize how strong the tradition is. Also, this is pretty interesting reading from Hegesippius;
quote:And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as had the Lord also on the same account, again Symeon the son of Clopas, descended from the Lord's uncle, is made bishop, his election being promoted by all as being a kinsman of the Lord. Therefore was the Church called a virgin, for she was not as yet corrupted by worthless teaching. Thebulis it was who, displeased because he was not made bishop, first began to corrupt her by stealth. He too was connected with the seven sects which existed among the people, like Simon, from whom come the Simoniani; and Cleobius, from whom come the Cleobiani; and Doritheus, from whom come the Dorithiani; and Gorthaeus, from whom come the Gortheani; Masbothaeus, from whom come the Masbothaei. From these men also come the Menandrianists, and the Marcionists, and the Carpocratians, and the Valentinians, and the Basilidians, and the Saturnilians. Each of these leaders in his own private and distinct capacity brought in his own private opinion. From these have come false Christs, false prophets, false apostles-men who have split up the one Church into parts through their corrupting doctrines, uttered in disparagement of God and of His Christ....
There were, moreover, various opinions in the matter of circumcision among the children of Israel, held by those who were opposed to the tribe of Judah and to Christ: such as the Essenes, the Galileans, the Hemerobaptists, the Masbothaei, the Samaritans, the Sadducees, the Pharisees.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/hegesippus.html
The church that won out among the competing sects is the one that says James is a bishop.
While it might have been interesting to be one of the Dorithiani, I think God overruled and that is why nobody has heard of them today.
Jeremiah |
Bskillet
Registered user
Username: Bskillet
Post Number: 676
Registered: 8-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, February 11, 2010 - 9:48 am: | |
quote:You've given me an opinion, and haven't given any basis for that opinion. What is the basis for this opinion? How much of the ECF's have you actually read?
The patristic sources do not carry authority for a Protestant. They do for a Catholic or an EO, but not for a Protestant. That is all I am saying. |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 10936
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 11, 2010 - 10:52 am: | |
Loneviking, two things: first, the 1 Corinthians passage about taking the bread unworthily and thus sinning against the body can be read two ways: either as a sin against Christ's own body which was sacrificed for us, or, in context, that passage can be understood just as accurately to read that if we take the bread unworthily, we sin against the "body of Christ" which is His church. In context, the Corinthians were fighting and pushing one another away from the table, some coming hungry and leaving nothing for the others--the higher class pushing aside the lower class...and Paul spent a great portion of the chapter castigating them for that sin against one another. Then he talks about sinning against the body...check out the context of the surrounding verses and preceding chapter. And it's important to remember that those first churches were not using "the eucharist"--their communion services were shared meals at which they ate bread and drank wine in memory of Jesus.
Revelation repeatedly pictures Jesus, even in the letters to the churches, as appearing with the "sword of His mouth", and he judges the church with that sword. That sword is His own word. Ephesians 6 confirms this picture: the sword of the Spirit which is the word of God. We are given the word of God as our unmovable foundation, and Jesus will judge us according to His own word--not according to the records, practices, and teaching of the church fathers, no matter how godly and sincere and instructive they are.
The church fathers, in fact, are the ones who finalized the canon. They did not include their own writings, as widely as they were read. Everything is to be measured by and understood in light of Scripture. Scripture is not to be measured or understood in light of later writings.
Jesus gave us the Holy Spirit whom He told the disciples would remind them of everything He had said and lead them into all truth. The Holy Spirit actually can be trusted to teach us the word of God and show us how to use it contextually as the foundation and measure of all other teachings.
Colleen |
Bskillet
Registered user
Username: Bskillet
Post Number: 677
Registered: 8-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, February 11, 2010 - 11:01 am: | |
quote:The church fathers, in fact, are the ones who finalized the canon. They did not include their own writings, as widely as they were read. Everything is to be measured by and understood in light of Scripture. Scripture is not to be measured or understood in light of later writings.
I would also add that they did not determine the canon on the basis of their own authority, but collected the books that the global church as a whole had already recognized as from God. By the time the canon was finalized, only a few books in the NT were even remotely controversial, and usually it was simply because authorship was unclear.
(Message edited by bskillet on February 11, 2010) |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 10937
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 11, 2010 - 1:54 pm: | |
quote:Belief in Orthodoxy has more to do with actual practice and participation than mental assent. You can be Orthodox and doubt. You can be a Geologist and doubt. True knowledge is gained by experience. Things that are consistent become believeable. A person may have more or less mental capacity and it doesn't prevent them from being a Christian. A baby doesn't mentally assent to Jesus being the Son of God, but at some point in his life, he will probably be able to, or not. We leave judgment to God.
Jeremiah, I completely agree that the essence of being a Christian is not about mental assent. In fact, that is one of the things I more or less "camp" on, because mental assent denies the importance of our own spirits and the new birth we experience when the Holy Spirit indwells us.
I did not mean to imply that your explanation of the eucharist was just about Jesus without including the Spirit and the Father. Rather, what I was trying to say is that I can't find anything in Scripture which suggests that we need a physical, tangible symbol or behavior to give us forgiveness or belief or life on an ongoing basis. The physical reality of atonement happened once for all on Calvary.
As still-mortal humans, we receive Life because of Jesus, and His Spirit literally brings us to life. Accepting Jesus isn't a mental assent, although the mind is involved in the hearing and understanding of the gospel. It is the faith that God gives us to submit our entire life to the Lord Jesus and to bow before Him as Lord and Savior, releasing all our clinging to our sense of being in control and directing our outcomes. We have to give up our outcome to the Lord Jesus.
If we have done that, Jesus' once-for-all sacrifice, as Hebrews explains, pays and cleanses us, and we receive the Holy Spirit. We have God literally living in our mortal tent. The eucharist cannot give us more of God; we have Him in all His fulness. Jesus said in John that we would be in Him as He is in the Father and the Father is in Him--and we would be in the Father. That's as intimate as can be articulated...and that happens as a gift from God. The Bible doesn't ever present the eucharist as giving us more of God than we can have by being in Christ.
Colleen |
Loneviking
Registered user
Username: Loneviking
Post Number: 709
Registered: 7-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, February 11, 2010 - 3:08 pm: | |
Colleen wrote:
Loneviking, two things: first, the 1 Corinthians passage about taking the bread unworthily and thus sinning against the body can be read two ways: either as a sin against Christ's own body which was sacrificed for us, or, in context, that passage can be understood just as accurately to read that if we take the bread unworthily, we sin against the "body of Christ" which is His church. In context, the Corinthians were fighting and pushing one another away from the table, some coming hungry and leaving nothing for the others--the higher class pushing aside the lower class...and Paul spent a great portion of the chapter castigating them for that sin against one another. Then he talks about sinning against the body...check out the context of the surrounding verses and preceding chapter. And it's important to remember that those first churches were not using "the eucharist"--their communion services were shared meals at which they ate bread and drank wine in memory of Jesus.
--------------------------
Colleen, what you've missed is that the second choice doesn't match up to the penalty 'for this reason, many of you have fallen ill and some sleep'. Sinning against the church causes this? Why? Is the church politic somehow more holy than Christ Himself? No, that choice of reading won't work as it doesn't match up to the consequences.
------------------------------
Colleen wrote:
The church fathers, in fact, are the ones who finalized the canon. They did not include their own writings, as widely as they were read. Everything is to be measured by and understood in light of Scripture. Scripture is not to be measured or understood in light of later writings.
________________
But we do measure and understand the Patristic writings in the light of Scripture. Their writings are, many times, expositions of Scripture that we today would do well to pay attention too. Why is it so impossible to accept that their teachings and explanations of Scripture just might be correct? Especially when some of these writers were taught by the apostles themselves?
--------------------
BSkillet:
The patristic sources do not carry authority for a Protestant. They do for a Catholic or an EO, but not for a Protestant. That is all I am saying.
--------------
Strange idea. Here I thought Luther was the Father of the Reformation and Lutherans were the original Protestants! |
Jrt
Registered user
Username: Jrt
Post Number: 985
Registered: 10-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, February 11, 2010 - 5:27 pm: | |
Bobj,
Great to see you on the forum ... and great questions you ask.
I've just spent a great deal of time reading this thread ... Had to chew on it ...
As I have come out of a false religion (Seventh-day Adventism) as most of you ... it has been incredibly difficult. The extra-Biblical writings of Ellen White colored all my understanding of scripture. Now that I have accepted Jesus as my sole source of salvation; His atoning work on the cross and His resurrection (1 Cor. 15:15,16) - His payment for my deadness to God (Eph. 2), The Bible has become a new book for me. I read it with new eyes.
Since I have been so burned on Ellen White and extra-Biblical writings ... I decided to make the scriptures my standard of truth. I believe now that the Bible is without error. My pastor gave me a commentary as I was coming out, but mentioned that I might want to read scripture rather than other men's words. I read the commentary for an hour or two and then abandoned it and went to scripture. This may sound strange, but scripture now is my steady diet.
I know this may seem irritating to those of you who are reading historians, Ignatius, and historical fathers - to clarify and expound on scripture.
Early on I wrestled with the idea of whether I would ever know "truth" again. It was an awful wrestling time of sweat and tears. Finally, I came to the following:
quote:1)"All this I have told you so that you will not go astray. 2)They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God. 3)They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me. 4)I have told you this, so that when the time comes you will remember that I warned you. I did not tell you this at first because I was with you.
5)"Now I am going to him who sent me, yet none of you asks me, 'Where are you going?' 6) Because I have said these things, you are filled with grief. 7) But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8) When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: 9) in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me; 10) in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11) and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.
12) "I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13) But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14) He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. 15) All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.
16) "In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me." (John 16:1-16)
At that point I choose to decide that I could once again know truth and that the Holy Spirit (Which is God/Himself - the author of scripture) would teach me what He Himself had written. This is not arrogance ... rather it is humility ...
When scripture is clear I am unequivocal, when it is unclear I enjoy the dialogue of others.
One other thing I decided on is that context, context, context is important. Therefore, ... all the texts above in this thread ... I read around them - whole chapters.
I would recommend asking the Holy Spirit to reveal to you what you need to know about the eucharist and baptism and then going to scripture.
Try reading 1 Cor. 10-12.
Blessings as you seek Him and He reveals Himself and truth to you.
Keri |
Jim02
Registered user
Username: Jim02
Post Number: 915
Registered: 5-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, February 11, 2010 - 6:40 pm: | |
In reading about the early church history and selected quotes from those first centuries.
The only premise I made in this attempt was to at minimum hope to gain an overview of the earliest understandings of the teachings given by the Apostles to the first generations of Christians. Logically assuming that some of the clarifacations about assorted theories may have been more clear then, than what it has evolved into today.
Even so, I also realized there were debates while the Apostles were still alive. That there was misunderstandings and only partial comprehensions even in the presence of Christ.
Our peace is often confused because we are still out here trying to figure out the boundries.
The fact that the Bible establishes Pastors, Teachers and so forth presents a logical argument for the inclusion of counsels from all ages in light of the scriptures.
History is a teacher. Many roads have already been traveled.
Jim |
Asurprise
Registered user
Username: Asurprise
Post Number: 1172
Registered: 7-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, February 11, 2010 - 8:16 pm: | |
Jim, just read the Bible. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit will teach us, as JRT pointed out.
If you also read "church leaders" words, you could easily be led astray.
Jesus said in John 6:54, "Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life..."
And then a little further down in John 6:63, "The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life."
It's Jesus' words - not His literal flesh. |
Asurprise
Registered user
Username: Asurprise
Post Number: 1173
Registered: 7-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, February 11, 2010 - 8:42 pm: | |
All the cults have a false Jesus and a false gospel. The SDAs have a Jesus that is an investigator. The RCC have a perpetual victim that is pulled of the throne at will to be sacrificed over and over and over... hence the "sacrifice of the mass." The LDS have a Jesus that had a beginning. The J.Witnesses and Muslims have a Jesus that isn't God.
Such a Jesus as these have cannot save. The apostle Paul referred to "another Jesus" and "a different gospel" in 2nd Cor. 11:4. Even back then people had a tendency to listen to other "leaders" that cropped up! Read Galatians too. Those people were being taken in by Seventh-day Adventists - err - well, that's the way it sounds anyway! SDAs would fit right in with the people who had come in after Paul and were teaching the Galatians false things! (I challenge any Adventist to prayerfully read and REALLY READ Galatians - not read Galatians through Ellen White glasses. Any cult can read the Bible through their "prophet's" glasses and carefully screen their mind from really noticing the things that don't agree. I did when I was an SDA. I did things like "skip over" and "read quick" and "no, I must be misinterpreting this because Ellen White says different" in order not to understand it. SDA friends, the Bible really IS true and not just the verses that agree with your understanding! Ask God to show you what's true! And be honest in heart about it. That's what happened to a radical Muslim who was tasked by his imam to read the Bible and refute it. It was months before he could even bring himself to touch it - he was so sure that it was wrong and he was such a devout Muslim! Then when he did study it, he found it was true!) |
Loneviking
Registered user
Username: Loneviking
Post Number: 710
Registered: 7-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, February 11, 2010 - 11:11 pm: | |
Keri wrote:
As I have come out of a false religion (Seventh-day Adventism) as most of you ... it has been incredibly difficult. The extra-Biblical writings of Ellen White colored all my understanding of scripture. Now that I have accepted Jesus as my sole source of salvation; His atoning work on the cross and His resurrection (1 Cor. 15:15,16) - His payment for my deadness to God (Eph. 2), The Bible has become a new book for me. I read it with new eyes.
Since I have been so burned on Ellen White and extra-Biblical writings ... I decided to make the scriptures my standard of truth. I believe now that the Bible is without error. My pastor gave me a commentary as I was coming out, but mentioned that I might want to read scripture rather than other men's words. I read the commentary for an hour or two and then abandoned it and went to scripture. This may sound strange, but scripture now is my steady diet.
I know this may seem irritating to those of you who are reading historians, Ignatius, and historical fathers - to clarify and expound on scripture.
---------------------
Nope, doesn't irritate me at all. That is where you should start, and probably spend quite a bit of time over the first two or three years coming out of Adventism. Just don't be close minded over the writings of the early church; don't automatically close your mind at a church where there is a liturgy. I wish I would have known about the Lutherans a long time ago. It would have saved me several side trips into other churches. But, I guess God knew what He was doing and I learned from the journey.
Gods' peace to you Keri, and keep reading and studying! |
|
