| Author | Message | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 929 Registered: 5-2007 |
I wonder why God did not provide a way to ask questions that could be answered clearly in this dispensation. Certainly , God has reasons for this. I think it may be to give us the space and freedom to seek Him rather than under the fearful presence of His being as those who left Egypt endured. There is a whole other premise involved today. He is drawing us to Himself and we are seeking that we may find Him. Still, I am amazed at how many ways we can misunderstand the same texts in scripture from one person to the next. The apparent contradictions both in scripture and interpretations have derailed me continously for years and I have begun to realize that being doctrine smart is an unprovable concept. Because even if I gain an understanding, it is still my opinion and at best the opinion of those who agree with me. That still does not prove anything. I listen to sermons and teachings daily. I see and hear things being theorized on single texts, inferred, constructed and so on. Then handed over the pulpit as if it is fact. It does not work for me. So then , I keep reducing my expectations, month after month. I let go of my desire and need for clarity and proof. Finally, I am down to just praying and almost with no sense of intelligence, I feel undone. That thought ; "he who stands for nothing, will fall for anything" This is about traction. I can't figure out anything beyond the most basic of basics. Everything else is speculation and hypothesis. Line em up; Tribulation, rapture, Hell , State of the dead, Law as a whole, Law as divided, definition of sin, before the law sin, after the law sin, sanctifaction, justifaction, grafted in or out or back in again, works, no works, gift, merit, rewards, warnings, exclusions, millineum-pre,post etc on and on it goes. We can't get anything right. Peace does not exist in this. This is not where the soul thrives. This is not where relationship in Christ finds nurturing. That is why I stay unsettled. I find nothing to anchor to in fellowship because of all the conflicted doctrines. I have tried just about everything I can think of and I guess I am comparing my experience to the settled faith I once had. Jim | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 10968 Registered: 12-2003  |
Jim, the disorienting thing about coming out of a "system" of belief is that we think we have to agree on doctrine before we can share fellowship. You're right, that Jesus is the core, and if we agree on the centrality of the cross, the person and work of Jesus, the Trinity, and the reliability of the word of God, we can have Christian fellowship even if we disagree on peripheral issues. Those periphery are not linked to salvation. Jim, the way to begin to be settled is to concentrate on Scripture, not on others' teachings. Decide to spend 15 minutes a day not to "study" but to let God teach you as you open His word. Let the words of the verses, maybe only one new verse a day, sink in. Try reading a chapter out loud, adding one verse each day to what you read yesterday. Let yourself repeat the previous days' verses every day as you add a new verse. Ask God to teach you truth. I can't explain how it happens, but He begins to clarify reality in profound ways. He doesn't bring all the details together at one time, but a sense of consistency and truth and depth and meaning begins to emerge. Scripture is our source, and the Holy Spirit teaches us through it. Just relax and meet God in His word. You don't have to analyze it. You just have to soak in it, and the truth of it will take root in you. Jesus will become more and more real. Your mind will be transformed. Colleen | ||
| Loneviking Registered user Username: Loneviking Post Number: 718 Registered: 7-2000 |
I second Colleens advice. You're doing too much, too fast and being too worried about it. Get a Bible, a Concordance, a pad of paper and a quiet place. Begin to daily read, just a small piece of Scripture--some days maybe a chapter, other days a verse or two. Really dig in as to what the verse is saying and teaching. Follow the cross-references to other, similar texts. Write down what you've learned that day. Over time, you'll rebuild your beliefs, but it's going to take time. As you rebuild your belief system, you'll find it easier to compare what you believe with what a church you are visiting believes. You will find a church to worship with, but it's going to take time. | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 930 Registered: 5-2007 |
Colleen, Loneviking, I hope that I am not coming across as broken winged. I am doing these things as you suggested more or less and in general. Yes, I do tend to over do it and over analyze. I think my greatest need is to somehow get it sorted out while at the same time (in the meanwhile) to not lose hold of the basic truths as they are in Christ, as you said Colleen. I have thought perhaps that if I could locate a good Topical Bible it would help me tie some of these studies together. Simply put, I am having a difficult time absorbing the voulme of information that is cross linked with other doctrines. It is like mechanics or software. Change one thing here, and something over there is affected. Jim | ||
| Jrt Registered user Username: Jrt Post Number: 996 Registered: 10-2008 |
Jim, Truth is not a doctrine. Truth is Living and Real. Truth is the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus says in the gospel of John, "I am the way, the Truth, and the life." The Truth of scripture is understood when we have the Living Truth in us as a result of being brought from death to life when we humble ourselves and accept Jesus Christ death and resurrection for our sins - and realizing that we add nothing to our salvation - in receiving it - and once we are saved - we do nothing to lose it (otherwise salvation would be based on us). He brings us spiritually to life with His resurrection power. It is quite simple Jim, accept the fact that you don't know a thing and cannot figure it out intellectually.
Brother, it is only in accepting Jesus into our lives fully (repenting of our sins - and accepting the gift that Jesus paid the price we never ever could) - realizing that only in HIM can we truly understand - Indeed, as former Adventists there is much "undoing" that needs to take place in our understanding, but that is the work of the Holy Spirit as we submit our minds to Him and give up our right to understand as we would like to understand - but understand as He would have us understand. Keri | ||
| Jrt Registered user Username: Jrt Post Number: 997 Registered: 10-2008 |
P.S. I didn't mean to come across as harsh when I wrote, "accept the fact that you don't know a thing and cannot figure it out intellectually." Fact is - I couldn't understand a thing either and after being born-again it has taken time and continues to take time as my mind becomes "retrained" in Biblical truth. My concern, Jim, is that I don't know and am not completely sure you have accepted Jesus into your heart and repented of your sins - as a response to Him. I just don't know and therefore, I have to ask and share accordingly. Know I am praying for you. | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 931 Registered: 5-2007 |
Jrt Truth is true doctrine, otherwise , truth is meaningless. But your point is well made. Romans 3:10-12 As for repenting, please , don't attempt to diagnose me. It is my fault though. I need to confine my questions to specific points, one thing at a time. Jim | ||
| Jrt Registered user Username: Jrt Post Number: 999 Registered: 10-2008 |
Jim, I wish you well and will continue to pray for you as you sort through things. Blessings, Keri | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 533 Registered: 7-2005 |
Jim, you said
Indeed truth is meaningless without propositional content (true doctrines), what we predicate about God. There is a false dichotomy to think that Truth incarnate (Jesus) denies that there is such thing as propositional truth (the Bible's testimony about Jesus. We know the living Truth (Jesus) through the mediatorship of the propositional truth that tells us who Jesus is, his teachings, his gospel, his works. And what the Bible tells us about Jesus must be true, otherwise we could not access to the living Truth, because we will not know Him. Nevertheless, I don't think that Keri will object to what I just said. I may be wrong, but I think that Keri wanted to emphasize a crucial point that it seems to me escaped you: intellectually God cannot be known. You don't have access to the reality of who God is through intellect, you can't figure out the spiritual reality. Now this statement can be mistakenly interpreted as pure mysticism, an abandonment to irrationality, to mystical experiences disconnected from any rational thinking. No, its a statement about the fact that the reality of who God is goes beyond our intellectual knowledge. It doesn't exclude intellectual knowledge (as mysticism does), but it neither stops at it (as rationalism does by refusing to believe anything about God that cannot be intellectually understood). It seems that those who had written to you perceived the danger of rationalism in your words because you seem to require your intellect to be fully and perfectly satisfied before believing in what the Bible affirms clearly about salvation. From my perspective, I'm afraid that you're reluctant to believe in God's gracious and free promises to you because it seems that in other places the Bible contradicts these promises, and before committing yourself to trust in God you need to have these apparent contradictions fully harmonized in your rational understanding. If this is the case, you're stuck with your rationalism and will never come to a living knowledge of God's grace as long as you're waiting for perfect harmonization. I'll come back and post something more tomorrow, I'm too tired to write a lengthy post, tell me if you think I described accurately your position. Gabriel | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 932 Registered: 5-2007 |
Gabriel, You are on the right track overall , though perhaps a bit wide in your brush strokes (as to how I am percieving things.) Even so, you are on target as far as my general thinking goes. You Wrote: ... intellectually God cannot be known. You don't have access to the reality of who God is through intellect, you can't figure out the spiritual reality J: I am not sure I completely agree with this statement. 1 Corinthians 2:10 but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. J: In my thinking, I believe that we are expected to seek to know what knowledge God offers to us as Revealed in scripture and by the enabling of His Holy Spirit. I agree , intellect alone will not achieve it. I also believe an understanding that is given by His Spirit may not be explainable to another not ready/enabled to recieve it, it may be "foolishness" to them. Nevertheless, truth as revealed in scripture should be understandable and defensable as far as doctrine goes. It must stand the test of scripture. Rules of reason must apply. Otherwise , indeed , it becomes mysticism and subjective. One of the first premises I hold to is that a child can understand the salvational truths. But beyond this there is fellowship,leadership, matters of administration, counseling, helps and other gifts that require greater levels of insight in order to grow and mature. There are truths to be defended and propositions to be rejected. You cannot do any of this without a firm grip on what truth is , where the boundries are and what the will of God is (as expressed in scripture). Rightly dividing and applying truth in a practical sense with wisdom requires far more than familiar sayings and basic teachings. There are full circles to truth. Simplicity, complexity, tangents and finally , back to simplicity. Truth holds it's shape no matter what. You spoke of rationalism. I understand that it can be it's own trap. Especially if I presume to require a complete understanding of a topic presented in Scripture or in it's real world expression. I understand it is not always black and white, neither in scope or appliaction. But I do think a truth is consistant. It is not my expectation to even hope to fathom God Himself. But it is my expectation to understand His instructions. To know what He has revealed to us. I am in the middle of a rethinking of my religon. What to hold onto, what to let go, what to correct and what to wait upon. I still have those haunting doubts that this entire venture has been on the wrong path. Not observing the list of do's and don't taught in the SDA system. I am facing doing new things against fear at times, because I have to know experientially what is self evident and what is religous superstition. At the same time trying to maintain that balance between being human and avoiding a license to sin. All the while , being willing to dump it all if God shows me to turn back. There is also that risk of agnosticism. I have sensed it. It comes from not being able to make sense of anything and not being able to trust abstract propositions. It comes from seeing the very words we use being so versitle that any passage can be rendered to mean anything by spin. Given that, I realize I have to pace myself and wait patiently. Over the past few years I have been in gathering mode. I am only now begining to see the bigger picture. Jim | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 10977 Registered: 12-2003 |
Jim, I'd just like to comment on your opening thoughts:
The point of 1 Cor. 2 is that wisdom and cognitive analysis cannot understand spiritual reality. It is spiritually discerned...which has to do with our spirits, which are naturally dead in sin (read Ephesians 2:1-3; 1 Cor 15:22; John 3:3-5, etc.). The Bible does not become cohesive until we are made alive by placing our faith in the Lord Jesus as our Savior and being indwelt by the Holy Spirit who gives us the resurrection life of Jesus in our own dead spirits. We literally, not figuratively, move from being "in Adam" to being "in Christ"; we have new parentage because we have been born of God. Jesus even told His disciples that He had many things to tell them, but they could not understand. He told them they were not to begin witnessing of His death and resurrection until the Holy Spirit came upon them. He told them that the Holy Spirit would teach them and lead them into all truth. We were taught as Adventists that the Holy Spirit would be perceived through our minds, and the bottom-line point of the "health message" was to keep our bodies healthy and our minds clear so we could think well and perceive the Holy Spirit. That notion is false. The "spirit" is immaterial and not part of the body. It is who we are, and "we" live in mortal tents right now. But our spirits are the part of us that knows God. Jesus told the woman at the well that true worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth, because God is spirit. The Holy Spirit makes our essential identity, our spirits, alive in Christ. When this happens, even our minds are renewed. Unless we submit our minds to the Lord Jesus, however, and submit our lives to every word of Scripture, we have no way to make sense of the Bible. It is not like a book of Shakespeare. We can't figure it out by understanding universal archetypes and word meanings. Of course, some things we can know—but the picture of truth that God has revealed is spiritually, not intellectually, discerned. We only find resolution when we give up our right to cognitively analyze God's word and instead submit to it. You have been through huge change over the past few years; yet God is not done calling you and healing your heart. It is such a relief to offer up to Him one's right to know and understand and instead wrestle with the words of Scripture, understanding that all of it is true—and that its very words are exactly what God intended for us to have. Colleen | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 534 Registered: 7-2005 |
Jim, you said:
As I said and perhaps I need to explain myself further, I agree that truth in the Bible is rational and I'm opposed to any form of irrational mysticism. I am myself a person who's not satisfied with a fragmented understanding of the Bible and I'm looking for solutions to the apparent contradictions of the Bible. I also believe that truth is consistent, and we should aim at every step to be consistent. After all, the inconsistency in the theological system of Adventism led me to question adventism's claims to have an authentic systems of doctrines. So I hope you will not take what I said about the nature of revealed truth being beyond what is rational and what we can comprehend with our minds as an invitation to irrational faith. Far from it, let me explain what I attempted to say, without success. God is Creator and infinite and we are creature and finite. In the nature of things what is finite cannot comprehend what is infinite, and our mind which is finite cannot comprehend God who is infinite. Because of this vast gulf that is between God and us, in order to make Himself known, God must condescend to our level and speak to us in language which must be understood and adequate with our finite abilities. Because He needs to condescend to our level and use our finite and imperfect language to communicate the truth about Himself, built in this communication is a certain level of falseness. I'm a firm believer that the Bible doesn't contain error, that what God communicates about Himself in the Bible corresponds with the reality. Nevertheless this revelation about Himself is by way of analogy, of "like it" speech. By definition, when we say "My son is like me" we assume that while he reflects my person to a certain degree, he is also not like me in different aspects. There is no perfect match, perfect identity between what is true about myself and what is true about my son. With revelation is the same thing: the Bible tells us how God is like, but because this revelation is incomplete and couched in our language there is a certain degree of falseness, of what is not like God. Let me illustrate. Have you ever heard about Open Theism? Some adventists theologians are responsible for advocating open theism when it first appeared on the theological scene. It's a doctrine that denies God's omniscience, and some of the texts used are, for example, what God said to Abraham regarding Sodom: Then the Lord said, “Because f the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me. And if not, I will know.” (Genesis 18:20,21) This text, together with other texts that portray God as changing His mind, like, before the flood God being sorry that he had made man on the earth (Genesis 5:6), or regretting for making Saul king and other texts that speak about God changing his mind are used by open theists to advance their thesis that God is not omniscient, doesn't know the future and consequently learns from experience what to do. He appoints a king, afterward this king proves himself to be a failure and God regrets and changes his mind and his course. These kind of accounts creates contradictions: for example, in the same chapter in which God says that regretted his appointment of Saul as king, Samuel tells Saul that God is not a man and has no regret (1 Samuele 15:29). There are other examples that may be brought as proofs that the Bible contradicts itself, but all these contradictions are apparent because people forget that God's revelation is analogical. God is using human language, presenting Himself as changing his mind in order to communicate something about Himself, but that language, if it is not understood in the proper context of analogies, God being like a human being changing his mind but not changing his mind in the same exact way how a man is changing his mind, leads to denials of God's omniscience, or to a rejection of the Bible's inerrancy and/or inspiration. The Bible speaks about God's being jealous, but God's jealousy is until some point like man's jealousy. There are a lot of theologians, liberal or neo-liberal who are ready to affirm that the Bible contains what an ancient tribe of people thought and imagine about their God, a God who has human passions, even sinful passions, like being jealous, full of wrath and hate, revengeful, etc. etc They say that it is inconceivable to speak about God in these terms, and modern and postmodern people should reject the tribal God of Old Testament because this is a human construction culturally conditioned that was invalidated by Jesus' portrayal of God as being unlike the God of Old Testament. The Christian response to liberalism and open theism was that God's revelation is analogical, by way of analogies, "like it". God's jealousy is like human jealousy, but it is also different. And while the Bible makes clear that this is so, it doesn't explain to us how it is so. We need to use the language that God gave us, these analogies, because otherwise we will not be able to communicate anything about God, but at the same time we need to be aware that what we say about God using this language is in some way different than the reality of what God is in himself. If we are not aware of the intrinsic limits of the analogical revelation we will inevitably arrive at the conclusion that the Bible is full of contradictions. Perhaps a classical example is the affirmation "God hates sin but loves the sinner". That's the way many people think that they should speak about God in order to reconcile his justice that manifests in holy wrath toward sin and God's gracious love toward the sinner in absorbing this wrath on Himself in the person of Jesus for the salvation of sinners. But this expression does not reflect what the Bible says explicitly about God not only hating sin, something abstract, but hating the sinner also. Just a few examples The Lord tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence. Let him rain coals on the wicked;fire and sulfur and a scorching wind shall be the portion of their cup. (Psalm 11:5,6) The boastful shall not stand before your eyes; you hate all evildoers. (Psalm 5:5) Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. (John 3:36} The bible also speaks about believers as being at one time under God's wrath (Ephesians 2:3) and now liberated from this wrath through faith in Christ's sacrifice that suffered God's wrath in behalf of them. Apparently this language portrays God as changing from hate to love after his Son absorbed God's wrath but this is not true: because God loved us he sent Jesus into the world to die for our sins. This means that God both hated us and also loved us, something that seems a full blown contradiction for which the usual answer was "God hates sin but loves sinners". I believe that this is a rationalistic way of resolving this apparent contradiction. A better way to approach this is to affirm that God both loved us and hated us before being reconciled to God through Jesus, making proper distinctions. See for example this article from The Gospel Coalition. Colleen's pastor is part of this coalition and I think you will find good resources on that site. Nevertheless, while we may understand why God loved us before our conversion, because we are his creatures, and why he hated us because, as somebody said "he is the source of all righteousness and had to hate the evil within us", I don't think that we will be able to reconcile in our minds how God's love goes hand in hand with his hate toward the same object. That's a mystery and we should leave room for mystery without resorting to simplistic rationalistic explanations that apparently resolve the problem or concluding that the Bible is the product of sinful men, full of contradictions. In conclusion, in order to understand God's revelation you need first spiritual insight and second to understand the analogical nature of God's revelation in the Bible, the distinction between God and creature, a proper perspective of the role of reason, the limits of human mind and language. Hope this time you will understand that I'm not in favor of any kind of mystical irrational belief. Gabriel (Message edited by Jackob on February 27, 2010) | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 933 Registered: 5-2007 |
Colleen, I have tried to ponder the scope of what you are saying. I slept on these things. What comes to my mind is that Jesus cited scripture when he rebuked the Devil. That was an objective response. It did not set aside the Spiritual aspect of truth, but at the same time it set forth a reality that is available to even the sinner (the Devil). About wisdom: Proverbs 4:7 Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Though it cost all you have, get understanding. Proverbs 4:11 I guide you in the way of wisdom and lead you along straight paths. then compare: Ecclesiastes 1:17 Then I applied myself to the understanding of wisdom, and also of madness and folly, but I learned that this, too, is a chasing after the wind. Jeremiah 9:23 This is what the LORD says: "Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom or the strong man boast of his strength or the rich man boast of his riches, 1 Corinthians 1:19 For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." then contrast: Ephesians 1:17 I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. I try to hold onto what is important and in my mind I believe that it takes "both" Spiritual insight and wisdom to understand and recieve the truths of God. I agree with your point that wisdom and intelligence will not suffice alone. You mentioned the health message. Even the Bible warns about strong drink. In our present day dispensation. I am not clear as to how we recieve God's Holy Spirit. Is it all at once? incrementally? What gives me pause is that even those who claim they have the Spirit of God. (multiple faiths) Why do they all hold different beliefs on the same scriptures? I note even the Apostles disagreed among themselves. Jim | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 934 Registered: 5-2007 |
Gabriel, Yes , I understand that the Bible uses various methods to express God's will , intent and reality in abstract , or representative ways. I am also aware of the many apparent contradictions. I do not think this is where my own confusion is based. It mostly comes from mutiple intrepretations of contextual teachings. This is why both intelligence and wisdom is the natural resort. I have also maintained all along that all attempts to know or understand scripture is by and through the aid of God's Holy Spirit. Thus, I keep circling, realizing , evidently, I am not in the right place in my life. Colleen wrote: "We only find resolution when we give up our right to cognitively analyze God's word and instead submit to it." I think I understand what she means, yet when I read that, it too is a circle. In essence, I resort to wisdom. Listen to what I do understand, trust in God to guide me as I follow. Maybe it is just that simple. Jim | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 535 Registered: 7-2005 |
Jim, you said
Jim, make me understand: you talk about multiple interpretations, and it seems that you are thinking not regarding the Bible's message in itself, but regarding the way in which people interpret it. You seem to place your problem in the man's subjective understanding, rather in the Bible itself. Until this point, my impression was that you were unable to sort through the different interpretations because the Bible is not clear enough in order for you to understand what interpretation is better or more closer to the truth than the other. Now you seems to say that your problem is not first and foremost the lack of Bible clarity, but the different interpretations that are floating in the air. Assuming that this is the case, I'm a little puzzled: if the confusion is not generated primarily by the Bible, why aren't you able, based on the clarity of the Bible to sort through the different contradictory interpretations that you are hearing? I'm trying to understand you better because I spent a lot of time writing about the nature of revelation just to be told that I wasted my time addresing this problem, just to find that in reality the problem is in another place. Help me understand you better, because at this moment I'm not understanding what you are expecting from us, and why you are still struggling with uncertainty. If the problem is not the lack of clarity of the Bible, but the lack of clarity in people's interpretations, why you have such a big problem in coming to firm conclusions about what the Bible says? Gabriel | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 1200 Registered: 7-2007 |
Jim; the apostles (as well as many denominations within GENUINE Christianity) disagreed on the nonessentials. Remember that the basic gospel for a person to completely accept Jesus' sacrifice in their behalf. None of the cults can do that. The Roman Catholics believe that you have to attend "the sacrifice of the mass" on a regular basis in order to be saved, Seventh-day Adventists believe that "maintaining" their salvation by keeping on asking for God's forgiveness is necessary to "keep" saved, and Muslims believe that their "good" deeds must outweigh their "bad" deeds (or if they die in jihad) in order to be saved. (Since they don't read the Bible because they think - like the LSD church - that it's been "corrupted," they don't realize that a person's "good" deeds are FILTHY rags!) Jim, remember that Phil Harris was saved when he was six years old. He accepted Jesus as his Savior. Maybe that is why Jesus said in Matthew 18:3 that unless a person becomes like a little child, he/she cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven. | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 536 Registered: 7-2005 |
Asurprise I'm afraid that Jim's confusion are related with the gospel, even the basic gospel. I presume this on the basis of his initial post in which he enumerated different opinions with elements that are related with the gospel. He said:
The bolded parts are directly connected with the gospel while others like the place of rewards, warnings, definition of sin and it's relation with law are loosely connected with it. If he messes with justification and sanctification, works, merit, gift, it's a sign that he's confused with the gospel. In a word, he's not sure what to believe about the gospel, and it's hard to trust something that you have a hard time to understand. Trust is built on knowledge, and where is confusion there is little hope if ever to be confident and trust in the gospel. That's why I'm trying to understand Jim's position which is a difficult task because he's not quite explicit about what bothers him and what are those connections that he fails to make in order to arrive at a certain level of clarity. My own perception, and I mean no disrespect here, is that Jim's particular situation requires from us a double effort in trying to understand him before being able to help him. I admit that my attempts until this moment proved to be a failure, I admit that I still don't understand him and I need to be more patient with him and consciously refrain from "diagnosing" his spiritual status. If I would be in his place, battling confusion and unbelief, I'll appreciate if others will do more effort to understand me and deal with the real problems rather than rushing in offering solutions according to what they perceive my spiritual situation is. Personally I have some questions to ask him in order to understand the reason of his confusion regarding the basic message of the gospel. Time will tell if my attempt will work or not, hope Jim will not be discouraged by our failure to understand him and will offer us more information that will lead to progress in our conversation. Gabriel | ||
| Snewbie Registered user Username: Snewbie Post Number: 10 Registered: 2-2010 |
It sounds like a perfect place to rest and trust in the LORD. When you are mired in all that confusion, everything is like a whirlwind. | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 937 Registered: 5-2007 |
Gabriel, Tribulation: I simply read Christ will return to earth, the dead in Christ will rise first. I see nothing to suggest rapture. Hell , State of the dead: You already said the bible teaches analogical. Dead is dead. I realize that there are passages that speak of souls pleading in heaven. I think they are symbolic not literal. Hell: I cannot fathom why God would create or maintain an eternal hell. Imortality is a gift of salvation, not a punishment in hell. I have read on this subject a dozen times. I do not believe in eternal hell. It contradicts all sensibilities to any definition of Love and compassion or even Justice. Evil does not end as long as hell exists. , Law as a whole, Law as divided, definition of sin, before the law sin, after the law sin, While I have grasped a great deal more on this topic than others. I still feel that we are overlooking something that has not changed. We say that the SDA are guilty for dividing the law between 10C and Cermonial, yet mainliners do the same act by reinstating the 9 moral laws and exempt the one shadow law as they put it. sanctifaction, justifaction, grafted in or out or back in again, The Bible says we can indeed be lost. We can be grafted back out. If so , what would cause that? works, no works, gift, merit, rewards, warnings, exclusions, A lot of definitions of being excluded by sin. If indeed sin is definable by the law, then how have we managed to set the law aside. If Christ came to magnify the law and make it honorable only to set it aside, this makes no sense. millineum-pre,post This one is a mind trip. I read it pretty cut and dry. But apparently others see it in a pattern that I cannot make one bit of sense out of. If it is not plain to the understanding, how can one be expected to act upon it? I am not upset or being rude here. I am trying my best to accept new understanding and learn from it , but frankly a whole shelf of books later, I see nothing but best guesses and whimsical theories. There is no conviction or traction on my part for 90% of it. I still believe the SDA are not entirely wrong with many of their doctrinal beliefs. I don't agree with them on some things, but they at least tend to be direct and to the point. I may not be able to trust in EGW again. But the question of the law is a real major concerne for me. I have not kept Sabbath for about 3 years now. I have been in a Spiritual stagnation ever since. I have no where to go. Can you understand that? Jim | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 537 Registered: 7-2005 |
Jim, I'm trying to understand. Your situation reminds me about the people of my country who had lived a lot of time under the communist regime and who are nostalgic about that epoch. I had some lively talks with them, showing the benefits of capitalism but to no avail. I cannot see any other solution for them to regain contact with reality (because they are living in an imaginary world)that communism was a nightmare is to live again, at least for awhile in those conditions. To taste again the bad fruit of communism. Adventists make a big case that they are serving a loving God while those who believe in eternal punishment serve a pagan God. It is expected that they will reflect this character and be more loving than the churches that are believing in eternal punishment. Also another claim is that other groups disregard obedience and consequently adventists are more obedient to God's will than those groups, because they don't break God's law as others do. The question is if the fruits are according to their claims. While I don't recommend you to go back in adventism, God told us that we should know false teachers and prophets according to their fruits. Maybe you should go back, at least in your memory, if not physically, to an adventist church and try to taste the fruit of those teachings. Ask yourself if indeed the adventist teachings about law, obedience, assurance of salvation produce a good or o bad fruit. From a distance, the adventist God is more loving than the christianity's God, and also they are more faithful and obedient to God than the other groups. That's how things appear, but does the impression remains in place at close distance? Focusing on the fruit will help you in your search for a better foundation for truth. I understand how attractive the adventist theology is, but I don't think that they have a high regard for God's love as they pretend. Gabriel |
