| Author | Message | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1331 Registered: 5-2007 |
Romans 9:15-16 New International Version (NIV) 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”[a] 16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. J: In my Catholic/SDA background, part of what I have been taught is to seek out and acknowledge authority, both as a basis of truth and of security for the believer. Having found so many issues with dissonance in both faiths, I have left these and sought to find my place in another church. The problem is , I have been unable to ascertain authority. Because I discover no church has it all correct. No church has all the answers. Then I turn to attempting to establish authority by the scriptures and even here, so much dissonance I do not know which way to go. I look at my own failings and wonder what God wants me to do next. Or not do, let go of etc. The above passage is a strating point and a starting question. It depends upon God's choice. Not mine? That triggers doubt. did He choose me? Then I read: Romans 3:22 New International Version (NIV) 22 This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, J: That would include me, right? 2 Timothy 1:9 New International Version (NIV) 9 He has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, J: Holy life? Mine is a mess? Holy by what standard? The law? Or a Holy life that is by being covered in Grace? But it says 'called us to' a holy life, a evidential change is implied. I look at myself, I am not worthy and I doubt that I ever will be. Broken is broken. Revelation 3:10 New International Version (NIV) 10 Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come on the whole world to test the inhabitants of the earth. J: Endure what? Suffering, confusion? Struggling to be good enough? Ephesians 4:7 New International Version (NIV) 7 But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. J: Does this jump all the way to the top, it is the preestablished reality of the believer? "grace has been given" But it says apportioned. Does that mean some have more others less? How do I get more? 1 Peter 5:10 New International Version (NIV) 10 And the God of all grace, who called you to his eternal glory in Christ, after you have suffered a little while, will himself restore you and make you strong, firm and steadfast. J: Restore in this life, or the next? Suffering for what purpose? To learn I suppose. The thing is , God has my attention, suffering has brough things to a keen awareness, yet, I have no sense of direction. And it goes right back to authority. I am looking for authority and perhaps in some way, it is my way of attempting and expecting God to confirm my path for me. It occurs to me that this may be a sin of presumption on my part. I cannot demand anything from God. I hope to hear HIs Spirit leading me in mercy, to humbly listen to That Still Small Voice. Is it my faith is weak, is it doubt or the insistance that I know the answer before I take a step? I am desperately trying to root out what ever it is that is causing this stagnation. In all these churches I have looked at , and the ones I am considering. I have this feeling like I am just joining in whatever works, whatever provides relief. All the while feeling like it is without authority. How do I get past that? Last night, I looked at a former SDA site. Talking about abortions at Adventists hospitals. The scope and numbers were higher that I had realized. I was considering going to visit the SDA last night. Not because I was convinced but to find relief from isolation. But I read that about abortions, futility....... Going to maniline churches requires a mindset that I do not have to offer them. I just wanted to be around people more like my own background. How do I relate? I have no common ground. This is why I have taken so long. Trying to realign my thinking so that I could fit in. But that also means having a conviction of truths and that is my authority. Finding authority is to find my faith. What ever is not of conviction is sin. EGW hauntingly said,(regarding salvation) A supposed hope and nothing more will prove our ruin. Is she wrong? Or is this too a lie? Are here words the set up to chase after authority? This is not a doubting Thomas situation. I am confused and that is why I am unable to to find authority or conviction to establish a path in truth. How do I break this chain? | ||
| Nowhitehats Registered user Username: Nowhitehats Post Number: 46 Registered: 4-2010 |
Hi Jim, I recognize that you are working through quite a lot. Please know that you are not alone in the struggle you find yourself in. Many, many of us have been there as well. I don’t pretend to know the answer to all that you are asking but the following statement caught my attention:
Not that long ago, my unworthiness and doubt stemmed from the fear that I may not be living up to the standard I should be. Maybe I should be asking for forgiveness more. Maybe I should be spending more time in Bible study. Maybe I should be giving more money to those in need and doing it more joyfully. Maybe I, maybe I, maybe I... What I was doing, even within a religious context, was focusing on me. I was making it about me. More specifically, I was making conditions for my acceptance with God. I was using religious jargon but it was Old Covenant motivations. I was living a life that denied the good news of the Gospel - that what Jesus accomplished through his death, burial and resurrection was not enough.
The Gospel at it’s core has to deal with the question of our eternal security. If this question goes unresolved, one will never fully be able to trust God at his word. It was this question I kept coming back to time and time again. The above quote from Jesus offers us much more that we might initially think. Yes, it confirms our status as being eternally secure in Christ but in addition it tells us the kind of life we have, Eternal! This is a much different word than the term “everlasting”. Everlasting simply means having no end, right. As far as I know, there is only one who has Everlasting life - God. The beauty of this text is that it is trying to remove all doubt that what we have as Christians might one day come to an end. Paul again confirms this truth to the Corinthian. Paul says this:
Part of the challenge that I think many formers face is understanding our new identity in Christ. There is great confusion because the Adventist world view insists on a focus on behavior as a qualification for entry into God’s Kingdom. What I have come to believe is that who I am in Christ is no longer defined by my behavior - good or bad. Nor, is it defined by how I feel about myself. It is defined by what God has to say about me. Check out the following verses in Romans:
“It is no longer I”. Did you catch that? Paul even says it twice. According to the Holy Spirit, sin is a power that still dwells within my flesh. This discovery was important to me because it answered the question as to why I still sin. But it clearly makes the distinction that, as a new creation, it is no long I. My identity is no longer tied to my “old” nature. My old nature was crucified with Christ. This was a staggering realization for me as I was now able to make sense of all those behavior verses in the New Testament. They are statements that simply are telling us to live from the reality of who we really are. New Creations, Clean, Holy, Pleasing to God, Beloved, Child, and on and on. This was freeing for me and realigned my motivation for doing good.
Remember - truth as it is in Christ does not put you in bondage, it sets you free! | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1335 Registered: 5-2007 |
Nowhitehats, I have read Romans 7 many times and usually end up full circle as I continue to read. Almost as if he takes back what he just said. I understand the first part, but run full circle as I read the rest. What does God want me to give up trying to do? | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 2171 Registered: 7-2007 |
Jim; why are you quoting Ellen White? Did you know that satan set her up as a false prophet for the same reason that he set up Joseph Smith and the popes? To deceive people. To get them to accept a false gospel and to keep them from accepting Jesus as their Savior. You keep talking as though there's something you have to do in order to be saved. If there were, then Salvation wouldn't be a free gift, and over and over and over, the Bible says it's a free gift. Furthermore, a believer is saved - Ephesians 2:8-9; 2nd Timothy 1:9; Titus 3:5. According to Ellen White, Joseph Smith and the popes, a person CANNOT be saved. Remember Ellen White saying that a person cannot say or feel they are saved? Something to the effect of it being because a person can be tempted. But believers still are human, they still slip up and sin. The difference is that they've been forgiven. A believer has eternal life - 1st John 5:13. Eternal life that can be lost, ISN'T eternal life. And notice the context of this verse: "I am writing to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven for his name’s sake." 1st John 2:12. Think about it. By the time the letter made it's way to the believers John was writing to, they would have committed more sins. Obviously, the Bible couldn't say someone "has been saved," or their sins "have been forgiven" if their sins; past, present and future were forgiven. | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1337 Registered: 5-2007 |
I quote EGW on occasion to address or identify a conflict . Or in other words, where I am coming from. EGW said a lot of things. It is in determining the false pretense of a given proposition that helps me unlock the hold on my thinking. Honestly, to this day, I cannot make up my mind about the SDA. The tendrils if that is what they are run deep. The truths , if that is what they are , run deep. | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 2173 Registered: 7-2007 |
Jim; I'm not sure what you mean about not being able to make up your mind about SDA. Do you mean you're not sure whether or not they are "the true church?" If so, I could easily give you some reasons why they're not.... | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1341 Registered: 5-2007 |
Asurprise, Please do. I already know the abortion issue is a nonstarter. I know they tend to use proof text method. They are salvation by works and grace. That is where I am still mixed up. I see that they are attempting to address the question of sin, but not at all sure they have the answer either. I do like that they do not overcompensate their freedom to get caught up in arrogant eating, reveling in fat back a ham hocks and thinking it is a badge of honour. I do like that they are not engrossed in sports and constant competition. I do like that they are not into hunting for sport teaching their little ones it's normal to kill for fun, makes a man out of you! I do like that they are not wrapped up in jewelry , though personally I do think they get hung up on it too much. I do like that they seek cause and effect when it comes to disease and seek more natural ways to aid healing and prevent it in the first place. So yes , there are still many things I like about the SDA. But, like you, I can also make a long list of what ends up burning me out trying to be a model SDA. I have often had direct conflicts with EGW writings. I felt she was harsh and wreckless at times. I also felt she parroted a lot of contempory knowledge of her day and the one that really annoys me is "I was shown" as a qualifier to anything she was about to say. Add this to saying she was not a prophet but a messenger, having it both ways. Yep, I get it. Though I still miss some things too. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1286 Registered: 7-2004  |
Unfortunately Jim the things you like about SDAism aren't Biblical. The "natural healing" emphasis is based on a false view of the human as a holistic being, denying that we actually have a spirit. It is a form of humanism that is antithetical to Christianity. And the basis for all of the SDA insights on this subject is that sex is evil and causes disease because we lose our "vital forces". Not only is this not taught in the Bible, the Bible teaches against this aestheticism. Jewelry is acceptable in Scripture. There are no Biblical prohibitions or limitations on hunting. Your views on this are simply your emotions and upbringing. EGW writes many warnings about sports and competition, but the Bible does not. Paul uses these sports for examples, but never condemns them. The joy expressed in consuming ribs and other foods falsely forbidden by SDAism is not an arrogance, but a celebration of freedom from bondage of legalism. All of these things you like about SDAism are about following your likes and your emotions. Instead of these, follow God and His Word. | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 1984 Registered: 6-2006  |
Amen Rick. Jim, all those things you like about SDAism are legalism, reworded to sound nicer. Maybe that's your comfort zone, but those are all hang-ups that SDAism uses for guilt and fear and ultimately relates to salvation. You don't need all those things! It's okay to let them go. Like Rick said, they are not Biblical, nor are they grace. | ||
| Gcfrankie Registered user Username: Gcfrankie Post Number: 830 Registered: 1-2007 |
I read your opening and what I got out of it is "I". It isn't you it is Jesus. In the Adventist religion it is based on "I" then Jesus instead of Jesus and then "I". Take a good look at what the religion is all about. It is a whole lot of dont's and very little does. Like Rick said these don'ts have nothing to do with Jesus. | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 2177 Registered: 7-2007 |
Jim; they do not HAVE any freedom concerning eating! When I was an SDA, I felt that it would be far better to starve to death than to eat something with pork in it and lose salvation! Yes, lose salvation. I felt that if I did something and didn't "repent," I'd lose salvation - not that I HAD salvation! I felt I had to keep on the "tightrope" of "staying right with the Lord." I had no idea of the truth of the Bible, that when someone accepts Jesus; they are saved right THEN and that food and drinks and Sabbath had nothing to do with it, as Colossians 2:16-17 so clearly points out! "Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ." Colossians 2:16-17 It seems to me that you think that part of it is up to you. Which part? How much? A third? How can we do a third, when Isaiah 64:6 says that ALL our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment? Why would God want to mix His Holiness with our filthiness? I don't think any of us really have any idea just how holy God is and how filthy we are! Isaiah got a glimpse of God's holiness (Isaiah 6:4) and pretty much thought he was a dead man! Jim; you wanted me to give you some reasons why the SDA church is a cult. Well, other than the reasons I just gave, there's the fact that Ellen White said that Jesus went into the Most Holy Place in Heaven in 1844. Wait! She said He DIDN'T GO UNTILL 1844. It's in that little book of her writings, called "Early Writings." Here's where the Bible refutes that... "This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil, where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek." Hebrews 6:19-20 Now, concerning this next one, remember the High Priest going into the Most Holy Place once a year on the Day of Atonement? Ellen White said this represented the Investigative Judgement (if I'm not mistaken) where Jesus was supposed to go into the Most Holy Place in 1844. "nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own." Hebrews 9:25 (Now don't get thrown by the words "holy place." Look at the context. It says "year by year." The Day of Atonement happened each year. Notice how Leviticus 16:2 warns Aaron not to "at any time into the holy place inside the veil, before the mercy seat which is on the ark, or he will die.") Here's another one where it says Jesus "sat down at the right hand of God" when He ascended back to Heaven. It would be absolutely impossible for a place to be holier than where God is. Therefore wherever God is would be the "Most Holy Place." "but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD." Hebrews 10:12 Now, so far; I've covered the fact that Adventists ADD works to salvation, that they keep the shadow for the Sabbath instead of the Person it pointed forward to, and the fact that the Bible directly contradicts Ellen White as to when Jesus went into the Most Holy Place. Now let me point out one more thing... The Bible says that the Old Covenant is obsolete... "When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear." Hebrews 8:13 Let's see just WHAT the old covenant was... "So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone." Deuteronomy 4:13 And let's see WHO the old covenant was given too... "The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. The LORD did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, with all those of us alive here today." Deuteronomy 5:2-3 Now, let's see WHEN the old covenant was. (Two paragraphs up, I pointed out that it was the law.) "What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise." "Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made." Galatians 3:17&19 Now I'd like to point out a verse that shows WHEN the new covenant came into being.... For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives." Hebrews 9:16-17 If you read the verses around these verses, you can see that it's talking about Jesus' death. And one more passage for now that contrasts the two covenants.... "But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory." 2nd Corinthians 3:7-9 | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1289 Registered: 7-2004 |
The simple truth is that the SDA church stands or falls on the basis of EGW. If Ellen White isn't a prophet, the SDA church can no longer claim to be the Remnant church that keeps the commandments of God and has the Spirit of Prophecy. (even though this is a dreadfully false claim involving gross twisting of Scripture!). If SDAism isn't the Remnant Church, they can't be the one's identified in Rev as proclaiming the 3 angels' messages (although again this is a gross misinterpretation of the verse). IF EGW isn't a prophet, SDAism isn't the remnant church, and their message is not that of the 3 angels; then we must also reject the 1844 date and the IJ because they are conclusions in this chain of events that requires these prior steps. The health message you like so much in SDAism, that comes from EGW. The disdain of competition and sports, that comes from EGW. The bondage of eating only certain, pre-approved foods, that comes from EGW. The counsel against wearing jewelry, again you need to turn to EGW. You have to make a decision about EGW. Was she a false prophet or a true one (there is no such thing in Scripture as a partially true prophet)? If you have concluded that she is a false prophet, why hang on to so many of her ideas? Or if you believe that she is a true prophet, what is holding you back from following her 100%? So Jim, what is your conclusion about EGW? | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 13011 Registered: 12-2003  |
Yes, Jim--you have to deal with EGW before you will be able to embrace anything. Is she a prophet of God? Not-a-prophet-but-used-by-God? Misunderstood but well-intentioned? Or was she a false prophet? If you are not sure, you cannot embrace the biblical reality of the gospel. If in any way you believe she needs to be "answered" or explained, you are not sure whether or not God might have used her. Either you believe in God's word alone, or you believe she wrote God-given commentary. There is no middle ground. The SDA and Catholic teachings on "authority" and the notion that we all need SOMEONE to interpret Scripture in order to have a unified belief is not Scriptural, nor does the Holy Spirit work that way. He is believable, and His Spirit is either qualified to teach us Himself, or He needs a variety of human helpers. If He needs human helpers to tell us what He means, then everything Jesus said about Him in John 13 through 17 is null an void. Yes, I'm afraid you have to deal with EGW, Jim... Praying for you, Colleen | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1344 Registered: 5-2007 |
Sorry folks, SDA bashing is not an effective wittness tool. The overbashing all things adventist seems to have an aire of cultism all it's own. You may all have many valid points and I am not discounting that. But my instinct is to defend the defenseless. Colleen , you say I need to believe in God's word alone. Respectfully, that is precisely the issue here. The words I hear in the Bible are not the same words you hear. Jesus said , if you love Me keep My commandments. But what you hear is, we may now disregard previous instructions. I have and continue to review these teachings, I just fail to apply them the same way. After the ressurection, Jesus told them; Mat 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. You said, 'Either you believe in God's word alone' "teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." When and where did Jesus countermand these orders? | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1345 Registered: 5-2007 |
Rick my conclusion about EGW is inconclusive. Asurprise, Essentially, the new covenant is by Grace and it covers our lack, but the directives and aim remain the same. What was sin, remains sin. The definitions have never changed. The only thing I am sure was canceled at the cross was the sacrificial system. I have not found a single passage in the NT that clearly states the 10C have specifically been canceled. God the Father said to listen to Jesus. That is the point. Jesus said keep the commandments. In the OT it says the laws will be on our hearts. There is nothing to tell me that they are different laws. We read into it. The same as we accuse sabatarians of reading into things. By ommission or inclusion. We spin the Bible. Either I believe it or I don't. If it does not say otherwise, I have no way to acknowledge aunthentication and authority to release the 10C. Jesus commanded it AFTER his ressurection. Paul still refres to it. John refers to it, James refers to it. But we keep spinning it neutral. Try as I might to believe and be convicted that the spin is truth. I don't see it. There is nothing I can do to save myself. This I know. But God's word directs a heading and the standard is love. Yet, the law stands. Because we establish the law. Establish does not mean we acknowledge the law existed. It means that we acknowledge the law continues to exist. Do I want to be under he law or Grace? Obviously Grace. But from what I can tell in the NT. The law remains the aim, the pattern, the boundries. The law protects, love protects. They work together. This is why I keep going in circles. The truth is in the middle. It is both Law and Grace. | ||
| Got2bfree Registered user Username: Got2bfree Post Number: 11 Registered: 7-2011 |
Jim: I haven't seen SDA bashing here--only fact and Scripture. I have also seen deep concern and caring for you. Now to the issue at hand. Asking when Jesus "countermanded these orders" is a backwards question. The true question is, "What was Jesus' command?" The answer is to love. John 15.12 My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. John 13.34 A NEW COMMAND I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. That's a pretty tall order. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1292 Registered: 7-2004 |
Jim, Pointing out that the "truths" of SDAism that you value so much do not come from the Bible is not "bashing" SDAism. Until you decide about EGW you will never be able to move from where you currently are, confusion. To me, this is clearly the root of the issue. Your attachment to her is so great that you see any criticism, no matter how validly presented, as bashing. This speaks volumes. You have a decision to consider prayerfully. Is the prophet of SDAism true or false? Who is the source of her vision and power? Wil you truly test her words against Scripture? | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1293 Registered: 7-2004 |
Jim, How did the sacrificial system condemn us? Your explanation of the only thing done away with at the cross simply doesn't fit the verse you questioned. | ||
| Got2bfree Registered user Username: Got2bfree Post Number: 12 Registered: 7-2011 |
Again, we need to ask the right question about the law. The issue is not that the law was cancelled. I haven't seen anyone make that claim. Rather, Jesus did much more than that. Jesus fulfilled the law. Matt.5.17. To fulfill means to satisfy the requirements or obligations of something. Jesus did something we could never do--He satisfied the requirements of the law. I praise Him and thank him for that! | ||
| Rossbondreturns Registered user Username: Rossbondreturns Post Number: 267 Registered: 10-2009  |
And I praise and thank Him for that By Surrendering Self...and gaining Salvation! It is through Surrender that we gain Christ's Righteousness (Including the fulfillment of The Law and the Prophets), and are Spiritually Reborn, Filled with the Holy Spirit, Sealed by that same Spirit...and are then able to actually understand the Scriptures more fully through the same Spirit. We are called to Christ not to Ellen or any other so called prophet. It is only when you surrender what you think matters most that you can gain what you cannot loose. |
