| Author |
Message |
Rossbondreturns
Registered user
Username: Rossbondreturns
Post Number: 298
Registered: 10-2009
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2011 - 3:05 pm: |     |
Jim an SDA PK means that I was a Pastors Kid...in fact I was one of three. My older Brother is an Agnostic now and My Sister is still an active Adventist.
What I mean b the Holy Spirit is simply the Holy Spirit. Ever since God pricked my consciousness...and woke me up from sleep I was heavily impressed to stick to the Bible alone as a filter...this was nigh on impossible until I surrendered all to Christ Jesus and was Born Again.
After that it became much easier to trust in the Holy Spirit as a filter. In fact it was the only thing that made the Bible clear...but from time to time I still put on my Adventist glasses.
It wasn't until I smashed those glasses, swept up the pieces, and threw them away that I experienced true freedom. |
Nowisee
Registered user
Username: Nowisee
Post Number: 979
Registered: 5-2009
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2011 - 3:06 pm: | |
Dear Jim--I get it. You are in a spin cycle and can't get out by yourself. You are on a merry-go-round, all by yourself. You used to be in a safe cocoon...everything neat.
So many good posts above, so I will try to share some personal stuff, without re-reading all your posts. I may not get everything you said perfectly, but you won't reject me if I make a mistake, will you? If you are that merciful and forgiving, how much more is God? How merciful and loving are his children? No, they are not all perfect, but let me tell you, it's a lie from the pit of hell that you need to be "smart enough" or "good enough" before you visit different churches! The enemy has everything to delight in as he keeps you disconnected from other loving Christians! Also, I HAVE to response to the EGW "fleeing to the hills" thing, because I and my first husband went through that. I believe with all my heart that the teaching for SDAs to get out and get isolated is also straight from the enemy. When we did that, it isolated us terribly--we had no money, I had no husband to help me cope with raising babies, and it broke our marriage. It took us away from family support, but we obeyed Ellen anyway. There was other stuff, too, like the only people that could survive in a small isolated town were wealthy doctors, etc, and that isolated us even more. So I understand what isolation does.
Even if you are scared spitless, you need to, with the Lord's help, jump off the lonely merry-go-round and get into fellowship with other believers. Do you think all of us knew everything about real Christianity, the Bible, etc when we ventured out..there is so much I have to learn it's pathetic! I'd say 99.9 per cent of us went out to Christian churches thinking we knew so much...and what a rude awakening to find we were Biblically illiterate!
Also, I have to say that, when I get to really know SDAs/former SDAs, I find that OCD is rampant. The IJ is a breeding ground for OCD.
Also...the EGW worldview permeated EVERYTHING we were taught in the SDA church, whether we knew it or not,
Don't wait to get perfect before you fellowship with believers--you will be pleasantly surprised.
Jesus is waiting next to your merry-go-round...close your eyes and jump off--He WILL catch you. He WILL be your Sabbath, your REAL rest. 24/7. |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 13141
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2011 - 6:12 pm: | |
Amen, Nowisee!!! Amen!!
Colleen |
Jim02
Registered user
Username: Jim02
Post Number: 1421
Registered: 5-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2011 - 9:23 am: | |
Hi Ross,
I like what you said; After that it became much easier to trust in the Holy Spirit as a filter.
This morning , I have been reviewing the NT and attempting to sort out what I view as implication back to or maintaining law, passages that identify Grace and apart from law, passages that explain the idea of Grace vs law and passages that are unclear.
I had thougth about listing them on this forum, all sorted and organized so as to establish a basis for seeing the big picture that causes all the confusions.
I decided not to go that far. Because most of us here know these passages already. Rather, to get to the point. Simply press for the truths as they are intended. Filtered by The Holy Spirit.
As I went through them, a couple things surfaced.
If I look even from the corner of my eye back to the law, I cannot function without legalism activating, and Sabbath observance protocols popping back up. The veil covers my mind and I can't think or function except to resort to legalism and frustration.
When I look away from the law, entirely, I mean completely away, and then proceed to view things from the heart of love, I see a whole different way that allows for the human side of my existance and I refrain from overloads and excessive expectations , judging etc of both myself and others. Condemantion, guilt trips and tasking abate.
When I see the passages that list the sins that will keep us from the kingdom, I become alarmed, because I know, I still cannot measure up on teh quality checklist. It is these sin lists that also cause me to look back to the law and or to myself. Not good enough, not sinless enough.
But the Bible speaks of no longer being controled by the sin nature, sin is to stop.
etc etc, so I still find myself looking for cover.
Permission to NOT look at the law at all.
Permission to exist in the plain of just being average in the human sense.
Finding assurance that despite whatever by lack and failings are , or continue to be, that I am not under condemnation. To be able to take the expression of Paul's frustration, take hold of the promise of no condemnation in Christ, then to not allow it to be snatched away by some circular accountability to law or exclusion lists.
If God's Spirit will carry through the changes from within, to include healing of the mind and soul, but at the same time, always being safe just as I am day by day, then there is peace.
But if I am to lament and struggle with my flaws and failings, tehre will never be peace.
Last night,
(Using a StarTrek analogy)
You know the holodeck, where people could live out a story or theme by running a filed program?
Friday evening, "Run program: Keeping Sabbath "
And so it began.
What happened next?
Imediate conciousness of Sunset approaching.
Had chores to do , rush em up !
Hurry ! , Hurry !
Sun is getting low !
I still have laundry running !
Run sub rule routine:
Ok, let is set in the dryer.
Then, a list strated scrolling out, I can do this, but not that, Oh, I still have not taken a shower!, I am not prepared, I am already exhausted! , No don't get upset. Taht is what the devil wants to happen.
On and On , the dialouge of subroutines all built around sabbath keeping.
Within a few hours, I had already burned out in the midst of dejavu. A galding yoke on the old blisters.
Exit program........
Then the next emotion occured.
If this is religion, I am sunk. Futility set in.
There is simply no win.
Went to bed, uneasiness. Angst.
Get up this morning, start sorting scriptures.
and so , Nowisee,
That merry go round, here I go round and round.
I spent a couple hours last night, looking for alternatives on line. Lookig at churches, looking up how various churches relate to divorced people. Trying to find a place where Spiritual abuse through legalism is minimal. (itching ears I guess). Where I could hope to have a future to be restored and not relegated to some arbitrarily neutralized divorce prison.
(itching ears?)
I cannot get past go.
Jim |
Jim02
Registered user
Username: Jim02
Post Number: 1422
Registered: 5-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2011 - 10:49 am: | |
Hi Nowisee,
You wrote:
Dear Jim--I get it. You are in a spin cycle and can't get out by yourself.
J; Yep, pretty much the case.
You are on a merry-go-round, all by yourself. You used to be in a safe cocoon...everything neat.
J: More or less. I had "truth" identified, processed , and packaged.
I even had an assortment of "sub rules" that negotiated the things I was not able to perfect "as yet".
Plus, I had a family home life that enabled some of the luxury of legalism.
If you are that merciful and forgiving, how much more is God? How merciful and loving are his children? No, they are not all perfect, but let me tell you, it's a lie from the pit of hell that you need to be "smart enough" or "good enough" before you visit different churches!
J: I think about God's perfection, His perfect law, and how God hates sin. That scares me.
I know we are to bodly approach God's throne of grace since now He sees Christ's righteousness covering us. Even so, those passages to make me take inventory of self...I sink.
J: About churches and forgiveness.
I do not want to pick apart churches, it only lends itself to more roadblocks. But I do want to know where to dwell. In that effort, where is safe? How do I protect my mind if I do not have at least the basics of my theology settled?
It is not so much that I or they are smart or good enough, that leads to judging.
I have to overcome myself, my shyness, nerves, anxiety, change, alienation, ruts, all of that, . I have to be stable for more than a few days before another confusion rips away my optimism. Having peace with God enables me to hold onto His strength.
The enemy has everything to delight in as he keeps you disconnected from other loving Christians!
J: I agree.
Also, I HAVE to response to the EGW "fleeing to the hills" thing, because I and my first husband went through that. I believe with all my heart that the teaching for SDAs to get out and get isolated is also straight from the enemy.
J: If I could have done so many things over again. In some facets, I see advantages to rural small town. But really, spiritually and socially, you become capped.
When we did that, it isolated us terribly--we had no money, I had no husband to help me cope with raising babies, and it broke our marriage. It took us away from family support, but we obeyed Ellen anyway. There was other stuff, too, like the only people that could survive in a small isolated town were wealthy doctors, etc, and that isolated us even more. So I understand what isolation does.
J: Been there!
Even if you are scared spitless, you need to, with the Lord's help, jump off the lonely merry-go-round and get into fellowship with other believers.
J: I agree 100% , just as confused with this as well.
Do you think all of us knew everything about real Christianity, the Bible, etc when we ventured out..there is so much I have to learn it's pathetic!
J: No I don't.
I just need to be armed with basic truth stability and enough insight to know a safe church.
I'd say 99.9 per cent of us went out to Christian churches thinking we knew so much...and what a rude awakening to find we were Biblically illiterate!
J: For me, this forum has been my church. The only fellowship I have.
Also, I have to say that, when I get to really know SDAs/former SDAs, I find that OCD is rampant. The IJ is a breeding ground for OCD.
J: Yes, always in confession mode and self inspections.
Also...the EGW worldview permeated EVERYTHING we were taught in the SDA church, whether we knew it or not,
J: Deconstruction takes a lot of time.
Don't wait to get perfect before you fellowship with believers--you will be pleasantly surprised.
Jesus is waiting next to your merry-go-round...close your eyes and jump off--He WILL catch you. He WILL be your Sabbath, your REAL rest. 24/7.
J: Please understand, I tend to go to ground when I disengage. "Letting go" is practically a foriegn phrase to me. When I let go, I usually stagnate, isolate and backslide.
Instead, what I tend to do is keep burning the lamp, searching , looking trying to find the path to peace , healing and strength.
Not blaming God, and blaming myself upfront. Confused religion perpetuates failure.
Jim |
Kiki
Registered user
Username: Kiki
Post Number: 35
Registered: 9-2011
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2011 - 11:02 am: | |
Jim,
I appreciate your posts and can understand your wanting a 100% from the bible answer to the Law. I don't think there is one, as so many have interpreted it both ways. I have searched and searched and indeed it seems a circular argument and I can bet that those that say we have to obey the Law, don't obey it themselves. Perhaps it was never meant to be, to have a black and white answer because then people could claim that they were saved just as the Jews did if they could check all the boxes in the law (all 613 of them) or give a sacrifice. Since Jesus is the final sacrifice, then we are left with nothing but trusting that His sacrifice wipes the slate clean for us. That takes faith and not works from us. In the story of the Roman centurion and his family to whom the Holy Spirit was poured upon, I am pretty sure they did not keep the Sabbath, they ate pork, etc. All he had was that he did as best he could because he believed in God.
When my cat was still alive, I used to look at him and think that he was so much holier than me, that he had a better chance of being saved than me because he didn't do any of the things that humans do: gossip, selfishness, immorality, evil thoughts, etc... I could sin even if I was tied to a chair simply by my thoughts! Our sinful nature is a part that we will never be able to get rid of, only God can get rid of that and that is not going to happen 100% until Jesus returns.
Romans 3:31
People's New Testament:
3:31 Do we then make void the law? Do we make it useless through the faith; i.e. through the Gospel? (the article is found before faith in the Greek).
We establish the law. Rather, law (the article is not found in the Greek). Law is confirmed and rendered sacred, when its just demands are met by the suffering of the Son of God himself.
Scofield Reference Notes:
The sinner establishes the law in its right use and honour by confessing his guilt, and acknowledging that by it he is justly condemned. Christ, on the sinner's behalf, establishes the law by enduring its penalty, death. Cf. Mt 5:17,18. |
Asurprise
Registered user
Username: Asurprise
Post Number: 2245
Registered: 7-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2011 - 11:47 am: | |
Jim; you're right. God hates sin. But He became what He hated because of His love for us. He became sin for us. (2nd Corinthians 5:21) God loves sinners and those who accept Jesus have NO CONDEMNATION because they are IN Jesus! (Romans 8:1) |
Jim02
Registered user
Username: Jim02
Post Number: 1423
Registered: 5-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2011 - 2:31 pm: | |
Kiki ,
I think you are correct. There is no clear answer. No black and white 100% clarity.
Indeed , it may be intentional. It prevents us from encapsulating it neatly into our minds.
This is why I think it may in fact be an along side concept, not an either or.
I know that we cannot save ourselves.
I know that our righteousness is rags.
I may be off track, but it appears to me that the law of Christ is mirrored by the 10C.
I do not even comprehend what "not by the letter" even means.
It seems to me that the idea of Sunday is a man made concept. Politically induced in the Roman/Greek culture of the time.
Notwithstanding that , it may be non consequential. If in fact we are no longer under the supervision of the old covenant laws, all 613.
On the other hand , the argument that the 10C stand separate , contained INSIDE the ark, Under the Mercy seat, and referenced in REV may indicate they have not been canceled for mankind.
By the Spirit, not of the letter. Puzzling?
It is also said that there is no division of the law as a whole in the OC. Not sure that is a factoid either. The other laws were outside the ark. Why? God wrote the tablets. Moses scribed the rest. What does that mean?
The sense is , we can't live with, under or by the law. This is evident even when we torture ourselves attempting it, and we cannot live without it, since we get completely lost without reference to what sin is.
Somewhere aside, between, or in conjunction the law functions Spiritually. By the letter it kills, what does that mean? the letter means accountability and thus condemnation I think ??
The Scofield note was on target.
Law is about guilt, Christ paid for it.
Now that it is paid for , is the law no longer binding, if not , why is it still in Heaven in the Ark.
We go in circles. |
Rossbondreturns
Registered user
Username: Rossbondreturns
Post Number: 299
Registered: 10-2009
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2011 - 3:40 pm: | |
(A special note as I was writing this The Holy Spirit was opening new understanding to me so some of these thoughts are really REALLY new and I may not have gotten them across as clearly as I would've liked. Praise God for new revelations of how awesome He is!)
Because the Law is still important in that it brings those still seeking to the foot of the Cross where they can choose to surrender to Christ or to not holding on a little bit to themselves.
Jim, I feel your pain I do, but you even mentioned it in one of your posts above (1421) that the moment that you turn away from Grace you are overwhelmed by The Law and Legalism.
This is exactly what the Bible says does happen, "any time the Law is read (In other words any time the focus switches back to Law instead of being focused correctly on Grace) then a veil comes over their eyes."
When we come to Christ and surrender, the Holy Spirit lives and indwells in us, He removes the veil so that the scriptures are illuminated in ways that are only possible through the power of the Holy Spirit.
However the Holy Spirit gives us the choice to look back...the Devil encourages us to look back, tempts us to look back, because he appeals to our urge to have to do something more to earn a Grace that is un-earnable.
Every time any one of us looks back, there is doubt, confusion and even the temptation to fall into the horrible cycles of frustration that we left when we got out of Legalism and Adventism.
We need to remember that Jesus "Died under the Law to Redeem us from The Law."
We need to remember that as it says in Hebrews 7:
" 11 Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron?
12 For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well."
Next in Hebrews 8 We find the following:
" 8 But finding fault with His people, He says:
Look, the days are coming, says the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah —
9 not like the covenant
that I made with their ancestors
on the day I took them by their hands
to lead them out of the land of Egypt.
I disregarded them, says the Lord,
because they did not continue in My covenant.
10 But this is the covenant
that I will make with the house of Israel
after those days, says the Lord:
I will put My laws into their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be My people.
11 And each person will not teach his fellow citizen,
and each his brother, saying, “Know the Lord,”
because they will all know Me,
from the least to the greatest of them.
12 For I will be merciful to their wrongdoing,
and I will never again remember their sins."
This changed Law is not like the Old Law with it's built in curse, this Law that Christ died to fulfill, this Law that we are seen as perfectly fulfilling since we are In Christ.
Not only that but Christ through His ministry was setting up the foundation for His Law, the Law of the Spirit, the Law of the New Covenant if you will.
Why?
Hebrews 8:13 says:
"13 By saying, a new covenant, He has declared that the first is old. And what is old and aging is about to disappear."
The Old Law is not binding on a New Covenant Christian for the Old Law was a temporary guardian the was to last from 430 years AFTER Abraham (who was saved by Grace thru faith just like us)until the Seed (Jesus) the one who would fulfill it came.
It has done it's job for the Christian, it drew us to Christ, it showed we could not save ourselves.
But the moment we believed and were as Colossians 1 puts it:
" 13 He has rescued us from the domain of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of the Son He loves."
We are no longer under the Old Law that was to lead us to the one who transferred us into His own kingdom.
A Law designed to bring people to the only way out of the Domain it's a part of...cannot also be the Law that governs those who have been transferred out of the Domain.
Those in the Kingdom of Son must be placed under a new Law. The Law of the Spirit. A Law that is even stricter than the Law we were under before.
However we are just as able to keep this Law since it is in us as the Holy Spirit is in us. The Father sees us as if we are clothed by the Son, we wear the Son's righteousness, and He has not only borne our sins but also forgotten them.
Like Israel we are incapable of keeping both the Old Covenant Law or the New Covenant Law of Grace.
Yet since we are In Christ his Grace and Righteousness cover all of our inadequate attempts to even come close to filling.
We fulfill the Law since we are Clothed in Christ...and we can keep the Law of the Spirit because We are in Christ and Christ is in us.
We simply have to not turn back...keep our eyes focused on Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ the author and perfecter of our Faith.
The one who lifts us up and intercedes for us until we are called into His presence that great Rapture Day. |
Jackob
Registered user
Username: Jackob
Post Number: 639
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2011 - 4:39 pm: | |
quote:On the other hand , the argument that the 10C stand separate , contained INSIDE the ark, Under the Mercy seat, and referenced in REV may indicate they have not been canceled for mankind.
It is also said that there is no division of the law as a whole in the OC. Not sure that is a factoid either. The other laws were outside the ark. Why? God wrote the tablets. Moses scribed the rest. What does that mean?
Jim, if you're mind are set up in an inquiry mood, do some research about Ancient Near Eastern treaties, suzerain - vassal type, which constitutes the model for the Mosaic covenant.
A key element of the covenant was the writing of the stipulations of the covenant (the obligations of the vassal king to the suzerain king) in two identical copies, one for each party. These documents were placed in the temples of the deities of the respective kings, at the foot of the statue of the god. In this way, the gods of the kings were taken as witnesses of the covenant, who were supposed to testify against the party who didn't fulfill the obligations and bring the penalties for breaking the covenant upon that party.
In Israel's case, God was the Suzerain king, and He was also the witness for both Himself as Suzerain, and also for Israel in virtue of the fact that He was their God. The two tablets were duplicates, two copies of the Decalogue, and were placed in the ark because in Israel's religion the gods were not represented by statues, but their place was taken by God's manifested presence (shekinah) above the ark. The bottom of the ark was the equivalent of the foot of the gods statues in their temples.
There are other elements that parallel the Ancient Near Eastern treaties, you'll see God taking the creation as witness, or taking an oath on Himself, because there were no other deities as witnesses, but the forms of God's revelation parallel closely the ANE treaties. In case you had not got my point, the tablets were written in that way for other purposes than establishing their eternal significance.
quote:Now that it is paid for , is the law no longer binding, if not , why is it still in Heaven in the Ark.
The entire context of Revelation screams that it's a vision couched in the temple language. You have not only a decalogue in heaven, you have an ark, you have an altar, a lamb which has been sacrificed, an altar for incense which is functional. If you're going to think that the law is permanent because it's in heaven, you have to resurrect en-toto the entire temple ritual, priests, altars, sacrifices, censer, ark, everything to the last detail.
Now, one thing you know for sure, that the priesthood of the OC is replaced by Christ's priesthood. While this doesn't resolve your question regarding the continuity of the law, one thing you may know for sure: that the presence of the tablets in Revelation in heaven doesn't establish the Decalogue as perpetual. If it did, it may establish too much.
If you're not finding a resolution or arrive at a conclusion about what the text says, aim at something else: what the text doesn't say. From what I'm noticing, you're more afraid of what the text may say through implication, not direct, explicit statement, and in this case, you can try another way out from your dilemma: proceed by elimination. You'll be able to eliminate a lot of the fears that prevent you trusting what other texts explicitly say, being stuck because you'are afraid of what some texts may say implicitly.
See, you're asking a lot of questions, people offer their opinion based on what they believe the text says, but instead of counteracting with what you think the text says, you're replying with what you think the text may say, or other possible interpretations. Sure, a text may mean different things, but only because different meanings are possible, does this mean that all these meanings are equally probable, or equally plausible? Of course not, some interpretations are more probable or more plausible than others because behind them there are better reasons to be embraced.
Only when the possible interpretations are given apriori equal plausibility we're stuck in the middle of nowhere, not knowing where to move. The way out is not as complicated as it seems: start by eliminating the less plausible or probable interpretations. If you're letting the less plausible or probable interpretations to keep you from giving more weight to what is better attested by God's word, you're going in circles because you're mind is kept from doing the work by something else than reason.
Gabriel |
Jim02
Registered user
Username: Jim02
Post Number: 1424
Registered: 5-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2011 - 5:38 pm: | |
Ross , I have been processing these verses.
Trying to settle it out in my mind.
Gabriel,
Should I state the verses that I derail upon and simply say what I think they say? Would that be a start to eliminating what does not fit.
You acknowledge I am stuck going in circles.
I am intrigued by your statement:
If you're letting the less plausible or probable interpretations to keep you from giving more weight to what is better attested by God's word, you're going in circles because you're mind is kept from doing the work by something else than reason.
Can you break that sequence down just a bit for me.
Eliminate the less plausible first, then ask myself why the probable is not settling in my mind?
Something else than reason. As in emotional stumbling blocks? Resistance to change, doe snot fit my prior construct? In that way you mean?
Or , because I am a sinner?
G: From what I'm noticing, you're more afraid of what the text may say through implication, not direct, explicit statement, and in this case, you can try another way out from your dilemma:
J: Not so much fear of what it might say, because it appears to say good news, almost too good to be true. EGW majored in too good to be true.
G: proceed by elimination. You'll be able to eliminate a lot of the fears that prevent you trusting what other texts explicitly say, being stuck because you'are afraid of what some texts may say implicitly.
J: Define what you mean between explictly and implicity.??
Explicity meaning, on the face of it, implictly what it in effect suggests as a new truth realitive to other positions?
I think we are talkig about reductionism. Very possibly what I may be needing, just not knowing how to get there. I keep saying I want to get this down to simplicity, because , I cannot contain it all. By the time I cover the volumes of one section, I find my mind unable to recall or hold together all the elements to keep my thinking balanced between the themes of grace and drift back to the law.
I do not mean getting down to sloagns and mantras. But essential truths, finally reduced to core foundational anchoring will help me to hold true and break up these spirals.
Thank you Gabriel.
Jim |
Christo
Registered user
Username: Christo
Post Number: 287
Registered: 2-2008
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2011 - 8:16 pm: | |
Hey All,
J. Now that it is paid for , is the law no longer binding, if not , why is it still in Heaven in the Ark.
I have paid the note on a property, and the record of that note, and the re-conveyance of that note is still on file at the county office. Even though it has already been paid.
Like wise the Law is still on record for those who were under it to show them what they were redeemed of.
As for fellowship, I fellowship no less than 3 times a week, yet only attend church 10 times a year or so.
I meet twice a week with some gentlemen in their 80's who share their faith, experience and wisdom over a cup of coffee at the local bakery every tues. and thurs. I am the youngest in the group.
We pray for each other,love each other, share one another's burdens and blessings.. They have all been Christians for a long time and their church life is minimal, even though the have belonged to churches, done extensive missionary work, and all, knowing their time is short, are at peace with God. God is their shield and reward. They are friends of God.
The other group I meet with Friday morning's for coffee and donuts. We read a chapter out of the New testament, and encourage one another with the promises, and instructions of that particular chapter. We pray for each other, and share one another's burdens and joys. I find there to be many comforts in the New Testament. I am often the oldest one in this group
To find one of these fellowships was through a church that I only attend maybe twice a year. The other fellowship was stumbled upon. I have stumbled upon others that I have had to decline just because I didn't have the time. They are out there.
It's been really great because it is much more interactive, and there is much insight, and Christian maturity in these groups. Iron sharpens iron. Sometimes people who have been quiet or have been under many trials and come in need of encouragement because they need it so much, often have strengths that no one else in the group has, and has just the message we all needed for that day. We minister to one another. We minister to the minister. It has qualities that I don't find in church because church sermons are teacher pupil oriented. I have heard some great sermons in my day, but also some ones that were totally uninspiring or in need of correction.
If I was you I would not hermit up tomorrow. If their is nothing in your town that inspires you, and the next town is not prohibitive, maybe take a early morning drive to the next town, and see if you are blessed. If the next town is to far away, maybe just keep going to different churches, and see if a non church fellowship evolves. These small fellowship groups are not anti church, as more than half attend churches somewhere, or have ministries of their own, both individuals or groups, ie prisons, youth, etc. There is not an anti church atmosphere. I would caution you if you did go to a group that had too much of an anti church atmosphere, because that may indicate they are trying to be a church of there own all the while saying their shouldn't be church. Also I find that charisma does not become such a draw for these fellowships because nobody is there to impress or fill pews, just sharing the love of the Lord.
Just remember,
2 Corinthians 1:17
19For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, even by me and Silvanus and Timotheus, was not yea and nay, but in him was yea.
Chris |
Jackob
Registered user
Username: Jackob
Post Number: 640
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2011 - 4:31 am: | |
Jim
quote:G: From what I'm noticing, you're more afraid of what the text may say through implication, not direct, explicit statement, and in this case, you can try another way out from your dilemma:
J: Not so much fear of what it might say, because it appears to say good news, almost too good to be true. EGW majored in too good to be true.
I was referring to those particular texts that seem to validate the adventist view, for example the "in the ark" versus "outside the ark", or the "law in the ark of heavenly temple". Because these texts may possible mean what adventists say they mean (the decalogue is perpetual) you're afraid that their interpretation may be valid. Add to this what you said, that the opposite view looks "too good to be true", and you have two combined fears that keep you stuck.
I said that you're driving by something else than reason because I don't consider "too good to be true" fear to be rational. What reasons do you have to fear that the gospel is "too good to be true"? The obvious reason is that nothing is for free in this world, all we receive, all we have, somebody worked for it, either us, or our parents, or some other people. We are conditioned to distrust free gifts, and obviously salvation for free is "too good to be true"
Still, the gift of salvation is something for which somebody worked, paid, sweated. It's perfectly in harmony with what we were conditioned. Why still fear? It's an irrational fear, coming from our inborn distrust in God, enmity toward Him. Not reason leads us to distrust God, but our own sinfulness. You're far from being alone in the battle with this fear. I'll deal with this "too good to be true" fear afterwards.
quote:G: proceed by elimination. You'll be able to eliminate a lot of the fears that prevent you trusting what other texts explicitly say, being stuck because you'are afraid of what some texts may say implicitly.
J: Define what you mean between explictly and implicity.??
Implicitly is what the text doesn't say in a clear, direct manner, but in an indirect, less clear manner. For example the presentation of the law as being in the heavenly ark isn't accompanied by an explanation affirming the perpetuity of the law, a direct expression of this principle, but it only indirectly suggest that the law in the ark in heaven may mean that the law is perpetual. It may imply that the law is perpetual, that's what I mean by implicitly.
I don't get rid of implicit arguments, it's a legitimate way of communication. But implicit arguments like this cannot be preferred in the place of explicit statements that clearly put the levitical priesthood in the past. If somebody goes to Revelation and argues that not only the law in the ark, but also the levitical priesthood is perpetual because Revelation uses the imagery of the levitical temple and priesthood, he prefers an implicit argument to an explicit one. What is indirect is chosen in the place of what is direct, what is less clear in the place of what is clear. Does this sound reasonable to you?
quote:Eliminate the less plausible first, then ask myself why the probable is not settling in my mind?
Let me flesh out more of what I wrote about possibility, plausibility and probability. These three filters are the tools to evaluate an argument.
Usually, when you're presenting your case, others counteract by presenting an alternative explanation, which fits with their views. But an alternative explanation is not in itself an argument. It doesn't refute anything. It has power only if it passes the three tests.
First, it should be possible. Many arguments fall flat just because they are from the beginning impossible explanations. For example, the argument of something coming out from nothing.
Second, if something is possible, is it plausible? How plausible is to think that Revelation affirms the levitical priesthood as perpetual?
Third, is it probable? Between alternative explanations which are possible,plausible, what is the more probable explanation? Given the context and the elements, what explanation fits better the data?
Back to the "too good to be true". The above three tests, possibility, plausibility, probability may be tricky when it comes to the gospel. Bart Ehrman doesn't think the resurrection is impossible or even plausible, but it's the least probable explanation for an event that somebody can give. Miracles are the least probable explanations for anything/ From his point of view, it fails the third test.
In order to get the force of his argument, let's talk about other miracle, the virgin birth. Suppose an unmarried girl becomes pregnant and explains this as the work of the Holy Spirit, arguing that she didn't slept with anybody. What chances are that this miracle had happened? Possible? Yes. Plausible? Hmm, don't know. Probable? One in a thousand, one in a million, one in a billion, one in a trillion, one in a ....? The chances are infinitesimal that she had become pregnant by the Holy Spirit.
Well, but what if the child who is born offers by his behavior an explanation for the way he was conceived, that in reality He is God incarnate and His Father is God, not a human father?
Some will say that this is pagan mythology in which you have gods taking human forms, living human lives, etc. But how plausible is this explanation in a Jewish context? Judaism was a strong monotheistic religion opposed to any pagan mythology. The least plausible explanation is to have Jews combining pagan myths in order to make an appealing story about a dead carpenter, their leader.
What I'm trying to transmit here is that, for each least probable explanations about Jesus' life (the miracles associated with Him), you have to construe explanations that doesn't pass the second filter: plausibility. You end up have a lot of explanations that are not plausible, but if you accept miracles, even if they are the least probable explanations, they figure better when all the dates and elements are taken into consideration. The explanatory power of the supernatural Jesus is greater, much greater than the liberal, anti-supernatural explanations given for Jesus that are popular in the secular media.
When you look at the overall picture of Jesus' life you got a unique and impressive picture. The image seems unreal, and Tertullian, one of the church fathers, said that he believes because the Christian message is absurd. At face value this is an embarrassing statement. But his argument is based on the premise that the message of Christianity is too absurd to be an invention of human mind. It must be divine, otherwise man's mind could not conceive it.
So, instead of being afraid that the gospel seems "too good to be true", look at this as proof of its supernatural origin. It's coherent, it is in line with good reason, you can trust it, somebody worked and sweat hard to obtain what's given to you today for free, and more, without this particular solution, you have no chance. The sin is so embedded into our beings, the humanity is so enslaved to sin that only an external intervention, only a solution coming from outside the natural world, coming from the supernatural world can redeem it. From the natural fallen world, no solution can come. The role of the law is to highlight, "Look outside, inside you're rotten, you have no chance".
This is why a supernatural solution, least probable as it may seem, becomes suddenly the only possible solution to human plight. All other explanations doesn't even pass the first test, they are out from the beginning. This means that at the second (plausibility) and third (probability) tests, the gospel's solution becomes the first plausible and first probable solution because no other competitor remains in the race.
That's why the law was given, to make the faith solution the only possible solution, otherwise the works righteousness would have looked as the more plausible solution for human plight. It put man in prison to have only one door open: exclusive faith in Jesus disconnected with anything in themselves, since the law condemned everything in themselves. Look outside the prison, not inside, salvation comes exclusively from outside, since nothing inside can help us toward exiting our prison.
Jim, |
Jim02
Registered user
Username: Jim02
Post Number: 1425
Registered: 5-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2011 - 5:20 am: | |
Gabriel,
Impressive. A lot of insight that will take me some time to absorb. I really value the tools of reasoning you have expressed here. Very helpful indeed.
Perhaps not excatly as you have expressed the reasoning process.
The approach I have been thinking about is that I need to focus on the declarations and promises that are both explicit and understandable apart from the ones that conflict or confuse.
If I can hold onto to the positive ones about being set free from the law, condemnations, supervision of, comandments and regulations, I can instead dwell in the covering and gift of Grace and trust wholly in Christ.
I am still so confounded about the question of Sabbath simply because sin is so directly identified by the law (10c).
I have not had this struggle with the otehr Moses scribed laws, since Paul argued against them so directly.
I do note that he did reference the 10c (coveting) as a basis for his argument that the law itself was tripping him up, killing him.
So on that approach , I get at least a hint that the law itself has been disengaged from our direct drive.
Statements like I would not have known what sin was except for the law, these cause me to crash and burn because it takes me back to defing sin and that incorporates sabbath in the scope of the 10C. I can't get away from it and I want to.
But then there is that charge of itching ears.
I want to escape the law and throw off a duty to face up to it. Condemnation hangs on.
But I know at 57 years old, the law is a crushing burden because somehow it brings out nothing but tasking and guilt. I immediately see my need for grace.
This is why, when I look at grace alone, I live for that space in peace and in hope. When I glance at the law, or if the question is asked , what is sin, the law slaps me down.
Burn out is upon me. I cannot carry this load.
Which is why I think that my most immediate relief is to look at Grace alone from Christ. No other thought.
Chris,
I like what you have shared. You set an excellent example of fellowship. You are a blessed soul. I am thinkig about what you said.
Thank you, Gabriel & Chris
Jim |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 1352
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2011 - 7:51 am: | |
Jim,
You stated "I have not had this struggle with the otehr Moses scribed laws, since Paul argued against them so directly."
Unfortunately, part of this conclusion is based on the false premise of splitting apart the Law. What Moses scribed was still God-given. When Jesus was asked about the greatest commandment, He answered with what you describe as "Moses scribed" laws. The laws you call "Moses scribed" define sin just as much, and in some cases more specifically, than the 10 commandments. The 10 commandments don't prohibit having sex with animals, but the "Moses scribed" law do. I think we can all agree that this is a sin. Would you agree that it is a sin to bear a grudge? The Moses Scribed laws say so, but again the 10 commandments are silent on the matter. Let's even look to mankind's first sin. God commanded them not to eat from one tree. This is not in the 10 commandments. But disobeying anything that God commands us to do is a sin.
By viewing the 10 commanments as the primary means of identifying sin you are assigning a false role. All of the Law is useful in identifying sin. And one of the promised roles of the Holy Spirit is to identify sin.
When you start your study with these false premises, it influences how you understand the verses that you read. One of the hardest challenges of leaving SDAism is identifying and then setting aside these false assumptions.
(Message edited by ric_b on November 13, 2011) |
Jim02
Registered user
Username: Jim02
Post Number: 1426
Registered: 5-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2011 - 8:45 am: | |
Hi Ric,
Excellent point!
I may be starting off on the wrong premise from the get go.
What helps you conclude that the law is a whole and not divisional by categories or First Person of God as in the tablets.
I have read many times that the 10C are summaries and categorical. But honestly , even that may be a stretch specifically, as to some of the examples you gave.
I may look at adultery in a global sense of the word, meaning faithful and true to one and that by extension means to God alone we are loyal.
But if I consider there are no marriages in heaven, that law becomes redundant. All depends upon how you recieve it.
God's Spirit / what can I understand from that teaching when it reveals how to live?
You see, I cannot measure it, write it down, universalize it. It is something that becomes a personal application. Likely , not even subject to judgement by another person's opinion.
I am learning how to walk all over again.
In the strugle to discover the terms of the new covenant. I do not know what to do about the passages that say "we establish the law".
I note it says "we", as in our place to establish.
But to 'establish' means what?
So far I have seen;
Acknowledge the law is right, pure, Holy.
Defend the law.
Practice the law.
Eternalize the law.
Aim for the law.
But where I fail, and where dissonance occurs is when I read 'implicit' (Gabriel) suggestions that comment on what it means. Such as;
We acknowledge that Christ Paid an Impossible debt for us.
We Acknowledge that we can not keep it perfectly.
(Though somehow, SDA claim we eventually can)
(Though by implication it is suggested that we will be sinless in the next life, able to keep the law of God naturally)
Either way, I have not been able to unlink from the law when I read , we establish the law.
It is grid lock to my mind.
This is why , I want to resort to focusing on what provides relief, that is Grace alone.
Yet, I keep getting hit with the question, what is God's will regarding the law, what laws does He want me to aim for. Or , is that thinkinng the wrong premise as well?
Back again to living by The Spirit of God.
Disengage the law entirely seems 'plausible'.
But how does that fit with the circular passages to the law?
How do I resolve this?
In sections of Paul's writings, I sense that he is saying, the law is impossible for him, his own reality condemns him in the light of the law.
He says God rescues him, but then he wants to establish the law anyway and talks about sin be a deal breaker. How is he defining sin? By the law!
Thus, let's consider the premise of defining sin.
As Christians, I conjecture that possibly, the law is no longer the means to define sin.
Learning to walk again means that Spiritually defining sin flows from Love, which is from God.
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8 Love never fails.
(Message edited by jim02 on November 13, 2011) |
Asurprise
Registered user
Username: Asurprise
Post Number: 2249
Registered: 7-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2011 - 1:36 pm: | |
Do you think that the 10 Commandments are eternal? Going both backwards and forwards in time? Meaning starting with Adam and Eve, or before?
If so, why did Moses tell Israel: "The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us..." Deuteronomy 5:2-3
Mount Sinai was in Horeb. And what was that covenant that Moses was talking about? Look in the chapter before, Deuteronomy 4:13 "So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone."
When were the start and ending times of that covenant? Galatians 3:17 says "...the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later..." - that's the start time... four hundred and thirty years after Abraham. Here's the ending time. Galatians 3:19 says: "What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed [Jesus] should come."
Jim; we've explained that the "law" is still in force only for unbelievers, that when a person gets saved, they are in a whole new covenant - the covenant of the Spirit. The Spirit is like a mother who is always with you.
Your mother didn't preach to you the law of the land. She told you to look both ways before you crossed the street. She told you to not tell someone who was disfigured that they looked weird. She told you to eat your spinach. The Holy Spirit is like that. He's with a believer constantly, convicting him when he does something wrong and helping him want to do right. He convicts, but doesn't cause guilt. The devil confuses and causes guilt.
Are you under the law because you haven't accepted Christ as your Savior? You can never make it without Christ. It's as if you are agonized because you're trying to obey the law. Let me tell you right now that you will never make it by "keeping" the law. Have you ever watched one of Ray Comfort's clips where he interviews people on the street? He will ask them; "have you ever stolen anything?" "Have you ever taken God's name in vain?" "Have you ever told a lie?" After each question, he will ask the interviewee, "what does that make you?" And then he will conclude, with them agreeing; "that makes you a thieving, blaspheming, liar." Now, Jim, I'm not calling you that. I don't know if you've ever done any of those things. But ALL PEOPLE are sinners and if anyone does not accept Jesus as their Savior (the one Atonement God provided), they will have to pay for their own sins. Here's a clip with Ray Comfort.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVr4Uw1Bvmw |
Asurprise
Registered user
Username: Asurprise
Post Number: 2250
Registered: 7-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2011 - 1:39 pm: | |
Jim; if sin is a deal breaker, then Jesus died for nothing. Christians still sin, but they are still saved. They don't lose their salvation by sinning, even if they don't ask forgiveness for that sin. |
Hec
Registered user
Username: Hec
Post Number: 1851
Registered: 3-2009
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2011 - 1:59 pm: | |
Asurprise,
430 years after Abraham do not take us to Sinai. The Israelites spent 430 years in Egypt. Abraham was way before Jacob and family going to Egypt. So what are those 430 years referring to in Galatians?
Hec |
Asurprise
Registered user
Username: Asurprise
Post Number: 2251
Registered: 7-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2011 - 2:03 pm: | |
Here's even a better clip by Ray Comfort! This young man that Ray Comfort interviews thinks that he has to do something to merit salvation. Adventists are in the same boat as this young man, though they would never admit it.
And Jim; I think you are in the same "boat" as this young man too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CFx4Hezdz0 |
Asurprise
Registered user
Username: Asurprise
Post Number: 2252
Registered: 7-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2011 - 2:33 pm: | |
That's what the Bible says, Hec. Abraham was Jacob's grandfather. I don't see the difficulty. Lots of grandparents are alive at the same time as their grandchildren. |
Asurprise
Registered user
Username: Asurprise
Post Number: 2253
Registered: 7-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2011 - 3:09 pm: | |
Here's an interview with a Mormon elder as to how to be saved. Notice the similarities between Adventism and Mormonism!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLbpgN6Kjb8 |
Hec
Registered user
Username: Hec
Post Number: 1852
Registered: 3-2009
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2011 - 5:28 pm: | |
Yes, that's what the Bible says. That's exactly the difficulty. The promise was given before Jacob's father was born so the law could not have been given 430 years after the promise. That's why I don't understand what that means.
Hec |
Rossbondreturns
Registered user
Username: Rossbondreturns
Post Number: 300
Registered: 10-2009
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2011 - 6:49 pm: | |
Once again I really don't think it matters.
The point is that Grace proceeded the Law as (The ONLY) means for Salvation.
Abraham was saved by Grace through Faith and all Children of Abraham are saved by grace through faith.
And the Law when it came was not for saving but to point to the only way of salvation. |
Kelleigh
Registered user
Username: Kelleigh
Post Number: 236
Registered: 7-2011
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2011 - 8:03 pm: | |
For what it's worth,
“Paul what a man he must have been and what men also those for whom he could so sketch and hint at these pithy things in a few muddled fragments! …What a lot of far-fetched stuff we compile about his remarks, when perhaps ninety-nine per cent of their real content escapes us!”
-Karl Barth (diary entry).
Interesting.
Karl Barth authored a commentary on the Epistle to the Romans that was published in 1919. One reviewer of his works explains that for Barth, it was impossible for any person to comprehend God (I think we can all agree). Instead of trying to discover a rational explanation for God’s various requests (or demands) the key was 'accepting Jesus as the path to redemption and eternal peace'.
Despite the complexity of Paul's letters (in particular Romans) the majority of commentators seem to draw this simple conclusion.
This is how I'm beginning to see it. We attempt to rationalise our beliefs, for months maybe years. In this struggle there is a point in time when we recognise that our beliefs defy rationalisation. Bible writers provide only glimpses of the Kingdom of God. 'Joining the dots' becomes a personal exercise of connecting with the metaphysical. Faith becomes a personal experience that cannot be fully explained to others. Churches attempt to define and deliniate faith. That's important. Yet there are many creeds, beliefs and interpretations. Who is right? Belief can only be an individual experience - between the believer and God - personal, intimate, dearly purchased. Others can and must help, but ultimately, the journey of faith is our own. I find this new freedom exciting.
(Message edited by Kelleigh on November 13, 2011) |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 3827
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2011 - 9:55 pm: | |
Hec,
That topic came up a few months ago and was discussed on this thread: http://www.formeradventist.com/cgi-bin/discus/board-auth.cgi?file=/4529/11622.html
Here is a helpful link that was posted, which reconciles the discrepancy: http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=796
Jeremy |
Hec
Registered user
Username: Hec
Post Number: 1853
Registered: 3-2009
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2011 - 4:22 pm: | |
Thanks, Jeremy.
Hec |
|
