| Author | Message | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 1567 Registered: 11-2002 |
On page 56 one person is writing and says this, "Jesus saves us from our sins. Not in our sins". And, yes, that truly is the SDA understanding of forgiveness. Sadly, this implys one can go in and out of being saved hundreds of times per day. Every wrong thought or unkind action would mean total repentence from the sinner again. I cannot see any peace in ones heart with an understanding of the sacrifice of Jesus in this difination of being saved from our sins and not in our sins. Of course, this does not mean as Christians we go out and be bad and do evil because we know we can. Nonetheless, each of us sins constantly. Someone awhile back asked what the difination of sin is (On the Bucky site.). I quoted James 4:17, "Anyone, then who knows the right thing to do and fails to do it commits sin." How many times a day are we faced with the right thing to do and we fail to do it? That difination of Jesus saving us from our sins and not in our sins negates the entire doctrine of grace. I was saved IN MY SINS. And, if the poster on there was to ask me just when I was saved I would tell him "In 33 AD." | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 207 Registered: 7-2004  |
Susan, You're comments about James 4:17 interested me, and I think that is a proper way to look at that text. It reminded me that during Academy Bible class days, that text really stuck in my mind. Our Bible teacher told us it meant that if we don't know something is a sin, it won't be counted as a sin for us. In a way I found that sort of comforting (because of the IJ thing), but it also made me wish I were more ignorant! | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 208 Registered: 7-2004 |
Regarding my post above, whatever was I thinking? EGW who taught the IJ, also taught that we'll be held accountable for what we "could have known". That really took away any sense of comfort that might have started to take root. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 1464 Registered: 12-2003  |
So true, Raven. In a paradoxical way, we are doomed for what isn't our fault. We are born in sin in Adam. According to Ephesians 2:4 we are objects of wrath until Christ brings us to life. We are saved while we are yet sinners. We have no hope of overcoming sin until we are saved, and then, when we are, the Holy Spirit in us completely eradicates the innate sinfulness we were born with and gives us--for the first time--the power to resist temptation. Ellen made our situation seem completely hopeless: We are responsible for not sinning when we know what sin is; we are responsible for the sins we don't know we're committing if there's any chance at all we COULD have understood them; we can't be saved unless we resist sin. Therefore--what hope is there? In Christ there is hope because we are saved WHILE WE WERE YET SINNERS! Once we're saved, we're brought to life, and we're completely new creations. We can finally be freed from the ownership of our inherent sin and begin to be transformed by the power of the Spirit. Ellen was just so wrong! The hopeless twisting she did of the true gospel strengthens my conviction that she was not merely full of herself; she was a false prophet in the truest sense of the word: she received and gave messages that originated with the father of lies. I know--strong words. But because of Ellen thousands or million of people have not even known the truth about Jesus and the reality of His free gift of grace. Praise God for Jesus and for His word! Colleen | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 145 Registered: 7-2004 |
Romans 5:6 says, "You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly." Then starting at verse 9 it goes on to say, "Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation" I see no works of the law mentioned in these statements. I see all of the action coming from Christ. Paul makes it clear that we are helpless, overpowered by sin. We are, in our born-in-sin state, unable to even comprehend how much we need salvation. Then at just the right point in time, and to just the right degree, Jesus stepped into the line of fire, covered our helplessness with his powerful blood, and made things right with God for us. Nowhere in that statement do I see sinful me doing anything at all, other than to rejoice. I believe that when we accept the completeness of the blood of Christ by faith, all we can do is respond with joy! Amazing Grace! Belva | ||
| Pheeki Registered user Username: Pheeki Post Number: 492 Registered: 1-2003 |
Yes, the SDA think it is a ping-pong salvation...you lose your salvation every time you sin. They don't believe you are reconciled to God through Jesus, they think it is a work in progress. I am having this same conversation on CARM with a guy who thinks salvation is a process of allowing Jesus to perfect our characters. Jeremy, I sure could use some help over there. There are people saying we have to become Jews (let the Jews teach us) to be saved. Crazy! | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 1569 Registered: 11-2002 |
Raven, About the text James 4:17, that really is not an origional interpertation or understanding. Our minister actually gave his sermon based on that text awhile back. That is the text that many Christians use when asking God to forgive them of their sins of ommission. I don't know if anyone else on here attends a church in which the creeds are recited but in the creeds we ask forgiveness for the wrongs we have committed as well as for the rights that we should have done but failed to do so. And, you know when I really start thinking about that text and all the right things I neglect doing when I could have easily gone out of my way to do the right thing and I didn't do so it is very profound. For instance, yesterday was an obiviousely pregnant lady standing on the road with a gas can and a sign that said, "Please help. I need to get to Santa Barbara." I drove past her. Then my son told me to go back and he gave her $5.oo. She thanked him and said she's been living in her car but her parents said she could come stay with them. I was so pleased with my son for helping her. That is just one example. However, there are many opportunities to do good that I fail in doing and I always ask forgiveness for those failures. It's interesting though that on the Bucky site way towards the beginning someone asked the difination of sin. I posted that text several times and no one commented on it. As SDA's we are taught that sin is only actions. Sin is not bad thoughts like lust or coveting and it is not inaction. As SDA's they are focused that sin is only the outward visible action. And, that is so contrary to the entire NT. | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 146 Registered: 7-2004 |
Dear Loves Ones On This Site -- I'm in need of your prayers because I lost my temper at Colporteur. I'm totally bugged by self-righteousness. I know, I said wasn't going to post anymore, but I couldn't keep silent! This bone-head keeps up with saying we're going to regret out stand when the Sunday Law comes into being... This was my response: PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 5:08 pm Post subject: Balance Reply with quote Dear Colporteur, I heard many wonderful sermons on the balance between faith and works in the SDA church, but then I was always led back to EGW who told everyone that they could never say they had been saved. She made it sound like a sort of presumptive evil to celebrate that the battle for one's soul had been decided. I went to scripture and found that I had every right to celebrate, even shout the victory. Sir/Madam, you do not even care what day I worship on (I don't either for that matter), you simply assume because I glory in the completed, accomplished work of Jesus that I'm just laying back and sinning my way through life and worshipping the Papal Sunday. I attend worship services on Saturdays, thank you. Don't give me your lip about going back to the Sabbath, Jesus is my Sabbath. I don't worship a day. My study of scripture has shown me that my focus needs to come off of myself and onto Jesus. If there are works that flow through me now, they are not mine, they belong to Christ. There is no score card for the followers of Christ. He paid the price, all of it, I can't add or subtract anything from it, and from my study of scripture I can see that I have no right to condemn another follower of Jesus, no matter what day or days he chooses to celebrate, or ignore. I've said it before, and I'll continue to say it--you SDA's have every right to attend worship services on the 7th day. You can measure the beginning and end of days in whatever manner you see fit, so your days can start at sunset, or they can start at midnight, or you can mix them up and start six of them at midnight and only one at sunset. Have a good time with your charts and calendars. I also believe that a lot of you SDA's are going to be very surprised when you see Jesus break through the blue, and there won't have been a Sunday Law for you to worry about. Are you going to shout at him that he got his calendar all wrong? | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 1571 Registered: 11-2002 |
Frankly, I think your post is real good, right on target. says it the way it is. There are some on there who are really out in lalaland and just don't understand the non-SDA's way of thinking. As far as you worshiping on Saturdays, that won't cut it with SDA's unless it is worshiping at a SDA church. My mom asked me several years ago if when I'm in the Southeran California area over Saturdays if I ever stop and attend church. I told her I almost always try to. She assumed I would be attending a SDA church or possibly the SDB church so she said, "Which church do you go to?" When I told her "St. Timothy's Lutheran" I got told off and I was told that just because someone attends church on the Sabbath does not qualify that person as a Sabbath-keeper. I got told more than that but it was very unkind on her part and I don't want to get into it on here but it is just the cultic way the SDA's have been programed to think. A very nice lady that lives nearby stopped in to say "hello" to my mom several years ago. My mom mentioned to her that she attends church on Saturdays. This lady right away said, "Oh, so does my dad. Every Saturday. Never misses church. He schedules his entire week around making sure nothing interfears with his weekly church time." My mom asked her where her dad went to church because my mom only was thinking about the SDA church in our area as "keeping Sabbath". Then the lady answered that her dad attends the Saturday evening mass over at St. Patrick's Catholic Church. After the lady left I heard a lot of trash talk from my mom about how going to the devils church on the right day did not make it right and how satan is now getting more amd more people to worship him (satan) on the true sabbath in their satan churches so they really don't get to the full understanding of THE SABBATH. It just blew me away! | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 1470 Registered: 12-2003 |
You clearly said it, Belva--but I understand your feelings. I'm praying that you will know clearly whether or not to keep posting and reading over there. I so understand your feelings about Colporteur's refusal to respond to what you really say. Richard and I have had to decide, in some occasions, that when Jesus said not to cast one's pearls before swine, His message was for us and certain intractable relationships. I'm not equating Colporteur with swine, but the principle of continuing to give your testimony and energy to one who refuses it ends up being a "go-nowhere" situation sometimes. I'll pray for you to have wisdom and discernment, Belva. You have great things to say, and a great God who holds you and also every entrenched Adventist in His will. Colleen | ||
| Bob Registered user Username: Bob Post Number: 77 Registered: 7-2000  |
Colleen's statement above, "the Holy Spirit in us completely eradicates the innate sinfulness we were born with" intrigues me. I have a question, if anyone cares to reply - does a truly born-again Christian have one nature, or two? Does a Christian still have his or her old sinful nature in addition to the new Christ-nature, or is the sinful nature eradicated when the Holy Spirit takes charge? | ||
| Jeannette Registered user Username: Jeannette Post Number: 86 Registered: 3-2003 |
Belva, your response was great, right to the point. To be honest, I don't think they will even read it. They don't seem to read anything that former adventist post. | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 1088 Registered: 3-2004  |
Belva, That was a good response. But we all know how those folks read anything we post. It is misquoted, twisted and misunderstood. We have to remember they still have on their EGW glasses. It is our job to plant the seed and God and the Holy Spirit's job to convince and convict. So lets pray for them. You never know who will come here to visit and if they do not, we never know who we will meet in heaven. We do have an awesome God. Diana | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 1471 Registered: 12-2003 |
Bob, that's actually a good question. In his sermons on Romans 8, Gary Inrig said that after we're born again, we still have our "sinful nature", but we have a new position in Christ, new power, new potential. The way I understand it (which is my simplistic "visualizing" method) is this: when the Holy Spirit brings our spirits to life and connects us to God, that is when sin no longer claims us. (This is the only way I can understand 1 John 3:9--"No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannnot go on sinning because he has been born of God.") The new birth puts "God's seed" in us--the Holy Spirit who "births" us and eternally connects us to God. Our bodies, however, are still mortal, and those bodies contain our minds and emotions and habits, etc. That part of us will continue to be tempted and often to give in. But our innate "sinfulness", the original sin that caused us to be born dead and under condmenation, is gone. So, as born again Christians, we will still commit sins, but we are not helpless in our sins anymore. We are no longer under condemnation. Our spirits are reborn, renewed, and eternally in Christ. Our bodies are waiting for their final glorification (Romans 8:22-25). When we are born again, for the first time we have free choice. We can actually surrender and rely on God's indwelling power to say "No" to sins. I guess I see two parts to sin: the original SIN that defines all humanity without the intervention of God's grace, and "sins"--the behaviors we do that are destructive and unsurrendered. What helps me is to think of acting either in "the flesh" or in "the Spirit". We have a new identity and a new nature when we are born again, but we can still choose to act "in the flesh", or we can choose to surrender to the Spirit. We're stuck with the flesh until we meet Jesus. Once we belong to Jesus, though, "the flesh" doesn't define us in God's eyes anymore. Our true identities are "children of God" (Romans 8:15-18). The flesh is doomed to die and be redeemed at the resurrection. So, do we have one nature or two? I'm not sure really--but I believe we have only one identity. We're either "objects of wrath" (Ephesians 2:4), or we're sons and daughters of God. We have two parts--spirit and body--although we function as a complete unit. But God redeems us in two "stages", in a way. First He brings our spirits to life (another paradox--the eternal God lives in our mortal flesh), and later he redeems/glorifies our bodies. It's the opposite, in a way, of Adam and Eve's death. First their spirits died, then, hundreds of years later, their bodies died. I may be missing something here--but right now that's how I see it. Colleen | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 1573 Registered: 11-2002 |
Bob, Jesus was angry with the selling at the temple and His anger was very obivious to all there. So, frankly I don't see that Belva did anything out of the way. It is good to be angry at unChristian untruth that is masquardering itself as truth. | ||
| Bob Registered user Username: Bob Post Number: 84 Registered: 7-2000 |
Susan, what did I say that provoked your response above? If you hear about a slur indirectly, through someone else, you have received and reacted to gossip. If someone says it to your face, then you may have a moiral obligation to address the issue. But I still maintain that what you or anyone may think of me, is none of my business! I have enough of my own business to tend to, without responding to third-party gossip. | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 1576 Registered: 11-2002 |
Please excuse any unkindnress on my part. I truly apologise. I was just comparing Belvas comment on the Bucky site to Jesus's outburst at the temple. I honestly am sorry if I said anything offfensive. | ||
| Bob Registered user Username: Bob Post Number: 87 Registered: 7-2000 |
No offense taken. I am still confused about what it is you were referring to. Never mind. | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 1577 Registered: 11-2002 |
I wasn't referring to you, Bob weith the words "masquarading as unChristian and untruth". I was referring to the unkindness towards the non-SDA's from the SDA's. There is a lot over on the Bucky site. We have been told on there that we are lost to eternal anniliation because of not being SDA anymore. I was referring to the comments from the SDA's towards the not-SDA's. | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 1580 Registered: 11-2002 |
I checked the Bucky site to read the entries. I will not post on there again. However, in my final post I made the comment that over at the Prayer and Praise meeting one of the sisters likes to say that they have a 100% response in God answering their prayers. Unfortunatelly, those SDA's over there "just don't get it". The pastor replied to me that even satan can answer prayers. What I was referring to of course is that at the Prayer and Praise group the prayers are always said with humility and with asking that "THY WILL BE DONE". I still believe when a prayer is said and ment with the words, "thy will be done" then every prayer will be answered by God to His faithful. I will no longer post over there but if they lurk on this site then they will see this post and finily 'get it'. |
