| Author | Message | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 38 Registered: 3-2005 |
Wow, Just when you think that the R/S site has run its course, here comes some more unbelievable junk. I just had to respond to the most recent post where Walk in the Dark says that we who are part of FAF see the whole Bible through the GREASY LENS OF PAUL. If that isnt blasphemy, then I don't know what is, since Paul did claim to get his gospel directly from Christ, and if you call that a greasy lens, you are in real trouble. That gets back to my point above, Does anyone believe these are real Christian people over at that site? Stan | ||
| Greg Registered user Username: Greg Post Number: 56 Registered: 2-2005 |
Stan, I too was blown away by that statement. Greasy lens indeed. Isn't Paul the first Christian theologian, whose writings occupy more than one quarter of the New Testament? The answer to your rhetorical question is becoming clearer with each post. Greg | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 424 Registered: 10-2004  |
Actually, I think Walk was saying that we have smeared/greased the lens of Paul. Jeremy (Message edited by jeremy on March 10, 2005) | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 196 Registered: 7-2004 |
Wow, I go away for a few hours and the "faithful" over at R/S find another way to shoot themselves in the foot. If only they could understand that their pain is self-inflicted. I am appauled at what I have read. I'm attending a weekly bible study and our subject this spring has been Romans. Just last night we addressed Romans 7, the one chapter that most theologians refer to as "the heart and soul of the Gospel." Then a group of people who view themselves as having the last word in scripture interpretation come right out and call the heart and soul of the Gospel obscene. Unbelievable. Does anyone here have a set of the red books? What does the venerable EGW have to say about that particular passage of scripture. I'd like to see if that matches up with what Walk and Col are putting forward. Poor fellows. They went and started up a new thread hoping to be able to talk amongst themselves and they got found out again. Good job, guys! Belva | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 1172 Registered: 3-2004  |
All of you who have posted/are posting on the R/S website, I am glad to call you brothers and sisters in Christ. They are throwing arrows at us, but it is not really us they are throwing at, it is Jesus himself. So I am in very good company with Jesus and all of you. Every time I go on that site I pray and ask God to give me the words to say. I never, in a million years, planned to go on an SDA website to defend God. But God is awesome and had me do it. What ever small seed each of us has planted will be cared for my God and the Holy Spirit. It is in God's hands now. Diana | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 425 Registered: 10-2004 |
I just searched the EGW cd-rom, and it appears that EGW never really commented on Romans 7:4-6. I have found that true with many other "anti-SDA" Bible passages. She doesn't even quote some of them. And there must be a reason for that, since she quoted the Bible so much. But it actually may be a good thing that she didn't comment on some of these passages, because then the SDAs don't have a standard, "authoritative" answer for them that they can just resort to. The thing is--some of these passages can't possibly be twisted or misinterpreted. Ellen knew that. So she just ignored them, since they went against her doctrines. Jeremy (Message edited by jeremy on March 10, 2005) | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 1174 Registered: 3-2004 |
Jeremy, Did EGW comment on Deut 5:3, Rev 21:25, Rev 22:5 and Acts 15:20? I threw away all my red books so I cannot look this up. So, Please, when you have time, look these up on your CD rom. Thanks. Diana | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 426 Registered: 10-2004 |
I will try to do that. In fact, I was thinking that I should come up with a big list sometime of all the texts she does not quote/comment on.  Jeremy | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 215 Registered: 7-2004  |
EGW might not have given guidance on Romans 7:4-6, but look at the Clear Word allows one to see the ways in which SDAs twist Scripture to their own ends
Instead of dying to the Law and being released from the Law, the Clear Word (and SDAs in general) change the "Law" into "our sinful lives." This allows the upholding of the continuity of the Law and promotes the attainment of sinlessness at the same time. Instead of being bound to the Law, this little twisting of Scripture re-makes it into being bound to our sinful nature. Then the death is to this sinful nature, and the release is from this sinful nature. I have made a 7 or 8 page document with comparisons between the Clear Word and the NASB for a number of the problem passages for SDAs. The extent and blantancy of the changes is amazing. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 429 Registered: 10-2004 |
Thanks Rick for the Clear Word quote. I was curious what the Clear Word said for that passage. I think most SDAs think that when it says "the letter" it means "the letter of the Law." But I think the NIV is a good translation of that; it says "the written code." When it says "the letter" it means "the Law" itself--not "the letter of the Law"! Also I think many SDAs believe that when it says "newness of spirit" (KJV) it means "the spirit of the Law" not the Holy Spirit. I have wondered recently if the phrases "the spirit of the Law" and "the letter of the Law" originated with a misunderstanding of this Scripture. Also, 2 Corinthians 3 has similar comparisons (and it should be clear from there what the words "letter" and "spirit" mean!). Jeremy (Message edited by jeremy on March 11, 2005) | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 197 Registered: 7-2004 |
Thank you Ric and Jeremy. When I read both of your posts addressing "the letter of the law/spirit of the law" issues my body literally vibrated with agreement and recollection. I remember sitting in Bible classes where discussions of this sort would come up. It seems these discussions brought most of us more awake than any others. The other hot topic was predestination, but that is being discussed on another thread. I think for me at the time I was either too steeped in SDAism, or simply too young, because I found it hard to pay attention. I keep thinking the people who were pressing in on the instructor were just splitting hairs. My understanding now is that we literally die to the law (Adamic condemnation) and are raised alive and able to "marry" Jesus' salvation. Adam lost the direct connection with God and had to leave the garden where he was cared for and provided for, and had to toil for his food, build his own shelters. Life got tough. For thousands of years after, that was/is still the way life works, toil to provide for yourself. Spiritually, however, we have been returned to Eden because when we were born again our sin nature was nullified. Our bodies still belong to the fallen earth, so our bodies still sin. The indwelling Holy Spirit will keep on teaching us about sin for as long as we live, and our battle against it will rage as long as we remain in these fallen bodies. That is why these bodies must die or be transformed at the coming of Christ. It's as though Adam and Eve underwent a genetic change when they sinned, and that genetic trait has been passed down to all of their offspring. On the R/S site I tried to talk in metaphors. You can't do that over there. I still believe that the change that Adam & Eve underwent was that the Holy Spirit that indwelt them was removed. That is why they feared to be in the presence of God that evening. That emptiness has also been passed down to ensuing generations and the hole can only be filled with the Holy Spirit. What a gift Jesus left us when he sent the Holy Spirit to be a part of each of those who have accepted His Saving Blood. I just read through the most active threads at R/S and they are getting it that everything boils down to whether or not you are willing to say you have been born again/saved. Wouldn't you say that the one thing members of this forum have in common is that they celebrate having been Saved! Born Again! Give me Jesus! Belva | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 434 Registered: 10-2004 |
Did you all see the posts from yesterday where Richard O'Ffill compared me to Adolf Hitler, and where he said that we worship a different god?
The SDAs are offended just by the Word of God, imagine the horror and outrage that would occur if we made fun of their "Adventist god(s)" like Elijah did!
That's one of my favorite verses in the Bible.  Jeremy | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 1575 Registered: 12-2003  |
Ric, I also reacted strongly to the Clear Word passage, "You not only died with Christ but you were also raised with Him when you were baptized." Did you notice that this paraphrase equates the new birth--being raised [to new life] in Christ with baptism? That's just wrong. Our new birth is being filled with the Holy Spirit. I remember a staunch Adventist telling Richard that she was born again when she was baptized. It's a faily prevalent misconception--and SO wrong! The Holy Spirit just doesn't figure into Adventist understandings of living as a Christ=follower. Of course, living as a Christ-follower is pretty vague in Adventism as well! Colleen | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 198 Registered: 7-2004 |
Hurray to you Colleen. The crux of the matter is bound up in which baptism you put your faith in--the baptism of the Holy Spirit, or the time you went and had the preacher dunk you in the water. I'm of the opinion that the Holy Spirit baptism had better be the starting point, or the other is pointless. Belva | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 199 Registered: 7-2004 |
Pastor O'Ffill is busy telling everyone there that SDAism is the religion that harks all of the way back to creation. Did you get that one? He is using the tired line that the SDA Church is the only church in existence that follows the Bible closely. That statement was made after they called Paul a blurry lens, and after they called actual scripture blasphemy. How hypnotic was EGW anyway? More and more I have to agree with Colleen that EGW did not mastermind the creation of the SDA church, it was her "handsome young man." Isn't it said that Satan can disguise himself as an Angel of Light? In scripture he is described as the fairest of the angelic host. He could certainly be seen as a handsome young man if he wants to be. Belva | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 1669 Registered: 11-2002 |
Yes, Jeremy, I read on the O'Fill site where he compared you to Adloph Hitler. And, I read also where the pastor concludes that the SDA's and the former SDA's must have a different God. In this I think I am beginning to agree with him! Just for his information though, I have the God of the Bible. Colleen (and others) I don't understand something. I believe at baptism we are given the Holy Spirit. We are bapitized, "In the name of the Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit". Doesn't that indicate that upon baptism we are given the Holy Spirit, as well as the Father and the Son? Now a comment about the SDA church going back to creation-Recently at church the minister was giving the childrens lesson. He asked the kids some questons. He asked, "How do we need to believe in for forgiveness of our sins?" Answer, "Jesus". "How can we know we will be able to get to be in heaven someday with Jesus?" Answer, "Believe." Questions like that. On one question the children were confused by the answer so the pastor helped them out and told the kids to believe in Jesus with their whole hearts and they'd be in heaven someday with Him. One little boy popped up and said, "But, don't Baptists get more points?" The pastor then extended his children's story to tell the kids that no, Baptists don't get more points, that no denomination on earth today even existed at the time of Jesus and each of us is accountable to Jesus as individuals. It was such a crack up because this was in a Lutheran church. Afterwards the mother said she has no idea how her child came up with that comment, he's always gone to the Lutheran church. (You Baptist on here should really like that one.) And, regardless of how much the SDA's want to say their roots go back to the apostles the denomination goes back to the mid-1800's. BTW, I picked up a JW magazine recently and it said in it that the JW organization is the only organization that can trace it's history right back directly to the apostles. The article stopped there. It gave no history of going back to the apostles, just told the faithful JW's that they are it and no one else is. At least the Catholics claim to go back to Peter. | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 1178 Registered: 3-2004 |
I was just thinking as I logged off reading the R/S website that maybe we could have a thread just for EGW discussion(I think there are a couple anyway) and invite the people posting there to discuss EGW here. We could give it a specific name, tell them what it is and ask them to come and discuss EGW with us. The pastor is invited also, if he wants to come. One part of me says, they will never come because we will be discussing their "prophet" and another part of me says why not give it a try. We certainly cannot discuss EGW on that website. So, what do you think? Like I said, just a thought. Diana | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 201 Registered: 7-2004 |
I like it! Why not call it "Discussions of EGW Doctrines" Belva | ||
| Greg Registered user Username: Greg Post Number: 59 Registered: 2-2005 |
For anyone interested, there is a forum on the EarlySDA website (www.earlysda.com) where someone has posted a commentary on the events at the R/S site. They have drawn the conclusion that the "Formers" are really being inconsistent because if we are truly resting in Christ 24/7, then we can never work! Go figure! Here is the address: link Look for the post by "webmaster" on Feb. 23. There's a bunch of other "interesting" stuff too. Greg P.S. There's another interesting thread about what is wrong with the Adventist church. The poster Divine Comedy describes the apathy a lifelong cultural Adventist feels with the routine of Adventism. It's worth a read: link The forum home page is here: link (Message edited by Greg on March 11, 2005) | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 1670 Registered: 11-2002 |
I went to Pastor O'Fills site today and read the current entries. Again someone posted on there that we are forgiven from our sins and not in our sins. Everytime I hear that or read that I just think the person spouting that does not understand the concept of grace. There is no grace in that understanding of forgiveness. The pastor does acknowledge there were in the early years of this country numerous govenors and other politions who were Sabbathtarians. At least he had the honesty not to claim they were SDA as they were Seventh Day Baptist. I will not post on there anymore. However, when one of you regulars on there get to that line that we are saved from our sins and not in our sins or that we have to achieve perfection before we can be with Jesus, etc. please tell them you have a friend (that's me) who likes to say, "I am saved. And, I know exactly when I was saved. I was saved in 33 AD at the Cross of Jesus." Yeah, that'll get them smokin'. And, you know what else, never has any of the SDA's on that site addressed my question that if it's the Sabbath that is the saving sign at the end then does this include all Sabbathtarians or only the SDA's and the other question I posed is when a SDA on there asked for a difination of sin and I quoted (several times) James 4:17 which says, "If you know the right thing to do and fail to do it then that is sin." Oh well, I guess they don't want to deal with me and frankly I don't want to deal with them. However, my prayers are with each of you who do post on there and I truly admire your diligance. May God bless and guide each of you. At this point though I would say the fruit of your posts will be to the lurkers. (Johnny Cash is on. Oh, be still my heart!) |
