| Author | Message | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 301 Registered: 7-2004 |
Please forgive me, but I can't remain silent, and even though I've been banned from Pastor O'Ffill's site I want to respond to the error that I read over there. The only thing I can think of to do is respond here, and hope some from there will come to read. I also felt that the "Cut and Run" thread was growing entirely too cumbersome. Anyway, I want to respond to something Colporteur wrote: ---------- In the earthly santuary the service on the day of atonement was by no means finished when the lamb was slain. The high priest had a work to do in the most holy place. I'm not going to go on and on with you about this because like other FA nothing will persuade you as you have stepped off of the platform of truth into darkness. The bottom line in all the error that FA propose is that it paves the way for acceptance of sin in the life. ---------- Colporteur, you are right that the work of the high priest did not end with the slaying of the lamb. The same is true with Jesus' death on the cross. Why do you think the Christian world celebrates the day he rose from the tomb as the victory over sin and death? In the OT Day of Atonement, the high priest had to purify himself, dress in specific clothing, and then not touch anyone or anything except the blood of the sacrifice until his services in the Most Holy Place was completed, and the sanctuary had been cleansed for another year. Then he returned to the Tent of Meeting, removed his clothing and left it there, he then put on his own clothes and could rejoin the community. There is an even specifically mentioned in the Gospels that most people just slide right over. Mary encountered Jesus in the garden very early in the morning. Jesus had just a moment before risen from the dead. Mary recognized him and was astonished. She rushed to throw her arms around her beloved Savior and he forbade her to touch him. Why? He was our high priest at that very moment. The sacrifice had been slain, and now as our high priest his next step was to carry the blood of the sacrifice into the heavenly Holy of Holies. "Mary, do not touch me, I have not yet ascended to my Father. Go and tell the others what you have seen." Jesus ascended to the Father carrying the blood of sacrifice in his own precious body. In the typical service, if the blood of sacrifice was not from a perfect animal, or was not presented penitently, the high priest was at threat of being struck dead. They tied a rope around his ankle before he entered the Holy of Holies just in case this should happen so that his body could be recovered. Remember, no one but the high priest could enter the Holy of Holies, and then only at the specified time and for the specified reason. We know that the blood of sacrifice was accepted because Jesus rejoined the community of believers, first on the road to Emmaus, and then several other appearances, Upper Room, Early Morning Fishing... Jesus completed his sanctuary obligations early that Sunday morning when he ascended to his father. Then he returned to the community of believers as proof that the sacrificial blood was deemed sufficient and complete. He died once and for all for our sins, was raised forevermore victorious over sin, offered the blood of sacrifice in the heavenlies and then came back to us as proof of the completed work of salvation. I'm sorry, but nothing happened in 1844. Nothing but the disappointment of a band of believers who had hoped very hard that they had figured out when Jesus would return. Their disappointment was severe. When one of their numbers had a thought while strolling through a corn field a short while after that, everybody siezed on that notion and created a religion out of it. It is a notion that is not supportable by scripture. Twist and try all you want, without including the words of Hiram Edson and Ellen White, there is no Investigative Judgment. When you die, Jesus already knows whether or not you have accepted the efficacy of his blood for your sins. He doesn't have to open that book again. Jesus is all the world to me, and I'm sure he is to you, as well. Please allow the wonder of his love and care for you to sink in deep and cleanse your heart and hands, then get out there and tell a hungry world that Jesus cares. We want him to come back to take us home, so if all of us who love and trust Jesus get in motion and spread the word, we will finish the work he has left for us to do. The central part of that work we do is Trust Jesus. He has already done all of the rest of the work. Belva (JesusLovesMe) | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 160 Registered: 3-2005 |
Belva, starting a new thread like this is a great idea, I agree. I wonder if someone could put my last two posts from the cut and run thread, on this one, so our responses can be all in one place. Nice job on the post above. Jeremy's quote about the angels maybe should be here as well. Stan | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 303 Registered: 7-2004 |
Here goes: Riverfonz Quote #1 What we are dealing with is a completely different gospel from Biblical Christianity. Most of these folks are not Christians! I hope you folks over at R/S read this. Walter Martin said to me clearly, that the only basis that he made the assessment that SDAs were not a cult, is that they convinced him that EGW is not an infallible interpreter of scripture. He said, if he found evidence that the church did elevate her to a status equal with scripture, then he would have to label them a non-Christian cult. He admitted before his death that the SDA church lied to him, and he would have to change his assessment. The SDA church and structure has been built on deception. In fact, the only unique doctrine SDAs have is a fiction, based on some vision reported in a cornfield by Hiram Edson, which was relayed to Ellen White. There is no basis in fact for any of this. It is clear that a certain group who call themselves traditional Adventists over there use Ellen White as their sole authority. It is clearly cultic, and the Pastor himself has made it VERY CLEAR that Ellen White is his final authority. He could care less about any specific scripture we can present to him, and has NEVER answered any specific questions I have had about particular scriptures. I believe it is time to move on, and get off this website, that is clearly cultic, and spend our time on more edifying material. Yes, I hope you folks over at R/S post this message loud and clear, but somehow I think you won't. Stan | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 304 Registered: 7-2004 |
Riverfonz Quote #2 And here is a breaking follow-up to what I posted above, and this confirms with absolute certainty what I said above. Pastor O'Ffill, was chiding me about why I was upset with the theology of Maxwell, and Dan Smith that I referred to in previous posts. Pay attention all you at R/S, as here is Pastor O'Ffill's view of the Bible, "You must be aware that those who teach a bloodless atonement also get it from the Bible....IT SEEMS LIKE YOU CAN JUST ABOUT PROVE FROM THE BIBLE THAT WATER FLOWS UPHILL. Did you get that? I just about fell out of my chair when I read this. Folks, it is a sad day indeed when pastors take such a dim view of scripture. Yes, beware all you who might be lurking--This is not the true gospel. Read very carefully Galatians 1:8,9 with its very severe warnings to those who will get their gospel from extra Biblical sources. There is nothing being taught by the Pastor which even comes close to matching the gospel Paul taught. We will be in special prayer for all of you over there. Please study the scriptures like the Bereans, and see if these things be so. In Christian concern, Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 161 Registered: 3-2005 |
Thanks, Belva. Stan | ||
| Seekr777 Registered user Username: Seekr777 Post Number: 102 Registered: 1-2003  |
Stan please excuse my confusion. What do you mean by a bloodless atonement? Where does this come from and where is it taught. Please give me some information to understand the premise. Richard rtruitt@mac.com | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 305 Registered: 7-2004 |
Richard, you are going to have to go to Pastor O'Ffill for an answer to that. I'm sure that Stan believes solely on the forensic value of the blood of Christ. In my reading this afternoon I found his little gem from Walk_In_The_Light: ---------- I have heard that argument over and over about one person studying their way out of the church and what they are saying ad hominem is that Adventists are ignorant fools who accept their doctrines because of a lack of study. You can convince yourself of anything if you "study" long enough I suppose. I am not saying that study is wrong, but if our purpose for study is to find a way out of a fellowship of believers then I question whether or not the study is from a genuine heartfelt need for edification. Just thinking out loud. ---------- I did not set out to study my way out of the SDA Church, dear Walk, I set out to understand from scripture the validity of Investigative Judgment. I asked my pastor for help in that endeavor, and fell flat on my face because he had better things to do with his time, I suppose. I asked a few others, and was referred to a lot of SOP, but I needed scripture only because my co-worker didn't care about the SOP--she wanted solid bible back-up, and by that time, so did I. I didn't want to give up the doctrine. I wanted to prove it valid! I couldn't go to the SOP--I did, but that only took me back to the text that proved to be IJ quicksand for me, so that was of no good. All the other texts didn't really prove IJ either. Some of the prophetic texts are hard to discern, so then you go to concordances and such and try to cross-reference things. And I prayed. And I prayed some more. And God sent me a response, a flyer in the mail for a book, "Sabbath in Crisis," by Dale Ratzlaff. I had to wait three months because when I got the flyer and ordered it, it had yet to go to press. When I received the book I was set to tear it apart and prove it wrong. Instead I found a sincere, gentle writer who loved Jesus as much as I did. The book was about Sabbath, but there was a hint of information about IJ. I had to wait for almost a year before the Cultic Doctrine was in my mailbox. I read that book cover to cover in a little over 24 hours. I didn't sleep until I'd finished it. I was stunned. I sat and cried for hours, then I called the number on the cover of the book and talked to Dale. I expected he would give me a couple minutes of his precious time, but the dear man stayed on the phone with me for over an hour while I railed, and cried, and poured out my soul. He counseled me not to do anything rash, so I packaged up my books and took them over to my pastor. I asked him if he'd ever heard of them. He said he had but hadn't yet read them, and he asked if he could read mine. I let him have them on the condition that he would discuss them with me when he was finished. He kept them for a year, not a word, but a few brush-offs when I tried to bring up the subject with him. Finally he accepted a new position and instead of facing me personally, he dropped the books in my mailbox with a note that said, "Well, that's not the reason I'm a Seventh-day-Adventist." I'm sorry, but that's not an answer. That's not responding to the people within your parrish. By that time I'd ordered another copy of each volume and the books were both looking worn and dogeared because I was looking up the texts that Dale had referred to in his books, reading them in context, and celebrating the full joy of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and no longer encumbered by an extra-biblical doctrine called Investigative Judgment. None of the people who post here regularly and celebrate Jesus as their Lord and Saviour set out to study their way out of the church. We have family, many of us had jobs, friends, and a history, that was bound up in the SDA Church, and we were not looking to escape. There are doctors and ministers posting here who were asked to leave their positions within the SDA Church because they found Jesus and had to give up false teachings. We all went to scripture and found that there was something amiss between SOP and Scripture. We chose to accept what Jesus has said to us through Scripture. Only. | ||
| Tisha Registered user Username: Tisha Post Number: 27 Registered: 3-2005 |
AMEN to that, Belvalew! Most of us came to where we are BECAUSE we wanted to understand the SDA Doctrine in order to better witness to others, or to satisfy our own need to understand it better. Why can't they see that we thought we were giving up everything to make the decision to follow the Bible only. No one in their right mind would do that unless convicted by the Holy Spirit. It wasn't a move that we expected or took lightly. It was scarey, traumatic for many of us. But the JOY of knowing what the Bible says, without any outside influence, makes up for it all. I KNOW I AM SAVED! Praise the Lord! I don't believe most SDAs are "ignorant fools" who do not study. They study as much as any. However, they study EGW instead of the Bible. And when studying the Bible they use EGW to interpret for them. They think they are learning the truth, because they are trusting a human false "prophet" rather than the Holy Spirit to guide them. Studying the Bible with the Holy Spirit ONLY as the guide opens up a whole new world of truths. If I am going to base my faith on what the Bible teaches, then I want the Bible ONLY as a source of truth. The Holy Spirit will keep me on track if I honestly ask for guidance to know the truth as the Bible presents it. Anything that contradicts the Bible I then know to be false. I wish everyone trapped by the SDA Doctrine could know the true Joy of Salvation and so be able to say with me "I AM SAVED"! | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 163 Registered: 3-2005 |
In the interest of fairness, I do need to be fair to Pastor O. He thinks I may have misunderstood his remarks that I posted above in post #2. I did quote only part of what he said. Here is the entire remarks he made to me: "Stan, You must be aware that those who teach a bloodless atonement also get it from the Bible. Maxwell simply uses the Prodigal son as the salvation model. It seems like you can just about prove from the Bible that water flows uphill. A man's theology is a reflection of their personal morality. People tend to look to the Bible to confirm what they already believe." Now, what he wrote back and did say, is that people who teach false doctrines do use the Bible to prove what they want to prove, and he does have a point. My reply to him, however, is that in the CONTEXT of everything he has written, can anybody doubt that what he is saying, that Mrs, White has the final authority about what SDAs are to believe about the Bible? Stan | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 1331 Registered: 3-2004  |
When I found out EGW plagiarized, had other people write for her and then say God inspired her that was more than I could believe. That was when I did not rejoin the SDA church. I bought a Concordance and studied the SDA doctrine to see if it was Biblical. I did that because of her influence on the SDA church. I found that the Sabbath was given to the Children of Israel at Sinai. I found that Jesus is very clear about what he wants from us. It was not about the Sabbath. It is about a relationship with Him. I studied tithing and found the SDA church has it all wrong. In Mal 3:10 where it talks about bringing the tithes and offerings into the storehouse, what it is talking about is that every 3 years these were brought to the storehouse. I read that the tithes were not only used for the Levites, but to help the orphans, widows, & aliens. Every year people were to save their tithes and bring it to a place God chose for them. If they could not carry their tithes, they were to sell the animals and agricultural products and carry the money to God's set place. There they were to buy things to eat and drink and anything they wanted. They were not to forget the Levites. Then at the end of every 3 years they took the tithes to the storehouse. So, SDA brothers and sisters, is this how your church is using your tithe??? This is all in the Bible. Read Deut 27:30, 32, Deut 12:27, 14:22, 23, 25, 28, and 29. There are a few more texts. I left the SDA church because I found that my relationship with Jesus is more important than a day. I can worship him every day. I do not need extra biblical teachings to develop this relationship with Jesus. All I need is Jesus. He died and was resurrected for me. I love you God as much as my human mind and heart can. You are so awesome. Diana | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 1332 Registered: 3-2004 |
What I forgot to add is that tithing is not taught in the NT. What is taught is that God loves a cheerful giver. We do not have to tithe like the children or Israel. That is not how the SDA church is doing it any way. Paul had the believers collect money and when he arrived in the city he collected it and took it with him to where it was to go. So, Lurkers, please get out your Bibles and leave EGW's books on the shelf. Read only the Bible and ask God to send the Holy Spirit to teach you. God will do that. He promises and He keeps His promises. God you are awesome. Diana | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 536 Registered: 10-2004  |
Stan, I don't think we have misunderstood him at all. I think he has made it clear that he believes you have to have an "interpreter" (EGW) to interpret the Bible for you, or else you will go into error. The Bible alone and the Holy Spirit being your Teacher and guiding you into all truth is obviously not good enough, according to him. This is not Protestantism. They obviously do not believe in sola Scriptura. Therefore, they are NOT, and should NOT call themselves, a "Protestant" church. Jeremy | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 1741 Registered: 12-2003  |
Good point about the protestantism, Jeremy. Sola Scriptura is definitely a hallmark of Protestantism. Colleen | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 165 Registered: 3-2005 |
I think it would be well to clearly review Pastor O'Ffill's view of scripture in this revealing e mail that he sent to Belva: ".....Inasmuch as the authors of Scripture are not here to explain what they really meant to say, it is all about who we choose to accept as our interpreters. I'LL PUT MY MONEY ON MRS. WHITE, before D. Ford or D Ratslaff or even R. Cottrell. Belva, don't forget, it is all about who will be your interpreter(s)...." There it is! In his own words he is admitting that Ellen White is his interpreter of scripture-Folks, this is the DEFINITIVE PROOF, that Dr Walter Martin, said would convince him to change Adventism back into the Kingdom of the Cults. All of you lurking at R/S, and are searching for truth, Pastor O'Ffill and his traditional group of SDAs over there have the classic earmarks of a non-Christian cult, mainly that their viewpoint revolves around one person's view of scripture, and that person's view of Scripture is infallible. In fact it trumps clear passages in Hebrews that say the exact opposite of what that person says. Also, another dead give-away, that they are a cult, is the fact that they say if you don't follow EGW, and believe her infallible interpretation of Scripture, then you are headed for the Lake of Fire! Do not be fooled by such manipulative fear and guilt tactics like this--Be warned! Read Gal. 1:8,9 again. Again God bless all of you who are truthseekers, and resolve to be just like the Bereans to see if these things be so. Stan | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 158 Registered: 8-2004 |
This is one of the frustrating things I find in talking with my beloved SDAs. Somehow I HAVE to have been 'following' somebody or other! When I say "this is what I have found in the Bible," the response I get is, "That's just what So and So says," or "that's just a human interpretation" or whatever. And this even when I'm just quoting the verse! I did get some books recently - two by Dale Ratzlaff and one by Greg Taylor if I recall correctly and have let someone read them. (I haven't gotten to read them yet myself, just got to glance thru them.) What I get back from that person is sorrowful looks and sighs and statements that I should not be following these men, that I am not a Christian, and that I should stand on the Bible alone (to which last statement I say AMEN!). Sola Scriptura (along with the freedom of the individual conscience) is the reason I've ended up out of the church! | ||
| Pheeki Registered user Username: Pheeki Post Number: 517 Registered: 1-2003 |
Sda think you must be following someone because they are not independent thinkers and have let someone do the thinking for them all their lives and they cannot concieve that you (the former) have actually thought for yourself. Know what I mean? The Ellen crutch. | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 159 Registered: 8-2004 |
 Pheeki, you have a point! In this case the SDA believes he has gotten all his SDAism from his own private study of the Bible alone, confirmed by God, and therefore if his thinking for himself and mine contradict it must be because I'm not really thinking for myself. Mary | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 166 Registered: 3-2005 |
I would like to balance some of what may be perceived as negative remarks above, with just a little positive testimony. When I met the Lord 23 years ago, while on a party cruise The Lord has graciously given as a gift a desire for a zealous study of the Bible. After all these years of Study, there is a great hymn of the faith that sums up all the theological study I have done,and it comes down to this simple truth of the gospel: "My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus blood and righteousness. I would not trust the sweetest frame, but wholly lean on Jesus name. On Christ the solid Rock I stand, ALL OTHER GROUND IS SINKING SAND, ALL OTHER GROUND IS SEEKING SAND! Paul was consumed with preaching Christ and Him crucified. Paul could care less about Sabbathkeeping, jewelry, a so-called health reform message, and he knew absolutely nothing about any other special redemptive work of Christ wic would begin in 1844. He warned severely about anyone who would come along later, and basically try to rewrite the Bible. All this other ground taugh by traditiona SDA is that sinking sand mentioned in the hymn above. Stan | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 1744 Registered: 12-2003 |
Excellent points. Pheeki, I believe you're right; they can't conceive of anyone NOT having a secondary authority because THEY DO. The accusation that if we conclude something different from Adventism when we study the Bible, then we must be "listening to someone," is a classic case of projection. They see in us only what blinds them in their own experience. To an Adventist, the Bible is mostly incomprehensible without an "interpreter". I remember how difficult is was for me to concentrate, let alone have any idea what I was reading, when I tried to study as an Adventist. It was only as I began to pray to discern what the Bible said APART from any assumptions about what it meant that I began to be able to make any sense of it. Pastor O'Fill is right in a way--one DOES need an interpreter. That interpreter, though, must be the author of the Bible Himself--the Holy Spirit. It's interesting that he did not recognize the Holy Spirit either as the author or the interpreter of the Bible. He only sees humans in that equation. I so know how they think--I was there. Most of us were. Their persistent blindness is a direct result of the spiritual deception that holds ADventists--and all followers of man-made religions--in captivity. The blindness is all-encompassing. I know how arrogant that sounds. I also know how true it is. Colleen | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 234 Registered: 7-2004  |
I just finished a book by Sproul where he points out that the two foundations of Protestantism were, and still are, sola fide and sola Scriptura. SDAism doesn't stand up very well on either one of these points. |
