| Author | Message | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 333 Registered: 7-2004 |
Here is another comment on prophetic language that shows the person making the statement has a couple of prophetic utterances scrambled: ---------- Eon, they were in agreement as to who the "little horn" was, and it was not "Antiochus Epiphany" or however you spell it. That interpretation originated with Catholic preterist attempts to deny the little horn's identity. LL ---------- There are two mentions of a little or small horn. One is found in Daniel 7:7-14, the other is found in Daniel 8:5-14. I believe that Larry Lyons views both of these mentions of a little horn to be pointing to the same person, and he's saying that both of the little horn descriptions are pointing to the papacy. The beast with the little horn as mentioned in Daniel 7 represents a kingdom that would arise to world domination after Greece, as represented by the leopard with 4 wings. This awesome and terrible beast doesn't even get a real beast description to show what kind of characteristics it has. Instead it has iron teeth, ten horns, and then a little horn comes up and rips up three of the ten horns and this little horn has eyes and a mouth and speaks boastfully. In Daniel 8 we meet the kingdom of Greece again, but this time it is represented by a goat with one prominant horn, that horn is broken off and replaced with four horns, then a small horn grows out of one of the four and threatens Isreal. From that event comes the prophecy of the 2300 evenings and mornings. The Daniel 7 iron toothed kingdom takes power after the fall of the leopard/goat kingdom, so that small horn king is finished before the little horn king arises. The two horns are two different individuals, and I believe that the little horn of Daniel 7 is representative of the Anti-Christ that will come to power in the end of days. The reason I say this is because while the little horn is speaking boastful blasphemies, The Ancient of Days stands up and hands over all power to The Son of Man and his kingdom then becomes a forever kingdom. All this is to say that LL has his horns all confused. | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 1391 Registered: 3-2004  |
Stan, You are in my prayers as you communicate with this Herb Kersten and Pastor O. God, fill Stan with your Holy Spirit as he communicates with Herb and Pastor O. My your words and love let both of them know what your truths are. Teach these 2 men your truths also. You are not willing that any should perish, so bring them home to you as you have done to Stan and each of us here on FAF. Thank you God for answering this prayer. You are awesome. Diana | ||
| Greg Registered user Username: Greg Post Number: 106 Registered: 2-2005 |
Update, apparently eon is reading our forum and took exception to my proposal for a Former Adventist wiki. Here's the quote (responding to another RS poster):
I'm not sure I used those exact words when I posted my proposal, but I thank eon for the motivation to get the project going. Eon, since you are reading this, the only motivation any of us has for reaching out to Adventists is that we have a burden in our heart for them (and you), having been there ourselves. Our goal is to know nothing but Christ and him crucified (1 Cor. 2:2), and to share that message of salvation with those in Adventism who still have a veil over their hearts (2 Cor. 3:13-18). I pray we will all continue to listen to the leading of the Holy Spirit in creating the FA wiki. I also pray that our brothers and sisters in Adventism will search the Scriptures and find the simple gospel of Jesus Christ, putting their faith in him alone. Greg | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 199 Registered: 3-2005 |
Thanks to Greg, Belva, and Diana for your prayers and kind words of support. Eon needs our prayers also. I don't know, Greg, how closely you followed some of the threads, but I had this incredible exchange with Eon, where she would not even admit to me that Mormonism was a cult. Even though they believe that Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer. So, if she won't admit Mormonism is a cult, then she can't possibly be reasoned with on SDA, and she is going to misinterpret everything we say. But thanks Greg for sharing the latest update on Eon. Diana also had some very interesting exchanges with her. Stan | ||
| Greg Registered user Username: Greg Post Number: 107 Registered: 2-2005 |
Stan, I totally agree. We need to pray without ceasing for each other, and those at RS. That response about Mormonism is consistent from what I've observed from cultural Adventists. The thinking goes like this: "If Adventism and Mormonism are both cultures within Christianity, who is to say my culture is better than yours?" Many, many Adventists have very strong cultural reasons for continuing in Adventism. But their theological reasons are exceedingly weak, and as Shakespeare would say "there's the rub." Here is Larry Lyon's response to what eon posted above:
Sometimes I think people will believe only what they want to believe. They'll look for any shred of so-called "evidence" so their precious view of the world will not be disturbed. I know I'm not speaking only for myself when I say that true spiritual growth did not begin in my life until I allowed God to "disturb" me with his Word and through the Holy Spirit, submitting my will totally to him. He is an awesome God. Greg | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 334 Registered: 7-2004 |
Eon is arguing for the "sinful nature" of Jesus in the following: ---------- Freeatlast, The Bible clearly states that Christ had to become like us, or else He could not be a High Priest. If youthink that Christ overcame out of His divinity then why didn't He turn the stones into bread when He was being tempted by satan? He used Scripture, and depended on His Father. If you are saying that Christ did become like us which means He had a sinful nature because we all have a sinful nature then to say that He was not tempted in all points like we were is a theory at best, and not Biblical at worst. eon. ---------- Jesus came in human flesh, yes, but as though he were Adam "before the fall of mankind." Why else would he have needed to be born of a virgin? Adam fell while housed in a body that was perfection itself, fresh from the hand of God, with the breath of God in his nostrils. I take heart in knowing that the only thing that could have come between Jesus and his completion of his mission for fallen man would have been his own decision to abandon that mission, which he did not do. Jesus is, was, and forever will be Creator God Almighty. He loved us so very much that he took on humanity, unfallen humanity, and from a position of perfection died for my imperfection. He was the only true martyr in history in that he chose to die, in fact his sole purpose for living here was to die in our place. | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 335 Registered: 7-2004 |
In thinking about Eon's question about why Jesus didn't change the stones to bread, my only response is, when was the last time you turned stones into bread? Satan was acknowledging the divine nature of Jesus when he made the suggestion that Jesus should transform the stones. He knew that Jesus most certainly had the power to do just that. That means that the devil was approaching Jesus as a devine person, not divinity housed in sinful flesh. Remember that Jesus had not yet embarked upon his ministry when the wilderness experience took place. The only miracle he had performed was providing enough wine to keep a wedding party going strong. Therefore, Satan could only guess at what types of miracles would be forthcoming from Jesus over the next few years. Satan had observed Jesus as he grew up and he knew that Jesus was well grounded in scripture and thus far been impervious to temptation. Jesus had been in the desert for forty days, no food, no water. The fact that he was still alive was already a miracle. Terri Schaivo died after 13 days without water, and she lived for an amazingly long time without that essential. Still Satan was establishing that Jesus was the promised Messiah when he tempted him in the manner that he did. He just had to ramp up his temptations to fit Jesus' status. He still uses the same basic temptations on you and me: wealth, status, presumption and self-gratification. | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 337 Registered: 7-2004 |
I injured my back yesterday so I'm stuck in a chair, practically immobile, and I've been reading a lot on the R/S site and here. I found this statement made by Pastor O'Ffill: ---------- It occurred to me this morning that the often heated discussions on this forum in the past few months are irreconcilable because one point of view believes that there is only one way to be saved in the Old and the New Testaments and the other side believes that the people in the Old Testament were saved by works. The belief that people were saved one way in the Old Testament and another in the New is call dispensationalism. ---------- In the next paragraph he wrote he seemed to be indicating that the Formers who had posted were the ones saying there were two ways to be saved. Pastor O'Ffill, there has always been only one way to be saved, by faith in Jesus. Abraham had faith in the promised Seed--Jesus. David had faith in Jesus, because he of all people in the OT displayed what faith looked like. He was a sinner of the worst kind if you look at his deeds, but David knew about repentance and practiced it often. God's list of heroes in Hebrews were all living by faith in the blood of Jesus Christ, even though they didn't know his name and had not lived long enough to actually meet him. Their faith looked forward to him, ours looks back at him. I felt that I had to respond to that post because I know that we all trust Jesus for our salvation, and we know that all of the old testament heros were heroes based solely on their faith. I'm not trying to be defensive, but I really don't appreciate having an incorrect picture painted of my trust in Jesus. The Formers on this forum are not Dispensationalists! It is true that we see the law (10 c's)--(entire torah) as belonging to the old covenant. It is also true that we are covered by the new covenant. It is also true that the covenant referred to as New Covenant is the covenant that was in effect when Abraham was alive. It was the covenant that was revealed to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. The Old Covenant was revealed at Sinai and its power to condemn mankind ended at the cross. The only power the old covenant had was to condemn. Its only purpose now is to reveal what sin is. The Christian's law is the law of love and Jesus made it clear that his followers would be recognizable by their love for one another. We express our love for Jesus by the depth of our love for each other. | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 338 Registered: 7-2004 |
Another gospel? ---------- I believe the ability to live soberly and righteously in this present age by God's grace is what separates us from both the evangelicals and catholics. It must be a pillar of faith. It is the answer to the sin problem on earth... it is THE gospel. Amen? ---------- The gospel is that Jesus Christ lived a perfect life in complete harmony with the laws of God and man, died on the cross as the sin-bearer for all of mankind, arose on the third day in victory over sin and death, and is presently seated at the right hand of the Father and is waiting for his enemies to be made his footstool. In other words, the gospel is all about Jesus, and not about you and me. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 1800 Registered: 12-2003  |
Belva, I agree with you. It really is frustrating to me when people say we espouse two ways to be saved. Where DO they get that, anyway?! Every person who is saved is and has been saved the same way: by faith in God and His promises. There is not other way. Jesus was/is the fulfillment of all the promises. Abraham, Enoch, Moses, Noah--Paul, Peter, John, Luke, Matthew--you, me, all of us--all are saved by faith in God's promises fulfilled in Jesus. Period. Indeed, the gospel IS all about Jesus, not us. Colleen | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 572 Registered: 10-2004  |
How sick and blasphemous! And then two people, I believe it was Larry and Walk, said amen to it! So if that is "THE gospel"--then the Jews have the gospel?! Jeremy | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 339 Registered: 7-2004 |
Mr. Walk_In_The_Light is busy showing his understanding of others and tenderness of heart towards all of God's people, especially Formers, when he says the following: ---------- I believe it is evident that many FA perhaps most of them were never grounded in the truth to begin with. Most of them (not all) were baptized as second, third, or fourth generation Adventists. They have some knowledge of the truth but many had not studied it out deeply for themselves. When sharpshooters in deception come along with doctirnes of devils that appeal to the carnal heart they grasp these teachings and study them almost to memory. The problem is these teachings are clever twisting, misapplication, and misrepresntations. Since those not really grounded in the truth or those who have not accepted it in their hearts are easy targets they are swept away with new winds of doctrine. Fortunately error is always consistance so true seekers spot it when it comes. For those who grew up in the church, being baptized was more of a cultural thing (expected of you) than the result of a conversion expereince. For the unconverted heart all that was seen was restrictions. For the converted heart rather than feeling bad because they are taught not to go to the movies on the Sabbath or shopping, working, or football games, they see this as a something they would not want to do anyway. If you love to go to God's party (observe the Sabbath why would you want to go do something else? Not only this, but with many of the things that the unconverted heart desires to do on the Sabbath the converted heart does not have an appetite to do on the other six days of the week either. It is easy to say it is fine to keep the Sabbath as long as WE and not God can determine what that means. For some that would mean to go to the bar and the movies. The same is true about sin. Some folks are willing to say, "we are to repent from sin" as long as they are not required to submit to the Bible definition of what sin and repentance mean. It is popular in the church and outside of the church to half way repent, to say I'm sorry but not to turn away from the continuation of the act. Then there are those that speak of turning away from sin as long as the defintion of sin is left open to their own private and permissive interpretation of sin. "God says but I think," was the first impulse of Lucifer's heart in the courts of heaven as he was unnoticeably falling away from God. The same thoughts are echoing in the hearts and minds of men all across the globe as the great falling away continues. May we hold fast till Jesus comes. ---------- He can't seem to shake out of his head the image of all Former Adventists being licentious and presumptious people. Notice how he has us grasping the Gospel and running off to movie theaters and bars with it. He hasn't the slightest notion of how the gospel has or does change people from the heart out. He has read a few of our testimonies and noticed that several have mentioned that they were multi-generational in their Adventist background, and makes the assumption that we were uneducated as to the SDA precepts because we had never experienced anything else. I for one will say that he is wrong. I was always interested in spiritual things. Jesus has been central in my life from the time I was a tyke. My parents were poor so I had to beg to be allowed to attend SDA schools. I wasn't some preacher's kid on a free ride. I worked my way through academy and as much college as I could afford. My parents had other obligations, so I had to pay every dime myself. That means that I paid attention in class. I simply never questioned the validity of what was being taught, because after all the teachers were also ordained ministers for the most part. If you can't trust an ordained man of God, who can you trust? Yes, there were questions deep within my heart of hearts, but those were suppressed because if there was a fault in thinking, it had to come from me and not from what I was being taught. Reading EGW sometimes gave me the creeps, but then the next page would be so filled with love for the Savior, and from him (Desire of Ages) that I had to somehow mingle the judgmentalizing portions in and swallow everything whole. For nearly 40 years I never questioned IJ. It was always taught to me within the context of Ellen White visions, and the story of Hiram Edson being given the vision in a cornfield, but then he didn't proclaim the vision, so God took it from him and gave it to "the weakest of the weak." This whole story was all quite dramatic, and therefore distracts students from the actual fact that IJ was basically extra-biblical. Do any of the rest of you feel the same way--that you were tricked in Bible Doctrines classes with all of the drama surrounding Ellen White? I find it most interesting that Walk says that "Error is always consistent." In my experience truth has always held that position. Perhaps Mr. Walk has noticed the consistency between what each of us has had to say regarding the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Well, if error is always consistent, then how does he know what to believe if truth, by inferrence, is always slipping around one one way and then another? Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Because of his consistency we can all know that he can be depended on because he is faithful to forgive us and cleanse us of all unrighteousness. All we have to do is confess our sins and repent, or turn away from wrong living. Again, I want it stressed that righteousness does not come my way, or yours, because of something we have done (other than to cling to His promises by faith) but by what he has done and by every word that proceeds from the mouth of Jesus Christ. In response to his accusing us of saying "God says but I think," that is phraseology that one is more likely to hear from an SDA mouth. Actually they have to tack something onto the gospel. Their gospel+something else, usually works, is very obvious. Just look at the above post where the gospel has all of the sudden become pious living. That's not even the gospel, it is personal presumption. That makes it Cain's offering. Belva | ||
| Greg Registered user Username: Greg Post Number: 108 Registered: 2-2005 |
Belva, Just a clarification--I believe it was Colporteur who made the above post on RS. I wholeheartedly agree with your analysis and conclusions. The poster of the 'righteous living' gospel above is named 'sdazeal', which really says it all. God forbid I ever have more zeal for a human institution than a divine one. In Jesus, Greg | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 340 Registered: 7-2004 |
Thank you, Greg. I went back for another look and you are right, it was Colporteur who made the above statement. I would hate to credit one person with the works of another. sdazeal also did quite a study on the difference between nomos and entole. Her efforts were focussed on making the point that the two terms could be seen as interchangeable when it came to references to the Ten Commandments. At least that seemed to be her goal. I believe that in one of the Proclamations a long while ago Dale Ratzlaff did an exhaustive study on the difference between the two Greek words and their applications to various references in the New Testament. I am heartened to see that SDAs are making the effort to learn the meanings of the basic languages of scripture. Perhaps it will lead them to a closer walk with Jesus. I do agree with most of them on one point--Jesus' second coming is closer now that it has ever been, and we need to solomnly assess our lives and whether or not we have surrendered all to the will of Jesus Christ. | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 1393 Registered: 3-2004 |
Dear R/S posters who lurk here, I know you come here to read what we say with our writing. One thing you will find is that we all proclaim the same gospel. It is Jesus Christ, his birth, life, death and resurrection. Because we left the SDA church does not mean we are free to do what ever we want. Jesus says to love him with all our heart, all our soul, all our mind and all our strength and to love others as our selves. That tells me that because I have the Holy Spirit guiding me I am not going to do any thing to hurt God or put His name in a bad light. I am going to help my neighbor, any one who needs my help, with unconditional love. I am going to worship God today and every day, but at this moment in time, today is all I have and I worship God today. That is what Jesus wants us to do. God, be with the R/S posters who lurk here, as they read what we write. May they be convicted of your love and see what the Bible really says and teaches. May each of us as formers be the Christians you want us to be. And may they know we are Christians by our love for one another and for them. God, your love is awesome and you are awesome. Diana | ||
| Heretic Registered user Username: Heretic Post Number: 53 Registered: 2-2005 |
More literary gymnastics to prove the validity of the IJ, this one posted by "Pickle" last Thursday in case you missed it:
As "rock solid" as it gets? Wow. | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 342 Registered: 7-2004 |
Revelation 11:1 says: (NKJ) "Then I was given a reed like a measuring rod. And the angel stood, saying, 'Rise and measure the temple of God, the altar, and those who worship there." Revelation 11:2 says : (NKJ) "But leave out the court which is outside the temple, an do not measure it, for it has been given to the Gentiles. And they will tread the holy city underfoot for forty-two months." So far three Jewish temples have stood atop the temple mount in Jerusalem, Solomon's temple, the temple built by Ezra's band, and then Herod's temple that was destroyed AD70 by the Romans. There is yet another temple that is described by Ezekiel, Chapter 40. Most bible scholars will tell you that the dimensions of this temple are unlike any of the three that have stood thus far, yet if Ezekiel is a true prophet (and I believe he is) the temple he described will stand where the others once stood. Could this be the temple mentioned in Rev. 11:1? Another thing, Rev. 11:2 mentions that the temple only is to be measured, but the court and beyond belong to the Gentiles. Last I heard, I'm a Gentile. No measuring intended for me. I believe that God is still shepherding his people Isreal, if not they would not have been able to return to their homeland after 1900 years. 1900 years! That's a miracle in itself! They have already made all of the temple furniture and instruments and everything is waiting for the red hefer. EGW and company didn't live to see Isreal become a nation again. We have. They (EGW and company) could not imagine that such a thing would take place so they had jumped into Isreal's shoes in order to receive all of Isreal's blessings. That is presumption. Sprinkled throughout Revelation are statements and promises having to do with Isreal and no one else. Let's not be too hasty to jump into Isreal's shoes when the promises for the Gentiles are pretty wonderful in and of themselves. I do not believe that Rev. 11:1 ties together Dan. 8:14 and Lev. 16, but even if it did, it ties it together for the Jews. These other texts have to do with the Jews exclusively. You already know that I believe Dan. 8:14 speaks of the time leading up to the Maccabeean Revolt and the miracle that is now celebrated as Hannukah. Lev. 16 merely tells how the Day of Atonement was to be celebrated, and pointed forward as a shadow to the crucifiction of Christ Jesus. Anyway, not so rock solid an argument as some would think to call it IJ and apply it to all believers. | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 206 Registered: 3-2005 |
Wow! It is really getting weird over there, as Walk is typing EGW quotations that are really unbelievable. Go to "Issues in Contemporary worship", under the heading, "Did EGW claim to be a prophet?" Walk quotes from "Selected Messages" P. 32. Talk about delusions of grandeur! She talks about how her books are to become immortalized! And a bunch of other scary stuff. I don't remember too many quotes like this one, but maybe its just been too long since I have read this stuff. Stan | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 343 Registered: 7-2004 |
sdazeal is commenting on the newly ordained pope: ---------- I think two things about this new pope is interesting. 1) His age. Is this a clue as to how close Christ's 2nd coming is? 2) That he is the head of "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" which was formally known as "Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition". ---------- I was wondering what their first response would be to the election of Joseph Rattzinger. Remember how they were all over Darrel for quoting the Cardinal after the pope passed away? "Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition." that is certain to get them all excited and they will see a Sunday law behind every tree for a while. You are aware that the mere fact that we exist is reason for them to believe in every prophecy ever to come from EGW. We are the "fallen away group." So sad that they don't realize that she never had an original prophecy to begin with. She was used as a pawn by James, Kellogg, Bates--you name it. When they were all gone she tried to conjure up prophecies, but she wasn't having as many after she passed beyond middle age. I still don't know whether or not to feel sorry for her. She lived in a very male-dominated period and it was unusual for a person of her sex and stature to be in such a position of leadership. I think it went to her head. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 574 Registered: 10-2004 |
Walk is claiming that EGW never denied being a prophet. This is false. She did indeed claim to be a prophet (such as in the quotes Walk posted), but she also denied being a prophet! Once again she was contradictory. The following is from her grandson Arthur White's biography, copy and pasted from the official Ellen G. White Estate EGW CD-ROM:
Jeremy |
