| Author | Message | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 1847 Registered: 12-2003  |
Great study, Belva! "All done, for all time!" Yes! Colleen | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 855 Registered: 7-2003  |
Belva, I LOVED that information. I love studying the greek to find out what we miss in English. But I can hear the SDAs I know saying that you are giving someone a license to sin then if you don't have to "do" anything to get to heaven... They so don't get it and I have a hard time understanding why they want to jump from the freedom to those verses immediately back into the bondage of having to "do" to prove you "love" Jesus. I've been wrestling with this whole concept personally as I've tried to deal with my own issues/sin. My historical tendency has been to really beat myself up and instead of just losing the time to the sin, lose even more time to feeling like pond scum. So, as I've become aware of different things I need to confess, I have had to recall these verses that my forgiveness is secure and any follow-up condemnation isn't what God intended for me. I've actually tried not to think about it again, as I hear God forgets it as well. That's very hard for me who feel I need a period of "punishment". I saw the movie "the Scarlet Letter" when I was in high school and when the man in the adulterous relationship would go and beat himself because of his sins, that's kindof how I view my own "self-talk" if you will, or Satans' lies in my own head. I didn't really start to get victory over some things until I learned to accept the forgiveness and acknowledge the righteousness I already had (based upon the promises in these verses) to really start to make gains on some trouble spots. It's not that I look on sin lightly, and don't mourn over it at times, but its my goal to not allow that loss to multiply into even greater losses that make me irritable with my kids and condemning of those around me because I'm being so judgemental on myself. I am really just beginning to see how this has affected me and how I respond in these situations. Even though I intellectually have been able to recite these promises, it has taken quite a journey to understand what that means about how I live and deal with my own mistakes and shortcomings. The one thing that has been highlighted crystal clear is that before God, I stand clean. Not because of anything I've done, but because of what Christ did. I don't try to live a righteous life to supplement what Christ did but really because that is the image he has already given me. If the law doesn't make one righteous, why on earth would I want to live it? In many ways I still feel such a novice in understanding what it means to be "in Christ." Probably enough rambling.... I find Romans so profound. It makes so much sense of not being merely a hearer of the word. There is a lot of depth there. | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 368 Registered: 7-2004 |
Thank you to both Colleen and Melissa. Romans is so rich with information, and if you allow yourself, you will find you can attach almost everything that has come in scripture before it to the information gained. The first 2-1/2 chapters are spent making it absolutely clear that human kind are sinners, and that the wages earned is death. End of story. Then along comes Romans 3:20-28. Paul was a master craftsman with words. He had to bring his readers to the stark realization that there was nothing they could give to God that was of any value, nothing save faith. After reading that revelation of love from the Father and the Son, it has to take your eyes off of self and place them on Jesus where they belong. Back to the analogy of the law being a mirror--looking for yourself in that mirror all day long can make a person rather narcissistic. It serves God better if we can get over the mirror gazing and get on to being his physical bodies while we walk this earth. We are the arms that hold, and the mouths that declare, the feet that race to bring hope to those around us. And we can also contribute from the riches he bestows on us to aid others who are in need. That is our purpose, to love others and point them to the ultimate source of all we have to share. The interesting thing is that while we are busily being about God's work, and every believer can be doing that, the Holy Spirit has moved into each of us and is cleaning house. We don't have to effort at being good, or being right with God, because a part of Him resides within. He's not going to let the house he lives in get all run down. Belva | ||
| Dd Registered user Username: Dd Post Number: 425 Registered: 7-2004 |
Belva, Thanks for the Romans verses. Beautifully and clearly stated (though, I must admit, without my SDA glasses Paul is very straight forward!). I kept reading and verbally saying, "Period" at the end of each sentence! THERE IS NOTHING MORE THAN JESUS! Praise God for His plan! Belva, what is your background? I am very impressed with your knowledge of Scripture. There are so many wonderful people on this forum and I can't keep people's stories straight. I wish I would have started a file on everyone so that I could remember histories, ages, events...We need a "reminder page"...  | ||
| Dd Registered user Username: Dd Post Number: 426 Registered: 7-2004 |
Belva, I forgot to say...I loved your statement..."I felt like stating some of the things the original Greek says, but cannot be "smoothly" stated when translated. Please bear with me, but I'm growing very passionate about this now." The reason I was wondering about you is that I, too, have become so compassionate about this very subject (law vs. New Covenant). I wish I would have had this need to learn 20 years ago. I would love to head back to post-graduate schooling...Does anyone else have these dreams? Anyone in their 40's? | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 369 Registered: 7-2004 |
Dd, I'm the product of third-generation SDA's on both sides. We never had a Christmas tree, and heaven forbid I should want an Easter dress, or basket. I graduated from academy in the mid-60's and started working in the SF Bay area a couple of years that in "the real world" and it was my first real interaction with people who were not SDA. What a shock. I even developed a stutter for a while until I adjusted. I'm pushing 60, and yes, I wish I had had the same thirst for knowledge when I was younger that I have now. I did pay attention during Bible classes, and I was blessed to have some teachers who truly loved and trusted Jesus. I fell in love with Jesus in a SDA environment, but I have found that relationship has deepened and enriched when I stopped trying to add to a ransom that was already enough. I've already mentioned on here that a lot of the information I received about grace came through the teaching on TV by Dr. Gene Scott. Dr. Scott has gone home to Jesus, but his teaching lives on. I find that I sometimes just turn it on and leave it on all day, or as long as I can get away with it. You see, Dr. Scott was a bit quirky, but very intelligent and loads of fun to listen to, and in between all the "Am I boring you?" questions, and the demands to "Get on the phone." he taught solid gospel. For anyone interested in having it play on your computer, just follow this link - http://www.drgenescott.com/TEACHING-PAGE.htm, choose broadcast, then choose internet. It will patch in to whatever he is teaching on at the moment. Let me warn you that it switches around, one time he will be teaching from scripture, at another time he will be reading ghost stories, and again another time he will be talking about the Great Pyramid. Don't let that bother you--you will still find gems strewn all along your pathway. I will warn you that Dr. Scott smoked fat stogies or a pipe, and when he is sitting in his teaching chair he will be fumbling with his smoking equipment. This may bruise your SDA sensibility, but come on, you gotta get over that sometime. He loved Jesus. That fact just oozes out of his pores and makes you want to know what he knows. Belva | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 219 Registered: 3-2005 |
I need a little help. I have been corresponding with Herb Kersten from Australia, who was referred to me by Offill, and who says he agrees with Ford on forensic justification, but believes in the I. J., and of course his modified version that it is to vindicate God, and not judge the righteous. He points to Roy Gane, from Andrews Univ. who he believes is a true scholarly expert on the sanctuary. Has anyone reviewed Roy Gane's material, and/or can link to some info on where he is coming from. To answer this guy, I have been forced to go back to reading Great Controversy--Wow! Page 489, EGW saysChrist's intercession in the sanctuary is as essential as the cross in the plan of Salvation! Well, enough for now. Greetings to all from the Colorado River where it is plenty hot! Stan | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 370 Registered: 7-2004 |
River, I can agree with Ellen that Christ's intercession in the sanctuary WAS as essential as the cross in the Plan of Salvation. What I disagree with her on is when that intercession took place. When Jesus rose from the grave on that first Sunday morning, when all of the universe changed, he told Mary, "Touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to my Father." He was acting as the High Priest for all of mankind at that very moment, and he was carrying the blood of the sacrifice within his body, and he was on his way to Heaven to present before the Father, to say, "The sacrifice has been made, is it adequate?" We know that God accepted the adequacy of the sacrifice because our Great High Priest was seen again shortly after that within the congregation of the believers, first on the road, and then in the upper room. I've heard the name Roy Ganes, but have no idea what his area of study is. I'll look around for you to see what I can find and will let you know if I come up with anything. Until then I'll pray than God will speak through you. Just know that what God brings you to, he will also bring you through it. Belva | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 371 Registered: 7-2004 |
River, here is a URL I found on Google: www.andrews.edu/~gane/roygane.html - 5k | ||
| Bob Registered user Username: Bob Post Number: 222 Registered: 7-2000  |
Re Roy Gane: http://www.andrews.edu/~gane/roygane.html http://www.atoday.com/magazine/archive/1995/janfeb1995/articles/TheologySanctuary.shtml | ||
| Dt Registered user Username: Dt Post Number: 24 Registered: 4-2005 |
They will just NEVER let it go. These are the same types of arguments that have been swirling around Adventism since 1844. Everybody wants to be saved by the Grace of God, but nobody believes it is possible for Him to do that without them DOING something. I have looked at that doctrine for 40 years and still cannot get from Daniel to Hebrews. Is the Bible really that hard to understand? I will again say that you will find very few SDA's that can show you the IJ start to finish by just picking up the Bible and starting from scratch. Most need a step-by-step guide. I know I still do. Salvation is free. Get over it. | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 1423 Registered: 3-2004  |
Stan, May God be with you as you communicate with Herb Kersten. I pray He will give you the right words to write and the scriptures you quote are the ones he wants for you. God wants Herb in heaven also. He is awesome. Diana | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 1853 Registered: 12-2003 |
Stan, any way you "cut" the invetigative judgment--original, authentic doctrine or new, "improved" vindication-of-God theory--you diminish the Biblical Jesus and the cross. The original doctrine, in a nutshell, says that Jesus' blood provided the "means" of the atonement, but the atonement itself occurs in the heavenly sanctuary; in 1844 God started judging believers' records and determining who qualified for Christ's "final atonement". When a person is judged to be worthy, the guilt of his sin is removed from Jesus and placed onto Satan, the scapegoat. Thus the sanctuary is cleansed from that person's guilt and sin. If the person is unworthy, that person's guilt is removed from Jesus and placed back onto the person. Unbelievers aren't even judged in the IJ. The "vindication of God" judgment makes the creatures' questions and "need to know" paramount. Some Adventists say God is on trial; some say no human can judge God. Either way, however, God subjects the books of records to creatures so they can examnine his decisions and determine for themselves whether or not He is just. This theory minimizes the cross--many who hold to this theory say that Jesus didn't really have to die in order to save mankind. He died as an object lesson of how much God loves us. This theory also goes hand-in-hand with the belief that Satan is accusing God of being unjust, and God must answer Satan's accusations and prove that He IS just. This idea is pure blasphemy. The omnimpotent, eternal, sovereign Creator does not have to "answer" to Satan or to anyone. He Is God. This idea similarly discounts the wrath and justice of God. It says God must be "fair" to Satan and to us--never mind that Romans 9 and Job show clearly that no person can question God or expect to understand Him. God never promises to answer all our questions on this side of eternity. Further, this idea that Satan has the authority to cause the entire created universe to question God is a direct reflection on early Adventist belief that Jesus and Satan were in competition in heafen. The "vindication of God" theory makes the fairness of God the ultimate issue in the universe, not the eradication of sin and Jesus' blood shed into eternity to effect creation's healing. God's fairness is NOT in question. Our innate sinfulness, though, and our utter dependence upon Jesus' blood for our atonement and salvation IS the issue. The vindication of God theory says that ultimately everyone will bow the knee and worship God because they will see He is Right. He IS just. The Bible says every knee will bow and and every tongue confess "that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of the God the Father" (Phil 2:11) because of His humbling himself and dying on a cross. It is Jesus' obedience unto death and His shed blood and resurrection that will cause all creation to bow before Him. This universal worship will not be because God proved He was fair. It will be because He healed the universe with His blood. Adventism--from any perspective--downplays Jesus' blood, distorts the atonement, and puts humanity at the center of the story. The story is about Jesus, not us--God alone is worthy, and like Job, our only truthful response to Him is NOT to insist He prove Himself to us. It is to humble ourselves as Job did, to "repent in dust and ashes", and to worship Him because He Is God. (see Job 42:6) Colleen | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 222 Registered: 3-2005 |
Thanks to Belva, Bob, Dt, Diana, and Colleen for your very helpful input, and prayers for this situation. Since I am 20 years removed from SDA, I was not familiar with all the twists and turns with this doctrine. Belva, My point of quoting EGW when she makes that statement is the context that 1844 is just as essential as the cross, which subtracts from Paul's gospel statement in 1Cor 15, and when he told them in 1Cor 2:2 "I resoved to know nothing except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. Yes, His intercession is very important, but I can't equate it with the death and resurrection. This Mr Kersten is very interesting, and when i have more time, I'd like to share more. But there seems to be a neo--evangelical SDA movement that tries to hold to the basic skeleton of the I.J., but they won't accept EGW's version either. They affirm Lutheran and Ford doctrines of Justification by Faith alone, but they water down the extreme Arminian concept that EGW gives of IJ, and say that if you are truly in Christ, you won't lose your salvation, even if your record is poor--that sounds like the gospel--but that is not what EGW teaches, as I just re-read G.C.-how painful! Also, these Neo's deny the literal sanctuary in heaven that EGW spends a whole chapter describing, and explain it away on the basis that she was trying to present language her hearers would understand. I don't understand any of this--either you are a true SDA, or you are not. Stan | ||
| Bob Registered user Username: Bob Post Number: 223 Registered: 7-2000 |
Stan, they so desperately want to hang on to their belief that "SDA is the TRUE church," that they will twist their beliefs, tolerate any inconsistency, or practice outright denial of reality! This is why I choose not to argue with them. Facts don't convert people. The Holy Spirit converts people, but only when their hearts are open to Him. Bob | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 1780 Registered: 11-2002 |
After Jesus rose from the tomb did He scurry off to heaven and then come back as he was here for 40 days? I don't seem to understand that. He says not to touch him because he hasn't yet ascended to the Father, yet the deciples touched the nail wounds in His hands and he was with them yet 40 days. Please explain. | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 372 Registered: 7-2004 |
Susan, what you need to do is compare Jesus' crucifiction with the Day of Atonement as celebrated by the Jewish High Priests. This is described in detail in Lev. 16 -- the whole chapter. The sacrifice of the lamb was just the beginning. It was slain in the outer courtyard (typifying the earth), then the blood was carried into the Holy of Holies (typifying Heaven). We are all aware, based on the testimony of Hebrews, that Jesus is our Great High Priest, so it only stands to reason that after the Lamb of God was sacrificed on the cross, Jesus took the blood of the sacrifice, contained in his own sacrificed and resurrected body, and presented before the Father the evidence of the sacrifice. We know that the sacrifice was "enough" because Jesus was seen again by the congregation. In the typical ceremony, the High Priest had a rope tied around his ankle. This was done because the High Priest was going before the very presence of God, and if the sacrifice was not perfect, the High Priest was at threat of being struck dead, and his body could be pulled out of the Holy of Holies by means of the rope. When the HP had completed his intercessionary duties in the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement, he was to bathe in clear water, set aside his sacred linen garments, put on his own garments and then immediately rejoin the congregation. His appearance within the company of the believers was a sure sign that the atonement had been accepted. It is not stated in the four gospels that Jesus returned to heaven immediately upon his resurrection. They were depending on the reader to understand the order of the celebration of the Day of Atonement. The High Priest, once he had the blood of atonement in the bowl to take into the Holy of Holies was not to have contact with anyone, then he ministered in the Holy of Holies, thus cleansing the sins from the sanctuary and the company of the people. After that he could be touched. We see the same happening with Jesus. "Mary, do not touch me, I have not yet ascended to My Father. Go and tell the others what you have seen." She goes, and everyone races back to the tomb and they find the grave clothes, but no Jesus. A few hours later he is chatting with two disciples on the road to Emmaus, then later that evening he joins another group of disciples in the upper room. Belva | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 1856 Registered: 12-2003 |
Stan, the next issue of PRocalamtion is dealing with exactly the pehnomenon you describe. Many "liberal" and "evangelical" Adventists have reinterpreted the IJ to make it sound more evangelical and palatable. Two things are wrong with that move: 1) the new version is just as heretical as the old but in a different way. It strips God of His sovereignty and denies the absolute necessity of Jesus shed blood which IS the atonement. 2) the reinterpreted version still doesn't DENY the IJ. It still obscures the cross, and it makes Jesus a sort of pathetic sacrifice, not the Healer of the universe. It merely hides the reality of the authentic doctrine which IS the central pillar of the church. Both interpretations of the IJ obscure Jesus and the finished atonement. No one, however, can get rid of the IJ because it MUST remain if Adventism is to remain. Jan Paulsen, in his 2002 address "The Theological Landscape" is crystal clear that there has been NO change in the SDA doctrine of the sanctuary. It is non-negotiable. You're right; no one has the "Right" to re-interpret the IJ into something more palatable. The original doctrine is still the oficial doctrine. It's just a matter of "black is now white, but the color has not changed" (to quote Dale R). Adventism still depends upon the IJ. Adventists can say anything they want to say; they just can't, by saying things, make the IJ go away. It is what it is, and the church stands by it. Any deviation is just "window-dressing" to avoid a particualrly difficult doctrine. Colleen | ||
| Dt Registered user Username: Dt Post Number: 25 Registered: 4-2005 |
I agree with Bob, I try not to get into any confrontational discussions on the IJ unless the person has some real questions. If they want to believe in the IJ and all of the baggage it entails, fine. The biggest issue I have with EGW is in not only deciding where Jesus happens to be in heaven but making it a salvation issue to know and believe that. You will find no evidence in Scripture to back this belief. They can water it down and twist it all they want to but in so doing they are putting themselves on Satan's ground, according to EGW. If you read EGW on the IJ, it is pretty much a black and white issue (pardon the pun). She left no room for questioning, even by comparison with the Bible. Remember, "i was shown". | ||
| Bob Registered user Username: Bob Post Number: 224 Registered: 7-2000 |
Susan, I have been told that meaning of the original language is not "do not touch me" but rather "do not cling to me." There is a big difference between not touching and not clinging to someone. Bob |
