| Author | Message | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 598 Registered: 10-2004  |
Yes, I believe almost all of the Greek scholars agree that the correct translation of that verse is "Stop clinging to Me"--meaning she DID touch Him and was touching Him. The old KJV translation of "Touch Me not" was used by EGW to say that Mary did not touch Him (Spiritual Gifts, Volume 1, 73:1)--but that is not true according to the Greek! She also said that Jesus could not be touched because He didn't even know whether or not His sacrifice had been accepted! This is total blasphemy!! Look at her heresy:
What absolute blasphemy! Jeuss IS God Himself and He knows all things and He knows He IS the perfect Sacrifice!! And He never refused the worship of anyone!! Jeremy | ||
| Dt Registered user Username: Dt Post Number: 26 Registered: 4-2005 |
Wait a minute. Maybe I am confused, but in Jeremy's quotes of EGW she says the atonement is full and ample and also presented to and accepted by the Father. I thought this didn't happen until 1844. What am I missing? Did God, in 1844 years, go one way behind the curtain while Jesus went the other way so the same offering could be presented again? See what I mean? Ask a dedicated SDA IJ believer this same question and watch the twisting and turning start. Whew. Makes me tired just thinking about it. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 1863 Registered: 12-2003  |
It's crazy-making. No wonder people throw up their hands and leave in frustration! If a person doesn't find Jesus in spite of ADventism, they really have only the despair of craziness or the despair of unbelief ahead of them. I've often pondered the fact that many people say "born again Christian" are cultic because of their "only one way to God" beliefs. I'm convinced that the way we know Christianity is really true is that it literally changes lives. No other religion or belief system brings people out of their various modes of self-absorption and gives them focus and purpose that is completely for the glory of Another and for the benefit of others. No other religion asks us to be "living sacrifices" without being passive or victimized or masochistic. No other belief system asks people to surrender their atachments to the world WITHOUT disattaching to people and their pain and joy. Only in Christ can a person hope to be simultaneously surrendered/disinterested (not UNinterested!) and engaged/sacrificial. The real proof that Christianity is not merely the best illusion of all is its measurable effect upon human lives. The literal presence of God lives in His people--how amazing is that?! Colleen | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 225 Registered: 3-2005 |
Colleen, I was of course aware of what Maxwell and Dan Smith did to the IJ, but I was taken off guard by this slightly different evangelical approach where they acknowledge Justification, but then put this strange twist on it, following quoted from an Email from Mr Kersten, "So when SDAs talk about a work of atonement commencing in 1844 they mean a work of judgment, a work of vindication...Why Judgment when there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ? For this reason: it is not good for God's reputation before an onlooking universe to let sinners like you and me into His kingdom when our life's record is so poor. Satan alleges God is unfair in punishing him when His own people are guilty of millions of sins. To justify His decision to let you and me into His kingdom and exclude the pretenders is what the work of Judgment underway since 1844 is all about. Not to inform God as to who are His but to justify actions of all sinners who accept His gospel." The only problem is that he does not give scriptural quotes to back this up, except maybe from Rev. where it talks about Satan as the accuser of the brethren. But the above directly contradicts what EGW says the IJ is about in her definitive chapter in Great Controversy, and yet they can preach this without any problem, because they acknowledge that there is an I.J. Do you know what Bible texts these people have to support this vindication of God theory? I definitely look forward to your research in the next Proclamation! Thanks for your response, Stan | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 1867 Registered: 12-2003 |
No, there are absolutely no quotes. The idea of Satan "accusing" God is ludicrous. There is a great difference between Satan accusing the "brethren" (Christians) and accusing God. There is no doubt at all that Satan knows and understands Who God is and what He's about. James even wrote that just knowing who God is, is worthless without faith. "Even the demons believe thatóand shudder" (James 2:19) The idea of Satan accusing God of unfairly placing rules and laws that are "un-keepable" over his creatures is completely unbiblical. This idea is SO CLOSELY retlated to the idea of Jesus and Lucifer being "equal" opponents in heaven. This whole idea is a very subtle but powerful claim of Satan's to possessing a level of authority and prestige that has the right to accuse God. SATAN IS A CREATURE. He has no more authority over God or permission to question God than does any other angel or human. He exists because God created him. After all, where does any human question God in the Bible and receive God's rational, logical, three--dimensional answer? Job and his friends thought they understood how God worked, and Job the Righteous ended up repenting in sackcloth and ashes. David cried to God with questions, but God did not supply answers. The Pharisees asked Jesus for a sign to signify His true identity, but Jesus gave thenm no sign "except the sign of Jonah"--His own resurrection from death. God does not answer our questions in the ways we expect as humans. God does not bow to our limited and petty demands that He account for Himself to us. Romans 9 is clear that we have no right to question God's ways. He Is Sovereign. The "new, improved, evangelical" IJ is, to my way of thinking, far more sinister and indicative of the demonic (yes, there's that word again!) involvement in its formation than is the original. The original doctrine is clearly unbiblical when you look closely at it. The "vindication of God" theory is dangerous because is masquerades as fitting the "grace paradigm". In reality, however, it diminishes God and elevates Satan to a status that give him the right and power to questions God and to impugne Him to an entire creation--not just to fallen humans. The Bible does say even the angels long to look into the issues of salvation, and God reveals His wisdom through the church to the "rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms" (Eph 3:10), but this situation is NOT angels questioning God's power, decisions, and authority. No, any way you look at it, the IJ exalts Satan and diminishes God. Satan is already defeated (Col 2:15). He no doubt gives God a "hard time" in many ways, but his "right" to supposedly question God's motives and God's "obligation" to honor his free will is simply not Biblical. All creatures and decisions and events are within God's sovereign will. God has to prove Himself to no one. The creatures' call is to surrender to and trust their Creator. The cross of Jesus put to rest any possible concerns about what God might be doing by allowing sin to "flourish." No judgment will be held to vindicate God. His cross is His "vindication", and His resurrectionóthe sign of Jonahóis the only sign He will give to a wicked and perverse generation. There is no judgment where the Judge will be either judged or vindicated. He Is Sovereign Lord of Lords and King of Kings! Colleen | ||
| Freeatlast Registered user Username: Freeatlast Post Number: 356 Registered: 5-2002 |
God's REPUTATION?????!!!!!!! "For God so loved the world that He gave His ONLY SON that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal life." God's REPUTATION?????!!!!!!!!!!!!! AGH! I need to sit down, breathe, and count to 10... | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 1868 Registered: 12-2003 |
EXACTLY, Freeatlast! ...8...9... Colleen | ||
| Dt Registered user Username: Dt Post Number: 27 Registered: 4-2005 |
Colleen, thanks for that. You are right, the Gospel does change lives. Just thinking about and reading about the gift of salvation without any "buts" is just such a breath of fresh air. Why do people insist on cluttering up the clarity and purity of the Gospel message with all of this garbage? Those who rework the IJ to try and make it fit with the concept of salvation as a gift soon leave themselves nowhere to go but away from Adventism. When the foundation is based on EGW there is just no room for their theories. They are left with 2 choices, either go back to the IJ as "shown" or dump it and run as fast as you can. | ||
| Heretic Registered user Username: Heretic Post Number: 68 Registered: 2-2005 |
This "new and improved" IJ is yet another example of "Present Truth". What's "truth" today may not have been "truth" yesterday and probably won't be the same "truth" tomorrow. Ay carumba! It's enough to drive you nuts! | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 226 Registered: 3-2005 |
Thanks everyone, for your helpful insights. It may be that Mr Kersten is reading our website, and your responses will help him, but I will be responding formally to him when I get home. It seems that Pastor O'Ffill thinks that the position stated previously by Mr Kersten is orthodox, but it shows how if you clothe a doctrine with certain language, you can fool even those who claim to believe the original version as stated in GC by EGW. Thanks again for all your prayers for this situation. Stan | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 374 Registered: 7-2004 |
I've found an interesting thread at R/S and I invite some of you to have a look at it and comment. http://www.revivalsermons.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=312 | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 1871 Registered: 12-2003 |
Belva, interesting thread. Was it last summer we discussed here a similar church plant in Colorado (I think it was)? I believe many Adventists are troubled by the church for several reasons: 1) many realize that traditional Adventism doesn't teach the Biblical gospel of grace, and they know grace must be taught; 2) traditional Adventism is "dated" and doesn't generally attract young people; it's characterized generally by "dead" services; 3) they are increasingly disturbed by the centralized policy of collecting tithes and church's suggesting that the denomination, not the local churches is the "storehouse". I'm sure there are other concerns as well, but these seem to be the ones I've heard most over the past 10 years. Most of these break-away churches are trying to leave behind some of these "problems". The problem they don't understand (at least yet!), is that unless they actually deal with Adventism, they will find the same political problems, unrest, competition, and emptiness in their new churches that they experienced in the conference churches. Some of these people may actually find Jesus and be led inexorably toward Him and eventually out of Adventism altogether. As long as they hold to Adventist doctrines (ie Sabbath, EGW as somehow significant, some version of the IJ) they are still claimed by the spirit of Adventism. I know from experience that God doesn't leave people alone; if these "break aways" are honest in desiring truth, Jesus will find them and call them. If, however, they are truly loyal to Adventism but want situations less controlled by the organization, they'll still face differenct versions of the problems they tried to run from. Eight or nine years ago there were several pastors who were fired from Adventism. I interviewed several of them for Adventist Today. The two I interviewed whom I know have truly gone on to develop authentic, stable, growing Christian churches are Richard Fredericks and Clay Peck. While I don't actually know the current situations of all the others, several of them, I know, have struggled to maintain congregations long term. From my distant perspective, the significant difference I see in Clay and Richard is that they clung tightly and single-mindedly to Jesus and the new covenant gospel. Many of the others retained some loyalty to the Sabbath or held more strongly to a charismatic view rather than a "Jesus alone, come what may" perspective. I do think the SDA church in North America is splintering; the growth of Adventism in other parts of the world (particularly third world) is the church's hope. They're struggling desperately to call people back; to find some way to make returning "attractive". AFter all, there may be great numbers in the third world, but it's North America where the money is. I see these break-aways as events of potential for people to be freed from denomination control enough to search for Jesus and discover the gospel. I do not see them, however, as any sort of hopeful sign that the church is "changing". They are still Adventist, no matter what they call themselves. And, whether or not people are at places in their experience to recognize it yet or not, holding onto confidence in some form to Ellen's authority leaves them still claimed by Adventism. Praise God that He doesn't leave us alone; He knows us, He calls us, He changes our hearts, He removes the veil from our spiritual eyes. Jesus is our all-in-all! Colleen | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 375 Registered: 7-2004 |
It seems to me that these break-away congregations are validations (at least to historical SDA's) of EGW's predictions of the shaking time just before the time of the end. Having been raised in this sort of atmosphere where everyone was searching, almost, for evidence of the shaking time, almost any new move in almost any direction would bring about yammering about "the shaking time," and so it does on that thread. My question is, how do we counsel with people who are moving out, and how do we counsel those who are watching the moving out? Both of these groups are being effected by this old EGW prophecy. Thus they are being blinded to grace. It is almost as though EGW knew that there had to be these distractions built into SDAism in order to keep people blind to the real truth. I have no answers for this. I watch it in awed wonder. Not all awe is good awe, by the way. I have a sense of horror these days when I hear SDA friends and family start to speak of the Shaking Time. They see me as being a result of that, and that I've been shaken out. Their frustration with me was also voiced by someone on the thread where they were hoping that their daughter had been shaken out into the cold world, because they feel that if their loved ones go out "into the world" they will see their need and return to "mother church" when they see the last moves (Sunday law) being put into place, but those who go out "into Babylon" (their term for going out of SDAism into another denominational, or even non-denominational form of worship) then the individuals "will be too complacent and not want to come back to the home base of SDAism. Am I phrasing this correctly? This whole Shaking Time theory becomes just another method whereby SDA's can be kept blind to Jesus and the wholeness of Grace. They continually strive to find a Jesus plus something more type of worship. Why can't they see that Jesus is enough? Belva | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 1434 Registered: 3-2004  |
AMEN to every thing you said, Colleen. Some dear SDA friends, in Virginia, are in the process of starting another SDA church that is more friendly and caring then the other churches in the area. As you said above, as long as they cling to the SDA beliefs and EGW, it will not succeed in the long run. The lady, we share the same name, and I are still good friends and she does not get after me about not being SDA. I am so thankful for that. God, Take care of Richard and Diana, that they will come to know and accept only Jesus. You are awsome, Lord. Diana | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 376 Registered: 7-2004 |
This is another interesting thread to read if you have the time. I find it to be amazing that they are hashing over the same things we have celebrated over. http://www.revivalsermons.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=578&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 | ||
| Heretic Registered user Username: Heretic Post Number: 69 Registered: 2-2005 |
Call it what you want, but if the "core doctrines" are Adventist then it's all a facade, even if they don't realize it. I'm reminded of what someone posted here a while back (don't remember who)...It's like putting lipstick on a pig. | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 231 Registered: 3-2005 |
Heretic, Yes, these so called evangelical SDAs are just putting lipstick on a pig of a doctrine called the Investigative Judgment, but it plain doesnt't work. No offshoot of SDA will ever survive either, as the whole structure of doctrines is built on sinking sand. Any person who is truly regenerate, and studies these doctrines, will by definition be lead away from this entire system. Stan | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 377 Registered: 7-2004 |
Oh, Hallelujia and Amen. Case in point to watch: Bill Mead. | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 378 Registered: 7-2004 |
I'm not sure if what I wrote above will be taken well. I've read some very grace-filled posts by Brother Bill, and he has been set upon by the SDA crew over at R/S on numerous occasions. He keeps soldiering on, too. He is one of those who is trying to make Grace wear the lipstick of IJ, though. One of these days he will have to choose. BL | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 608 Registered: 10-2004 |
What's amazing with Bill Mead is that he's been an SDA for something like 50 years--the whole time trying to believe contradictory things! Jeremy |
