| Author | Message | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 1977 Registered: 11-2002 |
It happened several years ago, Stan. I just remember the books didn't seem very grace or gosple centered. Maybe I should have plogged through my way to the end of each book. Instead I read about the first chapter of each book, and I think I'd bought around six books, and then chucked them. I don't feel bad about tossing out religious material I don't like. I've also thrown out a lot of SDA reading material as well as the Watchtower and Awakes when they are left at my door. Frankly, most religious reading material other than reading the Bible by itself I end up not finishing. Except that I do like being able to refer to my Strong's, a Bible dictionary and have some sort of references regarding the history and the culture of the area I'm learning about. I read a quote by EGW once where she said folks are not to rely on their own study of the Bible because if they do they will then be led into the churches of Babylon. So, I can only assume by that quote even she knew what she was writing and was teaching went contrary to what the Bible teaches. | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 28 Registered: 7-2005 |
Dear Stan, It was a time when I gave up Ellen White as a prophet, but returned back to believe in her. Why? She was a blessing to me because she insisted on the importance to receive the 1888 message. Without her support, I never searched and discover the Gospele in Galatians by Waggoner, who insisted that the old covenant was a covenant of works, a break in the adventist understanding. Of course, his position is inconsistent because he still uphold the Sabbath, but for the adventist is a big step forward toward understanding God's grace. Through his writings I understand that God accepted me based only on Christ's works, he even stated that the man is dead in sin and cannot even take the medicine which is given to him. Just so close to the TULIP he was (I'm now a believer in reformed faith). But, even if God use Ellen White pointing me to Waggoner, and moving me toward the gospel, what is good can't justifies what is wrong, like good works never compensate for sins. A false prophet is a false prophet not because he or she speaks a message 100% false, a lie in the beggining, a lie in the middle, and a lie at the end, but because she or he speaks lies in the name on God! Even if the prophet use many truths to cover up the lies, to give credibility to a false message. God can open the eyes of men even by using what is truth in the message of a prophet, or of other persons who have a limited understanding of the gospel. What I have learned from this is that I'm in danger to believe in a false prophet if I judge based ONLY on my experience. It was a good experience? ALL is good. But God never let me draw this conclusion because when I testified to my friends about the truths discovered, they used many words, and phrases from Ellen White who contradicted what I have learned. As an example, she says, after 1900, after she supported the interpretation of Galatians given by Waggoner, that the covenant which God made with Israel at Sinai is our refuge, and we must make the same pledge which Israel made at Sinai, a covenant of works, based on works, in blatant contradiction with Waggoner's position. This made me painfully aware that Ellen White was also a prophet which contradicted the gospel. If I have listen just to half of her message, that God showed her that Waggoenr is right about the covenants, and don't read what I wrote above, I have remained with the impression that she sustains the gospel, and only with the good part. But this is just a half message! The other half is in contradiction with this part, and is a curse. Many will be blessed by God in this way, using what is the good part in the message of others, but the danger is to draw conclusions based only on our limited experience, not knowing all that these preachers preache, and not judging all by what the Bible said. Stan, thanks for the insights, I appreciate your contribution. If I was trapped in legalism and believe that Ellen White was a prophet, what I needed was your direct approach. Jackob | ||
| Bmorgan Registered user Username: Bmorgan Post Number: 61 Registered: 7-2000 |
I hear what you are saying, Stan. It is important to adhere to sound bible teaching. I do understand God working through people, however, we cannot deny the flux of false teachers out there. I find the scriptures warn us strongly about contending for the faith. The Apostle Paul was bold and direct when confronting, speaking out against, or warning the believers about the false teachers and their teachings. However, I know I am limited and blind and partial to some teachers. I know enough to know I don't know much. I think, because so many of us here came from a spiritual dysfunctional background, we have to be understanding and patient with one another. Some have passion to expose and denounce the false teaching. It is unquenchable and undenialable and understandable. Give them a listening ear. Others are sensitive,not as verbally charged and/or more tolerant with and want to test the spirits for themselves much longer. Patience and understanding needed. To a man that is full, even honey tastes bitter, but one who is hungry, the bitter thing is sweet. Hence, the saying in Essentials_Unity, nonessentials_liberty but in all things_Charity In defense of Stan, I know he does not want to come across as a super-duper, know it all saint, and his passion for biblical clarity and truth is unmistakable and unquenchable. Go, Stan! I don't agree with you on everything, e.g. all of the Reform Theology argument. (No love lost, I hope). I agree with the people on your list. Sometimes I find John Mc Arthur a little hypercritical. Vernon McGee is simple but very direct warning about about false teachings. He denounces theological liberalism as being the falsest of the false (my expression). Susan, years ago, I would not accept a million dollars to listen to Vernon McGee.(Shame on me!) Treading softly isn't always the best way to go in defense of the faith. In my case, whether for good or ill, my christian friends never once challenged or confronted me when I was extremely vocal about my adventists falsehoods. I believe I suffered longer however, I see it now serves me a good purpose. God is Sovereign! He redeems everything. I do appreciate the discussion here. It is with frank sweetness and respect for all. In that vein, let me apologise if I hurt anyone. Sincerely bmorgan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 886 Registered: 3-2005 |
I appreciate your thoughts Bmorgan. I know that in the intensity of a discussion, I have this tendency to sometimes be too harsh. I am very passionate about the defense of the Christian faith, but sometimes I wish I could express myself better. Thanks Jackob for your testimony. I think it is exciting how God has worked in your life to lead you out of Adventism. I am also excited to see that you have come to an understanding of the marvelous sovereign grace of God contained in the Reformed faith. I would like to hear the story of how that came about as well. Adventism is rooted in a salvation by works system, but the Reformed faith of Luther and Calvin is rooted in salvation by grace alone through faith alone on the account of Christ alone. God bless you. Stan | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 317 Registered: 7-2004  |
Stan, You articulated well my concern when you said This was what I was alluding to with my statement that the ends can not justify the means. The fact that God is powerful enough to bring forth His truth even through a person teaching terrible errors about Him is a witness to God's power not to the acceptibility of the heresy being taught. I have no problem with meeting people where they are at or with providing appealing opportunities to interest people. A bigger question is where does it lead. The Gospel of self (health, wealth, happiness, self-esteem, self-worth....) is not the Gospel of Jesus. | ||
| Violet Registered user Username: Violet Post Number: 275 Registered: 2-2001 |
Jesus used a beer to get us out---He can use anything. | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 465 Registered: 4-2000  |
Ric, I prize your summary of the SDA paradigm being "The Gospel of self (health, happiness, self-esteem, self-worth...) is not the Gospel of Jesus." Very well stated, indeed! Dennis J. Fischer | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 299 Registered: 8-2004  |
It seems to me that the "Gospel of Self" is an excellent description of just about every false religion out there (also called Works). The only other catagory I can think of is the 'Gospel of Nothing' (Nirvana, or 'it's all in your mind' etc, also called Hopelessness). It's interesting to me how uncreative evil is. Then again, how could it be creative? Being truly creative is an attribute of God. Evil can only counterfiet and parody Reality. As C.S. Lewis once wrote, in a manner of speaking 'Hell is a state of mind, Heaven is Reality Itself.' (Message edited by helovesme2 on October 09, 2005) | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 887 Registered: 3-2005 |
Violet, What point were you trying to make with that last statement? Can you elaborate on "Jesus using a beer to get us out, He can use anything"? Does that mean anything goes in the name of Christ? I heard a great contemporary Christian song recently, and the first two lines speaks of what we are talking about quite well. "Some people build glass cathedrals in the name of Jesus" Some people sacrifice their very lives in the name of Jesus" Stan | ||
| Violet Registered user Username: Violet Post Number: 276 Registered: 2-2001 |
What I was trying to say is that the Lord can use anything to get a person to start searching in His word. Ours was a study of alcohol that started with one beer consumed in public after 10 years of abstinance and the Biblical vs the Adventist take on consumption. Once I saw that their view of total abstinance could not be Biblically supported I started looking for other things that could not be found in the Bible. Within 6 months of intense study I went from an every Saturday potluck lady to searching for a body of believers. Bottom line is never underestimate where God will start with someone. Then He leads them from there. Maybe PDL is a book loosley based on Biblical views, but eventhough it did not appeal it might be the one thing that gets them to transition into Bible study. We have to be very careful about getting an air about us that if someone is not in daily Bible study conversing about indepth ideas that they never will be. Remember you can only eat the elephant one bite at a time. V | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 1104 Registered: 7-2003  |
Stan, have you read John Piper's position on Saturday night services? I found it disappointing... http://www.desiringgod.org/library/fresh_words/2005/100505.html | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 301 Registered: 8-2004 |
From a cursury glance at the article, it seems that John Piper is of the 'Replacement Theology' School. He seems to preach Sunday Sacredness, while at the same time coming up with arguments to worship at other times. I find it strange to claim any time as a Bad time to worship God. Mary | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 889 Registered: 3-2005 |
Hi Melissa, Yes, WE AGREE Yay! The traditional Reformed position on Sabbatarianism is the only major point I disagree with them on. This position is not Biblically defensible, and I will say this even though I respect deeply so much of his material. By the way, I picked up the book from my shelf "Desiring God", and it was something I needed very much, as sometimes we can all feel spiritually dry. But my spirit was inspired today when I read the intro. None of us our completely right on our theology including the best of teachers like Piper. But thanks for sharing that. Stan | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2684 Registered: 12-2003  |
There are so many people that come to this forum who are jaded or fearful or searching or lonely, etc., because what they believed to be truth has turned out to be delusion. They are shaken from their foundation--much as a house slides off a foundation in an earthquake. How does one become solid and permanant again after such a shock? What I have discovered in my continuing journey from Adventism into the true body of Christ is that my understanding of Jesus and God's will and His sovereignty and the signficance of the details of theology have changed quite significantly as the years have passed. Adventists are strongly Arminian--even Pelagian: in other words, they honor total human free will to the point that man is the center of reality. In spite of this unbiblical belief, God still calls His own. As Ephesians 2:5 says, He brings them to life while they are still dead in their transgressions. And most of us here were at one time in that very condition. I suspect that most of us here honored human free will much more than God's sovereignty when Jesus finally woke us up to the true gospel. But God doesn't leave His people in their limited experience of reality after He saves them. In His own time and way, He persistently leads us into truth at deeper and deeper levels. He teaches us through His word, and He reveals Himself and His complete sovereignty over all creation--including us! I really believe there's no good way to "hurry up" the process of discovering who God really is. Once we've been brought to life, we are His, and the job of our change and growth is His. I believe we need to talk about these things; we need to hear each other proclaiming God's power and grace and faithfulness and sovereignty. I also believe, however, that we really don't personally have to convince those who see things differently. Disagreement is fine, but we really can't convince another person of the sovereign majesty of God by debate. My understanding of God's sovereignty grew gradually over the first few years after leaving Adventism. I feel quite passionate at this point about the all-worthy, sovereign reign of the Lord Jesus, and I am compelled to defend what I have learned and experienced. On the other hand, I see that many people are just blossoming into the awareness of God's forgiveness and grace in Jesus. I can trust them to God to reveal Himself and His sovereign centrality in His own time. I am growing in my conviction that what we believe, matters deeply. Again referring to Mary's Chambers quote on another thread, as we are willing to let go of our rationalizing and dearest beliefs, God calls us to Himself and asks us to hold onto Him instead of holding onto what we treasure. That treasure includes our desire to be the central value in our own lives. I can, however, trust God with those who don't see it as I do. That said, I found Piper's defense of the Sabbath truly disturbing. I think I'm going to do something: in his book "Don't Waste Your LIfe", Piper quotes McGregor Wright, the man who wrote "The Unity of the Law" in the Julyu/August Proclamation. I'm going to send Piper a copy of that July/August Proclamation and point him to Wright's article. It so clearly shows that Sabbatarianism, even of Sunday, is unbiblical. So, while I believe God brings us along at His own speed and in His own time, I further believe that even those we resepct (let alone myself!), continue to have areas in which they need to grow. Sometimes God opens doors for us to present doctrinal insight even to those who already trust Him. That said, I'm going to prepare an envelope for John Piper! Colleen | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 892 Registered: 3-2005 |
Colleen, I agree. I hope he responds. Even R.C. Sproul, who is most godly and everytime I tune in to hear his radio show, I am so moved that I get goose bumps--but even he won't respond to those like John Reisinger of www.soundofgrace.com who have challenged him on this subject. I am sure we all have our spiritual blind spots, but the Westminster Confession gets in the way of reason. However, the late James Montgomery Boice did change his position on this issue late in his life, but it was highly significant because he was a PCA pastor who also abided by the Westminster confession. Stan | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 1105 Registered: 7-2003 |
I'm curious about a phrase I hear from those who come from adventism (more than others) that I really must say throws me, as I'm not quite used to it.... It's that phrase about what someone "wants" to believe. Maybe it is symantics, but from my perspective it initially may not be that entrench in "want" as "taught". For example, to use a safer discussion, I was taught in my baptist upbringing that alcohol was bad. It's not something I would have ever said I "wanted" to believe, it's just something I was taught and having seen an alcoholic uncle up close and personal, I had no questions about that "truth". But as I got older and saw more and more Christians drinking in moderation, it forced me to study for the first time what I had been "taught". So, sometimes it sounds unnecessarily accusatory or belittling to say someone is believing what they "want" when I know personally there are things I"ve been "taught" that I've never really questioned. I'm sure many SDAs would use that in their own defense as well, they've not really questioned what they've been taught until forced to by someone or something. Sure, I'm human as anyone and don't "want" to think someone has lied to me, either intentionally or just by passing along bad information, but that doesn't always mean that just because someone believes something it is what they "want". Just as another example, it is not because I find comfort in the doctrine of eternal punishment that I believe it. I would quite rather believe in temporary punishment. But I don't know how to justify that with the real words of scripture. It is always peculiar to me when someone says that is just what I "want" to believe as though I'm some monster that finds joy in the suffering of others. Does anyone else stumble on that wording? I know B has used it in a derogatory, accusing tone, so maybe I'm just hypersensitive to it. But since knowing B, it's been really challenging to realize how many things I've accepted just because I was taught it without ever intensely "studying" it for myself. Don't we all do that to some point? As long as parents teach kids, much of what we learn growing up, to some degree, is just accepted. Then we spend an adulthood proving it, refining it, or tossing it altogether. Am I out in left field on this observation? Now, having said all that, I'm sure there are people that will never change their views no matter what evidence is presented to them, and we may justifiably say "want" with them, but do we automatically presume that at the start? (Not looking for a fight, just asking questions)  | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 304 Registered: 7-2004  |
Intersting observation, Melissa. I hadn't noticed the "want to believe" terminology before, but now that you bring it up, I know what you're talking about. I'm pretty sure the reason it's heard so often with Adventism is because to SDA's, they have the undeniable truth. Therefore, if someone believes anything different than that, especially if they've been told the facts, then they are just believing what they "want to believe" instead of believing the facts. As you've pointed out, it's just not that simple! Another common term I've heard among SDA's, and which has been said to me since we left, is that we will be "judged by what we believe" at the end of time--as if we're going to have to pass a theology test on what we should have or could have "known"! | ||
| Esther Registered user Username: Esther Post Number: 250 Registered: 5-2004 |
Since I was gone over the weekend and haven't caught up on the discussion yet, I'm not sure if the reference fits or not. However, coming from the SDA background, and now being a reciprocate of the term, I've always ever known it to be somewhat derogitory. Sadly, I remember having conversations in school about people "choosing" to believe a lie and being "duped" by the false religious systems of these days. I believe the thought behind it is, "we have the truth, they don't, the truth is open and easy to believe...if a person WANTS to". or something like that. God forgive me for my arrogance! Now, I get the term applied to me when what I'm saying doesn't add up to my family. "You don't want" or "that's just what you want to believe" etc. I guess what goes around, comes around | ||
| Heretic Registered user Username: Heretic Post Number: 197 Registered: 2-2005 |
Lately, I have noticed this type of terminology, as well. One of my relatives in particular has been using the term "choose to believe" in relation to herself. She has read some materials I had given her including select chapters of "Sabbath in Christ" and the transcript of Clay Peck's "An Appeal to the Heart" sermon. She said on a couple of occasions, "I can see your point now about some of this, but I choose to believe in Sabbath-keeping." She also admits the the Investigative Judgement has no Biblical basis but refuses to investigate anything further, even clinging to EGW as a legitimate prophet, using that same terminology in regards to her as well. Frustrating, frustrating, frustrating. My forehead is getting calloused from all the banging into the wall. Heretic | ||
| Tisha Registered user Username: Tisha Post Number: 142 Registered: 3-2005 |
I still don't see where Warren teaches a self-centered gospel rather than Christ-centered. The very first thing stressed in PDL is that "it is not about me", it is about what God wants from me. It brings everything together from the perspective of what God's plan is. When we did the series at our Church, we all began to use the phrase "it's not about me", whenever we started to complain, or worry, etc. It was avery positive because we now have a "tool" to bring us immediately back to a Christ-centered life rather that self-centered. It (for me, at least!) was a way to get me out of my head and into my body. I love studying the Bible, and having theological discussions. But this helped me to see where "the rubber meets the road". I still find that Warren always puts Christ first as the way to deal with real life situations - "It's not about me - It's all about HIM". It seems that one can be overly sensitive to a "program" since that was such a common way to gain SDA converts. But I don't think reaching out to people where they are at is wrong. The important thing is to show them that Jesus is the ONLY way to find true purpose, happiness, and fulfillment in our lives. I still think Warren does this. And if it is bringing lots of people to a saving faith in Jesus Christ, than I think that is good. From the study I have done about Seeker-oriented services, it is all about getting people's attention first, so that they can then hear the Gospel. And if these people then come to Christ, and are shepherded towards a full understanding of the Gospel and what that means in their lives, than I think that is good. Like Melissa and others said above - the Bible tells us that Jesus met the people where they were. He met there physical needs, and then met their spiritual needs after he had their attention. We can preach straight from the Bible, great theological sermons, to empty pews all day, but that will not lead many people to Christ. We need to either go out to the people or bring them in so they can hear the Good News and come to saving faith in Christ. That is the true test of whether something is of God or not. While I want to be discerning and vigilant against being deceived, I don't want to see bogeymen (EGW look-alikes) around every corner! I spent too many years looking at the negatives of Christianity (SDA - we are the only ones that do it right), now I want to see the positives! -tisha |
