| Author | Message | ||
| Rossbondreturns Registered user Username: Rossbondreturns Post Number: 237 Registered: 10-2009  |
Jim02, It took me more than 13 years of Holy Spirit led Bible study to fully leave Adventism behind. But I wasn't studying alone...and you won't be studying alone...you will be like I was... and continue to be. We will both be studying under the Holy Spirit, GOD the Holy Spirit. The God who led me out of Adventism isn't about to lead me BACK INTO Adventism. It's not going to come to a point where the Holy Spirit goes..."My bad, you can head back to Adventism." | ||
| Jrt Registered user Username: Jrt Post Number: 1189 Registered: 10-2008 |
Jim, What do you mean by closer to a functional model? And my second question is, To what extent time wise have you spent in studying cosistently just scripture? A day, two days, a week? Spiritually speaking, truth is not a system of beliefs where you try to find common ground. Truth is found in Christ. And I agree you will not be studying alone ... You have the Holy Spirit to guide you. I'm just trying to understand. Jrt | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12904 Registered: 12-2003  |
I totally agree with Jrt, Jim. Truth is not a system of beliefs. It's Jesus. If you are trusting Him, Scripture will not lead you to Adventism. That's a promise. If Scripture screams "Adventism" to you, I have to wonder if you are really trusting Christ. It is HE you need to see, not a system of beliefs. You have to surrender to Him your "Right" to "understand". You just have to trust Him to reveal truth and reality to you through His word. Scripture reveals what God wants us to know about Him. But it doesn't make sense unless we are trusting Jesus and surrendering our right to "understand". We have to be willing to let go of what we know and love and receive Him into the empty places. Colleen | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1267 Registered: 5-2007 |
Jrt, Functional, as in , at least it is consistant and makes more sense to me when it comes to the passages that allude to the commandments, admonitions and test against the law as a standard. In the SDA , as I unofficially understand it, grace is a gift of God, Christ's merit and atonement, it is a safe place to grow towards right living and away from sin. While we cannot earn our way by the works of the law, the law nonetheless is the standard by which we are warned away from sin. Grace and living in by The Spirit is a change from within that gives us a Spiritual sense and helps and enables us to move away from sin. As we grow, we understand that we will never be sinless in this dispensation, however, then we get into other theology and not my point here. They seem to make sense between the aspects that point towards the 10C as the standard. The fat that the 4th is omitted either means it is being ignored by the mainstream or the 10C is NO LONGER the standard period. If that is so , I also reject the idea that 9 of 10 are reinstated. I submit , no law , LAWm has been reinstated, OR, the 10C remain the standard. Why I ask you do we feel the 4th is no longer valid? God is still our Creator, He blessed the day, He never removed His blessing from that day. He never said, The 10 C are canceled. We extrapolate and assume He said it, but He did not. The command to delete the 10C is not given. But Paul takes another tact, we are not under it' supervision. If that is in fact the case. Then why the models based on the 10C ? As for study. I have studied my Bible non stop for years. I have read my Bible daily most days for decades. But it is a closed loop study which is why I have reached out to see if I am missing something. My Right to Understand. It's not a right, it is a gift. It is a prayer. Gambling , is that faith? When I am expected to take a leap of faith when the teaching makes no sense? When the instructions are paradoxial? I am not saying I don't understand what I read and what people are saying. I am saying, I have not been able to firm up a defense to take either approach. Both sides have good points and both sides are in the Bible. The SDA do a poor job in explaining Paul. The mainstream do a poor job in explaining admonitions, warnings, grafted out, not included,once saved, Hell,and ignoring the 4th C. I desire the merged truth of both sides and nothing left out , nothing glossed over, redefined or assumed. The Bible is the measure of truth, but both camps ignore or discount half of it. If the law is canceled, I need to know it. If it is reenstated 90% it was never canceled at all. Jim | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 2068 Registered: 7-2007 |
Jim; how can you say the SDA church is closer to scripture? (If that is what you're saying.) Let's take a few points: 1. SDAs take part of the New Covenant and part of the Old Covenant and mix them together. For example, not only is the Sabbath command never repeated in the New Covenant, but the New Covenant (New Testament) says that it doesn't matter if someone whether someone esteems one day higher than another. (Romans 14:5,6) (Another couple verses that say that ALL the Sabbaths were shadows of Jesus is Colossians 2:16,17.) SDAs think that the 10 were from eternity. In Deuteronomy 5:3; Moses said to Israel: "The LORD did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, those who are here today, all of us who are alive." To review that the Old Covenant was the 10, see Deut. 4:13. 2. SDAs say that the laws given to Israel concerning the "clean" and "unclean" meats represented health laws. Nothing could be further from the truth. Look at what Leviticus 20:24-25 "...I am the LORD your God, who has separated you from the peoples. You shall therefore separate the clean beast from the unclean, and the unclean bird from the clean..." It was PEOPLE that the "unclean" meats represented. Peter understood that when he told the Gentiles gathered at Cornelius' house (after his vision of the sheet full of unclean animals); "God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean." (Acts 10:28) So it's obvious that SDAs are wrong about this. 3. Ellen White said (therefore SDAs believe) that Jesus DID NOT go into the Most Holy Place in Heaven in 1844. There are several verses in Hebrews that clearly refute that. Here's one in Hebrews 6:19-20. I'll put down the King James Version because you can buy an electronic concordance in that version where you can type in the words: "within the veil." Every reference that says "within the veil," obviously refers to the Most Holy Place. "Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil; Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec." Here's all the references in the electronic concordance that I'm using (KJV) that says: "within the veil." Exodus 26:33 "...that thou mayest bring in thither within the veil the ark of the testimony..." Leviticus 16:2 "...into the holy place within the veil before the mercy seat, which is upon the ark..." Leviticus 16:2 "...and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small and bring it within the veil..." Leviticus 16:15 "...bring the blood within the veil..." Numbers 18:7 "...thou and thy sons with thee shall keep your priest's office for every thing of the altar, and within the veil..." Hebrews 6:19-20 ...and which entereth into that within the veil; Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus..." So I ask, why would you let a religion that twists scripture be your guide? | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 2069 Registered: 7-2007 |
If you only accept Jesus the way that SDAs are taught to accept Jesus, you will be eternally lost, because SDAs don't accept Jesus' finished work. Jim; are you reading what I'm writing? | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12909 Registered: 12-2003 |
Jim, the law is cancelled: Colossians 2:14; Romans 3:19-22; 4:14-17; 10:4; Hebrews 8, etc. The law is cancelled for everyone who places their faith in the Lord Jesus. It has not been reinstated. Scripture NEVER suggests that it has. Moreover, Hebrews makes an excellent argument that I never thought of as an Adventist. The law was inseparable from the institution of the levitical priesthood, the sacrifices, the tabernacle, the human intercession for Israel's sin. The decalogue was just the outline statement of the old covenant, and it was meaningless apart from the levitical priesthood. When the priesthood, which provided the skeleton of the law, was replaced by the Lord Jesus, the law was also replaced. Hebrews 7:12 says, "For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also." None of the old covenant, of which the 10 Commandments were the actual "words of the covenant" (Ex. 34:28), apply any longer. We have a new law—the Holy Spirit written on our hearts. The 10 are obsolete. Jesus is our new law...He is our new righteousness; He is our new priest; He is our sacrifice; He is our tabernacle; He is our bread of life; He is our Passover lamb; He is our Sabbath. Jesus is everything the law demonstrated. Everything. When we are in Him, we enter a new covenant not written on stone. Colleen | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1270 Registered: 5-2007 |
Yes Asurprise , I am reading what you write. Sometimes it is a lot to absorb. As is what happens when I bring up too many things in one string. I am not ignoring your writings, please know that. I either came down with a nasty cold today or the worse hayfever attack yet. Feeling rough. I have Pecan groves near by and they have been mowing past few days, wind blowing this way, powder dry, no rain , weed pollen. Been taking cayenne, honey, cough drops and aspirin. | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1271 Registered: 5-2007 |
In my functional statements, I think I am expressing sentiments as much as anything tangible. Yes , I do see the points made in Asurprise's references. I place these on the Grace side. But there are a few that cause me to turn or hesitate. For example; Paul mentions honor your father and Mother, the first with a promise. Not a reinstatement, but a model reference to the 10c. Then in James, the law of liberty, pretty sure is modeling the 10c as well. These I place on the "standard" side. We know that sin existed before the law was given. The SDA implies or assumes that the law existed from creation at least, though no scripture supports that. I think this is backward retroactive rationalization based upon God does not change. Now mind you, I freely admitt that I find all kinds of issues with SDA teachings, legalism for one, mortifaction, oppressive disciplines in practice, leave with more problems that you walked in with and so forth. Nor do I defend or rely upon EGW for theology or interpretations. I was shown statements have always annoyed me. Built in denialbility. "I was shown could be taken as prophetic or intuitive in nature. I am too sick to keep writing. I will try to do more soon. When my thinking is clear. Ha !  Jim | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 2072 Registered: 7-2007 |
Jim; the law's only purpose is to point out sin, but a believer isn't saved or lost by his/her keeping of the law. Romans 7:2-4 gives the example of a woman who's husband dies. When he dies, she is released from "the law of her husband," so she isn't called an adulterous when she marries another man. In the same way, verse 4 goes on, we "have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that [we] may be married to another--to Him Who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God." Another good example practically dropped into my lap today at work. A lawyer called, trying to get a hold of a patient whom he was supposed to represent. The patient is due in court tomorrow. I looked the patient up and the patient is dead. (I put the lawyer through to the Release of Information department.) Since the patient is dead, the law cannot touch him. Neither the law nor the penalty of the law can touch this patient. He is dead to the law. Yes Jim; the law points out sin, but because Jesus paid the WHOLE penalty, those who accept Him are forever saved. "There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus..." Romans 8:1 | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1273 Registered: 5-2007 |
Asurprise, How do your interpret or apply in practical terms the phrase "God forbid, we establish the law" ? I am not arguing with you. I am trying to bring out the things that are conflicting to me. BTW: I have been listening to two sermons this past week each morning on Grace and Law. Plus I have just begun a study in Galatians. Also I just ordered a book 'Balancing the Christian Life' by Charles Ryrie. I am making an effort to get this cleared up. I have been going in circles too long already. I had the thought today, I probably will not be able to answer every question and doubt, or points of confusion. But if I can at least realize the tilt of the balance of weight for one over the other. I may finally find conviction to make a choice. Jim | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1274 Registered: 5-2007 |
Rossbondreturns, It's been a long road. About ten years all together. It stuns me that it has taken this long. There are times I feel as if God is leading me, then other times, I feel as if God is not pleased with me at all. I cycle between guilt, confusion and frustration. Occasionaly I give up and just stop thinking. Maybe it is all a part of the process. There were things in my life that I thought would always be there, I could count on. Things I depended on. Funny how all that can slip away. Learning all over again. Jim | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 2076 Registered: 7-2007 |
Jim; The law establishes our guilt. That verse is Romans 3:31. All the preceding verses show how we are all guilty because we have all sinned. The purpose of the law is to show us how far short of the standard of God we all fall. It's to drive us to the Savior, not drive us to "keep" the law. That's not our job. That's the Holy Spirit's job and we're not saved or lost by how good a job the Holy Spirit does in us. Paul didn't put the chapter breaks in. Read the next chapter. It tells about how Abraham and all of us are justified by faith, not the works of the law. "Religion" is man's attempt to be right with God. Adherents to religion add legalism (ie "keeping the law") in order to be "right" with God. They don't really believe salvation is a free gift. They cannot believe it could really be that simple. The trouble is, they cannot keep the law. They might even get their lives so down to a "T" that even their neighbors are fooled. But their hearts are still dirty and they're driving themselves mad with the frenzy they feel trying to "keep" the law. They aren't resting in Jesus. And they don't trust God's ability to clean them up. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12913 Registered: 12-2003 |
Great answer, Asurprise. Jim, the problem with "we establish the law" from our perspective is that we were taught that phrase with false definitions. We were taught that the sentence, "We establish the law" means we uphold the law as something to keep. That definition has absolutely nothing AT ALL to do with the context. Asurprise explained the context of that verse: the law is not bad; it is holy, just and good. The problem, according to Romans 7, is our sin. Because of our sin, the law kills us; it is not a means of overcoming sin. But we were actively taught that "we establish the law" means "we know we have to keep the law...don't be stupid like Sunday-keepers." (I know, I've exaggerated...but this WAS the message.) In context, "we establish the law" means we acknowledge and "own" the fact that God gave the law to make us feel guilty. He gave the law to cause people to become even more sinful than they were without the law and to become absolutely overcome by helplessness as they began to perceive their own sinfulness. He gave the law to bring Israel to despair...and to turn to Him for rescue. But we weren't taught that. The way we were taught that text—out of context and with a wrong definition of "establish"—is the same sort of thing as used to happen when people believed that the night air carried bad humors and made people sick, so people kept their windows shut at night. People were seriously taught that the night air was dangerous and would make them sick, that it was healthier to sleep in a stuffy room than to let the night air in. Jim, you have to be wiling to read those words in context from a biblical worldview. You are still reading those words through a great controversy worldview like we learned them. The words don't mean what we learned they mean. Go back and read Romans 3, 4, and 5. NOWHERE does Paul explain that establishing the law means it is an external guide to Christian behavior. In context, he is explaining that it exists as an effective means of both increasing sin and convicting people of sin. It is not a standard of Christian behavior; such an idea is never taught anywhere. Colleen | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1276 Registered: 5-2007 |
Asurprise, Colleen, I am puzzled by the attention in teh NT given to pointing out sin and Paul telling people how they should live. It seems to be a mix of discipline and coaching through love and warnings. The SDA teach about getting cleaned up, getting rid of all sin, and so we work ourselves silly in the hopes that we are making the grade. No peace. As Asurprise pointed out. This morning, Pastor David Jerimiah said (paraphrased) that when people who are fallen out of grace and are wounded, they do better to seek consolation from drug addicts and prostitutes. Because among some church members (legalists) they will be ripped to shreds. I wonder about this thing called no condemnation. While not a license, maybe it teaches us patience with the unseemly folks we all deal with. People melt with acceptance and compassion even when they know they are messed up. No condemnation restores self respect and hope in people who cannot even look up. Saved to the uttermost, is it too good to be true? How do we hold the two realities of sin and grace in tension? Jim | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12915 Registered: 12-2003 |
Jim, we have to remember that the epistles were written to BELIEVERS. Those people were already saved, born again. As Adventists we were not taught that we had to repent...not just admit that we sinned, but repent of our inherent, intractable death that led us to sin uncontrollably. Adventism does not teach that we must repent of who we are, not just of what we've done. The NT epistles were written to born again people who had already repented and received the Holy Spirit. Adventists taught the NT as if it were written to unbelievers who were trying to figure out how to be saved. That will NEVER work nor make sense. Jesus taught unsaved people how to be saved, and He taught repentance and called people to believe. Paul wrote epistles to believers and reminded them to live lives worthy of their calling. He was not calling them to maintain their salvation but was reminding them that as dearly beloved children of God, they had to submit their habits and sins to God and allow the Holy Spirit to change them. Romans 7 describes the frustration of being saved and looking to the law to manage one's sins...it doesn't work, and to look to the law once a person has been married to Christ is spiritual adultery, as Galatians explains so well. Romans 8 is the chapter that describes how to submit one's flesh to the Spirit. None of this is about being saved; it's about living in victory and in peace. Jim, you have to remember that the epistles are not describing how to become or maintain salvation. They are written to people who are already saved. Colleen | ||
| Joyfulheart Registered user Username: Joyfulheart Post Number: 858 Registered: 10-2006 |
Jim, the law's purpose is to bring us to Christ. The law shows us our need. Without the law we don't (can't know) that we're sinners. Are you a sinner? How do you know that? The law is not the standard of righteousness once we've come to Christ. Nobody can keep the law! We as believers who have been regenerated (born again) by water and the spirit follow the spirit as He leads, comforts and guides us into all truth now. The Holy Spirit is a real person - a bonafide memeber of the trinity. When I'm reading and studying and falling off track, the Holy Spirit convicts me of sin - not because I'm lost (the blood of Jesus has covered my sin), but because He loves me and wants me to live a holy life before Him. I want to live a God pleasing life not because I'm afraid of breaking the law. I love Jesus and have peace with God through Him. Jesus gave His life for me and no I want to live for Him. This is simply out of gratitude for all He has done for me. The fear is gone and I'm safe in His arms. You know Jim, it's completely possible to focus on the law and miss salvation. Sometimes I think you've missed the whole point of Jesus - who He is, what He came to do and what He accomplsihed on the cross. Instead of focussing on Paul's letters (which will become so clear and encouraging once you know the gospel), focus on the gospels. Read the gospel of John. It says that the purpose of John is that those of us who have not seen Christ Jesus in person might believe in His name and be saved. The old Adventist proof texts still at times go through my mind. Once you see how badly they are taken out of context to create doctrine that only Adventists believe I think it will be easier to not only set it aside - but renounce it as error. The biggest problem I see with the things you are struggling with is that those verses really are in the Bible. You've got to read the whole thing to get context. Without context, you can twist verses to create a whole host of doctrines barely recognizable to the historic Christian church. | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1277 Registered: 5-2007 |
Colleen, Repent, a change of mind, a change of heart, a change in attitude. To be clear, repent does not mean fighting to stop sin itself since that places the burden back on one's own strength. ? We present ourselves to Christ in the reality that we are in, the condition we are in. Does this relieve us of looking to self and one's struggle to overcome sins and weaknesses? Already saved. Once saved, always, to the uttermost. I am trying to hold to that as a starting point. "come to your senses and stop sinning" How? Through Christ alone? Or is it through a daily battle, a yoke? I look at just a couple issues in my own life. Emptyness, bitterness, , I struggle with bouts of anxiety. All these cause me to feel disqualified to reconnect, not good enough to be worth bothering with. In revelation it speaks of cowards not being in teh kingdom. If I cannot overcome my anxiety issues, I sometimes think I am lost on that alone. I hope that healing will come someday, at least a way to continue and cope. But it gets back to trying to be good enough to help fight off fear. I need freedom to heal, which means, I need to be saved to the uttermost or I cannot be saved at all. This is rooted in my perception of God, Law, and works. It is it's own bondage. Joyfulheart, You said;The law is not the standard of righteousness once we've come to Christ. Nobody can keep the law! J: That is part of my problem, linear thinking. If the law points out (defines) sin. Then we are told to stop sinning. It seems logical that we would 'include' the examples of the law that pointed out sin in the first place. Which is how I circel back to the 10c and the Sabbath. Again, I am trying to move away from the law entirely. I do not need the law to know I am in sin. In fact I am not even sure the OT era needed it either. Sin was in the world before the law was given. If I reflect from the law as written on tablets of stone, each law is infinite in it's application. I do not think even the purest mortal human can meet that. Because Law leads to legalism. Legalism leads to endless volumes of codes. Ask any lawyer or politician. Most churches model the 10C as an outline at minimum. I think this is a huge mistake. If indeed the law has ended. If any church can confirm to me that we should embrace the 10C, instant presto, back to the SDA I go. There is a passage that says, 'be not over righteous or over wicked, why destroy yourself before your time' (I have heard many spins on this one) To me, it says that legalism can consume you, even with the best of intentions. You can sin against a blade of grass. So, I ponder about what is the standard? It must be love, and in practical terms, a good quantity of common sense. We are to be led by The Holy Spirit. In what way, the ruminations of our thoughts? The preponderance of scripture, or That Still Small Voice? What about accepting those who conscience is weak, (as saying, hyper legalist), or the sould that is damaged and confused? How do they follow The Spirit? The Spirit is a broad and foggy concept. Like the wind , we can see it or define it. From my own experience, it is difficult to know if I am listening to God's thoughts or simply my own. I do my best to listen. But I get in the way. You said listen to the Gospels. I have been trying. Jim | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1279 Registered: 5-2007 |
Colleen I read again Romans 3 The last verse almost seems seems to stand alone. Which lends itself to the filter trap. 31Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. I try to link context. 20Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Here is my problem, I cannot even get the context of this chapter because it just said "without the law". How and why are we establishing the law? The question was , do we make void the law through faith. What law? How are we making it void? By refusing to see the sin it points out? If so , then why does it say 'without the law" Which way are we going? | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 2078 Registered: 7-2007 |
Amen Colleen! Jim; those people whom you see as "good", upstanding in the community, helping others, always smiling - do you realize that the righteousness of those people too, is filthy rags? Isaiah was a good and decent man, upstanding in his community and a prophet of God - yet look how he felt when confronted with the holiness of God: And I said: "Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!" Isaiah 6:5 And look what he said later in Isaiah... "But we are all like an unclean thing, And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags; We all fade as a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, Have taken us away." Isaiah 64:6 We don't make the law void, by our faith. The law condemns and kills the unbeliever. When we get saved, we are dead to the law, just like that patient for whom the lawyer was calling, who was dead. The patient was due in court the next day, but he was dead - forever beyond the reach of the law of the land. (I have no idea what he did - but it doesn't matter. He was dead.) When we get saved, we are no longer accountable to the law. That's not "license" either, because when a person gets saved, they are given the Holy Spirit, Who starts "fixing" them - fixing their wants and desires. Fixing them at the heart! I know the feeling of looking to myself to see how "dirty" I am. I think the Holy Spirit has been convicting me on this lately too. To simply surrender my bad tendencies to Him. To simply surrender ALL of myself to Him. To let go and let God. |
