| Author |
Message |
Depinho (Depinho)
| | Posted on Friday, November 22, 2002 - 3:44 am: |     |
Thanks for the input folks. Colleen, I think your pastor was particularly sound in his approach with you and your husband. He had his belief and he taught it but did not make it incumbent upon you to believe to share in the church. This is my argument and my point.
The more dogmatic we are about the non-essentials the more exclusive we become. I think that thinking, studying, praying people will come down on different sides of this issue if they study it.
We should be gracious when they don't agree with our position.
"Traditional" Adventism says we have it "right" and others are wrong. On some issues all Bible believers would agree, but lets make that list of issues thoroughly Biblical. Where honest people can disagree, let's argue our point "academically" and not reduce the issue to being a true or false doctrine. Orthodoxy and heresy.
God bless everyone!
Chaplain Dave |
Dennis (Dennis)
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 08, 2003 - 10:16 pm: | |
One's view of death and the afterlife is pivotal in soteriology (study of salvation) and Christology (study of Christ). Admittedly, as a former Adventist minister, soul sleep and annihilationism were my last two SDA strongholds to surrender from the heap of cherished untruths. Sadly, I spent many moments of my life making fun of traditionalism and the immortality of the soul. I well recall my arrogance in thinking that at least I knew EVERYTHING about the state of the dead. Furthermore, I felt truly sorry for all those people who were so dumb that they didn't even know what happens to them when they die.
As most of you know, Adventist dogma is predominantly visual (e.g., tablets of stone, sanctuary on earth same as in heaven, sabbathing, tithing, Ellenology, physical appearance, food laws, fire that consumes, Catholic pontiff, torture complex, death decree, ad infinitum). I could not actually see the soul or inner man anywhere. This observation and dilemma was somewhat akin to the Soviet cosmonaut that couldn't see God in outer space. The simplistic worldly view continues to be that SEEING IS BELIEVING. If you can't see it, it simply is not there. Period.
Significantly, a visual religion does not well integrate or mesh with the relational aspects of the Christian faith. To the law-monger, the Spirit-led life certainly would be viewed with utmost caution and/or suspicion. After all, the legalists must do this and they are required to do that. They rightfully fear that the Holy Spirit may not impress one to observe a certain day. For example, many distrust the Spirit-led life in regard to personal stewardship as well. Compulsory giving is frequently preferred to grace giving (especially among clergymen today). Evidently, a do-it-or-die theology will coerce compliance more readily. The new covenant of Jesus Christ has minimal visual aids compared to the Mosaic covenant. There is good reason for this. Being under the Law today, creates a faithless theology (exempla gratiae, disbelief in the gift of salvation here and now, no eternal security in Christ/no assurance of salvation, et cetera).
If Christ became nonexistent on the Cross, as conditionalists claim, then the Trinity would have been reduced to a Binity. Consequently, His atoning sacrifice would be in vain simply because something nonexistent does not await anything--much less a resurrection. The Christ Event is paramount to our salvation. Only one view of death can possibly be true. The bogus view cannot integrate with the essentials of the Christian faith. Indeed, a correct view of death is essential for our salvation. In other words, the way we view death is a salvific matter after all. Without a correct view of this important topic, we are hopeless and discouraged. In my view, only traditionalism integrates with all the essential truths of Christianity. Now really, are there two equally-good choices to believe about death?
In awe of Calvary,
Dennis J. Fischer |
Colleentinker (Colleentinker)
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 08, 2003 - 10:38 pm: | |
Thank you, Dennis. That was so well said. I'd never thought about it quite that way before.
Colleen |
Susan_2 (Susan_2)
| | Posted on Thursday, January 09, 2003 - 7:40 am: | |
Dennis, are you pastoring church now? Is you story on website so all can read it? How long were you a SAD minister? Did you get your SDA preacher training at Andrews? My little cousin just got his preacher degree from Andrews around two years ago. He is the youth & assistant pastor now at a SDA church in Southern California. I like going to the church he ministers at. No one talks English there so I don't feel assulted with hearing SDA doctrine. Besides they all teach the same things so I figure I know what is being preached anyway. Also, at this SDA church they have potluck weekly. And, a lot of chicken is served at the potluck and some beef, even. I asked how come hat is and was told that the Adventist church does not teach it is wrong to eat meat, it is wrong to eat the unclean meats and since that is a Korean congreation and meat is very important to their culture then they have meat at their potucks. I was told that even though the church is SDA you still don't go and tell someone to change their culture. |
Lydell (Lydell)
| | Posted on Thursday, January 09, 2003 - 9:07 am: | |
That's interesting Susan, the black SDA church we attended for a time also had meat at it's potlucks. The white congregation would have dropped dead from the shock of that.
Dennis, thanks for your post. Excellent point about Christ's death. I'd never thought of that before! |
Pheeki (Pheeki)
| | Posted on Thursday, January 09, 2003 - 11:16 am: | |
we are also discussing the state of the dead under the heading Problem Ellen White quotes if anyone would like to view that too. |
Jerry (Jerry)
| | Posted on Thursday, January 09, 2003 - 7:38 pm: | |
A Binity??? A Duology? A Duetheos? Couplesome-God? Bidiety?
ROTFL! It just gets toooooo strange. |
Lydell (Lydell)
| | Posted on Thursday, January 09, 2003 - 8:40 pm: | |
Dennis, I think that the SDA view of death also in many ways cuts them off from any deep communion with God. It closes the door to the more "supernatural" aspects of our walk with God.
About the only example I can think of as an illustration would be when a committed Spirit-filled Christian walks into a store that is selling New Age stuff and just gets the churning reaction in the spirit that something is seriously WRONG here. We had this happen when we were on vacation and walked into a gift shop. In the front of the store were the typical stuff we'd seen in all the other shops on the street. It just had a creepy atmosphere. As we moved further into the store, we started seeing the weird New Age junk and then understood what was happening.
My son told us about it happening when he was working as a computer repairman and went to an office he'd never been to before. He said that as soon as he walked thru the door he just got that weird feeling. The office just looked like a typical office. It was only after he had settled down to work on the computer that he glanced over to a table close by and saw that the secretary had a number of very odd books lyaing there. He said that when she came into the room, there was a definite chill that came with her. And then she began to talk to him, and it became clear that she was deeply into the Wiccan stuff. He's not the kind of person to freak out over stuff, but said that it had him creeped out enough that he made an excuse about not having the tool that he needed and quickly left.
Those kinds of things don't come from the mind, the intellect. There is a much deeper level of communication the Lord uses with us. It happens when we meet another believer and know before they ever open their mouths that they too are a Christian. Yeah, the spirit is definitely something seperate from just the "breath" in our lungs! |
Colleentinker (Colleentinker)
| | Posted on Thursday, January 09, 2003 - 9:44 pm: | |
So true. I've also found that there are times when in some way I can't explain a confusing situation suddenly becomes plain, and I have a deep sense of knowing that God has helped me to understand so I can trust him and not do something damaging or inappropriate. These kinds of understanding with the deep certainty that God had clarified things did not used to happen before I was born again. It sounds so terribly politically incorrect, but the Holy Spirit gives us the spiritual understanding to recognize good and evil, and that doesn't happen either in the mind or the lungs!
Colleen |
Susan_2 (Susan_2)
| | Posted on Thursday, January 09, 2003 - 10:25 pm: | |
So EXACTIALLY what criteria do the SDA's use when deciding what of EGW's advice they want to accapt and what they want to reject? Really, I have always wanted to get an honest answer to my question how they go about decideng what to accept and what to reject of her teachings, since she says all her dribble is by inspirtion of the Lord. |
Jerry (Jerry)
| | Posted on Friday, January 10, 2003 - 6:59 am: | |
EXACTLY how do they choose when to accept Godís word as precisely correct as originally written vs. dismiss, avoid, ridicule, augment with ìmissing meaningsî etc . . .
And PRECICELY what is the DIFFERENCE between the Bible as ì . . . infallible revelation . . . ì and Godís word without any error.
<drums fingers, taps feet, waiting, waiting, waiting . . .> |
Lydell (Lydell)
| | Posted on Friday, January 10, 2003 - 7:22 am: | |
I'll take a shot at your question Jerry and Susan. The answer is, you accept what she says when it is something you can use as a club over the head of someone else. And when it is something about you, then you can dismiss it. So much for inspiration, huh. |
Denisegilmore (Denisegilmore)
| | Posted on Friday, January 10, 2003 - 8:25 am: | |
Susan and Jerry,
I too, will take a shot...
My answer: Whatever is most convenient for them.
Do I pass or fail this thing btw? 
Denise |
Jerry (Jerry)
| | Posted on Friday, January 10, 2003 - 8:41 am: | |
Díoh! <slaps forehead>
Of COURSE!!!
What was I thinking!?
Lydell and Denise, you should submit your applications for head of the Theology Department at Andrews.
One of you just HAS to get it.
BTW, Denise: Good work over at atommorow.com |
Denisegilmore (Denisegilmore)
| | Posted on Friday, January 10, 2003 - 9:04 am: | |
Jerry,
I think we BOTH should get the position. Why not?
As to atomorrow.com.....well, I feel as though I failed miserably in defending the faith. But thank you for the kind words Jerry.
God Bless you and pray that Lord use me more effectively, will ya?
your sister IN Christ Jesus,
denise |
Jerry (Jerry)
| | Posted on Friday, January 10, 2003 - 11:06 am: | |
Yeah, Denise, I understand how you feel.
See, YOUR PROBLEM is that you and I think that the BIBLE settles the issues rather than Her Holiness, The Profit ñ erm ñ Prophet.
Silly Denise. ;) |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page