| Author |
Message |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 11360
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 02, 2010 - 2:46 pm: |     |
Last night I was busy until after midnight writing Sabbath School commentary for the coming week's lessons. (I was burning the candle at both ends because I actually thought the lessons weren't due until next week...sigh)
Anyway, this is the second week of the quarter's lesson on Romans. There were so many problems it's hard to distill them...Let's start with the fact that the lessons are not specifically dealing with Romans in any sequential or significant way. Week two is entitled "Jew and Gentile", and one would think from the title that the lesson would cover Romans 2, which explores in detail how the Jews with the law are just as sinful and hopeless to be good as are the Gentiles without the law, and that Gentiles sometimes live by the law's principles even though they don't have the law because it is written on their hearts.
Not.
Lesson two isn't even dealing with Romans. It's an entire week of setting the readers up to understand that Gentiles really are supposed to keep the 10 Commandments. The week's texts for recommended reading are: Leviticus 23; Matthew 19:17 (the story of the rich young ruler), Acts 15:1-19; Galatians 1:1-12; Hebrews 8:6, and Revelation 12:17.
No Romans in there...
They camped quite a bit on the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 where the church decided the Gentiles were not to be bound to the law. Of course, the lesson insisted that the Gentiles were NOT exempted from the Decalogue--arguing with this sort of argument:
quote:Notice, too, that there was no mention or question of the Gentiles not needing to obey the Ten Commandments. After all, could we imagine the council telling them not to eat blood, but that it was acceptable to ignore the commandments against adultery or murder and the like? (p 24)
or this:
Some say that, because Sabbath keeping wasn't specifically mentioned, it must not have been meant for the Gentiles (of course, the commandments against lying and murder weren't specifically mentioned either, so that argument means nothing). (p. 24)
Never mind the fact that the entire NT lays out the terms of godly living and behavior--not as a means of being saved but as a way to live AFTER being saved—and Sabbath keeping or breaking is NEVER mentioned either as a requirement or as a sin to be avoided.
But the quote that really disturbed me revealed the true bottom line:
quote:Old Testament saints looked forward to the blessings of the Messianic age and the promise of salvation. In New Testament times, the people were confronted with the question, Would they accept Jesus of Nazareth, whom God had sent as the Messiah, their Savior? If they believed in Him—that is, if they accepted Him for who He truly was and committed themselves to Him—they would be saved through the righteousness that He offers them freely.
The cross is entirely missing. There is no mention of accepting Jesus blood as payment for sin. Their statement of everyman's decision is that he must accept Jesus "for who He truly was", commit themselves to Him, and they would be "saved through the righteousness that He offers."
The Bible NEVER says we are saved "through His righteousness". We are saved by His blood. Frankly, being saved through His righteousness doesn't even mean anything...but it suggests plenty, given the general shape of Adventist soteriology.
Adventists believe that Jesus' sinless life was part of what saves them. Because He managed to avoid sin, He qualified to be the perfect sacrifice. Thus, His "victory over sin" is what earned us ultimately the ability to be saved.
The Bible never teaches the above. We are to believe that Jesus paid for sin with His blood and bow before that horrific and un-repayable gift. It is not "who Jesus truly is" that we're asked to believe (besides, how is one to know who He truly is apart from receiving His sacrifice of blood?). We are asked to believe that He was the Sin Offering, the One whom God gave as a propitiation to satisfy God's own requirement for the consequence of sin.
Adventists focus on "Christ's righteousness" because they see themselves as having to have that same level of righteousness. Because they have no concept of the human immaterial spirit where spiritual life and death occur, they have no understanding of the real nature of sin. It is not "physical" and "mental"; it is not bequeathed genetically.
Yet here, in a lesson on the book of Romans, the lesson simply states that everyone's great decision is whether or not to accept Jesus for who He is, commit to Him (how, without knowing about His atonement?), and be saved through the righteousness that He offers.
How is one to do that??
Without the cross and the full and final payment for sin by His blood, there's nothing real to which to commit. There's no way to figure out how to be saved. None of this vague language even approaches dealing with our unsolvable sin or needing blood atonement.
Adventism has stripped from their soteriology the blood of Jesus for the full payment of sin as God's own solution to the sin we committed against Him. God sent a part of Himself, the second Person of the Trinity, to pay the full atonement He required. He then gives us His personal righteousness, not our own righteousness. He doesn't save us through His righteousness. He saves us through His blood. His righteousness is His tangible grace to us.
Colleen |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 11363
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 02, 2010 - 3:43 pm: | |
I goofed--no post here~
Colleen
(Message edited by colleentinker on July 02, 2010) |
Philharris
Registered user
Username: Philharris
Post Number: 2176
Registered: 5-2007
| | Posted on Friday, July 02, 2010 - 4:01 pm: | |
Colleen,
Thank you for what you wrote for Week Two and for posting it early this morning. I was starting to worry about you but was really blessed by your commentary when I found and read it this morning.
You provided the perfect biblical response for Week Five Day Six.
Here is how the Quarterly starts this lesson:
quote:The Law and Sin
We often hear folk say that in the New Covenant the law has been abolished and then they proceed to quote texts that they believe prove that point. The logic behind that statement, however, isn’t quite sound, nor is the theology.
Read 1 John 2:3–6, 3:4, and Romans 3:20. What do these texts tell us about the relationship between law and sin?
I am finding the way they move 'all over the map' taking bits and pieces to form their theology and then claiming we are the ones taking things out of context, to put it mildly, a bit maddening.
Thanks again for unraveling all this nonsense of theirs.
Fearless Phil |
Hec
Registered user
Username: Hec
Post Number: 1107
Registered: 3-2009
| | Posted on Friday, July 02, 2010 - 7:27 pm: | |
Ay Colleen, you popped my balloon. I read that second quote a few times and couldn't find anything wrong with it. Then I read your commentary and saw what you meant. I guess SDA thoughts are still in me in a big way. Very sad.
Hec |
River
Registered user
Username: River
Post Number: 6400
Registered: 9-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, July 03, 2010 - 1:27 am: | |
I had to read through what Colleen wrote twice in order to understand what she was getting at, as I haven't kept up with these sabbath school lessons or whatever they are.
The scripture that came to mind when I read the commentary are these.
Peter I 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
Peter I 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.
Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
When I first realized the full extent of my dependency on Jesus, the shame of my sin, my total inability to do ANTHING to save myself was when I threw myself on his mercy.
I totally deserved to die, yet I can live because he shed his blood for me.
River |
Jackob
Registered user
Username: Jackob
Post Number: 560
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, July 03, 2010 - 5:34 am: | |
One of Murphy's laws says "Smile... tomorrow will be worse." But with the election of Ted Wilson, I think that those of us who are writing commentaries should breath a sight of relief hoping that the church will become less subtle and more explicit in showing its own colors, including the SS lessons.
At the same time, I wonder if we will have commentaries of lesser quality. With a less challenging task, the temptation to laziness gains strength.
Gabriel |
Jonvil
Registered user
Username: Jonvil
Post Number: 388
Registered: 4-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, July 03, 2010 - 9:16 am: | |
Colleen, thanks for the heads-up.
I copied your post and plan on modifying it a bit so that the blatant errors are not too 'Adventist' specific then finding a way to bring this up with my SDA wife.
You're right, the cross is conspicuously absent, you've got to wonder why sooo much focus on His life when scripture says He came to die. Well, I actually do know. Adventists reject the biblical teaching of being born with a sinful nature and are (sort of) convinced that they can actually earn salvation through law keeping and good works, negating the need of the cross.
Sorry but I just can't resist excerpts from the Remnant Dictionary
GOOD DEEDS:
Visible manifestations of righteousness to be listed in the books of the Investigative Judgment as proof to God that you deserve salvation.
Absolutely selfless acts of contrition (sorrow) and love for God by natural means in order to be saved.
(see: INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT, PERFECTION, RIGHTEOUSNESS, SALVATION, WORKS)
JESUS:
Our example.
A created being-Michael the Archangel.
A man who could have failed.
(see: PERFECTION).
JUSTIFICATION:
A progression
(1) Believe on Christ.
(2) Keep the law of God
(3) Justification.
A pardon for sin, not the blotting out of sin
Primarily a real empirical change in the human heart, a gradual change from unjust to just, thus justified.
Contingent on sanctification it is a moral transformation, not a legal declaration distinct from any prior moral conditions. If we are not justified by our own moral conformity to the Law of God (sanctification), but by Christ's, there is nothing keeping us from self-indulgence.
Achieved only when God observes visible manifestations of the good intentions to keep the Law of God (the believers righteousness), He then declares them justified and worthy of heaven, safe to save.
‘If believers do their best, then God will do the rest.’
(see: THE LAW OF GOD, PERFECTION, RIGHTEOUSNESS, SANCTIFICATION)
SANCTIFICATION:
It is what makes us acceptable to God, His internal work of renovation within our hearts and lives.
A work of a life time, an unending process requisite to Justification.
A continuous personal effort by the believer to achieve perfection through repentance, humiliation, putting away sin, and obedience to the Law of God.
"Moses will drive you to Christ to be justified, and Christ will send you back to Moses to be sanctified."
One must be sanctified enough first in order to merit justifying grace
(see: JUSTIFICATION, THE LAW OF GOD, PERFECTION, SABBATH KEEPING, SAFE TO SAVE, WORKS)
(Message edited by jonvil on July 03, 2010) |
Yenc
Registered user
Username: Yenc
Post Number: 140
Registered: 6-2008
| | Posted on Saturday, July 03, 2010 - 10:20 am: | |
Jonvil,
Reading your post literally took my breath away! That crud is actually in print??!!! In the SDA Dictionary???
Pardon me. It just shocked me to see those heretical contradictions of things so clearly stated in the Bible, those distorted statements blatantly and unequivocally spelled out in black and white. I know I shouldn't have even blinked twice, considering the source. But seeing it . . .
I'm in tears! How I thank my dear Jesus for dying that I might live! For paying my unpayable debt! For His unspeakable gift! For not demanding my perfection before assuring me of salvation! For rescuing me from the despair of trying to save myself! For showing little me His magnificent truths!
If we could take all those lying, unholy SDA books and burn them like the new converts in Ephesus did with their sorcery books, we too could experience in this country what they did:"So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed." (Acts 19:19, 20). |
Flyinglady
Registered user
Username: Flyinglady
Post Number: 8285
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 03, 2010 - 10:44 am: | |
Jonvil, my mouth is hanging open as I read what the sdas have printed. I am so glad it is in print for all the world to see. Maybe sdas will show their true colors and all the other churches will see it also and see them for what they are.
Diana L |
Philharris
Registered user
Username: Philharris
Post Number: 2177
Registered: 5-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, July 03, 2010 - 11:21 am: | |
Jonvil,
Is there an online version of the 'Remnant Dictionary'? I didn't see anything by that title in the online ABC bookstore catalog.
What you quoted is really interesting when compaired side by side with what is stated in the Quarterly lessons.
Fearless Phil |
Grace_alone
Registered user
Username: Grace_alone
Post Number: 1714
Registered: 6-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, July 03, 2010 - 11:49 am: | |
I've mentioned this before, but the major cults don't have crosses in or around their buildings. Main reason - they don't believe they need the cross.
Leigh Anne |
Jackob
Registered user
Username: Jackob
Post Number: 561
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, July 03, 2010 - 12:01 pm: | |
I guess Jonvil is doing what Collen and Jeremy did some time ago in Proclamation! Sep/Oct 2007, he's composing himself a dictionary of adventist terms.
I have less inclination to think that adventists will ever be so explicit and straightforward with their beliefs. |
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 2036
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, July 03, 2010 - 1:10 pm: | |
Leigh Anne,
In the case of Seventh-day Adventism, some of their larger churches now have "crosses in or around their buildings." They now love to masquerade as Evangelicals--a subtlety that makes it even harder for many to decipher truth from error. However, the majority of SDA churches still remain crossless like the JW and Mormon buildings. I grew up in a German-speaking SDA church where the cross was considered a pagan and/or Catholic symbol. The SDA Dakota Conference website features a photo tour of their churches throughout the Dakotas, and I didn't notice any crosses on those pictures.
Dennis Fischer
(Message edited by Dennis on July 03, 2010) |
Jonvil
Registered user
Username: Jonvil
Post Number: 389
Registered: 4-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, July 03, 2010 - 2:20 pm: | |
Jackob has revealed my secret.
I truly am sorry for misleading anyone in my attempt to have them sound 'official'.
It is a bit of tongue-in-cheek but I believe these definitions truly represent the thinking of most Adventists, that is, if they're thinking at all.
The 'definitions' have been compiled and rewritten from Adventist posts from various websites and the false profitess. I put myself in an 'Adventist' mode for the rewrite.
I find a morbid fascination that, in their desperate attempt to validate their 'another gospel', they (and ellen) are so creative in their misapplication of what we consider to be commonly understood terms.
I also have found that by defining their application of these terms that it is rather simple to decipher their convoluted way of thinking.
For instance
From Colleen's post the Adventist statement:
"they would be saved through the righteousness that He offers them freely."
I would look at what Adventists consider righteousness to be
RIGHTEOUS/RIGHTEOUNESS:
The result of individual work, a personal effort.
An innate ability to do what Jesus did.
An innate ability to do whatever feels right.
An innate ability to choose to not ever sin.
(see: IMPUTED, GOOD DEEDS, JESUS, PERFECTION, SAFE TO SAVE, SANCTIFICATION, WORKS)
It's not imputed righteousness but the ability ('that He offers them freely') to actually be righteous and thereby earn salvation. |
Gorancroatia
Registered user
Username: Gorancroatia
Post Number: 12
Registered: 6-2010
| | Posted on Saturday, July 03, 2010 - 2:27 pm: | |
In my expirience I never found true SDA believers. Ones who keeps all 10 commandments. SDA will be good place to live if there is so much perfection which they claimed. If SDa is honestly striving to get Jesus perfection even it is wrong theology there will be bona fides and well being. ..but the truth is just simple: SDA is not perfect. That is the Big problem, they are not honest. What they claim is of no significance. Tomorrow they will tell something else but the main point remains: they have the Gospel Truth and no one else. No matter what Truth means. |
Hec
Registered user
Username: Hec
Post Number: 1108
Registered: 3-2009
| | Posted on Saturday, July 03, 2010 - 2:38 pm: | |
Hey Jonvil,
Is there a way to get your entire dictionary? Are you able to e-mail it to me? I would really appreciate it. If it is possible, you can e-mail it to hecaherg@hotmail.com
Thanks,
Hec |
Psalm107v2
Registered user
Username: Psalm107v2
Post Number: 696
Registered: 10-2008
| | Posted on Saturday, July 03, 2010 - 8:31 pm: | |
When dealing with the cults-the language barrier must always be dealt with. We can never assume that we mean the same thing. Whether it be what salvaation is or how we are saved, the Bible says one thing yet the cults have another. |
Flyinglady
Registered user
Username: Flyinglady
Post Number: 8291
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 03, 2010 - 9:09 pm: | |
Jonvil, I thought those were written in the dictionary that usually comes with a Bible.
My son tells me I am gullible and I am.
You have a very well developed sense of humor. I am smiling as I write this.
Diana L |
Bobj
Registered user
Username: Bobj
Post Number: 511
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, July 03, 2010 - 9:37 pm: | |
Jonvil
I about choked.
Give us some warning next time!
Bob |
Jonvil
Registered user
Username: Jonvil
Post Number: 390
Registered: 4-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, July 04, 2010 - 5:29 am: | |
Hec, did you get the document? |
Indy4now
Registered user
Username: Indy4now
Post Number: 847
Registered: 2-2008
| | Posted on Sunday, July 04, 2010 - 5:36 am: | |
quote:"Adventists believe that Jesus' sinless life was part of what saves them. Because He managed to avoid sin, He qualified to be the perfect sacrifice. Thus, His "victory over sin" is what earned us ultimately the ability to be saved."
Colleen, I've heard that so much that I didn't realize what this was saying!!! The sacrifice of Christ is completely absent while they are emphasizing their sacred cow, the weekly sabbath. I was just reading last night Rom. 5:18
quote:Rom 5:18 NASB
(18) So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
It doesn't say that because of His righteous life there resulted justification... it was because of "one" act we are justified.
My boss, Gregg, has been in a conversation with a good friend of his. Gregg is Lutheran (Missouri Synod) and his friend goes to a non-denominational type church. Gregg attended his friend's church and they were basically teaching a faith + works = salvation message. Gregg has been showing his friend that works has nothing to do with your salvation and that works is a response to the faith that you have in Christ. So here's the catch: His friend's pastor wrote back and said that Gregg was confusing justification with salvation. The pastor believes that we were justified at the cross... but now we are working out our salvation. I just don't see how you separate the two... if you have justification, you have salvation. My question is this: Do Adventists believe that they are justified at the cross? If not, how do they rationalize the verse above?
vivian
p.s. Jonvil, I about spit out my water when I read your definition of Jesus! |
Asurprise
Registered user
Username: Asurprise
Post Number: 1291
Registered: 7-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, July 04, 2010 - 3:51 pm: | |
I never heard the slightest hint back when I was an Adventist that Jesus was any less than fully God and I was an Adventist over 50 years.
In fact it was a verse in Daniel 10:13 where an angel is explaining to Daniel why's he's late and that Michael the archangel had come to his assistance: "...Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me..." which was the little thing that started me studying to see if perhaps, just perhaps the SDA church might be wrong. After all, "one of the chief princes" didn't sound like God. (After that I found that Hebrews showed that Jesus went ALREADY into the Most Holy Place in Heaven and didn't wait until 1844; and that Jesus had started a whole new covenant instead of the one given at Sinai; which showed me for sure that the SDA church is a false church.)
It wasn't until AFTER I left the Adventist church and became a Christian that I read Ellen White's words that infer that Jesus is less than God. I bought the book (it wasn't expensive) at the ABC book center. I had never even heard of the book before. It's in the first chapter of: "Spirit of Prophecy" volumn 1 (about page 17 and 18) |
Hec
Registered user
Username: Hec
Post Number: 1113
Registered: 3-2009
| | Posted on Sunday, July 04, 2010 - 4:49 pm: | |
Jonvil,
I have not received the document. Maybe I did and it went directly to junk folder and got deleted. Could you resend it, please. Thank you so much.
Hec |
Jonvil
Registered user
Username: Jonvil
Post Number: 391
Registered: 4-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, July 04, 2010 - 6:34 pm: | |
Hec, sent again. Didn't receive an undeliverable message
John Douglas |
Hec
Registered user
Username: Hec
Post Number: 1115
Registered: 3-2009
| | Posted on Sunday, July 04, 2010 - 7:28 pm: | |
Thanks, John, I got it.
Hec |
|
