Letters to the Editor Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Former Adventist Fellowship Forum » ARCHIVED DISCUSSIONS 8 » Letters to the Editor « Previous Next »

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
  Start New Thread        

Author Message
Surfy
Registered user
Username: Surfy

Post Number: 537
Registered: 11-2007
Posted on Sunday, May 31, 2009 - 11:54 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

This is in regards to the Letters to the Editor section of the last Proclamation. I am stunned. Do they (adventists) really believe that we think it is OK to sin? Where have we ever said that? What would lead someone to think that?

And I am mystified about the guy who, after seeing the Holy Scriptures and the Clear Word, compared side by side can't hardly wait to run out and purchase the Clear Word. What part of Rev. 22:18,19 do they not understand? And they reject other translations, like the Message and NIV..to name a few, because it does not follow the KJV close enough but still embrace a version that is so far contrary to Scripture it makes me ill. Surfy just does not get it.

Unfortunately, they cannot answer here..only read but I would really like to hear what they have to say.

Maybe some of you can answer for them or something.

Surfy
Jonvil
Registered user
Username: Jonvil

Post Number: 298
Registered: 4-2007
Posted on Monday, June 01, 2009 - 6:45 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

‘you’ve done away with the law so you’re free to rape, pillage and murder’.

I’ve lost track of the many times I’ve heard this ‘argument’, a result of their inability to accept the promise of the indwelling Holy Spirit to believers. Can’t really blame them though, in that they cannot assert to be a believer until after the IJ is completed, they cannot claim that promise. Lacking the Holy Spirit as their moral compass, they attempt to live moral lives through conformity to an external framework of laws (external obedience,their ‘sanctification’), without which they would immediately revert to ‘rape, pillage and murder’. There is little internal change, demonstrated by the strife prevalent in their churches.

Remarkably similar to the Pharisees.

John
River
Registered user
Username: River

Post Number: 4905
Registered: 9-2006


Posted on Monday, June 01, 2009 - 7:51 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Amen John. You sure nailed that hide to the barn door.
Bskillet
Registered user
Username: Bskillet

Post Number: 342
Registered: 8-2008
Posted on Monday, June 01, 2009 - 8:04 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

John, you're so right.

We here this argument so often: "If you get rid of the Law, anything is permissible." Adventists simply fail to understand that ethics and the Law are two distinct things. Certainly there is overlap, but the Law of Moses does not define the ultimate truth of what is right and wrong. Even with in the Decalogue, we find things like a protection of the institution of slavery in the 10th commandment, or the view of women as chattel in the 10th commandment. The Law allows for polygamy, and also contains no command against lesbianism (the Hebrew wording of the 7th commandment is strictly speaking of breaking the bonds of male-female marriage relationship, not all forms of sexual deviancy).

Adventists have fallen for the Covenant Theology lie that the Decalogue is "God's eternal moral law." The problem with this is that the Scriptures no where refer to the Decalogue as an "eternal moral law," but rather everywhere they refer explicitly to the Decalogue, the Scriptures call it God's covenant with the Israelite people who were freed from bondage in Egypt.

I have been reading John G. Ressinger's Tablets of Stone and the History of Redemption, and he makes this overwhelmingly clear. The Decalogue is not God's eternal moral law. Moral right and wrong existed before the Decalogue, and after the Decalogue was replaced with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the New Covenant (2 Cor. 3).

God was righteous before the Decalogue existed, and the Persons of the Trinity didn't need external tables fo stone to know that God is righteous. If God can know Himself to be righteous without the Decalogue, then the Decalogue cannot be the eternal definition of right and wrong.
River
Registered user
Username: River

Post Number: 4906
Registered: 9-2006


Posted on Monday, June 01, 2009 - 8:30 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

While Moses was on the mountain receiving the big ten, they were down in the valley beating their gold into idols.

It appears that a person could easily beat his bracelets and ear rings into a figure of the two stones and call that God.

What is the difference in the figure of a calf and the figure of a stone?

River
Cathy2
Registered user
Username: Cathy2

Post Number: 361
Registered: 2-2006
Posted on Monday, June 01, 2009 - 8:40 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

" 'you’ve done away with the law so you’re free to rape, pillage and murder’ "

LOL! What are we, Vikings?

There is such a *disconnect* between Adventists and normal reality. On any subject.

Amazing.
Cathy2
Hec
Registered user
Username: Hec

Post Number: 226
Registered: 3-2009
Posted on Monday, June 01, 2009 - 12:42 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The law is eternal. Meaning eternal as God. No beginning because it is the transcript of God's character.

Now,

quote:

Gal 3:19 Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.





  1. If the law was added then it was not eternal, as God is.
  2. If it was added because of transgression. What transgression are we talking about? God's?


Hmmm

Hec
Grace_alone
Registered user
Username: Grace_alone

Post Number: 1451
Registered: 6-2006


Posted on Monday, June 01, 2009 - 3:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Murder? Really? I'd like to know their definition of the abortion considering they perform them regularly in SDA hospitals.

I've heard that rediculous excuse from my own in-laws. Funny thing is, they've never seen me murder, rape or pillage. I guess in their eyes though, wearing earrings and not keeping their SDA sabbath is bad enough!

Leigh Anne

(Message edited by grace_alone on June 01, 2009)
Animal
Registered user
Username: Animal

Post Number: 483
Registered: 7-2008


Posted on Monday, June 01, 2009 - 4:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

As the saying goes....

Let he who has done no wrong cast the first stone. It seems its OK for Adventists to err, but not OK for the "Gentiles" to err. Amazing !!


..Animal, your humble, erring Gentile
Indy4now
Registered user
Username: Indy4now

Post Number: 531
Registered: 2-2008


Posted on Monday, June 01, 2009 - 6:36 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I asked my mom what would she do if tomorrow there were no 10C's. Would she go out a commit a murder? She replied (and seriously), "I don't know." This tells me she relies more on the 10C's than she does on Jesus... sad.

Jonvil and BSkillet... great posts.

~vivian
Pegg
Registered user
Username: Pegg

Post Number: 116
Registered: 2-2006
Posted on Monday, June 01, 2009 - 6:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Oh my!
:-(:-(
Gcfrankie
Registered user
Username: Gcfrankie

Post Number: 458
Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Monday, June 01, 2009 - 6:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

What gets me with the letters to the editor is what sda write. They don't just ask to have their names removed from the mailing list but then go on a rant, does that show christian love? I don't think so! I guess they think they have the only exclusive corner on God. If anyone is raping, pilliging and murdering it is them by what they teach and how they change God's word and Jesus's teachings through their so-called (false) prophetess.
The bible tells us to judge not least you be judged, and they are good at judging others who are not sda.
Gail
River
Registered user
Username: River

Post Number: 4916
Registered: 9-2006


Posted on Monday, June 01, 2009 - 7:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Oh, I think Proclamation just infuriates many of them, because they see happy people who are truly happy in Christ and they don't have that.

Neither do they have the Holy Spirit dwelling in their hearts and they know something is missing and Proclamation! scares the crap out of them.

I think they cannot understand someone who is going to hell with a smile on their face.

I think they cannot understand someone who puts all their faith in the Lord Jesus and finds true peace.

I think when all the activity is done and they are alone with the beat of their own heart, they feel deep down a sense of dread and that something is wrong.

The lashing out is what gives them relief. To the perishing the gospel is death and to the saved it is peace and it is life.

If Procalamtion! came from the outside, it would not phase them, but its coming from inside, from people who are obviously well educated by their own system and is against it. This is what scares them the most.

Like the little boy who whistled in the dark to keep the booger away, I think it is all just whistling in the dark, simply bluster as some animals do when they feel threatened.

Like the ape who protrudes out his chest and beats on it they are protruding the chest and drumming on it. They want to scare the boogy man away.

The thing is that they cannot and it infuriates them all the more.

They really are to be pitied and pay no mind to the bluster, if you do they think it is working.

Just some thoughts on the subject, I may be wrong, is just my thinking on it for now.
River
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 9924
Registered: 12-2003


Posted on Monday, June 01, 2009 - 9:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I think you're right, River. Richard always says that those angry people are the ones who are the most likely to respond to the gospel someday. The indifferent, the ones who disdain the magazine are the hardest to reach because their hearts are more hardened to spiritual things.

The very angry are often the ones who feel some passion for their beliefs and are willing to engage in discussion. The passionless ones are far less likely to respond. Of course, these are generalizations, but I believe what you said above, River.

Colleen

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration