| Author | Message | ||
| Lynn W |
Excellent illustration Jude. Sin really is showing lack of love to others & putting our own selfish desires before them. Paul said, "ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another." Gal 5:13. Good rule to keep in mind. Ellen White claimed to have recieved everything she taught & wrote directly from God, including all the examples you used. So I wonder how anyone could think EGW wasn't a false prophet. She just plain lied in the name of God. | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Timo, My Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th edition, lists both "Evangelical" and "evangelical." Evangelical: "one holding evangelical principles or belonging to an evangelical party or church." evangelical: (1) "of, relating to, or being in agreement with the Christian gospel esp. as it is presented in the four Gospels." (2) "Protestant." (3) "emphasizing salvation by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ through personal conversion, the authority of Scripture, and the importance of preaching as contrasted with ritual." [There is more here, but this suffices.] My Grolier's CD Encyclopedia says, "Since about 1950 the term evangelical frequently has been applied in the United States to the inheritors and proponents of fundamentalism." It also says, "Fundamentalism is a term popularly used to describe strict adherence to Christian doctrines based on a literal interpretation of the Bible." "The irreducible minimum of authentic Christianity ... was reflected in such early declarations as the 14-point creed of the Niagara Bible Conference of 1878 and the 5-point statement of the Presbyterian General Assembly of 1910." "The name fundamentalist was coined in 1920 to designate those 'doing battle royal for the Fundamentals.' Also figuring in the name was The Fundamentals, a 12-volume collection of essays written in the period 1910-15 by 64 British and American scholars and preachers. Three million copies of these volumes and the founding of the Worldís Christian Fundamentals Association in 1919 gave sharp identity to fundamentalism as it moved into the 1920s.... As fundamentalism developed, most Protestant denominations in the United States felt the division between liberalism and fundamentalism.... The Depression of the 1930s and World War II curtailed fundamentalism's appeal. BY 1950 IT was either isolated and muted or HAD TAKEN ON THE MORE MODERATE TONES OF EVANGELICALISM. In the 1970s, '80s, and '90s, however, fundamentalism again became an influential force in the United States. Promoted by popular television evangelists ... and represented by such groups as the Moral Majority, the new politically oriented 'religious right' opposed the influence of liberalism and secularism in American life. The term fundamentalist has also been used to describe members of militant Islamic groups." To me the term "Evangelical" is just a softer form of the term "Fundamentalist." And since, taking Paul in 1 Corinthians 1 seriously, I believe that factionalism and political entanglement is anti-gospel, and I decline to call myself either a "Fundamentalist" or an "Evangelical." I would call myself "evangelical," but only in the strictest Biblical sense, namely, one who proclaims the gospel. I do not proclaim "right wing" political idiology as part of the gospel. I can attach no politics, for I believe that the political "religious right" is composed almost entirely of Fundamentalists (capital F) and Evangelicals (capital E) in the USA has to no small extent "sold out" to politics. I don't agree with some of their political stands -- Jerry Fallwell's gay bashing, for example -- and so I therefore cannot include myself as a part of their number. Again, I don't have any quarrel with those who do. Hope this helps. Grace and peace to you, Timo, Jude | ||
| Allenette |
Jude: FWTW should have been FWIW (for what its worth). Your last paragraph about the second chance--I just meant that, pardon the pun, it seems a bit of "Overkill" for their first disobedience to turn the rest of human history into this cosmic drama. These first people couldnt have IMAGINED the results of their action...they had nothing to relate it to, "thou shalt surely die"?...what is death to them? They just "got here" and nothing had "died" yet. My reaction to the whole thing (as a parent) would have been a very long S I G H, and another chance, probably with a stern lecture and grim look (gggg). That teaches in a nutshell, mercy and grace,no? The whole "Fall" story IMHO (in my humble opinion) just comes off as a primitive's idea of dealing with disobedience. Kinda like beating the fool out of your kid instead of getting more creative about it, non violently. And, sacrificing your only begotten son for your newly created beings dumb mistake....??? Just a thought....hey, I'm probably way off base. Wouldnt be the first time :-) | ||
| Colleentinker |
AllenetteóI understand your questions. I've come to see, though, that physical death and spiritual death are two different things. In fact, physical reality and spiritual reality are two differenct things. As Ernie so clearly stated a few days ago on one of these threads, God set humans apart from animals by breathing a living soul into them. The soul is something science can't prove, put it's the part of us that knows God. When Satan told Adam and Eve that they would surely not die, he deceived them. Physically, they did not die. Spiritually, though, they did die. Their spirits were no longer connected to God, and that separation is death. And I believe that Adam and Eve knew they died. They experienced shame; they hid from God. Their intimacy with God was broken. I think Adam and Eve weren't ignorant of what would happen if they sinned. While they might not have known in advance exactly how it would play out, they knew, since they had been intimate (not just casually connected) with God that their relationship would not be the same. When certain laws are broken, there can be no second chance. If a child plays with matches and sets the furniture on fire, there's no second chance. If a surgeon gets stuck with a needle infected with AIDS or Hepatitis C, there's no second chance. If a husband betrays a wife, there's no second chance that can allow them to go back to their unmarred state. If a man and woman choose to act on a deception instead of on the promises of the Beloved, there can be no second chance that can make their relationship intact. Adam and Eve broke faith with their Godówho, by the way, they knew face to face, not just by faith. The Bible says nothing about how many days, months, or years they might have walked with God. Since they were adults, intimate with God and in his image, they were not ignorant. They knew they were betraying their God. But the reality is that God did give them a second chance. He didn't allow them to die forever; He gave them the promise of a Redeemer, and he saved them by faith. Ultimately we have two choices: we can believe that the Bible is truly the word of God revealed by the Holy Spirit, or we can believeónothing for sure. The Bible says that there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood. (Hebrews 9:22) I know it sounds dreadfully anti-intellectual, and as Adventists we were taught that intellectual understanding is everything, but ultimately God is sovereign. Everything that happens is withing His sovereign will. This concept never made sense to me until I began to see that God is the ultimate value in the universe. Everything revolves around Him. He is of more value than the death of a child, the slaughter of nations, or other unexplained suffering. In fact, no suffering makes sense outside the sovereign will of God. Ultimately we and everything around us is for the glory of God. We are not the central value in the univere. It's not about us; it's about God. I remember Richard Nies, the now-deceased clinical psychologist and theologian in Southern California, saying; "Reality is much bigger than we can see." This is the truth we have to remember; we can't see the whole picture. Ultimately we have to trust God's love and justice. We have to trust that the one who gave us Love also loves us, His creatures, more than we can imagine. We are here to glorify God. We cannot hope to understand Him. If we could discern His motives and M.O., He would no longer be God. Trusting His sovereignty is both more vulnerable and more secure than I could have risked as an Adventist. What we can know, however, is the dawning of spiritual understanding and truth when our dead souls are reconnected with eternity when we accept Jesus. None of this makes any sense without the awakening of the Spirit. I'm sure I've sounded a bit vague, Allenette, but all of this I believe. The indwelling Holy Spirit is a fairly recent awareness for me. But it has made all of life and reality look different. God gave Adam and Eve a second chance. He wastes nothing, and He redeems everything. | ||
| Timo K. |
Jude, thank you for your clarification about what is ment by Evangelical. I was thinking of Evangelical more like in a theological sence. Those that accept Christ as their only ground for salvation are evangelical. In other words, those who see Christ at the Cross being the Gospel in reality and only there are evangelical. The inside work of the Holy Spirit is the Fruit of the Gospel. timo | ||
| Allenette |
Colleen: I appreciate your views :-) But I would have to say that having been raised an SDA PK, having spent more time in church than most SDA will spend in a lifetime, before I was old enough to get out, I would have to suggest that SDA is pretty anti-intellectual...the less you think about it objectively, intelligently, the easier it is to swallow the malarkey. (Not that I'm so intellectual myself ggggg I just refused to be so gullible) | ||
| Susan |
Allennette, Like you I spent a great deal of time growing up in the church. I wasn't a PK, but that's how "cultic" churches operate. They take over every part of your life. I always had trouble accepting their teachings. I thought it was a bunch of malarkey too. I also thought it was strange that we never had non-sda people over to visit (unless they were family). My folks were exclusively sda on the social front as well as schools, employment(if possible) and of course church functions (which could take up huge chunks of your life that your family could have used!) Is this the way it was for others? It could be that my family is just down-right dysfunctional. Which is probablly the case! I have to agree with you that they are anti-intellectual. They might strive for it but I think like Colleen has said before, "they are seeing things through the EGW veil" (sorry if I didn't quote the thought exactly, but I think I got close to the idea). Without the indwelling Holy Spirit, it's difficult to see the truth. Colleen, what a beautiful response you gave on the 10th. You really explained the fall and God's sovereignty in such a clear and concise way. I was thinking along the same lines that God is so much bigger than us. He created Adam and Eve. In His supreme sovereignty, he knew what they would do. I think it was so loving that He had a second-chance-plan already in place. He didn't desert them or the human race. He loves us and desires to be with us. Also, there is a wisdom that believers posess. It's not a worldly wisdom but God's. This wisdom I feel is of a spiritual kind. One that unites our souls with Jesus for all eternity. We can have faith in things unseen or unexplainable. Perhaps someone would like to elaborate more on this. These concepts are a bit new for me but I'm learning everyday. |
