| Author | Message | ||
| Doctortazz |
Hello, again! Yes, I am still with you, and I am listening. This message is in response to Lynn W's questions posted 1/31/00, 4:42 P.M. She has asked several questions. First of all, Lynn, those first five points are what you believe I "seem" to be saying. I haven't said any of those things, but maybe my positions will be more apparent as I go on. Now, in response to your questions: 1) I choose to align myself with people who are committed to studying and rightly interpreting the Bible. I don't include the social elements in that determination, because you will find good and bad people with varying preferences and ideas in all denominations, wherever you go. Thankfully, my social experiences to this point have been positive. 2) I'm not sure what double standard or criteria you are refering to. 3) What do I mean by moving on? All of you are part of a group based on a negative premise. You are determined to slam Adventism with negative propaganda. I pick it up in the tone of most of the messages I have read on this board. Perhaps this is a way of venting, I don't know. I believe God calls us to a more positive use of the talents and time He gives us. Moving on in this case would mean using what He gives to build up and encourage others, not to dwell on the negative experiences of the past. 4) Your claim of "deliberate deceit" is something you assume about Mrs. White. In spite of the negative claims of Walter Rea and others (including yourselves) who have sought to assasinate her character, none of you have evidence of a sinister motive. Mrs. White describes her borrowing in the introduction of The Great Controversy, if you care to read it. While I don't consider her use of the writings of others as a great idea, I, nor you, know enough of the context of the situation to judge her any more harshly than we judge ourselves. 5) I don't believe I have sold out. My peace with my profession as an Adventist is a sincere peace. 6) You folks talk about "the truth" in the same way that you decry in Seventh-day Adventists. You believe that "the truth" is something you have and they don't. The arrogance of this position pours forth in every message I have read, and frankly, I have a hard time stomaching it. I believe in absolute truth and God knows what that is. I also believe in the fallability of people, including you and me. Our understanding of truth hopefully grows with time. If you have a hard time with dogmatic, narrow minded Seventh-day Adventists, then why do you engage in the same behavior? 7) You decry the "remnant church" claim as arrogant, but you folks have learned nothing about arrogant claims. Your messages are full of them. Regarding "SDA claims" and "Catholic claims", you will have to tell me specifically what you are referring to before I can answer that. You say, "I'm praying you will seriously consider these questions & take them to God. It's not important that you answer them for me, but for yourself." You know, Lynn, you are sounding very high minded and preachy here! Don't worry, I'll be fine. | ||
| David |
When we were SDA, the focus on evangelism was never personal. You know, we always called in the high profile, high$$$ evangelists who would come and perform their dog and pony shows as to why the beast was the RCC, EGW and the remnant etc. The reason for these types of efforts was very sad, that being that in our church at least, there apparently were very few Christians and most of those were so cowed by the "Spirit of Prophesy" that the Lord's working in their lives was minimal. I placed myself into that category. With the advent of the Revelation Seminars, I found what I thought was a vehicle to kill three birds with one stone, so to speak. The first bird was that I could get out and start my witness again and tell people what Jesus had done for me personally and what a change that he had made in my life; the second bird was the prophetic message, because this was the hook with guile that attracts the most fish to a seminar. Funny how the Bible warns us about witchcraft and etc and not to worry about the future, but the future is what people want most to understand at the expense of their day to day walk with Jesus. But I diverge. The third bird was the impact of a classroom setting where questions would be limited and I would be free to move through the doctrine of the SDA church as I wished. The series was 24 lessons long which Lydell and I immediately cropped to 19-20, probably several more. We did not talk at all about EGW because we found the lessons to be presumptive. The lesson on Michael the Archangel being Jesus found its way out of the series as well as the diet, jewelry and makeup lessons. God in His mercy was teaching us an important lesson by this selective teaching. That lesson was; "if you can't comfortably teach what your church believes, why are you here?" I know that we were ashamed of those "doctrines" which are truly anti-bible. I thank God that He forgives us for our errors. I remember praying at these meetings that it would be His teaching that would be the thing that the people remembered. So I hope that the little that I had to offer as personal testimony is what took root in those dear attendees. And this brings me to my final point. While we were teaching these seminars, it became obvious to me that these efforts were contradictory to the personal effort that every Christian needs to be committed to Christ every day. The SDA church had grown comfortable with letting others do the witness of the many. God's Kingdom is made up of individuals and if the individuals are weak in their faith and experience with Him, then we can expect that He will indeed have to raise the stones to speak for Him. When we reduce the gospel to 24 lesson plans, most of which are speculative and downright false in their assertions, then we have wandered off the narrow road and placed ourselves on the broad path of pride, speculation, performance oriented religion and an impersonal relationship with God. I believe that this is why the Creator concept is so strongly defended in the SDA church. God as the Creator is so far removed from the personal in their thinking that the religion has become almost deist in its promotion. They miss the gospel that this Creator is personal and that it is by His effort that we are saved. The last frontier for God is the invasion of the hearts and minds of those who will acknowledge Him as the Creator and Redeemner of mankind. He is powerless to bend the will of a presumptive person and will ever remain a stranger to those who hold unbiblical views and doctrines about how personal He wants to be. Thank God that He drove me out of the SDA church and back into a relationship with Him. | ||
| Lynn W |
"You know, Lynn, you are sounding very high minded and preachy here! Don't worry, I'll be fine." I'm sorry it came across that way. My intention was just the opposite. I was afraid that if I just asked the questions, it would sound as if I was demanding answers from you, which I'm not. Apparently you misunderstood me just as I misunderstood you. Each of your questions SEEMED to be a criticism of ex-Adventists' reasons for leaving, thus all the questions about past experiences, bad relationships, disagreements with the prophet, etc. If I've misunderstood your motives for asking, then please clarify. I'm still wondering about question #1: By what criteria should we judge (whether a church is right or wrong, whether to stay or leave)? | ||
| Lynn W |
"3) What do I mean by moving on? All of you are part of a group based on a negative premise. You are determined to slam Adventism with negative propaganda..." I know you know the story of Martin Luther. He began the reformation movement by nailing negative propaganda of the Catholic church to a church door. His followers were known as Protestants because they protested the teachings & practices of Catholicism. They were a group originated on a negative premise. If it weren't for him & others like him, we might all be learning Latin & reciting the rosary today. SDA seminars & crusades are all based on the same negative premise of criticising Catholicism. All the OT prophets, John the Baptist, & many others based their preaching on criticising the wrongs of their day. Like the Adventists, we must teach what we believe is right & teach against the wrong. | ||
| Plain Patti |
Hi, Doc! C'est moi, Patti l'Ordinaire. Forgive me for jumping in, but I would like to address one of your questions to Lynn: 3) What do I mean by moving on? All of you are part of a group based on a negative premise. You are determined to slam Adventism with negative propaganda. I pick it up in the tone of most of the messages I have read on this board. Perhaps this is a way of venting, I don't know. I believe God calls us to a more positive use of the talents and time He gives us. Moving on in this case would mean using what He gives to build up and encourage others, not to dwell on the negative experiences of the past. Doc, this is not a forum for SDAs. Although SDAs, and anyone, are welcome here, we are not trying to propagandize here--just merely to share like experiences. I have tried to do exactly as you say: to present positive statements of the Gospel of Justification and just what Jesus Christ has done for His people. Guess what? I still am accused of being bitter against the church and trying to tear it down. The SDA church was set up on a faulty foundation. The Gospel of salvation by grace alone is a serious threat to the entire SDA structure. That is why, when we present salvation strictly by the merits of Jesus Christ alone, we are accused of being "determined to slam Adventism with negative propaganda." 4. Your claim of "deliberate deceit" is something you assume about Mrs. White. In spite of the negative claims of Walter Rea and others (including yourselves) who have sought to assasinate her character, none of you have evidence of a sinister motive. Do you equate pointing out error with character assassination? If so, then the SDA church has been guilty for years of assassinating the character of the pope and anyone involved in the RCC. I am not sure, but I think this is what Lynn meant by a "double standard." It is OK for SDAs to call the RCC the beast and the rest of Protestantism the great whore, but it is not OK for us to judge SDA doctrine and Ellen's words by the Gospel. I, for one, refuse to judge her motives, although I have truly wondered what possibly could have inspired her to say the things she did--and I do not believe that her inspiriation was the Holy Spirit. Her words and her doctrine can and must be judged, and I find them contradictory, not only to the Bible, but often to themselves. While she accuses Protestantism of being Babylon, she produces one of the most confusing labyrinths of twisted theology in Christendom. Could she have been sincere when she did this? Certainly she COULD have been, but all the sincerity in the world never makes up for error in doctrine. As for the deliberate deceit of the SDA leadership as a whole, there is plenty of documentation of this. Leaders left the church over such while Ellen was still alive. All Ellen had to do was just write down another "vision" from God condemning them. Problem over. No one would believe them now, because the strong hand of the prophet of the Lord had discredited them. The research is out there, if one honestly searches it out. 6. You folks talk about "the truth" in the same way that you decry in Seventh-day Adventists. You believe that "the truth" is something you have and they don't. The Truth is something that anyone has access to. It is written on every page of the New Testament, and many of the Old, if one has his eyes opened by the help of the Holy Spirit. The Truth is not a man-made and contrived system of works based upon snippets of texts taken from various places in the Bible and pieced together like a patchwork quilt. The Truth is Jesus Christ and Him crucified. No, we do not have a monopoly on it. What we have seen, by divine grace, on the one hand, is our wretchedness and inability to save ourselves. On the other hand, we have seen that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. We have nothing to offer God, and God cannot reconcile sin to Himself. We have to have a life of perfect obedience to offer to God. Jesus Christ not only died for our sins, he lived a life of perfect obedience to the law. When we are in Christ, God regards us as He does His own beloved Son. Jesus is our Substitute and Surety; in Him we can truly rest assured that He will save us to the uttermost. You know the text in which Jesus says, "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you"? The next part of the text is, "Not as the world gives, give I unto you." Our peace is not necessarily inside of us. Christ has won us peace with God. We do not need to worry about whether we are "ready" or not; we are in Christ reconciled to God. As John 5:24 says, whoever believes in Jesus Christ does not come under judgment but has already passed from death to life. Isn't that wonderful news? It is to most of us here. Yet, whenever we present it to SDAs we are maligned, attacked and called all kinds of names. Which causes me to understand Christ's words that he came not to bring peace but a sword. Whenever one speaks of grace alone in front of those who add works to their salvation, it certainly stirs up quite a bit of wrath. If you will forgive me for pointing it out, you have already accused Lynn of being "high minded and preachy." And she had the grace to apologize for seeming to sound that way. Yet, I heard her make no accusations against you. And you have accused us in general of being "determined to slam Adventism with negative propaganda." Why is it every time we dialog with SDAs, they inevitably impute evil to us? Let me ask you a question: If you were driving down a dark road at night and all of a sudden came to a bridge that had been washed out, would you not go back down the road and warn others? Or would you allow them to fall off the bridge into the abyss? Doc, the bridge is out. Our duty to our fellow man demands that we point this out to others. And not only to point it out but to show the way of salvation and grace. Arrogant? Hardly. Sharing that Jesus Christ has saved the all who will only believe is hardly arrogant. It is the great equalizer. All of our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; Christ saves to the uttermost whoever will come to Him. Has it ever crossed your mind that our motives might be HONORABLE rather than destructive in nature? I did not easily accept the Gospel either when I first heard it, but I dearly love the man (our minister) who first presented it to me. It was his words and the revelation of the Holy Spirit that opened my eyes and made me realize that my salvation is complete in Jesus Christ. So, if you are going to hang around here, which you are more than welcome to do, I suggest you do a little more looking and listening. Are we really trying to destroy the SDA church? Or are we uplifting Jesus Christ and Him crucified? If the SDA church is destroyed in the process of uplifting Jesus, then so be it. If its truths cannot hold up to the litmus test of the Gospel, then the sooner it dissipates, the better. And the same for any human organization that is contrary to the Gospel of salvation by grace alone. I say with Paul, "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!" That would apply to this website also, if we speak against the Gospel of salvation by faith in the merits Jesus Christ alone. God bless! Grace and peace, Patti | ||
| Susan |
"For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greek, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." 1Cor. 1:21-24 "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember the words I spoke to you:'No servant is greater than his master. If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also." John 15:18-20 Christ was a "stumbling block" to the system of his day. Yes, His message brought love and peace to multitudes but it also ruffled a few feathers. He was crucified for what he proclaimed. There have been many more who've died for the truth of Christ since the begining of the church. As I'm becoming more bold in my Christian walk I'm often met with opposition. This is to be expected, and I'm getting kind-of used to it now. Not in the same way as when I was an sda. You know, "were only being persecuted because we are the special saved ones (sda's only)". Now my focus is totaly on Jesus Christ. If I'm met with hatred, unkind words, hostility etc., then it means I'm following Christ. I'm just thankful that my life is not as horrible as the saints who've gone before me. A great big AMEN to David, Lynn and Patti's posts! Dr.tazz in #3 you've said, "All of you are part of a group based on a negative premise." Have you read the website's statement of purpose? I'm a bit confused about your accusation. I've never talked with such Christ-centered and gospel focused people before (is this negative?), than those that are at this site. If it is wrong and negative to "test the spirits" and proclaim the TRUTH OF CHRIST than I'm guilty. I guess John and Paul would also fit into this catergory. 1John has 2 purposes, expose false teachers and assure believers of their salvation. I sense a bit of negativity in verse 2:22 "Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist-he denies the Father and the son." Paul gets a little ugly in Phil.3:2 "Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh." Those dogs are those who oppose the gospel Paul is preaching. Mutilators is a reference to false teachers. I think we've all been pretty nice in comparison??? It's great what Paul has to say next in verse 3, "For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh-" Anyway, that's my 2 cents for all it's worth. I'll close with this great verse, "I press on to take hold of that for which CHRIST JESUS took hold of me"!!! (Phil.3:12b)emphasis mine. | ||
| Lynn W |
Thank you Patti & Susan, I needed that. I really appreciate you both. Lately, I'm taking more heat from within than without. |
