| Author | Message | ||
| Dale |
Very interesting posts above that are quite applicable to my past and current situation. Colleen, I can especially identify with what you said about thinking you could remain within SDAism even though you disagreed with many doctrines, i.e., that the "umbrella" was large enough. I definitely can identify as I had the same feeling for several years prior to leaving SDAism several months ago. I thought I could affect change from within. It was only when I realized that it was ME that was out of step with the fundamental beliefs that I knew I must step away. There was so much division in the SDA church I was attending. The church was attempting to be all things to all people, with a contemporary and a traditional worship service. The two factions nearly came to blows; it really got ugly! Who was I to stay as a source of annoyance to those who wanted to protect the stated doctrines of the church? I was not being fair to them or to myself to selectively believe some SDA doctrines and reject others. Either I was SDA or I was not. While I do not expect that any large organization will have 100% agreement on all points, I now believe that those denominations that are so dogmatic about "doctrinal beliefs" need members that agree with those stated beliefs. For me, perhaps unlike Wendy, it is these original beliefs and teachings, still upheld by the GC, that eventually became repulsive to me. This includes the exclusivity of being the one true church that has the "truth", the Investigative Judgement, incomplete atonement on the cross, and the New Covenant being nothing more than a new version or revision of the old. I became convicted that if I continued with the aforementioned traditional SDA beliefs, I was not really accepting Jesus Christ and His Grace as my Righteousness. This conviction deepened to the point of concern that I was actually rejecting His gift. It was only when I stepped away and acknowledged that I was at odds with SDA doctrine, that the burden was lifted and I felt a sweet peace and freedom that I had never before known. For those in a similar situation, my heartfelt desire is that they too step away from that which they no longer believe. Basically, what I am trying to say is that a large umbrella does not work when so many fundamental beliefs (27 and counting) are so clearly spelled out. Either we accept all of those fundamental beliefs or we acknowledge unbelief and move on. When Christ alone, His Righteousness, and our salvation according to His Grace become the only fundamental belief, everything else becomes "disputable matters" and the umbrella then indeed becomes large. It encompasses all who have accepted Jesus and claimed His Righteousness as their own. Free in Christ, Dale | ||
| Breezy |
Dale, Please read my post on the Romans thread. This addresses some of what you stated about the beliefs. Wendy | ||
| Colleentinker |
Wendy, if you go back to the way Adventism was taught at the beginning, you run into the original teachings of Adventism. That means you have to go back to believing the Arian belief that Jesus was not actually, fully God. Also, at the beginning the Adventists did not keep the seventh day. When they did begin to keep it, they kept it from 6:00 P.M. Friday until 6:00 P.M. Saturday. Another really big bite to swallow is Ellen's original shut-door theory. Ellen said that anyone who did not accept William Miller's prediction that Jesus would come in 1843 and then in 1844 would not be saved. Even though they later decided the 1844 date meant the IJ instead of the second coming, she still said that anyone who did not believe that prediction would be lost. It was only in 1851 that the early Adventists opened the shut door and allowed that salvation was open to anyone who wanted to believe and join the Advent band. Original Adventist beliefs did not include the doctrines of clean and unclean meats. That belief came quite a few years later. The early church leaders definitely ate pork, and we know Ellen ate oysters. I think that returning to original Adventist teachings as opposed to today's corrupt teachings presents its own set of difficulties. One begins to wonder which teachings actually are the pure ones. The deception which was present in the early days of the church gave way to newer, more complex deceptions. To call oneself Adventist is, by definition, to embrace and tacitly or openly support all its teachings. As Dale Ratzlaff so poignantly says, "There are only two kinds of Adventists: dishonest or deceived." In Christ, Colleen | ||
| Breezy |
I am sorry Colleen I disagree completely. I have read all of the above over and over. I have also read the truth. I have read it from people who say it is a certain way, and then the actual theology from those who are being spoken of so poorly. I am sorry to say it but I came out on the other side, okay. When I refer to original beliefs I mean the actual true ones. What none of you allow for is christian growth. Certainly some of these things might have been practised, or preached, or believed. But, when they learned better they changed. Satan is very subtle. Remember, if possible he would deceive the very elect. Also, I believe that somehow I have managed to drag us all into another conflict in which everyone knows each other's views and no one is going to convince the other of anything. I'm within Maryann. I should stick to humor. :) Remember, no matter how much I may disagree with you. I love you all! Wendy | ||
| Billtwisse |
Brother Dale, Right on! ALL: I want to clarify a major point. All of the posts here that I have made on the covenants & other issues are for former SDA's & Christians at large. If current SDA's want to read, that is fine. But it is futile for us to discuss issues of law and the Sabbath. I quit doing it in my personal life years ago. There is only one spiritual issue that I ever discuss with SDA's: the Person and Work of Christ. Three questions: 1. In his life, death, and resurrection: did Jesus provide a finished atonement, complete atonement, completed atonement, and the final atonement for all who would believe, even when they were dead in trespasses and sins? Was his work of atonement performed in such a way that no future acts of Christ or his people, beyond that event, can in any way be properly called atonement? 2. In his person, was Jesus Christ completely free from the slightest impulse toward evil, thus rendering it impossible for his work of salvation to be negated by the possibility of his commiting sin? 3. Were the founders of Adventism, in answering the above questions in the negative, teaching doctrines of devils that are opposed to God's true doctrine of grace and salvation? Until we agree on these, discussion of the other issues of Adventism (law, Sabbath, church, etc.) is pointless. In posting the covenant studies, I have addressed those who agree on the above issues, even though we may disagree on other things. I seek the wisdom and correction of these believers. I'm always hearing about a new 'gospel' movement in Adventism, Roman Catholicism, the RCOJCOLDS (Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints), and other similar sects. Gospel language is not the gospel. The history of Christianity is full of confessions for this precise reason. And here I am, a strict Nonconformist! Even though I believe there are gospel believers and saved people in Adventism, I have not yet found one who will answer these 3 questions in the affirmative. As soon as a person does, the relationship with that organization will end. Is the gospel not only honey in our mouths, but bitter in our stomachs? Is it determining our view of everything? I don't believe that I have 'arrived' either. --Twisse | ||
| Joni |
Grace Ambassador, Thank you for addressing my question. I have looked at your site and saw your picture. I now have a face for the words you speak. Since you are knoweldgeable about "Spirituals" I would like to ask you about the gifts of tongues? What in your studying do you think it is? Is it what I was taught in the Adventist church? That it only happens in the foreign field and it is the ability to speak in your own language and the people hearing understand in theirs? Or is it an unknown language? And why is it needed and what does it accomplish? I was taught it could be prophecy (tongues and interpretation = prophecy)(the same person interpretating) I hope that this is ok to ask here. It is something that you and BMorgan made me think about in your statements above. This subject has always interested me, because of a incident I had when I went to a womans conference with a client of mine and saw some different "chrismatic" stuff of which I was unfamiliar. Joni If this is not the place to discuss this that is ok. | ||
| Graceambassador |
Hi Joni! As for me it is okay to discuss here because here we discuss things pertaining to the New Covenant. I will answer your question soon. I am pressed for time at this point in my life and I used up all the time I had this week end posting the above posts! Just for your information, TONGUES is called the "least of all gifts". The higher of all gifts is Love. Take this as an introduction: Tongues: - Was the first sign of the receiving of the Holy Spirit in Acts. That was needed then. I argue if the sign is needed now or if it is even a sign at all. - Tongues are not necessarily languages we know (see 1 Cor. 13:1 in context with chapter 12. But they can certainly be a MAN'S language as you see in this verse. See below "Tongues were a sign for the unbiliever". - The one who speaks in tongues speaks "mysteries unto God". If interpreted this can edify the church, but I don't think it equal "prophecy". If not interpreted tongues edifies the speaker alone. So, tongues is a self edifying gift. - Paul uses "pray in the Spirit and with understanding" several times in 1 Cor 14. Then he uses the same expression in Ephesians 6:18 "Praying with all prayers and supplications in the Spirit. Therefore, these tongues my have been used throughout the ministry of Paul. (Note, may have been...). The contrast between the words "in the Spirit and with understanding" cannot be ignored. These tongues were in some cases "unkown" tongues and not the languages known in the Hellenistic world. - Tongues do not necessarily prove that one HAS the Holy Spirit or has been baptized by the Holy Spirit. - Tongues are not a sign of "spirituality". Paul calls the Corinthian Church a "carnal church" more than once. Tongues actually prove nothing! - Tongues were a sign for the unbiliever. How so is not clear. Perhaps because then, the speaker could be speaking a MAN'S TONGUE (1 Cor 13:1) that he did not know and the listener knew both the language and that the speaker could not speak that language. - Tongues today is a "pentecostal fit" or "carnal frenzy" in MOST cases. There are cases of the genuine Gift of the Spirit of tongues being used today. It is rare though! (to paraphrase Paul, I speak now, not the Lord...) - Tongues are not to be forbidden. But they are not to be pursued frantically since is not one the "best Spiritual gifts", as Paul teaches us. This is merely an introduction. You can find all this information on your own. Let me help you with Bible interpretation: 1 - Find the text you want to understand 2 - Pray and ask God for guidance 3 - Discover how and why the book was written 4 - Find the central theme. What the Holy Ghost intended to convey for that particular situation. 5 - Find similar scriptures by the same author if that is the case. 6 - Do not ignore synonimous nor antonimous. Pay special attention to contrasting words, i.e. ask: "Why does Paul say, pray with Spirit and my understanding?". 7 - Do not ignore similar instances and usages. Example: Jesus commanded a fig tree, an inanimate object, to be dry and it obeyed Him. Now his disciples ascertain that the tree really dried up and are in awe. Jesus says, "You can actually speak to mountains". (Mark 11). You will be in a position to understand what Jesus meant and determine whether it was symbolic of actually a physical mountain! Or, ultimately, if Jesus was using the physical world to teach a SPIRITUAL TRUTH. I did not take this from any book. These are just some of the few steps I teach my bible students. It works well! There are other methods that work just as well. But this is very effective. I will talk with you later. My time for today is up. I still have to write about John the Baptist and now "tongues". It is a great challenge! TO ALL: THIS IS AN OPEN FORUM. I AM NOT A SPECIALIST (ONE WHO KNOW A LOT ABOUT VERY LITTLE...). SO ANYBODY, FROM EITHER SIDE OF THE ISSUE IS WELCOME TO AID JONI IN THIS SUBJECT! Grace Ambassador | ||
| Graceambassador |
Bill: Just a note while I wait for a phone call: You are such a blessing! Always to the bottom line point! Always being used by God to bring me back to HIS senses! I felt like asking these questions myself before engaging any discussion on "fellowship" etc.. But I failed miserably. Praise God that we can bear one another's burden and this, the burden of asking these fundamental questions, my brother, you bore on my behalf! Without answering the three questions honestly and before the Lord, there is no point in asking any other! Continue to be sensitive to the voice of the Holy Spirit! Grace Ambassador | ||
| Susan |
There are so many wonderful comments by you all. I'm enjoying this thread! I must add a few remarks about staying in a church, that has teachings you might disagree with. For anyone in this situation, please use caution with regard to your children. If there are people in your congregation who's doctrines differ from yours, you'd better be careful if they're teaching your kids! Here's an example from our own life. We used to go to a non-den. church. It had many good and positive things going on for a mega-church. We agreed with the official statement of faith by the church. But on more than one occassion we were baffled, by comments from members who work with children. One lady even expressed views similar to Oneness Pentecostals (non-trinitarians). We are now part of a denomination where we feel much more comfortable. Not everyone is in total agreement (our church baptizes babies, but there are many members who are in disagreement with this), I'm certain though that members are all in agreement concerning essential doctrine. Especially members who teach the children! I could not stay in a church where I felt my kids might receive false teachings. Sure, the majority of their traning will come from us. But in our church when we baptize babies into the covenant community of believers, all members agree to help train and nuture the child. I can hardly type this without crying. No, our reformed baptism is not to signify that this child is already saved (a profession of faith is made when they are mature enough), but rather that he/she belongs to a family of believers. Anyway, I'm off the topic. I guess moms can get a little emotional! On another note, I recently got my copy of "White Washed". What an excellent book! Here's a thought from the book that never occured to me. The Holy Spirit is "The spirit of Prophecy" (I knew this but had never really thought about it with regard to EGW)! The bible makes it clear that this title isn't refering to a prophet but to God himself! Here's a great quote from p.184, "While it may be said that a person who has received the genuine spiritual gift of prophecy is inspired by the Spirit of God, it is blasphemy to say the recipient is The Spirit of prophecy." So, do you wonder if SDA's realize they're giving dear ol' Ellen this position of divinity by assigning her the title "Spirit of Prophecy"??? Another thing I appreciate about this book, is that Mr. Cleveland goes into quite a bit of detail regarding the demonic influences over EGW. Also, he conrasts her visions with bible prophets visions. He also points out that NO other biblical prophet had "out of body experiences"! And he gives a good deal of attention to the topic of her handsome, young man/spirit guide, that accompanied her in visions. Not only in visions, but Ellen felt his presence at other times. If this isn't enough to spook you, I don't know what could. Just some thoughts! In Christ alone, Susan | ||
| Dale |
I am always amazed by the depth of understanding so many of you have, even though you may not all come to the same conclusions. In my previous post, I spoke of the original beliefs of the SDA church, I should have said "traditional". Colleen did an excellent job of pointing out the many changes on doctrine in the early years. I actually respect the fact that there were earnest seekers of truth in those early years that were willing to change. I have more trouble now with SDA leadership who basically insist that all "truth" has been wrapped up for SDAs and that the SDA position seemingly cannot be changed on issues concerning the investigative judgement, salvation by grace alone, infallability of EGW, etc. despite scriptural contradiction. These are the "beliefs" that I spoke of that created my personal dissonance with SDAism and that I came to realize required my separation. Susan, I appreciate the concern you have for your children. There is no substitute for careful home guidance as sooner or later they will be exposed to all kinds of crazy ideas! I recall my shock and horror, as a devout SDA, when my boys were told by the teacher of our nice SDA school that "McDonald's puts earthworms in their hamburgers". It is not easy to have to tell a child that the teacher is wrong, but we did and they believed us. Saved by Grace, Dale | ||
| Maryann |
So that's the special ingredient that makes my kids like McDonald's so much;-)) | ||
| Larimobley |
More worm humor...and on another thread, too. Seems to worm its way around this forum, huh? | ||
| Colleentinker |
Susan, I agree with your post above. I appreciated White Washed by Cleveland very much also. His is the first book I've read that directly addressed the problems of EGW's young man/spirit guide. That was a concern of mine for a long time. This handsome young man kept showing up when she "was shown" things about people that weren't true. I also relate so well with your concern, which Dale seconded, about what the children are learning. While I also agree that the main, most significant guidance comes from home, the things they learn in the early Sabbath School years and the Bible classes they have to take in SDA schools stays with them all their lives. I remember a Sabbath School teacher I had when I was five years old who told us that when we did something wrong, it was not enough to confess to God. We had also to confess to our mothers. I believe I understand her concern, and I believe she meant well, but that bit of advice stuck in my over-active conscience and caused me years of neurotic fear. I kept wondering why I had to let my mother in on things that didn't remotely involve her, things that I could take care of by simply confessing to God. I don't mean I worried about things like stealing or cheating, etc. I worried about things like having said a slang word at school and repenting the moment it came from my mouth. (I admit it; I was a neurotic perfectionist as a kidóthat's what the fear that one unconfessed sin would keep me out of heaven did for me!) I was about 12 when I admitted to my mother what my S.S. teacher Mrs. Roth had said and how I worried about it. To her credit, my mother was horrified and assured me that Mrs. Roth had been skewed! I can say with conviction that our boys are getting, for the first time, true Christian education at church and at school. It has made such a remarkable difference in their lives! | ||
| Breezy |
Bill, 1)Yes His work was finished at the cross. That is actively taught in SDAism and the IJ and Sanctuary do not negate this. Only your misunderstanding of it. 2)No, Jesus was fully human and with every chance to sin that we have. He did not stack the deck. This makes His sacrifice even more amazing and powerful. 3)No, You are teaching doctrines of demons and will be held accountable. Teachers are held to a higher standard. Call sin by it's RIGHT name. 4)I hope you haven't arrived yet. With your quick mind and earnest study of the Bible, I am convinced that you will be led into all truth eventually. 5)You do not want to enter into discussion with those who disagree with your theology because you are much safer with it unchallenged on this forum of people that possibly have been deceived just as you have. No, I am not going off. Bill wanted the questions answered so I answered them. Please no one imply that I am going off. I am just calling it as I see it, and who is going to cast the first stone? I ask again, do you believe I am led by the Holy Spirit or yourselves, and why? Because my interpretation is different from your own? Wendy Dale, I think my dad's heart would break. Please don't tell him. | ||
| Graceambassador |
Dear Wendy: I writing this piece to you just to leave you alone from now on. My point is NOT to antagonize you; neither condescend in a useless attempt to help you. My purpose is, again, use your words to help someone else who is not as sure as you. You said: I ask again, do you believe I am led by the Holy Spirit or yourselves, and why? Because my interpretation is different from your own? I will deal with the "different interpretation" issue. This is an example of how "different interpretation" is defined: The Bible says that our body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit. Some INTERPRET this to mean that Christians should not smoke because smoking would hurt the Temple of God; therefore, those who smoke will go straight to hell. Others INTERPRET that this text says nothing about smoking, so they say, it is okay for Christians to smoke and that smoking will not take anyone to hell. I have a third line of interpretation: "CHRISTIANS THAT SMOKE MAY NOT GO TO HELL, BUT THEY CERTAINLY SMELL LIKE THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN THERE!!!. So, in the text above we have different INTERPRETATION. What we have in the case of your set of beliefs, whether you are right or others in this list are right including me, is not a problem of INTERPRETATION. We do not have a DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION. We have a DIFFERENT FOUNDATION. The euphemism of "DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION" to masquerade a "DIFFERENT FOUNDATION" has been the trick of Mormons and Jehovah Witness for ages. They say that we diverge in some biblical points, is equivalent to telling a drowning man "try to float" or "when you go under take a deep breath". It is not my intention to say that you are using the same technique. Please do not shut me off. Here is WHAT I AM SAYING: Paul says in Galatians 1:8 "But though we, or an angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we (he means himself, Paul) have preached unto you, let him be accursed. In the book of Galatians, Paul defined "another Gospel" by any gospel that was different than the Revelation he received and taught. It was the Gospel of Grace, separated, or suppressing of the Mosaic Law. I do not think if you agree with any aspect of Adventism, (if indeed you know any aspect of Adventism) you can say that Adventism has broken completely with the Law of Moses and that they do not preach "another Gospel". Our foundation is Jesus alone. No Sabbath keeping. THE SABBATH KEEPS US; WE COULD NEVER KEEP THE SABBATH BECAUSE THE SABBATH IS JESUS, no DIETARY LAWS, and no CEREMONIAL LAWS. NOT EVEN A MENTION OF THE LAW IS NECESSARY. The MORAL LAW OF GOD has been now written by God in our hearts and Jesus paid the price for that. The ELECT has this conviction BY REVELATION and feels no need to find security elsewhere. One the points that I beg you to consider is that most all of us in this discussion have given you reasonable argument that is current, INDEPENDENT OF WHAT WE WILL DISCOVER IN THE FUTURE ABOUT WHAT IS TRUE OR NOT, and that, accompanied by PLENTY OF SCRIPTURES which are CLEAR and do not require INTERPRETATION. I read your posts and see merely a DEFENSE of the position of your off shot branch of SDA but very little in terms of Bible Scripture, and you are always implying that one day we will "be led, or discover the truth". Remember, the TRUTH HAS ALREADY BEEN REVEALED! We have a REVELATION ALREADY! I can surely commend you for your loyalty to your church or an off-shot group thereof. But is this a case of trying to keep your foot in two different canoes, here? It is hard to stay afloat with each foot in a different canoe! Are you trying to stay close enough to what your traditional views are and at the same time far away to be near the exit? Since I believe in Grace, there is no need to tell you that I do not think that God will send you to hell for NOT EATING MEAT nor FOR BREAKING THE SABBATH. Also I do not believe that God will send anyone to hell for believing differently in matters other than the FOUNDATIONAL TRUTHS OF THE GOSPEL. Although I heard from many Adventists that they do believe exactly as the I do, the truth however, is another one. If such is the case then they LIE when they say AMEN to whatever number of Doctrinal Foundations of the SDA's. Again, I don't think you are personally going to hell for ETERNAL PUNISHING (and not a ONE TIME PUNISHMENT as taught by SDA's). My prayer is that you find peace in knowing that your FOUNDATION is established in the Gospel of Grace as revealed to Paul. Not in the additions that lead us back to the law! Either by romanticism or by religiosity, the keeping of these laws and feasts is CONTRARY TO THE GOSPEL if we are to believe Paul as inspired to reveal to us the ULTIMATE REVELATION: GRACE. I LEAVE you with one more scripture: Galatians 1, (the entire passage with special emphasis on verses 12-15). You probably know it by heart, and know that there is no NEED to INTERPRET such clear passage. Prayerfully. Grace Ambassador | ||
| Susan |
Wendy, Am I understanding you correctly? "Jesus was fully human and with every chance to sin that we have." Yes, Jesus was tempted in ways we are, yes he was fully human as well as fully God. But I strongly have to disagree that he could of sinned! You see, since He had a divine nature, there's NO way he could have sinned. This is one of the great heresies that lives in Adventism. If you give Jesus a sinful nature, then you diminish his perfect, holy and God incarnate nature. God cannot even have a shread of sin (or an ability to sin) in Him, especially in the person of Jesus. I believe that if He even had the ability to sin (which would require a sinful nature), then the work of the cross would be incomplete. Jesus could not have atoned for our sins and we would not have salvation. I'm so thankful that My savior was perfectly complete and perfectly God! Also Wendy, sometimes you tell people that perhaps troblesome feelings might be a kind-of sign to convict us of truth. I assume you are talking about SDA "truth". I would like to present another pssibility if I could. I believe that many of us formers, were called out of Adventism and drawn to The Truth because we get these kind of feelings. You see, I believe it's the Holy Spirit convicting us of truth and error. Some of us probablly have the gift of discerning spirits. Just as the truth can stir something inside of us, so can heretical teaching. I believe (can't speak for others, just my own view)that's what's happening here, with the folks you've been talking to. The wonderful thing is, that we're guided by the Holy spirit in all things, especially in our gifts of discernment. Am I making any sense? Hope this helps a little. Praying that God's wisdom will be evident to us all, as we grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ! Susan | ||
| Loneviking |
Well put, G.A., and to which I would add the following..... Wendy, the question you ask is the same as that asked by the JW's and Mormons. My response is that any church/cult/group that deviates from the Bible is marked by the following: 1. Denial of the belief that each individual is individually reponsible for searching the scriptures and deciding what is taught within. The starting point for this belief is Galatians 1:8. Any group that has a 'prophet' or 'messenger from God' has negated this belief. I say this because such an assertion, if believed, means that you MUST believe what this messenger says. 2. How can each of us search the scriptures and know for certainity what is truth? The Bible, Christ himself, promised us the Holy Spirit who would lead us into all truth. SDA's/Mormons/JW's all say that individuals need some help, in the form of a prophet, who recovers hidden or lost truth. This belief violates both the idea that each individual must study the truth for themselves, and that each individual can know the truth through the indwelling Holy Spirit. 3. SDA's/Mormons/Jw's each have extra-biblical writings. The purpose of these writings may differ---the Mormons have 'another testament of Jesus Christ', the JW's have another translation of the Scriptures, and the SDA's have the counsels of EGW---but it all comes down to the same thing.....something other than the Bible is needed for the revelation of all truth. 4. Mormons/JW's and SDA's all say that truth has either been lost or hidden. That goes against the principle that each believer has the Holy Spirit and can know what is taught without a special revelation. 5. Finally, the Mormons/Jw's and SDA's were all told by Bible believing, God fearing Christians that they wrong in their beliefs, but each group rejected this claim. The Millerites were told by the Methodist, Congregationalists and others that setting a date for the second coming was wrong. These good Christians quoted the Bible which said that 'no man knoweth the day nor the hour'....and their counsel was rejected. A foundation was established on error,and then went on to further error. When the Second Coming did not occur when it was supposed to--aha! The IJ and the Sanctuary came into being. Or, as the JW's did, they just refigured the time. Wendy, error begets error and a house established on a foundation of error, even if there are some 'good planks' in the building, is still a poor substitute for a well built house. Please Wendy, do some studying for yourself without the EGW books and the preconceptions. LV | ||
| Breezy |
Grace Ambassador, I have read all those texts and none of them tell me not to keep the law. They simply tell me that it is not the law that saves me. It does not mean I am released from keeping the law, simply from my dependance on it. Susan, By Christ having an edge on us it makes Him an imperfect sacrifice. If He could not sin then what does that prove? However, if He could sin and did not what does this teach us? That if He could do it, so can we.Through the power of the Holy Spirit in us. He is our perfect example. The reason you don't believe you can keep the law perfectly through His example, is because you refuse to accept that He was fully human and capable of sin yet did not. You negate the very power within the sacrifice. Also, I believe the gospel as you and these others teach it is false and contrary to the truth of the Bible. Therefore no, I do not believe you are being led by the Holy Spirit. If it does not hold with the Bible, there is no light in them. LV,I have-I have-Ihave! Okay!?! I do not agree with you. I believe you are all wrong and do not have the right grasp of scripture or the authority of EGW. I have said before the church does give her too much authority. I do not. I take the Bible first. I enjoy and am uplifted by Mrs. White's writings. I am sorry you are not. Some do not respond well to chastening and persecute the message bearer. That is okay. Like it has been said before. It will all pan out in the end. Just wanted you all to know where I stand now. I will not be dishonest about it. I really wish you would understand that I will not be swayed on this. Judge me if you will but it will do no good. Only harm to yourselves. Please, vote me off the forum if you feel my useful time is done here. I'll get more housework done and my kids will thank you. | ||
| Sherry2 |
I'm right there with ya Susan. I got into a discussion with that Jesus being fully human to the degree that he could step into sin at any time, and we were looking at our toddlers who sin knowingly often when they take something they know they should not or whatever...that is the sinful nature. And either Christ did have that divine nature that kept him from sinning or he didn't. And we both realized that that was a heresy, because Jesus (if he was just like any other toddler) would have sinned. Period. And it does not take away from His sacrifice at all. It just goes to show once again that Jesus is the Only One who could've made payment for our sins...our Creator came to dwell among us, not to prove He could have a fallen nature and not sin, but to show us He cared and to take our sin upon Himself to redeem us. That is beyond AWESOME! He did not need to come and dwell among us. He could've come with all His pomp and glory, and died for us. But He became part of us to show His love for us. Yes, He was tempted, but no, He did not have the same fallen nature that could've sent Him into sin at 2 1/2 years old that we know our children have. | ||
| Susan |
Wendy, Christ did not come to be a perfect example to the world. He came to be a perfect savior to it! And you know what, I'm so very glad that he DOES have an edge over me. Jesus is God almighty, he better have an incredible edge over all creation!!! He didn't come to show us that we could live a perfect life, but that his blood is the only thing that saves. See, he had to fill the Messiah role (which required a perfect unblemished Lamb, WITHOUT ANY ABILITY TO SIN.). He knew we are all sinful and it is only by his blood that our sins could forever be erased. He knew that we depraved and dead sinners could only have life through Him, not by ANY works of our own. He also won the victory over death (results of sin, through the corruption of Satan). I believe that Jesus was fully man, yet fully God. I do not believe that he could have had anything other than a divine nature. If his nature was anything but divine (such as human with an ability to sin), then God could NOT have equally co-existed within the man. Wendy, do you understand that your beliefs sound HERETICAL to orthodox Christianity? I make no apologies for the beliefs I hold. They are clearly substantiated by God's holy word and by two thousand years of Church history. Sherry2, great illustration! A big DITTO to all that you, G.A. and L.V. have said. |
