| Author | Message | ||
| Billthompson |
Cas, Canright was dealing with these false rumors before he died. His daughter tried to put these rumors to rest after his death but almost 100 years later the rumors still persist. In later printings of his book Canright addressed and denied these rumors as did his daughter and others who knew him personally from outside the SDA church. I find it very interesting that they always chose to try to discredit the man rather than addressing the specfic issues he raised. For example he told of EGW's plagiarism in that first 1889 edition of his book and later wrote an entire book about EGW where he was more specific about her copying. If the SDA church had read his words on that issue alone they would have been saved the embarrassment they went through in the 1980s when Walter Rea's book hit the church like an atomic bomb and was covered by the secular press. They successfully discouraged most SDAs from reading his books by making them think he was demon possessed, changed his mind later, etc. His first book went through 14 different printings and was widely read by nonSDAs and was largely responsible for the "cult" status among most nonSDA Christians until the 1950's. Again, they would have done well to lay the personal insults and rumors aside and read what he had to say way back then if for no other reason than to learn of EGW's plagiarism. Remember, that all manipulative religious movements (cults, Jim Jones, David Koresh, etc.) predict that those who leave them are walking away from God Himself and will regret it in this life or the next. SDAs believe this must be the case with Canright, Ballenger, Des Ford and the host of others who have spoken up against their teachings in the past. Some who leave controlling groups like this do indeed have psychological, emotional and spiritual problems after leaving but that does not mean they did the wrong thing by leaving. It simply means the group did a good brainwashing job on the person while they were with them. I have seen no credible evidence that Canright ever recanted. What if he did? Is his testimony regarding EGW's plagiarism and some of the other facts of the history of SDA pioneers less relevant somehow? Most of what he wrote has since been proved by people like Walter Rea, and many others. SDAs are critical of Walter Rea for seeming bitter when he wrote "White Lie". I have no doubt he was bitter and I wish he had not let that show in his book but that does not make his evidence any less important? A Sinner Saved By Grace Alone, Bill Thompson | ||
| Delstar |
Bill, the natural inclination of man is to rebel when they are forced into defending something they cannot defend. So every time a truth cannot be refuted, and if we have no dependancy on Jesus Christ.....we'll slip into that mode of attacking the messenger. | ||
| Chyna |
dear bill, I was listening to Des Ford speak, and he takes a much less radical approach to EGW. He says she was a wonderful lady who wasn't always correct. He says that whenever anyone asked her about things, she would say, "Go to your bibles" I'm wondering which approach really is the best when talking to SDA's. I know walter martin said "never attack the leader (whether Joseph Smith, EGW etc) but attack the doctrine." because he (martin) seemed to think that would less emotional. although, in talking to SDA's about doctrines, it always seems to be really emotional, or very fraught. some thoughts, Chyna | ||
| Billthompson |
Delstar, Amen! Chyna, Yes, Des Ford has a better understanding of EGW than most active SDAs. He is somewhat an outsider you know. He has an independant ministry since he was booted from the pulpit several years ago for refuting the Investigative Judgement. He has hung on to many SDA doctrines like the Sabbath (though not for salvation) and the lifestyle, diet, etc. Des considers EGW important because she was one of the founders of the SDA church but NOT because she was a prophetess. He considers her writings "pastoral" not "prophetic". He thinks her writings should be used by SDAs the same way other Christians would use the writings of Charles H. Spurgeon or others of similar influence. Myself, I do not think EGW deserves to be in the same class as Spurgeon, D.L. Moody, etc. and certainly not the same level as writers of the Bible. Walter Martin has many great tips for dealing with people from cults and abberrant religious groups. Again, as I've said many times here. I think it is useless to talk to an SDA about anything other than the basics of the Gospel Message until they have a firm assurance of their own salvation and understand they are not saved nor kept saved by good works. They desparately need to understand Grace. I'd stick with this message no matter how hard they try to change the subject, and in my experience they will try to change the subject or run from the discussion all together. A true understanding of Grace seems to run counter to the very foundation of their faith. That is why they need this message most. All other discussions are a waste of time without a firm foundation where salvation by Grace alone is concerned. Bill Thompson | ||
| Delstar |
As a friend of mine stated....they could recite 'Mary had a little lamb' and show you how it says we should keep the 10 Cs. (sorry friend, I just had to share that.) | ||
| Dennis |
Debbie, Thanks for listing the Bible passages about the law and grace. It keeps us on focus to actually read the verses instead of merely talking about them. What a gold mine for New Covenant Christians! In His grace, Dennis J. Fischer PS: My wife and I requested our names to be removed from the SDA church records last February. After our additional follow-ups, they have finally informed us that the request will be presented to the church business meeting this coming October 16th. We have even received special letters from SDA leaders(friends despite this request), to reconsider. One Adventist, neighbor lady told us, that she cried all morning, when she found out about our decision to leave Adventism. I pray that our decision will inspire many to embrace the True Sabbath, Jesus Christ. --DJF | ||
| Billthompson |
Delstar, Well of course, isn't it obvious..."Mary had a little lamb it's fleace was white as snow..." Mary, the Mother of Jesus, had a little lamb, Jesus, and why was His fleace as pure and white as snow? Because he kept the 10 C's, especially the 4th ;) Since the "lamb" did this we must also ;) If you don't believe me just ask EGW. It is tough having the 4th commandment as the center of your theology. You have to do some pretty impressive mental gymnastics to make the rest of the Bible (especially the New Testament) fit around that central theme. Bill Thompson | ||
| Sherry2 |
Folks, here's an illustration that has been helpful in getting the right mindset on the New Covenant....I don't know about you folks when you left, but even upon understanding the new, whenever I read "law" or hear "law" in the Bible, I just think "Sabbath"...that's how well driven in it is. I got to thinking about this covenant/contract...We had a contract once with my grandmother. We had gotten in over our heads with credit debt, and so she loaned us money to consolidate...part of the contract was to cut up our credit cards, not get any more, and not use any during the duration of this contract. We paid off this loan (it was fulfilled). Paying our monthly payment was symbolic of keeping the rest of the contract. But when it was paid off, we no longer necessary to keep paying on it. Not only that - upon fulfilling it, the contract became null and void. Now even though it's fulfilled, and we no longer pay on it, that doesn't mean that the principles of the contract are bad..No, they are good...It's good to keep your cards paid off, not get into unnecessary debt, etc. etc. Sabbath was a sign of the covenant/contract which was fulfilled through Christ. To continue to pay on it (keep Sabbath or any of the Sabbaths, or sacrificial system and any of the ceremonial laws) is to say that the contract is still active, even though it has been fulfilled. And that is foolishness. The principles of the contract are not bad...In fact they are good. And I can live by those things. But the written contract/covenant in and of itself is null and void. There had come a new covenant with better promises through Jesus Christ, my Lord and Savior. I hope this helps somebody else too. I am realizing that it appears many people in other denominations do not get this new covenant either though, because I hear the big 10 preached on often in other churches, plus Sunday is referenced as the Sabbath. I think the whole world needs to have this message of Christ's work on the cross and what this means for us preached much clearer. | ||
| Sherry2 |
You would think we wouldv'e noticed how John wrote about Jesus and the Sabbath many years after the fact...when he says in John 5:17, 18 "But Jesus answered them,'My Father has been working until now, and I have been working.' Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God." First off, John had time to reflect upon this event before he wrote about it....if Jesus had only broken the Sabbath according to Pharasaical laws and not the actual law, do you not think John would have said "because they thought He had broken the Sabbath" instead of such definiteness that he DID break the Sabbath? Secondly, with all the posturing to point out that God rested the seventh-day, how did we rationalize away Jesus saying that he works now just as God in heaven continues to work... hmmmm. Indeed we have walked around with blinders, but now we have seen the light and the veil has been torn in our hearts. Wow. What awesomeness. He is indeed Lord of the Sabbath - Lord of the REST...doesn't that mean so much more than Lord of the 7th Day? Much broader, much deeper, much more in line with the God who indeed made the universe, and sacrificed Himself to redeem us and receive us as His own. | ||
| Bmorgan |
Sherry2, How profound! I appreciate your illustration. Bmorgan | ||
| Bruceh |
Sherry2 ---I am realizing that it appears many people in other denominations do not get this new covenant either though---- You are right Sherry, let me tell you a story. When I went on a campling trip with my church out to Jushua Tree this man came up to me and stated that his wife was raised in the Dutch Reform Church. He stated that in her church they put the Ten Commandments right up front in the Church behind the pulpit and stated that Sunday was the Sabbath day that came aound every seventh day and it was the Sabbath of the Ten Commandments (in other words Jesus changed the day to sunday when he was raised form the Dead). She was never told anything about a New Covenant and her husband told me that when she read "Sabbath in Crisis" by Dale Ratzlafe she broke out in tears and stated that she is free from her bondage of SUNDAY SABBATH, she stated to her husabnd well I can even celebrate Jesus on Saturday. The Lights came on. The vail was removed but remember the veil of leagalism goes to almost all denominations. Bruce Heinrich Bh | ||
| Patti |
I am really surprised to hear that about the DRC. My husband was raised DRC (in Holland). They are the Dutch equivalent of Presbyterian, as I understand it. This is the first I have ever heard about them being legalists. I will have to ask him. | ||
| Sherry2 |
Good to hear from you Bruce. :)....Well, Patti, it was obvious from this woman's church, that she was under bondage to the old covenant. It may not be true in every DRC, just like some Baptist churches are different from others. I was leary about going to a Baptist church, but the one I attend is awesome. The gospel is still needed to go to all the world, even within many churches. It is a breath of fresh air, I tell ya. I thank the Lord every day for this new understanding. | ||
| Cas |
Sherry2~Hi, speaking of Baptist churches, I am toying with the idea of checking out a Grace Baptist church. I am becoming aware that there are many different types of Baptist's. Do you know what the differences are? Grace Baptist, Calvary Baptist, Fundamental Baptist, 1st. Baptist.??? etc? | ||
| Patti |
I looked up the DRC on the internet. And they are definitely Calvinist, reformed, believing in the TULIP. I am not sure how this lady got a legalist minister.... | ||
| Lydell |
Cas, I was raised in a Southern Baptist church. Even among the congregation in that denomination back then there was much diversity. Fundamental Baptist are probably going to be pretty legalistic. At least I remember a friend in college being part of that denomination. The women wore their hair long, no makeup, always wore skirts, that sort of thing. (Sound kind of familiar?) Kind of out of touch with the times at the very least. As far as "Grace Baptist" and "First Baptist" and "Calvary Baptist", in our area anyway, these are simply names of different individual congregations. They may be part of the Southern Baptist, Fundamental Baptist, or any other Baptist type denomination, or even some independent group. | ||
| Bruceh |
PATTI I really do not know that much about the Dutch Reform Church, only what I hear from others. I was told by a man who was raised in the church that he was excommunicated from the church because he was baptized when he was 23 years of age. Bruce Heinrich BH | ||
| Patti |
I am not arguing with you, Bruce. I just find it very strange. Perhaps they are offshoots of the main DRC. I know in Holland there are various branches, ones which will not acknowledge the other... My father-in-law's parents belonged to one of those extreme branches. When he married my mother-in-law, who was DR, the family stopped speaking to him; haven't spoken to him for 40 years. But the main DRC in Holland is just like our Presbyterian church. | ||
| Billthompson |
It is important to define "legalism". When I use the word it means "works oriented salvation". I know of churches that do not believe in salvation by works and in fact are extremely Calvinistic and believe in predestination and "perseverance of the saints" (a.k.a. "eternal security" or "once saved, always saved") yet almost paradoxicly seem very "law oriented", not for salvation but law oriented just the same. My wife is from Scotland and was raised in the "Free Church of Scotland", a fundamentalist split from the "Church of Scotland". Both are very Calvinistic, all five points (TULIP), of the Presbyterian type. They believe totally in salvation by Grace alone, but because they are so big on predestination they tend to judge each other as to whether a person is truly one of the "chosen" based on how they live. They require women (in the "Free Church"; anything but "free") to have their heads covered in church, are very strict Sunday Sabbatarians, etc. The entire island my wife grew up on has strict Sunday/Sabbath laws as part of the lifestyle for all inhabitants of the island. No flights or boats to or from the island on Sunday, no stores open, no Sunday Newspaper avaliable until Monday, etc. These laws date way back with them and in recent years many have tried to change the laws to allow flights, boats, etc. on Sunday but the "Free Church" is so strong there that they can not get the votes needed. If a minister or layman speaks up against their church imposed laws they assume he is not truly saved (not one of the elect) since he is "going against the Bible". So, while they do not believe you can be saved by works or will lose your salvation for not following certain rules, they "treat" a nonconformist as though they were never saved in the first place. They remove this person's right to take communion, etc. This is also a terrible use of the "law" and puts many in bondage not inteded under the New Covenant. While this type of "legalism" may not be truly one where "works salvation" is taught, it is still one where people's works are scrutinized by religious people and fellowship is jepordized by failing to conform. | ||
| Graceambassador |
Bill and Patti: Let me explain that there is also people LIKE ME, who believe in CALVIN'S TULIP but CANNOT BE CHARACTERIZED AS CALVINISTS and do not want to be CHARACTERIZED AS CALVINISTS. For example, TO STAY IN THE SUBJECT: Infant Baptistm - It is legalism because it implies that automatic salvation for the baptized child. I DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THIS DOCTRINE. As Bill wisely pointed out, this is a contradiction with Salvation by Grace alone Sabbatarianism or Sundayinsm: - Most Calvinists, specially from my city, Holland MICHIGAN, are Sundayists. They will not drink over the weekend, but it is all right to soak up in alcohol and be drunk every other day of the week. their churches are just a social club and they define Grace as a total lack of godliness... I do not subscribe to that one either. Women in the ministry: - Some Calvinists read women in the ministry as "devil in the ministry". They are very legalistic about this. I DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THIS ONE EITHER. I believe that there is proper instruction for women in the ministry in the Bible both as to when and what kind of ministry. As to our dear brother Bill's statement: If a minister or layman speaks up against their church imposed laws they assume he is not truly saved (not one of the elect) since he is "going against the Bible". So, while they do not believe you can be saved by works or will lose your salvation for not following certain rules, they "treat" a nonconformist as though they were never saved in the first place. They remove this person's right to take communion, etc. This is also a terrible use of the "law" and puts many in bondage not inteded under the New Covenant. Bill is correct! "Bible Interpretation" is also "for Salvation", if one differs to their interpretation, this person is not saved. This is another contradiction with Salvation by Grace alone. Interpretation is for "Christian walk". It will not prevent you from going to heaven, but it will make misarable on the way to heaven. I am talking about different INTERPRETATIONS AND NOT DIFFERENT FOUNDATIONS. Example: (repeat alert... I will repeat what I wrote before) Lazarus after his resurrection was just as alive as any other living human being. Nonetheless, Jesus had to tell people to untie him and let him go. Lazarus was alive but mummyfied. Incapable of walking and moving. But undeniably he was alive. Uselessly alive! An ELECT saved by Grace alone IS SAVED PERIOD. IT IS GOD'S DOING! But as men impose rules upon his life, he begins to lose his ability to move in the Lord and His walking with God is not helped, but on the contrary is impaired up to the point of USELESSNESS!. That's why there is a lot of USELESS churches around! This is the kind of legalism that is not SALVATION ORIENTED but is just as deadly because saved people HAVE NO JOY IN SALVATION! We see this everyday. Bill, I beg you please, do not bag all people who believe in Calvin's TULIP as Calvinists of the kind described above. (I don't think you're doing it, but I ask you just to make sure, just like the Brazilian like me, who hijacked a plane bound to Brazil JUST TO MAKE SURE...) I certainly am not one! If you read my statement of faith you will think that I am more towards a liberal in matters of conduct, meaning not a sacralist, separated from Salvation, and less of a rule-maker. That's why Calvinists cannot accept me neither can Charismatics. One is too rule-minded the other is too judgemental. Both are wrong! Remember my posts against the over-importance on "sacraments" where both me and Bill Twisse showed our comtempt for ideas about the over-emphatization on water Baptism tithing - (a blunt form of legalism) and a couple of other traditions. If we are to discuss legalism, without going back to the discussion of "how can we detect and get rid of it" willing to SACRIFICE ANY TRADITION THAT IS ACTUALLY TR-ADDITION, then we are just creating our own covenient set of beliefs! I'd say, let's get rid of anything that is not taught by Paul in his 13 Epistles including "free will" "infant baptism" "water" "washings" "set amount for contributions" "transubstantiation" "consubstantiation", "ballot for church officers", "certain worship days, and special days", "the need for titles such as REV", "special people such as priests"... and other things that only burden the body of Christ. I hope that you all still want to interact with me after this post. I am prepared to defend my position and in fact I did in the Covenant Theology topic of this discussion list. NOW, I AM SO GRACE MINDED THAT EVEN IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH ME, I STILL THINK YOU ARE ONE OF THE "ELECT" AND WILL BE "PRESERVED TO THE END" - better than the word "persevere" used by Calvin - AND WAS SAVED BECAUSE OF GOD'S IRRESISTABLE GRACE! please read THIS PAGE, if it is up, and you will have an idea as to what I believe. Grace Ambassador |
