| Author | Message | ||
| Lydell |
I'm stepping into this discussion late, just catching up from the vacation time. Nate and Doug, can I caution/encourage you in one area? It's very important that you give the Lord the time to answer you after you have presented to Him the request of what you should be doing at this stage. I don't mean "time" as in weeks or months, but rather time on a daily basis. It's really important that you guys shut yourself in with the Lord and very literally wait on Him to speak. My hubby and I realize now that we wasted years, yes, that was years!, from this thing of not actually shutting up and listening for His answer to our question of, "what now Lord?" The other part of the equation is, are you honestly equally willing to accept His answer no matter, stay or go? It sounds obvious. But far too many of us have listened only for the "of course you should stay and try to share what you know with the others" answer that we were just "sure" would come. Whatever happens, know that we are praying for all of you who are in that tough decision making phase. | ||
| Loyal_seeker |
Dear Dennis, Are you a doctor? I just read your post on the many'EGW rules, etc, and noted that you said that Bell's Palsy was a result of a lack of Vitamin B12. I have just been afflicted with this condition and while it seems to have come from a deep ear infection which was not treated for lack of money, it has now been treated and seems to be getting better, Praise God. Is it possible that the total effects of the Palsy could be reduced or eliminated entirely by the addition of B12 to my diet in a more concentrated way? I have never been a total vegetarian, BTW! I have just been taking concentrated Bovine Colostrum from New Zealand which I am hoping will help with this problem as well as the Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia I was diagnosed with four years ago. It helped very much before God graciously lead me to a Fresh Fruit program which has seemed to bring me out of the leukemia for all practical purposes, but I wonder whether the addition of B12 would still be more helpful to my Bell's Palsy? What do you think? Thank you for any help! Loyal_Seeker | ||
| Richardhardison |
Bell's Palsy is not a nutritional condition, it's caused by pressure on the facial nerves and is usually caused by a viral infection. Similar infections affect other parts of the body. I can't remember the names of the other conditions, but Bell's Palsy sticks out with me as I've known two people who have the affliction, a former Pastor's wife, and an Engineer in my county who retired because his appearance was affecting the business of the consulting firm that employed him (his face still looks partially paralyzed after 6 years). Good nutrition can help as it will strengthen the immune system and help fight off the virus, but the nerve damamge is permanent although the body can, at times, work around it and it's possible to mostly recover. | ||
| Lori |
Bell's Palsy can be bacterial or viral. Most people with Bell's Palsy recover completely, if they receive medical attention. Those who don't receive medical attention can suffer from nerve damage that is irreversible or those that previously have a compromised immune system may have longer lasting paralysis. My mother had Bell's palsy following a bout with Lymes disease. Her facial paralysis lasted for several months. It was determined that the form of Bell's palsy that she contradicted was viral; her immune system was tasked so much by the Lymes disease that it had nothing to fight off the Bell's palsy virus. She has had a complete recover from both diseases. Nutrients that support the immune system would aid in recovery from any illness. The needed supplements for immune system would be a broad spectrum of antioxidants and chelated minerals. | ||
| Richardhardison |
I knew theoretically the condition could be caused by a bacterial infection, as any pressure on a nerve can cause paralysis, but had never known anyone who acquired Bell's Palsy that way. I've never seen anyone recover completely, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened. | ||
| Loyal_seeker |
Dear Lori and Richard, Thank you for the information. God has graciously led me to the right doctors who have given me the correct treatment and the Bell's palsy is almost completely gone already even though I was told it might take several months. I will still see the doctor for several more visits to make sure the inflamation is eradicated. Praise the Lord for His mercy! BAck to the original subject of this thread . . . Finding A new church. Well, sorta back to the original thread. Have any of you had any second thought's as to the possible validity of EGW's 'night visions' for want of a better word, back in the early 1900's (Testimonies, Vol 9) regarding New York City and what she saw as 'buildings rising story upon story' and 'firetrucks not being able to put out the fires' or words to that effect? After the awful events of this week, I am wondering if any of this stuff could have been gotten from other writers of her time? If not, perhaps we would be well-advised to rethink our total rejection of her writings and, as God says, "Come now, Let us reason together . . ." [I know, I know, I should do my own research here, but I just don't have time and since many of you seem to have done voluminous research on her I thought you might have the answer to my question.] Is it at all possible that, just like Jonah, she greatly overstepped the boundaries of what God may have wanted her to do and put conditions (too many and way too pharisaical to be sure!)not given to her by Him? I know that one of my dearest friends, Dr. Charles E. Wittschiebe (now dead, Oh, how I miss his dear chuckle!) was a very reasoned person who taught Pastoral Psychology, probably to many of you on this web site, at Andrews University and he recognized a large amount of inaccuracies in her writings on marriage, sex, etc. I have a signed copy of his book, "God Invented Sex" in which he often, but gently, gave more reasoned counsel in opposition to many positions taken in her writings. To have done more at that time in church history would have totally negated what he was trying to do -- bring reason into the daily lives of people. I guess what I am asking is: Are we so fed up with EGW that we are willing to give up God because she happens to agree with Him on an issue; i.e. The Sabbath for one. Sorry if anyone is offended here, I don't mean it that way, I am just noticing a lot of throwing away what the Bible really says about something if it appears that she says it too. A lot of convoluted thinking, at least from what I have seen so far -- and I realize that I haven't had time to examine everything closely. I truly do think that God is much simpler than we make Him out to be most of the time. And I say as much to EGW fanatics, too. Another friend sent me an article in the current Review regarding the church's 'standard' on jewelry. It is from a book by Keavin Hayden, called 'Lifestyles of the Remnant' in which he tells the church in frank terms that their stance is not a biblical one and that they need to get their act together in regard to this and other lifestyle issues which make them look like biblical illiterates (my words!). While he does not particularly advocate wearing jewelry, he says what I have been saying for years about this issue; but does not go far enough to say that it must be removed in the requirements for baptism into the church. I told my daughter long ago that getting her ears pierced was a decision she would have to make for herself and if anyone accosted her on it to send them to me. I pointed out that Jesus put a ring on the boy when He brought him home; the lost coin was part of the woman's dowry which she wore; and the Pearl of great price was NOT something sitting on a shelf! In my thinking, Peter is saying that if there is a choice to be made between adornment of the outside or inside of a person, the preference would be for the inside (character) but this in no way says that the outside may not also be adorned as well. Changing gears . . . I shocked the wife of our assistant pastor this week by telling her of my 'throwing off the yoke of bondage of EGW'. . . She is praying for me. I'm glad because she is a dear person who is truly working for others. She has a wonderful ministry of counseling in many areas of life's difficulties, in this community, and I do not want to cause harm in any way to the good work she is doing. Our local church is doubling the size of the building because of the community outreach in helping ministries, and other space needs. Well, it is getting late and I need to get to bed. Still a Loyal Seeker . . . but holding tenaciously to the Sabbath. Gotta get onto that thread soon. Lot's to say there. | ||
| Richardhardison |
I attended an SDA prophecy seminar in Marietta, OH where I was living at the time, sponsored by the local SDA church and taught by an associate of "It is Written," Don Barnt. I was curious about SDA eschatology and felt the seminar was a good opportunity to learn about it. During one of the last sessions he took the SDA to the woodshed over its slavish devotion to EGW (those are the words used by Walter Martin in his appendix on the SDA in Kingdom of The Cults). The interesting thing is that although Don said he hadn't read EGW much his teaching was full of EGW material. I've seen the same type of slavish devotion among Calvinists. You would be surprised at the number of Calvinists who have never read the Institutes, yet their teaching is full of Calvin's errors. In the final analysis we have to take to heart what EGW said at the last General Conference she attended when she told the them "bretheren, I give you this book" in reference to the Bible. In the final analysis the guide for the Christian is the very oracles of God that he has passed to us in written form. Anyone who has said they have heard from the Holy Spirit and teaches in contravention to that is either a liar or misguided because they are merely listening to the random thoughts that pass through the mind of every human being. You need not worry about "holding onto the sabbath" as it is good to take one day and devote to God in prayer, worship and study. These activities are some of the most restful one can engage in. Saturday, Sunday, or Wednesday, whatever day your schedule allows the principle is fulfilled by giving one day in seven to the Lord. | ||
| Richardhardison |
One of the hardest things to do is find a new Church when you find yourself in disagreement with the current one, or when, like myself, you find yourself removed (I sacrificed myself because my wife's health problems caused my attendence to become spotty and I was removed from the cell group teaching position, which I never missed, because of it, the church staff never talked to me about this and knew of the problems I was facing) through no fault of your own - a problem being faced by more and more SDA. There is no magical formula. I've been out of church since Easter of this year and have been reduced to looking at churches I wouldn't have looked at before, local United Methodist Churches. I wouldn't have considered them before, even though as a Southeastern Pentecostal my theological heritage is the same as the UMC, because of the PC and left political trash the UMC is embroiled themselves, not to mention ordination of women and queers. The question is keeping money away from the heirarchy. I'm still dubious but the closest Pentecostal church is a 45 minute drive away and it's hard to get involved in a church that far away. Things like jewelry are part of a list of dos and don'ts that people like to use. Some of that is a misinterpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9, which is a passage the Church of God cited in its 29 original teachings against the wearing of unnecessary jewelry. I think there is a problem if a person comes to church, or anywhere else, claiming to be a Christian yet is dripping in fine jewelry, or is a clothes horse, or looks like Tammy Fay who must have put her makeup on with a putty knife. Such things say something about the inner person that is not flattering. To say a woman can't wear cosmetics or her engagement ring, or wedding band, however, should be equally troubling. I fell into that trap as a young Pentecostal, partly because that was the culture in the Church of God, but partly because I was ignorant. It took years of exegetical bible study to get past that. I'm not popular with some other Pentecostals, but that's not the point. My judge is Jesus Christ and it is to him I must account. That doesn't mean I ignore other Christians, and I don't, but I only listen to those who show "thus sayeth the Lord" that I take seriously and, frankly, those are the only ones you should take seriously as well. | ||
| Colleentinker |
According to the Bible, if a prophet has even one false prophecy, that person is a false prophet. According to the Old Testament, that person should be stoned. Jesus merely warned gravely that many false prophets would arise. I just want to make it clear that those people I know connected to Former Adventist Fellowship are not throwing out God along with EGW. That, I fear, is a problem for many people who leave Adventism, but those who fall into the category of throwing out both are those who do not find Jesus. Instead, they find Adventism full of problems and cease to attend, but they still believe it is the truth, so they do not feel free to attend any other church. People who believe EGW was inspired the same way the Bible prophets were inspired end up editing the Bible when they don't initially understand things in the same way Adventists have had to edit Ellen to remove her false statements or contradictions. Those who find Jesus know that the Bible is 100% reliable. They often find that the Bible actually teaches things differently than what they thought it taught. The Holy Spirit is our teacher instead of a man (or woman), and Biblical truth looks very different than it did in Adventism. No, the New Testament does not teach keeping the seventh day. The seventh day Sabbath was a profound symbol of rest in Christ to Israel who looked forward to its Messiah. In the New Testament Jesus said to come to Him for rest. In the New Testament Paul teaches that the law was temporary (see Galatians 4), lasting from Sinai to the coming of Jesus. The Sabbath was a symbol of Jesus. Now that Jesus has come, we would be heretical to honor the shadow--the icon of Jesus--the DAY--instead of Jesus the reality. Of course it's OK to set a day aside for worship and fellowship. But no day is sacred. Jesus lives in us, not in a temple. The Living Law is in us, not in an ark inside the temple. Jesus lives in us, and he gives his Sabbath rest to us. We live in continual Sabbath rest. Every day is sacred--when we are in Christ, there is no separation between sacred and secular. Everything we are and everything we do is for Him. Praise God for Jesus! Colleen | ||
| Richardhardison |
Colleen, that's not quite true. One passage doesn't even deal with the person being false, simply they had spoken presumptuously. The other passage deals with a prphet whose prophecy does come true but then says to follow other gods. The latter was a false prophet, but the former who, perhaps being sincere, did not speak for God. The penalty was the same for either as claiming to speak for God when you weren't was a violation of one of the 10 commandments. Under the old convenant God, the warrior King, was pretty hard on people that violated the law. Under the new covenant the warrior King defers to Christ and mercy. This does not excuse one from speak presumptuously, as you would be if you said "thus saith the Lord" claiming you are speaking directly for God rather than speaking your mind as the result of bible study. What I observe after reading a goodly bit of EGW is a claim not unlike some people make today that God has shown them what a certain passage means. Certainly the believer is indwelled by the Holy Spirit who lead you into all truth, I've seen sincere people who were sincerely wrong who have made the claim that God has shown them something. The biggest weakness I have seen in EGW critics can be shown in the answer to a soteriological question, is a person saved after having faith at a certain point of time, or by an ongoing faith relationship? The once saved always saved types hold with the first position. The early church and Wesleyans held/hold the second position. EGW also held the second position, which is not surprising as she came from a Methodist family. This does not mean I hold EGW as a reliable commentator on scripture. I don't any more than I hold John Calvin as one either (alas, they are about equal in that regard). I will point out, however, that EGW's biggest detractor, Canright, called her a noble christian woman. | ||
| Colleentinker |
I believe the biggest problem with holding EGW to be a valid religious commentator whether or not one agrees with her, a somewhat "schiz-y" position I held for years, is that as long as one respects her in the back of one's mind, even though not owning her as a personal source of truth, one is incapable of seeing the falsehood in the foundation of the church. If a person can trust Jesus enough to be willing to know the truth about EGW, the realization of the deception in her writings really requires that one take a stand. Either one decides to ignore the inconsistencies and rationalize them, or one decides to dismiss her as any kind of honest messenger from God, even a well-meaning but "misguided" one. Dismissing her changes how one sees everything else. I didn't think dismissing her would change my perceptions of scripture, because I hadn't read her or given her any credibility as a sciptural commentator for years. I was not prepared for how deeply it affected me to dismiss her. I was not prepared for how the Bible began to make sense after I dismissed her in a way it had never made sense before. As far as the soteriology question goes, I believe that Jesus' parable of the seeds explains the question of one's salvation. First, in 1 Corinthians 7 Paul talks about disciplining the errant brother by turning him over to Satan in order to bring repentance. He told the Corinthians to put the adulterous, unrepentant brother out of their fellowship as a means of bringing him to repentance. He did not suggest that the unrepentant brother was lost; he was already a Christ-follower who had allowed himself to indulge repeatedly in sin. Paul's commands were a means of restoring him. Second, Paul and Hebrews have much to say about warning brothers to stand firm and stay true and live godly lives lest they fall away. Jesus' parable of the seeds makes these warnings make sense. Remember that some seeds feel on rocky soil, some in weeds, some were eaten by birds, and some fell on good ground? Jesus said the weeds were the cares of life that choked the life out of the gospel seed. The bird seeds never took root; they never produced fruit. The good ground is the gospel as it roots in the hearts of those who honestly seek Jesus and respond with joy. The seeds on the rocky ground are the really helpful metaphor here. They took root quickly in the hearts of those who responded eagerly and with joy. They grew stalks and leaves and looked healthy and thriving. But they did not root deeply, and when the sun came out and things got hot, they withered and died. I believe (I may see this differently at a later time, but I understand it this way now) that those who are represented by seeds falling on rocky ground are those who have assented to the gospel intellectually but refuse to allow the Holy Spirit to give them a new heart. They embrace the truth with their heads, but their hearts remain their own. They are not rooting themselves deeply in Jesus and his word. They like how the gospel gives them security and a productive way to live and think, but they are not willing to be vulnerable to the personal truth and the deep changes the Holy Spirit wants to make. These are people who appear to others to be growing in the gospel. They have an external plant that looks healthy. But they have no strength or depth. They die when things get hot. These are the people, I believe, who do no accept the new birth Jesus said was necessary to see the kingdom of heaven. A head assent is not a new heart. We must accept him with our heads, yes, but we must also give him everything about us. We can't hold back our hearts from His Spirit. Those who have accepted the new birth can fall into sin. This is the condition Paul addressed at length with the Corinthians in his two letters. They needed to repent. Whether or not a born-again person can persistently live in sin and lose his salvation is not a question I can actually answer difinitively, but my belief is that a truly born-again person, one with a root system and depth, will respond to the Holy Spirit and to his or her brothers and repent if he or she falls into sin. Those who do not have that root system, those who have not accepted the new birth, may not. At any rate, admitting the truth about EGW was the most important thing I did, second only to accepting the Holy Spirit's work on my heart through reading the Bible with a desire for Him to teach me. I praise God for teaching us and for loving us and for saving us. I even love the paradoxes of justice and grace which I cannot adequately explain but which I know are true. God is sovereign, and I rejoice in that! Colleen | ||
| Richardhardison |
To the contrary, you can respect a person as being sincere, when they are sincerely wrong, and still see the error in their ways. There is no indication that EGW tried to deceive anyone anymore than John Calvin did. I have never been SDA, but I have a number of friends who are and have gotten into their heads to see what and why they believe what they do. their soteriology is that of any other Wesleyan, that salvation is by faith, it is not earned. All of them I know have a testimony of Christ. I have no doubt that there are those who think they have to earn their salvation in some form, but I've seen that among Baptists on a operational level, it's a common deception. To the other question, if salvation is by faith is it possible to lose or deny faith? John 3:16 uses the word beleive (believeth in KJV) which is in the present tense, meaning it is continuous or repeated action. This is only one example of a passage that is consistently ignored by the OSAS types. 1 John says the saved person can't sin, but then John says in 1 John 2:8-9 that sin is not forgiven in the believer unless it is confessed. What happens if a "believer" dies with unconfessed sin to his/her charge? The message of James is cruel to the OSAS believer in that its core teaching is that faith makes changes in the believer to the extent that what they do is the evidence for their faith. This does not mean the believer doesn't fail and sin, it simply means it will not be a habit because they are striving to please the God they serve. | ||
| Sherry2 |
John Calvin never claimed a "thus saith the Lord" on his writings, he never accepted the status of being a prophet or was called a prophet, he never lead a congregation by his visions and dreams., and saying it was all from God, God's messages to His people. No, EGW can only be compared to false prophets such as Joseph Smith, not to honest men who may not have had everything right scripturally. Comparing Calvin to EGW is ludicrous...I'm sorry, Richardhardison, but I don't see how you can hold that view. | ||
| Graceambassador |
Dear Brother Richardhardson: I'd strongly suggest you to study Bible Exegesis and really find a good guide to compare: Calvin Arminius Wesley Your views on "continual faith" and "confession of sin" to reach forgiveness is one step towards the abyss of heresy if not already in a dead weight fall into it. My concern for people who get out of one heresy is the same that I have for those who jump from the frying pan into the fire (the wrong kind of fire I'd add). Recently we had people here defending Masons and other para-christian systems and cults. The owners of this forum justly asked them not to do so here. Another request they made in the recent past was for me and a former participant of this forum not to defend our position on the teachings of Calvin, or reformed faith. So, I will not rebel and will not do so. Nonetheless, it is my responsibility to do so much or so little as to advise people to seek help in areas where their understanding of soteriology is still bound by traditions of men who "claim" that there is no participation in Salvation, but preach and teach otherwise, such as "continual belief" "continual confession" and many others, using scripture out of context, thus making the Bible an illogical and inconclusive book discernable only subjectively by experience. I know that God would not write such a book! I will limit my help to the suggestion I made above. It has been obvious in this past few months that MOST people in this forum feel bothered, to say the least, that I have never been a SDA, thus being an intruder in here. Such a feeling shrouds in bitterness anything I say and teach and the blessedness that I intend, produces the opposite effect. Therefore, it is useless for me to go beyond the suggestion I gave above. Perhaps some will say, "he finally got it" and to these I would say that I am taking one of the advices Jesus gave His ministers when people would reject them and/or their message. These advices are in the New Testament. Take my suggestion for whatever value it has. May God richly bless you and cause you to "grow Grace and in the knowledge of Christ, strenghened with all power, which I prefer the Greek original: spiritually dynamitized with ALL dynamite!" Thanks and Good Bye! Grace Ambassador Pastor of "The Embassy of Grace" Church | ||
| Richardhardison |
Sherry, you need to take a look at what John Calvin actually did, he ruled in a way EGW never did. 54 people were killed at the behest of Calvin, simply because they were "heretics," which simply meant they disagreed with Calvin. The most famous of those people was Michael Servetus who Calvin waited for 7 years before he was able to lay hands on him. There are still a good many staunch Calvinists I have come across that defend using the death penalty for "heresy" even today. To compare EGW with Joseph Smith is, frankly, ridiculous. You would have to show that EGW denied the nature of God as taught in scripture along with a number of other things that people like Smith taught that are completely foreign to scripture. You also would have to show that Canright was deceived when he called EGW a "noble christian woman" or that Walter Martin didn't know what he was talking about (Martin is probably the only person in the last 100 years who read all of what EGW wrote) either. Neither man can be justly accused of being EGW fans. I'm not a fan either as I've pointed out - she's not a reliable commentator no matter how sincere she may have been. Grace Ambassador, I have a good guide to compare all three, it's called scripture. I've read Calvin's "Institutes" and found them to be full of tortured logic and the errors of latin Christianity, errors which can be traced to their beginnings in the writings of Tertullian, culminating in Augustine's writings and systematized in Calvin's. I've read a good many Calvinist writers who claim to be guided only by scripture only to see that their teachings are shot through with Calvin's speculative theology. The teacher who taught the SDA eschatology seminar I attended said he hadn't read EGW much, yet his teachings were shot through with her teachings. But then he attended an SDA Bible College and the seminary at Andrews so what he taught is not surprising any more than someone who attends Westminister will teach Calvin. You are right that God's writings are not inconsistent. It was what gave Luther such pause on the book of James, until he realized that James and Romans were two sides to the same coin. James is one those books that have given Calvinists problems for years as it shows thier illogic and inconsistencies. Salvation is by faith and both Romans and James, indeed the entire New Testament, show it is by a continued faith relationship that we are saved, not by paying a fire insurance premium one time and walking away. This is the difference between biblical theology and speculative theology. Augustine and Calvin were up to their eyeballs in that latter. I'll take the Bible. I don't post much here (in fact it's been about 7 months since I was here last) but have never found much discomfort with people who have never been SDA. While I can't relate specifically with being ex-SDA, I can relate to having left a fellowship that accepts beliefs I can't accept for biblical reasons. If a person has sincere disagreements with someone's teaching they can't reconcile with scripture they should leave that body. I respect a person who spends a large chunk of their life in the SDA who learns that EGW is not what that body teaches she is and turns their back on it. That is tough to do and takes courage that few people have. | ||
| Colleentinker |
Grace Ambassador, I always appreciate your posts in defense of the gospel. Sometimes it's very helpful to have people who aren't former Adventists to point out certain things from a different perspective than our background would give us. Thank you again for how often you have defended Jesus and his finished work! Richardhardison--the fact is that EGW DID deny the biblical teaching of the nature of Christ, especially in her earlier works (if her works can even really be called hers!) Among other things, she actively taught that Jesus was Michael the archangel, and she and James White were clearly arian in their beliefs in the early years of the church. The Desire of Ages was the first publication that clearly stated the deity of Christ, and most of that book was "borrowed". As for Walter Martin, after the SDA church convinced him it was merely heterodoxical, not heretical, and wrote "Questions of Doctrine" to prove their point, he later revisited the question. I've seen a video of a debate he had with William Johnsson, now editor of the Adventist Review, in which he asked Johnsson doctrinal questions Johnsson couldn't answer. Martin was unrelenting, and he was openly critical of the Adventist's positions. Unfortunately, Martin had already published his endorsement of Adventism. Interestingly, many Adventists felt the church had betrayed them by writing Questions on Doctrine because it did not teach true Adventism. The book is now out of print. The fact is that the Adventist Church did obfuscate when Martin interviewed them. They did represent Adventism as being scriptural when it was not, and they played with their words so they could say things that sounded right while meaning something different. I'm not here to defend any man or woman. But I do feel the need to state clearly that when someone claims to be speaking God's words when, in fact, they are not, that is a lie. And such a person does not merit the defense of those who know Jesus. The Bible is very clear about people who pervert the truth or add to or subtract from scripture. When such things are done claiming divine inspiration and revelation, we have to state clearly that is false. It's one thing to teach something false--we are held hugely accountable for that. It's yet another to claim God told one to speak the falsehood! I praise God that ALL we need for faith and godliness is in the Bible! I praise him that his Spirit teaches us. I praise Jesus for revealing truth to us! Colleen | ||
| Richardhardison |
Colleen, they changed their position as they matured theologically and that is why Martin rendered the opinion he did. Martin never did relent when it came to the truth as he saw it. he never changed his opinion on their heterodoxy either. It should be pointed out that the Michael business has cropped up from time to time in church history before the early SDA leadership discovered it. They didn't discover "soul sleep" either (ever hear of Martin Luther?). Neither Canright or Martin were any man's fool. Once again I state, you have to show that both were deceived when they rendered their opinions. Martin made his statement with his eyes wide open, and Barnhouse stood behind him, at the loss of a third of the sunscription base of Eternity magazine. They took a stand and God rewarded them down the line as they gained all of the loss back and more, although that didn't save the mag after the death of Barnhouse. Canright never repudiated his criticisms of EGW's writings, and he never rupudiated his opinion of her being a "noble christian woman." Canright new EGW intimately,as well as James White. Canright was there, Martin read it all, they agreed. You are most likely too young to have been there as Canright was, and it is very unlikely you have read all of EGW's writings (Martin had to get the General Conference to force Arthur White to cough it all up) so, and I'm not trying to be hurtful, I must discount your opinion as uninformed. Once again, this is not a defense of EGW. She is not a reliable commentator and Martin was quite scathing in his criticism of her. Martin never stopped trying to get the SDA to see their inconsistencies asnd he was not only within his rights to do so, he was right to do so. Richard L. Hardison | ||
| Windmotion |
I hope all of you who read this have seen the movie "Castaway" with Tom Hanks, but if not, here is the premise. Tom Hanks is stuck on a deserted island, and all he wants to do is get home to his girlfriend so he sets sail on a makeshift raft to get home. After he is half dead from hunger and thirst he is rescued by a passing ship and ends up getting back to civilization. I haven't read multiple writings on various scholars' views of salvation, but I believe this illustrates the principle very well. All Tom Hanks wanted was to get home. He realized his raft was getting him no where so he got on the ship. In my illustration, the ship is salvation, the only way home. Can you imagine Tom Hanks on board of the ship looking at his raft and thinking to himself "This ship is too slow, too noisy, too big, too crowded. I want to try for home on my raft." Can you imagine him hopping back on his raft back into the ocean after being on the ship? I bet he didn't even go near the railing of the ship. (provided this was a true story) The same is can be said of true Christians. To argue whether Tom Hanks could jump off the ship is to me pointless. Maybe he is capable, but why would he want to? He knows he's on the only way home. Even if the ship hit a storm cloud, would he really think to himself he could make better headway on his raft? And in an absolute worst case scenario if Mr. Hanks happened to jump or fall off the ship, would the captain sail merrily along without him? No. The crew would be alerted immediately and do everything in their power to bring him back on board. Humans are capable of great love to those they have not even met. These was seen intensely by the firefighters in NYC recently. How much more capable of great love is God? He offered up His Son so we could have eternal life. Imagine in "Castaway" if the captain's son had jumped into the water to save Tom Hanks and somehow had gotten eaten by a shark or gotten caught in the ship's motor and died. Wouldn't the captain value the person that was rescued that much more? This is how God the Father views us. We are treasured because we are worth the sacrifice of His Son. What can we do to make ourselves more worthy other than what Jesus has already done for us? I can't think of a single thing, except to be grateful. --Hannah | ||
| Richardhardison |
I personally can't understand anyone coming to Christ and then returning to sin after years of serving the Lord, but it happens. Both Paul and Peter dealt with the situation, and the early Church dealt with the situation where a Christian who deny Christ to avoid persecution - most Churches would not readmit such a person. Confusion is created by a misunderstanding of scripture. For example look at 1 John 3:9, "Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for his seed remains in him: and he cannot sin because he has been born of God." Yet, on the facing page in Bible we find 1 John 1:8-9, "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all un righteousness." Taken at face value these two passages are a direct contradiction and 1 John 3:8a makes it even worse, "he who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning." The sinner differs from the Christian in one simple way, their respective attitudes toward sin. The Christian hates sin no matter where he finds it, but particularly in himself. because we have to fight the flesh, or old sin nature if you prefer, God has made a way for us to put our failures behind us. The real question, however, is what about the individual who commits the same sin repeatedly, even if they ask forgiveness every time the commit it? All of us have weaknesses, and some even have besetting sins which a temptation toward seems to defeat us everytime. Drunkeness for an alcoholic would be a good example. Some keep trying, some give up. some God delivers and they have no temptation afterward. Others God gives strength and takes them through it. God makes the decision and we must submit to it and keep plugging away, never giving up believing God's word is true which is all faith really is. The Christian strives for the high calling of Christ simply because he is grateful for what Christ did for him and that only in Christ are we worthy of salvation because we can't be worthy in ourselves no matter what we do. | ||
| Lydell |
As Richard just said, all of us have weaknesses. Even when we accept Christ, we still have those weaknesses working in us. At the moment we are saved we ARE a new creation. In his eyes we are perfectly righteous and complete. There's nothing we can do in our own power to make ourselves more completely saved than Christ has already made us. The problem is, it takes US a long while to find out what it means to be a new creation. My friend who came into Christianity battling an addiction to alcohol wasn't even aware that he had a problem with sexual immorality. It was a lifestyle he was raised in. To him, it was normal life. Very likely the Lord isn't going to be too concerned at the beginning of a new Christians life with their tendency to lie if he has to first get them off of drugs. Which is a greater sin? An addiction to drugs or lying? Murder or prejudice against a certain group of people? How long does it takes us, once we become aware of a sin in our lives to get under conviction that it is truly a serious problem that is hurting our relationship with God, and then that the Lord's power can also take care of that particular problem as He has all the rest? It's all a process. Sometimes the process can happen very quickly. Sometimes the process of letting go one sin can take years. Does that mean we aren't saved during the process? Or does it just mean that we are children who are growing? I think we make the mistake sometimes of unconciously viewing sin as having different levels. "The other guys' sin is far greater than my own, so maybe they aren't saved, and my problem is just a problem that I have to work on". For three years after my brothers' suicide I went through some huge battles: false responsibility, rejection, fear, terror, and finally emotionally shutting people out of my life. You know, it all came down to trying to handle the problem in my own power. Even after realizing that was the problem, it took MANY months before I could finally understand what it was going to mean to let go and truly give it to the Lord. Do you know what the definition of sin is? It isn't "breaking the commandments". It's anything that is in place of God. All that stuff that I was dealing with back there had the root of a sin problem. It was making something else bigger than God. We want to be delicate and kindhearted and say, "oh no, it was hurt." Sure, it starts out that way, but then it grows when we don't let Him take care of it. The whole time I was a Christian, I can guarantee you that is so!! And that fact didn't change once I realized that the "hurt" problem had become a "sin" problem of trying to fix things myself and wasn't letting go of it. So let's not forget the definition of sin in this discussion! Been waiting for someone to do this, and haven't seen it yet. EGW had some curious things to say about Christ: "The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty." Letter 32, 1899, from the SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1129. That His sacrifice at the cross did not complete the atonement for our sins: Testimonies, vol. 1, p. 58. That the blood of Christ does not cancel our sins, but that they are stored up in heaven. Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 357. That satan is the one who will bears our sins. Great Controversy, p. 422, 485, 486. That contrary to what the scriptures clearly teach, Christ did not enter the most holy place when He returned to heaven. Early Writings, p. 42 and many many others. That satan can answer prayers directed to God (its blasphemy to attribute to satan something only God can do) Early Writings, p. 56. And I rather doubt that Calvin ever made the following type of statement: "The Holy Ghost is the Author of the Scriptures and of the Spirit of Prophecy." Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 30. Nor have I heard a Calvinist say something like this: "EGW is the infallible interpreter of the Bible and the final court of appeals for the people of God." "Source of Final Appeal" Adventist Review, June 3, 1971 p. 4-6 "People say today 'only the Bible' but this is deceiving. The Bible must be interpreted by the prophet of God, Ellen White." Review, June 24, 1982, p. 15. "All Things Through Christ". |
