| Author | Message | ||
| Jerry (Jerry) |
I realize that this will likely be a fruitless exercise. I must pursue this in fairness to my wifeís wishes. We discussed the theology of her church. She claims I have no idea about what the church believes. She challenged me to discuss my questions with her PROVIDED she could have a theologian with her, that is her pastor. She places this on the level of ìwe donít have a marriage if you donít give my church a chance.î This came out of ìyou donít attend church with me.î A low blow, I think. However, I am considering calling her bluff. This is not because I expect to convince her. Rather, this is to show that I DO have a reasonable amount of knowledge to support my decision not to attend her church. I need your help. I will not do this unless I can ìeven the odds.î Does anyone here know a former Adventist Preacher in the Chicago area, who can hold his or her own with a fairly ìliberal,î well educated Pastor? This person must be willing to come to a north western suburb at a mutually agreeable time. If so, please let me know here and we can arrange to get together. I suspect this will not work, but I need to try. Thanks, Jerry | ||
| Jerry (Jerry) |
Never mind. She obviously was not serious. She has been back-pedaling for the last two hours. Oh, well. No surprise. Jerry | ||
| Carol_2 (Carol_2) |
Jerry, please know you are in our prayers. Carol | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
Jerry, you conintue in our prayers. Colleen | ||
| Jerry (Jerry) |
Please decode this SDA-Speak I want to get some input on how to interpret some things my wife said to me in a discussion. I think I have a reasonable idea how to relate what she said to my understanding of the various degrees of SDA theology. However, I certainly could be jumping to conclusions or missing points. Of course, I am doing this from memory, so I might misstate some of what she said. We had a calm discussion (good!) where the objective was for her to tell me what she believes and for me merely to demonstrate that I had a reasonable understanding of what she meant. It went something like this. Me: So, why donít you tell me something important about your beliefs that you think I might misunderstand. Her: Iím not a mind reader, I donít know what you understand . . . Me. Sorry, never mind that, just tell me something important about what you believe. Her: All of my beliefs start from a personal relationship with Jesus. None of my beliefs is dependent on the theology of any person. Me: OK. So . . . (I rephrased what she said and she agreed that I had done so correctly.) Her: Do you believe in a personal God? Me: Absolutely, very personal, here and now. Her: (here is what I believe is important) The most important issue between God and the Universe is that there is a Controversy that started before creation where God gave every being a choice to love God or not. That Satan convinced a third of the angels to believe that God should not be loved and that he was forcing people to love him by his laws. God knew this would happen and made the ìplan of salvationî which will end at the end of the world. He sent Jesus to die at the cross because the wages of sin are death and Jesus died to ìjustify the lawî (Oh yes, hairs went up on the back of my neck.) Me: Please explain what you mean by ìjustify the law.î Her: The law was, and is the way we know that we have a choice to love God or not. Christ died to show what happens when you violate the law and to show us that you must love God and follow the law. (I am a little unsure of this particular part of what she said. However, I believe she made it very clear that she was referring to the Ten Commandments as eternal to the end of the world.) Me: I see. Thank you. Now, Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe I just heard the major themes of ìThe Great Controversy.î Frankly, I was impressed with how much EGW was in there while I genuinely believe that she thinks this is pure Bible. Not surprising. Still, comments are welcome. | ||
| Insideoutsider (Insideoutsider) |
Hi Jerry, A good start, you are having an objective dialogue. I would write out what you called her "main issue" actually there were two issues including the "justify the law" paragraph, and number the points 1-10 or however you break it down. Ask her to Biblically support each point. At the same time you should write down a paragraph that encompasses what is most important to you about Christ's work on your behalf. You number your points and support them Biblically. I don't mean proof texts, but the verses before and after that affirm and complement the thought, this would apply to her verses as well. Also would suggest you both use the same Bible, in other words not the "clear word". Then go over your verses together. I know you never argue someone into a position of grace, but God's word is very powerful, and has the ability to penetrate and instruct. It would be awesome to get her reading it with you. It seems to me that if this is done in a spirit of love and genuine inquiry, the Holy Spirit could open her eyes to things she probably does not know the Bible even says. I will be praying. | ||
| Jerry (Jerry) |
Thanks, Insideoutsider. I will do what you suggest. I will need to pray about timing and approach. (Let's see . . . how to narrow down one of my "points" to less than one whole book of the Bible . . . I'll work on that.) There are several parts of what I related that you might refer to as the second point. I would be interested in what you picked out. So, are people seeing more themes in what I related? I would not be surprised if someone points out more things than I see just now. Thanks, Jerry | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
I love Insideoutsider's idea, Jerry. The Bible is powerful. The 1888 Message (one popular focus within Adventism that claims to be resurrecting righteousness by faith) states that Jesus died to show how deeply evil men can be if allowed to be. That's what I thought of when I read that your wife's statement that the results of our choice not to follow God were the death of Jesus. They also say that at the bottom of our sinfulness is the desire to kill God. In essence, they are attempting to prove that while God's grace saves us, the law emerges as the great standard and measure of righteousness. While they say that Jesus' death was necessary, etc., they stress that his death was REALLY about being an object lesson to convince us of our depravity. I'm really uncomfortable with claims that Jesus' death was about anything besides a total sacrifice, willingly performed by Jesus in obedience to his Father, for the purpose of freeing creation from the otherwise intractable claim of sin. The Bible just doesn't say Jesus died to justify the law! The law needed no justification. No one, not even Satan, is trying to say the law isn't fair. That's Adventist propoganda. Satan KNOWS the law of God is eternal, just, and irrevocable. The commandments are such a tiny representation of God's law. God's law isn't in question. Satan wants our souls; he wants to deceive us. He'll use any method he can. Perhaps the most powerful underlying belief that colors Adventist thinking is the disbelief in the existence of a spirit. When I came to understand that sin was literally the death of humanity's spirit, that we are born spiritually disconnected from Godódead whether or not our bodies were livingóthe issue of the law became so much clearer. Sin was not about an intellectual decision, a totally rational choice. Sin was a spiritual decision as well. Jesus' death wasn't about affirming the law; it was about eradicating the claim of sin so our souls could be reconnected to him. I' don't think you can start with the soul, however! I love Insideoutsider's idea, thoughóuse the Bible to study these points! Colleen | ||
| Jerry (Jerry) |
Thank you, very much, Colleen. That solidifies some of the things I was thinking. I had most of the pieces. I just needed help putting things in the right order. As I said in my description of the conversation, "my hairs went up" when I heard "justify the law." I had not quite understood that, instead of the law pointing out our sinful nature, Jesus' death did that, according to some Adventists. That just boggles my mind. Did I get that right? If I understood my wife and your interpretation of where she was coming from, I am becoming a little more clear that my wife does not even BEGIN to see how much she is depending out teachings outside of the Bible. I am quite certain that she thinks that her main focus is her relationship with Jesus. The problem is, I see her looking elsewhere to find out who Jesus is. As I said and am currently doing: I must pray a lot about approach and timing. It is very hard for me to listen to these things and not react strongly. I have managed so far, but not without some detectable agitation. After the talk (a little late at night) I had trouble getting to sleep. She interpreted it as anger. Truthfully, it was not. It was a sort of mild dispair at the distortions I heard. You know, "I wish I could just snap my fingers and ,POOF, she would understand." Then realizing that was not even close to possible. I have committed to being still. More about this later. | ||
| Loneviking (Loneviking) |
Yep, Jerry, you got the law idea part right. God (so the SDA'ism I was taught says) came down to prove that the law could be kept perfectly and to show what the consequences of sin were. The law is eternal, and there is only one eternal covenant--and that is obedience to God's eternal law. Now, God's law has had two expressions. The one is written on stone, and the other on the heart. That is where the references to 'two covenants' come in---but they are still dealing with the same eternal law. ------end quote of SDA teaching! See, I really was over on the conservative side at one time!! L.V. | ||
| Jerry (Jerry) |
Thanks, Loneviking. This is just amazing. None of these specific concepts is new to me. However, I am becoming much more aware of how many ìcognitive disconnectsî there are in Adventism. (Pardon the hyper loquacity, It is just one of my many flaws.) I knew that Adventists think that the exact same Ten Commandments are still in effect. It makes sense that they assume, when Jeremiah wrote that God would make a new Covenant written on our hearts instead of on stone, he must have been referring to the same Ten Commandments. So I suppose they believe the ìdifferenceî is the heart/stone thing, right? I suppose they make very little of the ìI will remember their sins no moreî part. ìThe law could be kept perfectly.î Wow! I have always had that information. It never ceases to amaze me how they can miss so much of the Gospel. Nevertheless, let us set aside all those specifics. What is so very amazing is how ìun-differentî my wifeís differences are with historicst Adventism. She says she does not believe in ìInvestigative Judgement.î However, I suspect she only rejects the ìdateî part of it. I am more convinced that she believes that Christians are ìunder judgement of the law.î To me, rejecting IJ SHOULD involve the knowledge of Grace at the Cross, and the FINAL atonement accomplished there. Apparently, one can reject IJ and hang on to all the fundamental theology it was meant to prove. Rhetorical question: How do you reject the evidence and retain the conclusion? Boggles the mind. Jerry | ||
| Loneviking (Loneviking) |
Simple, you don't reject the evidence, you merely 're-interpret' or 'reinvent'. There's a movement afoot now to reinterpret what is meant by a 'new covenant' that says that many of the benefits promised under the new covenant haven' t arrived yet, and that rather than a clean break between the old and new, there is instead a long transition period. We are now, so this idea goes, in that transition period. It's really bizarre and spooky stuff, but the SDA church is increasingly full of this stuff as they try to reinterpet the past so it is relevent for the future. L.V. | ||
| Lydell (Lydell) |
Jerry, one verse they will try to hit on, someone can help me with where this is found? is where we are told to "be perfect as your father in heaven is perfect." Problem is, the context of the verse is talking about love, not lawkeeping. | ||
| Jerry (Jerry) |
<slaps forehead with palm> Díoh! Of course! Reinterpret! Brings to mind something I just read: ì . . . it depends on how you define the word ëatonementí . . .î | ||
| Jerry (Jerry) |
Yes, Lydell, that is in the Sermon on the Mount. Matthew 5:48. Not only is the context talking about love, but also does anyone read Jesus talking there about condemnation if you fail to be perfect? In several places, Jesus talks about endless, impossible requirements for entry into heaven. However, He also says ìmy yoke is easy, my burden is lightî as well as ìThe things which are impossible with men are possible with God.î Indeed, you MUST attain perfection to enter heaven. Yet, you CANNOT. If you say you can and should, you are raising up yourself to be a god. That is a form of idolatry. Oneís only hope is through Jesus. As He said, ìno man comes to the Father, but by me.î Therefore, he has made himself the way. Amazing Grace, indeed! Jerry | ||
| Speakeasy (Speakeasy) |
I have a request. I having come out of a back ground of Judiasm. I have a question. When you read this passage. To you does this passage talks about Jesus in him being the Prophet. This is a Passage that the Jewish person says it is. Any feed back would be great. Deuteronomy 13 1 If a prophet, or one who appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them," 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. 5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God Like I said This is a passage that the Jewish person says describes Jesus.Also any good web sites for this type of Study on proving that Jesus is not a faults Messiah. And that the Jewish person or anybody should trust the new Testament. I am trying to help my friend that does have questions that she is asking. And she is asking with an open mind. Speakeasy | ||
| Brad_2 (Brad_2) |
Isaiah 42:1-9 Isaiah 53 Daniel 9:24-27 | ||
| Sabra (Sabra) |
Excellent site for witnessing to Jews http://www.ronrhodes.org/Jews.html | ||
| Steve (Steve) |
Hi Speakeasy, Deuteronomy 13 is one of my all-time favorite passages. There are some very interesting points about this passage. From the Updated NASB: Deuteronomy 13 1 "If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder," Jesus was definitely One who gave signs or wonders. He was NOT a prophet or dreamer of dreams. Jesus was the sum of the Law and Prophets. John the Baptist was the last and greatest of all the Old Testament prophets. 2 "and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, 'Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,'" Jesus never said to go after and serve "gods (whom you have not known)." Trinitarian thinking is hard for a Jew (it's hard for me at times.) It's understandable. I've worked with many Israelis, who spent two years in the U.S. training in a facility in which I worked. "How can one be three?" "How can three be one?" There were very few Christians, but the non-Christian Jews just couldn't realize that God's ways are not our ways. Remember Who Jesus claimed to be. He said, "before Abraham was, I Am." (The greek term is ego eimi.) (Jn 8:58) The Old Testament that was in common usage at that time was the Septuagint (LXX), a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures. In the LXX the translators used the term "ego eimi" when they translated God's name, as revealed to Moses in Exodus 3. When God said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'" He was literally saying, "Ego Eimi has sent me to you." Why did the Jews want to stone Him? Check out Jn. 10:30 30 "I and the Father are one." 31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" 33 The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." Deut. 13:10 "So you shall stone him to death because he has sought to seduce you from the LORD your God who brought you out from the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. Jesus has never seduced anyone away from the one true God. Wolves have come in, however, who would seduce us away from Jesus' simple teachings. Their purpose is to get us to worship a distortion of God. Hope some of this rambling helps, Speakeasy. Steve | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
Speakeasy, your Jewish friend will not see the New Testament as Scripture unless she is willing to allow the Holy Spirit to convict her of its truth. If she's open to knowing, though, the book of Hebrews is a detailed study about how Jesus fulfilled and surpassed every Old Testament symbol and shadow. If you study Hebrews slowly and inductively, looking up cross-references and chasing the subjects back to the Old Testament, you'll find it astonishing, I believe. You're welcome to use the studies on the book of Hebrews posted on this website under the "studies" button on the home page, if you wish. With prayers for you, Colleen | ||
| Sabra (Sabra) |
That site deals with just OT proof that Jesus had to be the Messiah, they don't believe in the new but there is plenty of proof in the old, How else would God have expected them to know Him? I wouldn't send her/him to it, I would copy and paste the verses only. |
