| Author | Message | ||
| Susan_2 (Susan_2) |
First: My sda relatives seem to know only one bible text and that is the one that says, "Here are they that keep the commandments..." and they then go on to say "Well, at least the adventist church keeps the commandments so then it is only reasonable to assume that a Sunday church does not keep the com,mandments and thus is 100% wrong, wrong, wrong on everything, blah, blah, blah", you get my drift, I'm sure. Does anyone out there have a reply to that? I have finilly just started tellking my sda kin that it is not true that the sda denomination "keeps the commandments because they do abortions at their medical facilitiesa and if they believed the 10 commandments were still valid as they are written in Ex. 20 they would practice the one that says thou shalt not kill". Well, then they just te;ll me that adventists are only human, too and some do things that are not always right but at least the church teaches the truth on this. I need a rresponse. Or, I can do what refer to do and that is pretend I've gone to sleep or just go outside. Second: They also know another text and this is the one that says, "Even though you preformed great miracles in my name I knew you not", I don't know the entire text by heart but this is the one they use to tell me that Sunday Christians are not really Christians and at the end time God will just spew them from Him. Any comment on this? | ||
| Freeatlast (Freeatlast) |
Ask them to prove that"commandments" refers specifically to the 10 commandments in Exodus and Deuteronomy. If nothing else, this will open the door for you to show them that "the law" referred to in the NT refers to the entire 5 books of the Pentateuch, not just the 10 commands written on tablets of stone... The word for "commandments", in the Greek is translated to "teachings, principles, or philosophy". Typical of the early SDA's reliance on the KJV exactly as translated without any reference back to the language of origin and the meaning(s) therein... Good luck and God bless! | ||
| Steve (Steve) |
Hi Susan, If you want it to be argumentative, you could do the following: Ask them if Ellen G. White or the SDA church keep the 9th commandment. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. Point out her GROSS plaigarism, her lies about who revealed to her those visions, and the false witness against so many in the 9 volumes in the Testimonies to the Church. Or you could pray. Pray with them an evangelical prayer. An evangelical prayer is a prayer in which you present the gospel to them while praying it out loud to God. An example: Our Heavenly Father, We thank you for the great blessing of eternal life you have given to those who believe on the name of your Son, Jesus. We thank you for the commandments, especially the ten commandments, for pointing out in us the dire need for someone to save us. Your commandments, Oh Lord, have accomplished their mission; they leave all men and women without an excuse to come to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Lord, in Him we have seen your salvation both from sin and the condemnation of the law. Now we have freedom in Him to listen to the Holy Spirit who has been bestowed on us to show us all the specifics of sin in our lives. And with these revelations to us from Him, He drives us ever closer and closer to the foot of the cross for our eternal redemption. We now cry with Paul that we would "know nothing but Christ and Him crucified." May the cross be our focus, may the blood of Jesus be that which continually cleanses us from ALL sin, and may our lives continually give you glory until that day what ALL knees shall bow and ALL tongues confess that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of the Father. AMEN Sometimes a heartfelt and honest prayer, though the power of the Holy Spiit will convict in ways we would never believed possible on our own strenght. Steve | ||
| Doug222 (Doug222) |
Susan, As you know, arguing (especially specific points) can be fruitless. I think that when you bring up something as controversial as the abortion issue, you are stepping on a hornets nest that is likely to cause a person to become more entrenched that less. There are just so many strongly held strongly held opinions about the subject. Instead I might suggest by questioning whether they in fact keep the commandments--indeed whether it is even possible to keep any of the commandments. Adventists tend to argue based on logic, so a logical answer will be most effective. If you can get them to concende that anything short of perfection is not really commandment keeping, and that they (nor anyone else) do not keep the commandments perfectly, then you might get an opening to introduce the real purpose of the law. Adventists are well aare of the purpose of the law, however, they mistakenly believe that once the law has revealed our sinfulness, that the Holy Spirit then enables them to keep the law. Try to get them to see that this makes obedience to the law the goal rather than harmony with God. Lastly, I would try to make them see that the law is not as inclusive as they think. For example, can a person smoke dope and still keep the commandments? Can they be mean toward their spouse? How about being materialistic? None of these "sins" are covered by the ten commandments. The law was designed to point out there need for a savior, then the Holy SPirit takes over, convicting us. I hate to be pessimistic, but in most cases you won't get this far without the discussion turning into a debate and the person becoming defensive, but try anyway. You may be the person God uses to help take the blinders off. Hope this helps. Doug | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
I just have to share my reaction to an article I read in the recent View Point, the alumni magazine from PUC (Richard's alma mater) that we got this week. The article, called "Taming the Leviathan", is an interviw with Jean Sheldon, a faculty member who has wriiten a doctoral dissertation about the book of Job for her Ph.D. from Berkeley. In essence she concludes several things: she believes Job to be inspired; she believes the author of Job was aware of several ancient manuscripts including the Babylonian creation myth which describes a scenario of a god defeating primordial evil and creating the earth (something good) out of the evil; she believes God's speech in chapters 38-41 are responses to this Babylonian myth; she believes Adventists have insight into inspiration because they "have had the privilege of watching inspiration at work first hand" in the work of Ellen White to whom "God gave the gift of inspiration, and yet she utilized a substantial library of works in her writings, quoting many of them." She also says, "Most people, both to the left and to the right of Christian thought, have assumed that if the Old Testament is to be considered just as inspired as the New Testament and if they are equally valid, then the only way to read the Old Testament is to take it literally and apply it directly to the local situation, irrespctive of time, place and culture...Of course, most Christians refuse to go this far, so in order to resolve this problem, one of two options has been adopted: 'dispensatonalism,' which relegates the Old Testament to the old covenant and a pre-grace time period, or an outright rejection of the inspiration of the Old testament. Both options are equally problematic." She concludes that the Old Testament is not something to be applied today but to be read as an account of God adapting "His ways to the people", thus causing us to trust him and to adapt our ways to meet people where they are. Her concluding sentence is this: "Only by utilizing the Old Testament to its most profitable advantage can we truly understand the New Testament." I was overwhelmed after I read it by realizing how confused and compelled I used to be by arguments such as hers. Do I think the author of Job knew those ancient myths and manuscripts? Most probably. Do I think he referred to things in them when he wrote Job? Probably. Did God's speeches in chapters 38-41 address the prevailing beliefs about the universe as described in ancient Mesopotamian manuscripts? Good chance. Does this equal EGW's "source borrowing"? Of course not. The problem with Adventist "scholarship" in general and liberal theology as well is that they do not approach the Bible with the assumption that it is the inspired, inerrant word of God. They assume (sometimes) that the authors were somehow "inspired" to write, but that they were pretty much left on their own to formulate the words and the explanations of whatever the thought was with which they were inspired. When you stop and analyze it, the old Adventist idea of "thought inspiration" is pretty crazy-making. The culmination of the article, that if we would only "utilize" the Old Testament fully, then we could understand the New Testament, is completely deceptive. But that idea is the idea I had as an Adventist. I read the New Testament through Old Testament eyes. But now I see that the New Testament explains the Old. Jesus and his death and resurrection have completely changed history. The Old Testament only makes sense in light of the New. And the article's dismissive comments about setting the Old Testament in an old covenant "dispensation" as being problematic reveals the true problem of liberal theologians as well as Adventist theologians: they do not understand the new covenant, Jesus' role in it, and the reality of the new birth. OK, I've vented. I find myself really reacting to anyone approaching Scripture as not truly the inerrant, inspired word of God. When we believe it is completely reliable, it's amazing how the Holy Spirit reveals Jesus and makes the whole book fall into place and make sense. Praising God for the Bible and for His Spirit, Colleen | ||
| Dennis (Dennis) |
Colleen, Excellent review of the PUC alumni magazine article. Is "thought inspiration" an invention by the White Estate? According to the former General Conference President, Elder A. G. Daniels, at the historic 1919 Bible Teacher's Summit, Seventh-day Adventists were then taught to believe that Ellen White was VERBALLY inspired. After all, Ellen White claimed that when she hesitated for a particular thought, an angel gave her the exact words needed. As with most every topic she dealt with, one can see how she was all over the road. Thus, one can claim that she believed her writings were THOUGHT inspired, and another can claim her writings were VERBALLY inspired--both being correct. This is yet another example of her speaking out of both sides of her mouth. Sadly, Seventh-day Adventists no longer believe that the Holy Scriptures are all-sufficient and inerrant. The SDA scholars that wrote QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE used both words to deceive the cult watcher, Dr. Walter Martin. QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE (1957) was technically not official, although published by the Review and Herald Publishing Association. The ONLY official forum that can change SDA doctrines are the delegates to a General Conference Session. They failed to tell Dr. Walter Martin this fact among many others. Consequently, the doctrinal content of QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE is unofficial. This is simply a technicality that is now used to disavow the EVANGELICAL content of the book (e.g., statement on the Bible, page 11). When Seventh-day Adventists routinely discredit many of the WORDS in the Bible, how can they come to any solid theological conclusions? I am simple enough to understand that WORDS comprise (make up) THOUGHTS. How can Adventists have these noble, inspired thoughts without inspired words to base them upon? Hermeneutically, even ONE word in a passage is pivotal in understanding its message. Grateful for His all-sufficient and inerrant Word, Dennis J. Fischer | ||
| Steve (Steve) |
Colleen, I'd like to get a copy of the article you mention above. Can you bring on Friday night? Steve | ||
| Susan_2 (Susan_2) |
Steve, the prayer is wonderful. I am learning new wording with my praying and it is a wonderful experience. I recently did the prayers while walking the labyrinth. It was a very solom and yet refreshing experience. I read in the book of Hebrews recently where Jesus is referred to as our sabbath rest. Then I put that with the passage that says some folks esteem one day above another and some folks esteem all days alike and noone is to concern themselves with how the other folks do it and then I read where Jesus says, "come to me all you who are weary and heavey of heart and I will give you rest" and between these three passages I have come to realize our true rest is in Jesus and not a day of the week. Yet, the sda's still want to make it a day. In fact, I have an Annoying Fallacy book that actually says this, " The Sabbath + Jesus = Grace". Yep, that is exactially haw it is written. | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
Of course, Steve. I'll try to remember to have copies made. I am taking a monthly class from Elizabeth Inrig on systematic theology. Our textbook is a condensation of Wayne Grudem's "Systematic Theology". The condensation is called, "Bible Doctrine". It opens with an assertion of the central importance of Scripture, and the second chapter deals with how we can know Scripture is inerrant and dependable. The first point on this subject is, "All the Words in Scripture Are God's Words". It proceeds to show, step-by-step, text-by-text, how we can support this idea from the Bible and supplement this support with outside evidence. It assumes, however, a groundwork of faith. It never seeks to prove by logic that the Bible is true. The author makes the point that the phrase "thus says the Lord" appears hundreds of times in the Old Testament. That phrase, he says, would have been recognized in the ancient world as identical to "Thus says the king...," a phrase used to preface all royal edicts. Such an edict could not be challenged, disobeyed, or questioned. "Therefore," Grudem writes, "when the prophets say, 'Thus says the Lord,' they are claiming to be messengers from the sovereign King of Israel, namely, God himself, and they are claiming that their words are the absolutely authoritative words of God. When a prophet spoke in God's name in this way, every word he spoke had to come from God, or he would be a false prophet (Num.22:38; Deut. 18:18-20; Jer. 1:9; 14:14; 23:16-22; 29:31-32; Ezekiel 2:7; 13:1-16)." Wow, isn't that a complete reversal of the way we were taught to view the words of Scripture?! Grudem points out that not all words were the exact words of God dictated as were the prophecies prefaced by "thus says the Lord", but he also shows how if the prophet was inspired with an idea, the words can also be considered the words of God because God inspired him to express the ideas God wanted people to know. (All of his assertions, by the way, are backed by Scripture.) It is such a relief to be able to read the Bible knowing I can depend on it's saying exactly what I need to know, exactly what God wants me to know. I don't have to play games with it to make it say what I think it should say based on my culture today! And yes, It is wonderful, Susan, to really know that Jesus is our Sabbath rest, isn't it?! Colleen | ||
| Jtree (Jtree) |
Susan... Adventists teach that the "commandments of God" in Revelation 12:17 and Revelation 14:12 are speaking about the Ten Commandments. If you look at the Greek word for "commandments" it is the word "entolas" which means teachings, instructions or commands. This word is used always in John's writings when He is referring to the instructions of teachings of Christ. When John refers to the Ten Commandments in his writings he uses a different Greek word, "nomas". John also defines for us what the "commandments" of God are. Please look carefully at the following passages: I John 5:2-3 - "By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments (entolas). For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments (entolas); and His commandments (entolae) are not burdensome." We aren't left to guess what the "commandments" are. The context of the Epistle tells us. Simply look at I John 3:22-24: "and whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments (entolas) and do the things that are pleasing in His sight. This is His commandment (entolae), that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded (entolaen) us. The one who keeps His commandments (entolas) abides in Him,..." It's quite clear that the "commandments" of God are two: 1). Believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ 2). Love one another | ||
| Steve (Steve) |
JTree, I agree! See my response to Susan under the thread "Questions on Scripture" written today (6/30/03). That little study has really helped open my eyes to the truth about the Ten Commandments and the Law of Christ. Steve | ||
| Seekr777 (Seekr777) |
I was just reading the following article that discussed the "visable, invisable and true church" I hope you are blessed as much as i was. I would appreciate any comments made. Colleen if we are not allowed to quote from other souces in this group I apologise in advance, please let me know. Richard _____________________________________________ 2. Third Day Church - So, What Is It? By David Orton (Part 1 of 2) "On the third day He will raise us up, that we may live in His sight" Hos. 6:2 SO, WHAT IS IT? The "Third Day Church" is not a new denomination. Neither is it any identifiable group or movement. We've been there and tried that before. Under various names and at different times those of us who have had a hunger for God and his kingdom purposes have fallen prey to elitism and spiritual pride. We have raised up our revival or reforming "movements" and created our "shibboleths" (see Jdg 12:6). As self-appointed "gatekeepers" we have established our tests of who is "in" and who is "out"? our measurements of "movement" purity and orthodoxy. These usually come out of a position taken in response to a perceived weakness in the church, or a fresh understanding of a particular truth. As initially valid "perspectives", in time, they are reduced to the unwritten "protocols" of belonging. And what began as a genuine move of the Spirit becomes just another "club". From the very beginning of Christian history this has been the downfall of most revival and reforming movements. It can be seen in the Montanists (circa 172 AD), the first revival movement of history, the Novatianists (circa 251 AD), and the Donatists (circa 313 AD), who all maintained they were the pure and exclusive expression of the church. So, in our understanding of what some are calling the "Third Day Church", how do we prophetically "press the envelope" without succumbing to spiritual pride and sectarianism? The Church ?"?visible" and "invisible" In the flow of the Reformation tradition we must distinguish between the church "visible" and the church "invisible". Why did the Reformers make this distinction? They were faced with an institutional church (in this case Rome) that arrogated the biblical promise of the church's glory to itself ? to the temporal organisation. In other words they were saying, "Hey, look at our size, our buildings, at the beauty of our worship, the influence we have, and the amazing blessing of our wealth ? surely this is the glory of God!" Not a lot has changed this is where we find many Pentecostal / Evangelical churches and movements of our day, measuring the blessing of God by the outward appearance of the institution. But in the Reformer's case, as in ours, it was obvious that the visible church's earthly power and glory was not matched by the glory of God in its holiness and spiritual life. This teaching, therefore, concedes that not all "professing" Christians within the visible institutional church are the elect (ie born of the Spirit), and that there is mixture within it that tares and wheat are growing together (see Mtt 13:24-30, 47-50). In fact, any visible organisational expression of the church (including ours) is tainted in some degree by sin. Therefore the true church is essentially spiritual and invisible (Mtt 13:33), existing both within and without the visible. In effect, there is a temporary overlapping of the two. However, the invisible true church will ultimately be manifest at the close of the age. And that which is visible but false will be destroyed (see Mtt 15:13; 13:38-43). Wow! The implications of this are "mind-bending"? the church that you now see is not the church that will be. In other words, what you thought was the church is not the church. And the closer we get to the end of the age the more visible the true church will become. And, boy, are we in for some surprises! Right now there is an invisible, or "underground" church being prepared ? a Davidic company coming together in the hiddenness of Adullam's cave. These are the "unlikely ones" those whom the visible church marginalises the discontented and in debt (see 1 Sam 22:2) those who by human standards are disqualified from office in the Saul-system. For God, as Paul explains, does not call many mighty or noble, but chooses the things that are not to bring to nought the things that are (see 1 Cor 1:26-31). And so, this seeming band of misfits and discontents, in time, emerge from their darkness as a formidable fighting force as David's "mighty men"? an army destined to usher in the kingdom. In the timing and economy of God they ultimately become visible. But how will this happen? A. A. Hodge, the great 19th Century Princeton theologian, gives the answer, "Wherever the true church is, it will be more or less visible; not in proportion, however, to the size or pretension of the organisation with which it may be associated, but in proportion to the purity of its faith and the spiritual activity and fruitfulness of its membership". This, in my view, is what the "Third Day Church" is all about. There is ultimately a visibility for the true. But it has absolutely nothing to do with the "size or the pretension of the organisation", with the protocols of belonging to any "movement", structure, or institution, no matter how subliminal or unwritten they may be. There is no room for worldly dependence, on the "arm of flesh", in the thing that God is doing. This is why God allows his Davids to be hunted into the caves of Adullam to extract anything from them that answers to the Saul-system. It is one thing to take the man out of the system, but its another to take the system out of the man. In Part 2 we will look at the "Third Dimension" of the spiritual life and the "Third Day Principle" throughout Scripture to discover what the "Third Day Church" actually is. REPRINT AGREEMENT: Duplication and re-transmission of this writing is permitted provided that complete source and website information for Lifemessenger is included. Thank you. www.lifemessenger.org Copyright © David Orton 2003 | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
Richard, it's OK to reprint other material as long as they give permission, which your article does! It's an interesting article. I think he's quite right that the "church" we see today is not the true church. I do think that many true Christ-followers are visible, even though the shape of the true church may not be at this moment. I'm thinking in particular of our brothers and sisters in Uganda who have left Adventism under duress, and who are preaching and teaching the gospel and disseminating written material to expanding numbers of people. I'd like to encourage them to join us and let us know how things are for them so we can support you with our prayers and comments. I know that at least a representative of them reads our forum. They are truly a visible part of that invisible church which God is growing and blessing! Colleen | ||
| Susan_2 (Susan_2) |
I always look forward to the next issue of Proclamation. I have learned a lot from that magazine. |
