| Author | Message | ||
| Hoytster Registered user Username: Hoytster Post Number: 57 Registered: 9-2003 |
I think the reason I find this site so engaging is because of the conviction displayed by posts like yours, Dennis. That and the terrific joy you collectively radiate, having found your way to Jesus. Regarding the John 3.3 Scripture: I read it, and it clearly states what it states, but I don't know what it means. Were you former SDAs born again when you turned away from the Adventist church to find Jesus? - Hoytster | ||
| Thomas1 Registered user Username: Thomas1 Post Number: 104 Registered: 4-2002 |
Hoyster, To your last question, YES AND YES. How many times were you born of flesh? Once. I truly believe that Jesus meant what He said, You must be born again. Accept Him by faith. Trust in His gift to you. Accept His grace for you and from that moment accept the fact that you are safe in Him and sealed with His Spirit for now and eternity. It may be a hard concept to explain, but Jesus never said we had to understand all things. He only said we had to follow Him and, in faith, believe! When you find it, you will indeed have His Joy and it will be "complete"! In Him, always! <>< Thomas | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 44 Registered: 4-2000 |
Hoyster, The transition from Adventist to Christian, in my case, is as distinct as night and day. God calls us by his own timing to advance his kingdom. Truly, God was preparing my heart for many years before I officially left Adventism. I will never forget the exciting moment when I found the True Sabbath Rest. Then months later, God revealed another misssing piece in the puzzle when I fully realized the heresy of soul sleep and annihilationism. I was a hard nut to crack. I was arrogantly pleased with my SDA views which I held unto for almost fifty years. It is indeed wonderful how God redeems our past. Everyone has a different journey toward finding a relationship with Jesus Christ. Obviously, God knew that my stubborn heart would require many years to fully penetrate. He leads us one step at a time. Although we knew alot about Jesus as Seventh-day Adventists, my wife and I were not "born again" Christians until we finally left that deception. Once we fully realized that we actually even had a distinct spiritual component, the soul or spirit, our salvation became complete in Jesus. Hoyster, we were "born again" because we finally realized our lost condition. We are all spiritually disconnected from God at birth. Indeed, we are born dead. Therefore, Jesus said we must be "born again" in order to inherent eternal life. Thank God our pre-Christian days are over. We tried in vain to keep the legal Sabbath. Now the True Sabbath keeps us! Thank God, at last, we have eternal security in Jesus Christ. Dennis J. Fischer | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 229 Registered: 7-2003 |
Hoyster, I think you make a good point. Our previous life in Adventism has pre-wired some of us to be overly combative and dogmatic on a variety of doctrinal issues. I would include myself as one of these people that struggle with this. Having said this though, I think the opposite extreme would be to view doctrine as unimportant. Doctrine is indeed very important. The issue you raise is a great case in point. A person's view on the necessity of being born into God's family (and whether or not one can be disowned once born into the family) has a huge impact on your Christian Experience. It will affect how you will understand scripture, how you will understand the work of Jesus, how you will understand the work of the Holy Spirit, and the security and peace (or lack thereof) you will experience. A wrong undertanding of what scripture has this area has led some groups to the opposing extremes such as antinomianism or legalism. Doctrine is VERY important to the Christian, if it weren't the Bible would be a very short book indeed. What we need to do is not put away doctrine, but learn to discuss and debate it in gentle, loving, humble ways. If we can learn to do this we will all grow as a result. Chris | ||
| Hoytster Registered user Username: Hoytster Post Number: 58 Registered: 9-2003 |
Help me here. At my son's SDA church there are some wonderful people, kind and warm and seemingly full of God's spirit. I have sat in the service and listened to someone testify from their pew and been brought to tears over the simple faith expressed. Similarly, some of the finest people I knew growing up were Christian Scientists. At that time, they formed my definition of Christian, based on their behavior. Now my oh-so-Christian friends disdain ChriSci's as a cult. After college, I worked at a consulting firm where half the personnel were Mormon, and they were the most upright people. Integrity shone there. Another cult. A Catholic woman in my Bible study thrilled us with her testimonies of faith. She was awesome. And my ex's SDA relatives HATE, FEAR, and DESPISE the Catholics. It seems wrong, to me, to despise anyone based on either their church membership or their (second order) doctrinal beliefs. There's the story of the two sons, one of whom refuses his father's direction, but ends up following it... and the other agrees with his father, but then doesn't do the task. The true son is the one who obeys his father, regardless of what the son says. There's many stories of Jesus choosing the company of (or helping those) who were apparently far from respectable, but Jesus could see into their hearts and knew their quality. In contrast to Jesus' almost uniform thrashing of the seemingly righteous Pharisees. I don't think Jesus was angry at the Pharisees strictly because they were legalistic; rather it was because of the way their legalism ruled their hearts, so their hearts were cold. So the son, or the tax collector, or the Samaritan says what he says, and in his heart he loves Jesus. Who does Jesus love back? Besides all of us, I mean.  BELIEVE IN ME. LOVE ONE ANOTHER. Am I wrong, in calling the rest footnotes? I want to love my old ChriSci friends, and my awesome Catholic friend, and everyone else. How is that helped by labelling their beliefs as invalid or blasphemous or apostatic? Especially when I have no confidence in the extra-Scriptural facts? I've read about EGW, and it seems clear that her feet were clay, too... but can I say that God never spoke to us through her? I'd rather set her aside, and focus on the central message that we all agree on. God so loved the world... - Hoytster | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 230 Registered: 7-2003 |
Hoyster, there is a substanitive difference between treating others with love and passively accepting everything they may believe. I believe it is an error to deny that there is any objective truth or that truth cannot be known. I believe the Bible provides objective truth. If so, then Christians must follow the Biblical counsel given to stand firm for what they believe, always be ready to give a defense of the faith, and be on the look out for false teachers and not to tolerate them in their midst. In addition to loving, we are also called to worship in spirit and in TRUTH. Chris | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 230 Registered: 7-2003 |
Hoytster, your point is how I got where I am. It seemed to me B and I agreed upon who Christ was and the rest of it was, as you've said, footnotes...or I called it irrelevant. Boy was I wrong. It is those footnotes that have tripped us up all along the way. Not because of how I feel about it, but because it is essential to him and how he feels about it. Every conversation ends up back arguing some doctrine because the basic foundation on how we see the world and the absolutes we hold are different. For example, when you assume someone ceases to exist at death and talk to someone comforted by their loved one now being "present with the Lord", there is an argument. When I believe I can eat all things with a clean conscience, and the other has a base belief that certain things are not only not beneficial, but actually sinful, where you go to eat becomes a hard debate ... really hard here in the mid-west where BBQ is big...and I'm talking every single meal...if I'm cooking, there is double preparation of everything...I can't even steam vegetables in the same pan as meat...or use butter...and he's prefer I not make the mashed potatoes because I use milk...on and on and on. After 4+ years of knowing B, there are very very few conversations we can have that don't end up in some sort of debate about premises and foundational type issues. Does that mean we don't love others? No. Christ said it's easy to love those who love you, it's loving those that don't love you that he wants. I also had a very good friend in high school who was mormon. As kind and "good" a person as you could ever hope to meet. But Jesus said HE was the only way to the father. B thinks it's irrelevant to know Jesus' name or what he did, just need to believe there is a God and "seek him". I think if that were true, then Christ wouldn't have told us to tell people about him. And actually would seem to be a disservice, because once they know about him and what he has done, they have to make a choice. In ignorance, we can always presume a just God will make allowances for his exposure and will judge him accordingly. So, while I started the journey where you sit about doctrine, I've done a complete turn around. It's not crucial for every relationship you have, but for personal relationships, you have to have a foundation. I find that true even with my girlfriends. There is only so much depth of friendship you can have with someone who doesn't share your faith. Even though you can talk to them, they don't understand why "religion" is such a big deal and aren't in a place to give you Godly counsel, though I do believe God can use such people. If I accepted the argument you mention, and I did try it, there would be no real reason I couldn't go to an SDA church. I'm just accepting the pieces I agree with and moving on. But I cannot begin to accept the teachings and doctrines for myself, how could I possibly put my sons in the position to hear such garbage? God does know the heart, regardless fo the label. One of my former bosses was a mormon. He said he and his wife were sitting in church one day, and already knew who Christ really was and had studied the Bible enough to understand what it said. He said as they were listening to the sermon, they just looked at each other and said "what are we doing here?" The counter-cult people who had tried to witness to him were helpless to convince them until they saw the heresy for themselves. and then they left. Never looked back. Attend a "regular" protestant church, and are actively involved. There is absolute truth, though. And the diety of Christ is not an issue I consider optional. We are set free by the truth, and the truth is Christ. There is a difference between loving people and endorsing their belief system. God warns us about apostate teachers and prophets and doctrines which are false, if you believe Paul spoke God's words. That's why we need to be aware. It helps us know what to say, and helps us understand what they say. So, all that long-windedness to say, I understand what you say, and actually said it years ago. But when talking about personal relationships, if you want depth of relationships and genuine spiritual growth, a base foundation needs to be understood and hopefully shared. In my humble opinion.... | ||
| Loneviking Registered user Username: Loneviking Post Number: 219 Registered: 7-2000 |
I like what the late Keith Green once said 'you can be the nicest person in hell.....'. There's lots of 'nice' people, but nice doesn't work with God. There are certain beliefs that are essential to Christianity. The Bible speaks of a time when there will be Christians who profess the name but deny the power. Don't let yourself be caught up in that movement Hoyster.... Bill | ||
| Cindy Registered user Username: Cindy Post Number: 547 Registered: 7-2000 |
I agree with you, Bill....there are essentials to our Christian faith that "niceness" just doesn't measure up to in God's eyes. I like the words of Oswald Chambers: ""Nothing blinds the mind to the claims of JESUS Christ more effectively than a good, clean-living upright life based on self-realization. For a thing to be satanic does not mean that it is abominable and immoral. The satanically managed person is moral, upright, proud, and individual; he is absolutely self-governed and has no need of God. The prince of this world is judged forever at the Cross.... The Cross of Christ reveals the contradiction of God and Satan... When we come to the Cross we leave Satan outside. Satan cannot take one step inside the Cross."" grace always, cindy | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 102 Registered: 12-2003 |
Cindy, what a great quote. Chambers has such a way of cutting to the core of issues. Being born again, Hoytster, really is just what Dennis said above: it is the moment of surrendering oursleves to Jesus and accepting his sacrifice as payment for our absoute sinfulness and receiving the indwelling Holy Spirit which brings our dead spirits to life. I've struggled with the doctrinal issues, too. I beieve that many people are truly born again inisde cultic religions, too, when they really want to know Jesus. I realize that I was born again long ago as an Adventist. I didn't know I was saved and secure in him, but I really wanted to live for him. He persistently revealed truth to me over the years until I realized that I was being held in prison by false doctrines. At that point I would have ceased to have integrity if I had not followed Jesus out of Adventism, and I wouldn't have gotten to know Jesus personally. God deals with each person differently and within different time frames, though. Paul is clear that after accepting Jesus, we have a new obligation: living by the Spirit. We're called to continually surrender ourselves, our impulses, our desires, our dreams to Jesus. We can choose to live by our own impulses; we have that freedom, but God calls us to surrender to the Spirit and to let Him grow us in him. It's true that love is the core of true religion, but only if that love is God's love in us. Many people are open and "tolerant" and accepting, but that is not true love. In fact, many of those open, tolerant people become quite critical at the mention of Jesus and living for him. It's quite amazing to me how Jesus is the pivot that separates people. Even among "Christians", Jesus is the wedge that divides. It's not just believing that Jesus is the Son of God that saves us. Even the devils believe--and tremble. It surrendering to Jesus; it's being willing to release everything about us to him and to allow Him to change us and define us that makes the difference. I believe that one of the reasons Methodists (like many more liturgical religions) don't make much out of being born again may be similar to the reason people of the Reformed tradition don't: they believe that when a child is born, he is baptized so he becomes part of God's covenant people. That understanding makes a personal conversion less central. None of this is to say that people who believe in infant baptism don't have personal conversions; it just means that the doctrines (there's that issue again!) place different emphases on these things. The Bible really does teach truth. People can know Jesus and be saved even without 100% correct doctrines, but I'm becoming increasingly convinced that what we believe is crucial because it affects who we understand Jesus to be, how we are supposed to live, and whether or not we live in growing closeness to him or not. What we believe affects whether or not we know and love Jesus or not. But the REALLY wonderful thing is that God knows his own; he knows the desires and loyalties of our hearts, and he lets none go who truly want Him and who truly want truth. Praise God! Colleen | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 235 Registered: 7-2003 |
As the seeming impending legal battle over whether or not my son is split in half is drawing nearer, I feel the need to arm myself with some information that may or may not be usable in court. From my perspective, the SDA church teaches against Sunday churches and that teaching is more than a passive "you shouldn't go". Am I way off on that perception or have I missed it? B says no one will ever tell Jonathan he shouldn't go to church with me or say anything negative about me for doing so, and with all I've read about us "apostates", I'm not sure if he's just lying, posturing or sincere. Can anyone provide me with some specific teachings from the SDA perspective about Sunday churches and any "official" publication which might be used to show such teaching? Hoytster, how's your legal journey? Any progress? | ||
| Doug222 Registered user Username: Doug222 Post Number: 485 Registered: 3-2001 |
Melissa, I think we may have discussed this issue previously. I really don't think you want to "go there." I don't see how it would be productive for you to attack the teachings of a particular church in court. If you can show documented evidence that certan practices are physically, emotionally, or psychologically damaging, then press on, however if all you can show is that they have some whacked out beliefs, I don't think the judge is going to consider those beliefs and it may actually even backfire on you. I think you would be better served going into court demonnstrating how you are willing to "work with" B, setting reasonable boundaries to ensure that your son's best interests are served and that he will be able to enjoy a healthy positive relationship with both parents. Make sure the judge understands that your son is the issue and not "B" or the SDA Church. That is just my uninformed position. In His Grace Doug | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 236 Registered: 7-2003 |
Melissa, the last several chapters of "the great controversy" really define Adventist thought on "Sunday keeping". GC is held up as EGW's master work and is sold in every single SDA book store. EGW is is said to be an authoritative source of teaching by the SDA church. | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 236 Registered: 7-2003 |
My son is the issue... I don't want him being taught these derogatory things about going to church with me or following any other rule I set that may go against SDA teachings. That is my only angle. I'm not interested in taking on the whole religion, or in anyway trying to get into that. But to the extent that the religion would undermine my authority, such as going to church with me, I think I have a small footing. I know how B works, and I don't want to start that avalanche. Today it's where I take him to church, tomorrow it's the food I feed him, then it's the schools I take him to... I want to have a say in that. I think he would use the religion to undermine my authority with Jonathan, because he has certainly used it against me at other times in other ways. I may not use it, but he has already mentioned it, so I wanted to be prepared in case he brought it up. It is not B. It is trying to protect my son from something I see as dangerous for him, and potentially conflicting if not completely alienating in my relationship with him. I still hope mediation can resolve the issues without court, but he is pushing the issue hard right now and I just want some information for my own peace of mind that I'm not making it all up or battling shadows that don't really exist. I don't think a judge would give it a passing thought beyond the alienation/authority factor. | ||
| Hoytster Registered user Username: Hoytster Post Number: 60 Registered: 9-2003 |
Hi, Melissa, As of last week, I learned that our court date has finally been set, for next July. That is 34 months after it got underway.  I think Doug is mostly correct, in that the court is going to be reluctant to take a side in a religious dispute. The court has been trained to stay out of that domain. I am guessing that the best you can hope for is application of a "fairness" doctrine, where both parents have equal opportunities to shape your son's beliefs. That's what I'm hoping for, anyway. I will be content if my son alternates between Sunday School and Sabbath School. Esp., he needs to be removed from the SDA school he's attended these past three years (with 15 children total in grades 1-8!). The part that is frustrating and threatening to me, is the fact that my church takes a tolerant, inclusive approach to other denominations, but the SDA church brands us Sunday worshippers as dupes of Satan, destined to wear the mark of the beast, and finally to be removed from salvation, because we go to church on Sunday. Given my church's comparatively mild approach and the SDA church's severe teaching, which is my son going to obey? The "safe" thing is for him to adhere to the SDA beliefs, since that doesn't have the downside of being a Sunday worshipper. If I were you, Melissa, I would advocate that neither institution teach anything other than core beliefs that both parents can accept. There is enough of that in the SDA church to fool Walter Martin, so let that be the focus. Specifically, ask the court to prohibit B enrolling your son in confirmation classes, on the grounds that that would necessarily entail his learning a lot of doctrine that you fiercely object to. Given B's promise that no one will chastise you or your son for going to worship on Sunday, perhaps you could write into the custody agreement that any such criticism is grounds for removing your son from the SDA church. The grounds for such a clause is the fact that the SDA church believes that the persecution of SDAs by Sunday worshippers is necessary precedent to the coming of Christ, so the SDA church is inherently hostile to Sunday worshippers. You cannot abide a church that teaches your son that you will be his prosecutor someday. B should not be able to object to such a clause, given his statement about how benign his SDA church will be. And if the church is aware of the clause, then the SDAs there will resist the impulse to tell your son that you are the devil. Or not. I know that my son's grandmother cannot help but tell him that I'm part of the evil clique that will persecute SDAs someday, because that's who she is. So when someone says something like that to your son, and you learn about it - BANG the clause is invoked, and your son no longer attends the SDA church. I doubt that your judge will object to a stipulation that your son will not attend a church that teaches that you are doomed because you are a Sunday worshipper. The odds are quite high that the judge is a Sunday worshipper (> 99%, if he's Christian). And you're not asking the court to take a stand against Adventism; you're merely asking for relief when Adventism takes a stand against you. Another approach that I'm interested in pursuing, is the idea that the social aspects of Adventism are oppressive, esp. the various prohibitions against fun (movies, dancing) and the teaching that sins are judged and your son's salvation hangs in the balance. This site and many others present a dark picture of growing up Adventist. It's painful. Perhaps you can locate a former adventist who could testify on your behalf? I could use one. Anybody live near NH? Where do you live, Melissa? HTH - Hoytster | ||
| Hoytster Registered user Username: Hoytster Post Number: 61 Registered: 9-2003 |
Responding to all who offered their constructive responses to my "Everything else is footnotes" post. OK, I get the fact that there is wrong doctrine. Which raises the question of what is right. Which entails study. So I need to go to work. I'm thinking that I would benefit from reading Walter Martin's book "The Kingdom of the Cults"? Is that a good idea? Other suggestions? Thanks to all - really! - Hoytster | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 237 Registered: 7-2003 |
Kingdom of the Cults is the first book I read about adventism and it was very benign. Though it does point out some of the errors within adventism, it overlooks them as flaws not huge doctrinal errors. I proceeded with the relationship after reading that book thinking i was blowing things way out of proportion. I haven't read any of the other cults in it and since I don't have the knowledge level on them that I now do on adventism, I wouldn't know how to judge it. It seems pretty matter of fact and not intentionally antagonistic in the SDA section any way. But it doesn't clearly raise enough red flags from my exposure in hindsight. I'm in Kansas. Thanks for the great input. | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 237 Registered: 7-2003 |
Hoyster, Melissa is right that the book is pretty soft on Adventism, however it has really excellent information on some of the other groups you've mentioned such as Mormons and Christian Scientists. It also has a helpful prologue that helps to define what is meant by "cult" and why it's worth discussing. Chris | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 105 Registered: 12-2003 |
Right, Martin was quite literally deceived when he dd his research on Adventism. The church published Questions on Doctrine in order to convince Martin that its beliefs were orthodox Christianity. Many if not most of the people in the pews, however, as well as in many administrative and teaching posistions, felt the book sold them down the river because it DID NOT protray true Adventist beliefs. The book subsequently fell out of print, and prior to his death Martin had a televised debate on the John Ancherberg show with William Johnsson, editor of the Adventist Review, about the Adventist views of the judgment and salvation. Johnsson could not answer those questions, and Martin kept asking why the church didn't republish Q on D if it truly believed what it has printed therein. The book has just been republished by Andrews University Press, and it's annotated by SDA historian George Knight. An excellent, in-depth review of the book in comparison with the original will be posted on this site in the near future. Steve Pitcher (who knew Walter Martin) has written the review. Yes, Melissa, I don't think you can really make arguments re: the church an issue. I do think, though, that I'd get a written agreement that your son will NOT be sent to Adventist schools. Arguing that you disagree with the tenets of B's church and don't wish your son to be unfairly indoctrinated seems fair enough. I also like Hoytster's suggested clause in the event that you can't avoid allowing B to take hin to church or in the event that B begins suggesting hurtful things. I'm praying for you and your kids, Melissa! Colleen | ||
| Steve Registered user Username: Steve Post Number: 9 Registered: 7-2000 |
The Revised, Updated and Expanded edition of the Kingdom of the Cults by Walter Martin came off the presses in October 2003. (interestingly just before the Annotated Questions on Doctrine.) Ravi Zacharias, General Editor, has done an outstanding job of truly updating the book, unlike the previous "updated edition." Zacharias includes updates from Kenneth Samples, the man Walter Martin had commissioned to the investigation of the SDA church. His input shows that the church has, since the 1970's, been in a state of change: change away from the Evangelical positions of the 1950's. With the current revision of the book, it again stands as the premier book of its kind on the cults and occult, with the exception of Adventism. Purchase it from Christian Book Distributors on-line and save a few bucks over your local Christian bookstore. Steve |
