| Author | Message | ||
| Colleentinker |
Sherry, I think you're right. Revelation 1:13 is in highly symbolic language. We aren't intended to interpret it in literal terms. This passage is introducing the seven churches and the messages God gave them. This is not a statement of identifying a temple compartment where Jesus might be standing. To interpret this passage as a statement of Jesus standing in the Holy Place as a means of proving WHERE He is in a literal heavenly sanctuary is to miss the meaning of the vision. If people use this verse to make an argument for Jesus' literal position in a physical place, they're adding to the meaning of scripture. I believe these passages are symbolic and imprecise because eternal truth cannot be accurately defined in earthly language. We are too limited to perceive the complete dimensions of truth. We can only approximate the message. There is enough in John's visions so we can recognize things AS THEY HAPPEN, not necessarily predict exactly how they will happen. Colleen | ||
| Maryann |
Hi Y'all, It just occured to me that the only "true slave" is the person that is a "slave to sin". The slave to sin will definately have to face his choice. Yeh, I know that is not in the context of what EGW was talking about, it was just a thought. Maryann | ||
| Max |
No, Maryann, I think your remark is very much IN context with EGW. For she was SUPPOSED to have been an infallible spiritual writer talking about the slave's relationship to his sinful condition. There are, of course, literal physical slaves. EGW was talking primarily about slavery in America, which was a big issue when she was writing. But she wasn't talking about freeing literal slaves from physical slavery (although she was an abolitionist, to her credit). She WAS indeed talking about the slave's condition before God. And so you are absolutely right. And one can reasonably charge that EGW acted irresponsibly when interposing herself in between the slave and his God and, inappropriately God-like, rendering a God-like eternal-life judgment! A world-class no-no! The right answer, to my mind at least, is the text that says, "For there is none other name under heaven whereby we must be saved" -- meaning Christ's name. In other words, if someone is to be judged he is to be judged by God. By Jesus Christ, really, for the Father judgeth no one, but hath given ALL JUDGMENT into the hands of his Son. Bottom line: Jesus judges the slave, not Ellen G. White! World-class point to be remembered! And how does Jesus Christ judge the slave? The same way he judges you and me: Saved, justified, sanctified and sinless! And what if the slave hasn't heard of Jesus Christ? That doesn't mean that he is not saved under Christ's name! Where'd we get the contrary idea! Not from Scripture, I can assure you! Jesus said, "Other sheep have I not of this fold." In other words, it's none of Ellen Gould White's BUSINESS how Jesus judges the slave or any other person, including you and me. What gives her the right to say the slave "will be as though he never was"? Certainly not Scripture! This is one of the things that get's my righteous Irish up -- and I'm not even Irish! Jesus judges all of us saved. I'm not saying we can't grieve away the Holy Spirit. All I'm saying is that the slave gets to be judged righteous too! And how that slave relates to Jesus is none of my business, unless I'm involved in witnessing to him. I'm sorry, but EGW just doesn't speak for God in any way, shape or form. Just thought you'd like to know that, Maryann! Max | ||
| Maryann |
Hey Max, I'll say that got your righteous Irish up! Well said. Another thing, why would she possibly apply that to slaves. In various readings that I've done over the years, many of those slaves here in America were deeply religious! In fact, there were many that I wouldn't mind modeling my own life after! I believe that the majority of the slaves knew the the Lord, loved Him, worshiped Him, obeyed Him to the best of their ability and believed in Him way more than the average massah!! And that goes for a lot of Indians too!! Grrrr! That gets my 1/4 Irish up! As a kid, I always worried about just this thing! Probably why I wanted to read about the slaves and the Indians. And I really used to get fried about it! Well, I can't see my screen for the smoke...Maryann | ||
| Max |
Hear, hear Maryann! | ||
| Bruce H |
Sherry I sent you the info on EGW today. Bruce Heinrich | ||
| sherry |
Thank you Bruce. I have a question for you or anyone else who has read it...have you read the 1919 General Conference meeting minutes that is on DoveNet...aparently came from "Spectrum"? If you have, how can one be certain that this is an honest article and not something someone conjured up? Has anyone called the White Estate on it and questioned them on it? I found the minutes to be quite damning towards Ellen White and who she was. Thanks for any light you can shed. | ||
| Colleentinker |
Sherryóthose minutes are amazing, aren't they? Richard says his memory has it that someone (he doesn't remember who) was doing research at the White Estate or one of the SDA heritage room and found those minutes in the vault. But no, I don't have absolute proof at my fingertips. They are consistent, however, with manythings other people have written. Have you ever read Canright's book? He worked with Ellen and James. It's an amazing book! Colleen | ||
| Max |
Sherry, I remember reading those minutes when they were first published in Spectrum a looong time ago. At that time there was plenty of opportunity for the General Conference to refute them. But there was not a peep from them. I'll let you guess why. | ||
| sherry |
I read those and I just wanted to puke! Just got me started crying all over again. What is or was the Spectrum magazine anyhow? What type of publication was it? Bruce, I believe, is sending me the Canwright book. | ||
| Max |
Sherry, SPECTRUM is an SDA lay publication of 84 pages with somewhat justified pretensions to scholarship. It was begun under the editorship of Mollerus Couperus as part of the Association of Adventist Forums in the late '60s or early 70s. At one point I served on the editorial board. In their beginning it was largely devoted to SDA issues related to the age of the earth, theological debates raging within the denomination, and, in general the concerns of educated Adventists. When Roy Branson took over, I think in athe 80s, he declawed, detoothed, dehorned and housebroke it. It got so blah that I allowed my subscription to lapse. Now, in response to a recent (1990s) strong challenge from upstart rival SDA lay journal ADVENTIST TODAY (AT), SPECTRUM is staging a long belated comback under the more energetic editorship of Bonnie Dwyer. Meanwhile AT -- under the uninspired editorship of John McLarty and without the crackerjack services Colleen Tinker or the active involvement of former editor and publisher Jim Walters -- is undergoing a surprisingly precipitous decline in interest, perspicacity, challenge and everything else that makes a journal great. Alas alack, Max | ||
| Bruce H |
Sherry I do not know if I sent you the Canright Book if it did not send it to you call and I will send it. Bruce Heinrich | ||
| Allenette |
Max (Jude): from under the rock doth I crawl. Perhaps it might be useful to (since your unmasking ggg) enlighten us heretics about the genesis of the ex-SDA movement! From what I can see, most of it has existed (SDA-dislodged PK that I am)as people who DO NOT expose themselves as having been involved with that sect (cult I am asked to refer to it these days) Because all I did as soon as I could, was LEAVE. There might be a whole lot of lurkers who can relate to that...IF they have a computer, know how to use a search engine, and have a morbid curiostity about HOW the internet has connected to SDA, and found this site. :-) It appears that there has been a whole lotta shakin goin on in the church that the church as a whole, will never feel. The only person whom I can put a finger on to take the pulse of SDA, is my very tradventist mom, whom I love very much and I personally dont think its worth it, to try to rile up. And....I think she is a very good estimate of the direction that SDA is going in. I.e. it will continue to self-invest itself as long as it attracts fairly non-eduated people who dont want their bodies to turn into dust forever and ever(which their Bible tells them it will if they dont believe in the herafter). I dont blame anybody if they find a cult/church that assures them otherwise; I just dont want to send them money. Bruce: you are the only doc I know that falls into the faith abyss for reasons other that attracting patient$.. Most doc$ I know are either atheist$ or agnostic$ (or fundie$, which I wouldnt book an appt w/them to $ave my life) | ||
| Max |
Allenette, always good to hear from you. I do know something about "the ex-SDA movement," as you put it. If your mom is as traditionalist ("traddy") as you seem to describe, then don't -- repeat don't -- rely on her for reliable info. For traddies are trained from mommies' knees up to rely only on the Bible (after White-Out treatment), the "red books," and the "good new" Review. Thus their chances of knowing about Adventists slaughtering Adventists in Rwanda, for example, are less than that of, say, a Martian on the moon. You may be right about "ex-SDA-ism" being driven by "people who DO NOT expose themselves as having been involved with that sect." I don't profess to know that. My opinion is, about 98% of exes are like you, and only about 2% are like me. You can see that more and more lurkers are coming out of woodwork and crawling out from under rocks. We welcome them, of course, even as we welcome you. We estimate that "a few thousand" people/week tune in to FAF. I have inquired whether or not that number was "on the rise," but to date have not received a determination. I will, though. My opinion also is that you're wrong about the denom not feeling the "whole lotta shakin goin on." You write that your mom estimates that "it will continue to self-invest itself as long as it attracts fairly non-eduated people who don't want their bodies to turn into dust forever and ever." The prob with that is that for every SDA outreach of the type you describe, there are a couple of dozen "Sunday worship" types. Therefore, since an asteroid in space tends to continue in the same direction unless it is acted on by an outside force, they will probably find a "Sunday worship" style of avoiding "dust forever and ever." It has become clear through the work of demographics specialist Dr. Ron Lawson that the "Advent message" that we have known and been enthralled with throughout our lives isn't "taking" anymore in North America. This fact is hidden by the world-wide uptick in membership to the 10 million level. But in North America membership has not risen appreciably for half a century. Furthermore, in NA the church is changing color, again according to Lawson. (1) For the first time in history, non-whites have become a minority membership. (2) The NA church is aging precipitously, at least in the non-immigrant population. (3) The NA church's education level is probably declining. There's more, but this is enough for now. To quote a great non-white American, "Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, free at last!" Max | ||
| Colleentinker |
I agree with Max that the church is feeling the results of the upsurge of people questioning and leaving. The Review has published many apolagetic articles supporting traditional SDA views (including feature stories of two people who have restated their faith in the church: John Osborne and Mike Jones) within the past year. The number of these articles has been surprisingly frequent compared to past years. I believe that these articles are ocurring now because of the attention paid recently to things such as congregationalism and questioning the doctrines (i.e. the IJ, etc.), to say nothing of an increasing number of people leaving the church. It seems that many who are leaving now are doing it more publicly than in the past. Most people who leave just quietly slip away. More seem to be leaving openly recently, asking for their membership to be removed. | ||
| Max |
Correction to my post above to Allenette: I posted, "For the first time in history, non-whites have become a minority membership." This is incorrect because of a typo that occurred inside my brain. Here's the correct rendering: "For the first time in history, WHITES have become a minority membership." | ||
| Allenette |
Max and Colleen: I am agreeing with you! I have read the same thing. But if one follows thru, it is still most attractive to the more uneducated amongst the possible victims, would you agree? I know it sounds ELITIST but that has been my experience down thru the years, and I aint no smartie myself. As the book "7th Day Adventism and the American Dream" puts it, it primarily appeals to people of certain socio-economic groups. Like it or not. And those people are not going away, if anything their numbers are increasing. Can the organization maintain its financial obligations with a poorer membership? Sure, if there are enough of them. that's no different than what the govt. is allowing to happen in this country with immigration. Its NOT rocket science. As we cater to a mostly service-oriented work population, the dumbing down of education will continue, making it easier and easier to tell the membership that down is up and black is white (no pun intended). My dear SDA mom will NEVER give up her eternal security blanket, no matter what articles are written, no matter what scandals occur, no matter what dissenting goes on, it is her direct connection to heaven. BTW Max, your quoting ME not my mom in the above post....she'd never say anything like that, either :-)Its just an observation of mine. They're not giving their money to the church, they're giving it to God. Bruce: I hope I didnt offend you with my statement which was meant as a question, sort of. I seem to get the same response from former SDA docs or scientists: 1)they are somehow able to hold 2 opposing belief systems in their minds at the same time (cognitive dissonance?? ggg) 2) $$$. Because as I saw it, after taking science and medical courses in college (public), automatically I HAD to question most of the Biblical versions of Genesis/origins, creation/evolution, age of the earth -- not new questions for sure but at the time, new for me! And like the saying, "if we're wrong on the fall we're wrong on it all". So I just wondered as a doc, what it was that FOR YOU, that allowed you to understand concepts that the average person would never be exposed to, and keep that faith a'burnin? I honestly dont mean to offend any one on here, sometimes I have a hard time getting what's "in my head" down on paper properly :-( just a'wonderin, Allenette | ||
| Max |
Allenette, So pleased that you're sunning yourself on top of that rock rather than hiding in the dark underneath it! The one thing I super-disagree with you on is this assertion of yours: "I ain't no smartie myself!" You just happen to be very very bright! Trust me, I have a sixth sense for these kinds of things. I have no quarrel with your "futurist" observations regarding the SDA denom. I believe God has been working his will with the SDAs from the beginning. For example, look how much good -- such as the world wide medical work -- God has wrested from their legalistic hands! For me it is enough just to watch God work. His works are fastenating, intriguing, mysterious and awesome always always always! I know you didn't address me -- but Bruce -- with your observations concerning the "Biblical versions of Genesis/origins, creation/evolution, age of the earth." I'm not a scientist, but I did study the relationship between science and religion as part of my graduate work in theology. And I have kept tabs ever since on issues regarding Darwinian evolution, age of the earth, theoretical and observational discoveries in relativistic and quantum physics, etc. My long-held belief: The Bible is not a book of science, but of faith. And I disagree vehemently with my "creation scientist" friends who claim that it takes "less faith to believe in creationism" -- as distinguished from the doctrine of creation -- "than in evolution." That position -- despite their PhDs -- is just absurd! And absurdist! Not to mention diametrically opposed to everything Jesus said about the nature of real faith! And as far as the "great green SDA medical money machine" is concerned, I agree with you more than completely. SDA dox have a financial interest in maintaining compartmentalized thinking systems. For them science is east, and religion is west, and never the twain shall meet. Cognitive dissonence galore! Nothing can stop their conflict of interest freight train. Look! I've drawn you a picture of it: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Nice and long, isn't it? Take care, friend. And thanks for livening up the website. In grace alone, Max | ||
| sherry |
Ok. I consider this confirmation from the Father. In regards to the 1919 minutes, you know I was sort-of questioning - wanting to know for sure it was fact and not a distorted thing. Well the other day, I was looking through my books, and I saw my book "The Great Visions of Ellen White" (or something like that - I can't find the book this morning). I didn't want to pick it up, but I felt impressed to. So I did. Well in this book they bring up the 1919 minutes from Spectrum, and do not deny it a bit, but instead took one quote to show it was twisted and if people read the rest of the paragraph, they would have understanding. Well it was just what I needed to boldly go forward and say...this is a fact. Anyhow, I think that is amazing how God led. | ||
| Colleen Tinker (Colleentinker) |
SherryóOne of my great astonishments is how God guided our reading, time after time, as we were working through our Advetnist questions. Beginning with Richard's finding document after document on the internet and continuing with the miracle of Dale Ratzlaff's books coming in the mail on Sabbath afternoon on the first weekend in June, 1996, the material we needed at any given moment kept coming. God is so faithful! Colleen |
