| Author |
Message |
Cindy (Cindy)
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 10:18 pm: |     |
Imunity, I am happy for you!
And you even posted your freedom declaration on the anniversary date of the "Great Disappointment" (the starting date of the SDA's face-saving "Investigative Judgement" doctrine)... October 22, 1844! :-)
You will continue to be more grateful as the years go by to be FREE of a belief system of "Jesus + (plus) works of the law".
JESUS really is enough...an all-sufficient God to
REST in all the time.
grace always,
cindy |
Terryk (Terryk)
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 4:22 am: | |
Imunity PRAISE BE TO GOD. I was not sure if you were going to get it. I was so worried and lifted you up in prayer. You really made my day today to see your post. It is wonderful to find the truth and it will be scarey too. I still questioned myself for a few months. This is just wonderful. I will keep you in prayer as you continue your journey. |
Melissa (Melissa)
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 6:31 am: | |
Praise God!
Amen! |
Chris (Chris)
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 8:19 am: | |
Immunity, I rejoice with you! Your post has made my day today. A real spiritual boost for the day! I have thought of you several times over the past week or more and lifted up a prayer for you as I wondered how you were doing. Praise God that you are finding great freedom and joy in the grace of Jesus Christ alone.
Chris |
Colleentinker (Colleentinker)
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 12:16 pm: | |
Imunity, I am so happy! I've also been praying for you. This will be the most remarkable, freeing, joyful turning point of your life. Nothing will ever be the same again.
Praise God!!
Colleen |
Sabra (Sabra)
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 6:26 pm: | |
Hallelujia! Thank You Jesus for your constant prayers on our behalf.
Blessings to you, Immunity, grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior!
Sabra |
Lydell (Lydell)
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 2:32 pm: | |
Imunity, your posting was such a blessing this week! Awhile back there when I posted you noted that I was a "straight shooter". I pray you understand now that the "straight shooting" was not honestly not from a desire to pin you down, harrass you, or stir annimosity.
It truly was meant to challenge you to think. I SO wanted you to experience the freedom that all of us have found. AND the absolute joy of fellowship with other believers! It really is a delight to meet other Christians now and not have that unconcious wall go up between us and "them" (because,hey, what could they really have to share with us when they didn't have the sabbath?). It's such a subtle thing sometimes that we aren't even really aware that we do it. And how sad that it was there.
Anyway blessings on your walk with the Lord. Blessings on your Freedom From..... day, which actually is every day now for the rest of your life.
I attended a ladies meeting at our church this morning. All the talk was about the Lord, His love for us, how He desires to help His children, and challenging us to walk in total faith in Him.
Then I come home and find in my mailbox some garbage from Review and Herald publishers that is a collection of cards to order this and that. The majority of the stuff was about health. The second greatest category was cards to order EGW books. And only 3 cards that could marginally be imagined to have to do with the gospel, and that was also through an EGW filter. And what did it say on the envelope? "Preparing people for the future"!
Thank God for freedom from condemnation and fear! |
Pheeki (Pheeki)
| | Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 8:30 am: | |
Here is something to ponder...on another forum a friend of mine was accused of being one of the people who will eventually persecute the SDA's for worshipping on Saturday. (Totally baseless!)
But when you think about it...that scenario doesn't make sense. The command to assemble (make Sabbath a holy convocation and sacrifice) was given (I think in Leveticus) the part of the Law the SDA say is done away with. (Outside of the Ark!)
So, if the only part of the law that is eternal is what is on stone (I don't agree) then all you have to do to keep that commandment is abstain from working. It says nothing about the day you worship (congregate with others) on. NOTHING. Therefore, how can you be persecuted for driving to church on a Saturday? You don't have to leave your dwelling to keep that commandment...therefore there is no reason to die for a day!
Make sense to anyone else? |
Chris (Chris)
| | Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 9:39 am: | |
It really doesn't make any sense. When faced with "blue-laws" in Austrailia, EGW simply directed the SDAs at Avondale to shut down the printing presses and devote Sunday to witnessing activities. Problem solved! Apparently she wasn't willing to even so much as pay a fine to stand up for the Sat. vs. Sun. principle. Why should any Adventist feel they have to sacrifice any more than EGW?
Chris |
Melissa (Melissa)
| | Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 10:59 am: | |
Leviticus 23 to be exact.
The thing I don't get is how they negotiate, mentally, the fact that many larger churches are adding services on Saturday. IF, as they claim, we think Sunday is the "correct" day to worship, how can we do that? They sure wouldn't make overflow days on Sundays. Secondly, the Catholic church has long had masses every day of the week, including Saturdays. So, how can they, of all people, want to lead a charge to eliminate all worship except on Sundays? These scenarios may have made since in their day, but in modern days when more people never darken the doorway of a church than do, it seems less likely than ever. And the Catholic church certainly doesn't have the power or influence it used to. Where are these masses coming from to support such legislation?
As far as the 10 being eternal, the Sabbath requires time. meaning a clock ticking somewhere, somehow. To make the Sabbath an eternal sort of thing, it means time has also always been. Same sort of logic with honoring parents. For it to be eternal, there has to have been parents in eternity. But we know time began, and it will end. I'm always amazed that SDAs really think we're going to be marking off our calendars for the one day we get to worship through eternity.
To people that say Cain killing Able proves that the 10 are eternal, I ask this question. Has it always been illegal to drive drunk? The answer is no. Has it ever been right to drive drunk? No. But until the law was written, there was nothing that could be done about it. The law came about as a minimum standard for a certain people. Today, our law prohibits assault. Was the 10 exhaustive or should we be allowed to beat another to a pulp as long as we don't kill him? Certainly, God's righteousness and his holiness have always existed. But Christ clearly says that being angry without cause is sin. So, where does that fit in "God's character" (the 10)? There are a lot of things that just don't fit their scenario to me.
I truly hope not to offend anyone. I know if I had been taught this was the "truth" since birth, I would have believed it too. But as an adult, I just don't get it. |
Jerry (Jerry)
| | Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 11:33 am: | |
Yep. A little cognitive dissonance makes it easy to choose.
Of course, the standard retort to the ěit just says restî is to point TRIUMPHANTLY to the phrase ěkeep it Holy.î The trouble with this is that declaring or keeping something Holy does not automatically mean, ěhave a worship service.î When God gives instruction about something being Holy, He always provides the how and why very close to the command.
In this case, as you pointed out, Pheeki, the COI were to keep the day Holy by refraining from any work and restraining all household members and guests from any work.
Yet, in the spirit of ěcafeteria theologyî they enforce and ignore whatever fits their agenda.
They say that ěwritten on stoneî is the criteria or evidence of eternal application. However, they enforce the tithe, but not the proper use and purpose of the tithe; Leviticus 23:3, but not much of the rest of the chapter; and food laws, but more than the Bible teaches.
I have become convinced that, although the Bible equates the Ten Commandments to the Covenant at Sinai, it is not proper to restrict the definition of that covenant to only the Ten. The Ten are the cornerstone, the fundamental foundation. However, in fact, you do not have the complete Covenant when you stop at Exodus 20:17.
At the shortest, I would say that Exodus 31:18 finishes the Covenant. Yet more than that, I would suggest that this constitutes only the ěconstitution-likeî document, whereas, the rest of the Pentateuch provides the ěnational code of lawî function.
I really do not know how one can justify saying the Ten Commandments are still in force in the same sense as they were after Sinai without having the congregation stone any Sabbath-keeper who makes their bed on Saturday morning. At the very least, the congregation should instantly cut off that person from membership.
That curse is not ceremonial, or related to sacrifices, or the priesthood. These attributes are exactly the ones they use to justify why some laws from the Pentateuch are not in force.
While they may point to Galatians 3:13 and say ěthere is the proof about the removal of the curses,î how does one then enforce the commandment without a curse?
That command, IMO, is required if you subscribe to the idea that we are still under the very same 10 Commandment Covenant.
We, as Christians, have commandments (not the 10) with corresponding curses.
We have ěmoral laws.î (Love God . . . Neighbor)
We have ěceremonial laws.î (Do this in remembrance of me)
We have a Scriptural, ordained priesthood (Jesus)
We have signs of the Covenant. (Baptism, communion, etc.)
We have seals of the Covenant. (The Holy Spirit)
We have, in fact, laws that require obedience. (Law of liberty/love, faith in Jesus, and him crucified)
If you love (Jesus) keep (his) commandments. Just be sure that you understand that we are under a New Covenant of commandments, not like the Torah. Because, this law contains instructions that do not apply to us as Christians any more than the command to build an ark for a flood given to Noah should be applied to Moses. |
Susan_2 (Susan_2)
| | Posted on Saturday, November 01, 2003 - 3:39 pm: | |
I'm out in the jungle. A lady picked me and my kids up hitchhiking. My son asked her if she knew the time. She right away snapped at him, "I don't have a watch and I don't own a calendar. I just live and when my days are up, well, they're up." We met people out in the jungle who don't even know the month. I think most know the year. We met a man who hasn't looked in a mirror in over five years. My children haven't watched a t.v. in many months and we met people who didn't hear about the terrorist attacks on 9-11-01 for over two months after it happened. Now, tell me how are these jungle dwellers going to know if it's Saturday? |
Susan_2 (Susan_2)
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 1:54 pm: | |
I am writing this on this topic line because it has to do with the SDA tithe rule. I was recently in Hawaii on an extended trip and while there I went to a local SDA church one Saturday. Colleen, I will send the tithe/offering envelope to you, along with a box of other goodies I picked up in the lobby of that church from their literature rack. I want to make very clear that almost all of the folks who attend this church are very, very poor and most are illeterate. Yet, the tithe/offering envelope encourages 25% be given as a minnium. I was totally appalled! These are folks who have nothing in the way of lifes luxeries and many have no indoor plumbing or electrisity. They use ice chests to keep their food cold and they cook on Coleman camp stoves. Yet, the envelopes begging their meger funds wants a minnium of 25%. The envelopes even request donations be specified to loma Linda University and Medical Center and one spot specifies for donations be given to Andrews University for the theological seminary department. I don't know about you out there reading this but I think this is very, very sad. |
|
