| Author |
Message |
Steve (Steve)
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 9:59 pm: |     |
Thomas,
I agree. They don't read their Bibles. They only read with the proper instruction. In fact, for ANY CHRISTIAN who attempts to read the Law of Moses to find eternal life will NOT find the Lord.
This is God Himself speaking through Paul, in 2 Corinthians 3:14-17:
14 But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ.
15 But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart;
16 but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.
17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
This passage is, for me, becoming a fundamental point in understanding why I so easily accepted SDA teachings, and why so many Christians can be so legalistic, even in grace-filled churches.
It's not a lack of critical thinking (Freeatlast, just a choice of words, I know what you mean is correct), it's not IQ, it's not the ability to read and understand the plain words. It's a spiritual incapacity to find the grace of God and salvation and freedom in Jesus.
As the reader reads (believes in) the Law, he/she puts a veil over the face and is unable to discern the truth.
Only when I stopped reading the Old Testament entirely and started reading only the New Testament, especially the letters of Paul, was the veil removed from my eyes, my heart softened, and Jesus came back in (if He had ever left in the first place!)
I can read the OT now, but ALWAYS through the New, never vice versa.
Steve |
Steve (Steve)
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 10:01 pm: | |
Terry,
I'll post my story again one of these days (soon.) I should put it in Word or Text so I can retrieve it when needed.
Steve |
Doug222 (Doug222)
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 11:28 pm: | |
Steve, you said:
Quote:This passage is, for me, becoming a fundamental point in understanding why I so easily accepted SDA teachings, and why so many Christians can be so legalistic, even in grace-filled churches.
It's not a lack of critical thinking (Freeatlast, just a choice of words, I know what you mean is correct), it's not IQ, it's not the ability to read and understand the plain words. It's a spiritual incapacity to find the grace of God and salvation and freedom in Jesus.
This is so true. I was speaking to a dear sister today (not SDA), and the topic of homosexuality and sexual immorality came up--and why not, its one of the favorite topics of the religious right. She made the statement that if she had an apartment building and a couple came to her wanting to rent it that was not married, she would not rent it to them because this was an abomination before God. She went on to say that Christians today are too reluctant to take a stand against sin. She believed that in doing so, she was following the will of God.
I couldn't make her see that outward conformity to the law of God without an inward change of heart is about as worthless (and lifeless) as a car without gas. In hitting this apparantly unsaved couple over the head with "the law," without first introducing them to the life (grace)that God wants to give them in Christ, she possibly was robbing them of blessings untold. This couple may never darken the doorstep of a Church, and this brief encounter may forever color their perception of a forgiving God.
Where did this idea come from that God has called Christians to be the self-appointed moral police of this fallen world, unlovingly looking down our noses and dolling out condemnation to all who do not measure up to our own watered down standard of holiness? The answer lies in the fact that we can not give what we don't have. I dare say that most Christians today have never heard the pure Gospel preached, or if they have, the veil remains over their eyes. Therefore they (we) tend to look at external behaviors as indicators that we are not as bad as brother or sister so and so. It is a way of appeasing our own conscience.
I say all of this to say that its not just SDAs who are deluded in their interpretation of the Bible. Only as Christ sees fit to remove the veil--in the same way he did for the Apostle Paul--can we see God in all His Glory (just like Peter, James, and John on the Mount of Transfiguration). In the meantime, we have to demonstrate the same patience with others that others exhibit to us during our times (present tense) of spiritual blindness.
In His Grace
Doug |
Another_Carol (Another_Carol)
| | Posted on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 7:50 am: | |
Doug,
You have said that all so well and I would have to agree 100%.
Think about it we can stand up against sin every second of the day but will that remove sin from this world? All it will do is put us at odds with our fellow brother and sister thus not allowing them to know the joy of a Risen Saviour.
Don't get me wrong I am a parent and I taught my children right from wrong some they listened to some they didn't, I still loved them. But that is different than a person who has a God given developed mind to think for themselves as to the consqeunces of their actions. I do not have a responsibity to show them their sin I have a responsibility to show them how to get rid of it and teach as Jesus declared in Matthew 28: 6Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[1] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
Believing in Him whom all authority was given, Carol |
Another_Carol (Another_Carol)
| | Posted on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 8:11 am: | |
Susan 2,
I just sent a post to you to agree with your thoughts on why they are so intelligent but still cannot see. But I lost it so I will just say I agree since I need to get off this machine having been on for over 2 hours.
Maybe I'll share another time, Carol |
Susan_2 (Susan_2)
| | Posted on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 11:27 am: | |
A commemt about studying the Bible through sda/egw lenses: the watchtower organization teaches it is impossible to fully understand the truth presented in the Bible unless the Bible is read and studied along with the watchtower knowledge on the Bible. They teach that they and they only have been given the understanding to all Bib ical truth and everyone else, even those who read and learn the Bible have been blinded to learning the truth because truth can only cpome from the watchtower organization. This is how come it is impossible to have an intelligent discussion about any Bibical topic with a j.w. Sometimes it almost seems to be almost as extreme with the loyal sda's I know. I have yet to meet a sda who will shop in a local book/Bible store. The sda's I know just won't do it. They will ONLY get their religious/inspirational reading materials from the ABC. In fact, I recently bought a wonderful little book that was written by the daughter of Billy Graham. I have had several sda's tell me already they they will not read religious/inspitational books/literature, etc. from non-Sabbath-keepers. When I ask how come I got this answer from one person, "Well, I know the author is wrong about the most important Bibical teaching (i.e.:Sabbath) so why would I want to risk my salvation to any other teachings that person might promote that are most likly wrong, too? You know, the devil can be very sly and cunning and I will not read anything written by someone who does not believe the truth of the Sabbath because the Bible says if we have committed one sin we have committed all the sins and I know they break the Sabbath so I know they are breaking all tne commandments so I won't read their trash"> That may not be an exact quote but it is close. Whoa!After that, I'm ready for a Calgon moment! LOL! |
Doug222 (Doug222)
| | Posted on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 11:47 am: | |
Susan,
Your statement about SDA's reading materials from non-SDA's is generally true, but not totally. When I was an SDA, I regularly read materials from non-SDA's, as did others that I knew, but most have a strong preference for SDA authors for just the reasons you stated. That is the same reason they will not visit non-SDA churches--"If they are wrong about the Sabbath, what else might they be wrong about." The most important thing for SDAs is being "right," instead of being "in relationship."
Doug |
Steve (Steve)
| | Posted on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 8:28 pm: | |
Doug,
Your points above about legalism and condemnation without presenting the Gospel hit the nail on the head.
I'm related to someone who rents homes. They use the same "law." No unmarried couple can rent from them. I can go a million ways with this one. Just a couple:
2 guys, that eventually develop a homosexual relationship. How would it even be known?
A single man who prowls on innocent children via the internet or in person or both.
I now believe that presenting the Gospel, simply and lovingly stated, is what we're called to do.
We can recognize sin, but we are not to condemn (be the "police" as you stated). Jesus didn't come into the world to condemn the world. He said that would be the work of the Holy Spirit.
I can be very judgmental. God has been working on me in this area recently. Right now, perhaps more than anything, I want to be a non-condemning person.
Along the lines of this thread, I do believe that this is where Ellen White went horribly wrong. Read the Testimonies (all 9 volumes!) and see how condemning she was. It was as though she became (and still is) the "holy spirit" in the Adventist church.
Thanks for your great insights, Doug.
Steve |
Colleentinker (Colleentinker)
| | Posted on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 11:21 pm: | |
Great points, Doug and Steve. As I'm pondering what you're writing about condemnation and presenting the gospel, it's dawning on me that in his epistles, Paul was exhorting believers. In the books of Corinthians where he clearly condemns the sin they are fostering among themselves, he is calling them to return to their commitment they've already made to Jesus.
In their sermons to the Gentile unbelievers, the apostles did not condemn sins per se. They presented the gospel and opened their eyes to theri need of a Savior. To believers, however, they wrote differently. They did point out sin to them and called them to repentance.
Again, the "enforcing" you describe above (not renting an apartment to an unmarried couple, etc.) is counter-productive if they're unbelievers. If they are believers that you know, there is merit in addressing the sin and calling them to repent.
More and more I'm struck by the difference in the new covenant between believers and unblievers. Believers literally have the Holy Spirit and a new birth; unbelievers don't. We are not called to treat unbelievers and believers the same. Believers must be accountable to each other, and if one needs to confront another with a sin, the goal is always restoration.
I guess this is fresh on my mind because I have a colleague I know well whom I may have to confront with evidence of an addiction, and I'm in a position to have to do the confronting. I'm praying to know how, when, and what to do and say. This person is definitely a believer and has been born again. Life has dealt some devastating blows, and I think what I suspect my be one of the oucomes of the personal trauma this person has gone through.
If this person were an unbeliever, I might still have to do something about the problem, but it would be different because the problem would not be coupled with representing Him to minor children.
BTW, I would appreciate your prayers about this matter. I really need the mind of Christ and his direction.
Colleen |
Susan_2 (Susan_2)
| | Posted on Friday, June 13, 2003 - 12:00 pm: | |
Yesterday a very dear loved one who attends the SDA church and is a mimber got onto my case really hard about me being WRONG. What went down is this, my 18 year old son mentioned that he went to the church in Italy where Martin Luther nailed his 95 Thesis to the door. I jokeingly said, "I guess there was no placque on the door acknowledging that historic event"> At which time my elderly sda loved one told me off saying it didn't really need a plaque on the front of there church because there really is no big difference between the Lutheran religion and the Catholic. This was said just to get to me as she knows I hold my earthly church membership in a local Lutheran church and she believes the VCatholic church is the dreaded 666 beast. I get so weary of those snide and rude remarks from my sda loved ones. Do any of you others on here get those sorts of remarks? |
Seekr777 (Seekr777)
| | Posted on Friday, June 13, 2003 - 4:33 pm: | |
Colleen, my prayers are with you as you deal with confronting your fellow worker over his addiction. My prayer is that, "you might have the heart of Christ as you speak to him". May your words be His words and your heart be joined to His heart.
I was hopeing to visit the FAF group tonight but I need to go home and spend some quality time with my wife this evening. I've felt drawn to visit the last couple of weeks but the doors have just not opened as I had hoped. Tonight I was particularly wanting to meet Susan who I understand will be visiting. My prayers are with each of you this evening and may God's blessing be richly poured out as you study His word. Can you let me know which of the chapters is the current one studied so I can be prepared a little before I "show up". 
In Christ,
Richard |
Colleentinker (Colleentinker)
| | Posted on Saturday, June 14, 2003 - 1:36 pm: | |
We're doing Romans 2:25-29 next Friday. We'd love to have you come when you can!
Colleen |
Steve (Steve)
| | Posted on Friday, July 18, 2003 - 12:14 am: | |
Hi All,
The prior portions of this discussion have been archived. However, I finally received an answer from the EGW Estate on how they determine whether a writing, specifically, EGW's writings, are from the Spirit of Prophecy (Holy Spirit.)
Following is my last question to him, his reply, and them some comments on what he has and has NOT said.
__________________________________________________
Dear Brother Pitcher,
Sorry my reply has been so long delayed. Things have been unusually busy here recently, and I have had a hard time keeping up. I'll try to offer some suggestions.
On Mon, 9 Jun 2003, Stephen D. Pitcher wrote:
> Thank you Brother Fagal,
>
> Yes, I've read the other authors: Paul, John, Daniel, Isaiah, etc.
>
> I would like to know what criteria the EGW Estate uses to determine whether a specific writing is from the Spirit of prophecy (Holy Spirit). I guess I'm not clear on the technicalities of determining EGW's writings as manifestations of the Spirit.
>
>What is used to determine that her writings are from the Spirit of prophecy?
>
>If I could understand that, perhaps it would be easier to identify true manifestations of the Spirit of prophecy, and eliminate from my reading, any materials that are not manifestations of the Spirit. I really don't want to be led astray by all the different writings available today.
>
> I really appreciate your time in responding to me.
>
> Thank you so much,
>
> Steve
___________________________________________________
His reply:
The Bible presents four tests of prophetic utterances:
1. Agreement with previous revelation. Isaiah 8:20--"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." The preceding verse makes the setting clear, that this is about determining whether supernatural utterances are from God.
2. Fulfilled prediction. Deuteronomy 18:21, 22; Jeremiah 28:8, 9. But note that Jeremiah also allows for conditional prophecy: Jeremiah 18:7-10.
3. Telling the truth that Jesus really did become human: 1 John 4:1-3.
4. Proper fruit in life and ministry: Matthew 7:15, 16, 20.
These, you will note, have to do with those who claim to have received messages directly from God. To these we may add certain logical evidences, though the Bible does not make them tests--things like
1) timeliness of the messages,
2) practical nature of the messages, meeting
real needs,
3) high spiritual plane of the messages (not common or cheap),
4) the prophet has a real experience (visions), not just impressions,
5) the visions may be accompanied by certain physical phenomena such as
are mentioned in the Bible (Daniel 10:8, 17, 18; Numbers 24:4),
6) messages are not determined or affected by outside influences, and
7) recognition of the prophet by at least some who are close to him/her.
Ellen G. White passes these tests and exhibits the characteristics described in the evidences.
The Bible nowhere claims that we may read nothing else but the writings that have been so inspired by the Spirit. Paul shows a familiarity with
the pagan Greek writers of that age, though this does not mean that we all should study those same writers. If we seek first the kingdom of God and
His righteousness (Mt. 6:33), we will be able to put other things into their proper perspective.
I hope this helps. Again, sorry for the delay. God bless!
___________________________________________________
He makes 4 points and follows with 7 logical evidences. The 4 points are bad enough by themselves. Let's see:
#1 Agreement with previous revelation.
He then specifically refers to the text that SDAs ALWAYS use to "test the spirits," he quotes Isaiah 8:20--"To the law and to the testimony:..."
Here he is using a Mosaic test. The "law" (writings of Moses, Pentateuch) and the "testimony" (writings of the prophets.)
This text should never be equated with the New Testament texts that provide discernment between true and false spirits.
Jesus broke the seventh-day sabbath. He was demonstrating to others that it was now OK to not observe a "day" because Someone greater than a day was here. He did not teach/demonstrate the Law. He touched dead bodies and lepers. Does that make Him one who did not have the "Spirit of Prophecy?"
Also, in reading the Sermon On The Mount, one will come across these words, "You have heard that it has been said...but I say to you..." That was Jesus speaking. He was not explaining the law. He was doing away with the law on stone and providing the law that is to be written in our hearts.
The way the EGW Estate applies Isaiah, Jesus "had no light in him."
Strike #1
___________________________________________________
#2 Fulfilled prediction.
Although this is Biblical, he apparently is not aware of the scripture from earlier in Deuteronomy that supersedes his reference.
Deuteronomy 13:1-3, 9-10;
1 "If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, 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,' 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you to find out if you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
9 "But you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and
afterwards the hand of all the people. 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.
There are plenty of false prophets that make predictions which are fulfilled. A fulfilled prophecy is not the test. The test should always be, "Which "god" is this prophet leading me to?"
He then refers to Jeremiah to provide support for "conditional prophecies." If you read the reference he provides, you will see that God, as God, can say and do whatever He wills.
The implication here? EGW made some prophecies that did not come true. Therefore, THEY WERE CONDITIONAL! DON'T YOU SEE?
Well, to be honest, NO I DON'T!
God will will and do as He pleases, and who am I to determine God's intentions?
Strike #2
___________________________________________________
#3 Telling the truth that Jesus really did become human...
THIS IS WHERE THE RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD!
He completely misses the fact that the author of that letter (John) and others have both taught of Jesus' absolute Divinity and One-ness with God (Jn. 1:1, Jn. 8:56-58, Jn. 10:27-33, Heb. 1:8, and his coming in the flesh, Jn. 1:14, I Jn. 4:1-3, Heb. 10:5, Heb. 10:19-20, & many others.)
Adventists were originally Arian, they denied the Deity of Jesus, and taught that He was a "created being." Although they now teach the doctrine of the Trinity, the old Arian beliefs underly much of their teaching.
That's why they very often focus on the humanity of Jesus OVER His divinity.
Why did he not say for test #3, that "They must tell the truth that Jesus is God in the flesh. Fully God and Fully Man. Not half-n-half. Not God sometimes, Man sometimes, and God again sometimes."
There are MANY non-believers that DO believe that Jesus truly lived as a human being. It's all this other "spiritual" stuff with which we Christians "endow him" that they can't stomach.
Strike 3 - HE'S OUT! But he goes on with one more point.
___________________________________________________
#4 Proper fruit in life and ministry.
He refers me to Matthew 7:15, 16, 20.
OOPS! It seems he forgot to go on to find out what that fruit is.
Matthew 7:21-24 are critical:
21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.' 24 "Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock.
Ellen G. White supposedly heard the words/prophecies/teachings from God. She did not act on them herself. She ate meat long, long after she condemned eating meat. She loved oysters (that's probably the ONLY thing I have in common with her, besides being a sinful human being). She brought the reform dress from "god" and then gave it up as it was not a very successful endeavor.
And the "lawlessness" referred to in Matthew 7 is NOT the Mosaic law. Starting in Matthew 5 and continuing to the end of Matthew 7 is both the end of the law in stone, and the beginning of the law being written on our hearts.
Lawlessness is hearing "these words" (Jesus in Matthew 5-7) and not acting on them. In this case, Jesus never knew "you."
Strike 4 - WAY OUT!
___________________________________________________
Finally the "logical evidences."
Having aced logic in college, I'll (hopefully) make this brief and to the point.
1) "timeliness" What about the 2300 years? Not very timely.
2) "practical nature...meeting real needs" This is a "human-centered" way of looking at prophecy. Prophecy is about God and bringing us into a closer relationship with Him, IT'S NOT ABOUT OUR NEEDS!!!
3) "high spiritual plane of the messages" What was so spiritual about the destruction of Jerusalem? Not one stone upon another. That's a pretty physical plane if you ask me.
4) "the prophet has a real experience (visions), not just impressions" OOPS! Did he just indict EGW? She often had impressions. And a vision is not necessarily a "real experience." In parts of Ezekiel and Revelation and other prophetic books, there are real experiences AS WELL AS DREAMS AND "THUS SAITH THE LORD's."
(Of course, this is all with the undefined meaning of "real experience.")
5) the visions may be accompanied by certain physical phenomena such as are mentioned in the Bible
Oh, come on. She was hit by a rock and severely injured in the head. It affected her the rest of her life. Quit using the physical phenomena (disabilities) of EGW to support her as a "prophetess."
6) "messages are not determined or affected by outside influences"
But if the aren't affected by outside influences, how can you have "conditional prophecies?" He's contradicting himself here.
7) "recognition of the prophet by at least some who are close to him/her"
Jesus was rejected by all those of His town, those who knew Him.
I wouldn't recognize Ezekiel if he stood in front of me, but I love the book God wrote through him. Did anyone recognize Ezekiel? Well, yes. He was the "crazy guy in town" who dug holes through walls, laid on his side for 390 days, and argued with God about cooking his food using human dung.
Just because James White, Uriah Smith, and the "early Advent pioneers" "recognized" EGW as a prophet, DOESN'T MAKE HER A PROPHET anymore than my recognizing roadkill makes it food!
He finishes up with a great statement:
"Ellen G. White passes these tests and exhibits the characteristics described in the evidences."
No, she doesn't.
He has now struck out so many times, that, as a major figure in the EGW Estate, it's amazing to me how little "truth" is really given out to those who are earnestly asking for discernment.
Beware! WOLVES IN SHEEPS CLOTHING!
Steve |
Cindy (Cindy)
| | Posted on Friday, July 18, 2003 - 7:11 am: | |
Steve, very good...
I realize more the longer I'm out of it the real hold EGW has on ones' psyche... and spiritual joy in Christ.
There is something definitely Satanic within her when she says that one of the very last deceptions of Satan will be to make of non-effect HER writings!
What a horrible thing to say! Preaching a False message of Jesus' Finished Work for us and then saying if you don't believe HER views and visions are directly from God, you are being deceived by Satan...
Just by declaring that she is a "true Prophet" gives one a subtle belief and fear that SHE is the real mediator between God and man!!
This places a spiritual barrier to experiencing the full REST in JESUS ALONE!
Grace always,
Cindy |
Chris (Chris)
| | Posted on Friday, July 18, 2003 - 10:23 am: | |
Great post Steve! I especially liked this line:
"Did anyone recognize Ezekiel? Well, yes. He was the "crazy guy in town" who dug holes through walls, laid on his side for 390 days, and argued with God about cooking his food using human dung."
Had to alugh out laoud at that one.
Chris |
Colleentinker (Colleentinker)
| | Posted on Friday, July 18, 2003 - 1:51 pm: | |
Great post, Steve! BTW, are you planning any more email to the White Estate?
Just wondering!
I especially loved their inclusion of physical phenomena. How many of us were simultaneously taught that EGW exhibited phenomena that proved her visions were from God, while being warned us not to believe people who claimed to be prophets and cited physical phenomena as proof? One of my greatest overriding messages from Adventist education was that I couldn't trust my feelings or senses. They might misinform me! Only my head could possibly know the truth (that is, if it absorbed the "truth" as taught by the church!)
(BTW, I can't begin to recount how often I've discovered that if I'd paid attention to my feelings, my head might not have made such dreadful decisions! Both head and heart feed us data about our environment.)
Isn't it ironic that EGW's "phonomenon" of holding that huge Bible on her outstretched arm for 45 (?) minutes has been admitted to be nothing more than an urban legend?
As always, I'm amazed and helpless-feeling when confronted with the SDA verbiage that paints a "believable" picture while completely omitting some of the most important details.
I am so thankful that God holds the truth, not humans!
Colleen |
Susan_2 (Susan_2)
| | Posted on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 3:49 pm: | |
And, let´s not forget that egw´s name adds up to 666. |
|
