Archive through February 13, 2001 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Former Adventist Fellowship Forum » ARCHIVED DISCUSSIONS 2 » HERESIES YOU HAVE BEEN TAUGHT IN THE SDA CHURCH » Archive through February 13, 2001 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Max
Posted on Thursday, February 08, 2001 - 5:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Blessings only, Richard!

In all humility I must plead that I would be
unable to convince you of anything.

I invite you to:

1. Reread the entire book of Hebrews in the
NIV Study Bible reading all the text notes. This
will give you a thorough overview of how Jesus
Christ is the culmination of EVERYTHING in
the Old Testament.

2. Zero in on Chapters 8-10.

3. Pay close attention to:

(A) Chapter 9, verses 1-12 -- where Christ is
established as "a better sanctuary."

(B) Chapter 9, verses 13:18 -- where Christ is
established as "a better sacrifice."

Even more blessings to you,

Max of the Cross
Max
Posted on Thursday, February 08, 2001 - 5:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Oops, I mean, Chapter 9, verses 13-18
Richardhardison
Posted on Thursday, February 08, 2001 - 9:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Alas, Max, I don't have an NIV study bible (my primary is NKJV although i do have an NIV). Frankly, I'm not looking to be convinced, or convince you, just trying to see where you are coming from. I'll take a look at the reference you gave. It's been awhile since I was in Hebrews, my attention has been directed elsewhere while preparing teaching materials for the Bible Study I teach.

It's enjoyable discussing doctrine, but one thing should be kept in mind, there is a difference between biblical theology and speculative theology. The difference can be seen in what the bible itself says on the subject, versus what theologians theorize is going on. Pick up a text on systematic theology and look at the sections covering the atonement. The differing schools on that subject alone will astound you, and each telling us the others are held by idiots and heretics. The comfort we can derive from all of this is simple, our salvation is not based on the theories of what Christ did, just that he died so that sin can be forgiven and if we believe and ask, it will be done. If holding a given system of theology is a pre-requisite for salvation we are all in deep trouble.

Richard L. Hardison
Max
Posted on Thursday, February 08, 2001 - 9:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Friend Richard,

NIV Study Bible is only going to set you back
by about $25. It's a super deal, considering
everything you're getting.

MC
Max
Posted on Thursday, February 08, 2001 - 9:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Incidententally, there's almost no theology (of
any kind) in the NIV study notes -- only original
language studies; historical, archaeological,
and geographical applications; and the like.

The NIV translation is only slightly less literal
than the NASB. And any differences are
almost almost always thoroughly explained
in the study notes. (This slight deviation from
word-for-word literality has led to the wry
observation that the NIV is the "Nearly Inerrent
Version.")

But if absolute word-for-word translating is a
concern of yours, one edition of the NASB
comes WITH the NIV study notes.

The best systematic theologians in the world
readily admit to the reality that textual exegetes
can blow them out of the water almost at will.

Understanding the book of Hebrews isn't
about theology, systematic or not. It's strictly
about biblical studies -- exegesis, what the
text actually says, not what meaning any
theologian might or might not inject into the
text.

New blessings,

MC
Richardhardison
Posted on Thursday, February 08, 2001 - 11:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Your hearing things that I'm not hearing and I know a number of people teaching at seminaries. Systematic theology demands sound textual exegesis or you end up in error.

The error you make is that everyone approaches scripture with certain presuppositions and it's hard to get past them, no matter your skill at exegesis. I found it hard to get through Calvin's Institutes because he could not get past the predestinarian teaching he had absorbed as a Roman Catholic, and it led him into deep error (not to mention the serious logical errors in a lot of his reasoning liberally interspersed with eisegesis). Luther and Melancthon had the same problem at first but were eventually able to overcome Luther's Augustinian upbringing (but not other Catholic doctrines).

There is a fact of life you overlook in Biblical Studies. When you study the Bible, Theology results. The two can't possibly be divorced.

I don't plan to buy an NIV Study Bible as I have no need of it (this is an arrogant statement as over half my library is made up of theological works and study aids). I possess a copy of the NIV, as well as NASB (1995). I'm not a KJV fanatic, I simply prefer the NKJV. The translational philosophy behind each is quite different with the NIV being more interpretive and the NASB being more literal (the NKJV follows the same philosophy as the NASB). Daniel Wallace (Ph.D. and prof at Dallas Theological Seminary) has a website which deals with the issue quite well. I don't agree with him on his Calvinism, but he has a lot of good stuff on Bible translation issues upon which he speaks with great authority as well known Greek scholar.

Richard L. Hardison
Cindy
Posted on Friday, February 09, 2001 - 5:48 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Welcome Richard Hardison! And Grace to You!

I know I'm not as scholarly as I perceive you to be from your posts, but I enjoy studying and discussing "theology" very much. So I will look forward to your input here....

Could you explain more of how you see the "sanctuary"?

I guess I believe Jesus is Our True Temple, Our Tabernacle, Our Sanctuary! All the Old Testament types and shadows pointed to Him; He is the fulfillment in HIS PERSON of the wonderful promise that God will dwell among us!

By His death on the Cross, His Sacrifice of Substitution for our sins, He gained for us ACCESS into the most Holy Place. We now have the FREEDOM to approach GOD!

The curtain was rent BY GOD (from heaven to earth) and now by believing in CHRIST and His Finished Work For Us, we are grafted into a ONENESS with Him.

And the Holy Spirit has been given to dwell among us forever...

In this way we, too, become living temples of God. And we are told, "THEREFORE,... in view of GOD'S MERCY, to offer your bodies as LIVING SACRIFICES, holy and pleasing to GOD--this is your spiritual act of worship." (Romans 12:1)

But we are never without our need for Christ; our spiritual "life" remains forever in His hands. Our focus must still be on the one PERFECT Sacrifice of Atonement...where we can safely REST.

Grace always,
Cindy
Max
Posted on Friday, February 09, 2001 - 7:40 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Peace, brother Hardison,

I think Hebrews 9:1-12 shows that Jesus
Christ is:

1. both the sanctuary (temple, tabernacle) and
everything in it -- priests, animals (BOTH
goats), Shechinah, lampstand, table, bread,
...,

2. a better sanctuary, and,

3. the true sanctuary of which the other was
only a type (shadow, symbol) .

Blessings and have a great weekend,

MC
Max
Posted on Friday, February 09, 2001 - 8:08 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Morning, Cindy!

Have it YOUR way, then. DON'T grind your own
frozen coffee beans and just SEE if I care!
Sniffle, sniffle, dab, dab.

Incidentally, I've found Don Francisco's whole
bean kona blend to be as good as Starbucks
or Seattle's Best. And from a humble San
Bernardino supermarket it's about a tenth of
the cost of kona pure blend from that Daily
Grind coffee shoppe in snootsy-tootsy
Redlands! (I do miss Smilie, though.)

Isn't freedom in Christ great? And science truly
so called has proven coffee to be a healthful
herbal drink! Poor Ellen! I feel more pity for her
now than anything else.

All glory, laud and honor be unto our
Sovereign, Jesus Christ the Sinless!

MC
Valm
Posted on Friday, February 09, 2001 - 12:35 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Max, I thought of you this morning when I was buying the ladies coffee: decaf nonfat mocha no whip. They have one on the menu called macchiano with only a touch of foamed milk. Valerie
Max
Posted on Friday, February 09, 2001 - 1:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

That's only goooood, Valerie. While you're
thinking of me, though, remember that I don't
drink sissy coffee. MC
Valm
Posted on Friday, February 09, 2001 - 4:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I know I know But the word macchi reminded me of macho and I remembered you only drink macho coffee. Slightly loose associations, but you were thought of nonetheless.

Valerie
Richardhardison
Posted on Friday, February 09, 2001 - 6:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Max, let's look at the passage you reference. I've left out the passage 1-10 as it is direct reference to the Temple ceremony. 11-12, however, deals directly with what you contend.

11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation.
12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.

In this passage Christ can't be the sanctuary for two reasons,

1. He is High priest, the one who enters the holy of Holies to make the atonement.
2. Because the tabernacle is not made with hands, but additionally, it is not of this creation. Christ being fully God and fully man has at least part of his being "of this creation."

Later in Chapter 9 we are told what the earthly temple is,

23 Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
24 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;

Put simply, the sanctuary referred to is where God's physical presence is manifest. Often this is referred to as the area of God's throne.

In verse 14 we see implied something else,

14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

The seat of the conscience is often referred to as "the heart." Each believer, therefore, as he/she is indwelled with the Holy Spirit, is, indeed, "the sanctuary."

Cindy, I hope this tells you more on my position on the sanctuary.

I'm not trying to come across as scholarly. I certainly am an enthusiast and have pursued studies in as systematic fashion as I can. I intend to begin work on a MA in Theological Studies in the enar future, if my obligations to my cell group allow it.

All quotes are NKJV.

Richard L. Hardison
Max
Posted on Saturday, February 10, 2001 - 8:32 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thank you, Richard. MC
Andrew_adams
Posted on Saturday, February 10, 2001 - 6:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hello everyone, I am back with more of the things that caused me to ask questions.

Have you heard that the serpent that tempted Eve had wings and flew? Check this out;

Gen. 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? Gen. 14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

Now if, and we know He did, God created this thing and refered to it as BEAST OF THE FIELD, and CATTLE, this is funny, I would think He would have called it foul of the air. How about you?

We laugh at the Catholics because they say that Peter was the first Pope, and we know that Peter had a wife.

Did you know that SDA's do the same thing, a women started the church, but they won't ordain a women to preach for nothing.

They tell you not to work on the Sabbath, but they have no problem having others work for them on the Sabbath. Show me a chruch that turns the electricity, water, gas or the phone off on the Sabbath.

In the Conference where I work, in one year the banked more than 3,000,000. in tithe alone, not to mention what the churches bank, and most of this is in BofA. my question is why are we making BofA rich, couldn't we start our own bank or put this in the Credit Union, loan it to our own people, use the interest to keep some schools open. By the way they told us last year that the Association had 64 million in the bank, my question what for? When the Lord comes back are they going to buy a red carpet?

More later.

AA
Maryann
Posted on Saturday, February 10, 2001 - 10:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi AA,

There is a web site that list quite a few different things that we were taught that are not in the Bible.

My Mom, 79, considers herself well read in the Bible and has left EGW alone for the most part lately. We were talking the other day about meat V vegetarianism and so on. She told me that the Israelites died of gluttony after stuffing themselves after they whined for the fleshpots of Egypt and God gave them a zillion quails to massacre. I told her that was the EGW version and that they never even got to swallow the meat. She didn't believe me and I had to show her Num. 11:33 to prove that there was an inspired Bible version and then an untrue and inferior EGW version.

Then she told me that Noah had the "food laws" and were to eat only "clean" meat. I then showed her Gen. 9:3.

I have been quite amazed at the things that I was taught that were NOT in the Bible.

Anyway, if you want, I'll look up that site so you can scroll through the lies we were taught and be amazed like I have been.

:):):):).....Maryann
Andrew_adams
Posted on Saturday, February 10, 2001 - 11:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I think it may be DOVNET, it post 50 items that EGW differs from the Bible. Since I found this, I have also found more items that she says that are not in the Bible. Like the account of "The Fall of Man" in Early Writings, page 126, 149.

I can't understand how a prophet can be so wrong.
(So called prophet) Do you?

AA
Billtwisse
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2001 - 8:42 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Gnosticism!

Sorry, I had to post a ëtitleí that would make this post readable to those interested in attention-grabbing shibboleths. Otherwise, some would not read it at all!

The definition of ëheresyí is something that needs a serious rethinking. Is heresy only cultic doctrine--such as the SDA investigative judgment, JW denial of Christës deity, or Christian Science denial of Godës material creation (including the coming of Jesus in the ëfleshë)? That is what a number of todayís ëevangelicalí teachers would have us believe. The answer is a definite ëNO!í

Heresy includes cultic doctrine--but is so much more. Heresy is schism. Anything that causes division in the true body of Christ by departing from the ORIGINAL doctrine of the apostles (Acts 2:42). When a particular doctrine contrary to apostolic teaching causes one sect of professed believers to divorce another group of true believers, that doctrine is heresy. John says that we know we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren (I John 3:14,15). The same passage states that anyone who does not love his brother is a murderer. Sometimes it is hard to see the connection between love and doctrine. But it is an absolute reality!

Most would say that anyone believing a ëminorityí doctrine is the heretic! But history does not demonstrate this. If someone promotes a minority doctrine that denies the gospel, of course that belief is truly heresy. However, not all minority dogma is anti-gospel. The soteriology (salvation doctrine) of the Reformation was and is the minority doctrine--still today! Most of those professing it have no idea of what it is.

The history of Christianity is filled with instances where heretical teachings from the ëlunatic fringe,í once in the minority, suddenly became the majority view. The result was always the same: those who denied the heresy (divisive teaching)--after it became the majority position-- were ostracized from the professed Christian mainstream and pronounced by many as damned souls. There are rare instances where truth triumphed over heresy (such as at Chalcedon)--but not many.

The heresies in Adventism are NOT unique. They are simply variations of long-standing deceptions of Satan designed to nullify the gospel. For instance, there is absolutely no difference in principle between Adventism and Roman Catholicism. Although the external pronouncements in belief are very different, the principles lying behind the dogma of each sect are totally the same.

The doctrinal roots of Adventism, Roman Catholicism, and a lot of other sects are common. They date back to the late 1st and entire 2nd centuries. We could talk about much later predecessors of Adventist heresy (such as the Jesuit apocalyptic revival under Manuel Lacunza, around 1900 A.D.--or the apocalypticism of Edward Irving)--but the original basis is clear. All later phenomenon are but imitations of the original (but not really original in professed Christendom--these things in really had their origin in Philonic and pre-Christian Judaism. Many of the sayings of Christ are direct challenges to rabbinic teaching!).

All of the following dogma originated in the first great apostasy predicted by Paul in 1 and 2 Timothy. There are no doubt others. The doctrines of Alexander the metalworker, Hymenaeus, and Philetus became so prominent after the death of the apostles that a Christian who believed in the material resurrection was rare to find. This was the result of the first great apostasy predicted by Paul. The opponents of Christianity (including certain TV networks that I will refrain from naming) have pointed out that as many Gnostic practitioners of free sex died in the arena as Christian believers who accepted the Pauline gospel. Unfortunately, they are not far off in their assertions The Gnostic heresies were many and varied, however, the principle was common: denial of the Pauline and apostolic gospel. These doctrines as a whole comprise the sum total of the heresies in Adventism, Roman Catholicism, the Wesleyan holiness denominations, and many other sects.

Here they are, take careful note:

1. Perfectionism. Since the Gnostic heresy divorced the spirit from the body, the doctrine of sinless perfection in this life was a logical and inevitable consequence. According to Philonic and Greek philosophy, sin resided only in the physical flesh--not in the spirit of man. Paul is adamant that sin is a spiritual ílawí of death (termed the ëfleshë)--opposed to the law of Christës spirit (Rom. 8:1-17)--persistently dwelling within us. It is not a physical principle at all. Sin is not material--it is pure spirit. Otherwise, Christ could not have assumed a physical human body (as denied by the Gnostics).

The Gnostic perversions of apostolic scripture are all perfectionistic. I would encourage readers to study this issue with unmitigated passion. Start with the false epistle of Laodecia. Paul wrote a true epistle to the Laodiceans (Col 4:16), however, it is not the pseudopigraphical letter known by that name. Even early Christian expositors--who were partially deceived by Gnostic ideas-- knew that the published epistle of Laodicea was a fraud. It contains exhortations to sinless perfection, as do countless other post-apostolic writings influenced by Gnostic thought. Donít be discouraged when you read early Christian ëfathersí who advance ideals of human perfection. It is all Gnosticism.

The Adventist version of this heresy is the notion that God requires ëperfection of characterí in order to be accepted in the anti-gospel ëinvestigative judgment.ë The devilís greatest and most subtle counterfeit of salvation by grace is salvation by character--formed by Godës gracious assistance. Unconverted people who remain in their sins love to believe Gnostic fables, whatever exact form the fable may take.

2. Autonomous Man. This theory is also Gnostic and was ëlegitimizedí by the ëchristianizedí free-will paganism of Justin Martyr. If man has no spiritual law of sin in his members (since sin resides only in the physical body), he has true freedom of will and the natural ability to choose what is right. This philosophy quickly became the majority position in professed Christian circles, making belief in the skeptic objections of Rom. 9:19 a ítesting truth!í It has remained the dominant view to this day. Men such as Augustine, Huss, Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Zanchius, Knox, Twisse, Owen, Spurgeon, and countless other believers in sovereign grace have engaged in a passionate but futile effort to move mainstream Christianity back to the inspired perspective--taught by Joseph, David, Job, Isaiah, Daniel, John, Peter, Luke, and Paul. They were trying to undo the damage of Justin Martyrís attempt to synthesize Christianity with Philonic and Greek philosophy. The effort has failed in terms of convincing the majority. The last century witnessed an infinitely greater triumph in free-will dogma than was seen in the early centuries of Christianity--and any time since. It really doesnít matter whether we are talking about professed Christianity or false religion in this regard: all have joined in the grand celebration. Rejoice Plato, Philo, Justin, Origen, Shepherd of Hermas, Clement of Alexandria, Thomas Aquinas, Occum, Council of Trent formulators, Arminius, Wesley, Finney, Alexander Campbell, Joseph Smith, Ellen White, Mary Baker Eddy, Charles Taze Russell, Edward Irving, Joe Campbell, and George Lucas! Your day has come, if spiritual success is to be judged by strength in numbers! Even Hollywood would be proud of your defense of human autonomy and the assertion that ìI only am the master of my fate and destiny!î

Adventism is obsessed with will-worship and free choice. Salvation by faith AND your will! Who can deny it with any degree of honesty? The whole movement has its roots in Methodist and especially Irvingite perfectionism. Salvation begins in faith and ends with perfect choices!

3. New-legalism, or the New Law. Acting contrary to the dynamic gospel-ethic of the apostles, neo-law teachers ascended to prominence very early in Christian history. This was a logical corollary to Gnostic perfectionism and belief in human autonomy. The epistle of Barnabas is a prime example of how this teaching gained recognition and respect very quickly. Some íchurch fathersí of the second century were outraged that Barnabas was not accepted in the canon of scripture! Keep in mind that these same leaders absolutely rejected the book of James as false teaching. James was not accepted into the canon until at least the 4th century--and probably the 5th--after the ëchurchianityí of Constantine became mandatory and was forced upon the conscience (at least by attempt--mostly successful in terms of the numeric majority). At that time, it was deemed important to unite Jewish Christianity (for whom James had always been prominent--Paul was suspect) and mainstream Christians (who had always believed in Paul as the recipient of Godís superior revelation & completely denied James). Strangely, even those who accepted the perfectionistic, free-will, and neo-law teaching of Gnosticism had reservations for many centuries about accepting James!

It was inevitable that neo-law teaching would eventually attempt to incorporate a revisionist concept of the old law into Christian ethics. The ëobligationí of Christians to obey the 10 commandments (including a ënewí and revised version of the 4th) was a major part of this revisionism. Even Luther, Calvin, the Puritans, and all of their heirs bought into some form of this turning back to the former era (Hebrews). There is no question that the majority of Christians today believe that many laws from the Old Covenant are binding upon believers--Sabbaths, tithes, sacred buildings, clergy, food and drink regulations (SDAís and some other sects), civil laws (reconstructionism), sacred times, the covenant of circumcision (infant sprinkling), etc.

The whole SDA system of law-keeping is one of thousands of versions of neo-legalism. All of these heresies deny Galatians, Romans, Hebrews, the Johannine writings, and the whole witness of the New Testament against promoting foolish regulation as a method of acknowledging and completing salvation by grace.

4. Apocalypticism. The speculative approach to prophecy is a Gnostic essential. There is a íhiddení meaning to all inspired prediction which must be discovered by íeliteí Christians. This idea was prominent to the early Gnostics denying a physical resurrection, reactionary Montanists of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, and extreme ílast-dayí movements ever since. I say ëreactionaryí because the Montanists (as other early apologists) thought that they were opposing Gnosticism. To give readers a brief idea of the radical perspective of Montanism, Montanus said under assumed inspiration from God: 'I am the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.' He believed that his words were nothing but God speaking through him. That exactly parallels the views of Ellen White!

The modern apocalypticism of the 2nd Advent Awakening originated in Roman Catholic Jesuit attempts to stir up the ífaithfulí with theories of last-day prophetic fulfillment. Manuel Lacunzaís book on the Second Coming and speculative prophecy appeared around 1800. It was the catalyst for the massive prophetic theories of Edward Irving and the Catholic Apostolic Church, which were virtually the entire basis of William Millerís prophetic predictions. The íMorning Watchí proposed 1844-47 as the fulfillment of Daniel 8:14 in 1830 (based on a year-day interpretation); Miller started preaching it in 1831.

The Baptist movement is a prime example of how strange and heretical views on the ëlunatic fringeí can quickly become the majority position--judging and condemning all minority defectors. The historical development of Baptist (and later Pentecostal) sectarianism illustrates the principle how heresy (schism) operates. The stink about water submersion was viewed as lunacy to the early Baptists in the first half of the 17th century. They knew well the historical objections illustrating the ridiculous and absurd origin of this theory--as did most of the Anabaptists and all of the Mennonites. It was another form of neo-law and neo-legalism. Yet it quickly became the majority view among the English Baptists--within less than a single generation! They quickly learned, as did the Reformed paedobaptists, that heresy of form is absolutely necessary to accomplish the goal of forcing institutional churchianity and political correctness upon the conscience. History was repeated two centuries later, when the prophetic views of Darby and Scofield (viewed as lunacy at first) became the mandatory position among Baptists--within a few brief years after their inception. All who opposed it were and are kicked out without mercy as denying the Word of God!

Adventism is definitely an apocalyptic movement of this sort and no other kind!

5. Rabbinic and Constantinian views of the people of God (I term it ëchurchianityë). This one is huge, huge, huge!!! Strangely, it is merely the final result of Gnostic views forced upon the conscience by external, institutional, and governmental force. It was Constantine who founded ëchurchianityí: the notion that the people of God must be incorporated into an external institution approved by political leaders--in order to have Godës favor. He was only furthering the political agenda of traditional Judaism, under a different guise and motive. These views remain in the majority to this day. People ask how can we have Christ and Christianity without institutional íchurch?í There is no virtually no concept in existence of how this is possible.

Adventism is certainly Constantinian churchianity to the core!

These are the heresies that I was taught in Adventism.

--Twisse
Violet
Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2001 - 7:29 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Ok, guys I e-mailed my some information to my sister to tell her why I left the SDA. She gave it to her husband. He e-mailed me back with, you have been given some bad information, and you will be held accountable for the light you have, you should reconsider. Yea yea yea.... It dawned on my where did this "accountable for the 'light' you have" come into play? does anyone know or is it going to be an afternoon with the White CD-ROM? Because I don't see this coming from the Bible, because we are not accountable, Jesus covers us. It sounds like the "works" girl in action again.
Valm
Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2001 - 7:48 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Bill,

You are correct in giving a title for us in need of "attention grabbing shibboleths". (Some how I felt that might have been an insult to the less sophisticated of the group, I being one of them.)

You have alot of very interesting things to think about. And I am committed to reading this over a few times because I sense that the message it brings is worth my reading.

For myself, I have reading disabilities. To read a post of this magnitude requires alot of cognitive energy and time on my part.

The reading level of your post per the Flesch Kincaid reading level is 12 and the readability is at 38.9 per Microsoft word. In my understanding of writing to the "general public" the target is a 5-8 with a readability at a 60.

I tell you this because I believe you have a message that needs to be heard by all of us. Your message will only benefit a small population of us in this manner. It can be compared to speaking in tongues without an interpretor.

I caution you on writing a literary work of art for the elite group who can keep up with you rather than humbly reaching all of God's people.

Valerie

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration