| Author | Message | ||
| Steve_R (Steve_R) |
I just got off the phone with my SDA mother who was going off about how she researched the Sabbath in OT and NT and how sunday is so wrong and Sabbath is the true day and what really got my goat was that she is so stuck on the concept of there being like 5 different parts or groups of Old Testament laws and it really just aggravated me that she, like other adventists just wants to pick and choose what Jesus fulfilled and what he did not. Anyone have any input on where and when SDAs developed the idea of Jesus only partially fulfilling OT laws? Also anyone have info to share about how to show all the OT laws were pointing to him and were therefore connected? I want to give her something to read and think about that will be visible through her EGW colored glasses. I'm just a little frustrated because she's displaying the arrogance that I loathe so much. Anyhow, hope everyone is having a nice weekend. Steve | ||
| Sabra (Sabra) |
Tell her it's not Sunday! Sunday is not the Sabbath! Hebrews 4 clearly states that it is "Today" tomorrow and the next day, IF you just accept what Jesus did you will enter into God's intended rest. SDA's are so hung up on days of the week. Galatians 4:11 You observe days and months and seasons and years, I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain. At least you can get your mother to discuss and research something--mine won't even consider defending her own beliefs, much less taking mine into consideration. It's frustrating, we're right there with ya! | ||
| Steve_R (Steve_R) |
Thank you Sabra! I just emailed her to go read that chapter and to just accept it at face value and see what it says to her. I appreciate your help. I often times don't know what passages to suggest her so I thank you for directing me to Hebrews 4. | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
Steve, those discussions are so frustrating! Do you have Dale Ratzlaff's book, The Sabbath in Crisis? That book is a VERY helpful Bible study which addresses the whole Old Covenant-New Covenant question, and he deals with exactly the questions you have raised. In a nutshell, Adventists get the idea that Jesus didn't fulfill the whole law from EGW. In particular, she had a vision (I think this vision is recorded in Early Writings, but I don't know for sure, and I don't have any EGW books anymore!) where she said, "I saw that the Sabbath commandment still stands." The word in both the OT and the NT for the law is Torah. That word NEVER refers only to a part of the law. It refers to the entire lawóin fact, it refers to the first 5 books of the Bible. Nowhere does the Bible separate the law into "moral" and "ceremonial" laws. That separation is entirely imposed by people trying to maintain the authority of the Ten Commandments. Colossians 2 is a great text to help deal with these SDA arguments. Verse 14 says Jesus forgave us, "having canceled the written code with it regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross." This written code refers to the entire Mosaic law, which includes the Ten Commandments. Verses 16-17 say, "Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ." Even Samuele Bacchiocchi, the well-known Adventist apologist for the Sabbath who has published a book about the subject, admits that when one studies the Greek text, Colossians 2:16-17 DOES refer to the weekly Sabbath days. Traditionally, SDAs have said that the Sabbath days mentioned in these texts refer only to feast days and ceremonial Sabbaths, but Bacchiocchi even says that interpretation cannot be supported. These verses mean the weekly Sabbath, and it was fulfilled in Christ. (Bacchiocchi, of course, creates an elaborate argument to counter this fact.) (see also Ephesians 2:14-15) Also, the entire book of Galatians is a letter explaining how the Old Covenant law has been superceded and replaced by Jesus and his new covenant. Particularly powerful is Galatians 3:15-20. Paul says that the law was given 430 years AFTER God promises Abraham seed, land and a blessing, and it was given "until the Seed to whom the prpomies referred had come." Gal. 3:24-25 says, "So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law." The Adventist argument that Gal. refers only to the cermonial law and not to the 10 Commandments is a "straw man" argument. Linguistically, this argument cannot be supported. The law is the entire Mosaic law. It is always called the Torah, and the 10 Commandments are included in that. Ask any Jewish rabbi; he'll confirm that fact! Steve, I know how frustrated you must feel right now! And I also know that if an Adventist does not want to know the facts, he or she will find reasons not to believe them. Only the Holy Spirit can convict them. Pray that God will give you the right words to say and that He will prepare the right times to say them. Praising God for removing the veil from us in Christ, Colleen | ||
| Jerry (Jerry) |
Sabra is exactly correct about Hebrews 4. What is so wonderful about the Bible is that you can see many levels and themes. The entire books of Hebrews, Galatians, and Romans are entirely committed to explaining exactly what your mother should know. However, you must not fail to see how the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament) truly set the stage for Jesus. There are many books and documents available which give a much larger picture that Adventists are willing to see. I wrote an eleven page study on the subject, but it does not begin to address every aspect. Exodus 24:8 is where Moses declares just after delivering the Ten Commandments to the Israelites: Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words. Then we see that it was a shadow of what Christ said in Luke 22:20 where Jesus says: This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. If you read Exodus and Deuteronomy you will see clearly spoken that the Covenant is exactly represented by the Ten Commandments or the Testimonies written by the finger of God on two tables of stone. In Hebrews, we see that the New Covenant is God's Law of Love written on the fleshy tables of the heart by the Holy Spirit. It could not be any simpler or more complete. I fear, however, that your mother may never see that by our efforts. Only God can do that. | ||
| Jerry (Jerry) |
Sorry, Colleen. Obviously I was writing as you posted. Thanks for covering some aspects I missed. Jerry | ||
| Steve_R (Steve_R) |
Thank you for suggesting the book, I'll be looking to get that pretty quick because it sounds like it would be a great help to me. I presented the idea to my mom as 'Mom, truth is truth, so if what you believe is true, then it will stand up to investigation. If not, then it's untrue and you should discard whatever is untrue." She agreed that was fair, but the EGW colored glasses are the big thing so I appreciate your prayers for her and my father both. Thanks for assisting me as you already have. It's nice to know that you guys have been through some of the exact same stuff and so can lend some advice to me. Steve | ||
| Sabra (Sabra) |
Steve, 2 Corinthians 3 is about the most direct chapter to direct to Adventists. It seems so clear, that the law was the ministry of death, even stating that it was engraved on stones but verse 14 describes them so well and sadly: But their minds were hardened. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ. It is really out of our hands, unless they will listen to the Holy Spirit, it's useless. Of course, that doesn't mean that the Holy Spirit can't use us and that our prayers aren't needed. The fact that she is willing to read is encouraging, even if it is to prove you wrong. That's how I found the truth, by trying to prove my Sunday keeping neighbors wrong.  | ||
| Thomas1 (Thomas1) |
I've found the biggest challange that can be given any Adventist is simply to ask them to put away ALL church publications and read ONLY the Bible for a full year. Challange them to read it completely, IN CONTEXT, asking the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth. Truth that is, not they way they think it is or want it to be....but as it IS. Tell them not to go to any pastor or written material to gain explaination of "hard" passages. Ask them to deal with these only by prayer and the Spirit. If after a full year of this, they can still hold the same doctrines, without doubt, then they are truth. I haven't had anyone except the challange yet. It works. If they are honest, they will read themselves OUT of Adventism. In His Grip <>< Thomas | ||
| Steve_R (Steve_R) |
I agree Thomas, it's most difficult to get them to put away their church propaganda and just read the Bible and only the Bible. For a church that professes 'the Bible only' they sure don't follow that when it comes to backing up their doctrine. Alas, I shall continue to talk to my family and just encourage them nicely so we'll see what develops. Thanks for your help everyone, I appreciate it. Steve | ||
| Jerry (Jerry) |
I find it interesting that, in their "27 fundamental beliefs," they do not exactly say "Bible only." They call the Scriptures "the authoritative revealer of doctrines." Later EGW is called a "continuing and authoratative source of truth." I think that shows the truth: The writings of EGW are of equal or superior importance to the Bible for Seventh-day Adventists. Certainly not of lesser importance. Therefore, to say "Do not look at anything but the Bible" would make no sense in that context. Of course, they claim that EGW is a "lesser light pointing to the greater light." However, in practice, I perceive that her writing is cannon to them. | ||
| Janet (Janet) |
Steve, I will be praying for you! I know the Holy Spirit will give you the right way to present the Truth when it is time. I will pray for your family, that they will have ears to hear Gods Word for what it really is. God Bless, Janet | ||
| Steve_R (Steve_R) |
Thanks for your prayers Janet, they are appreciated. I'm still just like grrr about some things but I'm trying to be patient, so we'll see what happens. I was thinking back to how when I was a kid my family spent 4 years out in the Marshall Islands, and they were so sure they were doing such a great thing, but I don't think it was. My dad is still one of those types who thinks that as long as he keeps up appearances at church and can talk about all these things he's done, then he's good to go, regardless of what's in his heart. Oh well, enough venting for now... Steve | ||
| Janet (Janet) |
Steve, continue to be patient...Gods timing is best. Pray, pray, pray. God can accomplish more in a second, than we can in a lifetime. I too, am learning to depend totally on HIM. In my prayers for FAF, Janet | ||
| Jerry (Jerry) |
I have been thinking about the topic title and the admonition you see while entering this forum. I would like to explore the concept of anger and frustration in relation to truth and understanding. In early May of this year, I had a conversation with my wifeís SDA pastor. We discussed many things that were both amusing and disturbing to me. I do not need to lay out the entire conversation in this topic. However, there was one small comment that is pertinent. He said that he had attended a talk by Walter Rea, and that Mr. Rea seemed to be ìa very angry man.î In case someone here does not know, Walter Rea wrote a book called ìThe White Lieî that discusses the plagiarism of Ellen White. Of course, I have never seen Mr. Rea other than in still pictures. Therefore, I cannot confirm or deny that impression. Nevertheless, I believe that the pastor was making a subtle point in that brief comment. In the context of our conversation, the pastor was probably presenting this as evidence that Mr. Rea was ìconfusedî or ìdeceived.î The implication was that any display of anger or frustration is a sign that you are not ìtruly Christian.î Let us assume that, in fact, Mr. Rea did display some anger or frustration. Do you think it correct to use this as prima fascia evidence that all angry people have has no relationship with Jesus? Do you think one should therefore summarily dismiss any information an angry person offers as factually suspect? Certainly, I do not think that inference is always proper. To be sure, I take very seriously the admonition in Ephesians. If anyone has anger and frustration, one should know that it would be best to resolve and remove them. One should strive to be at peace with your self, others, and the Lord. However, we are all human. Whenever a person is hurt in any way, the natural reaction is anger and frustration. Furthermore, sometimes people can misinterpret zealous proclamation of the Gospel as anger. Look at this quote from Revelations, chapter two, verses fourteen through sixteen: [14] But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice immorality. [15] So you also have some who hold the teaching of the Nicola'itans. [16] Repent then. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of my mouth. That sounds rather angry and frustrated to me. What do you think? Should we dismiss what John said here as ìdeceived?î I think not. | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
Jerry, I've been thinking similar thoughts lately. No, I do not believe anger signals deception or unrepentance or selfishness. I don't think we should try to ignore or "shush" a person who is angry, either. Anger, like all our emotions, is God-given and serves a purpose of providing data for us about our environment. Jesus was definitely angry when he overturned the money-changers' tables in the temple. He was both angry and hurt when he called the Pharisees whited sepulchers and a brood of vipers. Dismissing Walter Rea as an "angry man" is simply excusing one's own refusal to look at the reason he was angry and to ignore the truth. When I read Rea's book, I found his evidence completely compelling. I was, however, off-put by the underlying resentment that I thought colored his arguments. That didn't make them less valid; it did affect my perception of him as an objective witness. Just by way of contrast, I found Dale Ratzlaff's books to be more compelling because he kept an objective tone, and even though he relates his own experiences, he sounds like a man who has moved beyond his anger and is focussing on facts. I sense no resentment, and his objectivity made his reasoning more accessible to me. Jesus, of course, is the Judge, and he hates evil. He will ultimately punish evil. But he is the one who will punish. We are to leave vengeance to him. The point of the Ephesians text, I believe, is not that we should not be angry or express anger. The point, I believe, is that we are to resolve our anger and ultimately forgiveógive up our right to get even. My own anger, I'm discovering, is usually more instructive to me about myself than it is about the object of my anger. Usually, if I'm persistently or frequently angry, it's because there's something in my experience that I've been unwilling to give up my right to control. When I've been able to give the situation or person into God's hands, ask him to take care of justice and to be in me in the place of the anger and help me react as he would react, I've often been able to establish boundaries that protected me without the helplessness of rage dominating. (I'm speaking of some very painful personal experiences in my past.) Another thing I'm discovering is that anger frequently is the hint to me that there is something in me about which I'm not being honest. As our pastor said one day, there is never a situation in which you are entirely without blame. I'm discovering more and more that when I flare with defensiveness or anger, there's usually something that I'm afraid to give up or to know about myself, and God is asking me to face the truth with his help. This last Sunday our pastor said in his sermon, "Are you willing to humble yourself, or will you choose to be defensive?" That spoke to me! Jesus' anger was/is (as in the Revelation text you quoted, Jerry) directed toward trampling the will of God. The text on this home page (Ephesians 4:29-32) is, I think, directed more toward people who allow their disagreements to turn into fights dedicated to winning instead of reconciling. Paul is saying that "unwholesome talk" will tear people down, not build them up. Ditto to bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, and malice. In Ephesians 4:26-27 Paul also says not to let the sun go down on your anger so as not to give the devil a foothold. Forgivenessógiving up to God our right to get evenóis what God asks us to do. That being said, anger, while sometimes distorting the facts, is still something that we need to consider as valid "information". But if we can't let it go, we poison ourselves and those we "dump" on. At least that's the way I see it right now! Praising God for revealing the truth about ourselves to us, Colleen | ||
| Violet (Violet) |
I am here to testify that I was very angry when I came out of Adventism. That is one of the normal stages you go through when you suffer a great loss and I considered all of my friends, church family and some of my relatives a great loss. When someone is angry, to me, it says they care enough to have emotions about something. Otherwise your just feel indifferent to the matter. | ||
| Jerry (Jerry) |
Thank you, Colleen. I agree that anger can distort and poison. Perhaps this is true with Mr. Rea. It certainly gives anyone opposed to his conclusions an easy out. "Oh, he is just another 'disgruntled former.' Pay no attention to him. The devil has him by the throat." they might say. Yet, that kind of anger can be evidence of the depth of pain someone has felt. Just think, a person devotes their life and soul to a belief that they discover is horribly false. What better reason to be angry and bitter at those who led you into that deception? Left unresolved, it might be a chance for evil to infect the soul. However, that does not invalidate the initial discovery. Obviously, as you pointed out, the better strategy is to resolve the anger and frustration by submitting to the healing power of Jesus. Let Him bear the burden as only He can. We cannot do it. Nevertheless, truth can reside in an angry person's raging words. It may be harder to see and it may be obscured by the emotion, but to quickly dismiss anything said in anger as totally false is not realistic. In the same way, a person who seems calm, gentle, pleasant, spiritual, relaxed, and deeply caring can sometimes speak the most vicious, evil lies. I know this from personal experience. | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
Oh, Jerry, you are so right. I know both sides of the coin from personal experience, too! When we were coming out of Adventism, both Richard and I experienced anger. It would sort-of float into and out of our days for a long time. I think it's safe to say that Richard experienced more anger than I did, and I experienced more depression. (You know what they say: depression is anger turned inward.) I remember Richard saying he felt like suing for all the tithe he had paid over the years! And you are absolutely right: truth can be spoken in anger, and lies can be spoken in softness. Walter Rae had good reason to be angry, as do so many of us who have literally been deceived and betrayed. You're right; you can't dismiss something just because it's said in anger, and you can be deceived by soft words. And when we are angry, we have to take responsibility for it and know that we are obligated before God to let him deal with us and heal us so we can forgive. Colleen | ||
| Jerry (Jerry) |
Violet, I did not mean to ignore you. I was writing when you posted then I got busy, then I only saw Colleen's response and quickly answered. I agree that anger is a stage of grieving. I am curious: Before you even considered leaving Adventism, were you taught how to act toward "formers?" Was any special attitude recommended about seeing anger and frustration? Can you describe how, after you left, people who were still Adventist reacted to your expressions while you were still very angry? What did you make of their reactions? Anyone could answer this. |
