| Author | Message | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 198 Registered: 4-2000 |
Early this morning, October 22nd, I called an old friend and retired Adventist apologist to remind him that all of heaven is astir. Furthermore, I amusingly continued, "The angels are dancing and singing in honor of the investigative judgment that officially began 160 years ago today." He then informed me that he had actually forgotten to remember today's important significance in SDA history and theology. I also informed him about the recent Annual Council that voted to place ten million EGW books in their member's homes during the next five years. They are planning to publish a new 10-volume [EGW] set for every Adventist home. The cost will be shared by the SDA Conferences and the recipient Adventist family. Instead of being a people of the Book, they are increasingly becoming a people of the books. They are planning to get the 28th fundamental SDA belief authorized by the GC Session next summer in St. Louis. Remember when they claimed that their only creed was the Bible? Legalists love to add new directives--even guidelines on music, Sabbath observance, ad infinitum. The Pharisees also kept themselves very busy adding new rules and interpretations. When I asked my SDA friend about his thoughts on these new additions, he promptly replied, "They could add five more and that would be fine with me." He always rubber stamps all GC decisions. After that discourse, he once again focused his remarks to law-keeping--notably the weekly, festal Sabbath. Without fail, all our religious conversations end with his talk about Old Covenant commandment-keeping. Obviously, the Law has not finished its work to point him exclusively to Jesus Christ, the True Sabbath Rest. By the way, something of historical significance really did happen in 1844. Joseph Smith was killed by a community mob while in jail. Dennis J. Fischer | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 52 Registered: 10-2004 |
Dennis, Have they revealed what their 28th belief is going to be about, yet? BTW, I recently searched the EGW cd-rom and could not find any place where EGW directly says that something happened on October 22. I found that interesting. Jeremy "On this date in 1844... exactly 160 years ago today... nothing happened" :-D  | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 668 Registered: 3-2004 |
Dennis, I really like your sense of humor. ROFL at this moment or almost. But it is also sad because your friend is leaving Jesus behind him and putting EGW and the SDA rules/regulations in His place. When I prayed at sundown today I was so at peace and could feel the strength of everyone's prayers going to heaven. Your friend is included in those prayers. I have not thought of Oct 22, 1844 as a significant date for a loooooong time. It is just another day. God is hearing our prayers and is doing something with them. Right now we do not know what it is except that He is working on the hearts and minds of all SDAs and unchurched formers. He is awesome. Some day we will see how truly awesome He is. Diana | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 1034 Registered: 11-2002 |
WHat will #28 be? I am courious. I mailed Colleen a book I found in a used bookstore awhile back that still had only 24 fundamentls. Why are they adding more? Isn't the fundaental of, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will bsaved" enough? I started a new Bible study. We meet on Thursday evenings. When the folks in the study get to debating certain things and passages we come across in this Bible study the paster keeps telling us, "We don't need to debate what the Bible says. God led the writers of the scritpures and subsequently the translaters to put it just as He wanted it. So, just take the Bible for what it says." What a different approach than us who were raised or brought into the SDA church as adults were taught by the SDA church. Also, in this study we have a man who I would guess to be in his mid-50's is a man who has never been a Christian until recently. It's kind-of exciting because e is learning so much for the first time. He asks so many questions. Before last night he had never known that Jesus lived a life without sin. It's so exciting and awsome that he is learning from us an we can earn from him, too. | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 62 Registered: 7-2004 |
I read about the proposed #28 several months in the Review. The best I can remember, it seems it basically is a statement against Eastern Mysticism, New Age, spiritism, witchcraft and all other related things. They said it is necessary because of how quickly the SDA church is growing in other cultures where animist (spirit worship) is prevalent, and they wanted to have something in the beliefs that clearly states how the SDA church views that type of stuff. | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 199 Registered: 4-2000 |
The new proposed 28th fundamental belief or doctrine is entitled GROWING IN CHRIST. Having been repeatedly criticized for not even mentioning this primary characteristic of the Christian life in the 27 fundamentals, they are sounding very Evangelical once again. Their official reason for adding #28 is, as Raven indicated, because of Third World growth with its spiritism, witchcraft, etc. While not understanding the Spirit-led life, they feel compelled to hammer out every facet of the sanctified life in an external manner. Remember, our SDA friends believe that the Spirit-led life by itself, without the Law, allows and encourages us to kill, steal, commit adultery, cheat, lie, etc. They do not trust nor understand the Holy Spirit and being born again. After all, they have observed that the Holy Spirit doesn't impose sabbatarianism on Christ-followers. They feel much more comfortable with picking and choosing their favorite laws of Moses instead. What a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit! Dennis J. Fischer | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 148 Registered: 2-2003 |
Susan, I understand your enthusiasm for the reliability of the Bible, and I share it, but what do you mean by "and the translators"? Is he advocating some sort of "inspired Bible translation," and if so which one? There must be hundreds of English Bible translations. I believe the Bible itself tells us it is inspired and the true word of God, but that only applies to the original languages. Sorry to be fussy, but you can end up basing all kinds of wrong interpretations on a bad translation. Some of the SDA doctrines, like IJ in Daniel 8 for instance, only really work by using the KJV, but cannot be supported by the original. God bless, Adrian | ||
| Loneviking Registered user Username: Loneviking Post Number: 283 Registered: 7-2000 |
Number 28 to counter spiritism, witchcraft and the New Age? ROFL! I was at the Redwoods campmeeting this year and listened to an SDA pastor teaching 'New Age' meditation and visualization techniques. The SDA's in the Adult 2 tent really thought this pastor and his teachings were great. They were more than willing to 'take two centering breaths' 'close their eyes' and 'visualize a beautiful garden with your own shining guardian to guide you!'. I knew where things were headed and left after the first meeting but occasionally heard two or three minutes during the rest of the week and it was more of the same. Sad, the Holy Spirit they don't trust, but Satan they will! | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 1035 Registered: 11-2002 |
Adrian,when the pastor mentiomed the traslaters he was deffinately referring to whoever translated the Bible from the origional language to German. I think that was Guttenberg. Then he mentioned that when it was translated to the Kings James the translaters worked with great conviction and in a state of prayer. He mentioned this whem saying that when we study the Bible God will lead us to truth as we are coming before God seeking truth. I didn't think to ask but I doubt if the remark world have included the JW's New World Translation or the SDA's Clear Word. And, I also believe God assisted the Bibical translaters to get it written the way He wants it so it says what it is supposed to say. | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 1036 Registered: 11-2002 |
In every Lutheran church I've attended the Bible version used is The New Revised Stamdard Version. It is easy to read and is easy to understamd. This particular pastor likes it for each person to bring a different translation to the Bible studies. One person brings a Darby, another the Kings James, I like to bring my New Jerselum Bible (Catholic), anyway it makes the study interesting to compare how the different versions are worded. That's all. No more, no less. | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 64 Registered: 7-2004 |
Back to the original post about October 22, I do recall that most years the SDA church acknowledges 10/22 as an anniversary date of the beginning of the IJ, and it's often acknowledged in whatever sermon falls the closest to that date. I wonder if it's ever struck them that every other date in history acknowledges a traceable event happening on EARTH. And that a far more important event, the birth of Jesus, the exact date is not even known. Is even the date of the death or resurrection of Jesus known? Why would God give us knowledge of the exact date something began in HEAVEN, which cannot even be seen or proved, and that really doesn't impact our day to day lives in a tangible way? I thought the point of prophecy was that once it's happened, people could look back and see that it really did happen and was prophesied that it would happen. Also, alert people could anticipate it was about to happen. In the case of the supposed IJ, nobody knew about it until after it already began, and it's certainly not something that can be seen. By having a specific date, it's like the IJ is being made more important than the birth, death, or resurrection of Jesus. At least they haven't turned it into an official holiday like Christmas. If they did, I wonder what the features of that holiday would look like... it couldn't be as festive as Christmas! | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 1037 Registered: 11-2002 |
In the Lutheran church we have an annual celebration called Refermation Day. I think the Lutherans are the only ones to celebrate Refermation Day. The SDA's have The Great Disapointment Day. Just the title of their day sounds depressing. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 843 Registered: 12-2003 |
Great point, Raven. We were pondering last night how odd it was that a whole group of people memorialize a Great Disapointment in which, originally, God was supposed to have covered up a mistake (deceived people) in order to get people to "get ready" for Him--and then He didn't come. What an odd "holiday"! Colleen | ||
| 33ad Registered user Username: 33ad Post Number: 61 Registered: 10-2004 |
Bible Translations! Good point. Can the Bible stand up by itself or does it need explaining? Remember, most of us are 'Formers' and the SDA's can not understand the bible without EGW commentary. I'm posting a rather 'Acedemic' link here (Non-SDA) that considers the question. Those who feel inclined, give it a look-over and post your comments. I'd be interested to hear your views. http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_solascriptura.aspx Blessings Loren | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 544 Registered: 7-2003 |
Raven, I've asked B your exact question...what other Bible prophecy had fulfillment in heaven, where no one can see or prove it was fulfilled? His typical answer is "lots" because he can't stand any challenge to his faith. It seems to me from the limited SDA exposure I have, but I've read widely in their publications and websites, that though they claim to be the most Biblical representation of the church that exists, they're more true to EGWs writings than anything Biblical. From what I've seen, they would rather water down the Bible than admit EGW was wrong about anything...and by extension the whole of the SDA movement. Very sad indeed. Colleen, i've often pondered how they can endorse a memorialization of the "great disappointment", yet condemn people for memorializing the resurrection as some "unBiblical" holy day. I don't get it at all. | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 154 Registered: 2-2003 |
Hello Loren, Well, I read that article. And as you did invite comments, then I will give it a go. He did make some interesting observations, and some of the criticisms are certainly justified, but the bottom line is, it just seemed to me to be yet another version of, ìwe are the one true church, and everyone has to join us for there to be unity.î He accuses Protestants of making unfounded assumptions, using logical fallacies and inconsistent arguments, and ending up drawing conclusions based on the assumptions (the face at the bottom of the well illustration, which is actually quite valid), but then he just does the same himself. There is an excellent site here which is worth checking out: http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm It is a listing of all the propaganda tactics and logical fallacies that can be employed to support an erroneous argument. It is actually aimed specifically at evolution, but it is very useful for spotting cultic arguments too. Just a couple of examples: Here we are told that we cannot trust the leading of the Holy Spirit to interpret the Scriptures: ìWhen presented with the numerous groups that arose under the banner of the Reformation that could not agree on their interpretations of the Scriptures, no doubt the second solution to the problem was the assertion that the Holy Spirit would guide the pious Protestant to interpret the Scriptures rightly. Of course everyone who disagreed with you could not possibly be guided by the same Spirit. The result was that each Protestant group de-Christianized all those that differed from them. Now if this approach were a valid one, that would only leave history with one group of Protestants that had rightly interpreted the Scriptures. But which of the thousands of denominations could it be? Of course the answer depends on which Protestant you are speaking to. One thing we can be sure of ó he or she probably thinks his or her group is it.î On the other hand, the only evidence that the Orthodox church has preserved the correct tradition, and is the one true church, the body of Christ, is provided by the conviction of the Holy Spirit. ìLest any be mistaken or confused, let me be clear: the Orthodox approach to the Scriptures is not based upon "scientific" research into the Holy Scriptures. Its claim to understand the Scriptures does not reside in its claiming superior archaeological data, but rather in its unique relationship with the Author of the Scriptures. The Orthodox Church is the body of Christ, the pillar and ground of the Truth, and it is both the means by which God wrote the Scriptures (through its members) and the means by which God has preserved the Scriptures. The Orthodox Church understands the Bible because it is the inheritor of one living tradition that begins with Adam and stretches through time to all its members today. That this is true cannot be "proven" in a lab. One must be convinced by the Holy Spirit and experience the life of God in the Church.î Well, I have been convicted by the Holy Spirit, and I experience the life of God in the church. So I guess that is OK. (Sorry, but it is not the same church he is talking about). How is, ìIf you were really led by the Spirit, you would be Orthodox,î any different from, ìIf you were really led by the Spirit you would be joining the SDAs and keeping the Sabbathî ? If someone is telling me what the Holy Spirit should be convicting me of, then how is it the Holy Spirit? In the following we have the ìobviousî fallacy ñ call something obvious so anyone who does not agree with you will feel stupid, and the ìfalse dichotomyî ñ though there are three possibilities here. This involves reducing the total number of possibilities to 2 (usually), disproving one, so the other is clearly right. SDAs use this with the Sabbath: the Sabbath is either Saturday or Sunday, I can prove it is not Sunday, so we must keep Saturday. The third possibility they do not mention, is that the Sabbath is a type of Christ, so it does not have to be kept. ìObviously, one of three statements is true: either (1) there is no correct Tradition and the gates of hell did prevail against the Church, and thus both the Gospels and the Nicene Creed are in error; or (2) the true Faith is to be found in Papism, with its ever-growing and changing dogmas defined by the infallible "vicar of Christ;" or (3) the Orthodox Church is the one Church founded by Christ and has faithfully preserved the Apostolic Tradition. So the choice for Protestants is clear: relativism, Romanism, or Orthodoxy.î Another possibility is that all tradition that we need to know has been preserved in the Scriptures, so although some may have been lost, it is not essential for us to know in order to be saved and walk with God. ìOur faith in the unity of the Church has two aspects, it is both an historic and present unity. That is to say that when the Apostles, for example, departed this life they did not depart from the unity of the Church. They are as much a part of the Church now as when they were present in the flesh. When we celebrate the Eucharist in any local Church, we do not celebrate it alone, but with the entire Church, both on earth and in heaven. The Saints in heaven are even closer to us than those we can see or touch. Thus, in the Orthodox Church we are not only taught by those people in the flesh whom God has appointed to teach us, but by all those teachers of the Church in heaven and on earth. We are just as much under the teaching today of Saint John Chrysostom as we are of our own Bishop. The way this impacts our approach to Scripture is that we do not interpret it privately (II Peter 1:20), but as a Church. This approach to Scripture was given its classic definition by St. Vincent of Lerins.î This gives me the creeps. I prefer to be led by the Holy Spirit. The Bible teaches us that Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit when He departed, He would teach us all things, and lead into all truth (teaching in Johnís gospel, ch. 13-16). All believers are promised the gift of the Holy Spirit, so the idea that there are teachers given to the church (Eph 4: 11) is complemented by the fact that we donít need teachers, as we have ìthe anointingî to teach us (1 John 2: 27). These are both true, and both necessary. The article mentions that according to Jewish law, we need two or three witnesses, so we need Scripture and Tradition. Alternatively, it could be argued, that we have Scripture, and the Holy Spirit to help interpret it, so we do have two witnesses. As the Spirit is God, who is in a constant, living relationship with all members of the body of Christ, then perhaps the latter is preferable. Also the argument that ìthe church which has been around for the longest time is the true oneî is not valid if other factors are involved. This is only true if it really has not changed. It seems to me if I check what the church looked like in the book of Acts, and compare it with modern Orthodox churches (which I have visited in Romania, Russia, Serbia and Cyprus), there is not much similarity. You could also say, the church that has been around for the longest time, as a human organisation, is the one which has been attacked by Satan for the longest time, so it has had the opportunity to go the furthest off the rails. Situations are often very complex, and it sometimes seems easy to prove we are right by stressing certain factors while ignoring others. I liked Augustineís list of characteristics needed by someone to interpret the Scriptures. I think that if everyone had pure motives, and was open to the Holy Spirit, and willing to discard erroneous ideas if proven wrong, then a much greater level of unity would have been reached by now. But there is also that other factor of ìself-interest.î The Bible tells us that there are disputes between Christians because they are immature and want their own way (1 Cor 3: 1-9; James 4: 1-10). Factors of self-interest could involve money, power or position, or just simply psychological self-interest, that I donít want to admit I am wrong, or I have given 30 years of my life to this movement, and I canít cope with the idea it may be false. Human beings are very complicated. ìTruthî is very often not the only issue involved. And finally, I see very little point in arguing about denominations. Paul said, ìWe do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus sake.î (2 Cor 4: 5). Basically, I was not convinced by the article. Of course, if you have found a church organisation which you feel is your home, and where you can grow in Christ, then that is great. It just does not necessarily have to be the one and only possibility for all Christians. Just one or two ideas to consider. Sorry, Adrian | ||
| 33ad Registered user Username: 33ad Post Number: 62 Registered: 10-2004 |
Hi Adrian, Thanks for taking the trouble to read the article. I'm not looking for any support. All I wanted was feedback. You provided me with very useful and well thought out arguments. I put this out as an example of what we would find outside of SDAism. All I will say in reply is that God is still in control of His word, and He will lead us into all truth. That is why Jesus promised us the Holy Spirit to lead us till He returns. God Bless Loren | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 851 Registered: 12-2003 |
I read the doucment also. I must say I completely agree with Adrian's comments above, so I won't restate all of them. But I am left with an overall impression that I am reading the literature of a very old, very secure cultic organization. In the conclusion the author ( a former Nazarene pastor, by the way) says this: "We must read the Bible; it is God's Holy Word. but to understand its message let us humbly sit at the feet of the saints who have shown themselves 'doers of the Word and not hearers only' (James 1:22), and have been proven by their lives wrothy interpreters of the Scriptures. Let us go to those who knew the Apostles, such as Saints Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp, if we have a question about the writings of the Apostles. Let us inquire of the Church, and not fall into self-deluded arrogance." That statment summarizes the philosophy of the Adventists when I was growing up. The only difference was that the church of which we were to inquire, and the witness or commentator to whom we were to appeal, were Ellen White and the Seventh-day Adventist church. His double-speak about Protestants not being able to rely on the Holy Spirit for interpretation (because look at the schisms within Protestantism) and the claim that the Holy Spirit will confirm the authenticity of the Orthodox Church's tradition as the true Body of Christ is almost laughable, because the author uses the same argument (appealing to the Holy Spirit) to verify Orthodoxy that he uses to disparage Protestants. Peter says in 2 Peter 1:3-4: "His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires." Peter's statement does not steer people toward a tradition of practice or interpretation. It takes us right back to Scirpture. The document in question disparages the claim of Sola Scriptura, saying Protestants all vary in their interpretations and have no consistent belief and practice. I do not see Protestantism through the same lens. I see true Protestants, regardless of whether or not they have a denominational affiliation, holding to a unified core of beliefs: The Trinity, the deity of Christ, Salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone, creation (regardless of whether one believes in an old earth or a young earth), punishment of the wicked, the return of Christ to reedem us phsyically and be with Him eternally, the new birth. (Did I leave out something?!) These things are rooted in the apostles teachings and in the practice of all Christians from the book of Acts onward. Other differences (Calvinism vs. Arminianism, what a person actually experiences after death, what exactly is the physical nature of hell, etc.) exist because the Bible is simply not clear. Many people (including the Orthodox church) have created doctrines and practices and official statements about subjects on which the bible is tentative, or not clear. The fact that churches have created such statements and doctrines does not mean its members are not truly part of the body of Christ. Christ's body is EVERYONE who has been born from above by the Holy Spirit by accepting Jesus' completed atonement and resurrection. Nowhere does the Bible instruct us to accept any tradition except the gospel preached by Paul and the apostles. While we gain great insight and understanding into what the early Christians believed and practiced by reading the early church fathers, they are not canonical, and we do not need them in order to find the gospel and be saved--or even to discover how to live by the Spirit and to grow in Christ. If God is not faithful to teach us by means of the Holy Spirit as we read the Bible ourselves, then we cannot believe the Bible is really the inspired word of God. Peter even commented on the fact that "ignorant and unstable people distort [the writings of Paul] as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen!" (2 Peter 4:16-18) Nowhere are we instructed to learn the Scriptures from the church or from the followers of the apostles. In fact, in Acts 17 Luke states that the Bereans "were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scirptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." Traditions of men are, in fact, condemned in Scripture as a faithful guide to Christian living. We are individually accountable to God; we do not know Him and His will through a church or its teachings. Personal Bible study with reliance upon the Holy Spirit for understanding is the only way to grow in Jesus personally. It's the only way to know for ourselves what the Bible says. There is no human tradition that encompasses the "church". The "church" is everyone who has truly accepted Jesus and been born again by the Holy Spirit. Within the church there are many practices (from charismatic congregations to liturgical ones which even echo the old covenant priesthood), but there is one faith, one hope, one baptism, one God and Father of all. God gave Paul to the church to explain the details of the new covenant and how to practice it. In Ephesians 3:7-10 he says, "I became a servant of this gospel by the gift of God's grace given me through the working of his power. Although I am less than the least of all God's people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles and unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things." Paul is the one God gave the church to explain "to everyone the administrion of this mystery." He is the one God entrusted with explaining the mystery of the new covenant and of the church--Christ in us, the dividing wall of hostility between Jew and Gentile, man and God--forever broken down by the blood of Jesus. Nowhere except in the tradition of the organized church do we find the idea that we must learn the truth about the gospel and salvation through the tradition of the church. God gave us the Bible--and gifted Paul especially to explain the new covenant--and that alone, with true surrender to the Holy Spirit--will teach us truth. Sola Scriputra "fails" when people read and interpret Scripture as an intellectual exercise. It is not about intellectual knowledge of scientific or shcolarly techniques; understanding the Bible is a spiritual phenomenon and requires true surrender to Jesus. Amazingly, too, Christians throughout the past 2,000 years have arrived at the same conclusions regarding the basics of faith and practice simply by holding to the Bible as the one standard of faith and practice. Loren, I also say it's great if you have found in the Orthodox church a place where you can grow in Jesus, but I do not see it as embodying the true church. It is simply a denomination among many. In fact, I see it as having several (cultic) beliefs that remind me of the church I came out of. The Holy Spirit is the one who teaches us and grows us in Jesus. He is ALL we need--and He brings us into fellowship with others of His body. (Just a note about what I know of the Nazarene church from which the author of this article came--it holds very firmly to the law as a standard of practice. I believe it is an example of "protestant" churches that have suffered because they have not fully embraced the new covenant and come into the fulness of individual freedom in Christ. Any time someone clings to the old covenant in any form as part of the process of salvation, they are holding onto "another gospel" as per Galatians.When they are blinded by "another gospel", they cannot see the enormity and astonishing freedom of the finished work of Christ and its universal availability to all people. I personally suspect his Nazarene background greatly shaped the author's journey and conclusions, but now I'm speculating!) Just my thoughts. Colleen | ||
| 33ad Registered user Username: 33ad Post Number: 63 Registered: 10-2004 |
Thanks Colleen, I appreciate your views and feedback. It helps me also to understand how the different members of Christ's body think and work. I can quote places the The Orthodox Church states very clearly that they are NOT the only true church, and that ONLY God knows who His true followers are. It only lays claim to Apostolic Succession, which I suppose they do have. As I stated previously, as a 'Former' I felt uneasy in the manner that the writer 'excluded' Protestants from true bible knowledge, which of course is totally untrue. It is a pity that there will be always those, especially 'new converts', who will state they have found the ONLY way to Salvation. Although I am Orthodox, I by no means believe that I've found the 'roadmap'. I just find myself at home there. I wanted to draw attention though to the fact that SDA's are not the only "organization" that says they have The ONLY answers. It just was sad for me to see it in my new spiritual home. But the Lord has spoken to me silently too and stated that there is no "Perfect Church" on earth today.(Meaning Denominations-there are 'good' SDA's too) Although we all are part of the Heavenly Kingdom of Christ the moment we accept Jesus, and "the church" in its broadest sense is the Apple of His Eye, we will still be beset by the wolves until Christ returns and finally sets up His New Earthly Kingdom. Praise God that we have the surity to KNOW when we are one of His, and need not fear the Dread Judgement. I know that I grew and matured in my walk with Christ after I left the SDA's, and I'm sure that it is the case with each one on this Forum. "Isaiah 48:17 Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go." Our Lord will continue to lead us till - "Revelation 7:17 For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes." I can't wait for that day. Amen Blessings Loren | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 155 Registered: 2-2003 |
Loren, Thanks for reacting so nicely to all my (our) criticisms. I think people can sometimes fall out because they end up seeing different aspects of the same thing. I'll try to explain. I read a really wise thought in a book by Derek Prince once (who I certainly do not agree with 100%). He said many teachings that we hear, or things we see happening in churches are "mixed messages," by which he means they are partly right and partly wrong. Many people do not examine things deeply, so some see the good and accept the bad as well, and some see the bad and reject the good as well. This leads to confusion and division. I suppose the answer is always to be alert, on guard, listening to the Holy Spirit, and ready to discern the right from the wrong in every detail. But who of us is that good - LOL. Another great way is to be in a good body, so we can all bounce ideas off one another. Anyway, I hope you just keep developing a relationship with Jesus, wherever you are. I was brought up non-conformist, and there is no way I could feel happy in a ritualistic church, but that is me, even Anglican is too much for me. God bless, Adrian | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 855 Registered: 12-2003 |
Loren, thanks for you great spirit of openness and unity in Christ. I'm glad you're here, and I'm glad we can support each other here as we all grow in wisdom through Jesus! Colleen | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 683 Registered: 3-2004 |
Belonging to this forum has exposed me to so many things about the Bible and Adventism that I would not have known if I had stayed SDA. Thank you for broadening my horizons and inspiring me to study on my own. That is what God wants from us any way. To study His word to see if people are telling us the truth. Some stuff I do not understand and some is not important for salvation, but it is all interesting and God does want us to use the brains He gave us. He is awesome. Diana | ||
| 33ad Registered user Username: 33ad Post Number: 67 Registered: 10-2004 |
Thanks Everyone. I feel that belonging to a forum like this is so much better than just being in a particular (Localized) Bible Study Group because each of us brings some useful experience from differing backgrounds, and regions. And we don't have to fear we are being judged for what we think. It's so great to be able to ask questions and know you're not going to be given a standard load of Dogma as answer. As long as we hold to the "Spirit of Love" that Christ commanded us to have for one another, we really can build one another up, not only here, but when we go back to each one of our own worship groups. Thanks once again and God Bless. Loren "John 17:11 & 21-23 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name--the name you gave me--so that they may be one as we are one. (Verse:21) That all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me." | ||
| 33ad Registered user Username: 33ad Post Number: 68 Registered: 10-2004 |
Hi Doc You Said "I suppose the answer is always to be alert, on guard, listening to the Holy Spirit, and ready to discern the right from the wrong in every detail. But who of us is that good - LOL. Another great way is to be in a good body, so we can all bounce ideas off one another." That's is the right attitude with any approach to Bible Study and Christianity. We just have to pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit to give us the discernment (And He'll help us to be 'that good'-LOL) to tell the right from the wrong, because the enemy is going to be everywhere, throwing false docrines at us, so we have to have the 'Berean Attitute' (Check it against Scripture). God Bless Loren | ||
| Seekr777 Registered user Username: Seekr777 Post Number: 101 Registered: 1-2003  |
Loneviking, please give me more information about the new age speaker you mentioned hearing at the Redwoods Campmeeting in N. CA. Who was it. I attended a couple of meetings there and didn't run into that. Most of my time up there was spend wandering and talking with people in different towns. Are there any Formers up in the area of the Redwoods. I'd love to meet with you this summer. I'll be up there for a couple of weeks traveling and taking photos and wandering throught the "coffee houses" etc. If anyone is up in the N. CA area who would like to meet for coffee please let me know. I'll be traveling up in that area after summer school this year. Probably the last week of July or first week of August. email me please Richard rtruitt@mac.com | ||
| Loneviking Registered user Username: Loneviking Post Number: 328 Registered: 7-2000 |
Richard, the speakers name was Guillermo Garcia, pastor of 'Iglesia Central de Los Angeles'. You wouldn't have had any idea that he would be teaching New Age concepts. His 'theme' was 'Spiritual Disciplines' and the titles from the series would give you no clues either. Your timing is perfect for the Redwoods Camp Meeting and I'll be there. It's a beautiful place to camp with beaches, fishing, swimming and Redwood groves close by. I'd love to meet you. There is a great E.V. Free church just outside Fortuna. Maybe we could meet there? They have a coffee shop! |
