| Author | Message | ||
| 33ad Registered user Username: 33ad Post Number: 104 Registered: 10-2004 |
Hi All, I've been posting now at CARM and they're not just snarly, it's WAR! There was a post by a Former who does not post here at FAF. She had quite a lengthy post about what she'd experienced as an SDA and her feelings on leaving. Some self-righteous prig of an SDA 'lady' then had the temerety to ask this former if she thought that this was her private forum. She also castigated her as producing Slime and Muck and parading it in front of all the new SDA's to discredit the 'church'. Then I lost it and let her have it with all barrels firing. I was not nice! But I recall Christ was also not 'nice' about the things He said to the Pharisees. But I've been waiting a long time to tell the SDA's what to do with their self-righteous attitudes. I'm glad I found that forum. I'll take them on any day. But it's also nice there to debate with other Christians. Besides, I see they hit on the JW's and Mormons too. I'm also in the 'Jewish Roots' forum. They may be nasty to me, I don't know. I've got no axe to grind with them, I'm just curious about what they believe and how they fit into the current Christian mix. I see the SDA's also had a go at Pheeki, but so far they've been nice to Praise God. Just thought I'd let you know. God Bless | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 1091 Registered: 11-2002 |
Wow, you are a brave soul. I read the entries on CARM. I have never posted on there an I don't intend to. Do you read the entries on Voluntary Adventist Forum? You have to be a bonified current SDA to post on there so the discussions can get really interesting. | ||
| Carol_2 Registered user Username: Carol_2 Post Number: 174 Registered: 2-2002 |
Way to go 33ad! So thankful for brave souls like yourself for what you do on CARM. I personally am sensitive and a chicken, and could never go on that forum. I'm re-posting something I just wrote on another thread, realizing all our CARM stars might more likely notice it here: Well, everyone, I have gone back to reading CARM again because of the recent comments. Pheeki, I don't know how you do it!!! (and the rest of you: Another Carol, Freeatlast, PraiseGod, 33ad, etc.) God bless you, I know He is certainly using you, and if anything I believe that anyone considering Adventism would be scared away quickly if they read CARM. It always terribly depresses me when I read it.....again, I really don't know how you do it. I have some questions.....first, have any of the traditional sdas on CARM said that they have read and researched extensively about egwhite's plagiarism? I'm curious as to what they say about it. Also, how do they typically respond to all the Bible says in the New Testament about the New Covenant? I see them use their many proof texts over and over about keeping the commandments, but I couldn't find where anyone had specifically replied and addressed the many New Testament teachings about the New Covenant, no longer living under the law, etc. Just really curious about these things. If I had more time I'd research CARM more to find my answers, but figured you guys would be able to answer me more quickly. Another thing, what about Dr. Patti....is she on this forum under another name? Just would like her to know how much I admire & respect what she does also. To all of you....I know it might become very discouraging at times, but seriously, I know that you are being used to warn those that might be considering adventism. Love and prayers to all, Carol #2 | ||
| 33ad Registered user Username: 33ad Post Number: 106 Registered: 10-2004 |
Carol, I've only just found CARM, but I don't think any SDA's have tried to defend the plagiarism. but I'll be looking out for them. Thanks, I'm only a warrior for Christ. God Bless Loren | ||
| Pheeki Registered user Username: Pheeki Post Number: 420 Registered: 1-2003 |
Patti used to post here years ago but now she sticks primarily to CARM. She is awesome. We have been over and over and over the New Covenant and basically SDA think the New Covenant is really the Old Covenant...same thing...they totally ignore Jeremiah 31 that says it will not be like the Old Covenant. Thanks to all who came to my rescue!!!! | ||
| Pw Registered user Username: Pw Post Number: 176 Registered: 6-2004 |
OK, I'm clueless here. What is CARM? | ||
| Carol_2 Registered user Username: Carol_2 Post Number: 175 Registered: 2-2002 |
Hi Pw! CARM is "Christian Apologetics Research something or other" - Go to carm.org and check out the SDA discussion board. BTW, I was looking at the JW and Mormom "discussion" boards, and it was really amazing to me how much they sound like the SDAs. Back to what I was asking previously, I guess what I'm really trying to figure out is specifically, how do they (SDAs) respond to: Romans 7:6 "Now, however, we are free from the Law, because we died to that which once held us prisoners. No longer do we serve in the old way of a written law, but in the new way of the Spirit.", Galatians 3:? (lost my place) "Now that the time for faith is here, the Law is no longer in charge of us," Galatians 3:19: "What then, was the purpose of the Laaw? It was added in order to show what wrongdoing is, and it was meant to last until the coming of Abraham's descendant, to whom the promise was made.", Galatians 3:24 "And so the law was in charge of us until Christ came...." and much of Galatians 3 and 4 where the meaning of "The Law" is so obvious...., Hebrews 8:7 "If there had been nothing wrong with teh first covenant, there would have been no need for a second one...", Hebrews 8:13, "By speaking of a new covenant, God has made the first one old, and anything that becomes old and worn out will soon disappear," 2 Corinthians 3:6 "it is He who made us capable of serving the new covenant, which consists not of a written law but of hte Spitit. The written law brings death, but the Spirit gives life," and another verse which I cannot seem to find right now which refers to the Old Covenant or Law being written on tablets of stone. I still have not heard anyone specifically respond to this, other than an SDA pastor's wife, who said that her husband knew the "original" meanings of these words, and could explain it to me. I just really want to understand their thinking on these scriptures, and I think I'll feel better prepared to discuss this with an SDA (if necessary) if I understanding their thinking better. Can anyone help? Gotta run...have some people waiting on me...but will check in later. Love and prayers to all, Carol #2 (pls forgive the typos, i'm REALLY running late, and have to go!) | ||
| Freeatlast Registered user Username: Freeatlast Post Number: 223 Registered: 5-2002 |
SDA theology splits "THE LAW" into two components, "ceremonial" (feasts, sacrifices, priests, the tabernacle, etc.) and "moral" (the 10 commandments). Although there is no Scriptural support for this dichotomy, SDA theology hangs its hat on it. This way, they are able to pick and choose which texts referring to "LAW" refer to "ceremonial" and which ones refer to "moral". For example, SDA theology teaches that the ceremonial law was nailed to the cross and so there are no more sacrifices or priests, but that the moral law is eternal therefore we must remember to keep the Sabbath day holy and make no graven images, etc. In SDA theology, 2 laws are better than 1... | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 75 Registered: 10-2004 |
I can't understand that thinking, though, since there are many moral principles in the rest of the Law. Were those done away with, according to SDAs? And if the rest of the Law (everything but the 10 Commandments), was nailed to the cross, then why do they still keep parts of it, such as unclean meats, tithing (although they don't keep the Biblical tithing commands), assembling together on the Sabbath, etc.? It doesn't make sense. And Galatians is clear that it's talking about the whole Law, as it mentions both "ceremonial" and moral aspects of the Law. Jeremy | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 76 Registered: 10-2004 |
Oh, and Romans 7 even quotes one of the 10 Commandments when talking about "the Law," right after it says that we are released from the Law! Jeremy | ||
| Carol_2 Registered user Username: Carol_2 Post Number: 176 Registered: 2-2002 |
I know, I know! That's what I don't understand. How do the SDAs respond to these exact quotes? I know I'm "preaching to the choir," here, but I just want to better understand their thinking. In my personal experience, I truly couldn't have argued any of this while an SDA....I didn't have a clue what I was talking about, just what I was told all my life. But I'm sure there are some like those on CARM who would have some sort of response to this. Thanks for the responses so far....this forum, as always, is such a blessing. Love and prayers to all, Carol #2 | ||
| Praisegod Registered user Username: Praisegod Post Number: 154 Registered: 3-2004 |
I remember it being explained that in Romans 7 Paul was talking about his thinking before he was converted. Romans 8 was after. He just understood it better. It didn't make a lot of sense to me as SDA so I tended to avoid it. Praise God... | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 73 Registered: 7-2004 |
When I was firmly SDA I used to think that Paul's writings, along with Hebrews, were among the most confusing in Scripture. Since most SDA studies only look at one or two verses at a time and jump from place to place, it was fairly easy to "know" what Scripture taught without trying to wade through such confusing teachings. Particularly if you were also trying to deal with understanding the langauge of the KJV at the same time. I was always particularly fascinated with Romans. There was always such a combination of beautiful verses and passages that were hard to grasp that I kept coming back to it. Romans only started making sense when I would read the whole book together at one time, again and again. As it started seeming clear, the blinders of SDAism started to fall away. Then I was amazed at how much sense Galations made. I am trying to recall how many SDA expository sermons I have heard from any of Paul's writings. I preached from his writings routinely, but I have a hard time recalling too many other sermons from his writings. But it is also true that less than 1 in 4 sermons I would hear could be called expository by any stretch. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 924 Registered: 12-2003 |
So true, Ric. The fact is that Adventists don't explain those verses, Carol. Perhaps the most standard response is, "Oh, so it's OK to steal, lie, and commit adultery now?!" Adventists shy away from Paul. Really observant ones will downplay Paul's clear statements by saying, "Oh, Paul...even Peter said he was hard to understand!" I have even read some comments from an SDA pastor from another country who raised the question of how we can be sure Paul should have been included in Scripture. More "evangelical" Adventists may actually read and quote Paul, but they don't embrace his teachings as a coherent whole. They pick up on his salvation by grace passages, but they still explain away his assertions about the law being OVER. Some of them, because they know they argue themselves into a corner when they try to uphold the fourth commandment, will get around the problem by dealing with the Sabbath not primarily as a law issue but as a creation issue. By arguing for the Sabbath by making it part of creation, they avoid the fourth commandment and feel quite clever about explaining it as a gift and memorial of creation and the Creator. I remember, though, that although I used to support Sabbath in my own head from a creation standpoint because I realized that the law was not a good argument, still I felt a deep sense of incongruity. The arguments never quite made sense, and I was still left with the reality that the Holy Spirit, the One that replaced the law, did not impress most Christians with the Sabbath. That little glitch in the process left me confused and uncertain about my own logic. For a long time, though, that incongruence wasn't enough to make me change my mind. I still believed it had to be significant somehow. It truly wasn't until I admitted EGW was a false prophet that I could see the fallacy of the Sabbath arguments as well as all the other SDA doctrines. EGW really is the bottom line, the source of bondage. It's that spirit of deception once again--Adventists' confusion and twisted logic always grow out of the influence of the false prophet, whether the individual Adventists know it or not. If a person can't acknowledge the truth about Ellen, it's probably not possible to fully acknowledge the truth about Adventism. Colleen | ||
| Praisegod Registered user Username: Praisegod Post Number: 155 Registered: 3-2004 |
Monday I had a conversation with someone who is actually quite an evangelical Adventist who never expressed much concern about doctrines. But I still got a comment along the lines of "I just can't understand why Paul is in the Bible. It's just easier to keep more with the Old Testament." But it's not discouraging because we did end up with a two hour study on the New Covenant. This is a person who is really listening! Pray for Doc R! Praise God... | ||
| Praisegod Registered user Username: Praisegod Post Number: 156 Registered: 3-2004 |
Yes, Colleen, I too clung to the creation idea as my last grasp for holding on to the Sabbath. Now when I see someone who the Holy Spirit is starting to move gently away from the full SDA belief system, I'm thankful with gradual movement. God is started to reveal his New Covenant more and more to sincere seekers within Adventism! Praise God... | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 78 Registered: 10-2004 |
I can't access CARM with my ISP, but I just took a look at a few posts via Google's cache. It seems like it is almost impossible to communicate with the folks on there. Jeremy | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 75 Registered: 7-2004 |
I can only get there through my work server. | ||
| Dd Registered user Username: Dd Post Number: 196 Registered: 7-2004 |
In my Bible discussion class today of Acts 15 and Galatians 1 and 2, one of the SDA girls in my group was almost in tears in responding to a comment I made regarding the freedom of being released from the law (as the Gentiles experienced in Acts 15:13). She said that it is frustating to be in a group where only a few passages are covered of what Paul is really saying at that time and the rules of BSF stating that we stick to the passages and not jump around to make a point. Colleen and Praise God, I saw today exactly what you are saying about Paul and the SDA mindset. Her comment then was that she is just praying that the Holy Spirit will take what we learn and move all of us in BSF to look further in scripture to really see all that Paul meant. While we are praying for Doc R (as Praise God requested), let's add Stephanie. Colleen, I know the response myself to an SDA's comment of "...so that means we are free to committ adultery, steal, lie...?", but I have a hard time with articulating it without a long-drawn out "speech" that tends to shut them down. Any suggestions for a short, concise response, anyone? | ||
| Pw Registered user Username: Pw Post Number: 177 Registered: 6-2004 |
I heard that same quote that colleen mentioned above about how SDA's claim Paul's writings were difficult to understand according to Peter...and yet, EGW's writings are perfectly clear to them? Unreal. |
