Post Number: 228
|Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 3:32 pm: || |
I agree with you Pauls. If God expected us to "get" every single one of His doctrines, He would have made us smarter. I think He knows when people's hearts are open and searching for the Truth.
Post Number: 999
|Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 11:16 pm: || |
The only problem is that JW and Mormon, (as well as SDA and Catholic) leadership are not searching for truth, they are twisting the truth and engaging in deception. Having said that, there is the doctrine of God's common grace which is extended to all people, in which He exhibits His love in a way that should lead to repentance, but many times does not. According to common grace, God does answer unbelievers prayers, and grace is given despite unbelief.
Post Number: 2915
|Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 8:28 pm: || |
Hannah, I agree--God knows our hearts, and He knows those who desire truth.
Pauls--you're right about the awesomeness of God accepting us into His family without understanding everything. He saves us while we are sinners. And He does pour out His blessing and sustenance on both the righteous and the evil.
While we are commanded to to hold onto the true gospel and to grow past "milk" into the "meat" of the gospel, we are likewise commanded not to try to pluck the weeds out of the wheatfield. While some teachings are clearly another gospel, still there are people who claim Christ and function as part of the body of Christ who are not necessarily born again--or who at best are very immature Christians. Our job is not to try to expose and remove them. Jesus said in his parable of the weed seeds sown in the wheat field that the wheat and the tares were to grow together. At the end of the age, the angels would harvest the wheat and remove the tares.
This parable doesn't mean we aren't to be discerning and stay rooted in the word as protection against deception. It does mean, though, that when people claim Jesus and function in the body as members, we must respect them and treat them as fellow believers unless they are caught in clear sin. Even then, it's the job of the church to discipline them, not individuals.
That being said, we can rejoice in God's grace that preserves people, even unbelievers. We don't have to be confused by things such as the grasshopper miracle the Mormons experienced. God preserves people and is patient with them, not wishing any to perish.
Post Number: 1004
|Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 11:41 pm: || |
Colleen, I guess I would have to ask you if the parable of the wheat and the tares means that we are not to expose false teaching? Because from your post above it would appear that anyone who claims Christ deserves our respect as fellow believers unless they are caught in clear sin. Now, if you mean that clear sin is false teaching, then I can see what you mean. Maybe you can clarify further. For example, if an SDA or a Mormon would claim to be a member of the body of Christ, then at what point should an individual or a church act to discipline this person?
Post Number: 102
|Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 7:11 am: || |
The boldness of Jesus has inspired me to overtly address beliefs in a timely manner while loving the deceived. I have to take that approach to remain an acting member of my extended family. They love to argue (Richard, speaking of Jewish... that powerful bit of blood that runs through me and my family enhances the whole definition of argument to another level!!) however, concerning the wheat and the tears, the way I understand that parable, the tares might be negative believers, lacking the fruits of the spirit, gossiping, cantankerous, full of sin, but different from those overtly attempting to persuade others to a false teaching.... maybe that's a misconception of the meaning of the parable.
About the sanctuary doctrine, I just can not get over the truth that the 10 commandments were to be kept in the MOST HOLY PLACE, and as far as I know were there when the curtain was torn from top to bottom when Jesus Christ fulfilled them at his death/murder. When I mentioned this to my mom, she said they werenít there at the time of Jesus, for some reason. Has anyone ever heard that? Thanks for all the great food for thought, I get hungry for that ever once in a while... you know, kids and cook and clean and more of the same .... sometimes this forum is like going out on a brain date
Post Number: 748
|Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 8:11 am: || |
The Ark of the Convenant, where the actual tables of stone upon which the commandments were written by the finger of God were housed, was hidden by Jeremiah who was the High Priest at the time of the Babylonian invasion. You will not find any mention of this in the cannonized scriptures but I believe it is mentioned in the Maccabean books of the Appocrapha. At that point it was lost to history and no one knows where it is now. There is some speculation that it might be housed in a small temple in Ethiopia but whatever is there is closely guarded by a special priestly order and no one is allowed in to see it. Therefore, your mother is correct that the MHP was, at the time of Christ, an empty chamber, or at best housed an empty replica of the original. That does not change the significance of the torn curtain that opened the way of the believer to direct access to God via Jesus our Christ. Read Hebrews once again and you will find that Jesus assended to Heaven and sat down at the right hand of the Father. If you read Leviticus 16, the whole chapter, you will see the description of The Day of Atonement, which was the rite that foreshadowed Jesus' atonement for you and me upon the cross. Jesus is, according the Hebrews, our Heavenly High Priest. At the completion of the offering of the sacrifice on the Day of Atonement the High Priest took off his robes and he sat down, intercession completed! Jesus removed his grave clothes and presented himself to The Father after the resurrection. When he returned to Heaven 40 days later, on the day of First Fruits, his entercessory work was definitely completed and Hebrews says clearly that He is seated at the right hand of the Father. The whole sanctuary doctrine as taught by Adventism is a cleaver ruse to help them cover up their date setting (forbidden by Jesus himself) with regard to the Great Disappointment in 1844. On October 22, 1844, absolutely nothing of sanctuary importance occurred in Heaven. Intercession was finished in 31 A.D.
Post Number: 360
|Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 9:38 am: || |
Lisa, here is a Jewish perspective on where the ark might be and it's history.
Post Number: 2917
|Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 12:06 pm: || |
I believe it's significant that God allowed the ark to be hidden AND that He had removed His presence from the MHP as well. In reality, it would have been incongruous for the law and mercy seat to be in the MHP without the presence of God.
When Jesus said He was greater than the temple (Matthew 12), He was saying that all the things the Jews valued about their templeótheir identity, their ceremonies, their laws--were all complete in Him. The law in the Jewish community would have been pretty meaningless apart from the presence of God. I think that in reality, God and Law are inseparable. The written law was for the purpose we now understand: to reveal sin. But this revelation and its companion curse would have been nothing but an impersonal death sentence apart from the presence of God.
Stan, my statement above was pretty ambiguous. I should have given it a bit more context. Actually, I had a couple of conversations over the weekend with people concerned about what they felt was unnecessary criticism and even ridicule of fellow Christians whose views of evangelism or discipling were unbiblical. They expressed concern that people just questioning Adventism would find the overt criticism of respected evangelical Christians deeply discouragiing. "Why leave the critical fold of Adventism if there's no good place to go?" was the question that seemed to come up.
Now, please don't misunderstand me. I'm willing to take criticism for speaking truthfully about Adventism. I believe any false gospel should be exposed. Paul held nothing back when he wrote to the Galatians.
All I meant by my ambiguous statement above was that I believe that we cannot justly ridicule or even chronically criticize people who are NOT teaching "another gospel", people who are clearly members of the body of Christ and rooted in evangelical theology. We might disagree with their methods--we might even need to state concerns about things we believe could be misleading. There is a difference between pointing out teaching or methods that disturb us and chronically ciriticizing people for their methods. (I even believe that some concerns may have grave implications, but, if the things that concern us are not heresy or "another gospel", we can state our cautions, but they might be best mulled over more deeply in a context where we aren't discouraging people who are growing in Christ and learning to find their identity in Him.)
No, I'm not saying we should cover over false doctrine. I'm just saying that a critical spirit can eclipse Jesus and the word of Godówhere truth is clearly revealed.
That being said, I'm a firm believer in apologetics. I cannot back off on my stance that Adventism is another gospel and that there is a spirit of Adventism that holds people in deception and bondageóeven those Adventists who don't understand everything the church represents. (And I know people really don't like it when I say that!)
But I know that Jesus is calling people to Himself. I must always state the truth in a context of reality: God is calling us out of ALL bondage, and He Himself is our Goal, our Reward, our Freedom, our Advocate, the Author and Finisher of our faith.
When we decide to surrender all we love and value to Him, He does not leave us in a quiet backwater of complacence. He changes us and opens our eyes. He teaches us and leads us to the "meat" of the word, not just the "milk".
Plainly, what I had in mind was that chronic criticism of fellow Christians who are not teaching "another gospel" is counterproductive to the nurture and Scriptural grounding we all need when we are trying hard to find a solid foundation on which to plant ourselves as we discover the fallacies of Adventism and discover God is leading us to join His bodyówhich we had been taught comprised "apostate Protestantism"!
I hope this helps!
Post Number: 229
|Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 3:21 pm: || |
It's amazing how many topics on this forum end up being about this one issue. You know I mean no offense, Stan
Post Number: 1009
|Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 12:21 am: || |
Thank you Hannah. (I don't know how to use the smiley, but smiley back to you to)