| Author | Message | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2493 Registered: 12-2003  |
XSRA--I agree with Jeremy. It is so hard to see the fabric of one's entilre life begin to unravel and find that there's no way to repair it because it was flawed in the beginning. Unfortunately, Ellen White was not a prophet of God, and all the forms of the SDA churchówhich honor her as a prophetic voiceóare built on foundations of sand. Check out the websites Jeremy posted aboveóand I'd like to encourage you to begin reading Galatians, Colossians, and Hebrews with the prayer that God will help you to understand what He wants you to understand, see what He wants you to see, and be rooted in truth. With prayers for you, Colleen | ||
| Xsra Registered user Username: Xsra Post Number: 6 Registered: 6-2005 |
Hi Kelly, Itís a good thing that you never made the move to NZ, as your lives would have been completely messed up the moment you began to question the church. You have learned by experience the power for evil a fanatical church possesses. I sincerely hope you will be able to turn these bad experiences into good ones, through the grace of Christ. "Did you ever know any believers from the U.S. or Canada? Yes. I met several people from the US while in the Palmwoods SRA church. One of them was a good friend, but, in the end, the friendship broke down when it became clear that to in any way support me meant to lose the support of the church. ìAre you still in contact with anyone from the church?î No. Members of the SRA church are forbidden to fellowship or socialize with any non members, because to do so would incur instant anathema! However, certain people can get away with it if they are greatly beloved by Andreas or Andreas's close friends. You see, in the SRA church, it isn't what you do so much as who you are! For example, I witnessed two baptised members carry on an extra-marital affair for the entire nine years I was a member of the Palmwoods church. Both Fred Wright (from 1986-1992) and Andreas Dura (from 1989-1992) were fully aware of this sin, yet welcomed them to the Lord's Supper every year. While I remained a member of the SRA church (until 1997), not only did I witness neither minister confess to having failed to call that sin by its right name, but rather I witnessed Andreas tell the church, at the 1995 camp meeting, that the Australian SRA church, along with the International SRA church, "has always called sin by its right name and has always excluded open sinners from the Lord's Supper". This was the greatest untruth I have ever witnessed, and left me completely stunned. During those nine years, I had not made one complaint against that sin (although many others had). Why? Because Fred Wright taught the church that the way to deal with open sin was to do nothing more than pray for them and then leave the matter in Godís hands. He taught that the Word of God that commands the church to rebuke and separate sinners was given to the church as a "secondary measure" rather than have sinners running riot in the church, but that the true believers should deal with all manner of sin through ìlove aloneî. He called this ìSabbath restî, which became the new name for the church around the mid 1980ís (Prior to that they called themselves the Fundamental SDA church). To be more specific, the words of Jesus in Mat.18:15-20 were considered as having been addressed to Godís ìfallenî church, i.e. Godís church in the ìlaodiceanî condition, meaning that they lack the love that is needed to effectively deal with sin in the church. Of course, those who quoted from Paul and Ellen White to the contrary were accused of not being in the message and were shunned. In 1995, the two who had been guilty finally volunteered a confession. What do you suppose the Australian SRA church then began to do at the very next camp meeting (1995)? They began to exclude open sinners from the Lordís Supper. How do I know this? Because I became the first person in the 34 year history of the Australian SRA church to be accused of open sin, and was then subjected to an investigation to determine my worthiness to attend the Supper, at the behest of Andreas, who was not even a member of the Australian church but only a guest; his flock were the German church. Of those who became my judges, four of them had known all about that open sin that had existed for those nine years. Two of the four had been in the Palmwoods church with me. Did any of them question why the church was now suddenly judging supposed sinners? No. Did any of them question why the church was now suddenly doing things so differently than before? No. They simply obeyed the primary messenger, Andreas. Unfortunately for Andreas, I wasnít found guilty of anything, and so I was allowed to attend the Supper. He consented to the decision of ìthe churchî - so called, as there were only six people present, while by far the greater majority were outside preparing for the foot washing service! Andreas, in his haste to cleanse the church of evil, had passed right over Mat.18:15-17 and proceeded with verse 18 ñ without even the knowledge of most of the church. He apologised as soon as he heard that those present did not feel I was guilty of open sin. I forgave him and still do. But by far the greater sinner was himself and those who witnessed this brutal act brought against a man who, for the entire nine years he had been a member of the church, had never complained about perhaps the most open evil a church (and community) could ever witness. But these people would never take the matter any further. Neither Andreas nor Fred would be investigated over their failure to call sin by its right name. The matter of Andreas accusing me of open sin would be swept under the carpet before anybody could begin to question him or Fred about their own sin or about the sudden change in the churchís policy regarding sin. Any further mention of the matter would bring instant anathema against that person. This was the way of the SRA. When Andreas first reminded those present of their duty as ìthe churchî to exclude open sinners from the Lordís Supper, what should the church have said? They should have said, ìOK Andreas, then let us first begin with your open sin, and then let us examine Fred Wrightís, for, the Bible tells us plainly that ministers who fail to call sin by its right name are guilty of the same sinî. Also, they should have said, ìBefore we judge this man, shouldnít we first pray with him and try to save him from this sin that you are so sure he has committed?î Also, they should have said, ìAre those present to judge this man themselves without sin, or is a sinner to be judged by sinners?î (Two who were present were guilty of giving appearances of evil.) My most basic rights as a human being were denied me. Even a civil court would have afforded me more dignity! After two years of pursuing the matter privately with Fred, Andreas and several senior members, including ministers and senior members of the International SRA church, but being repeatedly rebuffed, I finally wrote an open letter to the Australian church members. I stated that Andreas and the senior members were covering a very great evil and were not being truthful regarding the churchís former dealings with sin. But they simply sent back an open letter of their own, stating that I had ìraised a matter that had been dealt with by repentance long agoî, that I was ìmaking myself an accuser of the brethrenî, and that ìwe will not discuss this matter with you anymore, either as individuals or as the churchî. The matter had never been repented of, much less discussed; it had simply been covered up. Nor had they ever discussed it with me as a church even once! Most of the church signed that letter. I therefore left in disgust because of their open dishonesty. This to me was itself open sin, and to remain would have made me guilty before God. A few years later, I contacted the (newly ordained) minister of the Australian church about another matter. At some point he informed me that the church had gotten together and repented for the very matter they had earlier stated had been ìrepented of long agoî. Did he or the church now apologise to me? No, because, in his words, I was ìno longer in the messageî. What message? - The message of honesty, of justice, of love? Hardly! Kelly, if you have any questions please feel free to ask. I feel that every member or ex-member of the SRA church should know the truth about that evil organization. Take care. Rob | ||
| Kellymiller Registered user Username: Kellymiller Post Number: 11 Registered: 8-2005 |
My first camp meeting was in 1995, so there is a lot of this that is only a memory of people talking about it. It was 1993 when I first had contact with the church and started meeting the people. Plus, there was always a lot of "watchfullness" about things that were said around me, because they didn't think that I was good enough or something. Yet, when my husband and I read this we sure did have some questions. So if you don't feel like getting a bit more into it here, we will e-mail you. It would be kind of nice to get more of the story. kelly | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2516 Registered: 12-2003 |
Kelly, would you mind emailing me at Proclamation@gmail.com? I can't put my hands on your email address right now, and I'd like to put you in touch with Rob. Thanks! Colleen | ||
| Xsra Registered user Username: Xsra Post Number: 7 Registered: 6-2005 |
Hi Kelly I'm happy to discuss the SRA church openly, as I feel the truth should be told. But if you'd prefer to talk privately, Colleen Tinker has my email address, so feel free to ask her for it. Regards Rob | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2623 Registered: 12-2003 |
I'm more than willing to put you and Kelly in touch via email, Rob--but I appreciate your stance that the truth should be told openly. The offshoots of Adventism which include the SRA and the SDARM (Reform Movement) are fundamentally ADVENTIST. While there are many interpretive and practical differences among them, they are nonetheless all based on Ellen White's interpretations and prophecies. They all hold their members in tight bondage, and they all obscure the Real Jesus and His finished work on the cross. The mainline Adventist church attempts to distance itself from these "offshoots", but the fact is they cannot escape the fact that they are closely related and share the same roots. The situation at Waco, Texas, with David Koresh was a case in point. David WAS an Adventist. He used to be a member in a regular Adventist church pastored by a person with whom I went to academy and college. David went "over the edge", but it was through his reading and interpretaion of Ellen White. He drew many Adventists with him. I was told years ago that a student I taught at Gem State Academy was a member of the Waco commune when it burned. The Adventist church has denied any association with Koresh, but in fact, the Adventist church provided the fodder for David's addled mind to use to deceive many Adventists who were likewise predisposed by their trauma hidden within Adventism to be vulnerable to him. Praise God we can trust Him for justcie and mercy and light to expose the darkness. Praise God that He brings us to life with Jesus while we are still dead in our sins! We don't have to save ourselves in any way! Colleen | ||
| Xsra Registered user Username: Xsra Post Number: 8 Registered: 6-2005 |
Hi Colleen, Looking at your comment above, as well as several others' comments on this thread, I'm wondering whether I shouldn't visit this site anymore, as most if not all members are anti-Ellen White, whereas I'm not. I try to harmonize peoples' writings with the Bible, and not the other way around, and in my experience I've found that EGW harmonizes with the Bible. Yes, I've read some of the tracts and books devoted to proving her to be a false prophet; but rather than look at the few seeming problems, contradictions, statements etc. regarding her writings, I prefer to look at the many statements that do in fact point to Jesus as our Saviour. You see, it was through reading the book Patriachs and Prophets that I was converted. My mind was impressed with the character of God presented in that book, i.e. as a God of love. Having grown up in a catholic church where God is portrayed as a God of vengeance, I found EGWs portrayal very attractive and refreshing. I also felt there was a power connected with her writings - the power of a loving God. I have never been a member of the SDA church, only a member of the SRA church. I'm not anti-SDA nor anti-SRA, I simply wanted to tell a particular truth about the SRA church, a truth well hidden by them, a truth that all members and non-members should duly consider - that the SRA church believes that God gives all the light through one man only. This tenet is NOT mentioned in their church beliefs tract, nor is it mentioned to those who are either new to the church or becoming interested. It, like several other extreme doctrines, are kept hidden in secrecy. It's not until a person becomes ingrained in the church that they gradually see what is happening, but it is often too late then. In my experience, I was a member at the very time most of these fanatical doctrines were being formulated, and I witnessed the damage done to individuals and families alike. Fortunately for me, Andreas Dura came along at the time he did, and his natural tendency to act on a whim, to completely rearrange things, to get everybody to sign things, and to generally behave in such an inexperienced, extreme and rash manner - these things, together with being personally rubbed the wrong way by Andreas, opened my eyes to the fact that the SRA church is a very, very HUMAN organization indeed, and not as "restful" as their name would suggest. Indeed, I would place a "w" in front of their name, giving - Sabbath Wrest Advent Church. Connect to these things the fact that I was a member of the very church Fred Wright lived in, and I saw with my own eyes many, many strange and sinful practices that continued in an unbroken line for many years, never once being rebuked - one then begins to ask oneself "Does a church that is so devoted to sin really have the truth?", "Is the minister of such a church really as holy as he claims, i.e. all the light comes through him alone?". God forbid. I am so very thankful to those most human of all humans who turned on me and who did this so viciously, as these satanic evils forced me to dare to question God Himself, i.e. what I thought had been God's leading. That's a very hard thing to do - to question God Himself. But when you are forced into a corner, and principle, reason, logic and morality all tell you that something is very, very wrong, it is then that you must be prepared to challenge God Himself. You see, this is what God wants us to do, and let me explain why. There is a false God in this world, who impersonates the true God. If a person is led under the control of the false God, and yet they believe it is the true God, then the only way out - after things begin to make no sense - is to question the God they think is the true God. This makes perfect sense. And the sure guide God has provided us with is His Word. However, the devil is a master at making God's Word appear confusing. But God has given another way, which is not another way, only another expression of the same thing, and that is through reason, logic and principle. The Word of God itself can save no man; It needs the man's own mind in order to have any power, and God Himself has designed our minds to operate through the force of reason. I'll understand if you ask me not to post here anymore. No problem. Take care. Rob | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2635 Registered: 12-2003 |
Rob, of course you may post here! Many people have found a picture of God that they can begin to trust through Ellen White's writings. As Paul said when people complained to him that preachers had started evangelizing, taking advantage of Paul's imprisonment, and charging money for their preaching, "The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice" (Philippians 1:18). God will use whatever means are at hand to begin to reveal Himself. The wonder of God, however, is that He continus to reveal Himself and to show us more and more reality. He doesn't leave us where He finds us. The fact that Ellen's writings helped you find a loving as opposed to an abusive God was an act of God, and we can praise Him for that. That fact, however, doesn't render her reliable. The devils also believe and tremble. You're right; the devil has a way of making the word of God appear confusing. Yet what I have found, since I rejected Ellen White as a Biblical authority, is that the Holy Spirit Himself reveals Jesus through the Word. The confusion I felt all my life when reading the Bible has evaporated, and it is increasingly and ever-more-deeply a unified whole that is seamless and reliable in its revelation of reality, truth, God's love, and God's rescue of humanity. 1 Corinthians 1 and 2 make it clear that human reason cannot decipher spiritual truth. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. The new birth by the Holy Spirit, His indwelling those who accept the death and resurrection of Jesus as their atonement and release from sin, is the secret to understanding Scripture. Hebrews 1:2 has clearly said that God spoke to us in the past through prophets, but in these last days He has revealed Himself through Jesus. We need no other prophetic interpreter or teacher. The Holy Spirit Himself teaches us through the book He inspired. I can state absolutely that as long as one clings to Ellen's interpretations of Scirpture, one will end up confused. Honoring her as an inspired commentator, in fact, is why Adventism and its offshoots have had so many self-proclaimed prophets who have done so much harm. The Bible does not allow for a last day prophet who will give new light or understanding to the Bible, to salvation, or to the word of God. The fact that Adventists accept Ellen as such a prophet opens to door for Fred Wrights, David Koreshes, etc. Who is to say if Ellen was Ok, there won't be another prophet later? The NT is clear: Jesus is our all-in-all, the prefect representation of the Father. The Bible is an astonishing book of God's intercepting human life, using sweeping metaphors and types and foreshadowing to prepare people for the reality of Jesus. He has opened life and immortality and revealed the mystery of God, that all things in heaven and on earth will be brought under on head, even Christ (Ephesians 1:10; 2 Timothy 1:9-10). The gospel and the Person of Jesus have the power to heal our hearts from the shredding they experienced at the hands of unscrupulous religious leaders. In Him is healing, and He is faithful to complete what He begins in us (Phil. 1:6). Colleen | ||
| Xsra Registered user Username: Xsra Post Number: 9 Registered: 6-2005 |
Just a few thoughts on the Mosaic (primary) order. The primary order is based on the Mosaic order, i.e. as God gave the entire law to Israel through Moses, so today God gives all the light through one man -- the messenger. But what must be understood is that although God gave the law through Moses, it was God Himself Who taught the people, i.e. gave them the understanding. Moses himself gave them no understanding whatsoever; he was only the message bearer. It was the Holy Spirit Who taught Israel. That's not to say Israel didn't need Moses, as though each of them was a messenger and relied on God independently of others; for God needs a wordsmith to communicate His thoughts through the wordsmith's experience of the truth. Experiencing the truth is a prerequisite for preaching it to others, otherwise God might just as well give light through parrots. Therefore it stands to reason that if God gave all the law through Moses while he was in the Mount with God, God must also have given Moses the understanding of this light. So then if Moses had all the understanding, then it also stands to reason that no other earthly creature could enlighten Moses, seeing that they had received their understanding through Moses in the first place. Fred Wright preached this very thing in 1989. He cited as an example the fact that Moses proclaimed himself the meekest man on earth, seeing that it was Moses who wrote the book of Exodus wherein these words are found. In this vein Fred went on to state that Moses was the highest person in the church, he sat the nearest to God, and because of this all the light came through him alone. But what Fred overlooked was the fact that when Moses spoke those words about himself he did this under inspiration, i.e. as a prophet. Fred was never a prophet and therefore never inspired. The word "inspiration" implies a sense of infallibility, and only the Bible writers themselves preached at this level. The Apostle Paul taught that in the church the highest members are apostles. He taught that an apostle is inspired, can work miracles of healing, can speak in tongues, etc., whereas those lower than him have fewer of the gifts of the Spirit. As such, one would expect an apostle to have a very exceptional character and a very balanced mind and consistent experience. Such a person would have to be holy in the truest sense of the word. For Fred to compare himself with such a person was a delusion of grandeur, especially considering the mistakes he made in his life. It is God alone Who makes such announcements about His workers. It is not given to any human to make such announcements either about themselves or others. This is a principle that must never be forgotten, otherwise Satan will ensnare us all, for he is much smarter than us. Our only defence is in Christ, the smartest One of all. Returning to Moses now, consider him sitting in the congregation listening to his brother Aaron deliver a sermon. Letís assume Mosesí level of understanding was ten on a scale of one to ten, and that Aaronís understanding was level eight. Could Moses learn anything from Aaron? If not, what would be the point in him even being there! The fact is, the Holy Spirit was teaching everybody at the level they were each at. The children understood on their lower level while the adults understood on a higher level. Aaron, Miriam, Joshua, Caleb and others learned on a higher level, and Moses learned on the highest level. But they all learned something through Aaron in that sermon. This is a very important point. God is the Teacher and His creation is the means by which He teaches. For example, God no doubt taught Moses at times through the innocent antics of children or the goo-ing and gaa-ing of babies. So Moses was taught by a dribbling baby you say? No. But ìGodî taught Moses ìthroughî the baby. Likewise, Fred Wright was an excellent student of the Bible, a very observant reader of other peoplesí works, and had a photographic memory to boot. As such, and because God always gives His Spirit in special measure to ministers, Fred was able to bring many truths to light, most of which I still hold to. But whenever he sat in the congregation and listened to a presentation of the very light he himself had given to the person now delivering the sermon, he was being taught of God at his higher level through that sermon, such that without that sermon he would not have grown in spiritual understanding at all. Fred was as dependent on that sermon as much as everybody else. So Who is the messenger?! When God first approached Moses and gave him his calling to lead out Israel from Egyptian bondage, did God lay out to Moses his future as a leader, and did He explain this in all its detail? No to both questions. God only gave Moses instructions for that day, each day. This is what Jesus Himself told us. Now, could Moses, or any other person for that matter, have stood up and said: I am the messenger (or Moses is the messenger)? No, because nobody knew what Godís plan was beyond each present command. In other words, God might just as well have replaced Moses the next hour or next day. So what of the claim that Moses (the primary messenger) is the messenger to whom God will reveal all light! Itís a delusion of grandeur. Therefore, how did Moses and the people know who was the messenger? By the word God gave each day. Because God gave this word through Moses each day, Moses and the people knew who the messenger was. But they could only know this on each particular hour or day and not beyond. Likewise in our day, for anybody to attend a camp meeting with the expectancy that God will give light through a Fred Wright alone or, more recently, through an Andreas Dura alone is running ahead of God, and he who runs ahead of God makes himself God. These are but scratchings on the surface of very deep and powerful truths and principles. But it is never Godís intention for one person alone to preach these truths. Therefore I cordially invite the reader to investigate for themselves and to add any light you may find on the subject. Thank you for listening, and God bless. Rob | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1103 Registered: 7-2003  |
Rob, I think your essay fails to incorporate two very important diffenrences that are evident post-pentacost. In the New Covenant dispensation, post-pentacost, each believer is individually indwelt by the Holy Spirit and Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant. In the Old Covenant dispensation, only certain selected "aonnited ones" such as kings, prophets, and judges were filled with the Spirit. Moses was the mediator of the Old Covenant. Moses truly did stand between the people and God. That is no longer the case. We no longer need prophets to stand between us and God and to dispense truth to us. That role is now filled by the Holy Spirit Himself in the life of each believer. Chris | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3444 Registered: 12-2003 |
Great point, Chris. Also, Moses is not the "primary source" of God's revelation to/through man. Jesus is. Moses' revelations were from God; in these last days, however, God has revealed Himself through His son. There are no more prophets or law-givers now. As Chris said, because the Holy Spirit indwells born-again Christ-followers, all of them stand equally in the presence of Jesus and the Father. All of us are joint-heirs with Christóand Jesus Himself is the final revelation of God. Colleen | ||
| Xsra Registered user Username: Xsra Post Number: 10 Registered: 6-2005 |
Chris, What you are saying and what I said are in perfect alignment. That was the entire point of my post -- that the Holy Spirit is the True Teacher of His people. Regarding Moses being the mediator of the old covenant, -- the old covenant being those added laws and ceremonies given to Israel to help them see the new or ìeverlastingî covenant, -- yes, I agree that Moses was the mediator, as the people preferred to look to him than to Christ. The old covenant is only old in the sense that it passed away, whereas the new covenant is everlasting and never passes away. It is ever ìnewî. But the new covenant was given when Adam repented for his sins, and was taught by all of the patriarchs and prophets, including Moses. It is not something new in the sense of having a beginning in the New Testament only. In fact, the New Testament (witness) existed in the Old Testament, itís just that most of Israel didnít see it. To clarify further, we really should call them the ìoriginalî testament or law and the ìaddedî testament or law. The added law was only given to bring Israel to the original law, i.e. the gospel. Paul called the added law a schoolmaster. Rob | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 67 Registered: 1-2004  |
This text indicates to me that there were prophets after Jesus came; EPH 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In point of time, Jesus would be the cornerstone of the growing church, with the apostles and prophets built on that. And about everyone being totally equal in the church... to me this text in James disagrees; JAS 5:14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: JAS 5:15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. JAS 5:16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. What point would there be in calling the elders of the church if everyone is the same in every way? In this context, "elders" and "a righteous man" seem to be the same thing. It seems pointless for there to be a mention of God hearing the prayers of a righteous man if the text is not inferring that God likes to answer prayers of some people more than others. There may also be an inference that some people are more righteous than others. Not that this idea makes me feel good or comfortable or anything! But if it's authentic Christian teaching I better be willing to accept it as part of being Christian. Jeremiah | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1104 Registered: 7-2003 |
Rob, I think we have a different view of the covenants. I believe the New Covenant really is "new" and that it was inaugurated by the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. Those of us that live post-cross and post-Pentecost really are in a new and very different situation then those who lived pre-cross. Chris | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1113 Registered: 10-2004  |
Rob, Why should we use different terminology than the Bible does? The Bible says that the New Covenant is new! God said in Jeremiah 31 that He was going to establish a new covenant--when this is quoted in Hebrews 8, the Greek word used for "new" is kainos. Here is what Thayer's Lexicon says for the word kainos:
And in Hebrews 12:24, where it says that Jesus is "the mediator of the new covenant," the Greek word used for "new" is neos:
It is very clear that the New Covenant is new, and not ancient! It is new and different from anything before it. God promised in Jeremiah 31 that He would make a new covenant, not like the Mosaic/Ten Commandment Covenant (Deuteronomy 4:13) that He made with Israel when He led them out of Egypt. That covenant is osbolete and has disappeared now that the New Covenant is here (Hebrews 8:13). Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on February 26, 2006) | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3449 Registered: 12-2003 |
God's covenant with Abraham certainly foreshadowed the New CovenantóHe even ratified it with Himself and not with Abraham in Genesis 15. But His promise to Abraham was just thatóa promise. The New Covenant could not have become reality for us before Jesus died and rose again and before Pentecost. The Holy Spirit indwelling people is NEWóit could not have happened before Jesus opened a new, living way to the Father with His body. Jeremiahóelders are simply part of the organizational structure developed during the earliest days of the church so as to manage the work load. (See Acts 6) Elders and deacons did not necessarily have a higher standing or more spirituality than other members. They simply had different jobs. 1 Peter 2:5, 9 say that as we come to Jesus, "the living Stone", we are being "built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." Verse 9: "But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light." The gifts of the Spirit, Paul makes clear in 1 Corinthians 12 and 14, are given exclusively by God's will to whomever he wishes, and those gifts are equal in value. They are all for the building up of the body of Christ. James even says "Not many of you should presume to be teachers" because "we who teach will be judged more strictly" (James 3:1). In Christ, there is no slave or free, Jew or Greek, male or female (Gal 3:28). because we are all one in Christ. There is no heirarchy in Christ's kindgom, and we are His priests and heirs! Colleen | ||
| Xsra Registered user Username: Xsra Post Number: 11 Registered: 6-2005 |
Thanks for your contributions. It's always more pleasant to talk about the bible than about our unpleasant experiences in our former church. Jeramiah, I believe there are different levels in the church. Paul taught this when he said "are all prophets? are all miracles?" And as I've said before in this forum, I believe Ellen White was a prophet. Chris, Jeremy and Colleen, I can see what you are saying. You are saying that because Jesus lived a sinless life -- which no other human ever did before Him nor since -- therefore He brought in a new covenant, i.e. a perfect covenant. I agree with this. However, how was Jesus Himself saved? By what covenant was He saved? He had to be saved exactly as we are to be saved, as much as He was our example in "all" things. The answer is He was saved by the everlasting covenant that was established at the foundation of the world. Also, it was this covenant that enabled Enoch to attain to perfection and be translated. And again, Moses would have been translated without seeing death had he not sinned when he smote the rock. Then there was Elijah too. All of this came before Jesus had become a Man. I'm interested in your thoughts on this. Regards Rob | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1105 Registered: 7-2003 |
Rob, Iíve never heard anyone suggest that Jesus required saving and Iím very curious as to the origin of such a concept. Jesus is God Almighty! Jesus is the very definition of holiness and righteousness. Jesus never required a new regenerated spirit because He never had a fallen nature. Jesus was never dead in his sins or prone to sin. When you ask, ìHow was Jesus saved?î I have to ask, ìSaved from what?î Jesus is not saved by any covenant; He is the sovereign God who made the covenants with his subjects. Iím also curious about a couple of other things as well: - Why do you think Enoch ìattained perfectionî? (Biblical reference please). - Why do you think Moses would have been ìtranslatedî without seeing death? (Biblical reference please). Chris | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1106 Registered: 7-2003 |
After posting my last message I've just been sitting for the last 10 minutes contemplating. Suddenly, all in a rush the enormity of the heresy that Christ had a fallen nature has fully struck me. I mean I realized it was wrong, but it never fully struck me the dammage it does to the Person of Christ, to the nature of God, to the atonement, to our understanding of salvation, to our understanding of justification, to our understanding of sanctification. Wow! This is really one of those ah-ha moments for me. The idea that Christ had a fallen nature immplies that he was born in spiritual death (i.e. had a dead spirit requiring regeneration). If this view is taken then indeed Jesus would need to be saved from his sinful nature and receive a regenerate spirit. But if this view is taken, then Jesus was something less than the absolutely Holy God of the scriptures. The idea of Christ having a fallen nature is no less than a direct asault on His full deity! My apologies if this is old news to everyone else, but it's only fully hitting me this morning for the first time. This is a HUGE doctrinal problem. Do Christian denominations realize that this is being taught within Adventism? If so, how do they perceive it? Chris | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 1306 Registered: 7-2003  |
What I have come to realize with those I encounter is that there is a great ignorance towards adventism and until forced to deal with it, a complacency with the ignorance. Sometimes I am even at odds to put in words the conflict I have with the religion, and I consider myself reasonably educated for a "never was". Even our "cult" watch groups aren't sure how to classify adventism, some on this forum struggle with how to classify them. For Christians I talk to, they are content to know the label without the details. They don't seem to care about what adventism teaches specifically, until they encounter one who might dare to challenge their belief system. They're perfectly content with the label they've heard or to assume it's something "similar" to what they believe. I encounter it every time I try to explain to someone why my son's father and I have such conflict. There just seems to be incredible ambivolence. Maybe it's just too much information overload at every turn, or just trying to keep up with their own life details to worry about someone else's religion. How many of us knew that many details about Islam until the last few years? When you talk one on one, it doesn't seem they are unconcerned about the integrity of the gospel, but they sure don't seem to know what they don't know. I don't know if it's tunnel vision, short-sightedness or even lack of knowledge about the doctrines of the faith they possess. I can only say from my own experiences of before and after knowing an adventist. It's hard to be too critical since I was once where they are. I just didn't know what I didn't know. And maybe I didn't know what I thought I did know. |
