| Author |
Message |
Raven
Registered user
Username: Raven
Post Number: 426
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 12:57 pm: |     |
In browsing through the weblink Jackob posted at the beginning of this thread, there are some really scary articles at this link, on "Victory in the Thought Life" parts 1 - 4:
http://greatcontroversy.org
quote:We are going to present to you a means for attaining victory in the thought-life, and we will call it ìMind Hygiene.î Mind hygiene neither uses force nor violence, nor seeks to bring about change via social pressure, or a changed state of consciousness. Rather, mind hygiene is a discipline, a chosen ordering of the thought-life. It seeks to develop an understanding of the revealed means of attaining real victory as we live our lives against the backdrop of the great controversy war. Mind hygiene, then, is entirely voluntary. We are going to go over these matters and present to you options for co-operating with God and experiencing His victory in your life.
At least they recognize even thinking about sin is a sin, but it just looks like another avenue to inflict mental torture on people who fail regularly. Actually, I remember hearing stuff like this a number of years ago. Basically it was taught that if a sinful thought entered your mind, that wasn't a sin. But dwelling on that thought or continuing along that line of thought was a sin, so the trick was to say "No" at the first entry of a sinful thought and then think about something acceptable.
When I read through these articles, I felt literally sick and only skimmed the first two. The author repeatedly calls this process "grace." How perverted is that?
In a similar vein, today I had the joy of receiving a complimentary copy of "Our Firm Foundation" with an invitation to subscribe. The front page had a huge picture of the 10 Commandments, and from skimming through the articles, I had the impression that they mean "Our Firm Foundation" to be the SDA distinctives, especially keeping the Sabbath. I couldn't believe this part of the first article
quote:We are admonished to remember the words which were spoken before by the apostles. "Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments." Malachi 4:4. Here we are told to remember the law of Moses.
Excuse me? Malachi was not written by an apostle, and the text says it was for "all Israel" so we are not told to remember the law of Moses. Afterwards a welcome song kept going through my head "Jesus is our firm foundation..."
|
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 3785
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 4:10 pm: | |
Raven, amazing. I agree with you re: the further torture inflicted on the anxious by "mind hygiene". And that' a pretty glaring error in the "Our Firm Foundation" magazineóto call Malachi an apostle!
Stan, I absolutely agree with you about God using the preaching of Smuts, Des Ford, and countless other Adventists to awaken people to the concept of grace and to increase people's desire to know Jesus. Just as you said, Paul said what mattered was not the (often unknown) motives of those who preach; what matters is that Jesus is lifted up.
This particular statement of Paul's is what makes me know that God can awaken people to Him through the most unlikely means; if Christ is preached, God can awaken people to respond to the gospel whether the deliverer of the message is John Piper or RC Sproul or Rick Warren or Charles Finney or Ellen White. The bearer of the initial message of Christ does not limit God's ability to create cognitive dissonance or a desire to know Him.
God is faithful to continue to lead us deeper and deeper into truth and into integrity. The implications of Paul's statement are that if one truly meets Christ, regardless of the motives of the initial "preacher", God Himself will finish the work begun in that person.
We know, obviously, that many people preaching "the gospel" are compromised, but that fact does not limit God's power to use their words to awaken people.
I believe we are obligated to expose error when we see it (Ephesians 5:11-12). But, as you said, Stan, we cannot say that God is not using the the message of Christ even if it is preached by someone with false motives or faulty theology. By recognizing God's sovereign power to use the words of anyone preaching Jesus, we do not thereby endorse underlying false systems including oneness theology, prosperity gospel, Mormonism, or Adventism. We simply recognize that God awakens people to want to know Jesus and that He is working in the lives of all those who purport to preach Him.
God alone judges hearts. We are asked to be discerning about theology.
Colleen |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 1556
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 6:29 pm: | |
I agree Colleen with your post. An interesting question is, what constitutes compromise? As I said above, I was quite troubled when Smuts VanRooyen decided to take that pastorate in Riverside initially, until I had the opportunity to hear his preaching over an extended period of time, and can verify with my frequently critical mind, that he was preaching straight Reformation gospel of justification by faith alone, by grace alone, on the account of Christ alone. Smuts made it fairly clear that he did not believe that the Sabbath was in anyway a test of salvation, and he is adamant against the IJ, gives no outward credence to Ellen White, and never mentions her.
In Southern Calif., just about anything is tolerated in the pastorate. You can be a pastor in good standing and deny all the basic doctrines of Christianity, such as the substitutionary atonement; you can be a universalist; you can deny that Daniel wrote the book of Daniel; you can be an open theist and believe that God doesn't know the future.
But fortunately, someone like Smuts, is also allowed to preach the gospel of grace, and concentrate on Jesus Christ and Him crucified. I find that an important contrast to the liberals, and I see Smuts Van Rooyen as a great light in some of the darkness of Adventism. I understand that God led Greg Taylor, Dale Ratzlaff, and Mark Martin on his timing out of a false system.
But, what if in a unique corner of Adventism, such as SoCal, that God may be using some to bring the gospel. In other words, is it a compromise for an evangelical pastor to stay in an organization, which clearly denies the gospel with the IJ, to stay in as long as he can and still preach the true gospel?
I can also see an argument, that it is dishonest to take a salary from an organization of which you disagree with at its heart. Does the end justify the means?
These are interesting questions to me right now, because I was so positively influenced by the likes of Ford and Van Rooyen, and I appreciate anyone's input.
Stan |
Flyinglady
Registered user
Username: Flyinglady
Post Number: 2461
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 6:41 pm: | |
God has a time and place for each individual to leave Adventism. When it is God's time a person will leave and not before then. Who knows what God wants to accomplish when a pastor does not preach the distinctive SDA "stuff", but preaches the gospel? I think, I will leave it to God. After all He is the one in charge. Just my thoughts on this.
Diana |
Randyg
Registered user
Username: Randyg
Post Number: 165
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 9:39 pm: | |
Stan,
I would like to share with you on this topic. Email me at bflatbrass@hotmail.com if you would.
Randy |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 3790
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 11:43 pm: | |
I agree about both Ford's and Van Rooyen's preaching, Stan. I've heard them both, and they preach clear gospel sermonsóand countless people have ended up finding full freedom in Jesus because of their clarity on salvation by grace through faith. Just for starters, look at how many of us right here are here because of the awakening Ford's scholarship and preaching set in motion.
I do not believe the issue in whether some people stay or leave is, overtly, the gospel. It is their tie to the Sabbath and to Ellen White. I believe that God in His sovereignty does not propel everyone out immediately. I am convinced that as long as a person continues to walk through the doors God opens in front of him, he continues to mediate truth and God's grace wherever he is.
I believe God's timing and purposes are not the same for everyone. I also believe that each person can decide whether or not to walk through a given door at any particular time. Whether or not he chooses to walk doesn't change God's eternal purposes, nor does it necessarily mean a person is turning away from Jesus. But I do believe that if a person chooses not to walk out that door when God opens it, he limits the "difference" he can make by staying because he is not acting in faith.
If a person chooses not to look squarely at the deep deception of Ellen and acknowledge her role as a false prophet, that person will likely not see a need to leave. If a person holds to the Sabbath with the deep fear that to leave it could mean eternal consequences, that person will likely not leave.
Ultimately, if a person chooses not to look squarely at Ellen and her problems, he/she will continue to see all the doctrinal issuesóeven salvation by grace through faithóin a limited or skewed way. I am not saying such a person is not saved necessarily. They may well be saved. I am saying, however, that their doctrinal position will necessarily be skewed from Biblical reality, and they will not be able to preach a clear new covenant message.
Even though Des Ford preaches a clear gospel sermon, he does not preach a clear new covenant message. If a person looks deeply at issues of atonement and the new covenant and asks questions, even these "gospel Adventists" will not be able to give clear answers because they are still tied to the Sabbath [and hence to the law] and to Ellen and her warnings of losing one's salvation if one abandons the Sabbath.
Again, I am not commenting on their salvation. If, however, they literally do not believe in Ellen's "messenger" status or the sacredness of Sabbath, etc., then to stay is really to endorse publicly an organization which they do not privately endorse.
Taking a salary from an organization with which one disagrees is not the issue. One can openly disagree with an organization (as do many Muslims and Catholics and Protestants who are open about their affiliations) who yet work for Adventist institutions. God clearly placed Daniel in a position of great power representing the king of Babylonóyet Daniel did not pretend loyalty to Babylon's religion. The issue is two-fold: 1) Has God revealed the truth to a person and opened the door for him or her to leave? and 2) Does the person internally disagree with the tenets of the church but externally endorse it anyway?
Only God can know the hearts of people, and He will use whomever He wills and whoever speaks of Jesus. The issue is individual. God calls each of us to live with an undivided heart. No one outside us can know when God clarifies the truth and asks us to act with integrity to what He has revealed. But I know that many people do not choose to act with that integrity.
All I know is that I must walk where Jesus shows me to walk, and I must be willing to discern spiritual truth as God reveals it. Adventism is a deceptive system of spiritual bondage, but God clearly works in the lives of Adventists just as he does in the lives of Muslims, Catholics, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses.
We each must be true to God's call on our livesóand I can only praise God for His work accomplished in Ford's scholarship and Van Rooyen's gospel sermons.
Colleen |
Lynne
Registered user
Username: Lynne
Post Number: 358
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 12:34 pm: | |
The reason for overlooking Christian Former Adventists obviously makes good sense because we know what Adventism teaches. Silence in Adventism says a lot.
Adventists believe Former Adventists that are Christian are deceived, will not be saved, have embraced Bablyon! Adventism teaches the Mark of the Beast is Sunday worship.
Our Adventist teachings have told us that we cannot bring people into the truth by coming right out with the truth.
The Seventh-day Adventist church also teaches that Christ and the Sabbath are one in the same. You can't have one without the other!
No matter how complex, intellectually challenging, intelligent or obscure the doctrine of Adventism appears. Inside Adventism there is always the "absolute truth and core" within the doctrine.
God forbid if I'm worshipping on Sunday when Christ returns! I have become so deceived! And don't many of those Sunday church pastors know better too?
The Seventh-day Adventist church does not teach that Grace alone is enough for people to be saved once we know the "truth" about the Sabbath as they teach it.
Thank you Jesus! My works mean nothing. I am saved.
|
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 1560
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 1:48 pm: | |
Thanks Colleen for your reply. This is a difficult issue because so many of us have been helped by Ford and Van Rooyen. I do know personally of a lot of people who would have had a much more difficult time understanding the true nature of SDA's false works-righteousness system if it were not for the fact that Ford and Smuts stayed within the reach of Adventism. You know, Kevin Paulson's statements about former SDAs never leaving are so arrogant and misguided. A lot of us are still involved with our former and current SDA friends, because we know it is a system of legalism and bondage, and because those of us, who by God's grace have been delivered, would like to see our current family and friends come to the freedom and joy in the gospel.
Maybe, there is an analogy to be made between Paul going to the Jewish synagogues and preaching the gospel until he got literally thrown out. Many evangelical SDA pastors chose to stay initially until they were forced to leave--because the gospel always conflicts with basic SDA theology. Van Rooyen and Ford know this very well. I wonder how many SDA churches exist today that would welcome Van Rooyen, like they did with open arms in Riverside.
Now, it is interesting, that when Van Rooyen left Riverside, the next pastorette was Tammy McGrew--a Universalist. John L. on this forum could enlighten us about her. Most of the Van Rooyen members left when she came on, according to my folks.
One other point about Smuts Van Rooyen. I remember clearly a story that he told that when he was asked to give an evangelistic series at a certain church, that he chose to teach the book of Romans. After preaching the gospel of grace for a couple of nights, some "brethren" came up to him and asked him "when are you going to start preaching the 'message'? Smuts answered them and said, "friends, there is no other message than this--the gospel". Since he was not preaching the beast of Revelation, they wanted to throw him out.
Stan
|
Seekr777
Registered user
Username: Seekr777
Post Number: 472
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 6:43 pm: | |
Stan I just checked and Smuts Van Rooyen is now at the Vallejo Drive Church in Glendale.
I went to see the web address and read about his church.
Richard
|
Benevento
Registered user
Username: Benevento
Post Number: 99
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 6:50 pm: | |
I have relative (I tried to talk them into coming
to your weekend-) They are happy at the not sure of the name--Glendale San church, love the music
and think Sumts Van Rooyen's preaching is wonderful. Their comment about the FAF, "that's the group that is critical of SDA"s" My comment was "since when have you not been critical of SDA's:But I do feel better if they really are
getting the gospel. Some of it is bound to rub off!! I am glad to hear it!! Peggy |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 1561
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 8:06 pm: | |
Peggy,
It is encouraging if they like Van Rooyen's preaching, because if they do believe what he preaches, they are undoubtedly saved. Because it is the basic gospel plus none of the SDAs unique trapping. I continue to pray for the evangelical pastors such as Van Rooyen that they will continue to reach our SDA friends and family, as they influenced me and my family members in such a positive way.
Richard--good to hear from you again!
Stan |
Jackob
Registered user
Username: Jackob
Post Number: 182
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 5:20 am: | |
I had a very hard week, the last 4 days were very hard days, and left me only with the energy to read what was said on this thread. I want to highlight something significant that Colleen wrote
quote:Even though Des Ford preaches a clear The gospel sermon, he does not preach a clear new
covenant message. If a person looks deeply at issues of atonement and the new covenant and asks questions, even these "gospel Adventists" will not be able to give clear answers because they are still tied to the Sabbath [and hence to the law] and to Ellen and her warnings of losing one's salvation if one abandons the Sabbath.
Ohh, yes, the old tapes of Ellen White's warnings. These could be very powerfull ties. In the moments of weekness, as it was the situation for me this week, the devil can replay these tapes in our ears, tempting us to doubt our security in Christ.
I struggled this week with the doubts about my salvation and my perfect security in Christ. And what solution was suggested? Very interesting, "Just keep the sabbath" The logic goes like this: my conscience was educated in adventism to believe that those who don't keep the seventh -day sabbath are apostates. And now this adventist education works against me, making me believe that I'm an apostate. And to correct this situation I just only have to keep the seventh day sabbath, and I'll regain my peace of mind.
What I found useful to share is the fact that mentally I fully believe that sabbath keeping is not required from New Covenant believers. But our past can be used against us by the devil to destroy our faith in Christ. I belieev that many evangelical adventists are still bound by their past. They no longer believe in sabbath as a requirement for christians (Samuel Pestes said something about this in the first 2006 issue of Proclamation), but unconsciously they feel that if they renounce it, they will must face the greatest fear of their life, instilled by Ellen White: SABBATH BREAKERS ARE APOSTATE.
What God did for me this week? He rescued me with a powerful song which remainded me of my rest which is Jesus, not sabbath, and that I'm forever secure in His hands.
I want to share with you my joy which this song brought me this week. It is called "The Haven of Rest", was written in 1890 by Henry Gilmour. I enjoy very much the Cathedrals quartet, and Glen Payne has an astounding interpretation of this song together with Guy Penrod. The mesage of the song is biblical, and I believe that people like Kevin Paulson will never understand the words and the experience expressed by it, by rejoycing in Jesus, in praising Him as all in our lief, only if God will gave them faith and repentance.
The Haven of Rest
My soul in sad exile was out on life's sea,
So burdened with sin and distressed,
Till I heard a sweet voice saying, "Make me your choice,"
And I entered the haven of rest.
Refrain
I've anchored my soul in the haven of rest.
I'll sail the wide seas no more.
The tempest may sweep o'er the wild, stormy deep;
In Jesus I'm safe evermore.
I yielded myself to His tender embrace,
And faith taking hold of the Word,
My fetters fell off, and I anchored my soul.
The Haven of Rest is my Lord.
Refrain
I've anchored my soul in the haven of rest.
I'll sail the wide seas no more.
The tempest may sweep o'er the wild, stormy deep;
In Jesus I'm safe evermore.
The song of my soul, since the Lord made me whole,
has been the old story so blest,
Of Jesus who'll save whosoever will
have a home in the haven of rest.
Refrain
I've anchored my soul in the haven of rest.
I'll sail the wide seas no more.
The tempest may sweep o'er the wild, stormy deep;
In Jesus I'm safe evermore.
Oh, come to the Savior, He patiently waits
to save by His power divine.
Come, anchor your soul in the haven of rest,
and say, "My Beloved is mine."
Refrain
I've anchored my soul in the haven of rest.
I'll sail the wide seas no more.
The tempest may sweep o'er the wild, stormy deep;
In Jesus I'm safe evermore.
- Henry L. Gilmour, 1890
Copyright © 1993 by Lillenas Publishing Co.
IN JESUS I'M SAFE EVERMORE |
Jackob
Registered user
Username: Jackob
Post Number: 183
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 5:49 am: | |
My greatest desire is to shout in the ears of my former adventists friends that "The Haven of Rest" is our Lord, not a day. I'm crying for joy and also with deep sorrow for my former friends who are so far of knowing who is our Lord, Saviour, Almighty God, who rules everything and has our life secure in His hands! |
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 674
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 6:08 am: | |
Jacob,
You quoted one of my favorite gospel songs. It was part of my music reportoire that helped me to trust in Christ alone. I started singing this song while still an Adventist. What a powerful message it brings to our hearts! In Christ, we will NEVER be the same again. Indeed, we have anchored our souls in the "Haven of Rest." Music is a wonderful language.
Dennis Fischer |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 1567
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 6:12 pm: | |
Jackob,
Like Dennis, that song brings back great memories. Even growing up SDA, my mother would listen to the original "Haven of Rest" broadcast which would be introduced as "Ahoy there! shipmate, it is eight bells and all is well" That voice of the original shipmate Bob was great. Then the old-fashioned style "Haven of Rest" quartet would sing that great gospel hymn. It even sounded great without all the drums and guitars. Just the sincerity of those four men's voices blended together so well.
Thanks for reminding me of some pleasant memories growing up Adventist. I always thought since my mother liked to listen to Haven of Rest, that despite being SDA, she is a genuine Christian.
About the Sabbath issue Jackob. Keeping the Sabbath because you think it will keep you secure in salvation is the Galatian spirit, and I am glad you found that gospel song to help you. Many of our Reformed friends still don't see the New Covenant either. It is interesting to see the same arguments they give for Sunday, and the Decalogue, very similar to Ford's arguments on the Sabbath and Law. That is because Des Ford loves the Reformed Covenant theologians, but he is far more consistent by keeping to Saturday.
New Covenant theologian John Reisinger takes on RC Sproul publically on this issue with a letter he published on his website at www.soundofgrace.com Click on to the Reisinger library, and under articles on the right click on the article "An open letter to R.C. Sproul". The reason this is so fascinating is that Reisinger uses the same arguments against RC Sproul, that New Covenant former SDAs use against their SDA friends when discussing this issue.
Thanks again Jackob for the song.
Stan |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 1568
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 6:14 pm: | |
The exact link to the open letter Reisinger writes to Sproul is www.soundofgrace.com/jgr/index074.htm
Stan |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 3805
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 11:48 pm: | |
Jackob, thank you for sharing your week's experience. How wonderful that God gave you that song!
I also grew up listening to Haven of Rest with my parents. I remember the quartet singing that great hymn while I ate breakfast. I haven't thought of "shipmate Bob" in a long time, Stan!
Jackob, it takes a long time for those old fears to completely stop. Each time they come and you find God's peace, however, they lose some of their strength. In time, they will not bother you. You may always have moments when the thoughts cross your mind, but they lose their strength as the reality of Jesus' literal presence with and in you through His Spirit strengthens and deepens.
With prayers for you,
Colleen |
|
