New Proclamation Uploaded Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Former Adventist Fellowship Forum » ARCHIVED DISCUSSIONS 5 » New Proclamation Uploaded « Previous Next »

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
  Start New Thread        

Author Message
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 4120
Registered: 12-2003


Posted on Tuesday, June 06, 2006 - 8:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The May/June issue of Proclamation! is in the mail. For those of you who wish an advance preveiw, you can download PDF files of it here: http://formeradvent.temp.powweb.com/Proclamation2006_MayJun.pdf

Colleen
Lynne
Registered user
Username: Lynne

Post Number: 427
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Wednesday, June 07, 2006 - 7:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thank you :-)

Jorgfe
Registered user
Username: Jorgfe

Post Number: 234
Registered: 11-2005
Posted on Wednesday, June 07, 2006 - 9:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It looks wonderful. Each issue has so many inspiring articles. Thank you for your hard work!

Gilbert Jorgensen
Mwh
Registered user
Username: Mwh

Post Number: 49
Registered: 4-2006


Posted on Thursday, June 08, 2006 - 1:21 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Great issue, I did not know that some SDA's consider the Bible to contain errores... Is this the official point of view? or is it just a movement inside SDA? I'm a bit confused about this.

As I see it some SDA's think they can defend their doctrins with the bible and the bible only.

Then some others recognize that they can't do that and instead tries to show that the bible contains errores and they match the kind of errores of EGW and thus both are good ...

Oh man SDA is turning my head around and around .. I'm getting dizzy.

Christ is God!
Jackob
Registered user
Username: Jackob

Post Number: 247
Registered: 7-2005


Posted on Thursday, June 08, 2006 - 1:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The SDA church is actually forced to take the position of a Bible with errors, becuase Ellen White made many errors. As long as the errors of Ellen White are not seen by people, the leaders tacitly say nothing about the subject of Bible errors. Only when someone discovers the Ellen White errors they begin to denigrate the Bible, in an attempt to save the day.

This evening I assiste at a launch of a book "Here We Stand" by Samuel Kooranteg Pipim. He was personally in Bucharest, and his book adressed the issue of homosexuality, divorce, new worship styles in adventism. He is actually known in the adventist world by his previous book "Receive the Word" in which he presents his arguemnts for biblical inerrancy.

What's interesting is the fact that he is forced by his standing for the inerrance of Bible, to sustain also the inerrance of Ellen White, after all, she is inspired as the prophets of the Bible. This automatically forces him to be a militant and vocal historical adventist.
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz

Post Number: 1734
Registered: 3-2005
Posted on Thursday, June 08, 2006 - 2:15 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jackob,
That Sam Pipim is interesting. He recently wrote a long piece in a right wing SDA magazine on how he admired G. Campbell Morgan. It was a great piece on the life of a great hero of the faith. If he believes in Biblical inerrancy and the Reformed faith of G. Campbell Morgan, then he won't be an SDA for long.

Stan
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos

Post Number: 84
Registered: 10-2002


Posted on Thursday, June 08, 2006 - 11:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Koranteng-Pipim was the speaker for our missions retreat week in Hakone, Japan, in November 1999. Even then when I was an Adventist missionary, I walked out on him during one lecture. He started that lecture by saying that we probably already knew about grace, so he was going to focus on law. He gave the group a bunch of hypothetical situations and got everyone's answers for what we would do if we were in that spot---obey the law or break it? (Example: in a hostile-to-Christian country, you're transporting Bibles illegally in a car and you're pulled over by the police... would you lie?) We could choose yes, no, or unsure. The thing that got me angry was that he said if we checked "unsure", it usually means "yes"... so in his final tally of course the results were damning, and at that point I couldn't stand how he was trying to shame us anymore.
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 4129
Registered: 12-2003


Posted on Thursday, June 08, 2006 - 11:15 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Mwh, Adentism does not claim the Bible to be "inerrant". Rather, it generally calls it "infallible"ówhich has developed a different meaning. They do believe the Bible to have errors in it, although they don't overtly tell people this belief.

Because of Ellen White, though, whom they say was inspired exactly as the Bible writers were inspired, they are forced to take a position of either both being inerrant or both being filled with errors and contradictions.

Yet even in this doctrine of the Bible's reliability, many Adventists have twisted their way around the words. One Adentist pastor told Richard that of course the Bible was inerrantóGod intended for all those mistakes and contradictions to be in it! Once again, God is blamed for what they cannot understandóand He is assumed to have put errors into His word.

When I resigned from Adventist Today, Richard and I met with one of the publishers of the magazine to tell him why I was leaving. He teaches on an SDA religion faculty. He was stunned that we were leaving the church. As he tried to make sense of what we were telling him, he looked at me and said, "Well, you'll take many things with you from Adventism. One of the things you'll take with you is the belief that the Bible is NOT inerrant."

I remember sitting in stunned silence, not wanting to go down that road with him; after all, that wasn't the purpose of our talk.

I do remember being taught that many passages were culturally biased (especially Paul's passages) and we had to re-interpret them to fit our day. I also heard a Sabbath School class from Loma Linda on the radio about 5 or so years ago in which the speaker was explaining that just as we interpret/edit Ellen White, so we handle certain culturally sensitive passages in the Bible.

Colleen
Mwh
Registered user
Username: Mwh

Post Number: 51
Registered: 4-2006


Posted on Friday, June 09, 2006 - 4:29 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Wow .. this is great/bad news for my Adventist friend, she belives that the Bible is without errores which is great, now if I could dig up more information on SDA officials who teach that the Bible has errores....

Please post more information about this toppic, official links and maybe more insider information.

Thanks and have fun!
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b

Post Number: 552
Registered: 7-2004


Posted on Friday, June 09, 2006 - 12:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

MWH, an excerpt from a previous post I made here (I couldn't locate the actual post or I would have simply linked it)--

The Fundamental Beliefs and the Official Statements provide the public face of SDAism and are carefully crafted to sound as mainstream as possible. The ìrealî teachings on inspiration can be found if you know where to look. For instance this little article on the Dynamics of Inspiration from the EGW estate:
http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/dynamics.html

quote:

3. Imperfect Language
Seventh-day Adventists do not believe in verbal inspiration (the idea that God dictates the exact wording to the prophet). With the exception of the Ten Commandments, all the inspired writings are the result of the combined efforts of the Holy Spirit, who inspires the prophet with a vision, an impression, a counsel, or a judgment; and the prophet, who begins to look for sentences, literary figures, and expressions to convey God's message accurately.
God gives the prophet freedom to select the kind of language he or she wants to use. That accounts for the different styles of the Biblical writers and explains why Ellen White describes the language used by inspired writers as "imperfect" and "human."
Because "everything that is human is imperfect,"(14) we must accept the idea of imperfections and mistakes in both the Bible and Ellen White's writings. This means at least two things: 1. The prophet uses his or her common, everyday language learned from childhood and improved through study, reading, and travel; there is nothing supernatural or divine in the language used.
--footnote 14 is Selected Messages, book 1, pp. 20, 21



SDA understanding of inspiration is another example of developing additional doctrinal errors to help explain other errors. Rather than looking to what Scripture teaches about inspiration and comparing EGW to that teaching, SDAs have started by understanding EGWís inspiration and applying that model to Scripture. As a result SDAs conclude that Scripture is imperfect and fallible. Without Scripture as an unwavering guide, any doctrinal position or practice now becomes possible. Ultimately the method that allows for the best acceptance of EGWís writings as inspired in a Higher Criticism approach towards her writings and Scripture.

You might also notice that the basis for this belief about inspiration is referenced to EGW not to a passage from Scripture. This gets into the whole other question about whether Scripture is the only basis for beliefs.
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy

Post Number: 1332
Registered: 10-2004


Posted on Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 2:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

That statement from the White Estate above is so blasphemous--they say "With the exception of the Ten Commandments..." What about the words of Jesus Christ? Is He not God? And what about all of the other times that the Bible claims to be quoting God directly?

But that statement from the White Estate was simply taken from EGW:


quote:

"The Ten Commandments were spoken by God Himself, and were written by His own hand. They are of divine, and not of human composition. But the Bible, with its God-given truths expressed in the language of men, presents a union of the divine and the human. Such a union existed in the nature of Christ, who was the Son of God and the Son of man. Thus it is true of the Bible, as it was of Christ, that 'the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.' John 1:14." (The Great Controversy, page v, paragraph 4.)




EGW also states:


quote:

"The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God's mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God's penmen, not His pen. Look at the different writers.

"It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man's words or his expressions but on the man himself, who, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts. But the words receive the impress of the individual mind. The divine mind is diffused. The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of the man are the word of God." (Selected Messages, Book 1, page 21, paragraphs 1-2.)




The White Estate also says this on their website:


quote:

But to attempt to prove that all the alleged "errors" in Ellen White's writings are not actually errors, is unprofitable for at least two reasons.

[...]

Second, Seventh-day Adventists (including Ellen White herself) do not claim that either she or other inspired persons were infallible, either in their writing or living. Alleged discrepancies and factual errors are only fatal to views of inspiration that demand perfection in human language and in the human instrument presenting the divine message. Such views run counter to what is observed in Scripture--the standard by which we are to judge our conceptions of how God speaks.

In evaluating so-called errors, one needs to consider whether the perceived "error" is central to the divine message, or inconsequential. Even when it is central, we need to allow for the possibility that the Holy Spirit may "correct" the prophet in a future communication.

--http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/faq-unus.html#unusual-section-f




Elsewhere on the White Estate website, they say:


quote:

The same kind of factual errors can be discovered in Ellen White's writings as are found in the Bible. The writings of God's prophets are infallible as a guide to salvation, but they are not inerrant or without error. Part of the lesson is that we need to read for the central lessons of Scripture and Ellen White rather than the details.

What is important to remember at this point is that those who struggle over such problems as inerrancy and absolute infallibility are fighting a human-made problem. It is not anything that God ever claimed for the Bible or Ellen White ever claimed for the Bible or her writings.

--http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/herm-pri.html#verbal




Also see (very conservative/historical) SDA Pastor Larry Kirkpatrick's article at http://www.greatcontroversy.org/orientation/WATBible.html, especially the section entitled "Inerrancy or Infallibility?" Here is a quote from it:


quote:

The theory of inerrancy, which creates more problems than it solves and can force labored harmonizations, is not compelling. But while we do not find inerrant verbal inspiration to be Biblically supportable, we affirm our unshakable conviction that still the Scriptures are ìthe infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of Godís acts in history.î Seventh-day Adventists hold unflinchingly to the historic veracity of the whole Bible, including Genesis chapters 1-11, where numerous theologians and teachers accept those sections only as mythic, allegoric, etc. The Scriptures are infallible.




Jeremy
Mwh
Registered user
Username: Mwh

Post Number: 52
Registered: 4-2006


Posted on Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 2:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hello everybody!

Today I have talked with my Adventist friend and presented her with the messages from Ric_b, jackob, and colleen.
She did comment that God did not dictate the Bible word by word.

She did tell me though that there where no errores or contradictions in the bible, so far so good :-)

For myself I have not studied this issue about God inspiration, inbreathed, dictated etc. but I am sure that the Word of God does not contain errores and/or contradictions.

If you have some good references to this subject let me know.
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy

Post Number: 1333
Registered: 10-2004


Posted on Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 3:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Mwh, one good reference about the Bible's claims of verbal (word) inspiration is the following short devotional by Christian scholar Dr. Henry M. Morris of Institute for Creation Research: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=19373

Another reference for the SDA belief about the Bible having errors is "THE LIGHT STILL SHINES" by James R. Nix, Director of the Ellen G. White Estate, "A Devotional talk given during the Annual Spring Meeting Of the General Conference Committee April 15, 2004." Under the section entitled "Ten Contributions from Ellen G. White to the Seventh-day Adventist Church," Nix lists the following under number 2:


quote:

Her strong emphasis on the centrality of the Bible in the life and witness of our church, as well as her insights regarding inspiration that spare us the challenges faced by those who believe in the inerrancy of prophetic writings.

--http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/thelight.html




Jeremy

(Message edited by Jeremy on June 10, 2006)
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 4141
Registered: 12-2003


Posted on Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 11:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Mwh, the recent Proclamation uploaded here: http://formeradvent.temp.powweb.com/Proclamation2006_MayJun.pdf
has an article by Verle Streifling about this very subject. It is long, but it is very detailed. It explores two books written by Adventist authors that "explain" why they believe the Bible cannot be inerrant, and then he shows well-established reasons why it is inerrant and how to refute the Adventist arguments.

It's actually a very good article.

Colleen
Susan_2
Registered user
Username: Susan_2

Post Number: 2244
Registered: 11-2002
Posted on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 3:54 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

That's good that you can put it on the website now. I like the bright colors. I think I am always one of the last folks to get my issue.
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy

Post Number: 1336
Registered: 10-2004


Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 12:00 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I think the following letter to the editor does a very good job of exposing Adventism for what it really is:


quote:

To all it may concern
After reading your magazine and talking to
you on the phone, it is clear that you are not
being led by God,but by the devil.Anyone who
teaches or accepts that Godís Ten Commandment
law is done away with or is of no importance
is absolutely following Satan.Anyone who
teaches or believes or publishes garbage material
to say that Mrs. E. G.White is not a prophet of
God or that her writings contradictóis truly
deceived by Satan.Ö
Satan is using you and many, many others to
make void Godís law, especially to dishonor the
Sabbath Day by replacing it with Sunday.To
meet on Sunday, to worship on Sunday, to fellowship
on Sunday, to acknowledge Sunday as
a rest day or in any way other than being
[merely] the first day of the weekóyou are
accepting the mark of the beast.Godís judgments
will fall upon you.
You will be the ones who will persecute and
put to death the people who keep Godís
Commandments. And this is ìChristianî in the
Spirit?? Those who willfully disregard or misconstrue
Godís Word, including His law, in any
wayóGod is not with them.He does not hear
or answer their prayers.
ìThe multitudes do not want Bible truth
because it interferes with the desires of the sinful,
world-loving heart; and Satan supplies the
deceptions which they loveî (Spirit of Prophecy,
Vol 4, p 366).
For your salvation and that of others, repent
to God and turn away from the path of deceptionó
before Satan leads you out too far and it
is forever too late.




It seems to me that sometimes the letters to the editor from SDAs are some of the best parts of the magazine at showing the true nature of Adventism and revealing what Adventism is really like! :-) (Especially for those not too familiar with Adventism.)

Jeremy
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 4159
Registered: 12-2003


Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 12:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

We've had a few people ask us to refrain from publishing the caustic negative letters, but Richard's comment sums up both our opinions: those letters provide a glimpse of the "background noise" against which we continually work. As you say, Jeremyóespecially for those who aren't too familiar with Adventistm, they give perspective and insight.

Colleen
Violet
Registered user
Username: Violet

Post Number: 399
Registered: 2-2001
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 6:58 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Didn't we just have a discussion about what White said about having meetings on Sunday when they passed the Sunday Law? That Sunday would be a great time to have evangalistic meetings ---that would be assembling together would it not?
Yet the person who wrote to the Proclomation said:

"To
meet on Sunday, to worship on Sunday, to fellowship
on Sunday, to acknowledge Sunday as
a rest day or in any way other than being
[merely] the first day of the weekóyou are
accepting the mark of the beast.Godís judgments
will fall upon you."

So does this guy is saying White's advice would cause them to get the mark of the beast?

Am I reading his letter wrong or does he not know what his prophet said?


Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz

Post Number: 1767
Registered: 3-2005
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 7:12 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Letters like these are from malcontented cranks, and I doubt these types of letters are representative of most SDAs, at least not my SDA friends or family. You will find non-Christians and kooks in any church.

It is because Proclamation does such a good job of pointing out the problems of SDA, that people get angry.

Stan
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 4165
Registered: 12-2003


Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 9:42 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Stan, you're right about "kooks" being anywhere. But if one's experience with Adventism has been largely in the southern half of California in educated (even if very conservative and EGW-based) circles, that "Adventist experience" is not normative.

The small Adventist churches that dot the northern villages of California and the Pacific Northwest, the Midwest, the Southóthose attract large numbers of people without experience in liberal Adventist educational centers, people with mostly rural or small-town experience, pastors that often aren't scintillating enough to warrant promotion to big-city churches or pastors who were too conservative for larger churches so were "put out to pasture"óin short, the average Adventist church has not been open, idea-loving, theology-discussing, grace-oriented, and warm. Add to this typical North American mix all the Adventist churches in other countries far from the "seeds of change" formenting in the USA, and you get a profile of an extremely conservative, rigid, Ellen-White-influenced church.

The experience of the liberal or "evangelical" Adventism many people experience in the college towns or metropolitan areas of Adventism is just not typical. The letter above is not nearly as unusual as it might seem. It's more open than many, but we get a lot of mail reflecting that attitude, even though it's not always spelled out in such detail. Sometimes all we see is something "small" like someone crossing out the word "for" and writing in "against" so the line on the remit envelope says, "I will pray AGAINST Life Assurance Ministries."

No, I'm afraid the attitude in that letter is not at all unusualóand it's not limited to a few off-balance malcontents. This person just had the abandon to write what many people suggest.

Colleen
Violet
Registered user
Username: Violet

Post Number: 401
Registered: 2-2001
Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 12:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Colleen, you are right. Living in middle America all my life I went through the controversy of using hymnals vs overhead screen not too long ago. And they were terrified that when we had some drums in the church for a 4th of July patriotic service would cause riffs in the conference.

There are a lot of "Red Book" thumpers out that that have never read past "Steps to Christ".
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy

Post Number: 1340
Registered: 10-2004


Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 1:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Violet,

Yes, EGW did write: "Whenever it is possible, let religious services be held on Sunday."

But she also said what that letter writer said--that to worship God on Sunday will cause a person to receive the mark of the beast. (See this thread for both quotes.)

So if you follow her "inspired counsels" then you will get the mark of the beast!

Jeremy
Cathy2
Registered user
Username: Cathy2

Post Number: 150
Registered: 2-2006
Posted on Saturday, June 17, 2006 - 2:55 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I must agree with Colleen that the letter is an example of what might come from other parts of the USA, from more SDA's than we would like to think. Especially, the Mid-West and South. (I recall my years in TX and GA, including a very, very small SDA church in the country,a s well as a large, rich church in Atlanta; both not so nice)

In the 80's, there was a large segment of my mother's SDA church (Colorado) who openly spoke like this, when their church board voted on whether to allow wedding bands or not (They did allow them). In Austin, TX, in, mostly, a liberal, SDA chruch, there were still the conservatives, who spoke with a very ugly tone to other members, even, and, eventualy, got the conference to send the liberal SDA pastor back East, near Andrews. :-( (This is a church, where I never saw such big engagement rings in my life!)My mother has seen newcomers (knowing nothing about Adventism) walk into her church lobby, wearing jewlery, and sopme older woman comes up and begins to berate the poor girl for her earrings (or young man, nowadays). None come back.My parents have, personally, seen letters to friends in a conference, here and there, with this kind of vitriol in it. My BIL has been on the receiving end, in person and in letters, more than once, from sneering attitudes, insults and injustices, as he worked for several conferecnes, which would shame the angels, but, apparently, did not shame the human sources. I saw it myself, from an oldre pastor, when my deceased husband desired to be baptized, but he still smoked. My husband never got baptized, after that perfection ugliness, before he died, by anyone. (this is the hardest thing for me to forgive about the Adventist church)

I am of Jeremy's line of thought, printing these letters does show where no Fruits of the Spirit are. In Christ, Christians do not speak/write like this. they show themselves up. God doesn't have to lift a finger. Because this particular letter quotes and comes close to quoting EGW so much, it shows the Spirit behind Ellen, as well. Not such a nice, humble, loving spirit, imho.

Now, not all conservative SDA's are like this, by no means. My BIL can be very conservative in somethings, but he ois one of the sweetest men on the planet and would never deliberately hurt anyone. But enough are ugly, that they do cause much, deep (and, sometimes, lifelong) soul, spiritual and heart wounding and damage.
the true Christians in aDventism will discern this, one way or another, even if they are not ready to leave, yet. It will make its influence and mark in their heartsd, which the Holy Spirit can use, later on.

Proclamation is only dong what every magazine does; showing both opinions about their printed articles. If it only printed the positive, they would be accused of only printing biased letters, praising themselves. No editor would dare do that in the printing world, looking so self-biased. A balanced editor and magazine does what Proclamation is doing and is; pressents their own subject matereial, then prints both opinions and allows people to think for themselves.

No one has anythng to fear from the negative. If it is too oppressive (as it can be for myself, at times), then one can choose not to read Letters To The Editor.

imho,
Cathy
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy

Post Number: 1349
Registered: 10-2004


Posted on Saturday, June 17, 2006 - 4:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If anyone wants to see what the typical SDA responses are like, read the red (negative) letters at the four different "Mail Box" pages that Dale Ratzlaff has on his site: http://www.ratzlaf.com/mail_box_4.htm

Jeremy

(Message edited by Jeremy on June 17, 2006)
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy

Post Number: 1350
Registered: 10-2004


Posted on Saturday, June 17, 2006 - 4:40 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I just want to add that while not all SDAs would say nasty/rude things, their actual beliefs and the way they're taught to think still are reflected very well in the letter I posted the other day and other letters.

Jeremy
Zjason
Registered user
Username: Zjason

Post Number: 41
Registered: 11-2005
Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 5:01 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Keeping the "Law of Christ" vs the 10 commandments. What is the difference?
Raven
Registered user
Username: Raven

Post Number: 496
Registered: 7-2004


Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 8:11 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

One big difference is that the Law of Christ (which is also the Law of God - see I Cor 9:21) has always existed, while the 10 Commandments (as part of the Torah) has not always existed and was only temporary. The Law (all 613 including the 10 Commandments) came 430 years after the promise was made to Abraham, and until the Seed (Jesus) came (see Galatians 3:17). Galatians 3:23 says it was our tutor to lead us to Christ. 2 Corinthians 3:7-17 specifically says the "letters engraved on stone" were a ministry of death which faded away, and were replaced by the ministry of the Spirit.

The Law of Christ is an internal law of love, rather than an external code governing behavior. It's internal because the Holy Spirit literally indwells believers and produces the fruits of the Spirit in our lives. Galatians 5 explains how we walk by the Spirit now that we are not under the Law. Galatians 6:2 says the way we fulfill the Law of Christ is to "bear one another's burdens."

When we have the Holy Spirit dwelling in us, we don't need an external checklist. He is our internal compass. The 10 Commandments were an external checklist, but were also very incomplete. It's theoreticlally possible to keep every one of the 10 Commandments, at least briefly, without any love at all. In contrast, The Law of Christ is as complete as it gets, because it is "love one another, bear one another's burdens."
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 4228
Registered: 12-2003


Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 7:41 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Raven, that is a great explanation. The law of Christ is having God Himself dwelling in us, teaching and disciplining us moment by moment.

Colleen

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration