| Author |
Message |
Flyinglady
Registered user
Username: Flyinglady
Post Number: 2656
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 11:19 am: |     |
I get very sad when reading responses such as Tim's to you and Greg and those who write on CARM. There is such a thick veil over their minds and ears. So, we will continue to pray for them in our prayer circle and every day.
God be with you Stan as you post on that web site.
He is always awesome.
Diana |
Insearchof
Registered user
Username: Insearchof
Post Number: 79
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 11:44 am: | |
Stan,
I took a couple of hours and read through the posts at the link you cite. Sinful man just refuses to accept the idea of God's sovereignty.
Odd that we can read the same verses in Scripture and one reader is only disgusted by the teaching that God chooses while another sees true beauty in the fact that God chooses.
InSearchOf |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1386
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 1:54 pm: | |
Stan, that sounds so much like revivalsermons.org. Richard O'Ffill told me on there last year that we worship a different "God," due to the fact that I believe in God's eternal wrath and justice (Hell).
Wow, I just took a look at that link again. I hadn't read it since last week. Did Tim really re-write the whole chapter of Romans 9, or did he just copy the Clear Word?? Either way, it's disgusting.
Jeremy
(Message edited by Jeremy on July 10, 2006) |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 1866
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 8:21 pm: | |
It just keeps getting worse. lynric comes on with another excellent post, and this psychiatrist, Dr. Tim Jennings just says some unbelievable things. Here is an excerpt: First from Lynric
"No Biblical interpretation can stand that is significantly different in intent than
the original messageóand if we cannot trust the Bible to state the original
message God intended, we cannot even use the Bible as a source of moral or
spiritual authority.
Bottom lineóif the Bible cannot be trusted to reveal God's willówithout the help
of an extra-Biblical prophet and without our own help in re-interpreting the
words, then we are adrift, creating our own religions as we please." (end of lynric)
Then Tim comes back;
Lynric,
I agree with you completely that it is about how we interpret the Bible and its authority. But as I said earlier, understanding the Bible is more than taking what it says, we have to ask what it means. I know this is harder, and I see many people who are genuinely afraid to think, afraid to ask questions as they find security in believing everything is just as it reads. I think God is gracious and meets those people where they are, but He wants so much more for us. That is why He has called us into understanding friendship with Him. He wants us to ask questions, to reason, to evaluate and to question Him. For He knows the more we do the more we will see how incredible He truly is.
Now a couple of points ñ I find the most reliable filter to understand all texts of the Bible (is not EGW as you suggested) but is the life of Jesus. Every text of the Bible must be understood by seeing it lived out in the life of Jesus ñ after all He Himself said that the Scripture are there to testify about Him. So a couple of questions regarding my interpretation: Do you worship a god who actually hates individuals? Do you believe Jesus hated people, including Judas? Did Esau, sin more than Judas, before Esau was even born? Is God like Jesus?...
This just goes on. These people have invented their own religion. They have created God in their own image. I am literally speechless (or typeless) after reading Tim's last post.
Stan |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 1867
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 8:37 pm: | |
And they have just posted a new article about "The Good News About Being Judged" at the following link:
http://www.heavenlysanctuary.com/article.php?story=20060708003226124
This article is by the neurologist Dr. Brad Cole. There is this paragraph that is very illuminating:
"While it certainly is good news that God has graciously provided for our personal salvation, this is not the Good News. Some might interpret these words in the quarterly as suggesting that the gospel is primarily about you and I:
ìItís the good news that Jesus died as our substitute; that at the Cross He paid the penalty for our sins; that through faith in Him we stand perfect in God now because we are covered with perfect righteousness; and that because of what He has done for us, we have the promise of eternal life. So the good news is that we have eternal life..."
Now that last paragraph is a good statement of the basic gospel, and we have to give credit, that statement comes from the SDA quarterly, and is probably authored by Cliff Goldstein. It is at least much closer to the gospel than what Brad Cole, and this Maxwellian sect of SDA is proposing. Maybe some others on here would like to get invoved answering this latest article--I will tell you, it has been as enlightening as posting on Revival Sermons--the same spirit is seen from two differnt extreme sections of Adventism. But these views may be more mainstream now.
Stan
|
Bobj
Registered user
Username: Bobj
Post Number: 31
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 7:19 am: | |
Stan,
I know you are not asserting this, but I have trouble accepting that the character of God is on trial before the universe. The default in my thinking was that we are the objects of His love and mercy and salvation, as in the last quotation above.
Bob |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 1869
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 11:39 am: | |
Bob,
I agree with you completely. Just the idea that God is on trial before the universe is a concept entirely foreign to scripture.
BTW, Bob, I love that picture of your dog there, maybe I will get a picture of my large standard poodle to put up there.
Stan |
Jackob
Registered user
Username: Jackob
Post Number: 275
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 2:40 pm: | |
Stan, you must show your poodle's picture. After all, his name is always in front of everything you write, Riverfonz.
Goldstein is indeed closer to the gospel than the maxwellian adventists. I wonder if he is closer enough to see that his statements in the SS lessons are at odds with his ideas of pre-advent judgment.
He is an evangelical adventist by his affirmations that our deeds are insufficient to pass the test, and we need the perfect righteousness of Christ imputed to us, to take the exam, to pass the judgment. He rejects the intial perfectionistic ideas of adventists pioneers, that only a perfect conduct will pass the test and the judgment.
But, and this is the point that's amazing, Goldstein still insists that believers are still judged by their works. How can this be true, mr Goldstein, if their works are insufficient to pass the test? Why test their works anyway? The result is the same for anybody: all will fail, nobody will pass. Why make a judgment of works, if nobody is qualified to pass the test?
This is strange because at this point Goldstein introduces a new standard for passing the test. It's not the perfect holiness, even the perfect keeping ot the ten commandments. This standard, even if it is not explicitly recognized, is still a real standard. Because in this judgment some believers pass the test, their conduct being in harmony with the standard. We have no more the ten commandments, a standard which nobody can attain. To pass the test we must have a lower standard than the ten Commandments. By the works of the law nobody will be justified before God, and Goldstein is willing to admit this.
But again, why beliebers must b e judged by works, if their works are incapable to meet God's standars? Goldstein insists that God must evaluate the works of the believers to show that they have a true faith. They must prove in the judgment that they have a true faith in the perfect righteousnees of Christ imputed to them. How? By their works.
And at this point we are back with a works-righteousness. How many works are sufficient to prove my faith? What is the standard which obviously must be attained for God to recognize my faith as genuine? Precisely, where in the Bible we can find this standard?
Obviously, there will be true believers that will fail the test. This is the IJ idea. How they will look like? Will be those who will give in at the Sunday-law test? Precisely.
And in this way we may suppose that the standard and the test is only one: keep the Sabbath holy in the face of Sunday law. Some will fail, sorry for them, some will pass, and God will be happy to receive them. Halelujah, finally God recognized our works as decisive in our salvation! Good news indeed. Judgment is the best news, because we will have simultaneously a righteousness by faith, and one by works. |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 1870
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 3:22 pm: | |
Jackob,
Good points. Yes, Goldstein is inconsistent. I do think he may be a genuine believer, but I think he is trapped in this SDA system, and he has become a spokesman to try to untangle this mess of the IJ. But until the IJ and Ellen White's authority is repudiated, SDA will never be a truly evangelical denomination. Goldstein was converted to Adventism from Judaism, so maybe Adventism is still a bridge for him out of Judaism.
Stan |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1392
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 3:48 pm: | |
I don't see Goldstein's teaching (see SS Lesson for week 2 here) as being any different in reality from the traditional SDA gospel, in other words, their "two-part salvation" teaching: you're justified by faith, sanctified by works, and in the end saved by faith plus works.
Jeremy |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 4302
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 5:52 pm: | |
I've been reading the quarterly, and it is as confusing and double-talk-y as it has ever been. Goldstein has done a great job of trying to sound Biblical, but he confuses everything by having to include the IJ and the importance of our works.
On the Thursday, Sept. 28 lesson (the last week of the quarter), he says this: "Good works testify to the reality of the faith that we have in Christ; and though they don't save us in the judgment, good works reveal that, though we are sinners, Christ has done the right thing in bringing us into 'his kingdom thatÖshall not be destroyed' (Dan 7:4)"
Huh? The IJ show that Christ has done the right thing in bringing us into the kingdom???
Right after the above quote are these 2 thought questions: "what kind of message do your works send to anyone who might be watching them? What changes do you need to make in order to send a better message?"
It always comes back to fixing our behavior. No matter how they obfuscate (and Goldstein has done a masterful job of obscuring what he really is saying and leaving one quite confused, if one tries to analyse what he means), they still have to teach beefing up behavior in order to demonstrate one is "safe to save".
Colleen |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1394
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 6:45 pm: | |
You're right, Colleen. And if it can't be demonstrated that you're "safe to save"--if your works aren't good enough--then you are rejected and you go to hell. In Lesson 2, he makes it clear that "accepting the invitation" is not enough. You have to make sure that your works measure up.
Bottom line: it's still salvation by works.
Jeremy
(Message edited by Jeremy on July 11, 2006) |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 1872
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 7:11 pm: | |
Dr. Tim Jennings has now pulled the medical diagnosis card on our friend Greg here:
http://www.heavenlysanctuary.com/article.php?story=sabbath_scool_lesson_brad#comments
When they can't argue rationally for their position, then they reort to these arguments:
"In medicine one of the first things they teach us is to diagnose because if the diagnosis is wrong then the solution is wrong. Well, Greg has come to a different diagnosis as to what is wrong in the universe, i.e. what the problem with sin is. Thus his solution is a different solution. To him the solution looks rational and reasonable because it fits with the diagnosis he has come to, but I believe his diagnosis is wrong and therefore his entire treatment plan is wrong. The problem we have in this dialogue is that we are disputing two different treatment plans and we will never see the treatment the same unless we see the problem as the same. And Greg seems reluctant to engage the discussion on that level, which is the truth about God Himself. As you have read previously I have articulated the differences in how we see God and he has refused to discuss this issue further and in fact doesnít seem to realize that the real disease, the real root of the sin problem is distortions about God, which he has embraced and promotes as truth. Thus, those who hold distorted views of God always fail to see the truth of Godís healing plan and instead create their own plan consistent with the distorted god they serve."
Tim
Interesting...
Stan
|
Bobj
Registered user
Username: Bobj
Post Number: 32
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 7:15 pm: | |
Stan,
OK, I guess confession is good for the soul. It's not my dog, but I wish it was! This dog is a border collie named Evie, and she is owned by our good friend Christy Robinson. We fell in love with this dog when we kept her for a couple weeks, and will have her again for almost a month this fall. She has very strong herding instincts and is very intelligent.
Jeremy's poodle looks just like our last dog, so I got the idea from him! We love poodles, too!
Bob |
Bobj
Registered user
Username: Bobj
Post Number: 33
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 7:18 pm: | |
Stan,
I hope you'll send in a photo of your standard poodle!
Bob |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 1873
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 8:12 pm: | |
I think Jeremy's dog is a cocker spaniel--He will correct me if I am wrong, and I think it's name is Polly.
Stan |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 1874
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 8:23 pm: | |
John Piper has a great answer to Tim Jennings on HS at the following link:
http://desiringgod.org/library/fresh_words/2006/061406.html Here is an excerpt:
Defending My Fatherís Wrath
June 14, 2006
There are cultural forces at work inside and outside the church that make me eager to defend my Fatherís wrath against me before I was adopted. He does not need my defense. But I believe he would be honored by it. And he commanded us, ìHonor your fatherî (Exodus 20:12).
I write this from Cambridge, England, and my indignation about the assault on my Father is British-born. The calumny I have in mind is the following paragraph from a popular British writer:
The fact is that the cross isnít a form of cosmic child abuseóa vengeful Father, punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed. Understandably, both people inside and outside of the Church have found this twisted version of events morally dubious and a huge barrier to faith. Deeper than that, however, is that such a concept stands in total contradiction to the statement: "God is love". If the cross is a personal act of violence perpetrated by God towards humankind but borne by his Son, then it makes a mockery of Jesusí own teaching to love your enemies and to refuse to repay evil with evil (Steve Chalke and Alan Mann, The Lost Message of Jesus, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003], pp. 182-183).
This is breathtaking coming from a professing Christian. On behalf of my Father in heaven I would like to bear witness to the truth that before he adopted me his terrible wrath was upon me. Jesus said, ìWhoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey . . . the wrath of God remains on himî (John 3:36). Wrath remains on us as long as there is no faith in Jesus. Paul puts it like this: We ìwere by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankindî (Ephesians 2:3). My very nature made me worthy of wrath.
My destiny was to endure ìflaming fireî and ìvengeance on those . . . who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus . . . [and who] suffer the punishment of eternal destructionî (2 Thessalonians 1:8-9). I was not a son of God. God was not my Father. He was my judge and executioner. I was a ìson of disobedienceî (Ephesians 2:2). I was dead in trespasses and sins. And the sentence of my Judge was clear and terrifying: ìBecause of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedienceî (Ephesians 5:6).
There was only one hope for meóthat the infinite wisdom of God might make a way for the love of God to satisfy the wrath of God so that I might become a son of God.
This is exactly what happened, and I will sing of it forever. After saying that I was by nature a child of wrath, Paul says, ìBut God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christî (Ephesians 2:4-5). ìWhen the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son . . . to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.î God sent his Son to rescue me from his wrath and make me his child.
How did he do it? He did it in the way Steve Chalke slanderously calls ìcosmic child abuse.î Godís Son bore Godís curse in my place. ìChrist redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for usó..."
John Piper has it right. If I post this over there on HS, there will probably be another roar of outrage.
Stan
|
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1396
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 8:29 pm: | |
You're right, Stan. She's an American Cocker Spaniel and her name is Polly. She does look a bit like a poodle in that picture, though.  She's 14 years old now--and still doing quite well for her age!
Bob, Stan's standard poodle did make it into Proclamation! magazine last year. Here is the link if you haven't seen it: http://formeradvent.temp.powweb.com/Proclamation2005_JulAug.pdf
Jeremy
(Message edited by Jeremy on July 11, 2006) |
Bobj
Registered user
Username: Bobj
Post Number: 34
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 9:38 pm: | |
Thank you, Jeremy. I do remember the photo of Stan's poodle. I'm glad Polly is doing so well at 14! |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 1875
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 11:27 pm: | |
Actually that photo was an older picture and was one of our previous poodle who was an overgrown miniature, but was technically a standard poodle. Riverfonz (Fonzie) is a lot bigger. I will have to get a new picture to post. I love talking about dogs!
Stan |
Pheeki
Registered user
Username: Pheeki
Post Number: 810
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 12:40 pm: | |
Thought some of you music people might enjoy this!
HYMNS vs PRAISE SONGS
Old farmer Joe went to the city one weekend and attended the big city
church. When he came home his wife, Martha, asked asked him what
it was like.
"Well," said Joe, "it was good. But they did something different. They sang
praise songs instead of hymns."
"Praise songs?" asked Martha. "What are they like?"
"Oh, they're okay. They're sort of like hymns, only different."
"Well what's the difference?"
"Well, it's like this. If I were to say to you,
"Martha, the cows are in the corn," - well that would be a hymn.
But if I were to say to you,
"Martha, Martha, Martha, Oh Martha, MARTHA, MARTHA,
The cows, the big cows, the brown cows, the black cows,
the white cows, the black-and-white cows, the COWS, COWS, COWS,
Are in the corn, are in the corn, are in the corn, are in the corn,
The CORN, CORN, CORN."
Then if I were to repeat the whole thing two or three times, well, that
would be a praise song."
The next weekend, Joe's nephew, a young, new Christian lad from the city,
came to visit his Uncle Joe and Aunt Martha. He attended their local church
in the small town. When he returned home, his mother asked him about the
country church.
"Well," said the young man, "it was good. But they did something different.
They sang hymns instead of praise songs."
"Hymns? What are they?" asked his mother.
"Oh, they're okay. They're sort of like praise songs, only different," said
the young man.
"Well, what's the difference?
"Well, it's like this. If Uncle Joe were to say to Aunt Martha, "Martha, the
cows are in the corn,' well that would be a praise chorus. But if he were to
say to her:
"Oh Martha, dear Martha, hear thou my cry.
Inclinest thine ear to the words of my mouth.
Turn thou thy whole wondrous ear by and by
To the righteous, inimitable, glorious truth.
For the way of the animals who can explain?
There is in their heads no shadow of sense,
Hearkenest they in God's sun or His rain,
Unless from the mild, tempting corn they are fenced.
Yea, those cows in glad bovine, rebellious delight
Have broke free their shackles, their warm pens eschewed
Then goaded by minions of darkness and night
They all my mild Chilliwack sweet corn have chewed.
So look to the bright shining day by and by
Where all foul corruptions of earth are reborn
Where no vicious animals make my soul cry
And I no longer see those foul cows in the corn."
"Then if he were to sing only verses one, three and four, and do
a key change on the last verse - well, that would be a hymn!"
|
Grace_alone
Registered user
Username: Grace_alone
Post Number: 54
Registered: 6-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 1:20 pm: | |
Hahahaha, Pheeki, that was hilarious - and SO TRUE!!
|
U2bsda
Registered user
Username: U2bsda
Post Number: 27
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 1:43 pm: | |
Very funny!!! |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 4313
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 5:34 pm: | |
That's hilarious, Pheeki! Richard and I both loved it!
Thanks!!!
Colleen |
Violet
Registered user
Username: Violet
Post Number: 448
Registered: 2-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 12:13 pm: | |
I love it. Bottom line is to communicate you feelings to God. He is intellegent enough to understand it.
V |
Seekr777
Registered user
Username: Seekr777
Post Number: 547
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 5:01 pm: | |
Pheeki, that was wonderfull. I'll need to share that, having been on both sides of the "issue".
richard
|
|
