| Author | Message | ||
| Susans Registered user Username: Susans Post Number: 104 Registered: 8-2006 |
So, Jackob, do I understand correctly that the premise of the book is once we become mature enough to understand the two poles that are incorporated by Ellen, we will no longer be former Adventists but return to the fold? | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 74 Registered: 9-2006 |
Walks two poles of truth actually go against pure logic, what is said in (Phil 2:12 KJV) Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. Is this, ìhave a tender conscience toward God, be careful to not offend God and discredit the name of Christ.î It is illogical to try and make a truth out of two poles of contradiction; there is no two poles of contradiction, a contradiction would be in disagreement. In verse 13 he is saying, donít try to do this in your own strength for it God who is doing the work anyway. There is no two truths of salvation, there is only one cross of Christ, only one time to be born again, only one payment for our sin. What we have here is a failure to communicate walk you might try eating 50 boiled eggs and then you will know truth. Your belly will hurt and thereís no two way about it. If God contradicted himself at any time then he would not be perfect, therefore that is illogical. Truth is not some kind of puzzle, a half truth is not a truth at all, it is error. | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 498 Registered: 10-2002  |
Walk, I pray that you property deal goes well and in the way that only the Lord knows is best. I'm eagerly looking forward to your answers, however, I can't help but wonder how difficult it would have been to address even one of the questions instead of writing a million other things. That said, I am a procrastinator, too, so I understand. But I do hope we can begin soon. And afterwards maybe we can discuss your idea of "two legs of truth". I think it will be an interesting topic, in great part because you might be surprised to see some of us "break out of the box", so to speak. Things are not always as they seem. I have chosen to believe that things are not always as they seem regarding you, and I don't want to pigeonhole you or lock you into a stereotype. But the reverse is also applicable. So while you are here among us, I pray that you also may begin to discover that "things may not be as they seem" among us and what we believe, either. Blessings again. Looking forward to starting. In Christ, Ramone | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 379 Registered: 7-2005  |
Susan, Yes, indeed. That's the point. Rejecting one pole is viewed by the book as a sign of immaturity. And accepting both and the message of adventism which is the only one who is faitfhul to the paradoxical nature of truth is a sign of maturity. Jackob | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 296 Registered: 6-2006  |
Jackob, are you sure Dr. Suess didn't write that book?!  Leigh Anne | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 75 Registered: 9-2006 |
Walk, I am going to put this to you another way, I realize what you are attempting with the poles of truth, 2+2 question and all that and coupled with a statement you made way back. You might liken a church unto a marriage. A divorce is due to irreconcilable differences. Now if a woman finds her husband in adultery, she gets a divorce due to irreconcilable differences. The former Adventist has found her husband the church unfaithful. They divorced the church due to irreconcilable differences. Now they are the bride of one who has promised he would never leave her nor fail her but will always remain faithful, he doesnít make ridiculous demand of her, loves her 24/7 and on and on I could go with that but what I have said is sufficient. You remind me of a man who has found his wife adulterous, or vise versa, how ever you want to keep hanging on to her in spite of that. But she will always be an adulterer simply because she is an adulterous woman. Now you can cry over it till you fill up Lake Michigan but that will not stop the adultery. You run franticly too and fro to try to reconcile, but you can run too and fro until you legs are nothing but two stubs. As the old song goes ìWork my fingers to the bone and what do I get? Bony fingers. The former Adventist will never return to an adulterous spouse, they have moved on. They have found their spouse unfaithful and they have divorced due to irreconcilable differences. Some went to their spouse about the matter and the spouse said to them, leave then, I want nothing to do with you, my adultery will continue. Now I donít mean to be snide or cruel here or insensitive to your needs sir, not at all. I do believe in my heart that what I have said is truth put to you in proverbial form. The Lord will return very soon for his bride, she may have faults, she may have a wart on her nose but he wonít see it. She will be just perfect because he has adorned her with his robe of perfection. She stands waiting now and she will not be bought, sold or traded in the brothels of this world I kid you not. | ||
| Walkonwater Registered user Username: Walkonwater Post Number: 92 Registered: 9-2006 |
QUESTION ONE Do you know why the Bible's two divisions are named "the Old Testament" and the "New Testament"? (See 2 Corinthians 3:14 & 3:6, and Hebrews 9:15) MY RESPONSE: Yes, I do. I was referring to this fact when I talked originally of Christís Will and Testament several weeks ago. I did not go into further detail at that time because I did not want to distract from the point I was making. The fact is, the Old Testament includes Godís FIRST WILL AND TESTAMENT, and the New Testament includes Godís SECOND WILL AND TESTAMENT. WalkOnWaer | ||
| Walkonwater Registered user Username: Walkonwater Post Number: 93 Registered: 9-2006 |
Dear River, I commend you for your creativity in your proverb of the bride and the husband But with all due respect, River, your proverb falls short. And here is where. You say, "The former Adventist has found her husband the church unfaithful." All of a sudden I see why you all seem so angry at the Adventist Church. If you have looked to the SDA Church as the "Husband" it is no wonder you are upset. You will NEVER find the SDA Church referring to itself as the Husband. You will NEVER find the Bible referring to any church as the husband. The Bible makes it very clear that God (Jesus) is ALWAYS the Husband and the church is ALWAYS the bride of Christ. Never does Scripture confuse these two positions. If, as you say, Formers looked to Adventism as the husband then they have made a grave mistake. The church, the bride of Christ, has always tended toward unfaithfulness. Look at the seven churches of Revelation. They do not get a lot of high marks. Yet in spite of the fact that all churches have had problems with unfaithfulness, God, in His love, still calls them His bride. In fact, Jesus does not file for divorce. If a divorce happens, it is the bride that files for it. But even then, Christ Jesus will pursue His beloved with tears, in hopes she will return to Him. If we confuse this story and call the church the husband and say we have to divorce the husband for unfaithfulness, we have changed the Bible and done violence to the love story God intended. Jesus did not divorce the Jews. They divorced Him. Luther did not divorce the Catholic Church. It divorced him. I believe true Christians do not believe in divorce. I disagree with much in the Adventist Church but I remain in the Church. If they want a divorce, they will have to do the filing. Why? I hope in some small way to follow my Lordís example. He loves His bride. He hates divorce. WalkOnWater TenBLoÿ@hotmail.com | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 505 Registered: 10-2002 |
Walk, Thanks for getting started! May I share a few personal reflections on the question? (Not for argument, just for sharing) It was kind of a pleasant shock for me to open a little RSV Bible I'd picked up at a Christian bookstore here in Osaka. Before Matthew began, the New Testament cover page says, Before discovering the Covenants, I had only a vague idea of what the terms "Old Testament" and "New Testament" meant. The word "testament" is rarely used in English today, except in the case of a last will. The usage in the Bible, however, is much broader than our limited use. The root of the word we would guess to be "testify", and if we were asked about the meaning of "Old Testament" and "New Testament", we would call them two "witnesses" -- we would do so according to our limited modern usage of the word "testament". But the more common Scriptural word for "testament" is "covenant". As an Adventist I thought I knew what a covenant was, but I really knew only what they had taught me in school, which was again a very limited definition. I didn't know that a covenant is a sacred binding agreement between two parties based on a set of terms, and I didn't realize that covenants were the basis for God's dealings with His people. And I would have loosely figured that the whole testament/covenant referred to "everything in the Old Testament". But specifically there were two covenants made at two points of time (Jeremiah 31:31-32). The names of our "testaments" reflect that they contain the record of God's covenants with His people, specifically, the Old & the New (although there are definitely more than two covenants mentioned in Scripture!). Anyway, sorry for the commentary... I just thought I'd share a few of my own reflections on the journey the Lord brought me on into deeper understanding. But don't feel that you have to comment on what I've just said here. I'm just sharing. Onto #2? What was the "first will"? (Or rather, the "first covenant") Blessings in Jesus, Ramone | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 612 Registered: 7-2004  |
Walk, I think you misunderstood River's analogy, or maybe it wasn't a great analogy to begin with (sorry River!). I think the main and only sticking point from it, is that we've discovered the SDA church is fatally flawed, the separation is complete, and there is no going back. While there can be noted similarities between leaving the SDA church and going through a divorce, I know I have never felt like the SDA church was a husband to me. And I have no anger towards that church. We really aren't bitter! We're just overjoyed and grateful for discovering freedom in Jesus, the joy of the New Covenant, and want others to also see it and beware false teachers who insist the Law is another leg of the Gospel. The SDA church was and never could be Jesus; therefore there's no reason to remain in or return to the SDA church--that has nothing to do with where a believer's loyalty lies. Church membership is irrespective to whether or not we are the bride of Christ. | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 77 Registered: 9-2006 |
Well once again Walk, I did say I was using proverbial form, the only reference I made to the true bride of Christ was at the bottom of the post. In my analogy you could use wife or husband or vise versa at any time any place. That jacket is reversible since it was meant as analogy and only an alnology. How ever I must make my apologies to Ramone for I fear I have interfered with his original question and interfered with the thread. | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 613 Registered: 7-2004 |
Now that it's too late to edit my post, I see that I left out an important word in "The SDA church was and never could be" - it should read "The SDA church never was and never could be" | ||
| Mwh Registered user Username: Mwh Post Number: 269 Registered: 4-2006  |
The book: Adventism In Conflict - Resolving the issues that devide us. By A. Leroy Moore, PhD. which Jackob mentioned is available for online reading here: http://aleroymoore.com/adventisminconflict342.asp In Christ | ||
| Mwh Registered user Username: Mwh Post Number: 270 Registered: 4-2006 |
An interesting quote from the book from chapter 16: "But even seeking the Spirit's guidance does not automatically assure balance. We must cultivate self-distrust as the basis for true faith. It is instinctive to trust our own judgment and to distrust any who differ with us. Yet, to any degree we trust our own judgment, to that degree we fail to trust the Word. God's plan is thus to so expose self and faulty judgment that we dare not trust self any longer." Oh my! | ||
| Walkonwater Registered user Username: Walkonwater Post Number: 94 Registered: 9-2006 |
Thanks for your insights Ramone! Since I am in the middle of a real estate deal, I am seeing how important covenants are. Of course today we normally call them contracts. As I have been going through this real estate deal, the seller and his agent have done everything possible to kill the contract. They do not want to abide by it. Why? Because they have two backup offerswhich they find more attractive than my offer. Oregon State Law dictates that as long as I perfectly do exactly what is called for in the contract, they cannot legally kill the deal or accept another offer. I am so grateful for that Oregon State Law. Without it, they could do anything they please and I would have no way of stopping them unless I wanted to hire a hit man to do some late night intimidation. LOL King David once said, "Oh how I love thy law." I know how he felt! I can say, "Oh how I love Oregon State Law." Without it, my covenant, my contract would be worthless. And because of Oregon Law, and because of their fear of the consequences of breaking it, it is beginning to look like this deal will actually go through. Now of course there were a number of contracts or covenants in Scripture but the two covenants after which the Old and New Testaments got there name were contracts that only go into effect when someone dies. And as you said, those kinds of contracts are commonly called "A Last Will and Testament". The power of the WILL lies in the laws of the state in which the WILL was written. Anyone who tampers with the WILL has to answer to the dictates of the laws of that state. Anyone who tampers with Godís Last Wills and Testaments has to answer to God. Thank you for a constructive discussion. I very much appreciate that! Today is another very full day. I will post my answer to Question 2 as soon as I can. God bless, WalkOnWater TenBLoÿ@hotmail.com | ||
| Walkonwater Registered user Username: Walkonwater Post Number: 95 Registered: 9-2006 |
MWH: You quote from Moore's book, "But even seeking the Spirit's guidance does not automatically assure balance. We must cultivate self-distrust as the basis for true faith. It is instinctive to trust our own judgment and to distrust any who differ with us. Yet, to any degree we trust our own judgment, to that degree we fail to trust the Word. God's plan is thus to so expose self and faulty judgment that we dare not trust self any longer." By commenting, ìOh my!î I assume you do not agree with the statement. So letís rewrite the statement in opposite terms. ìÖ seeking the Holy Spirit automatically assures balance. We must cultivate self trust as the basis for true faith. It is instinctive to trust the judgment of others and to trust any who differ with usÖ Godís plan is thus to so hide self and good judgment that we come to trust ourselves forever.î Oh my! WalkOnWater TenBLoÿ@hotmail.com | ||
| Mwh Registered user Username: Mwh Post Number: 271 Registered: 4-2006 |
WalkOnWater, the only one you really can rely on is the Holy Spirit, he is the only one who only speaks truth. We really can only trust in our relationship with God through the Holy Spirit, as he talks truth to our spirit. Since our new born spirit is part of ourselves, we really have to trust in the communication between God with our spirit inside ourselves. So when reading the Bible God reveals truth to us by speaking to our spirits with his Holy Spirit. Also another question for you WOW: Do you believe that we consist of body, soul and spirit? Do you believe SDA are teaching correctly when saying that the soul is just our breath? May Christ guide you into all truth! | ||
| Spokenfor Registered user Username: Spokenfor Post Number: 62 Registered: 12-2003 |
Excuse me for butting in here but I've been reading this thread with some interest and the following statement by Walk just really jumped out at me: "Anyone who tampers with Godís Last Wills and Testaments has to answer to God." No one can have multiple "last willS and testamentS", plural. When one makes a new will, it overrides all previous wills that were made by that person. God's NEW Covenant (will, testament) replaces his OLD covenant. Period. | ||
| Walkonwater Registered user Username: Walkonwater Post Number: 97 Registered: 9-2006 |
Spokenfor: RIGHT ON! I agree. WalkOnWater | ||
| Walkonwater Registered user Username: Walkonwater Post Number: 98 Registered: 9-2006 |
MWH: So you agree with Moore's statement after all. All Moore is saying is that we must learn to trust the Holy Spirit instead of looking to ourself as the font of all wisdom. The only One who is totally dependable is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Perhaps you have not lived long enough to find out that "me, myself and I" are extremely untrustworthy. I have let myself down more than anyone else on earth. God has had to hit me over the head many times with a 2 by 4 to help me learn that lesson. But as I recognize my undependability, I am moved to depend on God more and more. As for your question about spirit,soul,body. Do you think I am insane? LOL We are in the middle of another discussion. Unlike the Chineese Plate Spinners, my brain is too feable to spin too many plates at the same time. (grin) God bless, WalkOnWater TenBLoÿ@hotmail.com |
