Leaderboard

Jeyapaul Masilamony is the moderator of the forum in the news about events in East Mediterranean Filed http://clubadventist.com/forums/index.php?/forum/185-east-mediterranean-field/ Special Welcome Jeyapaul we are looking forward to up to date news from Lebanon.

.... And it's all thanks to dear Stan, who with his vision, started this forum. It has attracted some of the brightest and best -- and then they've naturally gravitated to each other! Love this story! Love these two people!

What would be your opinion on a Republican ticket of Sara Palin Pres.; Ben Carson, VP. ???? Nuff Sed

I'm not sure Palin is a good choice. She has very high negatives. That doesn't mean I don't like her spirit or how plain spoken she is. If she was to be part of a conservative ticket she would be much better as a VP candidate. I really like Carson. He's thoughtful, highly intelligent, and used to having authority. Not at the level of the presidency, but I don't know of a surgeon who doesn't expect someone to jump when they're told to. I'm saying that in the context of their job, not their personal lives. He's also a natural leader and is not intimidated by anything or anybody from what I've seen of him. He means what he says, and says what he means. His honesty is very refreshing. I think a ticket of he and Allen West would be very good. I'd vote for that ticket in a heartbeat as I see both them as high character people.

One last point, when I express my views, feel free to disagree with me. On the subject of Church Policies, My perspective is that church policies are determined as much by how they are put into practice as they are by what is placed in writing and that what is placed in writing is often advice rather than law. so, on this point, some of you will disagree with what I say.

Jeyapaul, Good to have you here

Sins of Ignorance - Do they result in a "free pass" into Heaven? We have talked about little children "going straight to Heaven", because they did not sin. Even though Paul says "all have sinned" and that we are "conceived in iniquity", and are born with a carnal nature. But what about adults? Romans 5:13 "(For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law." (NKJ) This is speaking of those "times of ignorance" which the LORD "winked at". Those unaware of His law are covered by the death of Christ. The morning and evening sacrifice covered all sins of ignorance, including the sins of "the nations". My belief is that this "covering" simply extends the probation of the one "covered" UNTIL that person HEARS the truths of God. At that point the person must make a choice. Your belief Samie, seems to be that every person is SAVED until he/she fails a test of their obedience. So - Let’s take as our example, an ancient Myan King. He officiated at human sacrifice, and worship of "gods" other than Yahweh. But his “sin” was one of ignorance, therefore covered by the death of Christ, and “not imputed” to him. This man dies without ever being exposed to the Law of Yahweh, or the message of reconciliation thru His Son. IF - as you say - his name was already in the Book of Life (along with the name of every human being who would ever live) THEN - this man will be resurrected at the Second Coming, and will go to Heaven with all of the redeemed. BECAUSE his “sins” were "not imputed" to him. They were all sins of ignorance, because this man never heard of Yahweh (much less His Son). He never knew about the Law or the “way of the LORD”. But this man was never “born again”. He never opened his heart door to Christ. He never gave his allegiance to Jesus Christ as LORD. I just cannot believe this man will enter Heaven at the SC. Neither do I believe it is JUST to leave him "dead like the beast", or resurrect him to judgment and a fiery execution. What I do believe is that he will be resurrected at the 8th millennium, with the "rest of the dead", into a Kingdom ruled by Christ on this earth. There he will learn of God's law and HEAR the "message of reconciliation". He will then either be "born again" and given his allegience gladly to Christ as LORD, or he will resist and rebel. Those who rebel will be consumed at the Gog-Magog Battle. ONLY those who died in ignorance - whose sins were therefore "not imputed" - will be resurrected with "the rest of the dead". Those who died knowingly unrepentent, resisting the Spirit - will be resurrected at the SC, to face judgment and execution. (See Daniel 12 1-3).

It seems an unending debate regarding whether we believers are under the "Sinai" Covenant, or a "renewed" Covenant, or a "new" Covenant. I can only give my personal opinion. I believe we are BETROTHED to the risen Christ by a NEW marriage covenant. The Sinai Covenant was a marriage covenant. Israel was betrothed to the pre-incarnate Son of God (the only mediator). In the Ancient MiddleEast the betrothal WAS the marriage covenant. Adultery during the period of betrothal was punishable by death. The marriage was never consumated. Jeremiah 3:14 “Return, O backsliding children,’ says the LORD; ‘for I am married to you.” Jeremiah 31:32 “‘the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD.’” Ezekiel 16:32 “You are an adulterous wife, who takes strangers instead of her husband.” When the intended groom DIED by crucifixion, this freed the betrothed bride from THAT marriage covenant, necessitating a NEW covenant of marriage. Which is why Paul writes: Romans 7:1 “Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? 2 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. 3 So then if, while her husband is living, she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress, though she is joined to another man. 4 Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead” (NAS). The risen Christ was "another" in the eyes of the Law. We are BETROTHED to Jesus Christ, by a "new" marriage covenant. The marriage has NOT YET been consumated, but it is legally a marriage none-the-less. 2 Corinthians 11:2 [Paul] “For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.” So - what has changed from the Sinai Covenant? Answer - "the priesthood being changed, there is of necessity a change of the Law" (Heb. 7) NOTE: It does NOT say "the high priesthood being changed". It says "the priesthood". If you "change" the priesthood - from Levite/Aaronic - to Melchizedek, you change the system of animal sacrifice, BECAUSE the Law commanded that every sacrifice be brought to an Aaronic priest at the Temple on the Mount at Jerusalem. The promise of the New Covenant is that the LORD will write His Law on our hearts. I find no "change" of the Sabbath. NOTE: There is a study posted at my website titled "Two Covenants". Respectfully, Rachel Cory Prophecy Viewpoint

It has been my experience, that those who are conspiriasist, view masons, satanist, jesuits etc have more power than those who have been washed by the blood of the lamb. They make 'them' more powerful by acting scared of them, this letting them have dominion over them. Just my opinion

Pam, your 2 cents is actually worth 5 cents. Do not underestimate yourself. You are correct.

Joe, you ask what is our responsibility as a Christian nation. Well, some of us would argue that we are no longer a Christian nation. In any case, as to our responsibility as a Christian nation, that could have two (2) aspects: A nation is composed of people. Those people may have an individual responsibility. A Biblical responsibility, as individuals, may be to proclaim God's truth and depend upon the Holy Spirit. Our responsibility as a nation may be summed up in the 1st Amendment to the Federal Constitution. That simply says that the government will not give preference to any religion over other religions. Once it is decided that Satanism is a religion, under the Constitution, it must be treated on the same basis as other religions. That is it in a nutshell. Did you actually read the entire article? Did you notice that the article stated that the members did not worship Satan as an actual being. Under Federal law, a religion is not required to worship an actual being. So, my point is not that the group is not actually a religion. I am willing to state that it probably is a religion. Rather, my point is that one can ask whether or not it is actually a Satanic religion. That question is valid on a personal basis, even though it is probably not a valid question for the Federal government which is very limited as to it ability to investigate the beliefs of a religion. It should be noted that so-called Satanic religions exist is very different forms with quite differing sets of beliefs. Those who follow Anton LeVey differ quite a bit from those who do not follow him.

America may represent Babylon of the future, a garbage can full of vile, detestable things, a place where every known sin is committed, a place that is destroyed in a single day, and, America also represents the world in Noah's time, an entire planet polluted by evil. Once America's central government is destroyed, other nations may choose to unleash a nuclear inferno from which recovery would be impossible. Christians would be hit hard like everyone else, but with houses full of possessions no longer needed and now searching only for food, water, and shelter, they might seek their Creator in a way not now possible. Shocked by America's sudden destruction, the rest of the world will lament that there is no one left to buy their cargoes.

I don't believe in a God who is love, destroys. "God destroys no man. Everyone who is destroyed will have destroyed himself." [COL 84] "God does not stand toward the sinner as an executor of the sentence against transgression; but he leaves the rejecters of his mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown. The destruction of Jerusalem is a solemn warning to all who are trifling with the offers of divine grace, and resisting the pleadings of divine mercy." [The Youth's instructor, Nov 13, 1906] Matt 23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 38 See! Your house is left to you desolate...." ​So when God is persistently rejected, through the sin of unbelief, He will not force His love and protection upon His rejecters. What then does He do? "Then My anger (which will we see is passive) shall be aroused against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide My face from them, and they shall be devoured. And many evils and troubles shall befall them, so that they will say in that day, 'Have not these evils come upon us because our God is not among us?' [Deut 31:17] Romans 1:8 "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. 24 Therefore God gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them up to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God (which is God abandonment), that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them." God's wrath is not human anger. God's wrath is His reluctant departure from those who persistently & ultimately reject Him.

God said He would not allow Sodom and Gomorrah to be destroyed if there was only 1 believer. Why would He destroy the United States or Canada? I'm betting there are quite a number of believers in both countries.

Greetings!

And I think your Religion degree has not been a waste. You're putting that information to good use in your daily life and with the classes you're teaching. If you're thinking of taking out more student loans, the best rule is: don't borrow more than you expect to earn in the first year after you obtain that degree. IOW, keep the borrowing to a minimum. There are other ways of obtaining a degree; i.e., buy used textbooks, work part=time while in school, only take one or two classes at a time, etc. God bless you.

A year ago yesterday I was house hunting in Grants Pass, OR. A year ago today (9/11/2013), I took a short trip to Crooked River Ranch to meet Woody (having "met" him on Club Adventist first). ||: Then he took a trip down to see me in California, and then I took a trip up north again. :|| And the rest is history.

not sure it's wise to use such sweeping references to countries... certainly, not all Americans and not all Canadians fit neatly into the definition of "turning their backs on God"... so my answer to your 3 questions is 1) no. 2) no. and 3) no.

Welcome indeed!!!

Glad to have you on board!

I've known of a number of Adventist ministers/evangelists/officials who lived in the lap of luxury. By and large, most all had spouses who also worked, or they had inherited wealth from parents or other relatives. I know it's easy to judge by outward appearances, but there's usually a whole lot more to the story.

Quite frankly, in the SDA church one does not expect one's ministers to be rich and would question the motive of any minister to amass "worldly" wealth. (At least that's what I was raised to believe and what I've come across in SDA history.) Why? "For where your treasure is, there your heart is also," Christ said. You expect your pastors to live a life of self-sacrifice ploughing any surplus money back into the cause.

Before I made any judgment, I would want to know more about the source of his money/property. I am reminded of a man I once knew. As a destitute college student, a rich relative once gave him an older car the relative no longer needed. While the car was older, as a new vehicle, it had been very expensive. The student kept it because it was mechanically sound and exactly served his immediate need. I am also thinking of a retired SDA minister who lives very well and beyond what would normally be expected for a retired SDA minister. Major purchases in his life come from an adult child who earns a very large income. So, I would want to know more about the source of income. I would also want to know more about how your illustrated person used the resources that were available to him. To what extent does he use those resources for others. In the example of my retired minister, Within the last year, he used money that was available to him, to purchase a late model SUV for a woman in need of such transportation. He gave it to her along with funds for registration and insurance for a year. Reading the OP again, I see that you said that the money was raised within the SDA denomination. On that basis, I would have more than a major problem, regardless of anything else.

I think you will find, that unless someone has a hugh interest in a video, they will generally not watch more than 3 minutes. Can you punch the message down to 3 minutes and then give the link to the longer one for those interested?