Leaderboard

I think this is inconsequential. Am I saved is what matters and I have that blessed assurance. Jesus doesn't care what label I or someone else puts on me, only that He found me. He is in me and I am in Him.

Do you think God is looking for PURE ADVENTISTS?! Why do we even bother with a such question!

Interesting thread. As I've mentioned I am american, i am adventist, I am african american. I am old enough to remember the civil rights movement. Will these recent protests turn into a new civil rights movement? I don't know. Civil rights are almost gone. The US constitution is a sham. America is destined to play, and is playing a certain dubious part is the close of this world's history. I wouldn't be surprised at what happens. More later. I am going back to sleep, literally.

There are always degrees of association, and I think heaven will be well populated. I like to think that however little or much we share someone's point of view there, we will be able to treat them with courtesy, being aware we are all there only because of what Jesus did for us. But I do not think we will necessarily be 'bosom buddies' with everyone. I am not sure I could find chapter and verse to support this...except perhaps the golden rule.

Can I extend to you the same leeway? It is interesting that in times of persecution the commonalities hold a group together. In times of relative ease we don't have that glue. As the dynamics change and people in society change their world views the church can expect to deal with it. Indeed, this week I was in a conversation where the topic was, Why have faith at all?

Yep, man's best friend other than his Creator.

Easy on Mr. Barkley, Bro. Kountzer! He is one of the few sports commentators I like because he speaks his mind with little regard as to whether it's popular or not. Do you call him Uncle Tom because he doesn't get behind the likes of the Sharptons and Jacksons? Or would you consider Dr. Carson in the same category?

My point? James 2:24 is used frequently to support salvation by works, but the context reveals these are "works of faith" and not "works of the law".

Now, come on, man. The guy speaks his mind, and you attack him personally instead of actually addressing what he says? There's little argument there. In the very least you can write what exactly you disagree as far as what he says, and why you disagree with it. Simply dismissing someone as a buffoon, and especially "uncle tom"... doesn't work very well in a civilized conversation. Yes, all of these things are terrible... but how is it relevant to the modern implications of today's culture? I grew up in a Soviet System, and my grandmother was shipped in exile in order to start the great colonization of the Soviet "outlands". Should I be making "chickens come to the roost" claim when it comes to the descendents of people who indirectly benefit from these events? At some point in time we have to grow up, and start re-writing history NOW, instead of constantly lamenting the past, claiming it's something we absolutely can't overcome. Again, I feel for you. It was terrible, and a lot of people had to prove to other people that they are equally legitimate human beings for making this behavior seem reprehensible by American public at large. Very few people in this country today would say that such behavior was justified. The question is... where do we move now... as a society, when identities are shaped via "culture-skin-color" notions? I see it as "the problem" when it comes to racial tensions in the US.

:thinking: :biglaugh:

Mat. 7:21 would appear to be what distinguishes God's children from satans. Do we love God enough to forsake all and follow Him?

So, trying to become more relevant isn't working? What is the problem and is there an answer?

Well I wouldn't qualify if the criterion was all of those things combined, but they let me in the door each Sabbath so I keep turning up - most Sabbaths anyway. I expect the way my beliefs diverge from the official FBs might give some concern to our pastor but so far he hasn't said anything to me about finding somewhere that might be a better match. If it comes to that I will stop going there, I don't want to upset anyone, but in the meantime I appreciate being able to take part in our weekly discussions and hear my friends passionately professing their faith and love for Jesus. I always come away feeling uplifted by the experience. The rest of the week most of the people I mix with are unbelievers and I really look forward to my once a week breath of fresh air. I have tried other churches and they're OK too but the SDAs, my local one at least, has something the others don't have. Maybe it's just because I've got to know the people there and enjoy their company, they're the first church I went to after opting out of atheism nine years ago. Back then the FBs seemed fair enough, given that I was very new to religion, but over the years I've come to question the odd one or 2.

Life's suggestion that "appoint" & "ordain" may have the same meaning: My response would be that your comment is a valid comment that in actual fact is neither totally correct nor totally incorrect. The Hebrew and Greek words that are translated in the Bible as "appoint" or "ordain" number more than a dozen. Some of those words have been translated into both "appoint" and "ordain," while other words have only been translated into one of them. So, Life, your comment is a valid one for consideration. What your comment does is to establish what I have often said: Context, context, context. The Biblical meaning is often established by context. My suggestion is that sometimes the words "appoint" and "ordain" may be interchanged. However, at other times they cannot be interchanged and they have different meanings. In application, I will suggest that in the context of religious leadership in the early Christian there were some people who were appointed but not ordained.

I suspect that many of us have a phoney idea of what righteousness and perfection and Heavenly harmony consist of. Understandably, because we have never met anyone like that. We will probably have many more efficient methods of communication--perhaps directly mind-to-mind, with complete empathy. But that still does not mean that different ideas and viewpoints and opinions may not be held. Consider the... inspired words of Proverbs 27:17... It is inevitable that when iron strikes iron, some sparks may be produced. Glorified human beings will not be weak. They will be decisive, they will feel strongly about what they believe, because that is what is right for human beings as God made us. Let us not entertain the phoney notion that there can be no strong feelings in Heaven or the New Earth, nor discussions and even debates. We will have many more means than we do now of resolving differences, and in the disputing, perhaps both parties may advance in their understanding.

I think you are confusing the government of Israel with the nation (people group) of Israel. The government of Israel does not speak for many of the Jews. SDA's often teach that it was the pre-incarnate Jesus that created the earth and that interacted with the Israelites in the Old Testament as "God". The nation of Israel has not rejected the God of the Old Testament. So they accept that part of Jesus because of the true testimony of the Scriptures. If Christians had always told the truth about Jesus as the Messiah, who is faithful to the Old Testament, many more Jews would accept Jesus as Messiah. But Christians over the centuries have grossly misrepresented Jesus. Christians have taught that Jesus did away with the Torah by nailing it to the cross. Christians have raped and murdered Jews in the name of "Jesus", and taught that God hated Jews (as recently as WW2). It's no wonder that Jews and the government of Israel have rejected that misrepresentation of "Jesus". I reject that misrepresentation of "Jesus" too. Christians have openly rejected much of the Word of God contained in the Old Testament. How can the Father bless Christians? God can bless the Jews because, as the apostle Paul says, they are, "my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen." (Romans 9:4-5)

The reason why I side with someone like Charles Barkley on this or the video of a guy that JoMo posted, is because it's difficult to keep being sympathetic to people who self-inflict the cycle of psychological self-abuse, and then make it an issue of their color and other people keeping them down rather than an issue of a being identified with culture that cultivates attitudes of aversion to that culture as problematic. Until we learn to transcend the ideology that demands a distinct "black/white culture"... this issue isn't going anywhere. If I was an American black, I would detest any idea that because of my skin color, my culture is inherently different... especially when such associations are formed by linking largely negative context. I would probably want to see myself not as a black doctor or black American... but as an American doctor, who happened to be black.

I tried to stay away from this issue, but I have to weigh in as a "culture outsider". I grew up in Soviet Ukraine, and moving to Miami was a culture shock, mainly because growing up we've never actually equated skin color to the idea of stereotypical cultural identity. Sure, there was some racism, but it had to do with individual differences that people would internalize, but they wouldn't consider people sub-human... largely because the ideology of Socialism carried certain ideals. When I moved to Miami, the culture shock wasn't behind the idea that racism in US is alive and well, but the fact that it was embraced by many black people as a valid way of life. Now, there are a lot of little nuances I can point out, but the overwhelming thing that I've noticed is that instead of making the skin color a non-issue in the US... American blacks turned it into an issue of "culture". Growing up, culture for us was the primary distinction... not skin color. There was certain "continental" and "nationalistic" cultural aspects that would go along with Chinese culture, Korean culture, Hispanic culture, certain African cultures that each had their distinct flavor, and etc... but we wouldn't single out a race, and then unload cultural expectations. Of course, there was "socio-clique" aspect to it, but really the only hardcore racism that we've had was that towards Gypsies... which still was more of a nomadic culture and lifestyle than a race or a skin color. What I've observed in US was beyond culture shock... mainly because I was never prepared to see the race to be embraced as a point of pride and cultural identity. For me personally, as an outsider, the idea of "BET", "Black history month", "Black music", "Black actors", "Black musicians", "Black churches"... is absurd. I would understand if it was "Russian actors", or "Hispanic TV", since the distinctions are made on the level of culture (language... etc), but race? Really? I'm saying this as an outsider who lived through some rough times, and who experienced some extreme forms of bullying and ostracism.... unless American black people stop identifying with "the black group", and start being Americans... this issue will not be going away. There is no "distinct black culture". That's a very stupid criteria to find as a point of cultural association. It's the very reason why racism is an issue today. It's the very reason why churches are segregated. It's the very reason why ghetto black youth is exploited by corporate entertainment media to maintain the cycle of "black culture dependency". It's the very reason why there's disproportionate numbers of black people incarcerated. It's a cycle of cultural dependency that's linked to your skin, and brainwashed into you from birth that will have you form the wrong perception about the world around you.

Ellen White did not claim infallibility. She would describe the "snapshot" that she "saw", or repeat the words that she "heard". I'll offer one example: She describes what she believed were the 7 last plagues, but she wrote, "These plagues were not universal". If you read John's description of the 7 last plagues they ARE universal. It is the trumpet plagues which are NOT universal. They effect only 1/3 of things. Could it not be that she is describing the trumpets, and did not yet understand that the trumpet judgments precede the LAST bowl judgments? This would mean that the second coming takes place at the 7th trumpet. The 7 bowl judgments are poured out under that last trumpet. It would mean that the redeemed are rescued BEFORE the 7 bowl judgments are unleashed, just as Noah was safe before the universal flood hit, and Lot was "safe" before the fireballs hit. Lot's wife, whose heart was in Sodom, typifies those who were once part of the family of God, who will be left to destruction. I am at a place now, where I read the descriptions (the snapshots) very carefully, but take her interpretations of those snapshots with caution. Her interpretations were, I believe, sometimes influenced by her understanding of things at the time she wrote. She may have "seen" the wicked at the Second Coming, and thought this snapshot belonged 1000+ years later. She "saw" children gathering flowers, and placed this in the final kingdom of Messiah on the earth. Which makes one wonder why were they still children, 1000+ years AFTER the SC. Did they not grow for 1000 years? Will children be born in the new earth?? But her snapshot of children - on the earth - after the 7th millennium, DOES FIT with my belief that all children will be resurrected with "the rest of the dead" to grow up in a Kingdom ruled by Christ and his priests, to learn the ways of God and then choose whom they will serve. I read Mrs White's writings, but I try to be mindful of "snapshots" (both audio and visual) versus interpretation. We've already had a log dialog concerning her "growth" from "The Father and Son alone are to be praised." to "three living beings of the heavenly trio". Respectfully Rachel Cory Prophecy Viewpoint

Thank you for the post, I found it interesting. Could you clarify this part for me: "Of course the ideal is to burn in this fire through out eternity!"-- is it a reference to Isaiah 33:14,15? Mainly what I am trying to determine here is how long the process takes from the resurrection of wicked til complete destruction. The earth is supposed to be destroyed violently at the 2nd advent so I can't imagine there being much left after the 1000 years of desolation. After the 1000 years, EGW says in GC 664 "Skillful artisans construct implements of war" to use once rallied under the side of the enemy to overthrow the city of God. That sounds like it could take some time.

With a US population of 324m, that means the rate of black people killed by police is 0.29 per 100,000 and the rate of white people killed by police is 0.16 per 100,000, just over half as many. Using Bill O'Reilly's own statistics, his claim is disproven.

:announce: That deserves a lot of these. God is Love! Jesus saves!

Speaking as a white person.....I was taught to always answer with a 'no sir' and a 'yes sir' regardless of circumstances. I lived in the south where small town police looked at everyone as suspicious, especially teen agers! So, for me, I have never understood why anyone would argue or even look like they were confronting law enforcement. To me, again, that seems way to dangerous. The NEWS is full of everyday assurances where people have done that in one form or another and have been injured or ultimately arrested for that behavior. With the publics attitude towards anyone in authority today, what we see continuing to happen, should not be surprising. IF racial prejudiced is involved, things can and are often much worse. I have friends and know of other persons in law enforcement who all say that dealing with the public is an extremely difficult job today, and becoming more so. Police are being shot at more often, according to the daily NEWs reports, so I would image every situation of confrontation is extremely dangerous to them in their mind. Disrespect leads to so many of todays problems from the workplace, at home, driving and everywhere. Society needs to learn respect for others goes along ways in preserving safety for ones self.

Oh, I forgot that one, Gail. Being born-again of His Spirit in the innermost parts of us gets the motor of spiritual life turned on. It amazes and saddens me at the same time to see super SDA's who are so utterly correct outwardly in fulfilling the established customs of our church's traditions. And in SSchule they have such a good sda education to speak the right doctrinal arguments to cover any discussions brought up. However, I understand now that by no merit of our own doing can we ever make ourselves born-again in that special supernatural way so to receive all of heavenly promises and benefits.

Two friends of mine were born again in the Worldwide Church of God at the time when Herbert Armstrong was the President and they were counting down the numbers of people that were joining, eagerly awaiting the time when that number would hit 144 000 people and the door would be shut. Needless to say the WCOG fell apart and my friends found themselves in an Evangelical Christian Church where they have remained ever since and are now Trinitarian and in a situation where they endorse traditional Christian doctrine. - Yet their testimony is that they most certainley were born again in the WCOG. They did not feel any less born again because their beliefs changed as they entered a mainstream Christian church. They were born again via their encounter with Jesus, not a doctrine book of a church group. That is still their testimony to this day.

I'm quite skeptical of any theory that holds a physical Jewish nation above the rest of the world in the years running up to Christ's return. Most of these theories have copious amounts of misapplication of Scriptures contained within. These are theories steeped in a deep misunderstandings of what it means to be "chosen of God", as well as the thrust of God's plan for the salvation of mankind. I view them this way Genesis 3:15 - the original Promise of a Redeemer was made to all of the human race in the persons of Adam and Eve - long before there was ever a Jew. It comes to all human beings today, right alongside that legacy of sin we inherited from Adam. Genesis 12:3 - God declares to Abram (later to be Abraham) that in him ALL the families of the earth will be blessed - centuries before the Jews. This is God's declaring that Genesis 3:15 would come through a descendant of Abram/Abraham. At the time of 12:3, it didn't HAVE to be the Jews - all of Abram's children were yet future, and the Son of the Promise (Isaac) was not yet pronounced (this would not be until Genesis 15) Yet the earthly Jewish nation - set up with the Sanctuary to teach the pre-Cross Gospel of God's grace and forgiveness of sins through the coming Redeemer, was established at the very crossroads of the world for the express purpose of exporting this Gospel to the rest of the world. Instead, they failed miserably - not once, but twice. The Jewish nation never learned that being chosen meant to serve the rest of the world by keeping the Gospel ever before it. They rather wanted to be exalted kings in the earth, to be served by the lesser nations they regarded as outside the Promise of God. They wanted the kingship without having to go through the sacrifice required in God's kingdom to get there (cf, Christ's third temptation in Matthew 4). When in Romans 2:25-29 Paul laid out who God really considers Israel to be, this was not a new teaching. God designed Israel so that as the pre-Cross Gospel progressed in its work, non-natives would be assimilated into the nation of Israel - all the way up to tribes and nations. Paul then states later that now physical Jews have to be grafted into the True Vine, just like the Gentiles have to be; the post-Cross places Gentile and Jew on the same standing as far as needing to be grafted into the Vine. There is but One King of Israel now, and He is still serving before Father in the heavenly sanctuary as our High Priest right now. He awaits patiently to be coronated before all the redeemed. He regards His capital to be New Jerusalem - currently in heaven, not on earth. I'm certain that there exists a role for the Jews to play in the last events - it is, IMHO, simply not going to be as a regathered nation championing Judaism. I am convinced they do have a role, else God would never have preserved them through the past ~2000 years. Humanly speaking, the Jews should have been assimilated into the rest of the world centuries ago, just as every people/nation is when dispossessed of their homeland with no hope of being re-established (Rome's dealing with the earthly Jews from AD 150 and beyond). I do believe the next re-gathering of Israel will be to New Jerusalem, from "all corners of the world". Every single member of the Redeemed Host absolutely must enter through one of 12 gates, each bearing the name of a Jewish tribe. "Israel" is to encompass all who have faith in God's promise in Genesis 3:15 (and every subsequent unfolding of that promise through the remainder of Scripture), pre- and post-Cross believers alike, just as the physical nation of Israel was supposed to have assimilated all people of true faith into it. The imperfect type failed; the perfect anti-type succeeds. Blessings,

I think that if you align yourself more with the SDA doctrine and you yourself call yourself SDA then that is what you are. Just like if you align yourself up with Baptist teachings and you yourself call yourself Baptist, then who am I to contradict you? However, when we label someone else as "pure" SDA then maybe we mean they are fanatics and no one wants to be labeled as a fanatic. But I think what we are really saying is because "they" are _______(blank) pick your favorite--vegetarian, no caffeine-drinking-chocolate-eating-jewelry-wearing-smoking-drinking-SDA and "we" are still working on something and "they" seem to have the victory and "we" do not; therefore, "they" must be fanatics. Just my thoughts for right now.