Moderators John317 Posted July 30, 2011 Moderators Posted July 30, 2011 I don't know why it was taken out, but do you see anything in the FB 28 that contradicts that statement? John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted July 30, 2011 Moderators Posted July 30, 2011 Ellen White endorsed the 1872 Fundamental Principles. Sure, she endorsed the 1872 Fundamental Principles, and I don't see anything I disagree with, either, but she never implied that they should never be changed in any way. It isn't that they are wrong, but as God leads us, the world church may conclude at different times that some of the beliefs might be in need of adjustment or that they can be expressed better. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Members phkrause Posted July 30, 2011 Members Posted July 30, 2011 I'm talking about you dumping everyone who calls themselves a Christian into a little category of your own making. Not the denomination! You have no more way of knowing whether they are opposed to keeping the commandments, then you do of knowing whether I keep the commandmants. So to say that anyone who calls themselves Christians, are somehow opposed to God and do not keep the commandments is absurd! Like most of your "so called" doctrine, you make it up as you go along. Your silly methods of labeling people are not God's methods. How can someone who purports to know SO much, actually know SO little? BTW, all SDA's call themselves Christians. You are the only one I've ever seen who says they are not. I was trying to find out what in the world you base this absurd statement on, when I said: "why do you think this?" but you didn't even understand the question. Whether someone calls themselves Christian or not, does NOT inform you of what they do in their private lives. Like you, they may not even know what the word really means. phkrause When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan. Proverbs 29;2
Musicman1228 Posted July 30, 2011 Posted July 30, 2011 Originally Posted By: Musicman1228 ...The founders of the SDA denomination firmly believed in the importance of the 10 Commandments in the process of sanctification, especially with regard to the 4th Commandment. This is also an important part of the 28 fundamentals of the church. Yes, they did firmly believe it's important to keep the 10 Commandments, but nowhere did they ever claim that the 10 Commandments were the Covenant. The kind of sanctification you're talking about here is that of conforming to the will of God, that is, conforming to God's law. Is this what you're saying? Of course the SDA church calls the 10 Commandments the Covenant, because it is (Deut. 4:13). And yes, sanctification includes being obedient to the Covenant which is the 10 Commandments, i.e. conforming to God's Law.
Musicman1228 Posted July 30, 2011 Posted July 30, 2011 Originally Posted By: Musicman1228 The founders of the SDA denomination firmly believed in the importance of the 10 Commandments in the process of sanctification, especially with regard to the 4th Commandment. This is also an important part of the 28 fundamentals of the church. I'm talking about you dumping everyone who calls themselves a Christian into a little category of your own making. Not the denomination! You have no more way of knowing whether they are opposed to keeping the commandments, then you do of knowing whether I keep the commandmants. So to say that anyone who calls themselves Christians, are somehow opposed to God and do not keep the commandments is absurd! Like most of your "so called" doctrine, you make it up as you go along. Your silly methods of labeling people are not God's methods. How can someone who purports to know SO much, actually know SO little? BTW, all SDA's call themselves Christians. You are the only one I've ever seen who says they are not. I was trying to find out what in the world you base this absurd statement on, when I said: "why do you think this?" but you didn't even understand the question. Whether someone calls themselves Christian or not, does NOT inform you of what they do in their private lives. Like you, they may not even know what the word really means. RHL, All of the Christians that I personally know, except for SDA's, believe that they do not have to keep the 10 Commandments because Jesus fulfilled them at the cross and the Commandments now know longer apply to them. That is a fact for me. For you to claim to know me well enough to pass judgement on my understanding of doctrine by saying that I make it up as a go shows a personal lack of integrity on your part that belies your own ability to discern truth. You presume too much. You still believe that people who call themselves 'Christians' actually follow Jesus Christ, they don't. Jesus did not start a church called 'Christianity', Paul did. So if you call yourself a Christian you do not follow Jesus, you follow Paul's ideas about what Jesus taught-and those ideas do not reflect the truth about who Jesus really is and what HE actually taught. That is why I no longer call myself a 'Christian'; I am a bondservant and follower of Jesus Christ-the Jesus Christ that I see expressed in the eyewitness testimony of His eyewitness disciples, not in the testimony of those that never knew Jesus personally while He was here on earth.
Guest Posted July 30, 2011 Posted July 30, 2011 You still believe that people who call themselves 'Christians' actually follow Jesus Christ, they don't. Jesus did not start a church called 'Christianity', Paul did. So if you call yourself a Christian you do not follow Jesus, you follow Paul's ideas about what Jesus taught-and those ideas do not reflect the truth about who Jesus really is and what HE actually taught. That is why I no longer call myself a 'Christian'; I am a bondservant and follower of Jesus Christ-the Jesus Christ that I see expressed in the eyewitness testimony of His eyewitness disciples, not in the testimony of those that never knew Jesus personally while He was here on earth. I rest my case... you don't even know what a Christian is. All you have is your own little made up definition. You won't find your definition in the dictionary, because it's not there. It's only your private interpretation/definition.
Moderators John317 Posted July 30, 2011 Moderators Posted July 30, 2011 Of course the SDA church calls the 10 Commandments the Covenant, because it is (Deut. 4:13). Can you find any place in any book published by the SDA church which says the 10 Commandments are the Covenant? The agreement that God made is about the Ten Commandments but it is not the Ten Commandments themselves. See Ex. 19: 3-8; 24: 8. The Ten Commandments are the "the words of the covenant." Ex. 34: 28. God wrote on the stone tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Words. God said: "If you will indeed obey my voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treatsure to Me above all people... And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." Moses told the people these words of God, and then "all the people answered together and said, 'All that the Lord has spoken we will do.'" The people promised to obey the commandments of God. So Moses brought back the words of the people to the Lord. Ex. 19: 5-9. At this point an agreement existed between God and the people of Isreal. This agreement was confirmed (or ratified) at Exodus 24: 7 in the blood of an oxen. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Guest Posted July 30, 2011 Posted July 30, 2011 I am a bondservant and follower of Jesus Christ-the Jesus Christ that I see expressed in the eyewitness testimony of His eyewitness disciples, not in the testimony of those that never knew Jesus personally while He was here on earth. So do you also throw out the prophets from the OT, since they didn't know Jesus in the personal sense that you speak of? You might as well if you're going to throw out the ones that Jesus used later on. Besides, you can't prove that Jesus actually said those words, or if He is really the creator, since you were not there for any of it. You have to take it on faith just like me.
Members phkrause Posted July 30, 2011 Members Posted July 30, 2011 RHL,All of the Christians that I personally know, except for SDA's, believe that they do not have to keep the 10 Commandments because Jesus fulfilled them at the cross and the Commandments now know longer apply to them. That is a fact for me. For you to claim to know me well enough to pass judgement on my understanding of doctrine by saying that I make it up as a go shows a personal lack of integrity on your part that belies your own ability to discern truth. You presume too much. You still believe that people who call themselves 'Christians' actually follow Jesus Christ, they don't. Jesus did not start a church called 'Christianity', Paul did. So if you call yourself a Christian you do not follow Jesus, you follow Paul's ideas about what Jesus taught-and those ideas do not reflect the truth about who Jesus really is and what HE actually taught. That is why I no longer call myself a 'Christian'; I am a bondservant and follower of Jesus Christ-the Jesus Christ that I see expressed in the eyewitness testimony of His eyewitness disciples, not in the testimony of those that never knew Jesus personally while He was here on earth. Your not hearing RLH at all. Besides. Christianity began with Christ's Apostles not Paul. People were calling them Christians long before Paul became a follower of Jesus. It was because of Peter, James, John, Matthew, etc. All that Paul did was help persecute the Apostles for being followers of the new way, which is what they first were called, which later was changed to Christians. phkrause When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan. Proverbs 29;2
Guest Posted July 30, 2011 Posted July 30, 2011 Your not hearing RLH at all. Besides. Christianity began with Christ's Apostles not Paul. People were calling them Christians long before Paul became a follower of Jesus. It was because of Peter, James, John, Matthew, etc. Amen pk, excellent point!
ClubV12 Posted July 30, 2011 Posted July 30, 2011 If one can only believe the eye witness' of Jesus, then... Wait a minute, sounds like someone's following Dr. Rich's delusion here! His constant mantra is "only the eye witness' of Jesus", which rules out about half or more of the new testament! Clearly, that is a seriously flawed theology. As it concerns SDA's, it starts with picking and choosing what parts of Sister Whites testimony they will or won't accept. Moves on to picking and choosing what parts of the bible to accept and ends in total rejection of all of the above. By the time you get to "phase two", rejection of parts of the bible, your so blind you will never see "phase three" coming. Rejection of all of the testimonies and their author, God. Make no mistake, it will surely follow as the sun rises and sets.
shelly Posted July 30, 2011 Author Posted July 30, 2011 If one can only believe the eye witness' of Jesus, then... Wait a minute, sounds like someone's following Dr. Rich's delusion here! His constant mantra is "only the eye witness' of Jesus", which rules out about half or more of the new testament! Clearly, that is a seriously flawed theology. As it concerns SDA's, it starts with picking and choosing what parts of Sister Whites testimony they will or won't accept. Moves on to picking and choosing what parts of the bible to accept and ends in total rejection of all of the above. I believe that we all tend to pick and choose with the word of God. That is why we must constantly pray that the Spirit of God is the one showing us the way through his word rather than our own understanding. I am still not convicted about where Sister White fits into this, however, I refrain from discouraging others with my own disbelief.
wayfinder Posted July 30, 2011 Posted July 30, 2011 Shelly, spoken as someone who is honest with themself.
ClubV12 Posted July 30, 2011 Posted July 30, 2011 Shelly, I don't know where your at in all this, I do hope your heart remains soft and open to the Spirits leading. Sister White, the church or myself does not have a problem with those who sincerely question the gift of prophecy and her position in it. There is another group she has a major problem with, as does the church, as do I. Those who, in her words, "fight against" the spirit of prophecy. Actively condeming her work, openly calling it into question, denouncing it as the mere ramblings of a woman speaking her own opinion. In such cases these individuals have had sufficient time to weigh the evidence and make a decision (a life and death decision). They are not rejecting Sister White, they are rejecting the source of her inspiration, God. This is an incredibly dangerous position to be in, from which few escape. Once you've had great light and knowingly reject it, for whatever reason, you WILL fall prey to a grand delusion. You will no longer be able to discern what is right and what is wrong. At my local church there was a highly educated lady (PhD) who gave the sermon. Her specialty was family relations. She openly railed against the Spirit of Prophecy counsel on family life, going so far as to say the "threw the book to the floor" (Child Guidance). I was dumb founded, almost got up and walked out of church. If she ever speaks at my church again, I WILL walk out, right down the middle of the church. To treat the Lords messenger with such disrespect from the pulpit is of the highest offense in my opinion. If a minister does such, he should be removed from office.
shelly Posted July 30, 2011 Author Posted July 30, 2011 ClubV12, I guess what I have issue with is the belief system the church preaches as "bible" only but then within the cover of the church the bible is often interpreted by "EGW". I feel they are speaking out of both sides of their mouth. Either the bible is enough or not. When I was baptised it was at a time in which the church preached bible over all else-we could take EGW or leave her. Now, years later EGW has once again become an intergral part of how Adventism is practiced. It is as if the bible cannot stand on its own. Even mor problematic for me, if I read the bible and interpret it different than EGW in her writings, I feel presured to ignore the message that the passage brings to me in favor to the interpretation of Sister White. I cannot reconsile this. I believe that EGW has been used by God to point others toward his word. What I cannot and do not believe is that the acceptance or rejection of her words has anything to do with salvation. After all we profess that everything she was shown can be found in the bible. Why can't the church be tolerant to the fact that her teaching style may not be universal. Why must I be silent and to some point dishonest with those around me. I cannot openly say that I do not use any of her writtings in my Christian journey and currently do not feel the need to do so? I feel that I am forced into agreement by omission. In the same breath, I feel that things should be done decently and in order. I do not feel it is my place to bring dischord into the Church of God. So I sufer silently.
teresaq Posted July 30, 2011 Posted July 30, 2011 Child Guidance is a complilation. Aside from that it may have to do with how Ellen White has been interpreted to her that she may be responding. And aside from that, I do understand how you feel. :) facebook. /teresa.quintero.790
ClubV12 Posted July 30, 2011 Posted July 30, 2011 "Child Guidance is a complilation." And your point is??? HER point was, she had so much more to offer in her counseling of families than this book (worthy of only being tossed into the corner) could possibly have. My child is grown up, on his own. But never the less, I actually read a large part of Child Guidance as a result of this sermon. I found it consistent with her other work. It uplifts Jesus and draw you to the foot of the cross. It offers solid christian principles for child rearing. I wish I had had that book when I was raising my child! I would much rather lean on the arm of God's inspired messenger than trust some egotistical PhD know it all who says throw that book away (and hands you their business card)!
teresaq Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 Guess you misunderstood. Oh well. :( facebook. /teresa.quintero.790
shelly Posted July 31, 2011 Author Posted July 31, 2011 "Child Guidance is a complilation." And your point is??? HER point was, she had so much more to offer in her counseling of families than this book (worthy of only being tossed into the corner) could possibly have. My child is grown up, on his own. But never the less, I actually read a large part of Child Guidance as a result of this sermon. I found it consistent with her other work. It uplifts Jesus and draw you to the foot of the cross. It offers solid christian principles for child rearing. I wish I had had that book when I was raising my child! I would much rather lean on the arm of God's inspired messenger than trust some egotistical PhD know it all who says throw that book away (and hands you their business card)! How old were her children and when was this done? I was a teenager in the early 90's and at that point there was some serious questioning about the way in which parents were applying the principles in Child Guidence to modern day youth. I know that our church saw its youth leave the church in huge quantities. This was happening all over our conference. Many children who stayed parents revealed that they did not use this book as guidence. Many of my fellow teens went buck wild and left the church without the intention of ever returning. Many parents were frightened away from Sister White's council on child rearing because the results with the current generation were not that good. While I agree that her message may have seemed disrespectful without context, we were loosing alot of children raised by that method at one time in our churches history. Many attributed the loss of their flock to EGW rather than examining how they applied biblical principles in their child rearing. I am a firm believer in not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We must continue to adapt. That being said children were successfully raised long before EGW or PhDs. The bible and prayer have always been enough on their own.
miz3 Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 If one can only believe the eye witness' of Jesus, then... Wait a minute, sounds like someone's following Dr. Rich's delusion here! His constant mantra is "only the eye witness' of Jesus", which rules out about half or more of the new testament! Clearly, that is a seriously flawed theology. As it concerns SDA's, it starts with picking and choosing what parts of Sister Whites testimony they will or won't accept. Moves on to picking and choosing what parts of the bible to accept and ends in total rejection of all of the above. By the time you get to "phase two", rejection of parts of the bible, your so blind you will never see "phase three" coming. Rejection of all of the testimonies and their author, God. Make no mistake, it will surely follow as the sun rises and sets. The "slippery slope theory" misapplied!
miz3 Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 ClubV12, I guess what I have issue with is the belief system the church preaches as "bible" only but then within the cover of the church the bible is often interpreted by "EGW". I feel they are speaking out of both sides of their mouth. Either the bible is enough or not. When I was baptised it was at a time in which the church preached bible over all else-we could take EGW or leave her. Now, years later EGW has once again become an intergral part of how Adventism is practiced. It is as if the bible cannot stand on its own. Even mor problematic for me, if I read the bible and interpret it different than EGW in her writings, I feel presured to ignore the message that the passage brings to me in favor to the interpretation of Sister White. I cannot reconsile this. I believe that EGW has been used by God to point others toward his word. What I cannot and do not believe is that the acceptance or rejection of her words has anything to do with salvation. After all we profess that everything she was shown can be found in the bible. Why can't the church be tolerant to the fact that her teaching style may not be universal. Why must I be silent and to some point dishonest with those around me. I cannot openly say that I do not use any of her writtings in my Christian journey and currently do not feel the need to do so? I feel that I am forced into agreement by omission. In the same breath, I feel that things should be done decently and in order. I do not feel it is my place to bring dischord into the Church of God. So I sufer silently. Mega Dittos, Shelly! However, I think it is time for us not have to suffer in silence anymore. Thus, those of us who speak up are threatened all the time!
ClubV12 Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 I think I do understand where teresaq is coming from, "wild interpretation" of Ellen White writings. The same could be said for any of her books, including and especially the Testimonies. Add to that the bible itself! I've found the Testimonies to be especially well balanced myself, as I found Child Guidance to be. It seems MOST don't! I'm not sure why that is but I suspect it's because of the "legalism" aspect that was prevalent, may still be prevalent, within the church. Thankfully, I don't see a spirit of legalism within my local church. I see a LOT of love and understanding and yet, I also discipline of the members when a certain line is crossed. I've seen people censured, with tears in the eyes of those doing the censuring! I've seen public apologies from the pulpit for public sins and love and acceptance for confession. I've NOT seen using the SOP as a "hammer", but I've heard about it, a lot. People do this with any book, the bible is no exception. The error is not in the book, it lays with one's connection to the Lord. I sense the people have their "guard up" as it concerns wild or fanatical interpretation of Ellen White writings, and yet, a profound acceptance of her writings as inspired. These people, the church people, have been hurt in the past, hurt bad. But their moving beyond it, praise God for that! I hear rumors of fanaticism with groups outside my local church, I don't know, I haven't met any of these folks. I wonder, ARE they "fanactic" or ARE they actually applying the counsel of the Lord? I wonder... I'm sure it is a mixed bag as fanaticism will always be with us. I DO believe the lady preaching the sermon was "fanatical"!!! I believe the simple fact is, there is only a small portion of the church, a remnant of the remnant, that is able to understand the concepts presented in her writings. These are "hard sayings" who can hear them? Very few, it seems. Of course we need the Holy Spirit, we also need to know HOW the Holy Spirit works! It is rare that He speaks to us personally in the revelation of what we are to do, or be, or believe. The Spirit gives direction to the church, to and through His messenger(s). These sources should not be easily dimissed. In a multitude of counselers there is safety.
miz3 Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 Originally Posted By: ClubV12 "Child Guidance is a complilation." And your point is??? HER point was, she had so much more to offer in her counseling of families than this book (worthy of only being tossed into the corner) could possibly have. My child is grown up, on his own. But never the less, I actually read a large part of Child Guidance as a result of this sermon. I found it consistent with her other work. It uplifts Jesus and draw you to the foot of the cross. It offers solid christian principles for child rearing. I wish I had had that book when I was raising my child! I would much rather lean on the arm of God's inspired messenger than trust some egotistical PhD know it all who says throw that book away (and hands you their business card)! How old were her children and when was this done? I was a teenager in the early 90's and at that point there was some serious questioning about the way in which parents were applying the principles in Child Guidence to modern day youth. I know that our church saw its youth leave the church in huge quantities. This was happening all over our conference. Many children who stayed parents revealed that they did not use this book as guidence. Many of my fellow teens went buck wild and left the church without the intention of ever returning. Many parents were frightened away from Sister White's council on child rearing because the results with the current generation were not that good. While I agree that her message may have seemed disrespectful without context, we were loosing alot of children raised by that method at one time in our churches history. Many attributed the loss of their flock to EGW rather than examining how they applied biblical principles in their child rearing. I am a firm believer in not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We must continue to adapt. That being said children were successfully raised long before EGW or PhDs. The bible and prayer have always been enough on their own. AGAIN, MEGA DITTOS! TO SHELLY!
miz3 Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 The shaking is well under way.... Does this mean you and those who think like you (SDA Church) are actually Laodicea?
Recommended Posts