• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

A Question on Adventism

VictorC

Jesus - that's my final answer
Mar 25, 2008
5,228
479
Northern Colorado
✟29,537.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Under the grace of God we have no condemnation or guilt before God but this does not do way with the content which are the Ten Commandments.
We have addressed this thesis of yours before, and you have shown here that you're merely repeating yourself instead of defending it. I don't believe it deserves very much attention since it has already been proven to you that we have been delivered from the contents of the Sinai covenant, which was the ten commandments.

If you hope to establish your credibility among us, it is incumbant on you to show how the covenant was changed from ten commandments to eight commandments, allowing you to bear false witness and violate the sabbath your entire life. These are points made earlier that you haven't addressed.

You also haven't explained how you're going to resurrect the Levitical priesthood God replaced and make your own atonement as required by Leviticus 4, since you have apparently concluded that the atonement Jesus offered wasn't a suitable propitiation to complete the requirements of the law.

You also need to tell us why you chose to redefine the covenant into something other than the covenant dictated at Sinai, and violate Scripture while doing so in this post of yours. Then, in light of my post you anchored yours to (without addressing anything in it), you can explain the meaning of this verse:

Galatians 5:13 For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.

Vitually everything you have posted has been shown to be unBiblical and has been soundly refuted. You haven't defended yourself, and to be honest there is no defense for your posts. But it remains your burden to defend them if you aren't willing to repent of the horrible soteriology you have adopted, that you cannot possibly satisfy the requirements of.
 
Upvote 0

Cribstyl

Veteran
Jun 13, 2006
8,993
2,068
✟108,451.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Oh my God
 
Upvote 0

Joe67

Newbie
Sep 8, 2008
1,266
7
✟23,977.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Gen 1:2-5
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. KJV

Ps 19:2-3
2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.

3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. KJV

Rom 10:17-18
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. KJV

In the events of Genesis darkness and light are contrasted, with the light being good, thereby the darkness would be evil. The good light came forth through the evil of the darkness. The Spirit moved upon the face of the deep where the darkness is and then God spoke a word of hearing, "Let there be..." The darkness/night shewed forth knowledge and then through the ministration of the Spirit God spoke light into being.

In the relationship between the ministry of Jesus and the ministry of Moses, the darkness is the good, holy and just ministration of Moses, which was ordained for life but is found to be only unto death because of the sin that is in our flesh.

Jesus' ministry and the covenant therein is called light (more glorious) and a better covenant than the good but dark covenant under Moses.

2 Cor 3:10-11
10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.

11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious. KJV

So it is "dark and good" with Moses as compared to "light and better"
with Jesus.

Joe
 
Upvote 0

Norbert L

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Mar 1, 2009
2,856
1,065
✟582,890.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single

Well concidering the following verses and how far the discussion has strayed from the OP, there does seem to be a whole lot of "hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies" (Gal 5:20) from either side of the table. At least it seems to me that is how things are coming across.


Looking at how the topic has developed, no place is immune from those who wish to indoctrinate. Indoctrinate in the sense of agressively teaching and wanting to impose their views on others, indeed there is a fine line from discussing to argument and intellectual bullying of one another.

However look at it this way, not all SDA children grow up to remain SDA, no more than RC or any other religion remain in their faith. And there are those who grow up and later switch their faith to another faith. I believe when God wants someone to hear and see, a person has to look no further than what happenned on the road to Damascus with Paul, and He can do it with a whole lot less than with a great display of intervention. Nevermind well worded arguments and reasonings from men.

However it seems to me your situation has a whole lot less to do with Adventism, because numerous other families have likewise faced a life which is glum, morose, and painful in their relationships. When there is a mixing of faiths, which can be any faiths, some learn to live peaceably and others do not. In essence it could be said your whole family is caught between a rock and a hard place.

And as difficult and as uncomfortable that place can be for all and any people, there is a great opportunity to learn something from it.

"For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF." (Gal 5:14)
 
Reactions: VictorC
Upvote 0

k4c

Well-Known Member
Nov 3, 2003
4,278
39
Rhode Island
✟4,820.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

You say everything I have post has been shown to be unbiblical in your eyes but you have a double minded faith. One side of your brain says we have no need to live by the Ten Commandments and the other side says we shouldn't sin. I will have to end our discussion due to your inablility or your unwillingness to see what the Bible is truly saying for I am sure that in your heart of hearts you don't believe it's okay to break the commandments of God, which means they are still alive and well.

Later gator...
 
Upvote 0

VictorC

Jesus - that's my final answer
Mar 25, 2008
5,228
479
Northern Colorado
✟29,537.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Without taking the time to count them, I know there are more than a dozen posts -not all written by me- that have soundly refuted the points you have made, and showed the contrast between what you believe and what Scripture contains. Some of your responses have been emotional retorts that ignore the post altogether (such as this one), and some of your posts have presented something new that doesn't address the problems you're faced with. The result is the same: you haven't offered any defense to support your ideas.

Since your posts present a stark contrast with Scripture and with the observations of others (BFA, Sophia7, Cribstyl, and myself), it isn't a problem that resides with my perception ("in your eyes", to quote you). The common origin of departure from a Biblical faith resides with you, k4c.

Now, your claim regarding the ten commandments demonstrates to me that you aren't even reading posts addressed to you anymore. You don't advocate ten commandments anymore, having replaced them with eight commandments while violating two repeatedly. Not only that, but you haven't produced any evidence that you have made atonement to reconcile your transgressions before the law's Creator.

In conclusion, your accusation that someone else has a double-minded faith apart from yourself doesn't convey any meaning, when in fact your faith doesn't show any basis in a tangible authority of any kind.

If you have to go, then Godspeed to you. I earnestly desire you to acheive the same acceptance into God's adoption that we have been given as a free gift, and desire nothing but blessings to you and yours.
 
Upvote 0

VictorC

Jesus - that's my final answer
Mar 25, 2008
5,228
479
Northern Colorado
✟29,537.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I would have to agree with your point, supported by a lot of personal experience and observations in the lives of others. I have seen sudden changes in people that can't be attributed to the best of carnal efforts.

And, it is unfortunate that this thread has been taken in a direction far from its intended origin. A long history of posting (mostly on CARM) has shown me that this is the nature of threads on a discussion forum, and new topics that demand attention causes the thread to alter direction without a lot to control it. With disparate personalities involved, I don't think there is any solution to this, except something as extreme as moderator intervention that would probably be preferable to avoid.

Our original concern revolved around the distressed relationship between a couple and a parent on the wife's side, and how that involved the parent's responsibility to their children that are caught up in this problem. I think we've received a lot of quality input that addresses that topic, and I note that Wes hasn't chosen to present anything new to the table.
 
Upvote 0

Norbert L

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Mar 1, 2009
2,856
1,065
✟582,890.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single

A long history of reading posts does show there are a few who see going off topic important to them and have the edicate to start a new thread. I would say that is a fruit of the Spirit... -> aka "self control".

For myself when dealing with "doctrinal problem" going off topic can be somewhat excusable, however when it a topic such as this dealing with the lives of people opens up. Going off topic can be a real and greater problem.

However having said that, to perhaps add some helpful information towards the OP. I remember knowing an elderly widow who did have an thought provoking family history.

She having been a Sunday going protestant married a Reformed Jew. Now the difference between them and Wes' family was they decided to go as a family to Synagogue on Saturday and Church on Sunday with the idea when the children grew old enough they would make their own decision as to which indoctrination the children would wish to indoctrinate themselves with . They did that despite the differences they both faced from the "inlaws"

So with the information that I am aware about Wes' problem, he as a consevative Christian may have less to do with Grandma taking them to SDA services and more to do with them taking their children to Sunday services. Not that this is some kind of judgment but that it may provoke some deeper questions on his part.
 
Upvote 0

VictorC

Jesus - that's my final answer
Mar 25, 2008
5,228
479
Northern Colorado
✟29,537.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Norbert, I read this statement several times with care, and I can't determine your meaning from it. The day a group meets on is only a symptom of a larger difference inherent in the two groups you're considering. Are you suggesting that the core differences including their soteriology is something that can be ignored?
 
Upvote 0

k4c

Well-Known Member
Nov 3, 2003
4,278
39
Rhode Island
✟4,820.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

I'm sure there are a lot of people who think like you but it dosen't make it true. Remember, there were a lot of people behind crucifying Jesus but it didn't make it right. God tells us that it will be the few that are on right path and broad is the way that leads to destruction.
 
Upvote 0

Kira Light

Shinigami love apples
Oct 16, 2009
529
16
✟23,277.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican

He never said his thoughts are true because a lot of people think like him. This is a very weak straw man. You then try to tear this straw man you created down by telling us lots of people crucified Jesus. This is a really bad way to argue because you arguing against points that no one made. It is entirely irrelevant to the conversation and only serves to distract and derail.

Using how small the SDA church is as evidence it is the true church is also poor form. Can't every church that is smaller than the SDA's make a greater claim than you? Having very few members is often the result of being a pretty lousy church. The SDA's are no exception.
 
Upvote 0

VictorC

Jesus - that's my final answer
Mar 25, 2008
5,228
479
Northern Colorado
✟29,537.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I'm sure there are a lot of people who think like you but it dosen't make it true.
My appeal wasn't to argumentum ad populum, but rather how several members have made the effort to show you where you departed from the Bible. The Bible itself is the common denominator.
Remember, there were a lot of people behind crucifying Jesus but it didn't make it right. God tells us that it will be the few that are on right path and broad is the way that leads to destruction.
You aren't able to perceive that it was those upholding the law mediated by Moses who delivered Jesus to the Roman authorities. Their entire establishment was destroyed, "because you did not know the time of your visitation" (Luke 19:44).
 
Upvote 0

Laodicean

Regular Member
Jan 30, 2010
747
8
Florida
✟15,937.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
http://www.christianforums.com/t7434404/

It actually goes all over the place and then goes horribly wrong. Gets ugly. I got reported and had some posts taken down. Talked to a bunch of mods and they restored them. It is a pretty cool thread.

thanks for the link, Kira Light. Lots of interesting points of view. I ended up taking a position that lined up with yours, for the most part. I don't think it is a waste of time to work for equality for others, regardless of their persuasion. After all, God sends His rain on the just and the unjust alike. But beyond that minor difference, I agree with the points you made.

I do think that homosexual tendencies fall into the same category as any other sinful tendency, no better or worse than any other sin that leads us away from God or that causes us to fall short of God's standard for us. And Biblically, God's standard is for humans to be fruitful and multiply (that certainly won't happen with same-sex relationships), and his standard at creation was for a man and woman to become one flesh, no mention of any other combination.

I personally don't think that the tendency to be attracted to the same sex is a choice for most. But neither is it a choice to have a tendency to addiction or a tendency to lose one's temper, or a tendency to lie and all the other sinful shortcomings that come in the train of departure from a relationship with God.

But just because a tendency is not a choice, does not mean that therefore we are free to indulge in that tendency. At least that is my opinion. So where I do not blame a homosexual for having homosexual tendencies, I do think they are held accountable for what they do with their tendencies. The homosexual act, at least for men, is a rather unhealthy process and indulgence in this perverted way of relating to another leads to disease and deterioration of the body, from what I've read. For women, I don't know what exactly goes on that could be unhealthy physically, but the Bible certainly does not condone man lying with man or woman lying with woman, "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatral, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passon for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error." Romans 1:26, 27. So that sets the boundaries -- for me, anyway.

I've personally known a number of gay people, male and female, and have found the ones I've met to be quite lovable personalities, so my taking a stand against the practice of homosexuality is not based on the people, but on the act itself. Saying that it is heartless to suggest that the homosexual can never have the pleasure of a physical relationship is the same as saying that it is heartless to suggest that the glutton can never have the pleasure of overeating. Both acts are unhealthy and not to be promoted.

Anyway, that is my two-cents worth. I'm sure others will disagree, but I am with you on this one Kira Light.
 
Upvote 0

Norbert L

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Mar 1, 2009
2,856
1,065
✟582,890.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single

Quite the opposite, neither side should be able to be ignored unless one side is ignoring its' own. In the children's case it has less to do with 'my kids aren't gonna be SDA' and more to do with freely being able to choose faith and not through compulsion by other's.

Basically parents can only mold their children so far, even those whose families which are united under one faith have problems with them. Where sometimes children do grow up and choose another faith even Atheism. The hope is when they do mature they will choose wisely in the direction to travel.

Another slight possiblity should also be concidered within this situation, the more a parent protests and involves his children into not becoming SDA there may be a likelyhood that they will become SDA because of that.

Not that SDA is the core issue here but lets say for the sake of argument the grandma is attending another religion called "the faith once delivered".

Will those children who are now grown up and attending "the faith once delivered" be doing so for the right reason? I would say no if the main reason they are attending is because their father's protests.
 
Upvote 0

VictorC

Jesus - that's my final answer
Mar 25, 2008
5,228
479
Northern Colorado
✟29,537.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I understand your discourse that recognizes the realm of endless possibilities of the child's belief system when he/she grows up. However, it doesn't address what the parents should do, and I would like to take you from the realm of speculation into the realm of practical application. In a nutshell, how would you reconcile your views with Proverbs 22:6 telling us "Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he will not depart from it"?

For the sake of making this a tangible comparison, should the parents take a stance of reasonable protectionism to shelter their children if Grandma was a Jehovah's Witness, who considered her daughter an "outsider" because of her "error" of trusting in the divinity of Jesus Christ, and the inherent Authority He has "to redeem those who were under the law" (Galatians 4:5)? Grandma wants to take her grandchildren to Kingdom Hall to teach them a belief system entirely incompatible with Christianity. Should the parents allow this while their children are so young that they simply sponge up what they're taught without the ability to discern the contradiction they're faced with?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Laodicean

Regular Member
Jan 30, 2010
747
8
Florida
✟15,937.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
Yes, the Gospel affirms freedom from lawkeeping.

okay, do you mind elaborating on what "freedom from lawkeeping" looks like? If the law says, "Do not steal," are we free to now steal? If not, then what exactly does freedom from keeping the law of "Don't steal" look like?


you know, Victor, I find it a little surprising that you place so much weight on some Biblical texts when I just read in the link on homosexuality, this comment of yours: (correction. this was a comment of BFA's, my apologies to Victor)

"... it has expanded my horizons to discuss God in an environment where there is little value in appealing to Biblical authority. "

If there is little value in appealing to Biblical authority, then why do you want to discuss Galatians as authoritatively as you do? (so now my comments apply only to what follows, not the remarks above, directed to BFA's comment)


In any event, if you are going to quote texts that appear to do away with lawkeeping, what do you do with other texts that appear to say the opposite? Texts such as:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Matthew 5:17

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Matthew 5:18

And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. Luke 16:17

(For not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. Romans 2:10

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin. Romans 3:20

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Romans 3:28

Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. Romans 3:31

What shall we say then? [Is] the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. Romans 7:7

Wherefore the law [is] holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Romans 7:12

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.1 John 3:4

If, as you say, the covenant is the 10C, and that lawkeeping has been done away with, what do you do with the above texts?

Simplified answer: As a Gentile, I could not be saved if God didn't end the first covenant of the law and provide a new covenant based on His promises.

note your own words here, "covenant OF the law." If the covenant is OF the law, then the covenant is not itself the law. It is an agreement made ABOUT or OF the law. You are conflating the two, the law and the agreement about the law, and in not understanding what that conflation can mean, you are arriving at an incorrect conclusion.


the law has a promise or agreement wrapped up in it, and that covenant or agreement is the same covenant given to Abraham (indeed given back in the garden of Eden) and given anew at Sinai and maintained on down through history. God has always promised to keep His law within us. The old covenant from Sinai is the agreement that the Israelites made regarding the law. They promised (or covenanted) that "All that the Lord says, we will do." That promise is the bondwoman and her son. Not the law.

Originally Posted by Laodicean

And freedom from what exactly?
Condemnation.

yes! we are free from the condemnation that comes through law breaking, not free from keeping the law itself. Jesus is well able to give us victory over sin (lawbreaking), thus we are no longer under its condemnation.

Look at it this way. You jump off a cliff and the law of gravity takes over. You are under the condemnation of sure death or injury when you break the law of gravity. But what if, while falling, your cry for help is answered by the swift intervention of a helicopter that plucks you into the air before you can hit the ground. Then you are no longer under the condemnation of the law of gravity (death) because you have avoided hitting bottom. It is as good as if you had kept the law of gravity and never jumped, as far as the results are concerned. You had victory over the consequences of breaking that law, not due to your own efforts, but to the intervention of someone more capable than you. The law of gravity, meanwhile, has not been done away with. You simply have experienced victory over it by the intervention of another.


So, again, do you believe that you can freely kill your brother while covered with Christ's righteousness?


I don't think the lesson was about taxes, either, but neither was it about not having to keep God's moral law. It was about render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's. It was about how to relate to earthly governments. Peter forgot that Jesus' kingdom was above that of Caesar's and thus He did not have to pay taxes, but nevertheless Jesus gave Peter an example of how to relate to earthly authorities. If you read beyond the verses you quoted, Jesus says: "Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee."

So I don't think that this example you gave is supportive of your contention that we are free from lawkeeping.

Remember that the bondwoman refers to the covenant from Sinai, the ten commandments.

and remember again, that there is another way to interpret "bondwoman." Your interpretation is not necessarily the correct one. "Bondwoman" is the promise of the flesh to keep God's law. An impossibility.

That is what we have freedom from.

We have freedom from trying to keep the law on our own. We are free from salvation by our own works. Wonderful news. The Gospel!.

And here I would like to quote from the much maligned EGW:

"As a people, we have preached the law until we are as dry as the hills of Gilboa. We must preach Christ in the law, and there will be sap and nourishment in the preaching that will be as food to the famishing flock of God. (1888 Materials, p. 560)

or

"let the law take care of itself. We have been at work on the law until we get as dry as the hills of Gilboa ... Let us trust in the merits of Jesus." (1888 Materials, p. 557)

Enough then about lawkeeping, which turns us into legalistic, judgmental, sour-faced people, and turn towards the sunshine of our Friend and Saviour -- Jesus Christ.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

VictorC

Jesus - that's my final answer
Mar 25, 2008
5,228
479
Northern Colorado
✟29,537.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Before I respond to your post's points, I would like you to find where I wrote this. I don't remember writing anything resembling the above statement, nor have I participated on a thread addressing homosexuality.
 
Upvote 0

Laodicean

Regular Member
Jan 30, 2010
747
8
Florida
✟15,937.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
oh, and Wes, please forgive me for having diverted from the intent of this thread in my answers to Kira Light and Victor. Hopefully, if they respond, it can be done elsewhere, pointing me to a new location.

As to your original post, that is a tough question. What to do when you don't agree with what your in-laws believe, and you don't want to let your children go down that path, yet you don't want to break the relationship? I suppose if you are really convicted that your family members are wrong, then you are in a stronger position in which to continue to associate with them and hopefully find windows of opportunity to redirect them. If you are not yet sure of your own convictions, then I think that will affect your children more potently than anything that your in-laws could ever do. So I guess it should start with thinking through your own convictions for yourself before proceeding any further. (If you have not yet done so, that is) And once you are convinced, I think it is your responsibility to lead your children along your own path of conviction, until they are of age. Your influence should be far stronger than any influence that your in-laws could have, so not to worry about what they can do.

Just another of many perspectives to stir into your pot there
 
Upvote 0

Laodicean

Regular Member
Jan 30, 2010
747
8
Florida
✟15,937.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
Before I respond to your post's points, I would like you to find where I wrote this. I don't remember writing anything resembling the above statement, nor have I participated on a thread addressing homosexuality.

oh, Victor, my bad. Please forgive me (I seem to need to ask for forgiveness a lot!)

Okay. You are correct. It was not a quote from you but from BFA. And it really should be addressed to BFA, since he is the one with the Galatians thread.

When will I stop putting both feet in my mouth? Sigh.
 
Upvote 0

VictorC

Jesus - that's my final answer
Mar 25, 2008
5,228
479
Northern Colorado
✟29,537.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Not a problem.
I would suggest you return to your previous post, and utilize the "edit" function to change your own post, as your perception of my questioning Biblical authority may change how you arrange your thoughts as you edit them. I will take another look later on.
 
Upvote 0