Hey...since WHEN...?

[NeverADullMoment]

Since when did anyone claiming to be ADVENTIST go around agreeing with universalism/calvanism????

All have been saved. Didn't you read the memo? It happened 2,000 years ago. Jesus said He finished the work He came to do. Now, it's our responsibility to tell them the good news. Do we forget what the word gospel means?

http://www.christianforums.com/t2047271-lest-at-any-time-they-should-turn-mark-411-12.html&page=17

 

[SassySDA]

Since when did anyone claiming to be ADVENTIST go around agreeing with universalism/calvanism????



http://www.christianforums.com/t2047271-lest-at-any-time-they-should-turn-mark-411-12.html&page=17

Beats me, Never. LOL But....you have to read Statrei carefully....technically we WERE all saved 2000 years ago when Jesus died on that cross. All one has to do is accept the gift. I don't think he meant it the way it SOUNDS like he meant it, which is kind of a hobby of his I think.

ROFL

 

[StormyOne]

Right Sassy... Jesus lived and died to rescue mankind. He successfully "saved" us at that point... He does not have to keep re-dying for us.... it was a done deal the first time....He even prayed it... He said I have finished the work you gave me (in John 17).

 

[TrustAndObey]

His comment smacks of "once saved, always saved" to me, but hopefully I'm reading it wrong too.

 

[honorthesabbath]

Well--I'm not sure what the poster "really" meant. But it sure does not sound like SDA doctrine. However, I'm going to be careful not to prejudge. We'll just have to see.

 

[StormyOne]

It is once saved always saved IN THE SENSE that Jesus does not have to continue to sacrifice Himself for us... He did it once, and it was enough.....

Which is different from the OSAS that some christians talk about.....

 

[TrustAndObey]

I hate to admit it, but I flunked Mind Reading 101, so I have no clue what he meant. I'm surprised you do Stormy, you must have special powers my friend.

I agree that Christ dying once was enough, but the Bible tells us to willfully sin is to crucify Him all over again and put Him to an open shame.

 

[SassySDA]

It is once saved always saved IN THE SENSE that Jesus does not have to continue to sacrifice Himself for us... He did it once, and it was enough.....

Which is different from the OSAS that some christians talk about.....

Yes, that's what I think it is as well.

Statrei is beginning to remind me of a World History teacher that taught in my high school. You had to REALLY listen to what he said, because he could "GET YOU" every time. If you weren't careful he would have you thinking he said one thing, and really had said another. Once you get used to it, you catch them pretty quick.

He also had a very DRY sense of humor, that used to DRYVE me nuts. LOL

 

[StormyOne]

I hate to admit it, but I flunked Mind Reading 101, so I have no clue what he meant. I'm surprised you do Stormy, you must have special powers my friend.

I agree that Christ dying once was enough, but the Bible tells us to willfully sin is to crucify Him all over again and put Him to an open shame.

No T&O, no special powers... I grappled with that phrase a few years back.... so it makes sense now.... my initial response was just like yours.... and at the time I felt that Statrei was a heretic of sorts... While we may put him to shame, He does not have to go thru all that again....

 

[statrei]

His comment smacks of "once saved, always saved" to me, but hopefully I'm reading it wrong too.

That is because you read into my statement something I did not say. First, it is obvious that most Christians have no clue what salvation means. They have no idea what goes on when someone is "converted." They use those terms in an atmosphere of confusion -- aka Babylon.

Let me use a simple example, though it is inadequate. If you fall into the water and I jump in and save you from drowning I can claim that I saved you. If, for some reason, you should fall in again, does that mean that the salvation that occurred 10 minutes earlier did not happen?

Of course, this is not what happened in the Plan of Salvation, but I wanted you to get the point.

 

[statrei]

Well--I'm not sure what the poster "really" meant. But it sure does not sound like SDA doctrine. However, I'm going to be careful not to prejudge. We'll just have to see.

I guess it depends on what our goal is. The Shut Door was once SDA doctrine. We could go back to that.

 

[happywiththelord]

I would sure love to see everyone stop bikkering over EVERYTHING. It is getting a little ridiculous and old. I would love to see one thread where, as like believers, we actually agree and are in harmony in just ONE doctrine. I just cant see that we are from the same church when we argue over everything. And this splitting of hairs over everything is just to much.


I really dont enjoy coming to this sight anymore, because I know that all i am going to read is bickerig amonst breathen. This should be a "safe" and happy place to come, but i really am not enjoying it much anymore.

 

[honorthesabbath]

I would sure love to see everyone stop bikkering over EVERYTHING. It is getting a little ridiculous and old. I would love to see one thread where, as like believers, we actually agree and are in harmony in just ONE doctrine. I just cant see that we are from the same church when we argue over everything. And this splitting of hairs over everything is just to much.


I really dont enjoy coming to this sight anymore, because I know that all i am going to read is bickerig amonst breathen. This should be a "safe" and happy place to come, but i really am not enjoying it much anymore.

I agree HAPPY--thats why I was asking for it to be shut down. There are two ppl in here with an arguementive spirit about them. EVERYTHING for them is rooted in unhappiness and strife--and they are not happy until they have everyone upset. This is why I chose NOT to engage them. They are foolish and annoying--so why entertain their rediculous posts?? If ignored--hopefully they will get bored and just go away!!

 

[statrei]

I agree HAPPY--thats why I was asking for it to be shut down. There are two ppl in here with an arguementive spirit about them. EVERYTHING for them is rooted in unhappiness and strife--and they are not happy until they have everyone upset. This is why I chose NOT to engage them. They are foolish and annoying--so why entertain their rediculous posts?? If ignored--hopefully they will get bored and just go away!!

Would the two people include the person who copied my post from another sub-forum and posted it here?

 

[happywiththelord]

I would like to make a suggestion...you can do with it what you like, but its a suggestion...Instead of airing all of our greivences out in the forum. If someone makes a comment that upsets you, why dont you just pm them and talk about in behind closed doors. That way we dont have all of this bickering going on out in public.

Just a thought.

 

[statrei]

I would like to make a suggestion...you can do with it what you like, but its a suggestion...Instead of airing all of our greivences out in the forum. If someone makes a comment that upsets you, why dont you just pm them and talk about in behind closed doors. That way we dont have all of this bickering going on out in public.

Just a thought.

I thought you would suggest that people think before they post. However, I am yet to see what you are seeing in this thread. Someone had a question and I explained. Then someone spoke about SDA doctrine and I explained what SDA doctrine is all about. Where do you find grievances in all of that?

 

[HoneyDew]

I keep scrolling back to view the dates and times on the recent posts in this thread because something is not making sense to me. I see an old argument pop up regarding "two members" and "closing the forum down" and I had thought that posters had moved along in that respect. Why are we backtracking?

 

[statrei]

I keep scrolling back to view the dates and times on the recent posts in this thread because something is not making sense to me. I see an old argument pop up regarding "two members" and "closing the forum down" and I had thought that posters had moved along in that respect. Why are we backtracking?

I had the same sensation. It took me entirely by surprise. You never know.

 

[happywiththelord]

I will respond to your question statrei, but not here. I will pm you like i said up above.

 

[StormyOne]

I started a thread with this quote and it is still appropriate IMO:

"Those who differ with us in faith and doctrine should be treated kindly. They are the property of Christ, and we must meet them in the great day of final account. We shall have to face one another in the judgment, and behold the record of our thoughts, words, and deeds, not as we have viewed them, but as they were in truth. God has enjoined upon us the duty of loving one another as Christ loved us. Ellen White, My Life Today, p. 187."

What makes it difficult to treat those who believe differently be they in our church or in another church kindly? Is it that difficult to love as Christ loved us, or is it something else preventing us from doing this?