Truth What Is It?

lijhakim · 01-25-09 1:53 pm

Bob, You make some excellent points in your last post. I think it would be very good for people to let EGW rest in peace. And, as you say, they would be at peace too. You do make one statement that I question: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:"Hubb makes some things up as he goes. The everlasting covenant, the name of his forum, is never spoken of as he speaks of it,"<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>I'm not sure what you mean by "make things up as he goes." Wouldn't it be pretty boring if all I did was to give lists of Bible texts? Isn't it natural for a writer to explain and make applications from those texts? Of course, those explanations and applications are ALWAYS "made up." So the question really is, "Are his applications reasonable and true?" Maybe yes, and maybe no. Everyone will have to judge this for himself. "The Everlasting Covenant" is a Bible term. I know that you disagree with the concept that this covenant was made between the Father and Son before Creation. I have given Bible support for this. "Covenant Forum" is a title. If I called it "Hubb's Blog" it would be just as made up. I never use these titles when I refer to them in my discussions?? I would love to do just that, only I have felt that it is not fair to advertise on this forum anything that might be construed to be competition. Tell me that I am wrong? Excuse me, Bob, for chiding with you. Generally I appreciate your support for basic Christianity. I have seen this in your posts over and over again. And it is a breath of fresh air! ------------------------ Hubert F. Sturges .

heipauli · 01-25-09 1:59 pm

Hubb, if you are interested in evidence, please read the archives of Atoday/atomorrow boards. For me it is not enough that "EGW was true at least part of the time". Even the popes have been true now and then. But IMHO it were a disservice to you and your (extended) family to make you change your mind on adventism in general and on EGW especially.

heipauli · 01-25-09 2:33 pm

Hubb, Maggie and Sirje The family aspect is an important one, especially one's children. A practical object lesson is my case. I was the starting person of the local SDA school in Pori for grades 1 - 6. I paid for it more than my share, too. And the local congragation was supporting the school wonderfully. My both daughters attended that school. But then I realized that I had been had. But how to tell that to my daughters? Or should I be like nothing had happened and let them sort out the truth for themselves when they were old enough to do it? Should I behave like I were an ardent SDA believer, when actually I was no more? Would they be able to distinguish between the fake and the real thing, and if they could discern my unauthenticity, how would that affect them? So, after a prolonged mental turmoil I decided that I after all was an adult. I had been raising them and I was responsible. It was my duty, not theirs, to cut off the curse of generations (I was a 3rd generation SDA and my wife was a 2nd generation SDA). But we parents and they children, we have never openly discussed on the whole affair. I assume that it would have been too painful for everyone of us. At any rate, they never posed questions. I assumed that they trusted in my judgment. But I'm not so sure anymore. It is possible that they were too disappointed when remembering, how many things they were not allowed to do because of our sabbath-observance or our dietary habits. I still am convinced that _in average_ the best time to cut a chain is so soon as possible. But if I could remake the cutting operation, I would try to make the children understand and ask questions.

lijhakim · 01-25-09 2:34 pm

Pauli, I have been on Atomorrow forum for abut five years. I read a number of those discussions. What I found was what I said above. People object to the visions and to the concept that God supernaturally intervened to give EGW messages for the church. In those discussions people would bring up trivia. Alleged trivial mistakes that EGW made. In no instance did I find that these things affected her message to the church in any way. Is EGW true only part of the time? I was trying to be tactful. I believe that in giving messages from God that she was true all the time. For those who have had a bad experience, I am sorry. I would urge people like this to let it rest. Keep eyes open. If in time you begin to see things differently, I can guarantee that you will be blessed. Hubb

heipauli · 01-25-09 3:12 pm

Quote: " I believe that in giving messages from God that she was true all the time." Comment: Hubb, I truly believe that you believe. I have not the slightest doubt on that point. I were shocked, if you ceased to believe just so. Shocked and feeling myself guilty for my part. Even in medicine there are different schools of thought. And generally the collegiality prevails.

bob_2 · 01-25-09 3:53 pm

Hubb, here is a BibleGateway.com search for "Everlasting Covenant": <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=Everlasting%20Covenant&version1=31&searchtype=all&limit=none&wholewordsonly=no" target=_top>http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=Everla sting%20Covenant&version1=31&searchtype=all&limit= none&wholewordsonly=no</a> Please show me from this list, or do it with KJV if you like, how this term means what you claim it means. Circumcision was to be an Everlasting Covenant, is it?? The Rainbow was to be an Everlasting Covenant, but not the Gospel, but physical safety promise from a flood. Hubb, without the second covenant the covenant with Abraham and Isaac could not include us. We are adopted, which could not happen without the 2nd Covenant. It could not be an Everlasting Covenant with Isaac if not for the 2nd Covenant promises, and the spiritualizing of Israel in the 2nd Covenant. The covenant with Israel without the 2nd Covenant would not be forever, due to Israel's unbelief. Without the 2nd Covenant, there is no Everlasting Covenant.

maggie · 01-25-09 4:41 pm

Can we then, usurp the other guys need to journey at his own pace? There are a couple of assumptions there, I think, Sirje. 1. That we are wanting somehow to <a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/usurp" target="_blank">usurp</a> someone else's journey. I have to say that I am championing people's right to their own journey, not trying to "seize and hold by force" their right to their own spiritual journey. For that very reason I advocate for children to be allowed to develop normally along their own individual lines without being frightened into abject submission by religious teachings that cause so much anxiety that the children's development is arrested through fear. I'm at a loss to guess how I might usurp (seize and hold by force) an adult TSDA's spiritual journey by any means whatsoever, but especially not by the force of open communication. 2. That TSDAs who are older are in danger of being thrown into spiritual chaos on the brink of their demise, so we'd best be silent and let them go gently into that dark night. In all the years we've been posting online, guys, have you ever seen a single TSDA question one jot or tittle of anything they've been believing for scores of years, much less be thrown into some spiritually helpless condition? Me neither. Trust me, they are fine, and will withstand the most straightforward communication we have to give them. Case in point, if you'll indulge me: my TSDA ex-husband is my best friend in the world. He is the one person I know I can tell the good, the bad and the ugly to, and he will never, ever judge me. We talk on the phone almost daily, and pray on the phone weekly. I treasure his prayers for me above measure. He is a good, good man. We have traveled tens of thousands of miles to family gatherings in the going-on 20 years we've been divorced. We get along as close to perfectly as any two friends could. But if you think I haven't said all the things to him that I have said online, you'd be wrong. He knows exactly how I feel. There's nothing to be feared from speaking your mind and heart if you care. There's nothing to be gained by squelching your individuality in order to keep some sort of squeamish and fake peace. (Message edited by maggie on January 25, 2009)

cadge · 01-25-09 5:41 pm

"Generally I appreciate your support for basic Christianity. I have seen this in your posts over and over again. And it is a breath of fresh air!" Well I guess that should put a smile on your face and a more noticible hop and a skip in your step today, Bob. With a comment like that you surely could not be one of those in the "agents of Satan" club.<img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/wink.gif" border=0> Cadge

george · 01-25-09 6:23 pm

Maggie, I'm on board with what you said, but whether we mean to or not, we do change people we meet here on line. I certainly have changed since I first came here. I can't say I've become more secure in anything but I feel I'm on the right track. My confidence in the church was lost when I studied things through and felt betrayed BY THE ESTABLISHMENT to which I honestly can't put a face. It's that ambiguous thing out there that hovers over your life. I understand where individuals are coming from even when they try to set me straight and so I feel no animosity or bitterness toward any of them. But I thrive in the absence of dogmatic certainty; others may not, especially when they were church members since before birth. People like that need the parameters the church provides. I think that's why the OT practices were so elaborate. People need concrete activity connected to their spirituality or it fades into oblivion - for most.

maggie · 01-25-09 8:01 pm

Totally agree, Sirje. But...nobody is making anyone come on here and post and/or read. So...if they're coming, it's voluntarily and for a reason. They have all the "concrete activity" anyone could ever want at church, but for reasons God only knows, they come on here to see how the other side lives. And if they "get changed" by being here, it was all voluntary. I'm not threatening anyone with HELLFIRE if they don't change to suit me/God. <IMG SRC="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0>

elaine · 01-25-09 8:51 pm

It was the late Sen. Patrick Moynihan who said: "People are entitled to their opinions. They are not entitled to their own facts." Conflating the two results in piles of problems. Truth is not based on "facts" but is based on the individual and his apprehension of what is truth to him at a particular point in time. Maggs gave an excellent example: She and her ex are now the best of friends (I have a daughter who is a good friend of her ex, also), but the truth for her at one time in choosing him for marriage, is not the same truth for her today. (Am I right, Maggs?) We grow and develop new ideas and in so doing, we change, sometimes very drastically. Where would this world be without constant change? Even looking at the Christian church since its beginning, there have been enormous changes, and the "young" SDA church has also changed enormously since its inception, and is still changing today.

maggie · 01-25-09 9:10 pm

...not the same truth for her today. You are right, Elaine, but the deeper truth, as I'm sure you agree, is always love, and love is timeless. ...the "young" SDA church has also changed enormously since its inception, and is still changing today. And, of course, there's nothing wrong with resisting change, in fact it's a necessary function to prevent change from spinning out of control and destabilizing a system. It serves as sort of a "governor," i.e., "A feedback device on a machine or engine that is used to provide automatic control, as of speed, pressure, or temperature." And we, on the other hand, serve as a similar feedback mechanism to remind TSDAs that "they are not entitled to their own facts," as you quoted Moynihan. And...to point out absurd flights of desperate fancy, like angels talking like 19th century religious books, thus making evil people think EGW plagiarized. Piles of problems there. (Message edited by maggie on January 25, 2009)

george · 01-25-09 9:18 pm

"People are entitled to their opinions. They are not entitled to their own facts." I like that, Elaine. If we could all be rational... but alas, most of us operate from emotions, that feeling in the gut. It was J.B. Philips in Your God is Too Small who pointed out that even our conscience can be trained to be either, over sensitive or almost totally absent. It's all in the training; but some people equate that over-sensitive conscience for the voice of God - and that's hard to discard. I came to the SDA church from the "outside" while my husband is 3rd generation SDA. We experience this kind of change in very different intensities.

maggie · 01-25-09 9:33 pm

If we could all be RATIONAL... but alas, most of us operate from EMOTIONS, that FEELING in the gut. Sirje, you're falling prey to Descartes' Error! Like most everybody on the planet....<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:From Publishers Weekly Neurologist Damasio's refutation of the Cartesian idea of the human mind as separate from bodily processes draws on neurochemistry to support his claim that emotions play a central role in human decision making. <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Descartes-Error-Emotion-Reason-Human/dp/014303622X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232933238&sr=1-1" target="_blank">Amazon.com: Descartes Error</a><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote><blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Bruce G Charlton MD Reader in Evolutionary Psychiatry Department of Psychology University of Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4HH England Editor-in-Chief, Medical Hypotheses Antonio Damasio occupies an extraordinary position in the world of neuroscience. On the one hand, he is an internationally famous physician and scientist, publisher of many papers in the most prestigious journals, and author of the best-selling book Descartes' Error. On the other hand, his achievement is seriously under-rated. In my view, Damasio is not ‘merely’ a successful career neuroscientist and popularizer; he is the major living figure in his field, possessor of the most profound understanding of higher human cognition: in short, a genius. If I was able to nominate one individual for the Nobel prize, it would be Antonio Damasio. This may sound like wild over-praise, but it can be justified. If a genius is someone who has two ideas, then Damasio justifies the sobriquet. Firstly, he achieved the long sought-after integration of EMOTIONS into the mainstream explanatory schema of cognitive neuroscience; so we can now understand emotions in exactly the same way as we understand vision. And secondly he solved the problem of the nature of consciousness - a topic which forms the substance of his latest book The Feeling of What Happens. I will do my best briefly to outline these seminal theories. <a href="http://www.hedweb.com/bgcharlton/damasioreview.html" target="_blank">http://www.hedweb.com/bgcharlton/damasioreview.htm l</a><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> (Message edited by maggie on January 25, 2009)

maggie · 01-25-09 9:43 pm

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Emotions are also vital to the higher reaches of distinctively human intelligence. Contrary to some popular notions, emotions do not ‘get in the way of’ rational thinking - emotions are essential to rationality. <a href="http://www.hedweb.com/bgcharlton/damasioreview.html" target="_blank">http://www.hedweb.com/bgcharlton/damasioreview.htm l</a><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

george · 01-25-09 10:19 pm

OK, OK, give that photographic memory of yours a rest. Contrary to some popular notions, emotions do not ‘get in the way of’ rational thinking - emotions are essential to rationality. I don't doubt that; but my point is - that if you have been taught, from the earliest days of your life, one particular explanation, even if it's later proven wrong, it's hard to totally dismiss it. That's all. Actually don't give it a rest. I'm always amazed how you're able to come up with this stuff at a moment's notice!

lijhakim · 01-25-09 10:55 pm

Bob, <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:"Please show me from this list, or do it with KJV if you like, how this term means what you claim it means. Circumcision was to be an Everlasting Covenant, is it??"<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>Bob, I looked at that list. Everlasting Covenant, speaking of the covenant of God Who is eternal, can mean only one thing: The everlasting covenant is eternal. Circumcision is obviously not eternal, not in its beginning, and not in its being set aside for the NT church. So there is a little problem here. I think it helps to accept as a "given" that circumcision was not everlasting. When the Bible was written, there was no punctuation, no verse divisions, and no chapter divisions. These things were added later, and are not necessarily inspired. Look at verses 11 and 13 of Genesis 17. You should be able to see that if those verses were punctuated differently, it would give an entirely different slant on circumcision. -------------------------- Bob, about the "second covenant" -- what is it? I hadn't heard that term before. Is it the Old or the New or some other covenant? -------------------------- Another aspect of those verses in that website: God is said to have "made" a covenant with the people. If God established the everlasting covenant before Creation, How could he then "make" it with the people? My answer is not satisfactiry, but I see no other way through this. The Everlasting Covenant of God is the Covenant of Redemption. It is the covenant that Christ confirmed at Calvary. It is through this covenant that mankind is brought back into standing with God to where grace is available to him. Also, it is through Jesus' sacrifice that He is able to help, sustain, and give blessings to mankind. Jesus was given all power and all authority through His sacrifice. Revelation 5 gives a nice presentation of this. The Everlasting Covenant, fully formed, was then given to mankind. This covenant never changed, though the promises changed to meet the needs of man. It is true also, that men often "made" a covenant with God. This was true at Sinai, and repeatedly through OT history whenever the people repented of their idolatry and came back to God. It was impossible for the people to make a covenant of redemption; but they could and they did re-dedicate themselves to serve God. These human made covenants always pointed to the everlasting covenant of redemption. In that way, the covenant was "made." That is how it seems to me. ------------------------ Hubert F. Sturges .

bob_2 · 01-25-09 11:05 pm

Come on Hubb, now you are being silly. After all my time quoting Heb 8:13, and referring to the first covenant, then another covenant, wouldn't that be the 2nd Covenant. Scholars talk of the 2nd Covenant all the time.

bob_2 · 01-25-09 11:10 pm

Hubb, I wasn't really looking for a that is how it seems to me from you, but some more definitive proof of the Everlasting Covenant being mentioned as you have so declared the Bible to state it. You are very unconvincing!!!

elaine · 01-25-09 11:33 pm

If God established the everlasting covenant before Creation, How could he then "make" it with the people? Guess I missed that when reading the Bible. Where is there a covenant established before Creation? How would anyone know what happened in heaven before Creation??

bob_2 · 01-26-09 12:42 am

Hubb, note: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Isaiah 24:5 The earth is defiled by its people; they have disobeyed the laws, violated the statutes and broken the everlasting covenant <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> At the point of this verse, is it still an everlasting covenant if it is broken?

bob_2 · 01-26-09 12:51 am

Was there an everlasting covenant with Israel, are they still His chosen people as this verse says: Jeremiah 32:40 I will make an everlasting covenant with them: I will never stop doing good to them, and I will inspire them to fear me, so that they will never turn away from me. Without the "NEW" or "2nd" Covenant, there is no "Everlasting" since the Israelites broke the 1st Covenant with their unbelief. The Abrahamic promise runs through both covennants but circumcision is not an everlasting covenant in their flesh, is it? Again, you get your bias from EGW because she talks the way you do. The Bible talks differently. She talks of her visions that must be tested by the Bible, by her own admission.

bob · 01-26-09 1:44 am

"Jesus was given all power and all authority through His sacrifice. Revelation 5 gives a nice presentation of this." I am under the assumption that Jesus is God, and always was God and had all power and authority eternally before the Cross. He wasn't "given" anything. Again, He is God and was with the Father always and they are equal. His sacrifice was made to enable us to take advantage of His Grace. Where does the thought come from that Jesus wasn't fully God when on the Earth redeeming us from sin? Where does the idea come from that Jesus could have failed in His mission? He is God. God cannot fail. God is perfect. The idea that Jesus came to this earth not having all the power He had in Heaven is untrue. Scripture doesn't teach this. Certainly we should praise Jesus for coming to this Earth and enduring the humiliation and suffering He did on our behalf. He is worthy of all our praise. Bob

bob_2 · 01-26-09 2:00 am

Bob Shields, if there was no temptation, being tempted in all ways as we are, the Bible doesn't tell it straight. Tempting suggests one could succomb does it not? He had all His powers to turn rock to bread, that was a temptation he resisted, but could have failed at, or it wasn't a temptation.

lijhakim · 01-26-09 2:07 am

Bob, you are not being reasonable. There are some problems with the grammar of Bible writers in talking of the covenant. I have spent a lot of time to solve those problems. I suspect that my "givens" are different from yours, so I don't expect we will ever get together on the covenant. The everlasting covenant, made between the Father and the Son, I believe, is clearly taught in the Bible, with much Bible support. Look at <a href="http://www.everlastingcovenant.com" target=_top>www.everlastingcovenant.com</a> at the very first article, "From the Foundation". See the reference pages too. I use terms like "it seems to me" because people have accused me of using dogmatic language. When I use a term like that, it doesn't mean that I don't believe it, or that I won't die for it. I just do not want to offend. -------------------------- About Hebrews 8:13: the word "covenant" is supplied. However the context supports the understanding of covenant here. However, Paul was appealing to the Hebrews to accept the one efficacious sacrifice and the priesthood of Jesus Christ as the only way to salvation. Comparisons are made all through the book of Hebrews -- showing that the Old Testament sacrifices were always ineffective, and only served to point to the real sacrifice, Jesus Christ, who had now come, confirmed the sacrifices of the Old Testament and provided the real sacrifice. In this context, the first was the Jewish perception of salvation from meticulous keeping of the laws -- all of them, and their lineage from Abraham. -------------------------- If the everlasting covenant was made with Israel, how can that be everlasting if Israel is now rejected? (I think that is what you meant) Some New Covenant Theologians have very peculiar ideas about Israel. Israel was clearly the chosen people of God. Jesus, Himself said, "Salvation is of the Jews." So where do we stand now? Jesus on several occasions indicated that because the Jews had rejected their Messiah, God had rejected them as the chosen people of God. Jews can still be saved as well as the Gentiles. In fact Paul says in Romans 11 that God still has a special love for the Jews. However, the privileges and responsibilities of the Covenant have passed on to the Christian Church. 1 Peter 2:9 is worded very close to Exodus 19:4-6. One evidence that the Sinai covenant spanned from Sinai to the Christian Church. ------------------------------- I am not sure that I have a monopoly on bias. But just to clear the air, let me present some more "givens." God does not change. He saves people today just the same as He did in OT times. The ten commandments are said to be the covenant. This includes the Sabbath commandment. This is one area where dispensationalists, Covenant Theology, and New Covenant Theology have in common. Seems that you would begin to see a pattern there. Through the priestly ministry of Christ in heaven men on earth are not just forgiven, but are cleansed of their sins. Jesus came to save His people FROM their sins. Grace will be proven sufficient to save before He comes again. ----------------------- Hubert F. Sturges .

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#76 01-25-09 1:53 pm

Re: Truth What Is It?

#77 01-25-09 1:59 pm

Re: Truth What Is It?

#78 01-25-09 2:33 pm

Re: Truth What Is It?

#79 01-25-09 2:34 pm

Re: Truth What Is It?

#80 01-25-09 3:12 pm

Re: Truth What Is It?

#81 01-25-09 3:53 pm

Re: Truth What Is It?

#82 01-25-09 4:41 pm

Re: Truth What Is It?

#83 01-25-09 5:41 pm

Re: Truth What Is It?

#84 01-25-09 6:23 pm

Re: Truth What Is It?

#85 01-25-09 8:01 pm

Re: Truth What Is It?

#86 01-25-09 8:51 pm

Re: Truth What Is It?

#87 01-25-09 9:10 pm

Re: Truth What Is It?

#88 01-25-09 9:18 pm

Re: Truth What Is It?

#89 01-25-09 9:33 pm

Re: Truth What Is It?

#90 01-25-09 9:43 pm

Re: Truth What Is It?

#91 01-25-09 10:19 pm

Re: Truth What Is It?

#92 01-25-09 10:55 pm

Re: Truth What Is It?

#93 01-25-09 11:05 pm

Re: Truth What Is It?

#94 01-25-09 11:10 pm

Re: Truth What Is It?

#95 01-25-09 11:33 pm

Re: Truth What Is It?

#96 01-26-09 12:42 am

Re: Truth What Is It?

#97 01-26-09 12:51 am

Re: Truth What Is It?

#98 01-26-09 1:44 am

Re: Truth What Is It?

#99 01-26-09 2:00 am

Re: Truth What Is It?

#100 01-26-09 2:07 am

Re: Truth What Is It?

Board footer