Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

pilgrim99 · 02-13-09 10:58 am

Maggie, Did Abraham say to Isaac “God will provide for himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son,”? Was this what actually happened? Did God provide a substitute for the Aztec sacrifices? (Message edited by pilgrim99 on February 13, 2009)

bob_2 · 02-13-09 11:57 am

Maggie there is a continuum of speech, one can use torture, one can use punishment, and other more moderate words. You are into sensationalizing it when you are emotionally sensitive, you need to steer clear of the issue, realize that if you do good, nothing to fear, if you sin, <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Genesis 4:7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it." <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

lijhakim · 02-13-09 4:40 pm

Elaine, Your willing ignorance of the Bible is incredible. Of course it is your choice.<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:"Other sacred texts: Veda, Upanishad, and the Bhagavad-Gita ("The Song of the Lord") and the Mahabharata. In the Upanishad, liberation would shine forth "only in a man who has the deepest love for God and who shows the same love towards his teacher." The Bible is only one of numerous texts held sacred by different peoples: some predating the Bible by centuries. There is a wealth of good found in all cultures, not just the Judeo-Christian.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>Of course, there is good in all these other systems. Men would not be attracted to them unless there was good. It is the deception of Satan to mix bad with good to ensnare people. I think we can also say that the good in these systems comes from the true God, as He is the only source of good in this world. Is the good in these other systems enough? Can man be saved because he is "good?" Jesus said to the rich young ruler, "There is none good but one, that is, God" (Matthew 19:17). Any man can be "good" on a superficial level. But he can be good only for selfish reasons - unless - he is lifted out of his selfish sinful nature by grace. But to look for salvation by being good is pure and simple legalism. All men have sinned. All men have a fallen sinful nature. Only Jesus is the Creator God, the Lawgiver, who came to this earth and died that we might live. THAT is the difference between Christianity and all other religions. ----------------------' Hubert F. Sturges .

elaine · 02-13-09 5:51 pm

Hubb, are you saying that man can only be good for selfish reasons? What about the majority of people who are good, yet not Christians (millions around the world). Was Jesus and the NT writers wrong when they said that to love your neighbor as yourself was the most important law? Why is no belief included? Doing good is of no use unless one also believes in Jesus? Salvation is a Christian concept and not part of most other world religions. Reminds me or a scene in a recent movie. A lady asked a newcomer to the very Lutheran community: "Have you found Jesus?" After a long and pregnant pause, the newcomer said, "Is he lost?" All the Hebrews knew nothing of salvation or a "lost" position. Were they wrong? Are all the other world religions wrong because they have no concept of salvation, Heaven or Hell? Neither did the Jews. Do you know where the idea of heaven and hell originated? Not from the Hebrews or Christians, but from another belief. During the Jewish exile in Babylon, they were introduced to Persian Zoroastrian teachings. He taught that four days afater death, a person is judged by his deeds in life. If good outweighs evil, the person crosses a bridge into Heaven (if evil outweighs good, the person falls from the bridge into a freezing, foul-smelling Hell--sounds a lot like Dante's Inferno where Hell was icy, rather than hot.). During this post-exilic period Jewish devotional literature posits a clear dualism: "the world to come," and "this world." The doctrine of reward and punishment, as applied to life after death, developed during the times of the Maccabees as Jewish martyrs were persecuted for the faith (2 Macc. 12:44). A gradual development was the different rabbis who taught and wrote about a postmortem Garden of Eden; while the wicked would feel the flames of an everlasting Hell. The Christians, finding that the Hebrew Bible was short on specifics, left much to individual imagination. With the NT, Heaven really developed into the abode of God, elders, angels, and the blessed, especially through the vivid, kaleidoscopic imagery in the Book of Revelation. Note that precious and semi-precious stones play a large part in Heaven's decor and that there will be no tears, or death and mourning. Revelation was written during a time of great persecution. John, imprisoned on the island of Patmos, assured the new Christians that no matter how bad life gets, God is in control. There will be a glorious afterlife, a peaceful, pain-free Paradise for faithful believers. Christian Heaven is reward for suffering. By contrast, Jewish Heaven is reward for executing life's obligations. Heaven has always been what people of an era need it to be.

bob_2 · 02-13-09 8:13 pm

Because an idol is named, doesn't make it exist. It makes it part of history, folklore, etc. But to suggest that only those who suffer will be rewarded with heaven is silly by it's very suggestion. Your subjectivism is showing. You're welcome to it, but very unimpressive. It's what ills the current world, along with secular humanism, Darwinian evolution etc. Why argue the case Elaine if it is all a pipe dream, don't you have better things to do with your grandchildren, then waste your time on such silly ideas as heaven???

george · 02-13-09 8:59 pm

I think we can also say that the good in these systems comes from the true God, as He is the only source of good in this world. Now you've got it Hubb. And if the good in other systems is also from God, then any one responding to it is following God, but maybe know Him by another name - just like Paul calling the Greek statue to the unknown God the very same God he, Paul, had come to tell them about.

bob_2 · 02-13-09 9:27 pm

Hey, look before we go running off in the tall grass about everyone's religion, being OK subjectively for them, God has to make that decision, not us. The Great Commission is clear what we are to do, not subjectively give Buddhists and Hindus and others a pass on what they believe, IMHO. God can work out who did hear before they died, or lived a good life as a Gentile without the New Covenant. Thank goodness, God will be the judge, not any of us.

pilgrim99 · 02-13-09 9:29 pm

Sirje, If all spiritual roads lead to heaven then there is no need to share the Good News. Are we free to ignore this command?<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” Matthew 28:19,20 NET<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> Maybe the passage was mistranslated and should really read something like this: Go into all the world teaching all that there is no difference in what you believe, or who you follow. All will be well in the end. That Jesus dude was one of many enlightened people, no one really special. That sin thing, and the associated wages, that's just for those Christians. You are all inherently good and have no need for a Savior. Don't forget to be nice to each other. Feel free to baptize the people in the name of the holy rat, mother nature, the holy cow, or any other flavor of the day. 1st Illusions 3:1-5

neal · 02-13-09 9:51 pm

Devon Paul, in Romans 16, stated that the mystery of Jesus HAD been "made known to all nations". He only missed a few continents but he obviously believed the gospel (and did not credit the command to Jesus but to the One and Only God) had already been taught and the prophets fulfilled.

pilgrim99 · 02-13-09 9:58 pm

Neal, What verse in Romans 16 are you looking at?

neal · 02-13-09 10:04 pm

I wasn't looking at it but I believe its at the end of the chapter... last few verses. Ok, looked it up. Here u go (YLT):<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:25 And to Him who is able to establish you, according to my good news, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the secret, in the times of the ages having been kept silent, 26 and now having been made manifest, also, through prophetic writings, according to a command of the age-during God, having been made known to all the nations for obedience of faith -- 27 to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, to him [be] glory to the ages. Amen.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2016" target=_top>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans %2016</a>;&version=15;

pilgrim99 · 02-13-09 10:08 pm

Thanks, So I guess that means no need for evangelism. Or could it be that the Gospel had been spread to all known nations at that time?

elaine · 02-13-09 10:10 pm

Rom 16:26: "But now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith."

neal · 02-13-09 10:26 pm

So I guess that means no need for evangelism. To me it just means that Paul believed the Gospel had been spread which fit into the NT's repeated message of the IMMINENT coming of their Messiah. For instance, the reference in Jude about the prophet Enoch followed by a quote from what is now known by the name The Book of Enoch. It has a prophecy about 70 generations from Enoch being the Final Judgment. Go to Luke and see that, starting with Enoch, Jesus is the 70th generation. These guys were wrong. Sorry. They REALLY REALLY REALLY believed, but still wrong. We are now 170 generations from the supposed time of Enoch and still no Final Judgment with the unbinding of the angels that mated with the daughters of men (see Genesis also).

pilgrim99 · 02-13-09 10:51 pm

Neal, Thank you for sharing your opinions. There are also other opinions that are worthy of consideration. For example, in regards to the Nephilim<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Genesis 6:1-4 is one of the most controversial passages in the Bible. As with any difficult section of Scripture, it has been open to a wide range of interpretations. The two most prevalent interpretations are: (1) Women were having sexual relations with demonic beings (literally sons of God, a term sometimes used for angels), and producing offspring who were part human, part demon. These mutants were said to be Nephilim, or heroes of old. (2) The sons of God were descendants of the godly line of Seth. Instead of remaining true to their godly heritage, they were unequally yoked with the ungodly line of Cain. Thus, civilization sank into depravity and subsequently was destroyed by the Flood.1 It is my conviction that those who consistently hold to a biblical world view must reject the concept that women and demons can engage in actual, physical sexual intercourse. I reject this interjection of pagan superstition into Scripture for the following reasons. First, demons are nonsexual beings. As a unique category of non-material beings, they are incapable of having sexual relationships with corporeal sexual beings, producing biological offspring. As Dr. J. Sidlow Baxter put it, Let us be frank and explicit. The angels are bodiless, purely spiritual beings, and sexless. Being bodiless and sexless means that they are without sex organs, and that they are therefore absolutely incapable of sensuous experiences or sexual processes; nor are they capable of procreation or reproduction in any way whatever.2 Nowhere in Scripture is there any reference to fallen angels being able to produce human bodies. Furthermore, nowhere does Scripture affirm that the bodies Gods angels take on are capable of sexual reproduction. To say that demons can create real bodies with DNA and fertile sperm to say that demons have creative power, which is an exclusively divine prerogative. To create is the prerogative of the Creator, not of any creature, angelic or human. While a biblical world view would allow for fallen angels to possess human beings, it does not support the notion that a demon possessed person can produce offspring that are part demon, part human. From <a href="http://www.equip.org/site/c.muI1LaMNJrE/b.2550255/k.9AD5/httpwwwequiporgfreeDG064htm.htm" target=_top>CRI Commentary on Genesis 6:1-4</a><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>Of course we are all entitled to our own opinions. On another note, just because a Biblical writer quotes from a non Canonical writing, does not imply acceptance of that particular writing in its entirety. Evangelical Christians do not accept the book of Enoch as scripture.

maggie · 02-14-09 1:38 am

The only reason to do evangelism is so God won't burn people alive. The 50,000 people who die in India daily "face an eternity without God," as Devon put it. What he didn't say, was that they first face being burned alive by God. How can you "love His appearing" knowing that billions of people will be burned alive? How can God "unconditionally love" everyone on the planet enough to die for them, and then wrathfully burn them up and laugh at their calamity? It simply doesn't add up. I don't believe in such a God. The thing that used to drive me to believe in such a God was fear, and then I realized that I didn't have to believe God burned people alive just because people told me that. It's a test, folks. It reveals what's in your heart, not what's in God's heart. IMO.

bob_2 · 02-14-09 2:29 am

Maggie, you have the eschatology wrong. At Christ's second coming, the righteous ascend with Jesus to reign for a 1000 years in heaven. The devil is bound in the Abyss of this Earth, until the New Jerusalem descends, and all wicked join with the Devil, yes the wicked are resurrected to show their truth motives, join with the Devil to attack or attempt to attack the New Jerusalem. Thus they will receive their reward God has determined is just, in his language not your persistent, burned alive, tortured, etc. How could it be torture he is not trying to extract anything from them, but to purge the earth of evil. Punishment not torture. Revelation 20 <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev%2020&version=31" target=_top>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev%20 20&version=31</a> (Message edited by Bob_2 on February 14, 2009)

maggie · 02-14-09 3:01 am

Burned alive is burned alive. If it were happening to you at this moment, you might not be able to distinguish it from torture, or care to split hairs about the eschatological timeline, so occupied would you be with... YOUR HIDE BEING FRIED. <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/5/543.gif" alt="fried hide"> The eschatological timeline is irrelevant to the point I'm making. Who needs to know how many hairs are in the horse's tail? Somewhere in there, billions of people get burned alive. That is the salient point.

maggie · 02-14-09 3:23 am

...and an ugly one it is. Don't blame me...I didn't write the Bible....

maggie · 02-14-09 3:27 am

The Good News is, you can stop believing that God is violent and still believe in a loving God. In fact, it's much easier, and you don't have to use so many emotional resources not looking at what's right before you: the burning alive of billions of people, and trying to still the revulsion that evokes in your body. Really, your relationship with God can just keep right on going, just minus believing horrible things about His character. What a relief.

bob_2 · 02-14-09 8:21 am

Then the Flood was torture by drowning alive. Come on. Your sensitivities ought to have you stay out of certain conversation, and crawl into a closet for most the day. Sheeeeeeeeeeesh <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/blush.gif" border=0> You need to join <a href="http://www.Heavenlysanctuary.com" target=_top>www.Heavenlysanctuary.com</a> , they believe like you, but the other "stuff" you post, they won't let you stay too long. Sooooo..... Deal with it. At the end of your last post, you say: Really, your relationship with God can just keep right on going, just minus believing horrible things about His character. You really mean "just minus believing things that offend Maggie..." Write your own Bible, Jack Blanco has. I can see it now Maggie's Cuddly Stories, preface by Neal Walls with a less cuddly view.

george · 02-14-09 8:32 am

Devon, If all spiritual roads lead to heaven then there is no need to share the Good News. If Christianity "shared the Good News" there would be no problem. What most of Christianity shares is anything but "good news", beginning with the crusades all the way down the present as evangelists preach fire and brimstone to all who don't buy into their version of the "good news". What happens when the charts and pictures come out is fear mongering and has nothing to do with good news - just another set of "new rules" for a do-it-yourself salvation. I do believe in disseminating the "GOOD NEWS". The good news in Jesus' day was always coupled with the coming kingdom, initiated by what Christ did on the cross (Mt.4:23; Rom. 15:19). It was a liberating message, based on the forgiveness of God, through Christ, an accomplished event - not the initiation of another restrictive religiosity. The early apostles and "missionaries" were on fire with the "good news" about what Christ had done. They could not be contained from spreading what was a life changing event. Today, missionaries are, either, building grass hut schools in hope of promulgating their brand of religion, or they are doing their stint in "foreign missions" to pad their resumes. That's not to say there are no earnest Christians doing, from the heart, what they see is a need. But, how ever it plays out, the intent of mission work is hardly ever to simply present "good news". There's always a catch. Christ died to demonstrate the grace of God toward sinners; and to erase the stranglehold of restrictive religious systems as a solution to the sin problem. Anyone, in any culture, in any nook or cranny of this earth, who feels a need for God's grace has met Christ on the cross. It's that need that the cross satisfies. The only "good news" that needs to be disseminated is the news, "IT IS FINISHED".

maggie · 02-14-09 11:29 am

If the basis of salvation is to save people from the Wrath of God, which culminates in burning them alive, which an omniscient God planned before the creation of the world, then the theodicy problems are insurmountable, it seems to me. Is God bi-polar? Is Jesus the loving half who appeased Jehovah, the wrathful half, who simply must burn people alive, or inflict unbearable pain in some way, to slake his rage? Or is Jesus, himself, divided into these opposite poles, a house divided against itself? Is this the meaning of faith: <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/5/545.jpg" alt="Rembrandt, Sacrifice of Abraham"> Is this not a horrifying image? The more you consider its implications, the more disturbing it becomes.

maggie · 02-14-09 11:42 am

Do you see that Abraham has his hand over Isaac's face, making him a sacrificial object, rather than a person in his own right? This is what religion does. It makes individuals irrelevant to a God who is intent on his own inscrutable ends. When we respond to such a concept of God, we dehumanize people to save our own hide, just as this horrifying painting depicts. Abraham's "faith" led him to the brink of committing atrocity. He was perfectly willing to commit atrocity. Anything to please "God."

maggie · 02-14-09 11:45 am

A loving parent would have placed himself between God and the child and said, "God, if you must kill someone, kill me, but I shall never, though you slay me, kill my child, or anyone else, to appease your wrath." A god who requires blood sacrifice is not a god worthy of worship. We are all responsible for the god we're willing to worship. IMO.

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#51 02-13-09 10:58 am

Re: Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

#52 02-13-09 11:57 am

Re: Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

#53 02-13-09 4:40 pm

Re: Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

#54 02-13-09 5:51 pm

Re: Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

#55 02-13-09 8:13 pm

Re: Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

#56 02-13-09 8:59 pm

Re: Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

#57 02-13-09 9:27 pm

Re: Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

#58 02-13-09 9:29 pm

Re: Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

#59 02-13-09 9:51 pm

Re: Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

#60 02-13-09 9:58 pm

Re: Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

#61 02-13-09 10:04 pm

Re: Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

#62 02-13-09 10:08 pm

Re: Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

#63 02-13-09 10:10 pm

Re: Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

#64 02-13-09 10:26 pm

Re: Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

#65 02-13-09 10:51 pm

Re: Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

#66 02-14-09 1:38 am

Re: Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

#67 02-14-09 2:29 am

Re: Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

#68 02-14-09 3:01 am

Re: Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

#69 02-14-09 3:23 am

Re: Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

#70 02-14-09 3:27 am

Re: Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

#71 02-14-09 8:21 am

Re: Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

#72 02-14-09 8:32 am

Re: Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

#73 02-14-09 11:29 am

Re: Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

#74 02-14-09 11:42 am

Re: Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

#75 02-14-09 11:45 am

Re: Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

Board footer