I can't leave of my own accord. Christ has to rescue me. I have been imprisoned by my ridiculous hope that the SDA church could repent. As it stands, the SDA church refuses to release me from my continual mental anguish, which has been going on for years. In their judgment, I'm not worthy to be disfellowshipped. I have committed the greatest of all possible sins. I have spoken against “the holy order.”
Anyone Else Been Kicked out of Church?
- Thread starter Allin
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
John MacArthur wrote a pretty stellar book about the abominable practices of the Charismatic churches and movement overall. While probably most of what he wrote is true, MacArthur also has beliefs that are not biblical themselves (though not as evil and ugly as the 'strange fire' beliefs of most Charismatic churches that make God look like a fool and then say they're doing it right). My dude, tell me where you have found a 'Bible-believing church', and I'll wire $5,000 into your bank account. We are a work in progress; the mistake we all make is that we each think our church or meeting or fellowship or house church is actually doing it right. Evangelicals believe they are right (therefore, most people think they are the Pharisees and the 'religious' frozen chosen); Charismatics believe they are alive ("To hell with being right," they think as they sip their Starbucks; they just want to seem 'alive' and relevant, and they are neither). Let's be imperfect and admit it honestly rather than only admitting it because I'm checking out everyone else's wife in church and committing more sins than heathens during the week and don't want anyone to 'judge' me: "Yeah, of course! We're all imperfect!" Of course we are. Societies don't care to force people, and all people naturally expect too much of everyone else (you have to research it; it's true); only Jesus' yoke (standard) on people is easy, and only His burden (expectation) on everyone is light.
Shubee, I checked out the thread you linked. I didn't post any comments there, but I do want to say this: God is a Community Himself and encourages community. He works relationally, and you rarely see Him promoting a one-man ministry (except in Jesus Christ). I don't myself think it's a good idea to pursue ministry alone or to minister alone; Jesus sent disciples out two by two at the least, because there is safety in that. I think for many people who minister, it's smart to return to the original definition of 'minister' (verb) and see what it really means before proceeding any further. To 'minister' has a double responsibility that should naturally give someone pause before they endeavor to take on ministry: ministering is both a responsibility to God (which means you forfeit your life: as Paul said, "If I was still trying to please (live for) people, I would not be a minister of Christ"-- Gal. 1:10) and is a responsibility to people (which means you have less time in the day for yourself). Those are the practical facts of real ministry, not the stars and stripes version. If you can find out what God wants you to do regarding ministry and the SDA church (not what others or you think you should do) and then do it, then you are doing the perfectly right thing and will be kept safe as a result:
"Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine and does them, I will liken to a wise man who built his house on the rock: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock. But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall" (Mt. 7:24-27).
"Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine and does them, I will liken to a wise man who built his house on the rock: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock. But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall" (Mt. 7:24-27).
Last edited:
That's one of the Bible passages that needs to be scrutinized or one of the doctrinal beliefs that needs to be qualified. It is similar to the command to be subject to all governing authority in Rom. 13: "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, because there is no authority except that which God has established." That needs to be given context too.
Ex. 22:28 says, "You shall not revile God, nor curse a ruler of your people." Paul borrows from there and says, "It is written, 'You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people'" (Acts 23:5). 'To speak evil of' here would be better understood if it was translated as 'to speak evilly of' or 'to speak against' (as in 'to oppose, resist, hate, fight against'). To speak up of evil or sin in a ruler is not wrong; but to speak against a ruler with the intention or effect of embittering others against him is wrong and is 'speaking evil [against] a ruler of your people'.
As for Paul, he actually was innocent of the charge of 'speaking evil against a ruler' of the people. For one, Paul was 100% correct on what he said about Ananias (he added nothing personal; Jesus had said much more on the subject before Paul ever did), so he didn't need to repent. Secondly, Paul knew he was speaking to 'rulers of the people' (though not the high priest); they were the well-known Sanhedrin. Since he knew he was speaking to rulers, why would he still 'speak evil' of them? The third point answers: Paul wasn't guilty of speaking evil or evilly of any of them. He seems to admit guilt and to apologize, but you will see (below) that he didn't apologize at all because he hadn't broken the law or spoken evil of them. In quoting that OT passage, what Paul was doing was speaking their language (the Pharisees and Sadducees majored on keeping the Law), bringing peace to the situation and basically saying, "Like you all, I also am a Law-keeper." The summary of my reply to your comment is that while it is wrong to 'speak evilly of' (speak against) a ruler, it isn't wrong to 'speak up of evil' (expose sin) in a ruler. Hopefully, what I've shared here will give clarity and context as to Paul's motives and what he was really saying and doing in the story as seen below:
Paul, looking earnestly at the council, said, "Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day." And the high priest Ananias commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said to him, "God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! For you sit to judge me according to the law, and do you command me to be struck contrary to the law?" And those who stood by said, "Do you revile God's high priest?" Then Paul said, "I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest, for it is written: 'You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.'" But when Paul perceived that one part <of the Sanhedrin> were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, "Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am being judged!" And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees; and the assembly was divided. For Sadducees say that there is no resurrection-- and no angel or spirit; but Pharisees confess both. (Acts 23:1-8.)
Ex. 22:28 says, "You shall not revile God, nor curse a ruler of your people." Paul borrows from there and says, "It is written, 'You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people'" (Acts 23:5). 'To speak evil of' here would be better understood if it was translated as 'to speak evilly of' or 'to speak against' (as in 'to oppose, resist, hate, fight against'). To speak up of evil or sin in a ruler is not wrong; but to speak against a ruler with the intention or effect of embittering others against him is wrong and is 'speaking evil [against] a ruler of your people'.
As for Paul, he actually was innocent of the charge of 'speaking evil against a ruler' of the people. For one, Paul was 100% correct on what he said about Ananias (he added nothing personal; Jesus had said much more on the subject before Paul ever did), so he didn't need to repent. Secondly, Paul knew he was speaking to 'rulers of the people' (though not the high priest); they were the well-known Sanhedrin. Since he knew he was speaking to rulers, why would he still 'speak evil' of them? The third point answers: Paul wasn't guilty of speaking evil or evilly of any of them. He seems to admit guilt and to apologize, but you will see (below) that he didn't apologize at all because he hadn't broken the law or spoken evil of them. In quoting that OT passage, what Paul was doing was speaking their language (the Pharisees and Sadducees majored on keeping the Law), bringing peace to the situation and basically saying, "Like you all, I also am a Law-keeper." The summary of my reply to your comment is that while it is wrong to 'speak evilly of' (speak against) a ruler, it isn't wrong to 'speak up of evil' (expose sin) in a ruler. Hopefully, what I've shared here will give clarity and context as to Paul's motives and what he was really saying and doing in the story as seen below:
Paul, looking earnestly at the council, said, "Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day." And the high priest Ananias commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said to him, "God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! For you sit to judge me according to the law, and do you command me to be struck contrary to the law?" And those who stood by said, "Do you revile God's high priest?" Then Paul said, "I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest, for it is written: 'You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.'" But when Paul perceived that one part <of the Sanhedrin> were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, "Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am being judged!" And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees; and the assembly was divided. For Sadducees say that there is no resurrection-- and no angel or spirit; but Pharisees confess both. (Acts 23:1-8.)
Yes, Socrates was a pagan philosopher, but his quote isn't totally wrong: "The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be." If you don't think a Christian should quote a pagan philosopher, then you are claiming to be on the same level as Jesus or higher. I think I can safely say that Jesus is the only Person who ever walked this earth for whom it might be improper to quote a pagan (though I believe He would lose nothing to do so); every other Christian is free to do so if done through a sanctified mind and motive. The Bible doesn't spell out everything, but it spells out just enough. Check it out:
Addressing the Athenian pagan philosophers in order to turn them from their paganism, Paul quoted one of their own pagan philosophers to them within his message to them: "[God] has made [it] so that [everyone] should seek the Lord... though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, 'For we are His offspring.' Therefore... we are the offspring of God" (Acts 17:26-29). Paul both quoted a pagan philosopher and acknowledged that the philosopher was right by going on to say, "Therefore... we are the offspring of God." In Christ, not everyone is a child of God; but in the unrenewed or pagan or heathen mind, it is true that everyone is the offspring of God. As a minister, you can tell Christians, "Not everyone is a child of God"; and to unbelievers you can say, "We all are God's children", and you would be right in both cases, because the rules apply differently depending on the audience or person you address.
Addressing the Athenian pagan philosophers in order to turn them from their paganism, Paul quoted one of their own pagan philosophers to them within his message to them: "[God] has made [it] so that [everyone] should seek the Lord... though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, 'For we are His offspring.' Therefore... we are the offspring of God" (Acts 17:26-29). Paul both quoted a pagan philosopher and acknowledged that the philosopher was right by going on to say, "Therefore... we are the offspring of God." In Christ, not everyone is a child of God; but in the unrenewed or pagan or heathen mind, it is true that everyone is the offspring of God. As a minister, you can tell Christians, "Not everyone is a child of God"; and to unbelievers you can say, "We all are God's children", and you would be right in both cases, because the rules apply differently depending on the audience or person you address.