"Glacier View" 25 yrs later

[Gerr]

As to emphasis, yes, I agree. But as to where the doctrine of righteousness came from being Ford, that is absurd!

Gerry

[benherndon]

AS for the first time RBF became a major topic for my wife and me, it was Smuts VanRooyen when he was teaching at LaSierra---of course, RBF is the Gospel. No, it did NOT originate with Ford or any other human. Wouldn't we all agree it came from God, the God of the OT and the NT.

I'm glad for it, 'cause, I just can't get very good at anything.

Ben

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

benherndon said:

AS for the first time RBF became a major topic for my wife and me, it was Smuts VanRooyen when he was teaching at LaSierra---of course, RBF is the Gospel. Ben

---

I have heard Smuts, and have visited with him, years ago. My recollection of Smuts Van Rooyen's version of RBF was that it was different than what the Bible teaches. The popular version of RBF says that you can continue to sin and still be saved. IOW what you do or don't do does not affect your salvation . . . the completed, perfect work of Christ on the cross, standing alone, is all that matters in regard to your salvation--regardless of how you live or the choices you make, so long as you at some pont in time accept Christ as your Savior. That is not, however, what the Bible teaches.

[olger]

"I have heard Smuts, and have visited with him, years ago. My recollection of Smuts Van Rooyen's version of RBF was that it was different than what the Bible teaches. The popular version of RBF says that you can continue to sin and still be saved. IOW what you do or don't do does not affect your salvation . . . the completed, perfect work of Christ on the cross, standing alone, is all that matters in regard to your salvation--regardless of how you live or the choices you make, so long as you at some pont in time accept Christ as your Savior. That is not, however, what the Bible teaches."

Amen!

I still like HMS Richards much better than Ford .

olger

[benherndon]

First of all, if your quoting what is truly the popular version of RBF, then, I don't agree with it either. Have you told them what you believe about what they say? Do they agree they say that?

Secondly, please explain to us what YOU mean by RBF. I know what I mean...but, I don't know what you mean. And, from your previous posts on several subjects, I doubt you would agree with me....so we won't waste time on my ideas right now. If I talk, I don't learn anything new. If other's talk I learn something.

Happy to wait....and learn.

Ben

[Gerr]

Ever since Wm Miller started touting this bad analysis, solid theologian's have been pointing out it is simply wrong.

Des Ford was one of the most recent and visible of these, but by no means the first or the last.

• You can't prove it starts in 457BC
• The text does not say 2300 years
• There is no reason to believe day = year
• The text does not say 2300 days
• The text does not say that at the end of the period the truth will be restored
• Nothing obvious happened in 1844
• and the plan of salvation does not require anything to happen

/Bevin

---

[:"red"]Let's take the second first, i.e. "The text does not say 2300 yrs." [/]

[:"red"]Dan 8:14 "For two thousand three hundred days [ereb boqer - lit. evening-morning]; then the sanctuary shall be cleansed." NKJ

"For 2300 evenings and mornings; then the holy place will be properly restored." NASB

"For 2300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state." NRSV[/]

[:"blue"]The connection between the vision of Dan 8 and the 70 wks of Dan 9 is, in my mind, unmistakable. The vision of Dan 8 starts with a ram with two horns, one horn being taller than the other. This ram was attacked and soundly trampled by a goat from the west that had a large horn. The large horn was broken and replaced by 4 horns. Then a little horn appears that grows "exceedingly great" and does all sorts of things, including the desolation and trampling of the sanctuary. The question was raised as to "how long will the vision be, concerning the daily sacrifices and the transgression of desolation, giving of both the sanctuary and the host to be trampled under foot."

The answer was Dan 8:14. Gabriel then comes to interpret the vision. It was made clear to Daniel that, "the vision refers to the time of the end." 8:17 NKJ. Gabriel interprets all parts of the vision except that part about the "evenings-mornings." Gabriel reassures Daniel that the vision about the "evenings-mornings" is "true", meaning it is truth, it is reliable, and sure, but tells Daniel to seal the vision because, "..it refers to many days in the future." 8:26 NKJ. Chapter 8 closes with these words:

[:"red"]"And I, Daniel, fainted and was sick for days; afterward I arose and went about the king's business. I was astonished by the vision, but no one understood it." [/]

The only portion of the vision that was not explained was the vision about the "evenings-mornings". It is no surprise then that when Gabriel appears again in Dan 9, he comes in answer to prayer, and is refered to as, "Gabriel whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning...". No such vision is mentioned in Dan 9:1-20. It could only mean one thing - he must be refering to the unexplained portion of the vision in Dan 8, i.e. the vision of the pm/am.

[/]

To be cont'd. Gotta go to bed.

Gerry

[David Koot]

I have a relative who is a physician, who is evangelical when it comes to Des Ford. He has given me, and sent me, the publications by Ford and co., and, of course, I took at look at Ford's stuff years ago. What I stated earlier, is pretty much word for word out of Ford's publications. The emphasis on the completed, perfect work of Christ on the cross, and the de-emphasis on what the believer does or does not do. It took awhile for me to figure out what was being said, to make sense out of it. In time, I developed the sense that Ford was uncomfortable with the Investigative Judgment, therefore found a way, using his vast knowledge of Biblical languages, to avoid the doctrine. Trouble is, his conclusion runs afoul of the rest of the Bible, including the book of Leviticus. His doctrine is very comforting to those who have not attained victory over various temptations. They feel like the pressure is off. Bottom line, IMO? Self.

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

CoAspen said:

Are you attempting to tarnish Smuts with your second sentence?

---

If a person's teachings stand up under the scrutiny of Scripture, then well and good. If not, then is he or she tarnished as a result?

Quote:

---

Why is idea always brought up, 'continue in sin and ....', but never a source.

---

Because that is indeed the bottom-line of the teaching. I have been down that road many, many times, listened, sorted through things, bought into the stuff, but even then it didn't really add up. Finally, was able to make sense of it. Indeed, in fact, that is the bottom-line--that a person may continue to sin and still be saved. No question about that one.

[benherndon]

Are you really as hard a man as you sound, David?

Ben

[Gregory Matthews]

I am just tagging on to this last point.

It is easy to make a statement as to the popular view of Righteous by Faith. And, in one sense such statements may be accurate in that they refer to what is popular, but, they do not directly make the claim that what is popular is a majority view.

To illustrate, many years ago I visited an elderly woman who informed me that she had gotten saved as a young girl at an evangelistic meeting. In the years that had passed, she had never returned to church as she saw no need to do so after getting saved. Her position might be popular with some people, but it was not the majority view of the Christian community.

I will suggest that the majority view in Christianity is that there can be true conversions at the time of one's death, but that they typically do not occur. It is Biblical to teach that a true conversion at the time of one's death wipes out the entire past life of sin, and makes it of no importance due to the salvation of Christ.

Some of the preceeding statements made here in regard to the popular view of RBF, if presented as a majority view reflect the view of people who have probably seldom listened to a sermon on this subject (or at least seldom understond what they heard) on this subject. I clearly hear sermons by Sunday keeping Christian pastors that clearly teach that choices and life style do matter.

I will suggest that the implications of some of the statements made here do not reflect either the teachings of certain people mentioned here, or that of the majority of Christian pastors. I will suggest that, at least by implication, the teachings of some people mentioned here have not been accurately represented in the area of Righteousness by Faith, and perhaps (?) in other areas also.

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

Gregory Matthews said:

I clearly hear sermons by Sunday keeping Christian pastors that clearly teach that choices and life style do matter.

---

That is definitely correct, at present. In previous decades, that was not the emphasis as much, but currently it is. In fact, at times Sunday-keeping pastors and church members seem to have a more genuine, living Christian faith than some SDA's.

Quote:

---

I will suggest that the implications of some of the statements made here do not reflect either the teachings of certain people mentioned here, or that of the majority of Christian pastors. I will suggest that, at least by implication, the teachings of some people mentioned here have not been accurately represented in the area of Righteousness by Faith, and perhaps (?) in other areas also.

---

If you are going to make that kind of statement, Gregory, you need to be more specific. Otherwise, any statements about the teachings of someone may be called into question-guilt by association.

[David Koot]

But, I should add that every non-Adventist Christian with whom I have ever spoken, or heard preach from the pulpit on Sundays, to a man, believes that he or she will be saved, regardless of what he or she 'does.' IOW a person's 'works' do not affect the question of salvation, but of REWARDS--stars in the crown, for example.

[benherndon]

David, I'm sorry, but I couldn't disagree with your judgment of the nonSDA Christian at all....not even close.

I listen to and visit rarely some nonSDA preachers. My wife has studied with a few of them...attended some of their seminars...(me too to a lesser extent)...I can say with confidence that you either haven't talked to many.... or you are grossly mistaken in your categorization of them on the point of 'once saved, always saved!'. My wife was shocked when I told her you said that. Bunnie spent 5 yrs attending, with some other local SDA women including the daughter of a prominent SDA radio evangelist.....the Women's International Bible Study Fellowship (They do not teach what you say!!). ....I attended about 10 Bill Gothard seminars with her including one at Wheaton College that was nearly a week long. Bill Gothard did not teach that! Schuler of the Glass Cathedral does not teach that!Your categorical statement is too strong.

There may be some, of course, like there are some like you, and, me, in this church who say strong things sometimes right and many times wrong .....but I know of no nonSDA preacher in my 40 yrs in Corona, who has left me with the impression you have gathered. Straw man theme??

I've known Lutheran pastors, Calvary church pastors including Chuck Smith, Church of God pastors, I've listened to innumerable Chuck Swindoll talks on the radio, LLoyd Ogilvie(who became Chaplain of the Senate---wife been to his seminars)...I do not believe any of them would confirm your statement that 'once saved' you cannot be lost by your future beliefs and actions against God and other people.

Ben

[David Koot]

Actually, if you get right down to it, I think you will find that to be a pretty common teaching. Yes, I have listened to, and discussed with, a wide variety of Christian pastors and laymen, from many denominations. When you really get down to the bottom of things, in depth, and detailed answers, then the statement I made before tends to be consistent. I did NOT use the term, 'OSAS.' That is a different variant, and one that is not consistently believed across the Board. Perhaps semantics is an issue here. Many, if not most of the ministers and people with whom I have held discussions, believe that it is possible to lose one's salvation by backsliding, as per Paul in Hebrews. That, however, is a separate issue from the one I was speaking of.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

David Koot said:

Many, if not most of the ministers and people with whom I have held discussions, believe that it is possible to lose one's salvation by backsliding, as per Paul in Hebrews. That, however, is a separate issue from the one I was speaking of.

---

Well...you made it an issue here. What do you mean by "backsliding"?

[Gerr]

cont'd.

[:"blue"]Gabriel begins his explanation in Dan 9:24. [:"red"]

[/]"Seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city..." [/]

[:"blue"]According to the Theological Wordbook of the OT, the basic Hebrew meaning of the word translated "determined" is to "cut". Seventy weeks cut off from what? It seems most logical to me that the 70 wks was cut off from something larger, i.e. the 2300 d.

Now, I have 7 commentaries at my disposal excluding the SDABC. All interpret the 70 wks as years. Question: If one accepts the 70 wks as years, why then should the 2300 d not be accepted as years also? The day = 1 yr principle is not an SDA invention. The precedent is found in Nu 14:34. The principle is used by many other commentators as well.

As to the assertion that, "it does not say 2300 d", as already pointed out, the original literally means "evenings and mornings". Gen 1 is very clear that 1 day = an evening AND a morning. [/]

to be cont'd.

Gerry

[bevin]

Quote:

---

All interpret the 70 wks as years

---

Actually, the original text does not say "70 weeks", and your mistake starts there.

The original simply says seventy "sevens" - and the word can and does mean (in different contexts) both a 7 day cycle AND a 7 year cycle.

No need for a day=year principle here.

And nothing here to support a day=year principle.

/Bevin

[Gerr]

Cont'd.

[:"blue"]As to the assertion that 457 BC is not a correct date, SDAs are not alone in using this date. According to the "Bible Reader's Companion", the reign of Artaxerxes I was from 464-424 BC. His decree was issued in 458 and Ezra arrives in Jerusalem in 457 BC. Jack Finegan in his, "Handbook of Biblical Chronology", Princeton U. Press, 1964 p. 213, uses 457 BC. "Wilmington's Bible Handbook" on Ezra 7:1-10, uses 457 BC as the date for the decree.

I don't have all my books with me yet, so what I am going to say next is only from memory. My recollection is that Sigfried Horn, an SDA archeologist and scholar, is well respected even among non-SDAs. If my memory serves me correctly, he had a strong hand in establishing the 457 BC date for Artaxerxes decree.

Once that date is accepted, the other dates line up pretty well - the anointing of "Messiah the Prince" in 27 AD, the Messiah being "cut off" in 31 AD, and then the inescapable terminal date of 1844.

To human eyes, nothing happened in 1844. Neither did humans see anything happen when Jesus ascended into heaven to be enthroned at the right hand of God either. So just because one didn't see something happen doesn't necessarily mean something did not happen. [/]

Gerry

[Gerr]

The NASB, NRSV, NEKJ, KJV, Young's Lit. Trans., all translate it "weeks", but you are correct that it literally says, "seventy sevens". But note that neither does it say "years" either, yet all the commentators (non-SDAs) at my disposal, all understand it as weeks, and interpret them as years, thus holding on to the "day = yr" principle.

Gerry

[Gerr]

I have been attending church services for the last 3 Sundays at a Baptist church just 100 yards from where I am temporarily staying. Also attended a series of revival meetings for 3 nights. While they may officially believe in a "once-saved-always-saved" doctrine, the preaching I have heard so far does not seem to reflect that. The sermons I have heard are very down on sinful living and very much upholding righteous living, giving me the impression that something bad might happen to you if you didn't, although this is not so expressed explicitly.

Gerry

[jasd]

QR frame:

...don't recall offhand where in the above pages the reference to a "continuance in sin" /paraphrased] is found but, I thought it a nice segue to ask the following...

I seem to recollect that “…sin is the transgression of the law…” implies the willful and persevering disregard for the law, that is, the habitual and/or abiding transgresssion of the law… That, would make of such texts as…

Mt 21:31 Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.

a bit problematic, say what?

Rahab notwithstanding, what was Jesus really saying? Note that there is no indication of reformed tax collectors or harlots in view… just swindlers and cheats, and hookers, and of course, the chief priests and the elders of the people.

[Gerr]

I believe repentance is implied, otherwise all sinners would be saved including the all the scribes, priests, & pharisees. The same Jesus who uttered the words you quoted also said, "...unless you repent, you will all likewise perish." Lk 13:3 NKJ.

Gerry

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "But, I should add that every non-Adventist Christian with whom I have ever spoken, or heard preach from the pulpit on Sundays, to a man, believes that he or she will be saved, regardless of what he or she 'does.' IOW a person's 'works' do not affect the question of salvation, but of REWARDS--stars in the crown, for example."

[The following is from me--GM.]

Stanley, Charles. SEEKING HIS FACE: A DAILY DEVOTIONAL, Thomas Nelson, 2002

From the above, a devotional reading for July 1, "Measuring Your Growth." Scripture reading: Ephesians 4:11-16, and with the Key Verse being Philippians 1:6.

"How can you determine how far you've come in your walk with the Lord? . . .

When the Holy Spirit convicts you of specific sin, you go immediately to Jesus to confess and turn away from it.. . .

Sin becomes less attractive; you find delight in following His commands."

Folks, the above is the more common view taught from the pulpit on Sunday. The above clearly teaches that what one does matters, even though we are not saved by our works. It is unfortunate that some people live so close to Adventism that they do not know and understand what is taught in the Christian world around them. This goes both for Catholicism, as well as Protestantism. Then if you get into Judiasm, and Islam, it becomes worse.

For those of you who have not heard of Charles F. Stanley, he is the pastor (or at least was in 2002) of the 15,000 member First Baptist Chruch of Atlanta. He has been twice elected as President of the Southern Baptist Convention. He is a well-known author and active in oher ares of ministry.

[olger]

The Bible gives twelve rewards for Godly living:

1) I will experience peace (psalm 37:37)

2) I will experience joy (psalm 97:11)

3) I will have guidance in making decision (Prov 11:3)

4) I will prosper (Psalm 92:12)

5) I will experience security (prov 10:9)

6) I will gain wisdom (Prov 2:70

7) I will gain the favor of others (prov 14:9)

8) I will experience God's provision for my needs (psalm 37:25)

9) Our children will experience God's blessing (Psalm 112:2)

10) I will never be forgotten (112:2)

11) I will have hope in death (Prov 14:32)

12) I will have a sure reward (Prov 11:18; Psalm 37:18)

The Bible is very clear that decisions made in life will have certain results. "Whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap" (Gal. 6:7). The study of the Bible reveals natural consequences of a number of specific actions. These natural consequences can be considered God's warnings to prevent people from practicing destructive behavior patterns. Jesus warned "Whoever commits sin is a servant of sin" (John 8:32). When a person sins, that one action can lead to a pattern of sin, and eventually one will become a slave to that sinful pattern. Joy & fulfillment cannot be experienced in life because of these negative consequences that will occur when one is in bondage to sin. Many people fail to see the connection between decisions they made in the past and the difficult situations that they currently experience. The solution is to acknowledge & confess our sins.

The Bible reveals a number of consequences for wrong actions. a few;

1) A lazy person will experience poverty (Prov 6:11)

2 A person involved in pre-marital sex will experience financial loss (Proverbs 5:10; 6:26)

2) A person involved in moral failure will experience immorality in their family (II Samuel 12:11-12;13:1-6).

4) A nperson involved in moral failure will go astray in other areas (prov 5:23).

5) A person who is morally impure will not keep promises (proverbs 2:17)

6) Use of alcolhol or drugs will bring contention into our life (Prov 23:29-30).

7) a rebellious person will destroy God's reputation (1 Timothy 6:1; Ezekiel 20:8-10).

8) A materialistic person will experience harmful lusts & desires that will destroy them (1 Timothy 6:9).

9) a proud person will experience dishonor & shame (Prov 11:2).

10) A proud person will experience a sense of distance from God (Psalm 138:6).

11) a proud person will experience contention in their relationships (Proverbs 13:10; 28:25).

God is in the business of redeeming & changing lives.

Bless you,

olger

[Gregory Matthews]

Olger, you are correct. I sometimes react when I see people misrepresenting others.

Here is more quotations from that devotional book by Stanley:

"Every believer has the power through the Holy Spirit to be set free from habits that bind." July 19

"When we confess our sin . . . we acknowledge our sin and decisively turn from it." July 17

"There is only one answer to sin, and that is a determined 'No!'" July 13