Ellen White a false prophet?!?!

[Kountzer]

Maybe the term remnant and the sda church is not a direct, one on one match. Just the same, the remnant, whoever they are, or end up being, will have the charecteristics found in this church. Namely they will keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. No other church or denomination comes close to fulfilling those charecteristics. So, if someone wants to know or be part of the remnant it would be wise for him or her to join or be close to this church. I don't see it happening anywhere else.

[Robert]

The point that's being made is not that the SDA denomination is wrong, but that the remnant is not a denomination, it's a group made up of individuals. It will have some overlap with various Christian denominations, and probably more with some than others, but to identify a particular denomination as *being* the remnant is incorrect, I believe.

Exactly

[Robert]

...they will keep the commandments of God ....No other church or denomination comes close to fulfilling those charecteristics.

Rev 3:17 You say, 'I am rich [i.e., rich in works - doing good]; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. 18 I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear [the imputed righteousness of Christ], so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see. 19 Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent.

[Kountzer]

That post doesn't make sense to me.

[Robert]

That post doesn't make sense to me.

I suggest purchasing the book "Laodicea" at your local Adventist's book center.

Rob

[Kountzer]

laodicean charecteristics, zeitgeist, ethos whatever you want to call it, doesn't begin and end at the doorsteps of the adventist church. You can go to any church, or church denomination and find laodicea.

[John317]

Please show Bible and Spirit of prophecy evidence for your belief in this view of "the remnant."

[Woody]

You might take a look at what Jon Paulien has written on the subject John317.

[Neil D]

Originally Posted By: Neil D

And we are to have tongues of fire over our heads???

Acts 2:43-47

[Robert]

The vicarious heresy...That ain't a heresy...that's truth, as I understand it.

Sure it is....It's a lie! That's the same thing as God demanding a bloody sacrifice. Tell me, Neil, why would God demand the death of the innocent in place of the guilty? Where's the justice in that?

[Robert]

Please show Bible and Spirit of prophecy evidence for your belief in this view of "the remnant."

Jack has already used the Bible. I guess that's not good enough and you want to somehow make EGW's statements supercede the Bible?

What difference does it make if you are wrong (and you are)? Does it mean that you'll have to let go of your denominational pride? Put your confidence in Christ and not in poor, bragging believing sinners who call themselves God's remnant.

Rob

[cardw]

Quote:

"The doctrine of grace and salvation through Jesus Christ is a mystery to a large share of those whose names are upon the church books. If Christ were upon the earth speaking to His people, He would reproach them for their slowness of comprehension. He would say to the slow and uncomprehending, “I have left in your possession truths which concern your salvation, of which you do not suspect the value.”

This is only one example of Ellen White's approach. She thinks people will respond to reproaches. And this need to reproach everyone is hardly a reflection of what grace is. What is particularly strident is the idea that comprehension will be improved by reproach. This is like yelling at someone for not knowing quantum physics. This is hardly the insights of someone who has superior spiritual wisdom.

In addition she deflects this attitude to Jesus. In other quotes she says that Jesus turned his face from her because she wasn't hard enough on those she was to give advice. To me, this clearly indicates that her attitudes are being projected onto Jesus.

This alone indicates that her writings are inferior. They are full of her own ego and her need to condemn people for every little thing. In my experience they have not brought much joy to my life. They are big on condemnation and they offer little in terms of practical solutions.

[Neil D]

Originally Posted By: Neil D

The vicarious heresy...That ain't a heresy...that's truth, as I understand it.

Sure it is....It's a lie! That's the same thing as God demanding a bloody sacrifice. Tell me, Neil, why would God demand the death of the innocent in place of the guilty? Where's the justice in that?

So let me get this straight. You're saying that for Jesus to die for mankind's sins is the same as God demanding a bloody sacrifice to satisfy the Law...right? And that Jesus' sacrifice was not fair to God, right?

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Robert

Sure it is....It's a lie! That's the same thing as God demanding a bloody sacrifice. Tell me, Neil, why would God demand the death of the innocent in place of the guilty? Where's the justice in that? [/quote']

So let me get this straight. You're saying that for Jesus to die for mankind's sins is the same as God demanding a bloody sacrifice to satisfy the Law...right? And that Jesus' sacrifice was not fair to God, right?

Let me keep it simple: Jesus isn't the sinner, you and I are. For God to condemn Jesus, the innocent, doesn't ethically answer the law.

If the police officer pulls you over, even though you weren't speeding, and gives you a ticket for speeding then the law that punishes you is disingenuous. There's no justice....

Rob

[Neil D]

Let me keep it simple: Jesus isn't the sinner, you and I are. For God to condemn Jesus, the innocent, doesn't ethically answer the law.

[Robert]

The problem isn't about ME...It's about the Law, and it demands that payment be made.

Oh yes it is! You are the sinner, not Christ. Any law, especially God's law, can't condemn an innocent person. That's why this type gospel is what Paul terms "another gospel"! It's a joke. What you are presenting is legal fiction. It makes God unjust. No ethical law will condemn the innocent instead of the guilty. All this does it places God in bad light.

[Robert]

Since Christ committed no sin, the big question is: how could God punish Him on the cross for our sins? Is He not going against His own law? In other words, how can God justify sinners on the basis of what Christ did and still maintain His integrity to His own law which condemns us to death?

This was the main issue fought over the doctrine of justification by faith, in the Counter Reformation. Roman Catholic scholars, like Osiender and Newman, accused the Reformers of legal fiction. If God can justify sinners without first making them righteous, they argued, than He Himself is guilty of breaking His own law. Today, the Muslim scholars are putting forth the same argument and accusing Christianity of being the most unethical religion in the world.

How do we solve this ethical problem? Make no mistake, the Reformers were Biblically right in teaching the doctrine of substitution, but where they failed was to show how Christ qualified to be our substitute. Before Christ could be our Saviour He first had to be qualified to be our substitute. And the reason why the Reformers failed here was because they failed to identify the humanity of Christ with the fallen sinful humanity He came to redeem.

Thus they taught what is commonly known today as Vicarious Substitution. This simply means that Christ took our place, lived and died instead of us, without first identifying Himself with our humanity that needed redeeming. The word “vicarious” means being sympathetic towards another’s need without actually experiencing their situation.

This is how the vicarious substitution of Christ is generally explained: Christ came to this earth to save mankind from sin, but sin is a dual problem. In the first place, sin is what we are by nature; it is a condition we are born with [Eph. 2:3b]. Secondly, sin is behaviour; it is the transgression of the law [1 Jn. 3:4]. How did Christ save us from this two-fold sin problem? The answer they give is, by His sinless human nature He substituted our sinful nature, and by His perfect performance, i.e., His life and death, He substituted our sinful performance. Thus He became our perfect substitute.

This sounds wonderful, but is this what the Scripture teaches? Nowhere will you find in the Bible this idea of vicarious substitution. [JS]

[Woody]

You bring up some good questions Robert.

This has always 'bothered' me.

However .... I just figured that being God ... HE could make the rules even if they don't make sense to us.

[Robert]

I just figured that being God ... HE could make the rules even if they don't make sense to us.

God isn't like our leaders who make rules for us, but have different rules for themselves.

First of all God can't die - it is impossible. Oh sure He could fake His death, but then again He couldn't even do that because He doesn't deceive. What then died? Answer: Our humanity!

You see Christ is God. He was God from eternity. At the incarnation God the Father united Christ's Deity with our corporate life in the womb of Mary. That life in Mary's womb was sinful. Why? It came from Adam. It was a condemned life. It was sinful by nature.

Now we don't have a record of Christ's life in our humanity for the first 12 years (correct me if I'm wrong). Just previous to the incarnation Christ, as God, handed over the independent of His Deity to His Father's care. God then united Christ's Deity with our humanity that needed redeeming.

On the cross (and EGW states this) Deity did not sink and die - humanity died! Whose humanity? Not Christ's (for Christ is God), but rather our fallen humanity.

You see all of us come from one life - the fallen life of Adam. We share his life. We are the multiplication of Adam's life after the fall. Hence, when Christ assumed the fallen life in Mary's womb, He assumed us.

Rob

[Robert]

Just previous to the incarnation Christ, as God, handed over the independent of His Deity to His Father's care.

The above should read:

Just previous to the incarnation Christ, as God, handed over the independent use of His Deity to His Father's care.

[rush4hire]

Looks like you guys have found something to debate about. Either way I praise God for those who recieve and take up the 3 angel's message which begins with:

Quote:

Rev. 14:7 ..Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come..

For:

Quote:

Psalms 19:9 The fear of the LORD [is] clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD [are] true [and] righteous altogether.

Now I've proven every accusation against Ellen White to be false, so now all they can do is point a finger and cry "cult cult". It's sad. They think they will scare people by using the word "cult" many times, and I suppose they will scare the weak, but they have no scriptural authority. THANK YOU PETER:

Quote:

2 Peter 2:18 For when they speak great swelling [words] of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, [through much] wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.

That's exactly what's going on here. They somehow say they have discreded Ellen White, but they haven't. The only thing this guy has is a list of things that are not found in the Bible, like how Ellen White in DOA says children fell asleep on the lap of Jesus, and Jesus had older brothers, etc, etc. That's still not a sign of a false prophet. True prophets have done that. Here are a few things:

Quote:

2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast [them] down to hell, and delivered [them] into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth [person], a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

2:7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:

2:8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed [his] righteous soul from day to day with [their] unlawful deeds;)

3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

Peter says God cast the angels to hell, Noah was a preacher, Lot was just and was vexed every day by the filthy conversation of the wicked, and the earth was made standing out of water. Peter's Bible didn't say any of these things. Peter must have recieved this knowledge by Inspiration. This revelation cannot be said to contradict the Bible.

John says:

Quote:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.

1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

That's not in Genesis. It doesn't say the Word was God. I suppose John's critics would have reviled him and said He was a cult leader.

There are many things.

Paul identifies the Egyptian magicians by name (2 Tim. 3:8), but in Exodus, the names are not revealed.

Jude describes a prophecy of Enoch, (Jude 14, 15), that is nowhere recorded in Genesis.

Jude also says Moses was resurrected by Michael, (Jude 1:9), but it doesn't say that anywhere in the Bible.

Ellen White is not the first prophet who got information about the past which was not written down. The angels record everything. Why wouldn't God give such information, especially before the Second Coming of Christ?

This still fails to be a sign of a false prophet. I'm about to tell them what is the difference between a true and false prophet. It's realy simple. The true prophet gets you to obey God. The false prophet gets you to disobey God.

I'll make that all clear in my next artical.

I may have gotten banned already. I can't seem to access the site now.

Anyway. Thanks for reading. I'll read the responses here now.

God Bless!

[Kevin H]

Vicarious substitutionary sacrifice is Biblical, however this truth has become interpeted and blended with one of two views developed in the 1200s called the forensic view of the atonement (the other view from the 1200s is the Moral Influence Theory). We have to be careful not to take the whole package, or to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Let me put some illustrated nutshell examples:

The Fornsic view: You commit a crime, arrested, guilty and face the death pennalty, and someone else takes your death penalty in it's place.

The Moral Influence Theory: Your'e stuck in a burning building. Someone comes in of their own free will to burn in front of you to show you how horrible it is to burn and thus encourage you to leave the building (however you are still stuck there). I know I took a negative approach, so for a more positive discription turn in your hymnal and read the words to the hymn "When I survey the wonderous cross."

A couple ideas of substitute that does not fit either of the two views of the 1200s:

A child plays on the freeway, a tractor trailer is barreling down and can't stop in time, and someone sees it and pushes the child out of the way to safty but in the process gets crushed under the tires.

someone is on a clift and either falls (or maybe even jumps) but when found his friends/coworkers are amazed to find him battered and brused but very much alive and find that he fell on a sheep that broke his fall.

I believe these two above views are probably closer to the truth. A popular Roman writer who was also a naturalist, in one of his books said that in times of famine a mother pellican would poke a hole in her stomach so that her chicks could eat the food she was able to eat and therefore not starve (no other naturalist has been able to confirm this statement) Early Christian alters showed evidence that they read this book as a common feature is a mother pellican who poked a hole in her stomach so her chicks can eat. The Pelican view of the atonement was the earlist interpetation. It was replaced by the bate view (that God traded Jesus for the sinners to Satan and Satan would rather kill Jesus then the rest of us, not forseeing the resurection in which he lost all) which with the major view of the atonement taught for about 1,000 years until the 1200s when the Forensic view and Moral Influenct theorys developed and became the two major views.

Sadly too many of us think that we need to join one of these two views. However a good place to start is by studying what (or rather WHO) hell fire actually is. Our Fundamentalist backgrouds blinds us to this one passage, but there is a contradiction in the Bible as to why Moses died (and when the Bible has contraditions it means that there is a beautiful truth in both of them that would be missing if we only had the one view). Numbers, and a chapter in Deuteronomy which is an exact copy of a chapter in Numbers has Moses dieing for his sin of striking the rock instead of speaking to it. However the rest of Deuteronomy has Moses as the sinless vicarious sacrifice, the only Hebrew worthy to enter the promised land, but that he lets the people go in his place while he dies outside of the land in their place.

Since we get worked up into frenzies when we see contradictions in the Bible and either try to unifiy, or else we pick on as the truth and read it into the other, we have sadly blinded ourselves to Bible studies in how Moses was a vicarious sacrifice to get a type of how Jesus was our vicarious sacrifice.

Of the 4 major theories of the atonement (Pelican Theory, Bate Theory, Foresnic, and Moral Influence theory) I admit that I tend to hold the old Pelican theory.

[Robert]

Vicarious substitutionary sacrifice is Biblical....

Not at all! It's a false gospel for it doesn't answer the law.

Now go to Romans 7:4 [NASB]...."You also were made to die to the Law [it demanded YOUR death] through the body of Christ....6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound...."

In order to escape the justice of the law your life had to come to an end "in Christ". Notice, I did not say Christ's life had to come to and end (for He is not the sinner), but your life had to come to and end.

Here's the question: Where did your fallen life originate? Please don't tell me it was your mother. Go back further all the way back to Adam. You are simply the multiplication of his fallen life a billion times over. In other words you are the extension of Adam's life!

God, from the womb of Mary, mysteriously united Christ's Deity with our fallen life at the incarnation. This life is your life. In fact we all share one life - the fallen life of Adam. Therefore "in Christ" you came to an end. The law has been legally and ethically satisfied.

All false gospels fail on this point. Therefore they must be fully rejected as heresy. They leave the law of God unanswered and unfulfilled.

If we have not been legally delivered from under the law we still stand under its curse. That's the conclusion that one must arrive at when teaching this heresy called vicarious atonement.

Rob

BC- 5BC

TI- S.D.A. Bible Commentary Vol. 5

CN- MAR2

CT- Mark

PR- 04

PG- 1113

When the voice of the angel was heard saying, “Thy Father calls thee,” He who had said, “I lay down my life, that I might take it again,” “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up,” came forth from the grave to life that was in Himself. Deity did not die. Humanity died….

Now the question is whose humanity?

-BC- 7BC

-TI- S.D.A. Bible Commentary Vol. 7

-CN- HEB8

-CT- Hebrews

-PR- 03

-PG- 927

By His obedience to all the commandments of God, Christ wrought out a redemption for man [mankind]. [How?] This was not done by going out of Himself to another, but by taking humanity into Himself. [What type of humanity?]….To bring humanity into Christ, to bring the fallen race into oneness with divinity, is the work of redemption.

[Robert]

Now some will say that since Christ took upon His Deity our fallen humanity that makes Him a sinner. Is this true?

Well, let me turn this around. The Bible clearly teaches that when one becomes converted the Holy Spirit resides in that person. In other words the two have become one, yet separate.

A] Does the Holy Spirit remain Himself even though He dwells in your sinful flesh?

Yes - He is God. He assumes your sinful humanity, but it isn't His. He guides you as you "walk in the Spirit", but He hasn't become you.

B] Do you remain yourself (a sinner) when the Holy Spirit comes to live in you or do you obtain "holy flesh" (a glorified body).

No, you are still 100% sinner in and of yourself. Yes, the Holy Spirit is in you, but He hasn't become you. Neither have you become the Holy Spirit.

Now reverse this: The Deity of Christ assumed our fallen humanity that needed redeeming. He remained Himself. Therefore He wasn't a sinner. Ellen White is clear on this:

“Was the human nature of the Son of Mary [which was sinful] changed into the divine nature [which was and is sinless] of the Son of God? No; the two natures were mysteriously blended in one person--the man Christ Jesus. In Him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. When Christ was crucified, it was His human nature [His assumed humanity] that died. Deity did not sink and die; that would have been impossible..”

[darlene]

It sounds like people here are not trying to convince others of what they are saying but, rather trying to convince themselves?