An Appeal To SDA's On This Site

[Dr. Rich]

Rich4Truth wrote: "Nowhere does this say you no longer have to keep the law." Then what about these words: "and that not of yourselves:" And how about Romans 10:4? "For Christ is the end of the law..." Try Rom 1-4 where when you die to the law (I don't know how one does this) then there is no longer any law to keep.

Rich4Truth and John317, you both claim that I am attempting to teach lies but then you can't or you refuse or unwilling and unable to prove me wrong from the words of Jesus. Do you really want me to 'take my gloves off' with this issue? I have not even gotten to first base--yet! (Can I do this-isn't this what John did to Joseph Smith?)

Now here is a bold faced lie: Romans 4:13 and verse 20 (among many others). To prove it read Gen. 17 and you will see that Abram was NOT to be the heir of the whole World AND Abram not only waver, he demanded a test from God. So tell me, whom do you want to believe--God or Paul's gospel who he manufactured from one verse, Gen. 15:6.

Gal. 3:6 and continuing is how he built that gospel and it's whole foundation is a lie. If you will read Gal. 1:20 Paul tell us that he is not lying. Why would he say that if not for people saying that he was lying? In the Next chapter Paul tells us that he opposed Peter to his face? Was it Peter that said Paul was lying? Paul goes on to say that the rest of the Jews joined Peter in hypocrisy and that even Barnabas left Paul because of Paul's lying.

This is your Paul--the one who said in Gal. 1:8 that should an angel sent from heaven (God) preach a different gospel than his, that this angel is accursed. Wow! This proves that there must have been more than one gospel out there and the one that Peter was giving was leading the rest of the Jews away from Paul. Rich4truth and John, can you please explain this?

[Richard Holbrook]

Uh-oh He's gonna take his gloves off!

I don't really care if you leave em on or take em off. Whatever makes you happiest.

I read Gal 1:20, and on through chapter 2. I never did see where he said Barnabas left him because of his lying. How much further do I have to read?

[Richard Holbrook]

This is like having to explain to a non SDA that Paul isn't throwing out the law. You can't just take a snippet here and there. Read the whole thing. Take it in it's context.

[Richard Holbrook]

About the Angel. John317 already covered that for you, so I'll just quote him:

An unfallen angel who is from heaven won't give a different gospel but we know that Satan and the fallen angels as well as people who work for Satan do give a different gospel, and they try to persuade people to pervert and doubt the truth of the Bible.

Paul is not saying there are two distinct gospels that are equally valid. Paul's language shows that he is contrasting the gospel with a different "gospel,"-- a so-called "gospel" that contradicted the gospel that Paul preached.

So Paul is talking about a gospel of a different kind [Gk. "hetero"]. It's a false gospel. It's not the same gospel that Paul was preaching. It is different and contrary to the one true gospel.

In v. 6, Paul speaks of

"a different [even an opposition] gospel." See Amplified Bible.

"7 Not that there is [or could be] any other [genuine Gospel], but [a message].... with a different kind of teaching ....

8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to and different from that which we preached to you, let him be anathema...

9 As we said before, so I now say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel different from or contrary to that which you received [from us], let him be anathema."

So you can see that Paul is not saying there are two equally valid gospels. His language makes it plane that he's contrasting the one true gospel with a different message that is a false gospel.

[John317]

Paul--the one who said in Gal. 1:8 that should an angel sent from heaven (God) preach a different gospel than his, that this angel is accursed. Wow! This proves that there must have been more than one gospel out there and the one that Peter was giving was leading the rest of the Jews away from Paul. Rich4truth and John, can you please explain this?

If you read Gal. 1: 6-9 carefully and in several good translations, you will see that Paul is talking about a "different gospel," i.e., a false one, as compared with the gospel that Paul was preaching. The original language refers to "a gospel of a different kind." He is not talking about two distinct, equally valid gospels. One is "contrary" to the gospel the Galatians had received.

I'm sure you've known this before.

Paul is not talking about Peter's gospel. Peter preached the same gospel. Paul doesn't find fault with what Peter was preaching. Peter's problem was that he didn't always live up to what he knew. As Paul says in Gal. 2: 12, 13, Peter changed his behavior (not his gospel) for fear of the circumcision. Compare Acts 10, 11.

[Stewart (SDA)]

MusicMan,

It is heartening to me that you are willing to put EGW into the same category as the apostle Paul.

But I have only just realized that you consign a large part of the New Testament to the rubbish heap... (I wonder now what Books of the Old Testament are acceptable to you.)

At this point I don't know what to say... The Christian bond of fellowship is found in the common acknowledgement of what is truth and authority. You and I are far from having this.

Regards,

Stewart.

[Richard Holbrook]

Musicman or Dr. Rich, you never answered my question:

If you don't believe that God was able to preserve his word down through the ages, and keep herecy out of it, then what makes you believe they got the words of Jesus right? After all if Satan was allowed to tamper with the word of God to the extent you say, don't you think he would go after the words of Christ even more?

[John317]

Rich4Truth and John317, you both claim that I am attempting to teach lies but then you can't or you refuse or unwilling and unable to prove me wrong from the words of Jesus.

You are saying that the Apostle Paul teaches lies and that Ellen White is a false prophet.

This is certainly contrary to the beliefs and practices of the Seventh-day Adventist church, of which you profess to be a "staunch" member.

Quote:

Do you really want me to 'take my gloves off' with this issue? I have not even gotten to first base--yet!

You seem to be very serious about "this issue" for some reason.

Speaking as a moderator:

If you want to keep pushing "this issue," please take it to a private thread. Please don't take it to all the public threads.

Quote:

(Can I do this-isn't this what John did to Joseph Smith?)

What I said about Joseph Smith [except for his being a false prophet] is found in the standard writings of the Mormon church. I'm not saying anything that they do not say publicly themselves.

Quote:

Now here is a bold faced lie: Romans 4:13 and verse 20 (among many others). To prove it read Gen. 17 and you will see that Abram was NOT to be the heir of the whole World AND Abram not only waver, he demanded a test from God. So tell me, whom do you want to believe--God or Paul's gospel who he manufactured from one verse, Gen. 15:6.

You seem to dislike "faith," because I notice that you regularly attack Righteousness by Faith.

I believe your problem is that you make statements and draw hard and fast conclusions when you should be continuing to ask questions, and still be investigating.

Paul is not saying that Abraham had absolutely perfect faith. Gen. 17 is not showing Abraham at a time when his faith in God was mature and strong. Abraham's faith in God continued to grow. See Gen. 22.

There is no contradiction between Paul and God, although no doubt you see many contradictions. That is the consequence of rejecting 1/3 or more of the New Testament. The resolutions to what you see as contradictions are often found in the very writings that you reject.

[John317]

Musicman or Dr. Rich, you never answered my question:

If you don't believe that God was able to preserve his word down through the ages, and keep herecy out of it, then what makes you believe they got the words of Jesus right?

This is an extremely important point. The fact is that a good many of the "higher critics" do not accept the gospels, including the Gospel of John, as historically true and accurate. Very many do not even believe Jesus was resurrected.

http://www.westarinstitute.org/Polebridge/Excerpts/voting5g.html

http://www.westarinstitute.org/Periodicals/4R_Articles/geeringtwo.html

This is an example of what some of the "higher critics" are saying about the Gospel of John--

Quote:

The writer of the Fourth Gospel must not be accused of falsifying the evidence when he created the speeches he put into the mouth of Jesus. That had been common practice from Herodotus onwards (c.485-425 bce). Indeed, the writer of the Fourth Gospel tells his readers at the end that he has written as he did for the express purpose of leading them to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. He was doing no more than what preachers and Sunday School teachers do to this day when they use their imagination to fill out a biblical story. There is no great harm in this practice. The problem arises only when what has been said in that manner is appealed to as historical evidence.

My point is that if Dr. Rich and others want to attack Paul, Peter, Hebrews, James, Luke, Acts, Mark, etc.-- to say nothing of Ellen White-- the same arguments are used to attack not only the Old Testament but Jesus Christ Himself. Those who start down this slippery slope are usually left with very little that they can be certain of.

In classes at public colleges where you can study the entire Bible from the point of view of "higher criticism," you will not find John's Gospel treated with any more respect than Mark's. In fact, Luke is viewed as generally more reliable historically than John. They don't believe for a minute that Jesus actually made water into wine, much less that He went to heaven and is coming back.

[Richard Holbrook]

I thought he was going to take the gloves off.

[Richard Holbrook]

Excellent point John317

[jasd]

>>...but it certainly harmonizes with the idea that God wants to save everybody, and God always gets what He wants.<<

Eccl 3:14 I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth [it], that [men] should fear before him.

[LifeHiscost]

Stewart,

So rather than think for yourself and look at end time prophecy to see what is actually there you will let someone that is now dead do your thinking for you.

OTOH that type of reasoning would set the book of Revelation dead in its' tracks, as the first few verses reveal Truth to be delivered to other than Jesus, who is now dead, for the sake of the body of Christ.

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,

who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw.

Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.

John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace, from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne,"

Rev 1:1-4 NASB

Fortunately Jesus addressed this very issue while His Word came directly from His mouth

"Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”"John 20:29 NKJV

Blessings!

[John317]

Rich4Truth wrote: "Nowhere does this say you no longer have to keep the law." Then what about these words: "and that not of yourselves:" And how about Romans 10:4? "For Christ is the end of the law..."

In Romans 10: 4, Paul is not saying that law is abolished. He is saying that Jesus is the goal of the law as well as that Jesus Christ means the end of law as far as right standing with God is concerned. In order words, the law is no longer to be viewed as the means by which people come into right relationship with God. Unfortunately that is how many people saw the law, but it was wrong. God never gave law to be the means of justification and salvation. Compare Romans 3: 22; 5:1. "We have been given right standing with God through faith." Go back to Romans 3: 20 and see what Paul says about the law, and be sure to notice 3: 31; 6: 1, 15.

Quote:

Try Rom 1-4 where when you die to the law (I don't know how one does this) then there is no longer any law to keep.

That's foolishness. The Bible teaches no such thing.

Do you notice that it does not say that the law died? We sinners die to the law. The law does not die. In fact, the law is holy, right and good. That's important. A lot of people miss that.

Quote a passage about dying to the law that you believe teaches that the law no longer exists.

You don't know how one dies to the law?

That's similar to your believing that no one is born again, or born of the Spirit, or that people who are born of God never commit sin.

These kinds of statements only convince me that you are rejecting something (Paul's Epistles) that you misunderstand.

[LifeHiscost]

Rich4truth,

Thank you for spending all that time to place before those of us willing to listen to Truth, a very well thought out "rightly dividing the Word of Truth" It's nice to know not everyone young is sweeping away the Scripture with which they don't wish to inconvenience themselves.

The sad thing isn't so much that some wish to avoid that which, to them, is burdensome, but they even think so little of God as to believe falsehood about His great love for His children.

"This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome," 1 John 5:3 NIV

There is one thing I wish to comment on re: to the last scripture in your post. This is not meant to disturb your faith in the Word of God as revealing His infallibility. Just that anything fallen man has taken to himself, will, as a result of our fallen condition prove to have errors in it.

"...every writing [is] God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that [is] in righteousness,"2 Tim 3:16

YLT

In the first place, the preposition "is", is a supplied word.

And in the second place, all writings are not inspired by God. Maybe this is a subject for a thread of its' own.

One translation of that verse reads like this and I believe it to be accurate.

"All scripture given by inspiration of God, is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" 2 Tim 3:16

My point is that even in the Holy Bible one needs to use care in being adamant about exact meaning. This, I believe, is why the Holy Spirit is always necessary in refuting other's misconceptions.

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law." Gal 5:22,23 NKJV

Keep the faith! Blessings!

[Richard Holbrook]

"All scripture given by inspiration of God, is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" 2 Tim 3:16

At least you don't throw out all the writings of Paul, Luke, and Peter.

[John317]

"...every writing [is] God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that [is] in righteousness,"2 Tim 3:16

YLT

In the first place, the preposition "is", is a supplied word.

And in the second place, all writings are not inspired by God. Maybe this is a subject for a thread of its' own.

One translation of that verse reads like this and I believe it to be accurate.

"All scripture given by inspiration of God, is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" 2 Tim 3:16

The sentence can be translated either way. Without a doubt, however, the vast majority of translations read, "All Scripture is God-breathed...."

"Scripture" [Gk. graphe] is not merely writings but understood to refer to holy or sacred writings. It was the word used to describe a passage of the Bible, and the plural meant OT Scriptures.

[LifeHiscost]

You would have seen that when a person repents honestly, that they are then justified – but they must keep seeking the truth and giving up the lies that they have learned.

That is the ideal and a goal worth putting effort for in order to reach.

"If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not,)..."1 Kings 8:46 KJV

"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."1 John 1:8 KJV

I feel safer trusting in the righteousness of Jesus.

"and of Him ye -- ye are in Christ Jesus, who became to us from God wisdom, righteousness also, and sanctification, and redemption, "1 Cor 1:30 YLT

Regards!

[Dr. Rich]

And you really believe what you just said--and with a straight face?

Paul is writing this letter because of another gospel that is being presented to them--that's what the whole letter is about. Verse 6 of chapter one even tells us this. But then Paul attempts to clean this up in the next verse and saying Oh, I meant that it was the same gospel but it was distorted.

Then Paul tells them that his gospel was not given to him by men, but by a spirit-(all without a witness)

Question: Who or what group was giving a 'distorted' gospel different than Paul's? No, it was not the Jews for they could care less about Paul. It was 'THE WAY' and it was being given by the pillers of the so called church-Peter, John and James. Paul even brags that these men gave him nothing. He called them over and over "reputed".

Later, Paul writes things about Hagar and Sarah and uses old testament scriptures just like Satan did to Jesus. Please don't take my word for it--read the old testament verses and you will see Paul uses them completely incorrect. So anyone circumcised, Christ will not be of any benefit to them.

Please show me anywhere in the words of Jesus where He said anything about dying to the flesh--or that there was a seperation of the flesh and the spirit? You can't. If you want to believe Paul-go ahead, but don't force his gospel onto other people.

This is why I will only trust the words of Jesus.

[Dr. Rich]

Rich4Truth wrote: "Musicman or Dr. Rich, you never answered my question:

If you don't believe that God was able to preserve his word down through the ages, and keep herecy out of it, then what makes you believe they got the words of Jesus right? After all if Satan was allowed to tamper with the word of God to the extent you say, don't you think he would go after the words of Christ even more?"

I did answer this already, but the answer is that Satan did go after every letter/book except revelation for no one understood this anyway. However, Jesus's words can be found because of the test--John 14:26 and 17:20-22. Also, we can know it is true by the prophecy given when it comes true. Many have and some are right at hand--as we can see with the problem of no unity among SDA members. The only way to have complete unity is to do exactly like those found in Revelation 12:17. And that's my answer.

[Musicman1228]

Answers in order:

John317 -

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him (Paul) who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. Gal.1:6-8.

I agree that Paul was talking about a gospel different than his. The gospel that Paul's people are turning too was not a false gospel, it was the gospel that the missionaries from the Jerusalem Assembly were teaching to the churches that Paul established. Paul would establish a church and teach them his gospel of grace, then the Jerusalem Assembly, headed by James, Peter, and John, would send people to that church and try to bring them back to the gospel that was taught by Jesus. This made Paul very angry, so in this case he wrote to the church in Galatia and accused them of deserting him and his gospel of grace for a gospel that was different than what he had taught them.

This is why he warned them that anyone who came to them teaching a gospel different from the one that he taught them, even if it was an angel from heaven (he was pointing at James, Peter, and John when he said this, knowing that they were not angels) that they should be accursed. Cursing someone for teaching something different than you have taught does not sound rational to me.

Stewart-

I only put EGW in the same category as Paul to make the point that there are many SDA's that will test prophets outside of our church by a different standard than that which they test prophets in the church. I was trying (unsuccessfully it seems) to show that if we would test our own prophet and the greatest apostle (her words) by the same standards the we test say Joseph Smith we would come the the same conclusion. I was only trying to make the case for testing the spirit that is behind any and every person that makes the claim that they are servants of Jesus Christ. I was doing this not to harm the faith of anyone but to follow the orders of Jesus to beware of false prophets that come in sheep's clothing. To be fair we must test everyone by the same standard, which is the words of Jesus Christ.

The Old Testament was used by Jesus in battle against Satan and the Sanhedrin. It is therefore fully acceptable to me, because who am I to gainsay anything that Jesus used to combat evil. In the case of the New Testament; just because a person names himself an apostle of Jesus does not automatically make that so. The people that I am sure of in the New Testament are Jesus Christ and His own disciples. This includes Peter, John and Matthew because they were eyewitnesses to the ministry of Jesus Christ. That means that for my own safeties sake I use only Matthew, Mark (writing for Peter), and John (1st, 2nd, and 3rd, and Revelation. To me these are the only reliable testimonies in the New Testament.

Rich4truth-

Jesus Christ as God has the power to do anything He wants. That does not mean that He uses His power overpower the freedom of choice of anyone in the universe, and this includes Satan. Yes, Jesus did preserve His words down through time so that today we can search for and find the Truth in the Bible as it is extant today. That just means that instead of having an infallible source (which would have been wonderful) we have to discover the truth as we discover the wheat among the weeds. Yes, God's truth is in the Old Testament. It is also discoverable in the New Testament, but we must use our minds and intellect to find it.

John317-

I do not attack anyone in the New Testament. This is not personal with me. But I refuse to use unreliable testimony as a basis for my eternal life. That is taking just too big a chance. My concern is only that Paul was not an eyewitness to the life of Jesus on earth. Luke never met Jesus personally, There is very strong evidence that Peter did not write 1st and 2nd Peter. James the brother of Jesus was instrumental in trying to have Jesus go to Jerusalem to be killed. No one knows who wrote Hebrews. Jude was another brother of Jesus and his value as a witness is suspect. The ONLY reliable sources as to the testimony of Jesus is His own disciples, and Jesus did say that their testimony would be preserved for those of us that came after.

LifeHisCost-

Please explain what you meant by your statement:

OTOH that type of reasoning would set the book of Revelation dead in its' tracks, as the first few verses reveal Truth to be delivered to other than Jesus, who is now dead, for the sake of the body of Christ.

Why would the type of reasoning that shows that Paul was a fraud cause Revelation to be 'dead in its tracks'. Rev.1:1-3 tell the progression of the transfer of information that God needed to reveal to Jesus Christ - something that He did not know while He was still on earth. God revealed this information to Jesus, who gave it to His angel, who gave it to John, who gives it to the Bondservants of Jesus. This passage gives the chain of evidence of the information so that we can be 100% sure that it came from God. What is the information? The timing and events leading to the return of Jesus Christ to this earth.

[Dr. Rich]

John wrote "Paul is not saying that Abraham had absolutely perfect faith. Gen. 17 is not showing Abraham at a time when his faith in God was mature and strong. Abraham's faith in God continued to grow." Then why did Paul say "he did not waver in unbelief"? I didn't write this--Paul did. Now that was a lie and there is no getting around it!

You said "Quote a passage about dying to the law that you believe teaches that the law no longer exists." Romans 6:1-23 but pay attention to verse 7 and 14.

Yes, I would really like to know how one dies daily. What good are you dead? Jesus never said anything like this.

[LifeHiscost]

The only way to have complete unity is to do exactly like those found in Revelation 12:17. And that's my answer.

And perhaps this is also an essential.

"And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death."Revelation 12:11 KJV

I would venture to say the last part of that Scripture does not describe the determination of many on this forum, especially those who do not feel that putting on the full armor of God is of importance.

"Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints.

Pray also for me, that whenever I open my mouth, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains. Pray that I may declare it fearlessly, as I should.

Eph 6:10-20 NIV

Blessings!

[John317]

Then Paul tells them that his gospel was not given to him by men, but by a spirit-(all without a witness)

Did Moses have a witness that God gave Him the law or that God spoke to him at the burning bush?

Did Jesus have a witness that the Devil tempted him in the wilderness?

Did Jesus have a witness that He went to heaven?

I don't depend on a witness to Paul's getting his gospel from God any more than I need a witness that Jesus was tempted of Satan in the wilderness or that Jesus went to heaven.

[LifeHiscost]

but pay attention to verse 7 and 14.

Yes, I would really like to know how one dies daily. What good are you dead? Jesus never said anything like this.

It is a death of the old man of sin that is being spoken of, with a dependence upon the Holy Spirit to accomplish what we have no power to do.

"I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily."1 Cor 15:31 KJV

"Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin."Romans 6:6 KJV

"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me."Gal 2:20 KJV

Blessings!