"In Christ" what does that mean?

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Why would you accuse Steve of pantheistic beliefs?

I cannot think of another poster who is more averse to pantheism than Steve?

Mark

I dunno. You claim that I'm going to Hell and yet that's the farthest from the Truth because Jesus has saved me. So' date=' when did Truth ever get in the way of what happens here on Club Adventist? And as we all know ... Steve is not going to be saved because he believes in pantheism. [/quote']

It would appear to me that your post had no other intention other than to bait Steve into an argument.

"I dunno" is not a valid reason.

Neither is "another said this and this".

I am beginning to note that in so many of your posts, there is a personal baiting that goes on.

Is that the case?

[teresaq]

It proves that 1888 MSC are out of sync with Adventism. They are separatist.

i think you are confused as to what a separatist is.

perhaps you should educate yourself in that area before speaking of it.

a separatist has left the church and formed its own group. the 1888 msg is part of the church with all members in good standing.

that you dont agree with their understanding is another point entirely, if in fact you even know what it is.

[teresaq]

Quote:

Members are free to attack ideas, positions, evidence, teaching, and practices, etc. So when Steve, for instance, says that those who kill babies are worshipping Satan, the rules of the forum allow for that, and it is not a personal attack.

So if I said, "Those who disagree with me regarding point X are worshiping Satan," that's OK?

interesting, isnt it?

well, i know you as well as some others, answer to a Higher Authority, so we just have to let the ones who answer to their own authority be.

[pnattmbtc]

In the 50's, Wieland and Short somehow got hung up on errors relating to 1888 and tried twice to get the conference to accept their wrong views.

[teresaq]

Sorry, but you appear to be out of context. Your Ellen White comments speak to both aspects of the covenant, and the one you bolded only speaks to the part played at Mt Sinai, which in and of itself is a true statement.

so when ellen white speaks of two covenants you see it as one?

[Woody]

I dunno Mark. You can call it whatever you like. It's just the game that is played here and you are a primary player.

[Woody]

Quote:

interesting, isnt it?

I had the same thought. But here is my theory for what it is worth. Those who participate in this kind of behaviour ... have no idea of how evil it is until you put it in the perspective of them receiving it. This is where the parrot rule comes in. I try to demonstrate to them what their behaviour is like. I copy and paste . Being a parrot actually works some times. I know the alternative doesn't work. The bad behaviour just continues on and on. After all ... the rules as stated ... allow for it.

But then ... what do I know. I'm headed for Hell.

[John317]

Quote:

Members are free to attack ideas, positions, evidence, teaching, and practices, etc. So when Steve, for instance, says that those who kill babies are worshipping Satan, the rules of the forum allow for that, and it is not a personal attack.

So if I said, "Those who disagree with me regarding point X are worshiping Satan," that's OK?

With moderator's hat:

It would depend on several factors, such as what point x is. For instance, does the poster show strong evidence from the Bible or Ellen White's writings that this is the case? Does the statement occur in a post that is more of a personal attack (i.e., confrontational) than a reasoned discussion of the issues? See Paul's way of talking to his friends about this topic in 1 Cor. 10: 20, 21. Another factor to consider is the overall tone or quality of the thread in the context of the statement.

This would not be acceptable-- "If you disagree with my view of meat-eating [or the Trinity, etc.], then you are a worshipper of Satan."

This or similar statements would be acceptable:

"Listen to the voices, mark the powers, that prevail in the world. Is there any voice of prayer? Do you see any sign that God is recognized? There are priests, plenty of them; but they are trampling under their feet the law of Jehovah. Their garments are stained with the blood of souls. Multitudes are sacrificing to devils. Look, you who are hesitating between obedience and disobedience. Look in imagination at the vast multitudes worshipping at Satan's altar. Listen to the music, to the language, called higher education. But what does God declare it?--The mystery of iniquity." Ellen G. White. An Appeal for Missions (1898), page 11, paragraph 2

[Steve Billiter]

I do not lie, if I do that, I will not be in the kingdom.

Quote:

The pastor and the 1888 elder treated him like he was the pope in the Vatican and they were all catholics, it was sickening. They sold Sequeria's books in the church foyer on the Sabbath.

These 1888 people are like snakes in the grass. They are extremely dishonest because they tear down the church behind its back and then publically from the pulpit pretend to be loyal SDA's when not a single one of them are. They accuse the current church of legalism across the board, as they try to say the church us exactly like it was in 1888.

These are personal attacks, right? I thought you claimed you didn't do this. At any rate, this is just hearsay, and has no value whatsoever in terms of being evidence or proof of anything.

Fine, then why be concerned? These are my observations about what I personally saw and heard. These people were my friends.You may take it or leave it. I said I do not make personal attacks on this forum, in addition, I did not name names.I stand by what I said as a warning to others of the dangers of satanic delusions

Quote:

They use Ellen Whites endorsement of the "most precious message" to try and justify their own corrupt organization, and some try to use that to justify all of Jones and Wagoners writings after they apostatized.

Who does this? Who is "some"? What is your proof that they do this?

All this was written in their books these ladies gave me. It leads one to think that because Ellen White endorsed the good message in 1888, she also endorses the false one contained in the 1888 MSC. Its all over the web, I'll bring back a quote.

Quote:

To make a long story short, the 1888 MSC is way short on obedience, to the gospel and to the commandments, which cannot be separated.

I read it I saw it, I heard it. It is simply cheap grace, which is no grace.

I dealt with this accusation earlier in the thread. I quoted a couple of things, including the following:

Quote:

Jones's and Waggoner's teaching was that true justification by faith makes a believer righteous in the sense that it makes him to be an obedient doer of the law.(The 1888 Message An Introduction;p.77)...

[F]aith in Christ delivers him from his captivity to disobedience to the law, and sets him in the path of obedience. The faith that operates in genuine justification by faith is a working faith, and the atonement cannot be a true reconciliation with God unless it effects a corresponding reconciliation with the character of God, which is obedience to His holy law. Any so-called justification by faith which declares a man just who continues deliberately to disobey the law of God is a lie, for it has distorted both justification and faith and understands neither.(Ibid.)

I underlined the last sentence this time around to make clear that Wieland strongly emphasizes the importance of obedience. He always has. Anyone familiar with his teachings knows this.

Satan always works with truth and error. The above statement is wonderful in itself, but his writings and 1888 contain vast contradictions, straight errors and other weirdness. I can also show you in Sequeria book, "Beyond Belief" where he teaches the correct message of justification by faith, then 2 other places where he teaches error about justification by faith.

Quote:

I believe it is part of the omega of apostasy that Ellen White mentions that was to come after the alpha which was Dr. Kellogs book, "The Living Temple" that contained pantheistic errors.

I suppose this explains some of your behavior.

Personal attacks again.

Quote:

There is one thing I know for certain sure, the 1888 MSC, and they are sincere good people, can never deceive anyone who is truly converted and is grounded in truth like I was when they came after me.

If they are sincere, good people, why would they try to deceive truly converted people? Do you think it's possible you are in error?

it is impossible for me to be in error. God is good. if we obey Him, we will know the truth! The problem with deception in they don't know their deceived.

Quote:

When the Lord revealed to me the gross error I posted here in Wieland's book, "Good News", I returned to these ladies all 10 or 12 books they gave me from their convention.

I still have the book, "The Good news is Better than You Think"

by Wieland, that I use for evidence as needed. It stays in my drawer, being not granted the privilege of the company of my EGW books and Bibles on my main bookshelf. Nowhere in this book is the real gospel presented. Nothing about confession of sin, repentance, or obedience. May God have mercy on the souls of those who are deceived into this system of gross errors.

Steve, there's absolutely no purpose in posting stuff like this (i.e. personal comments about how you believe the Bible, so can't be deceived, or are truly converted, or any of that). If you have some beef with something that someone is teaching, what you should do is present the item you believe is in error, and then explain why you think there is error involved.

]Mind your own business. who are you to tell me what I should write, you are out of line!

It appears to me that in your previous post, where you quoted from "The Good News is Better Than You Think" that you either misread what you quoted, or misunderstood it, because what you claimed Wieland said, he didn't!

[John317]

Good quote. I believe it wholeheartedly and wish that all the participants made this point as clear as it is made here.

[John317]

Quote:

interesting, isnt it?

Those who participate in this kind of behaviour ... have no idea of how evil it is until you put it in the perspective of them receiving it. This is where the parrot rule comes in. I try to demonstrate to them what their behaviour is like. I copy and paste . Being a parrot actually works some times. I know the alternative doesn't work. The bad behaviour just continues on and on. After all ... the rules as stated ... allow for it.

With moderator's hat--

If you or anyone else has a personal problem with people, the best thing to do is not fight or argue with them on the public threads. Doing wrong because someone else is doing wrong doesn't make it right and will not solve any problems. It only makes matters worse. Tell the moderators and let them decide whether to delete or edit. If members post personal arguments or name calling or things that are deemed to be personal attacks, those posts will be deleted or edited when the moderators see them or when they are brought to his/her attention. (Remember moderators cannot see all posts nor do they stay online 24/7.)

Often the people who complain most about "bad behavior" are among the worst violators of the rules.

Remember that people have a right to express their opinions even though everyone else may disagree with them-- as long as it is done in a way that does not denigrate the ones posting. You can say that someone's idea are wrong or whatever, but you can't call them an idiot, etc. And if someone does call you an "idiot" or some other insulting name, do not call them a name in return-- or take other actions contrary to the rules-- but contact the moderator and give him/her the post# and the name of the thread.

And pray for everyone!!! We all need it desperately. :-)

[John317]

Quote:

You attacked me personalty.

Can you clarify that? Is this the Kings English?

I think that's called a typo. They happen to everyone no matter how careful a writer is.

[John317]

... Jack Sequeria whom I refuted to his face in church for his same Universal Justification error.

Would you mind sharing what you told him and how it went. I'd be interested in knowing what evidence you used to refute Jack S.'s beliefs on universal justification.

I have never met Jack Sequeira but I have seen some of his talks on 3ABN (over 10 years ago), and I've read several of his books. I don't agree with him on a number of his teachings.

[pnattmbtc]

I don't believe "universal justification" is a phrase Jack Sequeira uses. As I pointed out above, Wallenkampf coined this phrase, and to be accurate, what he actually called it is "Temporary Universal Justification." He made it clear that this does not confer personal salvation to anyone, as have Wieland and Sequeira, as well as Waggoner, Jones, and Prescott before them.

[John317]

In regards to Ellen White, she wrote things regarding Christ's work which are corporate in some place, and individual in others, just like Scripture. You really can't prove anything by quoting only statements where she's dealing with the individual aspect. There are two aspects. Corporate statements includes the ones which have been cited, including "To the death of Christ, we owe even this earthly life." "Christ, by His wonderful work in giving Himself, restored the whole race of men with favor with God." "Christ redeemed Adam's disgraceful fall, and saved the world." (These are quotes from memory, so could be slightly off. The first 2 references are DA 660, 1SM 343. The third one is YI somewhere).

Would you agree that to say Christ's death "saved the world" and "restored the whole race of men to favor with God" means that Christ's death gave everyone in the world a second probation? In other words, without Christ's death, all mankind would have perished. That would have been the end of human probation. As it is, human probation will end just before the Second Coming.

Christ's death did not "justify" the whole human race in the sense that God now views all mankind as righteous as Christ. He justifies only believers in that sense when they genuinely accept God's unmerited gift of salvation through faith. Then He begins the lifelong process of helping us to separate sin from ourselves and have God's character written in our minds.

There is a significant difference, though, between universal grace and particular grace. Universal grace is that benefit from Christ's death which accrues to every living thing, including animals and trees. For instance, the gift of air, water, and all life processes. Even Satan has received some benefit from Christ's sacrifice, because without it, Satan would doubtless have ceased to exist. He owes his life-- and his continued existence-- to the One he killed on the cross.

Particular grace, on the the other hand, is that grace which leads a person to be saved in God's eternal kingdom. It begins with regeneration and ends in glorification and immortality.

[Steve Billiter]

Originally Posted By: Steve Billiter

... Jack Sequeria whom I refuted to his face in church for his same Universal Justification error.

Would you mind sharing what you told him and how it went. I'd be interested in knowing what evidence you used to refute Jack S.'s beliefs on universal justification.

I have never met Jack Sequeira but I have seen some of his talks on 3ABN (over 10 years ago), and I've read several of his books. I don't agree with him on a number of his teachings.

Hi John, thanks for dropping in, its always a pleasure to discuss the Bible and current church affairs with people who are courteous and knowledgeable!

I probably didn't handle it all that well. This was at the Reno NV SDA church 2 and 1/2 years ago. A week in advance I emailed Jack, but he doesn't converse by email, he leaves that to Jean his wife.Jacks book, "Beyond Belief" is on the web at

http://www.jacksequeira.org/jacklist.htm

He was on 3abn? Are you sure?

But his universal justification error is in that book a few times.

What he teaches is that the whole world is already justified, reconciled, and redeemed by Christ, and unless one rejects that, he is saved. He neglects acceptance of Christ through faith first, confession of sin and repentance. Beyond Belief is a very good title for that book. It is the most confusing theology Ive ever seen on the whole. It can be broken down and exposed for what it is.

2. Universal/Particular. “In Christ,” all humanity was redeemed — legally justified and reconciled to God [see Romans 5:18; 2 Corinthians 5:18-19; 1 Timothy 4:10; Titus 2:11; 1 John 2:2]. (Jack Sequeria, Beyond Belief)

Notice he just puts out Bible texts for others to look up, most do not, they just believe the errors because they have not studied. here is how he does it:

Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

At first glance this does seem to say all men are saved, but we know it doesn't mean that. It means all are offered the free gift, but we must meet the conditions which he leaves out.

Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: He leaves out this verse and all the ones about confession of sin and repentance and John 3 about being born again.This next verse needs to be properly understood as well

Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Paul uses many for all men that are sinners, and many for the ones that are saved.

People get bogged down in Romans because they don't let the Bible interpret itself.

Mat 7:13 Enter in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leads to destruction, and many there be who go in there:

Mat 7:14 Because narrow is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leads unto life, and few there be that find it.

Of course this verse sheds more light on the ratio of the saved and the lost.

Anyway, I requested a question and answer session in Jack's afternoon lecture and when they handed me the mike I quoted the above from his book and I said the Bible does not teach this and gave the reasons why. Jack was quite annoyed and said something to the effect to the pastor, " Do something with this guy, can't you make him believe?" And he had a scowl on his face. So he just gave the above Bible references without quoting them.

I was not in that good a position because he was in the pulpit and I was in the pew. But I did make my point. I would rather debate him at a table with a lot of witnesses present, but I'm sure he avoids this like the plague.

Several church members liked what I did and we were talking in the foyer and the pastor rushed over to listen but everyone shut up! Jack will not debate me by email, he wanted to do it by phone but I declined on that one.

[Woody]

Quote:

I think that's called a typo. They happen to everyone no matter how careful a writer is.

Putting my 'parrot' hat on.

[Woody]

Quote:

"it is impossible for me to be in error. God is good."

Let me clarify. Are you actually claiming to be God? I hope not. And can you explain how it is so impossible for you to be in error? Again ... if you are claiming here to be God ... then I would understand. But otherwise ... I am confused.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

Quote:

Members are free to attack ideas, positions, evidence, teaching, and practices, etc. So when Steve, for instance, says that those who kill babies are worshipping Satan, the rules of the forum allow for that, and it is not a personal attack.

So if I said, "Those who disagree with me regarding point X are worshiping Satan," that's OK?

With moderator's hat:

It would depend on several factors, such as what point x is. For instance, does the poster show strong evidence from the Bible or Ellen White's writings that this is the case? Does the statement occur in a post that is more of a personal attack (i.e., confrontational) than a reasoned discussion of the issues?

This would not be acceptable-- "If you disagree with my view of meat-eating [or the Trinity, etc.], then you are a worshipper of Satan."

pretty much if you agree that is an act of worshipping satan then it is permissible and if it is declared against something you believe then it is not permissible?

that looks like what you are saying.

[Steve Billiter]

Originally Posted By: Redwood

Quote:

You really need the CEASE the name-calling.

Some sure have a martyr complex ? Do you really think this is happening to the one who is so well known for doing this exact thing? He is just calling you out for your pantheistic beliefs.

Why would you accuse Steve of pantheistic beliefs?

I cannot think of another poster who is more averse to pantheism than Steve?

Mark

Thanks Mark, we just have to consider the source. he/she has accused me of so many things I've lost track. Its funny how some accuse but provide no quotes or proof.We need to have sympathy for such but its very hard, I need to work on that.

God Bless! Steve

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

Quote:

Members are free to attack ideas, positions, evidence, teaching, and practices, etc. So when Steve, for instance, says that those who kill babies are worshipping Satan, the rules of the forum allow for that, and it is not a personal attack.

So if I said, "Those who disagree with me regarding point X are worshiping Satan," that's OK?

With moderator's hat:

It would depend on several factors, such as what point x is. For instance, does the poster show strong evidence from the Bible or Ellen White's writings that this is the case? Does the statement occur in a post that is more of a personal attack (i.e., confrontational) than a reasoned discussion of the issues? See Paul's way of talking to his friends about this topic in 1 Cor. 10: 20, 21. Another factor to consider is the overall tone or quality of the thread in the context of the statement.

This would not be acceptable-- "If you disagree with my view of meat-eating [or the Trinity, etc.], then you are a worshipper of Satan."

This or similar statements would be acceptable:

"Listen to the voices, mark the powers, that prevail in the world. Is there any voice of prayer? Do you see any sign that God is recognized? There are priests, plenty of them; but they are trampling under their feet the law of Jehovah. Their garments are stained with the blood of souls. Multitudes are sacrificing to devils. Look, you who are hesitating between obedience and disobedience. Look in imagination at the vast multitudes worshipping at Satan's altar. Listen to the music, to the language, called higher education. But what does God declare it?--The mystery of iniquity." Ellen G. White. An Appeal for Missions (1898), page 11, paragraph 2

This is interesting. Do you think you could move this statement to the rules section so that it would be there for a reference?

[teresaq]

since God says that is demonic behavior and for me God is a higher Authority i will obey Him over man any day.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Me:These are personal attacks, right? I thought you claimed you didn't do this. At any rate, this is just hearsay, and has no value whatsoever in terms of being evidence or proof of anything.

Steve:Fine, then why be concerned? These are my observations about what I personally saw and heard. These people were my friends.You may take it or leave it. I said I do not make personal attacks on this forum, in addition, I did not name names.I stand by what I said as a warning to others of the dangers of satanic delusions.

Based on what you've said regarding the 1888 MSC and Wieland, the "leave it" choice seems to suggest itself strongly. Of course, these accusations against people who cannot defend themselves and can't be substantiated cannot be discussed here in any intelligent way, as it's just hearsay. If you have to rely on such, your case isn't very strong. Wieland, and others (either former or current members of the 1888 MSC) have published hundreds if not thousands of pages. You could (and should) make your case from these published items, rather than make accusations against people you say were "friends."

Quote:

Steve:They use Ellen Whites endorsement of the "most precious message" to try and justify their own corrupt organization, and some try to use that to justify all of Jones and Wagoners writings after they apostatized.

Me:Who does this? Who is "some"? What is your proof that they do this?

Steve:All this was written in their books these ladies gave me. It leads one to think that because Ellen White endorsed the good message in 1888, she also endorses the false one contained in the 1888 MSC. Its all over the web, I'll bring back a quote.

If it's all over the web, it should be very easy for you to find a quote to make your point. Please do so. Also, if you think there's something in the 1888 MSC which disagrees with Jones and Waggoner, please present quotes by the two parties involved, and present an argument.

Quote:

Satan always works with truth and error.

He's also an accuser of the brethren.

Quote:

The above statement is wonderful in itself, but his writings and 1888 contain vast contradictions, straight errors and other weirdness.

You continue to make accusations like this, but present no evidence to support your case. Wieland has never said anything other than the statement I presented. I could present many others just like that. If you think he's soft on obedience, then present some evidence and make a case. Don't just make empty accusations.

Quote:

I can also show you in Sequeria book, "Beyond Belief" where he teaches the correct message of justification by faith, then 2 other places where he teaches error about justification by faith.

We could discuss this separately. He is not part of the 1888 MSC. Also, I'm more familiar with Wieland's ideas, so that's what I chose to respond to.

Quote:

Steve:I believe it is part of the omega of apostasy that Ellen White mentions that was to come after the alpha which was Dr. Kellogs book, "The Living Temple" that contained pantheistic errors.

Me:I suppose this explains some of your behavior.

Steve:Personal attacks again.

Again? Where have I attacked you? I've responded to *your* attacks, falsehoods regarding people I know personally, but I've not attacked you.

I agree that "I suppose this explains some of your behavior" could have been phrased better, so I apologize for that. Something like: "Oh, this helps me understand some of your behavior" would have been better. I'll explain what I meant.

You're obviously very negative against Wieland and the 1888 MSC, as evidenced by your accusations against them. People don't ordinarily make such baseless, false, stringent remarks against others without having some perceived reason for doing so. Given you think their teachings are part of the omega prophecy, that would explain why you have written so stringently. It doesn't excuse what you've done, but it at least presents an insight on why you would strike out as you have.

Quote:

Me:If they are sincere, good people, why would they try to deceive truly converted people? Do you think it's possible you are in error?

Steve:It is impossible for me to be in error. God is good. if we obey Him, we will know the truth! The problem with deception in they don't know their deceived.

Given this is the case, how can you state that it's impossible for you to be in error? If you were deceived, wouldn't you not know this?

If you're not in error, you should write things which are true. For example, you wrote that Wieland taught that there are no conditions for salvation, but when I presented evidence showing this to be false, you wrote, "Of course he does not STATE that." Well, if he doesn't STATE it, then he doesn't teach it.

Given that he does STATE the reverse, what right do you have to insist that he teaches something he himself claims he does not, and which you yourself admit he does not STATE?

If you won't accept evidence as clear as that I've presented to show that you were in error, evidence strong enough to cause you to admit that Wieland does not STATE the things you claimed, then what could cause you to recognize as error on your part?

Quote:

Me:Steve, there's absolutely no purpose in posting stuff like this (i.e. personal comments about how you believe the Bible, so can't be deceived, or are truly converted, or any of that). If you have some beef with something that someone is teaching, what you should do is present the item you believe is in error, and then explain why you think there is error involved.

Steve:Mind your own business. who are you to tell me what I should write, you are out of line!

When you write in a public forum about things concerning friends and associates, it becomes my business. Part of your argument is based on yourself; that you are converted, that it's impossible for you to be in error, that you are a Bible student, etc. You can go ahead and post these things if you wish, but they have no evidential value whatsoever. My purpose in pointing this out was to hopefully prompt you to present arguments based on evidence, and to hopefully make clear to you that these sorts of comments are in no way helpful to your argument.

Quote:

Me:It appears to me that in your previous post, where you quoted from "The Good News is Better Than You Think" that you either misread what you quoted, or misunderstood it, because what you claimed Wieland said, he didn't!

Steve:Nope, its very true and no misquote, my specialty is Bible theology.

This has nothing to do with correctly quoting people. Here's what you said:

Quote:

Wieland says here that one only has to “believe” to have the blessings of the beatitudes; however one must meet all of the conditions for salvation to have any of them. All of these involve doing something to meet the conditions.

Here's what Wieland actually said:

Quote:

“The word “gospel” has the built in meaning of good news. Jesus came proclaiming God’s good news.(Mark 1:13, Barclay) His message majored in paths to happiness. Nine sure cure prescriptions for it glisten in His Sermon on the Mount, each one beginning Blessed are those who….(Matt. 5:3-12 GNB) you may be surprised to discover not one tells what to do in order to be “happy” but what to believe.

You misquoted him. He did not say what you claimed he did. Wieland said:

1.None of the beatitudes tells what to do in order to be "happy" but what to believe.

He did not say:

2.One only has to “believe” to have the blessings of the beatitudes.

Quote:

There is no mistake. I can always recognize the serpents slimy deceptions. Sometime it may take a little longer, but I will see it. Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

This is a mistake, as I pointed out before, and repeated here. Wieland did not say what you claim he did.

[Woody]

Quote:

He made it clear that this does not confer personal salvation to anyone, as have Wieland and Sequeira, as well as Waggoner, Jones, and Prescott before them.

And you could add Ellen White to that list. You might want to check out a thread I started called the List of the Saved. This is a list of people who our prophet has stated are saved.

[teresaq]

Quote:

steve says: "it is impossible for me to be in error."

Let me clarify. Are you actually claiming to be God? I hope not. And can you explain how it is so impossible for you to be in error? Again ... if you are claiming here to be God ... then I would understand. But otherwise ... I am confused.

i think we pretty much have to take the statement as it stands.