Leaderboard

Actually pnattmbtc quoted Robert saying this. Does the law "demand" the death of the sinner, or simply predict the death of one who continues to sin with rebellion? God said, "If you eat of it, you will die." Didn't say, because I will execute you. No. Simply predicted death.

Tevet 26 The Patriarch Abraham was tested (by God) ten times and withstood them all. This proves Abraham's great love for God(Ethics of the Fathers 5:3). Abraham was tested with ten trials of progressively increasing severity, ultimately culminating in the test of sacrificing his beloved son Isaac if God so willed. Abraham successfully passed all the tests. Still, while he did demonstrate his intense loyalty and devotion to God, how did it prove his love for God? In yesterday's message we learned that God does not challenge people beyond their capacities. It follows, then, that as they advance in spiritual growth and strength, they actually render themselves vulnerable to trials of greater intensity. In the course of his many trials, Abraham detected this pattern. He could have logically decided to avoid any further spiritual progression, because it might subject him to even greater ordeals than those he had already sustained. Abraham decided otherwise. He desired so much to come closer to God that he was willing to pay any price. Thus, when he was put to the ultimate task - to sacrifice Isaac - Abraham was not taken aback. He had fully anticipated such an eventuality. We are not of the mettle of Abraham, and we pray every day, "Do not put us to test." While we indeed wish to advance spiritually, we ask to be spared the distress of trial. Yet, should we experience adversity in life, we would do well to realize that this may be a testimony to our spiritual strength. Today I shall ... try to advance myself spiritually. Although I pray to be spared from distress, I will try not to recoil if adversity does occur.

You keep repeating this argument. It's not a very good one. If we are converted, yes, we should love God with all our heart and soul and mind and strength, and our neighbor as ourself. The *form* that this takes place will vary from person to person. For example, there were those, such as the rich, young, ruler, who Jesus asked to sell all he had and come follow him. He also did this with Matthew (or, rather, just follow him; Matthew was rich, but walked away from his profession to follow Christ). However, there were others, whom Christ had healed, who he said to NOT follow him, but stay where they were. If we are Christ's then all we are and have, including our wallets (and time), will be at His disposal. But how we spend our time, and money, will not be the same for every person. It's ludicrous to make an argument because some person did X, if you don't do X, then you aren't being obedient, so obedience is impossible.

Acts 20:24 But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God. Romans 1:9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers; Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ Romans 15:19 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. Gal 1 6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Ok, Rachel, now you're gonna get me in trouble! It is my current opinion (not stauch dogma) that from Genesis 1:2 onward, God was dealing with an earth that had already gone through several "extinction" events (e.g., major meteoroid impacts severe volcanic disruption) that did things like kill of invertabrates about 300 Million years ago and killed off the dinosaurs about 65 Million Years ago. I believe that the Bible specifically documents the history of God's interaction with man (except for Gen. 1:1); not the history of the universe. There could be millions (if not billions) of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. I believe that the garden was a relatively small area planted by God in an otherwise relatively hostile environment. God placed man in the garden, expecting him to expand the garden over the entire planet. The planet was not under satan's control until after the fall; when he made a relatively hostile environment even more hostile; and he has been doing so ever since. I believe that it is possible that the end-time plagues could be at least partially caused another extra-terrestrial or geological "extinction event" as God's protection is withdrawn from the earth.

This is to continue my last post: Jackson, Why would the LORD have a different standard - different requirement - different way, for saving children, slaves, ignorant pagans, or mentally disabled? I just think the LORD will maintain the same standard, and the same condition for "salvation" - that is - BELIEF in Christ as Lord and Savior. And in order to BELIEVE, a human being MUST HEAR. And in order to HEAR, person's who died in ignorance or immaturity, must be resurrected to continue their physical lives. THAT is where my belief concerning the "rest of the dead" comes from - God's standard method for salvation. "Saving" them without their consent, would be unjust. Leaving them eternally dead - simply because they never HEARD, would also be unjust. Besides, sins of ignorance were automatically covered (until such time as the person's became aware they had sinned). When Mrs White wrote that the LORD would leave the slave "dead like the beast", and could not take the ignorant slave to Heaven, everyone reading that statement assumed she meant "leave the slave ETERNALLY dead". But that's not what she wrote. The Lord WILL leave every ignorant person DEAD (including children) for 1000 years. He will NOT take ignorant persons to Heaven, to prepare for the priesthood. That statement was true - AS WRITTEN. She did not go on to say that the Lord will resurrect that ignorant slave when "the rest of the dead" "live again" AFTER the 1000 years. THEN he will hear the truths of Christ, and THEN he will have the opportunity to CHOOSE. She did not go on, because she herself had not be "given" or "shown" anything concerning such people. Why can't the story of "The 8th Day" be one of those "new truths" that Mrs White wrote about? The LORD did not want to pioneers to understand the 8th Day. Understanding the 8th millennium, and "the rest of the dead" would have slowed or stopped all missionary efforts. Just leave people ignorant, and they will be saved in the kingdom. No need to teach them. Concerning the descriptions of Gog/Magog in Great Controversy: Uriah Smith actually wrote most of Great Controversy. Mrs White believed that "the rest of the dead" would be the wicked, BECAUSE that is what the church elders of her day believed. When she describes being "shown" the destruction of the wicked (at Gog/Magog), it's very possible she was actually "seeing" the destruction of the wicked at the Second Coming. (That's assuming she was a prophet who received visions from God. I'm not totally convinced of that.) It's similar to her statement that the last plagues (leading up to the glorious appearance of Christ) "not universal". "Not universal" describes the trumpet judgments (1/3, 1/3, 1/3, 1/3). The "vial" or "bowl" judgments ARE UNIVERSAL. It's very possible that her visions were interpreted through the lens of their present understanding - back at that time. The "dark day" was caused by smoke from large fires up in Canada. It was certainly NOT worldwide. The stars falling from heaven, was a meteor shower - not anything that actually hit on earth with the weight of 100 pounds as described in Revelation. Just as descriptions and prophecies from Revelation have been applied differently, at different times since the book was written, so Mrs White's visions may not have been correctly interpreted, by those who first heard them, not even by Mrs White herself. THAT is one BIG PROBLEM with Robert's position.

The gospel is very simple, and was not invented by Paul. Paul himself said he received his gospel from Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ Himself preached the gospel, so clearly Paul would have preached the same gospel that Jesus preached since Jesus gave it to him. We would hardly expect Jesus to give Paul a different gospel than He Himself preached. Paul said that anyone who preached a different gospel than he did should be accursed. If Jesus preached a different gospel than Paul did, than Jesus should be accursed, by what Paul said. That can't be right. Jesus said to Nicodemus, "except a man be born again, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven". Jesus explained to Nicodemus how this works: This is the gospel, and has always been the gospel. No one has ever been saved except by faith in Jesus Christ. This is exactly what Paul preached!

When I grow up I want to be Scottish and play the 'pipes.