Leaderboard

Why worry about the Baptists and the Church of Christ? As you eat the ripest berries on the bush first, minister to those first in whose hearts the Holy Spirit has been moving.

I agree with you that the Sabbath of the Old Testament remains valid. However, I think legalism is often in the eye of the beholder. You seem to be assuming that the only purpose of God's law was to show people how to earn salvation. I think you and I grew up in the SDA church in an era when the church taught us that kind of legalism. And you are correct to reject that kind of legalism, because it is not Biblical. However, not everyone views the law of God through the lens of legalism. When my children were born, my wife and I started teaching and training them in the ways of our family and we set out some rules. But the purpose of those rules was never to show the children how to earn a place in our family. They already have a place in the family, whether they want it or not, because they are born into the family. Imagine our frustration and disappointment if someone had taught our children that they had to follow our rules perfectly in order to become members of our family, and our children were convinced that they needed to do so. That seems to be what you are still teaching about God's rules. Often you seem to be projecting your past legalism onto others who may not be infected with legalism at all. Can you really know what motivates a person to follow the law of God or the "law of Christ"? One person may do it for legalistic reasons thinking they must earn their position before God. But another person may do the exact same behaviors because they already know they are saved and they are motivated totally by love for their God and Redeemer and they simply don't want to do anything other than what Jesus did. Legalism is a valid stage of moral development. Although you have grown beyond legalism yourself, it often seems that you try to lock others into that legalism stage, without realizing that others are capable of growing beyond legalism without following the same path you followed and without rejecting God's law as a reliable guide to knowing the character of God and living righteously as Jesus did.

In 1992 an evangelist for the SDA church held meetings at a local community college. He did not share what church he was affiliated with until the evening that spoke about the Sabbath. Later, he offered baptisms at a local church that one of the attendees "suggested" might be willing to host the baptisms. My mother was baptized into the SDA church and was NEVER informed that she'd be joining a denomination--she thought she was receiving baptism by immersion because she was convinced that immersion was the "right" way to do it (vs. her previous sprinkling baptism). It was very, very deceitful. All the others who were baptised that same day left the church the following week. They felt, too, that they had been deceived by this man.

How we see God, how we understand Who He is and what He is like, shapes our personal theology. What is your picture of God, and of Christ? Do you serve a friend, a parent, a taskmaster or distant cousin?

Our church is currently holding a Revelation evangelism series. It is being well attended even on a Saturday night. In our church with a well lit sign visible at the street identify it as an Adventist Church. No subterfuge. Not even for the initial meetings or promotions. Everyone walking in can't miss that this is an Adventist Church, including the 40 or so registered regular attendees that are not Adventists.

"felt unable to provide needed care for an additional child," ... "had agreed to an adoption" ... "would not hand the baby over"... It sounds as if this woman was deeply troubled about having to give up her child for adoption. She didn't want to give her baby away, but she felt that she had no other choice and was deeply conflicted over this. She was most likely looking for an excuse to keep the child, or possibly a way to ease a troubled conscience. Either way, what a poor soul, I would have cried my eyes out if I had to deal with such a situation.

I have hundreds of more quotes from Ellen White showing how fully she supported the concept of our redemption was purchased by Christ when He paid the ransom required to save us. And I haven't even searched the entirety of her writings. I finally stopped because the evidence is just so overwhelming I didn't think another couple of hundred quotes would make a difference because if someone will not accept the volume of evidence I already have the additional quotes will not persuade them.

That, Robert, is a dishonest reading of what Ellen White says in entirety. Even taken alone those quotes do not say what you try to make them say. What follows is a small part what Ellen White has to say about Christ paying our ransom. This set of quotes is from a word search of most, but not all of her writings. These quotes, taken in their entirety shows Ellen White understood Christ's sacrifice was made to ransom us, something that the "in Christ" motif cannot account for in any way, shape, or form. Get ready for a large volume of quotes. Also, notice how often Ellen White ties the concepts of ransom and atonement together....

See: https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Elephants+swimming&FORM=MD14ZN&OCID=MD14ZN&wt.mc_id=MD14ZN&PUBL=CAMP&CREA=MD14ZN&rnoreward=1

If by "wisdom " you mean as defined by the Bible- "the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom", then no other book can come close.

What were you wanting us to notice about these verses? They don't seem to support your views at all.

We are living in a time where people want to know about end times. There is a regular customer we have that spreads our books out on a table at the Swap Meet. She said that it used to be that Indian people avoided the table, but now they are coming and taking the materials. They are giving out lots of Punjabi bibles. There are people who are prejudiced because of their affiliation to other denominations, and there are those who once belonged and are unhappy with the church. But because of the uncertainty of today's world I believe that the Holy Spirit will guide those who have never heard of Jesus.

1 Cor 9:19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

very disappointing Jesus was upfront and honest.. I Stand with Jesus on this one.

that sounds SO deceitful....

I do not think that it is being wise as a serpent. I would be interested in a private message telling me who the retired evangelist is, if you do not want to make that public. If I understand you correctly, the evangelistic series will be held in the SDA Church building. If so, there is no way that local people will not discover the fact, at least once they enter the building, that it is a SDA building. If so, to cover up the sign looks bad.

It's kinda hard to imagine the 10 Kings, bombing Vatican City. Now if the Catholic Church moves their headquarters to Jerusalem, and the Pope stands in the rebuilt Temple - who knows.

There are a number of different groups and/or people on the Internet who have made the same prediction as HCH in regard to the Popes and the Presidents. No, I have neither the time nor the interest in documenting my statement. But, it is true. HCH is clearly not the first to make such predictions. Some of these people have been around long enough tor their prediction as to a pope tail and have a pope be replaced by another when they said the X was the last in world history.

I have read commentary by Christian writers lately, that EQUATES the Battle of Armageddon" with the "Battle of Gog and Magog". But one is at the end of this age, and one takes place 1000+ years later. The Battle of Gog/Magog is definitely centered around "the camp of the saints and the beloved City".

OK. I was NOT trying to start an argument about the "three days and three nights" "sign of the prophet Jonah". I do not want to get into THAT one here. There is a detailed study at my website on THAT topic, with a written, and audio, and video presentation - whichever you prefer. I will only say that I believe Jesus died on a Friday, rested over the Sabbath in death, and was resurrected by His Father at sunrise on the first day of the week. http://www.prophecyviewpoint.com/htdocs/45-Three-Days-Nights.pdf

Joeb, Two points, first with the serious error in your opening statement that demonstrates a considerable lack of discernment, and second with your inability to find anything in the OT that shows these laws were there to oppose God's people. In a number of his posts throughout this thread including several on the first page Jackson provides texts that prove the flaws in his thinking and he claims them as proof of his point of view. Discernment is something very much lacking in the church today, and this denomination has a very special relationship with that lack of discernment because of our unbiblical relationship with our prophet. Deuteronomy 18 tells us that a true prophet of God will in some way be accompanied by signs and wonders, and we make this a central theme in our teaching about prophets and prophecy, but that is all we pull out of that chapter. We totally ignore the definition of the prophet given in that chapter (which has absolutely nothing to do with the foretelling of the future) and so Ellen White is unwise enough on many occasions to say she is not a prophet, and in her explanation of why that is so, prove that she fits very well God's definition of a prophet -- the only definition that matters. Only small problems there, but it is already enough to hamper our ability to discern. When we do not use God's definitions for the things his spirit tells us we cannot really understand what he is telling us. But the problem gets much, much worse. In Deuteronomy 13 God has already told us that the signs and wonders only prove to us that God has sent the prophet, not that the word of that prophet is true. This is to be discerned by each individual through a knowledge of the word God has already revealed, and an ability to understand if what the prophet is teaching agrees with that word. Deuteronomy 13 tells us clearly that even if this prophet is accompanied by the signs and wonders that prove God sent her she is not to be obeyed without question because God is testing us to see if we really love him. If we choose the word of a prophet who is not in full agreement with the previously revealed word of God that prophet is to be stoned (symbolism for applying the law of God to her word -- the physical types are no longer to be used; we use the reality) and is not to be obeyed. If we choose her word above that of scripture as SDAs do we show that we do not really love God and that we do not listen to his voice. Thus we cannot discern at all. The term false prophet is not used in the Old Testament at all. The terminology used is one who prophesies falsely. Balaam was a prophet of God who received his word from God but even in saying only the words God gave him prophesied falsely because his personal intentions were false and contrary to the word of God. Eventually he found a way around God's word by which he could bring a curse upon Israel through God's word by causing Israel to sin against God's word. He found their area of weakness and exploited it. Ezekiel 14:1-11 gives us further information regarding how this works. Keep in mind here Numbers 12:6-9 as well. God speaks to a prophet through dreams and visions in riddles and symbols. Thus it is very easy for a prophet, or one consulting a prophet to interpret the word of God almost any way they desire. God sends the prophet to the people, even the prophet who will speak falsely in God's name, and he demonstrates this prophet is sent by him by accompanying that prophet with signs and wonders -- at the very least prophecies that come true. The prophet is then to be able to discern the state of mind of any who come to consult with him/her. This applies in a slightly lesser level to teachers, an office that is only slightly lower than that of prophet in the hierarchy of church offices given in 1 Corinthians 12:27, and by addressing Jackson as you did you have taken on the role of teacher. This means you have a responsibility to discern the condition of his heart, something you did not do at all. I understand the desire to give someone the benefit of the doubt. It is a part of God's law, but something is established by two or three witnesses and before you wrote this post Jackson had already demonstrated multiple times an inability to handle evidence correctly, to properly use the word of God and be corrected by it which shows a general dishonesty that prevents him from admitting even the possibility of an error and from ever allowing a correction. He will not admit a serious and fatal flaw in his reasoning and he will not agree with you once that fatal flaw is demonstrated. Does this mean you refuse to make an effort to correct him? Maybe; maybe not. I am getting a bit ahead of myself here and we need to back track a bit. When this kind of a person comes to consult with a prophet, living or dead, and use that word to prop up his idols, God himself provides the word that this person will use which is then interpreted and twisted according to the needs of the idol, or if it cannot find a sufficient means of twisting the meaning to support it, that word is simply ignored or called a lie. If the prophet (or teacher) is enticed to speak a word to this person it is God himself who has enticed that prophet to speak, yet whether the prophet actually discerned the idol of this person's heart or not, the prophet shares in the guilt of that person because he has provided that person with the means of propping up his beloved idol/false doctrine. Yet the law of the watchman (Ezekiel 3 and 33) also applies. If a danger is seen and you say nothing you will be held responsible for that person's soul if you saw the danger and did not give warning. If you give warning and they continue in the danger anyway you are absolved of blood(soul) guilt if they lose their salvation, and you are not to give further warning or you will take that guilt back upon yourself. It seems a bit of a catch 22. Just do not press the issue beyond the first warning unless they respond favorably to it. Back to the matter of discernment and the prophet who prophesies falsely for a moment. When we take the attitude that a prophet must be obeyed blindly because the signs are there that prove God sent the prophet but do not fulfill the requirements of the law to verify the word of the prophet for ourselves the our relationship is no longer with God (or more accurately, never was with God) but is only with the prophet, and it is the prophet we worship. We see this very clearly in Islam. The thing is, most of us do the exact same thing but are not honest enough to admit it. Furthermore, it is only when we open the channel between us and God and verify every word of that prophet that we are actually able to begin to learn discernment. We can claim discernment before this, but it does not mean we have it. Discernment means first reasoning skills. There is, of course, much more involved in discernment than that, but this is where it must start. Unfortunately for those who refuse to believe in the truth, those reasoning skills get perverted to the maintenance of the lie of that idol of the heart and therefor there can be no discernment because when truth is discerned it is immediately explained away to maintain the lie. Simple as that. This is also why we seek to surround ourselves with teachers and fellow believers who will tickle our ears, and get offended when this is pointed out to us. Truth is offensive to those dedicated to the lie, any lie, and it is to be fought against even more diligently than other lies. Now, for this very reason I tend to be a bit hesitant to discuss the next issue, not because I foresee any problems in discussing this with you, but because I hesitate to provide any more fuel to Jackson's idol and there is no way to prevent him from reading this except not to post it. Oh well. If you are not able to find evidence in the Old Testament that the law of God as dictated to Moses was against them you have not been looking very hard or you have an idol of the heart that is every bit as strong as the one afflicting Jackson. Are you just as unwilling to acknowledge that idol and cast it down? First, let me affirm what you say about the law because that is important and there is plenty of evidence of that in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. The idea of "Do this and live" is clearly associated with the Law of Moses throughout scripture. Probably that is most clearly seen in the prelude to the Parable of the Good Samaritan. The two laws he quoted came directly out of the parchments of Moses, and are the exact same two that Jesus declared to be the two greatest commandments. Do these and you will live. But this is nothing more than a repeat of Old Testament ideas. In Deuteronomy 8:1 Moses told the people Here is the first reference in scripture that the natural consequence of keeping this law is the bringing of life and prosperity. Because of the lawless mindset of the sinner we choose to interpret it as, "If we will only do these things God will leave us alone and allow us to live." No interpretation could be further from the truth. So we find in the Old Testament many references that the law of God is the direct cause of life. Most translations add some level of intentional obscuring to these passages because the bias of Christians against law. One translation I used often back when I was regularly including linguistic analysis in my Bible study, I am assuming the NAB, because it is not included in the online searchable scripture sites, translates this as the law of life or something similar, and Paul used that exact same language in his great law discourse in Romans 5-8. I don't recall precise studies from those days and since we do not have notes from Paul regarding his study of the Hebrew text we cannot know that this is precisely the reference he was using from his study of the Hebrew texts, but it is likely so. The first 3/4 of the book of Romans is explanation of the law and covenants, and cannot be understood without a thorough knowledge of the Old Testament sources Paul was using and explaining, yet Christians steadfastly refuse to study those texts in any detail and their teaching quite regularly displays total and complete ignorance of the Law every time they utter or write even one word on the matter. Life is the natural result of keeping this law, just as death is the natural result of failure to keep this law, but for the most part we do not define either term as God does. Everything God speaks through a prophet is symbol (Numbers 12:6-9). I teach on this regularly and will not include any further proof here. Furthermore the entire law of Moses is prophecy of the plan of salvation and again, I teach on this regularly and won't provide detailed proof here, but many statements by Jesus and Ellen White confirm this. Life, as defined by God is many different things from the spark within a single cell to the intellect breathed into Adam (where the word used for spirit is not ruach (breath, wind, spirit) but is neshamah (breath, intellect, spirit) which when breathed into Adam made him a living soul (chai nephesh). A quick aside seems necessary here. Nephesh (soul) is the most mistranslated words in the entire Bible; Strong's lexicon lists 38 different words or phrases that this word is translated as in the KJV. Most other English translations follow this lead and never correct the translation to soul. Nephesh is never to be translated as life, but this is one of the most common mistranslations of that word. It is translated as life or lifeblood in all the texts in Genesis 9, Leviticus 17, and Deuteronomy 12 and 14 where we are told the "life" is in the blood. The correct translation is the soul is in the blood, and this entirely ends the discussion as to whether the lower animals have a soul or not. But then, if we had bothered to study the laws of redemption at all, this question would never have arisen because other texts, which are translated more or less correctly, state clearly that the soul of the sacrifice is being substituted for our soul and this is why, if we sacrifice something without first repenting we are guilty of a blood debt, just the same as if we murdered a man. Furthermore, there is a very qualitative difference between us and the "lower" life forms because of the spirit that is within us. Most Christians, SDAs included as shown by their misuse of texts in studies on the state of the dead, believe as the Greeks and most eastern religions do, that the soul and spirit are the same thing. This runs directly counter to Hebrew teaching, and since New Testament writings are written by Hebrews, using Hebrew thinking and only translating those terms into Greek, cannot be understood at all unless and until we return to the original Hebrew thought on these matters. The lower animals are lower because of the spirit they possess, not because of a soul or lack thereof. All life (man included) is said to have a ruach (breath, wind, spirit), but only man is said to possess a neshamah (breath, intellect, spirit). This is what made man a living soul. Jesus later gives some clarification to those with ears to hear when he says he came to give us life more abundantly. It is this imparting of God's wisdom over man's wisdom, this giving of spiritual life that separates us from the lower animals and unbelievers. Unfortunately, most who claim to be believers do everything they can to avoid ever giving up man's wisdom and allowing God's seven-fold spirit to enter them. Six of the attributes of this seven-fold spirit are given in Isaiah 11:2. They are wisdom, understanding, counsel, strength, knowledge and fear of the Lord. We do not have spiritual life until we have these seven spirits of God within us and we are not fully alive until we have them in their fullness, something that can never happen in this life. We are given an earnest (down payment) of the spirit in this life and will not receive the fullness until the resurrection (Ephesians 1:13, 14). Compare this, now, with the proper biblical definition of spiritual death. We are commonly told that the second death is the (eternal) separation from God. That is a childish, and not quite accurate definition. The major problem comes with the addition of the adjective eternal, which is entirely inaccurate, but even removing that word from the definition does not yet bring us to the proper biblical definition of the second death. The clearest statement anywhere in scripture is found in Revelation 20 where we are told the lake of fire is the second death. We tend to ignore the fact that this same thing is also symbolized elsewhere in that book as the sea of glass, is shown early in the book of Ezekiel by the symbol of the crystal expanse and late in the book by the dead sea, which comes to life because of the river of the water of life flowing from the throne of God in the Most Holy Place of the temple. That same river is shown as the river of the water of life in Revelation 21 and 22, and the river of fire in Daniel 7. All of these are the same thing and what that thing is to me is determined by my relationship to the judgments of God's law emanating from his throne. If I am in agreement with them, and living according to them they are life to me. If I am in disagreement with them and trying to live apart from them they are fire to me. Now, look at the symbol of baptism. Adventists, like most Christians believe there is only one baptism, even though the New Testament very clearly and extremely unmistakably identifies two baptisms with two completely different purposes. Christian doctrine tends to either amalgamate the two causing a great deal of confusion, or else it rejects one and gives all importance to the other. Actually, in most doctrines you find some level of both approaches, but more one or the other. This only confuses the matter even further. John's baptism is identified several times in the book of Acts as being a baptism of repentance or sometimes translated as justification and in Mark it is called repentance for the forgiveness of sin. John said of his baptism, “I baptize you with water. But one who is more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire," Luke 3:16. God's fire is explicitly stated in scripture to be his law (Deuteronomy 33:2) and the words of his mouth (2 Samuel 22:9, Jeremiah 5:14 -- where God says his words in the mouth of the prophet are fire.) As we study the symbol further we see that fire, like gold, represent the character of God. So we see that the baptism of John is mere repentance, but the baptism of Jesus, which comes after is a baptism of the Holy Spirit and of fire (the character of God.) Jesus first gave this baptism 50 days after his resurrection, according to the laws of the feast days, in which the feast of weeks came 50 days after the wave sheaf offering was offered on the day after the Sabbath of the Feast of Unleavened bread, which started the day after the offering of the Passover lamb. In Jesus day this feast was called Pentecost (the 50th in reference to the 50th day after the wave sheaf offering which represents the resurrection.) The tongues of fire that fell on the heads of the 120 people in the upper room point also to the ceremony for the anointing of the high priest (found in Exodus 29 and Leviticus 8). During this ceremony some of the oil was sprinkled in various ways and the remainder was to be poured over the head of the priest and allowed to run down his face, through his beard and down over his body. The formula for this oil is given in Exodus 30 and is about a gallon of olive oil mixed with about 30 pounds of spice, including cinnamon, which can be very hot (have you ever eaten cinnamon candies? When I was a kid we called them red hots; the brand name of the gummy version is called Hot Tamales.) The cinnamon gives this oil a very fiery nature, and the large amount poured over the priest's head signifies full immersion in the Holy Spirit of God and his character. This is the biblical basis for baptism by sprinkling, which contrary to SDA teaching does exist. Paul speaks of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost as being just the earnest (down payment) of the Holy Spirit. The symbol of the small tongues of fire at Pentecost as opposed to having large waves of fire coming over them and fully engulfing them is the proof that this is only the down payment and that yet another baptism of the Holy Spirit is reserved for a later time. As I have already hinted the three major feast days of Israel give us a prophetic type for these three baptisms, only two of which can be received by anyone on earth at this point in time. The three sections of the temple and the three major events of Israel traveling to the Promised Land also illustrate these three baptisms. Christianity, Adventists included, are very clear about Passover representing righteousness by faith. They are not quite so clear about Pentecost being the stop at the Mt. Sinai to receive the law, but then a great many Christians, especially Adventists, reject Pentecost as something we can even legitimately receive until just before the second coming or even later. Most Pentecostals, real or counterfeit, claim this baptism of the Holy Spirit is the receiving of the fullness of the spirit, something that right now can only be received upon after the second coming. Israel did not receive this baptism (Pentecost) because when they were first given opportunity at Sinai they rejected it. Compare this with Romans 10:17, "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God." This describes a somewhat circular process, and coupled with Roman 1:17 which says, "For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith," This verse has been difficult for most Christians to understand because they do not understand and they fully reject the prophecy of the Feast Days. Israel had enough faith to be justified and leave Israel. That is not enough faith to bring them into the Promised Land, and they really did not even live by that level of faith since they were constantly complaining against God and Moses. Therefore they did not have the faith to on move on to the Pentecostal level of faith. The Pentecostals tend to focus on the ability to speak in tongues as the proof of entering Pentecost, but the Sinai story shows us the real proof is the ability and willingness to hear God's voice. The Hebrew word shema means both to hear and to obey. If you have not obeyed you have not heard. At the Passover level of faith we have a limited ability to hear and even less willingness to obey. Because Israel did not really hear God's voice at this level they did not have the faith to hear him at Sinai and ran away when they saw the fire on the mountain top and heard the thundering of God's voice. Instead of standing and listening, or better still, accompanying Moses up into the fire, they ran and refused to listen. Therefore they had no ability to obey and live by faith, therefore a year and a half later when they had the chance to enter the next level of faith, fulfill the Feast of Tabernacles and enter into the Promised Land, representing our entering into our inheritance at the Second Coming they failed miserably. So, what does any of this have to do with the proof in the Old Testament that the law which was meant to bring life if we lived by it was also against us as Paul told us in Romans 7:9-12? First of all, the law included certain penalties beyond the natural consequences of the sinful action. The purpose of those penalties is always corrective, for we read in Isaiah 26:9, "My soul yearns for you in the night; in the morning my spirit longs for you. When your judgments come upon the earth, the people of the world learn righteousness." Yet it is the very nature of those disciplines that my life will be in some way diminished for a time. This is the fire of the law, not the water of life of the law. Although the purpose of the fire is refinement of the silver that represents the character of God's saints it has side effects. Paul describes these in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15. Isaiah 40:6 says, "All flesh is grass." Here in this passage Paul identifies two forms of grass the person uses to build his doctrinal house -- hay and straw. These are flesh and the fire always burns the flesh. Another symbol is the dross of silver (Ezekiel 22:18). As the silver, which represents the Saints of God, is heated, it melts and the dross separates, generally floating to the top to be skimmed off. Heavier elements will sink and be separated out by other means, but they do separate. The fire does purify us -- it always burns the flesh -- and all of us experience some form of pain in the purification process because the sinful weak and mortal flesh must die. The process is much more painful for those who resist, but all of us must go through the fire at some time. The Saints experience it in this life, everyone else experiences it at the Great White Throne. So even though the law brings life, and the disciplines of the law restore the lawful order, the fire that is the word and character of God is a painful and fearful thing for most people. Moses went up into that fire and heard the word of God. Moses eventually came down from the mountain with the fire of God shining from his face, forcing him to wear a veil in the presence of the people who remained fearful of that fire (law) and refused to enter it. So we see that the Old Testament does tell us in a round about way that God's law does bring death to us. Because the death is the second death, which is repentance and justification this is a good thing, but convincing the sinner not to fear the fire is a very difficult thing because it always brings considerable pain and death to the flesh, which we love.