Leaderboard

And what does the Son say? John 3:16-21 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believes on him is not condemned: but he that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that does evil hates the light, neither comes to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that does truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are worked in God. Since it is hard for you to get the connection with the Psalms, lets quote the verses you bring forward: John 5:26-29 For as the Father has life in himself; so has he given to the Son to have life in himself; 27 And has given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. 28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, to the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, to the resurrection of damnation. What does execute judgment mean? Doe sit mean that God kills the sinner? I don't see that in the verse. I do read in scripture that the wages of sin is death, sin pays it wage - death. And sin which it is full grown brings death. (Romans 6:23; James 1:15) I do not read that if you sin, God will kill you. That is the claim of the evil one. What do we see in the life and teaching of Christ? Do we see a vindictive God that will kill sinners? Is the life of Christ on this earth a definitive revelation of the character of God or not? "Green Cochoa" says no. How about you? How about EGW? This is what she says: Satan charged God with possessing the attributes that he himself possessed. [you know what those are, right?] Christ came to this world to reveal God's character as it really is. He is the perfect representation of the Father. His life of sinlessness, lived on this earth in human nature, is a complete refutation of Satan's charge against the character of God. {BTS, October 1, 1902 par. 2} All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son. {8T 286.1} We have only one perfect photograph of God, and this is Jesus Christ. {Ms70-1899} If your belief that God has to kill sinners by torture and execution, but that has not been revealed in the life of His Son, then one better reconsider their beliefs.

Accurate communication can be hard work. Much of our communication has a basis in our personal history, culture and background in the various languages that we speak. If I were to suppose that you are fluent in a Spanish language, that would imply that you and might have some different understandings in the English in which we communicate. Thanks for working with me on this.

Ahh, now it makes sense. It is all my fault for calling the current edition the 18th edition when it is actually the 19th edition, and that carried oven when I called the 16th edition the 17th edition. I lost count and in the 8 months that I have sent out quotations, no one pointed it out that my quote was not on the page I said it was, because I was calling it the 18th edition when it was actually the 19th edition. So thanks for the reality check.

I thought you said "the sinner must be allowed to have his sin, with its corresponding results" and that God allowed it. And the corresponding result God allowed is: Romans 2:5-6 5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; 6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds: I guess both "allowing" and "rendering" are active, not passive.

But why? Because most of Christian life is a type 3 narrative. Type 1: Protagonist struggles with obstacles, protagonist is changed. Type 2: Protagonist and antagonist struggle; one or both are changed. Type 3: See Daniel 6. Neither protagonist nor antagonist is changed. But there is still significant change. Understanding type 3 explains why. As far as real answers--by which I think you actually mean rebuttal--there are no real answers which require words to mean the opposite of what they actually mean. As C. S. Lewis wrote: That's an excellent summary of the passive aggressive God your describe who takes no responsibility for what he permits: Nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God. Nonsense often sounds sophisticated because of the heaps of verbiage used to camouflage it. But when we reduce the statements to their clear meaning, its nonsensical nature is exposed. It is no shame to be deceived by this sophistry; the whole point of the lengthy and verbose prose is to conceal what is being said. But it is folly to persist in promoting it when its true nature has been revealed.

wonderful poem passed around on facebook Rosetta Stone Sometimes I feel like I need to go get me that Rosetta Stone, so I can learn to speak the language of the people who walk by, and pass me from my perch on the street Them with homes, and me Home-LESS, (clearly always less). These people who rush past me all day long, on their way to a job a family a warm meal a hot bath a dry bed, on their way to a life filled with communication, with connection. I don’t ask for anything, except sometimes the time, but I call out all the same, trying to speak their language. It’s lonely out here. I just want to hear their voice. I just want to be heard. Hello! I say, as people rush by in tides, but they just avert their eyes, no response, and I know I KNOW, that they hear, and they can’t just be ignoring me, can’t ALL just be ignoring me! So I figure It must just be that we are speaking a different language. If I could get me that Rosetta Stone, maybe I could learn to speak their language, this language they seem to know so well, the only language they seem to know when confronted with a home LESS person: The language of Silence. Maybe if I could just learn this silence then we could communicate Maybe then they would hear Maybe then they would remember that I am just like them just without a home but not LESS. But I don’t know their language, and they don’t seem to know how to speak the only language that I know. So we continue on, me talking, them walking by, blocked by translation. Sometimes I think maybe it’s not me that needs that Rosetta Stone, maybe just maybe, it’s them. But I don’t know… What do you think? Is it possible? Do you think a person can be taught to speak Human?

Those who are just nominal believers will not be ready to stand without a intercessor, and to go through the end as the time of trouble comes. Those who are truly Gods chosen will come to the truth and many in the church now will be shaken out and turn against the truth which they never fully embraced... “I saw that God had children who do not see and keep the Sabbath. They have not rejected the light upon it. And at the commencement of the time of trouble, we were filled with the Holy Ghost as we went forth and proclaimed the Sabbath more fully. This enraged the churches and nominal Adventists, as they could not refute the Sabbath truth. And at this time God's chosen all saw clearly that we had the truth, and they came out and endured the persecution with us. I saw the sword, famine, pestilence, and great confusion in the land. The wicked thought that we had brought the judgments upon them, and they rose up and took counsel to rid the earth of us, thinking that then the evil would be stayed.” CET 93. “I saw that the holy Sabbath is, and will be, the separating wall between the true Israel of God and unbelievers; and that the Sabbath is the great question to unite the hearts of God's dear, waiting saints.” EW page 92 ...

See: http://atoday.org/devon-franklin-pitches-the-sabbath-on-dr-oz-show/ For much more, see: http://www.christianpost.com/news/devon-franklin-lists-health-benefits-observing-the-sabbath-dr-oz-show-172955/

Mario said: 1) What you see happen in an individual SDA congregation may not be related to the position of the denomination. The so-called 28 that you cite as found in the Appendix are there because they are not to be used as a requirement for baptism. 2) The requirement for baptism is found on pages 32 - 35. There are 13, not 28. 3) Again on the Revised 17th Edition, page 196 & 197, congregations and their ministers are prohibited from establishing a test of fellowship that differs from what I have stated in this post. 4) You tell us that a belief in the Spirit of Prophecy is a required belief. That is correct, it is # 8 of the 13. But, that is NOT a requirement to believe that Ellen G. White constitutes a fulfillment of that. One can believe, and be a SDA, believe that there is a Biblical doctrine of the Gift of Prophecy and not believe that EGW Filled that role. I do not know what you heard in December.

I said "I do" over 40 years ago. My theology has evolved sine then. If you think I'm the only SDA to ever question doctrine that was set over 125 years ago, you need to get out more. I hardly know any SDA's that buy historic Adventism hook, line, and sinker. It may have been reasonable to conclude the papacy was the antichrist 100 years ago; not so much now. Compare what John says about the antichrist in his epistles and tell me who fits John's patterns better - the RCC or radical Islam. Compare EGW's claim that Christ entered the Most Holy Place in 1844 with the Book of Hebrews' claim that He entered upon His ascension into heaven. I'm going with Hebrews. Look at EGW's claim that "a day for a year" is a general rule for interpreting eschatology in Daniel and Revelation. The day for year principle applies to the judgment in Numbers and in Ezekiel. If it applied in all cases, where in revelation is the demarcation between "day fro year" and the thousand years reign after Christ's return? To be consistent, the thousand years would have to mean 360,000 years. Where does the Bible specifically mention the Holy Spirit as a distinct sentient member of a "Trinity"? EGW herself was not a Trinitarian until later in life. The White Estate has transformed her from a highly inspired writer into an infallible prophet (which she never claimed to be). It's like she's the SDA version of the pope or the Virgin Mary. I still consider myself an SDA because I am convicted of Sabbath holiness and the imminent return of Jesus. I can pretty much guarantee that there will be more people in heaven than SDA's. I also predict that when a Jew rules the world, many in His personal entourage will be Israelites - both spiritual and ethnic. Are you the same Mario that runs an SDA group on LinkedIn?

Mario asked: There is much freedom that is given as to the range of belief that may exist within the SDA denomination. The so-called 28 are NOT the standard that exists as to membership in the SDA denomination. That standard is the so-called 13 that may be found in the Church Manual. That statement does NOT contain a statement of the SDA understanding of prophecy. The closest that it comes to a statement on prophecy is in # 7, where a baptismal candidate is asked to believe in the 2nd Advent. As long as one believes in the 2nd Advent, they may very well have met the requirement.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe in the 2nd coming and the state of the dead. Messianic Jews believe in the Sabbath, and second coming. Just about all conservative denominations have a "theory" on the 70 weeks of Daniel. I don't buy the SDA stance that the 70th week concluded with the stoning of Stephen. I believe the 70th week is yet future, beginning with the identification of the Beast/AntiChrist. Hint - It ain't the papacy or RCC. Your point being? Like I said before; my status in the Kingdom is not contingent upon my membership in the SDA Church. I can identify with Adventists, messianic Jews, Catholics or any other denomination without being an official card carrying member. I've been posting like this for years, and the church has never warned me about what I post; nor do I believe that they ever will.

True; but the "church" is not composed solely of SDA's. It is composed of all who believe on (trust in) the Lord jesus Christ. Every denomination has characteristics peculiar to that denomination or they wouldn't be a different denomination. The only truly "exclusive item that you mention above is the SoP. There are other denominations that believe in one or more of the doctrines that you have pointed out. And BTW; not all SDA's are that enthralled with the SoP's inerrancy. There are many places in the SoP that have no basis in a straightforward reading of scripture. For myself, if I can't find a scriptural reference to back up the SoP, I will accept scripture and discount the SoP.

I really don't think about getting disfellowshipped unfairly. I don't think about getting disfellowshipped at all. Being on the church books is immaterial to me. When I have "taken a vacation" from the church it has been because of me throwing a temper tantrum (my bad) or because of what I consider to be extreme imbalance in that specific congregation. If I were formally disfellowshipped I would still worship at an SDA church (or a messianic Jewish congregation); just not at the one that disfellowhipped me. I think church discipline is appropriate in certain instances; but for the most part, the "moral" reasons for disfellowshipping people are merely manifestations of self-righteousness. The church is supposed to be a safe haven for sinners to seek help - even if they backslide sometimes. When we turn it into a protective fortress for the "saints", we become Pharisees. Jesus came to save the lost; but sometimes it feels like the church is simply there to save the "already saved". But I agree with Wanderer. Most people leave the church because most of us aren't who SDA's say they are (no different than other denominations); so they leave out of disgust, disappointment, or discouragement that they don't meet the moral standards of the "saints".

This is why the Sanctuary doctrine is so important, and we need to grasp it, rather than let theologians and false teachers try to tear it down. We must prepare to stand without a mediator, having overcome sin and holy and righteous, not waiting for the Second Coming for sin to be done in our lives, but before Christ comes. “I saw angels hurrying to and fro in heaven. An angel with a writer's inkhorn by his side returned from the earth and reported to Jesus that his work was done, and the saints were numbered and sealed. Then I saw Jesus, who had been ministering before the ark containing the ten commandments, throw down the censer. He raised His hands, and with a loud voice said, "It is done." And all the angelic host laid off their crowns as Jesus made the solemn declaration, "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still." {EW 279.2} “Every case had been decided for life or death. While Jesus had been ministering in the sanctuary, the judgment had been going on for the righteous dead, and then for the righteous living. Christ had received His kingdom, having made the atonement for His people and blotted out their sins. The subjects of the kingdom were made up. The marriage of the Lamb was consummated. And the kingdom, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, was given to Jesus and the heirs of salvation, and Jesus was to reign as King of kings and Lord of lords. {EW 280.1} “As Jesus moved out of the most holy place, I heard the tinkling of the bells upon His garment; and as He left, a cloud of darkness covered the inhabitants of the earth. There was then no mediator between guilty man and an offended God. While Jesus had been standing between God and guilty man, a restraint was upon the people; but when He stepped out from between man and the Father, the restraint was removed and Satan had entire control of the finally impenitent. It was impossible for the plagues to be poured out while Jesus officiated in the sanctuary; but as His work there is finished, and His intercession closes, there is nothing to stay the wrath of God, and it breaks with fury upon the shelterless head of the guilty sinner, who has slighted salvation and hated reproof. In that fearful time, after the close of Jesus' mediation, the saints were living in the sight of a holy God without an intercessor. Every case was decided, every jewel numbered. Jesus tarried a moment in the outer apartment of the heavenly sanctuary, and the sins which had been confessed while He was in the most holy place were placed upon Satan, the originator of sin, who must suffer their punishment.” {EW 280.2}

The solar energy received by the Earth every day is the equivalent of the energy that would be released by the detonation of 100,000,000 atomic bombs of the sixe dropped on Hiroshima. NOTE: My information comes from material written by a Dr. Michael Dombeck, formerly of Yale University, Iowa State University and Chief of the U.S. Forest Service.

Not much in the article; but I'm interested in seeing more. In my 45 years in the church, I have seen far more than 40% if new converts leaving - it's more like 75%. The biggest reasons I have seen is that many (especially younger members) find the typical SDA service to be "boring"; and they seek a more "inspiring" or "exciting" church. Many people over 30 leave because some of the "saints" rebuke their use of jewelry, how they dress, how they talk, how they keep the Sabbath, how they smell like cigarettes or beer, or because they were "busted eating meat (or worse - pork!!) Another reason they leave is because they didn't have the "full story" when they were baptized; especially about EGW. Most of the people I know who have left Adventism have not left Christianity; they have simply found churches (mostly non-denominational) that are more inclusive of people who are still facing issues that they can't address personally with SDA's for fear of continued rebuke.