Leaderboard

See: https://spectrummagazine.org/views/2020/adventist-evangelistic-dilemma

The picture of God we’ve been conversing about in this book is very good news to some of us. But it is far from new news. It was presented centuries ago throughout the sixty-six books of Scripture, even in Old Testament times: “You, Lord, give perfect peace to those who keep their purpose firm and […] The post Concluding Words (20:6) appeared first on Jon Paulien's Blog. View the full article

? Slow to speak ? James 1:19 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath: did you see that one coming?

Warning: The following is not short. It has 294 footnotes alone. https://spectrummagazine.org/news/2020/history-adventist-lifestyles

For a surprising look as some recently produced SDA videos see: https://thetuis.tv/ https://www.smokymountainrescue.org/

See: https://atoday.org/my-friendship-with-the-little-horn/

The article you referenced in the OP has this to say: We have long heard people, even on this forum who would say things like "Oh thats all impossible." And then we usually have to sit through long spiels about "muslims this, muslims that," or some such other things. What one poster here has claimed "Ellen White says", Desire of Ages page 124 Never can the cost of our redemption be realized until the redeemed shall stand with the Redeemer before the throne of God. Then as the glories of the eternal home burst upon our enraptured senses we shall remember that Jesus left all this for us, that He not only became an exile from the heavenly courts, but for us took the risk of failure and eternal loss [said poster even has their "references" mixed up -its actually page 131.2 and, not page 124] What The Source Really Does Say: The Context NOTE: The bolded, underlined text is what the poster left out, and infact, consistently leaves out such contexts in all of his "research" and "quotes…" regarding “EGW says...” If a correct context were included, it would give an entirely different meaning to the cited passages being discussed, virtually every time. This is a common “apologetic” tactic that does nothing but confuse the truth, as well as detract from the OP of this thread. The same poster maintains that The Actual Facts: Saying because of DA 124 (really pg 131) that “Ellen G White says that Christ could have failed” in His Incarnation is no different than trying to say “Jesus is sin” because the Bible says “He became sin for us.” It would not be right to claim the Bible teaches Jesus was/is sin because of this one verse. That would be a foolish conclusion. Jesus took the penalty of sin; not in the least to mean He was, is, or will be "sin." Jesus was made sin for us. In other words, Jesus got what we deserved that we might get what He deserved! Its no different with what said poster here is claiming that "Ellen White says." She doesn't teach "Jesus might have failed" anymore than she teaches we can eat horse meat, just because "horses" are mentioned in the Bible." (Jer 12:5) There are so many ways people like to twist her writings. My advice, if I had to give it would be read those writings for yourself. Don't take the word of half-quote "apologetics." We can safely assume that most times when people say such things about what "Ellen White says..." ; they usually have no idea what they are talking about, nor do they understand what she teaches about Christ and salvation. One sentence, out of context and isolated from its surrounding passages can be made out to pretty well say whatever we want about EGW and without even have to prove it; let alone be accurate. Jesus Himself asked “If it be possible, please remove this cup from me...” Was Jesus Himself wondering if He might fail under the enormous load placed upon Him? It is NOT “wrong” for people to wonder what this might imply. If Christ’s Incarnation was truly vicarious, then why could He not have made a choice to stay in heaven and avoid that whole mess? Thankfully, Jesus turned to The Father for help; but He still asked "Why have you forsaken me?" Heavenly Beings had previously chosen to go it alone without God when there was "war in heaven?" Wouldn't Jesus have the same choice available IF He chose to? Admittedly “prophecy” assures us that Jesus would not fail, and if said poster would have shown the intended context of what they called "research” it would have been revealed that EGW also teaches the same things as Jesus did. Would ANYONE really be "wrong" for supposing that IF Jesus did choose to use only His incarnate "human strength" without depending on God, that He would have failed? Jesus Himself expressed concerns about that; but the good news is that every time He would turn to The Father, and be given the needs of the hour. NONE of the quotes above, in objection to what "Ellen White says" has provided what the accusing poster seems to want them to say. Rather, all of those passages go into great detail about how we can trust Christ, and His Sacrifice, and that the cross was “enough.” All of those quotes, supposedly "showing" that "Jesus could have failed," are lifted (cherry-picked) from their INTENDED context and purpose, with no thought, whatsoever to the express facts that are written. Just previous to what was supposedly “quoted” on pg 124 of Desire Of Ages, (actually pg 131) we read the following: It is obvious by her writing, in context, that IF Jesus, or any one of us try to do whats needed in our own, human strength, we would utterly fail. Jesus would have failed had He not, like we are supposed to as well, depended upon The Father to see Him through, Jesus depended upon His angel at His side “strengthening Him.” (think Gesthemane). Jesus was both divine and human; and He had to choose to not use His divinity. He depended upon God’s promises, and lived by God’s Word and the power of that Word to effect our salvation on Calvary. (Mat 4:4) "His experience is to be our's." THIS is what Ellen White says..." A Note About The OP I have newspaper clippings from the early 90s or so about the very strongly Papal directed efforts fighting for enforcement of Sunday keeping by the civil powers, and whenever in history the Vatican has been enabled to get away with such things, and then someone questions them on it or critcises them for doing it; all they do then is to blame the "civil authority" in question for passing the law. What is this kind of monkey business called anywhere else in the world when someone tries to pass off the edicts of any civil authority as "God's will? "The Vatican is clearly, and historically wrong in constantly trying to get civil authorities to legislate Catholic edicts which mandate all citizens to adopt "the Sunday obligation." Personally; I do not accept so called Vatican Sovereignty. I do not accept The Vatican as a "nation," with any kind of "diplomatic" rights. They are a church that coopts civil authorities, for Roman Catholic purposes, insofar as a given country will allow. At best, "Vatican State" is a city. Why can't other cities be a sovereign nation? Why cant other churches have a city as a sovereign entity? I don't see how anyone can deny what's actually going on here.

? Slow to wrath ? James 1:19 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath:

There is a new SDA presence on the Internet. It is Adventist Review TV Now. The following URL consists of dozens of websites that you can click on to view videos that may range from a couple of minutes in length, to more than an hour. In addition, each of the clickable websites may contain more than a dozen individual segments. The range of subjects covered is considerable. https://www.artvnow.com/browse As an example, the following is a 2-minute video that is a visual delight, accompanied by music. Other subjects may be informational. https://www.artvnow.com/new-series-2/season:1/videos/red-sea-nature-music