Are there different varieties of belief within Adventism?

[Woody]

Mel ... Just the sinners voted against them.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

What you're advocating constitutes Babylon. Everyone's "truth" is just as good as anyone else's. "You're OK, I'm OK, Everybody's OK." In fact, don't worry about sinning-- God will forgive all sinning. Go on sinning willfully until Christ comes. Just love, love, love. Great news?

But is it really? Is that the gospel that we find presented in the Bible? Is that the Third Angels Message? Is this what we see in the books of Daniel and Revelation?

I think he was trying to make a joke about the history I gave of our pioneers.

Not sure who you mean. Who was trying to make a joke?

Quote:

.... Spiritualism itself is "Live as you please for heaven is your home." That final truth is with in you.

Yes, I agree. And that idea also enters into the church via the false doctrine of "Once saved always saved." In our church, it is coming in through the idea that anything goes. It is this concept-- that everything is acceptable-- that would lead to Babylon, or confusion. It is the reason for the fall from truth of spiritual babylon.

That is exactly what happened in the Christian church by the end of the third century. Compromises with truth were made for the purpose of unity and making Christianity popular. It is how Sunday came in, as well as the immortality of soul, and many other false teachings that most of Christianity considers true today. It also started with compromise and wanting to be popular.

Quote:

...

The pioneers agreed that the Bible, not their inner voice, should be the final authority. They would study out and agreed upon a handful of pillars, then beyond these pillers there is freedom for different views.

Good point. Of course the church has moved beyond those initial "pillars." For instance, the Seventh-day Adventist church now would include among our pillars the doctrine of the Godhead, which it didn't before.

Quote:

This would of course guard against some members brining in ideas such as dispensationalism. I have not seen the evidence but some have pointed out that dispensationalism was considered and rejected by the pioneers (or acually by Miller and the Millerite leaders)

Do you believe it was a good idea to reject it?

There's an excellent book on Miller, entitled, The Urgent Voice, which shows how he came to his conclusions about the Second Coming. Miller first studied the Bible, reading it twice, between 1816 and 1818, and this is when he came to his basic understanding of the Second Coming. According to Miller, the only tools he used in his study during that early period was a reference Bible and a copy of Cruden's Concordance. This was before the rise of modern dispensationalism and the spread of futurism in Protestant churches. John Darby, who is known as the father of modern dispensationalism, started his work in the 1820s. In the 1830s, Edward Irving began teaching a two-phase return of Christ. It wasn't untll 1909 that Scofield came out with his first Scofield Study BIble which popularized the ideas of dispensationalism.

So it appears that Miller's beliefs were very well settled before the development of dispensationalism. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if Millerite leaders such as Joshua V. Himes, Samuel Snow, and Josiah Litch, etc., later on read dispensationalist publications as they appeared. It could be that James White and Joseph Bates looked into those teachings, also. But that would have been after Miller came to his basic views by the studying the Bible during the period between 1816 to 1822. By 1822, William Miller already began to express his views to those who would listen. It wasn't until 1831 that Miller gave his first public discourse on the Second Coming.

The popular idea of the Second Coming during this time was that Christ would return after 1000 of peace, during which time the world would become converted. This is the view that Miller rejected completely. He could find no valid evidence for that belief. Perhaps this is the view that you have in mind when you say that Miller rejected dispensationalism.

Miller also, of course, completely rejected the Universalist doctrine that was popular in his day, because he found it to be contrary to the Bible evidence.

Quote:

A big part of the Investatagive Judgment is tha we are now living in a time where we can study the Bible such as never before and the explosion of Biblical knowledge since the mid 1800s. A Methodist Archaeologist who teaches at Hebrew University in Jerusalem says "My students often ask me if I'll be giving the same final exam that I gave last semester. My standard reply is 'The questions remain the same but the answers keep changing as we learn more about the Bible.'"

These discoveries need peer review. They tend to be interpeted behind the presupositons of the discoverer and the reviewers and we need to keep these in mind. It takes about 30 years for a new discovery to appear in a commentary...

Every generation needs to study the truths of the Bible and see for themselves how firm the Biblical foundation is for Adventist beliefs. But the foundational doctrines of the Adventist faith are not determined by a popular vote. If 90% of the church voted to jettison Ellen White or the Sabbath, that would not prove that they are false teachings. The same with the doctrine of the Pre-Advent Judgment. Truth is not decided by vote. For instance, some churches no longer believe that Jesus Christ is God or that He was resurrected. So while a vote might change what a church teaches, it can't change what Bible truth is.

An example of this concerns the teaching of churches on homosexuality. Many churches are beginning to change their view. They are accepting openly gay pastors and marry gay couples. That fact does not alter the plain teaching of the Bible.

The same applies to the change that most churches underwent in their eschatological views. Over the last century, with the exception of the SDA church, virtually all the Protestant churches have given up the historicist understanding of Bible prophecy and adopted the futurism of the Jesuit scholar Francisco Ribera (1537-1591). Still others have adopted the Preterism of Luis de Alcasar (1554-1613), another Jesuit scholar.

Both Ribera and Alcasar were active during the Counter Reformation and had as their objective the development and introduction of an interpretation that would convince people the pope was not the antichrist. Their views heavily influenced John Darby and Scofield, and in this way has virtually taken over the prophetic interpretation of almost the whole Protestant world. It essentially says that we cannot possibly know the identity of the antiChrist power. In fact, it says that the antiChrist will only be revealed and active AFTER the church is removed. Practically the whole Christian world accepts this viewpoint, and we see it today even working its way unofficially into some quarters of the Adventist church, despite the warnings of the book Great Controversy. My point is that the fact of popularity of a doctrine, as with Sunday, the immorality of the soul and dispensationalism, does not prove it true.

[Gerr]

Quote:

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

Quote:

Jesus was not a "teaching" but a person.

True, but what we know about a person becomes a teaching!

To me "what we know about a person" is biography. In the case of Jesus, history. Why teach history as "doctrinal" teachings?

Let's just suppose that the gospels and the rest of the NT are nothing more than a biography and history. So what of it? Would Jesus who is the Christ be any different from ANY historical figure? And that is exactly how many view Him, just another historical figure who has nothing to do with with personal salvation or behavior.

Quote:

Probably in order to leave no room for possible questions about the autheticity of the history?

Do we have teachings about Abraham Lincoln? or Henry IV? Or Pocohantas? We call it history and history is alway open to reinterpretation. Unless it is re-shaped into doctrine, of course, in which case we can't call it history, probably. Doctrines, "teachings" are not required to be factual history, presumably.

Are you saying there is something not factual about the history of Jesus? That it is open to "reinterpretation?"

[color:red]"For if the dead are not raised,

[as the Christian faith teach as DOCTRINE][color:red]not even Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ [of whose resurrection the Christian faith teaches as DOCTRINE] [color:red] have perished. If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied." 1 Cor 15:16-19 ESV

If it is nothing more than common biography and history to be revised again and again by every so-called "scholar" that comes along, I have more important things to do.

Gerry

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

Now it is entirely possible that one could have it all correct theologically but not have a relationship with Jesus, maybe even idolize the teachings/doctrines themselves. I can understand D. Allan's point about that, but I am in total disagreement with what I understand the drift of his post to be that somehow truth doesn't matter. Just know the person of Jesus.

But truth does matter.

That is why we must rid ourselves of the ego-driven need to possess it. Rather we must allow it to possess us.

Hmmmmmmmmm. Sounds like a quotable cute and clever statement, but somehow there is something in it that doesn't ring true. Rid myself the "ego-driven need to possess" truth? How can you allow Truth to possess you when you don't possess it? Well, perhaps you can explain it.

Quote:

What anyone of us may believe and/or teach does not alter the actual reality that exists apart from our "teaching." Therefore: if we value truth we will be willing to admit that our opinions, and teachings may be not true. Therefore we can't push them on others.

True, however, if we carefully compare our opinions/teachings/interpretations to what the rule/canon and accept what it says instead of our opinions, there would be less division of opinions. Who is pushing what to whom? We are all merchants, as it were, displaying our wares of ideas about God. Onlookers/buyers are free to look, smell, taste, but no one is forced to accept.

Quote:

Faith, however, is a different matter. It is concerned with spiritual truth. But still - it can't be pushed onto others. Every one has to have their own faith. Faith is a spiritual reality, not a material/historical reality.

/dAb

And this spiritual truth is based on what? Arrived at how? A spiritual "reality" based on what? Your "reality"? My "reality"? Without any objective "reality"?

Gerry

[John317]

I'm referring to the church in general, not any particular local church. Nor am I talking about Adventist pastors or leaders. What I have seen and read or heard of this kind of thing is coming from some laity. The leadership in the church, from the GC on down to the local conferences as well as the local pastors, are fundamentally united on the basic doctrines of the church.

I'm curious to know if you agree with the following statement part of which you quoted?---

Quote:

And that idea also enters into the church via the false doctrine of "Once saved always saved." In our church, it is coming in through the idea that anything goes. It is this concept-- that everything is acceptable-- which, if accepted by the church generally and put into practice, would lead to Babylon, or confusion. It is the reason for the fall from truth of spiritual babylon.

That is exactly what happened in the Christian church by the end of the third century. Compromises with truth were made for the purpose of unity and making Christianity popular. It is how Sunday came in, as well as the immortality of soul, and many other false teachings that most of Christianity considers true today. It also started with compromise and wanting to be popular.

[olger]

True John. Must Arminius die that Calvin might live?

Some have inflated the unconditional love of God into unconditional salvation. That done, the next field they will take is Universalism. "See how great a forest a little fire kindles."

og

[D. Allan]

Perhaps this will help : you cannot possess the Holy Spirit, you can only yield to him.

Hmmmmmmmmm. Sounds like a quotable cute and clever statement, but somehow there is something in it that doesn't ring true. Rid myself the "ego-driven need to possess" truth? How can you allow Truth to possess you when you don't possess it? Well, perhaps you can explain it.

/dAb

[John317]

It's true that God unconditionally loves each person. He also unconditionally gave His Son to save every human being, but as you point out, that is not the same as unconditionally saving everyone. There are conditions to our salvation.

I completely agree with you that Universalism follows hard on the footsteps of unconditional salvation. It attracts our sinful nature because it says that we can have heaven without giving up our sins.

[Woody]

I will sin until the day I die. Praise God ... He has made provisions for those sins. Just like David ... conspiring to kill on his death bed. And he was a man after God's own heart. It goes back to that which I don't want to do ... I do and that which I want to do .... I don't do. We live in a sinful world. Praise God .... He loves me anyways.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

Hmmmmmmmmm. Sounds like a quotable cute and clever statement, but somehow there is something in it that doesn't ring true. Rid myself the "ego-driven need to possess" truth? How can you allow Truth to possess you when you don't possess it? Well, perhaps you can explain it.

Perhaps this will help : you cannot possess the Holy Spirit, you can only yield to him.

Believe it or not-- because it is almost beyond belief-- the Bible teaches that God actually gives the Holy Spirit to us for us to have. Saint Paul speaks of believers "having, holding, possessing" [Gk, echo] the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9). The Holy Spirit is in those who keep God's commandments (1 John 3: 24; 4:4, 13). The Bible says that believers in Christ may "have, hold, possess" the Son, and through this "having" or "possessing" of the Son, we also have or possess eternal life (1 John 5:12). This having or possessing the Son and the Holy Spirit comes to us through belief, trust, reliance, faith and confidence in the gospel of Christ (Romans 10: 14-17).

I find it mind-boggling that God would do this-- actually give the Holy Spirit in this way to sinful believers for us to have.

So there is a sense in which the Spirit possesses us and another sense in which we may have or possess the Spirit.

[Marie]

It is true that even in the 1800's there were churches that would get off the path. I recall several times that Ellen White would try and help these people, like Paul, when some of the new Churches would get on a different track of believing. However, I cannot say that the Church as a whole was different at these times.

When I grew up in the Church in the 50's on up I do not recall differences. It was one thing that warmed my heart, while other churches had this branch and that branch, we all held strong to the same beliefs. What a wonderful time it was for me.

But in the last twenty years especially, different ideas have come out in the open more and more. (something that happens when a church goes to other churches to get ideas, which some of our Pastors did. Don't know if the Conference was involved or not, but it seemed to effect the whole church) Today we are living in a time shortly before the Lord's coming when we are seeing our Church change more and more. We used to hold to high standards. Other things have changed also. I used to feel I could really trust anything that came from our Pastors and current writings. But now I know more than ever before that we need to study to know for sure that what we are being taught is truly what we used to teach and what the Bible truly believes.

This church is the most wonderful Church in that God has blessed her with Truth to share with the world in these last days. But like in Paul's time and many others times since, Satan has gotten his foot in door and we, God's last Church people, need to know for sure what we believe for ourselves.

[John317]

Very much like and agree with your post.

I believe that God has allowed false teachings to enter our church in order to get people to study the Bible and Ellen White's writings on their own and not simply rely on pastors.

[Woody]

Good Post Marie.

I think God has allowed the church to maintain different beliefs so that we can bring more into the fold. The Wheat will grow with the Tares. Then at the end there will be the final separation. Study Christ's Object Lessons for a good description of what is happening. The evil must come into the church and be allowed to grow before the final separation. It must have full advantage of the sun. So when we see those who are teaching falsehood in the church ... we should praise God that they are there. It is as it should be.

[olger]

Is glorying in sin evil, or is it ok?

[Woody]

However we can glorify God ... it is good.

[Woody]

How can I agree with a supposition that has no facts but personal opinion! How can I agree when 'truth' has not been defined but is most often personalized. How can I agree when I have know knowledge of what the laity of all the vast number of churches believe or don't! True, if accusations are made over a long time, to some they become truth. I never met someone in the church that I attend or any other that I have attended, that claimed 'once saved always saved' in the way you use it to mean that someone believes they can do any thing they choose with immunity.

This belief that the idea is creeping into the church is really all about a fear of accepting Christ and then letting Him do the work through the Holy Spirit.

Sorry, but samo-samo arguments. It won't end!

Good Post CoAspen. I've never heard any one talk about this so called 'once saved always saved' either. If you choose against God ... How can you be saved. What kind of God would 'force' you to go to heaven if you don't accept Him. Don't make no sense to me. It is more like you say .... a "fear of accepting Christ".

[melvin mccarty]

So there is a sense in which the Spirit possesses us and another sense in which we may have or possess the Spirit

I doubt that makes sense.

mel

[LifeHiscost]

I will sin until the day I die. Praise God ... He has made provisions for those sins. Just like David ... conspiring to kill on his death bed. And he was a man after God's own heart. It goes back to that which I don't want to do ... I do and that which I want to do .... I don't do. We live in a sinful world. Praise God .... He loves me anyways.

Jesus has loved all His children since the inception of their creation. As well the Father loved them enough to give His only begotten Son. He loved Lucifer also as He loved Cain, and Judas Iscariot. An ingredient essential for the salvation of the soul is repentance, a turning away from our lust and sins of the flesh, something all had whom we know will be saved in God's kingdom.

It is true the things I would do, that I do not. However that only happens when I do not submit to the power of the Holy Spirit who is able to deliver the weakest from the lusts of the flesh, which power comes when we are given and accept the gift of repentance, that no works of ours can be seen as the reason for our salvation.

"Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you." James 4:7 KJV

"I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me." Philippians 4:13 KJV

"Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins." Acts 5:31 KJV

"For every one that asketh receiveth" Matthew 7:8 KJV

"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Romans 8:1 KJV

Regards!

[LifeHiscost]

I used to feel I could really trust anything that came from our Pastors and current writings. But now I know more than ever before that we need to study to know for sure that what we are being taught is truly what we used to teach and what the Bible truly believes.

[LifeHiscost]

Good Post Marie.

The evil must come into the church and be allowed to grow before the final separation. It must have full advantage of the sun. So when we see those who are teaching falsehood in the church ... we should praise God that they are there. It is as it should be.

" And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven." Revelation 12:7,8 KJV

While it is true God's foreknowledge of the tares growing with the wheat were needed to develop the remnant, it is also true that it was to meet man's deficiency, not His primary desire.

"Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!" Matthew 18:7 KJV

Regards!

[John317]

Good Post Marie.

I think God has allowed the church to maintain different beliefs so that we can bring more into the fold. The Wheat will grow with the Tares. Then at the end there will be the final separation. Study Christ's Object Lessons for a good description of what is happening. The evil must come into the church and be allowed to grow before the final separation. It must have full advantage of the sun.

I believe this is true. It's exactly what the Bible clearly teaches.

Quote:

So when we see those who are teaching falsehood in the church ... we should praise God that they are there. It is as it should be.

I think we have to consider the difference between those who wish to join us in worship and study and fellowship and those who join our church and then begin teaching false doctrines.

While I believe your attitude of wanting to include everyone in a circle of love is commendable, I would ask you consider the following points:

Was the fact that Sunday and the immortality of the soul and other false doctrines entered the church anything to praise God about?

If we believe in what either the Bible says about this, or what Ellen White says, we cannot possibly praise God when we see false doctrines entering the church.

Check out 1 Tim 4: 1-- Now the Spirit speaketh expressly that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils....

2 Timothy 4:-- 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but having itching ears, they shall heap to themselves teachers in accordance with their own lusts. 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned toward fables.

[John317]

So there is a sense in which the Spirit possesses us and another sense in which we may have or possess the Spirit

I doubt that makes sense.

mel

Yes, I know there are many people for whom much of the Bible does not make sense. But while it may not make sense to some people, yet that is exactly what the following texts and others tell us. Consider:

Saint Paul speaks of believers "having, holding, possessing" [Gk, echo] the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9).

The Holy Spirit is in those who keep God's commandments (1 John 3: 24; 4:4, 13).

The Bible says that believers in Christ may "have, hold, possess" the Son, and through this "having" or "possessing" of the Son, we also have or possess eternal life (1 John 5:12).

This having or possessing the Son and the Holy Spirit comes to us through continual belief, trust, reliance, faith and confidence in the gospel of Christ (Romans 10: 14-17).

1 John 3: 1-10; 5: 11, 12, 18; and Romans 6 and 8 describe the results of having the Son and having the Holy Spirit.

Do you believe this? Feel free to explain your thoughts about what the Bible says here or elsewhere on the topic.

[Neil D]

Originally Posted By: Neil D

...

I agree that there is precedent. I agree that the literal Word is necessary, both to teach and as a rule to fall back upon. But there is also room for us to understand the Person, Jesus, in some aspect, even in this life.

But what should we do when there is a contradiction between the rule of the Word and our understanding that is based on "this life"? For instance, there are people who believe that their personal experience leads them to believe the dead return to communicate with the living. Also, I have heard people say that God has told them that they should keep Sunday and they don't need to keep the Sabbath. Still others say it is not necessary to accept Jesus in order to experience salvation. I personally know Christians who believe there is nothing wrong with living with someone they're not married to. Are they right?

[Neil D]

Originally Posted By: Neil D

So, Gerry, are you saying that each person is made from the same mold?

No such implication in my statement. What I am saying is that we know about Jesus becomes teaching/doctrine ABOUT Jesus. None of us know Jesus the way the disciples did who heard, saw, touched, ate with, Him. Two of the gospel writers were eye-witnesses. Mark may have have been eye-witness to many that he wrote about. Luke's was the result of careful research. What they wrote about and the rest of Scriptures are the basis for our teaching/doctrine about Jesus.

Now it is entirely possible that one could have it all correct theologically but not have a relationship with Jesus, maybe even idolize the teachings/doctrines themselves. I can understand D. Allan's point about that, but I am in total disagreement with what I understand the drift of his post to be that somehow truth doesn't matter. Just know the person of Jesus.

As Paul says: [color:red'] "But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? Rom 10:14 ESV.

(or teaching for that matter). How can you have a relationship with someone you know nothing about? And how could one have a meaningful relationship that is based on a lot of misconceptions about that person?

It boggles my mind that somehow we want to get our knowledge/facts as accurately as we can in every branch of knowledge, but when it comes to theology, garbage will do!!!!!!!!!

There is no such implication that we are getting our information solely thru the spirit. One can not have sure relationship with Jesus without checking one set of knowledge with the written knowledge. And just as the teachings reach into each person and minsiter to each soul, it is done in a unique way and levens the whole mind with time, just a bread is leven. Each baked loaf is as different as the next, and yet, there is enough of the same teaching that we all know it as bread. not prezzels....Each loaf has it's own characteristics to make it different from the others.

that is why you and I and DAllen and Redwood and John317 can agree on things like the Sabbath, the 2300 days, the need for Christian Stewardship...what we may not agree on is exactly HOW to keep the Sabbath, exactly what mannor the little horn rose to power, or if the plaid shirt and yellow pants go together...We may also see Jesus work a bit different in our lifes...for example, for you, every promise is sure...for me, there is a struggle if the promise comes to fruition....

...are you getting the drift here? The bible says that we have the mind of Christ. And those that have that mind are not babes in Christ, nor children....They are the mature, the ones who have lived with the promises in troubled times and seen how God has rescued them...

Quote:

Quote:

I agree that there is precedent. I agree that the literal Word is necessary, both to teach and as a rule to fall back upon. But there is also room for us to understand the Person, Jesus, in some aspect, even in this life.

OK, if you can tell me how I can know Jesus apart from the Word, my ears are wide open to listen.

I didn't say that. I said that there was a precendent...a history. It begins with the literal Word of the bible, for the babes and children of Christ. But eventually, we grow up. When the mature comes, we put away the childish mannors, and we embrase the adult. We grow up into Christ....and take our places to become His brothers and Sisters, Friends of Jesus. And our friendship is different for each individual. For you, it is the following of the litteral word in all cases...

But, tell me, if you were to follow the literal word, how did yoou ever become married???? I see no place where the bible says,"And Gerry Cablo went forth and took his wife and had wedded bliss all the days of his life." You had to have a lot of counsel..and were led to the conclusion that this woman was to be married to you....how did Jesus allow you this priviledge?

[John317]

How can I agree with a supposition that has no facts but personal opinion! How can I agree when 'truth' has not been defined but is most often personalized.

Not sure what you mean by "most often personalized." I'm primarily concerned with the fundamental doctrines of the church that the vast majority of the church's members hold in common. They are the beliefs that members claim to believe when they are baptized into Christ and join the Seventh-day Adventist Church. They are defined in the Fundamental Beliefs as passed by the world church in General Conference.

I think particularly of what are referred to as the "pillars of our faith."

I don't know if you accept Ellen White as a prophet of God, but if you do, (as I do), you probably already know that she mentions the following as being included among the pillars of our faith:

1) The Second Advent of Christ-- Evangelism 624

2) Seventh Day Sabbath-- 7 T 109; Ev. 225, 226

3) Third Angel's Message-- Early Writings 258

4) The Sanctuary In Heaven and Christ's Mediation There-- Ev. 224

5) Non-Immorality of the Wicked-- Early Writings 30

6) Baptism and the Lord's Supper-- Evangelism 273

7) State of the Dead-- Ms. 305; GC 644

8) Creation-- Signs of the Tmes 1/22/ 1899

9) The Perpetuity of the Law-- CW 77; 3 T 202

Quote:

How can I agree when I have know knowledge of what the laity of all the vast number of churches believe or don't!

I think it's safe to assume that the majority of Seventh-day Adventists believe in the above doctrines. At least that has been my experience in the church, and I think that studies done of the members and pastors bear this out.

Quote:

True, if accusations are made over a long time, to some they become truth.

What accusations do you have reference to? Please be specific so I have something to respond to other than just a generalization.

Quote:

I never met someone in the church that I attend or any other that I have attended, that claimed 'once saved always saved' in the way you use it to mean that someone believes they can do any thing they choose with immunity.

Perhaps you haven't seen this or heard it but I have and others have as well. True, it is not a large number who are holding or teaching these concepts, yet they are present nevertheless. For instance, we hear them in such words as, "I and everyone else sins willfully and I will continue to practice willful sin as long as I live or until Jesus comes. The power of the Holy Spirit is available for us not to sin but we all do it anyway and do it willfully, but God has taken care of it. He died so that I can fail. I know that I am saved anyway. As long as I put faith in Jesus, I know that I will be saved even if I continue to sin, which I am sure to do, until He comes back."

It also comes out in the teaching that appears from time to time which states that no one can possibly obey God's commandments, even through God's grace and with the power of the Holy Spirit. This clearly contradicts Scripture as well as Ellen White. It seems to me that such statements-- that no one can obey God's commandments-- shows a failure to grasp Bible verses like, "He who says, 'I know Him,' and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." If no one can possibly keep the commandments, then that verse means that no one knows Him and no one has the truth in him.

1 John 5: 3 says, "For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome." But what does that verse mean if we say that no one can possibly obey God's commandments even by means of the Holy Spirit? The only thing it can mean as far as I can see is that the Bible is lying and that there is no love of God. Do you know how else to explain the verse if in fact no one can possibly obey the commandments?

One of the Adventist statements of belief includes the statement, "Salvation is all of grace and not of works, but its fruitage is obedience to the Commandments." What does it mean, though, if we say that it is really quite impossible for anyone to obey the Commandments? Is the fruitage of salvation obedience to the Commandments or not? If it is, then obviously we cannot at the same time maintain that it is impossible for anyone to obey them. To do so would be to make a complete mockery of the English language.

This flatly contradicts not only the Bible but many clear statements in the writings of Ellen White. The only way anyone can defend such false beliefs is by rejecting or evading certain Bible verses or certain writings of Ellen White in which those issues are addressed.

Moreover, it's a teaching which runs completely counter to the Seventh-day Adventist view of Christ's ministry in the heavenly sanctuary.

That statement of belief says, in part, "The investigation judgment reveals to heavenly intelligences who among the dead are asleep in Christ and therefore, in Him, are deemed worthy to have part in the first resurrection. It also makes manifest who among the living are abiding in Christ, keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, and in Him, therefore, are ready for translation into His everlasting kingdom."

Obviously, then, there must be some who are keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. A teaching that no one can keep the commandments is, therefore, clearly untrue and a invalid. Such teaches it is utterly hopeless and impossible to obey God. It teaches that we will be saved in sin rather than from sin, and that God made a way for us to continue to sin and yet enjoy heaven. Such an idea, if accepted among us, and put into practice, would lead to doctrinal confusion and to a virtual rejection of the very central pillars of our faith as Seventh-day Adventists.

I firmly believe that this Forum is the very place where such concepts need to be thoroughly studied and discussed openly and honestly. So I welcome this opportunity to address these very important questions and issues. And I welcome any comments or observations you may about them. I would only request that we try to discuss it in the light of what the Bible teaches and what the Seventh-day Adventist Church believes.

Quote:

This belief that the idea is creeping into the church is really all about a fear of accepting Christ and then letting Him do the work through the Holy Spirit. Sorry, but samo-samo arguments. It won't end!

If the teaching were to become generally accepted among us that we will continue to deliberately and willfully practice sin until Jesus returns, the church would be in danger of forgetting the purpose for which God originally raised up the Seventh-day Adventist Church. In that case, it would certainly be unable to preach the Third Angel's Message. According to the church's self-understanding, that purpose and the purpose of the Third Angel's Message is to uplift God's downtrodden law and to restore the everlasting gospel to its purity so that a people might be prepared for Christ's soon return. An essential part of that gospel is that Christ ministers in the heavenly sanctuary and empowers us through that ministry to live lives which reflect His character and glorify the Father. This cannot be done if we accept the teaching that all of us will practice sinning willfully and deliberately right up until the moment we die or Jesus comes.