Was the Sabbath just for the Jews...?

[Robert]

In fact, God sent a prophet of God named Ellen G. White, who has plainly and clearly confirmed and supported the words of the commandment and Gen. 2:1-3. It is time to accept that fact.

Make her my pope? No way! This, again, John is the mark of a cult. Really, you have problems.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

In fact, God sent a prophet of God named Ellen G. White, who has plainly and clearly confirmed and supported the words of the commandment and Gen. 2:1-3. It is time to accept that fact.

Make her my pope? No way! This, again, John is the mark of a cult. Really, you have problems.

Is she a true prophet of God? Jack Sequeira says she is.

Like Jack Sequeira, I am a member of the SDA church because I believe its teachings, and one of those teachings that I firmly support is that Ellen White is a true prophet of the Lord. I make no apologies for it any more than I would apologize to an atheist for my belief in Jesus Christ and the Word of God as His revelation.

I only hope and pray that you will one day join me and Jack Sequeira in this faith.

Look what Jack S. says about her in his book, Christ Speaks To Laodicea.

Check pages 6, 36, and 74-76.

Guess who Jack Sequeira quotes at great length in that book? He quotes her as an authority? Why? BECAUSE SHE WAS A PROPHET OF GOD AND BECAUSE SHE IS AUTHORITATIVE.

It's "Ellen White says," "Ellen White says," "The Spirit of prophecy says," "Ellen White says, " "Ellen White continues," "the messenger of the Lord," time after time after time.

Jack calls her "the messenger of the Lord." What does he mean by that? Does he call anyone else that? No. Only Ellen White.

I find it contradictory to say the least for someone to quote her when they find it beneficial and then totally reject her or refer to her as a "pope" whenever she says something they don't like or don't understand.

At the end of the book, Jack gives over 35 important quotes from "the messenger of the Lord". Why? BECAUSE SHE WAS A PROPHET OF GOD AND BECAUSE SHE IS AUTHORITATIVE. 35 important quotes.

A problem? A pope? No. A true prophet of God -- one whom Jack Sequeira quotes at great length as authority in support of those ideas he likes.

Got to go to bed finally so I can get up and go to church with my wife and kids. My wife was Roman CAtholic when I married her 22 years ago. We have two daughters who love Jesus and love going to church. My wife became an Adventist through reading books that I left around the house. She asked me one day if she could go to church with me. Within 2 years, after studying and thinking it over, she asked to be baptized. My youngest, 16, just got baptized not long ago, and she loves learning about Christ and the Bible. They go to church without my even asking them. All of my wife's family are nominal Catholics in Mexico, but two love to visit and go to church with us.

[Robert]

And you want me to accept Jack's and your word for it, above the plain Word of God and the Spirit of prophecy?

Ellen White cannot be placed on the same level as the Bible. Ellen White, although she had good things to say, also had wrong things that she stated.

First we need to establish an important point:

"In regard to infallibility, I never claimed it; God alone is infallible. His word [the Bible] is true, and in Him is no variableness, or shadow of turning." [1SM 37]

Anyway, there are a lot of problems with some of Ellen White's writings. Many good things, and many things to unlearn. But again, not a problem because the fact is she never claim to be infallible.

We can get some insight into her growth, over the years, as she changed, but the bottom line is if your view of God is incorrect then everything downstream will be tainted. My favorite example is as follows:

-BC- AY

-TI- An Appeal to the Youth

-CN- 1

-CT- His Mother's Letters

-PR- 03

-PG- 61

“The Lord loves those little children who try to do right, and he has promised that they shall be in his kingdom. But wicked children God does not love. He will not take them to the beautiful City, for he only admits the good, obedient, and patient children there. One fretful, disobedient child, would spoil all the harmony of heaven. When you [Willie] feel tempted to speak impatient and fretful, remember the Lord sees you, and will not love you if you do wrong. When you do right and overcome wrong feelings, the Lord smiles upon you. Although he is in heaven, and you cannot see him, yet he loves you when you do right, and writes it down his book; and when you do wrong, he puts a black mark against you. Now, dear Willie, try to do right always, and then no black mark will be set down against you; and when Jesus comes he will call for that good boy Willie White, and will put upon your head a wreath of gold, and put in your hand a little harp that you can play upon, and it will send forth beautiful music, and you will never be sick, never be tempted then to do wrong; but will be happy always, and will eat of rich fruit, and will pluck beautiful flowers. Try, try, dear boy, to be good.”

PC- Becho

PT- Bible Echo and Signs of the Times

DT- 02-01-92

AT- Ye are Complete in Him

PR- 09

“Do not teach your children [such as she taught Willie] that God does not love them when they do wrong; teach them that he loves them so that it grieves his Spirit to see them in transgression, because he knows they are doing injury to their souls. Do not terrify your children by telling them of the wrath of God, but rather seek to impress them with his unspeakable love and goodness, and thus let the glory of the Lord be revealed before them.

What does the Bible say?

Eph 2:4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ ....

Clearly the Bible states that God loved us even when we were living for the flesh as a lifestyle. He loved us when we were very bad. That's agape. Apparently Ellen White had mixed confused ideas concerning God's love. This must be central to any teachings, yet we saw that her mindset was far from this Biblical truth.

Rom 5:8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us....

Here's the thing...while Ellen White had much light for her time, but she also had error. She is not the measuring stick for truth, the Bible is. Why? Clearly she was not infallible.

Yes, for the church, she was the lesser light. But the reason she even came along was because of lazy Adventists who were unwilling to study the Bible for themselves.

Rob

Rob

[Robert]

A problem? A pope? No. A true prophet of God -- one whom Jack Sequeira quotes at great length as authority in support of those ideas he likes.

Yes, Jack quotes those other quotes that legalists tend to overlook. That's what he quotes.

As a legalist I had all her legalistic quotes to bash folks over the head. When I learned better I found her other statements.

Anyway, I do not have to accept EGW as a prophet. I accept her as someone that grew...that changed and made changes to her views, but I cannot and will not accept her views above my own conscience and understanding. To do so is the same as the Catholic who bows the knee to the Pope. No, the word of God and His revelation to me is my measuring stick of truth.

Rob

[John317]

Rob, I do not call you names and I would appreciate it very much if you refrained from calling me names also. We've talked about that before. Please delete that. You can say my arguments are legalistic all you want but I really can't allow personal name calling that way.

What if I were to start calling you names? Where would it end? Nothing good would come of it.

I know it's just a habit with you and if you did that in person during a conversation, I wouldn't say anything about it. I would just know that is your way, and I understand it. But on the threads here, it isn't a good thing becasue we have visitors.

I will delete this after you've edited your post. Thanks.

I tried to send you a PM but can't because you are over your limit.

[Robert]

Rob, I do not call you names and I would appreciate it very much if you refrained from calling me names also. We've talked about that before. Please delete that.

No, John. It's not name calling...it's an accurate statement. Further more you are using your power to manipulate & coerce here. This is of the devil.

Rob

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Rob, I do not call you names and I would appreciate it very much if you refrained from calling me names also. We've talked about that before. Please delete that.

No, John. It's not name calling...it's an accurate statement. Further more you are using your power to manipulate & coerce here. This is of the devil.

Rob

I can't send PMs to you, which I would ordinarily do, so I have to use the public forum. If you want to, you can respond to this by PM.

Please tell me--

1) How is saying "you legalists" not name-calling? (Whether something is "name calling" doesn't depend on its accuracy or whether someone feels justified in using it. For instance, you might feel that someone really is very ugly, but its accuracy in your mind would not change the fact that it would be name-calling to call them ugly.)

2) How is my telling you to delete "you legalists" using my power to manipulate and coerce here? (I have asked you to delete this before when being used against others and you have complied. I am not doing anything differently that way.)

3) How is this of the devil? Have I mistreated you or done anything bad to you?

[Nightingale]

"Namecalling" is a form of manipulation and is used when someone is no longer able to

discuss the issues and must resort to personal attacks. It is a sign that they feel they are "losing" the argument.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

"Name-calling" was used on Jesus too.

[Robert]

Please tell me--

1) How is saying "you legalists" not name-calling?

[Robert]

Yes, Jack quotes those other quotes that legalists tend to overlook. That's what he quotes.

Hey, I indirectly called you a legalist here. I don't know why this offended you since it was indirect. Anyway, I can't change it because the edit function has timed out. I'll reword it:

Yes, Jack quotes those other quotes that those heavy on law tend to overlook. That's what he quotes

[Robert]

"Namecalling" is a form of manipulation and is used when someone is no longer able to discuss the issues and must resort to personal attacks. It is a sign that they feel they are "losing" the argument.

I can agree....In my case, however, it's more like frustration.

[Robert]

"Name-calling" was used on Jesus too.

You are absolutely right. The only difference is Christ was willing to die for those "heavy on the law", where I am not.

Now Paul was more mature than I am. Take where he said, "For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel." [Rom 9:3,4]

Yet at the same time he would say things like, "Watch out for those dogs,....those mutilators of the flesh (referring to those who insisted on circumcision to be saved)." By dogs I think he meant "wolves in sheep's clothing"?

You see the Judaizers were Jews who had accepted Christ, but yet they taught that in order to make it to heaven you still had to obey "the book of the law" (the first, five book of the OT). Sabbath was one of their rules, but what they really pushed was circumcision.

So Paul would call them "dogs". In fact he said, "As for those agitators [i.e., the Judaizers], I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!" [Gal 5:12] By that he didn't mean just cut off the foreskin, but instead cut the whole thing off. teehe teehe Now that's Paul...and that is name-calling. Maybe he got frustrated too?

Anyway, if Paul was here on CA I think he would be banned!

[Robert]

When you [Willie] feel tempted to speak impatient and fretful, remember the Lord sees you, and will not love you if you do wrong. When you do right and overcome wrong feelings, the Lord smiles upon you.

[Gerr]

If being "heavy on the law" is what makes one a "legalist", then that makes ALL the prophets legalists. That also makes Christ a legalist who was also "heavy on the law". That makes God Himself a legalist since His throne is founded not only on mercy but also law.

Gerry

[Woody]

If being "heavy on the law" is what makes one a "legalist", then that makes ALL the prophets legalists. That also makes Christ a legalist who was also "heavy on the law". That makes God Himself a legalist since His throne is founded not only on mercy but also law.

Gerry

If your post is true then Gerry ... why is one not allowed to call another a 'legalist'?

After all ... we are saved by the law. The life of Jesus in perfect obedience to the Law ... is what saves us.

Doesn't that make us all legalists. If we are not ... then we are not saved.

[Robert]

If being "heavy on the law" is what makes one a "legalist", then that makes ALL the prophets legalists. That also makes Christ a legalist who was also "heavy on the law". That makes God Himself a legalist since His throne is founded not only on mercy but also law.

Gerry

And there's nothing wrong with the law, in and of itself. But when you folks who are heavy on the law bash it over our heads, then there's something wrong with that because you are not yourselves keeping it.

Gal 3:10 All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” 11 Clearly no one is just before God by the law, because, “The just will live by faith (as opposed to law).” 12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, “The man who does these things (keeps all the rules) by them will he live.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.”

[Woody]

Rob ... you aren't saying that if Jesus didn't keep the Law that we would still be saved are you?

[Robert]

After all ... we are saved by the law. The life of Jesus in perfect obedience to the Law ... is what saves us.

And here's where the "in Christ" motif come in....Gerry's right, the law must be satisfied. And it was "in Christ". Since Christ, as God, assumed your humanity...and since He defeated "the law of sin" in our humanity, our humanity was made righteous. But since that humanity was sinful, it had to die the 2nd death. Hence, "We died to the law (it demanded our death) in the body of Christ." (Romans 7:4) Because when One died, all died!

In Christ we stand perfect by faith.

Rob

[John317]

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

"Name-calling" was used on Jesus too.

You are absolutely right. The only difference is Christ was willing to die for those "heavy on the law", where I am not.

Now Paul was more mature than I am. Take where he said, "For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel." [Rom 9:3,4]

Yet at the same time he would say things like, "Watch out for those dogs,....those mutilators of the flesh (referring to those who insisted on circumcision to be saved)." By dogs I think he meant "wolves in sheep's clothing"?

You see the Judaizers were Jews who had accepted Christ, but yet they taught that in order to make it to heaven you still had to obey "the book of the law" (the first, five book of the OT). Sabbath was one of their rules, but what they really pushed was circumcision.

So Paul would call them "dogs". In fact he said, "As for those agitators [i.e., the Judaizers], I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!" [Gal 5:12] By that he didn't mean just cut off the foreskin, but instead cut the whole thing off. teehe teehe Now that's Paul...and that is name-calling. Maybe he got frustrated too?

Anyway, if Paul was here on CA I think he would be banned!

I am not in fundamental disagreement with you about much that you say here, Rob. It is just that we have to keep the posts from becoming a place where people often make personal attacks and call each other names.

I know that you feel I am too "heavy on the law," and I feel that you are more or less against the law.

So, now, what if you call me names and I call you names over that issue?

Do you see what I mean?

No one deserves to be called names on the Forum. We want to keep it clear of that, don't we?

We want people to come on the Forum and not feel that they will have names thrown at them or be attacked in personal ways.

It is OK to attack a person's argument and evidence and reasoning, but let's try to do in a way that is caring and thoughtful, at least as much as possible.

By the way, I am only posting this here because I can't send you PMs.

PS. I think you are greatly mistaken when you say that Paul himself would be banned on the Forum. So far as I know, no one has ever been banned for their resemblance to Paul.

[Robert]

Rob ... you aren't saying that if Jesus didn't keep the Law that we would still be saved are you?

No....Jesus defeated "the law of sin" (self-love) in our humanity, which He assumed at the incarnation. Hence not only were we made obedient "in Him", but we also died the 2nd death "in Him".

And Sunday morning Christ was raised with a glorified humanity. That humanity is ours minus the sin nature and mortality. "In Him" we literally have a new humanity free from both "indwelling sin" and "death". But that life is "in Christ" who is in heaven. By faith He is now representing us "in Himself" against the accusations of Satan.

Rob

[John317]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

If being "heavy on the law" is what makes one a "legalist", then that makes ALL the prophets legalists. That also makes Christ a legalist who was also "heavy on the law". That makes God Himself a legalist since His throne is founded not only on mercy but also law.

Gerry

If your post is true then Gerry ... why is one not allowed to call another a 'legalist'?

After all ... we are saved by the law. The life of Jesus in perfect obedience to the Law ... is what saves us.

Doesn't that make us all legalists. If we are not ... then we are not saved.

The reason it is not good on the Forum to call people "legalist" is that people would then feel they have a right to call names back, such as "antinomian," anti-law.

You may believe that someone is a legalist, but that may be because you misunderstand their theology or ideas. And they may call you a name because they misunderstand you.

A name may seem accurate but that doesn't mean it would be right or appropriate on the Forum. For instance, it is not right to call people "ugly" because they appear to be ugly, and the same applies here about other names.

If they were allowed, there would be names thrown back and forth, and once that starts, where would it end?

About the meaning of "legalist": If everyone is a "legalist," including Jesus and God and Paul, then the term loses its meaning and is not being used the way the Bible uses it.

[Robert]

Therefore since I am not able to PM Rob ... I am doing it on this public forum ... Rob please free up your PM space.

Done.....

[John317]

....But, don't think my apology lets your theology off the hook!

I expect nothing less, Rob. So let's talk about the questions and issues. That is what this Forum is all about-- exchanging views when two or more people, who respect each other and care for one another as Christians, nevertheless see things very differently. Nothing wrong with that.

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Redwood

If your post is true then Gerry ... why is one not allowed to call another a 'legalist'?

After all ... we are saved by the law. The life of Jesus in perfect obedience to the Law ... is what saves us.

Doesn't that make us all legalists. If we are not ... then we are not saved.[/quote']

The reason it is not good on the Forum to call people "legalist" is that people would then feel they have a right to call names back, such as "antinomian," anti-law.

You may believe that someone is a legalist, but that may be because you misunderstand their theology or ideas. And they may call you a name because they misunderstand you.

A name may seem accurate but that doesn't mean it would be right or appropriate on the Forum. For instance, it is not right to call people "ugly" because they appear to be ugly, and the same applies here about other names.

If they were allowed, there would be names thrown back and forth, and once that starts, where would it end?

About the meaning of "legalist": If everyone is a "legalist," including Jesus and God and Paul, then the term loses its meaning and is not being used the way the Bible uses it.

Well ... I certainly can agree with that. WE for sure don't need any of that.