When Christ's character shall be perfectly reproduced in his people...

[pnattmbtc]

This seems more active than "not resisting."

[pnattmbtc]

Well it would be nice to assume that God's saving grace is irresistible to everyone; but that's not even close to what I said. When the saving grace of God is accepted then comes the response of "obedience."

I believe karl's point is that even accepting the grace of God is "obedience." I believe he's making the point that cooperation is necessary at every step, including the beginning step.

To me the discussion has become difficult to determine whether there are actual distinctions here, or just semantical differences. I don't think anyone is suggesting that God acts unilaterally upon anyone. I don't know what it is that you are saying that karl disagrees with, or vice versa, in terms of what you or he actually believe.

[karl]

Originally Posted By: Overage

Well it would be nice to assume that God's saving grace is irresistible to everyone; but that's not even close to what I said. When the saving grace of God is accepted then comes the response of "obedience."

I believe karl's point is that even accepting the grace of God is "obedience." I believe he's making the point that cooperation is necessary at every step, including the beginning step.

Absolutely correct, pnat.

I am opposed to the teachings of Calvinism and Universalism which have found their way into most denominations through the idea that humanity does not cooperate in justification. There has been a strong push in our denomination to include this teaching, and if you are tuned to it, you can see the lingo of universal justification in many of our publications, including the SS lessons. It is difficult to combat this teaching because it uses the same salvation terminology as Adventism has always used but gives the words different definitions.

[karl]

So we have:

1.Revelation of the attractive loveliness of Christ (aka revelation of God's character)

2.a.Human response of interposing a perverse will, which frustrates God's grace

OR

b.Human response of faith, which doesn't frustrate God's grace.

c.The result of this choice (being made like unto Christ, obedience to the 10 commandments, etc.)

Yes, and let us emphasize that 2b is just as active a response as 2a is in the opposite direction. We either have active uncooperation or active cooperation in response to God's work in our behalf.

It is a war. We either fight on the right side and cooperate with God as He makes us righter, or we fight on the wrong side and frustrate God (cooperate with Satan) while we get wronger.

[pnattmbtc]

Yes, and let us emphasize that 2b is just as active a response as 2a is in the opposite direction. We either have active uncooperation or active cooperation in response to God's work in our behalf.

Yes, it's one way or the other. I've found that people, in general, are aware of the cooperation side of the question, but not of the resistance side. That is, they think of things in terms of either doing all the work that's necessary to be saved, or not doing enough work, something like that, as opposed to the idea of either actively resisting or actively responding.

What drives things is the love of God revealed through Jesus Christ which melts and subdues the heart. This is where we all fall short, IMO (Certainly, speaking for myself, I would wish to be far better than I am at what follows). We don't present Christ according to "His attractive loveliness." Of course, this involves a change in character on our part. How do we treat people? Are we kind and winsome? Are we gentle, compassionate, caring, yet have the integrity that Christ had? Although this is very important, so is the picture of God we present by our ideas as well. What is the God whom we believe in really like? Is He like Jesus Christ?

[pnattmbtc]

I am opposed to the teachings of Calvinism and Universalism which have found their way into most denominations through the idea that humanity does not cooperate in justification. There has been a strong push in our denomination to include this teaching, and if you are tuned to it, you can see the lingo of universal justification in many of our publications, including the SS lessons. It is difficult to combat this teaching because it uses the same salvation terminology as Adventism has always used but gives the words different definitions.

There's been a lot of misunderstanding here, especially in relation to the corporate part. I'm not sure what makes this concept difficult to grasp. I remember it took me a while to get it.

Here's an analogy I've tried. Imagine a bus about to go over a cliff. A person throws himself in front of the bus, to save the bus, and does, at the cost of his own life. Say there's 2 doors, one hanging over the cliff, and the other over solid land. The people on the bus can leave by either door, their choice.

Could we say that the entire bus was saved? Yes, indeed. But will each passenger of the bus be saved? Not necessarily, as they choose to go out the door that's hanging over the cliff, instead of over the door that's on solid land.

Hope that helps.

[karl]

Good illustration.

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: karl

I am opposed to the teachings of Calvinism and Universalism which have found their way into most denominations through the idea that humanity does not cooperate in justification. There has been a strong push in our denomination to include this teaching, and if you are tuned to it, you can see the lingo of universal justification in many of our publications, including the SS lessons. It is difficult to combat this teaching because it uses the same salvation terminology as Adventism has always used but gives the words different definitions.

There's been a lot of misunderstanding here, especially in relation to the corporate part. I'm not sure what makes this concept difficult to grasp. I remember it took me a while to get it.

Here's an analogy I've tried. Imagine a bus about to go over a cliff. A person throws himself in front of the bus, to save the bus, and does, at the cost of his own life. Say there's 2 doors, one hanging over the cliff, and the other over solid land. The people on the bus can leave by either door, their choice.

Could we say that the entire bus was saved? Yes, indeed. But will each passenger of the bus be saved? Not necessarily, as they choose to go out the door that's hanging over the cliff, instead of over the door that's on solid land.

Hope that helps.

It could get complicated tho - some of the passengers may have no idea which door was it; and unknowingly run out the wrong one.

[Overaged]

I am opposed to the teachings of Calvinism and Universalism which have found their way into most denominations through the idea that humanity does not cooperate in justification. There has been a strong push in our denomination to include this teaching, and if you are tuned to it, you can see the lingo of universal justification in many of our publications, including the SS lessons. It is difficult to combat this teaching because it uses the same salvation terminology as Adventism has always used but gives the words different definitions.

Actually karl; I am with you on this one. I think I will start a thread on Calvinism; I would like to gather other people's info and opinions on it. I have a lot of questions about it - it just seems like such a strange religion, and to call it part of the reformation and all - well it just doesn't seem right and it doesn't seem like Christianity in many respects.

[karl]

Actually karl; I am with you on this one. I think I will start a thread on Calvinism; I would like to gather other people's info and opinions on it. I have a lot of questions about it - it just seems like such a strange religion, and to call it part of the reformation and all - well it just doesn't seem right and it doesn't seem like Christianity in many respects.

Calvinism and Universalism come from an exaltation (and misinterpretation) of selections from Paul's and John's writings above the teachings and example of Christ (a theology which Paul and John would be adamantly against.)

It is easy to misinterpret the combination of 1) God's eagerness to save us, 2) God's omnipotence and omniscience, and 3) the apostle's desire to magnify the greatness of God's love, as clear evidence that God will save everyone He wants to save. Universalists maintain that this is everybody. Calvinists have it as the vessels God has predestined to honor.

What is shocking to me is to see this thinking infiltrating Adventism, primarily from down under. You would think we were well protected from this because our denomination has emphasized for more than a century the cooperation necessary between humanity and the heavenly agencies in order to save men and yet preserve their freedom.

[Guest truthseeker007]

i am firmly opposed to Last Generation Theology;

Last Generation Theology (LGT) or "final generation" theology is a belief system held by some conservative members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which claims that perfection will be achieved by some people in the last generation before the Second Coming of Jesus. It is closely related to "historic Adventism", but as one supporter claims, it differs in that it forms an extension or development of "historic" Adventist beliefs,[1] or takes them to their logical conclusion.

It teaches that Jesus Christ was not only the Substitute but also the Example for man, insists that Christians will have to cease from sin before the close of probation and before the time of trouble (Daniel chapter 12 verse 1; Jeremiah chapter 30 verse 7; Isaiah chapter 26 verse 20) just prior to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, and confesses that the close of human probation has been delayed by tares in the Laodicean church, but can be accelerated through their consistent living of holy lives (consistent obedience to the Ten Commandments by the enabling power of GOD the Eternal Holy Ghost.[citation needed]

"Historic Adventism" formed a large portion of the church in the early 1900s. LGT has been denied by mainstream and progressive members of the church since at least the publishing of the book Questions on Doctrine by the church in 1957. Although exceptions exist, most Adventist resources published since the late 1970s have opposed the concepts identified as LGT. Especially has this been the case since the 1990 General Conference in Indianapolis, Indiana.[citation needed

I think this doctrine is satanic; it promotes legalism, self centredness etc. I can get very angry with people telling we must be perfect or we will not enter heaven.

[Robert]

TU

[Haldog]

God sent messages to the church that the church is still in rebellion against: the Message of 1888, the Investigative Judgment, the Spirit of Prophecy, .....

For very good reasons, because they are not of God.

[pnattmbtc]

truthseeker, why does your post need citations?

[Overaged]

I think this doctrine is satanic; it promotes legalism, self centredness etc. I can get very angry with people telling we must be perfect or we will not enter heaven.

You must be very angry with Jesus...but don't worry - He can take it

Have you read Mat 5:48 lately? Or, maybe 1 John 3:3?

[Guest]

The same lie that Lucifer told in heaven, that you can't keep the law, is alive and well. So much so, that those who believe it think the truth is satanic.

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Isa 5:20

[Twilight]

The same lie that Lucifer told in heaven, that you can't keep the law, is alive and well. So much so, that those who believe it think the truth is satanic.

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Isa 5:20

Amen.

[Overaged]

I do believe that Richard - now though, it presents opponents with a bit of ammo: "Will all the perfect lawkeepers please raise their hands?"

[Beryl]

No, Robert. That is not legalism -- that is, not unless you personally make it legalism! That is done when you say (or think in your heart) "Oh well, I guess I HAVE to do that so I don't get burned up. What a pest!"

"When the sinner believes that Christ is his personal Saviour, then, according to His unfailing promises, God pardens his sin, and justifies him freely. The repentant soul realizes that his justification comes because Christ, as his substitute and surety, has died for him, as his atonement and righteousness." EGW. Review and Herald, Nov. 4, 1890.

Our belief in this has not changed. The price has been paid. It is over to you and me as to whether we accept it.

God bless,

Beryl

[phkrause]

No, Robert. That is not legalism -- that is, not unless you personally make it legalism! That is done when you say (or think in your heart) "Oh well, I guess I HAVE to do that so I don't get burned up. What a pest!"

"When the sinner believes that Christ is his personal Saviour, then, according to His unfailing promises, God pardens his sin, and justifies him freely. The repentant soul realizes that his justification comes because Christ, as his substitute and surety, has died for him, as his atonement and righteousness." EGW. Review and Herald, Nov. 4, 1890.

Our belief in this has not changed. The price has been paid. It is over to you and me as to whether we accept it.

God bless,

Beryl

[Guest truthseeker007]

Overaged why do you pervert the gospel by suggesting we have to become perfect according to the law in order to be saved? Do you really rely on your law keeping for salvation? woe to those who take two sentences from the bible totally out of context to create a new twisted satanic doctrine.

This is really sad about the adventist church. They think they have got all the truths, but the fact is that they don't. They pervert the gospel, and even their daniel and revelations prophecy have not been properly worked out etc.

I believe the commandments are still valid, will always be valid and i don t preach lawlessness. Instead i try to estalish the law in the spirit of the gospel that Christ preached, which is not perfection. That is the devil preaching. But i don t respond to insults anymore, i realise that most of you are just the fruits of Uriah Smith and Ellen White before 1888 when she still believed in legalism. There has been a tremendous cover up within the adventist church working against the will of EG White which has caused the turbulence inside the church. Look for Tom Norris if you want to know what i am talking about.

[Overaged]

Overaged why do you pervert the gospel by suggesting we have to become perfect according to the law in order to be saved? Do you really rely on your law keeping for salvation? woe to those who take two sentences from the bible totally out of context to create a new twisted satanic doctrine.

Well my friend; if you can give me the exact quote/post where you think I said this; I will be happy to confirm or deny thereof. :Jesusfish:

[Guest truthseeker007]

I said: I think this doctrine is satanic; it promotes legalism, self centredness etc. I can get very angry with people telling we must be perfect or we will not enter heaven.

you said: You must be very angry with Jesus...but don't worry - He can take it

Have you read Mat 5:48 lately? Or, maybe 1 John 3:3?

Be ye perfect, is a statement which suggests that we should strive for perfection. It doesn t say that we should become perfect in order to become saved. Striving for perfection is a process of sanctification and is a life-long process that cannot be finished during a lifetime.

John 3:3 purify yourself, is a statement related to the subject matter of mat 5:48. You use these two little verses totally out of context to suggest a doctrine of perfection in order to become saved. I call such a teaching a perversion of the word of God/ the gospel. Be carefull what you teach, because Jesus told us we will be judged according to our own standards. Are you sure you are not a hypocryte? I surely know i am a hypocritical terrible unworthy sinner, but do you know who you are?

[pnattmbtc]

The following was written before 1888:

Quote:

The sacrifice of our Saviour has made ample provision for every repenting, believing soul. We are saved because God loves the purchase of the blood of Christ; and not only will he pardon the repentant sinner, not only will he permit him to enter heaven, but he, the Father of mercies, will wait at the very gates of heaven to welcome us, to give us an abundant entrance to the mansions of the blest. Oh what love, what wondrous love the Father has shown in the gift of his beloved Son for this fallen race! And this Sacrifice is a channel for the outflow of his infinite love, that all who believe on Jesus Christ may, like the prodigal son, receive full and free restoration to the favor of Heaven. {RH, September 21, 1886 par. 12}

Have we not grand themes for thought, and a solid foundation for our faith? What more can we ask of God than what he has already given us? Oh the love, the infinite love of our blessed Lord, to be our sacrifice! What joy should fill the heart of the Christian, and what expressions of gratitude be heard from his lips! that through the blood of Jesus it is possible for us to gain the love of God, to be one with him. {RH, September 21, 1886 par. 13}

There are countless statements like this. There's no foundation for the assertion that Ellen White believed in legalism before 1888. Anyone can plainly see that there's no legalism in the above.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

I can get very angry with people telling we must be perfect or we will not enter heaven.

Where did you see someone suggest this?