The General Conference Inquisition

[John317]

It means that no one comes to the Father but by Him, not by His prophets, but by Him.

Let's not forget that the entire Bible is through the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of Christ. 2 Peter 1: 21; 1 Peter 1: 10, 11.

See also: Luke 16: 31; Acts 1: 16; 3: 18, 21; Luke 24: 25, 44; Eph. 2: 19, 20; Hebrews 1: 1, 2.

The above verses show us that God spoke through the mouth of His holy prophets. If we don't believe Moses and the prophets, neither will we be persuaded though One rise from the dead.

[Guest]

Amen...

[John317]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

Without the previous truths in the OT, Jesus would have no leg to stand on. He would be no better than

Budha or Confucius.

I am appalled that anyone would say that God in the flesh was no better than mortal men like Buddha or Confucius. I get the idea from your post that you may be an existentialist. Existentialism is the theology of the devil, and ya got the cart before the horse. Without Jesus, Moses wouldn't have any basis of truth. And neither would any other Bible writer. Our faith in Jesus is the only place we can find truth. Moses gave the people manna and they all died. But Jesus gives us the living bread. If we eat his bread we will live forever. This is a quotation from Jesus which means that the teachings from Moses are dead, but the teachings of Jesus will bring us into everlasting life.

Gerry is saying no more than what you will find in the following verses: Luke 16: 31; Acts 1: 16; 3: 18, 21; Luke 24: 25, 44; Eph. 2: 19, 20; Hebrews 1: 1, 2.

We are able to identify Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah because God told us details about His coming ahead of time in the OT prophets. See particularly Eph. 2: 20. The household of God is built on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, with Jesus Christ Himself the chief cornerstone.

[Woody]

It never ceases to amaze me how that some can twist and turn instructions from God and the Truth from God ... just to fit their preconceived ideas. Is there anyone out there who doesn't have it all figured out and have discovered ways to arrange the Word and SOP to fit that? I don't suppose there is any one willing to admit it.

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: oldsailor29

I am appalled that anyone would say that God in the flesh was no better than mortal men like Buddha or Confucius. I get the idea from your post that you may be an existentialist. Existentialism is the theology of the devil, and ya got the cart before the horse. Without Jesus, Moses wouldn't have any basis of truth. And neither would any other Bible writer. Our faith in Jesus is the only place we can find truth. Moses gave the people manna and they all died. But Jesus gives us the living bread. If we eat his bread we will live forever. This is a quotation from Jesus which means that the teachings from Moses are dead, but the teachings of Jesus will bring us into everlasting life.

Gerry is saying no more than what you will find in the following verses: Luke 16: 31; Acts 1: 16; 3: 18, 21; Luke 24: 25, 44; Eph. 2: 19, 20; Hebrews 1: 1, 2.

We are able to identify Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah because God told us details about His coming ahead of time in the OT prophets. See particularly Eph. 2: 20. The household of God is built on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, with Jesus Christ Himself the chief cornerstone.

Amen

Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

[oldsailor29]

Jesus is the creator of all things great and small. Without Him there was nothing made that was made. He is the one infinite God who stands outside of time and space and creates time and space and all within them. God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all one. They are all one in character, nature, thought, power, and purpose, and all three are revelations of the one infinite God.

Anyone who thinks the creation is in any way superior to the creator needs to think more clearly.

[Guest]

That's true, but how does that pertain to all doctrines being wrong that didn't originate during Jesus' ministry?

[SivartM]

It never ceases to amaze me how that some can twist and turn instructions from God and the Truth from God ... just to fit their preconceived ideas. Is there anyone out there who doesn't have it all figured out and have discovered ways to arrange the Word and SOP to fit that? I don't suppose there is any one willing to admit it.

Most people are perfectly happy to draw a little circle on the ground around themselves, add a few Bible texts that seem "different", and call it "truth", rather than following the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Most people are perfectly happy to look at a tiny part of the painting and insist that that's the whole thing. And they even have every little stroke and nuance memorized.

It's interesting how most of those people either consciously or unconsciously reject some of God's Word.

[Woody]

Yes SivartM. Good observations and good points of which I very much agree.

[jasd]

QR frame:

>>“Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them.”<< [ed.jasd]

The book of the law? That does not translate to the two tables of stone – or the heart; rather, it is indicative of the whole book of the 600-plus laws of the OT system of works, yes?

Are Xtians required to keep them? Indeed not!

The passage existed for a far and away time – in a far and away galaxy... It is your adversary who whispers in your ear to do this and to do that which is written in the

“book of the law”

[jasd]

Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

Sounds like a pyramidal structure. Hmm, wonder if the New Jerusalem will be pyramidal?

That thought does not make me a heretic, does it?

[Guest]

That thought doesn't. No.

[Gerr]

Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

Sounds like a pyramidal structure. Hmm, wonder if the New Jerusalem will be pyramidal?

That thought does not make me a heretic, does it?

Rev 21 says it's a cube.

[jasd]

>>Most people are perfectly happy to draw a little circle on the ground around themselves, add a few Bible texts that seem "different", and call it "truth",<<

Kinda like the esoterica some .orgs cling to and utilize as proselytizing tools.

>>...rather than following the Way, the Truth, and the Life.<<

Some hear a still small voice, others a smaller voice yet, and still others hear a symphonic overture...

>>Most people are perfectly happy to look at a tiny part of the painting and insist that that's the whole thing.<<

Well, sometimes it’s called parsing and winnowing. Others simply cannot apprehend the entirety. I suspect that most fall into this category. As Gd wills...

>>And they even have every little stroke and nuance memorized.<<

Gd bless those with such memories

>>It's interesting how most of those people either consciously or unconsciously reject some of God's Word.<<

And others willfully reject Gd’s plain injunction against wresting the book of Daniel, and then employ wrested ‘interpretations’ as bedrock to denigrate the beliefs of other .orgs.

[jasd]

>>That thought doesn't. No.<<

Well, that’s good to know – as I admit to a few heresies otherwise, in that

I do not subscribe to much of .orgism that is not Biblical – and do not pride myself in holding to dogmas and doctrines, which refute Writ

[jasd]

>>Rev 21 says it's a cube.<<

How so?

[oldsailor29]

Most people are perfectly happy to draw a little circle on the ground around themselves, add a few Bible texts that seem "different", and call it "truth", rather than following the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Most people are perfectly happy to look at a tiny part of the painting and insist that that's the whole thing. And they even have every little stroke and nuance memorized.

It's interesting how most of those people either consciously or unconsciously reject some of God's Word.

Yes, I am perfectly happy to follow Jesus and Him alone. He is the way, the truth, and the life. And yes it is a narrow way. It is the straight and narrow way. And it is the only way that leads to the Holy City.

[Gerr]

>>Rev 21 says it's a cube.<<

How so?

Length, height, & width are the same.

[Kevin H]

Originally Posted By: Kevin H

Well, how does she and the Bible teach the law of God?[/quote']

DO you agree with EGW's statement or not?

I take it you are either not happy with the answer I gave and that you're trying to force me into some corner as to how you understand these sentences to mean and thus trying to make less of me by simply summing me up and dismissing me. Or else you in a period of less than 24 hours were about to order the Fleming materials, listen to the tapes, read the workbook, maybe even check out some of his references, and get the original Sanntuary and the Atonement and read those 3 chapters to thus give you the background material that I feel you need. I may be wrong but I have the impression of your posts that you have a certan way of reading and interpeting these words that I am not sure that I would agree with what you are reading into them. You are not merely asking me if I agree with these statements. You are asking me if I agree with what you are reading into these statements.

I believe that Mrs. White had the gift of prophecy. However I am not a fundamentalist. I know that she teaches us what is the core of her message, what is application and what is filler material for a running narative between points that she sees as important. I know that her theology tends to be as Eli Siegel would say, a oneness of opposits. I know she sometimes discribes one side and makes one application to people who have going too far to one side of the opposits and other application to people who have gone too far to the other side to try to get them to unite the opposits and not sepperate them. I also know that there were some church leaders of her time and after her time which tended to collect things in her writings that tended to be on the side they liked, would edit her to say that their message was and that she wrote them strong letters telling them they were misuseing her writings, but yet in the years after the 1919 Bible conference and 1923 General conference some of these leaders' views and their use of Ellen White quotes became very popular. My gut feeling from reading your posts is that you are familiar with what they taught, you are familiar with fundamentalism, that you have heard the other side of the opposits and how they tend to use Paul and you like them better and still approach them from the fundamentalist mindset and believe that Mrs. White has to be teaching what these church leaders said she taught and you want to squeeze me into their understanding so that you can dismiss me as one of them, or if I don't agree with their understanding, of accusing me how I can accept Mrs. White as a prophet if I don't accept a particular interpetation of her views.

As I said, there are new understandings from modern Biblical scholarship that plays a big role in understanding Paul. You can find then summerized in a good moderate presentation for lay people in Jim Flemings "Acts; New discoveries from the early church" (and also "Lest we forget, a history of anti-Jewishness and the church) and also a good study of Mrs. White's thought in "Sanctuary and the Atonment" If you could look into these, then we can have the background to discuss the quotes in more detail.

Also, another part of this issue is that we are continuing a discussion that has been going on for centuries. The "New Thelology" is not new and "Historic Adventism" is a lot older than Adventism. And there are many of us who do not fall under either catagory. However we have the arguments of the Methodists vs. the Calvinists; the Franciscian priesthood vs. the Augustinian Priesthood; Jehoichin of Flore vs. St. Augustine (Now I have heard that St. Francisis of Assis was strongly influenced of Jehoichin, how ever I have not found that documented yet, but it makes sense.); The Churches of Paul and the Churches of Peter (with John trying to make a oneness out of them to keep them into splitting). The two major schools of the Pharicees; Absolom vs. Joab (since the moderate David is our hero we tend to see Absolom as a villian, but Absolom was very similar to our "Historic Adventists" believeing that David had become so isolated as a king that he lost touch with the needs of the people-- which may have been true--

and that he had gotten so far away from Samuel's prophetic blueprint that David had followed the path of King Saul and that he, Absolom was choosen by Yahweh to return to the prophetic blueprint, and his conservative interpetation of the blueprint. There are many lessons in the story of David, Joab and Absolom that plays a role in current arguments in Adventism. Absolom was conservative, Joab liberal. One wanting to move faster than God, the other completely deticated to David and Yahweh but was willing to spread the work of David and Yahweh even if he had to break the 10 commandaments to do it. He faced death holding on to the alter, claiming sanctuary. When being told that sanctuary was not going to be given and he could either die holding on to the alter or coming out of he, he still insisted on dieing holding on to God's grace and love and forgiveness. While he probably will be saved, his early life became miserable and so we know him as miserable Joab.) and even looking at Job's friends, Bildad's message was to trust in God and is very "New Theology" and Zophar preached trust and obey and is very "Historical Adventist". And even in the books of the priest hood of Aaron (leviticous and Isaiah and Ezra) verses the books from the priesthood of Moses (Deuteronomy, Samuel, Elijah/Elisha, Jeremiah) you find some of these same things. If these thousands of years have not resolved this issue, I doubt we will get very far in this Club Adventist thread. I am not asking you to study into the background I just presented in this paragraph, althought they would be very useful to you, but to only to check out Fleming's "Acts: New Discoveries of the Early Church" and the 3 chapters from Sanctuary and the atonement.

I still stand by my original answer and if you check out at least Fleming and Sanctuary and the Atonement's chapters on Mrs. White's thought "The mighty opposits" parts one and two, and "We must all appear: The Investigative Judgement" we can start developing my answer further.

[oldsailor29]

I still stand by my original answer and if you check out at least Fleming and Sanctuary and the Atonement's chapters on Mrs. White's thought "The mighty opposites" parts one and two, and "We must all appear: The Investigative Judgment" we can start developing my answer further.

a copy of those three chapters can be easily obtained from the Biblical Research Institute. I used to have them in "word". I'll look around to see if I can dig them up.

[oldsailor29]

Yes, I am perfectly happy to follow Jesus and Him alone. He is the way, the truth, and the life. And yes it is a narrow way. It is the straight and narrow way. And it is the only way that leads to the Holy City.

All other ways are like the road which curves up the side of the mountain, with the mountain wall on one side and the abyss on the other, and the road itself becoming more and more narrow, until it disappears entirely. Those who travel on the narrow portion of this road as it disappears, are hanging on to their faith which in the end is supporting all of their weight from above. Through the Holy Spirit, they received their faith as they studied the Old Testament, and they know the OT testifies of Jesus, but they cannot see Him, and they hope He is holding the other end of their cord of faith. And in the end, they are forced to get off this wrong road, which does not lead to the Holy City, and they swing across the abyss into a green pasture. (LS xxx) From there, they can start following Jesus on His narrow path, and they can see Him ahead of them, lighting the way, and they can see their destination, the Holy City, in the distance. (LS vii)

More than likely however, these people will never get far enough up the side of the mountain to need to hold on to the cords of faith in order to keep from falling into the abyss. Most will either stay where the road is wide enough for their firm foundational support, so they can hold on to their doctrines, or they will leap off the road into the abyss. This is where the SDA church is right now. Our people are either holding on to their Old Testament foundation, or renouncing their faith and going off to the side.

The disappearing road represents the Old Testament. As the road narrows, it no longer supports the doctrines held by the people, and they have to toss them into the abyss. These people are left with no doctrines, for even their extra clothes(all their doctrines) had to be discarded. As they hold on to their faith, the people are clothed only by the light of their faith. By holding onto the cords of faith, and swinging across the abyss into the green pasture, the people are being saved from the abyss by faith alone. And even though they cannot see Jesus, He has come to them through the OT. Those who have had this experience will likely follow Christ alone, the source of the OT, with which they are familiar.

But we don't have to travel all the way to the end of the ever narrowing road before we get off. We can get on the straight and narrow road now. We can be saved by our faith in Jesus alone, and we can start following Him alone. And following Jesus alone isn't going off into the abyss, rather it is going directly to the source. It is easy to do. Just start reading the sermons and sayings and teachings of Jesus, and pray for he Holy Spirit to be your guide, and do not allow any other teaching to creep in, and Jesus will light the way, the straight and narrow way, to the Holy City.

For those who believe Ellen White was a true prophet as I do, I believe the chapters, referred to above, support what I have written here. And I hope it is easily understood why I say all teachings other than those spoken by Jesus between His Baptism and crucifixion are wrong. Jesus is the source of truth, and in Him and only in Him should we place our trust.

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: Robert

I take it you are either not happy with the answer I gave and that you're trying to force me into some corner as to how you understand these sentences to mean and thus trying to make less of me by simply summing me up and dismissing me. Or else you in a period of less than 24 hours were about to order the Fleming materials, listen to the tapes, read the workbook, maybe even check out some of his references, and get the original Sanntuary and the Atonement and read those 3 chapters to thus give you the background material that I feel you need. I may be wrong but I have the impression of your posts that you have a certan way of reading and interpeting these words that I am not sure that I would agree with what you are reading into them. You are not merely asking me if I agree with these statements. You are asking me if I agree with what you are reading into these statements.

I believe that Mrs. White had the gift of prophecy. However I am not a fundamentalist. I know that she teaches us what is the core of her message, what is application and what is filler material for a running narative between points that she sees as important. I know that her theology tends to be as Eli Siegel would say, a oneness of opposits. I know she sometimes discribes one side and makes one application to people who have going too far to one side of the opposits and other application to people who have gone too far to the other side to try to get them to unite the opposits and not sepperate them. I also know that there were some church leaders of her time and after her time which tended to collect things in her writings that tended to be on the side they liked, would edit her to say that their message was and that she wrote them strong letters telling them they were misuseing her writings, but yet in the years after the 1919 Bible conference and 1923 General conference some of these leaders' views and their use of Ellen White quotes became very popular. My gut feeling from reading your posts is that you are familiar with what they taught, you are familiar with fundamentalism, that you have heard the other side of the opposits and how they tend to use Paul and you like them better and still approach them from the fundamentalist mindset and believe that Mrs. White has to be teaching what these church leaders said she taught and you want to squeeze me into their understanding so that you can dismiss me as one of them, or if I don't agree with their understanding, of accusing me how I can accept Mrs. White as a prophet if I don't accept a particular interpetation of her views.

As I said, there are new understandings from modern Biblical scholarship that plays a big role in understanding Paul. You can find then summerized in a good moderate presentation for lay people in Jim Flemings "Acts; New discoveries from the early church" (and also "Lest we forget, a history of anti-Jewishness and the church) and also a good study of Mrs. White's thought in "Sanctuary and the Atonment" If you could look into these, then we can have the background to discuss the quotes in more detail.

Also, another part of this issue is that we are continuing a discussion that has been going on for centuries. The "New Thelology" is not new and "Historic Adventism" is a lot older than Adventism. And there are many of us who do not fall under either catagory. However we have the arguments of the Methodists vs. the Calvinists; the Franciscian priesthood vs. the Augustinian Priesthood; Jehoichin of Flore vs. St. Augustine (Now I have heard that St. Francisis of Assis was strongly influenced of Jehoichin, how ever I have not found that documented yet, but it makes sense.); The Churches of Paul and the Churches of Peter (with John trying to make a oneness out of them to keep them into splitting). The two major schools of the Pharicees; Absolom vs. Joab (since the moderate David is our hero we tend to see Absolom as a villian, but Absolom was very similar to our "Historic Adventists" believeing that David had become so isolated as a king that he lost touch with the needs of the people-- which may have been true--

and that he had gotten so far away from Samuel's prophetic blueprint that David had followed the path of King Saul and that he, Absolom was choosen by Yahweh to return to the prophetic blueprint, and his conservative interpetation of the blueprint. There are many lessons in the story of David, Joab and Absolom that plays a role in current arguments in Adventism. Absolom was conservative, Joab liberal. One wanting to move faster than God, the other completely deticated to David and Yahweh but was willing to spread the work of David and Yahweh even if he had to break the 10 commandaments to do it. He faced death holding on to the alter, claiming sanctuary. When being told that sanctuary was not going to be given and he could either die holding on to the alter or coming out of he, he still insisted on dieing holding on to God's grace and love and forgiveness. While he probably will be saved, his early life became miserable and so we know him as miserable Joab.) and even looking at Job's friends, Bildad's message was to trust in God and is very "New Theology" and Zophar preached trust and obey and is very "Historical Adventist". And even in the books of the priest hood of Aaron (leviticous and Isaiah and Ezra) verses the books from the priesthood of Moses (Deuteronomy, Samuel, Elijah/Elisha, Jeremiah) you find some of these same things. If these thousands of years have not resolved this issue, I doubt we will get very far in this Club Adventist thread. I am not asking you to study into the background I just presented in this paragraph, althought they would be very useful to you, but to only to check out Fleming's "Acts: New Discoveries of the Early Church" and the 3 chapters from Sanctuary and the atonement.

I still stand by my original answer and if you check out at least Fleming and Sanctuary and the Atonement's chapters on Mrs. White's thought "The mighty opposits" parts one and two, and "We must all appear: The Investigative Judgement" we can start developing my answer further.

Kevin, I just read your post which I found very interesting but if I am to follow your reasoning, and the reasoning of others, it would seem that the matter of salvation is so complicated that it would be next to impossible to come to a clear and simple understanding of it. Mrs. White declared that the plan of salvation was so simple that it was like a child accepting the alphabet.

"The matter of salvation is just as simple as ABC. But we don't understand it." Faith and Works, p.64.

"Works without faith are dead, and faith without works is dead. Works will never save us; it is the merit of Christ that will avail in our behalf." Signs of the Times, June 16,1890.

It is the merit of Christ that will avail in our behalf. If we are to accept this statement as inspired, then the matter of salvation is as simple as believing that the merits of Christ are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf and we find that it is exactly what is written. "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." Steps to Christ, p.36.

So why don't we talk more of His merits?

"Present your case before Him pleading the merits of the blood shed for you upon Calvary's cross." Signs of the Times, July 4, 1892.

This tells us that this is what we must do in order to be saved. By doing this we are appropriating to ourselves the merits of the world's Redeemer and all the blessings of the Covenant of grace are open before us. Pleading the merits of Jesus in our behalf brings the perfect gift, the gift of the Holy Spirit and this is the gift that brings all other blessings in its train. This gift cannot be excelled and it is worthy of Christ's greatness and Royalty.

It is that simple and the Holy Spirit is given to open the Word of God to our understanding, and bring home its truths to our hearts (See M.B.112) making the Scriptures as a light to our path opening our understanding that we may understand the deep things of God.

That would be a good start, and a good finish, wouln't it, to plead the merits of Christ in our behalf?

"The only faith that will benefit us is that which embraces Him as a personal Saviour: which appropriates His merits to ourselves.." Desire of Ages, p.347.

Thank God for the simplicity of the plan of redemption.

"Living faith enables its possessor to lay hold on the merits of Christ, enables him to derive great comfort and satisfaction from the plan of salvation." Review and Herald, July 1, 1890.

Doesn't this statement tell the whole story as to what we must do in order to be saved?

sky

And it is written that as we appropriate the merits of Jesus to ourselves, we are clothed with the robe of His righteousness and His righteousness is made manifest in OBEDIENCE to all the commandments of God. See Testimonies to Ministers, p.92 and Faith and Works, p.65,66.

[skyblue888]

The Catholics teach salvation through merits, not so much through the divine merits of Christ but through the merits of the creature. The people's eyes are not directed to Jesus, to His divine Person, to His all-sufficient merits, but to the merits of the saints, to the merits of the Virgin Mary, to the merits of their own good works.

In all of this it can be said that they have the right idea but their focus is on the wrong merits.

We adventists have no problem understanding that we do not obtain salvation through our own merits. We always repeat the cliche that we are saved by grace and yet we seem to forget that this grace by which we are saved can only be obtained by trusting wholly in the merits of Jesus and the merits of Jesus alone. We do not speak of the merits of Jesus as the only means to obtain this grace which we need to help our infirmities and to form a Christian character.

I find that very odd since the pen of inspiration has made it so very clear to us that unless we look to Jesus and accept His merits which it is our privilege to claim, we cannot be saved. (see T.M.93) That is, we cannot have the grace of God which is the Spirit of Christ. The grace of God is the regenerating and enlightening power of the Holy Spirit.

"The latter class (wise virgins) had received the grace of God, the regenerating, enlightening power of the Holy Spirit, which renders His word a lamp to the feet and a light to the path." The Great Controversy, p.394.

This is what it means to be saved by grace and the grace of the Holy Spirit accomplishes everything.

"How long will you hate and despise the messengers of God's righteousness? God has given them His message. They bear the Word of the Lord: There is salvation for you but only through the merits of Jesus Christ. The grace of the Holy Spirit has been offered to you again and again." Testimonies to Ministers, p.96,97.

This statement makes it forever clear that the grace of the Holy Spirit is offered and imparted to us only through faith in the merits of Christ, that we must continually lay hold on the merits of Christ in order for the Holy Spirit to be enthroned into our hearts that He may do for us that which it is impossible for us to do for ourselves, that He may work in us both to will and to do God's good pleasure.

sky

[Twilight]

The Catholics teach salvation through merits, not so much through the divine merits of Christ but through the merits of the creature. The people's eyes are not directed to Jesus, to His divine Person, to His all-sufficient merits, but to the merits of the saints, to the merits of the Virgin Mary, to the merits of their own good works.

In all of this it can be said that they have the right idea but their focus is on the wrong merits.

We adventists have no problem understanding that we do not obtain salvation through our own merits. We always repeat the cliche that we are saved by grace and yet we seem to forget that this grace by which we are saved can only be obtained by trusting wholly in the merits of Jesus and the merits of Jesus alone. We do not speak of the merits of Jesus as the only means to obtain this grace which we need to help our infirmities and to form a Christian character.

I find that very odd since the pen of inspiration has made it so very clear to us that unless we look to Jesus and accept His merits which it is our privilege to claim, we cannot be saved. (see T.M.93) That is, we cannot have the grace of God which is the Spirit of Christ. The grace of God is the regenerating and enlightening power of the Holy Spirit.

"The latter class (wise virgins) had received the grace of God, the regenerating, enlightening power of the Holy Spirit, which renders His word a lamp to the feet and a light to the path." The Great Controversy, p.394.

This is what it means to be saved by grace and the grace of the Holy Spirit accomplishes everything.

"How long will you hate and despise the messengers of God's righteousness? God has given them His message. They bear the Word of the Lord: There is salvation for you but only through the merits of Jesus Christ. The grace of the Holy Spirit has been offered to you again and again." Testimonies to Ministers, p.96,97.

This statement makes it forever clear that the grace of the Holy Spirit is offered and imparted to us only through faith in the merits of Christ, that we must continually lay hold on the merits of Christ in order for the Holy Spirit to be enthroned into our hearts that He may do for us that which it is impossible for us to do for ourselves, that He may work in us both to will and to do God's good pleasure.

sky

Amen :-)

[Woody]

Quote:

So why don't we talk more of His merits?

Why should we? We've heard you talking about your theory of it till we are blue in the face. Nothing more needs to be said. We're plum worn out.