"In Christ" what does that mean?

[Steve Billiter]

Quote:

i would have to disagree that j and w presentation are to be excluded given ellen whites endorsement of their message. i wont address weiland or js because i dont pay much attention to them so am uneducated in that area, but if they are teaching a message ellen white endorsed then i would think we need to educate ourselves on that message, j and w, i mean, to see if we are "for or against" the Spirit of the Lord.

that would be my understanding and approach, anyway.

Hi teresaq(sda,

I started this thread in order to reveal how the "in Christ" theory that is being promoted by some on this forum is out of context and dangerous. I have done this and will continue to do this. It was not my intention to use anything other than the Bible and SOP. Why? So that I am can actually accomplish what I set out to do with out having to reference a bunch of books. How did J & W get their information? The Bible and the Holy Spirit. I actually have the boldness to believe that if God can speak through them He can speak through me and if He did and can then what I post will be the same as they wrote.

So far this has happened without being out of context or at odds with the Bible, SOP or J & W.

Read the following statement and tell me how anyone can think that what JS teaches is in harmony with what EGW taught? I have noticed that those who were taking the opposite side of the question have not responded to this quote but have moved on to other threads. Why is that?

Quote:

Patriarchs and Prophets (1890), page 517, paragraph 1-3

Chapter Title: The Division of Canaan

He who fled to the city of refuge could make no delay. Family and employment were left behind. There was no time to say farewell to loved ones. His life was at stake, and every other interest must be sacrificed to the one purpose--to reach the place of safety. Weariness was forgotten, difficulties were unheeded. The fugitive dared not for one moment slacken his pace until he was within the wall of the city.

The sinner is exposed to eternal death, until he finds a hiding place in Christ; and as loitering and carelessness might rob the fugitive of his only chance for life, so delays and indifference may prove the ruin of the soul. Satan, the great adversary, is on the track of every transgressor of God's holy law, and he who is not sensible of his danger, and does not earnestly seek shelter in the eternal refuge, will fall a prey to the destroyer.

The prisoner who at any time went outside the city of refuge was abandoned to the avenger of blood. Thus the people were taught to adhere to the methods which infinite wisdom appointed for their security. Even so, it is not enough that the sinner believe in Christ for the pardon of sin; he must, by faith and obedience, abide in Him. "For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries." Hebrews 10:26, 27.

In Christ and His service,

Norman

Norman, what has PP have to do with anything Wieland and Sequeria wrote? I see a serious departure from these two away from The Bible and Ellen White.

[Steve Billiter]

Originally Posted By: Norman

Quote:

i would have to disagree that j and w presentation are to be excluded given ellen whites endorsement of their message. i wont address weiland or js because i dont pay much attention to them so am uneducated in that area, but if they are teaching a message ellen white endorsed then i would think we need to educate ourselves on that message, j and w, i mean, to see if we are "for or against" the Spirit of the Lord.

that would be my understanding and approach, anyway.

Hi teresaq(sda,

I started this thread in order to reveal how the "in Christ" theory that is being promoted by some on this forum is out of context and dangerous. I have done this and will continue to do this. It was not my intention to use anything other than the Bible and SOP. Why? So that I am can actually accomplish what I set out to do with out having to reference a bunch of books. How did J & W get their information? The Bible and the Holy Spirit. I actually have the boldness to believe that if God can speak through them He can speak through me and if He did and can then what I post will be the same as they wrote.

So far this has happened without being out of context or at odds with the Bible, SOP or J & W.

Read the following statement and tell me how anyone can think that what JS teaches is in harmony with what EGW taught? I have noticed that those who were taking the opposite side of the question have not responded to this quote but have moved on to other threads. Why is that?

Quote:

Patriarchs and Prophets (1890), page 517, paragraph 1-3

Chapter Title: The Division of Canaan

He who fled to the city of refuge could make no delay. Family and employment were left behind. There was no time to say farewell to loved ones. His life was at stake, and every other interest must be sacrificed to the one purpose--to reach the place of safety. Weariness was forgotten, difficulties were unheeded. The fugitive dared not for one moment slacken his pace until he was within the wall of the city.

The sinner is exposed to eternal death, until he finds a hiding place in Christ; and as loitering and carelessness might rob the fugitive of his only chance for life, so delays and indifference may prove the ruin of the soul. Satan, the great adversary, is on the track of every transgressor of God's holy law, and he who is not sensible of his danger, and does not earnestly seek shelter in the eternal refuge, will fall a prey to the destroyer.

The prisoner who at any time went outside the city of refuge was abandoned to the avenger of blood. Thus the people were taught to adhere to the methods which infinite wisdom appointed for their security. Even so, it is not enough that the sinner believe in Christ for the pardon of sin; he must, by faith and obedience, abide in Him. "For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries." Hebrews 10:26, 27.

In Christ and His service,

Norman

Norman, what has PP have to do with anything Wieland and Sequeria wrote? I see a serious departure from these two away from The Bible and Ellen White.

Who is saying Ellen White endorsed Wieland and Sequeria's unbiblical message? She did not!

[Woody]

Quote:

Who is saying Ellen White endorsed Wieland and Sequeria's unbiblical message? She did not!

Really?

We are to discard Jesus' teaching?

Who told you that?

:-)

Ellen White most certainly did endorse and establish these teachings. It is throughout the scriptures and our prophet. It is very clear for those who want to see. This statement is just an attempt to undermine the SOP. The SOP clearly agrees with scripture on this issue.

[pnattmbtc]

I started this thread in order to reveal how the "in Christ" theory that is being promoted by some on this forum is out of context and dangerous. I have done this and will continue to do this. It was not my intention to use anything other than the Bible and SOP. Why? So that I am can actually accomplish what I set out to do with out having to reference a bunch of books. How did J & W get their information? The Bible and the Holy Spirit. I actually have the boldness to believe that if God can speak through them He can speak through me and if He did and can then what I post will be the same as they wrote.

So far this has happened without being out of context or at odds with the Bible, SOP or J & W.

Read the following statement and tell me how anyone can think that what JS teaches is in harmony with what EGW taught? I have noticed that those who were taking the opposite side of the question have not responded to this quote but have moved on to other threads. Why is that?

It seems to me, Norman, that your thoughts are *very* different than Jones or Waggoner. I think this is quite easy to demonstrate. It seems that your contention is that your thinking is the same as Jones and Waggoner. Have I understood you correctly?

[pnattmbtc]

Who is saying Ellen White endorsed Wieland and Sequeria's unbiblical message? She did not!

Of course she didn't endorse them, as she was dead long before they presented their respected messages.

It doesn't seem to me that a claim like this is very helpful at all. What would be helpful, IMO, would be if you quoted something by either Wieland or Sequeira, and explained why what you quoted is incorrect, and that could be discussed. Just blanket statements, without no evidence to support them can't be discussed in any way other than "Did so!" "Did not!" etc.

Also worth pointing out is that Sequeira and Wieland are quite different in their presentation of the Gospel.

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Originally Posted By: Norman

Quote:

i would have to disagree that j and w presentation are to be excluded given ellen whites endorsement of their message. i wont address weiland or js because i dont pay much attention to them so am uneducated in that area, but if they are teaching a message ellen white endorsed then i would think we need to educate ourselves on that message, j and w, i mean, to see if we are "for or against" the Spirit of the Lord.

that would be my understanding and approach, anyway.

Hi teresaq(sda,

I started this thread in order to reveal how the "in Christ" theory that is being promoted by some on this forum is out of context and dangerous. I have done this and will continue to do this. It was not my intention to use anything other than the Bible and SOP. Why? So that I am can actually accomplish what I set out to do with out having to reference a bunch of books. How did J & W get their information? The Bible and the Holy Spirit. I actually have the boldness to believe that if God can speak through them He can speak through me and if He did and can then what I post will be the same as they wrote.

So far this has happened without being out of context or at odds with the Bible, SOP or J & W.

Read the following statement and tell me how anyone can think that what JS teaches is in harmony with what EGW taught? I have noticed that those who were taking the opposite side of the question have not responded to this quote but have moved on to other threads. Why is that?

Quote:

Patriarchs and Prophets (1890), page 517, paragraph 1-3

Chapter Title: The Division of Canaan

He who fled to the city of refuge could make no delay. Family and employment were left behind. There was no time to say farewell to loved ones. His life was at stake, and every other interest must be sacrificed to the one purpose--to reach the place of safety. Weariness was forgotten, difficulties were unheeded. The fugitive dared not for one moment slacken his pace until he was within the wall of the city.

The sinner is exposed to eternal death, until he finds a hiding place in Christ; and as loitering and carelessness might rob the fugitive of his only chance for life, so delays and indifference may prove the ruin of the soul. Satan, the great adversary, is on the track of every transgressor of God's holy law, and he who is not sensible of his danger, and does not earnestly seek shelter in the eternal refuge, will fall a prey to the destroyer.

The prisoner who at any time went outside the city of refuge was abandoned to the avenger of blood. Thus the people were taught to adhere to the methods which infinite wisdom appointed for their security. Even so, it is not enough that the sinner believe in Christ for the pardon of sin; he must, by faith and obedience, abide in Him. "For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries." Hebrews 10:26, 27.

In Christ and His service,

Norman

Hello Norman :-)

I have no problem with the "in Christ" motif at all.

My concern is when people claim they can be "in Christ" and willfully sin.

This is the danger.

This is where the error of JS and co appear to be leading.

Whenever a beautiful truth arrives, the enemy tries to lay a counterfit down, so that people get carried away on the rong railroad...

Mark

Hi Mark,

thanks for you comments. I do have a problem with the "in Christ" teaching as it is taught by JS and some others. It's just not Biblical and that's why I have posted Scripture and SOP to support what I have been saying. There is an in Christ teaching that is true and I will get to that as time permits.

In Christ and His service,

Norman

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Originally Posted By: Norman

Quote:

i would have to disagree that j and w presentation are to be excluded given ellen whites endorsement of their message. i wont address weiland or js because i dont pay much attention to them so am uneducated in that area, but if they are teaching a message ellen white endorsed then i would think we need to educate ourselves on that message, j and w, i mean, to see if we are "for or against" the Spirit of the Lord.

that would be my understanding and approach, anyway.

Hi teresaq(sda,

I started this thread in order to reveal how the "in Christ" theory that is being promoted by some on this forum is out of context and dangerous. I have done this and will continue to do this. It was not my intention to use anything other than the Bible and SOP. Why? So that I am can actually accomplish what I set out to do with out having to reference a bunch of books. How did J & W get their information? The Bible and the Holy Spirit. I actually have the boldness to believe that if God can speak through them He can speak through me and if He did and can then what I post will be the same as they wrote.

So far this has happened without being out of context or at odds with the Bible, SOP or J & W.

Read the following statement and tell me how anyone can think that what JS teaches is in harmony with what EGW taught? I have noticed that those who were taking the opposite side of the question have not responded to this quote but have moved on to other threads. Why is that?

Quote:

Patriarchs and Prophets (1890), page 517, paragraph 1-3

Chapter Title: The Division of Canaan

He who fled to the city of refuge could make no delay. Family and employment were left behind. There was no time to say farewell to loved ones. His life was at stake, and every other interest must be sacrificed to the one purpose--to reach the place of safety. Weariness was forgotten, difficulties were unheeded. The fugitive dared not for one moment slacken his pace until he was within the wall of the city.

The sinner is exposed to eternal death, until he finds a hiding place in Christ; and as loitering and carelessness might rob the fugitive of his only chance for life, so delays and indifference may prove the ruin of the soul. Satan, the great adversary, is on the track of every transgressor of God's holy law, and he who is not sensible of his danger, and does not earnestly seek shelter in the eternal refuge, will fall a prey to the destroyer.

The prisoner who at any time went outside the city of refuge was abandoned to the avenger of blood. Thus the people were taught to adhere to the methods which infinite wisdom appointed for their security. Even so, it is not enough that the sinner believe in Christ for the pardon of sin; he must, by faith and obedience, abide in Him. "For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries." Hebrews 10:26, 27.

In Christ and His service,

Norman

Norman, what has PP have to do with anything Wieland and Sequeria wrote? I see a serious departure from these two away from The Bible and Ellen White.

Hi Steve, I am not sure why you posted that comment to me. I am not endorsing either of those men, in fact I posted the EGW statement to reveal that JS does not preach the same thing as SOP and the Bible.

Norman

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Originally Posted By: Norman

I started this thread in order to reveal how the "in Christ" theory that is being promoted by some on this forum is out of context and dangerous. I have done this and will continue to do this. It was not my intention to use anything other than the Bible and SOP. Why? So that I am can actually accomplish what I set out to do with out having to reference a bunch of books. How did J & W get their information? The Bible and the Holy Spirit. I actually have the boldness to believe that if God can speak through them He can speak through me and if He did and can then what I post will be the same as they wrote.

So far this has happened without being out of context or at odds with the Bible, SOP or J & W.

Read the following statement and tell me how anyone can think that what JS teaches is in harmony with what EGW taught? I have noticed that those who were taking the opposite side of the question have not responded to this quote but have moved on to other threads. Why is that?

It seems to me, Norman, that your thoughts are *very* different than Jones or Waggoner. I think this is quite easy to demonstrate. It seems that your contention is that your thinking is the same as Jones and Waggoner. Have I understood you correctly?

How many times must say that I am not interested in talking about these men at this time? I just made a comment about them, nothing more. This is getting close to harassment. Please let it go.

I will say this. If I have not been out of context or contradicted SOP and the Bible and EGW says all their writings are of God, then I obviously have not been out of context or at odds with their writings. Nevertheless I do not want to talk about them or their writings on this thread. Can you please respect that?

Thanks,

Norman

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Quote:

Who is saying Ellen White endorsed Wieland and Sequeria's unbiblical message? She did not!

Really?

We are to discard Jesus' teaching?

Who told you that?

:-)

Ellen White most certainly did endorse and establish these teachings. It is throughout the scriptures and our prophet. It is very clear for those who want to see. This statement is just an attempt to undermine the SOP. The SOP clearly agrees with scripture on this issue.

Hi Redwood, please show me a statement that JS makes that states the exact same thing as this statement or even close to it. If you can do that then you would be right, but if you can't then you would be wrong. Please supply your evidence.

in Christ and His service,

Norman

[Woody]

EGW and JS are hand in hand. If you study both you will see. Well ... depending upon which lenses you are wearing.

JS himself confirms this ... that he confirms what EGW says. They are in agreement. JS believes that EGW is a prophet ... even a superficial study will show this.

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

EGW and JS are hand in hand. If you study both you will see. Well ... depending upon which lenses you are wearing.

JS himself confirms this ... that he confirms what EGW says. They are in agreement. JS believes that EGW is a prophet ... even a superficial study will show this.

[Woody]

Quote:

Js teaches ...

Can you please provide documentation for this idea?

It's kinda hard for me to respond to something that is not substantiated. And no context is shown.

[Steve Billiter]

Quote:

Who is saying Ellen White endorsed Wieland and Sequeria's unbiblical message? She did not!

Really?

We are to discard Jesus' teaching?

Who told you that?

:-)

Ellen White most certainly did endorse and establish these teachings. It is throughout the scriptures and our prophet. It is very clear for those who want to see. This statement is just an attempt to undermine the SOP. The SOP clearly agrees with scripture on this issue.

Both Sequeria and Wieland teach no conditions for salvation in addition to Universal Justification which ties in to that.

2. Universal/Particular. “In Christ,” all humanity was redeemed — legally justified and reconciled to God [see Romans 5:18; 2 Corinthians 5:18-19; 1 Timothy 4:10; Titus 2:11; 1 John 2:2]. (Jack Sequeria, Beyond Belief)

This about as unbiblical as it comes. All humanity redeemed and reconciled means all humanity saved.The Bible does not teach this. The conditions are posted below my Wieland expose.

Only those who meet the conditions are justified, reoconciled and redeemed.Which is very few.

And for Wieland? I see the serpents theology in his writings as well as Sequeria's

Robert Wieland is a significant leader and writer for the SDA separatist offshoot group, The 1888 Message Study Committee

“The Good News is Better Than You Think” by Robert Wieland;

Page 8, and 9,

“The word “gospel” has the built in meaning of good news. Jesus came proclaiming God’s good news.(Mark 1:13, Barclay) His message majored in paths to happiness. Nine sure cure prescriptions for it glisten in His Sermon on the Mount, each one beginning Blessed are those who….(Matt. 5:3-12 GNB) you may be surprised to discover not one tells what to do in order to be “happy” but what to believe.

Wieland says here that one only has to “believe” to have the blessings of the beatitudes; however one must meet all of the conditions for salvation to have any of them. All of these involve doing something to meet the conditions.

He says we believe and do nothing. Let’s look at the Beatitudes

.

Mat 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 5:4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

Mat 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

Mat 5:6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after

righteousness: for they shall be filled.

Mat 5:7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

Mat 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

Mat 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

Mat 5:10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

Mat 5:12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

What does Ellen White say about the beatitudes? She speaks here of the Sermon on the Mount.

Desire of Ages (page 299)

Without combating their ideas of the kingdom of God, He told them the conditions of entrance therein, leaving them to draw their own conclusions as to its nature. The truths He taught are no less important to us than to the multitude that followed Him. We no less than they need to learn the foundation principles of the kingdom of God. {DA 299.3}

Then in the next paragraph Wieland says this:

“If happiness depends on my doing the right thing, I always run into the snag of not being able to do it right. There is always an element of non-attainment. If God promises me something good dependent on the condition that I first do something right, His promises will be sure to fail because I can’t perform. God may promise me the sky, but it’s a cruel trick if His promises are nullified by an impossible pre-condition.”

He never says what the “impossible pre-condition” is, but his context is the beatitudes, and he just said prior to this that we only have to “believe.”

Nowhere in the book is the gospel taught. We must meet the conditions for salvation, which are acceptance, confession of sin, and repentance to be born again and have the blessings of the Beatitudes. We cannot “just believe and do nothing” to get them.

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

Pro 28:13 He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.

“The Good News is Better Than You Think”

Page 11

By Robert Wieland

“When Christ was crucified, the devil was not killed, much to the disappointment of many, but he was paralyzed”

It is evident for the last 2000 years that Satan is not paralyzed and is enraged and working harder. And as we review world history, and our own lives it is evident Satan is far from paralyzed. Satan only knew that he must finally die, that made him angrier.

Rev 12:12 Therefore rejoice, you heavens, and you that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down to you, having great wrath, because he knows that he has but a short time.

Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Both Jack Sequeria and Robert Wieland do not teach the real gospel, reader beware. What they teach is defined as modern spiritualism because the Bible is interpreted in a manner that appeals to the unrenewed heart.(see on GC88 P.558)

Th worse attacks upon Adventism come from within. Ellen White calls it the omega of apostasies.

[Woody]

Quote:

He restored the whole race of men to favor with God." 1 SM 343

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

It seems to me, Norman, that your thoughts are *very* different than Jones or Waggoner. I think this is quite easy to demonstrate. It seems that your contention is that your thinking is the same as Jones and Waggoner. Have I understood you correctly?

How many times must say that I am not interested in talking about these men at this time? I just made a comment about them, nothing more. This is getting close to harassment. Please let it go.

I will say this. If I have not been out of context or contradicted SOP and the Bible and EGW says all their writings are of God, then I obviously have not been out of context or at odds with their writings. Nevertheless I do not want to talk about them or their writings on this thread. Can you please respect that?

Thanks,

Norman [/quote']

Norman, you wrote this:

Quote:

How did J & W get their information? The Bible and the Holy Spirit. I actually have the boldness to believe that if God can speak through them He can speak through me and if He did and can then what I post will be the same as they wrote.

But you also write things which I perceive to be contradictory to what J & W said. You brought them up! Then you say this is "close to harassment"! Rather difficult to understand. You specifically said, "if He did and can then what I post will be the same as they wrote," which certainly looked to me like an invitation to consider what you wrote in conjunction with what they wrote.

I disagree with your statement that

Quote:

I obviously have not been out of context or at odds with their writings.

It seems to me that you have very obviously been at odds with their writings, and, as I said, this would be very easy to show. However, you've asked me to respect that you do not want to speak of them or their writings, despite the fact that you keep bringing them up. So I won't write more than this, but please do not make the claim again that what you write is in harmony with their teachings, unless you would like me to explain why I believe it's not.

[pnattmbtc]

Both Sequeria and Wieland teach no conditions for salvation in addition to Universal Justification which ties in to that.

[pnattmbtc]

Some items from Wieland's writings (all emphasis original; ellipsis mine).

From "Grace on Trial"

Quote:

Paul pleaded, "Be reconciled to God," believe the truth about His character, and let your enmity be healed and your guilt taken away. Then faith can go to work, producing mighty works of righteousness in the life.(p.61)

Now if Wieland, as has been alleged, actually believed that a person didn't have to do anything to be reconciled to God, he would encourage the person to "be reconciled to God," as that would already be the case.

Quote:

a.Righteousness by faith is not cold theology...

b.Faith provides access into this grace, that is, a heart appreciation of the love of God opens the gates of access to hope and glory....

c."In the matchless gift of His Son, God has encircled the whole world with an atmosphere of grace as real as the air which circulates around the globe. All who choose to breathe this life-giving atmosphere will live and grow up to the stature of men and women in Christ Jesus."

d.Grace is greater than our sin (that is stupendous! Believe it.)

e.Believed and received, grace reigns in the life like a king.

f.Grace abounding makes in impossible for the believer to continue living in sin.

g.Grace thus imposes a new captivity which is an unending motivation to holiness of life.(p. 74)

This makes clear that justification by faith leads to obedience.

Quote:

Jones's and Waggoner's teaching was that true justification by faith makes a believer righteous in the sense that it makes him to be an obedient doer of the law.(The 1888 Message An Introduction;p.77)

Quote:

[F]aith in Christ delivers him from his captivity to disobedience to the law, and sets him in the path of obedience. The faith that operates in genuine justification by faith is a working faith, and the atonement cannot be a true reconciliation with God unless it effects a corresponding reconciliation with the character of God, which is obedience to His holy law. Any so-called justification by faith which declares a man just who continues deliberately to disobey the law of God is a lie, for it has distorted both justification and faith and understands neither.(Ibid.)

It should be clear to anyone that Wieland clearly believed and taught that justification by faith means obedience to the law. This couldn't be said any more clearly.

[Robert]

How many times must say that I am not interested in talking about these men at this time? I just made a comment about them, nothing more. This is getting close to harassment. Please let it go.

Then you should keep quite if you can't back up your charges....

[Robert]

Both Jack Sequeria and Robert Wieland do not teach the real gospel, reader beware.

It is Billiter who teaches heresy....Beware!

[Gerr]

Yeah, BEWARE of EVERYBODY'S opinions. Including mine!

[Steve Billiter]

Originally Posted By: Steve

Both Sequeria and Wieland teach no conditions for salvation in addition to Universal Justification which ties in to that.

I'll speak specifically to Wieland, as I'm very familiar with his writings. No, he doesn't. If you're going to make a claim like this, you should present some evidence. Please quote something Wieland has written to support your allegation.

I can assure you that Wieland has never stated that there are no conditions for salvation. Indeed, in this very thread, if I'm not mistaken (one of them, anyway), I quoted specifically from Wieland where he said the reverse of this.

Quote:

2. Universal/Particular. “In Christ,” all humanity was redeemed — legally justified and reconciled to God [see Romans 5:18; 2 Corinthians 5:18-19; 1 Timothy 4:10; Titus 2:11; 1 John 2:2]. (Jack Sequeria, Beyond Belief)

This about as unbiblical as it comes. All humanity redeemed and reconciled means all humanity saved. The Bible does not teach this.

Christ is called "the Savior of the world" by John twice. How could he be the Savior of the world if He didn't save the world? Ellen White writes:

Quote:

Christ was tempted by Satan in a hundredfold severer manner than was Adam, and under circumstances in every way more trying. The deceiver presented himself as an angel of light, but Christ withstood his temptations. He redeemed Adam's disgraceful fall, and saved the world.(YI 6/2/98)

This says that Christ "saved the world." This has been quoted several times on this thread. I don't see how you can keep claiming this is unBiblical when there it is in black and white.

Quote:

The conditions are posted below my Wieland expose.

Only those who meet the conditions are justified, reoconciled and redeemed.

Individually, yes. There is a corporate work, and an individual work. This has been made clear on this thread. Your conflating the two. These aspects need to be kept separate.

Quote:

Which is very few.

And for Wieland? I see the serpents theology in his writings as well as Sequeria's

Robert Wieland is a significant leader and writer for the SDA separatist offshoot group, The 1888 Message Study Committee

The 1888 Message Study Committee is and always has been loyal to the SDA church, and the SDA church has recognized this. Most, if not all, of the committee is comprised of minsters of the SDA church. They do not accept tithe, but direct all to give tithe to their local congregations. You have no right to write these falsehoods. If you're going to make accusations like this, you should present some evidence.

Separatists are those who claim that SDAs are Bablyon, and that one should leave the church. Wieland teaches that the shaking will shake *out* those who are not loyal to the church from the SDA church. There are even many SDA's who don't believe this! (they believe at the end of time, before Christ comes, there won't be any more SDA church, or that the loyal followers of Christ will leave the church) So Wieland is *less* a separatist than many SDA's!

Wieland has consistently, for decades, rebuked separatists. They would show up in droves at meetings, and Wieland always spoke against their negatives ideas of the organization. Wieland has always been loyal to the church.

Quote:

“The Good News is Better Than You Think” by Robert Wieland;

Page 8, and 9,

“The word “gospel” has the built in meaning of good news. Jesus came proclaiming God’s good news.(Mark 1:13, Barclay) His message majored in paths to happiness. Nine sure cure prescriptions for it glisten in His Sermon on the Mount, each one beginning Blessed are those who….(Matt. 5:3-12 GNB) you may be surprised to discover not one tells what to do in order to be “happy” but what to believe.

Wieland says here that one only has to “believe” to have the blessings of the beatitudes;

No, that's not what he said! He very clearly said:

Quote:

you may be surprised to discover not one tells what to do in order to be “happy” but what to believe.

He did not say

Quote:

one only has to “believe” to have the blessings of the beatitudes;

Wieland teaches that to believe in Christ encompasses more than many realize. He said that faith is a heart appreciation of the agape of God, revealed at the cross, and that such love leads a follower of Christ to follow the Lamb wherever he goes, even to death.

Quote:

however one must meet all of the conditions for salvation to have any of them. All of these involve doing something to meet the conditions.

He says we believe and do nothing.

No, this is false. You're misquoting him.

Quote:

Let’s look at the Beatitudes

.

Mat 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 5:4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

Mat 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

Mat 5:6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after

righteousness: for they shall be filled.

Mat 5:7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

Mat 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

Mat 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

Mat 5:10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

Mat 5:12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

What does Ellen White say about the beatitudes? She speaks here of the Sermon on the Mount.

Desire of Ages (page 299)

Without combating their ideas of the kingdom of God, He told them the conditions of entrance therein, leaving them to draw their own conclusions as to its nature. The truths He taught are no less important to us than to the multitude that followed Him. We no less than they need to learn the foundation principles of the kingdom of God. {DA 299.3}

Then in the next paragraph Wieland says this:

“If happiness depends on my doing the right thing, I always run into the snag of not being able to do it right. There is always an element of non-attainment. If God promises me something good dependent on the condition that I first do something right, His promises will be sure to fail because I can’t perform. God may promise me the sky, but it’s a cruel trick if His promises are nullified by an impossible pre-condition.”

He never says what the “impossible pre-condition” is, but his context is the beatitudes, and he just said prior to this that we only have to “believe.”

He said what the pre-condition is. The pre-condition is to do things just right. Here's the key sentence:

Quote:

If God promises me something good dependent on the condition that I first do something right, His promises will be sure to fail because I can’t perform.

Also he said:

Quote:

If happiness depends on my doing the right thing, I always run into the snag of not being able to do it right.

He's talking about a person doing something of himself.

The impossible condition is that you *first* have to do something right before God does something for you. This is what he's arguing against.

Quote:

Nowhere in the book is the gospel taught.

The Gospel is "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved." This is certainly taught throughout the book.

Quote:

We must meet the conditions for salvation, which are acceptance, confession of sin, and repentance to be born again and have the blessings of the Beatitudes. We cannot “just believe and do nothing” to get them.

Wieland has never claimed that one should "believe and do nothing." This is seriously misquoting him. Not cricket.

Quote:

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

Pro 28:13 He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.

“The Good News is Better Than You Think”

Page 11

By Robert Wieland

“When Christ was crucified, the devil was not killed, much to the disappointment of many, but he was paralyzed”

It is evident for the last 2000 years that Satan is not paralyzed and is enraged and working harder. And as we review world history, and our own lives it is evident Satan is far from paralyzed. Satan only knew that he must finally die, that made him angrier.

Rev 12:12 Therefore rejoice, you heavens, and you that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down to you, having great wrath, because he knows that he has but a short time.

Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Both Jack Sequeria and Robert Wieland do not teach the real gospel, reader beware. What they teach is defined as modern spiritualism because the Bible is interpreted in a manner that appeals to the unrenewed heart.(see on GC88 P.558)

Th worse attacks upon Adventism come from within. Ellen White calls it the omega of apostasies.

I don't see what your point is here.

I don't have his book "The Good News is Better Than You Think" to quote from, but I have a couple of others. I'll present some of his writings to set the record straight, that he does NOT teach that one can "believe and do nothing" and be saved.

Christ was tempted by Satan in a hundredfold severer manner than was Adam, and under circumstances in every way more trying. The deceiver presented himself as an angel of light, but Christ withstood his temptations. He redeemed Adam's disgraceful fall, and saved the world. {YI, June 2, 1898 par. 7}

Ellen White does not mean the whole world is saved, she means salvation is provided for the world which is what the Bible says.

I've given evidence that Wielands teachings and the Bibles teachings do not line up. Neither does Wieland line up with all of the SOP.

Of course Wieland is not going to STATE there are no conditions for salvation, he did it in a circular, serpent like manner using the Beatitudes.

You said:

Individually, yes. There is a corporate work, and an individual work. This has been made clear on this thread. Your conflating the two. These aspects need to be kept separate.

We are saved individually, not corporately.

The 1888 MSC Committee has been disloyal to the Adventist church since Wieland and Short tried to interject there wrong ideas into SDA theology concerning 1888. I have proof of the disagreements between 1888 and the conference in which i will posy after I go shopping.

In short, the conference says they engage in separatist activities without conference approval, and I know for a FACT they do.

At a time when a few years ago when Satan thought I was vulnerable, these people tried to suck me into 1888, I was horrified.

I study the Bible, I do not follow the fables of men

[Robert]

Yeah, BEWARE of EVERYBODY'S opinions. Including mine!

I don't have an opinion on the gospel....It is fact!

The gospel is what Christ did in our fallen, corporate humanity 2000 years ago + nothing! The gospel is the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the Son of Man and the Son of God. It isn't about what He does in you - the fruit of the gospel....That's another subject.

But when one takes the gospel, which is Christ's doing & dying, and adds to it what He does in you, he has perverted the gospel. He is worse than a Judazier....

[Robert]

I study the Bible, I do not follow the fables of men

You are in bowels of legalism....You have no peace...no assurance...it's just work, work, work for you....You must earn salvation...you must become perfect and since you haven't arrived you terrorize everyone else so you'll be sidetracked from looking in the mirror and facing your own failures (i.e., you ain't measuring up to the demands of the law)....Its typical legalistic fundamentalism.... Been there, done that...was a better legalist than yourself, but God took my pride in my righteousness and slammed it in the dust....I am complete "in Christ"....

Can you say "amen" Redwood?

[pnattmbtc]

Christ was tempted by Satan in a hundredfold severer manner than was Adam, and under circumstances in every way more trying. The deceiver presented himself as an angel of light, but Christ withstood his temptations. He redeemed Adam's disgraceful fall, and saved the world. {YI, June 2, 1898 par. 7}

Ellen White does not mean the whole world is saved, she means salvation is provided for the world which is what the Bible says.

[Woody]

Yeah, BEWARE of EVERYBODY'S opinions. Including mine!

TU

This is one time that I agree with you Gerry. Praise God.

There are so many erroneous theories being floated around. But they are just twisted pieces of Truth that have been perverted. Praise God "I" know the Truth of the matter.