"In Christ" what does that mean?

[pnattmbtc]

None of the JS supporters can reply to the statement that I posted.

I wouldn't characterize myself as a JS supporter, but I dislike seeing anyone being unfairly treated, so I've responded to some accusations which appear to me to be unfair.

Regarding what you posted, what sort of response are you looking for? What is it you think the post says that is contrary to something you think is wrong? If you're trying to make a case against JS, you really should quote him. In regards to Ellen White, she wrote things regarding Christ's work which are corporate in some place, and individual in others, just like Scripture. You really can't prove anything by quoting only statements where she's dealing with the individual aspect. There are two aspects. Corporate statements includes the ones which have been cited, including "To the death of Christ, we owe even this earthly life." "Christ, by His wonderful work in giving Himself, restored the whole race of men with favor with God." "Christ redeemed Adam's disgraceful fall, and saved the world." (These are quotes from memory, so could be slightly off. The first 2 references are DA 660, 1SM 343. The third one is YI somewhere).

[Steve Billiter]

Originally Posted By: Norman

None of the JS supporters can reply to the statement that I posted.

I wouldn't characterize myself as a JS supporter, but I dislike seeing anyone being unfairly treated, so I've responded to some accusations which appear to me to be unfair.

Regarding what you posted, what sort of response are you looking for? What is it you think the post says that is contrary to something you think is wrong? If you're trying to make a case against JS, you really should quote him. In regards to Ellen White, she wrote things regarding Christ's work which are corporate in some place, and individual in others, just like Scripture. You really can't prove anything by quoting only statements where she's dealing with the individual aspect. There are two aspects. Corporate statements includes the ones which have been cited, including "To the death of Christ, we owe even this earthly life." "Christ, by His wonderful work in giving Himself, restored the whole race of men with favor with God." "Christ redeemed Adam's disgraceful fall, and saved the world." (These are quotes from memory, so could be slightly off. The first 2 references are DA 660, 1SM 343. The third one is YI somewhere).

You are clear as mud!

[Steve Billiter]

Have you ever heard of the errors of omission? Sometimes it isn't so much what they say, but what they do not say. In Wieland's case,it is both.The very idea of dwelling upon 1888 is absurd, that is ancient history. A T Jones went into apostasy not long after 1888, so did Waggonner.

Purpose for what? The primacy of the gospel Committee Report. It proves that 1888 MSC are out of sync with Adventism. They are separatist. Why don't you show me where Robert Wieland teaches the real gospel, do you know what that is?

Perhaps you could just tell me what your idea of the gospel is, "What must I do to be saved? Please provide Bible and or EGW references.

[Steve Billiter]

this statement by these people, whoever they are, does not appear to match ellen whites revelation from God. granted it is rather confused and indefinite, for me, it seems to deliberately go against the revealed inspiration of God.

oh, dear, who to follow....

Quote:

As the Bible presents two laws, one changeless and eternal, the other provisional and temporary, so there are two covenants. The covenant of grace was first made with man in Eden, when after the Fall there was given a divine promise that the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head. To all men this covenant offered pardon and the assisting grace of God for future obedience through faith in Christ. It also promised them eternal life on condition of fidelity to God's law. Thus the patriarchs received the hope of salvation. {PP 370.2}

This same covenant was renewed to Abraham in the promise, "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." Genesis 22:18. This promise pointed to Christ. So Abraham understood it (see Galatians 3:8, 16), and he trusted in Christ for the forgiveness of sins. It was this faith that was accounted unto him for righteousness. The covenant with Abraham also maintained the authority of God's law. The Lord appeared unto Abraham, and said, "I am the Almighty God; walk before Me, and be thou perfect." Genesis 17:1. The testimony of God concerning His faithful servant was, "Abraham obeyed My voice, and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws." Genesis 26:5. And the Lord declared to him, "I will establish My covenant between Me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee." Genesis 17:7. {PP 370.3}

Though this covenant was made with Adam and renewed to Abraham, it could not be ratified until the death of Christ. It had existed by the promise of God since the first intimation of redemption had been given; it had been accepted by faith; yet when ratified by Christ, it is called a new covenant. The law of God was the basis of this covenant, which was simply an arrangement for bringing men again into harmony with the divine will, placing them where they could obey God's law. {PP 370.4}

Another compact--called in Scripture the "old" covenant--was formed between God and Israel at Sinai, and was then ratified by the blood of a sacrifice. The Abrahamic covenant was ratified by the blood of Christ, and it is called the "second," or "new," covenant, because the blood by which it was sealed was shed after the blood of the first covenant. That the new covenant was valid in the days of Abraham is evident from the fact that it was then confirmed both by the promise and by the oath of God--the "two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie." Hebrews 6:18. {PP 371.1}

But if the Abrahamic covenant contained the promise of redemption, why was another covenant formed at Sinai? In their bondage the people had to a great extent lost the knowledge of God and of the principles of the Abrahamic covenant. ...

"If ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then . . . ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation." Exodus 19:5, 6. The people did not realize the sinfulness of their own hearts, and that without Christ it was impossible for them to keep God's law; and they readily entered into covenant with God. Feeling that they were able to establish their own righteousness, they declared, "All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient." Exodus 24:7. They had witnessed the proclamation of the law in awful majesty, and had trembled with terror before the mount; and yet only a few weeks passed before they broke their covenant with God, and bowed down to worship a graven image. They could not hope for the favor of God through a covenant which they had broken; and now, seeing their sinfulness and their need of pardon, they were brought to feel their need of the Saviour revealed in the Abrahamic covenant and shadowed forth in the sacrificial offerings. Now by faith and love they were bound to God as their deliverer from the bondage of sin. Now they were prepared to appreciate the blessings of the new covenant. {PP 371.4}

The terms of the "old covenant" were, Obey and live: "If a man do, he shall even live in them" (Ezekiel 20:11; Leviticus 18:5); but "cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them." Deuteronomy 27:26. The "new covenant" was established upon "better promises"--the promise of forgiveness of sins and of the grace of God to renew the heart and bring it into harmony with the principles of God's law. "This shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts. . . . I will forgive their iniquity, and will remember their sin no more." Jeremiah 31:33, 34. {PP 372.1} [/quote']well, those who wish may follow these "men", whoever they are, but me and mine will follow the bible and sop. [/quote

Sorry, but you appear to be out of context. Your Ellen White comments speak to both aspects of the covenant, and the one you bolded only speaks to the part played at Mt Sinai, which in and of itself is a true statement. Keep studying!

]

[John317]

Originally Posted By: Steve Billiter

Not hardly' date=' when I said those who kill babies are worshiping Satan, I did not say you are doing that. I mentioned no one on this forum. [/quote']so, as long as you arent naming names you arent attacking their person?

With moderator hat on:

Members are free to attack ideas, positions, evidence, teaching, and practices, etc. So when Steve, for instance, says that those who kill babies are worshipping Satan, the rules of the forum allow for that, and it is not a personal attack. If someone does not agree with the statement, they can ask for clarification, evidence, and reasons. You are free to rebut arguments but not to make personal attacks or call names.

[John317]

The very idea of dwelling upon 1888 is absurd, that is ancient history. A T Jones went into apostasy not long after 1888, so did Waggonner.

Do you have-- or have you read-- the Ellen G. White 1888 Materials? Those volumes contain everything written by Ellen White regarding the 1888 message. Ellen White said that if the SDA church had accepted that message and united to proclaim to the world the Three Angels Messages under the power of the Latter Rain, Christ would have come before 1895. She said that God sent a "most precious message" through A.T. Jones and E.J. Waggoner but it was largely rejected by the leadership of the church. She writes about this in the 1888 Materials.

I think it's important for us to understand what happened in 1888, but by far the greatest emphasis should be on understanding and practicing the truths that came out of that period in the writings of Mrs. White, Jones and Waggoner on righteousness by faith.

Ellen White warned that if Jones and Waggoner should fall away from truth, we shouldn't think that's a reason to reject the "heaven-sent messages" taught by these men.

She said,

Quote:

It is quite possible that Elder Jones or Waggoner may be overthrown by the temptations of the enemy; but if they should be, this would not prove that they had had no message from God, or that the work that they had done was all a mistake. But should this happen, how many would take this position, and enter into a fatal delusion because they are not under the control of the Spirit of God. They walk in the sparks of their own kindling, and cannot distinguish between the fire they have kindled and the light which God has given, and they walk in blindness as did the Jews. (1888 Mat. 1044)

Neither man ever rejected the essential message of 1888, although E.J. Waggoner did reject the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment and wrote about it shortly before his death.

Both men got involved with Dr. Kellogg during the early twentieth century, even though Ellen White gave them warnings to keep away from him. Kellogg was very deceptive by this time.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Members are free to attack ideas, positions, evidence, teaching, and practices, etc. So when Steve, for instance, says that those who kill babies are worshipping Satan, the rules of the forum allow for that, and it is not a personal attack.

So if I said, "Those who disagree with me regarding point X are worshiping Satan," that's OK?

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

I wouldn't characterize myself as a JS supporter' date=' but I dislike seeing anyone being unfairly treated, so I've responded to some accusations which appear to me to be unfair.

Regarding what you posted, what sort of response are you looking for? What is it you think the post says that is contrary to something you think is wrong? If you're trying to make a case against JS, you really should quote him. In regards to Ellen White, she wrote things regarding Christ's work which are corporate in some place, and individual in others, just like Scripture. You really can't prove anything by quoting only statements where she's dealing with the individual aspect. There are two aspects. Corporate statements includes the ones which have been cited, including "To the death of Christ, we owe even this earthly life." "Christ, by His wonderful work in giving Himself, restored the whole race of men with favor with God." "Christ redeemed Adam's disgraceful fall, and saved the world." (These are quotes from memory, so could be slightly off. The first 2 references are DA 660, 1SM 343. The third one is YI somewhere). [/quote']

You are clear as mud!

Sorry about that. Perhaps I should have split the second paragraph into several smaller one.

I'll enumerate the thoughts. Perhaps that will help.

1.I do not consider myself a JS supporter.

2.I dislike seeing people unfairly treated, so I responded to some things which struck me as unfair.

3.You cited a long post, but gave no reason for why you were doing so. I was asking what your reason was.

4.When you accuse people of things, particularly people who have published works, you should substantiate your accusations by quoting from what they wrote.

5.Regarding Ellen White's writings, some things she writes are dealing with individual salvation, whereas others are dealing with corporate issues. Your conflating these two issues. They need to be kept separate.

If you find any of these points unclear, I'll clarify further.

[Woody]

Quote:

Members are free to attack ideas, positions, evidence, teaching, and practices, etc. So when Steve, for instance, says that those who kill babies are worshipping Satan, the rules of the forum allow for that, and it is not a personal attack.

So if I said, "Those who disagree with me regarding point X are worshiping Satan," that's OK?

Yes. The moderator on each forum is allowed to set whatever tone he or she chooses. If you don't like the tone set ... you can look for another forum with another moderator. Although at times ... that can be hard to accomplish.

[pnattmbtc]

Have you ever heard of the errors of omission? Sometimes it isn't so much what they say, but what they do not say. In Wieland's case,it is both.

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

Quote:

Members are free to attack ideas, positions, evidence, teaching, and practices, etc. So when Steve, for instance, says that those who kill babies are worshipping Satan, the rules of the forum allow for that, and it is not a personal attack.

So if I said, "Those who disagree with me regarding point X are worshiping Satan," that's OK?

Yes. The moderator on each forum is allowed to set whatever tone he or she chooses. If you don't like the tone set ... you can look for another forum with another moderator. Although at times ... that can be hard to accomplish.

In other words human nature kicks in with its bias and prejudices. Like James said, "If you commit partiality you sin"

Rob

[Steve Billiter]

Originally Posted By: Redwood

Yes. The moderator on each forum is allowed to set whatever tone he or she chooses. If you don't like the tone set ... you can look for another forum with another moderator. Although at times ... that can be hard to accomplish. [/quote']

In other words human nature kicks in with its bias and prejudices. Like James said, "If you commit partiality you sin"

Rob

You attacked me personalty. Baby killing is evil. Period. I have attacked no one personally on this forum. Because you cannot defend Wieland Biblically you resort to personal attacks. Its the same story over and over. Se ya.

[Woody]

Quote:

You attacked me personalty.

Can you clarify that? Is this the Kings English?

[Steve Billiter]

Originally Posted By: Steve Billiter

The very idea of dwelling upon 1888 is absurd, that is ancient history. A T Jones went into apostasy not long after 1888, so did Waggonner.

Do you have-- or have you read-- the Ellen G. White 1888 Materials? Those volumes contain everything written by Ellen White regarding the 1888 message. Ellen White said that if the SDA church had accepted that message and united to proclaim to the world the Three Angels Messages under the power of the Latter Rain, Christ would have come before 1895. She said that God sent a "most precious message" through A.T. Jones and E.J. Waggoner but it was largely rejected by the leadership of the church. She writes about this in the 1888 Materials.

I think it's important for us to understand what happened in 1888, but by far the greatest emphasis should be on understanding and practicing the truths that came out of that period in the writings of Mrs. White, Jones and Waggoner on righteousness by faith.

Ellen White warned that if Jones and Waggoner should fall away from truth, we shouldn't think that's a reason to reject the "heaven-sent messages" taught by these men. Neither man ever rejected the essential message of 1888. Both men got involved with Dr. Kellogg during the early twentieth century, even though Ellen White gave them warnings to keep away from him. Kellogg was very deceptive by this time.

Hi John, Thanks for the moderation!

Perhaps I should have been clearer. For me, I have never rejected the message of righteousness by faith. I understood that when I was a baptist 30 years ago.Jones has good writings before he apostatized, but I really don't see the need for myself. My issue is with the 1888 MSC. From the time of Ellen Whites Letter to Jones about his liberalism and onwards, some things began to deteriorate.

In the 50's, Wieland and Short somehow got hung up on errors relating to 1888 and tried twice to get the conference to accept their wrong views. No go. So Wieland formed the 1888 MSC and they hold their own conventions, publish their own books, and conduct other separatist activities without the sanction of the official church.

Their theology is riddled with errors, one of which is Universal Justification. (see the book, 1888 Re-Examined) I have also presented other evidence of a false gospel in Wieland's Book, "The Good News is Better Than You Think"

I really have no more time to research their errors as I have found well enough; and I know there is more. I also posted the Areas of Disagreement according to the Primacy of the Gospel Committee Report from 2000, when Conference officials met with Wieland and the 1888 MSC to try and work out the differences, which failed.

I've had personal experience with two 1888 members in the Reno NV SDA church here less than 3 years ago, a female elder and her sister. The pastor is new theology and also brought in Jack Sequeria whom I refuted to his face in church for his same Universal Justification error. The pastor and the 1888 elder treated him like he was the pope in the Vatican and they were all catholics, it was sickening. They sold Sequeria's books in the church foyer on the Sabbath.

These 1888 people are like snakes in the grass. They are extremely dishonest because they tear down the church behind its back and then publically from the pulpit pretend to be loyal SDA's when not a single one of them are. They accuse the current church of legalism across the board, as they try to say the church us exactly like it was in 1888.

They use Ellen Whites endorsement of the "most precious message" to try and justify their own corrupt organization, and some try to use that to justify all of Jones and Wagoners writings after they apostatized.

To make a long story short, the 1888 MSC is way short on obedience, to the gospel and to the commandments, which cannot be separated. I believe it is part of the omega of apostasy that Ellen White mentions that was to come after the alpha which was Dr. Kellogs book, "The Living Temple" that contained pantheistic errors.

There is one thing I know for certain sure, the 1888 MSC, and they are sincere good people, can never deceive anyone who is truly converted and is grounded in truth like I was when they came after me. When the Lord revealed to me the gross error I posted here in Wieland's book, "Good News", I returned to these ladies all 10 or 12 books they gave me from their convention.

I still have the book, "The Good news is Better than You Think"

by Wieland, that I use for evidence as needed. It stays in my drawer, being not granted the privilege of the company of my EGW books and Bibles on my main bookshelf. Nowhere in this book is the real gospel presented. Nothing about confession of sin, repentance, or obedience. May God have mercy on the souls of those who are deceived into this system of gross errors.

[Robert]

Nothing about confession of sin, repentance, or obedience. May God have mercy on the souls of those who are deceived into this system of gross errors.

You remained me of Saul, before he became the Apostle Paul:

"as to righteousness under the law, blameless." [Phil 3:6]

Well, Saul had his eyes opened....Now, you need yours opened. "There is none righteous, no, not even one" for "all have sinned and fall short [continuous present tense] of the glory of God (His love)."

Some EGW quotes to think on:

Our earthly life, however long, honored, or useful it may be, is but childhood, frail, imperfect, and undeveloped. Manhood, with its full, perfect, glorious development, will come, when, freed from the taint of sin, we stand among the redeemed throng. Then [when we are in heaven] we shall enjoy a life which measures with the life of God, and through everlasting ages we shall go on increasing in wisdom and knowledge. [sT 06-09-81]

We may have flattered ourselves, as did Nicodemus, that our life has been upright, that our moral character is correct, and think that we need not humble the heart before God, like the common sinner: but when the light from Christ shines into our souls, we shall see how impure we are; [how so?] we shall discern the selfishness of motive, the enmity against God, that has defiled every act of life. [sC 28]

You will have that love which seeks not her own [wealth], but another's wealth. [DA 439]

"In heaven none will think of self, nor seek their own pleasure; but all, from pure, genuine love [agape], will seek the happiness of the heavenly beings around them." [2T 132]

[Robert]

Back to the "in Christ" truth....

Read me...click here!

[Steve Billiter]

Originally Posted By: Steve Billiter

Nothing about confession of sin, repentance, or obedience. May God have mercy on the souls of those who are deceived into this system of gross errors.

Boy, you are good....I said I use to be a better legalist then you, but upon reflection perhaps the award should go to you after all! You remained me of Saul, before he became the Apostle Paul:

"as to righteousness under the law, blameless." [Phil 3:6]

Well, Saul had his eyes opened....Now, you need yours opened. "There is none righteous, no, not even one" for "all have sinned and fall short [continuous present tense] of the glory of God (His love)."

Some EGW quotes to think on:

Our earthly life, however long, honored, or useful it may be, is but childhood, frail, imperfect, and undeveloped. Manhood, with its full, perfect, glorious development, will come, when, freed from the taint of sin, we stand among the redeemed throng. Then [when we are in heaven] we shall enjoy a life which measures with the life of God, and through everlasting ages we shall go on increasing in wisdom and knowledge. [sT 06-09-81]

We may have flattered ourselves, as did Nicodemus, that our life has been upright, that our moral character is correct, and think that we need not humble the heart before God, like the common sinner: but when the light from Christ shines into our souls, we shall see how impure we are; [how so?] we shall discern the selfishness of motive, the enmity against God, that has defiled every act of life. [sC 28]

You will have that love which seeks not her own [wealth], but another's wealth. [DA 439]

"In heaven none will think of self, nor seek their own pleasure; but all, from pure, genuine love [agape], will seek the happiness of the heavenly beings around them." [2T 132]

You really need the CEASE the name-calling. You are not helping your self or your "cause' by making personal attacks on this forum. Please go back and read what the moderator has posted concerning this. BTW, I agree and practice everything that EGW wrote concerning salvation, in which the 1888 MSC does not do, nor does Jack Sequeria. It is important to know what they teach so that we know what "in Christ" is not. Conversely, it is more important to study the truth contained in the Bible and EGW to see what "In Christ" is.

My experience with the 1888 people is that anyone who teaches the commandments AND the faith of Jesus is a legalist. Which only means that person has the proper balance between grace and works.

Here is EGW's letter to Jones as he wondered off into apostasy:

Brother A. T. Jones:

April 9, 1893

I was attending a meeting, and a large congregation were present. In my dream you were presenting the subject of faith and the imputed righteousness of Christ by faith. You repeated several times that works amounted to nothing, that there were no conditions. The matter was presented in that light that I knew minds would be confused, and would not receive the correct impression in reference to faith and works, and I decided to write to you.

You state this matter too strongly. There are conditions to our receiving justification and sanctification, and the righteousness of Christ. I know your meaning, but you leave a wrong impression upon many minds. While good works will not save even one soul, yet it is impossible for even one soul to be saved without good works. God saves us under a law, that we must ask if we would receive, seek if we would find, and knock if we would have the door opened unto us.

378

{1SM 377.1}

So Robert, is Ellen White a legalist like you accuse me of?

[Robert]

You really need the CEASE the name-calling.

[Robert]

"God saves us under a law"

So Robert, is Ellen White a legalist like you accuse me of?

Ellen White grew in grace like any of us....Her views I'm sure clouded her view of things. It's called preconceived ideas....But, with me that isn't a problem since she always pointed back to the Bible as the measuring stick of truth. She, as you know, never claimed to have all light and/or to be infallible.

Rob

[Steve Billiter]

Originally Posted By: Steve Billiter

You really need the CEASE the name-calling.

Name calling? I am merely stating what category you fit given your perfectionistic attitude.

Quote:

BTW, I agree and practice everything that EGW wrote

So you agree that "thinking of self" - i.e., self-seeking...self-love, etc are sin! Face it, even though the real believer who is resting in Christ and has the assurance of salvation, is growing, he/she is none the less not measuring up to the selfless life of Christ. Agree? If not your argument is with EGW and the Bible. Or as John would say, with the Bible and the SOP.

Rob

CALLING ANYONE A "LEGALIST" IS NAME CALLING. YOU CANNOT GET OUT OF IT. YOUR WRITTEN WORDS STAND AS A WITNESS NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU TRY AND DENY IT. GO BACK AND READ WHAT THE MODERATOR WROTE.

Judge not, that ye be not judged." Do not think yourself better than other men, and set yourself up as their judge. Since you cannot discern motive, you are incapable of judging another. In criticizing him, you are passing sentence upon yourself; for you show that you are a participant with Satan, the accuser of the brethren. The Lord says, "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves." This is our work. "If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged." 2 Corinthians 13:5; 1 Corinthians 11:31. {DA 314.1}

[Robert]

CALLING ANYONE A "LEGALIST" IS NAME CALLING. YOU CANNOT GET OUT OF IT.

You are what you are....I see it in your theology....Paul, if he were alive, would be much worse on you than I am....He would repeat Gal 5:4

You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

After all, folks like yourself have quoted Romans 2:13 to say just that....This is your teaching...even twisting Paul out of context:

13 For not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified

Now compare that back to Gal 5:4... You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ ; you have fallen away from grace

[Steve Billiter]

Hi John, Thanks for the moderation!

Perhaps I should have been clearer. For me, I have never rejected the message of righteousness by faith. I understood that when I was a baptist 30 years ago.Jones has good writings before he apostatized, but I really don't see the need for myself. My issue is with the 1888 MSC. From the time of Ellen Whites Letter to Jones about his liberalism and onwards, some things began to deteriorate.

In the 50's, Wieland and Short somehow got hung up on errors relating to 1888 and tried twice to get the conference to accept their wrong views. No go. So Wieland formed the 1888 MSC and they hold their own conventions, publish their own books, and conduct other separatist activities without the sanction of the official church.

Their theology is riddled with errors, one of which is Universal Justification. (see the book, 1888 Re-Examined) I have also presented other evidence of a false gospel in Wieland's Book, "The Good News is Better Than You Think"

I really have no more time to research their errors as I have found well enough; and I know there is more. I also posted the Areas of Disagreement according to the Primacy of the Gospel Committee Report from 2000, when Conference officials met with Wieland and the 1888 MSC to try and work out the differences, which failed.

I've had personal experience with two 1888 members in the Reno NV SDA church here less than 3 years ago, a female elder and her sister. The pastor is new theology and also brought in Jack Sequeria whom I refuted to his face in church for his same Universal Justification error. The pastor and the 1888 elder treated him like he was the pope in the Vatican and they were all catholics, it was sickening. They sold Sequeria's books in the church foyer on the Sabbath.

These 1888 people are like snakes in the grass. They are extremely dishonest because they tear down the church behind its back and then publically from the pulpit pretend to be loyal SDA's when not a single one of them are. They accuse the current church of legalism across the board, as they try to say the church us exactly like it was in 1888.

They use Ellen Whites endorsement of the "most precious message" to try and justify their own corrupt organization, and some try to use that to justify all of Jones and Wagoners writings after they apostatized.

To make a long story short, the 1888 MSC is way short on obedience, to the gospel and to the commandments, which cannot be separated. I believe it is part of the omega of apostasy that Ellen White mentions that was to come after the alpha which was Dr. Kellogs book, "The Living Temple" that contained pantheistic errors.

There is one thing I know for certain sure, the 1888 MSC, and they are sincere good people, can never deceive anyone who is truly converted and is grounded in truth like I was when they came after me. When the Lord revealed to me the gross error I posted here in Wieland's book, "Good News", I returned to these ladies all 10 or 12 books they gave me from their convention.

I still have the book, "The Good news is Better than You Think"

by Wieland, that I use for evidence as needed. It stays in my drawer, being not granted the privilege of the company of my EGW books and Bibles on my main bookshelf. Nowhere in this book is the real gospel presented. Nothing about confession of sin, repentance, or obedience. May God have mercy on the souls of those who are deceived into this system of gross errors.

[Woody]

Quote:

You really need the CEASE the name-calling.

Some sure have a martyr complex ? Do you really think this is happening to the one who is so well known for doing this exact thing? He is just calling you out for your pantheistic beliefs.

and btw ... is this the Kings English. You point out others mistakes in English. But is this a good example that you set?

[Twilight]

Quote:

You really need the CEASE the name-calling.

Some sure have a martyr complex ? Do you really think this is happening to the one who is so well known for doing this exact thing? He is just calling you out for your pantheistic beliefs.

Why would you accuse Steve of pantheistic beliefs?

I cannot think of another poster who is more averse to pantheism than Steve?

Mark

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Redwood

Quote:

You really need the CEASE the name-calling.

Some sure have a martyr complex ? Do you really think this is happening to the one who is so well known for doing this exact thing? He is just calling you out for your pantheistic beliefs.

Why would you accuse Steve of pantheistic beliefs?

I cannot think of another poster who is more averse to pantheism than Steve?

Mark

I dunno. You claim that I'm going to Hell and yet that's the farthest from the Truth because Jesus has saved me. So, when did Truth ever get in the way of what happens here on Club Adventist? And as we all know ... Steve is not going to be saved because he believes in pantheism.