Woody Posted December 24, 2009 Posted December 24, 2009 Quote: he believes this Quote: he believes that ... Again ... to all ... if you believe someone says something ... just quote them. There has been far to much misrepresentations of others beliefs on this forum. So when I read the words "He believes" ... I usually DO NOT BELIEVE. Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology.
Steve Billiter Posted December 24, 2009 Posted December 24, 2009 Quote: He made it clear that this does not confer personal salvation to anyone, as have Wieland and Sequeira, as well as Waggoner, Jones, and Prescott before them. And you could add Ellen White to that list. You might want to check out a thread I started called the List of the Saved. This is a list of people who our prophet has stated are saved. So what? I can start a list of the saved too. Lets see, Moses, Elijah, Enoch, Adam, Abel, Noah, Daniel, Isaiah,.......sorry, i DON'T HAVE TWO HOURS TO POST THEM ALL. Quote
teresaq Posted December 24, 2009 Posted December 24, 2009 it is impossible for me to be in error. The problem with deception in they don't know their deceived. yes, sad but true. until we humble ourselves at the foot of the cross we will not know how deceived we are. wont you join me there, brother? believing oneself to be alright is quite a dangerous place to be. Quote facebook. /teresa.quintero.790
Woody Posted December 24, 2009 Posted December 24, 2009 Originally Posted By: Redwood Quote: steve says: "it is impossible for me to be in error." Let me clarify. Are you actually claiming to be God? I hope not. And can you explain how it is so impossible for you to be in error? Again ... if you are claiming here to be God ... then I would understand. But otherwise ... I am confused. i think we pretty much have to take the statement as it stands. Unfortunately ... I am afraid that you are right teresa. Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology.
Steve Billiter Posted December 24, 2009 Posted December 24, 2009 God can keep us error free on major doctrines if we submit to Him.He does not want us to be in error. If I don't know something I will say so. The SDA church has no error in the 28. Quote
teresaq Posted December 24, 2009 Posted December 24, 2009 God can keep us error free on major doctrines if we submit to Him.He does not want us to be in error. If I don't know something I will say so. The SDA church has no error in the 28. you do, and follow, what seems best to you. i will stay at the foot of the cross with the bible and sop as my guide, interpreted by the Inspirer of both. Quote facebook. /teresa.quintero.790
Steve Billiter Posted December 24, 2009 Posted December 24, 2009 Originally Posted By: Steve Billiter it is impossible for me to be in error. The problem with deception in they don't know their deceived. yes, sad but true. until we humble ourselves at the foot of the cross we will not know how deceived we are. wont you join me there, brother? believing oneself to be alright is quite a dangerous place to be. I really meant in that context. I have been in error before but not seriously. Its something we need to be very careful with. I have been at the foot of the cross for some time now, thank you. Quote
Moderators John317 Posted December 24, 2009 Moderators Posted December 24, 2009 I don't believe "universal justification" is a phrase Jack Sequeira uses. As I pointed out above, Wallenkampf coined this phrase, and to be accurate, what he actually called it is "Temporary Universal Justification." Any idea what book, article, or sermon Dr. Wallenkampf first used that phrase in? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
teresaq Posted December 24, 2009 Posted December 24, 2009 Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda) yes' date=' sad but true. until we humble ourselves at the foot of the cross we will not know how deceived we are. wont you join me there, brother? believing oneself to be alright is quite a dangerous place to be. [/quote'] I really meant in that context. I have been in error before but not seriously. Its something we need to be very careful with. I have been at the foot of the cross for some time now, thank you. there is no safe "context" for that type of assertion. Quote facebook. /teresa.quintero.790
Moderators John317 Posted December 24, 2009 Moderators Posted December 24, 2009 Originally Posted By: John317 With moderator's hat: It would depend on several factors, such as what point x is. For instance, does the poster show strong evidence from the Bible or Ellen White's writings that this is the case? Does the statement occur in a post that is more of a personal attack (i.e., confrontational) than a reasoned discussion of the issues? See Paul's way of talking to his friends about this topic in 1 Cor. 10: 20, 21. Another factor to consider is the overall tone or quality of the thread in the context of the statement. This would not be acceptable-- "If you disagree with my view of meat-eating [or the Trinity, etc.], then you are a worshipper of Satan." This or similar statements would be acceptable: "Listen to the voices, mark the powers, that prevail in the world. Is there any voice of prayer? Do you see any sign that God is recognized? There are priests, plenty of them; but they are trampling under their feet the law of Jehovah. Their garments are stained with the blood of souls. Multitudes are sacrificing to devils. Look, you who are hesitating between obedience and disobedience. Look in imagination at the vast multitudes worshipping at Satan's altar. Listen to the music, to the language, called higher education. But what does God declare it?--The mystery of iniquity." Ellen G. White. An Appeal for Missions (1898), page 11, paragraph 2 This is interesting. Do you think you could move this statement to the rules section so that it would be there for a reference? It would be best to copy it to your computer because I don't want to start adding my comments and suggestions to the posts of the rules. The rules as they are already posted were all voted on and passed overwhelmingly by the moderators and administrators. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Woody Posted December 24, 2009 Posted December 24, 2009 Quote: I have been in error before but not seriously. Can you clarify? Are you saying this when you are not serious? Or ... are you saying that you have had errors ... but not serious errors? I am just having difficulty with your English I guess. And it may just be me. So, hang in there with me as I clarify. I apologize for my slowness. My next question is ... what errors do you consider to not be serious. In my mind spiritual errors of any kind are serious. We need to be more serious about errors and not just brush them aside. I will appreciate your clarification on what you are saying. I don't want to misunderstand you. Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology.
Members rudywoofs (Pam) Posted December 24, 2009 Members Posted December 24, 2009 Temporary Universal Justification - Arnold Valentin Wallenkampf Quote Pam Meddle Not In the Affairs of Dragons; for You Are Crunchy and Taste Good with Ketchup. If we all sang the same note in the choir, there'd never be any harmony. Funny, isn't it, how we accept Grace for ourselves and demand justice for others?
Woody Posted December 24, 2009 Posted December 24, 2009 Originally Posted By: Redwood This is interesting. Do you think you could move this statement to the rules section so that it would be there for a reference? It would be best to copy it to your computer because I don't want to start adding my comments and suggestions to the posts of the rules. The rules as they are already posted were all voted on and passed overwhelmingly by the moderators and administrators. Are you saying that this particular interpretation or wording has not been approved yet? Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology.
pnattmbtc Posted December 24, 2009 Posted December 24, 2009 Would you agree that to say Christ's death "saved the world" and "restored the whole race of men to favor with God" means that Christ's death gave everyone in the world a second probation? In other words, without Christ's death, all mankind would have perished. Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
Woody Posted December 24, 2009 Posted December 24, 2009 Temporary Universal Justification - Arnold Valentin Wallenkampf Thank you Rudywoofs Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology.
pnattmbtc Posted December 24, 2009 Posted December 24, 2009 If I don't know something I will say so. This is rather ironic. Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
pnattmbtc Posted December 24, 2009 Posted December 24, 2009 Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc I don't believe "universal justification" is a phrase Jack Sequeira uses. As I pointed out above, Wallenkampf coined this phrase, and to be accurate, what he actually called it is "Temporary Universal Justification." Any idea what book, article, or sermon Dr. Wallenkampf first used that phrase in? Where I became aware of it was from his book, which I referenced, called "What every Christian should know about being justified." I don't know if this is the first time he used the phrase. Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
pnattmbtc Posted December 24, 2009 Posted December 24, 2009 There is no safe "context" for that type of assertion. Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
Members rudywoofs (Pam) Posted December 24, 2009 Members Posted December 24, 2009 Quote: Justified by Arnold Valentin Wallenkampf 5. Temporary Universal Justification While Moses and Joshua were on the mountain talking with God, the people of Israel grew restless on the plain below. In their idleness, they prevailed on Aaron to make a calf of gold. This they worshipped as their god and deliverer from Egypt. For their idol worship, God decided to destroy them. Moses, seeing with his own eyes their wanton idolatry, realized that death awaited them. He interceded for them. He loved the people and did not want them to die, but he was also concerned about God’s honor. He feared that if God failed to bring them into Canaan, the Promised Land, as He had promised, the heathen might gain the impression that He was unable to do so. Moses wanted no blotch on the name and reputation of God. So he told God that he would rather have his own name blotted out from His book than to see God’s people perish in the wilderness. As Moses thus stepped into the breach, God relented and decided to forgive His people and let them live (see Ex. 32; Ps. 106:23) source This isn't biblical. It's not in *my* Bible. Quote Pam Meddle Not In the Affairs of Dragons; for You Are Crunchy and Taste Good with Ketchup. If we all sang the same note in the choir, there'd never be any harmony. Funny, isn't it, how we accept Grace for ourselves and demand justice for others?
pnattmbtc Posted December 24, 2009 Posted December 24, 2009 Its funny how some accuse but provide no quotes or proof. Indeed. Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
Moderators John317 Posted December 24, 2009 Moderators Posted December 24, 2009 Originally Posted By: John317 With moderator's hat: It would depend on several factors, such as what point x is. For instance, does the poster show strong evidence from the Bible or Ellen White's writings that this is the case? Does the statement occur in a post that is more of a personal attack (i.e., confrontational) than a reasoned discussion of the issues? This would not be acceptable-- "If you disagree with my view of meat-eating [or the Trinity, etc.], then you are a worshipper of Satan." pretty much if you agree that is an act of worshipping satan then it is permissible and if it is declared against something you believe then it is not permissible? that looks like what you are saying. No, that's not what I'm saying. Simply because someone might be convinced something is wrong is no justification for telling members they are worshipping Satan. Those kinds of statements always need to be supported by clear Bible and/or SOP evidence. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Woody Posted December 24, 2009 Posted December 24, 2009 Quote: that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. AMEN Although since there have been thousands of years since this was written ... I have to think that I might be in the running for the 'chief of sinners'. Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology.
teresaq Posted December 24, 2009 Posted December 24, 2009 Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda) pretty much if you agree that is an act of worshipping satan then it is permissible and if it is declared against something you believe then it is not permissible? that looks like what you are saying. No, that's not what I'm saying. Simply because someone might be convinced something is wrong is no justification for telling members they are worshipping Satan. Those kinds of statements always need to be supported by clear Bible and/or SOP evidence. and that is always believed by the poster regardless of position, ?que no? Quote facebook. /teresa.quintero.790
Moderators John317 Posted December 24, 2009 Moderators Posted December 24, 2009 Originally Posted By: John317 It would be best to copy it to your computer because I don't want to start adding my comments and suggestions to the posts of the rules. The rules as they are already posted were all voted on and passed overwhelmingly by the moderators and administrators. Are you saying that this particular interpretation or wording has not been approved yet? I'm explaining for members with questions about how I moderate. It goes without saying that my comments and suggestions here haven't been put to a vote by the moderators and administrators, nor do they need to be. The comments were made up this point in order to help anyone who has questions about the principles used in moderation of the theology threads, etc. With moderator hat on: If you have any further questions or comments on this subject, please send them to me by PM. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
pnattmbtc Posted December 24, 2009 Posted December 24, 2009 Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda) pretty much if you agree that is an act of worshipping satan then it is permissible and if it is declared against something you believe then it is not permissible? that looks like what you are saying. No, that's not what I'm saying. Simply because someone might be convinced something is wrong is no justification for telling members they are worshipping Satan. Those kinds of statements always need to be supported by clear Bible and/or SOP evidence. If by the Trinity you mean that there are three members of the godhead, including the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, there's certainly ample Biblical evidence for that. There's also ample evidence that Christ took our sinful nature. So if someone said they didn't believe the Christ is divine, or that the Holy Spirit is a separate self-existing individual, or that Christ took our sinful nature, are you saying the rules of the forum would permit saying such a one is "worshiping Satan"? What would be the problem with simply saying no, it's not permissible to tell others they are worshiping Satan? That seems like an easier rule to enforce (and it's hard to see the down-side to it). Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.