"In Christ" what does that mean?

[pnattmbtc]

Note, you (John317) posted your request for PM as I was posting mine, or else I would have sent you a PM. You can delete my post if you wish, no problem, but I think you've raised an issue which is confusing many, which would be good to clarify publicly. (I know you've tried to do so, but I think many are finding the explanation unclear, which I was hoping my post would help you clarify).

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

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).

[pnattmbtc]

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'.

To clarify, I don't believe Paul's comment had anything to do with his present condition viz a viz sinning as of the time he wrote this. I think he profoundly felt that he personally was responsible for Christ's death, and appreciated that Christ had died for *him*. This would be similar to interpreting John 3:16 as "For God so loved me, that He gave His only Son" etc.

At any rate, when one sees the matchless charms of Christ, this vision drives away the desire to boast of oneself.

[Woody]

Note, you (John317) posted your request for PM as I was posting mine, or else I would have sent you a PM. You can delete my post if you wish, no problem, but I think you've raised an issue which is confusing many, which would be good to clarify publicly. (I know you've tried to do so, but I think many are minding the explanation unclear, which I was hoping my post would help you clarify).

I agree with you. At one point I thought I understood the ground rules. Now ... I am totally confused. I wouldn't even know what to ask or where to begin now.

[pnattmbtc]

Concerning the EGW comments you posted above; I have read them as well, but do not come to the same conclusions as you do. I find the articles and read the whole thing and get complete context so I can truly understand what's being said. That's the only way I know to get what she meant. It appears as though you don't do this and as a result you are misunderstanding what she is saying. I am not accusing you of being a liar or malicious, but I am saying that it looks like you are well read and have good intellect but are not grasping the whole picture.

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

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.

Very well put Steve.

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Quote:

I'm going to quote at length from FW 21, which is a section I suggested a couple of times would be good to consider:

Quote:

By rebellion and apostasy man forfeited the favor of God; not his rights, for he could have no value except as it was invested in God's dear Son. This point must be understood. He forfeited those privileges which God in His mercy presented him as a free gift, a treasure in trust to be used to advance His cause and His glory, to benefit the beings He had made. The moment the workmanship of God refused obedience to the laws of God's kingdom, that moment he became disloyal to the government of God and he made himself entirely unworthy of all the blessings wherewith God had favored him.

This was the position of the human race after man divorced himself from God by transgression. Then he was no longer entitled to a breath of air, a ray of sunshine, or a particle of food. And the reason why man was not annihilated was because God so loved him that He made the gift of His dear Son that He should suffer the penalty of his transgression. Christ proposed to become man's surety and substitute, that man, through matchless grace, should have another trial--a second probation--having the experience of Adam and Eve as a warning not to transgress God's law as they did. And inasmuch as man enjoys the blessings of God in the gift of the sunshine and the gift of food, there must be on the part of man a bowing before God in thankful acknowledgment that all things come of God. Whatever is rendered back to Him is only His own who has given it.

Man broke God's law, and through the Redeemer new and fresh promises were made on a different basis. All blessings must come through a Mediator. Now every member of the human family is given wholly into the hands of Christ, and whatever we possess--whether it is the gift of money, of houses, of lands, of reasoning powers, of physical strength, of intellectual talents--in this present life, and the blessings of the future life, are placed in our possession as God's treasures to be faithfully expended for the benefit of man. Every gift is stamped with the cross and bears the image and superscription of Jesus Christ. All things come of God. From the smallest benefits up to the largest blessing, all flow through the one Channel--a superhuman mediation sprinkled with the blood that is of value beyond estimate because it was the life of God in His Son. (FW 21)

Now this is so clear, I don't see how it could be misunderstood. I'll requote the last sentence, because this says it all:

Quote:

From the smallest benefits up to the largest blessing, all flow through the one Channel--a superhuman mediation sprinkled with the blood that is of value beyond estimate because it was the life of God in His Son.

Quote:

Those EGW statements you quoted from memory do not say what you are proposing they say.

Please be specific. What specifically did I say that the quotes are not saying?

Quote:

Also I have posted one of JS's quotes side by side with EGW's. you may have missed it. It was dealing with the topic this thread is about.

There is a corporate aspect to some of the things she wrote, but none of them apply to forgiveness and salvation. Read carefully and honestly the following statement which is the complete page of the article you quoted from....

After reading that, I can't see how anyone can say that "in Christ" the world is redeemed, as in saved, as in forgiveness and salvation for all.

I didn't say this, right? I said the following:

1.Scripture says that Christ is the "Savior of the world."

2.Scripture says that Christ is "the Savior of all men, especially those who believe."

3.The SOP says that Christ "saved the world."

I don't see that I said anything either inaccurate or incorrect. If you think otherwise, please quote me. Please don't do what you've been doing in this post, which is to loosely paraphrase things which apparently you thought I said, but quote me word for word, and comment on that. If I've said something either inaccurate or incorrect, I welcome the opportunity to correct myself, but I can only do so if you address something I've actually said.

Quote:

It's very easy to understand and if not, pray. We all have been saved in this sense; we have a probationary time to choose or reject Christ. Choose and receive salvation or reject and continue on in Adam and die eternally.

If I could make a suggestion; try looking up those other quotes you posted from memory and read the entire article. See what the context is and what is being said. It's good for the soul!

I think the FW 21 quote that I cited above is exceedingly clear. Also, John wrote me a post, which I responded to, and you could see if you agree with that.

I'm sorry I didn't respond to your post as a whole, but it didn't seem practical in this case to do so, because of your specific comments regarding my personally proposing something different than what Ellen White said. I'll try in the future to abide by your request to address your post as a whole, providing that seems practical.

I'll underscore again the point that if you find fault with something I'm proposing that I believe it's imperative to quote what I've actually said, and be precise about what it is you are finding fault with. I do not claim to be able to present ideas faultlessly, and appreciate the opportunity to improve my clarity. Or it could be I simply said something which was wrong; I would also appreciate the opportunity to fix that as well. But I can only do so if the alleged wrong is clearly specified.

Hi Pnattmbtc,

why didn't you reply to my posting of EGW's article? The one you quoted from memory. I just did what you are asking me to do in this post.

Here's what I said in my last post concerning you:

Quote:

Hi pnattmbtc.

Concerning the EGW comments you posted above; I have read them as well, but do not come to the same conclusions as you do. I find the articles and read the whole thing and get complete context so I can truly understand what's being said. That's the only way I know to get what she meant. It appears as though you don't do this and as a result you are misunderstanding what she is saying. I am not accusing you of being a liar or malicious, but I am saying that it looks like you are well read and have good intellect but are not grasping the whole picture.

Those EGW statements you quoted from memory do not say what you are proposing they say. Also I have posted one of JS's quotes side by side with EGW's. you may have missed it. It was dealing with the topic this thread is about.

There is a corporate aspect to some of the things she wrote, but none of them apply to forgiveness and salvation. Read carefully and honestly the following statement which is the complete page of the article you quoted from.

Here's what you said

Quote:

Please don't do what you've been doing in this post, which is to loosely paraphrase things which apparently you thought I said, but quote me word for word, and comment on that.

Then I made a comment and gave a suggestion. Please point out where I have done what you said I did. Maybe you are confusing my post with someone else's.

You posted FW 21, and I have read it and like what is being said. It's not saying anything about the world being forgiven or receiving salvation. So why did you even post it?

Quote:

Please be specific. What specifically did I say that the quotes are not saying?

That's why I posted the article concerning the sentence you posted that said, "Adam's Disgraceful Fall Redeemed By Christ" To show you that this post is not saying that In Christ the world is redeemed, as in forgiven, as in saved etc...

You are saying the same thing that JS is saying and that's why you posted "from Memory" a few sentences from EGW. I was responding to that by saying she does not mean this.

I have made several clear points and comparisons and you have not addressed them in a way that is helpful to this discussion. I have my thoughts of what is going on here and I'll keep them to myself. However, I am not continuing this discussion. You have your right to believe what you wish.

I will continue posting on the subject I have started and stay focused.

IN Christ and His service

[Robert]

[ Those kinds of statements always need to be supported by clear Bible and/or SOP evidence.

So it's up to the moderator's interpretation....No thanks!

Rob

[Robert]

2 Cor 5:14 For the love [agape] of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; 15 and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again. 16 Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh (i.e., we see them as they are "in Christ"). Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh [He took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature], yet now we know Him thus no longer (Christ was raised with a glorified life free from indwelling sin). 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. [in Christ we are sitting in heavenly places] 18 Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world [the human race] to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God [accept this truth]. 21 For He [God] made Him [Jesus] who knew no sin to be sin, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: John317

[ Those kinds of statements always need to be supported by clear Bible and/or SOP evidence.

So it's up to the moderator's interpretation....No thanks!

Rob

Well ... praise God it has to be "clear". I feel SO much safer with that terminology. :)

[Steve Billiter]

Originally Posted By: 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.

Very well put Steve.

Thanks Norman. The 1888 MSC, and Jack Sequeria are part of the new theology that has so much to do with gross liberalism in the church today. Desmond Ford was also a serious and significant part as well. Jack Sequeria and Ford are actually very similar, they both teach that the atonement was finished at the cross. Ford still uses the same lame arguments he used at Glacier View to begin his assault on the investigative judgment.

When the SDA distinctive truth concerning the sanctuary is attacked, the rest of present truth will also fall like dominoes to the ones in error, perdition is the final result.

Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord (Acts 3:19)

As in the final atonement the sins of the truly penitent are to be blotted from the records of heaven, no more to be remembered or come into mind, so in the type they were borne away into the wilderness, forever separated from the congregation (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 358).

[Twilight]

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.

I rather suspect you are being baited here Steve.

Do not rise to it. :-)

God bless,

Mark

[oldsailor29]

"In Christ" means followers of Jesus. All those who are inerrant will certainly agree.

[Robert]

"In Christ" means followers of Jesus. All those who are inerrant will certainly agree.

Nope....it has to do with what Christ did in our fallen humanity...he saved the human race, but not all humans will accept this....Hence they will reject life....

[Steve Billiter]

Mark thats true I think. I kind of set myself up for that one. We can avoid serious error but we must remember we are on that progressive journey to learn truth. I think one can only be error free with a humble submission to God as a student. Pride must go, all of it.

We must have a holy awe and reverence for Gods Word and handle it as such.A rejection of Ellen White will leave those with theological nightmares thinking a Bible only theology is all they need. By rejecting the Lord's prophet, they presume to tell God to take a hike, we don't need your prophet. Unfortunately, that is a fatal error.

It is Satan's plan to weaken the faith of God's people in the Testimonies. Next follows skepticism in regard to the vital points of our faith, the pillars of our position, then doubt as to the Holy Scriptures, and then the downward march to perdition. When the Testimonies, which were once believed, are doubted and given up, Satan knows the deceived ones will not stop at this; and he redoubles his efforts till he launches them into open rebellion, which becomes incurable and ends in destruction. {4T 211.1}

Believe it or not, some quote EGW prolifically out of context thus making the SOP of none effect.

The Conflict of the Ages Readathon starts Jan. 1, on Facebook. We start with PP and read one chapter a day for 10 months and all 5 books are read, and one can log in to the site and blog. It is led by Sandra Entermann, the Australian SDA recording artist. http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=185208356614&ref=share

http://midnightcrymedia.com/

(Powerful ministry relating prophecy to current events)

www.sharpeningthesword.net.

(New link to put EGW modules in E-sword)

______

[Robert]

A rejection of Ellen White will leave those with theological nightmares thinking a Bible only theology is all they need.

Oh boy...more nonsense....

Dude, EGW is not the measuring stick or ultimate source of truth. Again, EGW only had a "glimmer" of the light that was yet to come....

The question has been asked me, "Do you think that the Lord has any more light for us as a people?" I answer that He has light that is new to us, and yet it is precious old light that is to shine forth from the Word of truth [the Bible]. We [here EGW includes herself and the church of her day] have only the glimmerings of the rays of the light that is yet to come to us [future tense]. [1SM 401]

[Steve Billiter]

Originally Posted By: oldsailor29

"In Christ" means followers of Jesus. All those who are inerrant will certainly agree.

Nope....it has to do with what Christ did in our fallen humanity...he saved the human race, but not all humans will accept this....Hence they will reject life....

It has to do with putting on Christ.Please Read John 15.

Wieland and Short (my comments underlined)

In the 1940s, two young Adventist missionaries, Robert J. Weiland and Donald K. Short, began analyzing the original statements of Ellen White relative to the 1888 episode. Realizing that she was in agreement with Daniells' and Bunch's earlier positions, Weiland and Short publicly challenged the recent viewpoints that Christian and Spalding were promoting throughout the denomination [46]. Not only did Weiland and Short come to the unalterable conclusion that the nineteenth-century church committed a grave error at Minneapolis, they also went on to say that the denomination must publicly repent for rejecting the 1888 message of Waggoner and Jones.

Publically repent? Says who?

In order to make their position clear, they wrote a 204-page manuscript entitled, 1888 Re-Examined. Like Daniells' earlier 1927 book, their work also consisted of a collection of statements from Ellen White's writings relative to the history of the 1888 conflict. Armed with Danniel's primary source material, Weiland and Short boldly proclaimed that the twentieth-century church was grossly missing the point about Minneapolis.

When one reads 1888 Re-Examined, it becomes obvious that Wieland misses the point by a mile.

Hoping that the Denomination would re-evaluate the history of 1888, Weiland and Short naively submitted their manuscript to the General Conference in 1950 for an official analysis and evaluation [47]. Good intentions notwithstanding, their thesis was not well received by the General Conference leadership. Instead, the church hierarchy ordered these denominational employees to cease and desist from circulating their unauthorized views. In spite of the official prohibition, however, their 1888 manuscript circulated within the Adventist community and, once again, many members began questioning the 1888 conflict and the church's official position on the matter [48].

Who was that who said Wieland and Short were "invited" to share their views with the conference?

Thanks, no doubt, to Weiland and Short's activities, the Minneapolis history was on the minds of many in the early 1950s. In 1952, this topic was publicly featured at a Bible Conference held in the Sligo Seventh-day Adventist Church, in Takoma Park, Maryland. In fact, "Practically every speaker from the first day onward" laid "great stress" upon righteousness by faith [49]. It was even reported that this emphasis on 1888 was "spontaneous" and unplanned, "impelled by the spirit of God." Undoubtedly, this turn of events must have come as a pleasant surprise to Weiland and Short, especially since the conference speakers publicly admitted that the church had "failed to build on the foundation laid at the 1888 General Conference." The church leaders went on to say, "We are years behind where we should have been in spiritual growth. Long ere this we should have been in the promised land [50]." Not only did the conference apparently support the viewpoints of both Daniells' and Bunch, it also publicly tied the success of the twentieth century church with the 1888 doctrine and the loud cry of the fourth angel. The leaders now claimed that, "The holy spirit will come in the fullness of power when the church of God lays hold by faith of the righteousness of Christ as a personal living experience [51]. "

How sad that folks got caught up in this false movement.

Surprisingly, Weiland and Short, were not impressed with the conference because the leaders refused to allow the specific theology of Jones and Waggoner to be studied or discussed [52]. To make matters even more confusing, the leadership thought that they had faithfully presented the Minneapolis message even more accurately than the original 1888 version. "No longer will the question be," they stated, "'what was the attitude of our workers and people toward the message of righteousness by faith that was given in 1888? What did they do about it?' From now on the great question must be, 'What did we do with the light on righteousness by faith as proclaimed in the 1952 Bible Conference [53]?'"

Sadly by this time, Wieland was inserting his incorrect theology concerning universal justification helping to lay the groundwork for the New Theology as gross liberalism and cheap grace rips the church apart. Reading Jones' false ideas as well as Wagoners pantheism no doubt contributed to this.

As the decade of the 1950s rolled on, the agitation over 1888 increased. Consequently, in 1958, the General Conference publicly responded a second time to the original thesis of Weiland and Short with a negative reply, entitled, "A Further Appraisal of the Manuscript '1888 Re-Examined.'" In this document, the denomination's leaders strongly condemned the authors' positions and accused them of "considerable amateurishness in both research and use of facts" and charged them with working against the best interests of the church [54]. Clearly, Weiland and Short's crusade was becoming annoying and the Takoma Park hierarchy was in no mood to admit any wrongdoing in the 1888 matter, much less discuss a public apology.

http://www.adventistreform.com/The1888Debate.html#WandS

This says it all. Its worse than annoying. Wieland and Short succeeded in getting the church sidetracked on issues that should have been left alone. It is always men with their own wrong views that do the enemy's work in de-railing the mission of the church, which is spreading the gospel, the 3 angels messages.

Ellen White was already teaching the correct message of righteousness by faith for 40 years in advance of 1888. If Wieland and Short had been committed to the real message of righteousness by faith, and the churches mission, they could have done a wonderful work for God instead of what they really did.

We can take heart in this as we know the Lord comes soon!

Rev 22:20 He who testifies these things says, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

The Conflict of the Ages Readathon starts Jan. 1, on Facebook. We start with PP and read one chapter a day for 10 months and all 5 books are read, and one can log in to the site and blog. It is led by Sandra Entermann, the Australian SDA recording artist. http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=185208356614&ref=share

http://midnightcrymedia.com/

(Powerful ministry relating prophecy to current events)

www.sharpeningthesword.net.

(New link to put EGW modules in E-sword)

[pnattmbtc]

Very well put Steve.

No, what Steve wrote was very poorly put. I'm not saying this because Steve is voicing an opinion contrary to mine, but because he did so simply by innuendo, hearsay, and false or inaccurate statements.

An example of things well put would be John317's writings. He says things I disagree with, but he does so without making personal attacks, or references to himself (e.g. that he's truly converted, or a Bible student, or cannot possibly be in error) and presents well thought out arguments with quotes as evidence for the points he wishes to make.

[Steve Billiter]

My name is not "dude"

There will be a hatred kindled against the testimonies which is satanic. The workings of Satan will be to unsettle the faith of the churches in them, for this reason: Satan cannot have so clear a track to bring in his deceptions and bind up souls in his delusions if the warnings and reproofs and counsels of the Spirit of God are heeded.-- Letter 40, 1890. {1SM 48.4}

"It is Satan's plan to weaken the faith of God's people in the Testimonies." "Satan knows how to make his attacks. He works upon minds to excite jealousy and dissatisfaction toward those at the head of the work. The gifts are next questioned; then, of course, they have but little weight, and instruction given through vision is disregarded."

"Next follows skepticism in regard to the vital points of our faith, the pillars of our position, then doubt as to the Holy Scriptures, and then the downward march to perdition. When the Testimonies, which were once believed, are doubted and given up, Satan knows the deceived ones will not stop at this; and he redoubles his efforts till he launches them into open rebellion, which becomes incurable and ends in destruction." [VOL. 4, P. 211; VOL. 1, P. 236] "By giving place to doubts and unbelief in regard to the work of God, and by cherishing feelings of distrust and cruel jealousies, they are preparing themselves for complete deception. They rise up with bitter feelings against the ones who dare to speak of their errors and reprove their sins." [VOL. 3, P. 328.] {5T 672.1}

The Conflict of the Ages Readathon starts Jan. 1, on Facebook. We start with PP and read one chapter a day for 10 months and all 5 books are read, and one can log in to the site and blog. It is led by Sandra Entermann, the Australian SDA recording artist. http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=185208356614&ref=share

http://midnightcrymedia.com/

(Powerful ministry relating prophecy to current events)

www.sharpeningthesword.net.

(New link to put EGW modules in E-sword)

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

I'm going to quote at length from FW 21, which is a section I suggested a couple of times would be good to consider:

Quote:

By rebellion and apostasy man forfeited the favor of God; not his rights, for he could have no value except as it was invested in God's dear Son. This point must be understood. He forfeited those privileges which God in His mercy presented him as a free gift, a treasure in trust to be used to advance His cause and His glory, to benefit the beings He had made. The moment the workmanship of God refused obedience to the laws of God's kingdom, that moment he became disloyal to the government of God and he made himself entirely unworthy of all the blessings wherewith God had favored him.

This was the position of the human race after man divorced himself from God by transgression. Then he was no longer entitled to a breath of air, a ray of sunshine, or a particle of food. And the reason why man was not annihilated was because God so loved him that He made the gift of His dear Son that He should suffer the penalty of his transgression. Christ proposed to become man's surety and substitute, that man, through matchless grace, should have another trial--a second probation--having the experience of Adam and Eve as a warning not to transgress God's law as they did. And inasmuch as man enjoys the blessings of God in the gift of the sunshine and the gift of food, there must be on the part of man a bowing before God in thankful acknowledgment that all things come of God. Whatever is rendered back to Him is only His own who has given it.

Man broke God's law, and through the Redeemer new and fresh promises were made on a different basis. All blessings must come through a Mediator. Now every member of the human family is given wholly into the hands of Christ, and whatever we possess--whether it is the gift of money, of houses, of lands, of reasoning powers, of physical strength, of intellectual talents--in this present life, and the blessings of the future life, are placed in our possession as God's treasures to be faithfully expended for the benefit of man. Every gift is stamped with the cross and bears the image and superscription of Jesus Christ. All things come of God. From the smallest benefits up to the largest blessing, all flow through the one Channel--a superhuman mediation sprinkled with the blood that is of value beyond estimate because it was the life of God in His Son. (FW 21)

Now this is so clear, I don't see how it could be misunderstood. I'll requote the last sentence, because this says it all:

Quote:

Those EGW statements you quoted from memory do not say what you are proposing they say.

Please be specific. What specifically did I say that the quotes are not saying?

Quote:

Also I have posted one of JS's quotes side by side with EGW's. you may have missed it. It was dealing with the topic this thread is about.

There is a corporate aspect to some of the things she wrote, but none of them apply to forgiveness and salvation. Read carefully and honestly the following statement which is the complete page of the article you quoted from....

After reading that, I can't see how anyone can say that "in Christ" the world is redeemed, as in saved, as in forgiveness and salvation for all.

I didn't say this, right? I said the following:

1.Scripture says that Christ is the "Savior of the world."

2.Scripture says that Christ is "the Savior of all men, especially those who believe."

3.The SOP says that Christ "saved the world."

I don't see that I said anything either inaccurate or incorrect. If you think otherwise, please quote me. Please don't do what you've been doing in this post, which is to loosely paraphrase things which apparently you thought I said, but quote me word for word, and comment on that. If I've said something either inaccurate or incorrect, I welcome the opportunity to correct myself, but I can only do so if you address something I've actually said.

Quote:

It's very easy to understand and if not, pray. We all have been saved in this sense; we have a probationary time to choose or reject Christ. Choose and receive salvation or reject and continue on in Adam and die eternally.

If I could make a suggestion; try looking up those other quotes you posted from memory and read the entire article. See what the context is and what is being said. It's good for the soul!

I think the FW 21 quote that I cited above is exceedingly clear. Also, John wrote me a post, which I responded to, and you could see if you agree with that.

I'm sorry I didn't respond to your post as a whole, but it didn't seem practical in this case to do so, because of your specific comments regarding my personally proposing something different than what Ellen White said. I'll try in the future to abide by your request to address your post as a whole, providing that seems practical.

I'll underscore again the point that if you find fault with something I'm proposing that I believe it's imperative to quote what I've actually said, and be precise about what it is you are finding fault with. I do not claim to be able to present ideas faultlessly, and appreciate the opportunity to improve my clarity. Or it could be I simply said something which was wrong; I would also appreciate the opportunity to fix that as well. But I can only do so if the alleged wrong is clearly specified.

Hi Pnattmbtc,

why didn't you reply to my posting of EGW's article? The one you quoted from memory. I just did what you are asking me to do in this post.

Here's what I said in my last post concerning you:

Quote:

Hi pnattmbtc.

Concerning the EGW comments you posted above; I have read them as well, but do not come to the same conclusions as you do. I find the articles and read the whole thing and get complete context so I can truly understand what's being said. That's the only way I know to get what she meant. It appears as though you don't do this and as a result you are misunderstanding what she is saying. I am not accusing you of being a liar or malicious, but I am saying that it looks like you are well read and have good intellect but are not grasping the whole picture.

Those EGW statements you quoted from memory do not say what you are proposing they say. Also I have posted one of JS's quotes side by side with EGW's. you may have missed it. It was dealing with the topic this thread is about.

There is a corporate aspect to some of the things she wrote, but none of them apply to forgiveness and salvation. Read carefully and honestly the following statement which is the complete page of the article you quoted from.

Here's what you said

Quote:

Please don't do what you've been doing in this post, which is to loosely paraphrase things which apparently you thought I said, but quote me word for word, and comment on that.

Then I made a comment and gave a suggestion. Please point out where I have done what you said I did. Maybe you are confusing my post with someone else's.

You posted FW 21, and I have read it and like what is being said. It's not saying anything about the world being forgiven or receiving salvation. So why did you even post it?

Quote:

Please be specific. What specifically did I say that the quotes are not saying?

That's why I posted the article concerning the sentence you posted that said, "Adam's Disgraceful Fall Redeemed By Christ" To show you that this post is not saying that In Christ the world is redeemed, as in forgiven, as in saved etc...

You are saying the same thing that JS is saying and that's why you posted "from Memory" a few sentences from EGW. I was responding to that by saying she does not mean this.

I have made several clear points and comparisons and you have not addressed them in a way that is helpful to this discussion. I have my thoughts of what is going on here and I'll keep them to myself. However, I am not continuing this discussion. You have your right to believe what you wish.

I will continue posting on the subject I have started and stay focused.

IN Christ and His service

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: Steve Billiter

I rather suspect you are being baited here Steve.

Do not rise to it. :-)

God bless,

Mark

?

This made no sense to me. What were you thinking, Mark, if you don't mind my asking.

[oldsailor29]

Proper interpretation of Ellen White's writings does not mean hatred toward them. I think we need to understand her counsels to the people of her day before we can apply her writings to ourselves.

[Steve Billiter]

Originally Posted By: Steve Billiter

A rejection of Ellen White will leave those with theological nightmares thinking a Bible only theology is all they need.

Oh boy...more nonsense....

Dude, EGW is not the measuring stick or ultimate source of truth. Again, EGW only had a "glimmer" of the light that was yet to come....

The question has been asked me, "Do you think that the Lord has any more light for us as a people?" I answer that He has light that is new to us, and yet it is precious old light that is to shine forth from the Word of truth [the Bible]. We [here EGW includes herself and the church of her day] have only the glimmerings of the rays of the light that is yet to come to us [future tense]. [1SM 401]

Should all Adventists believe in the Spirit of Prophecy?

Yes, indeed! The Bible says we should accept the Spirit of Prophecy. In 1 Thessalonians 5:20, 21 we are told, "Despise not prophesyings. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." First Corinthians 12 also says there are many gifts in the church, including the gift of prophecy. All these gifts will be present in the church until Jesus comes (Eph 4:7-13). If we accept the other gifts of the Spirit, we must accept the gift of prophecy as well. In fact, as we have noted, the Bible singles out this gift as one identifying characteristic of the end-time church (Rev 12:17; 19:10). Whenever God gives a gift to His people, they must respectfully accept it.

Moreover, belief in the Spirit of Prophecy is one of the Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists, the body of doctrines identifying us as a church. Therefore, before one is baptized, it is important to be carefully instructed to subscribe to all 27 of the Fundamental Beliefs, including the teaching on the Spirit of Prophecy. If after baptism a member cannot conscientiously adhere to this or any other doctrine, the church should respect the right of that person to withdraw from membership.

At times, when members or church employees blatantly oppose our understanding of this biblical doctrine, the church may have to encourage them to honorably withdraw from its fellowship, or even insist that they do so. To be a Seventh-day Adventist and to remain one requires a belief in this biblical teaching and, at minimum, a respect for the church's conviction that the genuine gift of prophecy was manifested in the life and work of Ellen G. White. When one of its members begins to undermine its teachings, the church should diligently try to win that member back to full agreement with the body of believers or, if this is not possible, take steps to help the person find another denomination whose beliefs are more like his own.

Seventh-day Adventists believe that the writings of Mrs. White, as a genuine manifestation of the Spirit of prophecy, are a precious gift from God, to be cherished and appreciated. These writings, like the Bible, are to help prepare us for heaven. Even now, as they lift our gaze toward things eternal, they give us a foretaste of what God has prepared for those who love Him. (by Samuel Koranteng-Pipim, PhD, http://www.drpipim.org/spirit-of-prophec...f-prophecy.html)

AMEN, I couldn't agree more.

[oldsailor29]

And yet Ellen White is misinterpreted many times because the nature of inspiration is misunderstood. In fact, if anyone thinks of inspiration as inerrant, then they will misunderstand all of it, Bible and Ellen White included.

[Steve Billiter]

And yet Ellen White is misinterpreted many times because the nature of inspiration is misunderstood. In fact, if anyone thinks of inspiration as inerrant, then they will misunderstand all of it, Bible and Ellen White included.

God is not errant, man is.God as He Inspires the prophets is perfect.

Chapter 13 —The Bible

In the Scriptures thousands of gems of truth lie hidden from the surface seeker. The mine of truth is never exhausted. The more you search the Scriptures with humble hearts, the greater will be your interest, and the more you will feel like exclaiming with Paul: "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!" Romans 11:33 101 {CCh 86.1}

Christ and His word are in perfect harmony. Received and obeyed, they open a sure path for the feet of all who are willing to walk in the light as Christ is in the light. If the people of God would appreciate His word, we should have a heaven in the church here below. Christians would be eager, hungry, to search the word. They would be anxious for time to compare scripture with scripture and to meditate upon the word. They would be more eager for the light of the word than for the morning paper, magazines, or novels.

Their greatest desire would be to eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of God. And as a result their lives would be conformed to the principles and promises of the word. Its instruction would be to them as the leaves of the tree of life. It would be in them a well of water, springing up into everlasting life. Refreshing showers of grace would refresh and revive the soul, causing them to forget all toil and weariness. They would be strengthened and encouraged by the words of inspiration. 102 {CCh 86.2}

In its wide range of style and subjects the Bible has something to interest every mind and appeal to every heart. In its pages are found history the most ancient; biography the truest to life; principles of government for the control of the state, for the regulation of the household—principles that human wisdom has never equaled. It contains philosophy the most profound, poetry the sweetest and the most sublime, the most impassioned and the most pathetic.

Immeasurably superior in value to the productions of any human author are the Bible writings, even when thus considered; but of infinitely wider scope, of infinitely greater value, are they when viewed in their relation to the grand central thought. Viewed in the light of this thought, every topic has a new significance. In the most simply stated truths are involved principles that are as high as heaven and that compass eternity. 103 {CCh 86.3}

Every day you should learn something new from the Scriptures. Search them as for hid treasures, for they contain the words of eternal life. Pray for wisdom and understanding to comprehend these holy writings. {CCh 86.4}

If you would do this you would find new glories in the word of God; you would feel that you had received new and precious light on subjects connected with the truth, and the Scriptures would be constantly receiving a new value in your estimation. 104 {CCh 87.1}

The truths of the Bible, received, will uplift the mind from its earthliness and debasement. If the word of God were appreciated as it should be, both young and old would possess an inward rectitude, a strength of principle, that would enable them to resist temptation. 105 {CCh 87.2}