"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[Archie777]

Originally Posted By: Archie

Three times the Jews confirmed the old covenant with Jesus. And yet I hear you saying they responded in unbelief. Do you think "All that the Lord hath spoken we will do", indicates unbelief?

In the quote above (PK 293) Ellen makes it clear the Jews agreed three times to the terms and conditions of the old covenant. Or, do you think the first time mentioned above is referring to the new covenant and the next two times are referring to the old covenant?

Let's start from the beginning. I explained the difference between the Old Covenant (upper case) and New Covenant. The Old Covenant is not a matter of time, but of condition. It was the response of unbelief by the people to the promises God made to them, as He made to Abraham.

Quote:

"Then did not God Himself lead them into bondage?"--Not by any means; since He did not induce them to make that covenant at Sinai. Four hundred and thirty years before that time He had made a covenant with Abraham, which was sufficient for all purposes. That covenant was confirmed in Christ, and, therefore, was a covenant from above. See John 8:23. It promised righteousness as a free gift of God through faith, and it included all nations. All the miracles that God had wrought in delivering the children of Israel from Egyptian bondage were but demonstrations of His power to deliver them and us from the bondage of sin. Yes, the deliverance from Egypt was itself a demonstration not only of God's power, but also of His desire to lead them from the bondage of sin, that bondage in which the covenant from Sinai holds men, because Hagar, who is the covenant from Sinai, was an Egyptian. So when the people came to Sinai, God simply referred them to what He had already done, and then said, "Now therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine." Ex.19:5. To what covenant did He refer?--Evidently to the one already in existence, His covenant with Abraham. If they would simply keep God's covenant, that is, God's promise,--keep the faith,--they would be a peculiar treasure unto God, for God, as the possessor of all the earth, was able to do with them all that He had promised. The fact that they in their self-sufficiency rashly took the whole responsibility upon themselves, does not prove that God led them into making that covenant, but the contrary. He was leading them out of bondage, not into it, and the apostle plainly tells us that covenant from Sinai was nothing but bondage.

From this we see:

1.He did not induce them to make that covenant at Sinai.

2.Four hundred and thirty years before that time He had made a covenant with Abraham, which was sufficient for all purposes.

3.When the people came to Sinai, God simply referred them to what He had already done.

4.God, as the possessor of all the earth, was able to do with them all that He had promised.

5.The fact that they in their self-sufficiency rashly took the whole responsibility upon themselves, does not prove that God led them into making that covenant, but the contrary.

Do we agree on these points? Let's get these settled first, and go on from there.

If the Old Covenant (upper case) is a condition of unbelief, is the New Covenant (upper case) a condition of belief? If so, where in the Bible or the SOP is it taught? Or, is it something EJW taught?

Why do you keep referring to "time" as it relates to the OC?

Also, do you think the OC has anything at all to do with "terms and conditions"? Did it have anything to do with Jesus requiring the Jews to obey and observe "additional precepts" and "judgments"?

And, no, I don't agree Jesus offered the Jews the NC at Sinai. I believe they were already under it. Instead, I believe Jesus initiated the OC to help them remember how to obey and observe the terms and conditions required under the NC.

The difference between the NC and the OC has to do with promises.

[Archie777]

Originally Posted By: Archie777

Are you suggesting Jesus saves us with our sins?

Are you still bent to self? Jesus "thought not, planned not, lived not, for himself" to the point of homelessness. There was never any self-seeking in His life. Can you say the same? If not then yes He saves you in your sins even though you grow.

Doesn't the Bible teach that so long as born-again believers are abiding in Jesus, partaking of the divine nature, that they "do not sin" and "cannot sin"? And, isn't it true people are tempted from within and from without, and that it's not a sin to be tempted?

I, for one, believe the Bible clearly teaches born-again believers do not sin while they are abiding in Jesus and partaking of the divine nature. Nor do I believe it is a sin to be tempted from within to be unlike Jesus. I can testify to the truthfulness of what I believe. And, so can my lovely wife and children, that is, they very much appreciate it when I am abiding in Jesus and partaking of the divine nature.

However, please do not jump to conclusions or assume the worst about me. I am not saying I am incapable of sinning. Rebirth, abiding in Jesus, and partaking of the divine nature does not rob me of the ability or freedom to sin. I sin the instant I neglect to abide in Jesus and partake of the divine nature. I can, unfortunately, testify to the truthfulness of it. So can my poor wife and children.

[Archie777]

Originally Posted By: Archie

You see this as Jesus saying, "Live in harmony with My will or you'll cause Me to let evil men or evil angels kill you."?

Yes. Do you? If not, why not?

PS - Please imagine Jesus saying it with the correct intonation and with tears in His voice.

You said also:

Quote:

I see it as an ultimatum:

Here's "ultimatum" defined:

Quote:

: a final proposition, condition, or demand; especially : one whose rejection will end negotiations and cause a resort to force or other direct action

This is exactly what I disagree with. Force is not a principle of God's government. God was not taking direct action against Jerusalem. Jesus Christ was not offering them an ultimatum, but was offering to save them.

Quote:

Pnatt, do you remember how discussing the old covenant relates to war in heaven?

No.

The blessings (15 verses) and the cursings (53 verses) enumerated in Deuteronomy 28 is an ultimatum. Obey and live; disobey and die. Not force, not threats; pure and simple promises.

28:1 And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe [and] to do all his commandments which I command thee this day, that the LORD thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth:

28:2 And all these blessings shall come on thee, and overtake thee, if thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God.

28:15 But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:

28:20 The LORD shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke, in all that thou settest thine hand unto for to do, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly; because of the wickedness of thy doings, whereby thou hast forsaken me.

28:45 Moreover all these curses shall come upon thee, and shall pursue thee, and overtake thee, till thou be destroyed; because thou hearkenedst not unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which he commanded thee:

28:63 And it shall come to pass, [that] as the LORD rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the LORD will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it.

[pnattmbtc]

Yes! Very good!

Quote:

If so, where in the Bible or the SOP is it taught?

From the SOP, the passage has already been cited several times. From Scripture, there are many places to see this. I'll mention a few.

First of all, Genesis tells us, "Abraham believed, and it was counted to him for righteousness." This is the New Covenant. Abraham believed the promises of God.

The promise of God to Abraham was of an inheritance, even the entire earth made new (Rom. 4:13) wherein dwelleth righteousness (2 Pet. 3). In order to dwell in a righteous earth, one would need to be righteous, which was also included in the promise ("Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness."). The promise also included eternal life and the resurrection, as the promised earth was an everlasting possession, so everlasting life would be necessary to dwell in it.

EJW taught it as well.

Quote:

Why do you keep referring to "time" as it relates to the OC?

To make clear that the OC is not a matter of time but of condition.

Quote:

Also, do you think the OC has anything at all to do with "terms and conditions"?

It has to do with the condition of the heart, which is unbelief.

Quote:

Did it have anything to do with Jesus requiring the Jews to obey and observe "additional precepts" and "judgments"?

Yes. As I explained, when the Jews responded in unbelief to the promises of God, as opposed to Abraham, who responded in faith, it became necessary for God to teach the Israelites, and so came about the rites and so forth, to teach them that they did not have the righteousness which the law required, and to make clear to them the Plan of Salvation.

Quote:

And, no, I don't agree Jesus offered the Jews the NC at Sinai.

Well, He did! This is made clear by Jeremiah 11.

Quote:

2Hear ye the words of this covenant, and speak unto the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem;

3And say thou unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel; Cursed be the man that obeyeth not the words of this covenant,

4Which I commanded your fathers in the day that I brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, from the iron furnace, saying, Obey my voice, and do them, according to all which I command you: so shall ye be my people, and I will be your God:

5That I may perform the oath which I have sworn unto your fathers, to give them a land flowing with milk and honey, as it is this day. Then answered I, and said, So be it, O LORD.

Notice how Jeremiah responded? He responded as did Abraham. "So be it" is "Amen" which is "I believe," which is how Abraham responded as well. God promises, and believers respond in faith: "I believe." The promises of God don't change, but the response of the people change.

As John pointed out, the New Covenant is better than the Old because it is based on better promised, being based on the promises of God as opposed to the promises of the people.

The God made the same promises to the people as to Abraham was explained by Waggoner in the passage I quoted:

Quote:

"Then did not God Himself lead them into bondage?"--Not by any means; since He did not induce them to make that covenant at Sinai. Four hundred and thirty years before that time He had made a covenant with Abraham, which was sufficient for all purposes. That covenant was confirmed in Christ, and, therefore, was a covenant from above. See John 8:23. It promised righteousness as a free gift of God through faith, and it included all nations. All the miracles that God had wrought in delivering the children of Israel from Egyptian bondage were but demonstrations of His power to deliver them and us from the bondage of sin. Yes, the deliverance from Egypt was itself a demonstration not only of God's power, but also of His desire to lead them from the bondage of sin, that bondage in which the covenant from Sinai holds men, because Hagar, who is the covenant from Sinai, was an Egyptian. So when the people came to Sinai, God simply referred them to what He had already done, and then said, "Now therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine." Ex.19:5. To what covenant did He refer?--Evidently to the one already in existence, His covenant with Abraham. If they would simply keep God's covenant, that is, God's promise,--keep the faith,--they would be a peculiar treasure unto God, for God, as the possessor of all the earth, was able to do with them all that He had promised. The fact that they in their self-sufficiency rashly took the whole responsibility upon themselves, does not prove that God led them into making that covenant, but the contrary. He was leading them out of bondage, not into it, and the apostle plainly tells us that covenant from Sinai was nothing but bondage.

"To what covenant did God refer them to? To the one already in existence, His covenant with Abraham."

Quote:

I believe they were already under it. Instead, I believe Jesus initiated the OC to help them remember how to obey and observe the terms and conditions required under the NC.

There are a number of reasons this can't be the case. To name just one, consider the following:

Quote:

Night before last I was shown that evidences in regard to the covenants were clear and convincing. Yourself, Brother B, Brother C, and others are spending your investigative powers for naught to produce a position on the covenants to vary from the position that Brother [E. J.] Waggoner has presented.(To Uriah Smith, March 8, 1890.) {9MR 329.1})

What she wrote applies as much to you as to Uriah Smith.

Quote:

The difference between the NC and the OC has to do with promises.

Right. As John pointed out, the promises of the NC are the promises of God, as opposed to the OC promises, which were the promises of the people.

Quote:

God never expected, and does not now expect, that any person can get righteousness by the law proclaimed from Sinai; and everything connected with Sinai shows it. Yet the law is truth, and must be kept. God delivered the people from Egypt, "that they might observe His statutes, and keep His laws." Ps.105:45. We do not get life by keeping the commandments, but God gives us life in order that we may keep them.

When the people promised to obey, that promise was worthless, as the people did not have the power to obey the law of themselves. This the OC. When God made the promise, that promise, received in faith, did have the power to lead to obedience, as God is able to do that which He has promised. That's the NC.

[pnattmbtc]

The blessings (15 verses) and the cursings (53 verses) enumerated in Deuteronomy 28 is an ultimatum. Obey and live; disobey and die. Not force, not threats; pure and simple promises.

[Christopher]

Hey Christoper, thanks for sharing your thoughts. So you're in Alaska? Do you like it there? What a beautiful place!

Thanks yeah Love it here,especially with spring coming up :)

[Christopher]

Are you still bent to self? Jesus "thought not, planned not, lived not, for himself" to the point of homelessness. There was never any self-seeking in His life. Can you say the same? If not then yes He saves you in your sins even though you grow.

[Robert]

That's a different gospel than what Jesus preached. That's exactly what Satan has the babylonians preaching from their pulpits.

Many see much to admire in the life of Christ. But true love for him can never dwell in the heart of the self-righteous. Not to see our own deformity is not to see the beauty of Christ’s character. When we are fully awake to our own sinfulness, we shall appreciate Christ. The more humble are our views of ourselves, the more clearly we shall see the spotless character of Jesus. He who says, “I am holy, I am sinless,” is self-deceived. Some have said this, and some even dare to say, “I am Christ.” To entertain such a thought is blasphemy. Not to see the marked contrast between Christ and ourselves is not to know ourselves. He who does not abhor himself can not understand the meaning of redemption.

Let me help you with understanding "the marked contrast".

Christ: "Thought not, planned not, lived not, for himself"

You: "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 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."

If you can't see the marked contrast then according to EGW you are deceived by your own self-righteousness.

[Robert]

Tit 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a people for his own, zealous of good works.

That's fine, Richard...the problem is that I'm hearing all talk and no action. Jesus "thought not, planned not, lived not, for himself"....Can you say the same or are you still exhibiting that bent to self (iniquity)?

[Robert]

I, for one, believe the Bible clearly teaches born-again believers do not sin while they are abiding in Jesus and partaking of the divine nature.

I believe that believers grow, but no one is ever measuring up to the life of Christ. Hence John states if we say we have no sin (i.e., we are free from all sin) we deceive ourselves. See 1 John 1:8. And Paul states that we continually fall short of God's love seen in the life of Christ.

[pnattmbtc]

Where in Alaska are you?

[Robert]

Just out of curiosity, how are you defining "sin" in this case.

Sin Defined

The Bible uses some 12 different words to define sin; but putting these together we may categorize sin into three basic concepts. These three are all expressed in Ps. 51:2-3. They are: iniquity, sin, and transgression.

Iniquity

The root meaning of this word is “to be bent.” As used in Scripture it refers to our spiritual condition. Note the following texts:

* Psalm 51:5. David was “shapen in iniquity” from his very birth. This was his spiritual condition since physically he was handsome [1 Samuel 16:12]. The primary meaning of iniquity is not an act but a condition. As a result of the fall, man by very nature is spiritually “bent,” so that the driving force of his very nature is love of self. Paul defines it as “the law of sin and death” [Romans 7:23; 8:2]. It is this condition that is the basis of all our sinning, and which makes us slaves to sin [Romans 3:9-12; 7:14].

* Isaiah 53:6. Two things are revealed in this text. 1. Everyone of us has gone astray, since we have all turned or bent “to his own way.” 2. This own-way-ness (i.e., self-centeredness) is synonymous with iniquity, which was laid upon Christ our sin bearer; and it was this “sin in the flesh” that Christ “condemned” on the cross [Romans 8:2-3].

Iniquity, therefore, is simply seeking our own way, a condition we are born with and which (without a Saviour) makes it impossible to do genuine righteousness, since the law of God requires even our motives to be pure [Matthew 5:20-22, 27-28]. In contrast to iniquity or self-seeking is agape (divine love) which is of God and which “seeketh not her own” [1 Corinthians 13:5]. Our next study will cover this in greater detail.

* Isaiah 64:6. Because man by nature is “shapen in iniquity,” all the righteousness produced by him through his own efforts is like filthy rags before God, because it is polluted with self-love. According to Zech. 3:3, 4, “filthy garments” are equated with iniquity. In contrast to these filthy garments of ours (self-righteousness), the white raiment of Christ (His righteousness) is offered to the Laodicean church so that they may be truly clothed, and “the shame of [their] nakedness do not appear” before the judgment seat of God [Revelation 3:18; 10:3-4].

* Matthew 7:22, 23. Self-righteous acts camouflaged or disguised in the name of Christ are exposed in the judgment and clearly identified as works of iniquity (i.e., works motivated by self-love). All Christians must consider this text seriously. Do our works originate from Christ and therefore motivated by agape, or are they the “fair shew in the flesh” [Galatians 6:12]? Are our works the result of a genuine relationship with Christ (i.e, works of faith) or are we working in His name but we really don’t know Him? [see also Luke 13:25-28.]

* Philippians 3:3-9. The converted Paul recognizes the worthlessness of his self-righteousness and willingly exchanges it for the righteousness of Christ which is by faith.

Once we understand the true meaning of iniquity we will realize that nothing good dwells in us [Romans 7:18] and we will begin to “hunger and thirst” after the righteousness of Christ so freely offered to us in the gospel.

Sin

The actual meaning of this word is “missing the mark.” In Judges 20:16 the Hebrew word sin (translated in the KJV as “not miss”) is used true to its meaning. Used in a spiritual sense, sin is missing the divine mark or coming “short of the glory of God,” which is His selfless love or agape [Romans 3:23].

Since all men are born spiritually “bent” (shapen in iniquity), it is not difficult to see what Romans 3:10, 12 says: there is none righteous and no one who does good. Man’s sinful condition makes it impossible for him to do anything but sin, unless he has a Savior. That is why the gospel is man’s only hope of salvation. While man does have a free will to choose between accepting Christ’s righteousness offered in the gospel or rejecting it, he does not have a choice between doing sin or geniune righteousness. Man is born a slave to sin and no matter how hard he wills or tries, he will fall short of the divine mark [Romans 7:15-24]. For further study read the following texts: Job 15:14-16; Psalm 14:2, 3; Isaiah 1:4-6; Jeremiah 17:9; Mark 7:21-23.

Transgression

This word means a deliberate violation of the law, or willful disobedience. Transgression pre-supposes that one has the knowledge of the law. In the spiritual realm, transgression is the violation of the moral law, or ten commandments of God [see 1 John 3:4]. A knowledge of God’s law makes sin to be “transgression.” Note the following:

* Galatians 3:19. The law was given to make sin into transgression.

* James 2:9. The law convinces us we are transgressors.

* Romans 3:20. Through the law we have the knowledge of sin.

* Romans 5:20. The law did not solve the sin problem but made it “abound” all the more.

* Romans 7:7-13. The law exposes our sinful condition and reveals our total bankruptcy with regards to righteousness.

Since sin is a deceiver, it would be impossible for sinful man to fully realize his condition unless God revealed it to him. This He has done by giving the law. The law was never given as a means of salvation or to deal with sin. The law is incapable of producing righteousness in us because of man’s sinful state [Romans 8:3]; the only way that man can be saved is in Christ. The Scriptures clearly state that “by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight” [Romans 3:20; Galatians 2:16; 3:21-22; 5:4]. It cannot make man holy and good because he is sold under sin [Romans 7:12, 14]. But God gave the law to sinful man to be “our schoolmaster [or escort] to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith” [Galatians 3:24]. [JS]

[Christopher]

Where in Alaska are you?

Anchorage at the moment :)

[John317]

... Clearly, Adam was made mortal. He was going to die (sleep death or 1st death) even IF he had not eaten from the tree of knowing good and evil. BUT, he had something available to him that those outside of the garden didn't, and that was the Tree of Life.

Adam and Eve were created conditionally immortal. That is, as long as they remained faithful to God, they would not have died. God specifically told Adam that he would begin to die (Lit. "dying you shall die") if they disobeyed and ate of the tree they were commanded not to partake of. Sin entered human experience only on account of sin. God dove the human pair out of the Garden in order to prevent them from gaining access to the Tree of Life and thus immortalizing sin. God never intended for death to come upon mankind, and the only reason it did come is that Adam and Eve disobeyed God's command.

There's no valid Bible evidence that there were people outside of Eden who had no access to the Tree of Life. Adam and Eve were the first humans. The Bible says clearly that when God created Adam, He created "man," not "a man," but "mankind." That is when mankind was first made-- when God created Adam and Eve. Ge. 1: 26, 27.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Where in Alaska are you?

Anchorage at the moment

Nice. Anchorage seemed to me like it would be a very nice place to live. Weather not too bad, and very beautiful, plus decent sized city. Just need to avoid earthquakes I guess.

[pnattmbtc]

Sin entered human experience only on account of sin.

I guess you mean, "Death entered human experience only on account of sin."

[Archie777]

Originally Posted By: Archie

:If the Old Covenant (upper case) is a condition of unbelief, is the New Covenant (upper case) a condition of belief?

Yes! Very good!

Quote:

If so, where in the Bible or the SOP is it taught?

From the SOP, the passage has already been cited several times. From Scripture, there are many places to see this. I'll mention a few. First of all, Genesis tells us, "Abraham believed, and it was counted to him for righteousness." This is the New Covenant. Abraham believed the promises of God.

The promise of God to Abraham was of an inheritance, even the entire earth made new (Rom. 4:13) wherein dwelleth righteousness (2 Pet. 3). In order to dwell in a righteous earth, one would need to be righteous, which was also included in the promise ("Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness."). The promise also included eternal life and the resurrection, as the promised earth was an everlasting possession, so everlasting life would be necessary to dwell in it.

Quote:

Or, is it something EJW taught?

EJW taught it as well.

Quote:

Why do you keep referring to "time" as it relates to the OC?

To make clear that the OC is not a matter of time but of condition.

Quote:

Also, do you think the OC has anything at all to do with "terms and conditions"?

It has to do with the condition of the heart, which is unbelief.

Quote:

Did it have anything to do with Jesus requiring the Jews to obey and observe "additional precepts" and "judgments"?

Yes. As I explained, when the Jews responded in unbelief to the promises of God, as opposed to Abraham, who responded in faith, it became necessary for God to teach the Israelites, and so came about the rites and so forth, to teach them that they did not have the righteousness which the law required, and to make clear to them the Plan of Salvation.

[pnattmbtc]

It sounds like you believe the rites and ceremonies and judgments Jesus required the Jews to obey and observe were the result of sin and unbelief.

[Archie777]

Originally Posted By: Archie

The blessings (15 verses) and the cursings (53 verses) enumerated in Deuteronomy 28 is an ultimatum. Obey and live; disobey and die. Not force, not threats; pure and simple promises.

The cursings comes as the result of the choices of the people, not because of things God does to them. If we simply keep in mind that Satan is the destroyer, and God the restorer, that God does not do bad things, it's easy to see what's happening.

Quote:

On that day I will become angry with them and forsake them; I will hide my face from them, and they will be destroyed. Many disasters and difficulties will come upon them, and on that day they will ask, 'Have not these disasters come upon us because our God is not with us?'(Deut. 31:17)

This is the same principle as what EGW explained in "The Destruction of Jerusalem."

"The LORD will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought." Fourteen times it says, "The Lord shall". It sounds like you believe it only and always means Jesus will be forced to withdraw His protection and permit evil to befall them. "And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters."

How is this any different than Jesus saying, "Obey me or I'll be forced to let you kill and eat your children"?

What could possibly cause Jesus to withdraw His protection from innocent children and permit them to be killed and eaten by their parents?

[Archie777]

Originally Posted By: Robert

Are you still bent to self? Jesus "thought not, planned not, lived not, for himself" to the point of homelessness. There was never any self-seeking in His life. Can you say the same? If not then yes He saves you in your sins even though you grow.

Originally Posted By: Archie777

Doesn't the Bible teach that so long as born-again believers are abiding in Jesus, partaking of the divine nature, that they "do not sin" and "cannot sin"? And, isn't it true people are tempted from within and from without, and that it's not a sin to be tempted?

I, for one, believe the Bible clearly teaches born-again believers do not sin while they are abiding in Jesus and partaking of the divine nature. Nor do I believe it is a sin to be tempted from within to be unlike Jesus. I can testify to the truthfulness of what I believe. And, so can my lovely wife and children, that is, they very much appreciate it when I am abiding in Jesus and partaking of the divine nature.

However, please do not jump to conclusions or assume the worst about me. I am not saying I am incapable of sinning. Rebirth, abiding in Jesus, and partaking of the divine nature does not rob me of the ability or freedom to sin. I sin the instant I neglect to abide in Jesus and partake of the divine nature. I can, unfortunately, testify to the truthfulness of it. So can my poor wife and children.

Just out of curiosity, how are you defining "sin" in this case. As sin against God,(which is how i would apply sin in those verses) or sin that comes from the results of formerly sinning against God? Sorry if you already have and i just missed reading it.

I believe sin in 1 John 3:6 and 9 refers to all sin. I believe John is describing born-again, converted, believers who are living in harmony with everything Jesus commanded. I do not believe John excludes sins of ignorance.

[Archie777]

Originally Posted By: Archie777

I, for one, believe the Bible clearly teaches born-again believers do not sin while they are abiding in Jesus and partaking of the divine nature.

I believe that believers grow, but no one is ever measuring up to the life of Christ. Hence John states if we say we have no sin (i.e., we are free from all sin) we deceive ourselves. See 1 John 1:8. And Paul states that we continually fall short of God's love seen in the life of Christ.

Thank you for sharing your interpretation. I believe 1 John 1:8 refers to past sins. Here is how I interpret it:

1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

1:8 If we say that we have no sin {that requires cleansing}, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

1:10 If we say that we have not sinned {in the past and do not require cleansing}, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

[John317]

Quote:

John317:

JOHN3:17: All we know is what the Bible and SOP tell us about these matters, which is that God knows the end from the beginning, but that, as said before, God took a real risk in sending the pre-incarnate Christ to come to this world as a man. I assert that it was "imperiled" simply on the testimony of the prophet of God, in whom I have complete confidence as the messenger of God.

What I believe is also found generally in books written by well-known Seventh-day Adventist writers, although there are some differences in the details among these writers, particularly on some doctrines such as the Trinity, Armageddon, the nature of Christ's humanity, etc.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: This doesn't make it true either.

You're right. I'm not telling you this as a way of proving my beliefs are correct or accurate. I'm telling you this in order for you to have a better understanding of my beliefs. In other words, if you study standard works that present SDA doctrines-- and if you study Ellen White's writings-- you'll have a pretty good idea of what I myself believe. Of course there are minor differences among SDA writers on certain issues, particularly prophecy, the nature of Christ's humanity, but for the most part SDA writers are in agreement. I attempt to base my views of the destruction of the wicked on the Bible and on the writings of Ellen White. I'm not interested in building my own unique view of these things, since I believe the only things we can know for sure are those that God has revealed to us through His prophets. I believe explicitly in ALL of Ellen White's writings, taking time and place and context into consideration.

But again, I didn't tell you this a proof of the correctness of my views; only that you might have a clearer understanding of my positions.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: In the discussions we've had on other subjects, my positions agree more closely to Jones and Waggoner's than yours do, IMO. Do you dispute this? I mention this because the SOP specifically endorsed them several thousand times.

I study these men's writings and I have most of them, but there are many of them I haven't yet read. I don't attempt to measure all my beliefs by them, because I don't believe they were correct in everything they wrote or said. They were not prophets, and neither were they inspired in the biblical sense of that word.

It's true that Ellen White endorsed the message they were preaching in 1888 and shortly thereafter, but this doesn't mean she endoreed everything they wrote or said from 1888 onwards. We shouldn't assume when we read them that we are reading the Message of 1888 which Ellen White endorsed and which I do believe was from heaven.

For instance, Waggoner eventually totally rejected the doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ, and in my thinking, he was plainly wrong in this position.

I doubt she endorsed Jones and Waggoner several thousand times but she often did make it clear she endorsed their message. I have no doubt of that. But again, it doesn't mean we can assume she agreed with everything they wrote or said. In fact, we know that she didn't endorse everything. See, for instance, Ms. 15, 1888. Among other things, she says, "Some interpretations of Scripture by Dr. Waggoner I do not regard as correct.... It would be dangerous to denounce Dr. Waggoner's position as wholly erroneous." She wrote this as the GC was near its close. Arthur White writes about it on page 401 of Vol 3 of his biography of his grandmother. Later Mrs. White would write letters to A.T. Jones, cautioning him about two points: he had been making it appear that there was nothing that we must do to be saved; and Jones' words didn't properly distinguish between the sinlessness of Jesus and sinful mankind.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: This is especially true the further back in Adventist history you go.

Not sure what you refer to as "especially true."

Quote:

JOHN3:17: Ellen White taught that God knows the end from the beginning, yet she also taught that God took a real risk in sending His Son here as a human being to be tempted by Satan. Her writings contain such statements as, "From the beginning, God and Christ knew of the apostasy of Satan, and of the fall of man through the deceptive power of the apostatte. God did not ordain that sin should exist, but He foresaw its existence, and made provision to meet the terrible emergency" DA 22. The same writer often said that God had shown her "coming events," and "the scenes of the past AND THE FUTURE" (GC, Introduction, p. 14). Ellen G. White was sometimes given visions which showed exactly what people would say and do before those things actually happened.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: God could easily show coming events without the future being fixed. Do you disagree?

The events described in Daniel 2, 7, and 8 were fixed and were bound to happen just as the prophecies say they would.

I do believe, though, that it was a real possibility for Israel to accept Jesus as the Messiah. Daniel 9: 24-27 clearly bears that out.

Quote:

JOHN3:17: The prophecies as found in Daniel 2, 7, 8, 9, 11; Ezekiel 26: 3-5 --- as well as many other prophecies, such as those regarding Cyrus, Christ, Judas, including the entire book of Revelation,-- prove beyond question that God knows the future.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: I've explained several times that our difference is ontological, not epistemological. Do you not understand this point? I ask this because you continue to present things in epistemological terms. I've explained to you on many occasions now, every time we've discussed this, that I believe God knows the future perfectly. Yet you continue to assert that God knows the future, as if this were a meaningful assertion.

Wheher it is a meaningful assertion or not doesn't depend on whether you believe it or not. You may use the same expressions, that God knows the future, but yet we may not agree on what it means to say that God knows the future perfectly.

Would you explain your view of the science of being, such that it -- and not epistemology--- accounts for all of our differences?

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Again, I've already said I believe God knows the future perfectly, and I've already explained to you that this is a tenet of Open Theism. If you studied with Dr. Rice, you should know this. Why are you asserting that God knows the future? (of course this is true, but why do you think there's a need to assert this, given that this is a tenet of Open Theism, and I've already explained that I believe this, and that our difference is ontological, not epistemological).

You must not know very well what Dr. Richard Rice has written or said, because I know for a fact that Rice doesn't believe God knows all of the future in detail. I know this because Richard Rice told me personally and explained in class some of what he was writing. I took classes by him at Loma Linda University at the time he was writing about this very topic. I know that he believes some things cannot possibly be known because they are not "there" for anyone, including God, to know. He believes this must be true if humans are truly free to make choices.

Here is some of what David Larson in Spectrum (11 November 2007) about the views of Richard Rice:

Quote:

He [Richard Rice] identified a second step in the thought of James [Jacobus] Arminius (1560-1609), John Wesley (1703-1791), Ellen G. White (1827-1915) and others. Christians such as these split Calvin's twin convictions, affirming one but not the other. They held that God knows the past, present and future with equal completeness but that God does not determine everything that occurs because God gives human beings genuine freedom.

“Open Theism” goes beyond this in a third step, Richard explained. It holds that Scripture, logic and experience urge us to reconsider both of the two convictions from Calvin with which we began, contending instead that God neither predetermines every thing that happens nor foreknows all that will occur. I pointed out that, although it may seem new to some, in less detailed forms the basics of “Open Theism” have been taught at Loma Linda University for about fifty years, beginning at least as early as long-time professor Jack W. Provonsha.

Richard explained that today the “Openness of God” movement makes a path about half way between traditional theism, on the one hand, and contemporary process theology, on the other. With process theology, it holds that human beings have enough freedom partly to determine the future. With traditional theism, it holds that human freedom is not inherent; rather, like the whole of creation, it is a gift from God.

He emphasized that “Open Theism” makes God's love, rather than God's power, glory or sovereignty the primary and conceptually controlling theme. It holds that, as Jesus taught, God relates to us more like a good parent than an overpowering king or queen.

From this point of view, the Christian moral life is not primarily a matter of submitting to God's commands. It is the joy of responsively and responsibly interacting with God in bringing about in each situation as much flourishing as possible. I contrasted "the ethics of prohibition" and "the ethics of imagination," the latter being what “Open Theism” champions.

Richard made it clear that according to “Open Theism” God knows everything there is to know. But there are some things that God does not know because they have not yet come into being and, given the reality of human freedom, they may or may not eventually occur. These things are not yet “there” for God or anyone else to know.

This is a very important point. It means that those who wish to criticize “Open Theism” should not accuse it of “limiting God” because such arrows miss the target. They should aim at its understanding of human freedom instead.

If it is inherently possible for genuinely free decisions to be predicted with 100% accuracy, then God certainly knows what they will be. But “Open Theism” contends that to understand freedom this way is to rob it of its true meaning. What we mean by “freedom” is therefore the crux of the issue.

Quote:

JOHN3:17: I have no doubt that God foresaw and planned the rise of the Millerite movement and the Seventh-day Adventist church. I believe He also knew in eternity past that you and I would exist, just as Scripture proves that He knew long before they were born that Cyrus and Paul would exist and what they would do. If He didn't, the Bible could not contain statements such as the ones found in Is. 44: 28; 45: 1; Gal. 1: 15; Eph. 1: 4, 5; Is. 41: 22, 23, 26; 48: 3, 5.

Just two examples from representative Adventist viewpoints:

"Some believe that God relates to persons without knowing their choics until they are made-- that God knows certain future events such as the Second Coming, the millennium, and the restoration of the earth but has no idea who will be saved. They feel that God's dynmaic relationship with the human race would be in jeopardy if He knew everything that would transpire from eternity to eternity. Some suggest that he would be bored if He knew the end from the beginning.

"But God's knowledge about what individuals will do does not interfere with what they actually choose to do any more than a historian's knowledge of what people did in the past interferes with their actions. Just as a camera records a scene but does not change it, foreknowledge looks into the future without altering it. The foreknowledge of the Godhead never violates human freedom." Seventh-day Adventists Believe, pp. 28, 29.

In his book, The Reign of God, pp. 80-88, Richard Rice discusses questions of prophecy as related to God's Providence and to "conditional prophecy."

But these issues, while highly interesting and very important, are getting beyond and apart from the main question we're discussing on this thread.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: You're not dealing with the issues or questions I've brought up.

I am free to bring up points or address questions that you did not bring up. That is part of human freedom. You have the same freedom. You can bring up things that I didn't bring up or ask about. When you do, I will read them, and then I will either ignore them or ask you to explain something or I might comment on them. But I won't tell you that you are now talking about something unrelated to what I asked.

Quote:

pnattmbtc:If God knows with certainty that a thing will happen, isn't it certain that thing will happen? Let's start with this. Do you agree?

Yes. For instance, God knows that someday the United States of America will pass laws that will enforce the keeping of Sunday. Also, God knows that Christ will return, and it is certain to happen. There is absolutely no possibility of its not happening. The visions of the future that God showed Daniel and Ellen White will all happened, without question.

Do you agree?

[Archie777]

What they should have said is what Abraham and Jeremiah said, both men of God, as I quoted earlier. "I believe." Righteousness is by faith. We are saved by believing the promises of God. That's the New Covenant.

[Robert]

I believe sin in 1 John 3:6 and 9 refers to all sin. I believe John is describing born-again, converted, believers who are living in harmony with everything Jesus commanded.

So, you do not sin? Better yet you "claim to be without sin"?

1 John 1:8 "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us."

Ellen White: "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 [our bent to self], we stand among the redeemed throng. Then [i.e., when we stand among the redeemed] we shall enjoy a life which measures with the life of God...." [The Signs of the Times, 06-09-81]

Paul: "Not that I...have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. 13 Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it [perfection]. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus. 15 All of us who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you. 16 Only let us live up to what we have already attained. [Phil 3:12-15]

Ellen states we are imperfect until indwelling sin (iniquity) is removed. Then, at the 2nd coming, we can say our lives measure with the life of God.

Paul tells us that he was imperfect. John tells us we can't claim to be without sin (iniquity).

[Robert]

1:8 If we say that we have no sin {that requires cleansing}, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

"If we say that we have no sin" is in the continuous present tense.