Justification by Faith "unconditional" - the lie...

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: twilight

The difference between us however my friend, is that I do not reject the bits she says that do not agree with my viewpoint.

I don't think this is true. I would say the difference is that you don't *intentionally* do so. That is, you accept EGW as a prophetess, so you don't *intentionally* reject things she writes which do not agree with your viewpoint. But it's a bit arogant, or naive, to think that our viewpoint corresponds 100% with truth, yet there are many who seem to hold this position.

Humility does us well in terms of our ability to understand truth.

I have yet to find anything in the SOP that I reject pnat.

I have rejected peoples interpretations of her viewpoints however.

I feel your charge is misplaced and inappropriate.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

I have yet to find anything in the SOP that I reject pnat.

I explained you don't *intentionally* reject here. So, obviously, if you reject here, you couldn't have found it, right? If you found something that you rejected, you would be intentionally rejecting her, in which case you would be disagreeing with me. Your comment here is actually agreeing with what I said. You'd only be disagreeing with me if you claim that you don't disagree with her either intentionally or not. Is this your belief?

Quote:

I have rejected peoples interpretations of her viewpoints however.

Yes, you intentionally do this. As does everyone. No two people agree on every point.

Quote:

I feel your charge is misplaced and inappropriate.

Why? I thought your statement in regards to Robert was a bit inaccurate. You were drawing a distinction between yourself and Robert, based on your not rejecting the SOP whereas he does. I'm agreeing with this statement as long as "reject" means "intentionally reject." Robert intentionally rejects the SOP, which is where the difference lies. It's not that your interpretation is always 100% on the mark.

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Robert

No, it's picking out those thing that are in harmony with the Bible and throwing out those things that aren't.

What makes you think you are qualified to do this?

Oh, so I am to blindly follow someone else? You would you like some kool-aid too?

Ellen White is not my pope. I do not go through her to enter heaven. I do not have to accept EGW. The Bible will do...

[Twilight]

Quote:

I have yet to find anything in the SOP that I reject pnat.

I explained you don't *intentionally* reject here. So, obviously, if you reject here, you couldn't have found it, right? If you found something that you rejected, you would be intentionally rejecting her, in which case you would be disagreeing with me. Your comment here is actually agreeing with what I said. You'd only be disagreeing with me if you claim that you don't disagree with her either intentionally or not. Is this your belief?

Quote:

I have rejected peoples interpretations of her viewpoints however.

Yes, you intentionally do this. As does everyone. No two people agree on every point.

Quote:

I feel your charge is misplaced and inappropriate.

Why? I thought your statement in regards to Robert was a bit inaccurate. You were drawing a distinction between yourself and Robert, based on your not rejecting the SOP whereas he does. I'm agreeing with this statement as long as "reject" means "intentionally reject." Robert intentionally rejects the SOP, which is where the difference lies. It's not that your interpretation is always 100% on the mark.

Like I said, I have yet to find a position that Ellen White states that I do not find in the bible.

As to the rest of your post, I am not sure exactly what you are trying to get at, other than I am wrong and do not know it?

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

What makes you think you are qualified to do this?

Oh, so I am to blindly follow someone else? You would you like some kool-aid too?

Ellen White is not my pope. I do not go through her to enter heaven. I do not have to accept EGW. The Bible will do...

JS seems to be your authority Robert.

As you espouse his doctrine wholeheartedly.

Is he your pope perhaps?

[Robert]

JS seems to be your authority Robert.

No, but JS does help in understanding Paul and Paul is an authority.

[Robert]

Like I said, I have yet to find a position that Ellen White states that I do not find in the bible.

Then why is EGW teaching OC demands? Use the context I quoted to prove me wrong.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

JS seems to be your authority Robert.

No, but JS does help in understanding Paul and Paul is an authority.

No Robert.

JS presents a perversion of Paul's writings as far as I can see from your posts...

He wants to make Justification everything and Sanctification nothing, if your argument that you have received from him are anything to go by...

Not understanding it seems, that they are inextricably linked.

[Robert]

JS presents a perversion of Paul's writings as far as I can see from your posts...

No sir...it is you who teach a perversion....Most are modern day Judaizers. If this sin is not repented of many traditional SDA will surely be lost....

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Like I said, I have yet to find a position that Ellen White states that I do not find in the bible.

Then why is EGW teaching OC demands? Use the context I quoted to prove me wrong.

Let's keep to the context....You said EGW and the Bible are in complete agreement. I gave evidence that this is not all ways the case. If I'm wrong disprove in context.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Like I said, I have yet to find a position that Ellen White states that I do not find in the bible.

Then why is EGW teaching OC demands? Use the context I quoted to prove me wrong.

Please be specific Robert.

I suspect your confusion is because you do not understand that being accepted in Christ leads to a continual abiding in Christ.

That abiding rising out of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

That abiding depending on constant obedience to the dictates of the Holy Spirit.

Because you do not understand this simple biblical truth and believe error.

The idea that being led by the Spirit is not important, only acceptance with Christ is important - that our response to God plays no part in that justification remaining upon us.

Despite clear biblical evidence in Zech 3 and Rom 8.

Because you do not understand this, you do not understand Ellen Whites position, which was the same as Paul.

It is not Ellen White who disagrees with the bible.

It is you.

[Robert]

Either answer my context in "SOP and the bible - do they fit together" post or here....I don't care, just do it....

[Twilight]

It is simple Robert.

When someone accepts Christ and receives the gift of the Holy Spirit, they are led into obedience to all of Gods law.

It seems you are arguing against this.

It seems you are saying that obedience and following the dictates of the Holy Spirit are irrelevant.

Your "evidence" is very poor misunderstood error...

Again that is shown from Zech 3 and Rom 8.

But you want to take Rom 7 and insist this is an acceptable experience with God.

It is not and never has been.

As Paul plainly states.

But because this false teaching teaches a false comfort in sin, it can be the most appealing of all errors...

[Robert]

It is simple Robert.

When someone accepts Christ and receives the gift of the Holy Spirit, they are led into obedience to all of Gods law.

So you do not see EGW as contradicting Paul?

Again, notice the phrase in the following:

Complete obedience is the only condition that meets the requirement of the law. “God is not a man, that He should lie.” God’s law is the rule of His government. He says, “This do, and thou shalt live.” But to the disobedient He says, “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them.” “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” God has given the promise that those who obey His law will be rewarded, not only in the present life, but in the life to come. He declares just as decidedly that those who do not obey His requirements shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on them. By lips that never lie the obedient are blessed, and the disobedient are pronounced guilty.

Ellen is clearly presenting salvation by law! In other words,

1] "obey and live" (or as she puts it, "this do, and thou shalt live")

or

2] “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them.”

Let's see if Paul agrees with salvation by law:

Gal 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law [salvation by law] are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them.” 11 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for "the just by faith shall live." 12 Yet the law is not of faith, "the man who does them shall by them live."

He does not agree. In fact he says that if you attempt salvation by law you are cursed because the law requires not only your outward actions to be correct, but the motive behind every act. If there's any "bent-to-self" you've had it.

Here's the thing, Paul uses that expression "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them" to show the impossibility of gaining heaven by works.

Ellen takes that same phrase and presents salvation by works.

Here EGW and Paul are not in harmony. She is teaching error if you take it as it reads.

[Robert]

Now let's see EGW contradicts herself, if you take it as it reads:

PC- RH

PT- Advent Review and Sabbath Herald

DT- 05-07-1901

AT- The Great Standard of Righteousness

PR- 09

...to the disobedient He says, “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them.” .... God has given the promise that those who obey His law will be rewarded, not only in the present life, but in the life to come. He declares just as decidedly that those who do not obey His requirements shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on them.

PC- RH

PT- Advent Review and Sabbath Herald

DT- 10-17-1907

AT- The Two Covenants

PR- 08

The terms of the “old covenant” were, Obey and live: “If a man do, he shall even live in them” (Eze. 20:11; Lev. 18:5); but “cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them.” Deut. 27:26.

[Gerr]

[Gerr]

Quote:

The terms of the “old covenant” were, Obey and live: “If a man do, he shall even live in them” (Eze. 20:11; Lev. 18:5); but “cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them.” Deut. 27:26.

And the terms of the new covenant?

[Robert]

The issue is EGW uses the exact same phrase as Paul does...only she contradicts Paul. You guys keep evading this....Why?

[Robert]

Sin = transgression of the law.

It's more than that....You have a very limited view of sin. Here's EGW:

"Our only definition of sin is that given in the word of God; it is "the transgression of the law;" [now she goes deeper] it is the outworking of a principle at war with the great law of love [agape] which is the foundation of the divine government."

"It will be seen that the glory shining in the face of Jesus is the glory of self-sacrificing love. In the light from Calvary it will be seen that the law of self-renouncing love is the law of life for earth and heaven; that the love which "seeketh not her own" has its source in the heart of God; and that in the meek and lowly One is manifested the character of Him who dwelleth in the light which no man can approach unto."

What does this mean?

"Jesus...thought not, planned not, lived not, for himself." There was no bent-to-self in the life of Jesus...no iniquity.

[Guest]

Go to bed Robert. It's 4:40 in the morning down there.

[Robert]

Okay...

[Guest]

Me too Soon.

As soon as I finish reading some of EGW, in COL.

[John317]

What you evidently fail to see is that when she speaks of obeying God and His law, she is talking about the kind of experience that Paul describes in Romans 8: 1-5. In other words, she's talking about people who are having the law written on their heart and mind by the Holy Spirit, and who are subject to the law of God (Romans 8: 7). In the passages of Paul's writings that you quote, he is talking about people who are attempting to earn merit or salvation through their obedience to law.

She is talking about Romans 8 whereas Paul is talking about the experience of the man of Romans 7. The man of Romans 8 is living under the New Covenant; the man of chapter 7 under the Old Covenant. Perhaps you don't see that people living in the Spirit obey God's law. That's the main message of Romans 6 and 8.

You evidently think Ellen White is teaching justification by works of law. However, she isn't.

What is the only way in which anyone can render perfect obedience to the law of God?

[Guest]

I couldn't have said it better myself. In fact, I couldn't have said it as good.

[Robert]

What you evidently fail to see is that when she speaks of obeying God and His law, she is talking about the kind of experience that Paul describes in Romans 8: 1-5.

No she is not! Not even close....There's no grace (as seen in Rom 8:1-3)...There is only "obey and live" and "disobey and die"...both OC demands.

Why do you and others totally ignore the context? Why? Because in your mind EGW is infallible. In your mind if she makes mistakes you have to throw all her writings out the door. It's all or nothing....