Knowing Your Enemy: Satan's Attacks On SDAs

[skyblue888]

[John317]

When I was trying to overcome the habit of smoking (30 some years ago) I kept trying and trying and trying... is that what is meant by "habits that take time to overcome?" But the moment I said to God, "Lord I can't overcome this habit. You take care of it," I knew in my heart of hearts that the problem had been solved and it was. When I read that the habits of drinking coffee and tea and alcohol had to be given up because they were harmful, (including meat eating) I did the same thing. I asked God to take care of these evil habits and He sure did and at once. So these habits don't take time to be overcome if we allow God to take care of them and you know what, once I was delivered, there were no withdrawal symptoms after that, none whatsoever.

But it doesn't always work that way. That's what many homosexuals have done and when they find out that they still have those same desires, they believe it means God doesn't want them to change. One man who did this is the leader a gay Christian group. He wrote a book in which he described doing just what you say, but he continued to have the same desires and thoughts. So there is more to it than saying, "Lord I can't do it; you take care of it for me." The Lord doesn't always take away those things. But when he doesn't, does that mean a person goes on practicing them? Many do because they feel that the Lord's not taking away the desire means it's His will for the person to practice homosexuality. They reason that the Lord doesn't expect them to go without a love life and sexual fulfillment. That's another way that Satan attacks SDAs. He leads them into faulty reasoning on these issues.

[John317]

... Satan no longer hates the adventist church. He used to but not any more. Why should he hate the seventh-day adventist church today when the Lord has told us that we were following his methods, that we were following in the track of Romanism?

sky, you just made my point for me. The sign that he hates the SDA church is that he has deceived many if not most to abandoned the purpose for which God raised the church up, and Satan is determined to do all he can to keep SDAs from realizing and putting into practice the purpose God has for us.

That is one of the main messages of this thread.

[John317]

... as for the 'third angel's message', can anyone explain "the HOUR of His judgment as come"? Is this the time the IJ started? (BTW-I really don't know the answer to this.)

Yes, the "hour" was when the Investigative Judgment started in 1844. There's a judgment going on right now and when it is finished, Christ will come. That's an essential part of the message of the Seventh-day Adventist Church-- that there's a judgment going on in the heavenly sanctuary and that Christ is coming soon. Get ready, get ready, get ready!

[John317]

Let's say that in studying my Bible I arrive at the conclusion that the church is in error on a certain topic. What should I do? I should present my views to the pastor and the church elders and ask them to consider it and pray about it and tell me if there's any light in what I've presented. If they decide that my view has no merit or very little merit, I may present it to several other pastors or leaders who have experience in the truth, but if these also tell me that I am wrong, I should do one of two things: either lay the idea aside or leave the church. I shouldn't stay in the church and continue to agitate a point that has been rejected by men of experience.

This is according to the counsel of Ellen White on what to do with "new light." See 5 T 293.

Yes, exactly. I agree with you, and I've said this on the Forum a number of times, and quote her statements regarding it.

Originally Posted By: Skyblue

...So if the Lord was to use any individual within the church, to call upon the leaders of the church to return to God and to His way of doing things, how well would this man and his message be received, especially today?

Such a person won't be condemnding the church's fundamental doctrinal pillars and calling for changing them. And according to Ellen White, if God has something to reveal to the church, He will give it to more than a single individual. It won't contradict what God has revealed before but will confirm His previous revelations.

[skyblue888]

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich

... as for the 'third angel's message', can anyone explain "the HOUR of His judgment as come"? Is this the time the IJ started? (BTW-I really don't know the answer to this.)

Yes, the "hour" was when the Investigative Judgment started in 1844. There's a judgment going on right now and when it is finished, Christ will come. That's an essential part of the message of the Seventh-day Adventist Church-- that there's a judgment going on in the heavenly sanctuary and that Christ is coming soon. Get ready, get ready, get ready!

You mean that this is an essential part of the message which shall be given by those who are not too wise or too learned to believe just what God says because this message in all its purity will not be officially supported and proclaimed by this denomination unless there is a change.

sky

* I would say that it is an essential part of the third angel's message. :)

[skyblue888]

Let's say that in studying my Bible I arrive at the conclusion that the church is in error on a certain topic. What should I do? I should present my views to the pastor and the church elders and ask them to consider it and pray about it and tell me if there's any light in what I've presented. If they decide that my view has no merit or very little merit, I may present it to several other pastors or leaders who have experience in the truth, but if these also tell me that I am wrong, I should do one of two things: either lay the idea aside or leave the church. I shouldn't stay in the church and continue to agitate a point that has been rejected by men of experience.

This is according to the counsel of Ellen White on what to do with "new light." See 5 T 293.

John317

______________________________

Yes, exactly. I agree with you, and I've said this on the Forum a number of times, and quote her statements regarding it.

John317

______________________________

John, you quoted your own statement and then said, "Yes I agree with you!

sky

[skyblue888]

So if the Lord was to use any individual within the church, to call upon the leaders of the church to return to God and to His way of doing things, how well would this man and his message be received, especially today?

sky

______________________________

Such a person won't be condemnding the church's fundamental doctrinal pillars and calling for changing them. And according to Ellen White, if God has something to reveal to the church, He will give it to more than a single individual. It won't contradict what God has revealed before but will confirm His previous revelations.

John317

______________________________

John, I wasn't talking about doctrines here but about "methods and plans" "organizations" "order of things" in order to finish the work of God upon the earth. And even if we were talking about "fundamentals" "doctrines" it is not enough to profess. The religious leaders of the Jews taught that their church would always be exalted as the church of God. They professed to be waiting for the advent of the Messiah and they were but they had perverted ideas about His mission and the manner in which He was to establish His kingdom on earth, the kingdom of His grace. They expected Him to establish a temporal kingdom when He came. They taught many things from the Bible that were sound doctrines but that did not stop them from crucifying the Lord of glory.

God had something to reveal to the church in Christ's day. He spoke through John the Baptist, and through Jesus Christ, lone individuals, as He had in Old Testament times, through the prophets, but these lone individuals were not well received and were sometimes put to death by the religious leaders. Ellen White and her messages to the church were no more received than these prophets were and their message to the church. Of course there is the appearance that her writings are accepted but as far as receiving the light contained in her writings, that is another story.

Of course when God sends a message to the church, that message does not contradict what has already been revealed. I don't know why you bring this up. This is not what is being discussed here but "the present order of things" which is antagonistic to Gospel Order.

sky

Their message was not received by the religious authorities of their day because it was antagonistic to the "organized work." It was the same with all the Reformers of the sixteenth century and their message which was antagonistic to the order of things in the church.

[skyblue888]

[Dr. Rich]

John wrote: "Such a person won't be condemnding the church's fundamental doctrinal pillars and calling for changing them. And according to Ellen White, if God has something to reveal to the church, He will give it to more than a single individual. It won't contradict what God has revealed before but will confirm His previous revelations."

So John, are you saying that every one of the fundamental doctrines can be supported by true scripture? I know that the above is just your opinion since this opinion can't be supported from scripture. After all, Adventists have been changing their fundamental doctrines ever since 1844. An besides, even your Paul did agree with this since he said he never got anything from the pillers if the church.

In fact, the message we get from Layodica the last of the 7 messages to God's people shows a complete different picture.

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich

... as for the 'third angel's message', can anyone explain "the HOUR of His judgment as come"? Is this the time the IJ started? (BTW-I really don't know the answer to this.)

Yes, the "hour" was when the Investigative Judgment started in 1844. There's a judgment going on right now and when it is finished, Christ will come. That's an essential part of the message of the Seventh-day Adventist Church-- that there's a judgment going on in the heavenly sanctuary and that Christ is coming soon. Get ready, get ready, get ready!

John,

Can you show me where SDA's get this doctrine of the Investigative Judgement from Bible prophecy, and also where the church is able to say with Biblical authority that when this particular judgement is finished Jesus will come right then? I know one of the verses is in Daniel 7:10, but wasn't this specifically meant for the judgement and sentence of Pagan Rome, and not for individuals? Let me know what you think.

[John317]

...So John, are you saying that every one of the fundamental doctrines can be supported by true scripture?

Yes.

But there's a difference between the foundational pillars of our faith and the FB that you're no doubt referring to.

But yes, I do believe all of our FB can be supported by true Scripture.

I realize that at this point, you are making a difference between the writings of the NT that you reject and the Gospel of John. But that is a false distinction.

Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich

I know that the above is just your opinion since this opinion can't be supported from scripture.

It's true that all of the Fundamental Beliefs can be supported from the Bible. But I have no doubt that you are cutting out about 2/3 of the NT and then claiming that the doctrines aren't based on the Scriptures that you want to use as the measuring stick.

Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich

After all, Adventists have been changing their fundamental doctrines ever since 1844.

What fundamental doctrines have the Seventh-day Adventist church changed?

If you are referring to 1844, the SDA church didn't even exist until 1864.

But yes, Seventh-day Adventist have certainly changed some of its beliefs and some of its interpretations of prophecies, but that is not the same as changing Foundational Pillars of our faith. The Foundational Pillars have not changed in any fundamental way.

The Fundamental Beliefs have changed, obviously, since they have been added to and will no doubt continue to be added to. In other words, the Fundamental Beliefs are subject to change in the General Conference in session. There's no question that they will be understood more clearly and that there will be adjustments to them. For instance, the church will doubtless continue to have a better understanding of the Sabbath's relationship-- or the Investigative Judgment, the Health Message, etc.-- to the Three Angels' Messages.

There was a time when the church was anti-Trinitarian but it is now Trinitarian. But as I read Uriah Smith's list of our doctrines in the early years of our denomination, I don't see any there that SDAs now reject.

Originally Posted By: Dr Rich

An besides, even your Paul did agree with this since he said he never got anything from the pillers if the church.

He is not "my" Paul.

But in the use of the word "pillars," Paul didn't mean the same thing that we have in mind when we speak of the foundational pillars of our faith. Paul was referring to individuals in the church who were viewed as the "pillars." SDA "foundational pillars," on the other hand," are doctrines or teachings.

[John317]

Well John, I can only tell you what my experience was. God can deliver me at once from tobacco addiction but not from homosexuality? Is there anything too difficult for the Lord?

Does that mean that an homosexual is to overcome a little at a time?

What do you think of this statement:

"Do you imagine that you can leave off sin a little at a time? Oh, leave the accursed thing at once!" 1 S.M.327.

Of course this is possible only for those who look to God and trust in the merits of Christ for their freedom from sin.

Nothing is too difficult for the Lord. I have said this over and over again on this Forum. What I am saying is that God doesn't always just take the desires away. He goes through those temptations with us. He empowers us to resist and overcome-- He doesn't take away the temptation.

Very few homosexuals become heterosexuals, even after the overcome their homosexual sins. It's a continuing process, not something that happens in one night.

It would be easy if God simply took the desires away, but that isn't what God does for most gay people who pray for power to overcome homosexual practices.

No, I am not talking about giving up homosexual practices a little bit at a time. But I am also not talking about telling people they are lost because they fall after they have accepted Christ and are allowing Him to change them. It's the same when working with any other habitual sin, such as alcoholism or drug addiction.

[skyblue888]

I am absolutely convicted that there is only one solution to the problem that we all face, individually, and denominationally. One provision only, for our deep need and this hour of trial. And that is, the power of The Holy Spirit, and the mighty outpouring of the Latter Rain in all our lives and service. This promised provision, falling upon the Heralds of Heaven's Last Message is our supreme necessity.

overaged

__________________________

Yes we need the power of the Holy Spirit in the mighty outpouring of the Latter Rain in our lives but we need to know how to obtain this gift which cannot be excelled:

"Looking unto Jesus and trusting in His merits, we appropriate the blessings of light and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." Testimonies, Vol.5, p.744.

"Faith is the condition upon which God has seen fit to promise pardon to sinners; not that there is any virtue in faith whereby salvation is merited, but because faith can lay hold of the merits of Christ, the remedy provided for sin." E.G. White, Review and Herald, Nov.4, 1890.

This is the very message that has been hidden from us. We know all about the need for the Latter Rain, for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in latter rain power but we know so little of the merits of Christ, how it is our privilege to claim them, that we may receive the gift that cannot be excelled, the gift of the Holy Spirit which brings all the other blessings in its train.

"Unless he makes it his lifebusiness to behold the uplifted Saviour and to accept the merits which it is his privilege to claim, the sinner can no more be saved than Peter could walk upon the water unless he kept his eyes fixed steadily upon Jesus. " Testimonies to Ministers, p.93.

This is the message of the Bible but somehow we do not see it. When do we talk of the merits of Christ and the necessity of appropriating them by faith, and yet it is the very message that God sent to the church in 1888 that if if had been received, believed, and acted upon, it would have brought the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in large measure! See T.M.92,93,96,97.

sky

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire:

The 'fire' mentioned here by John the Baptist is the fire of trials, as in 'trial by fire', and is not an indicator as to how God provides the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him.

"Because you have kept my command to wait patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of TRIAL that is to come upon the whole world, to TEST those who dwell on the earth." Rev.3:10.

We have all experienced the trials of life, this is just a normal part of living. Yet when we commit to the path of righteousness and ask God to lead us into truth through His Spirit the forces of evil often redouble their efforts in trying to get us to back away from this commitment, by attacking us personally and/or by attacking our family and friends.

Jesus Christ spoke of the ministry of the Holy Spirit as a function of this guidance into truth, and He also said that we would to greater things than what He did in showing His power in the world, but I have found no place where Jesus Himself speaks of a latter rain of the Holy Spirit that will come by fire. On the contrary, I have only seen Jesus give the Holy Spirit to His own disciples by peaceful method, just as He showed Elijah the Holy Spirit as a 'still, small voice' on the side of a mountain in the Negev desert.

Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of anyone, they are forgiven; if you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld.” John 20:21-23.

But don' you think it curious that both of those instances happened?

Fire in the upper room.

Full baptism of the Spirit at pentecost?

I understand your usage of fire here as symbolic of trials, but it does not make my point invalid. :-)

My questioning of the validity of Pentecost stems from two issues:

1) Jesus either did or didn't give His disciples the Holy Spirit before He went back to Heaven. If He did then why would He need to give it to them again 'in power' later-was not once sufficient for the King of the Kingdom of Heaven? And if He didn't give it to them then then why did John report that He did in John 20:21-23?

2) Does God change methods to fit a particular situation, or does He have one method of delivering the Holy Spirit in all situations? When Elijah was on Mt. Carmel calling fire down from Heaven which part of God delivered that fire? Was it God Almighty or was it the Holy Spirit? We are told it was God Almighty by Scripture. On the hillside in the Negev what did God say as to the way the Holy Spirit would come upon Elijah? God was NOT in the mighty wind, God was NOT in the earthquake, and God was NOT in the fire. God was in the 'low whisper' of the 'still, small voice'. (1Kings 19).

I do not believe God changes methods. I believe that what God does once is done forever, because God does not make mistakes, and does not ever need to repeat an action. That is why I believe that just as with Elijah God was NOT in the rushing wind or in the fire of the cloven tongue at Pentecost. The God of Heaven was not there, but there was ANOTHER god there that corrupted and used the things of God to fool 'the brethren' into believing something that a lie as if it were the truth.

Satan is not called the 'great deceiver' because he is not good at it. So IF (big if) it was not the Holy Spirit generating the wind and fire at Pentecost can you not see how devastating this would be to the young church in being corrupted from the beginning?

You will ask, Why would God allow this to happen? Why wouldn't God protect His church from this kind of deception, such that no one would fall for this lie of Satan? I'll let Jesus answer that Himself:

And Jesus answered them, “See that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray. Matt.24:4-5.

God must allow Satan access to us because God must allow us to exercise our free will. Yet while He does this God gives us all the tools of logic and intellect that we need to be able to see through the deceptions of Satan, and win through to truth.

[pnattmbtc]

So these habits don't take time to be overcome if we allow God to take care of them and you know what, once I was delivered, there were no withdrawal symptoms after that, none whatsoever.

J:But it doesn't always work that way.

I agree. I think everybody finds some things more difficult to deal with than others. I'd be surprised if there weren't *any* habits that sky, or anyone else, found difficult to break.

This isn't to say God doesn't give the victory of these things in the way sky has described. Perhaps our unbelief gets in the way, or perhaps we don't really want to give the given thing up yet, or it could just be something difficult to deal with, say something like getting irritated. Maybe there are physical causes that need to be dealt with (like exercise, getting enough rest, diet, etc.).

[John317]

Can you show me where SDA's get this doctrine of the Investigative Judgement from Bible prophecy, and also where the church is able to say with Biblical authority that when this particular judgement is finished Jesus will come right then? I know one of the verses is in Daniel 7:10, but wasn't this specifically meant for the judgement and sentence of Pagan Rome, and not for individuals? Let me know what you think.

Those are all things that need to be discussed on a separate thread. They're on a number of discussions on this forum.

To study the Investigative Judgment would take this discussion completely off the topic, even further off than we've already been.

[Dr. Rich]

John wrote: " I do believe all of our FB can be supported by true Scripture."

How about the first one and the 22nd one? The verses given to support number one were all written before there was a bible so it was and IS impossible for these verses to apply to all of the bible we have today.

The verses to support number 22 are ones that have contradicting verses not used because it is obvious the GC does not consider them to be'scripture'. For instance; Adventists use Leviticus 11 to support unclean vs. clean foods/meats. Yet they reject Mark 7:18-21, Matt.15:18, Acts 10:15, Romans 14:14, 1Cor. 10:25-27 and 1Tim. 4:4 as true scripture. I find this rather interesting. Can someone say, "Pick and Choose"?

[Musicman1228]

John wrote: "Such a person won't be condemnding the church's fundamental doctrinal pillars and calling for changing them. And according to Ellen White, if God has something to reveal to the church, He will give it to more than a single individual. It won't contradict what God has revealed before but will confirm His previous revelations."

What I hear you saying here is that the church is infallible and that no individual should challenge the sanctity of the beliefs of the church and the overall leader of the church.

You also say the EGW said that if God needs to change something in the doctrine or theology of the church he will give that change to more than one person in order to confirm it's validity. If that is true then it certainly can't apply to the SDA church because according to your own beliefs when EGW said that God gave her a vision it was and is considered infallible by the church and not to be questioned by anyone, especially one that does not hold authority from the church. These vision were not confirmed by anyone other that EGW herself as being valid. This sounds very much like the Pope being the same infallible source to the Catholic church as EGW is to the SDA church. God requires Two Witnesses to confirm truth, so why does the SDA church settle for only one self-proclaimed witness as the sole arbiter of truth?

You have also said that what ever is given through this infallible source (EGW) will not conflict with what God has revealed before. This didn't work too well in Israel as the leaders of Israel were constantly upset with Jesus for bringing to light new and different information that went against what God had revealed to them before Jesus arrived on the scene. The accuracy of your statement depends entirely upon whether it was the true God that gave the initial revelation and not an impostor god. If an impostor god gave a revelation to a supposedly infallible source and the church believed it, and later the true God gave a revelation in conflict with the first one would not the revelation of the true God appear as if it was faulty and Inaccurate? I believe that this is exactly what has happened to our church today. I can think of two specific instances when this occurred in our church with devastating results.

[John317]

....The verses to support number 22 are ones that have contradicting verses not used because it is obvious the GC does not consider them to be'scripture'. For instance; Adventists use Leviticus 11 to support unclean vs. clean foods/meats. Yet they reject Mark 7:18-21, Matt.15:18, Acts 10:15, Romans 14:14, 1Cor. 10:25-27 and 1Tim. 4:4 as true scripture. I find this rather interesting. Can someone say, "Pick and Choose"?

It isn't true that we Seventh-day Adventists reject the following as true scriptures. The problem here is that you have an interpretation of these verses that Seventh day Adventists don't agree with. If you take all of these verses in their context, you will find that none of them contradict the Seventh-day Adventist position on the eating of unclean flesh.

Here are the verses you refer to:

Mark 7:18-21

And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; [19] Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? [20] And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. [21] For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,

Matthew 15:18

But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

NOTE: The context of these verses is the fact that we are not defiled spiritually by what we eat but by the evil that comes out of our minds and our mouths. Jesus isn't talking about food but about the Jewish washings that they felt they needed to perform before eating. He obviously isn't saying that nothing is unhealthy or bad for you to eat.

Verse 19 above reads the way it is given here in the majority of the Greek manuscripts. There are some translations that add: "Thus He declared all foods clean." That portion is not in the original language.

Acts 10:15

And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

NOTE: This verses had nothing to do with the eating of food. It's talking about Jewish-Gentile relations, not eating. Notice the lesson that Peter got out of the vision. Did he go out afterwards and buy bacon? No. He said that the gospel was to go to the Gentiles.

Romans 14:14

I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

NOTE: Read the entire chapter. The context of this verse is eating foods that have been dedicated to the gods. Because of their previous beliefs in these gods, some believers would eat only vegetables in order to be sure not to eat anything that had been dedicated to the gods. Paul is saying that they don't need to worry about whether the food was dedicated to the gods unless doing so will cause other believers to stumble.

1 Cor. 10:25-27

Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: [26] For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof. [27] If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.

NOTE: The same principle applies here as applies in Romans 14: 14. The concern is over whether foods have been dedicated to the gods.

1 Tim. 4:4

For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

NOTE: Read v. 3, which shows that it is talking about all the foods that God created to be eaten. God didn't create snakes and pigs, etc., to be eaten.

[John317]

Quote:

Such a person won't be condemnding the church's fundamental doctrinal pillars and calling for changing them. And according to Ellen White, if God has something to reveal to the church, He will give it to more than a single individual. It won't contradict what God has revealed before but will confirm His previous revelations.

What I hear you saying here is that the church is infallible and that no individual should challenge the sanctity of the beliefs of the church and the overall leader of the church.

No. I'm saying that there are valid and correct ways of bringing about changes in the church's teachings. It is not done by every individual taking it upon himself to decide what the church shall teach. God is leading out a church, not separate individuals here and there.

I joined the church because I studied what the church teaches and concluded that it is according to the Bible. Now if after further study I conclude that there are major errors in the church's fundamental doctrines-- not referring here to prophetic interpretations-- I should discuss these with pastors and elders in the church, and then if I still believe there are major problems with the church's teachings, I should either be silent on those issues or I should withdraw my membership. But I shouldn't remain a member and stir up controversy among the members by my rejection of fundamental doctrines that the body holds to be truth.

[John317]

....You also say the EGW said that if God needs to change something in the doctrine or theology of the church he will give that change to more than one person in order to confirm it's validity. If that is true then it certainly can't apply to the SDA church because according to your own beliefs when EGW said that God gave her a vision it was and is considered infallible by the church and not to be questioned by anyone, especially one that does not hold authority from the church. These vision were not confirmed by anyone other that EGW herself as being valid. This sounds very much like the Pope being the same infallible source to the Catholic church as EGW is to the SDA church. God requires Two Witnesses to confirm truth, so why does the SDA church settle for only one self-proclaimed witness as the sole arbiter of truth?

The SDA church does not claim-- nor did Ellen White ever claim-- that she was infallible.

The church has always taught-- and still teaches-- that her visions are to be judged by the Bible. The visions have never been a test of fellowship or of Christian character.

But I'm not talking here about God's choosing an individual as a prophet and giving them visions. That's a seperate issue from the one I'm referring to. I'm referring to situations where people believe they have "light" from the Scripture that is contrary to the fundamental doctrines of the church. If there is such "light," the individual who believes he has discovered it and believes God is leading him in that discovery ought to submit the light before leaders in the church for them to decide if there is truth in the "light."

[John317]

...You have also said that what ever is given through this infallible source (EGW) will not conflict with what God has revealed before.

That's right. God doesn't contradict Himself in His revelations to people. As Isaiah 8: 20 says,

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

This didn't work too well in Israel as the leaders of Israel were constantly upset with Jesus for bringing to light new and different information that went against what God had revealed to them before Jesus arrived on the scene.

Jesus didn't contradict what He inspired the prophets to say before He came.

Originally Posted By: Musicman

The accuracy of your statement depends entirely upon whether it was the true God that gave the initial revelation and not an impostor god. If an impostor god gave a revelation to a supposedly infallible source and the church believed it, and later the true God gave a revelation in conflict with the first one would not the revelation of the true God appear as if it was faulty and Inaccurate? I believe that this is exactly what has happened to our church today. I can think of two specific instances when this occurred in our church with devastating results.

You are talking again about Paul and Ellen White, to say nothing of Mark and Luke and James and Peter and Jude and the writer of Hebrews. You want people to believe that it was the Devil who inspired these people. But we've been over that before, and this is not a thread for going into those issues in detail.

[John317]

Not without a struggle does Satan allow the kingdom of God to be built up in the earth. The forces of evil are engaged in unceasing warfare against the agencies appointed for the spread of the gospel, and these powers of darkness are especially active when the truth is proclaimed before men of repute and sterling integrity. Thus it was when Sergius Paulus, the deputy of Cyprus, was listening to the gospel message. The deputy had sent for the apostles, that he might be instructed in the message they had come to bear, and now the forces of evil, working through the sorcerer Elymas, sought with their baleful suggestions to turn him from the faith and so thwart the purpose of God. {AA 167.2}

Thus the fallen foe ever works to keep in his ranks men of influence who, if converted, might render effective service in God's cause. But the faithful gospel worker need not fear defeat at the hand of the enemy; for it is his privilege to be endued with power from above to withstand every satanic influence. {AA 167.3}

Although sorely beset by Satan, Paul had the courage to rebuke the one through whom the enemy was working. "Filled with the Holy Ghost," the apostle "set his eyes on him, and said, O full of all subtlety and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand. Then the deputy, when he saw what was done, believed, being astonished at the doctrine of the Lord." {AA 168.1}

The sorcerer had closed his eyes to the evidences of gospel truth, and the Lord, in righteous anger, caused his natural eyes to be closed, shutting out from him the light of day. This blindness was not permanent, but only for a season, that he might be warned to repent and seek pardon of the God whom he had so grievously offended. The confusion into which he was thus brought made of no effect his subtle arts against the doctrine of Christ. The fact that he was obliged to grope about in blindness proved to all that the miracles which the apostles had performed, and which Elymas had denounced as sleight of hand, were wrought by the power of God. The deputy, convinced of the truth of the doctrine taught by the apostles, accepted the gospel.

{AA 168.2}

Elymas was not a man of education, yet he was peculiarly fitted to do the work of Satan. Those who preach the truth of God will meet the wily foe in many different forms. Sometimes it will be in the person of learned, but more often of ignorant, men, whom Satan has trained to be successful instruments to deceive souls. It is the duty of the minister of Christ to stand faithful at his post, in the fear of God and in the power of His might. Thus he may put to confusion the hosts of Satan and may triumph in the name of the Lord. {AA 169.1}