Are Humans Free Moral Agents?

[skyblue888]

Okay, brother Rich, it is the voice of Jesus one must hear. That is very true. "My sheep hear My voice... and I give them eternal life." John 10:27,28.

"Hear and your soul shall live." Isaiah 55:3.

By faith the lowly pilgrim here on earth sees in the midst of the throne One bearing in hands and feet and side the marks of the suffering endured to reconcile him to God. He sees a Father, infinite, dwelling in light unapproachable, yet who receives him to Himself through the merits of His Son. The cloud of vengeance that threatened only misery and despair, in the light reflected from the cross reveals the writing of God. A voice speaks to him from the Oracles of God's word:

"Live, sinner, live! ye penitent, believing souls, live! I have paid a ransom."

"From there (Zion) the Lord has commanded the blessing: Life forevermore." Psalm 133:3; John 12:50.

That word "Live", received from God's mouth, is eternal life. As Christ's word, "Young man, I say unto you, Arise," gave life to the youth of Nain, so that word, "Live, sinner, live! ye penitent, believing souls, live!" is life to the soul that receives it. If we receive the word, we have the deliverance.

So this shows that we are free moral agents.

"Oh that you had hearkened unto My commandments; then had your peace been as a river and your righteousness as the waves of the sea." Isaiah 48:18.

So, as we come to Him trusting wholly in the merits of the suffering endured to reconcile us to Him, He opens our ears that we may hear His voice through His words and commands, and His voice imparts power, it begets life, even the life of the Infinite One!

In that command, "Live, sinners, live! ye penitent, believing souls, live!" is all the law and the prophets.

"My ears You have opened." Psalm 40:6.

"He awakens my ear, to hear as the learned. The Lod God has opened my ear." Isaiah 50:4,5.

sky

[miz3]

To all,

Revelation 3:20 may seem to be a devastating blow but it is not.

John 15:5 states that without Christ WE CAN DO NOTHING!

That means without Christ (God the Father and the Holy Spirit) we cannot even open the door.

Yes Jesus knocks but it requires God in us to open the door!

If God is not in us then the door will not open.

You see it is very simple, only those in whom God dwells will ever open the door to Jesus' knock or even Jesus' voice. Those who don't have god dwelling in them will never open the door regardless of the decibel level.

You see how easily Scripture explains Scripture.

Thus, your point is not a good point.

[miz3]

Wow!

You gave me explanations alright.

1. You wouldn't take the word of witnesses that something was tampered because they might have fudged. You say this even though they had the evidence.

2. You say having a "rubber stamp signature" is OK even though having such opens the person to such a strong temptation to slant things their way. For years Ellen White signed every thing now after the death of James White her son Willie has to have a "rubber stamp signature". How convenient! Poor James White didn't have enough consideration for his wife. Its a good thing that Willie White loved his mother enough to think of this for her convenience. Right? and there is bridge in Brooklyn for sale too!

3. We also gave clear testimony how Willie White withheld testimonies because he thought God's timing was not correct. Yet you brush this aside again with "how can I believe the evidence".

4. You then attribute a single letter change which is very significant because it changes the whole meaning of the passage "just a typo". For years and years this "typo" exists and nobody at the White Estate or anywhere else proofs it. Again, Right?

5. There is a whole slew of examples, I gave only a few, yet you brush them aside with one slippery excuse after another.

Your excuses could be made about anything. If I showed you a picture with "green" grass and you had vehemently always refused to believe the grass could ever be green what would you do? You would deny such by "how do I know you you didn't paint it?"; or "how do you know its not plastic painted green?"; or "how do I know you didn't photo shop it"? Etc. etc.

Anyone could make almost any excuse about anything depending on the intensity with which they hold their "prejudicial" view. In my opinion this is what you have done. I am not saying you are being dishonest, no, just intensely so prejudiced in your view so that it is impossible for you to accept any evidence with a clear unvarnished eye. You might accuse me of the same but it would not be true, in my view because I base my word on the Bible.

I gave you evidence and the opportunity to look at the "whole book". I have also asked questions that give you opportunity to see what the evidence is both "Biblical" and otherwise. I demonstrated from the Biblical Sources in the clearest tones and without ambiguity what the Bible supports and doesn't support. I got in return:

1. Reams of Ellen White quotes (which is not a sin) to support your view. An abuse of the Prophet and her words because you are using them as a club to destroy.

2. You say Ellen White is the "lesser light" but you use her as the starting "light". You don't use the "lesser" to define the "greater" yet that's the way you use SOP. Shining a lesser light on the greater light adds nothing.

3. You then "infer, twist, read into, conceptualize, etc. things into the Bible that are not anywhere in the text.

4. You then belittle my evidence as trivial and should be an example of such for all to see.

5. You state that SOP "interprets" the Bible. Who then is the lesser and who is the greater light? Of course reasonable people would say the interpreter is the greater light because it has to shine brighter. Duh! A lesser light cannot shine anything on the greater light. Get your lights correct. You also brush this aside.

6. I show you evidence from SDA "official" documents, the Church Manuel and the 27/28 Beliefs, with no Biblical backing at all for these "SDA UNIQUE" Doctrines. You could reasonably expect at least two or three clear direct texts. But none exists.

You have one excuse after another. Usually, such excuse making is done because one does not want to face up to the truth and because one is so wedded to their view that nothing can move them. In addition such excuse making is done when one has such flimsy positions as it appears SDA do.

You question me about where and who I am. Then you accuse me being Des Ford to paint me as some "Satanic" minion like you believe Des Ford is.

It should not matter who I am. You only want to know so you can use that as a weapon against me to. No matter who I am the facts are the facts and you lack them and are found wanting. Yet you pretend that I have no case when in fact I have presented a very strong and devastating case (especially from the Bible) that SDA Doctine is not Bible and Bible only! Yet you lie and dissemble both in voice and in print (official and unofficial) that your Doctrines are Bible and Bible only! Come be honest! If Ellen White started the Doctrine than it is not the Bible and the Bible only, is it? If you are reasonable and honest you would have say "no, SDA have NOT been Bible and Bible ONLY". If such a Doctrine was started by the Bible then and only then would you have a case. But by your own admission the Doctrine did not start with the Bible, in fact, without Ellen White it is IMPOSSIBLE TO SHOW THE SANCTUARY DOCTRINE AND THE INVESTIGATIVE FROM THE BIBLE!

Again, who I am is not relevant. The only thing relevant is the Truth! The Truth is found in God's Word, the Bible.

You quote to me "to the Law and the Testimony". The Law and the Testimony are found in the Bible yet you hold Doctrines that you state are "vital" yet again they are no where found Scripture. You have Revelation which you correctly believe tells us of things to come. Yet in this Book alone there is no mention, not even the slightest inference, of the SDA Church and its supposed dominant role in the History of Human kind. There is not even the slightest evidence that Revelation refers to Ellen White, yet you pluck a "phrase" out of the blue and say that such phrase is referring to Ellen White. Talk about "flimsy" evidence. Your use of the Bible in this way is the "definition" of flimsy evidence. It insults the human intelligence. It is also SACRILEGIOUS and BLASPHEMOUS.

You state that Revelation chapter 13 is a reference to the United States in Prophecy. Yet it does not even in the slightest say so. Oh, I know the two horns. Well those "two horns" could just as easily be attributed to Islam today since they paint themselves as lamb but they speak and act like a dragon. The passage applies more to Islam than the United States. It also could have applied to the old Soviet Union. Could it also apply to the current communist state of China? How flimsy you are on this one point alone yet you ridicule my evidence. Man is that "rich". Clean your own religious skirt first.

SDA arrogance is and has been very telling. You make excuses for why Christ is in the Most Holy Place for 167 years by stating the Church is not ready. When I see the SDA Church (and I have from the very core), I see the most rotten of garbage in the way SDA conduct their business. Dishonesty and the grab for power is rampant throughout. It is not the picture SDA would like us to believe, which is that most SDA are ready but it is a small minority that are holding up the train. Your leadership from the local church to the GC touts how you prayerfully go over everything and let the Lord lead. Yet your backroom politics has already decided what direction you are going and who will hold power. You PROFANE THE NAME OF GOD BY ASSERTING SUCH! I am not talking about a scandal here and there, I am talking about this disease and sin running through every fiber of Adventism from top to bottom and side to side. Yet you claim to be so highly chosen (even though you are not mentioned in the least in Scripture). God wrote Scripture in the formation of the Jewish people. God did not slink around with ambiguous symbols as to who His people were. God came right out in the open that the Jews were His people.

Why does God use ambiguous (highly ambiguous) symbols and slink around in the secret in the SDA case? Symbols that could apply to almost anyone or anything. The reason is God did not announce the SDA people in the Bible. Your arrogance is stunning. Hmmmm!

You talk about MY evidence being flimsy. The Bible is right when it states you build you house on the sand.

Your very words on this website; "SDA is built on God and the Sanctuary". Its not God alone or Jesus Christ alone. No its Jesus Christ and the Sanctuary. To read SDA stuff you would get the picture that the "Sanctuary" is ahead of Jesus Christ in importance. In addition one would easily gets the impression that the SDA Church is more important than Jesus Christ. You state that the Sanctuary is the fundamental pillar of SDA. I thought the fundamental pillar is supposed to be Jesus Christ and Him Crucified?

The fundamental problem of SDA is their self-arrogance and the Sanctuary Doctrine as you have devised is proof of this. The Sanctuary Doctrine is you IDOL! You have made the Gospel about you (SDA) instead of about Jesus Christ. In your scenario Jesus Christ may be a major player but He is not the center, you have made yourselves the center.

It is time for the SDA Church to shun its arrogant posture and return again to the God which spawned you, not by prophetic utterances, but by working in people to learn the light of the Sabbath when such a Doctrine was in danger of being lost. God raised SDA up to lead the world to better health when the world was dieing because it had so many unhealthful practices. God did not raise SDA up to promote a flimsy Doctrine that can't be supported from the Bible. A Doctrine that does not make Christ the center and everything else but a Doctrine that makes SDA the center.

SDA are not unique because they hold the Sanctuary Doctrine. God's people are never unique because of the Doctrines they hold.

God's people are unique because God is in them ("your body is the temple of God"). Thus, the TRUE SANCTUARY MESSAGE is for God to be in His Holy Temple (us humans). Only those who have God as the High Priest of their lives will be saved. That is the TRUE SANCTUARY MESSAGE!

SDA have missed it because of your arrogance and your reliance on non Biblical Doctrines. You no longer (assuming you once did) rely on God and on Jesus Christ your ONLY Savior!

[skyblue888]

Talk about arrogance!!!

Pesonally, miz3, I want to keep an open mind but your posts I am not interested to read anymore. Your general attitude and some of your expressions are a turn off for me and I am sure I am not the only one who feels this way. I sense no love or tenderness from you, only a spirit of combativeness, a spirit of variance, and a desire to prove one's own ability to argue a point in order to defeat any "opposing" views.

Sorry, but I am out.

sky

[Gail]

I was also wondering what benefit to either side was going to come of this discussion and the others that are heading the same direction.

[Dr. Rich]

sky, you took the words right off my fingertips. It's not that miz3 is interesting, it is that miz3 shows no respect for others. When posts are written a mile long no one wants to read them.

[miz3]

No one is forcing you to read.

Apparently you have trouble with complex issues. Or, is that you have trouble with simple issues and [deleted by moderator].

[John317]

We're in agreement on this, Dr. Rich. Good post.

[John317]

....Revelation 3:20 may seem to be a devastating blow but it is not.

John 15:5 states that without Christ WE CAN DO NOTHING!

That means without Christ (God the Father and the Holy Spirit) we cannot even open the door.

Yes, all this is true. We would not even have either the desire or the strength to open the door without God's Spirit.

But we do have to decide to get up and open the door. And of course we also have to listen to the knocking. Many people claim that they don't even hear the knocking. For sure none of us would open the door if we don't hear Jesus knocking. Don't you agree?

Yet apparently Jesus is knocking at every door, isn't he?

God does not make the decision. We make the decision to open the door, do we not?

To whom is Jesus making His appeal in Rev. 3: 20? Is He appealing to God? No, obviously not. Jesus is appealing to human beings. Why? Because only humans can decide to open the door. If God was going to open the door, Jesus would be appealing to God.

People aren't forced to open the door, are they?

It seems self-evident that many people decide NOT to open the door. It is their decision to make. They cannot blame it on God or Christ, for the choice lies with them, not with Christ. Christ already made his choice: His choice is to save. Yet we have a choice to make too, and many choose to keep the door closed, and only a relative few choose to open the door.

[John317]

Yes Jesus knocks but it requires God in us to open the door!

If God is not in us then the door will not open.

Does God open the door?

And does not God want everyone to open the door?

If God wants every person to open the door and be saved, what make the difference between one door being opened and another door being shut?

Originally Posted By: miz3

You see it is very simple, only those in whom God dwells will ever open the door to Jesus' knock or even Jesus' voice. Those who don't have god dwelling in them will never open the door regardless of the decibel level.

How does God begin to dwell in people? He doesn't dwell in every person on earth, does He?

Are you saying it is God's fault if people don't open the door?

Who makes the decision whether someone opens the door?

[John317]

You gave me explanations alright.

Yes, and I would sincerely like to read your replies and thoughts about those explanations.

Could you try and reply to each post seperately?

For instance, what do you think of post#437916?

[John317]

1. You wouldn't take the word of witnesses that something was tampered because they might have fudged. You say this even though they had the evidence.

I don't see any "witness" that had the evidence you claim he had.

In order to conclude that unauthorized changes were made, that conclusion must be based on solid evidence, not on heresay or rumor or "he said," "she said." It should be something that can be proved on the basis of documentary evidence. For instance, we should be able to compare published versions of writings with the original documents or with other editions of the same writings and see whether changes have been made.

Originally Posted By: miz3

....4. You then attribute a single letter change which is very significant because it changes the whole meaning of the passage "just a typo". For years and years this "typo" exists and nobody at the White Estate or anywhere else proofs it. Again, Right?

You have here mentioned one such "change:" "sin" for "son" that occurs evidently in some copies of Testimonies To Ministers and Gospel Workers, page 409: par. 2, line 11. As I said before, however, the problem with this so-called "change" is that most copies of TM read correctly; in fact all copies that I've examined, as well as the CD-ROM of the Comprehensive Research Edition of her writings. I think any rational person would conclude on the basis of the evidence that this was an error in the printing, and not a deliberate attempt to deceive anyone about Mrs. White's writings.

If some great change has ever been made, why would anyone stoop to mention TM 409, where you claim "son" was changed to "sin"? What is accomplished by such a "change"? And why would they allow hundreds of thousands of books and the DC-ROM to read correctly if they are trying to make a change? That just does not make any sense.

What are your thoughts?

[John317]

...2. You say having a "rubber stamp signature" is OK even though having such opens the person to such a strong temptation to slant things their way. For years Ellen White signed every thing now after the death of James White her son Willie has to have a "rubber stamp signature". How convenient! Poor James White didn't have enough consideration for his wife. Its a good thing that Willie White loved his mother enough to think of this for her convenience. Right? and there is bridge in Brooklyn for sale too!

It's important to remember that Ellen White signed her name to the final draft of her writings, indicating that she gave her approval for their publication. The rubber-stamp signature didn't change anything at all. It simply meant that Ellen White was not required to sign every copy that was made of her writinng. People were always able to compare the copies with the original copy and with the original publication.

Speaking of Willie White, the following is taken from the Comprehensive Research Edition CD-ROM of Ellen White's Writings. It is part of the Ellen White Research Documents, the document titled, "101 Questions On the Sanctuary" by Robert Olson, director of the Ellen White Estate.

Quote:

82. W. C. White’s Integrity

W. W. Prescott’s letter of April 6, 1915, virtually accuses W. C. White of withholding important information on the composition of Ellen White’s books. What kind of man was W. C. White? Would he have tried to deceive the people?

82

Ellen White states:

“After the death of my husband, I was instructed that the Lord had appointed W. C. White to do a special work in connection with my writings. The Lord promised to give him of His Spirit and grace, and a spirit of wisdom and of sound judgment. This would enable him to be a wise counselor. The Lord foresaw that my son would not make haste, but would wisely consider his movements; he would not turn the truth of God into a lie for gain.” — Letter 328, 1906.

An indication of W. C. White’s integrity may be found in a few lines taken from a letter he wrote to General Conference president A. G. Daniells in 1913. Referring to several of his mother’s letters that caused him problems, he stated:

“It seems to me that the only straightforward and satisfactory way to deal with them is to tell the truth, and let our brethren, with help from God, deal with the difficulties. It might be much easier to repudiate a few documents that perplex us, and say they were forgeries, but it is the truth that makes us free, and I do not know of any way in harmony with the law of God than to deal with these matters just as they are.” — W. C. White to A. G. Daniells, December 31, 1913.

[John317]

You question me about where and who I am. Then you accuse me being Des Ford to paint me as some "Satanic" minion like you believe Des Ford is.

This is absolutely false. I would ask you to give the quote and the post number of where I am supposed to have done this.

The truth is that although I disagree with Des Ford on the sanctuary and on some other theological matters, I have high regard for him as a Christian and as a scholar. I certainly don't consider him to be a "Satanic minion" as you claim. Actually, back in the midddle 1970s, I used to be a great admirer of Dr. Ford. I saw him in my mind's eye as a kind of Martin Luther figure. (As a junior theology student, I remember rushing excitedly with my wife through thick freeway traffic to see him one Sabbath afternoon when he was making an unscheduled appearance at a public college in Riverside since he couldn't speak in an SDA church.) I think Dr. Ford's book on Daniel is one of the best Bible commentaries ever written. I wish he had written such a book on Revelation.

But I think you will admit that when you take positions on the sanctuary that are similar to Desmond Ford's, there is nothing wrong with pointing out the truth of the matter.

[John317]

....If Ellen White started the Doctrine than it is not the Bible and the Bible only, is it? If you are reasonable and honest you would have say "no, SDA have NOT been Bible and Bible ONLY". If such a Doctrine was started by the Bible then and only then would you have a case. But by your own admission the Doctrine did not start with the Bible, in fact, without Ellen White it is IMPOSSIBLE TO SHOW THE SANCTUARY DOCTRINE AND THE INVESTIGATIVE FROM THE BIBLE!

If you are talking about the Investigative Judgment, Ellen White definitely did not start it. It was actually started by O.R. L. Crosier, who wrote an article, "The Sanctuary," that was published in the "Day Star Extra" in 1846. In April of 1847, Ellen White wrote that she felt "fully authorized by the Lord, to recommend that Extra to every saint." Crosier's article doesn't even mention Ellen Harmon (White), let alone quote her. It is all based on the Bible and the Bible alone.

James White coined the name, "The Investigative Judgment." Neither of the Whites wrote much at all about it until fairly late in its development. Ellen White wrote her clearest statements about it in the 1880s. By that time, many others had written about it before Ellen White did.

Can you produce convincing evidence that Ellen White started the doctrine of the heavenly sanctuary, or the Investigative Judgment? For instance, can you show when the doctrine first appeared and then show also, by appealing to her writings, that Ellen White was the one who started it?

Have you read "The Sanctuary" by Crosier? What do you think of it? What are its strengths and weaknesses?

[John317]

....If you are reasonable and honest you would have say "no, SDA have NOT been Bible and Bible ONLY". If such a Doctrine was started by the Bible then and only then would you have a case. But by your own admission the Doctrine did not start with the Bible, in fact, without Ellen White it is IMPOSSIBLE TO SHOW THE SANCTUARY DOCTRINE AND THE INVESTIGATIVE FROM THE BIBLE!

First of all, I don't know where yougot the idea that I've admitted the doctrine did not start with the Bible. I have never thought it or said it.

The truth is that Crosier's article on the heavenly sanctuary, published in 1946, only quotes the Bible. Furthermore, today there are many excellent, scholarly books being published that show the Bible evidence for the Investigative Judgment. I have given you a list of their titles and the author's names. They do not base their evidence on the writings of Ellen Whtie.

If you do not believe the doctrine can be found in the Bible, I would say that you ought to study a book called, The Case For the Investigative Judgment, by Marvin Moore, and Bradley Williams' The Silencing of Satan.

Brad Williams is a close personal friend of mine with whom I studied theology at Pacific Union College. Then he was a neighbor of ours in Southern California while he pastored our local church. He is now a pastor of an SDA church near San Diego. He told me a few months ago that he is preparing a second volume on the Investigative Judgment and he fully expects this next one to be even better than the first. He's learned a lot since the previous one was published, because he gives seminars on the topic, and of course that entails studying and answering many people's questions. So if you are interested in the topic, be sure to look for Brad's second book sometime in the next year or two.

By the way, Brad has been in communication with Desmond Ford.

My and Brad's thought about Dr. Ford is that our church owes a lot to Ford for having brought up subjects on the heavenly sanctuary that our church needs to consider. It is God's way of causing the church to study and find out what it believes and why. God uses false doctrine to get the church to study the Bible. That is what happened in the first century. The church often finds truth when it is compelled to deal with heresies.

[miz3]

John317,

Let's be honest Ellen White's endorsement is critical to the Doctrine. Here endorsement of Crosier is the same as if she wrote it herself. Without Ellen White's endorsement we would not have such a Doctrine.

Thus Ellen White is the source regardless of the actual details.

This is true for all of Doctrines in this class.

[miz3]

To all,

I found it interesting when reading the posts on the Topic: the prince of tyrus. There were two different points of view in regard to how to interpret Ezekiel chapter 28.

To bolster their opposing points of view, each side pulled out one quote after another of Ellen White as proof that their view was correct.

I suppose there is some slippery explanation for this?

[Guest]

I don't know how slippery it is. The fact is, we believe she was a true prophet of God. Plain and simple.

[John317]

John317,

Let's be honest Ellen White's endorsement is critical to the Doctrine. Here endorsement of Crosier is the same as if she wrote it herself.

Of course her endorsement is important. But the point is that the Investigative Judgment would not have been accepted or taught if the Sabbath-keeping Adventists hadn't been convinced that it was in the Bible. The articles written on the topic had nothing to do with Ellen White but were founded strictly on Scriptrue. It over a year later that she recommended that article. She wrote little on the Investigative Judgment until the 1880s.

[John317]

...Thus Ellen White is the source regardless of the actual details.

But that is an inaccurate statement, and it can be proved to be inaccurate. It is a historical fact that the basic Bible teachings regarding the Investigative Judgment were written and developed before Ellen white's. The O.R.L. Crosier article in the Day-Star Extra didn't come from Ellen White.

Quote:

This is true for all of Doctrines in this class.

What "doctrines of this class"?

[John317]

You should not be surprised or shocked at this, considering the fact that we-- I-- believe that she is a genuine prophet of God. She was as truly a prophet of God as any prophet in the Bible. Prophets, of course, are God's mouthpiece.

She was equally as inpsired, since one is either inspired of God or one is not. One cannot be partly inspired by God any more than one can be partly with child. This doesn't mean she was on a par with the Bible, however, because the Bible must be the standard of truth. Ellen White cannot correct the Bible; rather, the Bible corrects Ellen White.

[miz3]

How can one be equally inspired yet not on a par with the Bible? That does not seem to make sense with your statement that one is not partly inspired but one is either fully inspired or is not inspired. Please explain.

Could such a thing also be said about Paul or Peter in relation to Moses, David, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc?

[John317]

It's not that Ellen White's prophetic gift was inferior to Moses or John the Beloved. It's that our only safety is in measuring everything by the Bible, because if we didn't, we would have no way of distinguishing between a true and a false prophet, between truth and error.

Every prophet was subject to the judgment of the previous genuine prophets. For instance, it was necessary for Joshua to be judged by the writings of Moses, and again, it was even necessary for Jesus to be judged by the Old Testament.

We know Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God because he fulfilled the prophecies of what the Messiah would be like and do. God told us long ahead of time what the true Messiah would do and when He would come. For instance, if the Messiah had come in, say, 20 BC or 10 AD, we would know he wasn't the true Messiah.

Suppose God would send a prophet who would contradict the Bible and tell us that he had come to give us new doctrines. In that case, how would we know if he's telling the truth or lying? The only way to know is by the Scriptuers. Groups who have forgotten this have ened up being tricked into following following false teachers and prophets. For instance, Joseph Smith, Charlie Manson, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Mohammad and many others I'm sure you can think of.

Think what if Ellen White said the same as Joseph Smith said-- that the bible has been so changed that we can't depend on it any more and that a modern prophet must correct it. But instead Ellen White upheld the Bible and never said anything that would give the impression that we can't trust it or that it isn't the only measuring-stick of the Truth. I see that as a mark of a true prophet.

[miz3]

Ok. Who then is Moses checked against?