Deceiving the elect

[ClubV12]

Ron Amnsn says,

"Ok, so now you're saying it's Jesus plus "new light"."

Which is just another way of saying "truth is progressive". The apostles certainly knew and understood far more AFTER Christs death than they did before. Luther had significant "new light", new understanding, but he was still very far from understanding many many spiritual things.

Thats a good question, how do we KNOW "new light" when we see it?

How did the early church? How did Luther? How do we today? We use bible principles, sound reasoning, comparing scripture to scripture. Basic bible principles are, any new light must build upon, never take away from, the law and the testimony. It MUST be harmonius with all the old light we have already been given. The Sabbath was "new light" for the early Seventh-day Adventists (actually Millerites at the time would be more accurate). How did THEY know if it was true? It was consistenr with old light, it harmonized with the bible.

Now your looking for a single verse in the New Testament that says animal sacrafice is done away with after Jesus dies. It's always a good idea to compare scripture to scripture, not ONE verse, but many. Enough to understand the trend, the concept, the doctrine. Animal sacrafice pointed to the coming Messiah! Jesus WAS the "lamb"! The sacrafice was finished when He died. Some Jews did not believe Jesus was the Messiah and some continued to offer animal sacrafice's for a couple of hundred years AFTER Jesus died! If Jews are STILL looking for a Messiah, it would be logical for them to continue animal sacrafice today! Why not, if in their view nothing happened, the Messiah never came.

Eve violated the most basic rule of discerning "new light". Is it consistent with what God has already told us? He told Eve if she ate, she would die. She chose to believe a lie, that she wouldn't die. No way that passes the test of "new light". She was in fact decieved by what she thought was new light. Adam, on the other hand, was not deceived, he KNEW she would die because he KNEW she had believed a lie and ate. He quickly siezed the fruit and also ate, with full knowledge of what he was doing. Rejecting Gods law and chosing to share death with Eve.

[Ron Amnsn]

The apostles certainly knew and understood far more AFTER Christs death than they did before. Luther had significant "new light", new understanding, but he was still very far from understanding many many spiritual things

The disciples of Jesus did understand the Scriptures better after Jesus was resurrected. However, none of their new understandings were contrary to the Old Testament Scriptures. They simply understood the reality of the Old Testament symbols. That understanding didn't make any of the Old Testament obsolete.

The true things Luther and the early Adventists "discovered" were not actually "new light" -- they were things that were already established in Scripture and had been understood by Jesus and the 1st-century followers of Jesus, but had been obscured by the traditions of the "church". Luther and the other reformers were just taking a step back towards God's standard as written in Scripture and lived by Jesus and his 1st-century followers. Truth did not progress, it was simply recovered (partially).

[ClubV12]

Thats an excellent point Ron Amnsn. I've always considered "new light" as being primarily old light with a new understanding. While I do leave room for entirely new light, it's rare in the stricest sense.

The New Testament has deep roots in the Old Testament and the ONLY source the early church had at first. Their challenge, like so many today, was to figure out the balance between the two.

Some things were pretty clear right away. The 600 some laws the Jewish nation had to be reviewed in light of Jesus' ministry, not to mention death. HOW do you keep the Sabbath, for instance. There were lots of strict laws the Jews had about Sabbath that were loosely based on bible principle but misinterpreted or completely man made. Lots of Sabbath keepers, not just Adventists, still struggle to find that balance today.

Laws, rules, sacrafices that pointed to the coming Messiah were easy, that was done. But what about the laws that pertained to Jewish civil law, how the counrty, the people were to live? Not so easy. What about the moral law, like circumcision, not so easy.

I can see your point, lost truth was recovered, I think it's equally valid to say truth is progressive. And NOT just for the "church", but for each of us individually as we grow and mature in the christian experierence.

[Ron Amnsn]

Thats a good question, how do we KNOW "new light" when we see it?

How did the early church? How did Luther? How do we today? We use bible principles, sound reasoning, comparing scripture to scripture. Basic bible principles are, any new light must build upon, never take away from, the law and the testimony. It MUST be harmonius with all the old light we have already been given.

Now your looking for a single verse in the New Testament that says animal sacrafice is done away with after Jesus dies. It's always a good idea to compare scripture to scripture, not ONE verse, but many. Enough to understand the trend, the concept, the doctrine. Animal sacrafice pointed to the coming Messiah! Jesus WAS the "lamb"! The sacrafice was finished when He died.

At what point do you allow "sound reasoning" to trump God's plain instructions? Often what is asserted as "sound reasoning" is actually rationalization for a doctrine that is already held, without considering all the Scriptural evidence.

Christianity went through a stage where Jews were despised by the church and every practice that seemed Jewish was forcefully discarded. Many rationalizations were invented to explain the discontinuation of the Biblical practices that were deemed too Jewish (such as Sabbath observance). Those rationalizations were handed down through the centuries, polished up now and then, and are accepted as fact by most Christians today. We are so accustomed to hearing those rationalizations that we don't even think to question whether they are actually valid. They just seem like sound reasoning.

To support the doctrine that the OT animal sacrifices are "over" it is often assumed and asserted that the sacrifices pointed forward to Messiah, without even considering that the sacrifices can also commemorate the death of Messiah. Do the Scriptures actually say that the animal sacrifices cannot be commemorative of a past event but were exclusively designated to point "forward" to future events only? Or is that merely tradition?

We know from the book of Acts that the believers continued to meet daily in the Temple courts before and after the Holy Spirit was poured out at Pentecost (one of God's OT Feasts). If the animal sacrifices were no longer valid, why did the believers meet daily at the only place on earth where animal sacrifices were being offered? What else were they doing that could only happen at the Temple? This was the first time in history that the real meaning of the sacrifices would have been understood by some of those participating and officiating. The morning and evening sacrifices were for the whole community of Israel, so the believers at the Temple would have been considered participants in those sacrifices. This was also the most successful period in history for evangelizing Jews.

It is apparent that participating in animal sacrifices was not an unusual occurrence for believers because the Jerusalem elders recommended that Paul join in the purification with some local believers (probably after hearing about the vow Paul had taken in Acts 18:18). So on his final visit to Jerusalem Paul prepared to offer an animal sacrifice at the Temple. This practice agrees with God's instructions in the Old Testament. Paul was also affirmed by the Lord for his behavior at Jerusalem (Acts 23:11)

We know that God did institute some OT sacrifices to be commemorative. When God instituted the annual Passover celebration it was both a commemorative event (to remember leaving Egypt) and a prophetic event (looking forward to the death of Messiah). The Israelites observed it commemoratively for centuries before the death of Messiah, though they didn't know it was prophetic of Messiah's death. Some Israelites may have realized after the exile that Passover points forward to the "second exodus" foretold by the prophets. At the "last supper" Jesus indicated that Passover would have a future role in the kingdom. So Passover currently commemorates both the exodus from Egypt and the death of Messiah and is prophetic of the "second exodus" and of the celebration Jesus indicated would occur in the kingdom.

Speaking of Passover, Paul tells the believers, "Therefore let us celebrate the feast..." (1 Cor 5:8)

[Ron Amnsn]

The New Testament has deep roots in the Old Testament and the ONLY source the early church had at first. Their challenge, like so many today, was to figure out the balance between the two.

[ClubV12]

"...and every practice that seemed Jewish was forcefully discarded."

I wouldn't say "every practice" nor would I say "forcefully discarded". The early church considered many of the practices and left many of them to be decided by letting every man be convinced in his own heart. In such decisions sound reasonable logic would apply, acknowledging the natural LAWS that God had also instituted for all of mankind since the beginning of creation. When it came to each man being convinced in his own heart, that is Spiritual, the work of the Holy Spirit on an individual.

As a Gentile I'm not "convicted" I need to keep the Passover. But some christians are convinced we should, I'm OK with that. If I were a Jew, I might have to reconsider my position. I've never looked at the Passover, as it were, through the eyes of a Jew. If I did, perhaps a "conviction" that I need to keep that time holy would follow. As to circumcision, the early church decided it was not to be made a "test of faith", but some are/were "convicted" they need to do it on moral and religious grounds. I'm OK with that.

As it concerns the Sabbath, the Roman Papal power changed the day of worship to Sunday, they readily acknowledge it has nothing to do with the bible at all, or Jews for that matter. I'm NOT OK with that!! Many, most, christian organizations rationalize it with various bible texts because they are, excuse the term, ignorant of the true facts. The Papacy makes no apology for changing the day of worship. It had nothing to do with the Jewish Sabbath at all. The Papacy points to the christian churches keeping Sunday as "proof" of their power to change Gods law. It's not a problem for them because in their view, the Pope IS "verily God" on earth and therefore has the power to do so. I don't believe the Pope has any more authority on earth than I do, so I'm comfortable ignoring HIS man made laws.

[Ron Amnsn]

"...and every practice that seemed Jewish was forcefully discarded."

I wouldn't say "every practice" nor would I say "forcefully discarded".

[ClubV12]

Ah yes, I see your timeline more clearly. In that respect I agree with much of your conclusions. "Force" was certainly an aspect that came with the increasing power of the new order, Papal Rome. As well as a desire to distance themselves from the Jews while at the same time unite with pagan worship. An out of the frying pan and into the fire scenario. This was the beginning of the counterfit of christianity, the union of church and state, an invitation to pagans who already worshiped on Sunday to join them. Before the Papal power would be broken (1798) it made Jewish rule and law look tame by comparison.

Even in those dark times, there were still some people, some where, small in numbers though they be, that were honoring the Sabbath and recognizing the Papal power as the beast of Revelation.

[Ron Amnsn]

Some Jews did not believe Jesus was the Messiah and some continued to offer animal sacrafice's for a couple of hundred years AFTER Jesus died! If Jews are STILL looking for a Messiah, it would be logical for them to continue animal sacrafice today! Why not, if in their view nothing happened, the Messiah never came.

You are assuming:

1) that God intended for the animal sacrifices to end when Messiah died, and

2) that a person who offers animal sacrifices believes that Messiah has not yet come.

Are either of those assumptions taught in Scripture? I don't think so. I think those assumptions were taught by the Roman church and handed down to us as part of the rationalizations for saying that part of God's Word has been set aside.

There is considerable evidence in Scripture that those assumptions are erroneous. However, this topic is not about animal sacrifices, but about how the elect can be deceived. I'm just pointing out some unsupported assumptions that underlie some dearly-held doctrines in order to illustrate how the elect can easily be deceived when they let anything convince them to set aside God's previous instructions in the Old Testament. It doesn't matter whether it's "new light" or "sound reasoning" or "being convinced in his own heart" or anything else. If it sets aside God's earlier instructions, it leads to the deception of a man-made or self-made religion and away from the way that Jesus showed us how to live.

[ClubV12]

Seriously Ron, the only person that is likely to be "deceived" concerning the sacrificial system would be you. 99.9% of all other christians resovled this issue a couple of thousand years ago.

Now the "daily",,, well that's a candidate for decieving even the very elect! No solid consensus on the meaning, plenty of good opinions though.

[Ron Amnsn]

Seriously Ron, the only person that is likely to be "deceived" concerning the sacrificial system would be you. 99.9% of all other christians resolved this issue a couple of thousand years ago.

At the present time, the question of animal sacrifices is "academic" because there is no functioning Temple in Jerusalem so sacrifices cannot be offered. The question of deception is very real though.

For more than 30 years I believed as you do. Now I believe differently. Obviously, I was either wrong before or I am wrong now (or wrong in both cases). I do take the possibility of being deceived very seriously. Growing up in the church I was taught some traditions of men that are unsupported by Scripture, and some that are contrary to Scripture. I've been deceived once. I'm being very careful to avoid being deceived again.

In order to avoid deception I'm being rather strict about testing my beliefs according to the Scriptural criteria I was initially taught in the SDA church. Unfortunately, those criteria are mostly given only lip-service in the SDA church. When it comes down to actually discarding man-made doctrines, SDAs tend to deviate from the Scripture-based criteria for determining truth and error. Instead they rely on other things such as tradition, human reasoning, new light, consensus, or organizational authority.

In your post above you have appealed to popularity to try to support a doctrine that is not found in Scripture. When did the opinion of the majority become a reliable way to determine truth? I think the majority of Christians believe a number of things that you would not accept as truth -- things such as Sunday replacing Sabbath, immortality of the soul, pork eating, etc. Using popularity to determine doctrine would probably put a person on the broad way leading to destruction or in the camp of the one who deceives the whole world.

Also, you made a historical claim that is not accurate. Two thousand years ago in AD 11 where were the Christians? Jesus was just a youth. By all accounts God's faithful people were still bringing their sacrifices to the Temple in Jerusalem.

I understand that you were probably talking in round numbers, but even then your claim is not accurate. Late in the New Testament record the congregation in Jerusalem was still zealous for the Law of Moses and the elders recommended that Paul participate in an animal sacrifice, which Paul probably was planning to do anyway because of his vow taken in Acts 18:18. (That vow appears to have been a Nazarite vow from Numbers 6.) On that last visit to Jerusalem Paul was prevented from offering an animal sacrifice, not by Christian doctrine or by a message from God, but by Jews who were breaking the Law by making false accusations against Paul.

If Christians had settled the issue of animal sacrifices "a couple thousand years ago" the practice among the followers of Jesus at that time was definitely not in agreement with what 99.9% of Christians practice or believe today.

[ClubV12]

My views are in harmony with Sister White, who is in harmony with the bible. If you reject Sister White's counsel and rely solely on the bible how are you any different than a Methodist? Or any other christian church for the matter. The Lord provided Sister White to help us understand and interpret the bible correctly, not to replace it. But here's the deal, IF you've come up with an interpretation that is NOT harmonius with Sister White's commentary on that verse, how you are any different than a Baptist? Your not, good luck with that... it is virtually certain you will be deceived into some kind of false doctrine or misinterpretation of scripture. Unless you think the Episcopalians, Mormons or Jehovah Witness' have it all figured out. They don't need or consider Sister White's counsel either.

[Windsor]

Ron,

Where in the Bible does it say you can only offer sacrifices at the temple in Jerusalem? Seems to me you need to buy yourself a lamb posthaste.

[BobRyan]

How to deceive the very elect, the very sincere. Those sighing and crying for the sins of the church. As well as the less sincere (the "nominal" Adventist), as the "very sincere" like to call them.

Step 1.

Get their eyes off Jesus.

Step 2 (see Step 1).

There are four primary ways to acomplish the distraction:

1. The pleasures of the world.

TV, games, wasted time, electronics, things you "gotta have" to be a "better christian".

hmmm - you mean... like "this"??

[Ron Amnsn]

My views are in harmony with Sister White, who is in harmony with the bible.

[BobRyan]

If Christians had settled the issue of animal sacrifices "a couple thousand years ago" the practice among the followers of Jesus at that time was definitely not in agreement with what 99.9% of Christians practice or believe today.

Hebrews 10 declared the sacrificial system to be forever dead.

But Romans 14 allows for the observance of the Lev 23 annual feast days if someone has that as their preference.

This issue is a tiny spec compared to the more pervasive issue in that last post of mine. Why be so tenacious in pursuing the spec while swallowing the camel?

in Christ,

Bob

[Windsor]

Ron,

Where is your lamb unless you can show me where God only authorized sacrifices at the temple in Jerusalem? (And also explain away all the times it occurred elsewhere)

[Ron Amnsn]

Where in the Bible does it say you can only offer sacrifices at the temple in Jerusalem? Seems to me you need to buy yourself a lamb posthaste.

Leviticus 17:3-9

[Windsor]

It says there goto the tent of meeting. It's not talking about Mount Zion as the children of Israel hadn't entered the promised land as yet. This was before there was an actual temple. And now we live in the time after Herod's temple. You're free to sacrifice at your own tent of meeting, ie your local church. Nowhere does it say the tent of meeting has to be in Jerusalem or even Israel. Even that wasn't an outright prohibition.

1 Samuel 11:15

So all the people went to Gilgal and made Saul king in the presence of the LORD. There they sacrificed fellowship offerings before the LORD, and Saul and all the Israelites held a great celebration.

I Chronicles 21

22 David said to him, “Let me have the site of your threshing floor so I can build an altar to the LORD, that the plague on the people may be stopped. Sell it to me at the full price.”

23 Araunah said to David, “Take it! Let my lord the king do whatever pleases him. Look, I will give the oxen for the burnt offerings, the threshing sledges for the wood, and the wheat for the grain offering. I will give all this.”

24 But King David replied to Araunah, “No, I insist on paying the full price. I will not take for the LORD what is yours, or sacrifice a burnt offering that costs me nothing.”

25 So David paid Araunah six hundred shekels[d] of gold for the site. 26 David built an altar to the LORD there and sacrificed burnt offerings and fellowship offerings. He called on the LORD, and the LORD answered him with fire from heaven on the altar of burnt offering.

[Ron Amnsn]

It says there goto the tent of meeting. It's not talking about Mount Zion as the children of Israel hadn't entered the promised land as yet. This was before there was an actual temple. And now we live in the time after Herod's temple. You're free to sacrifice at your own tent of meeting, ie your local church. Nowhere does it say the tent of meeting has to be in Jerusalem or even Israel. Even that wasn't an outright prohibition.

If you read the Bible in the order it was written, you will find the passages that show the progression from the tabernacle to the Temple in Jerusalem. God told the Israelites that he would choose a place in the promised land in which to place his name. The place that he later chose was the Temple in Jerusalem.

Yes, there are stories in Scripture where God's prophets sacrificed at places besides the tabernacle or Temple. Perhaps God told them to do so. We are not told.

We know that King David was given specific instructions from God to build the altar at the threshing floor of Ornan. (1 Chron 21:18) It was at the same place where Solomon later built the Temple. (2 Chron 3:1)

Considering the consequences mentioned in the Law of Moses for sacrificing at an unauthorized place, it wouldn't be wise to make assumptions or generalizations based on some stories in Scriptures that appear to be exceptions to God's instructions.

There is one instance in Scripture where God changed the instructions about a particular sacrifice. Abraham was told to sacrifice his son Isaac, but later changed the instructions. The changed instructions were very clear and very specific. So we know that God gives specific instructions when he wants changes in the way sacrifices should be done. God hasn't done that regarding his instructions in Leviticus about where to offer animal sacrifices.

Also, the animal sacrifices were to be done by the consecrated priests who were descended from Aaron.

[Ron Amnsn]

Hebrews 10 declared the sacrificial system to be forever dead.

But Romans 14 allows for the observance of the Lev 23 annual feast days if someone has that as their preference.

This issue is a tiny spec compared to the more pervasive issue in that last post of mine. Why be so tenacious in pursuing the spec while swallowing the camel?

Bob, I agree that modern idol worship is a major issue among those who are not following God wholeheartedly.

There are some problems with your assertion that Hebrews 10 declared the sacrificial system to be forever dead.

First, a portion of the animal sacrifices was given to the Levites and priests as their enduring inheritance instead of a portion of the Land of Promise. If God was planning to end the sacrificial system when Messiah died, the coming of Messiah would be bad news rather than good news for the Levites because it meant they would lose their livelihood and inheritance. If Hebrews 10 was actually intending to declare the end of the sacrificial system it would need to address this problem for the Levites, but it doesn't mention it at all. The followers of Jesus who were also Levites (like Barnabas) would be left wondering why Messiah's coming would cause God to revoke their perpetual inheritance unexpectedly.

Second, Hebrews 10 doesn't talk about changes to the sacrificial system. It talks about the reasons that Messiah's sacrifice is better and more effectual than the animal sacrifices. When verse 4 says that it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins, it is saying that had always been the case, not that it is a new situation that has occurred after the death of Messiah.

Third, there is nothing in Hebrews 10 or in the rest of the book of Hebrews that would convince someone who was zealous for the Law of Moses (as were the Jewish followers of Jesus) that part of the Law of Moses had been set aside. There's barely enough said in Heberews 10 to allow those who never loved the Law of God to sort of justify setting aside portions of the Law of God. A spiritual Jew would never be convinced by the vague statements made in Hebrews.

There's no evidence in Romans 14 to indicate that it is talking about God's feast days. The passage is talking about fasting, so it is probably referring to the traditional man-made fast days. The Gentiles were probably wondering if they needed to fast twice a week like some of the Jews did. But there are many other possibilities as well. It would be purely an assumption to say that Romans 14 was making part of God's OT Law optional.

If we were in the military and the General had given the standing orders that God gave in the Old Testament, we would be poor soldiers indeed if we overturned and disobeyed the standing orders based on the pitiful evidence and assumptions that Christians accept as proof that God has changed his mind.

[BobRyan]

Hebrews 10 declared the sacrificial system to be forever dead.

But Romans 14 allows for the observance of the Lev 23 annual feast days if someone has that as their preference.

This issue is a tiny spec compared to the more pervasive issue in that last post of mine. Why be so tenacious in pursuing the spec while swallowing the camel?

[BobRyan]

There's no evidence in Romans 14 to indicate that it is talking about God's feast days. The passage is talking about fasting,

There is no indication at all that Romans 14 is ignoring the annual feast days - Bible approved holy days - in Lev 23 when it makes the case that while one man observes ONE of them ABOVE the others -- another observes them all.

God predicts in Dan 9 that the Messiah would put an end to sacrifice and offerings about 3 years after the Messiah begins his ministry.

Paul reports in Heb 10 that this is exactly what happened.

We would be poor soldiers of the cross indeed - if we chose to ignore this key prediction->fulfillment sequence.

Fortunately - this entire subject is a tiny spec non-issue for Christians today.

Far more impacting is the "idol worship" issue I brought up recently.

Why use a tiny spec issue to derail the main one?

in Christ,

Bob

[jasd]

QR frame:

Isn’t there a Biblical qualifier re the deception of the elect?—I mean, I seem to recall the words, “...if it were possible” used re the deception of the elect. Therefore,

it is a moot issue. The elect cannot be deceived. Yes?

However, that’s not to say that they would not cleave to iffy/fuzzy dogmatology, yes?

Now, if y’alls were or could be deceived – you’d not be of the elect..., seems to me. And that deception

would not hinge upon the adoption of certain pagan beliefs.

(For example:Trinitarianism is pagan in origin...)

Re "idolatry": is that better or worse than iconolatry? And, what does one say of Joshua and the elders lying themselves prostrate before the ark, the cherubim, Aaron's rod, tables of stone, and manna - some of which were graven?—ain not that the classic sense of idolotry? Yet, no chastisement from Gd... Hmmm.

(Remember, no Biblcal record of the Shekinah attaching to the ark when having crossed the Jordan)

[ClubV12]

I know what you mean jasd, the "if it were possible" concept for the elect. The key is how do you know you ARE the elect? Many claimed to love Jesus and He said He didn't even know them! By the same token that no elect will be deceived, rest assured, those who are NOT elect WILL be deceived! The Lord will send a strong delusion to them so they will believe they are correct when they are entirely mistaken.

Delusions WILL come to all of us at some point and they will be SO difficult to discern truth from error no amount of biblical and Spirit of Prophecy knowledge will be able to discern. Your ONLY hope to avoid deception will be the Holy Spirit. There may well be a Spirit impressing you alright, which Spirit will be?

So how do you KNOW which Spirit is guiding you? We are told some folks will be "sincerely mistaken". We do have some guidelines in practical terms to help us know. PRINCIPLES we can apply to virtually every issue we come across. Regardless of what you see, hear, what appears to be happening, regardless of the logic and reason IF there is even the slightest thing that conflicts with KNOWN truth or principles this new "theory" or "light" is wrong. You don't need to put your finger on it, you don't need to know why or how to explain it. If it conflicts with known revealed truth and PRINCIPLES of truth, it is wrong.

Consider the Spirit in which it's delivered for instance. Believe this new idea or die? Not a good way to start things out. Trash talking the Pioneers, like, "Well they didn't know everything and they were wrong on this issue." Maybe they were wrong, maybe not (LIKELY NOT)! "Trash talking" is a red flag right off the bat. It's not how the Holy Spirit works, but another spirit.

If your considering the bible and the bible alone, which sounds terrific, if your a Baptist, or a loner. How accurate are the Methodists with that "bible and bible only" thing, how's that working out for them? If your a Seventh-day Adventist you would be a FOOL not to consider the counsel of Ellen White on an issue. That is a virtual gaurentee of being deceived, ignoring light you already have!

...now the Ellen White bashers, deceived lot that they are, start harping on how Adventists place Ellen White above the bible. Its not true of course, they just don't get it, they can't understand the BALANCE.