Is salvation the whole purpose?

[John317]

... word game.

It seems to me that if we go by what you say about word games, we would have to conclude that the Bible itself is full of "word games."

How about "Christ the Son of God"? Did the pre-existent Christ literally come out of His Father like a human son comes out of his father? What is the meaning of "Son of God" in reference to Jesus Christ?

Do you view it as a "word game"?

When Jesus at first said that Lazarus was only sleeping and then said Lazarus was dead, was Jesus playing "word games"?

Or how about when Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I AM"-- was that a word game?

[BibleOnly]

Well, I've come to conclude that according to the SDA, it is....

"How about "Christ the Son of God"? Did the pre-existent Christ literally come out of His Father like a human son comes out of his father? What is the meaning of "Son of God" in reference to Jesus Christ? "

It's obviously a spiritual concept designed to be easy for us to understand in natural terms. God didn't tell someone else they were His Son, then said, no, it's not you, it's Jesus instead.

"When Jesus at first said that Lazarus was only sleeping and then said Lazarus was dead, was Jesus playing "word games"? "

The Bible says that sleep is what the dead do. In that sense, He was both telling the truth, and indicating that his death was not final. He didn't say that then say, "No, he's dead, I meant something else"

"Or how about when Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I AM"-- was that a word game?"

Do you believe Jesus did not preexist Abraham ?

In none of these cases does God make a promise, then say to the people He made it to, no, I meant someone else.

[John317]

...

Simply because you can't take the promises to Israel and say 'no, they apply to Spiritual Israel'.

Don't you see any evidence for this in the Bible?

Look carefully at a few texts:

Romans 9:6-8

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,

[7] and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named."

[8] This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.

[BibleOnly]

The fact remains that your interpretation is that God made promises to a nation, and then broke them by giving them to someone else.

Start a thread if you like.

[John317]

In none of these cases does God make a promise, then say to the people He made it to, no, I meant someone else.

Aren't there conditions to God's promises? Or are they unconditional?

[BibleOnly]

Gosh. Start a thread if you want to discuss it. Some promises are conditional, and some are not. You have to read them to tell them apart. The first one that is conditional that comes to life is the 'choose life' passage.

[Overaged]

Gosh. Start a thread if you want to discuss it. Some promises are conditional, and some are not. You have to read them to tell them apart. The first one that is conditional that comes to life is the 'choose life' passage.

[Q.E.D.]

Originally Posted By: ClubV12

BibleOnly, "Spiritual Israel" not literal Israel. All those who accept Christ are a part of spiritual Israel. The Jewish Nation sealed their fate in 34 AD when they stoned Stephen, it was over for them.

Rubbish. The Bible never says that. In fact, as I showed, all those who 'accept Christ' ( not really a biblical term, but I'll let it go ), are those who rule over israel. How can the church both be changed, and rule over itself?

Jesus Christ is the Israel of God.

"10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

11 ¶ Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

12 That at that time ye were without Christ , being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;"(Eph 2:10-14)

It Was Over For Them

"The hour of hope and pardon was fast passing; the cup of God's long-deferred wrath was almost full. The cloud that had been gathering through ages of apostasy and rebellion, now black with woe, was about to burst upon a guilty people; and He who alone could save them from their impending fate had been slighted, abused, rejected, and was soon to be crucified. When Christ should hang upon the cross of Calvary, Israel's day as a nation favored and blessed of God would be ended. The loss of even one soul is a calamity infinitely outweighing the gains and treasures of a world; but as Christ looked upon Jerusalem, the doom of a whole city, a whole nation, was before Him–that city, that nation, which had once been the chosen of God, His peculiar treasure."(GC11, 20-21)

"Prophets had wept over the apostasy of Israel and the terrible desolations by which their sins were visited. Jeremiah wished that his eyes were a fountain of tears, that he might weep day and night for the slain of the daughter of his people, for the Lord's flock that was carried away captive. Jeremiah 9:1; 13:17. What, then, was the grief of Him whose prophetic glance took in, not years, but ages! He beheld the destroying angel with sword uplifted against the city which had so long been Jehovah's dwelling place. From the ridge of Olivet, the very spot afterward occupied by Titus and his army, He looked across the valley upon the sacred courts and porticoes, and with tear-dimmed eyes He saw, in awful perspective, the walls surrounded by alien hosts. He heard the tread of armies marshaling for war. He heard the voice of mothers and children crying for bread in the besieged city. He saw her holy and beautiful house, her palaces and towers, given to the flames, and where once they stood, only a heap of smoldering ruins.

Looking down the ages, He saw the covenant people scattered in every land, "like wrecks on a desert shore." In the temporal retribution about to fall upon her children, He saw but the first draft from that cup of wrath which at the final judgment she must drain to its dregs. Divine pity, yearning love, found utterance in the mournful words: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" O that thou, a nation favored above every other, hadst known the time of thy visitation, and the things that belong unto thy peace! I have stayed the angel of justice, I have called thee to repentance, but in vain. It is not merely servants, delegates, and prophets, whom thou hast refused and rejected, but the Holy One of Israel, thy Redeemer. If thou art destroyed, thou alone art responsible. "Ye will not come to Me, that ye might have life." Matthew 23:37; John 5:40."(GC11, 21-22)

"The Majesty of heaven in tears! the Son of the infinite God troubled in spirit, bowed down with anguish! The scene filled all heaven with wonder. That scene reveals to us the exceeding sinfulness of sin; it shows how hard a task it is, even for Infinite Power, to save the guilty from the consequences of transgressing the law of God. Jesus, looking down to the last generation, saw the world involved in a deception similar to that which caused the destruction of Jerusalem. The great sin of the Jews was their rejection of Christ; the great sin of the Christian world would be their rejection of the law of God, the foundation of His government in heaven and earth. The precepts of Jehovah would be despised and set at nought. Millions in bondage to sin, slaves of Satan, doomed to suffer the second death, would refuse to listen to the words of truth in their day of visitation. Terrible blindness! strange infatuation!" (GC11, 22-23)

Q.E.D.

[M. T. Cross]

Q.E.D

I assume GC stands for EGW's Great Contreversy?

If so, again I wonder why someone would throw out EGW stuff at a non Adventist in an effort to get their point across.

[Overaged]

Q.E.D

I assume GC stands for EGW's Great Contreversy?

If so, again I wonder why someone would throw out EGW stuff at a non Adventist in an effort to get their point across.

Well; at the risk of incurring another rocking chair war; I would like to petition for intervener status here, please.

If you are saying here that you find it offensive that someone fire an EGW quote at you, and that you don't want them to; that is OK with me, I can understand and accept that. No problem.

It's just that conversely; I would say that this is an Adventist board, so you sort of have to expect a bit of it.

For eg, and I can only speak for myself, I do use her writings a bit; but I am a REALLY ODD ONE when it comes to that. I don't distinguish much between "Adventist" and "non Adventist," when it comes to that. They are all people to me; and I can share my spiritual walk equally with both. For eg, a short while ago; I was trying to encourage a "non-Adventist" who is going through some rough times, and just off the top of my hat I said to him: "The Lord has a thousand ways to provide for us of which we know nothing." It was very well received, and served a good purpose - but it was from the pen of Ellen G White. (SC)

I think that whatever we do share with people; whether it from her, or Spurgeon, or the Pope, it has to be well-intentioned, and relevant, and hopefully Biblical...

I do have something else to say here but I will save it for another post. LOL; you didn't ask me why I said that big Amen earlier! I thought for sure you would, cause you said you were not really expecting one.

[M. T. Cross]

Originally Posted By: EmptyCross

Q.E.D

I assume GC stands for EGW's Great Contreversy?

If so, again I wonder why someone would throw out EGW stuff at a non Adventist in an effort to get their point across.

Well; at the risk of incurring another rocking chair war; I would like to petition for intervener status here, please.

If you are saying here that you find it offensive that someone fire an EGW quote at you, and that you don't want them to; that is OK with me, I can understand and accept that. No problem.

It's just that conversely; I would say that this is an Adventist board, so you sort of have to expect a bit of it.

For eg, and I can only speak for myself, I do use her writings a bit; but I am a REALLY ODD ONE when it comes to that. I don't distinguish much between "Adventist" and "non Adventist," when it comes to that. They are all people to me; and I can share my spiritual walk equally with both. For eg, a short while ago; I was trying to encourage a "non-Adventist" who is going through some rough times, and just off the top of my hat I said to him: "The Lord has a thousand ways to provide for us of which we know nothing." It was very well received, and served a good purpose - but it was from the pen of Ellen G White. (SC)

I think that whatever we do share with people; whether it from her, or Spurgeon, or the Pope, it has to be well-intentioned, and relevant, and hopefully Biblical...

I do have something else to say here but I will save it for another post. LOL; you didn't ask me why I said that big Amen earlier! I thought for sure you would, cause you said you were not really expecting one.

Well in the case of you encouraging a friend you could likely use something deep from Kung Fu Panda and its likely to have a positive effect.

But in arguing theology with a non SDA I wonder at it. Especially with any that flat out say they don't believe in stuff outside of the Bible. I would think that it defeats the purpose. IMHO it comes down to having paid enough attention to what your debate partner is saying to know if they are going to accept it as valid.

I agree that it is an SDA board and it should be expected to a degree. I expect it to be thrown at me cause I am a former Adventist.

As for the AMEN. I have come to expect the unexpected from you. Of copurse it could be that you just saw my light

[John317]

... John 11:51 where it states that Caiphas prophesied correctly that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation. That would be an odd thing for John to write after AD 34 if what you assert was actually true. Obviously John didn't believe that "it was over for them" after AD 34.

Jesus certainly died for the Jewish nation-- in fact, He died for every human being who ever lived. At the time Christ died, the Jewish nation hadn't been rejected by God. As a nation, they weren't rejected until 34 A.D. God's rejection of Jews as a nation doesn't mean they can't be saved; it only means that God isn't concerned with a person's ethnicity or nationality.

[BobRyan]

BibleOnly, "Spiritual Israel" not literal Israel. All those who accept Christ are a part of spiritual Israel. The Jewish Nation sealed their fate in 34 AD when they stoned Stephen, it was over for them.

[Overaged]

LOL; I am glad to see that my reputation is starting to precede me a bit! Atleast you know I am not getting stale in my old age.!!

But there is SOME of your light that has resonated with me on this topic.

I have preached a few sermons in the past with a particular theme in them that would support one of your ideas here quite well.

I see their point when people here say something like "being with Jesus is the most important thing to me;" and therefore, "salvation" is too.

I have always seen this as a selfish, self-centered religion, in some cases not even Biblical. We Christians become so bent on saving ourselves that we divert any efforts to bring someone else with us...Although the Bible tells us that we are the only ones who can decide for or against Jesus; it does not mean that we can go for His offer without trying to include others by living the kind of honest life you spoke of earlier.

(in a nutshell - details will follow according to your wishes)

[Overaged]

I am not an "Israelite. I am a Canadian.

[M. T. Cross]

I am not an "Israelite. I am a Canadian.

Eh.

[M. T. Cross]

LOL; I am glad to see that my reputation is starting to precede me a bit! Atleast you know I am not getting stale in my old age.!!

But there is SOME of your light that has resonated with me on this topic.

I have preached a few sermons in the past with a particular theme in them that would support one of your ideas here quite well.

I see their point when people here say something like "being with Jesus is the most important thing to me;" and therefore, "salvation" is too.

I have always seen this as a selfish, self-centered religion, in some cases not even Biblical. We Christians become so bent on saving ourselves that we divert any efforts to bring someone else with us...Although the Bible tells us that we are the only ones who can decide for or against Jesus; it does not mean that we can go for His offer without trying to include others by living the kind of honest life you spoke of earlier.

(in a nutshell - details will follow according to your wishes)

I will Amen you now too. Sir.

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: Overaged

I am not an "Israelite. I am a Canadian.

Eh.

Just trying to humbly say this whole Israel thing is a bit up the creek without the paddle.

[Guest]

Eh.

No, that's...eh? It's always a question.

[M. T. Cross]

I am not an "Israelite. I am a Canadian.

[BibleOnly]

It's just that conversely; I would say that this is an Adventist board, so you sort of have to expect a bit of it.

The issue you need to understand is that a non Adventist does not regard EW as a writer of scripture, but someone who has to conform to it. I've faced this on the board before, and in my mind, the second she is used to bolster a point, I see the SDA does not rely on scripture alone, but scripture through the eyes of a false prophet. That may be unfair, but for sure, once someone moves past the Bible for proof, they lose credibility in my eyes. So, it just makes sense to stick to the Bible because that's the only accepted source of authority for all Christians, right ?

[Guest]

The issue you need to understand is that a non Adventist does not regard EW as a writer of scripture, but someone who has to conform to it.

Same as with an Adventist.

[M. T. Cross]

Originally Posted By: EmptyCross

Eh.

No, that's...eh? It's always a question.

Not always. In cAnAdA it can mean a whole range of thing eh.

[robert hickman]

[BibleOnly]

Originally Posted By: BibleOnly

The issue you need to understand is that a non Adventist does not regard EW as a writer of scripture, but someone who has to conform to it.

Same as with an Adventist.

I'm sure you would say that, and yet, then why would anyone quote her as being proof in a discussion on the Bible ?