Is salvation the whole purpose?

[BibleOnly]

Originally Posted By: BibleOnly

[Guest]

Amen robert...

[M. T. Cross]

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/498368.html#Post498368

[Guest]

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

No SDA would ever use EGW to try and prove ANYTHING to a non-SDA. If it's between two Adventist's then that's a little different.

[M. T. Cross]

Originally Posted By: BibleOnly

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

No SDA would ever use EGW to try and prove ANYTHING to a non-SDA. If it's between two Adventist's then that's a little different.

But it does happen here a lot. Right in this thread.

Again I agree that on an SDA board it should not surprise anyone to see her quoted between Adventists, or as a simple referance as to one way to view things.

[Guest]

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

I see...

[M. T. Cross]

Thats a big eye there eh!

(see how I used that as an affirmitive? It comes from the igloos and the hockey I think )

[Ron Amnsn]

"Revelation reveals that the 144,000 are made up of 12,000 from each of 12 tribes of Israel."

SPIRITUAL ISRAEL, not literal Israel, the same ones that rejected and crucified Christ and killed Stephen in 34 AD.

I used to believe firmly what you are teaching. But when I went to Scripture to test the things I believed, I found that what I believed about "spiritual Israel" was contrary to Scripture.

Nowhere does Scripture say anything about a "spiritual Israel" that is separate from the actual descendants of the Israelites or separate from the Covenants that God gave to the Israelites. Yes, Gentiles can join themselves to the remnant of the Israelites (as they always could) to serve the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

By the way, those who crucified Christ were forgiven (unless God didn't answer the prayer of Jesus in Luke 23:34). Jesus has forgiven them, why haven't you?

Stephen also asked that those who killed him be forgiven. (Acts 7:60) Although Stephen forgave them, you apparently have not forgiven them. We know that at least one of those who approved of stoning Stephen was later called by God (even though Paul was still unrepentant at the time God called him).

Compared to the actual number of Israelites who were heirs of God's covenants and promises, it was only a very tiny number who rejected and crucified Jesus, and it was only a few individuals who stoned Stephen. Scripture is clear that there was still a remnant of literal Israel who were faithful to God.

When the Israelites rebelled against God and refused to enter the Promised Land, Caleb and Joshua were the faithful remnant. The rest of the adults died in the wilderness, but the descendants of the unfaithful Israelites still inherited the land that was promised to their ancestors. God keeps his covenants and promises.

[BibleOnly]

Originally Posted By: BibleOnly

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

No SDA would ever use EGW to try and prove ANYTHING to a non-SDA. If it's between two Adventist's then that's a little different.

I believe the thread is locked now, but you're welcome to go and have a look, it's the Sabbath thead.

[Guest]

I believe the thread is locked now, but you're welcome to go and have a look, it's the Sabbath thead.

Why is it locked?

[BibleOnly]

I have no idea. It just said it was locked. It does seem to me that we were going in circles, and I believe that's the thread on which I posted a request that those responding either respond to the scriptures I had posted ad nauseum, or stop calling me names, so I guess they posted one more justification of their views and brought it to a close.

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: BibleOnly

I believe the thread is locked now, but you're welcome to go and have a look, it's the Sabbath thead.

Why is it locked?

Some folk need a cooling off break....

[ClubV12]

"...the second she is used to bolster a point,..."

She is a profound author, a serious student of the bible, she has excellent counsel to offer on many and varied subjects.

The second I see YOU making some comment to bolster your point, I think why should I listen to this guy? Why should I believe his interpretation of scripture anymore than some other bible student on the web? Why does YOUR opinion and interpretation of scripture carry any more weight than any given Commentary? Or Ellen White for that matter.

How many books have YOU written? How much study have YOU done? What makes YOU so special that I should even consider your counsel, over Ellen Whites, or any other respected theological speaker?

If I believe some particular speaker is right on the money, does that mean I worship them in some way? That I place their opinion above the bible? Of course not, and Ellen White is no different in that regard than many others who interpret and view the bible and offer their counsel on what it means.

I've read many of her books, I am duly impressed. Her level of understanding concerning scripture I place right up there with the best of the best. But hey, go it alone if you think you can. Avoid ALL commentairies, all video's, all web sites, all counsel from others and form your own opinions, all by yourself. Good luck with doing it that way, your going to need it. Because you WILL be alone, because you don't understand HOW the Holy Spirit works in revealing spiritual insight to man.

[Ron Amnsn]

Originally Posted By: BibleOnly

...

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.

Why do people never quote the next verse which tells which "promise" Paul is referring to in the phrase "children of the promise"?

Actually, I know why they don't quote the next verse, because that verse destroys the point they are trying to make by quoting the fragment above.

In Romans 9-11 Paul shows that God's covenants and promises belong to the chosen descendants of Abraham. (Isaac, not Ishmael or the others. Jacob, not Esau.) And they belong to the faithful remnant of Israel (not the unfaithful ones) and to the Gentiles who are grafted in to Israel by faith in the Seed of Abraham, Jesus. Paul is not at all talking about a "spiritual Israel" that is separate from the descendants of Jacob.

[M. T. Cross]

***Looks round the room sternly***

Do I have to create a thread on EGW as well?

[Q.E.D.]

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.

Since you, Empty Cross, claim to be an ex-Seventh-day Adventist one would think that YOU would KNOW that GC stands for Great ContrOversy. So what is there to ASSUME? Did you think it stood for Gutless Commentary?

Why ANYONE would WONDER "why someone would throw out Ellen G. White stuff at a non-Adventist in an effort to get their point across" BEGS the question,"Why not throw out EGW stuff at a non Adventist?". I am Seventh-day Adventist to the core and I will "throw out" Seventh_day Adventist doctrine without apology.

For your information Ellen G. White writings have brought millions of people into the Remnant Church which includes atheists, Baptists, Catholics, Buddhists, Mormons and even godless reprobates.

I do not have to conform to what you or anyone else for that matter THINK is the "Politically Correct" way to get a point across. And furthermore Ellen G. White is just as much as a valid and authoritative commentator on the scriptures as ANY other popular commentator.

I could have made the same points as Ellen G. White did in the Great Controversy quote that I posted. But if I had done that then those that hate the Present Truth would have said “Well, that’s just your opinion and your opinion is worthless as far as Truth is concerned.” So WHY NOT spread the TRUTH as it comes STRAIGHT from the Holy Spirit INSPIRED writings of Ellen G. White and let the Holy Spirit convict them of the value of it.

"16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek."(Rom 1:16)

Q.E.D.

[Q.E.D.]

"...the second she is used to bolster a point,..."

She is a profound author, a serious student of the bible, she has excellent counsel to offer on many and varied subjects.

The second I see YOU making some comment to bolster your point, I think why should I listen to this guy? Why should I believe his interpretation of scripture anymore than some other bible student on the web? Why does YOUR opinion and interpretation of scripture carry any more weight than any given Commentary? Or Ellen White for that matter.

How many books have YOU written? How much study have YOU done? What makes YOU so special that I should even consider your counsel, over Ellen Whites, or any other respected theological speaker?

If I believe some particular speaker is right on the money, does that mean I worship them in some way? That I place their opinion above the bible? Of course not, and Ellen White is no different in that regard than many others who interpret and view the bible and offer their counsel on what it means.

I've read many of her books, I am duly impressed. Her level of understanding concerning scripture I place right up there with the best of the best. But hey, go it alone if you think you can. Avoid ALL commentairies, all video's, all web sites, all counsel from others and form your own opinions, all by yourself. Good luck with doing it that way, your going to need it. Because you WILL be alone, because you don't understand HOW the Holy Spirit works in revealing spiritual insight to man.

Amen!

Q.E.D.

[phkrause]

***Looks round the room sternly***

Do I have to create a thread on EGW as well?

There are a number of them. :)

[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.

Since you, Empty Cross, claim to be an ex-Seventh-day Adventist one would think that YOU would KNOW that GC stands for Great ContrOversy. So what is there to ASSUME? Did you think it stood for Gutless Commentary?

Why ANYONE would WONDER "why someone would throw out Ellen G. White stuff at a non-Adventist in an effort to get their point across" BEGS the question,"Why not throw out EGW stuff at a non Adventist?". I am Seventh-day Adventist to the core and I will "throw out" Seventh_day Adventist doctrine without apology.

For your information Ellen G. White writings have brought millions of people into the Remnant Church which includes atheists, Baptists, Catholics, Buddhists, Mormons and even godless reprobates.

I do not have to conform to what you or anyone else for that matter THINK is the "Politically Correct" way to get a point across. And furthermore Ellen G. White is just as much as a valid and authoritative commentator on the scriptures as ANY other popular commentator.

I could have made the same points as Ellen G. White did in the Great Controversy quote that I posted. But if I had done that then those that hate the Present Truth would have said “Well, that’s just your opinion and your opinion is worthless as far as Truth is concerned.” So WHY NOT spread the TRUTH as it comes STRAIGHT from the Holy Spirit INSPIRED writings of Ellen G. White and let the Holy Spirit convict them of the value of it.

"16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek."(Rom 1:16)

Q.E.D.

Well sorry if I hit a sore spot there Q.E.D. I asked politely and you seem to be getting your hackles right up, you might want to take a couple deep breaths.

I asked if it was the EGW book, simply because there are a million books out there and I wanted to be sure. Also since I am fairly sure BibleOnly has never read EGW the letters GC would not mean a lot. Tis only fair to be clear to that person where you are quoting from.

Nothing to do with political correctness. I quite despise pc things to be honest. Its just something I see as counter productive. For the most part I think it would do the opposite of the intended action. Quote who ever you want. I simply was asking why you would do that. cause I don't get it. If I never ask then I will never understand where you came from with it.

People could say it is just EGW's opinion just as much as they could say it was your opinion.

[Guest]

Depending on the context, GC can also mean "General Conference of Seventh Day Adventists".

[phkrause]

By the way, those who crucified Christ were forgiven (unless God didn't answer the prayer of Jesus in Luke 23:34). Jesus has forgiven them, why haven't you?

Stephen also asked that those who killed him be forgiven. (Acts 7:60) Although Stephen forgave them, you apparently have not forgiven them. We know that at least one of those who approved of stoning Stephen was later called by God (even though Paul was still unrepentant at the time God called him).

That's true that Jesus and Stephen forgave those that were killing them. The bigger question would be, have these individuals asked for forgiveness from the Father/God? I understand what your saying but your point is not being made here. At least the point that I see you trying to make to Club.

[M. T. Cross]

Depending on the context, GC can also mean "General Conference of Seventh Day Adventists".

indubitably

[Ron Amnsn]

Originally Posted By: Ron Amnsn

... 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.

Jesus died before AD 34, however John wrote about it well after AD 34. If John believed as you do about the nation being rejected in AD 34, why would he go out of his way to point out Caiaphas made a true prediction about Jesus dying for the nation, if that nation was already no longer relevant at the time of the writing? When he wrote (after AD 34) John still believed that the nation was significant in the regathering prophesied by the Old Testament prophets.

[Q.E.D.]

Well sorry if I hit a sore spot there Q.E.D. I asked politely and you seem to be getting your hackles right up, you might want to take a couple deep breaths.

No sore spot there at all.

"I asked politely." I don't play games. Most Seventh-day Adventists would immediately know it was written by Ellen G. White from the style and content, ESPECIALLY when they saw the (GC11, 22-23) at the end of the quote. Don't play dumb.

You asked and you knew the answer. You just wanted to attack Ellen White as non-viable.

And no thanks to your "deep breaths" condescension.

Q.E.D.

[M. T. Cross]

Originally Posted By: EmptyCross

Well sorry if I hit a sore spot there Q.E.D. I asked politely and you seem to be getting your hackles right up, you might want to take a couple deep breaths.

No sore spot there at all.

"I asked politely." I don't play games. Most Seventh-day Adventists would immediately know it was written by Ellen G. White from the style and content, ESPECIALLY when they saw the (GC11, 22-23) at the end of the quote. Don't play dumb.

You asked and you knew the answer. You just wanted to attack Ellen White as non-viable.

And no thanks to your "deep breaths" condescension.

Q.E.D.

Well. I hate to burst the bubble but no.

I was not 100% sure

You were responding to BibleOnly who is not an SDA

I asked because I wanted clarification before asking the next question in that post.

I feel no need to attack Ellen White. I have clearly stated several times how I personally feel about her. I have also clearly stated that I think that if others get something from what she says - more power to them

Deep breaths are very good for you, I was not being condesending at all. You seemed seriously peeved off there. When I get that way thats what I do. I learned from many broken bones it is the wiser choice.