Scriptures Refute the "Adventist Alternative"

[Samie]

Towards the end of the foreword of the book Adventist Alternative, the author writes:

Quote:

Here are two secrets for consideration as you formulate and confirm your personal belief system:

A. be absolutely HONEST and make your OWN, personal decisions, based on Scripture ALONE.

B. do not be afraid of what your family or church friends might say if you believe differently than they do.

May God bless you as you journey with me with an open heart and mind.

Pieter Erens Barkhuizen, Th.D

While I agree with a good portion of the book, I started this thread to point out inconsistencies the book has against what Scriptures say. The objective is to give opportunity for others who likewise disagree with portions of the book to post their comments as well as for those who are in complete agreement with the book to counter what I considered to be inconsistencies in the book and in the process come up with a better Alternative not only for Adventists but for all others who would heed the words of the author to "be absolutely HONEST" and make their "OWN, personal decisions, based on Scripture ALONE".

Having said that, I hope all the other posters to this thread would be willing and ready to prove their point based solely on the Bible and the Bible alone. I would also suggest that whenever possible, let us first finish an issue before bringing up another one so as not to clutter the thread with so many unresolved issues.

For starters, let us tackle the first inconsistency I found in the book. In chapter 1, page 11, the author writes:

Quote:

If you have not yet accepted Jesus as your personal Savior and Lord, please accept His free gift of salvation RIGHT NOW! There may never be a more convenient time. Simply pray this little prayer with me: Dear Father-God in Heaven, I confess that I am a sinner and that I cannot help myself. I accept Your gift of Your Son Jesus, who died in my place. Because You have forgiven all my sins, I am right now giving the rest of my life to You. Do with me as You know best, and guide me with Your Spirit. In the name of Jesus. Amen.

If you have prayed this prayer, CONGRATULATIONS! A new name is written in the Lamb’s Book of Life! Your sins are covered with the blood, on the cross of Calvary - as far removed as night is from day …… The promise of God’s forgetfulness is given just for you. Praise Him! Your sins are gone!

So why is the above quoted portion of the book inconsistent with what Scriptures say? Here are Scriptural facts:

Quote:

Fact #1. Sin separates man from God (Isa 59:2). When Adam sinned, he was separated from God, and along with him in that separation are all his descendants (Rom 5:12-19)

Fact #2. Because of that separation, man is dead in sin (Eph 2:1; Col 2:13)

Fact #3. Being dead in sin, man cannot do anything good (Jer 13:23; Isa 64:6)

Fact #4. Because we cannot do anything good, God took the initiative, and on the cross fashioned humanity - Jews and Gentiles - into the body of His Son (Eph 2:11-19) and while we were still sinners, that is still dead in sin, Christ died for us (Rom 5:8).

Fact #5. That death forgave us all sins, and when Christ resurrected, God resurrected us, His body, together with Him (Eph 2:4-6; Col 2:13), and through that resurrection caused us all to be born again, that is, made spiritually alive into a living hope of life eternal (1 Pet 1:3,4).

It was all God's actions through Christ that brought forgiveness and made us spiritually alive as the above Scriptures indicate. But the quoted portion of the Adventist Alternative (the "AA" from hereon) portrays that had a person not accepted Christ then his sins could not have been covered with the blood of the Lamb! While Scriptures portray that all credit belongs to God in man's being forgiven and made alive, the "AA" portrays man has a share in the credit, because had he not believed he would not have been covered by His blood. The position that the "AA" rejects in pages 8 & 9 is now the same position it takes.

The "AA" however, is not alone in this inconsistent position. This is actually the position taken by almost the whole Christian world, a position that requires that which is impossible for the still dead in sin to be able to do. For how can anyone do the good act of praying the little prayer in page 11 of the "AA" when he is still dead in sin, as Fact #3 above indicates?

The fact that men can now do good like accepting Christ as personal Savior, repenting, deciding to be baptized, etc., is proof enough men had already been made spiritually alive by what God through Christ has done for us all. But as I have for many times posted in different threads in this forum, this is only the first of the 3 dimensions of the gospel, the real gospel that Christ said need to be preached in all the world before He comes again (Matt 24:14).

[Ron Amnsn]

So why is the above quoted portion of the book inconsistent with what Scriptures say? Here are Scriptural facts:

Quote:

Fact #1. Sin separates man from God (Isa 59:2). When Adam sinned, he was separated from God, and along with him in that separation are all his descendants (Rom 5:12-19)

Fact #2. Because of that separation, man is dead in sin (Eph 2:1; Col 2:13)

Fact #3. Being dead in sin, man cannot do anything good (Jer 13:23; Isa 64:6)

Fact #4. Because we cannot do anything good, God took the initiative, and on the cross fashioned humanity - Jews and Gentiles - into the body of His Son (Eph 2:11-19) and while we were still sinners, that is still dead in sin, Christ died for us (Rom 5:8).

Fact #5. That death forgave us all sins, and when Christ resurrected, God resurrected us, His body, together with Him (Eph 2:4-6; Col 2:13), and through that resurrection caused us all to be born again, that is, made spiritually alive into a living hope of life eternal (1 Pet 1:3,4).

It was all God's actions through Christ that brought forgiveness and made us spiritually alive as the above Scriptures indicate.

Samie, It looks to me like you're nitpicking. One person will describe things in a different way than another person. Neither description fully captures the essence of how salvation happens. The AA book apparently doesn't describe the process of salvation the way you would describe it. The AA description may not even be consistent with the rest of the book, but is this a core teaching of the book? Or has the author simply given a sinner an opportunity to take the first steps toward repentance?

I looked up all the passages you provided for your "facts" above and found that several of the passages, when read in the original context, don't support the "fact" that you list. For instance, you seem to be using the passages as if they were describing someone who is just making the first transition from sinner to saint, but some of the passages are speaking of people who have already been part of God's people for a significant period of time (ie. Isaiah 59:2, 1Pet 1:3,4). None of the passages actually support a blanket statement or "fact" that would be true for all people from all backgrounds in all situations. There are enough passages in Scripture that contradict your "facts" that a careful student of Scripture would have a hard time accepting your "facts" as a scientific description of how salvation works.

Since you say the AA author is not alone in his view, and the differences between that view and your view have probably already been debated endlessly on this forum, let's move on to the next inconsistency you noticed in the book.

[Samie]

...

Samie, It looks to me like you're nitpicking. One person will describe things in a different way than another person. Neither description fully captures the essence of how salvation happens. The AA book apparently doesn't describe the process of salvation the way you would describe it. The AA description may not even be consistent with the rest of the book, but is this a core teaching of the book? Or has the author simply given a sinner an opportunity to take the first steps toward repentance?

I looked up all the passages you provided for your "facts" above and found that several of the passages, when read in the original context, don't support the "fact" that you list. For instance, you seem to be using the passages as if they were describing someone who is just making the first transition from sinner to saint, but some of the passages are speaking of people who have already been part of God's people for a significant period of time (ie. Isaiah 59:2, 1Pet 1:3,4). None of the passages actually support a blanket statement or "fact" that would be true for all people from all backgrounds in all situations. There are enough passages in Scripture that contradict your "facts" that a careful student of Scripture would have a hard time accepting your "facts" as a scientific description of how salvation works.

Since you say the AA author is not alone in his view, and the differences between that view and your view have probably already been debated endlessly on this forum, let's move on to the next inconsistency you noticed in the book.

Thanks, for the time, Ron.

I really have to make my position clear, that the transition from sinner to saint you mentioned, is not man's work, as you probably understood it. No, brother. God, through Christ, did it for man, that is, for all descendants of Adam & Eve, no one exempted nor left out, all by grace, ABSOLUTELY no human participation. This first dimension of the gospel made all men saints or holy in God's sight (Heb 10:10, 14), and enabled every man, before and after the cross, to live out his lifetime in the 2nd dimension where man, having been attached to Christ Who is His strength, ought to overcome evil with good by positively responding to the leading of the Holy Spirit as God works IN him both to will and to do His good pleasure. Only overcomers will have their names remain in the book of life and, in the third dimension, be rewarded with life eternal; all others will suffer the wrath of God and ultimately the lake of fire. This is the Scriptural position and places all men on equal footing in God's sight.

The brand of gospel espoused by the "AA" and almost all of Christendom considers what Christ did on the cross as only some sort of "offer". Accept it, and your in. Only believers are privileged to become part of the body of Christ, because they believed and accepted what Christ did for them. Had they not believed, then, they would not have been a part of His body. Ergo, man has a part in His being part of the body of Christ. Unscriptural. Because it is just impossible for a man, who while apart from Christ, can do the good work of believing and accepting. It is just like requiring the unconscious to go to the paramedic for him to be resuscitated. And apart from Christ, we are not only unconscious: We are DEAD. But to make this unscriptural stance look scriptural, preachers teach that man's accepting and belief are not his work but God's. So God did the work of believing for those who believed? No. The reason why men can now accept and believe and repent, etc., is because God through Christ, had already made us all spiritually alive, attached to the body of Christ!

The transition, nay, the CONVERSION from sinner to saint, is not man's work. It is God's.

The next inconsistency of the "AA" in my next post.

[Samie]

Inconsistency #2 (Discussion started on page 19, onwards. I took out his conclusion on page 29):

Quote:

...Dan. 8:14 was fulfilled by Antiochus and Judah Maccabeus. Jesus CONFIRMED this for us in John 10:22, 23.

How did Jesus make the ASSUMED confirmation? Let's take a look at the given verses:

Quote:

John 10:22-23

22 And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter.

23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch.

Hardly a confirmation, it seems. I could not make heads or tails on how these verses support the position that Dan 8:14 was fulfilled by Antiochus and Judas...

But why did I say that the conclusion specified in page 29 of the "AA" is inconsistent with what Scriptures say? Because, based on the words of the Savior Himself, it can be shown from Scriptures Dan 8:14 is a prophecy that will find fulfillment not before the first advent of the Lord as in the time of the Maccabees, but shortly before the 2nd Coming of Christ. Scriptural Proof:

Quote:

Fact #1: The Master Teacher delineated in Matt 24:15-31 that the setting up of the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet will trigger a rapid succession of events starting with the Great Tribulation, the period of occurrence of which God will shorten or no one would remain alive, at the end of which unusual celestial phenomena will occur which will be capped by the 2nd Coming. This tells us in no uncertain terms that all prophecies in the book of Daniel that have something to do with the setting up of the abomination of desolation will find fulfillment shortly before the 2nd Coming.

Fact #2: Daniel records that before the abomination of desolation is set up, the 'daily' shall be first taken away (Dan 11:31; 12:11). Since the taking away of the 'daily' has something to do with the setting up of the abomination of desolation, any prophecy therefore in Daniel that have something to do with the 'daily' is directly related with the setting up of the abomination of desolation.

Fact #3: Because Daniel records that the 2300 day-prophecy is directly related with the taking away of the 'daily' (Dan 8:11-14), it naturally follows that the 2300 day-prophecy is directly related with the setting up of the abomination of desolation.

Conclusion:

Quote:

Therefore, the 2300 day-prophecy will find fulfillment shortly before the 2nd Coming of the Lord.

The words of our Master Teacher Himself serve as the KEY that will unlock the door of understanding the end-time prophecies in Daniel.

It is worth noticing that the only reference the Savior made to the book of Daniel is when He answered the questions of His disciples relative to the signs of His 2nd coming and of the end of the world.

[Gerr]

Samie, salvation is a GIFT. And a gift can be accepted or rejected. So, when when claims that that the sinner has NO part whatsoever in his salvation is unscriptural also. Acceptance of the gift by faith is NOT meritorious work, nevertheless it is the one condition that puts us in possession of it.

[Umfundize]

Ron and Gerry: You both have expressed your opinions well and according to the BIBLICAL dictum for salvation. A simple opportunity to pray "the sinner's prayer" was offered by the author. God will not force anyone into salvation: YOU have a CHOICE. The author obviously (as evangelists do) tried to win somebody over to Christ.

As far as John 10:22,23 is concerned, of course, Jesus did not spell out that the Feast of Dedication refers to Daniel 8:14! That is why WE need to do some research. There is another thread on this forum, specifically dealing with the Feast of Dedication.

Why is an understanding of John 10:22,23 important? Because IF the Feast WAS indeed instituted by Judas after he RESTORED the Temple and the time-sequences of 31/2 and 31/2 years check out, THAT could very well "demolish" the SDA concept of something that happened in HEAVEN on Oct 22, 1844!

It will be time well-spent to Google: Wikipedia on John 10:22,23 Hanukkah or ask ANY RABBI why the Jews still celebrate this Feast every year for over 2000 years!

[Samie]

Ron, Gerry and Umfundize;

Please address the issue on how a "dead in sin" can do good when Scriptutes explicitly tell us he can't. Unless you don't believe accepting what you call the gift of salvation is not a good act.

[Ron Amnsn]

Ron, Gerry and Umfundize;

Please address the issue on how a "dead in sin" can do good when Scriptutes explicitly tell us he can't. Unless you don't believe accepting what you call the gift of salvation is not a good act.

Samie, in your view of salvation, when would a person be "dead in sin"?

Am I understanding correctly that you believe that God has made everyone presently on earth "alive in Christ" and no longer "dead in sin" ? Are there any presently alive who are "dead in sin" ?

Which classes or groups of people who lived in the Old Testament times were "dead in sin" ? Which were not "dead in sin"?

I am asking these questions so I can understand how you are applying the scripture references in your list of "facts" (ie. Jer 13:23, etc.) Do you believe that Old Testament people were saved by a different method than people are saved now?

I think the way God redeemed Israel from Egypt is a good illustration of how God saves us. God provided the Israelites with everything they needed to escape from bondage in Egypt. They weren't redeemed from Egypt because of any merit on their part. However, God didn't put the blood on the doorposts for them, they had to do that. God opened the Red Sea, but the Israelites had to do the walking to get across. Etc. It wasn't until after they were saved from Egypt that God gave them the Law, so they weren't saved by keeping the Law.

[Samie]

Originally Posted By: Samie

Ron, Gerry and Umfundize;

Please address the issue on how a "dead in sin" can do good when Scriptutes explicitly tell us he can't. Unless you don't believe accepting what you call the gift of salvation is not a good act.

Samie, in your view of salvation, when would a person be "dead in sin"?

Am I understanding correctly that you believe that God has made everyone presently on earth "alive in Christ" and no longer "dead in sin" ? Are there any presently alive who are "dead in sin" ?

Which classes or groups of people who lived in the Old Testament times were "dead in sin" ? Which were not "dead in sin"?

I am asking these questions so I can understand how you are applying the scripture references in your list of "facts" (ie. Jer 13:23, etc.) Do you believe that Old Testament people were saved by a different method than people are saved now?

[Ron Amnsn]

Yes, you understand me correctly that I believe "God has made everyone presently on earth "alive in Christ" and no longer "dead in sin"". And not only us alive now, but starting from Adam and all his descendants after him, no one exempted nor left out. When Adam fell into sin that brought forth condemnation for all, so Scriptures say, and it was only because of what God through Christ did FOR us that are all alive in Christ (see Rom 5:12-19).

[Samie]

Originally Posted By: Samie

Yes, you understand me correctly that I believe "God has made everyone presently on earth "alive in Christ" and no longer "dead in sin"". And not only us alive now, but starting from Adam and all his descendants after him, no one exempted nor left out. When Adam fell into sin that brought forth condemnation for all, so Scriptures say, and it was only because of what God through Christ did FOR us that are all alive in Christ (see Rom 5:12-19).

Hmmm...

So, it sounds like you believe that the only time any human was ever "dead in sin" was during the hours between when Eve & Adam ate the forbidden fruit and when the first lamb was slain to represent the Messiah's death.

In that case, most of the passages that you referred to in your list of "facts" were written to (or about) people who were already "alive in Christ", not about people who were "dead in sin".

For instance, when Isaiah 64:6 says, "For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; And all of us wither like a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away." it would be referring to people who were "alive in Christ" because it was written to folks who had already been living in covenant with God.

And when Jeremiah 13:23 says, "Can the Ethiopian change his skin Or the leopard his spots? Then you also can do good Who are accustomed to doing evil." then it too would be referring to people who were already "alive in Christ" and not "dead in sin" because it was written to folks who had already been living in covenant with God.

That seems to totally undermine your "fact" that men who are "dead in sin" cannot do anything good, because under your system, those verses, taken in context, would actually be describing people who were "alive in Christ".

I don't think, so, brother. Those verses instead underscore man's situation apart and separate from God. The Omnipotent God would not cause his prophets to address his messages to people who are "dead in sin", knowing those messages would mean nothing to them. In fact those were written for our instructions likewise (see Rom 15:4; 1 Cor 10:11).

Don't forget that people living under the period of the Old Covenant are still under another schoolmaster, and they need to be tutored on the utter tyranny of sin and its abhorrence in God's sight that unless there is 'death', it could not be done away with, that man's own righteousness doesn't count a bit. From our vantage position now under the New Covenant, we know the 'death' of those innocent animal sacrifices pointed forward to the ultimate sacrifice of the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world.

[Ron Amnsn]

I don't think, so, brother. Those verses instead underscore man's situation apart and separate from God. The Omnipotent God would not cause his prophets to address his messages to people who are "dead in sin", knowing those messages would mean nothing to them. In fact those were written for our instructions likewise (see Rom 15:4; 1 Cor 10:11).

[Samie]

...

Samie, I read the Scriptures in context-- starting at Genesis and reading all the way through. The passages you reference in your "facts" fit within the story that the Scriptures tell about how God deals with his people. To interpret those passages the way you do, you'd have to isolate them from the context in which God gave them to us. I was fooled once (for a long time) by people who did that. By God's grace it's not going to happen again.

[Umfundize]

I am afraid, Samie, you CANNOT refute ANYTHING in Adventist Alternative, if you ignore Ellen White and use the two-edged Sword ALONE! The author points out that there ARE alternative positions, and wants the GC not to force members into accepting doctrines that cannot stand the test of Biblical scrutiny.

Tell us your understanding of the Catholic-adopted view of the TRINITY. Try and refute the Adventist Alternative position on that.

[Samie]

I am afraid, Samie, you CANNOT refute ANYTHING in Adventist Alternative, if you ignore Ellen White and use the two-edged Sword ALONE! The author points out that there ARE alternative positions, and wants the GC not to force members into accepting doctrines that cannot stand the test of Biblical scrutiny.