Are Jack Sequeira's teachings Biblicial?

[Robert]

Personally, I don't think he lies, but others do. This post is dedicated to exposing Jack's lies. Have at it:

[Robert]

Okay, let's explore the following video:

Click here for viewing

[Q.E.D.]

Okay, let's explore the following video:

Click here for viewing

Can I pass on this one?

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Robert

Okay, let's explore the following video:

Click here for viewing

Can I pass on this one?

No, no pass. View it, please....

Thanks,

Rob

[Robert]

The investigative judgement

Maybe here we can find error?

Click here to view

[Robert]

The Biblical Definition of Sin

View video

[Robert]

Ever Lasting Gospel

View video

[Q.E.D.]

Sorry, I don't have the time to watch all those videos. How 'bout you just tell us what he teaches that is heresy and give us a few direct quotes.

[Guest]

Jack Sequeira published a doctrinal book through Pacific Press. Entitled, Beyond Belief, this 192-page book details a sizable range of Sequeira’s teachings. In addition to that book, earlier sermon tapes of his are available.

Since Sequeira is becoming an important theological speaker, on behalf of leadership, it is important that we know what he teaches.

In the present study we will survey nine of them:

He ridicules Ellen White's writings, and says we should not use them.

He rejects essential parts of our historic Sanctuary Message.

He teaches errors which Ballenger taught.

He refuses to use the Spirit of Prophecy in his sermons, papers, books, or replies to critics.

He labels those areas, in which he disagrees with the Spirit of Prophecy writings, as ''non-essential'' and “non-fundamental.”

He declares that Christ's atonement was totally finished on the cross, and our salvation was assured and fully completed at that time.

He teaches that we now have unconditional salvation which, received by us just once, guarantees our being taken to heaven.

He says that cooperation with God in working out our salvation is “Galatian legalism.”

He insists that the Final Crisis will be fought over acceptance of the finished atonement, instead of over obedience to the law of God.

There is a very real danger in attending meetings or reading books by one of our people who refuses to use the Spirit of Prophecy or accept its counsels.

To do so is to lay oneself open to hypnotic influences.

Beware of men who come to you with complicated theological reasoning and strange, new words and concepts. But especially so when they refuse to be corrected by the Spirit of Prophecy.

Having voluntarily laid down the Spirit of Prophecy in order to hear them out, their deep, complex reasoning can weary the mind, and lead to an attitude of mental surrender to the man’s views.

This is dangerous. The mind becomes locked into error.

Read More

[Robert]

Sorry, I don't have the time to watch all those videos. How 'bout you just tell us what he teaches that is heresy and give us a few direct quotes.

I don't think he teaches heresy...others do.

[Robert]

You didn't write this critic. "Pilgrims rest" did. Why not take time to study Sequeira's teaching yourself instead of relying on the lies and misquotes of others? It's the moral thing to do.

Pilgrim's Rest or Waymarks are self-published by Vance Ferrell. Alden Thompson describes the publication as "A strident 'Adventist' voice (Vance Ferrell), literally from the wilderness (of Tennessee). Pilgrim's Rest has been active in stirring up traditional elements in Adventist against the 'compromising' mainstream Adventist institutions, especially the General Conference and Adventist colleges." [Wikipedia]

[Robert]

I spot read Vance Ferrell's theology. Here's one thing that caught my eye:

"This depraved nature made us prone to sin, but not sinners. We are not sinners until we choose to sin"

I really can't believe what Vance is stating, but then again our human nature is very deceiving.

If what Vance states is true we have a major, theological problem:

Let's say a child is born and within 24 hrs he passes away. Does that child need a Savior? Does he need Christ?

If you say "no" then what Jesus said if a lie:

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

All are born outside Christ. Hence we are born slaves to our sin nature. And "yes" the sin nature, in and of itself, is sin.

Romans 7:17 So now it is no more I that do it, but sin which dwelleth in me. 18 For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing

You see Paul refers to our "sin nature" as sin itself. This sin permeates our humanity.

[Robert]

Here's Ellen White:

When human beings receive holy flesh, they will not remain on the earth, but will be taken to heaven. While sin is forgiven in this life, its results are not now wholly removed. It is at His coming that Christ is to "change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body"(Phil. 3:21). . . .[2SM 32, 33]

The sin nature disqualifies us for heaven. We must be changed before translation.

Through sin the whole human organism is deranged, the mind is perverted, the imagination corrupted. Sin has degraded the faculties of the soul. Temptations from without find an answering chord within the heart, and the feet turn imperceptibly toward evil. [MAR 91]

And here's the best one:

F&W page 88

"We have reason for ceaseless gratitude to God that Christ, by His perfect obedience, has won back the heaven that Adam lost through disobedience. Adam sinned, and the children of Adam share his guilt and its consequences; but Jesus bore the guilt of Adam, and all the children of Adam that will flee to Christ, the second Adam, may escape the penalty of transgression."

She doesn't mean we are guilty of Adam's sin, she means we stand condemned because we share his bent-to-self (his nature).

Hence she teaches that our human nature disqualifies us for heaven, in and of itself.

[Q.E.D.]

Originally Posted By: Q.E.D.

Sorry, I don't have the time to watch all those videos. How 'bout you just tell us what he teaches that is heresy and give us a few direct quotes.

I don't think he teaches heresy...others do.

Are you one of his disciples?

[Q.E.D.]

And "yes" the sin nature, in and of itself, is sin.

[John317]

Read More

Thanks for posting this. It's "right on."

[John317]

Originally Posted By: Robert

And "yes" the sin nature, in and of itself, is sin.

Is this one of the lies of Jack Sequeira? I always thought that "Sin is transgression of the law."

Jack is wrong--the Scripture right.

[LynnDel]

I have often heard that Jack Sequeira is controversial. I do not believe, having seen frequent evidence, that Vance Ferrell is a good scholar or reporter, so I can't rely on his opinions. I would like to know why there are those who think Jack Sequeira's messages are wonderful, and why there are those who think he is dangerous? I don't want a long litany. One or two documented points would be useful. Thanks.

LD

[Gregory Matthews]

It is one thing to say that something is false or not true. It is something else to say that it is a lie, or that someone is a lier.

To lie always has the conotation that there is a deliberate attempt to decieve.

Check your dictionary if you wish:

Quote:

Lie: 1) A false statement or piece of information deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood. 2) Anything meant to decieve or give a wrong impression. 3) To present false information with the intention of decieving.

Do any of you really want to imply that Jack is knowingly attempting to decieve?

[Robert]

Somehow I missed where Paul states that the "sin nature" is sin itself.

Rom 7:17 "sin which dwelleth in me"

Ps 51:5 "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me"

[Robert]

F&W page 88

"We have reason for ceaseless gratitude to God that Christ, by His perfect obedience, has won back the heaven that Adam lost through disobedience. Adam sinned, and the children of Adam share his guilt and its consequences; but Jesus bore the guilt of Adam, and all the children of Adam that will flee to Christ, the second Adam, may escape the penalty of transgression."

She doesn't mean we are guilty of Adam's sin, she means we stand condemned because we share his bent-to-self (his nature).

Hence she teaches that our human nature disqualifies us for heaven, in and of itself.

Apparently you guys missed this one too?

1 Cor 15:50 I declare to you, brothers, that flesh (Sarx - human nature) and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed-- 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed

[Gerr]

Why single out Sequeira? Why not study the works of Ford, Calvin, Luther, Spurgeon, Wesley, B. Graham, Lindsey, Swindoll, the early church fathers, Ballenger, FF Bruce, Jamieson/Fausset/Brown, Walvord, Spence, Matthews, Carson, Ironside, Wiersbe, and many others to see where they were in error?

[BobRyan]

Did all of them have the light that Sequeira had?

Luke 12:45-52 tells us that the combination of what they knew to start with - and what they did - is taken into consideration.

James said that "to him that knows to do right and does it not - to him it is sin".

Jack had to walk away from light that most of the men in your list - never had to start with.

In John 1 the condemnation of the world is for those who love darkness rather than light.

in Christ,

Bob

[Tom Wetmore]

I have often heard that Jack Sequeira is controversial. I do not believe, having seen frequent evidence, that Vance Ferrell is a good scholar or reporter, so I can't rely on his opinions. I would like to know why there are those who think Jack Sequeira's messages are wonderful, and why there are those who think he is dangerous? I don't want a long litany. One or two documented points would be useful. Thanks.

LD

Vance Ferrell is most definitely not a reliable source.

And relying on him is contrary to the basic premise identified at the onset of this discussion. Critique Jack's own words without filtering it through the opinions and distortions of others.

[Tom Wetmore]

It is one thing to say that something is false or not true. It is something else to say that it is a lie, or that someone is a lier.

To lie always has the conotation that there is a deliberate attempt to decieve.

Check your dictionary if you wish:

Quote:

Lie: 1) A false statement or piece of information deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood. 2) Anything meant to decieve or give a wrong impression. 3) To present false information with the intention of decieving.

Do any of you really want to imply that Jack is knowingly attempting to decieve?

Good point...