Are Jack Sequeira's teachings Biblicial?

[Kevin H]

I have to admit that I have not been able to make heads or tails out of Sequeira's theology. But I do see Pilgram's rest as taking about half the truth and using it against the rest of the truth, having a history of reading into other's words ideas that those people do not see in those words or placing things together to make insinuations, such as having an article about the importance of the color red in the Catholic Church then an anouncement that Loma Linda was particapating in Red Ribbon week.

[Woody]

I have yet to see anything that was untruthful about Jack Sequeira's writings.

[Twilight II]

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."

Originally Posted By: Robert

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.

Somehow I missed where Paul states that the "sin nature" is sin itself. Can you point that out to me in Romans 7:17?

Is this another one of the lies of Jack Sequeira?

How could the sinful nature not in essence be "sin"?

Jesus came to save us from our "sinful nature", not just the results of that sinful nature.

The sinful nature came into existence in Eden.

God is not trying to deal with the result of sin, He is trying to deal with the cause of sin.

If God is not dealing with the sinful nature, then sanctification has no meaning, we are merely in a cycle of sin/repent without any hope of sanctification...

:-)

[BobRyan]

The sinful nature produces sin in us - it is propensity - inclination toward sin. Only the supernatural work in God prevents us from joining in full partnership with evil.

But the new creation of John 3, and 2Cor 5 is a supernatural work for the saved saint that is at war against the sinful nature of Romans 7.

in Christ,

Bob

[Woody]

I prefer to look at the positive. And what Jack Sequeira says is straight from scripture.

[Robert]

Critique Jack's own words without filtering it through the opinions and distortions of others.

Exactly! Or as I usually say - bingo!

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

Critique Jack's own words without filtering it through the opinions and distortions of others.

Exactly! Or as I usually say - bingo!

[Robert]

The sinful nature produces sin in us - it is propensity - inclination toward sin.

[Robert]

two enemies of gospel

View video

[John317]

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?

I agree.

Sequeira appears to be teaching basically the same thing that Ballenger taught about the heavenly sanctuary. I would like to see a discussion about that aspect of Sequeira's teachings.

Does he agree or disagree with what Ellen White teaches in the book, Great Controversy, concerning the heavenly sanctuary and the Investigative Judgment? Or is he more in line with what non-SDAs & Ballenger have taught?

[John317]

Robert, is it your contention, then, that Jack Sequeira agrees with Ellen White on the nature of sin?

[John317]

I prefer to look at the positive. And what Jack Sequeira says is straight from scripture.

If that's true, then since Ellen White agrees with Scripture, there should be fundamental agreement between Jack Sequeira and Ellen White. But is that what we find?

[John317]

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.

Can you show some of the things that Vance Ferrell is wrong about in his critique of Jack Sequeira?

[John317]

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.

...

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

Ferrell's article is entitled "Jack Sequeira's Teachings." I don't know of anyone who has said that Jack S. is lying, and if they did, I would disagree with them about that. Robert mentions Jack's lying in his first post in this discussion, but of course he is implying that some other people believe Jack's lying. I personally don't accuse Jack Sequeira of lying because we don't know his motives. I assume his motives are pure. But my concern is his theology, not his motives. And what is his theology? Does it agree with both the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy? Those are the only questions I'm concerned with.

So I would like to know what Ferrell contends in his article that is in error. Can you point out some of those errors and give evidence that his statements are mistaken?

[Robert]

Robert, is it your contention, then, that Jack Sequeira agrees with Ellen White on the nature of sin?

I believe so, but I do not base every doctrinal issue on Ellen White's approval.

I think she would agree with me according to the following quotes:

Here are some of the quotes

[Robert]

I don't know of anyone who has said that Jack S. is lying.

I believe RLH does....

[Robert]

So I would like to know what Ferrell contends in his article that is in error.

That we aren't sinners until we sin.

That would mean all those who die before they can be accountable to God do not need the righteousness of Christ. Hence they are not sinners.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Robert, is it your contention, then, that Jack Sequeira agrees with Ellen White on the nature of sin?

I believe so, but I do not base every doctrinal issue on Ellen White's approval.

My only point here is that it is important for SDAs to understand what both the Bible and E.G. White teach and whether our leaders/pastors teach contrary to the truth found in the Scriptures and the Spirit of prophecy.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

So I would like to know what Ferrell contends in his article that is in error.

That we aren't sinners until we sin.

Do you believe the following part of Ferrell's article is an accurate and true description of Sequeira's teachings? If not, what does Jack Sequeira actually teach?

Quote:

Sequeira teaches that everyone is automatically a sinner

(BB, 15, 52, 53, 56). According to him, the commission

of sin has nothing to do with it. Other than a onetime

accepting of the gift of salvation—and doing whatever

it takes to make sure you are not disfellowshipped

by your local church board,—you are bound for heaven,

and cannot be lost. Every aspect of your salvation is accomplished

corporately; the words “individual” and “individuality”

can be disregarded. We are corporate sinners,

corporately condemned, corporately saved at Calvary,

corporately in the church, and corporately cleansed of

sin at the Second Coming.

Sequeira is an expert at twisting reasoning to prove

his point:

Jack: “If we insist that verse 12 (of Romans 5) means

that all men died because ‘all have sinned’ as Adam

sinned [true]—then we must make the analogy fit by

arguing that all men live (or are justified) because all

have obeyed as Christ obeyed [which, cooperating with

Christ, we are to do]. Such an argument turns justification

by faith into salvation by works, the very opposite

of Paul’s clear teaching in Romans.”—Beyond Belief,

53.

But the Bible says that “sin is the transgression of the

law” (1 John 3:4). “Our only definition of sin is that given

in the Word of God; it is ‘the transgression of the law.’ ”—

Great Controversy, 493. Sequeira lists several different definitions,

but Inspiration tells us there is only one which

really tells us what sin is.

The new theology teaches that sin is separation from

God, and quotes Isaiah (Isa 59:2) to prove it. But they

confuse the cause (sin) with the effect (separation from

God). The verse itself establishes the fact: “But your iniquities

have separated between you and your God, and

your sins have hid His face from you, that He will not

hear.”—Isaiah 59:2. Sequeira does a variation on this, and

equates sinful human nature with sin. “A sinful human

nature is itself sin.” (BB, 42). Did you know that your

nature was sin? He did not say “sinful,” but “sin itself.”

That appears to be a step lower than Augustine’s view of

the matter.

Sequeira claims that following Christ’s example has

no effect on our salvation (BB, 53). He also says that every

baby is born a sinner and condemned to death because

of it (BB, 61). And he adds that is eternal death,

not the first death.

Jack: “The life we receive at birth is . . a life that

is condemned by the law. This means that the just

demand of the law leave us facing nothing but eternal

death.” —Beyond Belief, 63.

According to Sequeira, mere birth into this world condemns

a man to eternal death...

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

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?

I agree.

Sequeira appears to be teaching basically the same thing that Ballenger taught about the heavenly sanctuary. I would like to see a discussion about that aspect of Sequeira's teachings.

Does he agree or disagree with what Ellen White teaches in the book, Great Controversy, concerning the heavenly sanctuary and the Investigative Judgment? Or is he more in line with what non-SDAs & Ballenger have taught?

Frankly, I'd rather spend the time knowing what the Scripture itself says, not on what another man thinks the Scripture says. There is not enough lifetimes for me to spend studying what all these theologians claim to be the truth.

[CoAspen]

Verily.....sad to say that most of the time is spent on 'other/others' rather than the Bible. If we can't find the truth about God in there and in conversation with God himself, then all is a farce.

[BobRyan]

Here is Jack's teaching on the Sanctuary in Heaven - in written form (so not from Vance).

http://www.jacksequeira.org/hebrew19.htm

In that document he raises some questions and introduces a possible problem of his own.

http://www.jacksequeira.org/hebrew20.htm

in that second document he answers a few of his own questions - but not all and leaves some of his problems still out on the table.

His "solution" about "where to place blame" only deals with part of the problem.

And he appears to omit the fact that the scope of the "Atonement" doctrine in Adventism is larger than the Atonement concept among evangelicals and it extends beyond the cross.

When evangelicals speak of atonement - they limit their discussion to what the Bible calls the "Atoning Sacrifice" 1John 2:2 NIV, completed once for all at the cross.

Finally Jack mentions something about sins committed right up until the 2nd coming being paid for at the cross. Not sure that is true - since it goes beyond the close of probation.

in Christ,

Bob

[Robert]

Sequeira teaches that everyone is automatically a sinner

The Bible doesn't use the word "automatically". Jack is merely quoting Paul, in context:

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man (Adam) sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned... 18 So then as through one transgression (Adam's) there resulted condemnation to all men...

Eph 2:1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course (principle) of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

Everyone, except Christ, is born without the Holy Spirit. Hence we are born "bent to self" (self-consumed). Therefore our natures and our minds are in complete harmony. Remember sin is more than an outward action...it's a mindset.

[M. T. Cross]

Way to go Gerry and CoA! Thats what it all comes down to. If you want to improve your spiritual walk, just go directly to the source - your God. Regardless of my own opinion of the Bible, it is also your source, so go there and to your God and you will find what you need.

I often sit here reading these forums and see "Well Brother So and So said and Sister White said, and well this article proves such and such" and I wonder WHO CARES. What makes that persons thoughts any more expert than your own. You all have the same source material to work from. That is not to say that you should never read the thoughts of others, its a great way to expand your own - but I don't think there is any amount of education makes one interpretation better than the other.

[Robert]

Everyone, except Christ, is born without the Holy Spirit. Hence we are born "bent to self" (self-consumed). Therefore our natures and our minds are in complete harmony. Remember sin is more than an outward action...it's a mindset.

All babes are born "self-consumed", i.e., bent to self. Why?

Answer: They are an extension of Adam, after the fall.

Keep in mind what James states:

James 4:1 Do you know where your fights and arguments come from? They come from the selfish desires that war within you.

If you don't believe me, watch this:

View video