I'm A Good Man--most of the time!

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

Robert said:

Apparently you have a hard time with the above quote, which must mean you love your possessions more than God. No heaven for you.

Rob

---

There seems to be an apparent difference of understanding re: what Jesus is asking of the individual who had the possessions. To give up one's possessions can mean more than

absolving one's self of all contact with material wealth. Otherwise how could we follow another express instruction of the Lord.

[:"red"] "And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come." [/] Luke 19:13 KJV

It does not say these ten pounds were given as to be the personal property of the servants, but remained as wealth belonging to the master, only to be put to good use by the servants. Under these circumstances all the wealth still belonged to the Master and wouldn't be at all stretching it to be 100% His, only entrusted to the servant until the Master came back to claim His own.

Perhaps if we, as disciples of Christ, considered all that we have as His, we would not feel it such a sacrifice to consider all our possessions as His, no loss to give all, all of what is rightfully His all along.

That seems to me only fair, and only what He asks of each of us.

[:"red"] "Jesus told him, "If you want to be perfect, go and sell all you have and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." [/] Matthew 19:21 NLT

[:"red"] "Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth." [/] 3 John 1:2 KJV

[:"red"] "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

" [/] Malachi 3:10 KJV

Keep looking up!!

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Hi Rob,

Quote:

---

My point is that if you make one command a requirement for heaven then you must obey everything Christ commands.

---

All of us had better do all that Christ commanded us if we want to see Him with love and faith in our hearts and live with Him forever. Jesus specifically said that we would be like the foolish builder if we didn't do as He said.

The next thing is you have been taken what is written in Luke and used it out of context.

Fro example, if I were to interpret what Jesus said (in Luke 14:26) as you do I would have to hate all my relatives in order to be saved. That's not what Jesus is saying and nor is He saying what you are saying in verse 33.

Luk 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

What He means in Verse 33 is that we are not to put anything before Him, not to give everything away. Read the context, the parable given illustrates His point. A certain man made a great supper and called those he invited and they made excuses and put other things before him. Thus treating him as though he were not worthy of their presence.

In that context Jesus said "So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple."

Stop twisting Scripture Rob, you do it a lot and who ever reads what you say will never be convinced of what you are trying to teach.

Norman

[benherndon]

Quote:

---

Stop twisting Scripture Rob, you do it a lot and who ever reads what you say will never be convinced of what you are trying to teach.

Norman

---

>>>>Norman, we should all, including me, try our best to avoid 'twisting scripture' to fit points we are trying to make. Any twisting borders on bearing a false witness, IMO. If we can't be honest with scripture as it reads, what can we be honest about?

There is wide concern in religious circles over our usual intepretation of Rev 12:17 and 19:10, for example. "commandments of God" means what commands???? "the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy??? "SOP"??? Are we sure?

We have similar trouble with some other texts, too.

John who wrote Revelation also wrote the Epistle of St. John and the 'little' Johns, too. They must agree with each other, reflect and be consistent with the message John is conveying in all his writing.

"A text out of context is a pretext!"

Ben

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

benherndon said:

There is wide concern in religious circles over our usual intepretation of Rev 12:17 . . . "commandments of God" means what commands????

---

Wide concern? I have been down that road with evangelicals on a number of occasions. There is not a problem with this verse. Those who do have a problem with it, attempt to tie it into the other passage you mentioned, in Matthew, about which is the greatest commandment. Once people understand what Jesus is really saying there, Rev. 12:17 ceases to be a problem. So, the Matthew passage probably is a good place to start. Ben, I welcome your response to my post on the "Ten Commandments Replaced?" thread.

Quote:

---

and 19:10, for example. "the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy??? "SOP"??? Are we sure?

---

Pretty sraightforward, actually: "h gar marturia Ihsou estin to pneuma ths prophhteias." Where's the problem?

Quote:

---

We have similar trouble with some other texts, too.

---

Like what?

[benherndon]

Dave, is it possible you have not been SDA for a very long time? Your questions and challenges seem to indicate that, IMO....or, that you wish to sort of 'play games' with me over my interpretation of those texts, perhaps?

If you don't know historic Adventism that's one thing. But if you do know it and are questioning me, challenging me, you seem to be playing games, right?

Let me put it this way....I know very well what was taught and I formerly believed over the past several scores of years. Maybe you don't know what was taught in those times---could that be true>? If you do know the historic teachings, then why don't you exegete those scriptures which I listed & which, to me, and to most other divisions of Christianity, seem to show that the Sabbath part of and the entire Law of Moses is inapplicable, mandatorily at least, to the believing committed Christian as Paul has so clearly stated in his writings, IMO.

Spare me the Greek, please! Every time you use Greek you diminish the skill of the peer reviewed translators and elevate your own skills above theirs. In fact, you obfuscate what they are trying to say and translate for us.

Why don't you translate the NT 'correctly' and publish it subjecting it to wide peer reviews. When the Christian world accepts your translation over the current ones then we will learn and teach from it. If we cannot trust the extant translations in which so many have given us their best skill and integrity, who, then, can we trust? You?

I'm sorry but those who come on here from our Seminary telling or implying to us we cannot REALLY trust the existing translations, weakens our faith....or at least mine! I'm glad you know Greek and if it does something for you, so be it...and congratulations...I mean it! But it doesn't increase our faith to have someone come and cast doubt on the formerly accepted translators we've had for centuries now (and, so many, even newer ones, 'created' from newly discovered transcripts.)

And, also, if the 'evangelists' you know don't see any problem with Matt 22.....Christ's failure to mention the extremely-important-to-salvation-mandatory Sabbath keeping... like we teach.....why aren't they flocking to the SDA church in droves preparing for the final events of history? The 'evangelical' pastors I know and many in their audiences are extremely sincere....Chuck Smith, Billy Graham and his daughter, Chuck Swindoll (so often heard on SDA radio), John Stott, and a host of them in the past, e.g. Spurgeon, Muller, Chambers, Murray, Lloyd-Jones, Barclay, Phillips ad infinitum. Yet they have not accepted the MANDATORINESS of our Sabbath teaching. How come?... if it still commanded by God?

So, now, Dave, exegete Matt 22 and the other texts for me to see why you seem to doubt what I say and let me be convinced my reading is wrong, if so. I want to know if you have anything to say that I didn't hear before in my many years in 'this message'. How more nicely can I ask it?--no argumentation or sarcasm intended at all. Just tell me your differing conclusions and why such, please.

(To others who have not read my preceding posts, please do so and note my 'caveat' about the Sabbath in above post. )

Respectfully to all....

Ben

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

benherndon said:

"A text out of context is a pretext!"

Ben

---

A maxim formulated by man to avoid the cutting principle found in the individual scripture text in which the Holy Spirit brings conviction. The reasoning mind that will admit,

[:"red"] "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" [/] Jer 17:9 KJV

will also recognize that understanding of the Word of God is not possible to the mind which wishes to avoid personal responsibility of obedience, and the mind of understanding spiritual things comes only by divine intervention, not from the high intellect of fallen human beings.

[:"red"] "For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." [/]

2 Timothy 1:7 KJV

[:"red"] "...the natural man doth not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for to him they are foolishness, and he is not able to know [them], because spiritually they are discerned.." [/] 1 Cor 2:14 YLT

[:"red"] "For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror; for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was." [/] James 1:23 NASB

[:"red"] "I am the vine....apart from Me you can do nothing. " [/] John 15:5 NASB

[:"red"] "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." [/] 2 Timothy 2:15 KJV

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

benherndon said:

Dave, is it possible you have not been SDA for a very long time? Your questions and challenges seem to indicate that, IMO....or, that you wish to sort of 'play games' with me over my interpretation of those texts, perhaps?

---

Or, there is another alternative: maybe, just maybe, I am sticking with the Bible. In fact, that IS what I am doing, Ben. I don't get my Bible knowledge from any church's tradition. I get it from the Word of God.

Quote:

---

If you don't know historic Adventism that's one thing. But if you do know it and are questioning me, challenging me, you seem to be playing games, right?

---

Your question presupposes that 'historic Adventism'--or at least the flavors thereof with which you are acquainted--is in fact, as you have characterized it on these forums.

I may not have sampled all those flavors. Nor, quite frankly, do I give two hoots about them. I am interested in God's holy Word, the Bible. THAT is where I am coming from. But, as for playing games, Ben, after reading your last couple of posts I can't help but wonder if perhaps this thread was begun by you with that intent. Or, to your thinking, an 'educational device.' Did you really wonder about the question you initially posed, or did you already know? And, if so, were you 'playing games' with us?

Quote:

---

Let me put it this way....I know very well what was taught and I formerly believed over the past several scores of years. Maybe you don't know what was taught in those times---could that be true>? If you do know the historic teachings, then why don't you exegete those scriptures which I listed & which, to me, and to most other divisions of Christianity, seem to show that the Sabbath part of and the entire Law of Moses is inapplicable, mandatorily at least, to the believing committed Christian as Paul has so clearly stated in his writings, IMO.

---

Well, you are making a number of assumptions here, Ben. I do appreciate your adding the 'IMO'. As for your characterization of 'most other divisions of Christianity,' I would take issue with that, based on my experience.

Quote:

---

Spare me the Greek, please! Every time you use Greek you diminish the skill of the peer reviewed translators and elevate your own skills above theirs. In fact, you obfuscate what they are trying to say and translate for us.

---

Ha! An appeal to authority! IOW, we should accept what the 'authorities' say, without question. I am reminded of what the Church men said to Luther after he posted his 95 theses. On the other hand, I am also reminded of what John Wycliffe said about the Bible--that, by the time he was through, a plowman would know more about the Scriptures than the the bishop or whatever, with whom he was speaking.

I suggest that you contact the 'per-reviewed' translators about whom you are speaking, and run by them what you are advising us here. IOW, leave the Greek to them, and we should simply accept their work product. I assure you, Ben, they would be aghast!!! But, if you don't think so, then go ahead and ask them, and do let us know their response.

As for 'peer-reviewed translators,' I recall you recommending to us, on this very forum, that we should revise our 'traditional' understanding by reading the New Testament, and only the New Testament, from the Living Bible!! Is that an example of a 'peer-reviewed' translation?

Quote:

---

Why don't you translate the NT 'correctly' and publish it subjecting it to wide peer reviews. When the Christian world accepts your translation over the current ones then we will learn and teach from it.

---

That is a debate technique which you used many times with Dwight Hornbacher. It is an attempt to shut down further inquiry. Secondly, it is making a huge overstatement. There is no need to attempt a new translation of the NT. I find it interesting that such is your stock response. But, I certainly see no need to do so. I do see a need for careful study of the Bible. If one can do so in the original language, then praise the Lord!

Quote:

---

If we cannot trust the extant translations in which so many have given us their best skill and integrity, who, then, can we trust?

---

As for 'integrity,' much has been written about some of those translations-e.g., the NIV. But, at the same time, the doctrinal views of the translators do at times influence the 'judgment calls' which they must necessarily make-for example, adding the comma to Jesus' words to the thief on the cross. Are you familiar with the translation process, Ben? If not, I suggest that you subscribe to the 'B-Greek Digest.' That may prove an eye-opening experience for you.

Quote:

---

I'm sorry but those who come on here from our Seminary telling or implying to us we cannot REALLY trust the existing translations, weakens our faith....or at least mine! I'm glad you know Greek and if it does something for you, so be it...and congratulations...I mean it! But it doesn't increase our faith to have someone come and cast doubt on the formerly accepted translators we've had for centuries now (and, so many, even newer ones, 'created' from newly discovered transcripts.)

---

One's faith should be in God, and one may claim the promise in Jn. 14:15, that to those who obey Jesus because they love Him, He will send the Spirit of truth, to guide them into all truth. (Jn. 16) That Spirit of truth was what helped me see the error of Desmond Ford's obfuscation of Scripture and his deceptive teachings about the Investigative Judgment.

Quote:

---

And, also, if the 'evangelists' you know don't see any problem with Matt 22.....Christ's failure to mention the extremely-important-to-salvation-mandatory Sabbath keeping... like we teach.....why aren't they flocking to the SDA church in droves preparing for the final events of history? The 'evangelical' pastors I know and many in their audiences are extremely sincere....Chuck Smith, Billy Graham and his daughter, Chuck Swindoll (so often heard on SDA radio), John Stott, and a host of them in the past, e.g. Spurgeon, Muller, Chambers, Murray, Lloyd-Jones, Barclay, Phillips ad infinitum. Yet they have not accepted the

MANDATORINESS

of our Sabbath teaching. How come?... if it still commanded by God?

---

You seem to be relying here on the authority of man. In the Judgment day, Ben, will you stand before God and present as your defense, that you relied on these teachers? I certainly wouldn't! I look to the Rock, God's Holy Word, and to Jesus Christ, Who spoke that Word.

BTW at least some of those figures believed in the Bible Sabbath. Billy Graham is an example. Reportedly, his response was that if he started preaching that, he would lose his influence. If true, that was a sad compromise. I strongly recommend not looking to sinful man for enlightenment, but to God's holy Word. And, be willing to follow wherever the Lamb of God leads.

Quote:

---

So, now, Dave, exegete Matt 22 and the other texts for me to see why you seem to doubt what I say and let me be convinced my reading is wrong, if so. I want to know if you have anything to say that I didn't hear before in my many years in 'this message'. How more nicely can I ask it?--no argumentation or sarcasm intended at all. Just tell me your differing conclusions and why such, please.

---

With pleasure. I will do so on the 'Ten Commandments Replaced' thread. Looking forward to your responses there.

Dave

[benherndon]

Dave, apparently, you insist on playing games. I read about half of what you wrote and you reveal very clearly your type of rancorous exchange....I don't want any part of it.

I have you figured out---met your type before. Because you are a believer in Christ as your Savior, as I am, I observe that you are one type of Christian, again, IMO, but of a somewhat different type than I care to associate with. Remember Paul and Mark? WE have a problem, too. Perhaps when the Lord comes He will fix us both.

Ben

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

benherndon said:

Dave, apparently, you insist on playing games. I read about half of what you wrote and you reveal very clearly your type of rancorous exchange

---

Rancorous? Then, how would you characterize your post, which I responded to?

Quote:

---

I have you figured out---met your type before.

---

It is important to avoid ad hominem attacks. I do encourage you to stick to the issues.

Cordially, Dave

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

archierieus said:

I am sticking with the Bible. In fact, that IS what I am doing, Ben. I don't get my Bible knowledge from any church's tradition. I get it from the Word of God.

---

Quote:

---

archierieus said:

Ha! An appeal to authority! IOW, we should accept what the 'authorities' say, without question.

I am reminded of what the Church men said to Luther after he posted his 95 theses.

---

Quote:

---

archierieus said:

Note this brief entry re 'Nicolaitans' in BAGD:

". . . Nicolaitan, a follower of Nicolaus, an otherw. unknown founder of a sect, . . . Rv 2:6. didach; . . . vs. 15. On the sect of the Nicolaitans cf. ESchürer, Die Prophetin Isabel: Weizsäcker-Festschr. 1892, 39-58; LSeesemann, StKr 66, 1893, 47-82; GWohlenberg, NKZ 6, 1895, 923ff; Zahn, Einl. II3 623f; AvHarnack, The Sect of the Nicolaitans and Nicolaus, the Deacon in Jerus.: Journ. of Religion 3, ’23, 413-22; MGoguel, Les Nicolaïtes: Rev. de l’Hist. des Rel. 115, ’37, 5-36. M-M."

Bauer, Walter, Gingrich, F. Wilbur, and Danker, Frederick W., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press) 1979.

---

Quote:

---

archierieus said:

I did not notice a reference. What is your source of this excerpt?

---

Quote:

---

archierieus said:

As I said on a different thread, the most careful workmanship and diligent attention to detail is important in developing a correct understanding of the Bible. We must accept the Word of God as it reads, not moving so much as a jot or a tittle to fit our ideas.

---

Quote:

---

archierieus said:

I would say that if BAGD has it as Nikolaus (no 'c' in Gr.), with no variants, that should be sufficient.

---

Quote:

---

archierieus said:

a survey of the historical material avaliable ... The quotations from Ante-Nicene fathers and historians are helpful.

---

Quote:

---

archierieus said:

the author of the article... did take a position which is at odds with the historical record ... in that portion of his article, he provided no footnotes, whereas much of the rest of the article is well-documented.

The Catholic Encyclopedia also provides information

---

Quote:

---

archierieus said:

All that is found in historical records, specifically from the Ante-Nicene era ... There simply is no historical support for doing so. ... (See, for example, the excellent monograph, "Tradition and Authority in the Western Church," which I once had a copy of; another informative work is, "Origen and the Two Swords," a most fascinating history indeed)

---

Quote:

---

archierieus said:

Actually, all of it is speculation, which was my point. It is unsafe to attempt to build any kind of historical or Scriptural understanding, on speculation like that.

---

Quote:

---

archierieus said:

Now, ... if you can provide credible historical documentation which refutes the above, well and good, present it. 'Credible historical documentation' means sources from the time, whether archaeological, ANTE-NICENE church historians, secular historians OF THE TIME. Please

provide citations of authority for review.

The test of accuracy is not WHO has perceptions, but whether

credible evidence

substantiates those perceptions.

---

Quote:

---

archierieus said:

On what basis? How do you know the true derivation ...? what word do you feel free to analyze? ...

can you locate a reference source

which discusses ... If so,

please state the source.

Why not simply

stick with the historical record

... Which, BTW,

Ellen G. White corroborates.

Why attempt to

go beyond that

... ?

---

Quote:

---

archierieus said:

That Spirit of truth was what helped me see the error of Desmond Ford's obfuscation of Scripture and his deceptive teachings about the Investigative Judgment.

---

Quote:

---

archierieus said:

You repeatedly refer to some 'agenda' which you claim that I have. Although I have repeatedly asked you to state this purported agenda, you so far have failed to do so. I find that puzzling.

What 'agenda' are you referring to?

Please identify it from my posts, and please provide backquotes in doing so. Also, please provide quotations from my posts which support your assertion that ...

---

Quote:

---

archierieus said:

You seem to be relying here on the authority of man. In the Judgment day, ... will you stand before God and present as your defense, that you relied on these teachers? I certainly wouldn't! I look to the Rock, God's Holy Word, and to Jesus Christ, Who spoke that Word.

---

[archierieus]

After reading your post, consisting almost entirely of excerpts from what I have posted on a different thread, which pertained to attempting to determine from historical sources, the identity and teachings of an obscure sect, I am somewhat puzzled as to the relevance to the issues on THIS thread. Please state in what way that which you have posted here, is relevant to the issues of this thread.

Cordially, Dave

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

Nicodema said:

---

I'm A Good Man--most of the time!

[:"red"] "And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God." [/]

Luke 18:19 KJV

[:"red"] "And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

" [/] Matthew 19:17 KJV

Keep the faith

[Gregory Matthews]

My reply here is tacked on to this last post. It is not directed to anyone person, but is general in nature.

As I review the posts made in various sections of Club Adventist, it seems to me that some people do tend to personallize their responses. In many ways, I do not think that this can be totally stopped. I also think that honest people will disagree as to what should be permitted in this area.

Let us watch more closely what we post. And, let us also be mature enough not to take personal offense at everything that is posted that we do not like. We are all different people, with different personalities, and modes of expression. We do not all agree with what is appropriate and what is not.

Don't expect me to act to resolve every misunderstanding that arises between people. In have neither the time nor the wisdom to do that. Yes, I can be pushed to the point of taking action, and that may not be consistent with what I have done in the past, or in the future. None of us, to include me, are always consistent.

Thank you for your consideration of this.

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

Gregory Matthews said:

None of us, to include me, are always consistent.

---

In this type of application, it is extremely important for a moderator to BE consistent. And, to be responsive to feedback if he or she is not perceived to be consistent. Failure to do so can have a negative effect on the credibility of the forum--as in 'bush league', and at times a chilling effect on people's comfort level in expressing their views.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Norman said:

Stop twisting Scripture Rob, you do it a lot and who ever reads what you say will never be convinced of what you are trying to teach.

---

Actually it is YOU who twists....I am honest with the scripture.

Luke 14:25 Now great multitudes were going along with Him; and He turned and said to them....

First of all Christ is speaking to "great multitides" when He says, “So therefore, no one of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions." This includes family. Why? We naturally love our own, but that's not love. It is really a form of self-love.

If you want to live Christ's selfless life then there will be no self-seeking in your life, period! If you fail here you fail heaven, i.e., as far as the law is concerned.

• In explaining love, Ellen states: “…There will be no rivalry, no self-seeking, no desire for the highest place. [Now she gives an example:] You will have that love which seeks not her own, but another's wealth.” [DA 439]

  “The Owner of the world, he had not where to lay his head. Unrecognized and unhonored, he walked in and out among the people for whom he had done so much. Of himself he said, ‘Foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath no where to lay his head.’” And to his followers he says, ‘If any man will come after me [i.e., live solely for others and never self], let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.’” [YI, 04-27-09]

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Robert said:

This includes family. Why? We naturally love our own, but that's not love. It is really a form of self-love.

---

Luke 6:32 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even ‘sinners’ love those who love them."

Do you love your friends...those close to you? Sure, but that love is already being demonstrated among the heathen. The law requires your love to supercede human love. Let's read on and see how this is done:

Verse 30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.

Verse 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment [your friends], what credit is that to you? Even ‘sinners’ lend to ‘sinners,’ expecting to be repaid in full. 35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back.

Be honest...how long would it be until you had nothing to give?

Right! Not long...but you do "have"! Why? "Self-love and self-seeking". If you had to stand before God's law today you would miserably fail. Why? You ain't measuring up.....

Funny that those claiming the SDA church to be God's commandment keeping people aren't really keeping the commandments as did the early Christian Church. Look at their selfless love:

Acts 2:44 And all who believed were together and had all things in common; 45 and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need.

Note that there were no rich and no poor. All SHARED all they had...they had all things in common. That's Biblical communism...that's how heaven will be.

Capitalism as we know it is based on Lucifer's principle of self. If you engage in it you are practicing his form of self-seeking. It is a system of self-seeking. Everyone is competing for that all-mighty dollar.

Communism attempts to counter the West’s greed with compulsion by the point of a gun. But that doesn't work either. Why? Man is selfish by nature...not his environment. Both are based on Satan's system...the kingdom's of this world. Christ had nothing to do with "the world"! He lived a life of selflessness....

When your local church starts having all things in common...when there's no rich and no poor...when there's no self, then I might believe your claims that the SDA church is God's remnant, commandment-keeping people. Until then it's a bunch cheap talk....Go waste someone else's time and try and convince them to your claims to holiness.

Rob

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Robert said:

Ellen states: “…There will be no rivalry, no self-seeking...

---

“Sin originated [how?] in self-seeking. Lucifer, the covering cherub, desired to be first in heaven.” [i.e., he wanted to be # 1] [FLB 68]

Here's Sequeira:

Using man as his tool, Satan has developed a kingdom (the Bible refers to it as “the kingdom of this world”) that is based entirely on the principle of self and which is in complete opposition and contradiction to the “kingdom of heaven.” Everything, therefore, that goes to make up this worldly system (kosmos) — nationalism, tribalism, politics, education, commerce, recreation, sports, social clubs, technology, etc. — is founded upon the principle of love of self, even though at times this principle may not be obvious. According to 1 John 2:16, “all that is in the world” (i.e., without exception) is based or founded upon lust (i.e., love of self).

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Hi Rob, good to have you back, I haven't read anything from you in a while, I hope you're ok.

If you are being honest, then you are mistaken, if you think that we are all to sell our property and goods and give to the poor. You are out of context in that.

We need the resources God has given us to have homes in the country (Not in large cities) where we can be witnesses and raise our children according to God's plan. We need money to live and to teach our children how to manage God's property. We need to have these talents so that God can test us to see how we will use them. If we do as you suggest at this time in earth's history, it would be the equivalent of burying our talent.

There will come a time when the money and property God has given us to manage will be of no value, just before that time it will be wise to get rid of all we have and help one another, but not now. That would be, not discerning the times we live in. Having said that I don't think it's wrong for people to live together in a self supporting medical ministry setting and share all they have. I've lived somewhat like that at Uchee Pines for a couple of years, but not everybody is called to that.

Norman

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Rob said,

Quote:

---

When your local church starts having all things in common...when there's no rich and no poor...when there's no self, then I might believe your claims that the SDA church is God's remnant, commandment-keeping people. Until then it's a bunch cheap talk....Go waste someone else's time and try and convince them to your claims to holiness.

Rob

---

Rob, look at your words, seriously, in all respect look at what you're writing. Doesn't it concern you that you can say these things, that are not in the Spirit of Christ? This is the results of what you believe. We all do and say what we believe regardless of what we profess. You words reveal your heart.

Quote:

---

Go waste someone else's time and try and convince them to your claims to holiness.

---

I don't ever remember anyone saying, "I am holy" but I do remember you accusing poeple of saying such things. How can you accuse poeple of saying things and arguing against things that they have not said? That's not normal. Prove me wrong and I'll admit my mistake; where has anyone here said, I am holy, I am righteous, I will be perfect, I am sinless, I am the perfect child of God? Where? Yet you have argued against this and no one has ever said or claimed that!

I don't know what to say Rob, you're not sounding rational.

Norman

[Gerr]

Quote:

---

• In explaining love, Ellen states: “…There will be no rivalry, no self-seeking, no desire for the highest place. [Now she gives an example:]
  You will have that love which seeks not her own, but another's wealth.”
  [DA 439]
  “The Owner of the world, he had not where to lay his head. Unrecognized and unhonored, he walked in and out among the people for whom he had done so much. Of himself he said, ‘Foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath no where to lay his head.’” And to his followers he says, ‘If any man will come after me [i.e., live solely for others and never self], let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.’” [YI, 04-27-09]

---

[:"blue"]Was Jesus homeless?

[:"red"]Again, the next day, John stood with two of his disciples. And looking at Jesus as He walked, he said, "Behold the Lamb of God!"

The two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. Then Jesus turned, and seeing them following, said to them, "What do you seek?"

They said to Him, "Rabbi" (which is to say, when translated, Teacher), "where are You staying?"

He said to them, "Come and see." They came and saw where He was staying, and remained with Him that day (now it was about the tenth hour). Jn 1:35-39 NKJ [/]

[/]

Gerry

[Gerr]

Quote:

---

Robert said:

Quote:

---

Robert said:

Ellen states: “…There will be no rivalry, no self-seeking...

---

“Sin originated [how?] in self-seeking. Lucifer, the covering cherub, desired to be first in heaven.” [i.e., he wanted to be # 1] [FLB 68]

Here's Sequeira:

Using man as his tool, Satan has developed a kingdom (the Bible refers to it as “the kingdom of this world”) that is based entirely on the principle of self and which is in complete opposition and contradiction to the “kingdom of heaven.” Everything, therefore, that goes to make up this worldly system (kosmos) — nationalism, tribalism, politics, education, commerce, recreation, sports, social clubs, technology, etc. — is founded upon the principle of love of self, even though at times this principle may not be obvious. According to 1 John 2:16, “all that is in the world” (i.e., without exception) is based or founded upon lust (i.e., love of self).

---

[:"blue"]So we should have no government? No school system? Let's all be ignorant!

No trade? Make everything yourself!

No recreation? Just work, eat & sleep!

No technology? Walk. Or ride a horse. Dig the soil with your own bare hands!

[/]

Gerry

[Gerr]

You claim to be a Christian, why are you not following what the first century Christians did? Why aren't you homeless yet? You hold out homelessness as Christ's requirement for discipleship for all, yet you have excempted yourself? Is God partial to you?

The Cross did not absolve you from obedience to the law. The fact is:

[:"red"]The cross of Calvary, while it declares the law immutable, proclaims to the universe that the wages of sin is death. GC 503

Since "the law of the Lord is perfect," every variation from it must be evil. Those who disobey the commandments of God, and teach others to do so, are condemned by Christ. The Saviour's life of obedience maintained the claims of the law; it proved that the law could be kept in humanity, and showed the excellence of character that obedience would develop. All who obey as He did are likewise declaring that the law is "holy, and just, and good." Rom 7:12. On the other hand, all who break God's commandments are sustaining Satan's claim that the law is unjust, and cannot be obeyed. Thus they second the deceptions of the gread adversary, and cast dishonor upon God. They are the children of the wicked one, who was the first rebel against God's law. To admit them into heaven would again bring in the elements of discord and rebellion, and imperil the well-being of the universe. No man who willfully disregards one principle of the law shall enter the kingdom of heaven.

.........

The greatest deception of the human mind in Christ's day was that a mere assent to the truth constitutes righteousness. In all human experience a theoretical knowledge of the truth has been proved to be insufficient for the saving of the soul.

DA 308-309

Gerry

[Gerr]

[:"red"]

God's ideal for His children is higher than the highest human thought can reach. "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." This command is a promise. The plan of redemption contemplates our complete recovery from the power of Satan. Christ always separates the contrite soul from sin. He came to destroy the works of the devil, and He has made provision that the Holy Spirit shall be imparted to every repentant soul, to keep him from sinning." DA 311[/]

Gerry

[Nicodema]

Once and for all ... am I the ONLY PERSON ON THIS FORUM sick to DEATH of seeing EVERY SPIRITUAL DISCUSSION HIJACKED IN THIS DIRECTION???? Isn't there SOMETHING the MODERATORS can DO about this ONCE AND FOR ALL??????????

Seriously, it's bad enough our discussions sometimes derail into personal slanging matches here and there, but to have almost EVERY SINGLE DISCUSSION that starts about spiritual things get derailed into THIS PARTICULAR SLANGING MATCH, EVERY TIME, is a little more than I can take.

Seriously, I want an end to this. Why don't you two just have [:"red"]a thread of your own for this conversation???[/] WHY DOES IT HAVE TO TAKE OVER EVERY POTENTIALLY INTERESTING OR "MEATY" THREAD ON THIS ENTIRE BOARD?????

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Gerry Cabalo said:

No man who willfully disregards one principle of the law shall enter the kingdom of heaven.

---

1 Cor 13:4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.

Is. 53:6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way....

1 Cor 10:24 Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor.

If everyone practiced the above we would have paradise! Instead we have a system that creates extreme riches and poverty. We have a system based on the love of self.

The early church experienced how heaven will be...they were reflecting the law of self-renouncing love. You guys are not!

According to this truth and your definition of practicing sin, you guys would be lost. Time to re-analyze your positions.

Rob