Hanseng Posted February 28 Posted February 28 I’d often wondered where the doctrine of sinless perfection came from. It certainly sounded attractive; however, my daily life caused some serious doubts about it. Usual suspects included Ellen White, John Wesley, and M.L Andreasen. I was surprised to find that it had nothing to do with John Wesley and was taught in the denomination before Andreasen was born. J.N. Andrews, prior to his death in 1883, spoke of standing before God without an atoning sacrifice. There will be no need of an Advocate, Intercessor, Mediator, or High Priest (Andrews, The Judgment, p.23). Andrews tied sinless perfectionism directly to the Investigative Judgment in his posthumously published book “The Judgment. Its Events and Their Order.” Andrews believed that the cleansing of the sanctuary and the investigative judgment were the same thing, a single event beginning in 1844. The Investigative Judgment also included the blotting out of sin. The sanctuary was cleansed by means of the IJ. The record of sin, preserved in the book of remembrance, polluted the sanctuary. As Andrews understood it, every professed believer’s name was entered in the book of life. The believer’s life record was preserved in the book of remembrance. Every idle word, neglected duty, overt sin was there. If these things had not been confessed and overcome， the “believer’s” name would be blotted out of the book of life. The investigation was a judgment of the believer’s faithfulness. The record of our life, preserved in the book of remembrance, determines who will be accounted worthy. Overcoming sin was an important element in the thinking of Andrews. Only those who were overcomers would be preserved in the book of remembrance and ultimately, the book of life. They would experience the justification of the [investigative] judgment and be accounted worthy of immortality (Andrews, The Judgment, p. 21). “…. Only those who have fully repented of their sins and have perfectly accomplished the work of overcoming” will have their sins blotted out. “They must have completed their work of overcoming” (Andrews, The Judgment, pp. 20, 21). Andrews was not alone in emphasizing the necessity of “overcoming” to succeed in the Investigative Judgment. James White, in his early Review and Herald article “The Judgment" also considered “overcoming” as necessary to pass the judgment. “The white raiment in this text [Rev. 3:5] is the same as that offered by the True Witness. Hence, we conclude that the overcoming, which is necessary in order to have the names of the people of God retained in, and not blotted out of, the book of life, consists in obeying the testimony to the Laodiceans.” (ARSH January 29, 1857, page 101.3). James White outlined the steps to success in the Investigative Judgment:1)“Perfect faith by works,” 2). “Be clothed with the righteousness of Christ.” 3) Get the anointing of the Holy Ghost (ARSH January 29, 1857, page 101.4). Ellen White describes how Jesus pleads for the salvation of those whose names come up in the Investigative Judgment. While not excusing their sin, He shows their faith and penitence, claiming forgiveness for them (GC, 412). God will not despise penitence and contrition (Psalm 51:17). They shall walk with God in white, for they are worthy. Kevin H 1 Quote
Joe Knapp Posted February 28 Posted February 28 I have heard sermons how at the end of time, we will have to stand alone. Maybe that is related to perfection, I don't know. However, that does not make sense to me. First, God says he will never leave us. Second, the Holy Spirit will never leave us if we are in a saved state. Let's assume the judgment of the living was today for me. And assume that God pardoned my sins. Then what? I am not going anywhere. I still have to wait until the judgment is complete. I have to wait until other events happen and Jesus returns. Will I be perfect? I can't see how. As long as we live on this sinful planet, we are subject to sin. There is nothing in scripture that indicates perfection or that we will stand without an intercessor. Unless I am missing something. Quote
Hanseng Posted February 28 Author Posted February 28 Joe, Sinless perfectionism was directly connected to the Investigative Judgment in the early days of SDA. Quote
Moderators Kevin H Posted March 10 Moderators Posted March 10 On 2/28/2026 at 5:09 AM, Joe Knapp said: I have heard sermons how at the end of time, we will have to stand alone. Maybe that is related to perfection, I don't know. However, that does not make sense to me. First, God says he will never leave us. Second, the Holy Spirit will never leave us if we are in a saved state. Let's assume the judgment of the living was today for me. And assume that God pardoned my sins. Then what? I am not going anywhere. I still have to wait until the judgment is complete. I have to wait until other events happen and Jesus returns. Will I be perfect? I can't see how. As long as we live on this sinful planet, we are subject to sin. There is nothing in scripture that indicates perfection or that we will stand without an intercessor. Unless I am missing something. It is interesting how Mrs. White changed the idea of" standing without an atoning sacrifice" to standing "without an intercessor." A superficial reading might miss this change. But they are sssssssssssssssssssssssssoooooooooooooo different from each other. First, it's been pointed out that there is the difference between the Roman Catholic understanding of intercession, how it was modified by the Reformers, but in contrast to what we find in descriptions of intercession in the Bible. The Roman Catholic has us reaching out to God through our priest, through the saints, to Mary to beg Jesus to beg the Father to forgive us. The Reformers started out with this but removed all the middle people and have us reaching out to Jesus to beg the Father to forgive us. Now, what we find for intercession in the Bible, such as in Exodus 19:5-6 and Revelation 1, we find a change of direction from the Roman Catholic/Reformer's understanding of intercession. Instead of us reaching out to God, it is God the Father, reaching through God the Son, through the Holy Spirit's work on the heart, with a role for the angels, and for God to have a special chosen people, to reach out to people's hearts. The idea of "standing without an atoning sacrifice" is scary, is NOT possible, and is NOT Biblical. While standing without an intercessor can give a picture of such a total trust in God. That God has won our hearts. That at the end of time there is no need for an intercessor because those who have accepted have reached a point where Jesus does not need to try to win us over because he has already succeeded in winning our hearts; and those who have totally rejected him have so hardened their hearts that nothing can win them over. While this can be seen clearer in Bible intercession of God reaching out to us, you can still apply it to the traditional Roman Catholic/Reformer's direction of us reaching out to God. That no matter which direction we see intercession, there is a point where we and God are in a firm relationship with each other, so there is no longer a need for one party to work on the heart of the other party. Until we close probation on ourselves, we need intercession because this is how we grow, Especially in the Bible intercession of Jesus constantly trying to win us over as we grow until we grow to where we totally trust him. As we continue to study Mrs. White, you can give a fairly strong argument that he believed in the God reaching out to people view of intercession, but either way, it is the start of sinful people reacting to the love of God for a point that can be called conversion and it's effect, then growth and while just as conversion and it's effect never ends, so growth never ends, but we grow to a point where we constantly are turning to Christ (justification) and it's result (sanctification) that this pattern becomes characteristic of our response to the Holy Spirit, and thus Mrs. White sees this experience as settling into the faith. But this relationship consistently needs Jesus' atoning sacrifice. Everything comes from Jesus' atoning sacrifice. Mrs. White even saw the faithful angels and unfallen worlds as equally needing Jesus' atoning sacrifice. Quote
Moderators Kevin H Posted March 10 Moderators Posted March 10 John Wesley had a very deep understanding of Sanctification, far beyond the reformers. However, John Wesley also had a theory that there was an additional sanctification experience beyond his understanding. He did not reach it, ne never met anyone who reached it, but sadly, he theorized that it existed. Most have either given up or placed that additional sanctification experience on a back burner, but at least two groups latched on to his theory. One group is the Pentecostals, who see this additional sanctification experience in speaking in tongues. Another group has been within Seventh-day Adventists in which they understood "last generation perfection" as a different quality of sanctification, this level that Wesley theorized, and that those who reached this level would be keeping the law at a quality of no one before, except maybe Jesus. While the Seventh-day Adventist pioneers did NOT make a rejection of the trinity a church doctrine and test of fellowship, MOST (NO NOT ALL as some want to say) did reject the trinity. Now, they did not form their question about the trinity into a unified doctrine as we find in some of the other groups forming at that time with similar questions (such as the Jehovah's Witnesses) Adventist pioneers allowed a spectrum of beliefs including trinitarianism. As the trinity was questioned, there was a wanting to understand the role of Jesus. When you don't have the different roles of the members of the trinity in tension with each other (God as power and authority, God as personal friend, God as working on our hearts in our subjective, existential experience) we end up taking one aspect of the trinity and make that aspect GOD IN TOTAL. While not using our language, Eastern Religion is based on making the Holy Spirit GOD IN TOTAL. We in the west tend to focus on God the Father and make this aspect out of proportion to become GOD IN TOTAL. Since God the Father is God as power and authority, and we make this aspect of God as GOD IN TOTAL the focus is on power and authority, focusing on the law the law the law until we are as dry as the hills of Gilboa. This tends to encourage and attract people who are either control freaks, or those who don't want to think for themselves and be told just what to do. We even have this problem if we have a form of trinity, but where God the Father does not submit, but God the Son, God the Holy Spirit and creatures' job is to submit. In this unbalanced understanding of one aspect of the Godhead not submitting but all submitting to him, Jesus becomes more our example than anything else. While not really necessary, often this would want Jesus to have a sinful nature. That we are sinners based on our actions rather than having a sinful nature. This forms a focus on actions. The actions of Jesus and our actions. While generation after generation falls, the final generation would finally get this right. This is what lead to the 1888 crisis. Many wondered how Mrs. White could support Jones and Wagner. Many who opposed Jones and Wagner in 1888 took a pause and in their minds worked out some kind of compromise between the view and somehow kind of fit Jones and Wagner into their framework. Mrs. White blamed herself for much of the 1888 crisis for not being clear enough in sharing the issues of the great controversy. One of Mrs. White's first steps in dealing with this was when in Australia she gave an assignment to A. G. Daniels to do a study on who Jesus is, and she gave a similar assignment to W. W. Prescott to see who the Holy Spirit is. (NOTE: I might have mixed up who got which of the assignments.) Both Daniels and Prescott questioned the doctrine of the trinity when they started the assignment. However, each came to the conclusion that the one they studied was indeed fully God. When the two reported to Mrs. White and compared notes, they realized that between the two papers that they ended up supporting the trinity. From this the idea of the trinity moved from an option that you can believe if you really wanted to, but was an unpopular view among Adventists, to where it became the center of Mrs. White's philosophy on the great controversy (The three aspects of the trinity as fully God and thus in tension with each other as they all submit to each other; Lucifer/Satan forming three deceptions, each an attack on a member of the trinity, and how many of the threes in the Bible are connected to the trinity, and/or the three deceptions, including the three angel's messages. and how the 1888 message of righteousness by faith is the three angels message.) As I pointed out above how the pre-1888 view had the idea of standing before God without the atoning sacrifice, to where you can't do anything without the atoning sacrifice, that not even faithful angels and unfallen worlds still needed the atoning sacrifice, but we can stand before God's presence without the need of Jesus pleading with our hearts to turn to him. Instead of works/acts it is a total trust. While pre-1888 Adventism, and our so called "Historic Adventists" sees a last generation perfection as a DIFFERENT QUALITY than any other generation before, and is built on the Greek understanding of perfection and that this perfection is that additional sanctification that Wesley theorized; Mrs. White understood last generation perfection as a DIFFERENT QUANTITY. That every generation can be divided into three or four groups: Those who committed the unpardonable sin, those who have come to have an unshakeable faith in Christ, and those in-between. Or those who committed the unpardonable sin, those who have not accepted God into their lives, but have not committed the unpardonable sin and could convert and accept the Lord into their lives; those who have accepted the Lord but had not yet developed into an unshakeable faith, and those who have the unshakeable faith. That each generation fits in these categories, but typically it's a bell curve, with some who commit the unpardonable sin and some with the total trust, but most in-between, that in the last generation everyone would either have committed the unpardonable sin, or have come to totally trust Jesus with an unshakeable faith. Over centuries the church argued over the nature of Christ. Often this was whether Jesus had the nature of Adam before the fall or the sinful nature after the fall, but finally concluded that Jesus had his own unique nature, with similarities but also differences from Adam before the fall and us after the fall, especially that Jesus did NOT have the sinful nature. As the trinity grew in Mrs. White's writings, she began to copy some of the best descriptions of writers of the above conclusion, thus joining this view on the nature of Christ. Sadly, many Adventists have not followed her. Some, among those who like Desmond Ford, like the idea of Jesus having the nature of Adam before the fall. (Now, I'm not sure Ford himself fell to this, he could have well held the view of Jesus having his own unique nature.) but there are people going through these writings like a lawyer looking for loopholes trying to give Jesus the nature after the fall so that they can use this for their mish-mash of pre/post 1888 thought. In the discussions that lead to the book "Questions on Doctrine" I wish that the reply was "Yes, many of our early members questioned the trinity, but as we became more accepting of the trinity we went to the traditional view that Jesus had his own unique nature" give the E. G. White quotes that they did give in the book, and maybe refer to the author she copied. Sadly, we tried to distance ourselves from our pioneer's questioning of the trinity and ended up focusing more on Jesus as God instead of the balance of Jesus as both God and man. This ended up a mess. (Note: I have mixed feelings about Questions on Doctrine. Some parts I think are excellent, others not so good, but overall it's just a book with strong and weak points. But sadly, there are too many who filters beliefs through QOD with an attitude of "QOD said it, therefore I don't believe it and that settles it for me." Quote
Moderators Kevin H Posted March 10 Moderators Posted March 10 Just a side note on James White and the trinity: When going over the Review for the early years, you could expect to find a general number of articles on different topics each year. James White would edit the Review at different times between other editors. A study going over these found that whenever James was the editor that there was a noticeably large drop in the number of articles about the trinity from the usual number when others edited. Another study was where anyone who had ever met James White in person was asked memories of James' comments on the trinity. One person met James only once, that was as a 8 year old boy and his parents had James over for lunch once. This was early in James' ministry. He said that over the lunch discussion that James spoke against the trinity. Everyone else gave the same answer, all the others said that James liked to be parts of discussions, but they noticed that whenever the trinity was discussed, James would not say a word but just listen to what everyone else had to say. Then when the topic changed James would rejoin the discussion. Towards the end of his life, James White wrote a letter that included saying "I'm starting to find the arguments for the trinity to be more convincing than the arguments against the trinity." Quote
Hanseng Posted March 10 Author Posted March 10 9 hours ago, Kevin H said: Note: I have mixed feelings about Questions on Doctrine. Some parts I think are excellent, others not so good, but overall it's just a book with strong and weak points. Froom's Movement of Destiny is the book to read. It presents a historical context for 1888, considering existing ill will regarding the "trinity" controversy as an important factor in the prejudices existing and the personalities conflicting. It also shines some light on EGW's endorsement of the 1888 message. She appreciated Waggoner's emphasis on the all sufficiency of Christ, in the context of arguments about His divinity. Theologically, Waggoner's emphasis in his writings on being "made" righteous rather than being "counted" righteous indicates that he had a somewhat limited understanding of justification by faith. He took as his text Romans 5 which says by the righteousness of one many shall be made righteous. This is a direct contradiction of Luther's theology which held that man remains sinful until translation, even though God considers him righteous because of his faith in Christ, hence the famous "simultaneously righteous and sinful" maxim expressed in his Galatians commentary. Perfectionism also flies in the face of this doctrine and Waggoner was a perfectionist, even though he rejected the IJ doctrine. Conflict over the nature of Christ often hinges on the meaning of the expression "likeness of sinful flesh." All one need do is read Romans 7. Sinful flesh is that of fallen man which renders it impossible to do the will of God, as Romans 7 describes. Jesus obviously did not have a nature like that. I like what you said about Jesus having a unique nature. That solves a lot of problems. Adam and Eve were "born" perfect and they still sinned, not having any predisposition to so do. We are born sinful and cannot help but sin. Augustine, when asked about sinlessness, said it is like having faith to move mountains. He never did it, never saw anyone do it, never heard of anyone doing it, but wouldn't say it was impossible. Kevin H 1 Quote
Hanseng Posted March 14 Author Posted March 14 There are at least two different doctrines of sanctification. One is Biblical, the other is academic, i.e., a human construct. Sanctification, in Scripture, simply means to separate. Cultic prostitutes, assumed to be homosexual by Bible translators, were sanctified. They were separated from others for a religious purpose. albeit a form of sinful devotion ("sodomites" in the books of Kings). The Israelites were separated for a "holy" purpose, i.e., working in the temple. The Hebrew trigram is the same. Sanctification, in the NT, is clearly explained here: For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that you should abstain from fornication.1 Thess. 4:3. Doesn't get much plainer than that. Sanctification is to abstain from fornication. This is what Jesus told Mary, "Go and sin no more," i.e., stop whoring, fornicating adultering. John says we are sanctified by the word of truth (John 17: 17,19). Acts 26:18 says we are sanctified by faith [in Christ]. Hebrews 9:13, 14 explains that the purging of the conscience from dead works is equivalent to sanctification in the OT. The purging is accomplished through the blood of Christ. Hebrews 10:10 says we are sanctified by the offering of the body of Christ. Hebrews 10:29 says we are sanctified by the blood of the covenant. Hebrews 13:12 says that Jesus sanctifies us with his own blood. 1 Peter 1:12 says we are sanctified through the Spirit. 2Ti 2:14-21 indicates that those who avoid quarrels and vain/profane babbling are sanctified. Hebrews 10:14 says that Jesus has perfected forever those who are sanctified. To be perfected forever, in this context, means to never face your sin, as did the Jews every year on the DoA. The sanctified are the ones who have had their conscience purged by the blood of Christ in Hebrews 9:15,14. The correlation of sanctification and perfection in Hebrews 9 and 10 assures believing Christians of never having to face our sins again. David explicitly ruled out a God who is constantly watching us to find a mistake we might make. "If thou shouldest mark iniquity, who shall stand? But there is forgiveness with thee.... Psalm 130:3,4. Enjoy the grace of God which sets us free from condemnation and promises eternal life to those who believe. Quote
Moderators Kevin H Posted March 17 Moderators Posted March 17 I forgot to mention in an above post that our "Last Generation" people who are looking for a different QUALITY from other generations, also tend to have a very Greek/Western view of perfection, which is the culture we live in and have grown up in. However, others have noticed that while using the word "perfection" that Mrs. White seemed to hold a different view from our traditional Greek/Western understanding. As archaeology and scholarship studied more into the differences between Greek and Hebrew thought, that Mrs. White's use of the term "perfection" sounds a lot more like what has been discovered in Hebrew thought. The Hebrew and somewhat more Eastern view allows for variation and growth. Greek perfection is fully some ideal unchanging. The Hebrew view can be more compared to say a plant's growth, where perfection is a plant being on it's routine cycle. Also, while Wesley imagined a higher form of sanctification than he experienced or had ever seen, while she does not use his name, it's been pointed out that her descriptions of someone reaching perfection has been repeats of descriptions of John Wesley as a person. Quote
hobie Posted March 20 Posted March 20 On 3/10/2026 at 12:45 AM, Kevin H said: John Wesley had a very deep understanding of Sanctification, far beyond the reformers. However, John Wesley also had a theory that there was an additional sanctification experience beyond his understanding. He did not reach it, ne never met anyone who reached it, but sadly, he theorized that it existed. Most have either given up or placed that additional sanctification experience on a back burner, but at least two groups latched on to his theory. One group is the Pentecostals, who see this additional sanctification experience in speaking in tongues. Another group has been within Seventh-day Adventists in which they understood "last generation perfection" as a different quality of sanctification, this level that Wesley theorized, and that those who reached this level would be keeping the law at a quality of no one before, except maybe Jesus. While the Seventh-day Adventist pioneers did NOT make a rejection of the trinity a church doctrine and test of fellowship, MOST (NO NOT ALL as some want to say) did reject the trinity. Now, they did not form their question about the trinity into a unified doctrine as we find in some of the other groups forming at that time with similar questions (such as the Jehovah's Witnesses) Adventist pioneers allowed a spectrum of beliefs including trinitarianism. As the trinity was questioned, there was a wanting to understand the role of Jesus. When you don't have the different roles of the members of the trinity in tension with each other (God as power and authority, God as personal friend, God as working on our hearts in our subjective, existential experience) we end up taking one aspect of the trinity and make that aspect GOD IN TOTAL. While not using our language, Eastern Religion is based on making the Holy Spirit GOD IN TOTAL. We in the west tend to focus on God the Father and make this aspect out of proportion to become GOD IN TOTAL. Since God the Father is God as power and authority, and we make this aspect of God as GOD IN TOTAL the focus is on power and authority, focusing on the law the law the law until we are as dry as the hills of Gilboa. This tends to encourage and attract people who are either control freaks, or those who don't want to think for themselves and be told just what to do. We even have this problem if we have a form of trinity, but where God the Father does not submit, but God the Son, God the Holy Spirit and creatures' job is to submit. In this unbalanced understanding of one aspect of the Godhead not submitting but all submitting to him, Jesus becomes more our example than anything else. While not really necessary, often this would want Jesus to have a sinful nature. That we are sinners based on our actions rather than having a sinful nature. This forms a focus on actions. The actions of Jesus and our actions. While generation after generation falls, the final generation would finally get this right. This is what lead to the 1888 crisis. Many wondered how Mrs. White could support Jones and Wagner. Many who opposed Jones and Wagner in 1888 took a pause and in their minds worked out some kind of compromise between the view and somehow kind of fit Jones and Wagner into their framework. Mrs. White blamed herself for much of the 1888 crisis for not being clear enough in sharing the issues of the great controversy. One of Mrs. White's first steps in dealing with this was when in Australia she gave an assignment to A. G. Daniels to do a study on who Jesus is, and she gave a similar assignment to W. W. Prescott to see who the Holy Spirit is. (NOTE: I might have mixed up who got which of the assignments.) Both Daniels and Prescott questioned the doctrine of the trinity when they started the assignment. However, each came to the conclusion that the one they studied was indeed fully God. When the two reported to Mrs. White and compared notes, they realized that between the two papers that they ended up supporting the trinity. From this the idea of the trinity moved from an option that you can believe if you really wanted to, but was an unpopular view among Adventists, to where it became the center of Mrs. White's philosophy on the great controversy (The three aspects of the trinity as fully God and thus in tension with each other as they all submit to each other; Lucifer/Satan forming three deceptions, each an attack on a member of the trinity, and how many of the threes in the Bible are connected to the trinity, and/or the three deceptions, including the three angel's messages. and how the 1888 message of righteousness by faith is the three angels message.) As I pointed out above how the pre-1888 view had the idea of standing before God without the atoning sacrifice, to where you can't do anything without the atoning sacrifice, that not even faithful angels and unfallen worlds still needed the atoning sacrifice, but we can stand before God's presence without the need of Jesus pleading with our hearts to turn to him. Instead of works/acts it is a total trust. While pre-1888 Adventism, and our so called "Historic Adventists" sees a last generation perfection as a DIFFERENT QUALITY than any other generation before, and is built on the Greek understanding of perfection and that this perfection is that additional sanctification that Wesley theorized; Mrs. White understood last generation perfection as a DIFFERENT QUANTITY. That every generation can be divided into three or four groups: Those who committed the unpardonable sin, those who have come to have an unshakeable faith in Christ, and those in-between. Or those who committed the unpardonable sin, those who have not accepted God into their lives, but have not committed the unpardonable sin and could convert and accept the Lord into their lives; those who have accepted the Lord but had not yet developed into an unshakeable faith, and those who have the unshakeable faith. That each generation fits in these categories, but typically it's a bell curve, with some who commit the unpardonable sin and some with the total trust, but most in-between, that in the last generation everyone would either have committed the unpardonable sin, or have come to totally trust Jesus with an unshakeable faith. Over centuries the church argued over the nature of Christ. Often this was whether Jesus had the nature of Adam before the fall or the sinful nature after the fall, but finally concluded that Jesus had his own unique nature, with similarities but also differences from Adam before the fall and us after the fall, especially that Jesus did NOT have the sinful nature. As the trinity grew in Mrs. White's writings, she began to copy some of the best descriptions of writers of the above conclusion, thus joining this view on the nature of Christ. Sadly, many Adventists have not followed her. Some, among those who like Desmond Ford, like the idea of Jesus having the nature of Adam before the fall. (Now, I'm not sure Ford himself fell to this, he could have well held the view of Jesus having his own unique nature.) but there are people going through these writings like a lawyer looking for loopholes trying to give Jesus the nature after the fall so that they can use this for their mish-mash of pre/post 1888 thought. In the discussions that lead to the book "Questions on Doctrine" I wish that the reply was "Yes, many of our early members questioned the trinity, but as we became more accepting of the trinity we went to the traditional view that Jesus had his own unique nature" give the E. G. White quotes that they did give in the book, and maybe refer to the author she copied. Sadly, we tried to distance ourselves from our pioneer's questioning of the trinity and ended up focusing more on Jesus as God instead of the balance of Jesus as both God and man. This ended up a mess. (Note: I have mixed feelings about Questions on Doctrine. Some parts I think are excellent, others not so good, but overall it's just a book with strong and weak points. But sadly, there are too many who filters beliefs through QOD with an attitude of "QOD said it, therefore I don't believe it and that settles it for me." Yes, John Wesley is where most religious scholars put the beginning of this view, but what about what we get from Gods Word as there are many verses that speak of 'overcoming'. Here are a few which I am sure you know.. Revelation 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. Revelation 2:11 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death. Revelation 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it. Revelation 2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: Revelation 3:5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. Revelation 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name. Revelation 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. Revelation 21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. So what are they overcoming that keeps them from the Second Death? Its not that hard to grasp what it is.... Quote
hobie Posted March 20 Posted March 20 Now, Gods relationship with man is based on love, and this love is put within our heart and mind so we may resonate with God and His purpose. Then the Holy Spirit comes and does its work and here is what I came across and put up on this: "...Life by the Spirit 16So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. 17For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. 18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law. 19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. 25Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other. Galations 5:16-26 1Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children 2and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. 3But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people. 4Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. 5For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy personsuch a man is an idolaterhas any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.[a] 6Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient. 7Therefore do not be partners with them. 8For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light 9(for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) 10and find out what pleases the Lord. 11Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. 12For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. 13But everything exposed by the light becomes visible, 14for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said: "Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you." 15Be very careful, then, how you livenot as unwise but as wise, 16making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil. 17Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord's will is. 18Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit. 19Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, 20always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 21Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Ephesians 5: 1-21 So if we are led by the Spirit, we are not under the law, does that mean we can sin and go against it, I dont think thats what is meant. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit does not stop us from doing Gods will and showing love as that is the essence of the law, but it will put into our hearts and minds the spirit of the law which is even better than the "letter of the law" that sinners use every means to 'get around'. Those who are transformed by the Holy Spirit follow Gods will so there is no need of the Law to show them sin. We see the story in Mark of the rich young ruler... Mark 10:17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? It's possible as we see from story the rich young ruler to keep the "letter of the law" even without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in their lives, but those who have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in their lives will not only keep the "letter of the law" but the spirit of the law as well. Quote
hobie Posted March 20 Posted March 20 Here is a excellent explanation I came across on the fruits of the Spirit in this excerpt from a sermon Richard W. O'Ffill: "...Although the first work of the Gospel in the life is cleansing from sin, this work is only the preparation for the primary purpose, which is the infilling of the Holy Spirit in the life. "A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you [the new birth]...And I will put My Spirit within you..." (Ezekiel 36:26, 27). The promise in these verses has two components. The first is to give us a new spirit; that is, our own spirit is renewed and quickened by the work of the Holy Spirit. When this has been done, the rest of the promise states, "I will put My Spirit within you" to dwell in that new spirit. God created man's heart for His dwelling. Where God is to dwell, He must have a habitation. With Adam He had to create a body before He could breathe the spirit of life into him. In Israel the tabernacle and the Temple had to be built and completed before God could come down and take possession. Likewise, a new heart is given and a new spirit put within us as the indispensable condition of God's Own Spirit being given to dwell within us. But God's original purpose for man was frustrated. The purpose of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, remember, was to re-create a dwelling place of which it could be said, "The kingdom of God is within you" (Luke 17:21). While Jesus walked this earth as a man, He was personally with His disciples. But it would not be until Pentecost that the promise of John 14:16, 17 would be fulfilled: "And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you forever; even the Spirit of truth; Whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth Him not, neither knoweth Him: but ye know Him; for He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." A wonderful and sobering thought is expressed in 1 Corinthians 6:19, 20: "What? Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." While not smoking and drinking or going to movies and dancing, omitting mustard, vinegar, and black pepper in the diet, worshipping on the seventh day, and following a dress code are laudable, none of these things requires that a person be born again or, for that matter, even be a follower of Christ (the Hindus are traditionally vegans). A true Christian is one whose heart is not only swept and clean but is filled in a wonderful and mysterious way with the Holy Spirit...." "..As the Holy Spirit is welcomed and begins His work, the fruits of the spirit will begin to manifest itself in the transformation of the person, producing that which is in essence the very character of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. We are acquainted with the qualities of the fruit of the Spirit as shown in Galatians 5:22, 23: "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law." This list, however, is not exhaustive. There are other qualities enumerated in 1 Timothy 6:11, Romans 5:3-5, 2 Timothy 3:10, and 2 Peter 1:5-7. Jesus made it clear: Those who claim to be His followers but do not bear fruit will be plucked up and taken away (John 15:2). He also declared that, inasmuch as many will profess to be His followers (Matthew 7:21, 22), the deciding factor will not be what they profess to believe or even what they do, but rather the kind of people they are (Mathew 12:33). ....While people can keep the letter of the law without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in their lives, those who have the true Spirit in their hearts will not only keep the letter of the law but the spirit of the law as well...." "Those who receive the seal of God will be those who have not only been swept and cleaned but who have been the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit and as a result have manifested His fruit in their lives..." "...when the Holy Spirit is in your life, it is God moved in with you. A lot of problems disappear or become mute or irrelevant when that happens. You see, God is Holy, and when a Holy God moves in with you. His Holy presence will prepare, if you please, a sterile field in your life. It is for this reason that Scripture says, "Old things are passed away; and behold, all things are become new" (2 Corinthians 5:17). It also gives meaning to the words, "What fellowship has light with darkness" (2 Corinthians 6:14). When you and I have the Holy Spirit in our lives, we will hate the world, and as we sing, the things of earth grow strangely dim in the light of His glory and grace. If only God's people in this generation would pray for the Holy Spirit and mean it...A person who seeks the Holy Spirit for gratification of His spiritual fantasies or for personal gain in power or popularity may very well receive a spirit and exhibit those characteristics, but they will not be from the Holy Spirit of God, but from another spirit. God will not be used by us. He is not God because of us. But we are created by Him for His pleasure and for His glory. When the Holy Spirit dwells in its fullness in our hearts, then we will grow and experience what it means. "Forever, O God, thy word is settled in Heaven" (Psalms 119:89). And also, "I delight to do Thy will, O My God; Yea, thy law is written in my heart" (Psalm 40:8). Our worldliness or spiritual instability--the direct hit that many of us are taking from the flesh and the devil--are the direct result that we have not asked for, and thus have not received, the fullness of the Spirit. Of one thing you may be sure, and that is, when you and I ask for and experience the indwelling of the Holy Spirit: All known sin will go. We will seek first the Kingdom of Heaven and His righteousness. Sin will not have dominion over us. We will no longer be under the law of sin and death. We will know what it means when it says, "There is now no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit"(Read Romans 6 and 8)...." Here is Ellen White on the same topic: "The mighty power of the Holy Spirit works an entire transformation in the character of the human agent, making him a new creature in Christ Jesus.... The peace that dwells in the soul is seen on the countenance. The words and actions express the love of the Saviour. There is no striving for the highest place. Self is renounced. The name of Jesus is written on all that is said and done."Ellen G. White Comments, SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 6, p. 1117. Just as leaven transforms a lump of dough into delicious bread, so the Holy Spirit transforms our lives into people who reflect Christ's character: "As the leaven . . . works from within outward, so it is by the renewing of the heart that the grace of God works to transform the life. No mere external change is sufficient to bring us into harmony with God. There are many who try to reform by correcting this or that bad habit, and they hope in this way to become Christians, but they are beginning in the wrong place. Our first work is with the heart." - Christ's Object Lessons, p. 97...." Quote
hobie Posted March 21 Posted March 21 8 hours ago, Joe Knapp said: Thank you for posting this. Well, there is much more but this one is especially interesting... Now here is Julius Lams research on this in his "Questions on Doctrine and M. L. Andreasen: The Behind-the-Scenes Interactions": "Andreasen's entry into the conversations over the Adventist-evangelical dialogues and Questions on Doctrine came quite late in the process partly because he was living in southern California having retired in 1950 after a half century of denominational work[iii] and also because he was not one of the 250 Adventist workers selected to give pre-publication review of Questions on Doctrine. When he first read Barnhouse's September 1956 Eternity article, in which he declared Adventism evangelical, the 80-year-old retired theologian was living in Glendale, California. Andreasen was immediately troubled by what he read in Barnhouse's article. His concerns centered on Barnhouse's claims that not only were Adventists denying doctrinal positions attributed to them previously, but also were said to be in the course of changing some of their teachings such as the investigative judgment doctrine. Andreasen was further disturbed by Barnhouse's declaration that those who opposed the 'new position' taken by Adventist leaders belonged to the ''lunatic fringe,'' and 'wild-eyed irresponsibles' . According to Steinweg, Andreasen's biographer, this latter statement seemed to Andreasen 'like a return to the days of the Inquisition' and led him to consider 'a call to take up sentinel duty' to protect what he believed to be historic Adventist orthodoxy. What actually prompted Andreasen to voice his concerns, however, was Froom's February 1957 article in Ministry entitled 'The Priestly Application of the Atoning Act.' In this article, Froom stated that Christ's death provided 'a complete, perfect, and final atonement for man's sin' and 'a completed act of atonement.' ...Andreasen's central concern was that Froom had put the cross event and the post-1844 heavenly event 'in juxtaposition and on the same basis's which resulted in a 'shallow and confused' understanding of the atonement. In concluding the diatribe against Froom's article, Andreasen expressed the deep apprehension that he felt toward the Adventist-evangelical conferences, the articles by Barnhouse and Martin, and the planned publication of Questions on Doctrine: 'Adventists will not permit any man or group of men to make a 'creed' for them, and tell them what to believe. ....Andreasen issued a document entitled 'A Review and a Protest'[xvii] This document did not contain any new arguments, but summarized and reiterated his objections to Froom's description of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. ...Andreasen began issuing a series of manuscripts entitled 'The Atonement,' following the title of his first manuscript of February 15 and numbered retroactively to that document. Between November 4, 1957, and March 13, 1958, he fired off seven more papers, striking each time at the section on the atonement in Questions on Doctrine. During this time, the only concern he had with the book was with 'the section on the Atonement' which he deemed 'utterly unacceptable.' As for the rest of the book, he actually commended it as containing 'so many good things . . . that may be of real help to many.' ....During the same period, the epistolary joust between Andreasen and (GC President) Figuhr continued. Figuhr responded to Andreasen by refuting his attack on Questions on Doctrine. He denied that the book made Christ's heavenly sanctuary ministry unnecessary, but simply emphasized 'the atoning sacrifice of Christ' in its rightful place in the process of atonement.[xxi] He pointed out that even Andreasen himself agreed in his Book of Hebrews that Christ ''accomplished'' and ''finished His work as victim and sacrifice. ......Andreasen fired off a letter to Figuhr accusing him of prevarication and requested formally a public hearing on the Adventist-evangelical conferences, activities of those involved with the conferences, and the content of Questions on Doctrine. Beginning with this letter, Andreasen for the first time broadened his focus beyond the issue of the atonement. He continued in his open letters of May 15 and June 4, charging Questions on Doctrine with removing or changing a number of the 'pillars' of Adventist theology such as the teachings on the mark of the beast, the human nature of Christ, the investigative judgment, and Ellen White .....Then in February 1959, Andreasen initiated a new series of missives called Letters to the Churches, with the help of a printer in Oregon named A. L. Hudson. Even before joining with Andreasen, he began protesting independently against 'the head-long retreat' that the book was taking toward apostasy in the area of Christ's human nature' predating Andreasen's criticisms by half a year.[xxxvii] Along with the nine-part series entitled 'The Atonement,' the six-part Letters to the Churches became Andreasen's lasting theological legacy from this era. The six documents released at various times throughout 1959 contained not only Andreasen's key criticisms of Questions on Doctrine, but also accounts of his struggle against the book and the church during this time period. Letters to the Churches contained Andreasen's treatises on Christ's human nature, Ellen White, the atonement and narratives of his recent challenges against the General Conference in which he raised questions about the doctrinal integrity and moral authority of the leaders.[xxxviii] Except for the sections on Christ's human nature, the content of the letters was not new. Most sections of the letters were condensed and polished versions of the 'Atonement' series. Andreasen's key concern regarding the human nature of Christ was that the new book presented Christ's incarnation as a man who was radically different from all other human beings, contrary to what he believed to be the orthodox Adventist position. Andreasen believed that Christ was born in the flesh with exactly the same set of tendencies to sin as all other human beings. Christ's victory over sin in spite of his innate sinful tendencies was the cornerstone on which Andreasen had built his doctrine of the final atonement and the last generation. The last generation on earth would consist of a group of God's people who would demonstrate to the universe that it is possible to keep the law of God and live a sinless life. When Andreasen read the statement on p. 383 of Questions on Doctrine which indicated that Christ was 'exempt from the inherited passions and pollutions that corrupt the natural descendant of Adam,'[xl] he interpreted the word 'passion' as the sum total of 'man's emotions.' Working with this definition, Andreasen argued that to exempt a person from passions would be to take away 'all temptations that incite men to action' which 'results in a creature less than a man, a kind of no-man, a shadow man, a non-entity . . . .' Thus, Andreasen contended, to state that Christ was exempt from the passions of humankind would be to rob him of his true and complete humanity' and his last generation teachings of its theological basis. Andreasen was determined to be heard, but his voice was being continually weakened by the deterioration of his health. He did manage to get at least two more documents out, but by early February, faced with a dramatic decline of his health, Andreasen sought to find peace and reconciliation with his church and asked for a visit by Figuhr. On February 16, Figuhr and Bietz visited Andreasen who was hospitalized at Glendale Sanitarium and Hospital. During this meeting the three men discussed frankly the issues of Andreasen's activities of the previous five years, his suspended credentials and removal from the Yearbook, and financial arrangements for his wife after his death. Andreasen assured the visiting leaders that he did not desire to 'engage in any activity which would harm the church' and showed regret over any 'doubt and confusion' that his recent writings might have created. He further expressed his desire that his letters and pamphlets not be duplicated for distribution'a message directed especially to 'offshoots' of Adventism.[lxviii] Through this conversation, the three men were reconciled. This meeting was especially important for Andreasen because even as he was so deeply agitated by Questions on Doctrine and the General Conference, he wanted to be reconciled to his church. His widow, Gladys, stated that Andreasen had 'spent many nights sobbing his heart out' regarding being so estranged from the church. But after this meeting, she reported, he was able to die a 'happy' man.[lxix] Three days after his meeting with Figuhr and Bietz, on February 19, Andreasen died at the age of 85.[lxx] On March 1, 1962, the General Conferences Committee voted to revoke its former action to suspend Andreasen's credentials. It also voted to put his name back on the list of the retired workers in the Yearbook...."Oakwood University and Andreasen.htm Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.