Seventh Day Adventists

[Renton405]

I have a question on Ellen G White.. I do not know much about SDA.. but when G. White said that Jesus would come back in somewhere in 1844-1845 around, was that a misinterperatation? or do SDA believe that he has already come in 1844 and we did not recognize him??

"During the year 1845 I met Miss Ellen G. Harmon several times at my uncle's house in South Windham, Me. The first of these meetings was in the month of May, when I heard her declare that God had revealed to her that Jesus Christ would return to this earth in June, the next month." (Lucinda Burdick, notarized letter, published in Limboline

[<><]

I have a question on Ellen G White.. I do not know much about SDA.. but when G. White said that Jesus would come back in somewhere in 1844-1845 around, was that a misinterperatation? or do SDA believe that he has already come in 1844 and we did not recognize him??
I found this. She can tell you herself.
http://www.whiteestate.org/books/gc/gc23.html (http://www.whiteestate.org/books/gc/gc22.html)

[TrustAndObey]

Renton, there is a Seventh-day Adventist subforum on this site. Your question would get a lot more views/opinions there since some don't bother coming to GT.

You're welcome there any time (we just don't allow debate there). Fellowship and questions...always welcomed!

God bless,
~Lainie

[djconklin]

when G. White said that Jesus would come back in somewhere in 1844-1845 around, was that a misinterperatation?

Ellen White never made such a prediction. Back in the 1840's there was a cross-denominational (Protestant and Catholic) movement of a couple of thousand preachers that believed the prophecies of Daniel pointed to the soon return of Jesus. Of course, he didn't so the question became why? Where did they go wrong in their understanding of what the Bible said? One branch out of that movement became the SDA church.

As for Lucinda Burdick's claim we should remember that EGW was only 17 in 1844 and Lucinda was but a child at the time. Lucinda Burdick, wrote that claim in Sept. 26, 1908, 63 years after the alleged events. One can notarize all one wants--all that says is that the person signed the paper--that doesn't make it true.

[winslow]

I have a question on Ellen G White.. I do not know much about SDA.. but when G. White said that Jesus would come back in somewhere in 1844-1845 around, was that a misinterperatation? or do SDA believe that he has already come in 1844 and we did not recognize him??

"During the year 1845 I met Miss Ellen G. Harmon several times at my uncle's house in South Windham, Me. The first of these meetings was in the month of May, when I heard her declare that God had revealed to her that Jesus Christ would return to this earth in June, the next month." (Lucinda Burdick, notarized letter, published in Limboline



The jehovahs witnesses believe Jesus came in a spiritual realm, I forget what year around 1912.

Seventh day adventists believe in the physical return of Jesus and it will be such an event that no one will not know it is happening.

It was William Miller who deducted that Christ would return in 1844, this was before the seventh day adventist church was founded/organized.

[<><]

Back in the 1840's there was a cross-denominational (Protestant and Catholic) movement of a couple of thousand preachers that believed the prophecies of Daniel pointed to the soon return of Jesus.
Do you have any evidence that there were Catholics involved? I'd like to see any proof.

Ellen White was a believer that Jesus was going to come in 1844. They thought He was going to "cleanse the sanctuary" (Dan 8:14), which they erroneously thought was earth. After the fact, they discovered that the sanctuary was in heaven and that it was not earth. Hence, the date was correct, but the event was not.

The following is from the link I posted earlier:

In their investigation they learned that there is no Scripture evidence sustaining the popular view that the earth is the sanctuary; but they found in the Bible a full explanation of the subject of the sanctuary, its nature, location, and services; the testimony of the sacred writers being so clear and ample as to place the matter beyond all question. The apostle Paul, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, says: "Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary. For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary. And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the holiest of all; which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant; and over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercy seat." Hebrews 9:1-5.
The sanctuary to which Paul here refers was the tabernacle built by Moses at the command of God as the earthly dwelling place of the Most High. "Let them make Me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them" (Exodus 25:8), was the direction given to Moses while in the mount with God. The Israelites were journeying through the wilderness,
Page 412

and the tabernacle was so constructed that it could be removed from place to place; yet it was a structure of great magnificence. Its walls consisted of upright boards heavily plated with gold and set in sockets of silver, while the roof was formed of a series of curtains, or coverings, the outer of skins, the innermost of fine linen beautifully wrought with figures of cherubim. Besides the outer court, which contained the altar of burnt offering, the tabernacle itself consisted of two apartments called the holy and the most holy place, separated by a rich and beautiful curtain, or veil; a similar veil closed the entrance to the first apartment. In the holy place was the candlestick, on the south, with its seven lamps giving light to the sanctuary both by day and by night; on the north stood the table of shewbread; and before the veil separating the holy from the most holy was the golden altar of incense, from which the cloud of fragrance, with the prayers of Israel, was daily ascending before God.
In the most holy place stood the ark, a chest of precious wood overlaid with gold, the depository of the two tables of stone upon which God had inscribed the law of Ten Commandments. Above the ark, and forming the cover to the sacred chest, was the mercy seat, a magnificent piece of workmanship, surmounted by two cherubim, one at each end, and all wrought of solid gold. In this apartment the divine presence was manifested in the cloud of glory between the cherubim.
After the settlement of the Hebrews in Canaan, the tabernacle was replaced by the temple of Solomon, which, though a permanent structure and upon a larger scale, observed the same proportions, and was similarly furnished. In this form the sanctuary existed--except while it lay in ruins in Daniel's time--until its destruction by the Romans, in A.D. 70.
This is the only sanctuary that ever existed on the earth, of which the Bible gives any information. This was declared
Page 413

by Paul to be the sanctuary of the first covenant. But has the new covenant no sanctuary? Turning again to the book of Hebrews, the seekers for truth found that the existence of a second, or new-covenant sanctuary, was implied in the words of Paul already quoted: "Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary." And the use of the word "also" intimates that Paul has before made mention of this sanctuary. Turning back to the beginning of the previous chapter, they read: "Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an High Priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; a Minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man." Hebrews 8:1, 2.
Here is revealed the sanctuary of the new covenant. The sanctuary of the first covenant was pitched by man, built by Moses; this is pitched by the Lord, not by man. In that sanctuary the earthly priests performed their service; in this, Christ, our great High Priest, ministers at God's right hand. One sanctuary was on earth, the other is in heaven.
Further, the tabernacle built by Moses was made after a pattern. The Lord directed him: "According to all that I show thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it." And again the charge was given, "Look that thou make them after their pattern, which was showed thee in the mount." Exodus 25:9, 40. And Paul says that the first tabernacle "was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices;" that its holy places were "patterns of things in the heavens;" that the priests who offered gifts according to the law served "unto the example and shadow of heavenly things," and that "Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us." Hebrews 9:9, 23; 8:5; 9:24.
Page 414

The sanctuary in heaven, in which Jesus ministers in our behalf, is the great original, of which the sanctuary built by Moses was a copy.

[freeindeed2]

I have a question on Ellen G White.. I do not know much about SDA.. but when G. White said that Jesus would come back in somewhere in 1844-1845 around, was that a misinterperatation? or do SDA believe that he has already come in 1844 and we did not recognize him??

"During the year 1845 I met Miss Ellen G. Harmon several times at my uncle's house in South Windham, Me. The first of these meetings was in the month of May, when I heard her declare that God had revealed to her that Jesus Christ would return to this earth in June, the next month." (Lucinda Burdick, notarized letter, published in Limboline
Ellen G. White is the SDA prophet that came out of the false predictions for Christ's return in 1843, then the Spring of 1844, and then October 22, 1844. After the date-setting fiasco came and went she had claimed to have 'visions' which confirmed that the date(s) were actually correct that the Millerites (William Miller) had set and that it was just the wrong event. Now SDA's use the 1844 date for their 'Investigative Judgment' doctrine which no other Christian group taught before or accepted since. If you're really interested in researching this topic I would suggest reading The Cultic Doctrine of Seventh Day Adventists - 1844, by Dale Ratzlaff. I see that others have already given you a link to the White Estate website and I would encourage you to read how they defend their only unique doctrine from the standpoint of EGW.

Just so you know, I was born and raised in the SDA church and school system and I pastored for 10 years as an SDA pastor. I left almost a year ago over this and many other problems and issues with SDA beliefs, teachings, and doctrines. It's a big onion to peel and it's layers have multiplied over the past 150+ years, so don't expect to get to a bottom line quickly.

[djconklin]

Ellen G. White is the SDA prophet that came out of the false predictions for Christ's return in 1843, then the Spring of 1844, and then October 22, 1844.

Hmm, EGW was all of 17 in '44 and never made any of those predictions.

[freeindeed2]

Hmm, EGW was all of 17 in '44 and never made any of those predictions.
I never said she did. I clearly said that she is the (SDA) prophet that emerged from the false date-setting fiasco, which clearly goes against the Bible. On Oct. 23, 1844 (the day after the 'great disappointment') Edson had his supposed one and only vision concerning the sanctuary doctrine for coming up with an alternative event using the same dates. A couple of months later EGW (still 17 or 18) had her confirming 'vision'. Miller himself, the one who came up with the 15 proofs 'proving' (which are completely laughable, yet EGW called them a 'perfect chain of biblical truth') the second coming of Christ didn't even accept this new alternative 'event' that ultimately became the sole unique doctrine to SDAism.

So, I think you'll see that I never said what you're saying I said.

Thanks for playing! :)

[Your Neighbor]

... the false date-setting fiasco...Whatever fiasco you think it was, many non-Millerite theologians at that time had no problem with the dating of Daniel 8:14 ending in 1844. Most were post-millennialists, so they didn't like the application Millerites gave to it.

Please feel free to start a thread somewhere detailing Daniel 8's fulfillment as you see it.

[freeindeed2]

Whatever fiasco you think it was, many non-Millerite theologians at that time had no problem with the dating of Daniel 8:14 ending in 1844. Most were post-millennialists, so they didn't like the application Millerites gave to it.
'Most' is a not true. Most absolutely rejected the explicitly anti-Biblical practice of date-setting. It was those who did not follow the clear instruction in Scripture that were deceived, thus causing their own 'disappointment' for not heeding to the the warnings. In the end it was all blamed on God though, that their deception was at his own hand, that the lies in the predictions were exactly as God wanted them. Nasty theology!

Please feel free to start a thread somewhere detailing Daniel 8's fulfillment as you see it.
It doesn't matter how 'I' see it. Clearly Christ's atonement did not begin 1800 years after his sacrifice and presenting his blood and then sitting down at the right hand of God.

[djconklin]

I never said she did.
What you wrote: "Ellen G. White is the SDA prophet that came out of the false predictions for Christ's return in 1843, then the Spring of 1844, and then October 22, 1844."

[Jimlarmore]

Just so you know, I was born and raised in the SDA church and school system and I pastored for 10 years as an SDA pastor. I left almost a year ago over this and many other problems and issues with SDA beliefs, teachings, and doctrines. It's a big onion to peel and it's layers have multiplied over the past 150+ years, so don't expect to get to a bottom line quickly.

Every time I read something like this I am amazed and shake my head. Here we have a person who was born and raised in a denomination and schooled in their educational systems and worked as a pastor and evangelist for years. Fully accepting all of what that denomination taught for years then suddenly decided one of the doctrines was wrong and then found many other teachings that were wrong as well. This is what forced this person out of the church.

Then on the other hand you have person like me who was at one point in his life was an agnostic who by studying the Bible came to the Seventh-day-Adventist faith. Go figure!!! I have been in and looked at many different faiths and churches and have never found one that has stayed as close to the Bible as the SDA's do. If I could I would go there. The IJ has some problems but not major ones like many ex-adventists claim. The issues with E.G.White so far as I can tell are spurious to say the least. Nit picking to find small things to complain about. I have read The Desire of Ages and The Great Controversy and both of these books blessed me greatly.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

[<><]

People go in and out of all church denominations. It happens all the time for a variety of reasons.

[Eila]

Every time I read something like this I am amazed and shake my head. Here we have a person who was born and raised in a denomination and schooled in their educational systems and worked as a pastor and evangelist for years. Fully accepting all of what that denomination taught for years then suddenly decided one of the doctrines was wrong and then found many other teachings that were wrong as well. This is what forced this person out of the church.

Then on the other hand you have person like me who was at one point in his life was an agnostic who by studying the Bible came to the Seventh-day-Adventist faith. Go figure!!! I have been in and looked at many different faiths and churches and have never found one that has stayed as close to the Bible as the SDA's do. If I could I would go there. The IJ has some problems but not major ones like many ex-adventists claim. The issues with E.G.White so far as I can tell are spurious to say the least. Nit picking to find small things to complain about. I have read The Desire of Ages and The Great Controversy and both of these books blessed me greatly.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Jim,

I'm sure it is difficult to understand in your shoes. I know you believe what you believe with 100% of your being. I praise God that He used the SDA church to bring you to Him.

In most instances, people who have left the SDA church due to doctrinal issues have not left suddenly. For me it was a period of 8 years so it was anything but suddenly.

I think one of the bigger issues regarding EGW is that she is viewed as equal to the Bible or some view the Bible as inspired as her - in other words the level of inspiration is viewed as comparable. I realize not all SDAs believe that, but I would say a great deal do.

I do find that the major issues with the IJ are twofold. To accept the IJ you must believe that the atonement was incomplete when Jesus ascended to His Father. Also, it has Jesus examining our works to see if we are worthy for heaven which is a works-based salvation. To me those are not small things - but major things.

But the reason I left the SDA church in the first place was not because of those things because I didn't accept the incomplete atonement or the inspiration of EGW and was an SDA many years with those beliefs. I left because of the remnant status and the belief that SDAs needed to make Christians into SDAs so they would be saved in the end times.

[freeindeed2]

Every time I read something like this I am amazed and shake my head. Here we have a person who was born and raised in a denomination and schooled in their educational systems and worked as a pastor and evangelist for years. Fully accepting all of what that denomination taught for years then suddenly decided one of the doctrines was wrong and then found many other teachings that were wrong as well. This is what forced this person out of the church.
Nothing forced me out of the SDA church, I was led out by the Holy Spirit. (I'm actually in the church the Bible refers to! You know, those believe in Jesus for their salvation and have the Holy Spirit living IN them.) If anything 'forced' me out it would be the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Then on the other hand you have person like me who was at one point in his life was an agnostic who by studying the Bible came to the Seventh-day-Adventist faith. Go figure!!! I have been in and looked at many different faiths and churches and have never found one that has stayed as close to the Bible as the SDA's do.
I understand why you believe that through the proof-text method SDAism teaches to arrive at their 'peculiar' doctrines. After 19 years of schooling in the SDA system (including Andrews University), and being a pastor for 10+ years doing Revelation Seminars (in several other countries as well) and 'Prayer Meetings', and Bible studies, and 6 week Baptismal Studies, etc., I think I can speak with some semblance of authority as to how one arrives at SDA doctrines/beliefs/teachings. Add to that the fact that most all of it was founded on the 2000+ supposed 'visions' and almost 25,000,000 words writen by the SDA prophet and you have the recipe for nasty theology and doctrine (one of which is EGW herself). That is the basis you make the claim that they are more 'close to the Bible' than all other Christians.

If I could I would go there. The IJ has some problems but not major ones like many ex-adventists claim.
Yeah, it only denies the completed atonement of Christ, putting it off for 1800 years in order to fit with the failed 1844 dates from the Millerite movement, which Ellen White endorsed as a 'prophet'. And even then one cannot be sure of their salvation and they must perfect all character defects in themselves before his return or they will be lost. It's the SDA version of righteousness by works, and a sad one at that. There are huge problems and huge implications that stem from the IJ.

The issues with E.G.White so far as I can tell are spurious to say the least. Nit picking to find small things to complain about.
Well, we just saw one that I believe most of Christiandom would say is a major problem, not a 'nit picking' one. The SDA church has messed with the atonement Christ made at the cross.

I have read The Desire of Ages and The Great Controversy and both of these books blessed me greatly.
Keep reading. Many of us 'former' SDA's read and studied her line-by-line our whole lives. That's why it's easier for us to see the false teaching she promotes. I wouldn't expect those who hold a belief in her as a 'prophet' to be able to see it. But someone who establishes their beliefs from the Bible alone, not using the SDA proof-text method would not arrive at her interpretation of Scripture in many areas.

[ricker]

I have read The Desire of Ages and The Great Controversy and both of these books blessed me greatly.
Hi Jim! I's funny how different people apparently react to things differently. I can remember well exactly when I ceased to be an SDA. It was when I was reading Ellen's apocalyptic end-time scenario in the GC. I thought to myself there is no way I can believe this drivel about the whole world rising up against the Adventists. It reeked of a persecution complex. It was so far out of anything written in the Bible or what my common sense told me was within the realm of possibility. I'm sure the Spirit can use a variety of means to reach out to people, and I guess maybe He can even use EGW, but in my case I believe He used Ellen to lead me out of SDAism. God bless! Ricker

[freeindeed2]

Hi Jim! I's funny how different people apparently react to things differently. I can remember well exactly when I ceased to be an SDA. It was when I was reading Ellen's apocalyptic end-time scenario in the GC. I thought to myself there is no way I can believe this drivel about the whole world rising up against the Adventists. It reeked of a persecution complex. It was so far out of anything written in the Bible or what my common sense told me was within the realm of possibility. I'm sure the Spirit can use a variety of means to reach out to people, and I guess maybe He can even use EGW, but in my case I believe He used Ellen to lead me out of SDAism. God bless! Ricker
SDA's keep telling others to genuinely read Ellen and then make a judgment by what the Holy Spirit 'tells' them. So they do and the Holy Spirit tells them to run away from the false teachings, which they do, and then they say we're listening to the wrong 'spirits'.

As I have seen dozens of times, when people really begin to dig in EGW's writings, more and more stink can be detected, which is a good indication that something is rotten. Once other Christian's realize she taught an incomplete atonement at the cross, it's over. The rest is 'drivel' as you say.

[djconklin]

Hi Jim! I's funny how different people apparently react to things differently. I can remember well exactly when I ceased to be an SDA. It was when I was reading Ellen's apocalyptic end-time scenario in the GC. I thought to myself there is no way I can believe this drivel about the whole world rising up against the Adventists. It reeked of a persecution complex. It was so far out of anything written in the Bible or what my common sense told me was within the realm of possibility. I'm sure the Spirit can use a variety of means to reach out to people, and I guess maybe He can even use EGW, but in my case I believe He used Ellen to lead me out of SDAism. God bless! Ricker
We'll find out soon enough who knows what they are talking about.

[freeindeed2]

We'll find out soon enough who knows what they are talking about.
Jesus is the final and ultimate Word of God. Those who believe in Him for salvation and have his Spirit living in them have nothing to fear of the threats of man.

[djconklin]

SDA's keep telling others to genuinely read Ellen and then make a judgment by what the Holy Spirit 'tells' them. So they do and the Holy Spirit tells them to run away from the false teachings, which they do, and then they say we're listening to the wrong 'spirits'.

As I have seen dozens of times, when people really begin to dig in EGW's writings, more and more stink can be detected, which is a good indication that something is rotten. Once other Christian's realize she taught an incomplete atonement at the cross, it's over.

How many ways are there to say "pure bunk"?

The writings of Ellen G. White are more in accord with what the Bible says than any other writer out there.* Even her foremost critic during her lifetime (Canright) conceded that she was a "godly woman."

*There was a study that showed the people who read EGW were MORE likely to the Bible and did so more frequently than those who did not.

[djconklin]

Jesus is the final and ultimate Word of God. Those who believe in Him for salvation and have his Spirit living in them have nothing to fear of the threats of man.
That's true enough!

[ricker]

How many ways are there to say "pure bunk"?

The writings of Ellen G. White are more in accord with what the Bible says than any other writer out there.* Even her foremost critic during her lifetime (Canright) conceded that she was a "godly woman."

*There was a study that showed the people who read EGW were MORE likely to the Bible and did so more frequently than those who did not.

My personal testimony, told earlier, happened many years ago, long before the internet or any other "outside" influences. Even though I had went to SDA schools through college in the 70"s I hadn't at that time heard anything about possible "copying" or anything like that. I was just lead to reject Ellen. Praise the Lord!
Was that study just Adventists or everyone? I would imagine SDA's who were "marginal" and didn't read EGW wouldn't read the Bible much either. God bless! Ricker

[freeindeed2]

How many ways are there to say "pure bunk"?

The writings of Ellen G. White are more in accord with what the Bible says than any other writer out there.* Even her foremost critic during her lifetime (Canright) conceded that she was a "godly woman."

*There was a study that showed the people who read EGW were MORE likely to the Bible and did so more frequently than those who did not.
Was that study done on all Christian groups, or just Adventists? I would expect SDA's to follow her proof-texts after reading her massive volumes. I did!

You are aware that there are many Christians in the world who read the Bible all the time, and they don't even know of the SDA prophet? How does that study fit them?

[freeindeed2]

What you wrote: "Ellen G. White is the SDA prophet that came out of the false predictions for Christ's return in 1843, then the Spring of 1844, and then October 22, 1844."
I can see why your research is flawed just based on how you quote other posters. No wonder it's so biased!

Even the wording of what you quoted shows that she came AFTER the false predictions made!

And if you'll just read on (something SDA's have a difficult time doing in the Scriptures as well) you'll see it clarified by this statement:
"After the date-setting fiasco came and went she had claimed to have 'visions' which confirmed that the date(s) were actually correct that the Millerites (William Miller) had set and that it was just the wrong event. Now SDA's use the 1844 date for their 'Investigative Judgment' doctrine which no other Christian group taught before or accepted since."
This is why you find exactly what you're looking for in your 'research', just like Bacchiocchi, who writes his book based on research done where the outcome has already been determined beforehand.

Please acknowledge that I attributed the date-setting to Miller and the Millerites, not to EGW. What I have said about EGW is that she, after it was over and after she began claiming she had 'visions', endorsed his false predictions and called his 15 proofs for arriving at the dates a 'perfect chain of biblical truth', even though it was all chalk full of errors.

Get your facts straight.

[Jon0388g]

Yeah, it only denies the completed atonement of Christ, putting it off for 1800 years in order to fit with the failed 1844 dates from the Millerite movement, which Ellen White endorsed as a 'prophet'. And even then one cannot be sure of their salvation and they must perfect all character defects in themselves before his return or they will be lost. It's the SDA version of righteousness by works, and a sad one at that. There are huge problems and huge implications that stem from the IJ.

And you were an Adventist pastor for how long?

Your history of posting against the IJ shows your weak understanding of the basic principles, even if you claim to be able to speak with 'some semblance of authority' on the doctrine.


Jon

[freeindeed2]

And you were an Adventist pastor for how long?

Your history of posting against the IJ shows your weak understanding of the basic principles, even if you claim to be able to speak with 'some semblance of authority' on the doctrine.


Jon
Then please be kind enough to show me where the SDA/EGW IJ doctrine teaches that the atonement was finished at the cross.

Have you taken your SDA Bible classes yet in college? Be careful to not buy what 'they' say hook-line-and sinker.

Read Ford's document on this (it will take you a while) and then tell me what you think. Why do you suppose all the other theologians in the world who have looked into the EGW IJ do not accept it? There are serious problems, but your stuck with it because your prophet said it and there's no getting around it unless you (SDAism) admits she was wrong. But they can't, because there's too much at stake, too many jobs, and it would upset too many people. I've sat in those pastors meetings where these things are discussed. For the most part, the only ones being duped are the lay people because their authorities, conferences, pastors, etc. keep feeding them the company line in order to save face and save jobs. Don't believe me? Start asking different SDA pastors (not just the couple in your area) who are willing to share truthfully and your eyes will open up and at least a small piece of the truth will come into better focus.

[Jimlarmore]

I have found the IJ supported in the Bible distinctly separate from the SOP. I have also found the 2300 days to end in 1844 at which time the time of the end started according to Revelation. You want to bash Ellen White but you can't refute the Bible's support for a pre-advent judgement. Forget Ford, E.G.White or any other modern author, show me from the Bible where the 2300 days prophecy does not extend to 1844. Show me from the Bible that the dead are not judged before the 2nd advent. I can show you my texts that I found to support my belief, can you show me yours?

God Bless
Jim Larmore

[djconklin]

Then please be kind enough to show me where the SDA/EGW IJ doctrine teaches that the atonement was finished at the cross.

Who said that the atonement was finished at the cross? Are you insinuating that it was and since the IJ doesn't that therefore the IJ must be wrong?

Exactly how many Bible classes do you take? At what schools? Did you go to the seminary?

[djconklin]

Even though I had went to SDA schools through college in the 70"s I hadn't at that time heard anything about possible "copying" or anything like that.

You wouldn't have heard much about the charge then. It really took off (once again--it has some history) once Rea came out with his book supposedly showing it in 1982. Then Dr. Veltman and a team of researchers spent 6 years looking into it (that study came out in 1988). I didn't hear ab't it till about 2002 or so and since then I started working it over.

Was that study just Adventists or everyone? I would imagine SDA's who were "marginal" and didn't read EGW wouldn't read the Bible much either.

It was a study of SDA's; don't know of any "marginal" SDA's you either are or you aren't--unless you went to a cultic off-shot (I've seen them claiming that what they weretaught was the usual fare at any SDA church.).

[djconklin]

Originally Posted by djconklin http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=34433000#post34433000)
What you wrote: "Ellen G. White is the SDA prophet that came out of the false predictions for Christ's return in 1843, then the Spring of 1844, and then October 22, 1844."

I can see why your research is flawed just based on how you quote other posters. No wonder it's so biased!

Even the wording of what you quoted shows that she came AFTER the false predictions made!

Hmm, she was 17 in 1844; how could she come after?

BTW,

1) if my research is flawed on the plagiarism claim then you can chuck everything that has ever been done on the subject. All I do is show what Rea and Dr. Veltman said, in columns (like Rea) and in color.

2) if my research on the plagiarsim claim is "flawed" then isn't it better than the non-existant stuff of some of the critics who only bad-mouth it without ever showing where or how? Of course, they can't do that because they haven't done any of the work.

Please acknowledge that I attributed the date-setting to Miller and the Millerites, not to EGW.

NOW, he decides to tell the truth! You waited because you didn't think that you'd get called on it.

Ands then you attack my work claiming I had some pre-ordained outcome before I started. You acknowledge that I did no such thing.

[Eila]

I have found the IJ supported in the Bible distinctly separate from the SOP. I have also found the 2300 days to end in 1844 at which time the time of the end started according to Revelation.

How do you know that the time of the end started in 1844?

Acts 2 says that the end times started at the birth of the church "14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, raised his voice and said to them, “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and heed my words. 15 For these are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. 16 But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:
17 ‘ And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God,
That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh;
Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
Your young men shall see visions,
Your old men shall dream dreams...."

[djconklin]

2,300 prophetic days of Daniel.

We believe that Joel's prohecy will have a dual fulfillment.

[ricker]

You wouldn't have heard much about the charge then. It really took off (once again--it has some history) once Rea came out with his book supposedly showing it in 1982. Then Dr. Veltman and a team of researchers spent 6 years looking into it (that study came out in 1988). I didn't hear ab't it till about 2002 or so and since then I started working it over.

It was a study of SDA's; don't know of any "marginal" SDA's you either are or you aren't--unless you went to a cultic off-shot (I've seen them claiming that what they weretaught was the usual fare at any SDA church.).

Thanks for your reply. I guess by "marginal" I meant the pew warmers and others that are Adventists by culture and not neccessarily by much study. Unfortunately this is a condition of many people in many denominations. God bless! Ricker

[djconklin]

I meant the pew warmers and others that are Adventists by culture and not neccessarily by much study. Unfortunately this is a condition of many people in many denominations.

Oh, those! Well, then you are quite correct!

One of the things that brought us into the SDA church is the fact that we actually had to study the Bible to see what it said. One of our neighbors was the pastor of the Methodist church behind our house and my dad went several times to ask if the things were were being taught were true. On one occassion my dad asked him point-blank why don't you preach this at church (since Methodists supposedly beleived certain life-style practices too)? The pastor said "Because if I did I'd lose my job." That alone virtually killed it for being a Methodist. And then when we saw how they affirmed the truthfulness of the Bible vs. what the churches are saying today (gays okay, Daniel written in 164 BC, etc.)--that sealed it for us. Then when he gave Bible studies to his parents he was kind of stunned to have his folks agreeing with everything--he never heard it from them when growing up!

[Eila]

I have found the IJ supported in the Bible distinctly separate from the SOP. I have also found the 2300 days to end in 1844 at which time the time of the end started according to Revelation.

2300 days are not referred to as 2300 days in Daniel, but 2300 evenings and mornings. Evenings and mornings are specific and there is nothing to say that this can be taken to mean 2300 years.

Daniel 8 "9 And out of one of them came a little horn which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the Glorious Land. 10 And it grew up to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and some of the stars to the ground, and trampled them. 11 He even exalted himself as high as the Prince of the host; and by him the daily sacrifices were taken away, and the place of His sanctuary was cast down. 12 Because of transgression, an army was given over to the horn to oppose the daily sacrifices;all this and prospered.
13 Then I heard a holy one speaking; and another holy one said to that certain one who was speaking, “How long will the vision be, concerning the daily sacrifices and the transgression of desolation, the giving of both the sanctuary and the host to be trampled underfoot?”
14 And he said to me, “For two thousand three hundred days; then the sanctuary shall be cleansed.”"


Look here at 1 Maccabees you can see the specific fulfillment of the actual 2300 day prophecy:

1 Maccabees 1 " and he cast truth down to the ground. He did 29 Two years later the king sent to the cities of Judah a chief collector of tribute, and he came to Jerusalem with a large force. 30Deceitfully he spoke peaceable words to them, and they believed him; but he suddenly fell upon the city, dealt it a severe blow, and destroyed many people of Israel. 31He plundered the city, burned it with fire, and tore down its houses and its surrounding walls. 32They took captive the women and children, and seized the livestock. 33Then they fortified the city of David with a great strong wall and strong towers, and it became their citadel. 34They stationed there a sinful people, men who were renegades. These strengthened their position; 35they stored up arms and food, and collecting the spoils of Jerusalem they stored them there, and became a great menace,
36 for the citadeld became an ambush against the sanctuary,
an evil adversary of Israel at all times.
37 On every side of the sanctuary they shed innocent blood;
they even defiled the sanctuary.
38 Because of them the residents of Jerusalem fled;
she became a dwelling of strangers;
she became strange to her offspring,
and her children forsook her.
39 Her sanctuary became desolate like a desert;
her feasts were turned into mourning,
her sabbaths into a reproach,
her honor into contempt.
40 Her dishonor now grew as great as her glory;
her exaltation was turned into mourning.
41 Then the king wrote to his whole kingdom that all should be one people, 42and that all should give up their particular customs. 43All the Gentiles accepted the command of the king. Many even from Israel gladly adopted his religion; they sacrificed to idols and profaned the sabbath. 44And the king sent letters by messengers to Jerusalem and the towns of Judah; he directed them to follow customs strange to the land, 45to forbid burnt offerings and sacrifices and drink offerings in the sanctuary, to profane sabbaths and festivals, 46to defile the sanctuary and the priests, 47to build altars and sacred precincts and shrines for idols, to sacrifice swine and other unclean animals, 48and to leave their sons uncircumcised. They were to make themselves abominable by everything unclean and profane, 49so that they would forget the law and change all the ordinances. 50He added,e "And whoever does not obey the command of the king shall die."
51 In such words he wrote to his whole kingdom. He appointed inspectors over all the people and commanded the towns of Judah to offer sacrifice, town by town. 52Many of the people, everyone who forsook the law, joined them, and they did evil in the land; 53they drove Israel into hiding in every place of refuge they had.
54 Now on the fifteenth day of Chislev, in the one hundred forty-fifth year, they erected a desolating sacrilege on the altar of burnt offering. They also built altars in the surrounding towns of Judah, 55and offered incense at the doors of the houses and in the streets. 56The books of the law that they found they tore to pieces and burned with fire. 57Anyone found possessing the book of the covenant, or anyone who adhered to the law, was condemned to death by decree of the king. 58They kept using violence against Israel, against those who were found month after month in the towns. 59On the twenty-fifth day of the month they offered sacrifice on the altar that was on top of the altar of burnt offering. 60According to the decree, they put to death the women who had their children circumcised, 61and their families and those who circumcised them; and they hung the infants from their mothers' necks.
62 But many in Israel stood firm and were resolved in their hearts not to eat unclean food. 63They chose to die rather than to be defiled by food or to profane the holy covenant; and they did die. 64Very great wrath came upon Israel."



1 Maccabees 4 "36 Then Judas and his brothers said, "See, our enemies are crushed; let us go up to cleanse the sanctuary and dedicate it." 37So all the army assembled and went up to Mount Zion. 38There they saw the sanctuary desolate, the altar profaned, and the gates burned. In the courts they saw bushes sprung up as in a thicket, or as on one of the mountains. They saw also the chambers of the priests in ruins. 39Then they tore their clothes and mourned with great lamentation; they sprinkled themselves with ashes 40and fell face down on the ground. And when the signal was given with the trumpets, they cried out to Heaven.
41 Then Judas detailed men to fight against those in the citadel until he had cleansed the sanctuary. 42He chose blameless priests devoted to the law, 43and they cleansed the sanctuary and removed the defiled stones to an unclean place. 44They deliberated what to do about the altar of burnt offering, which had been profaned. 45And they thought it best to tear it down, so that it would not be a lasting shame to them that the Gentiles had defiled it. So they tore down the altar, 46and stored the stones in a convenient place on the temple hill until a prophet should come to tell what to do with them. 47Then they took unhewnd stones, as the law directs, and built a new altar like the former one. 48They also rebuilt the sanctuary and the interior of the temple, and consecrated the courts. 49They made new holy vessels, and brought the lampstand, the altar of incense, and the table into the temple. 50Then they offered incense on the altar and lit the lamps on the lampstand, and these gave light in the temple. 51They placed the bread on the table and hung up the curtains. Thus they finished all the work they had undertaken.
52 Early in the morning on the twenty-fifth day of the ninth month, which is the month of Chislev, in the one hundred forty-eighth year,e 53they rose and offered sacrifice, as the law directs, on the new altar of burnt offering that they had built. 54At the very season and on the very day that the Gentiles had profaned it, it was dedicated with songs and harps and lutes and cymbals. 55All the people fell on their faces and worshiped and blessed Heaven, who had prospered them. 56So they celebrated the dedication of the altar for eight days, and joyfully offered burnt offerings; they offered a sacrifice of well-being and a thanksgiving offering. 57They decorated the front of the temple with golden crowns and small shields; they restored the gates and the chambers for the priests, and fitted them with doors. 58There was very great joy among the people, and the disgrace brought by the Gentiles was removed.
59 Then Judas and his brothers and all the assembly of Israel determined that every year at that season the days of dedication of the altar should be observed with joy and gladness for eight days, beginning with the twenty-fifth day of the month of Chislev.
60 At that time they fortified Mount Zion with high walls and strong towers all around, to keep the Gentiles from coming and trampling them down as they had done before. 61Judasf stationed a garrison there to guard it; he also fortified Beth-zur to guard it, so that the people might have a stronghold that faced Idumea."

The 2300 days can be figured 2 ways:

1 "Reckoning from the fifteenth day of the month Cisleu, in the year 145 of the Selucidae, in which Antiochus set up the abomination of desolation upon the altar (1 Maccabees 1:59), to the victory obtained over Nicanor by Judas, on the 13th day of the month Adar, Anno 151, are 2300 days. The Jews kept an annual feast on the 13th of Adar, in commemoration of the victory."

2. "The period began with the defection of the people from the pure religion by the Jewish high priest Menelaus, on the 6th day of the 6th month of Anno 141. According to Josephus, Menelaus went "to Antiochus, and informed him, that they were desirous to leave the laws of their country, and the Jewish way of living according to them, and to follow the king's laws, and the Grecian way of living." (Antiquities, bk. 7, ch. 5.1) The period ended on the twenty-fifth day of Cisleu in the year 148, when the Jews offered the daily sacrifice on the new altar of burnt offerings (1 Maccabees 4:52). This is a total of 2300 days."

In Maccabees it clearly shows a desecration and a cleansing of an actual sanctuary. And the time period it took from one to the other was an actual 2300 evenings and mornings..

[Eila]

2,300 prophetic days of Daniel.

We believe that Joel's prohecy will have a dual fulfillment.

What basis is there to say that Joel's prophecy will have a dual fulfillment?

[freeindeed2]

Who said that the atonement was finished at the cross? Are you insinuating that it was and since the IJ doesn't that therefore the IJ must be wrong?

Exactly how many Bible classes do you take? At what schools? Did you go to the seminary?
Couldn't count them all. Southwestern, Southern, and Andrews. And even more at another non-SDA, Christian university. Eight and a half years in all.

[freeindeed2]

Hmm, she was 17 in 1844; how could she come after?
Huh? Ellen was declared to be a prophet AFTER 1844. Are you trying to establish that she was a prophet.

However, there is some evidence that she claimed/or was claimed to have a vision or two as early as 1842. We know she had one in Dec. 1844 (I believe it was) because it 'confirmed' Edson's lone vision for reinterpreting the 1844 message to the teaching on the sanctuary/IJ.

BTW,

1) if my research is flawed on the plagiarism claim then you can chuck everything that has ever been done on the subject. All I do is show what Rea and Dr. Veltman said, in columns (like Rea) and in color.

2) if my research on the plagiarsim claim is "flawed" then isn't it better than the non-existant stuff of some of the critics who only bad-mouth it without ever showing where or how? Of course, they can't do that because they haven't done any of the work.

Then why can't you quote me correctly?

NOW, he decides to tell the truth! You waited because you didn't think that you'd get called on it.

Ands then you attack my work claiming I had some pre-ordained outcome before I started. You acknowledge that I did no such thing.
If you'll read the original statement (which I quoted again for you!) you'll see it in plain English. If you had quoted me correctly I wouldn't have even responded to you. But you didn't.

[Jon0388g]

Then please be kind enough to show me where the SDA/EGW IJ doctrine teaches that the atonement was finished at the cross.

You illustrate my point yet again. How am I to engage in meaningful discussion with a supposed ex-pastor who erroneously calls the Investigative Judgment "the EGW IJ doctrine"? Your very first response is riddled with errors.

Firslty, the IJ is only part of a much broader doctrine taught by the Adventist church, and that is the Sanctuary Doctrine, which I'm sure you know. It follows out naturally from that.

Secondly, it is not an "EGW" doctrine: the main figures behind these doctrines are the Millerites who survived the Great Disappointment, returning to their Bibles and uncovering the real truth. Edson began their inquest, and EGW later confirmed their conclusions.

I'm not going to start a debate on the ins and outs of the IJ and the fullness of Christ's atonement. That isn't what this thread is for. However, I would appreciate it if you at least present accurate facts when you attempt to discredit one of the pillars of Adventism.

Jon

P.S.


Have you taken your SDA Bible classes yet in college? Be careful to not buy what 'they' say hook-line-and sinker.

I don't go to an Adventist college. I study Physics at Imperial College London. :)

[freeindeed2]

You illustrate my point yet again. How am I to engage in meaningful discussion with a supposed ex-pastor who erroneously calls the Investigative Judgment "the EGW IJ doctrine"? Your very first response is riddled with errors.
Just study it's history and you'll see EGW and her visions and writings at the heart of the evolving Sanctuary and IJ doctrines. If it's not an EGW doctrine, then why did it not exist before her visions and writings, and why have all theologians who have studied it rejected it? You may not like my wording, but I assure you that it passed the litmus test of EGW before becomming an official belief of the SDA church.

Firslty, the IJ is only part of a much broader doctrine taught by the Adventist church, and that is the Sanctuary Doctrine, which I'm sure you know. It follows out naturally from that.
I'm quite familiar with how the progression and evolution of both doctrines happened, as well as the motiviation for coming up with them.

Secondly, it is not an "EGW" doctrine: the main figures behind these doctrines are the Millerites who survived the Great Disappointment, returning to their Bibles and uncovering the real truth. Edson began their inquest, and EGW later confirmed their conclusions.
Good old Edson! In the midst of his disappointment for clearly NOT following warnings given in Scripture for setting dates for Christ's return, and in his grief, has his one and only 'vision' in the corn field, THE DAY AFTER! Oct. 23, 1844. Kind of strange, don't you think?

And then about two months later, EGW has her own 'vision', which was a 'confirming' vision. And the Sanctuary, IJ doctrine was born. And it changed and grew over time with different interpretations and applications attached to it at different times throughout its history. It's not the same today as it was after her vision, and even Miller rejected it. It's all documented in her writings through her vision, but most Adventists aren't aware of the changes over time, and they certainly don't teach that in their schools. I should know after 7 years in SDA universities/colleges taking theology.

I'm not going to start a debate on the ins and outs of the IJ and the fullness of Christ's atonement.
Good choice! It would never end. The debate has been going on since its inception.

That isn't what this thread is for. However, I would appreciate it if you at least present accurate facts when you attempt to discredit one of the pillars of Adventism.
Jesus should be the pillar of any Christian group. Study both sides of the Sanctuary/IJ and you'll see how it doesn't line up with Scripture.

I don't go to an Adventist college. I study Physics at Imperial College London. :)
Ooh! Physics! My favorite science I took while in college. Don't know that I would have majored in it though. I'm impressed!

[djconklin]

2300 days are not referred to as 2300 days in Daniel, but 2300 evenings and mornings. Evenings and mornings are specific and there is nothing to say that this can be taken to mean 2300 years.

Ah, actually it is evening/morning (singular--point us back to Creation--we do not know why, as far as I know). Since it is highly unlikely that all of the events described could be compressed into 2,300 literal days (6.3+ years) it is then more likely that these are prophetic days (i.e., literal years). Combine with that the prophecy ab't Christ coming (the 70 weeks) and starting both at the same time we end up with Christ comimng "on schedule" as it were and the 2,300 years extending down to 1844.

[djconklin]

What basis is there to say that Joel's prophecy will have a dual fulfillment?
As I recall because not all of Joel's prophecy was fulfilled at Pentecost. I haven't studied up on that. I'm terribly busy (not today!) proving that the anti-SDA critics lied about EGW's alleged plagiarism, see http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/David/index.html -- and that's only some of what I have done!

[djconklin]

Couldn't count them all. Southwestern, Southern, and Andrews. And even more at another non-SDA, Christian university. Eight and a half years in all.

All undergrad I take it.

[djconklin]

Originally Posted by djconklin http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=34467134#post34467134)
Hmm, she was 17 in 1844; how could she come after?

Huh? Ellen was declared to be a prophet AFTER 1844. Are you trying to establish that she was a prophet.

It's off topic from what you were claiming but:
1) Declared by whom?
2) Actually her critics prove she was a prophet by claiming she plagiarized from two books that hadn't even been printed when she wrote hers! :clap:

[djconklin]

Then why can't you quote me correctly?

I can only quote what you actually write--not what you are thinking after the fact.

[djconklin]

I study Physics at Imperial College London.

Ah, then maybe you can answer some questions about light in an expanding universe! We'll have to take it off forum tho'. Otherwise, we'll sink real quick--assuming most people aren't into science.

[djconklin]

as well as the motiviation for coming up with them.

Oh, wow! We have an infallible psychic in our midst!

ROFLMAO!

[Eila]

[/font]

Ah, actually it is evening/morning (singular--point us back to Creation--we do not know why, as far as I know). Since it is highly unlikely that all of the events described could be compressed into 2,300 literal days (6.3+ years) it is then more likely that these are prophetic days (i.e., literal years). Combine with that the prophecy ab't Christ coming (the 70 weeks) and starting both at the same time we end up with Christ comimng "on schedule" as it were and the 2,300 years extending down to 1844.

I believe the evening/morning connection is related to the evening and morning sacrifices since the prophecy is concerning sacrifices and the desecration of the temple. Where does it say that the 2300 evenings and mornings were 2300 years?

What is the rationale for starting the 2300 day prophecy at the same time as the 70 week prophecy?

[djconklin]

I believe the evening/morning connection is related to the evening and morning sacrifices

When the Bible writers talked about sacrifices they are refered to as morning/evening sacrifices. I prefer to believe that since the Bible writers were inspired by the HS then they were also consistent.

[Eila]

As I recall because not all of Joel's prophecy was fulfilled at Pentecost. I haven't studied up on that. I'm terribly busy (not today!) proving that the anti-SDA critics lied about EGW's alleged plagiarism, see http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/David/index.html -- and that's only some of what I have done!

Personally, I don't care if she plagarized or not. We are to judge everything by the Bible whether she copied it or not. If she didn't copy it I have problems. If she did copy it I have problems with what she copied and who she copied from :)

I was taught growing up that EGW said that the Bible was the greater light and that we should judge all things by the Bible. So that is what I did. What need was there for me to study her when I had the Bible? Although I didn't study her, I found out after I left the SDA church how many of my beliefs had been influenced by her teaching (i.e. her interpretation of a passage was what was taught).

Want to hear something ironic? I was a student at an SDA college taking a class called The Gospels. The irony was our assignments were to read EGW and find the answers to questions. I didn't think anything of it at the time, but looking back - why would a class on the Gospels be focused on something other than the Gospels? We were learning EGW's interpretation of the Gospels.

[Eila]

When the Bible writers talked about sacrifices they are refered to as morning/evening sacrifices. I prefer to believe that since the Bible writers were inspired by the HS then they were also consistent.

Are you saying that because it says evening and morning instead of morning and evening is it not talking about sacrifices?

Where is the consistency in the wording of weeks and evening/mornings? How can you use 1 day=1 year for both when the wording is different?

[djconklin]

Personally, I don't care if she plagarized or not. We are to judge everything by the Bible whether she copied it or not. If she didn't copy it I have problems. If she did copy it I have problems with what she copied and who she copied from

It is simply one of many claims that the critics against EGW and the SDA church bring up. I show that she didn't plagiarize and this calls into question all of the rest of their claims because they stated it so confidently when in fact they were dead wrong--this calls into question their thinking and reasoning ability. So, I can aks people: how many times are you going to let them lie to you before you realize that they are lying? I actrually shouldn't say that they are lying because it implies that they know what the truth is and just chose not to tell it. I suggest that they have no idea what the truth is and they not only don't care either, they don't know that they don't know--and they don't care about that either!

[djconklin]

Are you saying that because it says evening and morning instead of morning and evening is it not talking about sacrifices?

Correct, unless we wish to claim that the Bible writers were sloppy--which casts a reflection on the HS as well.

What need was there for me to study her when I had the Bible?

That's why as she said (paraphrasing) (and every SDA knows this) if you had read the bible like you were suppposed to you wouldn't need my writings.

I was a student at an SDA college taking a class called The Gospels.

Which college and who was the prof?

Since you've been raised as an SDA and have already been to college I don't need to answer the rest of your questions. You already know the answers.

[Eila]

That's why as she said (paraphrasing) (and every SDA knows this) if you had read the bible like you were suppposed to you wouldn't need my writings.

This is something I don't get. EGW's compiled writing were far more numerous than the books of the Bible. So why does anyone need EGW's writings if we have the Bible? If we should be reading the Bible instead then why not promote the Bible?



Which college and who was the prof?

Since you've been raised as an SDA and have already been to college I don't need to answer the rest of your questions. You already know the answers.

I don't wish to name names, but if you want to see the colleges I went to then you can see it in my profile page. It was one of those places. The professor was the head of the department if I remember correctly.

And yes, the Gospel class assignments were to read EGW chapters and fill out worksheets regarding what she said about them and the tests were relating to that as well.

Also, in academy we had weekly trips to the school library where we had to read EGW and write a report on what she said. This class was our Bible class.

I guess it doesn't make sense. If EGW is supposed to lead us to the Bible, if she desired us to read the Bible then why would Bible classes spend teaching time in EGW's writings instead of the Bible?

[freeindeed2]

And yes, the Gospel class assignments were to read EGW chapters and fill out worksheets regarding what she said about them and the tests were relating to that as well.
I remember something similar to this. Wow!

Also, in academy we had weekly trips to the school library where we had to read EGW and write a report on what she said. This class was our Bible class.
There was only ONE academy Bible class I took that did not involve extensive reading of EGW, and it's only because the teacher didn't follow the SDA curriculum. We read the Bible alone instead (I still have it right here), and even though I can see now that he tried to teach SDA beliefs through the Bible alone with all the hopping around 'proof-texts', it still made an impression on me that Jesus is enough, and the Bible is so much more than a false prophet could ever hope to be. It's like comparing the world's tallest building to the biggest hole in the ground!

I guess it doesn't make sense. If EGW is supposed to lead us to the Bible, if she desired us to read the Bible then why would Bible classes spend teaching time in EGW's writings instead of the Bible?
SDA's are stuck with her interpretations, issues, and problems. They CANNOT be open to any other truth than what she wrote about (unless they somehow get another prophet - of course Koresh said he was her successor based on her prophecies, so I guess it's possible they could, though unlikely seeing how that all ended). It's too bad too! It really restricts the Holy Spirit of God to what she wrote.

[djconklin]

I was a student at an SDA college taking a class called The Gospels. The irony was our assignments were to read EGW and find the answers to questions.

Name the college and the prof.

[djconklin]

Originally Posted by Eila http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=34474571#post34474571)
And yes, the Gospel class assignments were to read EGW chapters and fill out worksheets regarding what she said about them and the tests were relating to that as well.

I remember something similar to this. Wow!

Name the college and the prof.

[djconklin]

... it's only because the teacher didn't follow the SDA curriculum.

I had a lady friend who was a teacher and I helped her prepare for class and grade the papers--there was NO such thing as a "SDA curriculum." The schools MUST teach certain things per state rules--but, that was it.

[djconklin]

Quote:
I guess it doesn't make sense. If EGW is supposed to lead us to the Bible, if she desired us to read the Bible then why would Bible classes spend teaching time in EGW's writings instead of the Bible?
SDA's are stuck with her interpretations, issues, and problems. They CANNOT be open to any other truth than what she wrote about

PURE UNMITIGATED BUNK! Anyone going to any of our schools would know that. We even had a student (one that I know of) from another denomination attending our seminary at Andrews.

[Eila]

PURE UNMITIGATED BUNK! Anyone going to any of our schools would know that. We even had a student (one that I know of) from another denomination attending our seminary at Andrews.

Not bunk. I didn't question it at the time because I was SDA, but our class assignments in the Gospels class was to read EGW and fill in the answers to questions. I went to 2 SDA colleges. I'm not making this up and no - I will not name names. If you want to search it out it was one of the colleges listed in my profile and I believe the professor was the head of the religion department if I remember correctly.

[Eila]

I had a lady friend who was a teacher and I helped her prepare for class and grade the papers--there was NO such thing as a "SDA curriculum." The schools MUST teach certain things per state rules--but, that was it.

Yes, there is such a thing as SDA curriculum. I'm not sure what it is like for college, but there is a specific Bible curriculum for elementary students. I was talking about this with a family member who used to teach in SDA schools and I asked what Bible curriculum was used and the answer was the Adventist curriculum.

[Your Neighbor]

Yes, there is such a thing as SDA curriculum. I'm not sure what it is like for college, but there is a specific Bible curriculum for elementary students.And high school. A person in my household taught at an academy in 2004-2006. This doesn't mean Bible teachers like it or use it exclusively.

[freeindeed2]

Not bunk. I didn't question it at the time because I was SDA, but our class assignments in the Gospels class was to read EGW and fill in the answers to questions. I went to 2 SDA colleges. I'm not making this up and no - I will not name names. If you want to search it out it was one of the colleges listed in my profile and I believe the professor was the head of the religion department if I remember correctly.
I taught Bible classes in 3 different academies and was on the committee that put together the curriculum for the academies. EGW is an essential element of the curriculum, and in fact, when her writings are not promoted enough pressure is put on the Bible teachers (especially) for not making her writings a focus in the classroom. In one of the conferences I worked at it was mandated that the teachers (elementary and academy) made a conserted effort to focus students on her writings.

[djconklin]

All schools have a curriculum. What does not exist is a specific one for all SDA schools. For instance, when teaching reading they'll say these are the books you use for the course and that's it--the teacher has to decide what will be taught out of those books. The same things happens when you go to any school.

What is very interesting is that the critics typically have all these bizarre "experiences" which no one can corroborate. It's all hear-say but we're supposed to buy into it as if it was the gospel truth--like the one about EGW being threatened with a lawsuit over one of her books--the funny thing is that the authors/publishers denied it! Just recently a guy tried to tell me that the Library of Congress wouldn't let one of EGW's books into the library because of the alleged "plagiarisms" in it. I looked up the Library of Congress web site and found how to search for the book and lo and behold! they had about a dozen copies!

[freeindeed2]

All schools have a curriculum. What does not exist is a specific one for all SDA schools. For instance, when teaching reading they'll say these are the books you use for the course and that's it--the teacher has to decide what will be taught out of those books. The same things happens when you go to any school.
While this may be true with some subjects, such as English or History, for the most part the academy Bible curriculum is standard across the board. The curriculum I taught from in one place is the same (books) that are taught in another. In fact, I had to attend national SDA Bible conferences where all the Bible teachers get together and meet in order to corroborate how the books are to be used. The last one I attended was in Pittsburg, PA with several hundred Bible teachers present. The Bible curriculum is not left up to the individual teacher like it might be in other subjects.

[winslow]

Jim,

I'm sure it is difficult to understand in your shoes. I know you believe what you believe with 100% of your being. I praise God that He used the SDA church to bring you to Him.

In most instances, people who have left the SDA church due to doctrinal issues have not left suddenly. For me it was a period of 8 years so it was anything but suddenly.

I think one of the bigger issues regarding EGW is that she is viewed as equal to the Bible or some view the Bible as inspired as her - in other words the level of inspiration is viewed as comparable. I realize not all SDAs believe that, but I would say a great deal do.

I do find that the major issues with the IJ are twofold. To accept the IJ you must believe that the atonement was incomplete when Jesus ascended to His Father. Also, it has Jesus examining our works to see if we are worthy for heaven which is a works-based salvation. To me those are not small things - but major things.

But the reason I left the SDA church in the first place was not because of those things because I didn't accept the incomplete atonement or the inspiration of EGW and was an SDA many years with those beliefs. I left because of the remnant status and the belief that SDAs needed to make Christians into SDAs so they would be saved in the end times.

Actually the IJ points to the justice of the Lord. How he can declare (some)sinners righteous while others (unrepentant) are condemned. It is not about our works, it is about God's grace. It is not works that saves it is the faith that lead to works (as a natural by product of entering into a saving relationship with Jesus). Unfortunately many people do not understand the true nature of the IJ doctrine. I am not talking only about those that reject it, many that do accept it enter into a legalistic relationship which gives a "false witness".

[Eila]

Actually the IJ points to the justice of the Lord. How he can declare (some)sinners righteous while others (unrepentant) are condemned. It is not about our works, it is about God's grace.

God by definition is just. He cannot be anything but just and He has nothing to prove to me or your or anyone. His ways are just. How can He declare some righteous and some condemned? All are condemned without Jesus because all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. All those who come to Jesus are righteous because they receive His righteousness as a gift. There is no examination of works to see who is and who is not saved.

[winslow]

There is no examination of works to see who is and who is not saved.

That is exactly the misunderstanding I am talking about. It is not an examination to see who is and who is not saved.



Investigative judgment as Part of the Program of God

In view of the principles here set forth, it seems to us abundantly clear that the acceptance of Christ at conversion does not seal a person's destiny. His life record after conversion is also important. A man may go back on his repentance, or by careless inattention let slip the very life he has espoused. Nor can it be said that a man's record is closed when he comes to the end of his days. He is responsible for his influence during life, and is just as surely responsible for his evil influence after he is dead. To quote the words of the poet, "The evil that men do lives after them," leaving a trail of sin to be charged to the account. In order to be just, it would seem that God would need to take all these things into account in the judgment.

That there should be a judgment is not strange; the Scriptures reveal it as part of the eternal purpose of God (Acts 17:31), and all His ways are just. Were God alone concerned, there would be no need of an investigation of the life records of men in this judgment, for as our eternal Sovereign God, He is omniscient. He knows the end from the beginning. Even before the creation of the world He knew man would sin and that he would need a Saviour. Moreover, as Sovereign God, He also knows just who will accept and who will reject His "great salvation" (Heb. 2:3).
421 If God alone were concerned, there would certainly be no need of records. But that the inhabitants of the whole universe, the good and evil angels, and all who have ever lived on this earth might understand His love and His justice, the life history of every individual who has ever lived on the earth has been recorded, and in the judgment these records will be disclosed—for every man will be judged according to what is revealed in "the books" of record (Dan. 7:10; Rev. 20:12).

God's love and justice have been challenged by Satan and his hosts. The archdeceiver and enemy of all righteousness has made it appear that God is unjust.

Therefore in infinite wisdom God has determined to resolve every doubt forever. He does this by making bare before the entire universe the full story of sin, its inception and its history. It will then be apparent why He as the God of love and of justice must ultimately reject the impenitent, who have allied themselves with the forces of rebellion.

http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/qod/q36.htm

[Eila]

That is exactly the misunderstanding I am talking about. It is not an examination to see who is and who is not saved.

There is no judgment of works to determine why someone is or is not saved. Works don't save. Works don't make you lost.



Investigative judgment as Part of the Program of God

In view of the principles here set forth, it seems to us abundantly clear that the acceptance of Christ at conversion does not seal a person's destiny. His life record after conversion is also important. A man may go back on his repentance, or by careless inattention let slip the very life he has espoused. Nor can it be said that a man's record is closed when he comes to the end of his days. He is responsible for his influence during life, and is just as surely responsible for his evil influence after he is dead. To quote the words of the poet, "The evil that men do lives after them," leaving a trail of sin to be charged to the account. In order to be just, it would seem that God would need to take all these things into account in the judgment.

Judgment for what? What is He judging people for?


That there should be a judgment is not strange; the Scriptures reveal it as part of the eternal purpose of God (Acts 17:31), and all His ways are just. Were God alone concerned, there would be no need of an investigation of the life records of men in this judgment, for as our eternal Sovereign God, He is omniscient. He knows the end from the beginning. Even before the creation of the world He knew man would sin and that he would need a Saviour. Moreover, as Sovereign God, He also knows just who will accept and who will reject His "great salvation" (Heb. 2:3).
421 If God alone were concerned, there would certainly be no need of records. But that the inhabitants of the whole universe, the good and evil angels, and all who have ever lived on this earth might understand His love and His justice, the life history of every individual who has ever lived on the earth has been recorded, and in the judgment these records will be disclosed—for every man will be judged according to what is revealed in "the books" of record (Dan. 7:10; Rev. 20:12).

So you are saying that in order for us to trust God's decisions we must hear all the dirty stories of those that were lost?



God's love and justice have been challenged by Satan and his hosts. The archdeceiver and enemy of all righteousness has made it appear that God is unjust.

Therefore in infinite wisdom God has determined to resolve every doubt forever. He does this by making bare before the entire universe the full story of sin, its inception and its history. It will then be apparent why He as the God of love and of justice must ultimately reject the impenitent, who have allied themselves with the forces of rebellion.

So in order for us to trust God and know that He is a God of love and justice we must know the sins of the lost?

How has Satan made it appear that God is unjust? Do you believe God is unjust? If God doesn't tell you all the sins of someone who is lost will you think He is unjust?

Watching or hearing R rated stories will convince us that God is just? No, God is the definition of just. He has nothing to prove to you or me or Satan or the angels or anyone. He is God.

Settling out doubts? Why would a saint doubt God's judgments anyway? Do we trust in God or not?

[djconklin]

The Bible curriculum is not left up to the individual teacher like it might be in other subjects.

Simply because you are told which book you will use does not mean that the daily curriculum is all laid out for the teacher. Nor, does it dictate what you will teach about the Bible. They do not tell you that you WILL teach specific doctrines, etc..

[djconklin]

Works don't make you lost.


Hmm, the Bible says that "the wages of sin is death." Sure sounds lost to me.

If not then you don't need to be saved and you don't need a Savior. I'm real glad that the SDA church taught me both!

[freeindeed2]

Simply because you are told which book you will use does not mean that the daily curriculum is all laid out for the teacher. Nor, does it dictate what you will teach about the Bible. They do not tell you that you WILL teach specific doctrines, etc..
The daily curriculum is laid out for the teacher, especially in the 9th and 10th grade books. It even tells them how many days should be spent on each lesson.

For 11th grade they are required to cover the 27 Fundamenal Beliefs (one of 5 books), and Daniel & Revelation. They tell you exactly what you will teach. This is not to say that a teacher doesn't have the latitude to bring other things into the classroom, but it is made clear that they must cover the curriculum.

In one conference I was in the conference president spelled out exactly what was to be taught and by what date it was to be taught by. Personal letters went from his office to each Bible teacher just to make sure.

I'm not aware of any conferences that do not use the SDA Bible curriculum in their academies. I know, personally, many of the Bible teachers around the country as we would meet at conferences and talk on the phone about strategies for what works and what doesn't in presenting the SDA curriculum in the classroom.

[Jimlarmore]

There is no judgment of works to determine why someone is or is not saved. Works don't save. Works don't make you lost.

This is definetely a once saved always saved philosophy which has no support Biblically. The Bible makes it very clear that we can go back to our sins and be held accountable in the end for them. Works may not save us but they sure can cost us our eternal salvation. Especially if we don't confess and repent of them.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

[freeindeed2]

This is definetely a once saved always saved philosophy which has no support Biblically. The Bible makes it very clear that we can go back to our sins and be held accountable in the end for them. Works may not save us but they sure can cost us our eternal salvation. Especially if we don't confess and repent of them.

God Bless
Jim Larmore
Then, by default, you believe in righteousness by works. How can you say we 'may' not be saved by our works, then turn around and say we can be lost by works? That's an oxymoron.

Are you familiar with Morrie Venden? I've had this discussion with him, and in his book Righteousness By Faith--Apologies to Martin Luther, one of his thesis statements is this: Good works don't cause us to be saved. Bad works don't cause us to be lost. This is what you say you don't believe and claim is not Biblical, yet one of your own SDA theologians, author, and pastor says otherwise. How do you reconcile your position?

In the same book he also establishes that confession and repentance are not something that we do (not our works), but we experience them when they come from God. However, it sounds like you see them as being your own 'works' (something that YOU do), which again, by default, means you would believe in righteousness by works since you must 'do' them in order to be saved.

So, do you agree or disagree with Venden?

[Jimlarmore]

Then, by default, you believe in righteousness by works. How can you say we 'may' not be saved by our works, then turn around and say we can be lost by works? That's an oxymoron.

No it's not. The Bible makes it clear that those who will be lost are those who practice bad works and will be judged by them. It makes no sense at all to say I am saved by grace and then go out and sin with impunity. We may not be slaves to sin and are not saved by our works but we are slaves to righteousness and to a loving Saviour that is crucified afresh every time we sin. Sin is defined as the transgression of the law and we cannot sin without some kind of sinful work that violates God's law or to do what we know to be right.

In the same book he also establishes that confession and repentance are not something that we do (not our works), but we experience them when they come from God. However, it sounds like you see them as being your own 'works' (something that YOU do), which again, by default, means you would believe in righteousness by works since you must 'do' them in order to be saved.

So, do you agree or disagree with Venden?

Our confession may be prompted by the Holy Spirit but God does not force it upon us so yes it is our work to confess and repent. Otherwise, we loose our free will.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

[freeindeed2]

No it's not. The Bible makes it clear that those who will be lost are those who practice bad works and will be judged by them. It makes no sense at all to say I am saved by grace and then go out and sin with impunity. We may not be slaves to sin and are not saved by our works but we are slaves to righteousness and to a loving Saviour that is crucified afresh every time we sin. Sin is defined as the transgression of the law and we cannot sin without some kind of sinful work that violates God's law or to do what we know to be right.
It doesn't matter how you break this down, it's salvation by law keeping. And yet you've admitted multiple times that you violate the very law you're claiming to keep. Are you saved? If you are will you still be tomorrow? What about next week? Month? Year? What if you've forgotten about a few sins and didn't confess and repent of each one individually (righteousness by works)? Where is your security? Do you not believe that Jesus 'destroyed sins power' in your life, as Paul said he did? Do you not believe you're under the new covenant, that he has 'forgiven our iniquity and remembers our sins no more'?

Our confession may be prompted by the Holy Spirit but God does not force it upon us so yes it is our work to confess and repent. Otherwise, we loose our free will.

God Bless
Jim Larmore
So you disagree with Venden? I noticed you didn't even address the first thesis statement (Good works don't cause us to be saved. Bad works don't cause us to be lost.)

Ah, yes. The cherished 'free will' that placed a death sentence on all our heads by perfectly created humans with no sin nature touching the fruit. Human 'will' doesn't have a very good track record, wouldn't you agree? And yet you want to cling to your own will rather than submitting it to God's will. It's just like clinging to the law which only condemns you because you aren't keeping it.

So let me get this straight:
We aren't saved by our works.
But we are lost by bad works.
If we commit a bad work we must produce the works of confession and repentance out of our own 'free will' in order to regain right standing with God.
And we must do this for each and every bad work ever committed in the past, present, and future.
Before we engage in these works (confession and repentance) we are lost.
But we aren't saved by those works (confession and repentance).
But if we don't do them we're lost.
But we aren't saved by them...

And the cycle repeats itself every time we commit a bad work. Over and over again.

Lost.
Saved.
Lost.
Saved.
Lost.
Saved.

It would be really bad to 'do' this every day of your life, trying to keep track of all your sin, and then get to the coming of Christ and he says, "Well Jim. I'm sorry to inform you of this, but you never confessed and repented of that one time you had a flash of anger cross your mind toward Freeindeed (hypothetically, of course:) ). We were hoping you'd remember it and confess and repent of it so that you could be saved, but you never did. You remembered to confess and repent each and every time you didn't honor your father and mother throughout your life, but not that one instance where you were angry at your brother. I'm afraid I'm going to have to burn you for that one. You're guilty of murder. Sorry. That's the rules. Next!"

It's amazing how Satan has invented ways to get us to focus on our sin rather than on the Savior.

[Eila]

Hmm, the Bible says that "the wages of sin is death." Sure sounds lost to me.

If not then you don't need to be saved and you don't need a Savior. I'm real glad that the SDA church taught me both!

I didn't say the wages of sin were not death. The wages of sin is spiritual death and all people are born spiritually dead. I said works don't make you lost. All people are born with a sin nature. Even if they lived perfectly it would not be good enough. Christ has already reconciled the world to Himself and He is not counting their sins against them. The only thing keeping someone from salvation is accepting Christ. Spiritually dead men need to be made alive in Christ. A person's sins don't make them lost - they are lost because they have a sin nature and do not have righteousness from God.

2 Corinthians 5 "18All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

John 3 "6"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. "

Why is a person condemned? Because of their sins? No - because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

[Eila]

This is definetely a once saved always saved philosophy which has no support Biblically. The Bible makes it very clear that we can go back to our sins and be held accountable in the end for them. Works may not save us but they sure can cost us our eternal salvation. Especially if we don't confess and repent of them.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

You keep saying that I believe once saved always saved. I do not.

If works can cost us our eternal savation then you are saved by works. The Bible says we are saved by grace through faith. Faith and works are not the same thing. Faith leads to works, but faith is not works.

Colossians 1 " 21And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, 22he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, 23if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister."

We are presented holy and blameless before God as long as we continue in the faith - in the hope of the Gospel. Not as long as we keep ourselves free from sin. If your salvation hinges on whether or not you are sinless you are in trouble. We obtain salvation by grace through faith and we hold on to salvation by grace through faith. If you mix works in that equation then it is not the Gospel. If you are lost by your works then you have not received the righteousness of God.

Romans 1 "16For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, "The righteous shall live by faith.""

Romans 3 " 21But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it-- 22the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law."

Phillipians 3 "8Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ 9and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith--"

2 Peter 1 "1Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,

To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:"

Salvation is by faith and not by works. Saying you are lost by works is saying that you works save you.




Romans 4 "16Therefore, [inheriting] the promise is the outcome of faith and depends [entirely] on faith, in order that it might be given as an act of grace (unmerited favor), to make it stable and valid and guaranteed to all his descendants--not only to the devotees and adherents of the Law, but also to those who share the faith of Abraham, who is [thus] the father of us all."

[Eila]

We may not be slaves to sin and are not saved by our works but we are slaves to righteousness and to a loving Saviour that is crucified afresh every time we sin. Sin is defined as the transgression of the law and we cannot sin without some kind of sinful work that violates God's law or to do what we know to be right.

Hebrews 6 "4For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6if they then fall away, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. "

Where does it say that our sins crucify the Lord afresh? In Hebrews 6 it says that restoring those who have fallen away would be crucifying the Lord afresh.

Also, where does it say that sin is transgresson of the 10 commandment law? The last I knew the commands listed in that very chapter were to believe on Jesus and love one another.

[freeindeed2]

You keep saying that I believe once saved always saved. I do not.

If works can cost us our eternal savation then you are saved by works. The Bible says we are saved by grace through faith. Faith and works are not the same thing. Faith leads to works, but faith is not works.

Colossians 1 " 21And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, 22he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, 23if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister."

We are presented holy and blameless before God as long as we continue in the faith - in the hope of the Gospel. Not as long as we keep ourselves free from sin. If your salvation hinges on whether or not you are sinless you are in trouble. We obtain salvation by grace through faith and we hold on to salvation by grace through faith. If you mix works in that equation then it is not the Gospel. If you are lost by your works then you have not received the righteousness of God.

Romans 1 "16For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, "The righteous shall live by faith.""

Romans 3 " 21But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it-- 22the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law."

Phillipians 3 "8Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ 9and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith--"

2 Peter 1 "1Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,

To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:"

Salvation is by faith and not by works. Saying you are lost by works is saying that you works save you.




Romans 4 "16Therefore, [inheriting] the promise is the outcome of faith and depends [entirely] on faith, in order that it might be given as an act of grace (unmerited favor), to make it stable and valid and guaranteed to all his descendants--not only to the devotees and adherents of the Law, but also to those who share the faith of Abraham, who is [thus] the father of us all."
Amen! Well said.

[Jimlarmore]

You keep saying that I believe once saved always saved. I do not.

Yes you do , you just don't realize it. You say exactly the same thing baptists say concerning salvation, i.e. if you were really saved you wouldn't go back to sin. I was a baptist once upon a time. Then some say that since we are not under the law we cannot sin by breaking the law. Either way you fall within that catagory. BTW, remember we don't keep the law TO BE SAVED we keep the law by the power of Christ BECAUSE WE ARE SAVED.

If works can cost us our eternal savation then you are saved by works. The Bible says we are saved by grace through faith. Faith and works are not the same thing. Faith leads to works, but faith is not works.

The Bible also says that faith without works is dead. You can't be saved without working a good work for the Lord. If you can turn from the Lord by your personal decisions and be lost then you have to do that by a work of some kind even if it's a mental one.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

[Eila]

Yes you do , you just don't realize it. You say exactly the same thing baptists say concerning salvation, i.e. if you were really saved you wouldn't go back to sin.

Again, I do not believe OSAS. I have never held the postion that if you were really saved you wouldn't go back to sin. Did you read what I quoted from the Bible? We are saved as long as we continue in faith! How is that OSAS? It appears as though your definintion of OSAS is someone who does not believe we are saved by our works or lost by our works instead of "once saved always saved".


I was a baptist once upon a time. Then some say that since we are not under the law we cannot sin by breaking the law. Either way you fall within that catagory. BTW, remember we don't keep the law TO BE SAVED we keep the law by the power of Christ BECAUSE WE ARE SAVED.

So if you don't keep the law to be saved then why would breaking the law cost you your salvation? What credit is there to you in trying to keep the law?



The Bible also says that faith without works is dead. You can't be saved without working a good work for the Lord. If you can turn from the Lord by your personal decisions and be lost then you have to do that by a work of some kind even if it's a mental one.

A person who was once saved can reject Christ. I do believe we have free will to do that. However, Hebrews 6 gives a strong warning regarding those individuals.

Faith produces works. Dead faith isn't faith.

[freeindeed2]

BTW, remember we don't keep the law TO BE SAVED we keep the law by the power of Christ BECAUSE WE ARE SAVED.
And you've stated that you break the law. So do you not have the 'power of Christ'?

[Jimlarmore]

And you've stated that you break the law. So do you not have the 'power of Christ'?

I am righteous by faith in my savior and am covered by His grace. Yes I do sin but not intentionally and when I know I have sinned I confess it and ask the Lord to forgive me. I was born into this nature but I know I have a choice to make whether to serve the Lord or not. If I consistently choose to knowing break His law then I am endangering my eternal life, especially if I don't confess and repent of it.

God Bless
Jim

[Jimlarmore]

Again, I do not believe OSAS. I have never held the postion that if you were really saved you wouldn't go back to sin. Did you read what I quoted from the Bible? We are saved as long as we continue in faith! How is that OSAS? It appears as though your definintion of OSAS is someone who does not believe we are saved by our works or lost by our works instead of "once saved always saved".

You speak in circles. On one side of your mouth you say nothing you do will cause you to be lost then on the other side of you mouth you say you can turn away and reject Christ. Just what do you consider rejecting and turning away from Christ anyway?


God Bless
Jim Larmore

[Eila]

You speak in circles. On one side of your mouth you say nothing you do will cause you to be lost then on the other side of you mouth you say you can turn away and reject Christ. Just what do you consider rejecting and turning away from Christ anyway?


God Bless
Jim Larmore

I think I see your confusion. Rejecting and turning away from Christ is rejecting the Gospel - no longer believing in Jesus as your Savior. Maybe that clears the issue up?

[Eila]

Yes I do sin but not intentionally and when I know I have sinned I confess it and ask the Lord to forgive me. I was born into this nature but I know I have a choice to make whether to serve the Lord or not.

I don't undestand how someone with the Spirit living in them can sin unintentionally. Christians have to go against their new nature to sin.

[Jon0388g]

Eila, do you believe that a spiritually born again Christian can, in the end, be lost?

Jon

[Eila]

Eila, do you believe that a spiritually born again Christian can, in the end, be lost?

Jon

Yes, but I think we disagree on how the person can be lost.

Someone who is alive in Christ - no. Someone who has rejected Christ and no longer believes in Him - yes.

There are people who were once strong Christians and then later became athiests. I would say they would be lost because they no longer believe in Jesus. I wouldn't say that those who were once strong Christians were never really saved in the first place.

[Jon0388g]

Yes, but I think we disagree on how the person can be lost.

Someone who is alive in Christ - no. Someone who has rejected Christ and no longer believes in Him - yes.

There are people who were once strong Christians and then later became athiests. I would say they would be lost because they no longer believe in Jesus. I wouldn't say that those who were once strong Christians were never really saved in the first place.

Is not believing in Christ a sin?


Jon

[Eila]

Is not believing in Christ a sin?


Jon

Yes, why do you ask?

[Jon0388g]

Yes, why do you ask?

So, this is the only sin that causes us to be lost? :scratch:

Sorry, it's just sometimes your line of thought confuses me.


Jon

[freeindeed2]

I am righteous by faith in my savior and am covered by His grace.
Good so far.

Yes I do sin but not intentionally and when I know I have sinned I confess it and ask the Lord to forgive me.
But you have said repeatedly that Christ gives you the power to keep the law. So how is it that you 'unintentionally' sin still if you believe that the power of Christ enables you to keep the law? Is there even such a thing as 'unintentional' sin?

I was born into this nature but I know I have a choice to make whether to serve the Lord or not.
Right. You were born with a sin nature before you even thought your first thought. And now you're saying that you are saved by making choices (by your own actions still). That's still righteousness by works, not the blood of Christ. You're still taking credit for salvation by choosing Christ (not being chosen by Christ).

How does your law keeping (which you don't actually do) rectify your sin nature?

If I consistently choose to knowing break His law then I am endangering my eternal life, especially if I don't confess and repent of it.
But you've already confessed that you break the old covenant law, the measure you wish God to measure you by. You're spinning in circles, in and out of salvation, and there is no security or guarantee if it's left up to you.

[Eila]

So, this is the only sin that causes us to be lost? :scratch:

Sorry, it's just sometimes your line of thought confuses me.


Jon

Yes.

John 3 "18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

If somone is not born again and made alive in Christ they are lost. When you are made alive in Christ your sins do not change your "alive" status because that status is a gift from God by grace through faith alone. We receive His life in our spirit.

1 John 5 '7For there are three that testify: 8the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree. 9If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has borne concerning his Son. 10Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son. 11And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. 13I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life."

[freeindeed2]

Yes, but I think we disagree on how the person can be lost.

Someone who is alive in Christ - no. Someone who has rejected Christ and no longer believes in Him - yes.

There are people who were once strong Christians and then later became athiests. I would say they would be lost because they no longer believe in Jesus. I wouldn't say that those who were once strong Christians were never really saved in the first place.
I guess my question is, is Jesus true to his promise in being 'faithful to complete the work he has begun in us'? We may percieve that a person has 'fallen away', but do we really know? Do we know their heart? Aren't we only looking at outward appearances? Is the promise true?

[Jon0388g]

Yes.

John 3 "18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

If somone is not born again and made alive in Christ they are lost. When you are made alive in Christ your sins do not change your "alive" status because that status is a gift from God by grace through faith alone. We receive His life in our spirit.

1 John 5 '7For there are three that testify: 8the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree. 9If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has borne concerning his Son. 10Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son. 11And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. 13I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life."

Ok. Thanks for your opinion.



Jon

[Jimlarmore]

I think I see your confusion. Rejecting and turning away from Christ is rejecting the Gospel - no longer believing in Jesus as your Savior. Maybe that clears the issue up?

Sorry but it doesn't clear up anything at all. There will be many in the end who are christians who Jesus says will call upon Him in that day and say Lord Lord did we not cast out demons in your name and prophecy in Your Name etc. He will say to them I never knew you. According to everything I can determine these folks fully accepted the gospel of Christ and did many mighty wonders in His name. Today they would be called saved Christians. So why didn't the Lord know them? Maybe it was because they had a form of godlines ( accepting the gospel ) but denied the power thereof to keep them from sinning, think? Maybe it was because they didn't worry about sinning because they thought works wouldn't make them loose their eternal life.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

[Jimlarmore]

I'm outta here folks have a great memorial day weekend. Don't eat too much fried chicken or veggie burger :)

God Bless
Jim Larmore