# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Seventh Day Adventism vs. The Bible

## Sola_Fide

Given stimulus from some other members here, I've begun to look in to Seventh Day Adventism.  In the past, I've never really made it a point to understand their distinctives, but as I am beginning to dig in to the doctrines of Ellen G. White and the Seventh Day Adventist Church, I am horrified at the evil that I am reading. I am going to bypass all of the nutty things about traveling to other worlds and seeing 10 foot tall beings and so fourth (http://www.ellenwhiteexposed.com/criticb.htm).  Those are the easy ways to dismiss Ellen G. White as a fraud.  I want to get to her doctrine.

*Seventh Day Adventism Got Its Start From A Failed Prophecy*

The Seventh Day Adventist Church revolves around the writings of a woman named Ellen G. White, who claimed to be an inspired messenger from God.  One glaring non-Biblical and heretical idea from Ellen G. White is the idea of "investigative judgement".  To understand what investigative judgement is, you first need to understand where the Seventh Day Adventist church came from.

Ellen G. White was a follower of a mid-nineteenth century preacher named William Miller. He preached that Christ would come back in 1844. He had over 10,000 followers.  Many of these followers sold their homes, gave away all their earthly possessions, quit their jobs, etc. in looking forward to this event. Ellen G. White was one of these followers.  

Now, of course, Christ didn't come back in 1844.   This was termed "The Great Disappointment" as thousands were crushed that they had lost everything on account of this false prophecy.  William Miller himself repented of this and apologized to his followers.  But a small band of Millerites, including Ellen G. White, still held on to the false prophecy of 1844, claiming that _instead of returning to the earth in 1844, Jesus entered into the Holy of Holies in Heaven to "finish His work of atonement."_  Ellen G. White called this event the "Investigative Judgment" (found no where in Scripture).

So now that you have a little bit of history as to how Seventh Day Adventism came to be, let's look in to what Ellen G. White says "investigative judgement" is. Ellen G. White said this about what happened in 1844:




> "As in typical service there was a work of atonement at the close of the year, so before Christ's work for redemption of men is completed, there is a work of atonement for the removal of sin from the sanctuary.  This is the service which began when the 2,300 days ended. At that time, as foretold by Daniel the prophet, our high priest entered the most holy to perform the last division, of his solemn work to cleanse the sanctuary . . . in the new covenant the sins of the repentant are by faith placed upon Christ, and transferred, in fact, to the heavenly sanctuary . . . _so the actual cleansing to cleanse the sanctuary. . . in the new covenant the sins of moval, or blotting out, of the sins which are there recorded.  But, before this can be accomplished, there must be an examination of the books of record to determine who, through repentance of sin and faith in Christ, are entitled to the benefits of His atonement.  The cleansing of the sanctuary therefore involves a work of investigation–a work of judgment.  Those who followed in the light of the prophetic word saw that, instead of coming to earth at the termination of the 2300 days in 1844, Christ then entered in the most holy place of the heavenly, to perform the closing work of atonement preparatory to his coming."_


*Why Is This Wrong?*

According to this evil woman (who claimed to have visions from God after she was hit in the head with a large rock when she was a child...true story), Christ's work of redemption is not complete.  Christ hasn't accomplished His work of redemption,_ He is merely in the sanctuary doing a work of investigation, in order to see who is "entitled to the benefits of His atonement"._

And now you can see how subtly the devil will turn the message of grace into a message of works.  In order to be found worthy of the benefits of the atonement, one must do works in order to be worthy.  But the Biblical message is that NO ONE is entitled to the benefits of Christ's atonement and NO ONE can ever work for it.  If salvation could be worked for, as the apostle Paul says, then it is no longer a gift.

At the cross, Christ made His sacrifice for all His elect people, and then went to the Father to present that sacrificial blood to His Father.  Jesus SAT DOWN at the right hand of God (meaning His work of redemption was FINISHED).




> *Hebrews 10:12-14
> 
> But when this priest [Jesus] had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.*


At the cross, Jesus said:



> *John 19:30
> 
> When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.*


Christ had completed His work of redemption and then was resurrected to the Father where He presented His sacrifice to the Father.  Christ entered the holy place ONCE, not twice:



> *Hebrews 9:12
> 
> He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption.*


Christ's work of redemption is complete.  His elect people's sins have already been blotted out as far as the east is from the west.  Christ obtained, once and for all, eternal redemption for all the ones the sacrifice was made for.


*Salvation By Works Vs Salvation By Grace*


Francis D. Nichol, an SDA authority says:




> "Here is our position: Only those will be saved who, having been redeemed by the grace of Christ, walk in obedience to all the light that God sheds on their way."


Ellen G. White said:




> "Our acts, our words, even our most secret motives, all have their weight in deciding our destiny ... though ... forgotten by us, they [our works] will bear their testimony to justify or condemn" (TGC, pp. 486-490).


and 




> "Each one of you needs to ... [be] working with your might to redeem the failures of your past life. God has placed you in a world of suffering to prove you, to see if you will be found worthy of the gift of eternal life" (Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 3, p. 530).


The false doctrine of "investigative judgement", which was based on a false prophecy in 1844 to begin with, turns the grace message of the Bible into a message of works.  Since Ellen G. White taught that Christ didn't obtain eternal redemption, but is merely in the sanctuary investigating our works to see if we are "worthy" of the atonement, she is teaching that we are justified before God by our law-keeping.  Therefore she is a false prophet and falls under Paul's condemnation in the book of Galatians.  

Seventh Day Adventists teach that_ we are saved by grace, but kept by law-keeping._   Like all cults, they deny justification by faith alone.  They mix human merit with Christ's merit.  The devil and his false prophets will always seem so close to the truth.   But the truth that none of these false teachers has is that our works do not count toward our salvation:




> *Ephesians 2:8-9
> 
> For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.*


 

More reading:
http://www.ellenwhiteexposed.com/
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/...da/adventi.htm

----------


## Sola_Fide

Did you know that David Koresh's followers were mostly Seventh Day Adventists (because Ellen G. White taught that another prophet would come before the end and Koresh convinced them that he was this prophet)?

Watch this great testimony of a former Seventh Day Adventist pastor:

----------


## loveableteddybear

The whole heresy of a religion has been addressed and disproven in Scripture itself, particularly in the Epistle to the Hebrews 7:18-22:



> The former regulation [THE LAW IN THE OLD TESTAMENT] is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect [MEANING THE LAW CAN NOT JUSTIFY AND SAVE PEOPLE, SOLELY THE SAVING WORK OF CHRIST CAN DO THAT]), and a better hope [SALVATION BY CHRIST'S MEDIATION ON THE CROSS] is introduced, by which we draw near to God.
> 20 And it was not without an oath [IT BASED ON GOD'S PROMISE IN THE LAW ITSELF, SUPERSCEDING THE LAW]! Others became priests without any oath [IMPLYING THE TRANSITORY NATURE OF THE MOSAIC COVENANT], but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him:
> 
> “The Lord has sworn
>     and will not change his mind:
>     ‘You are a priest forever.’”
> Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Do you know that Ellen G. White said that certain races of men are the result of sexual relations between animals and humans?  In her book, Spiritual Gifts, she said:




> "But if there was one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was the base crime of amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere."


and 




> "Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. *Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men."*


http://www.ellenwhiteexposed.com/critica.htm

----------


## specsaregood

1844 seems to have been an interesting year as far as religions go.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> 1844 seems to have been an interesting year as far as religions go.


Yes.  Various cults and offshoots have gained traction from this time period of false prophecies.  Wiki for The Great Disappointment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Disappointment

----------


## jmdrake

LOL.  Still smarting SF because everyone sees through you?  Fine.  I'm not even engaging you in your BS.  1844 actually came *before* Seventh-Day Adventism.  It was part of what's known as "the great awakening" where people realized that (shock of all shockers) Jesus will literally come again a second time.  That's what the word "advent" means.  "Coming of Christ."  William Miller mistook the 2300 day prophecy of Daniel.  That prophecy worked well for dating Jesus 1st Advent, but didn't work for the second advent.  Nobody involved at this time were Seventh-Day anythings.  The Sabbath was learned later from Seventh-Day Baptists.  There are actually quite a few Sabbatarian Christian churches with the Seventh-Day Adventists being the best known.  Also your dishonest debate techniques are not lost on most here.  I gave you the context of Ellen White writings that you took out of context months before *and you ignored my rebuttal*.  You ran and hid.  And now you want to bring it up again?  Why not bring bump the earlier thread?  Are you afraid of how I showed how what Ellen White wrote about works tracks what Spurgeon and Calvin wrote?  Are you afraid of people seeing where she affirmed salvation by grace?  Why are you so afraid of the truth?  Why you chose dishonest debate?  Enquiring minds want to know.  And I predict you will not honestly respond to this post by me either.  Prove me wrong.  I dare you.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> LOL.  Still smarting SF because everyone sees through you?  Fine.  I'm not even engaging you in your BS.  1844 actually came *before* Seventh-Day Adventism.  It was part of what's known as "the great awakening" where people realized that (shock of all shockers) Jesus will literally come again a second time.  That's what the word "advent" means.  "Coming of Christ."  William Miller mistook the 2300 day prophecy of Daniel.  That prophecy worked well for dating Jesus 1st Advent, but didn't work for the second advent.  Nobody involved at this time were Seventh-Day anythings.  The Sabbath was learned later from Seventh-Day Baptists.  There are actually quite a few Sabbatarian Christian churches with the Seventh-Day Adventists being the best known.  Also your dishonest debate techniques are not lost on most here.  I gave you the context of Ellen White writings that you took out of context months before *and you ignored my rebuttal*.  You ran and hid.  And now you want to bring it up again?  Why not bring bump the earlier thread?  Are you afraid of how I showed how what Ellen White wrote about works tracks what Spurgeon and Calvin wrote?  Are you afraid of people seeing where she affirmed salvation by grace?  Why are you so afraid of the truth?  Why you chose dishonest debate?  Enquiring minds want to know.  And I predict you will not honestly respond to this post by me either.  Prove me wrong.  I dare you.


What are you talking about?  Nothing in this post is an attempted refutation of anything I've posted in this thread.  This thread in particular is about investigative judgement.  Investigative judgement is not Biblical, which I show in the OP.

Why do you believe in investigative judgement?

----------


## jmdrake

> What are you talking about?  Nothing in this post is an attempted refutation of anything I've posted in this thread.


I already refuted what you said about Seventh-Day Adventism in another thread and you went and hid.  I'm not going to play this game with you Sola_Fide.  You are not honest.  Respond to where I destroyed your arguments about Seventh-Day Adventism in other threads or shut up.  Also I responded to the whole "Seventh-Day Adventists got 1844 wrong" argument you made.  That wasn't Seventh-Day Adventists.  The SDA church didn't exist in 1844.  And no, the teachings of the SDA church do not revolve around Ellen G. White.  She confirmed bible truths others came up with.  Did you know that she initially was resistant to the Sabbath?  I explained to you where that came from, and you ignored it.  You're a piece of work.  Now tell me, why do you believe Martin Luther and John Calvin needed to repent again?  Because you never answered that question.

----------


## jmdrake

> Do you know that Ellen G. White said that certain races of men are the result of sexual relations between animals and humans?  In her book, Spiritual Gifts, she said:




http://www.science20.com/challenging..._biotechnology  Amalgamation != sexual relations.  She was talking about genetic manipulation.  That's something that was not generally understood when she wrote about it, but is quite commonly understood now.

----------


## jmdrake

> 1844 seems to have been an interesting year as far as religions go.




Take the 2300 day prophecy in Daniel, start with the decree to rebuild Jerusalem, follow the "mid week cut off" and you get to the crucifixion of Christ.  Keep going and you get to the stoning of Steven.  Eventually you end up at 1844.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Take the 2300 day prophecy in Daniel, start with the decree to rebuild Jerusalem, follow the "mid week cut off" and you get to the crucifixion of Christ.  Keep going and you get to the stoning of Steven.  Eventually you end up at 1844.


As I recall, that was based on the Jubilee calendar.

Edit:

Here is a pretty good chart.
http://www.wake-up.org/Charts/Jubileev7view.pdf

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I already refuted what you said about Seventh-Day Adventism in another thread and you went and hid.  I'm not going to play this game with you Sola_Fide.  You are not honest.  Respond to where I destroyed your arguments about Seventh-Day Adventism in other threads or shut up.  Also I responded to the whole "Seventh-Day Adventists got 1844 wrong" argument you made.  That wasn't Seventh-Day Adventists.  The SDA church didn't exist in 1844.  And no, the teachings of the SDA church do not revolve around Ellen G. White.  She confirmed bible truths others came up with.  Did you know that she initially was resistant to the Sabbath?  I explained to you where that came from, and you ignored it.  You're a piece of work.  Now tell me, why do you believe Martin Luther and John Calvin needed to repent again?  Because you never answered that question.


Do you or do you not believe in investigative judgement?

----------


## jmdrake

> Do you or do you not believe in investigative judgement?


Why do you believe John Calvin and Martin Luther needed to repent?  Until you start answering *all* my questions I will ignore yours.

----------


## jmdrake

> As I recall, that was based on the Jubilee calendar.
> 
> Edit:
> 
> Here is a pretty good chart.
> http://www.wake-up.org/Charts/Jubileev7view.pdf


Interestingly enough I did a quick Google search on 1844 and the year of Jubilee and came up with the "wake-up.org" website.  The author, while not a Seventh-Day Adventist, seems to have come up with many similar conclusions as did the Adventists.  Fascinating.

http://www.wake-up.org/daystar/ds1998/AUG98A.htm

And thanks for the link!

----------


## Dr.3D

> Interestingly enough I did a quick Google search on 1844 and the year of Jubilee and came up with the "wake-up.org" website.  The author, while not a Seventh-Day Adventist, seems to have come up with many similar conclusions as did the Adventists.  Fascinating.
> 
> http://www.wake-up.org/daystar/ds1998/AUG98A.htm
> 
> And thanks for the link!


You're welcome.  I had a lengthy discussion with Larry Wilson back in 2000 and I agree with much of what he says.

----------


## SpreadOfLiberty

I knew a 7th Day Adventist family when I was a kid. All I remember is that their Sabbath was Saturday and they believed eating meat was against the Bible.

----------


## jmdrake

> I knew a 7th Day Adventist family when I was a kid. All I remember is that their Sabbath was Saturday and they believed eating meat was against the Bible.


Eating meat as a sin has never been an official doctrine of the Seventh Day Adventist church, but vegetarianism is encouraged as the original diet from Genesis 1-3 and hinted at as the heavenly diet in Isaiah when he talks about how "none shall harm in my Holy Mountain" and how the "lion will lie down with the lamb".  That would be difficult if the lamb had to worry about becoming lamb chops.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Why do you believe John Calvin and Martin Luther needed to repent?  Until you start answering *all* my questions I will ignore yours.


Well, Ellen G. White DID teach the investigative judgement.  Which calls to mind all of the times that you said Jesus forgive sins.  But according to Ellen G. White, Jesus hasn't forgiven any sin yet.  He didn't move to earth in 1844, He merely "moved in heaven", to the holy of holies and is investigating all the believer's works so that He can find out who is "worthy of His atonement".

This is the false works-gospel of Ellen G. White.  I provided quotes and links that back up what I said and you know I'm right if you were honest, but you are not.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Take the 2300 day prophecy in Daniel, start with the decree to rebuild Jerusalem, follow the "mid week cut off" and you get to the crucifixion of Christ.  Keep going and you get to the stoning of Steven.  Eventually you end up at 1844.


Who cares?  It was wrong.  Jesus didn't come back in 1844.  And the false doctrine that Ellen G. White built up around that false prophecy, the "investigative judgement", is a lie that is nowhere in Scripture.

Ellen G. White was the Harold Camping of her day.  A false doomsday prophet who set dates and times...but Jesus said no one knows the date or the hour.

----------


## KrokHead

My wife is a Seventh Day Adventist and my children will be raised as such, but while there are some general messages I agree with (no jewelry, setting a day of the week to honor God, you only go to Heaven when the second coming occurs, etc.), the majority of the theology is far too problematic.  The fact that virtually all Adventists I know drink, smoke weed, freely have premarital sex, eat unclean foods, etc.  They're just like regular people but they hold the religious tolerance flag in the air in order to not get Saturday hours at their jobs.  (Knowing there are rarely Sunday hours unless in retail/food service.)  So pretty much in general in practice it is a "lazy $#@!" religion.  Hell on the last Sabbath I saw a 'practicing Adventist' watching the "Driving in Russia" video!  I also do not believe that Ellen White is a "prophet," (after Jesus we were more or less on our own) however if you read her works she was a very wise and agreeable woman.  Also, Adventists tithe at a high rate so I guess they believe in unwritten indulgences.

Luckily, (or not so luckily) my wife at least takes the theology more seriously than most Adventists I'm surrounded by, so at least I don't have to deal with as much blatant hypocrisy in my own home.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Here is a great article about Ellen G. White's severe head injury (temporal lobe epilepsy) and how it explains her "visions":




> Summarizing the essential facts of Ellen's injury from a medical standpoint, one finds the following: 
> 
> At age nine Ellen received a projectile-type blunt injury to the nasal area of the face and fell to the ground. 
> She was immediately unconscious. 
> There was severe and prolonged bleeding, and she was carried to a nearby store. 
> After a brief interval of consciousness she becomes unconscious again; this lasted for some three weeks. 
> When she regained consciousness she had no recollection of what had taken place. 
> She noticed that her face was markedly deformed at that time. 
> After regaining consciousness she was confined to bed for "many weeks" and was reduced "almost to a skeleton." 
> ...


Continue:http://www.ellenwhiteexposed.com/headinjury.htm

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *At age nine Ellen received a projectile-type blunt injury to the nasal area of the face and fell to the ground.* 
> She was immediately unconscious. 
> There was severe and prolonged bleeding, and she was carried to a nearby store. 
> After a brief interval of consciousness she becomes unconscious again; this lasted for some three weeks. 
> When she regained consciousness she had no recollection of what had taken place. 
> She noticed that her face was markedly deformed at that time. 
> After regaining consciousness she was confined to bed for "many weeks" and was reduced "almost to a skeleton." 
> 
> The area of the head where Ellen received the impact of the stone thrown  at her by a thirteen-year old girl contributed significantly to the  severity of the injury that followed. The stone hit Ellen on the nose as  she turned her head back to see how near the pursuing girl was, and  Ellen fell senseless to the ground. Girgis has observed that the  temporal lobe is peculiarly vulnerable to injury because of its location  low in the skull behind the eye orbit. There the skull bone is thinnest  and puncture wounds can penetrate the brain with relatively little  force. Landolt and de Jong also have emphasized the fragility and  vulnerability of the temporal area of the skull, one reason that  resulting temporal lobe epilepsy is so common. 4
> ...


So, the author starts with a blow to the nose and concludes that temporal lobe damage occurred.  This makes no sense.  If a nose impact had occurred, the head would have moved backward and harmed the rear lobes/regions of the brain, if any.  And at that time, IIRC, sodium benzoate was in common use to treat epilepsy.  Why wasn't White taking it if she did have petit or grand mal seizures?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So, the author starts with a blow to the nose and concludes that temporal lobe damage occurred.  This makes no sense.  If a nose impact had occurred, the head would have moved backward and harmed the rear lobes/regions of the brain, if any.  And at that time, IIRC, sodium benzoate was in common use to treat epilepsy.  Why wasn't White taking it if she did have petit or grand mal seizures?


Because:




> The stone hit Ellen on the nose as she turned her head back to see how near the pursuing girl was, and Ellen fell senseless to the ground. *Girgis has observed that the temporal lobe is peculiarly vulnerable to injury because of its location low in the skull behind the eye orbit. There the skull bone is thinnest and puncture wounds can penetrate the brain with relatively little force. Landolt and de Jong also have emphasized the fragility and vulnerability of the temporal area of the skull, one reason that resulting temporal lobe epilepsy is so common.*

----------


## Sola_Fide

There were SEVERAL "visionaries" at the time of Ellen G. White in this time in America.  This was a time when (what we would call today) Charisimaticism and Pentacostalism was the new wave in popular theology.  People left and right were claiming to have visions and having these wild, uncontrollable outburst of emotion that many decieved people took as something "spiritual".

Other "visionaries" of that era included:



> *Emanuel Swedenborg, 1688-1772*
> Born in Stockholm, Sweden, he was the son of a nobleman of high standing. Swedenborg was highly educated and moved in the highest society. He traveled extensively, and conversed with the most learned men of the age. The king appointed him to a high office, which he filled superbly for over thirty years. He rose to eminence in science and wrote 77 books, covering every branch of science. He was of the purest character and devoutly religious. 
> 
> At the age of 55 he began to have visions of heaven, hell, angels, and the spiritual world. He says: 
> 
> "I have been called to a holy office by the Lord himself, who most mercifully appeared to me, his servant, in the year 1743, when he opened my sight into the spiritual world and enabled me to converse with spirits and angels." 
> This work he continued for 30 years, and wrote about 30 "inspired" volumes. He made remarkable predictions which, it is claimed, were exactly fulfilled. He founded a new religion based upon his revelations. The Bible is sacredly taught and holy living promoted. 
> The church Swedenborg founded has steadily increased, till it has societies in all parts of the world and in the leading languages. His followers believe in him just as implicitly as Seventh-day Adventists believe in Ellen White, and are very zealous in propagating their faith. To learn more about him and the church he founded, click here to visit his web site. 
> 
> ...

----------


## jmdrake

> Here is a great article about Ellen G. White's severe head injury (temporal lobe epilepsy) and how it explains her "visions":


Right.  When you have no honest attack on the message, attack the messenger.  Do you have a reason yet to explain why you "hope" Martin Luther and John Calvin "repented"?

Edit: Further this shows that you are very ignorant about epilepsy.  I've had seizures before.  You do *not* remember a seizure.  It does not put you into a state where you are having some sort of out of body experience that you can relate to others.  Such unscientific attacks on Ellen White are not new.  It's actually a part of the FAQ at the White estate website.  http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/visions.html

----------


## jmdrake

> Who cares?  It was wrong.  Jesus didn't come back in 1844.  And the false doctrine that Ellen G. White built up around that false prophecy, the "investigative judgement", is a lie that is nowhere in Scripture.


What's "wrong"?  Do you believe Jesus was crucified in A.D. 31 or don't you?  If you do, the 2300 day prophecy works.  And Ellen White didn't come up with that interpretation of the 2300 prophecy just like she didn't come up with the belief in the 7th day being the Sabbath.  Others not at all affiliated with the Adventist church have come to the same or similar conclusion about 1844 *because it's the most obvious biblical interpretation of the prophecy*.  But hey, what's *your* interpretation?  Everyone knows Jesus didn't come in 1844.  And in hindsight William Miller shouldn't have set a date.  But that doesn't mean the prophecy is meaningless or worthless.  God gave it to Daniel for a reason.  And the Bible makes it clear in Hebrews and Revelation that the earthly sanctuary gives us a glimpse of Jesus ongoing intercessory ministry for us.  What you derisively call the "investigative judgement lie" is merely what Daniel calls the "cleansing of the sanctuary" and what was "Yom Kippur" or the "day of atonement" in the earthly sanctuary.  That's it. 




> Ellen G. White was the Harold Camping of her day.  A false doomsday prophet who set dates and times...but Jesus said no one knows the date or the hour.


That's simply not true.  William Miller came up with the wrong date for Jesus return.  Ellen White was a follower of William Miller.  She never set any dates nor did she have any visions prior to the 1844 disappointment.  And that debunks your "It was all epilepsy" hypothesis, since that accident happened long before the visions.  Nice try though.  Meanwhile, what has Christ done for you?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What's "wrong"?  Do you believe Jesus was crucified in A.D. 31 or don't you?  If you do, the 2300 day prophecy works.  And Ellen White didn't come up with that interpretation of the 2300 prophecy just like she didn't come up with the belief in the 7th day being the Sabbath.  Others not at all affiliated with the Adventist church have come to the same or similar conclusion about 1844 *because it's the most obvious biblical interpretation of the prophecy*.  But hey, what's *your* interpretation?  Everyone knows Jesus didn't come in 1844.  And in hindsight William Miller shouldn't have set a date.  But that doesn't mean the prophecy is meaningless or worthless.  God gave it to Daniel for a reason.  And the Bible makes it clear in Hebrews and Revelation that the earthly sanctuary gives us a glimpse of Jesus ongoing intercessory ministry for us.  What you derisively call the "investigative judgement lie" is merely what Daniel calls the "cleansing of the sanctuary" and what was "Yom Kippur" or the "day of atonement" in the earthly sanctuary.  That's it.


Where does it say in the book of Hebrews that Jesus is in the holy of holies investigating the works of believers to determine if they are worthy of the atonement?  Where?  I want the chapter and verse.  

You don't have an answer, because its not there.  It is a lie from Satan.  The book of Hebrews tells us exactly what Jesus did when He returned to the Father.  Read my first post again.







> That's simply not true.  William Miller came up with the wrong date for Jesus return.  Ellen White was a follower of William Miller.  She never set any dates nor did she have any visions prior to the 1844 disappointment.  And that debunks your "It was all epilepsy" hypothesis, since that accident happened long before the visions.  Nice try though.  Meanwhile, what has Christ done for you?


Ellen G. White most certainly did predict Christ's return. Several times.  She said at conference in 1856 that some there would be alive at Christ's return:



> I was shown the company present at the Conference. Said the angel: "Some food for worms, some subjects of the seven last plagues, some will be alive and remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus." Testimonies, Vol. 1, p. 131


She was a liar, false prophet, and the devil has used her to secure your mind in your own self-righteousness.  I promise you that if you believe that Jesus is right now in Heaven judging people's works to see if they are good enough, (instead of what the book of Hebrews says, that He has perfectly made atonement and has now sat down in rest)... If you believe this, you will go to Hell forever just like Ellen G. White did.

----------


## jmdrake

> Where does it say in the book of Hebrews that Jesus is in the holy of holies investigating the works of believers to determine if they are worthy of the atonement?  Where?  I want the chapter and verse.


 That's not what the investigative judgement teaches anyway.




> You don't have an answer, because its not there.  It is a lie from Satan.  The book of Hebrews tells us exactly what Jesus did when He returned to the Father.  Read my first post again.


You answer your own question and you think that makes you right?  The lie from Satan is what you preach and teach.  




> Ellen G. White most certainly did predict Christ's return. Several times.  She said at conference in 1856 that some there would be alive at Christ's return:


 Let's see.  I said _She never set any dates nor did she have any visions prior to the 1844 disappointment._  So what exact date was set there?  Also many prophecies are conditional.  Was Jonah a prophet?  He said Ninevah would be destroyed in 40 days and it wasn't.  The 1856 message was meant as a word of encouragement.  Get the gospel to the entire world and Christ can come in your lifetime.  When Paul said "We which are alive and remain will be caught up into the clouds to meet him" he was literally expecting the imminent return of Christ.  

http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/1856visn.html




> She was a liar, false prophet, and the devil has used her to secure your mind in your own self-righteousness.


You are the most self righteous person I've ever met.  You're certainly the most self-righteous person at RPF. 




> I promise you that if you believe that Jesus is right now in Heaven judging people's works to see if they are good enough, (instead of what the book of Hebrews says, that He has perfectly made atonement and has now sat down in rest)... If you believe this, you will go to Hell forever just like Ellen G. White did.


 This is what John Calvin had to say on justification and sanctification.

_Christ was given to us by God’s generosity, to be grasped and possessed by us in faith. By partaking of him, we principally receive a double grace: namely, that being reconciled to God through Christ’s blamelessness, we may have in heaven instead of a Judge a gracious Father; and secondly, that sanctified by Christ’s spirit we may cultivate blamelessness and purity of life._

And this is what Ellen White said about how you are found blameless in the investigative judgement.

_ While Jesus is pleading for the subjects of His grace, Satan accuses them before God as transgressors. The great deceiver has sought to lead them into skepticism, to cause them to lose confidence in God, to separate themselves from His love, and to break His law. Now he points to the record of their lives, to the defects of character, the unlikeness to Christ, which has dishonored their Redeemer, to all the sins that he has tempted them to commit, and because of these he claims them as his subjects.

Jesus does not excuse their sins, but shows their penitence and faith, and, claiming for them forgiveness, He lifts His wounded hands before the Father and the holy angels, saying: I know them by name. I have graven them on the palms of My hands. "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise." Psalm 51:17. And to the accuser of His people He declares: "The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan; even the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?" Zechariah 3:2. Christ will clothe His faithful ones with His own righteousness, that He may present them to His Father "a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing." Ephesians 5:27. Their names stand enrolled in the book of life, and concerning them it is written: "They shall walk with Me in white: for they are worthy." Revelation 3:4.

Thus will be realized the complete fulfillment of the new-covenant promise: "I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." "In those days, and in that time, saith the Lord, the iniquity of Israel shall be sought for, and there shall be none; and the sins of Judah, and they shall not be found." Jeremiah 31:34; 50:20. "In that day shall the branch of the Lord be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely for them that are escaped of Israel. And it shall come to pass, that he that is left in Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, even everyone that is written among the living in Jerusalem." Isaiah 4:2, 3._ 

It's the same thing.  Salvation comes from recognizing that we are sinners in need of Christ's righteousness "grasping" that righteousness through faith.  Of course you believe John Calvin is in hell unless he "repented" from believing different than you.  You want to make our argument about Ellen White when in reality Ellen White has nothing to do with it.  Any sensible person can come to the same understanding of salvation without relying on Ellen White.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> This is what John Calvin had to say on justification and sanctification.
> 
> _Christ was given to us by Gods generosity, to be grasped and possessed by us in faith. By partaking of him, we principally receive a double grace: namely, that being reconciled to God through Christs blamelessness, we may have in heaven instead of a Judge a gracious Father; and secondly, that sanctified by Christs spirit we may cultivate blamelessness and purity of life._


To be grasped by faith, yes.  Faith is not works.

Ellen G. White said Jesus is JUDGING OUR WORKS to see if we are entitled to the atonement:




> But, before this can be accomplished, there must be an examination of the books of record to determine who, *through repentance of sin and faith in Christ, are entitled to the benefits of His atonement.* The cleansing of the sanctuary therefore involves a work of investigationa work of judgment. Those who followed in the light of the prophetic word saw that, instead of coming to earth at the termination of the 2300 days in 1844, Christ then entered in the most holy place of the heavenly, to perform the closing work of atonement preparatory to his coming."


Ellen G. White said our works have their weight in justifying or condemning us:



> "Our acts, our words, even our most secret motives, all have their weight in deciding our destiny ... though ... forgotten by us, they [our works] will bear their testimony to justify or condemn" (TGC, pp. 486-490).


I have PAGES of quote after quote where Ellen G. White taught works-salvationism.  If you want me to keep going, I will.. Ellen G. White was not saved and she did not believe the gospel.

----------


## jmdrake

> To be grasped by faith, yes.  Faith is not works.
> 
> Ellen G. White said Jesus is JUDGING OUR WORKS to see if we are entitled to the atonement:


Can you read?  Again:

_Jesus does not excuse their sins, but shows their penitence and faith, and, claiming for them forgiveness, He lifts His wounded hands before the Father and the holy angels, saying: I know them by name. I have graven them on the palms of My hands. "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise." Psalm 51:17. And to the accuser of His people He declares: "The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan; even the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?" Zechariah 3:2. Christ will clothe His faithful ones with His own righteousness, that He may present them to His Father "a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing." Ephesians 5:27. Their names stand enrolled in the book of life, and concerning them it is written: "They shall walk with Me in white: for they are worthy." Revelation 3:4._

And *repentance is the same thing as grasping through faith!  If you don't realize your sinful nature and your need to repent then you don't reach out to Christ for salvation!  Further if you do half-hearted repentance, and only see to escape the penalty of sin but you do not really desire God to change your sinful habits, then you have not repented and you have not grasped Christ's righteousness.  You are self righteous and you are using Christ's righteousness as a fig leaf.*





> Ellen G. White said our works have their weight in justifying or condemning us:


  No she didn't.  You are using your own twisted ridiculous definition of works and trying to circle Calvin into your bankrupt belief system while at the same time realizing he might need to "repent" for not believing it.

Which reminds me.  How dare you claim Ellen White is teaching works for saying repentance is necessary *WHEN YOU ARE SAYING REPENTANCE IS NECESSARY?*  Sola_Fide, you are making yourself God.  Slowly but surely you are substituting your own standard of salvation as a substitute for what God clearly set out in his word.  And literally it's "to hell" with anyone disagreeing with you.  The sad fact is that you fail to realize that if you are judged by the same standard you are seeking to judge Martin Luther, John Calvin and Ellen White, you are destined for hell yourself.




> I have PAGES of quote after quote where Ellen G. White taught works-salvationism.  If you want me to keep going, I will..


All you are doing is further proving what a miserable person you are.  In fact, you are in a type of hell already.  You are the one teaching works-salvationism while falsely claiming you are teaching grace.  And I'm not the only one that sees that.  Gunny said the same thing in another thread and he's not Seventh-Day Adventist.  Others see your blatant contradictions.  May Jesus have mercy on you and help you to truly see yourself.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Can you read?


Yes.  You can read as well.  But since Ellen G. White has so dragged your mind in to Hell, you can't see works-salvationism when it is right in front of you




> _Jesus does not excuse their sins, but shows their penitence and faith, and, claiming for them forgiveness, He lifts His wounded hands before the Father and the holy angels, saying: I know them by name. I have graven them on the palms of My hands. "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise." Psalm 51:17. And to the accuser of His people He declares: "The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan; even the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?" Zechariah 3:2. Christ will clothe His faithful ones with His own righteousness, that He may present them to His Father "a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing." Ephesians 5:27. Their names stand enrolled in the book of life, and concerning them it is written: "They shall walk with Me in white: for they are worthy." Revelation 3:4._


JESUS DOES NOT PLEAD OUR PENITENCE AND FAITH BEFORE THE FATHER, HE PLEADS HIS SHED BLOOD ALONE.  WHAT THIS QUOTE DESCRIBES IS THE HERESY OF INVESTIGATIVE JUDGEMENT. IF YOU BELIEVE THE QUOTE ABOVE, YOU ARE NOT SAVED.








> And [b]repentance is the same thing as grasping through faith


NO it is not. Faith is NOT working, it is BELIEVING. Faith is NOT efforts, it is CEASING from efforts.  Faith is NOT giving, it is RECEIVING.  

Our faith is not ours to give to God, it is something He gives us.  If you don't understand the difference between faith and works, you haven't been saved.











> No she didn't.  You are using your own twisted ridiculous definition of works and trying to circle Calvin into your bankrupt belief system while at the same time realizing he might need to "repent" for not believing it.


"Twisted definition"?  Wow.  Here is the quote:



> "Our acts, our words, even our most secret motives, all have their weight in deciding our destiny ... though ... forgotten by us, they [our works] will bear their testimony to justify or condemn" (TGC, pp. 486-490).


Can you please tell me why I am wrong in thinking that Ellen G. White is teaching here that our works will have their weight to justify or condemn us?  Thanks.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Ellen G. White taught that men are saved by their works:




> *The righteous dead will not be raised until after the judgment at which they are counted worthy of the resurrection of life*. ... As the books of record are opened in the judgment, the lives of all who have believed on Jesus come in review before God. ... every name is mentioned, every case closely investigated. Names are accepted, names rejected. *When any have sins remaining upon the books of record, unrepented of and unforgiven, their names will be blotted out of the book of life,* and the record of their good deeds will be erased from the book of God's remembrance. ... *all who would have their names retained in the book of life should now, in the few remaining days of their probation, afflict their souls before God by sorrow for sin and true repentance* ... the work of preparation is an individual work. We are not saved in groups. The purity and devotion of one will not offset the want of these qualities in another" 
> 
> (Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, pp. 425, 431).


There is no question that she taught we are saved by works.  And there is no question that this is not the gospel.

----------


## jmdrake

> Ellen G. White taught that men are saved by their works:
> 
> There is no question that she taught we are saved by works.  And there is no question that this is not the gospel.


Why do you persist in dishonesty?  I gave you the context of that quote.  The righteous are saved by the blood of Jesus.  The blood of Jesus is applied when you repent.  Ignoring the context of what she wrote is dishonest.  Further Jesus, Peter and Paul all said that repentance is a requirement for justification.

Jesus:
Luke 24:47 and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Peter:
Acts 2:38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Paul:
Acts 26:19-20  19 ”So then, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the vision from heaven. 20 First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds.

And John Calvin confirmed the same thing when he talked about "grasping" justification and sanctification.  The word "grasp" is an action verb that is even stronger than the word I use to explain the Christian's role in salvation which is "accept".  

That said, you can't hold on to Jesus and hold on to sin.  Jesus said:

Matthew 6:24 "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.

If you are clinging to your sins to the point where they are more important to you than God and you neither desire forgiveness for them nor do you want God's power to help you overcome them, how can God save you?  Note, people who worry about "Is there some sin in my life that I forgot to confess?" are missing the boat.  The question is, is there some sin that I love more than Jesus?  Jesus said the great commandment is to love the Lord God with all your heart, mind and strength.  He also said that if you love Him you will keep His commandments.  John said that if you have a relationship with God, His commandments are not burdensome.  There are all kinds of people who are ruining their lives *in the here and now* because they have not dealt with destructive habits.  They are called addicts.  But we are all addicted to sin in one form or another.  Jesus said that He came that we may have life and have it more abudantly.  And He was *not* just talking about the next life.  According to Jesus the kingdom of heaven begins in your heart.  The real question people should ask is if they want God's kingdom now or not.  Do you trust God enough to believe His promise that he will give you life and life more abundantly now?  Those that truly do are saved.  Period.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yes.  You can read as well.  But since Ellen G. White has so dragged your mind in to Hell, you can't see works-salvationism when it is right in front of you


You are the one in hell Sola_Fide.  It's a hell of your own choosing and making that requires you to be dishonest, to display cowardice, to jump in and out of conversations when it gets too "hot" for you so that you can avoid admitting you are wrong.  It requires you to attack and judge others who have not attacked and judged you in order to assuage your own guilty conscience.  It requires you to paint a portrait of Yaweh that is more evil than Molech and Beelzebub in that Yaweh must roast little babies alive for eternity in order to satiate His wrath.  I wouldn't wish your personal hell on my worst enemy.  I pray you are someday delivered from it.




> JESUS DOES NOT PLEAD OUR PENITENCE AND FAITH BEFORE THE FATHER, HE PLEADS HIS SHED BLOOD ALONE.  WHAT THIS QUOTE DESCRIBES IS THE HERESY OF INVESTIGATIVE JUDGEMENT. IF YOU BELIEVE THE QUOTE ABOVE, YOU ARE NOT SAVED.


If you do not repent, according to Jesus, Peter, Paul, John and others, your sins are not forgiven.  




> NO it is not. Faith is NOT working, it is BELIEVING. Faith is NOT efforts, it is CEASING from efforts.  Faith is NOT giving, it is RECEIVING.


A) Jesus called belief a work.  So you are calling Jesus a liar.
B) It took less work when the New Testament was written to be confess your sins than it did to publicly proclaim your belief in Jesus.  People weren't put to death for praying to Jesus to take away their sins.  They were put to death for openly proclaiming Jesus to be the one and only god.
C) If you understand now that you must receive faith, you are at least making progress.  I've been trying to tell you for months now that the *gift* of God must be *accepted*.  That's the same thing as it being received.




> Our faith is not ours to give to God, it is something He gives us.  If you don't understand the difference between faith and works, you haven't been saved.


If you don't understand that unless your faith works it isn't faith, then you haven't been saved.  And Sola_Fide, you haven't been saved.




> "Twisted definition"? Wow. Here is the quote:
> 
> _
> "Our acts, our words, even our most secret motives, all have their weight in deciding our destiny ... though ... forgotten by us, they [our works] will bear their testimony to justify or condemn" (TGC, pp. 486-490).
> _


You don't understand Paul Sola_Fide.

_19 “So then, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the vision from heaven. 20 First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and then to the Gentiles, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and demonstrate their repentance by their deeds._

If you will finally quit trying to impose your own false beliefs on Paul's teachings and understand what he was really saying you will understand Ellen White.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Ellen G. White wrote that Jesus was Michael the archangel, which was a popular cultic belief at the time (something also that the Jehovah's Witnesses picked up on at the time):




> "...He (Jesus) was revealed to them as the Angel of Jehovah, the Captain of the Lord's Host, Michael the Archangel".
> 
> Patriarchs and Prophets, page 761,


Ellen G. White was not a Christian.  She was a false prophet...this proves it.  No prophet of God could ever say that Christ is not God.

----------


## jmdrake

> Ellen G. White wrote that Jesus was Michael the archangel, which was a popular cultic belief at the time (something also that the Jehovah's Witnesses picked up on at the time):


You don't quit trying to change the subject do you?  Answer this question.  Who was the captain of the Lord's Host that Joshua worshipped in Joshua 5:14?

_And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the LORD am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant?_

What is the general view of worship of angels in the Bible?

_Revelation 22:8,9 8 I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had been showing them to me. 9 But he said to me, “Don’t do that! I am a fellow servant with you and with your fellow prophets and with all who keep the words of this scroll. Worship God!”_

Who is described elsewhere in the Bible as captain of the Lord's army?

_Revelation 12:7 And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back._




> Ellen G. White was not a Christian.  She was a false prophet...this proves it.  No prophet of God could ever say that Christ is not God.


Ellen G. White didn't say Christ is not God.  Do you believe that God can take the form of a man, but not the form of an angel?  It's clear that Joshua worshipped a being that took on the same title that Michael was given in Revelation.  It's also clear that angels are not to be worshipped just as man is not to be worshipped.  Yet we worship Jesus who all Christians agree became man.  If you put away your prejudice and *think* you will understand.

----------


## loveableteddybear

> It requires you to paint a portrait of Yaweh that is more evil than Molech and Beelzebub in that Yaweh must roast little babies alive for eternity in order to satiate His wrath. I wouldn't wish your personal hell on my worst enemy.


You suffer from a key epistemological error. You say a God that would roast babies in Hell forever is not God and cannot be just. Based on what? _Your opinion?_

You presume that your view of justice is accurate and you impose your view onto God.

I think our view of justice should be conformed to God's: 




> The Lord within her is righteous;
>     he does no wrong.
> Morning by morning he dispenses his justice,
>     and every new day he does not fail,
>     yet the unrighteous know no shame. Zephaniah 3:5





> I form the light and create darkness,
>     I bring prosperity and create disaster;
>     I, the Lord, do all these things.
> 
> Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker,
>     to him who is but a potsherd among the potsherds on the ground.
> Does the clay say to the potter,
>     ‘What are you making?’
> Does your work say,
>     ‘He has no hands’? Isaiah 45:7, 9


Most importantly: "Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden." (Romans 9:18)


Many of you would say, "Hey that's not fair! Why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"

What does the Bible say?




> But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? Romans 9:19, 22


Hey, it sucks to know, but "good" people by our standards will go to hell. If you don't think its fair, too bad.

----------


## jmdrake

> You suffer from a key epistemological error. You say a God that would roast babies in Hell forever is not God and cannot be just. Based on what? _Your opinion?_


No error.  I base it on a sense of justice that God put in the Bible.

Ezekiel 18:20 _The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him._

If you are going to go with the "God can do whatever He wants and it's okay because He is God" approach, than you are no better than the pagans who worshiped Zeus and Apollo.  That they would go out and rape and pillage and commit all kinds of obvious sins was excused by their worshipers because "they are gods".




> You presume that your view of justice is accurate and you impose your view onto God.


I impose on God the view of justice that He imposes on Himself and us.




> I think our view of justice should be conformed to God's:


It is.  Yours is not.




> Most importantly: "Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden." (Romans 9:18)


Yes.  Calvinists often misinterpret Romans 9.  Did you know that God "blessed" the "hated" Essau?  Essau was not hated unto damnation.  Rather he was not chosen to be the progenitor of the Savior.  Paul's point in Romans 9 wasn't about individual salvation anyway, but about the fact that the Jews as a people had rejected Jesus.




> Many of you would say, "Hey that's not fair! Why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"
> 
> What does the Bible say?
> 
> 
> Hey, it sucks to know, but "good" people by our standards will go to hell. If you don't think its fair, too bad.


What "sucks" is your understanding of God.  Nothing in the Bible supports the idea that beings that have never even had a conscience thought end up in hell.  That's just your "sucky" interpretation.  You can choose to cling to it all you want, but that doesn't make it true.

But hey, let's say you're right?  You most certainly are not, but let's say you are.  And?  If you are right then my "false belief" about God is what He wants me to have and if you don't think that's fair...too bad. 

God doesn't expect us to put our brains in neutral as Calvinism, the way it is taught today anyway, seems to require.  God says "Come let a reason together."  What makes true Christianity superior to other religions is that it paints a picture of a universally loving God.  All religions can and do claim that their God is the "biggest dude on the block".  That's not how or why God wants us to worship Him.

Edit: I tell you what.  Post the verse where God says "And I will burn forever in hell even little babies who never matured to the point of being able to make a choice for or against Me forever because I am God and can do whatever the hell I want."  You can choose any version of the Bible you want and even go to the Apocrypha or any other book outside of the cannon that's accepted by at least some significant number of Christians.  I won't hold my breath waiting though.

----------


## acptulsa

> "There is no argument in the world carries the hatred that a religious belief does.  The more learned a man is the less consideration he has for another man's belief."--_Will Rogers 1924_


...



> "Hunt out and talk about the good that is in the other fellow's church, not the bad, and you will do away with all this religious hatred you hear so much of nowadays."--_Will Rogers 1923_





> "We will never have true civilization until we have learned to recognize the rights of others."--_Will Rogers 1923_





> "A fanatic is always the fellow that is on the opposite side."--_Will Rogers 1930_





> "You give us long enough to argue over something and we will bring you in proofs to show that the Ten Commandments should never be ratified."--_Will Rogers 1930_





> "So let's be honest with ourselves and not take ourselves too serious, and never condemn the other fellow for doing what we are doing every day, only in a different way."--_Will Rogers 1926_





> 'Every man’s religion is good. There is none of it bad. We are all trying to arrive at the same place according to our own conscience and teachings. It don’t matter which road you take.'--_Will Rogers_





> Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

----------


## jcannon98188

Just hopping in here, to ask a question to those who say works don't matter.

What do you say about this verse?
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. James 2:26

Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. James 2:17

(edit: This is from the KJV)

----------


## loveableteddybear

> Just hopping in here, to ask a question to those who say works don't matter.
> 
> What do you say about this verse?
> For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. James 2:26
> 
> Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. James 2:17
> 
> (edit: This is from the KJV)


James said, "I'll show you my faith by what I do."

So, works don't save, they are the evidence of faith.

----------


## jcannon98188

> James said, "I'll show you my faith by what I do."
> 
> So, works don't save, they are the evidence of faith.


That is true. Most people don't ever come to that conclusion. When they hear "by our works" they quickly cry blaspheme! and say that works do not matter. The point is, that works DO matter. Our works are not enough to get us saved, only Jesus may do so. But our works are an outward manifestation of our faith. And that if we are unwilling to do the works, then we do not really have the faith to begin with.

----------


## loveableteddybear

> That is true. Most people don't ever come to that conclusion. When they hear "by our works" they quickly cry blaspheme! and say that works do not matter. The point is, that works DO matter. Our works are not enough to get us saved, only Jesus may do so. But our works are an outward manifestation of our faith. And that if we are unwilling to do the works, then we do not really have the faith to begin with.


The basis of salvation is grace. People cannot choose to have faith as 1 Cor 12:3 proves.

The means of salvation is faith. Romans 10:9 makes this clear.

The evidence of faith is works. As we just discussed.

Show me a Christian without any of these, and I assure you that you are mistaken, he is not a Christian!

----------


## jcannon98188

> The basis of salvation is grace. People cannot choose to have faith as 1 Cor 12:3 proves.
> 
> The means of salvation is faith. Romans 10:9 makes this clear.
> 
> The evidence of faith is works. As we just discussed.
> 
> Show me a Christian without any of these, and I assure you that you are mistaken, he is not a Christian!


Indeed. No argument there.

----------


## Todd

7DA get one thing right.  They have us beat in the healthy lifestyle department.

----------


## loveableteddybear

> No error.  I base it on a sense of justice that God put in the Bible.
> 
> Ezekiel 18:20 _The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him._


This is a specific sin, but man is in born with sin. Psalm 51:5 ("Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me"), Romans 3:15 (There is not a single righteous person, not one") makes this clear. So all people are deserving of punishment from the very time of their conception. There is nothing in Scripture that disagrees with this teaching. To undo that doctrine guts the gospel and replaces it with a works-based theology.




> If you are going to go with the "God can do whatever He wants and it's okay because He is God" approach, than you are no better than the pagans who worshiped Zeus and Apollo.  That they would go out and rape and pillage and commit all kinds of obvious sins was excused by their worshipers because "they are gods".


This is not a Biblical argument. Please look up the word "epistemology." You have a serious worldview error. You view God from the lens that He must act according to the way you view is right. This is a serious, pagan error.

God CAN do whatever He wants, because as Zephaniah 3:5 says, everything God does is just. God DOES wreak havoc and destruction, as Isaiah 45:7 says. Don't make the error of Job, who was mad at God because he didn't understand why bad things happen to good people. God's response to Job was "you cannot understand the depths of what I do, don't question me." That's why Paul said the pot cannot question the potter. God is the Potter.




> I impose on God the view of justice that He imposes on Himself and us.


Then disprove the notions that all men are under condemnation AND that God, even when He creates destruction, is just. The Bible clearly attests to both and you appear to be ignoring it.




> Yes.  Calvinists often misinterpret Romans 9.  Did you know that God "blessed" the "hated" Essau?  Essau was not hated unto damnation.  Rather he was not chosen to be the progenitor of the Savior.  Paul's point in Romans 9 wasn't about individual salvation anyway, but about the fact that the Jews as a people had rejected Jesus.


You ignore that God destines the Pharaoh for destruction. This is specifically stated in Romans 9, so I don't even need to get into the fact that there's a difference between God blessing Esau and Ishmael with progeny for the sake of their ancestor. 




> What "sucks" is your understanding of God.  Nothing in the Bible supports the idea that beings that have never even had a conscience thought end up in hell.


"There is no one righteous," "I was conceived in sin" ring any bells? Imprisonment tol sin is universal, including babies. To deny this is to deny Scripture.




> But hey, let's say you're right?  You most certainly are not, but let's say you are.  And?  If you are right then my "false belief" about God is what He wants me to have and if you don't think that's fair...too bad.


I'm not mad about it, it just means you have more to learn.




> God doesn't expect us to put our brains in neutral as Calvinism, the way it is taught today anyway, seems to require.  God says "Come let a reason together."  What makes true Christianity superior to other religions is that it paints a picture of a universally loving God.  All religions can and do claim that their God is the "biggest dude on the block".  That's not how or why God wants us to worship Him.


I'm not exactly a calvinist, but yes, people are predestined by God. They have free will, but can be manipulated by divine forces. This is clear throughout Scripture. Do not be too sure you are not being deceived by Satan, though I really doubt it, as predestination is not a fundamental doctrine that all people must believe to be saved. Christ is the foundation, not predestination.

You need to substantiate more of what you say from Scripture. You quoted specifically one verse that applied to specific sins, and ignored large udneriding theologies that pop up time and again throughout old and new testaments.




> Edit: I tell you what. Post the verse where God says "And I will burn forever in hell even little babies who never matured to the point of being able to make a choice for or against Me forever because I am God and can do whatever the hell I want."  You can choose any version of the Bible you want and even go to the Apocrypha or any other book outside of the cannon that's accepted by at least some significant number of Christians.  I won't hold my breath waiting though.


I never said babies necessarily go to hell. If that was God's will, I would accept it.

The Bible has two verses that you address.

Psalm 8:1 to 2 "You have set your glory
    above the heavens.
 From the lips of children and infants
    you have ordained praise
because of your enemies,
    to silence the foe and the avenger."

And 1 Peter 4:6 
"For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to men in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit."

My gut is that babies that God preordains to save are converted after death and just like adults, others are destined to destruction. I'm certainly not 100 % and Scripture does not get any more specific.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

Has anyone heard of Harry Bethel?  I believe he is SDA.  He talks about psychopaths being monobeings (creatures God created that have no soul and do evil and trick Christians).  Sounds like the animal/human relations someone talked about earlier.     www.bethelministries.com

----------


## Eagles' Wings

Bump...sorry, I'm impatient to know if anyone knows of Harry Bethel.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Has anyone heard of Harry Bethel?  I believe he is SDA.  He talks about psychopaths being monobeings (creatures God created that have no soul and do evil and trick Christians).  Sounds like the animal/human relations someone talked about earlier.     www.bethelministries.com


Well, Ellen G. White said that the animal/human relations could be see "in certain races of men".  Ellen G. White wasn't talking about monobeings, she was talking about black people.  Ellen G. White was a false prophet who said masturbation is one of the greatest sins of man and the cause of dozens of health ailments...all of which are not true.

I skimmed over the website.  I wouldn't go anywhere near that.  There were links that promoted salvation by works, and links that promoted all these unbiblical speculations about "the end times".  Ellen G. White taught that the "mark of the beast" at the end times would be the people who worshipped on Sunday.  Only Saturday worshippers would be saved.  In other words, she promoted works-salvation.  Avoid her and all of her Satanic ministers.

----------


## jmdrake

> Well, Ellen G. White said that the animal/human relations could be see "in certain races of men".  Ellen G. White wasn't talking about monobeings, she was talking about black people.  Ellen G. White was a false prophet who said masturbation is one of the greatest sins of man and the cause of dozens of health ailments...all of which are not true.


 Ellen White never said anything about animal/human relations.  That's not what the word "amalgamation" means.  But hey, just go ahead and keep lying.

Edit: And as for masturbation, the same people saying today that it is healthy also say homosexuality is healthy.  But even among modern "liberated" sexual health professionals, chronic masturbation is seen as a form of sexual addiction.  I remember a while back you asking me if I had "lustful thoughts".  Is that something that you are struggling with Sola_Fide?  If so, please get help.  Many men (if not most) deal with some form of sexual addiction, and often its because of some childhood trauma that they never dealt with.  I've had my own struggles, but now I'm getting the help that I need.  Regardless of your obsession with "heaven or hell", not dealing with your sexual addiction problem (if you have one) leads to a type of hell on earth.  As for the health effects of masturbation, overdoing it can cause zinc deficiency and in extreme cases damage to the penis and that is confirmed in modern medical literature.  That said, much of what EGW wrote on the subject was based on the work of Dr. Kellogg (yes the guy who invented corn flakes) an he eventually apostatized and left the church.  But as Todd pointed out, modern science has in general confirmed most of what Ellen White wrote about health.  There was a time when people thought Ellen White was a false prophet for saying that tobacco was unhealthy.  Imagine that?  That doesn't mean she was perfect by any stretch.  In the New Testament you see Peter having to be corrected at least twice with regards to his views of the gentiles.

Edit: And for the record, Ellen White did not at all mention black people in the amalgamation context.  Here's what she had to say about black people.

http://egwtext.whiteestate.org/searc...&Search=Search

_God’s object in bringing us to himself is to conform us to the image of Christ Jesus. All who believe in Christ will understand the personal relation that exists between them and their brethren. They are to be as branches grafted into the same parent stock, to draw sustenance from the root. Believers, whether white or black, are branches of the True Vine. There is to be no special heaven for the white man, and another heaven for the black man. We are all to be saved through the same grace, all to enter the same heaven at last. Then why not act like rational beings, and overcome our unlikeness to Christ? The same God that blesses us as his sons and daughters, blesses the colored race. Those who have the faith that works by love and purifies the soul, will look with compassion and love upon the colored people. Many of those who have had every advantage, who have regarded themselves as superior to the colored people because their skin was white, will find that many of the colored race will go into heaven before them. RH January 21, 1896, par. 4

Let every one who values the precious sacrifice made by Jesus Christ, lift up his voice in prayer to God, and exclaim: “Behold, O Lord, this poor, oppressed people that have been despised and maltreated by the white nation. Breathe into their souls the breath of spiritual life. If no effort is made on their behalf, they will perish in their sins, and their blood will be found upon our garments. Father of mercies, pity thine offspring. Breathe upon these beaten, bruised, ignorant souls, that they may live. Give thy Holy Spirit to those who shall go forth as messengers to this people. Take not thy Holy Spirit from us in our councils, and enable us to make plans and devise means for the spread of the truth among them.”_

And.....

_Walls of separation have been built up between the whites and the blacks. These walls of prejudice will tumble down of themselves as did the walls of Jericho, when Christians obey the Word of God, which enjoins on them supreme love to their Maker and impartial love to their neighbors. For Christ’s sake, let us do something now. Let every church whose members claim to believe the truth for this time, look at this neglected, downtrodden race, that, as a result of slavery, have been deprived of the privilege of thinking and acting for themselves. They have been kept at work in the cotton fields, have been driven before the lash like brute beasts, and their children have received no enviable heritage. Many of the slaves had noble minds, but the fact that their skin was dark, was sufficient reason for the whites to treat them as though they were beasts. When freedom was proclaimed to the captives, a favorable time was given in which to establish schools and to teach the people to take care of themselves. Much of this kind of work was SW 43.1_

And many more quotes from the link I provided you.

----------


## jmdrake

> This is a specific sin, but man is in born with sin. Psalm 51:5 ("Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me"), Romans 3:15 (There is not a single righteous person, not one") makes this clear. So all people are deserving of punishment from the very time of their conception. There is nothing in Scripture that disagrees with this teaching. To undo that doctrine guts the gospel and replaces it with a works-based theology.


You're reading too much into Psalm 51:5.  First this Psalm was most likely written after David was confronted by Nathan about his sin with Bathsheba.  One plausible interpretation is that David was talking about the child they had who was "born in sin" as he was born from an illicit relationship.  The other is that David was talking about his inherited sinful nature.  But having a sinful nature is not the same as having committed sin.  There are many people who come from alcoholic families who might have a genetic predisposition to alcohol but never drink.  Assuming binge drinking is a sin (I know some would argue anyway), that person has not yet committed the sin of binge drinking even if he could.  Further Romans saying that "none are righteous" is not the same as saying that a baby has sinned before even having the opportunity.  A righteous person isn't merely someone who has not sinned yet.  He is someone who *will* not sin.  From that perspective Jesus is the only one righteous.  Everyone else either has already sinned or will given enough time.  And lastly, the Bible clearly says that God will judge everyone according to their works.  Yes those who are in Christ have His blood covering their evil works.  But in the case of someone who dies before having done a work, what is there to judge?  The answer is nothing.  If Ezekiel is true that God will not punish the son for the sins of the father, then it is impossible for God to send a baby who isn't even mature enough to conceive of a sin, let alone commit one, to hell for eternity.




> This is not a Biblical argument. Please look up the word "epistemology." You have a serious worldview error. You view God from the lens that He must act according to the way you view is right. This is a serious, pagan error.


You are the one with the pagan worldview.  Calvinists seem to have this flaw of claiming someone else "just doesn't understand the Bible" or has a "pagan worldview" when faced with truth that they cannot honestly argue against.




> God CAN do whatever He wants, because as Zephaniah 3:5 says, everything God does is just. God DOES wreak havoc and destruction, as Isaiah 45:7 says. Don't make the error of Job, who was mad at God because he didn't understand why bad things happen to good people. God's response to Job was "you cannot understand the depths of what I do, don't question me." That's why Paul said the pot cannot question the potter. God is the Potter.


The "error of Job"?  You do not understand your Bible.  _Job 1:22 In all this, Job did not sin by charging God with wrongdoing._

You are committing the error of Job's friends, attributing to God the works of Satan.  And nowhere can you honestly justify the idea of God sending babies to hell through your ridiculous misinterpretation of Paul's "potter" comment.  Paul was talking about how God chose Jacob to be the progenitor of Jesus as opposed to Essau who was the firstborn.  But that had nothing to do with God's view towards Essau in general or Essau's eternal salvation.




> Then disprove the notions that all men are under condemnation AND that God, even when He creates destruction, is just. The Bible clearly attests to both and you appear to be ignoring it.


You are using circular reasoning and I see you have yet to address the verse I posted from Ezekiel.  That's typical of Calvinists.  They take parts of the Bible, ignore others, and then falsely accuse others of doing the ignoring.  Yes God is just.  And He declares that His justice does not include punishing someone in hell for the sins of their parents.  So that is the *starting point* for understanding what else the Bible says about God's justice.  All men are under condemnation because all men (adults) have sinned.  Nowhere in the Bible does it say that all babies are under condemnation or that even some babies are under condemnation.




> You ignore that God destines the Pharaoh for destruction. This is specifically stated in Romans 9, so I don't even need to get into the fact that there's a difference between God blessing Esau and Ishmael with progeny for the sake of their ancestor.


Esau himself asked for a blessing so that's not merely regarding progeny.  And Pharaoh destined his own self for destruction.  God merely accelerated the path Pharaoh was on.  Stop looking at verses in isolation.  Romans 1:28 explains what happened to Pharaoh.

_Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done._




> "There is no one righteous," "I was conceived in sin" ring any bells? Imprisonment tol sin is universal, including babies. To deny this is to deny Scripture.


Yes.  It shows you don't understand the Bible.  I'm not denying scripture.  I'm denying your interpretation of it.




> I'm not mad about it, it just means you have more to learn.


I'm sure I have more to learn.  But not from you.  At least not on this subject.




> I'm not exactly a calvinist, but yes, people are predestined by God. They have free will, but can be manipulated by divine forces. This is clear throughout Scripture. Do not be too sure you are not being deceived by Satan, though I really doubt it, as predestination is not a fundamental doctrine that all people must believe to be saved. Christ is the foundation, not predestination.
> 
> You need to substantiate more of what you say from Scripture. You quoted specifically one verse that applied to specific sins, and ignored large udneriding theologies that pop up time and again throughout old and new testaments.


The underlying theology throughout the old and new testament is that God is love and God is just.  A just and loving God doesn't punish someone in hell for sins he didn't commit.




> I never said babies necessarily go to hell. If that was God's will, I would accept it.


God clearly declared that isn't His will.  You've read into texts what isn't there.




> The Bible has two verses that you address.
> 
> Psalm 8:1 to 2 "You have set your glory
>     above the heavens.
>  From the lips of children and infants
>     you have ordained praise
> because of your enemies,
>     to silence the foe and the avenger."
> 
> ...


What the scripture is specific about is that God doesn't punish people in hell for their parents sins.  If you can accept what the Bible says when it speaks specifically, then you can come to correct conclusions when it is speaking in vague generalities.  "Conceived in sin" does not mean "already has sinned".  And "no one is righteous" doesn't mean "everyone has already sinned".

----------


## jmdrake

> Has anyone heard of Harry Bethel?  I believe he is SDA.  He talks about psychopaths being monobeings (creatures God created that have no soul and do evil and trick Christians).  Sounds like the animal/human relations someone talked about earlier.     www.bethelministries.com


I've never heard of Harry Bethel, but his doctrinal statement sounds Calvinist.

http://www.bethelministries.com/DOCTRINAL_STATEMENT.htm

_Salvation is by grace through faith alone, which comes from God. Salvation has been provided through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and no one is saved and given eternal life except through Him. Repentance and faith leading to salvation are granted to the elect (Eph. 2:5, 8-9; Acts 4:12; 1 Jn. 5:11-12; Jn. 15:19; Acts 5:31; 11:18; 13:48; 16:14; 2 Tim. 2:25; Rom. 8:27-30; 9:8-14; Eph. 1:4-5,11)._

In fact, it's clear that he is *not* a Seventh Day Adventist.

http://www.bethelministries.com/mark.htm

_Many people, claiming to be Christians, such as many Seventh Day Adventists, believe worshipping the Lord on the first day of the week, rather than the seventh day, is taking the Mark of the Beast._

He could be Sola_Fide's alter ego.

Edit: Reading more at this guy's website.  I've got to LOL!

_The Mark of the Beast will not be under or "in" the skin such as a chip implantation, but rather it will be "on" the skin.  "If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on [epi] the forehead or on [epi] the hand, he, too will drink of the wine of God's fury...He will be tormented with burning sulfur...And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever" (Rev. 14:9-11).

Notice that the Greek word used to describe the location of the Mark is epi which means "on" or "over," and not eis which means "in" or "into."

It will be on the forehead or right hand, and could possibly incorporate some type of vaccination that will later turn into an ugly sore. The mark (Greek, charagma, which means a stamp, an impression or an engraving), will be a visible mark, not an invisible chip implanted under the skin.

Those who receive the Mark will break out with a loathsome sore. This suggests some kind of reaction similar to that of an inoculation such as a smallpox vaccination that, years ago, was required of everyone who entered the public school systems in the United States. No vaccination---no education---at least, no education in the public schools. No school attendance---jail time for parents and loss of children to the State. Then, the children get the vaccination and education from the satanically controlled public schools---without their parents._

Vaccines are the Mark of the Beast?  ..........BWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH

----------


## Sola_Fide

> And this is what Ellen White said about how you are found blameless in the investigative judgement.
> 
> _ While Jesus is pleading for the subjects of His grace, Satan accuses them before God as transgressors. The great deceiver has sought to lead them into skepticism, to cause them to lose confidence in God, to separate themselves from His love, and to break His law. Now he points to the record of their lives, to the defects of character, the unlikeness to Christ, which has dishonored their Redeemer, to all the sins that he has tempted them to commit, and because of these he claims them as his subjects.
> 
> Jesus does not excuse their sins, but shows their penitence and faith, and, claiming for them forgiveness, He lifts His wounded hands before the Father and the holy angels, saying: I know them by name. I have graven them on the palms of My hands. "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise." Psalm 51:17. And to the accuser of His people He declares: "The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan; even the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?" Zechariah 3:2. Christ will clothe His faithful ones with His own righteousness, that He may present them to His Father "a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing." Ephesians 5:27. Their names stand enrolled in the book of life, and concerning them it is written: "They shall walk with Me in white: for they are worthy." Revelation 3:4.
> 
> Thus will be realized the complete fulfillment of the new-covenant promise: "I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." "In those days, and in that time, saith the Lord, the iniquity of Israel shall be sought for, and there shall be none; and the sins of Judah, and they shall not be found." Jeremiah 31:34; 50:20. "In that day shall the branch of the Lord be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely for them that are escaped of Israel. And it shall come to pass, that he that is left in Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, even everyone that is written among the living in Jerusalem." Isaiah 4:2, 3._ 
> 
> It's the same thing.  Salvation comes from recognizing that we are sinners in need of Christ's righteousness "grasping" that righteousness through faith.  Of course you believe John Calvin is in hell unless he "repented" from believing different than you.  You want to make our argument about Ellen White when in reality Ellen White has nothing to do with it.  Any sensible person can come to the same understanding of salvation without relying on Ellen White.




Jesus does not plead our "penitence and faith" before the Father, He pleads HIS works.  My penitence and faith is _my_ works which can only condemn me before a holy God.  This is works-salvationism.

This is the lie of investigative judgement, which forever separates Seventh Day Adventism from Christianity.

----------


## jmdrake

> Jesus does not plead our "penitence and faith" before the Father, He pleads HIS works.  My penitence and faith is _my_ works which can only condemn me before a holy God.  This is works-salvationism.
> 
> This is the lie of investigative judgement, which forever separates Seventh Day Adventism from Christianity.


LOL.  You're bumping your own dead threads?  Sad.  Really sad.  You hate Baptists, Methodists and all true Christians.  And here is proof of your dishonesty.  You didn't bold this part.

*claiming for them forgiveness, He lifts His wounded hands before the Father and the holy angels, saying: I know them by name. I have graven them on the palms of My hands.* 

So you are not being truthful when you claim Adventists teach Jesus pleads their repentance.  Jesus pleads His own blood.  But that blood is only applied to those who freely accept it.

Go back and read where Jesus compared Himself to the serpent lifted up in the wilderness.  *Only those who looked up to the serpent lived*.  Go back and read about the passover.  *Only those who applied the blood to the doorpost were saved.*  Both of those were examples of Christ's sacrifice.  It was the lamb's blood that saved the firstborn in Egypt.  But the blood had to be applied.  Had someone applied their own blood to the doorpost their firstborn would have died.  Similarly if you apply your own words to your life, you will die.  Jesus' blood must be applied.  But just like God didn't apply the blood on the doorpost for the Israelites, God doesn't force some "elect" to accept the sacrifice of His son.  Each person must accept Jesus for him/herself.  All true Christians understand this.  Fake ones, like yourself, do not.  And you are a fake Christian because of your dishonesty.  Go ahead, start attacking Methodists and Baptists because they believe the same as Seventh Day Adventists with regards to the need for repentance.  Charles Spurgeon believed that as well.  John Calvin sometimes seemed to, which is why you kind of/sort of distanced yourself from John Calvin as well.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> LOL.  You're bumping your own dead threads?  Sad.  Really sad.  You hate Baptists, Methodists and all true Christians.  And here is proof of your dishonesty.  You didn't bold this part.
> 
> *claiming for them forgiveness, He lifts His wounded hands before the Father and the holy angels, saying: I know them by name. I have graven them on the palms of My hands.* 
> 
> So you are not being truthful when you claim Adventists teach Jesus pleads their repentance.  Jesus pleads His own blood.  But that blood is only applied to those who freely accept it.
> 
> Go back and read where Jesus compared Himself to the serpent lifted up in the wilderness.  *Only those who looked up to the serpent lived*.  Go back and read about the passover.  *Only those who applied the blood to the doorpost were saved.*  Both of those were examples of Christ's sacrifice.  It was the lamb's blood that saved the firstborn in Egypt.  But the blood had to be applied.  Had someone applied their own blood to the doorpost their firstborn would have died.  Similarly if you apply your own words to your life, you will die.  Jesus' blood must be applied.  But just like God didn't apply the blood on the doorpost for the Israelites, God doesn't force some "elect" to accept the sacrifice of His son.  Each person must accept Jesus for him/herself.  All true Christians understand this.  Fake ones, like yourself, do not.  And you are a fake Christian because of your dishonesty.  Go ahead, start attacking Methodists and Baptists because they believe the same as Seventh Day Adventists with regards to the need for repentance.  Charles Spurgeon believed that as well.  John Calvin sometimes seemed to, which is why you kind of/sort of distanced yourself from John Calvin as well.





Well, a lot of this is just your personal dislike of me.  I'm talking about the heresy that Ellen G. White taught, which makes Seventh Day Adventism a non-Christian religion.

Ellen G. White taught about the atonement:




> *Jesus does not excuse their sins, but shows their penitence and faith*, and, claiming for them forgiveness, He lifts His wounded hands before the Father and the holy angels, saying: I know them by name. I have graven them on the palms of My hands.


1.  Ellen G. White said that Jesus "does not excuse their sins".  This is wrong.  Not only does God excuse His people's sins, He blots them out as far as the east is from the west.  

2.  Ellen G. White said that Jesus "shows their penitence and faith".  This is wrong because my repentance and faith is MY works.  Jesus does not plead MY works before the Father.  Jesus pleads HIS works before the Father.  Only JESUS' works can avail before a holy God.  My works can only condemn me before a holy God because my works are tainted with sin.  This is why Seventh Day Adventism is not a Christian religion.  It denies the atonement of Jesus Christ and teaches that our works atone for our sins.  This is a lie from Satan himself.

----------


## jmdrake

LOL.  Sola_Fide you really are pathetic.  You intend to bump this thread once a month and then go hide again?




> Well, a lot of this is just your personal dislike of me.  I'm talking about the heresy that Ellen G. White taught, which makes Seventh Day Adventism a non-Christian religion.


No, SF.  You are the one with the personal dislike of me.  You hate me because I expose your personal mental cult with your bizarre beliefs about God burning infants for eternity.  You showed your dislike for me long before you knew I was a Seventh Day Adventist, back when you were using "AquaBuddha" for your handle here.  You changed your nickname to hide this.  You can run, but you can't hide.




> Ellen G. White taught about the atonement:
> 
> 1.  Ellen G. White said that Jesus "does not excuse their sins".  This is wrong.  Not only does God excuse His people's sins, He blots them out as far as the east is from the west.


You are showing your own ignorance of scripture here. To *excuse* something is to claim *that the sin is okay*.  Jesus *never* says sin is okay.  He *forgives* sin!  Have you ever had an "excuse" for not turning in your homework?  An *excuse* is self justification.  If our sins are *excused* that is self righteousness.  If our sins could be *excused* then Jesus would not need to die.

Read the Bible cover to cover SF/AB.  The word "excuse" is used 4 times in the KJV and 5 in the NIV. *Never* is it used in connection with forgiveness of sin.  Quite the contrary, the Bible makes it clear that there is *NO* excuse for sin.

NIV uses of the word "excuse":

Sinners looking for "excuses" not to accept God's invitation.
_Luke 14:18
“But they all alike began to make excuses. The first said, ‘I have just bought a field, and I must go and see it. Please excuse me.’

Luke 14:19
“Another said, ‘I have just bought five yoke of oxen, and I’m on my way to try them out. Please excuse me.’
_

Jesus saying the Pharisees "have no excuse".
_John 15:22
If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin._

Paul saying the Gentiles have no excuse for violating the law revealed to them through nature.
_Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse._

Paul saying Christians have no excuse for judging each other.
_Romans 2:1
[ God’s Righteous Judgment ] You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things._

KJV references of the word "excuse":
Along with Luke 14:18,19 and Romans 1:20, you have Paul saying he was not looking for an excuse.
_2 Corinthians 12:19
    Again, think ye that we excuse ourselves unto you? we speak before God in Christ: but we do all things, dearly beloved, for your edifying.
_




> 2.  Ellen G. White said that Jesus "shows their penitence and faith".  This is wrong because my repentance and faith is MY works.  Jesus does not plead MY works before the Father.  Jesus pleads HIS works before the Father.  Only JESUS' works can avail before a holy God.  My works can only condemn me before a holy God because my works are tainted with sin.  This is why Seventh Day Adventism is not a Christian religion.  It denies the atonement of Jesus Christ and teaches that our works atone for our sins.  This is a lie from Satan himself.


By grace are ye saved *through faith*.  (Ephesians 2:38)  

It is through faith that the free gift of grace is accepted.  Again, and I've explained this to you before, but your heart is to hardened to listen, the "work" of acceptance doesn't change grace from a gift.  If I give you a car and you sign the title you have *not* worked for the car.

[i]Acts 2:38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ *for the forgiveness of your sins.* And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.[/ib]

Sola_Fide/AquaBuddha, here you further show your dishonesty.  Again, your argument is not with Ellen White and Adventism.  Your argument is with mainstream Christianity.  Turn on *any* mainstream Christian radio broadcast and you will hear preachers of all stripes preaching the same message that Peter preached on the day of Pentacost "Repent for the forgiveness of your sins."

And what did Ellen White teach about repentance?  Please read this:

_A repentance such as this, is beyond the reach of our own power to accomplish; it is obtained only from Christ, who ascended up on high and has given gifts unto men. 

26

Just here is a point on which many may err, and hence they fail of receiving the help that Christ desires to give them. They think that they cannot come to Christ unless they first repent, and that repentance prepares for the forgiveness of their sins. It is true that repentance does precede the forgiveness of sins; for it is only the broken and contrite heart that will feel the need of a Saviour. But must the sinner wait till he has repented before he can come to Jesus? Is repentance to be made an obstacle between the sinner and the Saviour? 

The Bible does not teach that the sinner must repent before he can heed the invitation of Christ, "Come unto Me, all ye that labor and are heavy-laden, and I will give you rest." Matthew 11:28. It is the virtue that goes forth from Christ, that leads to genuine repentance. Peter made the matter clear in his statement to the Israelites when he said, "Him hath God exalted with His right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins." Acts 5:31. We can no more repent without the Spirit of Christ to awaken the conscience than we can be pardoned without Christ. { 26.2}

Christ is the source of every right impulse. He is the only one that can implant in the heart enmity against sin. Every desire for truth and purity, every conviction of our own sinfulness, is an evidence that His Spirit is moving upon our hearts. 

Jesus has said, "I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto Me." John 12:32. Christ must be revealed to the sinner as the Saviour dying for the sins of the world; and as we behold the Lamb of 

27

God upon the cross of Calvary, the mystery of redemption begins to unfold to our minds and the goodness of God leads us to repentance. In dying for sinners, Christ manifested a love that is incomprehensible; and as the sinner beholds this love, it softens the heart, impresses the mind, and inspires contrition in the soul._ 

Now before you think to yourself, "Wow!  This sounds like Calvinism!"  Here's the key difference.  Seventh-Day Adventists believe than man retains free will.  Man has the ability to resist the Holy Spirit's call to repentance.

_The sinner may resist this love, may refuse to be drawn to Christ; but if he does not resist he will be drawn to Jesus; a knowledge of the plan of salvation will lead him to the foot of the cross in repentance for his sins, which have caused the sufferings of God's dear Son.

28

The same divine mind that is working upon the things of nature is speaking to the hearts of men and creating an inexpressible craving for something they have not. The things of the world cannot satisfy their longing. The Spirit of God is pleading with them to seek for those things that alone can give peace and rest--the grace of Christ, the joy of holiness. Through influences seen and unseen, our Saviour is constantly at work to attract the minds of men from the unsatisfying pleasures of sin to the infinite blessings that may be theirs in Him. To all these souls, who are vainly seeking to drink from the broken cisterns of this world, the divine message is addressed, "Let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." Revelation 22:17._ 

That's the key difference.  EGW actually enjoyed the writings of John Calvin and spoke highly of him in her works.  But Adventists, correctly, reject TULIP because TULIP paints a picture of a God who denies freedom and that is not universally loving and, frankly, does not exist in the Bible.  The Bible clearly teaches that we should not resist the Holy Spirit and harden our hearts.

_    Psalm 95:8
    Harden not your heart, as in the provocation, and as in the day of temptation in the wilderness:
    Psalm 95:7-9 (in Context) Psalm 95 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations

    Hebrews 3:8
    Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness:
    Hebrews 3:7-9 (in Context) Hebrews 3 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
_

Your belief system requires you to ignore or reinterpret Psalms 95:8 and Hebrews 3:8.

Paul, whom you love to quote a lot, also had this to say about the Holy Spirit.

_Ephesians 4:30
And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption._

Again, if the pleadings of the Holy Spirit were "irresistible" then this admonition from Paul would have been superfluous.

If you want to understand SDA teaching on grace and salvation, I recommend you read the book Steps to Christ.  There are many versions online for free.  I've started putting my own version up, which simply has the Bible verses referenced already linked.

http://stepstochristannotated.blogspot.com/

I'm only on chapter 3 now.  Frankly I should spend more time on projects like this than I do arguing with people at RPF.

----------


## ewizacft

> You are the one in hell Sola_Fide.  It's a hell of your own choosing and making that requires you to be dishonest, to display cowardice, to jump in and out of conversations when it gets too "hot" for you so that you can avoid admitting you are wrong.  It requires you to attack and judge others who have not attacked and judged you in order to assuage your own guilty conscience.  It requires you to paint a portrait of Yaweh that is more evil than Molech and Beelzebub in that Yaweh must roast little babies alive for eternity in order to satiate His wrath.  I wouldn't wish your personal hell on my worst enemy.  I pray you are someday delivered from it.
> 
> 
> 
> If you do not repent, according to Jesus, Peter, Paul, John and others, your sins are not forgiven.  
> 
> 
> 
> A) Jesus called belief a work.  So you are calling Jesus a liar.
> ...


*John 6:29:Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.*  God has done this work so that you will believe.  You take a giant leap when you say that faith=works=saved(salvation).

*Romans 4:5:But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness*.  When a man works for some reward, that reward is his due; when he simply puts his trust in God; it is by pure grace that his faith is reckoned to him for righteousness.

----------


## jmdrake

> *John 6:29:Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.*  God has done this work so that you will believe.  You take a giant leap when you say that faith=works=saved(salvation).


You take a ridiculous leap when you say I said faith=works=saved(salvation).  I simply said that a gift must be received.  And it must.  The funny thing is, though, that the verse you just quoted undermined your position.  Jesus called faith "work".




> *Romans 4:5:But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness*.  When a man works for some reward, that reward is his due; when he simply puts his trust in God; it is by pure grace that his faith is reckoned to him for righteousness.


Again, you accepting a gift is not working for it.  Have you ever received a gift in your life?  Apparently not.  You can accept a gift or reject it.  Gifts are not forced on you.  Faith without works is not faith.  Faith without works is dead according to James.  It's mere belief which is una ble to save you.

*Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.*

That's the definition of faith.  Not just believing that God exists.  The devils believes that and tremble.  But believing that God rewards those who diligently seek him.

*James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.*

If you don't have the type of faith that prompts you to action, you do not have faith beyond what demons who are bound to hell have.

*James 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.*

It's not that faith = works.  It's that faith empowers works through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

_Galatians 2:20
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me._

----------


## ewizacft

You said "If you don't understand that unless your faith works it isn't faith, then you haven't been saved. And Sola_Fide, you haven't been saved".  That is like saying since you have no works; you have no faith; and since you have no faith(which to you is faith plus works), you have no salvation.  

In John 6:29, Jesus is talking about the work of God.  The work of God is Jesus coming to the earth so that you may believe ON Him.  Just because they are asking him what work they can do does not mean Jesus answered them with work they can do.

You say that it is a gift, but after you receive it you have to work or else you never received it.  I can receive a bicycle as a gift and it can cause me to want to ride it, but I can choose not to ride it.  This not not mean that I did not receive it.  

I'm not arguing the belief in the existence of God. Believing in or on God is not a belief in his existence.  

Titus 3:5:  Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost

----------


## jmdrake

> You said "If you don't understand that unless your faith works it isn't faith, then you haven't been saved. And Sola_Fide, you haven't been saved".  That is like saying since you have no works; you have no faith; and since you have no faith(which to you is faith plus works), you have no salvation.


Read the Bible as it is written and not based on your own prejudice.  James said that faith without works is dead.  A dead faith cannot save you.  A dead faith is one that is mere believe and that doesn't infuse your life with the power of salvation.

James 2:14-25
_14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”

Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d]? 21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,”[e] and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

25 In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead._

Edit; And for the record I only questioned Sola_Fide's salvation after he had *repeatedly* questioned mine for not adopting his warped "God burns babies in hell forever" theology.  




> In John 6:29, Jesus is talking about the work of God.  The work of God is Jesus coming to the earth so that you may believe ON Him.  Just because they are asking him what work they can do does not mean Jesus answered them with work they can do.


Read the Bible in context.  If you have to read it out of context to prove your point, then your point is a lie.

_ Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. 27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.”

28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”_

Jesus told His audience not to "work for food that spoils, but for food that endures unto eternal life."  The audience asked "What must we do to do the works God requires".  From the context the "work of God" was not what God does, but rather the work that God requires.

It is true that you can do nothing on your own.  But that doesn't mean God requires nothing of you.  Paul explains this well in Philippians 2:12-13

_12 Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose._

Salvation is allowing God to work in you.  You can do nothing on your own.  But God doesn't force you to do anything either.




> You say that it is a gift, but after you receive it you have to work or else you never received it.  I can receive a bicycle as a gift and it can cause me to want to ride it, but I can choose not to ride it.  This not not mean that I did not receive it.


That's not what I said.  Your works are evidence of your faith.  It's not that you work to receive faith.  It's faith that empowers your works.  If God is working in your life, He has promised to make changes in your life.  If you say have faith in God and there are no changes in your life, then either you are a liar or God is.  




> I'm not arguing the belief in the existence of God. Believing in or on God is not a belief in his existence.  
> 
> Titus 3:5:  Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost


Do you know what the words "regeneration and renewing" mean?  They mean that God is empowering you to do His works.  The verse your quoting confirms what I'm saying.

Also, in James 2 he was talking about people who claimed to believe "in" or "on" God, but had no works.  He compared them to the demons who have mere belief.  The key to understanding true faith is Hebrews 11.  The key verse to unlocking this understanding is verse 6.

_6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him._

Faith is trusting that God actually knows what's best for your life and being willing to let Him guide and direct it.

James makes it clear.  Someone who merely hears the word of God without doing what it says is like someone who looks at himself in the mirror, sees how dirty his face is, but doesn't wash it.

James 1:19-26
_19 My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, 20 because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires. 21 Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you.

22 Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. 23 Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like someone who looks at his face in a mirror 24 and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. 25 But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it—they will be blessed in what they do.

26 Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless. 27 Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world._

----------


## ewizacft

> 20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d]? 21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,”[e] and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.[/i]


Help me understand this.  

Genesis 15 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.  And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

This is before he even had a son.  How could then James say "Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar"?

----------


## jmdrake

> Help me understand this.  
> 
> Genesis 15 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.  And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
> 
> This is before he even had a son.  How could then James say "Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar"?


That's a good question.  There is a difference between declared righteousness and revealed righteousness.  It took me a while to understand this.  Note what God said to Abraham after He stopped him from killing Isaac.  

_Genesis 22:12 “Do not lay a hand on the boy,” he said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.”_

Now did God know before that Abraham feared God?  Of course!  So, what is the meaning?  Well look at how the word "know" is used in the Bible.

"And Adam knew his wife Eve and she bare him a son."

The world "know" doesn't simply be "to have knowledge of".  It also means to have an intimate experience with.  Now look at what happened with Abraham in between being declared righteous and being revealed as righteous.  Abraham gave in to Sarah's faithlessness and had a son by Hagar.  Abraham twice gave into his own faithlessness and had Sarah tell a half-truth about their relationship, the she was his half sister but left out she was his wife (ewwwww), and let her enter into a potentially adulterous relationship because he feared for his own life.  But finally, Abraham is revealed to have complete faith in God.

Edit: Note the similarity between Abraham's experience and Peter's.  After His resurrection, Jesus asked Peter 3 times if he loved Him.  That's the *same* number of times Peter denied Jesus.  Jesus then revealed that Peter would indeed be faithful unto death.

Look at what John says.

_1 John 3:7

King James Version (KJV)

7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous._

Now, depending on how you read it, 1 John can be either the most discouraging book in the Bible or the most encouraging.  John just said your righteous if you *do* righteousness.  But then he also said:

_8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us._

Hmmmm....so we're deceiving ourself if we say we're without sin, and we aren't righteous if we don't do righteousness.  So where's the good news?

_7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

....

9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness._

Yeah!  Everyone wants forgiveness from sin!  But that's not the end of it.  Keep reading.

_1 John 3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him._

Hmmmmmm.....so are you righteous or not?  Proverbs 24:16 gives a clue.

_For a righteous man falls seven times, and rises again, But the wicked stumble in time of calamity._

Now compare that to Ezekiel 18:24 

_But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die._

The difference?  The righteous in Proverbs 24:16 get back up.  When God rebuked Abraham, he repented, and God kept working with him and he grew in righteousness.  When God rebuked David, he repented and God kept working with him and he grew in righteousness.  When God rebuked Saul.....Saul tried to undo the consequences God imposed on him and Saul was ultimately lost.

I hope that helps.

----------


## ewizacft

Thank you for the help.  I am sure I will have more questions later.

----------


## jmdrake

> Thank you for the help.  I am sure I will have more questions later.


I'm glad I can help.  And I appreciate threads where people actually discuss their views instead of trying to force their position on everyone else.  It's interesting.  The title of this thread is wrong.  There really is no conflict between Seventh-Day Adventism and the Bible, as shown by the fact that I've strictly gone by the Bible to support the SDA position.  Rather there is dispute between *different interpretations* of the Bible.

I've come to realize that every debate comes down to 4 "I's".  That is "Investigation" (gathering facts), "Interpretation" (what those facts me), "Implication" (what new facts can be derived from the old facts) and "Implementation" (what you're going to do with the facts you have investigated and derived).  So many times I'll hear someone say "The Bible says such and such" and when you read their verse it does *not* say what they claimed it said.  They fall back on "But that's the only reasonable interpretation."  No it isn't.  If it was, then it would be the *only* interpretation.  This "four I" method of understanding debate applies to everything.  Take global warming.  The "investigation" is whether or not the planet is actually warming.  The "interpretation" is why.  Is it really CO2 driving it?  The implication, if you accept CO2 is driving, then maybe man is causing the planet to warm up.  The implementation?  Carbon taxes.  Each of those arguments can be disputed at each level.  (Is the earth really warming?  Is CO2 really causing it?  Is man really responsible for most of the "excess" CO2?  Can carbon taxes really fight this, and do we really need to fight against it anyway?)

Anyhow, thank you for the civil discussion.

----------


## ReasonableThinker

I like the way these Eastern Orthodox handled the SDA judaizer freaks:





Should've roughed them up a little bit more though.

----------


## jmdrake

> I like the way these Eastern Orthodox handled the SDA judaizer freaks:
> 
> Should've roughed them up a little bit more though.


Really?  So you support religious persecution?  I won't even watch your stupid video.  But any Christian who supports religious persecution, especially of other professed Christians, is in line with Satan.  /thread

I'm glad the only Eastern Orthodox Christian I've known so far (TER) is not a hateful Satan-loving bigot like you.

Edit: I did watch your shameful video.  From a libertarian point of view the Eastern Orthodox "Christians" in video were the freaks.  That was a total violation of NAP to go up and douse water on a peaceful display of people sitting their minding their own business.  One of the signs of God's true church is that it would be persecuted.  Never did Jesus condone His disciples do the persecuting.  If you can't see why that video was vile and disgusting than not only are you not a Christian, but you have no concept of liberty either and I wonder why you are even on this forum.

Edit 2: My comment at YouTube on your shameful video.

_All who live godly will suffer persecution. 2 Tim﻿ 3:12 And I saw a woman drunk with the blood of the saints and the martyrs. Rev 17:6 If anyone does not receive you or your words..wipe the dust off your feet. Matt 10:14. The New Testament is clear. People that do what the Orthodox "Christians" did in that video are not of Christ. Christians are the persecuted, not the persecutors._

Thank you for pointing it out to me.  Maybe someone who is lost will read my comments and find salvation.  While I certainly believe their are Orthodox Christians who will be in heaven, those participating in that march will not be if they do not repent.

----------


## TER

> Thank you for pointing it out to me.  Maybe someone who is lost will read my comments and find salvation.  While I certainly believe their are Orthodox Christians who will be in heaven, those participating in that march will not be if they do not repent.


This video is highly unusual and sad to see for sure.  Snooping around the interwebz, it seems this incident occurred in the Ukraine.  From this link, Google translates that the two priests involved were reprimanded, disciplined, and also instructed by the Bishop to apologize to those who were persecuted.

----------


## jmdrake

> This video is highly unusual and sad to see for sure.  Snooping around the interwebz, it seems this incident occurred in the Ukraine.  From this link, Google translates that the two priests involved were reprimanded, disciplined, and also instructed by the Bishop to apologize to those who were persecuted.


Thank you!

----------


## Sola_Fide

Bump for Freedom Fanatic.  Start with the OP.

----------


## jmdrake

> Bump for Freedom Fanatic.  Start with the OP.


LOL.  More acts of cowardice from Sola_Fide.  Ready to address the Hosea thread?

Edit: And you are so predictable.  But I wonder if you realize the pit you dug for yourself and then fell into?  Here's the thread where you claim I'm lost for believing that one must repent.  Yet you just said I needed to repent.  When will you realize how mentally unbalanced you are Sola_Fide?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Bump for Freedom Fanatic.  Start with the OP.


Just read it.  




> Given stimulus from some other members here, I've begun to look in to Seventh Day Adventism.  In the past, I've never really made it a point to understand their distinctives, but as I am beginning to dig in to the doctrines of Ellen G. White and the Seventh Day Adventist Church, I am horrified at the evil that I am reading. I am going to bypass all of the nutty things about traveling to other worlds and seeing 10 foot tall beings and so fourth (http://www.ellenwhiteexposed.com/criticb.htm).  Those are the easy ways to dismiss Ellen G. White as a fraud.  I want to get to her doctrine.
> 
> *Seventh Day Adventism Got Its Start From A Failed Prophecy*
> 
> The Seventh Day Adventist Church revolves around the writings of a woman named Ellen G. White, who claimed to be an inspired messenger from God.  One glaring non-Biblical and heretical idea from Ellen G. White is the idea of "investigative judgement".  To understand what investigative judgement is, you first need to understand where the Seventh Day Adventist church came from.
> 
> Ellen G. White was a follower of a mid-nineteenth century preacher named William Miller. He preached that Christ would come back in 1844. He had over 10,000 followers.  Many of these followers sold their homes, gave away all their earthly possessions, quit their jobs, etc. in looking forward to this event. Ellen G. White was one of these followers.  
> 
> Now, of course, Christ didn't come back in 1844.   This was termed "The Great Disappointment" as thousands were crushed that they had lost everything on account of this false prophecy.  William Miller himself repented of this and apologized to his followers.  But a small band of Millerites, including Ellen G. White, still held on to the false prophecy of 1844, claiming that _instead of returning to the earth in 1844, Jesus entered into the Holy of Holies in Heaven to "finish His work of atonement."_  Ellen G. White called this event the "Investigative Judgment" (found no where in Scripture).
> ...





> Do you know that Ellen G. White said that certain races of men are the result of sexual relations between animals and humans?  In her book, Spiritual Gifts, she said:
> 
> 
> 
> and 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.ellenwhiteexposed.com/critica.htm





> LOL.  Still smarting SF because everyone sees through you?  Fine.  I'm not even engaging you in your BS.  1844 actually came *before* Seventh-Day Adventism.  It was part of what's known as "the great awakening" where people realized that (shock of all shockers) Jesus will literally come again a second time.  That's what the word "advent" means.  "Coming of Christ."  William Miller mistook the 2300 day prophecy of Daniel.  That prophecy worked well for dating Jesus 1st Advent, but didn't work for the second advent.  Nobody involved at this time were Seventh-Day anythings.  The Sabbath was learned later from Seventh-Day Baptists.  There are actually quite a few Sabbatarian Christian churches with the Seventh-Day Adventists being the best known.  Also your dishonest debate techniques are not lost on most here.  I gave you the context of Ellen White writings that you took out of context months before *and you ignored my rebuttal*.  You ran and hid.  And now you want to bring it up again?  Why not bring bump the earlier thread?  Are you afraid of how I showed how what Ellen White wrote about works tracks what Spurgeon and Calvin wrote?  Are you afraid of people seeing where she affirmed salvation by grace?  Why are you so afraid of the truth?  Why you chose dishonest debate?  Enquiring minds want to know.  And I predict you will not honestly respond to this post by me either.  Prove me wrong.  I dare you.


Could you respond to it, for my sake?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> LOL.  More acts of cowardice from Sola_Fide.  Ready to address the Hosea thread?


As  much as that was a "Troll thread" I do have questiions about that particular doctrine, but I don't know that I should bother asking them until he addresses yours.




> Edit: And you are so predictable.  But I wonder if you realize the pit you dug for yourself and then fell into?  Here's the thread where you claim I'm lost for believing that one must repent.  Yet you just said I needed to repent.  When will you realize how mentally unbalanced you are Sola_Fide?


I think this is what Sola_Fide is getting at, and the below is what I believe regardless of whether Sola_Fide agrees with it or not.

Strictly speaking, repentance doesn't save.  Christ's blood saves.  But Christ also says that repentance and believing is what leads to one being saved.  Those who Christ died for, therefore, will repent, believe, and be saved.  Nobody who doesn't repent and believe (Infants possibly being an exception) will have their sins paid for by Christ, if they did, Christ would have died for them. 

That said, you shouldn't be too hard on him, he just went crazy reading "Outside the Camp"

----------


## jmdrake

Sola_Fide: I'm bumping this to show that you never responded when I last corrected you on this.    I responded to you, showed that you were taking Ellen White out of context, then abandoned the thread, then "bumped" the thread for FF, hoping that nobody would notice that you never responded to my correction of you.  You have done that repeatedly.  You might respond to this particular post now only because I'm calling you out *again* and only because you have had a chance to lick your wounds and regenerate your energy.  While I will refrain from personal attacks this time, I have to ask why you insist on quoting people out of context and then not responding when the context is given?




> LOL.  Sola_Fide you really are pathetic.  You intend to bump this thread once a month and then go hide again?
> 
> 
> 
> No, SF.  You are the one with the personal dislike of me.  You hate me because I expose your personal mental cult with your bizarre beliefs about God burning infants for eternity.  You showed your dislike for me long before you knew I was a Seventh Day Adventist, back when you were using "AquaBuddha" for your handle here.  You changed your nickname to hide this.  You can run, but you can't hide.
> 
> 
> 
> You are showing your own ignorance of scripture here. To *excuse* something is to claim *that the sin is okay*.  Jesus *never* says sin is okay.  He *forgives* sin!  Have you ever had an "excuse" for not turning in your homework?  An *excuse* is self justification.  If our sins are *excused* that is self righteousness.  If our sins could be *excused* then Jesus would not need to die.
> ...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sola_Fide: I'm bumping this to show that you never responded when I last corrected you on this.    I responded to you, showed that you were taking Ellen White out of context, then abandoned the thread, then "bumped" the thread for FF, hoping that nobody would notice that you never responded to my correction of you.  You have done that repeatedly.  You might respond to this particular post now only because I'm calling you out *again* and only because you have had a chance to lick your wounds and regenerate your energy.  While I will refrain from personal attacks this time, I have to ask why you insist on quoting people out of context and then not responding when the context is given?


Are you *kidding* me???

Jmdrake, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT IS.  In the OP of this thread I quote Ellen G. White where she explains what investigative judgment is and then I show WHY it is not Biblical.

I said in the other thread that I am 1000% sure that you have no idea what investigative judgement is and you just proved it to me.  Get back to me when you study more.

----------


## jmdrake

> Are you *kidding* me???
> 
> Jmdrake, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT IS.  In the OP of this thread I quote Ellen G. White where she explains what investigative judgment is and then I show WHY it is not Biblical.
> 
> I said in the other thread that I am 1000% sure that you have no idea what investigative judgement is and you just proved it to me.  Get back to me when you study more.


No.  You quoted her *out of context*.  I gave the context and *you never responded*.  You are not fooling anyone but yourself by your dishonesty.

You never responded to post #57.  If you are scared, just say you're scared.

----------

