Hi Glenn,

You bring up good points, but I think there’s a fundamental difference between Ellen White’s use of words that sound biblical and how those words are used in Scripture. For example, in 1 Corinthians 3, notice that Paul is drawing a parallel to his own experience in exhorting the Corinthians to build on the foundation of Christ. His conclusion is that those who don’t build on Christ will have their work burned up in the judgment. Ellen White’s version creates an investigative judgment for the professed Christ-follower who, by the biblical definition, should already be building on Christ. Paul would gladly welcome such a person into fellowship and exhort them to continue walking in the faith while Ellen White instills a sense of fear into the redeemed–people who should be holding fast to the promises of the gospel rather than striving to obtain a level of righteousness that gives them entrance into heaven.

More simply stated, for Paul, Christ is the sinner’s only righteousness but for Ellen White, some inherent righteousness remains that the sinner must cultivate and use as proof that they deserve salvation. Confirming this, in writing about the period before Christ’s return when the redeemed would (in her mind) stand without a mediator, Ellen White writes, “Their robes must be spotless, their characters must be purified from sin by the blood of sprinkling. Through the grace of God and their own diligent effort, they must be conquerors in the battle with evil” (The Great Controversy, pg. 485, 1940 edition). Elsewhere she writes about Christians “doing the best they can” and then Christ will make up whatever deficit is leftover (find this in the SDA Bible Commentary under Romans 8:1, for example). This is not the gospel, but it certainly appeals to man’s natural desire to earn his salvation, and many are deceived by it.

Your reference to Jesus’ words is similar. Jesus is giving us the tools to understand who is born of heaven and who is a child of the devil. For Ellen White, the fruit of righteousness comes from striving, whereas for Jesus, it comes from being connected to the vine (John 15:1-11). In the particular passage from Matthew 12:36-37, Jesus is addressing Pharisees whom he calls “a brood of vipers” (verse 34), so the application of his warnings to the redeemed is missing from the context.

Most fundamentally, I believe Ellen White did not understand the difference between justification and sanctification because she consistently mixed them up in her writings, leading her followers to embrace a works-based righteousness where even one unconfessed sin would disqualify them from heaven.

Greg

Guibox, please try to be courteous to Ane and others whom you disagree with. It is possible to disagree in a charitable way, but when you label other people’s thoughts as “superficial”, “weak” and “convenient”, you sound condescending. Even if you didn’t mean it this way, that’s the way its coming across to me. Furthermore, I highly doubt Ane wanted to abandon the church of her youth and toss out all the memories of weekly church attendance with other Sabbath-keepers simply because this is what her ears “wanted to hear”, so please don’t treat this so lightly.

Ane, thanks for taking the time to assemble all of those points and for sharing them with us.

Greg

Hey Greg, thanks for your chivalry ... not used to getting that!

Glenn,

1 Corinthians 3 does pack a powerful punch. In the judgment spoken of here one man’s works may pass the judgment and he is rewarded; while another man’s works don’t pass, in fact his works are burned up and consumed with fire, BUT salvation is STILL granted. Even though the righteous will go through a judgment and have to account for certain actions ... their salvation is not lost in this judgment.

In EGWs versions of the judgment it is a salvation win or loss issue.

Note how Greg pointed that In the Great Controversy we are told the IJ is ONLY for the “professed people of God,” and it states, “The judgement of the wicked is a distinct and separate work, and takes place at a later period.”

Logically how does that make sense? If the wicked are not part of the IJ, WHO is left to judge? There are only 2 groups, wicked or righteous! Sounds to me like only the righteous are left then, why do they need an IJ, won’t the righteous be saved? Why must the righteous go through an IJ to determine their worthiness of salvation?

DeeAnna,

If you want to get both sides of the Sabbath debate ... you’ve certainly come to the right place : )

I hope we don’t just add to your confusion ... but rather give you some things to think about.

The Sabbatarian argument is that Sabbath began at creation ... but it an argument they HAVE to make from silence ... there is NO evidence, furthermore following creation is 2000+ years of total Sabbath silence. Why if Sabbath is the central theme of the Bible as Adventism teaches? Why is there no indication of it, and furthermore a period of time when God Himself causes it to cease, (see Hosea 2:11).

Sabbatarians argue that Sabbath was simply handed down through the generations starting with Adam and on down through the Patriarchs ... again NO evidence, it is an argument that has to be made from silence.

Fortunately the Bible, is its own best commentary, and it is NOT silent about WHERE or WHEN Sabbath was made known!

Nehemiah 9:13-14 says Sabbath was made known AT Sinai THROUGH Moses. Nehemiah 9 also talks about Abraham but there is no reference to the Holy Sabbath having been made known to him, JUST Moses. So why would God suddenly need to make Sabbath known at Sinai if people have been aware of it all along?

The Sabbatarian argument is that eventually people forgot about it. Again an argument that has to be made from silence. We are not told that.

Sabbatarians then argue that during the Egyptian slavery Israel was not allowed to keep Sabbath and during the 400 years forgot about it. Again an argument made from silence. But what I find interesting about that argument is this, how did all the great stories of the Patriarchs survive slavery, even insignificant none essential details like Lot sleeping with his daughters ... but not an essential like Sabbath.

DeeAnna, I cannot base my Sabbath theology on silence! I either have to take the Bible at its Word or not. And the Bible is not silent on this.

I’d also like to address for you the Sabbatarian argument that the 4th Commandment points us back to Sabbath beginning at creation, because indeed upon first glance, if this is the only text we use to build our Sabbath theology on that argument does seem plausible ... but it contradicts Nehemiah 9 ... whenever we interpret Scripture in such a way that it contradicts another portion of Scripture WE are in error not Scripture. Scripture does not contradict itself.

So lets look at the 4th Commandment more closely.

There are 2 different accounts of the 4th Commandment that can help us sort this out. One account is in Exodus 20, the other is in Deuteronomy 5. The Exodus account references Creation. But in the Deuteronomy account there is NO reference to Creation instead it refers to slavery.

Note Exodus 20:8-11

Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it Holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it Holy.

Deuteronomy 5:12-15

Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it Holy, as the LORD your God has commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor the alien within your gates, so that your manservant and maidservant may rest, as you do. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.

So what is the significance of the two different accounts?

Exodus answers the question, “Why did God PICK the 7th Day to become Sabbath?” The Exodus account is saying Creation is the reason God choose to call the 7th Day to become Sabbath at this point in history, it DOES NOT say Sabbath BEGAN at Creation!

Deuteronomy answers the question, “Why did God COMMAND Israel to observe Sabbath?” The reason God commanded them to observe Sabbath was because they had been slaves.

The big difference in the two accounts is the word COMMANDED. This word does not appear in the Exodus account, only in Deuteronomy. THEREFORE because they had been slaves they were COMMANDED to keep Sabbath.

In other words, God didn’t COMMAND them to keep Sabbath because of a Creation mandate. He commanded them to observe Sabbath because they had been slaves. But He picked the 7th Day to become Sabbath because it held significance to Him at Creation. The 7th Day symbolized rest, a shadow pointing to a future Sabbath day rest, another shadow pointing to Christ our Salvation rest.

Our only Sabbath mandate and commands come from the Old Covenant. Later in Hebrews 8 we are told that the ENTIRE Old Covenant is obsolete and then in Hebrews 9:1-4 we are told that EVEN the tables of stone are part of the obsolete items of divine worship. The Old Covenant and the tables of stone are the only place we derive our Sabbath command from and now both are obsolete.

The Sabbatarians then argue that Sabbath existed outside of the Old Covenant because it was given in the Exodus 16 account of manna ... ah yes ... but if you study Exodus 16 it is not yet a command it is a TEST to see if Israel will keep God’s commands.

Again let me address the Sabbatarian argument that God made the 7th Day Holy at Creation ... therefore we can assume Sabbath began then.

Up until the Exodus there is NO evidence that GOD ever shared or mandated the 7th Day to anyone else other than HIMSELF. That is the most we can take away from the creation account, without reading more into it than is there.

Notice the terminology in Nehemiah 9:14, “You made known to them YOUR Holy Sabbath.”

Also notice the terminology used in the 4th Commandment, “… the Sabbath of the Lord thy God ...”

The terminology in these texts imply that the 7th Day ALWAYS has been God’s DAY but it was not until the Israelites were in route to Sinai that God finally shared HIS Day with anyone else and it is the first time God called it Sabbath ... when He began sharing it with His people.

It is as though all that time between Creation and Sinai God had been saving it up for something significant. Why? To be the sign between Him and His Covenant people Israel.

But as for you, speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘You shall surely observe My sabbaths; for this is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the LORD who sanctifies you. –Exodus 31:13

Guibox said: First of all the book of Genesis particularly the creation account is not a book of laws but a book or origins so it is highly unlikely that there will be any commands to obey any of the 10 commandments.

And yet we see in Genesis that Abraham was obviously given commands to follow:

“I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and will give your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws.” –Genesis 26:4-6

We also know that sacrifices were being performed at this time, even though we find no evidence or commands on how to perform them. Genesis is not silent on God’s expectations of His people.

Lastly I have not thrown away the Sabbath. I still keep it under the guidelines of the New Testament. Only now instead of the 1 in 7 day rest, I choose to keep all 7 days as Sabbath now (Hebrews 4).

Giving up the 7th Day Sabbath as taught to me via Adventism was not a convenient or whimsical choice. I struggled with it like no other. I’m not basing my decision on silence or assumptions! I’m basing my Sabbath theology on solid, hard cold facts given in Scripture, that for some reason or another, were NEVER taught to me in my 14+ years of SDA church school history.

I do not believe Sabbath was transfered to Sunday. I believe the 7th Day Sabbath was fulfilled and Christ is now the substance that we rest in, not a day! I think Adventists are within their religious liberty to observe a special day ... but the Sabbath they keep is not the Sabbath of the Old Testament.

Ane

Sorry Ane if I came across as condescending.

Frankly folks, I believe it is time for me to move on.

The longer I post here the more I feel I just don’t have much in common theologically with most of you. I find myself on the defensive and it starts to show in my negative responses. I’m just plain old tired of trying to defend or clash swords with people. The last thing I want to see is this site turn into another SDA-bashing site that I must feel the need to defend. This site is above that type of discussion and I don’t want to contribute a negative share to it!

I’m not looking for doctrinal apologetics and I have no desire to fellowship with the conservative brethren of my faith, but there is much that I need to sort out for my own self to make ends meet. I do believe that I am not getting it through election or Calvinism just as much as I’m not getting it through sinless perfection and salvation by sanctification.

I may pop in from time to time but I believe that my life is taking a different course of action that is necessary to get my head on straight. Adding confusion from all these websites aren’t doing anything for me.

I want to thank Greg and Stan for this website, their courteous, Christian behavior and their tact. Keep preaching the gospel message to those who need to hear it boys!

God bless!

Sincerely,

Darrell

Darrell,

I certainly understand where you are coming from. I have appreciated your challenges.

I do believe that it is possible to spend too much time on various forums and not enough time studying from the true source of all knowledge contained in the 66 books of the Bible.

Sometimes there comes a point where a person has to put all of man’s wisdom aside, and go to the Bible and just ask the Holy Spirit to guide you. He will not let you down.

At other times in a person’s life, they need the interaction with others who have gone through similar experiences in dealing with the legalism that pervades all of Christianity.

May God bless you Darrell in your study, and I will keep you in my prayers, and you do the same for us.

God’s richest blessings to you,

Stan

Darrell,

Like Stan, I understand where you are coming from. We can certainly end up debating more than studying, and if this is happening, we need to take a step back to clear our heads. I will join you in acknowledging that I am in need of this.

Darrell, while we haven’t always agreed on things, I appreciate your willingness to state your case and defend what you have come to believe. Let us agree to acknowledge the depth of our sin and our complete dependence on the blood of Jesus Christ for our forgiveness and reconciliation with God.

If we don’t meet in person in this life, I sincerely hope to meet you at the feet of Jesus in heaven.

Please don’t hesitate to contact me personally () or drop back in when you are ready. Blessings and peace to you in the name of Jesus Christ.

Greg

[quote author="Greg"] There are only two types of religion: one that is man-centered and one that is God-centered. Most of the world practices a man-centered religion whereby the job of securing salvation is left on our shoulders to achieve. True Christianity is the only religion that says, “Hold on a minute! Salvation is completely the work of God, because if it were left up to us, we would be the weak link and we would lose it!”

I don’t know if the man-centered, God-centered dichotomy is a false dichotomy or not but it seems like an effort to frame the salvation issue in such a way as to presume an interpretation for certain Bible passages rather than to consider the full weight of Biblical evidence. In other words, when I read either/or statements such as these I detect a theological premise behind them that is guaged to force a response which precludes alternatives or clarifications.

To say that Salvation is completely the work of God could be understood in a variety of ways. For example, the fact that I exist is completely the work of God. Without God, my parents would not have existed, the earth would not exist or be suitable to provide for my needs, etc. But the fact that I exist doesn’t negate the fact that my parents had something to do with it as well.  So I don’t understand God’s sovereignty in the way that I think most of you do here. I don’t think God’s sovereignty over-rides human actions.

To use a Biblical illustration, consider the parable of the Talents in Matthew 25. Does the fact that the servant who was given 5 talents and put the talents to work so as to double them and thus earn his master’s approval mean that salvation is man-centered? Did the faithful servant “work” or contribute anything to his salvation or acceptance?

Does the servant who was given only one talent buried the talent instead of putting it to use, and thus earning his master’s disapproval mean that salvation is man-centered? In this teaching Jesus identifies each of the three as “servants”, or other words, believers in our vernacular. And the unfaithful servant is called “wicked and slothful” and the “unprofitable servant” is cast into “outer darkness where there is weeping and nashing of teeth"--which sounds like hell to me. So I don’t think it can be argued that the teaching of the talents is not a salvation teaching. It provides an illustration of who is lost and who is saved and on what basis.

The same set of questions hold for the sheep and goats passage also in Matthew 25. By declaring that those who gave to the poor, housed the homeless, fed the hungry, etc would enter into God’s Kingdom, but that those who did not will not, does this make salvation man-centered?

[quote author="Greg"] In the particular passage from Matthew 12:36-37, Jesus is addressing Pharisees whom he calls “a brood of vipers” (verse 34), so the application of his warnings to the redeemed is missing from the context.

You make a good point about the “vipers” and I agree that the pharisees are among those whom Jesus is speaking to directly here, but I’m afraid I don’t agree that the application pertains only to the pharisees or non-believers. This warning is similar to warnings elsewhere in the Bible and in the New Testament particularly (such as in Matthew 7:21, Matthew 25, and the messages to the seven churches in Revelation 2-3) that unmistakeably refer either to believers (or at least those who profess a belief) directly or to mankind generally. Verse 36 of Matthew 12 in particular specifies men or mankind. 

Glenn, I understand your points, but we have explicit Scriptures dealing with God’s role in our salvation that I think are at odds your understanding of this parable. I think I’ve mentioned this text before, but it bears repeating again:

“Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from work...” (Romans 4:4-6 ESV)

If the Bible is to be its own interpreter, we must find harmony between the parable of the talents in Matthew 25 and Paul’s explicit teaching on justification in Romans 4.

To reconcile this apparent contradiction, we can see in the parable that those who are redeemed will respond by bearing fruit for the master. The unredeemed servent does not respond in kind, and we know he is unredeemed because he criticizes his master’s character: “Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed, so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground.” (Matthew 5:24-25). If this servant had genuine faith, he would not have rationalized his decision to hide the talent by criticizing the master.

This parable shows that true salvation results in good works. Said another way, we are justified by a faith that only God can see, but the results of our justification can be seen by men in our works. Incidentally, this is the take-home message of James 2:24. Getting back to the parable, if any of the servents were saved because of what they did with the talents, Romans 4:4-6, Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:4-6 (and other Scriptures) are implicated as being false and salvation is at least partly of works.

Putting this all together, a helpful formula for salvation is:

Faith = Salvation + Works

not

Faith + Works = Salvation

Also, I’d like to suggest that if we make the concept of man-centered vs. God-centered religion into a false dichotomy, we’ve moved down the path toward Roman Catholicism (and other works-based religions) where man cooperates with God to secure his own salvation. This is in direct contradiction to Romans 9 and many other Scriptures. “Salvation is of the Lord” (Jonah 2:9)–not just partially, but completely.

Greg

Guibox,

I hope I didn’t drive you over the edge. I sure didn’t mean to. I wish you the best of luck.

I do know this with 100% certainty ... if you and I just keep our focus on Jesus, He will bring us into pure truth and will help us dump the error in our theology ... so I feel we can safely turn each other over to Him, to work out the kinks.

Keep your eyes on Jesus,

Ane

Guibox,

First off, I am going to miss hearing your point of view. We do agree on many things, unfortunately those are rarely discussed, and the debatable differences seem to take precedence.

Sadly, discussion forums are limited in that we don’t get to deal and interact with the whole person. Judgments are made and opinions formulated on so little. True fellowship would take into account so much more, including life experience and circumstance, that this type of forum just cannot provide. I think we all would be so much more understanding and patient of each other’s journey if we knew each other in ways not possible by this format.

I can so relate to much of what you have said. Like you, I have difficulty with “Election”, “Calvinism” and “Eternal Torment”. I also, as you know, cannot accept “sinless perfection”, or “salvation by sanctification”. I have concluded though, that for me there is little to be gained personally by debate on these and so many other things.

I also can relate, in that my life continues to be in transition. My spiritual journey, has, and continues to be just one part of it. Life throws many challenges our way, and sometimes we just need to sit back and pull a few irons out of the fire, and as you put it “get my head on straight”.

I have appreciated Greg’s emphasis on the SIMPLICITY OF THE GOSPEL. I think we all can take solace in that, as we chase down what all to often seem to be theological rabbit trails.

So my friend, I hope to be experiencing that Guiboxian ferver in another form on a different stage, come Sunday afternoon.

Peace to you, and don’t stay away long.

Randy

Sorry for being a day late with these observations.

Here is an excellent article about the seeker sensitive movement and why it is not biblical:

http://theologyandsteak.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/theology-determines-ecclesiology/

The observations posted by Brett over there at theology and steak are right on.

Stan

Here is an excerpt from the article above:

“The problem is that now, the seeker model of ecclesiology has adopted that marketing model and has essentially replaced a sacrificial Christianity with a selfish Christianity.  The seeker model gets people to come to church by marketing to their selfish base desires.  You can be a better person of you come to church.  You can have financial security if you accept Christ.  Christ will save your marriage if you love Him.  Joel Osteen’s book, Your Best Life Now, is a great expression of this mentality.  It is a best-seller because it markets to the selfish heart of Americans who want to have their best life now, and throws in a few Scriptures to make it spiritual.  But it glorifies man by appealing to his inner nature to be successful and independent now.  Instead of glorifying God, God is used as a marketing tool to enhance the status and success of man.

Reformed Biblical theology, on the other hand, attempts to place God at the center of all church life and practice.  Soli Deo Gloria, For the Glory of God Alone, was a rallying cry for the Reformation.  Reformational theology holds that man cannot persuade man to become a Christian.  Man is dead in sin, and has no ability to choose God on his own.  Man chooses gods, according to his liking, but suppresses the truth of the Almighty God.  Man’s will must be completely changed before he can see the truth of the gospel.  The Holy Spirit draws people to Christ and opens their eyes, not man.  Only those drawn by the Spirit will come to believe Christ.  And the Spirit only draws certain people based on God’s plan established before the creation of the world.”
------------------------------------------------------

Stan

Osteen carries Finney’s philosophy to the ultimate end.  If man can convert man and bring about spiritual transformation through human methods and emotions, then you might be able to make an argument for what Joel is doing.  But the Bible says that regeneration is the divine work of God and that the Holy Spirit brings about spiritual transformation through the teaching of His word; therefore, if His word is not actually being taught then the gospel is not being proclaimed; therefore, lives are not being spiritually transformed in any real or eternal sense. 

I think Olsteen is probably a “religious” entrepeneur building wealth in the easiest way he knows how. He gives people what they want....it sells.