For the Gospel Forum

A Must See Video by Dr. Desmond Ford on the Gospel

2008-09-22T22:32:27-08:00

Hi everyone,

Dr. Desmond Ford spoke at the Campus Hill SDA church on 9/6/08, and gave a presentation on forensic atonement. In Loma Linda, this is not a popular topic, as most of the theologians teach the false gospel of a bloodless atonement.

But this is a 10 minute segment of the sermon he gave:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW9yPT3MGXY

Even though I don’t agree with Ford on several issues, I believe this sermon clip will truly bless you. This man does preach Christ and Him crucified.

Stan

A Millerite Christian Questions Stan Ermshar

2008-11-30T08:58:28-08:00

Stan,

On 21 October 2007 you wrote:

Welcome Shubee to 4TG.

Thanks for the link you posted:

http://www.everythingimportant.org/seventhdayAdventists/spiritualism.htm

I just read through it, and I agree that Graham Maxwell’s theology is very similar in many ways to the New Age course in miracles. I personally believe you are correct, that Maxwellian theology is a doctrine of demons.

He makes of no effect the wrath of God. The crucifixion loses it’s meaning and the true gospel is denied.

Thanks for sharing.

Stan

Recently you wrote:

I had heard Ford speak many times before, but there was something about this video that really impressed me. I saw a man who had been through the wars FOR THE GOSPEL. Yet he still has an ever gentle spirit. He truly manifests the spirit of Christ. (23 September 2008).

Your assessment of the spirit of Christ seems terribly inconsistent.

Desmond Ford wrote:

TWO UNIVERSITIES
Let me give you an illustration. There’s a denomination that has a couple of universities in the United States. At one university they teach the Protestant view of the meaning of the cross. That is, the cross was an atonement. Christ was our Substitute and our Representative.

The same denomination has another university on the opposite side of the country. There are many fine Christians there also. However, they teach a different theory. They teach what is known as the Moral Influence Theory. In that theory, the cross of Christ wasn’t really necessary. God did it as a gesture, to show he loves us. But God could have forgiven sin without the cross.

The motive behind the theory is, ‘We don’t want a butchershop religion, a slaughterhouse religion. Don’t talk too much about the blood.’

That is the Moral Influence Theory. It is taught by men and women whom I respect greatly and love dearly. They’re good men and women. But this teaching has never been acceptable to either Catholic or Protestant theologians because it’s non-biblical.

Forget for the moment that Desmond Ford greatly respects those who have fallen away from the faith and that are deceived by deceitful spirits and teach the doctrines of demons (1 Timothy 4:1). Doesn’t your praise for someone that greatly respects heretical teachers of demonic doctrines indicate a serious lack of spiritual discernment on your part?

YOUNG, RESTLESS, REFORMED by Collin Hansen

2008-08-03T22:55:13-08:00

I am very excited about this new book documenting a resurgence of Reformed theology or Calvinism in America, and especially among young people. There is hope for the Christian world after all!

I don’t know where to start. I just got through the first chapter tonight, and I could hardly put it down.

The first chapter alone is worth the price of the book many times over. This chapter is called “Born Again Again”.

The author set out to Atlanta for a youth conference when he was standing in line at a hotel, when he heard some young people talking about theology--of all things! And guess what? Can you believe the first people this author talked to when researching his book was a group of Seventh Day Adventists from the Florida Hospital SDA church? Wow! Apparently there are some SDA pastors who really like what Reformed teachers such as CJ Mahaney and others are teaching.

This may whet your appetite for a really exciting journey to what the Lord is doing to bring a new revival of truly Biblical theology.

I will be very busy for the next three days, but I at least wanted to get this thread started.

More to come.

Solio Deo Gloria!

Stan

Finished Atonement and the SDA Church

2008-11-22T04:45:58-08:00

Since the current Sabbath School Lessons in the Seventh Day Adventist Church deals with the question of the meaning of atonement, I found it properly to translate my resignation letter (written in Romanian, my native language, since I’m a Romanian guy living in Romania) and make it public because it’s related to the issue of the finished atonement. Hope that it will clarify the questions regarding the meaning of the expression “finished atonement” in both the evangelical camp and the adventist camp.

To the Pastor and the board of the SDA Church

The following letter contains my personal reasons which are at the heart of why I’m no longer an Adventist. After reading this letter I hope it will become clear to you and to the board of the church that I’m no longer Adventist at heart and you will show the necessary respect for my religious freedom and will not continue to keep me a member of your church against my decision to resign my membership in the Adventist Church.

Until the mid fifties of the 20th century, the SDA Church was classified in the same category with the Jehova’s Witnesses, Mormons and other Pseudo-Christians churches. The Church dedicated itself to the task of correcting her bad image and to demonstrate that her particular understanding of the gospel is in harmony with the gospel of the Reformation, in line with the gospel of Luther, Calvin, Zwingly and the evangelical world, in contrast with the gospel of the Romano Catholic Church and the above mentioned groups. Truly, the gospel is the decisive factor which establishes if the existence of the SDA Church is justified (or vindicated).

In the 60s of the 20th century, Walter Martin, a well-known cult expert, had placed Adventism in the same category with the Mormons and Jehoiva’s Witnesses because of the rejection of the finished atonement accomplished by Jesus on the cross, Arianism, legalism rooted in the Sabbath-Sunday-Mark of the Beast theory, and the belief that Jesus possessed a fallen human nature. Coming in contact with some leaders of the SDA Church, after some exchanges and the publication by the Adventist Church of the book Questions on Doctrine, supposedly an official and authoritative formulation of the present faith confession of the church, Walter Martin re-evaluated his attitude toward the Adventist Church, removing the label cult, recognizing that she is part of the historic orthodox Christianity.

It’s noteworthy to mention that Walter Martin had not changed his previous evaluation of the early Adventist Church, the Adventism of the pioneers, seeing it as heretical and cultic because of the reasons previously mentioned. He had modified his position exclusively in correspondence with the contemporary Adventist theological stance represented by QOD (Questions on Doctrine), perceiving it as different in the points previously mentioned than the historic Adventism understanding of the pioneers. He had considered that the Adventist Church had renounced to the idea that on the cross Jesus just started the process of atonement which will be finished after 1844 in another work of cleansing and atonement for sins according to the model of the Old Testament mosaic sanctuary, containing 2 types of services, one daily and one annually (Day of Atonement). The Adventist position is that in 1844 the Day of Atonement begun in order to complete the process of atonement left unfinished by Jesus after the cross. Nevertheless Walter Martin, being assured by the QOD that Adventist now believe that the atonement was finished on the cross and whatever Jesus is doing in the heavenly sanctuary is only an application of the benefits resulting from his already finished work of atonement on the cross, concluded that indeed the church departed from his previous position, and removed the label cult.

At this point a parenthesis is required in order to understand the evangelical-protestant perspective regarding the finished atonement on the cross. Essential in this understanding is the biblical formula “once for all”, repeated especially in the Epistle to the Hebrews. A simple reading of this epistle will be sufficient to see that there is a repeated contrast between the Aaronic priesthood, pertaining to the Old Covenant, and the Melchisedechian priesthood of the Lord Jesus Christ, the priesthood of the New Covenant. This contrast is seen especially between the plurality characterizing the Old Covenant (OC) and the singularity characterizing the New Covenant (NC)

For example, in the OC there were many priests, in the NC there is a single priest, in the OC there were many sacrifices, in the NC there was a single sacrifice. The superiority of the NL becomes evident in the fact that the sacrifice of Christ obtained an eternal redemption (Hebrews 9:12) in the same way his priesthood is eternal.

For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. Hebrews 10:14

A finished atonement means that the punishment for sin was suffered by Christ once and for all, making in this way “perfect for all time” the true believers. In the same way that Christ’s offering was once for all time, irrepeatable, what he accomplished on the cross for the believer, the righteousness imputed is irrepeatable. When the naked hand of faith receives Christ, to the believer is given what the Lord Jesus obtained on the cross and he becomes perfect for all time. From now on, before God the believer is perfect, covered in Christ’s robe of perfect and spotless righteousness. Jesus Christ sin not dying repeatedly for the believer’s sins after every “serious” sin, He died once for his past, present and future sins.

It results that the believer is justified not only for the present moment, but also for the future, perfected for all time. The continuous intercession of Jesus Christ assures a permanent, uninterrupted application of the benefits of the salvation he obtained by his perfect life lived and a perfect sacrifice, cleansing continually the believer’s life, saving him to the uttermost (Hebrews 7:25) those who approach God through Him. There is a difference between progressive sanctification, an internal process, and justification, a one time event. This is why it may be affirmed in the present that “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” (Romans 8:1)

Now, today, when for the first time the sinner believes, he is blessed with the promise that the future will bring no condemnation to himself. In spite of the fact that he will sin in the future being guilty before God and under a right condemnation, he is covered from in Christ’s robe of righteousness, nobody and nothing being able to separate from the love of God in Christ Jesus. Nobody can bring charges to him because Jesus died and intermediates for him, and after God already pronounced him righteousness, who can contradict him?

Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us (Romans 8:33,34)

All of these are rhetorical questions pointing to the reality of the perfect assurance which the believer has in Christ.

For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 8:38,39)

The assurance of salvation lies in the accomplishment of a perfect atonement on the cross, which assures to the believer a blameless status before God which assures him that he had escaped from the future wrath of God, the future judgment. Not that there will be no future judgment, but the believer had already been judged, dying with Christ under God’s condemnation and raised together with Him to eternal life, being already seating in heavenly places.

These realities are confirmed clearly by Jesus Christ in the Gospel of John, chapter 5, where he talks about the judgment by which it is understood the eternal punishment.

Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life John 5:24

Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs shall hear His voice, and shall come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment. John 5:28-29

It is in the present time when the believer passes from death to life, from a resurrection of judgment and death to a resurrection of life. It is like he is a student who had already passed the final exam, keeping in his hands the positive result of his exam. These are the benefits of a finished atonement which the believer shares from the first moment of faith.

Walter Martin believed that Adventism stood in line with the evangelical gospel, but the events related with Desmond Ford’s case, his expulsion from ministry, together with the firing of many other Adventist pastors who shared his views regarding the Sanctuary, brought him second thoughts. Martin became aware of the possibility that the Adventist Church may have a different position than what he believed was expressed in QOD regarding the finished atonement on the cross.

He was well informed about the controversies QOD brought immediately after its publication, especially those stirred by M.L. Andreasen, the recognized Adventist expert in the Sanctuary doctrine. Interesting is that Andreasen shared Walter Martin’s opinion regarding the significance of QOD for the traditional position of Adventism, both viewing it as a departure from the traditional and accepted fundamental belief of the church. In spite of having different feelings than Martin about the book, condemning it in harsh language (as a sold out of Adventism to the evangelicals, a sign of the final apostasy), the irony is that Andreasen confirmed indirectly the conclusions of Walter Martin regarding Adventism, based on his perception that there was a real change iin rapport with the pioneer’s position.

In Martin’s eyes, the Adventist Church at its origins could not be considered a protestant evangelical church, and as far as there is no real change in the Adventist theology, especially regarding the atonement, the SDA Church could not claim to be evangelical, in line with the Reformation. In Walter Martin’s eyes QOD brought a real change and Andreasen’s opposition coupled with his lost of credentials brought a welcomed confirmation. Walter Martin was satisfied that officially the church sustained QOD both in theory and practice, taking a stand on its side, but the management of Desmond Ford’s case made brought him second thoughts about this subject.

He noticed that the theology of Desmond Ford who led to his exclusion from ministry does not said in essence nothing different than what Walter Martin believed that was stated by QOD: Jesus Christ entered into the Holy of Holies of the heavenly sanctuary immediately after his resurrection and ascension in the first century AD, not in 1844 as previously was believed, after he accomplished a finished atonement on the cross. Ford’s lost of job for taking a position which Martin perceived to be in harmony with QOD had raised questions about the validity of Martin’s assessment of the situation.

Walter Martin noticed also that the writings of Ellen White were used as a theological arbiter against Desmond Ford. Consequently, the cult expert questioned the General Conference regarding Ellen White’s status, if she is or she is not the infallible interpreter of the Bible. Martin offered a clear example: when disputes appear regarding the interpretations of some texts, has Ellen White the final word? He received no answer form the General Conference, and his suspicion that the writings of Ellen White were used as an infallible interpretation of the Bible grew. A lack of answer worried him, especially because he was very clear in stating that Ellen White should not be a feminine Pope if Adventists want to be numbered between the evangelicals. Otherwise they are in the same category with the mormons and their prophet, Joseph Smith.

At the same time, Walter Martin noticed that QOD was no longer in print, another possible sign that the church departed from QOD’s position and benefited illegally from the positive evaluation of Walter Martin. Even if he received messages that the book still represented the official position of the church, Martin insisted for a reprint coupled with an official explicitly approval, otherwise he will be under the duty to rewrite the chapter about Adventism from his book Kingdom of the Cults, reclassifying the Adventist Church between the cults. A premature death prevented him to formulate his conclusions of his re-evaluation started in the years of Ford’s crisis.

Yet recently, the SDA Church reprinted QOD, albeit not without modifications. The original content was not modified, but notes were added together with a historical introduction written by the well-known theologian Dr. George Knight, many years professor of Adventist history at Andrews University. His notes and the introduction confirmed Walter Martin’s fears, stating that what for many loyal Adventists seemed to be and abandonment of the classic historical position regarding the unfinished atonement was in reality just a semantic facelift. The book represented classical Adventism reworded in order to speak the evangelical language of Walter Martin. According to Knight, even if the authors of QOD used words that apparently conveyed the impression that the atonement was finished on the cross, they only stated that only the sacrificial part of atonement was finished, the process of atonement itself, far from being finalized on the cross, continuing in the sanctuary, a process not finished yet.

Instead of sharing in the benefits of a finished work, of enjoying a salvation and full cleansing of sins, the believer still waits for the judgment’s verdict, because the atonement is not complete and his final fate is undecided. Exactly the opposite of what Walter Martin believed that QOD stated.

Recently at the campus of the Andrews University had taken place a Conference commemorating 50 years from the first publishing of QOD. This conference confirmed what Knight wrote in his introduction to QOD. They recognized the theological changes brought by QOD regarding the human nature of Christ, but also stated that QOD changed nothing regarding the atonement. Perhaps nobody will understand perfectly were the fidelity to the specific denominational theology ends and were inappropriate concessions to evangelical start, nevertheless there is no reasons, according to the leaders involved in the conference to continue the internal division of the church regarding QOD on the atonement subject.

At the end of the Conference, a Lord’s Supper was officiated by Angel Manuel Rodriguez, George Knight, and also by Colin Standish (founder of the ultraconservative Hartland Institute and a vocal critic of QOD). In such a symbolic way it became clear the internal unity of Adventism regarding atonement, if there was need for other proofs. The tendency to reunite the dissident groups with the church proves in the best case great confusion regarding the gospel in the Adventist Church and in the worst case, a clear rejection of the evangelical gospel.

In conclusion nothing significantly changed in Adventism regarding its gospel message, confirming Walter Martin’s fears, and the classification of the Adventist Church in the evangelical group is no longer true, if it ever was.

As long as the Adventist Church will not renounce his anti-gospel position, my desires for good and my affectionate attachment toward this church in which I grew up, in which I learned to study the Bible, in which I made many friends; all these things taken together cannot compensate for the theological problems. I want to be well understood: my attitude toward members at the individual level is different than my attitude toward the theological system, toward the organized faith of the church. I’m positive toward members and negative toward their beliefs. I believe that there are Christians in the Adventist Church as there are Christians in the Roman-Catholic Church, but both churches besides teaching historical Christian doctrines reject the gospel of justification by faith alone, substituting to Christ’s finished atonement on the cross with something else. This creates irreconcilable differences between Adventism and Catholicism on one side and the true evangelical gospel on another side. For these reasons I cannot remain as a member of the Adventist Church because of reasons pertaining to the conscience. I will pray that some day we will be united again around the gospel and the present disagreement will disappear. May God bless you and the church with wisdom to understand his will regarding this life and death subject.

Soli Deo Gloria
To God alone be the glory
Gabriel

Christmas Love Story for Children

2008-11-21T18:11:50-08:00

Dear Parents,

Having difficulty finding biblically-sound reading material for your children as gifts this Christmas? If so, with The Prince’s Poison Cup, Dr. R. C. Sproul continues his series of books designed to present deep biblical truths to children on their own level. In this work, he focuses in on the atonement to show that Jesus had to endure the curse of sin in order to redeem His people from their spiritual death.

When Ella gets sick and has to take yucky medicine, she wonders why something that will help her get well has to taste so bad. When she puts the question to Grandpa, he tells her the story of a great King and His subjects who enjoyed wonderful times together--until the people rebelled against the King and drank from a forbidden well. To their horror, they found that beautiful water in the well made their hearts turn to stone. To reclaim His people, the King asks His Son, the Prince, to drink from a well of horrid poison. The poison will surely kill the Prince--but He is willing to drink it to please His Father and help His people.

Richly illustrated, The Prince’s Poison Cup will help children appreciate the great love of God for His people and the awful price Jesus had to pay because of sin. A ”For Parents” section provides assistance in unfolding the biblical elements of the story. This 56-page, hardcover book sells for $14.40 plus postage and handling, and it can be ordered directly from the http://www.ligonier.org online bookstore. Jesus--the reason for the season!

Dennis Fischer

Former Adventist Teresa Beem converts to Catholicism

2008-10-22T00:59:16-08:00

Here is the story of a former SDA who left SDA for the United Methodist Church, and then converted to Catholicism:

http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/SeriesSearchprog.asp?SeriesID=-6892289

Arthur and Teresa Beem’s story of leaving the SDA church is found on here:

http://formeradventist.com/stories/teresaarthurbeem.html

Are those who go from Adventism to Catholicism any better off? Or have they just replaced one false gospel for another? I would argue that they are the same false gospels when you get to the root of both of them.

Both of these gospels deny the root of Reformation Theology--that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone.

I am so sorry to hear of this story. We should indeed be praying for this situation.

Stan

The Lure of Sabbath Deception

2008-08-15T12:27:05-08:00

Are Christians who meet together to worship God on Sunday deceived? Historically, the Adventist church has answered this question in the affirmative. “Sunday-worshipers”, as they are often labeled by Adventists, are obviously misled because they ignore God’s clear command to worship on Saturday, citing the Fourth Commandment as evidence (Exodus 20:8-11). And if those who worship on Sunday are deceived, someone must be guilty of promoting this deception. As such, it is perhaps not surprising to see an Adventist conclude that Christians who believe the Fourth Commandment supports Sunday “Sabbath” observance are guilty of promoting great deception. This is sadly the conclusion of a recent Adventist Review article by journalist Mark Kellner entitled “The Lure of Sabbath Deception”.

The stimulus for Kellner’s article was a sermon series he heard on the radio by Alistair Begg, pastor of Parkside Church near Cleveland, Ohio. In this series, Begg argued for a continuing role of the Old Testament Sabbath for Christians. Because Christians worship together on Sunday, Begg belives the Sabbath principle should continue to apply to this day. To an Adventist, Begg’s teaching is part of the great deception about the Sabbath that has been promoted in Christianity since the fourth century rule of the Roman emperor Constantine. Adventist prophetess Ellen White claimed that Christians would one day be tested on their loyalty to God on the basis of their day of worship—those who worship on Saturday will be eligible for heaven while those who worship on Sunday will not.

Kellner revives this Adventist teaching in his criticism of Begg. “So how did [Begg] move from dogmatic insistence on honoring the fourth commandment to an about-face on the God-specified day?” Begg’s answer, of course, is that the day of worship was changed from Saturday to Sunday in the first century as a result of Jesus’ Sunday resurrection. Striking at the heart of Adventism’s view of early Christian history, Begg stated that Constantine did not change the day of worship 300 years after Christ’s death, but merely endorsed a widespread and long-standing Christian practice. Kellner, obviously not moved by this argument but providing no evidence of his own, writes, “Such assertions, however, lack much in the way of actual historical proof...”. Nevermind that over one hundred years earlier, former Adventist preacher D.M. Canright provided ample historical evidence to support Begg’s conclusions.

Not surprisingly, Begg reported receiving harsh criticism of his position from Adventists, some even accusing him of not being a Christian. Kellner casts doubt over the truthfulness of Begg’s account, saying, “...there’s little way of proving that such a charge was made”. Perhaps Kellner chose his words poorly, but the way the article reads, Begg’s honesty is at least implicitly questioned. Kellner proceeds to counter the Adventist criticism of Begg by citing the Adventist fundamental belief statement that “the universal church is composed of all who truly believe in Christ.”

While Kellner is willing to give Begg the title of “Christian” with the one hand, he endeavors to take it away with the other. “To be sure, God will hold responsible those who don’t keep the Bible Sabbath when it is plainly revealed that Sundaykeeping is a counterfeit. But to multiple millions—and even perhaps to Alistair Begg himself—there is justification for ignoring the Bible’s clear command, at least for now.” It is left to the reader to decide whether Begg is really a Christian, but we can be sure that if he has ignored the Bible’s “clear command”, he will be “held responsible” for his actions. For those who know the Adventist version of end-time events, the underlying message is fairly obvious. If Begg rejects the teaching of God’s Word about the Sabbath when it becomes “plainly revealed”, he will receive the mark of the beast. The only hope is that God will not make Sunday “plainly revealed” as a “counterfeit” during his lifetime so that Begg won’t be held accountable for accepting Satan’s false Sabbath and receive his mark.

Turning his attention toward other Christian teachers, Kellner presses home his point. “...there is an added level of concern now—a lure, if you will, of deception about the Sabbath.” Listing a group of Christian authors who have written about the Sabbath as it applies to Sunday, Kellner claims that a great deception is unfolding before our eyes. Satan is using these Christian authors to lure more people into false Sabbath worship so that apparently, more people will be lost by receiving his mark. In a sarcastic tone, Kellner singles out the noted Christian author Marva Dawn. “The lures posed by radio expounders such as Begg, Tony Evans of the Urban Alternative, and some Christian authors—including Marva Dawn (author of several books on ‘keeping Sabbath’ without keeping the Sabbath)—appear to be that one can freely choose how to observe a commandment of God without adhering to what God dictates.” Using the same logic, an orthodox Jew could just as easily include Kellner among a list of authors who write about the Sabbath without actually keeping it the way God prescribed. One wonders what Kellner does with the very clear list of commands God gave to the Israelites about how the Sabbath was to be observed, much less the commands to observe festivals and holy days.

Concluding the article, Kellner leaves his audience with the take-home message. What are we to do with this growing evangelical Christian interest in Sabbath—interest that is clothed in the world’s greatest deception? “The opportunity for Adventists, in their words and in their living witness, is to present Sabbath, and Sabbathkeeping, as not only delightful, but attractive. It may surprise many to see who shows up when we treat the Sabbath as a true delight, and share that delight with the world.” The centerpiece of Adventist evangelism is here on vivid display—it is all about the Sabbath. Non-Christians and Christians alike need this precious message, because without it, they may stand condemned. If the Sabbath is made attractive enough, people will begin to realize that they should be keeping it and thereby avoid God’s condemnation.

It’s tragic, but what’s missing from all of this is Jesus. If only Adventists had the same zeal for converting people to Christ that they have for converting them to a day of worship. Sadly, the most precious message of Christianity has been replaced in Adventism by the worship of a day. The day was never meant to be the object of worship or the dividing line between believers, but a sign pointing the way to Jesus, who deserves all worship. “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.” (Colossians 2:16-17, see also Romans 14:5-6) The apostle Paul’s teaching is straightforward. All who would divide the body of Christ over a day of worship have missed his point. While Christians hold fast to the substance of Christ, Adventists continue to direct people to his shadow and in so doing, risk missing the Savior who can redeem them from their sin, even their sin of imperfect Sabbath-keeping.

Who Cares

2008-10-09T10:49:22-08:00

I can’t seem to get it. Why do we argue about these things? Why do people who should be helping the hurting sit around and talk about minor issues? How many of us have gone looking for a prostitute so we can tell her about Jesus? How many of us have stopped to help the bum on the street? How many of us go to the prison to visit the child rapist and tell him God loves him? How many of us look at those that sin has ruined and think “He got what he deserved”? Well I am glad you can sit up on your high horses and talk about the fine points of religion. I am struggling to find my way. The last thing I care about is if any of you care what I eat. If I want to not eat meat, why should you care? If I want to keep the Sabbath, why do you care? Since we are all here discussing the fine points, I guess all have heard about Jesus love. No? Well then, why not tell them. Some of us are just trying to find our way through this old world. I have been to SDA churches that you could feel the Holy Spirit moving through. I have been to Baptist churches where the same was true. So why do some people in both want to tear down the other? If you have the truth, tell people and let God’s Spirit change the lives of those around you. Don’t spend your life dicussing things. Do something. Or is it as I suspect that most of those hear just want people to agree with them and they really don’t give a flip about the rest of us? For all of you, I leave you with this. I have attended church 1 time in the last 2 years. 1 person has called to see why not. I guess most of them are on sites like this one beating each other up over not being legalistic or beating each other up over not being legalistic enough. Thanks for telling us about how we can escape hell. Oh that’s right, you were too busy discussing if hell goes on forever, or not. Never mind, I will go ask someone if they can introduce me to a Saviour.

SDAs Believe that we are saved by Works.

2008-08-26T14:54:35-08:00

Please notice that I capitalized Works.

Yes, we are truly saved by the Law. Jesus came and fulfilled the Law. We are saved by HIS Works through His blood.

He lived his life in perfect obedience to the Law. He died and sacrificed HIs life that we might be saved.

Therefore .... those who accept His Name are no longer under the condemnation of the Law. But, those who do not accept Him ... They remain under the Law. It condemns them. Why? Because they are not able to live in obedience to the Law. And the law calls for death to those who do not keep all aspects of the Holy Law.

So, in summary ..... you are either saved by Christ’s doing and dying .... or you are left on your own to answer to the Law. And in that case ... you have failed and been found wanting. The result .... DEATH.

If we are judged by the Law ... which we are. How could one say that the Law has been done away with?

The only thing that has been done away with is the condemnation of the Law for those in Christ Jesus.

Thank you Jesus. You are ALL we need.

The "Lesser Light"

2007-04-26T05:46:17-08:00

While we have talked about Graeme Bradford’s book, More Than a Prophet, on another thread, Kevin Paulson, from the website greatcontroversy.org, has begun posting his review of the book, which is scheduled to be released in eight forthcoming sections. The first two have already been put up on the website. I think this might be a good time to refocus some of our discussion in the light of conservative SDAism’s first responses to the book.

Paulson wrote a review of an earlier Bradford book on EGW, a section of which I am exerpting below. This section pertains to EGW’s reference to herself as a “lesser light”. In this section, Paulsen puts forward his view of what this phrase means.

[quote author="Paulson"]It is true, for example, that Ellen White called her writings the lesser light, in relation to the greater light of Scripture (20). But evidence from the totality of Ellen White’s writings, and her own statement of their purpose, makes it clear that her writings occupy this “lesser” status only because, in her words, “additional truth is not brought out, but God has through the Testimonies simplified the great truths already given” (21).

In other words, Ellen White’s writings are the lesser light because they teach no original truths, doctrines, or principles. All of these come from the Bible. Ellen White merely amplifies and simplifies what Scripture already teaches. Nowhere does Ellen White give her writings some lesser degree of authority over the beliefs and practices of church members, as if a statement from her pen need not be taken with quite the gravity or seriousness as a text from the Bible. Too often, in modern Adventism, Ellen White’s “lesser light” language has been taken to mean that while the words of Scripture can’t rightly be argued with, the words of Ellen White are another matter. In practical terms, such thinking assumes that while Biblical statements can properly be used to settle a theological or lifestyle issue, statements from Ellen White cannot be thus used. It is thus implied that while Ellen White statements regarding such topics as diet, dress, or worship may say one thing, the issue is left to the believer’s discretion so long as Scripture contains no explicit counsel on the subject in dispute.

Adventists who eat meat have often used this argument. They insist that because the Bible gives them permission to eat clean meat–never mind that it also says to use no fat or blood (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 3:17), a rule I have yet to see observed by carnivorous Adventists–that on this basis the counsel of Ellen White forbidding the use of all meat can legitimately be ignored. In one Sabbath School class attended by the present writer, a man and his wife also claimed that Adventists should stop imposing “man-made” rules on church members, one of which they said was our stand against smoking. This counsel was “man-made,” in their view, because it is found in Ellen White’s writings but not in the Bible. (In retrospect, I wished I had asked if they thought cocaine or heroin use could rightly be forbidden by the church, since these too are unmentioned in Scripture.)

No distinction is made in the Bible between the authority of canonical and non-canonical prophets. A prophet is not authoritative because he or she is canonical. Rather, a prophet is canonical because he or she is authoritative. God does not have junior prophets. The testimonies of Elijah, Elisha, Huldah, and John the Baptist were no less authoritative in their application to God’s people than those of Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, or Paul. In fact, Jesus declared John the Baptist to be the greatest of the prophets (Matthew 11:9-11). Yet no book of the Bible bears his name.

The Bible also speaks of prophetic books written by certain non-canonical prophets, such as those of Nathan and Gad (1 Chronicles 29:29). One could hardly view these inspired messengers as less authoritative than those whose writings were included in the 66 books of Scripture, especially when we note how God gave rebukes to King David–a canonical Bible writer–through the testimony of these non-canonical prophets (2 Samuel 12:1-14; 24:11-14).

According to Ellen White, “the Holy Ghost is the author of the Scriptures and of the Spirit of Prophecy” (22). The former is greater and the latter lesser in the sense that truth is original in the former and amplified in the latter. But nothing in the writings of Ellen White, or in the Biblical testimony concerning the work of prophets, lends any credence to the theory that one set of prophetic writings can lay a greater or lesser claim to the conscience than another.

This earlier review is located here:
http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-phumanity.php

The new reviews are here:
http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-lot1.php

and here:
http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-lot2.php

While I value EGW’s writings on many topics, and believe she was an “inspired” woman and devout spiritual person, I am troubled by Paulson’s apparent equating of EGW’s writings with that found in the Bible.