For the Gospel Forum

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?

The remnant church (excerpt from the BRI study)

2008-03-14T14:03:47-08:00

In the spirit of searching and in the spirit of “semper reformanda” (the church is always reforming) I decided to share this short excerpt from the SDA biblical research institutes’ study on the remnant church concept from Revelation. This has long been one of the issues I held with my church, so for a while it has also been the product of study and prayer. During that study I read this article from the Biblical Research Institute. Before I ask for opinions or open dialogue I would like to mention my motives in posting this. By no means do I want to add fuel to the fire that many use to harshly criticize the SDA church even to the point of calling it a tool of the devil. I would like all discussion on this to be in the spirit of Christlike searching and speaking the truth in love. WIth that said I would invite you to read the excerpt below.

in the previous sections we have analyzed the lack of consensus on the concept of the remnant among some Adventists, the solutions suggested by them and the biblical background needed to clarify this issue. As we now attempt to further clarify the topic of the remnant we should keep in mind that we have become who we are today because of our peculiar message and identity. A radical redefinition of those elements could be extremely damaging to what we are attempting to do in the world. Therefore, if an element of discontinuity is present in our attempt to clarify what we mean by the title “remnant church,” this element must retain at the same time a very strong continuity with our past experience and theology. With this in mind we must now look at the remnant in the book of Revelation and its application to the Adventist Church.

This is taken from a paper written by Angel Manuel Rodriguez from the Bibilcal Research Institute on the Remnant Church.

I would like opinions on the following potentially troubling nuance that I see in this passage. I do not think it is outrightly expressed but there is a potential for a hidden might I even say subconscious thought process contained within the line of reasoning used in this passage of what is in essence a reluctance to too drastically redefine or reform present beliefs because it would damage the church and its ability to be a force in the world. Where I think the danger could come in (and feel free to correct me if im wrong) is what if a certain belief proves to have a certain unscriptural nuance to it or even be completely unscriptural would the church then be reluctant to change it due to it being inconsistent with “past experience and theology?” I would think it would be very important to examine everything by the bible and if it is determined to need refining we should repent and refine even it is fundamentally damaging to the church. Any opinions on this? I would ask that we examine this carefully instead of falling to the trap of criticism without thorough research. Perhaps an examining of the entire document along with this statement in context would be beneficial. (especially to insure my strong anti remnant concept feelings have not clouded my judgment )

The document can be found at this web address. http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/remnantSDAchurch.htm

Easter Wishes - He is Risen!!!

2008-03-21T11:15:21-08:00

I just wanted to wish everyone at the 4TG forum a safe and joyous Easter holiday!

Review by Maritime SDA Forum

2008-02-17T21:02:02-08:00

I stumbled across something interesting today. Our friend västergötland, who has posted here as well, asked this question over on the “Maritime SDA Online” Forum:

[quote author="västergötland"]
http://www.forthegospel.org/appeal
What do you think about the five page article? What in it is true? What is not true? What can be learned from it?

Please no shooting of the authors in this thread. I am not interested in anyones opinion concerning them, only interested in knowing how well what they wrote adheres to truth.

What follows are a few excerpts of the reviews we received from the SDA regulars there.

“I don’t know how it’s possible for someone to focus just on a dozen passages of Ellen White, twisting them, and forget the hundreds of passages of her which speak about righteousness by faith and the wonderful work of Christ for us.”

“Another quote which is completely twisted is that of My Life Today, pg. 250, about which they say: “This idea of justification implies that man’s ‘best service’ must be combined with Christ’s divine merit to ‘make up for the deficiency’ in the character of the believer, as if the believer can contribute anything to his own salvation.” Of course what Ellen White is saying is completely the opposite. Anyone who reads the passage attentively will see that what she is saying is that our best service cannot save us because it is deficient, and that it can only be accepted through Christ’s divine merit. IOW, Christ’s righteousness must cover not only our sins but also our good works. This is the same that Luther is saying here...”

“For a while I worked with one of our older evangelists, and when he heard my ideas, he said that was no good adventist preaching. He maintained we should be proclaiming the prophecies, our doctrines, focusing on the Sabbath and health. He maintained we should leave all of that preaching on Christ to the fallen churches. He was a good man and won a good number of souls. ... People want to hear the gospel, and this is what we must proclaim. This is what Ellen White states again and again must be our main and primary thrust in our preaching. So there is nothing wrong in following the admonition and guidance Ellen White has given us in proclaiming the real gospel of justification by faith.”

“These guys remind me of my parents and their friends. They are like the Prodigal Son - running away from that which they do not understand, seeking happiness where it cannot be found. Hopefully, they will someday realize that Jesus loves us the way we are, but loves us too much to leave us the way we are. Sons who live in the pigsty do not enjoy the father’s blessings.”

“I think they get the notion that agreement with RCC would be inherently bad due to moving to churches that are more anticatholic than our parts of the adventist church. They give an overal reformed impressioin in what I have thus far read. Good works are surely part of the gospel and thus effort has a place, though not nessessarily the place assigned to it in part of adventism.”

“That anti-Adventist article linked at the start of this thread fails to understand what justification by faith is: the renewal of our minds by receiving the mind of Christ - regeneration, on the basis of God’s legal declaration that Christ is our righteousness - indeed the world’s - before we each experience regeneration, so that we can receive the mind of Christ.”

The entire thread can be read here.

So the basic criticism appears to be that 1) the appeal I wrote took the quotes of Ellen White out of context and 2) because of the focus here on justification by faith alone, we’re essentially wallowing in a pigsty of our own sin, not wanting God to continue any good work in us beyond justification.

Criticism #1 has been answered many times and is quite predictable. There always seems to be an excuse for Ellen White’s anti-biblical counsel, and it is usually “context”. While fewer Adventists will try to make her infallible these days, when asked to point out her flaws, examples of her errors are not usually given. Regarding context, if the SDA Bible Commentary, in its exegesis of Romans 8:1 can use this Ellen White quote: “When it is in the heart to obey God, when efforts are put forth to this end, Jesus accepts this disposition and effort as man’s best service, and He makes up for the deficiency with His own divine merit”, I am certainly not guilty of taking the same quote out of context in my appeal. This quote by Ellen White takes Romans 8:1 and turns it on its head, but the problem, as always, lies with the critics, not with the prophetess. Interesting enough, the sentiment of at least one poster on the thread was that it wasn’t necessarily bad to agree with the Roman Catholic idea of justification by faith and works, and he received no objection to this!

Criticism #2 is patently false, but this is a common criticism of anyone who clings to the doctrines of grace as their most treasured hope. This accusation is answered definitively in the Reformed faith by the Heidelberg Catechism:

Question 62. But why cannot our good works be the whole, or part of our righteousness before God?

Answer: Because, that the righteousness, which can be approved of before the tribunal of God, must be absolutely perfect, (a) and in all respects conformable to the divine law; and also, that our best works in this life are all imperfect and defiled with sin. (b)

(a) Gal.3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. Deut.27:26 Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen. (b) Isa.64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Question 63. What! do not our good works merit, which yet God will reward in this and in a future life?

Answer: This reward is not of merit, but of grace. (a)

(a) Luke 17:10 So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.

Question 64. But does not this doctrine make men careless and profane?

Answer: By no means: for it is impossible that those, who are implanted into Christ by a true faith, should not bring forth fruits of thankfulness. (a)

(a) Matt.7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. John 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

I have a sneaking suspicion that anyone who does not accept the Adventist understanding of Sabbath or who doesn’t acknowledge Ellen White as a prophet is assigned to the category of the disobedient, and therefore can never find his way out of the pigsty unless he leaves his “fallen” non-Adventist church.

Greg