The following question had been formulated on another thread of this forum, http://www.forthegospel.org/forum/viewreply/5354/

Bill - 16 May 2008 09:32 AM

2.  If Jesus priestly ministry began after he ascended to heaven, where we have a Great High Priest.  How can Jesus, as High Priest, place the sins He is bearing on Himself and send Himself out into the wilderness (the cross) before He begins His priestly ministry?

Bill, it will take me too much time and energy to engage in answering this question, because it involves a clash of two radically different paradigms in understanding the sanctuary. I don’t have the resources to cover the ground necessary in order to give an adequate answer to your question, because it involves too much biblical data, the book of Hebrews perhaps, in order to deal with the question you asked. This is because from my current perspective, your question is totally irrelevant, but nevertheless it is fully relevant in your perspective. In order to address your particular question, I must deal with the entire sanctuary doctrine of the SDA Church, hermeneutical presuppositions, relation between the New and the Old Covenant, etc.

What I can do at this present is to post parts of a long letter written by a former Conference President, R. A. Grieve, who in this letter which explains the reasons for his removal from office, covers a lot of ground. It’s the best introduction I’ve seen regarding the difference between the Protestant view of justification and the SDA view from the perspective of two different understandings of the sanctuary. This letter was instrumental in helping me see the radical difference between the SDA sanctuary paradigm and the Protestant sanctuary interpretation.

The context is the trial for Grieve’s beliefs before the agents of the SDA Church, and he’s writing to his friend brother Lawson about the intricacies of the trial and the soundness of his position in relation with the arguments brought by the Adventists.

You may ask what the Sanctuary has to do with these issues. I reply, “Everything!” Why, because the whole understanding of the gospel by SDAs, the forgiveness of sins, the Investigative Judgment, and the final blotting out of sin all stem from this.  Protestantism as inaugurated by Luther was founded on the book of Romans, which makes no reference to the old Aaronic Sanctuary, and therefore all the churches in line with true protestantism, have believed in the blotting out of sins for the believer at the acceptance of Christ. It was the acceptance of the Sanctuary teaching by the pioneers of the church that countermanded the teachings of Luther, Wesley and other great reformers, and set the teaching on the so-called pattern of Aaronism in opposition to Protestantism. Well I am getting ahead of myself for my understanding of these truths came after my trial not before.

At my trial I presented Justification in 25 pages of typewritten material. It was fairly exhaustive, so I cannot repeat the ideas here, suffice it to say that I proved that Justification in scripture is equivalent to the modern term acquittal, so modern translations indicate, and all Greek scholars acknowledge. When a man is acquitted of all charges and stands innocent, “just as if he had never sinned,” he is justified.

Secondly, forgiveness and pardon, must not be confused with or made synonymous for justification. In receiving forgiveness or pardon there is the acknowledgment of the deed, a record of wrongdoing; but in justification there can be no sustaining of the charge, no recording of wrongdoing. So David discovered, “Blessed is the man against whom no sin is recorded by the Lord.” Rom. 4:8. So Peter declares, Acts 3:19. “He has forgiven you all your sins: Christ has utterly wiped out the damning evidence of broken laws and commandments which always hung over our heads, and has completely annulled it by nailing it over His own head on the cross.” Col 2:14

My conclusion was: True Protestantism recognizes that in justification the record as well as the guilt must be blotted out, for record and guilt are indivisible. It is the very negation of justification to keep a man’s sins against his name after his acceptance of Christ. This raised a storm. The brethren began to quote “Great Controversy” by the yard. I asked for clear Bible proof that our sins still remained upon the record. This they promised to do, but my brother it was just a sham and a pretense. Three men were set up as a committee to study with me – Battye, Stewart, Conley. In true Adventist style and in the most childlike way they set out to give me a Bible study on the Sanctuary. When they got to the point of the record remaining there they broke down. They tried in good Jesuitical fashion to split the difference between sin as guilt and condemnation and sin as record. They told me that I could believe that sin and guilt is blotted out entirely on the acceptance of Christ, but that the record remains. They read many statements from E.G. White that Christ on the cross bore our guilt and condemnation. They said Sister White seems to make a difference between guilt and record. On this seem-so from the writings of Mrs. E.G. White I was asked to recant. I did agree to use this formulae in order to go as far as my enlightened conscience would allow and to have harmony with my brethren, but F.G. Clifford although originally agreeing to this definition, this straw splitting terminology, refused to agree to it as a denominational position. He threw it overboard first in order to force me into the extremist camp or out altogether. I rejected it too, but I went over into Protestantism.

On my way back to N.Z. it became as clear as the noonday sun why the leadership of the church were in a dilemma over justification. For more than a century they had believed in a two-apartment sanctuary in heaven. They had resurrected in toto the Aaronic sanctuary, the Aaronic priesthood and every detail connected with it and pushed it into heaven where Christ was supposed to be after the order of Melchizedek, but in practice and service after the order of Aaron. This was the gigantic swindle.

Careful study of Hebrews 9:1-11 proves that the first apartment called the first tabernacle, was only for the time then present, was only to continue until the “new order,” verse 10 Moffatt. That Christ as a high Priest went into the Holiest of All, verse 12, Phillips trans. verse 24, and 10:19. And the RSV on Heb. 6:19 says that Jesus enters into the inner shrine behind the curtain.” Moffatt, “Enters the inner Presence behind the veil.” So there is no holy place in heaven.

And if there is no holy place you would not expect Christ to be ministering after the pattern and performance of the common priests or even the High Priest in the Holy Place. And this is the very teaching of Heb. 7:26, 27. “Who needeth not daily as those high priests, etc. for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.” In other words the practice and pattern of the priests in the first apartment met its complete and utter fulfillment in the one and only one act of Jesus when He presented Himself to the Father. Heb. 10:11,12 makes the dissimilarity between the two priesthoods most apparent. Then it is an absolute heresy to teach that Christ was making applications of blood like Aaron did on earth—even to suggest that he is doing it antitypically from the time of the cross until now.  Hebrew says that Christ sat down, ceased from offering, was not involved in repeated actions such as the priest of old was, for he never sat down in the sanctuary. The only place in the sanctuary where there was a seat was in the Most Holy Place, and he did not stay long enough to sit down. Christ won a place in the Most Holy Place, realized the goal of Old Testament prophetic enactments, and having realized it, never to go back, sat down.

Well this brings us to the next revelation of the book of Hebrews 9 and 10 that the writer after mentioning the activities of the priests in the first apartment, Heb 9:6, then promptly forgets them. He is concerned to make a comparison between what the High Priest did on the great Day of Atonement, Heb 9:7, and what Christ did when He entered Heaven, verses 11-13, and he continues to make a comparison between what the high priest did on the great Day of Atonement and the antitypical acts of Jesus concerning that final national ceremony. The priest went through the holy place on his way to the Most Holy; so Christ, verse 11, went through a greater and more perfect tabernacle on the way to the presence of the Father Who was in the Most Holy Place, verse 24. Nor did Christ have to sacrifice Himself repeatedly after the annual habit of High Priest, verse 25. nor does Christ have to keep offering Himself after the pattern of the Day of Atonement. Both sacrifice and offering on the Day of Atonement order is over, for on the day of resurrection Christ “appeared to put away sin” or as Moffatt and others translate “to abolish sin” verse 26. It was on the Day of Atonement that the high priest appeared to put away sin for Israel, and symbolically after that there was no more remembrance of that year’s sins. So after saying that Christ put away sin, in 10:1-18 Paul shows that since Calvary there is no more remembrance of sins for true spiritual Israel . When you grasp these two great facts, one apartment in heaven and one once for all atoning act of Christ, you can see how the message of Romans on Justification meshes completely with the ministry of Jesus in Heaven.

To clinch the whole thing, Paul proves in Heb. 9:16, 17 that a covenant is of force after men are dead, not before. In other words the repeated ceremonial acts of Jewish priests were necessary because the testator Christ had not died, but after Calvary when the testator had been proved to have died, the covenant with all the benefits came into operation. We don’t have to wait till 1844 for them. These benefits are enumerated in Heb. 8:12 and 10:15-17. But according to a letter received from W.E. Battye for and on behalf of the denomination who was about to sack me, only a portion of the new covenant is of force now and that portion is Heb. 8:10 the law written on our hearts. He claimed that the other two sections were yet future, namely, ‘not teaching every man his neighbor and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.’ When I replied, “that just proves how foolish a man can become in the defense of an heretical system that is out of harmony with the plainest teachings of the word of God,” they promptly sacked me.

The two-apartment sanctuary in heaven is based on very superficial reading of the Scriptures. Because Moses was told to make everything according to the pattern showed him in the mount, the pioneers and their successors jumped to the unwarranted conclusions that the Old Testament sanctuary was an exact pattern of the one in the third heavens, whereas Paul declares, “It was necessary for the earthly reproductions of heaven realities to be purified.” Heb. 9:23. And again, “For since the law was but a shadow of the good things to come” and not the very image (Authorized) “instead of the true form of these realities.” Heb 10:1 RSV

As the GC has laid down that no doctrine can be built out of the types and shadows or from the symbolical books such as Daniel and Revelation, but on the clear unfigurative language of scripture, I simply ask for one text from the clear unfigurative books of the Bible for the warrant of giving time values to the shadow ministry of the Aaronic priests. Just one text.

Further, the GC has stated that every sacrifice of the OT regardless of the time, place, or number, represents the one and only sacrifice made by Jesus on the cross. Well then on what logical grounds can we say that the priests who ministered and offered those numerous sacrifices, represent two and not one ministry of Christ? If many sacrifices represent but so many facets of one sacrifice made on Calvary’s cross, I ask on what logical grounds say, so many priest’s actions and offerings do not represent so many facets of the one offering of Jesus at His ascension, one act of offering, that one and no more?

But postulating two apartments in heaven and two ministries the church has split the atonement. Read the statement made by Mrs. White in Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 355, bottom of page, “the offering of the blood in the daily sacrifice had not made full atonement, it had only transferred sin to the sanctuary.” Elsewhere she speaks of the “final atonement” made in 1844. In other words, if the type be followed, during the first 1800 years since the cross, sins were confessed, the blood of Christ applied but the blood of Jesus had not made full atonement for sin.

In proof that this is the position, read Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 356, first paragraph, that in the daily service the sinner acknowledged the claims of the law confessed his sin, but he was not yet released from the condemnation of the law. So by parallel, those who lived before 1844 and even those whose names have not come up in the judgment have not yet been released from the condemnation of the law.

Why does this extraordinary position exist? Because it is stated in the same paragraph of Patriarchs and Prophets, “Not until the day of atonement did the High Priest go in to the Most Holy and put blood over the mercy and consequently over the law ‘to make satisfaction for its claims.’” In other words, according to the theory of the church and Mrs. White, the broken law went unsatisfied for 1800 years until in 1844 Christ took the blood in! Hence no one could be entirely released from the condemnation of the law until after 1844!

Thirty years ago W.W. Fletcher was declared a false and heretical teacher because he said the blood of Christ did not transfer sin, but in fact expiated or blotted sin out. This is what the great theologians of the church claimed 30 years ago. “Hence it is that the sin offering (in the daily sacrifice) did not completely expiate the guilt. The sinner was not entirely released from the condemnation of the law until the type was completed on the Day of Atonement; for the blood did not reach the mercy seat over the law until the type was completed on the Day of Atonement.” Quoted in Reasons for My Faith, p. 34, W.W. Fletcher. What heretical nonsense! Yet the same spirit of ignorance and bigotry prevailed at my trial. This time they refused to answer me on these paragraphs. They said that all those who have questioned these paragraphs have trodden on dangerous ground. Dangerous because it is so damnably incorrect with scripture. Paul said the law was satisfied in his day. Rom. 3:20, 21, “Therefore by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in His sight; but now apart from the law, the righteousness of God hath been manifested, being witnessed, or attested by the law…” To witness or attest the validity of righteousness is to be satisfied with it. The law was satisfied all right for Paul says, “There is therefore now (in AD 50 not 1844) no condemnation.” Rom. 8:1. He did not say like our theoreticians, “not completely expiated,” partly expiated, partly not. He did not say like Mrs. E.G. White, “Not entirely released from the condemnation of the law.” No, he said, “There is therefore NOW NO CONDEMNATION.”

I hope it helps.

Gabriel

This view “Gabriel” has presented of the “Atonement” and “The Sanctuary” Is wholly in doctrinal alignment with Daniel’s and Hebrews with regard to the prophetic and historic reality of the work of Messiah for the salvation of ALL from Adam forward to the Second Coming of Christ at the close of Daniel’s “2300” days (years).

“Despise not prophesying. Prove All things. Hold fast that which is Good (true).” 1Thess.5:19-24.

I just got through reading this post which was up since May 17, and had to post a comment as tired as I am right now. I saw it before but never took the time to read it, just skimming the first paragraph addressed to Bill.
It is so amazing how God works with us even when we sometimes insist on trying to do things our own way. The information in this post is powerful. This is exactly what I gleaned from the book of Hebrews as I read it again and again for clarity, underlining and circling key words as I read, that had never popped out before.

In reading the book of Hebrews, one of the things that was a “WOW” moment for me was understanding that there was a “change” in the priesthood Hebrews 7:12 and therefore Jesus was not following the same pattern that the preists followed in the Levitical priesthood. I knew for sure, that I could no longer believe one iota that I was taught as an SDA about the Sanctuary and the Investigative judgement.

Brother Bill, if you did not read this post with an open mind, please do so. It is truly “God inspired, brother.” Read Hebrews again without the filters on and it will make a big difference in your life.

Please do not take what I have said the wrong way. I am speaking to you as a brother I am concerned about, so please do not go off saying that I am attacking you. I too “thought” I knew the bible very well, as I have said before, but when the spirit of God cleared my mind of all the previous “stuff” I was then able to see the simplicity of the word, and for that I am eternally grateful to Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, who HAS “ forgiven ALL of you sins… and HAS utterly wiped out the daming evidence of broken laws and commandments ...Col 2:14.”
Thank you Jesus.

Phen B - 05 June 2008 09:47 PM

I just got through reading this post which was up since May 17, and had to post a comment as tired as I am right now. I saw it before but never took the time to read it, just skimming the first paragraph addressed to Bill.
It is so amazing how God works with us even when we sometimes insist on trying to do things our own way. The information in this post is powerful. This is exactly what I gleaned from the book of Hebrews as I read it again and again for clarity, underlining and circling key words as I read, that had never popped out before.

In reading the book of Hebrews, one of the things that was a “WOW” moment for me was understanding that there was a “change” in the priesthood Hebrews 7:12 and therefore Jesus was not following the same pattern that the preists followed in the Levitical priesthood. I knew for sure, that I could no longer believe one iota that I was taught as an SDA about the Sanctuary and the Investigative judgement.

Brother Bill, if you did not read this post with an open mind, please do so. It is truly “God inspired, brother.” Read Hebrews again without the filters on and it will make a big difference in your life.

Please do not take what I have said the wrong way. I am speaking to you as a brother I am concerned about, so please do not go off saying that I am attacking you. I too “thought” I knew the bible very well, as I have said before, but when the spirit of God cleared my mind of all the previous “stuff” I was then able to see the simplicity of the word, and for that I am eternally grateful to Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, who HAS “ forgiven ALL of you sins… and HAS utterly wiped out the daming evidence of broken laws and commandments ...Col 2:14.”
Thank you Jesus.

Thanks Phen B,

I will read it again and will read Hebrews again as you suggested.

I am not going to claim you are attacking me or the church as long as you steer away from judgmental comments like, SDA’s are anti-gospel (believe and/or teach a “different” gospel than in the Bible), that we unknowingly worship the devil, that SDA’s are heretic’s, etc.  You have not done that so I will not say that you are attacking me or SDA’s… Having said that we are not without fault, I have said some comments that were uncalled for and I hope I apologized whenever I have done so.  You have, in my opinion, also made some innocent comments that could be viewed as judgmental ("I too “thought” I knew the bible very well").  In your opinion, I don’t know the Bible very well… I wasn’t offended by that, but did notice it.  Furthermore, it may be true, but with the Holy Spirit’s help I will know more as He leads me.

Thank’s for the suggestion my brother.

Bill,

I just want to probe what you wrote above a little more. You indicated it would be better if we don’t make judgmental comments about Adventists such as labeling some of their teachings anti-gospel. Surely you recall that your own church was founded under such judgmental statements about “apostate” Christians who worshipped on the wrong day and preachers who had the “blood of souls” on their hands for not accepting the Millerite date-setting. I think that we need to be careful about being offended by truth claims and confusing them with personal attacks. Bill, I have better things to do than judge you and your walk with God, but my conscience won’t allow me to turn a blind eye toward the unbiblical teachings the Adventist church officially promotes in its fundamental belief statements and in Ellen White’s writings. Furthermore, Scripture commands that we engage in discerning truth from error and to not be shy about labeling potentially dangerous teachings for what they are (Matthew 7:15, Galatians 1:8-9, 2 Timothy 2:15) .

All of this said, Bill, you are welcome in my home any time and I have nothing personal against you. It would be an honor to open the Bible and study together with you.

Greg

Greg - 06 June 2008 11:11 AM

Bill,

I just want to probe what you wrote above a little more. You indicated it would be better if we don’t make judgmental comments about Adventists such as labeling some of their teachings anti-gospel. Surely you recall that your own church was founded under such judgmental statements about “apostate” Christians who worshipped on the wrong day and preachers who had the “blood of souls” on their hands for not accepting the Millerite date-setting. I think that we need to be careful about being offended by truth claims and confusing them with personal attacks. Bill, I have better things to do than judge you and your walk with God, but my conscience won’t allow me to turn a blind eye toward the unbiblical teachings the Adventist church officially promotes in its fundamental belief statements and in Ellen White’s writings. Furthermore, Scripture commands that we engage in discerning truth from error and to not be shy about labeling potentially dangerous teachings for what they are (Matthew 7:15, Galatians 1:8-9, 2 Timothy 2:15) .

All of this said, Bill, you are welcome in my home any time and I have nothing personal against you. It would be an honor to open the Bible and study together with you.

Greg

Thanks Greg, I think…

We can agree that we should engage actively in discerning truth from error, but lets go easy on labeling.  There are texts that support Calvinism and there are texts that support Arminianism but in the end the results can lead to the same conclusion.  I would prefer to discuss the strengths and weaknesses without labeling anyone as being a heretic or anti-gospel or worse....  Present your case and let your brother/sister decide as his/her conscience leads.  No need for labeling anyone or their church.  I do notice that non-former SDA’s and I’m thinking of Dan specifically, seem to be the most charitable here.  And the formers appear to be the most critical and uncharitable and ready to “label”.

I don’t ask you to turn a blind I to what you perceive as unbiblical.  Just keep an open mind and be charitable.  In the end, can’t we agree that we should “Fear God, and keep His commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.  For God shall bring every work into judgment with every secret thing, whether it be good or whether it be evil”?

I appreciate the invite, should the opportunity ever present itself, I would be honored to study with you and you also would be welcome in my home as a brother.

Bill,

This site is entitled “FOR THE GOSPEL GOOD NEWS FOR ADVENTISTS”. You can read from the introductory article

Here on 4TG, we have a special burden to share the gospel with our Seventh-day Adventist brothers and sisters, because in Adventism, the gospel has been buried under layers of human regulations, extra-biblical writings and cultural practices. The Adventist distinctives have effectively displaced the most important Christian distinctive–that Jesus Christ lived a perfect life and shed his blood for sinners who are utterly lost without him

It should be clear from the beginning that we don’t work under the assumption that Adventists hear the gospel from their pastors, in their sabbath school classes, their theological system instead of helping them by presenting a clearer view of the gospel works against their eternal interests by displacing the “most important Christian distinctive,” the gospel. Saying that it is anti-gospel is only expressing explicitly what it is implied in the above statement, because displacing the gospel is the opposite of being “for the Gospel” or “pro Gospel,” it is anti-Gospel.

By asking us to renounce what you think are manifestations of a judgmental attitude, you are asking us to drop the mission of this site and adopt instead your perspective about the gospel preached in the SDA Church. I understand that this is a huge and sensitive problem for you, but if you want to be a good partner of dialog, you cannot ask us to change our minds just because you feel that our thinking is judgmental. You are free to disagree with our perspective, but you have no right to tell us to act against our beliefs .

Let me explain: you are here as an Adventist. So I’m expecting you to act accordingly to your system of belief, to defend your beliefs, to try to justify them, etc. According to the SDA perspective, our identity as former Adventists is that one of apostates.  The Adventist system of faith sees us in the position of rejecting the single true visible Church and also essential doctrines which will bring us, if not today, but tomorrow to the shipwreck of faith. For those of us who embrace Christ the label “apostate” is insulting, but we cannot ask adventists cease thinking about us as apostates, because this insulting terminology, as unpleasant as it is, is consistent with the belief that SDA Church is the only true denomination, the Remnant Church, and we, by rejecting the only true church and certain distinctive SDA doctrines which will play a decisive role in the last days events (sabbath - seal of God, etc), will end up in the lake of fire.

What is the solution then? It is to present carefully the evidences for our beliefs and show our partner where his belief doesn’t match the evidences. But all this time we should accept that our partner has a view which, even if he errs, he’s entitled to defend. At the same time, we have a duty to warn him about the position he takes, to warn him about the consequences, to warn him that his gospel is not a true gospel, but rather it is a counterfeit. Not warning him is a lack of love, because if he’s truly in danger, he needs to be warned.

Gabriel

Bill, I echo what Gabriel said above. I want you to know we are not spending precious hours here trying to beat people over the head or “label” them. We spend this time because we are convinced that the gospel is not preached with any kind of clarity in the Adventist church. The Adventist church sees itself as the “remnant” and as such, makes bold claims for itself that label and marginalize Christ-followers outside its own walls. Instead of seeing that the gospel knows no denominational boundaries, Adventists have historically seen themselves as the fulfillment of prophecy and the sole possessors of the end-time message for the world. Given this, it is much more common to find Adventists conducting Revelation seminars than exhorting people to “believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31). Why is this? Because the Adventist church is beholden to the prophetic foundation established by Ellen White and her contemporaries, and present-day Adventists must see the Bible through lenses that harmonize with this foundation. Given these constraints, it is very difficult to simply preach “Christ and him crucified” in an Adventist pulpit without putting a unique Adventist spin on the message, because this gospel theme is no different than what other so-called “apostate” churches are already teaching. Recall that it was enough for preachers to reject the date-setting error of 1844 for Ellen White to label them as having the “blood of souls” on their hands. More recently, the current president of the Adventist church said his salvation would be in jeopardy if he left the denomination. If the Adventist church saw itself as part of Christ’s body rather than its sole possessor, these two assertions (and many others) would never have been made.

Bill, I hope and pray you will see that our concern for Adventists is not rooted in wanting to win an argument or prove our doctrinal superiority. The gospel is for everyone—it is the “power of God unto salvation for all who believe” (Romans 1:16). There is nothing that any church can add to this. There are no extra-biblical books required to “fill in the gaps” left by the Scriptures. There is no 19th-century prophet required to tell us what the words of Scripture really mean. Those ancient words carry a weight of their own and the Holy Spirit has always been safeguarding their central message—that this world is full of sinners in need of a Savior who has already shed his blood for us.

Greg

Greg wrote:
Bill, I hope and pray you will see that our concern for Adventists is not rooted in wanting to win an argument or prove our doctrinal superiority. The gospel is for everyone—it is the “power of God unto salvation for all who believe” (Romans 1:16). There is nothing that any church can add to this. There are no extra-biblical books required to “fill in the gaps” left by the Scriptures. There is no 19th-century prophet required to tell us what the words of Scripture really mean. Those ancient words carry a weight of their own and the Holy Spirit has always been safeguarding their central message—that this world is full of sinners in need of a Savior who has already shed his blood for us.

Amen, I have no disagreement with you on this statement, but it goes against your previous statements.  You say that your concern is not rooted in wanting to win an argument or prove doctrinal superiority.  Yet you have already concluded that Adventism is wrong and I need to be warned against it.  I have not presented my belief’s with any “extra-biblical” books nor tried to “fill in the gaps” left by Scripture with anything other than Scripture.  If not, please provide examples where I have done this.

My purpose here is not to call you an apostate, heretic, lost, Babylonian or any such thing!  My purpose is to give you a fair hearing, weigh the evidence of Scriptures you present and see what is truth.  I believe that all Scripture should be compared to ALL Scripture and not just the verse before and after, or chapter or book. 

So far, I have not found one thing that has been presented to me that goes against my belief’s which I have defended in Scripture.  At this point I am totally comfortable with my belief in free will, works as evidence of faith, Trinity, Sanctuary (goat for Azazel representing Satan) and the ten commandments being still binding and valid.  You don’t have to agree with my conclusions, but I have not been presented with any Scriptural evidence that has caused me to doubt any of my belief’s.

You appear upset that Adventists preach Revelation and not enough of the Gospel.  Why do you want to imply that Adventists don’t believe or preach the Gospel?  I have quoted Romans 1:16 on numerous occasions here.  That is a good summary of the Gospel and I have heard it preached many times from our pulpits!  There are prophecy seminars maybe once, maybe twice a year, if you are a member of a large church.  Our pastor preached for a year on our identity in Christ.  He never brought up EGW or Revelation.  The previous series was on the work of the Holy Spirit.  He has preached series on prayer, sharing our faith, and many other topics ALL centered on Jesus!  Even preaching on Revelation is centered in Jesus… Allow me to remind you that it is the Revelation of Jesus Christ!  For some reason its being preached seems to offend you.

My goal is one more doctrine, IJ and then you can be rid of me.  I want to hear what Scriptural evidence can be presented against a pre-advent judgment and then I may occasionally stop by to keep you all honest… I may get involved if some other topic of interest comes up, but this site has helped me gain a better understanding of why I believe what I believe and what others believe and why.  I have appreciated your views and discussions, for the most part.  Thank you…

Have a great Sabbath!

Gabriel wrote:
It should be clear from the beginning that we don’t work under the assumption that Adventists hear the gospel from their pastors, in their sabbath school classes, their theological system instead of helping them by presenting a clearer view of the gospel works against their eternal interests by displacing the “most important Christian distinctive,” the gospel. Saying that it is anti-gospel is only expressing explicitly what it is implied in the above statement, because displacing the gospel is the opposite of being “for the Gospel” or “pro Gospel,” it is anti-Gospel.

Well, clearly you need to rethink your assumptions… their wrong!

Bill - 06 June 2008 05:11 PM

Amen, I have no disagreement with you on this statement, but it goes against your previous statements.  You say that your concern is not rooted in wanting to win an argument or prove doctrinal superiority.  Yet you have already concluded that Adventism is wrong and I need to be warned against it.

I am not trying to win an argument, I am being compassionate by gently showing you where your church has deviated from the gospel.

Bill - 06 June 2008 05:11 PM

I have not presented my belief’s with any “extra-biblical” books nor tried to “fill in the gaps” left by Scripture with anything other than Scripture.  If not, please provide examples where I have done this.

You relied on extrabiblical Jewish writings to support your idea that the scapegoat of Leviticus 16 is Satan.

Bill - 06 June 2008 05:11 PM

My purpose here is not to call you an apostate, heretic, lost, Babylonian or any such thing!  My purpose is to give you a fair hearing, weigh the evidence of Scriptures you present and see what is truth.  I believe that all Scripture should be compared to ALL Scripture and not just the verse before and after, or chapter or book.

I notice you passed over my comments about Adventism being founded on the very judgmental behavior you are accusing me of exhibiting. Would you like to comment on why Ellen White said that Protestant pastors had the “blood of souls” on their hands for not accepting the Millerite date-setting error? How is this not the very same judgmental behavior you say I exhibit?

Bill - 06 June 2008 05:11 PM

So far, I have not found one thing that has been presented to me that goes against my belief’s which I have defended in Scripture.  At this point I am totally comfortable with my belief in free will, works as evidence of faith, Trinity, Sanctuary (goat for Azazel representing Satan) and the ten commandments being still binding and valid.  You don’t have to agree with my conclusions, but I have not been presented with any Scriptural evidence that has caused me to doubt any of my belief’s.

I answered your post about the ten commandments with a question that you haven’t answered. And you’re right, I don’t have to agree with your conclusions because I am certainly not comfortable with them. I refuse to believe in a version of the Trinity that wouldn’t dissolve without Jesus and a scapegoat doctrine that relies on extrabiblical Jewish writings. But to each his own....

Bill - 06 June 2008 05:11 PM

You appear upset that Adventists preach Revelation and not enough of the Gospel.  Why do you want to imply that Adventists don’t believe or preach the Gospel?  I have quoted Romans 1:16 on numerous occasions here.  That is a good summary of the Gospel and I have heard it preached many times from our pulpits!

Glad to hear it. But the historic Adventist definition of “gospel” includes what they call the “right arm” which claims that dietary and health practices are linked to salvation. The Adventist gospel does not end there, and includes a view of Revelation that excludes anybody from salvation who is unable to stand before God in the end times without Jesus as their mediator. Is that good news?

Bill - 06 June 2008 05:11 PM

There are prophecy seminars maybe once, maybe twice a year, if you are a member of a large church.  Our pastor preached for a year on our identity in Christ.  He never brought up EGW or Revelation.  The previous series was on the work of the Holy Spirit.  He has preached series on prayer, sharing our faith, and many other topics ALL centered on Jesus!  Even preaching on Revelation is centered in Jesus… Allow me to remind you that it is the Revelation of Jesus Christ!  For some reason its being preached seems to offend you.

Not in the slightest. What offends me is a church that refuses to clearly identify itself when holding a Revelation seminar and then builds up to a sales pitch that places themselves as the focal point of earth’s final events, even going so far as to predict that “Sunday-keeping” Christians will hunt them down and persecute them for worshiping on the wrong day. It is one thing to say that Revelation is centered on Jesus but another thing to actually follow through and teach this.

Bill - 06 June 2008 05:11 PM

My goal is one more doctrine, IJ and then you can be rid of me.

Why do you ascribe this motive to me? Nobody is trying to get rid of you.

Bill - 06 June 2008 05:11 PM

I want to hear what Scriptural evidence can be presented against a pre-advent judgment and then I may occasionally stop by to keep you all honest… I may get involved if some other topic of interest comes up, but this site has helped me gain a better understanding of why I believe what I believe and what others believe and why.  I have appreciated your views and discussions, for the most part.

You can read past threads (here, here, here and here) where we have discussed this topic in detail. Feel free to add your comments at the end if you’d like.

Bill - 06 June 2008 05:11 PM

Thank you…

You are welcome and thank you.

Bill - 06 June 2008 05:11 PM

Have a great Sabbath!

I’ve been Sabbathing in Jesus’ finished work all week, thanks (Matthew 11:28-30, Hebrews 4:9-10).

Greg

Bill - 06 June 2008 05:14 PM

Gabriel wrote:
It should be clear from the beginning that we don’t work under the assumption that Adventists hear the gospel from their pastors, in their sabbath school classes, their theological system instead of helping them by presenting a clearer view of the gospel works against their eternal interests by displacing the “most important Christian distinctive,” the gospel. Saying that it is anti-gospel is only expressing explicitly what it is implied in the above statement, because displacing the gospel is the opposite of being “for the Gospel” or “pro Gospel,” it is anti-Gospel.

Well, clearly you need to rethink your assumptions… their wrong!

If you think that we have rejected the Adventist gospel without exploring all ways of harmonizing the gospel we discovered in the Bible with the Adventist system of beliefs. As devoted Adventists we left no stone unturned in searching for any possible way to remain faithful Adventists and also be true to our new founded faith. To understand what I mean, ponder for a second how radically your life will change if you will change your present position as Adventist. Ponder for a second what this move will cost you, how this will affect your family relations, friendships, the position of trust you hold in your Adventist community. Becoming a pariah, an apostate is the last place you will want to occupy, and you will not accept this position easily. Only if it is necessary, only if you will not have any other options you will accept to become a pariah, lose friends, the respect of family, lose your job eventually, and be looked with suspicious, as an enemy of the faith everywhere you go.

Bill - 06 June 2008 05:11 PM

So far, I have not found one thing that has been presented to me that goes against my belief’s which I have defended in Scripture.  At this point I am totally comfortable with my belief in free will, works as evidence of faith, Trinity, Sanctuary (goat for Azazel representing Satan) and the ten commandments being still binding and valid.  You don’t have to agree with my conclusions, but I have not been presented with any Scriptural evidence that has caused me to doubt any of my belief’s.

It is tragic and sad that you are comfortable with your views of Trinity which is not the orthodox view and qualifies you as a heretic, placing you beyond the borders of orthodox Christianity.  I limit myself to this single point, because, beside your views being heretical, you deceive others about your true position by claiming to believe in Trinity when you know that your definition of Trinity is not the orthodox definition.

Don’t get me wrong: if you reject the orthodox definition of Trinity because you believe that it is not biblical, you are free to do this and suffer the eternal consequences by adopting a polytheist belief.  You perhaps find no biblical reason to adopt the Christian orthodox Trinity, which is tragic enough, but at least you know that you are rejecting the Trinity. it is dishonest to present yourself as a trinitarian when you know very well that you had rejected the Trinity.

I know that it will be suicide for Adventists to reject openly the Trinity, because they are fully aware that they will be looked upon as a cult, and they want badly to be looked upon as Christians. They will complain of being unfairly accused of not being trinitarian, but they boast of seeing no biblical proofs that the orthodox Trinity is correct ! 

Gabriel

Bill - 06 June 2008 06:13 AM

You have, in my opinion, also made some innocent comments that could be viewed as judgmental ("I too “thought” I knew the bible very well").  In your opinion, I don’t know the Bible very well… .

Bill, I doubt that Phen implied by his statement that you don’t know the biblical content, he referred to something else. As former Adventists, we have the advantage point of looking at the SDA theology from both sides of the fence, pro and contra. This is very hard to understand for an Adventist, because he never was on the other side of the fence, so his perspective is limited. He had not suffered what I may call a paradigm shift, an open-eyed experience which can be described as discovering for the first time what the Bible really said. The Bible describes this experience in terms of the removal of a veil( 2 Cor. 3), the removal of the filters through which we looked at the Bible, allowing us to see clearly the gospel. Familiar texts suddenly became new for us, because from our subjective perception, it was like for the first time we saw them.

Gabriel

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 07 June 2008 03:39 AM

Bill - 06 June 2008 06:13 AM

You have, in my opinion, also made some innocent comments that could be viewed as judgmental ("I too “thought” I knew the bible very well").  In your opinion, I don’t know the Bible very well… .

Bill, I doubt that Phen implied by his statement that you don’t know the biblical content, he referred to something else. As former Adventists, we have the advantage point of looking at the SDA theology from both sides of the fence, pro and contra. This is very hard to understand for an Adventist, because he never was on the other side of the fence, so his perspective is limited. He had not suffered what I may call a paradigm shift, an open-eyed experience which can be described as discovering for the first time what the Bible really said. The Bible describes this experience in terms of the removal of a veil( 2 Cor. 3), the removal of the filters through which we looked at the Bible, allowing us to see clearly the gospel. Familiar texts suddenly became new for us, because from our subjective perception, it was like for the first time we saw them.

Gabriel

I never said Phen B intentionally meant what he wrote.  As for the removal of the “veil… the removal of the filters through which we looked at the Bible”, you would have me look at the Bible through your filters of John 6 and Romans 8/9.  You know I object to looking at the Bible through any filters, so reject your claim that Adventists look at the Bible through filters.

Gabriel wrote:
Don’t get me wrong: if you reject the orthodox definition of Trinity because you believe that it is not biblical, you are free to do this and suffer the eternal consequences by adopting a polytheist belief.  You perhaps find no biblical reason to adopt the Christian orthodox Trinity, which is tragic enough, but at least you know that you are rejecting the Trinity. it is dishonest to present yourself as a trinitarian when you know very well that you had rejected the Trinity.

Always absolutes with you Gabriel… That alone tells me that something will be wrong with your views.  They will lack grace.

What your saying here is that I am free to reject the “orthodox” definition of Trinity because I believe that it may contain unbiblical components.  You are free at any time to show me where the Bible says that the Trinity is one physically and that 1-1=0.  I have already shown you where that is unbiblical and you have not responded.  I don’t ask that you respond here but where this subject is being discussed.  I have also read different versions of the “orthodox” definition of Trinity and I do not see your concept of 1-1=0.  You continue to want to call me a heretic for believing what the Bible says and rejecting your unbiblical assertions.  I find that interesting.  I believe that you are simply calling me names because of your need to convince yourself that you are right.  When you lack the evidence you will revert to name calling…

Greg wrote:
I notice you passed over my comments about Adventism being founded on the very judgmental behavior you are accusing me of exhibiting. Would you like to comment on why Ellen White said that Protestant pastors had the “blood of souls” on their hands for not accepting the Millerite date-setting error? How is this not the very same judgmental behavior you say I exhibit?

I passed over this because I believe you want to drag me into a “argument” over EGW.  While you continue to want to quote EGW to support your views, I prefer to stick to the Bible and judge your views based on those writings.