Woody Whiddon who is considered a more progressive SDA wrote this book on EGW and salvation.  It is quite thorough and unapologetic in that there are things that will make the formers say ‘Aha! See? We were right on EGW and her views!” and also will show that EGW held to differing views on salvation as her theology developed.

http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/wws/index.htm

I have read about half of the book so far.

guibox - 31 December 2009 12:37 PM

Woody Whiddon who is considered a more progressive SDA wrote this book on EGW and salvation.  It is quite thorough and unapologetic in that there are things that will make the formers say ‘Aha! See? We were right on EGW and her views!” and also will show that EGW held to differing views on salvation as her theology developed.

http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/wws/index.htm

I have read about half of the book so far.

I had read the entire book when I had studied for my BA in theology at the SDA theological seminary. Without denying that Ellen changed her views about salvation, she had not gone far enough to abandon her theology based on the covenant of works. On my thread about Marrow of Modern Divinity I mentioned what Nomista, the legalist, relates a story about what he thinks it is the story of his change in views, from a legalist to a believer in the gospel. That’s what he thinks. He certainly changed his views about the gospel, but the core covenant of works mindset remained firm in place.

I’ll post here the entire story as Nomista related it

Nomista. Sir, I having been born and brought up in a country where there was very little preaching, the Lord knoweth I lived a great while in ignorance and blindness; and yet, because I did often repeat the Lord’s prayer, the apostles’ creed, and the ten commandments, and in that I came sometimes to divine service, as they call it, and at Easter received the communion, I thought my condition to be good. But at last, by means of hearing a zealous and godly minister in this city, not long after my coming hither, I was convinced that my present condition was not good, and therefore I went to the same minister, and told him what I thought of myself; so he told me that I must frequent the hearing of sermons, and keep the Sabbath very strictly, and leave off swearing by my faith and troth, and such like oaths, and beware of lying, and all idle words and communication; yea, and said he, you must get good books to read on, as Mr. Dodd on the Commandments, Mr. Bolton’s Directions for Comfortable Walking with God, Mr. Brinsley’s True Watch, and such like; and many similar exhortations and directions he gave me, the which I liked very well, and therefore endeavoured myself to follow them. So I fell to the hearing of the most godly, zealous, and powerful preachers that were in the city, and wrote their sermons after them; and when God gave me a family, I prayed with them, and instructed them, and repeated sermons to them, and spent the Lord’s day in public and private exercises, and left off my swearing, and lying, and idle talking; and, according to exhortation, in few words, I did so reform myself and my life, that whereas before I had been only careful to perform the duties of the second table of the law, and that to the end I might gain favour and respect from civil, honest men, and to avoid the penalties of man’s law, or temporal punishment, now I was also careful to perform the duties required in the first table of the law, and that to gain favour and respect from religious, honest men, and to avoid the penalty of God’s law, even eternal torments in hell. Now, when professors of religion observed this change in me, they came to my house, and gave unto me the right hand of fellowship, and counted me one of that number: and then I invited godly ministers to my table, and made much of them; and then, with that same Micah mentioned in the book of Judges, I was persuaded the Lord would be merciful unto me, because I had gotten a Levite to be my priest, (Judg 17:13). In a word, I did now yield such an outward obedience and conformity to both tables of the law, that all godly ministers and religious, honest men who knew me, did think very well of me, counting me to be a very honest man, and a good Christian; and indeed I thought so of myself, especially because I had their approbation. And thus I went on bravely a great while, even until I read in Mr. Bolton’s works, that the outward righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees was famous in those times; for, besides their forbearing and protesting against gross sins, as murder, theft, adultery, idolatry, and the like, they were frequent and constant in prayer, fasting, and alms-deed, so that, without question, many of them were persuaded that their doing would purchase heaven and happiness. Whereupon I concluded, that I had as yet done no more than they; and withal I considered, that our Saviour says, “Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye cannot enter into the kingdom of God,” (Matt 5:20); yea, and I also considered that the apostle says, “He is not a Jew that is one outwardly; but he that is one inwardly, whose praise is not of men, but of God,” (Rom 2:28,29). Then did I conclude that I was not yet a true Christian; for, said I in my heart, I have contented myself with the praise of men, and so have lost all my labour and pains in performing duties; for they have been no better than outside performances, and, therefore, they must all fall down in a moment. I have not served God with all my heart; and, therefore, I see I must either go further, or else I shall never be happy. Whereupon I set about the keeping of the law in good earnest, and laboured to perform duties, not only outwardly, but also inwardly from my heart; I heard, and read, and prayed, and laboured, to bring my heart, and forced my soul to every duty; I called upon the Lord in good earnest, and told him, that whatsoever he would have me to do, I would do it with all my heart, if he would but save my soul. And then I also took notice of the inward corruptions of my heart, the which I had not formerly done, and was careful to govern my thoughts, to moderate my passions, and to suppress the motions and risings of lust, to banish pride and speculative wantonness, and all vain and sinful desires of my heart; and then I thought myself not only an outside Christina, but also an inside Christian, and therefore a true Christian indeed. And so I went on comfortably a good while, till I considered that the law of God requires passive obedience as well as active: and therefore I must be a sufferer as well as a doer, or else I could not be a Christian indeed; whereupon I began to be troubled at my impatience under God’s correcting hand, and at those inward murmurings and discontents which I found in my spirit in time of any outward calamity that befell me; and then I laboured to bridle my passions, and to submit myself quietly to the will of God in every condition; and then did I also, as it were, begin to take penance upon myself, by abstinence, fasting, and afflicting my soul; and made pitiful lamentations in my prayers, which were sometimes also accompanied with tears, the which I was persuaded the Lord did take notice of, and would reward me for it; and then I was persuaded that I did keep the law, in yielding obedience both actively and passively. And then was I confident I was a true Christian, until I considered, that those Jews, of whom the Lord complains, (Isa 58), did as much as I; and that caused me to fear that all was not right with me as yet. Whereupon I went to another minister, and told him that though I had done thus and thus, and suffered thus and thus; yet was I persuaded that I was in no better condition than those Jews. O yes! said he; you are in a better condition than they: for they were hypocrites, and served not God with all their hearts as you do. Then I went home contentedly, and so went on in my wonted course of doing and suffering, and thought all was well with me, until I bethought myself, that before the time of my conversion, I had been a transgressor from the womb; yea, in the womb, in that I was guilty of Adam’s transgression: so that I considered that although I kept even with God for the time present and to come, yet that would not free me from the guiltiness of that which was done before; whereupon I was much troubled and disquieted in my mind. Then I went to a third minister of God’s holy word, and told how the case stood with me, and what I thought of my state and condition. He cheered me up, bidding me be of good comfort: for however my obedience since my conversion would not satisfy for my former sins; yet, inasmuch as, at my conversion, I had confessed, lamented, deplored, bewailed, and forsaken them, God, according to his rich mercy and gracious promise, had mercifully pardoned and forgiven them. Then I returned home to my house again, and went to God by earnest prayer and supplication, and besought him to give me assurance of the pardon and forgiveness of my guiltiness of Adam’s sin, and all my actual transgressions before my conversion; and as I had endeavoured myself to be a good servant before, so I would still continue in doing my duty most exactly; and so, being assured that the Lord had granted this my request, I fell to my business according to my promise; I heard, I read, I prayed, I fasted, I mourned, I sighed, and groaned; and watched over my heart, my tongue, and ways, in all my doings, actions, and dealings, both with God and man. But after a while, I growing better acquainted with the spiritualness of the law, and the inward corruptions of my own heart, I perceived that I had deceived myself, in thinking that I had kept the law perfectly; for, do what I could, I found many imperfections in my obedience; for I had been, and was still subject to sleepiness, drowsiness, and heaviness, in prayers and hearing, and so in other duties; I failed in the manner of performance of them, and in the end why I performed them, seeking myself in everything I did: and my conscience told me I failed in my duty to God in this, in my duty to my neighbour in that. And then I was much troubled again: for I considered that the law of God requires, and is not satisfied without, an exact and perfect obedience. And then I went to the same minister again, and told him how I had purposed, promised, striven, and endeavoured, as much as possibly I could, to keep the law of God perfectly; and yet by woeful experience I had found, that I had, and did still transgress in many ways; and therefore I feared hell and damnation. “Oh! but,” said he, ”do not fear; for the best of Christians have their failings, and no man keepeth the law of God perfectly; and therefore go on, and do as you have done, in striving to keep the law perfectly; and in what you cannot do, God will accept the will for the deed; and wherein you come short, Christ will help you out.” And this satisfied and contented me very much. So I returned home again, and fell to prayer, and told the Lord that now I saw I could not yield perfect obedience to his law, and yet I would not despair, because I did believe that what I could not do Christ had done for me: and then I did certainly conclude, that I was now a Christian indeed, though I was not so before: and so have I been persuaded ever since. And thus, sir, you see I have declared unto you, both how it hath been with me formerly, and how it is with me for the present; wherefore I would entreat you to tell me plainly and truly what you think of my condition.

Evan. Why, truly I must tell you, it appears to me by this relation, that you have gone as far in the way of the covenant of works as the apostle Paul did before his conversion; but yet, for aught I see, you have not gone the right way to the truth of the gospel; and therefore I question whether you be as yet truly come to Christ.

What we see here is a journey from one type of “gospel” to another. From believing that the law requires only external obedience, to a belief that the law requires also internal obedience, the next requirement is that the law requires also a perfect control of passions, and finally, when the guy comes to the realization that the law’s requirements cannot be perfectly met, after he rejects his perfectionism, instead of relying on Christ’s perfect obedience imputed to him, the guy thinks that for his shortcomings the Lord will count his imperfect keeping of the law as perfect keeping as long as he does his best to keep it perfectly.

But no matter how well this guy’s theology developed, even if he apparently rejected perfectionism, the basic “do this and you’ll live” mindset remained in place. Do your best and Jesus’ blood will cover your shortcomings, this was also Ellen White’s final message.

Continuing the part from the Marrow, Evangelista replies

Evangelista. Verily, I do conceive that this gives you no surer evidence of your being truly come to Christ, than some of your strict Papists have. For it is the doctrine of the Church of Rome, that if a man exercise all his power, and do his best to fulfil the law, then God, for Christ’s sake, will pardon all his infirmities, and save his soul. And therefore you shall see many of your Papists very strict and zealous in the performance of duties, morning and evening, so many Ave Marias and so many Pater Nosters; yea, and many of them do great deeds of charity, and great works of hospitality; and all upon such grounds, and to such ends as these. The Papists, says Calvin, cannot abide this saying, “By faith alone”; for they think that their own works are in part a cause of their salvation; and so they make a hotch-potch and mingle-mangle, that is neither fish nor flesh, as men say.

Hotch-potch, mingle-mangle, neither fish nor flesh, that was Ellen White’s final gospel. Neither grace, neither legalism, but a mixture that was not the gospel

Gabriel

guibox - 30 December 2009 10:31 PM

If I have mocked people personally, I apologize. However, I would call that being an ass perhaps, but not elitist. I believe that those who adhere to eternal torment are wrong, plain and simple and I will present my reasons why, yes. However concerning eternal torment and annihilation, I and Stan, unlike some on this forum, have not:

- called one’s Christianity into question for believing what they believe
- labeled a person a ‘heretic’ for believing what they believe
- implied that a person doesn’t follow or know the God of the Bible if they don’t believe what the party line is

and so forth..

This is what I believe to be elitism. It is more methodology and branding than simply addressing dissenting viewpoints.

Isn’t the bolded part exactly what you did when you accused us of worshipping a false “Shiva God”?

Jeremy

guibox - 31 December 2009 07:34 AM

I have yet to meet an Arminianist that believes we can choose to disobey God continually and still make it to heaven.

What about the millions of Arminians who believe in once saved always saved?

Jeremy

I have been thoroughly busy the last few days and have not followed closely the recent comments.

Greg,
I would like your opinion on the original article posted. Do you think his points were valid?

His article was well received around the gospel coalition blogs as very pertinent and should make us all weigh carefully the way we post comments when dealing with such weighty issues.

I don’t think the point of his article was that we shouldn’t criticize bad theology, but it is the spirit and tone in which we discuss these issues which is so important. It spoke to me that way.

It looks like the article was a springboard to imply things that were not meant. I believe we must be theological precise on the Trinity and other doctrines, but allow some flexibility, and do it with grace.

The Reformed doctrines of grace are settling in on me in even a more profound way. They have made it easier to endure trials and given me great peace through times of trial. These doctrines should make us very humble. I have not always conducted myself in a graceful manner.

But maybe some of the effects of believing these doctrines are starting to make me too soft on bad theology.

Maybe I have had too much personal interaction with SDAs lately as patients and colleagues, and family members to make me just a little less judgmental than I used to be. Most of these people do not believe the doctrine of the IJ as traditionally taught. Real Christians can believe bad theology, and this is true in many churches today. This does not mean that it is not important to study theology--it is still a passion of mine. I still read the great Reformed authors and believe that their doctrine is the closest to what the Bible teaches. But our lives must reflect the grace that these great doctrines teach, and this is where I fall short.

Happy New Year everyone!

Stan

guibox - 31 December 2009 12:37 PM

Woody Whiddon who is considered a more progressive SDA wrote this book on EGW and salvation.  It is quite thorough and unapologetic in that there are things that will make the formers say ‘Aha! See? We were right on EGW and her views!” and also will show that EGW held to differing views on salvation as her theology developed.

http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/wws/index.htm

I have read about half of the book so far.

Guibox,

We had some discussion on Whidden at this thread:

http://www.forthegospel.org/forum/viewthread/130/

Stan

Stan,

Here is my post from the first page of this thread, in case you missed it:

JeremyG - 29 December 2009 02:25 PM

Stan,

Gabriel makes some very good, valid points above, and I hope you will address the points he made.

Also, in your latest post above, you wrote:

Stan Ermshar - 25 December 2009 10:43 PM

I was taught a reasonably sound definition of the Trinity when I went to SDA schools.

Stan, would you consider the following statements to be “a reasonably sound definition of the Trinity”?:

“...Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God,...” “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end.”

Jeremy

Stan, I agree with the point of the article. As I said above, believing the true gospel should be very humbling. I continue to be humbled by the grace God has given me in my salvation and also in my life on earth. I don’t deserve what I have but he has seen fit to give it to me anyway.

The issue here is that guibox has used this as a jumping off point to criticize (again) what we’ve done on this forum to hold to truth and expose error. Earlier you said your motivation for posting this article was entirely about your own reflection and said nothing about anyone on this forum, but guibox has not taken this comment to heart. Now we are all Pharisees because we believe that Adventism teaches false doctrine and has a false gospel. Stan, have you changed your mind that the investigative judgment perverts the gospel? It seems that you’re no longer able to draw this conclusion.

Whether there are Adventist Christians or not is beside the point. The point is that by retaining all of these doctrines rather than repudiating them, the Adventist church has created the illusion of moving in a new direction while allowing those who faithfully adhere to the tenets of historic Adventism to cling to a false gospel—with the official blessing of the church. Is this not a problem, Stan?

Greg

Edit: Happy new year to you and everyone else on the forum!

JeremyG - 31 December 2009 03:19 PM

Stan,

Here is my post from the first page of this thread, in case you missed it:

JeremyG - 29 December 2009 02:25 PM

Stan,

Gabriel makes some very good, valid points above, and I hope you will address the points he made.

Also, in your latest post above, you wrote:

Stan Ermshar - 25 December 2009 10:43 PM

I was taught a reasonably sound definition of the Trinity when I went to SDA schools.

Stan, would you consider the following statements to be “a reasonably sound definition of the Trinity”?:

“...Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God,...” “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end.”

Jeremy

Jeremy,

Could you please give me the full context of those quotes? You probably got that from a Mormon source somewhere.  If a person believes that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh underived from all eternity, and believes like the song says “God in three persons, blessed Trinity, then it is orthodox.

The problem is that orthodox Christian apologists today even such as Robert Bowman, one of the greatest minds and authorities on the Trinity are very lax about how other groups define the Trinity To condemn a group, the group has to out and out deny that Jesus is eternal God, and the last time I looked the SDA church does not officially deny this. The Mormons and the JWs both deny the full Deity of Christ.

Stan

Greg - 31 December 2009 03:30 PM

Stan, I agree with the point of the article. As I said above, believing the true gospel should be very humbling. I continue to be humbled by the grace God has given me in my salvation and also in my life on earth. I don’t deserve what I have but he has seen fit to give it to me anyway.

The issue here is that guibox has used this as a jumping off point to criticize (again) what we’ve done on this forum to hold to truth and expose error. Earlier you said your motivation for posting this article was entirely about your own reflection and said nothing about anyone on this forum, but guibox has not taken this comment to heart. Now we are all Pharisees because we believe that Adventism teaches false doctrine and has a false gospel. Stan, have you changed your mind that the investigative judgment perverts the gospel? It seems that you’re no longer able to draw this conclusion.

Whether there are Adventist Christians or not is beside the point. The point is that by retaining all of these doctrines rather than repudiating them, the Adventist church has created the illusion of moving in a new direction while allowing those who faithfully adhere to the tenets of historic Adventism to cling to a false gospel—with the official blessing of the church. Is this not a problem, Stan?

Greg

Edit: Happy new year to you and everyone else on the forum!

Greg,
Of course I believe that the IJ is a perversion of the gospel. But I became less judgmental when I read Michael Horton’s experience in his Christian home whom he refuses to repudiate, and I will repeat my comments from another thread here:

If one holds to the traditional view of the IJ, then it is a false gospel. However, it must be pointed out that even Donald Grey Barnhouse, one of the greatest Calvinist preachers ever accepted Martin’s conclusions about SDA, even with the doctrine of the IJ pretty much intact.

The IJ is an extreme Arminian or Semi-Pelagian doctrine which has no place in Christian theolgy.

However, Michael Horton was brought up in an extreme Arminian background similar to SDA, and he is still charitable to his roots. Here is a quote from Horton describing his experience:

“I was raised in a solid Christian home, with the nurture of daily devotions and the simple piety of believing parents, they offered me a warm, supportive meaningful environment. But in my teenage years, the same cliches, slogans, and experiences which had provided a sense of being “in” and of belonging to a group, began to appear shallow and trite. The rules which I had never questioned began to choke me. My Christian school became my prison. In my senior year in High School, I had a Bible instructor who took particular delight in enumerating the things for which we could be lost. If, for instance we were to die with an unconfessed sin, we would be eternally lost. The implications haunted me, and since I knew I was not good enough, it continued to have a serious effect. What if I screwed up some Saturday night and Jesus came back before I could walk down the aisle on Sunday AGAIN! What if I couldn’t remember a particular sin in order to confess it? There were so many ways I could lose my soul!”
-----------------------------------------------------------

Hmmm.... The above is no different from the terrible heresy of the Investigative Judgment, yet Horton still says he was brought up in a good Christian home, and so was I, even though there was terrible error. But glory be to God, who used this experience to help us understand more fully the grace of God.
----------------

Stan

Stan Ermshar - 31 December 2009 02:53 PM

The Reformed doctrines of grace are settling in on me in even a more profound way. They have made it easier to endure trials and given me great peace through times of trial. These doctrines should make us very humble. I have not always conducted myself in a graceful manner.

But maybe some of the effects of believing these doctrines are starting to make me too soft on bad theology.

Stan, I want you to deal with the real life. We are not dealing only with bad theology. If the SDA Church will have only bad theology, that is not sufficient ground to be as critical as we are with it.

We are dealing with a long history of deliberate ambiguity, not as long as the history of the RCC but sufficient to put the burden of proof on the SDAs shoulders. The history of this church proves that the leadership of this church can’t be trusted. We simply can’t take their words at face value because we know that there is a standard practice in adventism to tell others what they want to hear in order to gain acceptance.

If you want to hear that they believe in a finished atonement, they will affirm that the atonement was finished. But what they will not tell you is that what you mean by a finished atonement is not what they mean. They mean only that the sacrificial part of the atonement was finished. But the atonement continues in the Holy of Holies.

If you want to hear that they believe in Christ’s human nature as being unfallen, they will affirm this while believing the opposite. They will come with a position that affirms that Jesus human nature was in some ways a fallen human nature, but in some ways was unfallen.

When you ask them if they believe if Ellen White is infallible, they will answer with a resounding “No”, but at the same time, they will affirm all the basic doctrines sustained by EGW, sanctuary, sabbath, state of dead, etc. etc. What she labeled as pillars of truth, they will affirm. They will not dare to affirm that she was fallible in establishing any of those pillars. If she said clearly that this is truth, she has the final word, you can’t change it.

Also, the SDA Church is re-writing the history of their church. It’s interesting to see the development of the apologetics. These guys really have no shame in propagating lies after lies.

When they were accused that the church believed in the “Shut Door” theology, they denied. “No adventist pioneer believed this, it’s a lie of the critics.” When the proofs became so clear that it was impossible to deny, they absolved Ellen White from participation, “no, Ellen White’s first vision corrected this error, albeit slowly.” Well, when some other documents and letters appeared in public, it became clear that her first vision had not corrected Ellen White but she brought back the people to the shut door teaching, the adventist apologist said “She misunderstood her first vision, but the first vision was OK”.

The same pattern is seen in the plagiarism. First they denied it’s existence, next admitted that it is true, but only in 2%. When the Walter Rea study brought the evidence on stage that could no longer be denied, they changed course and said that they never denied that she copied from others, but the bad guys from the fundamentalist party were not open about this. To back up this claim, they put the minutes of the 1919 Conference in front “See, all leaders knew that she copied but because of the powerful fundamentalist party, they were afraid of making this information public. These fundamentalist leaders gave Ellen White such a high status that she never assumed for herself.” Really? No kidding? Why those at 1919 Conference struggled how to gave the information about Ellen White’s plagiarism and all the rest to the public if she had been open about her lack of infallibility, lack of authority, literary borrowing, etc.etc.? Only because the fundamentalists were in power? That’s what the contemporary apologets of EGW want us to believe: that she was open about all these, that this was always a public information, and the bad fundamentalist party buried all these informations. But EGW was OK, according to the SDA apologist.

The same is true about EGW and Trinity. People expect us to believe that Ellen, while being the wife of James White, an open antitrinitarian, was trinitarian all the way. Because, it is argued, she never made a statement against the Trinity. But giving the situation in which the SDA church is rewriting its history, there is no reason to believe that she was trinitarian just because we don’t have her anti-trinitarian words. I remember that Walter Martin in the debate with William Johson said that the anti-trinitarian statements of Ellen White were modified. I don’t know what sources he had, but his thesis cannot be rejected. I suspect that White Estate has files in its archives that are kept secret for a serious reason.

The official statement says that EGW is an authoritative source of truth, but they affirm that the Bible is the standard by which her writings are tested. Well, but if she is the authoritative source of truth, who has the authority, a better authority than her, to question her interpretation of the Bible? Walter Martin said, in the same show with William Johnson, that it is circular reasoning to appeal to the authority of the Bible as the standard as long as the interpretation of the standard is given by Ellen White. That’s no standard at all.

What we are dealing here is a church involved in deception. Deceiving others and deceiving themselves. It’s more than bad theology.

Stan, wake up. Please, wake up. We are not dealing with innocent people. We are dealing with people who are able to twist and bend forwards and backwards just in order to win the prize: recognition as a true church.

Gabriel

Stan,

Horton spends week after week re-educating people who may have been raised in a similar environment to his own. I don’t think he’d endorse toleration of a perverted gospel simply because he also came from a similar background. Furthermore, I doubt Horton would have soft words for churches who embed this heresy into their fundamental beliefs.

If the Investigative Judgment is terrible heresy, we should not be content to simply sweep it under the rug in the name of trying to be nice. It is not nice that Adventism still tolerates this heresy and officially endorses it, particularly in the face of the biblical evidence that has been presented to the church over the past hundred years. Do we simply excuse it all in the name of wanting to get along with people or do we call it what it is?

If it is heresy—and you called it such—should we simply look the other way now that we’ve identified it or should the Adventist church be held to task for continuing to promote such blatant, gospel-destroying error? It seems you are arguing for the former, not the latter, and this is puzzling to me.

Greg

One more note about Horton. I have heard him identify the Roman Catholic Church as not being a true church and he refused to sign the ecumenical Evangelicals and Catholics Together document. Stan, are you comfortable with Horton’s assessment of Roman Catholicism? Can we not agree that to the degree Adventism still clings to the works + grace = salvation formula, they are also not a true Christian church?

Greg

Stan Ermshar - 31 December 2009 04:31 PM

“I was raised in a solid Christian home, with the nurture of daily devotions and the simple piety of believing parents, they offered me a warm, supportive meaningful environment. But in my teenage years, the same cliches, slogans, and experiences which had provided a sense of being “in” and of belonging to a group, began to appear shallow and trite. The rules which I had never questioned began to choke me. My Christian school became my prison. In my senior year in High School, I had a Bible instructor who took particular delight in enumerating the things for which we could be lost. If, for instance we were to die with an unconfessed sin, we would be eternally lost. The implications haunted me, and since I knew I was not good enough, it continued to have a serious effect. What if I screwed up some Saturday night and Jesus came back before I could walk down the aisle on Sunday AGAIN! What if I couldn’t remember a particular sin in order to confess it? There were so many ways I could lose my soul!”
-----------------------------------------------------------

Hmmm.... The above is no different from the terrible heresy of the Investigative Judgment,

No different? Are you kidding? Stan, don’t you think that you are speaking with formers who know what the IJ is? Where is the part of going through the time of trouble without a Mediator? The issue is not only confessing sins, but the necessity to live a perfect life while not knowing if you are saved or not because you can’t know the result of the Investigative Judgment. It’s like your destiny is already sealed, but you have no comfort from knowing that you had passed the judgement and you are saved, but you must go through the worst period without having no light of the gospel shining around you.

Where is justification, belief in justification? In the time of trouble you can’t rely on justification because justification IS the final verdict already given at the bar of judgment and you simply can’t know if your initial justification is still valid, if you passed the test of the IJ. You must fight with temptations on another basis than the sure ground of justification. In those moments your sanctification is no longer based on justification, it’s based on thin air. While Horton’s teacher spoke about losing salvation because of not confessing all sins, the SDA view makes it impossible for people to enter heaven. This teacher left room for people who had not died with unconfessed sins to go to heaven, the SDA gospel leaves no room for anybody who’s going through the time of trouble to go to heaven. Because you can’t have sanctification without belief in justification and you can’t have perfect victory over sin, perfect sanctification without justification.

Gabriel
PS: Happy New Year to everybody. I’m already in 2010

Greg - 31 December 2009 05:04 PM

One more note about Horton. I have heard him identify the Roman Catholic Church as not being a true church and he refused to sign the ecumenical Evangelicals and Catholics Together document. Stan, are you comfortable with Horton’s assessment of Roman Catholicism? Can we not agree that to the degree Adventism still clings to the works + grace = salvation formula, they are also not a true Christian church?

Greg

Greg,

My views have not changed since I used to cause a lot of controversy on FAF by refusing to call SDA a cult in the same sense as JWs and Mormons. These views have not changed since 2006, and my views are shared by the likes of Ken Samples and Kim Riddlebarger.

If I believe everything is just fine about SDA, then why have I spent so much time on here pointing out how Adventism perverts the true gospel? Greg, with all respect, I think your views have changed as you were in basic agreement with me in 2006.

But it is OK to change We are having good lively discussion

Stan