| Author | Message | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 118 Registered: 11-2005 |
I just received two copies of "White Washed: Uncovering the Myths of Ellen G. White", written by Sydney Cleveland. If you are interested you can order a copy at http://www.christiancommunitychurch.us/dovenet/wwash.htm While http://www.ellenwhite.org (and many other sites) have loads of material about Ellen White's "inspiration", I was amazed at the amount of new and original material in this book. This 232-page book is well worth the $12.95. It is also an excellent book to use in your evangelistic outreach program to Adventists who are seeking the truth. I try to spend most of my time focusing on growing in the Lord, but there is also the spiritual healing process that many of us are going through called (by Jerry Gladson), "Life after Adventism". There is a recent video we can all relate to, "Called to be Free" (you can watch it online at http://www.lhvm.org/). It is about the Worldwide Church of God discovery that they had been dupped by Herbert W. Armstrong, their prophet and church leader. One of the leaders stated, "How can we have been so theologically ignorant?" I am speechless at how for the past 50 years I have been spritually raped by Adventist mythology and didn't even realize it! This one on page 24-25 really shocked me. A big problem we have, as Colleen pointed out, is that we have been so "White washed" that we can't even separate fact from myth. All of us who were raised as Adventists had programmed into us from the Sabbath School lessons, Bible Stories for worship, and Patriarchs and Prophets for Adult study, the story of how Eve in one of her "weaker" moments left the "safety and security" of Adam's side and was alone when she was tempted by Satan. And as a result that women have always been the "weaker" sex, etc. And that when Eve took the fruit to Adam that he loved her so much that he then ate some too. Here is the story line that we have been taught: "I saw that the holy angels often visited the garden (of Eden), and gave instruction to Adam and Eve concerning their employment, and also taught them concerning the rebellion of Satan and his fall. The angels warned them of Satan, and cautioned them not to separate from each other in their employment. ... Satan commenced his work with Eve, to cause her to disobey. She first erred in wandering from her husband, next in lingering around the forbidden tree." Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1, p. 20, written 1858. "The angels had cautioned Eve to beware of separating herself from her husband ... But absorbed in her pleasing task, she unconsciously wandered from his side. On perceiving that she was alone, she felt the apprehension of danger. ... She soon found herself gazing with mingled curiosity and admiration upon the forbidden tree." Patriarchs and Prophets, p53, 54, written 1890. "Without a fear she plucked and ate. And now, having herself transgressed, she became an agent of Satan in working the ruin of her husband. In a state of strange, unnatural excitement, with her hands filled with the forbidden fruit, she sought his presence. ... He (Adam) mourned that he had permitted Eve to wander from his side." Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 56, written in 1890. Here is what really happened: "The woman said to the serpent 'We may eat. ...' When the woman say that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate it." Genesis 3:4,6 Quoting from Sydney Cleveland's book, "Ellen White claimed Eve wandered away from Adam and was alone when she was tempted at the tree. But God's Word states Adam was physically "with her," and when Eve spoke to the serpent she used the pronoun "we." Can both Ellen White and the Bible be right? No. Here they contradict each other. For other usages of the term "with her", see also 1 Samuel 1:24 and Esther 2:13. Contrary to what Ellen White wrote, Genesis 3:6 specifically states Adam was physically "with her" at the tree! This entire book is loaded with gems like this. Gilbert | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1277 Registered: 3-2005 |
Gilbert, The chapter in the book you describe that impressed me the most was the one about "that handsome young man" that was with her ever since the start of her career in Early Writings. The question is 'Who was that handsome young man who was her 'guide' (spirit guide?) that told her what to write? Stan | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 119 Registered: 11-2005 |
What? I haven't gotten to that part yet! The thing that truly amazes me about many Adventists (including relatives) is that their reply is going to be "So What? I don't believe in Ellen White anyway. I don't see what the big deal is." In other words, "Why don't we just chill out, and ignore the part we don't agree with." Another common statement is "Every church has beliefs that aren't Biblical". If indeed it made no difference we could then follow the path that Brinsmead has followed. But when it comes to the 7th-day Sabbath they certainly become animated. Adventists that respond like this simply don't understand how her mythology permeates all the Adventist teachings. Read, for example the story above in the children's Bible Stories that are slipped into so many doctor's offices. It goes into significant detail about Eve "starying away from Adam's side" and even has a two-page artist's drawing of her standing alone. Sometimes these kinds of responses are discouraging, but if there is even the slightest question in my mind about why I am leaving the Adventist Church, this book leaves absolutely no doubt. I believe that honesty is the greatest virue, and hypocrisy is the greatest vice. Gilbert | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 2128 Registered: 11-2002 |
Gilbert, many years ago my parents were in the adult Sabbath School class at the church they frequently attended. I was probably around 16 when this happened. The SS teacher read that very same passage about Eve taking the fruit to Adam anf giving it to him. My dad broke in and told the SS teacher he had the story all wrong and read the passaghe in the book of Genesis as the story is in the Bible. Without missing a beat the SS teacher butted in on my dad, just totally cut my dad off as my dad was reading the Bible account of the story and said to my dad, "Brother ***, I am reading from inspired inspiration. This is the word of God. This is the way it happened. " My dad walked out and over the next 40 years until his death only attended church when he was pushed into it by kinfolk or a special event. Of course, he would never consider asttending a non-Sabbath observing church but he did frequently after that attend the Sabbath service at the Church of God (Seventh-day) in a town about 40 miles away. So, there we heard it in a SDA church with our own ears, some SDA's will believe EGW even when the Bible is presented to them and the Bible and EGW contradict each other. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3336 Registered: 12-2003  |
Gilbert, that book had the same effect on me. We had already left the church, but when I read that book I was SO CONVINCED that what I had been in was not simply misguided but outright deceptiveóa cult. Her handsome male guide that Stan mentioned was one of the memorable parts of that book for me, tooóalong with the scent of roses she reported smelling. She distinctly had occultic phenomenon accompanying her trances. All this information is in print and availalbeóSydney Cleveland found the sources. The church has KNOWN about her. They have suppressed the evidence and rationalized it away in favor of their own profit and success. Praise God that the light exposes and reveals the darkness. Colleen | ||
| Lynne Registered user Username: Lynne Post Number: 258 Registered: 10-2005 |
Gilbert, I found this description of the Seventh-day Adventist Church on a Presbyterian bible study website. It has some good studies on it. I liked how they called Ellen White a sort of "Pope" for the church. It says: SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISM Some consider it a cult, others do not. (Holds to the teaching of Ellen G. White, born in the 19th century. She claimed to have had visions). The church was founded in the mid 1800s. Many in this denomination apparently believe that Mrs. White was the infallible interpreter of Holy Scripture, giving her authority equal to or above the Scriptures. No one can judge her or disagree with her interpretation of the 1844 Investigative Judgment. She therefore could be considered as a sort of "pope," as what she has proclaimed cannot be challenged. Does not believe in a literal hell as is taught in the Bible. Has 27 articles in their statement of faith. Understanding of prophecy and of the Revelation seems to be far removed from that which is taught by evangelical born-again Bible prophecy teachers, such as Hal Lindsey and others. They dogmatically observe Saturday as their day of rest and worship and use it as a come-on to deceive people. On the surface this aggressive cult can sound very biblical to one that is not well-grounded in the Scriptures or not well-informed. They skillfully combine Biblical truth mixed with error and falsehood which can lead people astray as do many cults. This is the link where this was written: http://www.parentalguide.com/Documents/Church_Desk/Cults.htm They told a bit of my story: I was one that was deceived by the Saturday come-on. They sounded biblical, but I wasn't well ground in Scriptures or well informed. They skillfully combined Biblical truth mixed with error and falsehood which lead me astray. | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 120 Registered: 11-2005 |
Lynne -- That is a good observation and link. Thank you! She certainly acted like a pope. Ballenger stated it so well (http://web2.airmail.net/billtod/cocc12.txt): "Not one of these brethren attempted to show me my error from the Word. One wrote thus: "Candor compels me to say that I can find no fault with it from a Bible standpoint. The argument seems to be unassailable." Another said: "I have always felt that it was safer to take the interpretation placed upon the Scriptures by the Spirit of Prophecy as manifested through Sister E.G. White rather than to rely upon my own judgment or interpretation." This last quotation expresses the attitude of all those who have admitted that my position seemed to be supported by the Scriptures, but hesitated to accept it. Honestly, Sister White, I am afraid to act upon this suggestion; because it will place the thousands upon thousands of pages of your writings in books and periodicals between the child of God and God's Book. If this position be true, no noble Berean dare believe any truth, however clearly it may seem to be taught in the Scriptures, until he first consults your writings to see whether it harmonizes with your interpretation. This is the principle always advocated by the Roman church and voiced in the following quotation: "Like two sacred rivers flowing from Paradise, the Bible and divine Tradition contain the Word of God. Though these two divine streams are in themselves, on account of their divine origin, of equal sacredness, and are both full of revealed truths, still of the two, TRADITION is to us more clear and safe." Catholic Belief p.54. It was against this putting of an infallible interpreter between the man and his Bible that the Reformation waged its uncompromising war. The Romanists robbed the individual of his Bible, denouncing the right of "private interpretation;" while the Reformation handed the Bible back to the individual while denouncing the papal dogma that demands an infallible interpreter between the child of God and his Bible. The brethren urge me to accept your interpretation of the Scriptures as clearer and safer than what they call my interpretation. But I have not interpreted this Scripture, I have allowed the Lord to do this and have accepted his interpretation." | ||
| Snowboardingmom Registered user Username: Snowboardingmom Post Number: 27 Registered: 11-2005 |
I keep learning new things on this forum. Up until now, I thought that Eve was alone. I had no idea that the Bible says Adam and Eve were together. As I've read different posts over the past few months, I'm amazed at how often I'll read something and say, "That's not in the Bible? Or that's in the Bible?" I used to hate it when people accused SDAs of being a cult, but the more I study, the more I'm beginning to think that it is. It's so subtle... | ||
| Snowboardingmom Registered user Username: Snowboardingmom Post Number: 28 Registered: 11-2005 |
Along those same lines of learning/realizing new things, I just read a little on another thread about there not being a Great Controversy? I guess I don't understand? How do you throw out that belief? Kind of like Star Wars -- good vs. evil? Isn't that a basic theology that other churches believe? Not sure whether to post there or here, but it seems to fit the Ellen White topic here too. Can someone explain? | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1282 Registered: 3-2005 |
Snowboardingmom, The point made on the other thread that Jackob brought up about how the doctrine of the great controversy between Christ and Satan destroys the Biblical doctrine of God's sovereignty. When Christ died on the cross, He purchased our salvation permanently, and when He rose from the dead Satan's doom was sealed. Really, there was never any controversy between Christ and Satan, but the victory was finalized when Christ rose from the dead. This idea of Star Wars is really a pagan idea called dualism. The reason the great controversy doctrine borders on blasphemy is because it puts Christ and Satan on the same battlefield as equals. This came from EGW's false idea that Lucifer and Christ were really equal angels at one time. The fact is, Jesus was Lucifer's creator and not equal (John 1:1-3). The Triune God is completely sovereign over all His creation. As Jackob pointed out on the other thread, this strikes at the heart of God's sovereignty and glorifies man's free-will. In other words, man is responsible to struggle to save himself. There is this constant struggle of the sinner to live a life so he might reach a certain standard of perfection to be able to pass the Investigative Judgment. This strikes at the very heart of the gospel. Stan | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 2130 Registered: 11-2002 |
Speeking of Star Wars-about a year or so ago the cover of the Signs Of The Times had Jesus and satan duking it out with light sabers. Even Jay Leno displayed that magazine on his show under his segnent that he does about corny headlines. | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 122 Registered: 11-2005 |
Stan -- that's a great explanation, and Susan -- that is incredible. The Adventist belief system is like an onion. Peel off layer after layer of false doctrine, and it just keeps going on and on. I am reminded of Mark Hacking (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Mark+Hacking%22+lies&btnG=Google+Search) and all of his lies. He told lie after lie, until finally he killed his wife to try to cover up all of his lies. Adventism is just like this. Ellen White, and the leadership (including the current leadership), has told lie after lie, and then spiritually murdered the reputations of 100's of honest Bible Scholars like Desmond Ford, Albion Ballenger, and on and on. Their cover-up needs to be thoroughly exposed. Gilbert | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 123 Registered: 11-2005 |
Susan -- here are links to the Signs of the Times cover you referred to. The way the Adventist Church trivializes this on their magazine cover is shocking! http://pinkoski.com/files/index.php?id=26 http://www.pinkoski.com/files/images/LenoSIGNS.jpg http://www.pinkoski.com/files/images/SW_signs04.jpg To quote: "This issue of SIGNS OF THE TIMES was published in Sept. 2004 -- the Bible talks about a "war in heaven" between Satan and Christ, and for 140+ years the Seventh-day Adventist Church has been doing its best to inform people about this cosmic conflict!" "The Bible is the ultimate 'Star Wars' story!" Gilbert | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1285 Registered: 3-2005 |
I really hadn't thought very much in the past about how absurd it is to have a created being Lucifer in controversy with his own Creator. "Shall the thing made talk back to the One who made it?" and Christ was the Creator of Lucifer according to John 1:1-3. I still can't get over this thought. Stan | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 87 Registered: 7-2005 |
Yes, Stan, it's absurd to think about a controversy between a finite being and God, who is Infinite in every way. The two cannot be compared, because the difference between them is infinite. I want to add something. The great controversy carries with it the idea that God MUST respond to the accusations of Satan. He must exonerate Himself. He must do something to clear His name. But God cannot be forced to do something, He is sovereign. Finally, we come to the conclusion that Satan is above God, because God must play in the game invented by Satan. It's awfull, and to believe that we play in a game wich has been set by Satan, even God cannot refrain from playing. more, the grace is no more grace, it's no more free grace. God must manifest grace to prove that it is a loving God. God must save somebody, if He chooses not to save anybody, even if they deserved to die, so, if He send all to hell, Satan wins because God cannot be a loving God. Of course, He is just, but not a loving God. Oh, I'm tired of this reasoning. Praise God for His undeserved grace, who choosen us for salvation according to His own pleasure, because He wanted so, not because He was forced to do. I pray every day to God to transform and conform me to His Word, and will, for my life to reflect His glory. I never know Him like I began to know Him, really, all I had was shadows. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3338 Registered: 12-2003 |
Many of you have heard our story of our younger son saying to me, when I was trying to calm his fears about leaving Loma Linda Elementary and going to a nondenominational school, that Ellen's visions came from Satan. I had never thought that boldly about that idea before I heard him say it. Then I realized that because Adventist doctrines had been founded on visions from Satan, by deduction Satan had a claim on Adventism. As Richard and I discussed this thought and its implications for the next month or so, we realized then the heresy of the Great Controversy. It dawned on us, as Jackob and Stan and Gilbert have said, that Jesus is not in conflict with a fallen angel; that idea places Jesus and Satan as equal opponents in a cosmic war. Further, the Great Controversy idea has humanity playing a role in helping God win. Huh?? The bottom line is that in Adventism, there is truly no understanding or acceptance of God as truly sovereign. Not only is God the Father not truly sovereign, Adventism portrays Jesusóin spite of its lingoóas decidedly "lower" than the Father. The fact that Adventists have no trouble picturing Jesus and Satan as opponents confirms this fact. They SAY Jesus is God, but they BELIEVE that he is "different". Jesus is the Eternal Creator. Nothing that has been made was made apart from His Word. (John 1:1-4). Satan was created by Jesus. He's in no battle with Him. Mormons believe that originally, Satan and Jesus were brothers. They had a fight, and they had to "duke it out" (figuratively) to see who would win. Jesus won, and He is ówell, whatever Mormons believe Him to beóand Lucifer is now Satan. Does that theme sound vaguely familiar? Nowhere does the Bible portray Satan and Jesus fighting. As I mentioned on another thread, the Bible shows Michael the archangel fighting with Satan--never Jesus. Jesus is LordóJesus is the creator. The Great Controversy, for all its pious-sounding words, is an elaborate and treacherous attempt to elicit sympathy for Satan (the tragic figure who ultimately bears our sins as the scapegoat when Jesus is the scapegoat who bears our sins) and to degrade Jesus to something a bit greater than mere humanity but definitely less than the Fatheróuh, something more likeóan angel! If you look at the Bible and try to find the assumptions on which the Great Controversy is framed, they're not there. Satan rebelled; he did not challenge Jesus or accuse Him of unfairness or attack the validity and justice of the law. He rebelledóthe Bible doesn't say the nature of the rebellion. As for the "good against evil" theme: Whenever the Bible tells us about God and righteousness overcoming evil, it NEVER involves human fighting or "help". When Israel was taking Canaan, God Himself fought their battles and won their wars by miracles. For example, Gideon and 300 men with torches shouting "the sword of the Lord and of Gideon," and then the enemy, in a frenzy of fear, turns on themselves and kills themselves? Or Israel and Jerichoómarching around the city for seven days, blowing trumpets, and the walls falling downóor sending the Israelites into battle led by ógulp!óthe CHOIR? When Israel was encamped by the Red Sea and saw the Egyptians coming after them, Moses spoke astonishing words: "Stand firm and you will see the deliverance the Lord will bring you todayÖThe Lord will fight for you; you need only to be still." (Exodus 14:13-14) Colossians 2:14 describes Jesus' unilateral defeat of evil: "And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross." 1 Peter 3:22 says Jesus "has gone into heaven and is at God's right handówith angels, authorities and powers in submission to him." That's present tense. In reality, God alone conquers evilóand the cross was the pivotal even in history when this conquering happened. Even before the cross, however, God has always been God. Satan was doomed with no hope for rescue before the cross. Peter also comments on this fact: "For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgmentÖif this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from tials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment." In "good vs. evil" scenarios based on evil or pagan traditions, there is no sovereign God of goodness and justice and mercy. There are "good" powers and "evil" powers, but they enlist their followers to help them win. Further, the "good" powers are just more clever than the "evil" ones. They might do unethical things or use deception of sneaking to win their victories, and they might elicit the sympathy of the observers. They are not winning over evil by the unilateral, sovereign goodness, justice, and mercy of the One True God. Hollywood"s (and Hinduism's, etc.) protrayal of good and evil is far more relative than the Bible's portrayal. No, the Great Controversy is fabricated in the same way the Mormon's battle is fabricated, and the same way pagan and wordly systems portray good vs. evil. Actually, however, I do not believe there are "just human" or "neutral" understandings of good and evil. People are either in Christ, or they are not. If they are not, and if they are suppressing the knoweldge of God as Romans 1 describes, they are under the influence of evil. Ellen's Great Controversy came from the same source as Joseph Smith'sóand I don't believe we can attribute these ideas to head wounds or simple fantasy. The subtle theme of denigrating Jesus to an opponent whom Satan may fairly fight is blasphemy. Jesus is Lord of all! Colleen | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1286 Registered: 3-2005 |
Amen Jackob and Colleen--well said! Stan | ||
| Lynne Registered user Username: Lynne Post Number: 259 Registered: 10-2005 |
Gilbert - That was an interesting Star Wars link. Thanks. But I couldn't get the other two Leno links. Colleen - Thank you for the clarification about this Great Controversy theme. As I've stated before, I stopped going to church for a number of years and some of the things in the bible that I was taught by the Adventists sort of went blurry in my head because I stopped caring about it. But as I read these threads and am going to a bible study at a church that teaches the gospel, all of these things that I was taught in the Seventh-day Adventist church are coming back. Especially as you are discussing Michael and the conflict. It is all in my memory bank, and you are giving me flashbacks. This is close, if not the same thing that the Mormons teach. As you stated: "Nowhere does the Bible portray Satan and Jesus fighting. As I mentioned on another thread, the Bible shows Michael the archangel fighting with Satan--never Jesus. Jesus is LordóJesus is the creator." You cleared up a question that I haven't yet asked and now don't need to. Not about Jesus being Lord, but about the SDAs teaching of Michael fighting with Jesus. Now I know it was Satan Michael was fighting with. Uh, what is all this fighting about? Anyway, I'll go onto the next question if somebody doesn't answer it for me in a study or on the forum before I ask... As I have plenty more bible questions to go that will only be answered in time. I remember sitting in a SS class and learning about Satan carrying our sins. I was a little dreamy and started daydreaming about goats and pigs and people and had all sorts of different ideas about how sins could be carried off... It was sort of boring to me, what can I say. I had to go to those classes on the Sabbath didn't I? But to say the least, it is far from the truth and blasphemy. I also remember hearing about the wolf in sheeps clothing in one of my SS classes. An elderly woman brought it up, warning people in the class, with sort of smurk. Gives me goosebumps now. It is funny how the look on her face hasn't left my memory even after 17 years! I've had a lot of strange flashbacks since leaving the church and learning the truth about it. Jesus and only Jesus, is my Lord, is my Creator, is my Master! Jesus is Lord. Isn't the real Word of God great! Far greater than any can imagine. No vision can compare. Lynne | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 2267 Registered: 3-2004  |
I agree with Stan, Jackob and Colleen. Amen! Diana | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 2133 Registered: 11-2002 |
Check this out! I was at a relatives house and it got evening so the kinfolk invited me to stay for their evening family worship. I stayed. To my dismay family worship consisted of prayer and reading a passage from EGW's Great Controversery. I was totally stunned! I mean, at worship?! | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 2268 Registered: 3-2004 |
Gilbert, I forgot to add that when I tried to go to the 2nd and 3rd links you gave, a sign pops up that says this page is off limits. I wonder why?? Diana | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 124 Registered: 11-2005 |
Diana -- I am sorry you are having problems with the two image (jpg) links. They go to the two pictures further down on the page referenced by the first link. And so you can see the same two pictures by just scrolling down a ways on the first page. The second and third link just reference the pictures themselves. Gilbert | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1046 Registered: 10-2004  |
The second link didn't work for me at first either, but I tried it again and it worked. I noticed that at the first link it says, "the Bible talks about a 'war in heaven' between Satan and Christ"--no it doesn't! It says Michael and Satan. And Jesus isn't Michael--that would be putting Him on an equal level with Satan. You know how the SDAs like to point out that Jesus said "The LORD rebuke thee, Satan" in Zechariah just like Michael did in Jude? Well, I just discovered something about that recently. It says the same thing in both places in our English translations, but not in the original languages! According to Young's Literal Translation, Jude 1:9 says,
And according to blueletterbible.org, the word "rebuke" is in the optative mood, which expresses a wish or desire for an action to occur. Now, here is how Young's Literal Translation translates Zechariah 3:2:
As you can see, this is much different from what Michael says! Michael is expressing a wish that the LORD rebuke Satan, while in Zechariah, the LORD Himself boldly declares that He is "pushing against" Satan! It is definitely not the same thing being said after all! In one case, we have an angel not daring to bring a railing judgement against Satan but expressing a wish that the LORD rebuke him, and in the other we have the LORD Himself making a bold declaration to Satan that He is "pushing against" him. This actually refutes the SDA argument that Michael is Jesus--it does not help it! BTW, I scanned that other picture awhile back, that you talked about before, Susan, from the It Is Written ad. I'll try to post a link to it in a new thread soon. Jeremy | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1289 Registered: 3-2005 |
Thanks for those insights, Jeremy. I am really glad you're back in great form with good research! Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1290 Registered: 3-2005 |
"HE HAS NO CLAIM ON ME" I ran across an article today by Tim Challies that expresses so well the Biblical doctrine of the gospel relative to any claims that Satan might have on our souls. This is the true Biblical response to Adventism's great controversy doctrine. I think this is really powerful, but let me know what you think. www.challies.com/archives/001637.php Stan | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 2271 Registered: 3-2004 |
Since Jesus died and was resurrected and I accepted Him, Satan has no claim on me. That is so simple to understand. Thank you God. You are awesome. Diana |
