| Author | Message | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 121 Registered: 5-2007 |
I have been reading up on some of the beliefs of a Church I am considering attending. A recurring theme I see is various denominations present logic strings that appear to make some sense but then when it is to thier advantage depending upon the subject tehy often use the opposite logic string to justify a point. For example, a common one is, X is so because it is never mentioned in scripture. Or Y is so because scripture does not tell us specificaly that it was to be discontinued. Now depending on the subject, they use whatever works for them. Example: They argue to discontinue the 7th day Sabbath by saying it was not commanded in the NT, but argue to retain the tithe even though it too is not commanded in the NT. Thus , the same church(s) defeat their own arguments by using two standards for establishing a point. I mentioned before, I do not think there is a single church that has it's doctrine consistantly presented with logic and integrity of the rules it stands on. You can't have your cake and eat it too, so to speak. Yes , I understand , fellowship is more important and our walk with Christ is paramount. My problem is I am tired of these scenarios where they assume a spirtual leadership and authority based upon flawed reasoning and errant doctrines. All this sets me up for more spiritual abuse. A Baptist(among others) church is preaching Sunday sanctity and endorsing restricting purchases on Sunday, a form of forcing the conscious, yet their own charter proclaims individual liberty of conscious and a separation of church and state. In other words, I see these various churches not even preaching what they supposedly say they believe or not practicing what they say they believe becuase it is unpopular and unworkable. I do not want to sound judgemental. This is about achieving a conviction on the basics, in order to find a church to call home. | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 3888 Registered: 3-2004  |
I knew my church advodcated tithe paying, but the preachers do not preach it or make it a salvation issue. The way I learned it as an SDA was that if we did not pay tithe, it was a salvation issue. In other words, I would not make it to heaven. I would never attend a church that said Sunday was Sabbath. Pray about a church. Go to many, talk to the pastors about what you see is New Covenant and Old Covenant. Then pray some more. God has something for you, some where. Diana | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 955 Registered: 9-2006  |
Know what you mean about the faulty logic Jim. I wouldn't put up a bet that you will find a perfect fit, I can tell you that all the protestant churches are based on the below fundamental. The four pillars of the Christian faith. 1. Believe that Christ died and rose the third day. 1 Cor 15:1 and Romans 10: 9,10 2. Sola feida (think I spelled that right) faith alone. 3. Christ deity. 4. Absolute and complete atonement for our sins at the cross. Look at it like a four legged stool, you can sit firmly on this stool and the legs will hold. Examine it logically and with the Bible. This is the foundation of the protestant faith, the pillars upon which the protestant faith rests on, notice that I did not say catholic. Some churches such as Adventist would like to sound as if they belong to the protestant church but they are a sham. A Roman Catholic will tell you he is Catholic he does not try to hide at least. In the military (At least in my day) you were ask if you were Protestant or Catholic or Jewish, you had no other check box with which to answer this question. So which is it Jim, if you extract either one of those four pillars or legs up there you are not even protestant. An Adventist is not a protestant, a half Adventist is not a protestant. In order to claim the name Christian you have to have those four fundamentals regardless of the other baggage you might carry along with it. I challenge anyone to try to extract a leg or pillar using the Bible from these four fundamentals of the protestant faith. If you find a church that does not hold all four of these fundamentals they are not protestant, they may claim to be but they are a sham. Look at the logic and see how one affects the other. Again I wish you the best in finding a place where you can feel at home. River | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 122 Registered: 5-2007 |
River you wrote the following list of four pillars. The four pillars of the Christian faith. 1. Believe that Christ died and rose the third day. 1 Cor 15:1 and Romans 10: 9,10 SDA agree. 2. Sola feida (think I spelled that right) faith alone. SDA hold a study on Righteousness By Faith that pretty much includes this. 3. Christ deity. I cannot speak for the 1800s , but current teachings include the Trinity and the Diety of Christ. 4. Absolute and complete atonement for our sins at the cross. The teach that as well. So , I am not getting the point here. | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 956 Registered: 9-2006 |
Jim, the sda TRY to include those things, but they pollute it with E.G W, IJ, Sabbath only worship, works salvation, eating habits of the rabbit, it doesn't hold up under their SDA doctrines and beliefs, they are a sham mimicking those four pillars. All they can do is mimic. You have to know your Bible in order to get the true meaning of those four pillars. Now before I get exasperated with you and say something I will regret later, I am going to shut up and leave you at it lest we end up going around and around, I am just not prepared to go in circles that lead nowhere but would only upset us both. Been there, done that and got the T shirt. River | ||
| Reb Registered user Username: Reb Post Number: 216 Registered: 5-2007 |
River is 100% right, Jim. | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 126 Registered: 5-2007 |
Run Silent Run Deep, message recieved. | ||
| Jwd Registered user Username: Jwd Post Number: 280 Registered: 4-2005  |
Try Sola fide. :c) (by faith alone) A difficulty I have discovered when it comes to "logic and reason," and we know that is rittled with holes. Truth is not always logical and reasonable, especially to the carnal mind. And often I determine my own standard of what is logical and reasonable to me; which "can be" far from that which is ultimate truth. For instance, where is the logic in 2 Cor 5:21? This suddenly becomes the "foolishness" to the unregenerate mind. Not at all logical and certainly not reasonable. Yet it comes from God's pre-dawn purpose (Cp.Eph 1:4). But getting back to what I started to say. I have discovered other churches, Sola Scriptura churches, even, who have Biblical interpretations I believe stem from "theological presuppositions" rather than contextural, balanced hermeneutics and exegesis. Adventism has (IMHO) a foundation of "theological presuppositions" behind some of it's key teachings. A group of men, or one man, or one "prophet" comes up with what he/they think is the truth. They then go in search of Scripture and pick out all the texts which "seem" / "appear" to support my presupposition (my own interpretation, which is often based more upon subjectivism, than objective balanced weighing of the evidence of Scripture itself; not my perceptions of what is the truth I want to be revealed); and thus a Corn Field theology labelled the Investigative Judgment arises; and people will virtually come to blows over defending it. Bible truth must harmoize (be logical and reasonable) with the WHOLE of Scripture; but, in my conviction, must yield always to the final APEX of Scripture authority, in Jesus Christ in the New Testament. Not the Old defining the New, but the New defining the Old. Jess | ||
| Stevendi Registered user Username: Stevendi Post Number: 146 Registered: 10-2006 |
Adventism is religion. Religion is man-made. The Gospel is God-made. I do not need religion. I need God. I hope that's not too complicated for all us theological brain surgeons out here. Do not panic when you read this, do not call 911. Do pray. steve (Message edited by stevendi on June 29, 2007) | ||
| Laurie Registered user Username: Laurie Post Number: 20 Registered: 6-2007 |
Adventism absolutely does NOT teach Absolute and complete atonement for our sins at the cross. The IJ is the second phase of the atoning ministry of Jesus. This is stated in no uncertain terms in the actual doctrine of the SDA church. Great Controversy Page 489 The intercession of Christ in man's behalf in the sanctuary above is as essential to the plan of salvation as was His death upon the cross. By His death He began that work which after His resurrection He ascended to complete in heaven. Ellen is stating that His death BEGAN the work of salvation. Here's another one: "But, according to the unerring word of God, every man will be judged and rewarded according as his works have been, and we are admonished to so speak and to so do as 'they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.' When sin has been repented of, confessed, and forsaken, then pardon is written against the sinner's name; BUT HIS SINS ARE NOT BLOTTED OUT UNTIL AFTER THE INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT." The Signs of the Times, May 16, 1895 No comment needed on that one. Laurie | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 960 Registered: 9-2006 |
Jess, I knew I misspelled that but it was all Steves fault.  River | ||
| Laurie Registered user Username: Laurie Post Number: 21 Registered: 6-2007 |
Nothing gets me going like hearing someone say that adventism teaches completement atonement for our sins at the cross. Straight from the SDA website: 24. Christ's Ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary: There is a sanctuary in heaven, the true tabernacle which the Lord set up and not man. In it Christ ministers on our behalf, making available to believers the benefits of His atoning sacrifice offered once for all on the cross. He was inaugurated as our great High Priest and began His intercessory ministry at the time of His ascension. In 1844, at the end of the prophetic period of 2300 days, He entered the second and last phase of His atoning ministry. It is a work of investigative judgment which is part of the ultimate disposition of all sin, typified by the cleansing of the ancient Hebrew sanctuary on the Day of Atonement. In that typical service the sanctuary was cleansed with the blood of animal sacrifices, but the heavenly things are purified with the perfect sacrifice of the blood of Jesus. The investigative judgment reveals to heavenly intelligences who among the dead are asleep in Christ and therefore, in Him, are deemed worthy to have part in the first resurrection. It also makes manifest who among the living are abiding in Christ, keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, and in Him, therefore, are ready for translation into His everlasting kingdom. This judgment vindicates the justice of God in saving those who believe in Jesus. It declares that those who have remained loyal to God shall receive the kingdom. The completion of this ministry of Christ will mark the close of human probation before the Second Advent. It infuriates me....He entered the second and last phase of His atoning ministry. It is a work of investigative judgment which is part of the ultimate disposition of all sin. There is no second phase of atonement. Atonement was complete at the cross. PERIOD! Laurie | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 6169 Registered: 12-2003  |
So true. Jim, the SDA church does not actually teach those four pillars. On the surface they have doctrinal statements that sound orthodox, but they are deceptively worded, and in practice, Adventists are not taught the toatlly completed atonement (which includes the assurance of salvation as per Ephe 1:13-14 and Romans 8:14-17). They are not taught the unambiguous divinity of Jesus. While on the one hand they CLAIM he is eternal and fully God, in practice they teach he could have sinned, He didn't know whether or not He would be able to complete His mission, and that had He failed, the universe would have spun out of control. They actively teach that God took a risk in sending Jesus, and that the Godhead would have been fractured if Jesus had failed. Absolutely NONE of this stuff is Biblical. Jesus as a man may not have been able to see clearly what would happen, yet He still taught His disciples that he would rise the third day. God is eternal and indestrucible and not able to sin...God did NOT risk the Trinity when Jesus came. The way Adventists teach and understand their "innocuous" statements of belief bear no resemblance to the way Protestant churches teach thes same doctrines. No, Adventists merely CLAIM to believe. In practice, they teach something very different. The founding roots are the secret, Jim. Adventism did not spring from the apostolic church. Protestantism did. Adventism sprang from the heresy or Arianism, and that Arian root still nourishes and shapes the practical understanding of Adventist doctrines. Colleen | ||
| Bobj Registered user Username: Bobj Post Number: 215 Registered: 1-2006  |
Laurie The IJ puts man at the center of his own salvation--it all depends on the sinner--Jesus only makes it POSSIBLE for him to be saved, and therefore makes his salvation just another form of idolatry. In the OT, when a sinner brought a sacrifice to the priest, the LAMB was examined to make sure IT was perfect (and therefore qualified to serve as the sinner's substitute) not the sinner who throughout his entire life had to repeatedly and continually bring sacrifices for his sin. Contrast this to the IJ, in which the SINNER is examined to see if HE is perfect and can stand before before God without sinning and without the Saviour as Mediator. Of what value is Jesus if he is not available at such a moment? It's may seem subtle, but it's outright idolatry--the same humanistic, sinner-centered, do-it-yourself--just try harder--stuff. Calvinists make a good point when they say that the Arminian God is not worshippable. Bob | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 968 Registered: 9-2006 |
Good points Bob. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1895 Registered: 10-2004  |
Bob wrote: "In the OT, when a sinner brought a sacrifice to the priest, the LAMB was examined to make sure IT was perfect (and therefore qualified to serve as the sinner's substitute) not the sinner who throughout his entire life had to repeatedly and continually bring sacrifices for his sin." Yes, and praise God that now Jesus' ONCE FOR ALL sacrifice has TAKEN AWAY (SCAPEGOAT) our sins ONCE FOR ALL, something the animal sacrifices could never do.
PRAISE JESUS!!! HALLELUJAH!! Laurie wrote: "Nothing gets me going like hearing someone say that adventism teaches completement atonement for our sins at the cross." Oh, I know! The early SDAs, including EGW, taught that there was NO atonement at the cross. See this link that Gilbert posted on another thread (see the section at that link entitled "SDAs on the Atonement"). And regarding the SDA teaching: "It infuriates me...." Me, too! And what infuriates me even more is that they teach that neither of the two supposed "atonements" of Jesus are enough--they don't actually TAKE AWAY our sins--that SATAN has to atone for our sins in order for our sins to be remembered no more and, as EGW says, in order for us to be "freed from the burden of [our] sins"!!!!!!!!!!! What satanic BLASPHEMY!!!! I just can't comprehend how anyone could have a problem with someone calling Adventism a satanic cult! This teaching is worse than satanism itself. The work of the Scapegoat in taking away our sins is what saves us! And they say it's Satan NOT Jesus!!!! It's too awful to write about... See this previous post of mine for more on how horrific this SDA heresy is of satan bearing the sins of the saved and paying the penalty/punishment for them as the "scapegoat." Jim wrote:
No, they don't. They believe that Christ ceased to exist for three days. And that on the third day, "the Father" re-created Him. They deceptively call this the "resurrection"--even though they have a vastly different definition than the Christian/Biblical definition, and even the definition Jesus Himself gave of His resurrection! The official SDA Fundamental Belief statement #7 "Nature of Man" says:
And their official Fundamental Belief statement #26 "Death and Resurrection" says:
The first two following quotes are from chapter 2 of the SDA Church's official belief book, Seventh-day Adventists Believe, the third quote is from chapter 25 of that book, and the last two are from EGW:
[Notice that not only does Ellen change the placement of the comma and the capitalizations, she also removes the word "Verily" (although she did include that word when quoting it on the previous page). Not only this, but she also has to change the word order--instead of it saying as the KJV reads, "shalt thou," she has to change it to "Thou shalt" in order for it to even make sense!] Also, Adventists, like Ellen, commonly use the verse where Jesus says He had not yet ascended to His Father, to say that Jesus did not have an existence for those three days that He was dead. Additionally, Adventists, like Ellen, change the verse about being in Paradise that day because they do not believe that Jesus had an existence while dead (or that the thief continued to exist after dying). These blasphemous teachings are a denial that Jesus is the one true God. And if "Jesus" ceased to exist, then that means that he was merely "re-created" after three days. According to Adventism's teaching, the "Jesus" they worship and that they believe is alive now cannot be the same "Jesus" that they believe "died" (ceased) on a cross. Instead, he has to be a new, re-created "Jesus" who has not even existed for as long as Moses, Enoch or Elijah have! Therefore, the SDA "Jesus" is a created being who was created on a Sunday in A.D. 31.
Some Adventists may say they believe in salvation by "faith alone"--but they re-define "faith" to include "works"! The official SDA Fundamental Belief statement, #10 "Experience of Salvation," says:
Notice that part of salvation is living a "holy life" and that our "assurance of salvation" is based on "abiding in Him" (defined by Adventism as "keeping the commandments") and becoming "partakers of the divine nature" (again, defined by Adventism as living a holy life/"keeping the commandments"). This is salvation by WORKS. Period. Straight from their Fundamental Beliefs. And belief #24, quoted above by Laurie, is even more explicit: "It also makes manifest who among the living are abiding in Christ, keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, and in Him, therefore, are ready for translation into His everlasting kingdom. This judgment vindicates the justice of God in saving those who believe in Jesus. It declares that those who have remained loyal to God shall receive the kingdom." (http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html)
This has been discussed at length before, and in short, they do not teach the Trinity or that Jesus is FULLY (all of) God. When they say "fully God and fully man" they simply mean "fully divine and fully human." In other words, Jesus is only "fully divine" just as He is "fully human." In other words, just as there are other humans even though Jesus is fully human, they teach that there are other gods (divine beings) besides Jesus, even though He is "fully divine"! In Adventism, "fully God" simply means "fully a member of the God group/Godhead." But actually, their official Fundamental Belief statement (#4 "Son") doesn't even say "fully God"! It says "truly God" and "truly man"! The official SDA Fundamental Belief statement #2 "Trinity" (sometimes changed to "Godhead" in official SDA publications!) says:
At first glance, this statement may appear to be somewhat orthodox-sounding. But in fact, what it says is not very orthodox at all, and their statement is actually heretical in itself. It states, "There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons." Notice how their "one God" is defined as "a unity of three co-eternal Persons." As Christians, we don't worship "a unity of three"--we worship one living God (one Being, three persons)! They define "one God" as a "unity [group] of three" Persons! (And if you look at the official minutes here of the 1980 GC session [where the Fundamental Beliefs were adopted], as recorded in the Adventist Review, it is clear that the men discussing it were Tritheists and that they were using certain words to deceive Christendom. They even admitted to such deception regarding the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, as I posted previously here.) So even what their official statement is saying is that there is a "group" or "family" of three "Persons"--and this group is called "God" and there is only "one" group. In fact, in some ways their current statement of Fundamental Beliefs is LESS orthodox than the pre-1980 statement of beliefs, even though that statement did not say Jesus is eternal. Interestingly, in 1980 they DELETED their previous (1931) wording about Jesus, where they had said that he was "of the same nature and essence as the Eternal Father." (Of course that was deceptively stated--even back then they didn't mean the same thing Christians mean, that God is one Being!) The official SDA belief book, Seventh-day Adventists Believe, is very clear in its teaching of Tritheism (three gods), especially in chapter 2, "The Godhead." I have posted analysis that I've done of that book previously elswhere, and can post it here if anyone is interested. Additionally, their official "Summary of Doctrinal Beliefs" which is part of their official "Baptismal Covenant"--and which is published in their official Church Manual, teaches a polytheistic "Godhead." See my post here, and the post following it.
Number 4 has been addressed above. If the SDAs teach these 4 pillars of the Christian faith, then why leave Adventism??? Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on July 01, 2007) | ||
| Laurie Registered user Username: Laurie Post Number: 22 Registered: 6-2007 |
Bob That was a very beautiful post. I had never thought of it in those exact terms - the lamb being examined and found perfect, just as Jesus was our perfect substitute. I mean, I knew all those things, I just never thought of it all together like that in relation to the IJ. I had to read that one out loud to my husband! I think I may be a little different than a lot of former adventists. Ellen White was not discussed in my home as a child. I don't recall my parents ever talking about her. I was educated in the SDA school system for 10 years so I got a heavy dose of it there. I decided in the first grade that she was not a prophet from God and that I would never accept anything that came solely from her. And I never did. Especially the IJ. Through the 10 years of school and 40 years of church and sabbath school I was definetely exposed to this doctrine and I have studied it extensively in order to defend my position with SDA's - especially my mom. But I have never felt like I was deceived by Ellen. I feel like the SDA church tried and tried to deceive me all my life, but I knew at the age of 8 that I would never have anything do to with her and I never pretended to believe in her at home, school, or church. I did not become vocal in speaking out against her until I was about 40. Kinda pitiful - why would I stay there all those years? I think the answer would be the Sabbath. On that one - I was most definitely deceived. Hook, line and sinker on that one. And it was only in the last few years I discovered her (Ellen's) role in sabbath keeping, the history of the beginning of the church, her visions on the sabbath, etc. None of that was taught to me. That was most definitely deception on the part of my teachers, the church, everyone. Just my thoughts. Laurie | ||
| Laurie Registered user Username: Laurie Post Number: 23 Registered: 6-2007 |
Just one more thought. We had communion this morning at church. We sang a quiet, simple song that said "Oh, the blood of Jesus, it washes white as snow." I was thinking about this post as I sang that and was so thankful to be in a church that did believe atonement was complete at the cross. Laurie | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 3905 Registered: 3-2004 |
Bob, I was reading the other day from Leviticus about how the Lamb was selected for the day of atonement. I just did not see it as plainly as you have written it. The Lamb was examined to see that it was perfect, with no defects. Then it could be used. Jesus was/is perfect, with no defects. I am still learning and want to learn it all, right now!!! Thanks for making it plain to me. Diana | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 6178 Registered: 12-2003 |
Laurie, thanks for sharing your personal experience with disbelieving Ellen. I understand your total immersion in Sabbath withtout understanding what Ellen had to do with it. What you posted described so well what I've come to see as one of the most pernicious aspects of Adventism. Ellen's falseness underlies all Adventist doctrinal understandings. Even their doctrines that superficially sound orthodox have a subtle and devastating twist underneath. I don't know any Adventist who really sees the full influence of Ellen on his/her beliefs. I know neither Richard nor I had any idea how completely our understanding of ALL doctrines were shaped by Ellen. Colleen | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 6179 Registered: 12-2003 |
Jeremy, your post above is fabulous. I hope you all take the time to read it carefully. I know that all those quotes from SDA doctrinal publications are a bit confusing and hard to follow, but Jeremy's choice of quotes and analyses are extremely insightful and revealing. Although Adventists claim to hold orthodox beliefs about the Trinity, Jesus, death, resurrection...in fact, none of those claims is valid. Their underlying definitions and beliefs re: the nature of God and Jesus and the nature of man makes Adventist theology completely untenable. While most of us had no idea of these "technical" realities as we processed out of Adventism, as we become grounded in God's word and the truth about Jesus, the heresy of true Adventist theology becomes more and more clear. Thank you, Jeremy...again, I urge you to read his post above carefully. Using Adventists own publications, he shows that they do not acknowledge Jesus as fully God despite their public claims, and it becomes clear why Adventists cannot experience the security of knowing they are saved. I believe that my own desire to serve Jesus as an Adventist is much more an indication of God's calling and election of me than it is an indication that Adventism taught me the truth about Jesus. God saves people before they can articulate the truth about Him. He persistently and faithfully teaches them the truth after they are born again, but His calling and election are sure, no matter where they originate. Adventism does not give people the truth about Jesus. But Jesus reveals Himself to people within all manner of false churches and religions. He asks us to follow Him without looking back when He brings us to new life. We can trust His timing, and we can trust Him to re-teach us about Himself as we follow where He leads. Colleen | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1135 Registered: 4-2000  |
Excellent post, Jeremy. I downloaded it for informational and sharing purposes. Truly, not even one salvific doctrine of the Christian faith has not been tainted (changed) by Adventism in some way. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1898 Registered: 10-2004 |
I just keep seeing more and more how horrendous the SDA "scapegoat" teaching is! When you think about the true Biblical doctrine of the Scapegoat (Jesus Christ), and that the work of the Scapegoat in taking away our sins is what saves us--then you realize even more how blasphemous the SDA teaching is. Look at Hebrews 10:4: "For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." EGW/SDA say: it is impossible for the blood of Jesus to take away sins. That is the ultimate blasphemy!!!! And yet, that's not all. It gets even worse. EGW/SDA say that only the blood of Satan takes away the sins of the righteous. NOOO, I can't stand to even write that!!!!!!!!!!! (EGW actually does teach that Satan has flesh and blood, so my above statement of what they teach is totally accurate. EGW teaches that Satan sheds his blood in hell--paying the penalty for the sins of the righteous. It's too horrendous to even think about, though.) Ellen's eternal punishment is certainly going to be of a very severe variety. I can't think of a doctrine that could possibly be worse or more blasphemous than what EGW wrote about the "scapegoat." Folks, get a grip: Ellen was NOT a Christian. She was a false prophet. Someone who blasphemes JESUS the Worthy Lamb of God and His precious blood in such a way, cannot expect to have no consequences:
Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on July 02, 2007) | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 324 Registered: 11-2005 |
Either goat could have been offered as a scrifice. That means that they both had to be without blemish. A.F. Ballenger had some fascinating thoughts about the subject of the scapegoat in his publication, "Cast Out for the Cross of Christ". See http://www.ex-sda.com/cast-out.htm, and search for the sub-heading "Why Two Goats". He unfortunately believed something happened in 1844, but he takes exception with Ellen White's notion that either of the goats could represent Satan.
Gilbert Jorgensen |
