| Author | Message | ||
| Lynne Registered user Username: Lynne Post Number: 46 Registered: 10-2005 |
I just had this thought. Ellen White spoke against saying you are saved, thus blaspheming. Is this against the Holy Spirit? (I think so) - Is this the unpardonable sin? It sounds like it to me. In all her writing, it sounds like she wanted to recreate the world, to be like God, or to do better than God, since she wrote more than what was written in the bible. And everyone knows the bible is big.. It sounds very narcissistic to me. How the heck did she take care of all of her kids and where are they today?? | ||
| Lynne Registered user Username: Lynne Post Number: 47 Registered: 10-2005 |
Actually, in my last sentence I meant her grandchildren. I'm sure her children aren't around. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2808 Registered: 12-2003  |
Lynne, based just on Biblical warnings against those who add to or take away from the words of Scripture, I believe Ellen is in serious eternal trouble. Attributing her spurious and harmful revelations to God is also seriously close to blasphemy. While I cannot make the final judgment about the state of her soul, her fruit certainly suggests that she turned her back on truth and repentance. One of her grandsons, Arthur, was head of the White Estate for some years. I don't know whether or not he's still around. (I think maybe not.) I do believe Ellen seriously trampeled on the gospel, on Scriptures, on the Person of Jesus. The Bible is very clear about false prophets. Colleen | ||
| Derrell Registered user Username: Derrell Post Number: 90 Registered: 10-2002 |
Mrs. White is not alone in that category. There are many fakes and frauds claiming that God speaks through them. This is called Spritual Abuse. Spiritual abuse occurs when someone in a position of spiritual authority, the purpose of which is to 'come underneath' and serve, build, equip and make God's people MORE free, misuses that authority placing themselves over God's people to control, coerce or manipulate them for seemingly Godly purposes which are really their own. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2810 Registered: 12-2003 |
You're right, Derrell--Ellen White is not alone in that category. I suspect her blatant misuse of auithority laid a groundwork of "permission" and example for many who came after her. Not that this phenomenon is limited to Adventism...I believe all of us need to continue to surrender to Jesus and to invite Him be Lord of us and to make us into the people He knows we need to be. One of the memorable statements the speaker at our women's retreat made last weekend was, "God loves a humble and submitted heart." Colleen | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 480 Registered: 4-2000  |
Colleen, Arthur White is "dead, dead" as the Adventists claim (no part of him escaped being completely nonexistent). According to Dudley Canright, Ellen White suffered from serious mental confusion (dementia?) during the last two or three years of her life. Her son, Willy, was largely the "spirit of prophecy" during those times. He was very busy communicating with SDA leaders for his mom. He may also have written things in his mother's name (akin to having a power of attorney). Certainly, he was able to manipulate her thinking during this time. Interestingly, Ellen White was not interred for about 30 days after her funeral in July of 1915. The White Estate (according to Bill Fagal at the Andrews University branch) claims that they do not know why her burial was so long delayed. Some speculate that a delayed burial would have made an exhumed autopsy by Dr. John Kellogg less likely. I am still wondering where her body was kept for that month before being interred at Oak Hill cemetery. Even the facts of her final illness and delayed burial are kept from her devotees. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 481 Registered: 4-2000 |
PS: Having Ellen White's funeral on the "holy Sabbath" was certainly not in keeping with proper Sabbath observance laws. DJF | ||
| Pauls Registered user Username: Pauls Post Number: 36 Registered: 9-2005 |
thanks dennis for those interesting points about Eg white-- you seem to be treasure house of intersting information that would not be found on adventist.org (ha!) that would explain why her estate was such a mess, and how the two white boys got off with some big bucks when she herself advocated a debt free, and charitibly focused estate plan. her will seems to completely contradict what she stood for...but if she was senile, it would be easy for the boys or others to come in and set up what they wanted.... your comments raise some issues with me--regarding ellen, the church, and jones and waggooner....is it possible that the SDA leadership has taken ellen and used her to create a monster? expanding and elevating her beyond her original purpsoe and role and elevating her to the same status as Virgin Mary in RCC? well almost anyway! ;) I was talking to a man who claims that while he was a student at PUC he was hired by his theo professor to rsearch eg white plagiarism over a 7 year period every egwhite article was reviewed and compared to other publications and all instancs of copying were cataloged. . this was done under a GC/EG white estate grant..... this man claims that his professor--who got to summarize all the work for the GC/EG White estate made a curious statement--the prof claims there was a noticeable shift in the tone and nature of EGwhite writing before and after 1888. Prior to that, he sensed a strong emphasis on law..after 1888 he sensed a greeater emphasis on grace....as you know, EG white supported the 1888 message of Jones and Waggnoer (both of whom subsequently joined the historic FAF movement after having theological and organization conflicts with church leadership)...and EG white was very strong in her condemnation of church leadership for not accepting the righteousness by faith message of J&W. Is it possible that this is where the SDA church took off from EG White and that EG white moved into a more evangelical view of salvation, but that the SDA church would not go with her preferring to remain under the law--and then turned around and has used her writings (espec the older ones) to push their rules about works? I do not even know how to begin to research such a broad subject..but it is interesting....and may be helpful to explain why SDA are where they are and where to put the blame....and it might help prove that SDA did have the "truth" presented to them and abandoned it in favor of a works religion? also, what is the take on Jones and Wagnnor's theology as it relates to SDA errors in theology regarding faith, works, salvation, etc. Is jones and waggoner more of the same SDA party line, or did they represent a historical break with traditional SDA theology? I have not been able to get a hold of their 1888 address as it was not recorded, but i have read Lessons on Faith, and several other articles.books by them.... | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2837 Registered: 12-2003 |
Pauls, while Ellen's publications may have partially changed in tone after 1888 (and don't forget that much of her best-known work has been proven to be plagiarized), she still wrote things AFTER that date that completely negate an understanding of the role and nature of Jesus. Here's something she wrote in 1903: "The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty, yet Christ and the Father are one. The Deity did not sink under the agonizing torture of Calvary, yet it is nonethelesstrue that 'God so loved the world, that he gave his onlky begotten Son, that wosoever believeth in himshould not perish, but have everlasting life.' î (Lift Him Up, page 235, Par. 3) Here's another quote she wrote in Advent Reveiw and Sabbath Herald, 01-14-1909, Par. 4: "Before his fall, Satan was, next to Christ, the highest angel in heaven." This quote from Manuscript Releases, Volume Twelve, page 400, par. 1, says, "The highest of all angels, He girded Himself with a towel, and washed the feet of His disciples." (I don't know the date for that quote.) The 1888 message, as I understand it from reading material from the 1888 Committee, did not abandon the law. They got closer to "evangelical theology", but they put a spin on it that made the Holy Spirit give us the power to keep the law. I don't believe Ellen ever really wrote things that stemmed from her own Biblical research. She wrote based on what she read of others' writings, and she had helpers (think Marian Davis and Fanny Bolton) who also helped her "write". (Fanny Bolton completely wrote "Steps to Christ", and Fanny's erratic behavior apparently stemmed from Ellen's treatment of her and Ellen's refusal to allow Fanny's name to appear on her own works. Ellen alternated between sending Fanny away and calling her back to her.) I believe Ellen did have dreams and visions--but their origins I find suspect. That handsome young man who was here consistent guide during her later years' visions sounds suspiciously like a "familiar spirit". If Ellen had been a true Bible scholar, her writings would have had consistency even if they showed growth, and they would have truly taught the gospel. She would not have been erratic, penning some very orthodox-sounding things, ie certain Desire of Ages passages (published 1898), and also heretical statements such as the ones above about Jesus not being God Almighty and Satan being the highest angel in heaven next to Christ (1903 and 1909 respectively). We can't blame Willy for what she herself wrote in the Conflict of the Ages series or in her other manuscripts. We can't blame the church for making a "good" woman a monster. Yes, we can blame the church for not putting her "schizy" writings to rest (read the minutes from the 1919 Bible Conference when the GC brethren including president Daniels acknowledged their disbelief in her prophetic gift but decided to sweep in under the rug and avoid an uproar from the members). but we cannot blame the church for making her what she was not. I remember being convinced of that same thing before I started actually researching Ellen herself. She herself had unreliable visions and dreams; she destroyed lives of people who threatened her; she never truly acknowledged the true nature of Jesus, and she never taught the Biblical gospel. She compromised herself for power, and her physical weaknesses provided a great "excuse" for whatever the brethren found problematic. Her endorsements are the foundation upon which the SDA church is built. They are an unstable foundation at best. Colleen | ||
| Pauls Registered user Username: Pauls Post Number: 37 Registered: 9-2005 |
thanks colleen, that was helpful but confusing. i want to respond to your other comment about J&W 1888 message since i think this is touching on one differnce of SDA theology vs. your theology...and i'm still sorting out the different ways of thinking...as i have not been exposed to them all yet. Colleen wrote: The 1888 message, as I understand it from reading material from the 1888 Committee, did not abandon the law. They got closer to "evangelical theology", but they put a spin on it that made the Holy Spirit give us the power to keep the law. 1. what law are we talking about? 2. Is there not a "law" that the HS does help us to keep--not so that we are saved but because we are saved--so that although in human flesh the law is unkeepable, and we are without hope, in Christ, by faith, the law is written in our hearts (Heb 8:8-13) so that we obey it without even being aware of it (Matt 25:37). obviously, anyone who says "you have to keep the law--and exhorts people on the specifics of what to do and how to do it--is a false prophet because anything that I do of myself by my own volition and choice is false fruit and leads to a righteousness of works..but there is a fruit of the spirit that is real that comes like the wind into my life----and it is a life of conformity to the law that is the result of the HS in my life....?? | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 352 Registered: 7-2004  |
Pauls, you have really hit the nail on the head showing the difference between the SDA idea of righteousness by faith (post 1888) and the Protestant idea of righteousness by faith. The SDA teaching is that faith allows us act and become righteous through the power of Christ. The protestant view, and I believe Biblical view, is that we who are unrighteous are declared righteous because the gift of the substitutionary death of Jesus is provided by faith. These are totally different views, although SDAs try to pass them off as the same. Think for instance Venden 95 Theses book which suggests a similarity to Luther but in reality was much closer to the teachings Luther opposed. | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1037 Registered: 7-2003  |
PaulS, I do think there is a much more comprehensive perfect law that goes way beyond the Mosaic Law. The Mosaic Law was only an illustrative shadow of God's ultimate law which is defined by and flows out of His very nature. All of us are guilty of breaking God's ultimate law. That includes me, you, the every man woman and child living before the Mosaic Law, during the Mosaic Law, and after the Mosaic law. We're all guilty of falling short of God's absolute standard of perfection. During each dispensation of time there were requirements of people that represented God's ultimate law. New Covenant law is the greatest and most comprehensive representation of God's ultimate law, given by the ultimate law giver, Jesus Christ (of whom Moses was only a type). You might be surprised to hear me say that I do believe we live by a law, just not the Mosaic Law. By the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit we are being conformed to the Royal Law, the Law of Christ. Chris | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2854 Registered: 12-2003 |
I agree, Ric and Chris. Of course we live by a law--but that law is the very essence of God. I believe that all law--laws of physics, math, the Word, morality, biology--all Law emanates from God and is really inseparable. We're limited to space and time; we can't actually see the hugeness of reality. Scientists are still struggling to find the "unifying theory of everything". They'll likely fail, because I believe that unifying "theory" is the essential character of God. The "law" of the Mosaic covenant was, as Chris pointed out, only "an illustrative shadow" of the real deal--which, according to Colossians 2:16-17, is found in Christ. In JESUS is the actual reality the law merely foreshadowed. I "discovered" Ephesians 2:14 a couple of weeks ago. "For he himself is our peace, who has made the two [Jew and Gentile] one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations." The law given at Sinai--and that included the transcribed Ten--was itself the barrier between Israel and the rest of the world. It defined "God's people" and separated them from "not God's people". Jesus destroyed that law IN HIS FLESH. His flesh, his blood now define God's people, not the law nor behavior that aligns with the law. As Ric said, Jesus saves us in our sins (Ephesians 2:5 and 8) and literally brings us to life by the Holy Spirit "when we were dead in transgressions." We are saved IN our sins. The Holy Spirit, the seal of God (Eph 1:13-14) then gives us new power and potential to change--but it is not change that corresponds to the law. The law is now abolished in Christ. We now are IN Christ, and we become conformed to Him. In no way does the law measure our maturity or define it. Of course, this discussion isn't even really important if not for the SDA view of the fourth commandment. Morality is an eternal, universal reality. No written transcript defines or creates morality. The Sabbath, however, would not even be an issue in any sense if not for the Sinai law. Adventists cannot take Colossian 2:16-17, Ephesians 2:14, Romans 3:20-21, 4:1-16, 7:1-6; 8:1-4; Hebrews 4:1-11; 7:11-14, 18-22; 8:7; 10:1; 2 Corinthians 3:7-18, and the entire book of Galatians at face value. They insist on redefining "law" and creating straw-man rationalizations for the continuance of a holy seventh day. Time is not holy; God is holy. Since that temple curtain ripped at the moment of Jesus' death, all holy material symbols are obsolete. The REALITY, Jesus, has revealed life and immortality (2 Timothy 1:10), and we are no longer bound to holy places, holy time, and holy offerings. Jesus is our One holy Offering. He has replaced the seventh-day as our true Sabbath rest. He has fulfilled all of the law and abolished the commandments and regulations in His flesh. The Bible never says we are to become perfect, that we will eventually keep the law perfectly if we live long enough. ON the contrary, the Bible says NO ONE is srighteous, and that now we can obtain a righteousness that is apart from law (Romans 3:21). The SDA 1888 message is not good news. It is still confusing the Royal Law of Christ with the Ten Commandments. Such a confusion leads to spiritual adultery (see Romans 7:1-6). Colleen | ||
| Pauls Registered user Username: Pauls Post Number: 40 Registered: 9-2005 |
rick_b, collen, chris, thanks. that was helpful...i'll see if i can find venden's 95 thesis and look into it...I have always perceived that all law emanates from God and is His character--gravity-chemistry--laws of physics, etc--and there is no distinction between them in my mind--but you are the first person i ever heard say that. but can we label the law which is moral? (I don't perceive gravity as moral) Can we in a sense perceive what the Spirit is conforming us to? -didn't Jesus say what it was Mark 12:29-31 or does this still refer to the old "laws" since he was debating a jewish teacher.....if it does, then what about John 13:34, john 14:12 also Rom 13:8 paul seems to make the same point jesus did??? I am not trying argue here. i just want to get know more about this universal law that I am being conformed to....and because the SDA - FAF difference in definitions, I want to get my terms clear and find my relation to it. I am not arguing against the fact that God saves us while we are sinners...(Rom 5:8) nor am i arguing that God does not conform us to His will or law which is expressed in the life of Christ. (Gal 4:19) I guess I want to understand the FAF/Protestant view of sanctification better.... i think i understand where SDA get off--they forget its the HS job to sanctify and they get off on rules and checklists to demonstrate their holiness...and when they find they can't possibly do everything right based on what the church and the Bible tell them, they get frustrated and either regress into some pew warming pharisee or join FAF and rebel against SDA for telling them all this stuff they have to do...i have recognized for a long time that exhortational sermons telling people what to do, do very litle good for this reason...we can't do it. so all they do is pump up the pharisee in us, or get people angry. they offer no hope. however, God often asks me to do things i cannot do. if i try, i fail, and then i turn to God, and i think that that what He is trying to do--is lay a stumblingblock for me so that I will fail and be forced to acknowledge my dependence on Him...of course, i could fail and curse Him. or deny it...some people do. i am stating all this stuff, but there really should be a question mark after it all. i am mostly throwing out stuff here for a response so i can get a better grip on Prot vs SDA views....cause i've never really thought about all this....surprsing how once you start thinking, you see it all over the place--RC Sproul talked today on the Augustinian/Palegian conflict re: the nature of justification..very interesting...although SDA is identified as palegian in this web site, i have never felt SDA were that since they understand that Paul in Romans says that man is completely spiritually dead--born that way, and living that way, with no spiritual undersanding (Rom 3:10, Rom 5:12-19)... also, colleen, "The Bible never says we are to become perfect." 1. What is perfection defined as? 2. what is meant in Matt 5:48 KJV says be ye therefore perfect as your father in heaven is...referring to His ability to treat the good and evil people with equal concern....which is really hard in the flesh--but not in the Spirit---James 2:8,9 talks about the royal law--as being love your neighbor as yourself--and then talks about how treating different people differently is proof of sin.... what did Jesus mean when he told the lady caught in adultry go and sin no more...John 8:11 | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 974 Registered: 3-2005 |
Pauls, I am happy to see that you were listening to R.C. Sproul regarding the Augustinian-Pelagian controversy. Traditional Adventism is Pelagian. But so is a lot of American evangelicalism. Please check out this link of an article written by R.C. Sproul regarding the Pelagian captivity of the evangelical church. In this article he talks about Charles Finney, and how the idea of the altar call came from him. But EGW copied a lot from Charles Finney's Pelagian views. If you were interested in what you heard from Sproul, then you will want to read this article--it is a real eye-opener. Let me know what you think. www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/sproul/PelagianCaptivity.pdf Stan | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2860 Registered: 12-2003 |
The problem we are having in this discussion, I believe, is definitions. First, the "law" to which we are conforming as Christ-followers--is not actually "law". It's God. It's hard for me to explain how this looks different to me now that I'm no longer an evangelical SDA, but the difference is profound. Because of the Sabbath, Adventists must incorporate the 10 Commandments into their perception of eternal "law". In fact, the Sabbath was a ceremony just like Passover and the feast of booths, or Pentecost, and the Day of Atonement. These feast days were all "law" for Israel. They were required because they foreshadowed Jesus and His work in and for mankind. They were ways of requiring Israel to worship God in anticipation of the fulfillment of those ceremonies. We really have no problem understanding "law" without including Passover and Pentecost anymore--but Sabbath is a different story. Adventists are in a dilemma because they know they have no clear Scriptural or experiential evidence to "prove" that Sabbath is an eternal moral principle to which the Holy Spirit leads God's people as He leads them to morality. Because of this problem, they have to play with the idea of "law" and create arguments to validate "law's" existence eternally. But Mosaic law was not eternal. It was ceremonial and conditional. Sabbath was part of that ceremonial, conditional law. The parts of the Mosaic law that were not merely ceremonial are both repeated in the New Testament, and they are things of which the Holy Spirit convicts Christ-followers everywhere. This discussion leads me to the second point: being perfect. Adventists must discuss perfection with at least some reference to law and behavior. They'll say the Holy Spirit leads people to conform ever more closely to the law--that it's not the people's work but God's--etc. But the crux of the issue that keeps them talking about a different kind of righteousness than new covenant Christians talk about is the (usually) unspoken but definite fact that Sabbath will be a part of this growing perfection. They will say Sabbath is not related to salvation. They will say it's merely a love offering to Jesus. But they will deeply believe it is an integral part of the package. As long as they believe the Sabbath has any role to play in a Christ-followers experience, they are using the law to define their righteousness. The righteousness of which the Bible speaks is God's own righteousness. "Be ye perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect" is not a command for us to "become" perfect. We absolutely cannot. Our thoughts and emotionis will always betray us. Our still-sinful flesh will be tempted and deceptive until the resurrection. We are called to be perfect by allowing Jesus to be our EVERYTHING. 2 Cor. 5:21: "God mad him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." We do not become the righteousness of God (perfect as our Father is perfect) in any sense apart from being IN JESUS. The righteous requirements of the law are fully met in us when we live by the Spirit (Romans 8:4). Our "perfection" is literally Christ's perfection. It is not our eventual perfection; we are righteous apart from the law. It comes through faith in Christ. (Romans 3:20-22). This perfection is not us in our sinful flesh becoming more perfect. This perfection is about our being surrendered, increasingly and at ever-deeper levels, to Jesus. When we surrender to Jesus, something happens--something that Adventists don't understand, in general. That something is that our spirits--which are NOT breath--are made alive in Christ by the indwelling Holy Spirit. We are connected to God for eternity, and we are saved already, waiting in eager expectation for the redemption of our bodies (Romans 8:22-23; Ephesians 1:13-14). That living spirit, united with the Holy Spirit, is where we perceive the Holy Spirit's instruction to us. We KNOW Him, and we hear and know His voice, just as Jesus said His sheep would know Him. We KNOW what He's asking us to do, and the Bible, His own word to us, teaches and confirms truth. Our perfection has nothing to do with becoming increasingly observant and obedient to the "principles of the law". It has everything to do with our continually surrendering our dreams, desires, impulses, control, and preferences to Jesus. It has everything to do with accepting His discipline in our lives and praising Him for what He is doing, even when we cannot understand. Our perfection has to do with surrender, not conformityl. Conformity happens when we surrender the issues of our lives to Him, trusting Him to work out His will. Our perfection will look more and more like Paul who described it in Philippians 3:8-11. He considered everything rubbish for the sake of knowing Jesus. "I want to know Christ and the power of hsi resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferiungs, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead." Paul did not see perfection as remotely connected to the law. He even said he had not attained the perfection he desired. But, he reminded the Philippians, "our citizenship is in heaven." We are awaiting our Savior who "will transform our lowly bodies so they will be like his glorious body." Only then will our bodies be perfect. Until then, our spirits grow in Christ, and in submission and surrender we increasingly reflect Jesus. This obedience to Jesus and willingness to surrender is the perfection to which we are called. This surender to Jesus is where we find our rule of faith and practice. Colleen | ||
| Pauls Registered user Username: Pauls Post Number: 41 Registered: 9-2005 |
Riverfonz: thanks for that link to rc sprouls article. it covered similar material to his talk yesterday and from some time before--i had heard these ideas before...I am very aware of John 3:27, 6:44 which both emphasize sola gratia... I have grown in my concept of God's sovereignty to where many SDA perceive my theology as non SDA--and maybe it is....in fact, i think that God's sovereingty is such an important topic, that it should be the second thing we teach for a long long time, right after a person comes to Christ and accepts salvation.. after all, it does seem that most religion gets the focus on me, what i do, when the real power is what God is/has/will be doing...God is clearly the active force here and God is basis of our hope--not us.... but then when I skip on to romans 9 which seems to point to election and to imply that some are not elected....how else can a person be lost given the enormous sovereignty of God? I don't remember all RC Sproul's logic as he moves from sola gratia to election, but I do remember one time hearing him liken God to a wealthy man who drives through a street of beggars handing out bread....who are we to criticize God if he skips a man or two? Yet the Bible clearly states that God desires all men to be saved. How do we reconcile that with the clear scripture that not all will be? (Matt 7:13-14) Do we leave it where Calvin did--doesn't pure election plus not all saved contradict the revealed will of God? maybe that's part of the mystery of God that we cant fully grasp? colleen--thanks for those comments. absolutely. its about definitions...i am trying to get the definitions of the terms used on this site to better understand the theology as opposed to SDA theology. I think i have a good grasp of SDA theology, although i don't have the same understanding of it as many who post on this site do--for example, I embrace a greater concept of the sovereignty of God, and since Jesus saved me, and not me myself by works of the law, i take a more relaxed view of "law"--not too concerned about ceremonial law, including Sabbath--etc. still have concerns about my sanctification and how that fits in and how it works--obviously "completed at the cross" is different from traditional SDA which requires justification (at the cross) and sanctification (today)...but i think i can reconcile the two in phil 1:6 he that began a good work in you will be faithful to complete it you...and so i rest in Jesus by faith and without fear. but inquiring minds what to know more about this mystery gift we have called salvation.....and i'd like to keep my faith pure and free of the cobwebs that gradually dumb us down and lead us captive to all sorts of satanic paganism...... | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 980 Registered: 3-2005 |
Pauls, it looks like you are having the same struggles that I wrestled with for so many years, and I don't claim to have it all figured out. All I can say about the sovereignty issue and God's election is that I know for sure that God is completely just. Sproul's point is that God would be perfectly just if he saved no one. We all justly deserve hell. The fact that he saves anyone demonstrates His marvelous grace. Ephesians 1 and 2 makes it abundantly clear that we were chosen in Him and predestined before the foundation of the world. You mentioned John 6, which is Jesus' clearest statement that no one can come to the Father unless drawn by the Father. "All that the Father gives me will come to me" and He goes on to say that none of these the Father gives Him will ever be lost. Matt. 11:24-27 is another crystal clear statement by Jesus that Jesus himself chooses us. "No one knows the Father except the Son, and those whom the Son chooses to reveal Him". It seems like if we understand that God is absolutely sovereign over His creation, and chooses us for salvation by His grace, so there is no room for boasting, Then the sanctification issue seems to fall into place. If the Triune God actually planned for our salvation long before the world began, and each member plays a vital role in our salvation with God electing, the Son securing our pardon, and the Holy Spirit sealing the deal forever, then our hearts of stone are changed and our will is changed, so we want to please God in everything. All our time, talent, and money belong to Him. The Holy Spirit guides us into all Truth. The Decalogue was a law with elemental moral truth whose principles are eternal, but now we walk in the new way of the Spirit. The epistles are a much higher standard of living than the old system, but the good news is that since Jesus Himself promised that none of His sheep would be lost, then we have Sabbath rest, resting in His glorious promises. All fear is gone. The Victory has been completed. Stan | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 2054 Registered: 11-2002 |
In the Lutheran faith we have a belief of Christians being saints and sinners at the same time. We are saints in the eyes of God in that we have given our all to Him and only desire to serve Him. At the same time we know we are sinners and will continue to be sinners while on this earth. We can know if we meet our end we are saved by virtue of our saint status. It's called grace. The Pslamist said to live with a prayful heart. Therefore, unlike the SDA's who are taught that they'd better not go and die with even one teeny-weeny sin on their record book the Christians who have an understanding of grace know they are saved and should they meet an unexpected death their sins are forgiven and they do have the assurance of being with their Creater. I had a SDA tell me recently the defination of sin is transgression of the law. I won't get into that here and now because everyone reading this knows to a SDA that means their understanding of the 10 Commandments. I guess I kind of threw her off when I read to her the defination of sin found in 2 Timothy which says sin is knowing the right thing to do and not doing it. I then asked and this is sure ture of me, how often do we know the right thing to do and don't bother doing that right thing? Thank God for grace! | ||
| Pauls Registered user Username: Pauls Post Number: 43 Registered: 9-2005 |
thanks very helpful, riverfonz: The sovereignty of God is such an awesome place to go for the elect--it is truly our absolute guarantee of salvation! everything we are as Christians is tied into the sovereigny of God. As an SDA, the GC lens was distracting from the Sovereingty of God for me...and was my jumping off point where after reading Eldridge "The Sacred Romance" and some other books, I realized my God was too small and impotent....so I went back to the Bible and found God was bigger and more powerful than I had previously imagined--now, I trust Him more because there is more of Him to trust!!! Praise God..texts like John 10:27-29 have taken on a whole new flavor... and i completely agree that God has every right to send me and the whole world to hell right now, no questions asked.....people in church a couple weeks ago were questioning, why does God allow suffering? and all that whining that goes with it--like all those innocent people and their pain (katrina, tsunami, iraq, etc)--and then they were minimizing God by saying, the devil is the ruler of the world, but God is good.... and I said, no God owns and controls the entire universe--He takes full responsibility on account of His sovereignty for everthing that happens, even apparently bad things (Deut 32:39, Job 2:3, Isa 30:20, Ex 22:24, Acts 4:27-29) then, i turned it around--and said since Gen 3, why am i not suffering more? why am i not dead? God could justly end my life, and the life of all here today, yet he chooses not to, so when we focus on the "little" suffering we have here, we miss the point--God's goodness lavished on us through Christ that prevents the greater suffering we are truly owed by the justice of His law...how we twist the gospel to be about us..the gospel is not about us, although we are helped by it...it is about God--who He is...it is a complete revelation of His character of Love....and that He is not only terrible, powerful and just, but responsible, trustworthy, and good beyond comprehension..it is not about us getting spiritual "candies"--like an easy life on this earth..how i wish it was!!!. Susan_2: How do you reconcile the "acceptance" of sin state with the desire God puts into our hearts for His character to become ours--does God give us a longing for something that we cannot have or must wait to the New Earth? I like the SDA idea of having it here and now...I just don't agree with their idea of what "perfection" is....and when i look at Bible characters who were "righteous" such as Noah (gen 6:9) i also see men who were quite capable of doing stupid/sinful things as noah did after the flood. Therefore I am struggling with a definition of perfect that accomodates human frailty--which i think will continue to exist into eternity--because that is how God made us-Gen 1 to Rev 22--its just a big detour before we come back full circle to Gen 1: and get back on the road again---when God made man in Gen, he pronounced His creation "Good". If God says it is good, why should he improve on it the second go round? I don't see any difference between man in Gen and man after Revelatioin--except that God has promised us that sin will not arise a second time--man, who was "good" at creation, will be "man" who was restored to "good" at re-creation....... I am finding attributes of perfection that are Biblical but not "law"...Jesus exhorts us to about perfection Mat 5:48 but its not about perfectly keeping a ceremonial law---its about treating all people equally...i remember just the other day listening to Rich Mullins on his last posthumous CD release talking about trying to love a stinky, ugly hitchhiker who he felt compelled to pick up--and how he ended up lying--telling the guy he had to get off the highway just to get rid of the guy--and his subsequent guilt over it--and i see myself. Without HS power, I am not able to love others perfectly...but I want to! So i am coming up with a "new" definition of perfect, that is not based on keeping a ceremonial law, but my reading of the Bible. my understanding of perfection now includes (in no particular order): HUMILITY. Matt 1:3, Luke 1:53, James 4:6 Pride (the opposite of humility is the first and greatest sin--probably part of the unforgiveable sin, since a prideful soul cannot feel its need of grace--and grace is only given where it is desired) DESIRE for God: matt 5:6 Blessed are they which hunger and thirst for God--they shall be satisfied. SUBMISSION (cheerfully) submitting to God and to those He places in Authority over me in my life. (Rom 13:1) the proof that our human nature is gone is that we can submit cheerfully to apparently unreasonable circumstances...Eph 5:21 Trust: The just shall live by faith(trust). Rom 1:17. Jesus was unable to do anything for some people because they didn't trust him (Matt 13:58) yet Jesus said all things were possible to those who trusted Him..John 15:7, Matt 17:20 UNITY with a fellowship and body of believers. John 17:21,23, I John 1:7, Eph 4:3 Love--Putting others ahead of myself: "We know we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren....hereby we perceive the love of God because he laid down His life for us...and we ought to law down our lives for the brethren.....also i cor 10:24, Phil 2:4, Gal 5:14 ( Gal 5:14--A great text to share with your SDA friend which also redefines the "law" for them as well as the one in James 4:17 --not 2 Timothy that I am aware of) when i look at this list--it is not something like a ceremonial law i can "Do" and check off---keep the sabbath, pay tithe, pray, read the Bible---it is something I have to BE. That requires the HS to make me a new creation after the pattern of Christ....and I am still waiting for that to happen but occasionally I am shocked by how i respond to life situation--it can be so different from how i used to respond, that I cannot deny God has done something in me!!!, but i am still claiming Phil 1:6 and remembering that 2 Peter 1:2-4 talks about sanctification in a sense...as if it were achieved... Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises, that by these ye might be partakers (not imputed, but actual owners of!) of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.. (notice escaped is past tense!, and partaking implies present possession!) also, jude 1:24 now unto Him who IS able to keep you from falling...(also 1 Cor 10:13) .(God is able to do it!), whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, for his seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 1 John 3:9 for as much as Christ suffered in the flesh for us, arm yourself with the same mind---for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin...1 Peter 4:1... there seem to be too many texts in the Bible that promise me victory NOW for me to give up that hope....that does not mean that the old man of sin is not around--merely that by the grace of God he is held captive and impotent while the HS runs my life for me... (see Rom 8:1 that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who WALK not after the flesh but after the Spirit. the walk implies a present reality to me.....) |
