I think I gave you admin already.
btw, could I have admin on here?
Yeah, it is julinas group but marilyn in like second in command so yeah.....👍
There is too much to unpack there with all their proof texts, I’m not sure where to start. I think I will stay off their page and only engage them if they come on here or on your page if that’s ok with you.
So I went to that group. It seems like the group is run by Julina and Marilyn. Is that correct?
Larissa, some SDAs need help on Sword of the Spirit. Could you come on there?
So no matter how many times we sin after being born again whether murder or lying, it doesn’t matter, we are still saved. Does that mean we should sin all the more because grace abounds? No way! And when you are indwellt with the Holy Spirit and start to walk in the Spirit, you don’t want to sin anymore. Sometimes you walk in the flesh after you are born again and you will sin, but you are still saved. catch what I’m saying? I hope I explained better.
I guess what I’m talking about Bubble is that when we accept Jesus as our savior, we are hidden in him. we do not enter into judgment but when God looks at us he sees Jesus.
Hey Larissa, could you come on SDAs are Wrong?
well, Jesus died for our past, present, and future sins. So no matter what we did in the past, are doing now, or so in the future, we will be saved. Does that mean we should sin all the more because grace increases? As Paul said, by no means!
I’m confused because you said previously “if you do disobey God and fulfill your flesh by murdering someone but are born again, you will still go to heaven.” what do you mean by that?
No I don’t believe that. Being baptized is good, but it doesn’t save you. Only accepting Jesus as your sacrifice saves you.
So do you believe that if you have been baptised into the church it confirms that you will be in heaven?
hmm, not sure how it doesn’t answer your question. If baptized members of a church have trusted Jesus as their savior and turned away from their sins and toward Jesus, then they are saved. If they haven’t, then they aren’t saved.
Ok, but that doesn’t answer my question. If you say that there are people who will not go to heaven who are members of the church and baptised into the faith than how are you able to know if you will go to heaven or not?
Well Bubble, these are good questions. Tares are people who have proclaimed they are Christians, people who go to church, even baptized members of church who haven’t trusted the Lord Jesus with their salvation.
if you say that there are people who will not got to heaven who are members of the church and baptized into the faith than how are you able to know if you will go to heaven or not?
Now when you say there are rates in the church that means you think that some people in the church won’t go to heaven. so, what makes you not a part of that number? If someone goes by the once saved, always saved factor than what separates those who will go to heaven and those who won’t?
the Ten Commandments in the most simple terms. if anyone were to break a part of the Ten Commandments they were to sacrifice a lamb. of course, the Bible goes deeper into that and it’s more complicated but if you want to get into all the rules and regulations of the old covenant just looking Leviticus or Deuteronomy.
Under the old covenant which you are referring to with the sacrifices, which sin breaks the law?
Accepting Jesus’ sacrifice makes you a real Christian. Having saving faith in our Lord Jesus makes you a real Christian. I’d point you to the parable of the sower. some seed fell on rocky soil, some on the path, etc. Some seeds fell on good soil. We are compelled at the end of this parable to be good soil. I’m saying there are tares in the church that are hard to differentiate between real Christians.
Furthermore, what distinguishes a false Christian from a real Christian? I know someone who was baptized and seemed so strongly committed to God, but in a few years they became a completely different person. Do you think that a person who is baptized and studies their bible everyday is guaranteed to be in heaven?
I’m not saying that little sins “don’t count”, but that when you do something like snapping at your mother it does not push you as far from God than murdering someone. Even the Bible makes a difference with this as we can see that the morning and evening sacrifice were for the “common people’s sins”. However, when someone intentionally broke the law and did something like murder, they would have to sacrifice one of their own lambs. I am not saying that small sins don’t count, but that greater sins require greater repentance.
I’m not saying there aren’t false Christians out there. There are many who claim to be Christian but their fruit shows what they really are, tares.
It sounds to me like you are saying that sins that we keep on doing (such as cheating on your wife) separate us from the love and forgiveness of God where as sins we do once (like being disrespectful to your mom) doesn’t hurt our standing with God because he knows our hearts. What if I just murder one time? James 2:10 says, “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.” So I break the law if I lie same as if I murder.
I’m not saying that if I was disrespectful to my mother and then forgot to pray that night and died in my sleep I wouldn’t God to heaven. God knows my heart. What He looks for are the ones who constantly seek after Him. Those who strive toward His perfection. A person who was baptized into the church and goes every week, while simultaneously cheats on his wife is not someone fit for the kingdom of God. If that person truly repents and then moves away from that sin is the one who is fit for eternity with Jesus.
All sins make one fall short of the glory of God. As for being born again we have to commit our lives to God daily. It’s not the God requires us to be perfect, but that we strive toward perfection. I have sinned so many times over the last week. However, my sins are cleansed because of true repentance. There is nothing that I can do to make myself righteous. Only through God is my sin gone. But if I do not change my ways after my sin, then I am not truly repentant. “Faith without works is dead”
Go ahead and read Galatians and get back to me.
Do you have to be born again AGAIN after every sin? How does that work? Do you tell Jesus you accept him into your life again after every sin? What about snapping at your mom because you are really tired? Is that sin enough to lose your salvation over?
Well look at it this way Bubble. You understand that one will be saved if they are born again. Do you think you will lose your salvation if you sin? Which sins do you lose your salvation over? What about the sins you don’t know are sins or you forget about before confessing?
yes I definitely agree bubble
I understand that those who will be born again will be saved, but I don’t see how a once saved always saved works out. I can’t just murder someone, be completely unforgiving, and then continue to kill. If I do that until I die with no remorse in my heart I don’t see myself going to heaven. I think that if I killed someone and then realized I did wrong and truly repented of my sin THEN I would be saved. Even Lucifer was once committed to God, but people have free will and that means they can change.
Hi Bubble, welcome to the group. When you are born again as a Christian, the Holy Spirit dwells in you. He makes you a new creation. You don’t want to disobey God when you are in the new covenant. If you do disobey God and fulfill your flesh by murdering someone but you are born again, you will still go to heaven. John 5:24 says, ““I tell you the truth, those who listen to my message and believe in God who sent me have eternal life. They will never be condemned for their sins, but they have already passed from death into life.”
Just saw this group and the debate going on it. Larissa, I don’t understand what you mean. If I identified myself as a Christian, got baptized, and then murdered someone would I still be in heaven? If conviction is the only thing that happens under the new covenant than I can do whatever I want with no reprimands.
“He has enabled us to be ministers of his new covenant. This is a covenant not of written laws, but of the Spirit. The old written covenant ends in death; but under the new covenant, the Spirit gives life.” 2 Corinthians 3:6
Emma, under the new covenant we live in the Spirit. He convicts our hearts of sin.
“So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,” Galatians 3:24-25
so if we don’t live by the Ten Commandments that means we are free to lie murder commit adultury
the Ten Commandments are still as effective today as in old
Larissa we are required to
And now that Christ has come and started the new covenant, we are not required to keep the old covenant with its Sabbath.
I will say that I don’t keep Sunday as Sabbath. I don’t keep any day as Sabbath as Sabbath was a shadow of Christ.
So you’ve just quoted the Ten Commandments. This is part of the Old Covenant for Israelites. We are under the New Covenant now.
Don’t worry Emma, I don’t find you disrespectful. 🙂
and it goes on to say “ and the lord blessed the sabbath day and sanctified it and he rested on the sabbath day from all the work he had done
I am being raised to respect my elders so If I have been disrespectful plz forgive me
it clearly states there that the seventh day is the sabbath
“six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work but THE SEVENTH DAY IS THE SABBATH OF THE LORD YOUR GOD
okay so in the Bible exodus chapter 20;8-9-10
okay and also plz remember I mean this with all the respect to you and your beliefs I have
Emma, go ahead and prove it. I’m listening. 👂
Saturday is the sabbath I can prove it
and the reason I can private Adventist are right is because once i asked my mom ,lots of Christians claim there beliefs are the right belief how do we know Adventist are right ? she said we go off the Bible people who worship on Sunday twist the Bible in ways they want ! so many are deceived by thinking that Sunday is sabbath
I am being raised Adventist,I have never been happier in what I believe Adventist make so much sense
the Bible never says that you go to heaven when u die prove to me that you go to heaven when die
“Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.” Hebrews 9:15 “And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.” Luke 22:20 Now we are under the new covenant in Jesus’ blood, putting away our following of the old covenant as Jesus has already fulfilled it for us. He keeps the new covenant for us so we are confident in it holding. Under the new covenant what is required of us is to believe in Jesus and to love others. Anyway, that is why I left Adventism. Thanks for asking Emma!
This covenant was sealed with the blood of a cow. As we all know Israel did not keep the covenant because it is impossible to do so and they were a stiff necked people. That’s why they were exiled to Babylon for 70 years. Now the Ten Commandments were a sort of table of contents for everything in the law and throughout the entire law there were 613 rules. As you know, the Sabbath is right in the middle of the Ten Commandments. The Sabbath was the sign of the Old Covenant just like a ring is the sign of marriage. The Israelites kept the Sabbath for show they were Israelites. When Jesus came to Earth he fulfilled the old covenant and created a new covenant.
And fourth and most important, the sabbath. This takes the most time to dispute. The Bible is divided into many covenants between God and man. But for my purposes we will focus on the most important two. The Old Covenant and the New Covenant. The Old Testament and the New Testament are other words for old and new covenants. Anyway, the old covenant was made with the Israelites at the foot of Mount Sinai. Moses met with God on the Mountain and God wrote down the Ten Commandments on two stone tablets. Moses came down and the Israelites said they would do everything on those two stone tablets. “He declared to you his covenant, the Ten Commandments, which he commanded you to follow and then wrote them on two stone tablets.” Deuteronomy 4:13
There are many many verses in the Bible that go against the state of the dead, here are two. 1 Thessalonians 5:10 “He died for us so that, whether we are awake or asleep, we may live together with him.” And 2 Corinthians 5:8-9 “We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord. So we make it our goal to please him, whether we are at home in the body or away from it.”
Third is the state of the dead. Adventists take a verse in Ecclesiastes out of context to say that the dead rest in their graves until Jesus returns. It’s Ecclesiastes 9:5. “For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten.” The very next verse gives the context. “Their love and their hate and their envy have already perished, and forever they have no more share in all that is done under the sun.” Ecclesiastes 9:6 This verse says they know nothing and have no share in what happens under the sun or ON EARTH. That doesn’t exclude them from being alive in the spirit in heaven.
Ellen had many prophecies that didn’t turn out to be true. Here is one example: “I was shown the company present at the Conference. Said the angel: ‘Some food for worms, some subjects of the seven last plagues, some will be alive and remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus.’—Testimonies For The Church 1:131, 132 (1856). LDE 36.3 I could write many more examples but this one alone shows her and her writings are not from God.
The second is Ellen G White. She says of herself, “I do not write one article in the paper expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision—the precious rays of light shining from the throne.—Testimonies for the Church 5:67. 3SM 50.5 Is this true? Deuteronomy 18:21-22 says, ““But you may wonder, ‘How will we know whether or not a prophecy is from the Lord?’ If the prophet speaks in the Lord’s name but his prediction does not happen or come true, you will know that the Lord did not give that message. That prophet has spoken without my authority and need not be feared.”
Hi Emma, Welcome to the group and thanks for asking! I am on vacation right now so that’s why it’s taken me longer to respond. Thanks for your patience! I was a fifth generation SDA before I left. I was raised going to many SDA schools and churches all over the country. There are four main beliefs that SDAs don’t have in common with most other Christian groups. The first is the investigative judgement. Ellen white called the investigative judgement “the foundation of our faith”. Desmond Ford wrote a 1000 page book on why the investigative judgement is false but I’ll just leave you with one scripture reference. “With his own blood—not the blood of goats and calves—he entered the Most Holy Place once for all time and secured our redemption forever.” Hebrews 9:12. This says that Jesus entered the most holy place back in Bible times not in 1844 as SDAs say.
hi Emma, I was on vacation but I will answer your question shortly. 😊
If not, that's ok, but it would be nice.😉👍😊
Larissa, could I have admin?
sorry if I didn’t understand correctly
Larissa why did you change to Adventism then why did you change back
Just wanted to tell you.😊😉
Larissa, I made a group called SDAs are Wrong and used the verses in this group. Is that okay with you? I created it because it's higher up on the Leaderboard and people will click on it and go to this group. If you join I will make you admin. But if you are not okay with me using your verses, I will take them off.
60
Sunday, Nov 26, 2023 at 4:44 PM
remove
“No doubt but ye are the people, And wisdom shall die with you. But I have understanding as well as you; I am not inferior to you:” Job 12:2-3. “Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.” Romans 8:33-34 m
I am not going to try to change your minds any more. Obviously you have rejected the Truth of the Sabbath (etc) and will continue in your false beliefs. So we have a barrier between us. You have rejected God's true Sabbath. Until you come to the realization that you are keeping Satan's false day of worship (Sunday, the FIRST day of the week), there is nothing more we can do for you. You will be held accountable for the people that you successfully draw away from the Truth. Their blood will be on your hands. God help you. 😞
I am the admin. it’s a hard line to walk figuring which posts to keep and which posts to delete. 🤷🏻♀️😁
BTW, Marilyn, you told everyone to not listen to Siri, when she was actually defending your faith.
The discussion ones are actually very helpful, so please don't delete those.😅
Because, if so, you can delete offensive posts from some decieved SDAs if you want.
@Larissa, are you the admin?
It is never God's will "trash" anyone.
@Marilyn, I am not trying to trash anybody. I am opposing your false beliefs, not you.
Marilyn, none of us are worshipping a day. We worship Jesus everyday. He is our Sabbath rest now.
JJ, as far as I know Siri is still deceived.
This is just a reminder.. The disobedient will eventually be destroyed in the second death along with the wicked and the devil and his evil angels. Will you continue to disobey God's will and worship a false idol and doctrine of the devil? 🤔
@JJ: I know you think you are doing God's will by trashing SDAs like me, but you are only fighting against God's will. The battle is the Lord's. Everyone will soon have to make an intelligent decision of whether to keep holy God's true Sabbath (the seventh day is from Friday night sundown to Saturday night sundown) or continuing to keep a false sabbath, Sunday (or the first day of the work week). No one will be exempt from having to make this critical decision.
Wait, is Siri a freed SDA, or is she still deceived?
Thanks JJ! I’m glad you found it helpful.
It's super helpful against the deceit of SDA indoctrination.👍
If you are wondering about SDA false teaching, read this message wall.
I just read the whole message wall.😮💨😄👍😉
Larissa, your posts are very helpful.👍
I sent this blessing off with my Grandkids today. They came for an early Thanksgiving visit with us. These verses clearly show that God requires obedience. there is nothing legalistic about doing God's will. May God's blessing be with you and your families as well this Thanksgiving season: "But the mercy of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear Him, and His righteousness unto children’s children; To such as keep His covenant, and to those that remember His commandments to do them." - Psalm 103:17-18
For anyone who is looking at this go down to the bottom of this message wall and read it.
It's too bad that it's unactive.
60
Sunday, Jun 25, 2023 at 3:30 PM
remove
Beware SDA’s false teaching
@Everyone: Beware of Siri's false teachings on here regarding God's true Seventh-Day Sabbath. It has never been changed! It is the 4th commandment, and the only one that God expressly "commanded" us to REMEMBER (see the KJV). It will be observed throughout eternity. It was blessed and made holy, and sanctified by God at Creation (Gen 2:1-3). No man has been given permission to change it for "God changes not." HE had no reason to change it. The Sunday Law is being agitated as I speak and soon will be enforced. Continuing to observe Sunday (the false Sabbath set aside by the Catholic Church) as your holy day after the Sunday law is enforced will cause you to receive the mark of the beast (the Catholic worship system or modern day Babylon). Please come back to the Truth before it's too late.
I read earlier posts, they’re super helpful!
Sadly it is. I used to love coming and writing on here. Nice meeting you!!
Yeah... It used to be super active... but now...
This group is really inactive
this corona thing is really big right now, pray for the people that get it
well I’m fine, just fine🤣
I'm not doing too good tbh 😅😆😔
One of the most used lies is "I'm fine"
LOL. actually I heard someone say “bad” in response to “how are you doing.” A professor asked one of my classmates how he was. that day was a test day and he said “bad.”
hopefully I can be on more when it’s summer and there is no schoool
year life has gotten busy
After this week I should be able to multitask doing this and something else but I'm going to be gone most of the time so
ikr, I have so much going on it’s hard to keep up with this all
quite yet, for my life is quite busy at the moment
I've read the Chronicles of Narnia as well its really good! Sadly, I do not have a response
wow, I missed a lot, I havnt been to active lately cause I’m kinda busy
As a never-ending reminder, not only of God’s works of love in Creation, but of His ultimate loving sacrifice to save us from the prison of ourselves and to give us eternal rest—the Sabbath rest remains. Even in Heaven, “‘from Sabbath to Sabbath, all flesh shall come to worship before me,’ declares the Lord.” (Is. 66:23)
God’s rest is righteousness “by grace, though faith.” It means throwing ourselves into the arms of God with complete abandon, like a weary child into his father’s arms, trusting implicitly that He will hold us up. That is the true Sabbath rest. And that is why the Sabbath day will never be replaced—will never become outdated or obsolete. It is a weekly “sign between me and you, that I am the Lord who sanctifies you” (Ex. 31:13).
Paul explains that God’s rest, means ceasing, not only from our labor, but from “our works”—our own righteousness—and trusting God to do for us what we cannot do for ourselves. God’s rest means unquestioning trust in God’s love. It means quiet, soul-deep serenity—completely releasing our restless striving, our futile attempts to control our own destiny, our constant obsessive labor to take care of ourselves—to save ourselves. That’s what it means to “rest from our own works.” The Sabbath day is both a symbol and a sampling of this rest.
And now, Paul says, “there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God” (Heb. 4:9). A day to “rest from our works, as God did from His.” (Heb. 4:10) This assures the Jewish readers that the Sabbath rest remains. We, like the Israelites, are invited—are urged—to enter into God’s rest—the rest of the Sabbath. We are urged not to be like Israel—or like the dwarfs.
Like the dwarfs, the Israelites failed to enter God’s Sabbath rest because of their unbelief. The prison in their minds—a prison of distrust of the One trying to help them and refusal to depend on anyone outside themselves—was so strong they could not break free. As Paul puts it, they “hardened their hearts” against God’s love (Heb. 3:8). And, tragically, because they would not allow God to free them from themselves, they could not enter the Sabbath rest.
“But when at last they sat down to nurse their black eyes and their bleeding noses, they all said: ‘Well, at any rate there’s no Humbug here. We haven’t let anyone take us in. The Dwarfs are for the Dwarfs.’“ “‘You see,’ said Aslan. ‘They will not let us help them. They have chosen cunning instead of belief. Their prison is only in their own minds, yet they are in that prison; and so afraid of being taken in that they cannot be taken out.'”
“Aslan raised his head and shook his mane. Instantly a glorious feast appeared on the dwarfs’ knees: pies and tongues and pigeons and trifles and ices, and each dwarf had a goblet of good wine in his right hand. But it wasn’t much use. They began eating and drinking greedily enough, but…[t]hey thought they were eating and drinking only the sort of things you might find in a stable. One said he was trying to eat hay and another said he had got a bit of an old turnip and a third said he’d found a raw cabbage leaf. And they raised golden goblets of rich red wine to their lips and said ‘Ugh! Fancy drinking dirty water out of a trough that a donkey’s been at! Never thought we’d come to this.’ But very soon every dwarf began suspecting that every other dwarf had found something nicer than he had, and they started grabbing and snatching, and went on to quarreling, till in a few minutes there was a free fight and all the good food was smeared on their faces and clothes or trodden under foot.
“‘Aslan,’ said Lucy through her tears, ‘could you—will you—do something for these poor dwarfs?’ “‘Dearest,’ said Aslan, ‘I will show you both what I can, and what I cannot, do.’ He came close to the dwarfs and gave a low growl: low, but it set all the air shaking. But the Dwarfs said to one another, ‘Hear that? That’s the gang at the other end of the stable. Trying to frighten us. They do it with a machine of some kind. Don’t take any notice. They won’t take us in again!’
But remember how they cannot recognize they are free? They believe they are still captive in a dark and filthy stable. The children try to convince them they are surrounded by flowers in a green, sunlit meadow—even hand them violets to prove it, but they believe the violets are foul-smelling refuse. Finally, Aslan the Lion (Christ) arrives.
I’ve always loved C.S. Lewis’ book, “The Last Battle.” The sin of the Israelites is vividly illustrated there and I’ve pasted some it here. Throughout the book, the dwarfs have been the pawns of the forces of evil trying to destroy Narnia. They are eventually captured, and are set free by the forces of the good king.
Their greatest sin was not sexual immorality or idolatry or overt rebellion against God. It was unbelief—a refusal to trust God’s love and His plan for them. And because they refused to trust, they could not enter God’s rest.
There was no shocking moral failing there, no orgies, no blasphemy or idolatry. Instead, there was something far more deadly. The Israelites refused to believe in the fatherly love that had surrounded and shielded them, clothed them and fed them, for long weary years in the desert. They refused to trust the God who had, again and again, worked miracles to save them. They demanded in bitter, resentful tones, “Is the Lord among us or not?” (Ex. 17).
None of them. Instead, the Psalm he quotes refers to Massah and Meribah, where Israel demanded water from God (Ps. 95; Ex. 17; Heb. 3:8-11).
What was the sin of the Israelites which caused God to throw up His hands in despair? There are many shocking moral collapses recorded against the Israelites in the wilderness—from the golden calf, to demanding that God give them meat, to orgies with the Moabites. Which of these does Paul cite as the reason Israel could not enter God’s rest?
Most English versions render Hebrews 4:3 & 5 in such a way as to make logical sense: “as I swore in my wrath, they shall never enter my rest.” The Greek construction, however, is not so straightforward as that. The original wording actually says something closer to the way the King James Version renders it: “As I swore in my wrath, if they would enter into my rest.” This more literal but less transparent translation suggests that God’s lament may not be an outburst of anger so much as a sigh of frustration, as if God is looking down at his harried creatures and saying: “What’s wrong with these people? They’re always worried and bothered, and anxiously striving to save themselves, when my provision for them has been in place all along, ready and waiting.” From that angle, it is not hard to imagine God throwing up his hands and exclaiming, “If they would only enter my rest!”
Paul quotes Psalm 95, which says, “as I swore in my wrath, they shall not enter my rest;” an unmistakable warning that those who fail to keep moving in the right direction will miss out on the rest that lay ahead. But then he adds an evocative comment referring not forward to the future but backward to the distant past, even to creation week itself: “although His works were finished from the foundation of the world.”
Paul reminds his readers, who knew the story well, of God’s extravagant attempts to win the Israelites’ love and trust—the daily food He gave them, the pillar of fire and cloud as warmth and light by night and shade and protection by day, miraculous water from a rock, His own literal presence in the sanctuary. But he sadly reminds them that for many of the Israelites, these extravagant demonstrations were in vain.
Paul proclaims that this Sabbath rest has always existed—has always been available to anyone who was willing (Heb. 4:2). But, although the ancient Israelites “kept” the Sabbath, he tells us, they did not enter into the Sabbath rest (Heb. 4:6). They did not “rest from their works, as God did from His.” (Heb. 4:11)
God can rest from His works, not only because He has completed his creation of humans and a perfect world for them to live in, but because he has created the perfect Emergency Rescue—the sacrifice of Christ, “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8). This salvation, prepared in advance, is the true basis for the Christian’s Sabbath rest.
But, Paul goes on, something else happened on that day. God’s creation was finished. “God’s works have been finished since the creation of the world.” (Heb. 4:3) Everything that the human race would ever need had been created. Not only water and trees and fruit-bearing plants and animals as companions and helpers, but, even more crucial, a plan to save them from themselves.
“Ah, but after all these millennia you still don’t get it!” I can hear Paul sighing, “You don’t understand what rest really means.” To show them, he carries them back to the very beginning—to God and His creation. To the first Sabbath day when God rested and called all creation “very good.” But they’re still confused. Yes, they know God rested on the Sabbath day. That’s why they rest and why their ancestors since ancient times have rested.
The question of Hebrews 4 is not, “What day is the Sabbath?” but “What is the Sabbath about?” And the answer is “rest.” But the knee-jerk response of the original Jewish readers would have been, “We already knew that! We’ve known that for millennia. Why do you think we don’t light fires or thresh wheat or walk more than a Sabbath day’s journey?”
Hebrews 4 looks both backward and forward—backward to Creation and forward to the final Sabbath rest (Heaven). Paul grounds his argument in the story of creation which the readers had known well since childhood. But while acknowledging the familiar history of God’s Sabbath rest, he simultaneously reaches forward to give that original rest a new depth of meaning.
In Hebrews 3 and 4, Paul is giving these believers a brand-new context for understanding their beloved Sabbath day. Hebrews 4 delves deep into the rich spiritual significance of the Sabbath, far beyond the first century Jewish obsession with prohibited behavior, surface understandings and rote rituals.
Torn between the familiar beliefs and rituals they had cherished since childhood, and their staunch conviction regarding newly-discovered truth, the internal conflict must have been agonizing. It was to these people that Hebrews was written. Paul (or whoever wrote Hebrews) fashions a bridge connecting the old and the new for them to cross over. He reassures and comforts these believers—demonstrating that their former beliefs as Jews were not mistaken or heretical, but that their ancestors had been led by God as surely as they themselves had been. The fault was not in the doctrines or the rituals, which were ordained by God. But God was leading them forward into a new phase of His work on earth—God’s new thing. Hebrews 4 is the key to the rest of Hebrews. The book continues on to explain how Christ’s sacrifice supersedes the Jewish system of sacrifice and renders it unnecessary. The sacrificial system on earth is finished, replaced by the perfect Sacrifice in Heaven.
The Jewish Christians were suffering. The latter half of the first century was not an easy or pleasant time to be a Jewish follower of Jesus. As Christians and as Jews, these people suffered persecution from the Romans outside. While Judaism, as an ancient religion, was mostly accepted and tolerated in the Roman Empire, Christians were looked upon with suspicion and threatened with persecution.
Here’s my dump on Hebrews 4.
I don’t memorize her. but I don’t think it’s wrong to, any more than it is wrong to memorize Lincoln’s Gettysburg address...
I'm looking forward for the discussion Siri
2 Corinthians 3:7 (KJV 1900) But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
hmmmmm... you said 2 Cor 3:7 is that second Corinthians three seven? cause it is then incorrect I think
Just so you know, I’ve written a good bit in response, but I don’t want to post it until I’m finished. There are a lot things I want to comment on, lol. Thanks for your patience, Whitetigie!!
i think that that verse means that the commandments are not gone but it is symbolic that the commandments still to be followed but you can be forgiven because he died for us and we just have to ask
so you claim that the law was done away with? can I murder, steal, and covet? I think not
oh and btw, I made up the last two posts they're not actually in the book 😂
I’m a college student, so time is precious with me. It brought up a lot of interesting things that I would love to discuss more. I will begin writing my counter-argument soon.😊 but unfortunately today isn’t a good day to do it due to my schedule. Thanks for your understanding and your hard work!!
Thanks for sharing that, Whitetigie, and putting a lot effort into it! it is VERY much appreciated. I’ve heard that book before and it was interesting going through it.
it's in old English, if I would have has more time(a lot more 😆) I would have fixed it. Wait, did you read everything I wrote?
I also must apologize that this message has been long, but I wish that ye may see the truth
Thus ends the words of John Bunyan of which I, James, have taken notes from and hope that you see the truth behind it.
But these things, as I said, he did not of conscience to the things; for he knew that their sanction was gone. Nor would he suffer them to be imposed upon the churches directly or indirectly; no, not by Peter himself (Gal 2:11). Were I in Turkey with a church of Jesus Christ, I would keep the first day of the week to God, and for the edification of his people: and would also preach the word to the infidels on their sabbath day, which is our Friday; and be glad too, if I might have such opportunity to try to persuade them to a love of their own salvation.
Wherefore, if you observe, you shall still find, that where it is said that he preached on that day, it was to that people, not to the churches of Christ. See Acts 9:20; 13:14–16; 16:13; 17:1–3; 18:4. Thus, though he had put away the sanction of that day as to himself, and had left the Christians that were weak to their liberty as to conscience to it, yet he takes occasion upon it to preach to the Jews that still were wedded to it, the faith, that they might be saved by grace. Paul did also many other things that were Jewish and ceremonial, for which he had, as then, no conscience at all, as to any sanction that he believed was in them. As his circumcising of Timothy (Acts 16:1–3). His shaving of his head (Acts 18:18). His submitting to Jewish purifications (Acts 21:24–26). His acknowledging of himself a Pharisee (chap. 23:6). His implicitly owning of Ananias for high priest after Christ was risen from the dead (Acts 23:1–5). He tells us also that, ‘unto the Jews he became as a Jew’ that he might save the Jew. And ‘without law,’ to them that were without law, that also he might gain them. Yea, he became, as he saith, ‘all things to all men,’ that he might gain the more, as it is 1 Corinthians 9:19–23.
Ans. To the unbelieving Jews and their proselytes, I grant he did. But we read not that he did it to any new testament church on that day: nor did he celebrate the instituted worship of Christ in the churches on that day. For Paul, who had before cast out the ministration of death, as that which had no glory, would not now take thereof any part for new testament instituted worship; for he knew that that would veil the heart, and blind the mind from that, which yet instituted worship was ordained to discover. He preached then on the seventh day sabbath, of a divine and crafty love to the salvation of the unbelieving Jews. I say, he preached now on that day to them and their proselytes, because that day was theirs by their estimation. He did it, I say, of great love to their souls, that if possible, he might save some of them.
But as to the old seventh day sabbath, as hath been said afore in this treatise, Paul, who is the apostle of the Gentiles, has so taken away that whole ministration in the bowels of which it is; yea, and has so stript it of its old testament grandeur, both by terms and arguments, that it is strange to me it should by any be still kept up in the churches; specially, since the same apostle, and that at the same time, has put a better ministration in its place (2 Cor 3). But when the consciences of good men are captivated with an error, none can stop them from a prosecution thereof, as if were itself of the best of truths.
And although what I have said may be but little set by of some, yet, for a closing word as to this, I do think, could but half so much be produced from the day Christ rose from the dead quite down [to the end of revelation], for the sanction of a seventh day sabbath in the churches of the Gentiles, it would much sway with me. But the truth is, neither doth the apostle Paul, nor any of his fellows, so much as once speak one word to the churches that shows the least regard, as to conscience to God, of a seventh day sabbath more. No, the first day, the first day, the first day, is now all the cry in the churches by the apostles, for the performing church worship in to God. Christ began it on THAT day: then the Holy Ghost seconded it on that day: then the churches practised it on that day. And to conclude; the apostle by the command now under consideration, continues the sanction of that day to the churches to the end of the world.
Oh! the resurrection of Christ, which was on this day, and the riches that we receive thereby. Though it should be, and is, I hope thought on every day; yet when the first of the week is fully come! Then to-day! This day! This is the day to be warmed; this day he was begotten from the dead. The thought of this, will do much with an honest mind: this is the day, I say, that the first saints did find, and that after saints do find the blessings of God come down upon them; and therefore this is the day here commanded to be set apart for holy duties.
This is the day on which, at first, it rained manna all day long from heaven upon the new testament church, and so continues to do this day
3. On the first day of the week, when the church is performing of holy worship unto God, then that of collection for the saints is most meet to be performed; because then, in all likelihood, our hearts will be most warm with the divine presence; consequently most open and free to contribute to the necessity of the saints. You know, that a man when his heart is open, is taken with some excellent thing; then, if at all, it is most free to do something for the promoting thereof. Why, waiting upon God in the way of his appointments, opens, and makes free, the heart to the poor: and because the first day of the week was it in which now such solemn service to him was done, therefore also the apostle commanded, that upon the same day also, as on a day most fit, this duty of collecting for the poor should be done. ‘For God loveth a cheerful giver’ (2 Cor 9:6, 7). Wherefore the apostle by this, takes the churches as it were at the advantage, and as we say, [strikes] while the iron is hot, to the intent he might, what in him lay, make their collections, not sparing nor of a grudging mind, but to flow from cheerfulness. And the first day of the week, though its institution be set aside, doth most naturally tend to this; because it is the day, the only day, on which we received such blessings from God (Acts 3:26).
Quest. But is there yet another reason why this holy duty should, in special as it is, be commanded to be performed on the first day of the week? Ans. 1. Yes: for that now the churches were come together in their respective places, the better to agree about collections, and to gather them. You know church worship is a duty, so long as we are in the world, and so long also is this of making collections for the saints. And for as much as the apostle speaks here, as I have hinted afore, of a church collection, when is it more fit to be done, than when the church is come together upon the first day of the week to worship God? 2. This part of worship is most comely to be done upon the first day of the week, and that at the close of that day’s work. For thereby the church shows, not only her thankfulness to God for a sabbath day’s mercy, but also returneth him, by giving to the poor, that sacrifice for their benefit that is most behoveful to make manifest their professed subjection to Christ (Prov 19:17; 2 Cor 9:12–15). It is therefore necessary, that this work be done on the first day of the week, for a comely close of the worship that we perform to the Lord our God on that day.
6. But for the apostle now to give with this a particular command to the churches to sanctify that day as holy unto the Lord, had been utterly superfluous; for that they already, and that by the countenance of their Lord, and his church at Jerusalem, had done. Before now, I say, it was become a custom, as by what hath been said already is manifest: wherefore what need that their so solemn a practice be imposed again upon the brethren? An intimation now of a continued respect thereto, by the very naming of the day, is enough to keep the sanctity thereof on foot in the churches. How much more then, when the Lord is still adding holy duty to holy duty, to be performed upon that day. So then, in that the apostle writes to the churches to do this holy duty on the first day of the week, he puts them in mind of the sanction of the day, and insinuates, that he would still have them have a due respect thereto.
2. You must understand that this order is but additional, and now enjoined to fill up that which was begun as to holy exercise of religious worship by the churches long before. 3. The universality of the duty being enjoined to this day, supposes that this day was universally kept by the churches as holy already. 4. And let him that scrupleth this, shew me, if he can, that God by the mouth of his apostles did ever command that all the churches should be confined to this or that duty on such a day, and yet put no sanction upon that day; or that he has commanded that this work should be done on the first day of the week, and yet has reserved other church ordinances as a public solemnization of worship to him, to be done of another day, as of a day more fit, more holy. 5. If charity, if a general collection for the saints in the churches is commanded on this day, and on no other day but this day; for church collection is commanded on no other, there must be a reason for it: and if that reason had not respect to the sanction of the day, I known to why the duty should be so strictly confined to it.
Further, I find also by this text, that this order is universal. I have, saith he, given this order not only to you, but to the churches of Galatia. Consequently to all other that were concerned in this collection (2 Cor 8, 9, &c.). Now this, whatever others may think, puts yet more glory upon the first day of the week. For in that all the churches are commanded, as to make their collections, so to make them on this day: what is it, but that this day, by reason of the sanction that Christ put upon it, was of virtue to sanctify the offering through and by Christ Jesus, as the altar and temple afore did sanctify the gift and gold that was, and was offered on them. The proverb is, ‘The better day, the better deed.’ And I believe, that things done on the Lord’s day, are better done, than on other days of the week, in his worship. Obj. But yet, say some, here are no orders to keep this first day holy to the Lord. Ans. 1. That is supplied; for that by this very text this day is appointed, above all the days of the week, to do this holy duty in.
The work now to be done, was, as you see, to bestow their charity upon the poor; yea, to provide for time to come. And I say, it must be collected upon the first day of the week. Upon THE first day; not A first day, as signifying one or two, but upon THE first day, even every first day; for so your ancient Bibles have it; also our later must be so understood, or else Paul had left them to whom he did write, utterly at a loss. For if he intended not every first day, and yet did not specify a particular one, it could hardly even have been understood which first day he meant. But we need not stand upon this. This work was a work for A first-day, for EVERY first day of the week. Note again that we have this duty here commanded and enforced by an apostolical order: ‘I have given order,’ saith Paul, for this; and his orders, as he saith in another place, ‘are the commandments of the Lord.’ You have it in the same epistle (chap. 14:37). Whence it follows, that there was given even by the apostles themselves, a holy respect to the first day of the week above all the days of the week; yea, or of the year besides.
Fifth, We will add to this another text. ‘Now [saith Paul] concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come’ (1 Cor 16:1, 2). This text some have greatly sought to evade, counting the duty here, on this day to be done, a duty too inferior for the sanction of an old seventh day sabbath; when yet to show mercy to an ass on the old sabbath, was a work which our Lord no ways condemns (Luke 13:15; 14:5). But to pursue our design, we have a duty enjoined, and that of no inferior sort. If charity be indeed as it is, the very bond of perfectness: and if without it all our doings, yea and sufferings too, are not worthy so much as a rush (1 Cor 13; Col 3:14). we have here a duty, I say, that a seventh day sabbath, when in force, was not too big for it to be performed in.
Now, I say, since we have so ample an example, not only of the church at Jerusalem, but also of the churches of the Gentiles, for the keeping of the first day to the Lord, and that as countenanced by Christ and his apostles, we should not be afraid to tread in their steps, for their practice is the same with law and commandment. But,
Thus you see, that breaking of bread, was the work, the work that by general consent was agreed to be by the churches of the Gentiles performed upon the first day of the week. I say, by the churches; for I doubt not but that the practice here, was also the practice of the rest of the Gentile churches, even as it had been before the practice of the church at Jerusalem. For this practice now did become universal, and so this text implies; for he speaks here universally of the practice of all disciples as such, though he limits Paul preaching to that church with whom he at present personally was. Upon the first day of the week, ‘when the disciples came together to break bread,’ Paul being at that time at Troas preached to them on that day. Thus then you see how the Gentile churches did use to break bread, not on the old sabbath, but on the first day of the week. And, I say, they had it from the church at Jerusalem; where the apostles were first seated, and beheld the way of their Lord with their eyes.
‘Upon THE first day’; not upon A first day, or upon one first day, or upon such a first day; for had he said so, we had had from thence not so strong an argument for our purpose: but when he saith, ‘upon the first day of the week’ they did it, he insinuates, that it was their custom. [It was] also upon one of these, [that] Paul being among them, preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow. Upon the first day: what, or which first day of this, or that, of the third or fourth week of the month? No, but upon the first day, every first day; for so the text admits us to judge. ‘Upon the first day of the week, WHEN the disciples came together,’ supposes a custom when, or as they were wont to come together to perform such service among themselves to God: then Paul preached unto them, &c. It is a text also that supposes an agreement among themselves as to this thing. They came together then to break bread; they had appointed to do it then, for that then was the day of their Lord’s resurrection, and that in which he himself congregated after he revived, with the first gospel church, the church at Jerusalem.
It also may be nominated to shew, that both the church at Jerusalem, and those of the Gentiles did harmonize in their sabbath, jointly concluding to solemnize worship on a [the same] day. And then again to shew, that they all had left the old sabbath to the unbelievers, and jointly chose to sanctify the day of the rising of their Lord, to this work. They ‘came together to break bread,’ to partake of the super of the Lord. And what day so fit as the Lord’s day for this? This was to be the work of that day, to wit, to solemnize that ordinance among themselves, adjoining other solemn worship thereto, to fill up the day, as the following part of the verse shews. This day therefore was designed for this work, the whole day, for the text declares it. The first day of the week was set by them apart for this work.
Thus you see that the solemnizing of a first day to holy uses was not limited to, though first preached by the church that was at Jerusalem. The church at Jerusalem was the mother church, and not that at Rome, as some falsely imagine; for from this church went out the law and the holy word of God to the Gentiles. Wherefore it must be supposed that this meeting of the Gentiles on the first day of the week to break bread, came to them by holy tradition from the church at Jerusalem, since they were the first that kept the first day as holy unto the Lord their God. And indeed, they had the best advantage to do it; for they had their Lord in the head of them to back them to it by his presence and preaching thereon. But we will a little comment upon the text. ‘Upon the first day of the week.’ Thus you see the day is nominated, and so is kept alive among the churches. For in that the day is nominated on which this religious exercise was performed, it is to be supposed that the Holy Ghost would have it live, and be taken notice of by the churches that succeed.
Fourth, We come yet more close to the custom of churches; I mean, to the custom of the churches of the Gentiles; for as yet we have spoken but of the practice of the church of God which was at Jerusalem; only we will add, that the customs that were laudable and binding with the church at Jerusalem, were with reverence to be imitated by the churches of the Gentiles; for there was but one law of Christ for them both to worship by. Now then, to come to the point, to wit, that it was the custom of the churches of the Gentiles, on the first day of the week, but upon no other that we read of, to come together to perform divine worship to their Lord. Hence it is said ‘And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread,’ &c. (Acts 20:7). This is a text, that as to matter of fact cannot be contradicted by any, for the text saith plainly they did so, the disciples then came together to break bread, the disciples among the Gentiles, did so.
Now, after this the apostles to the churches did never make mention of a seventh day sabbath. For as the wave sheaf and the bread of first fruits were a figure of the Lord Jesus, and the waving, of his life from the dead: so that morrow after the sabbath on which the Jews waved their sheaf, was a figure of that on which our Lord did rise; consequently, when their morrow after the sabbath ceased, our morrow after that began, and so has continued a blessed morrow after their sabbath, as a holy sabbath to Christians from that time ever since.
And on the selfsame day they were to proclaim that that first day should be a holy convocation unto them. The which the apostles did, and grounded that their proclamation so on the resurrection of Jesus Christ, not on ceremonies, that at the same day they brought three thousand souls to God (Acts 2:41). Now what another signal [applause] was here put upon the first day of the week! The day in which our Lord rose from the dead, assembled with his disciples, poured out so abundantly of the Spirit, and gathered even by the first draught that his fishermen made by the gospel, such a number of souls to God. Thus then they proclaimed, and thus they gathered sinners on the first first-day that they preached; for though they had assembled together over and over with their Lord before therein, yet they began not jointly to preach until this first day Pentecost.
To say little more to this head, but only to repeat what is written of this day of old, to wit, that it should be proclaimed the selfsame day, to wit, the morrow after the sabbath, which is the first day of the week, ‘that it may be an holy convocation unto you; ye shall do no servile work therein: it shall be a statute for ever in all your dwellings’ (Lev 23:21). This ceremony was about the sheaf that was to be waved, and bread of first fruits, which was a type of Christ; for he is unto God ‘the first fruits of them that slept’ (1 Cor 15:20). This sheaf, or bread, must not be waved on the old seventh day, but on the morrow after, which is the first day of the week, the day in which Christ rose from the dead, and waved himself as the first fruits of the elect unto God. Now from this day they were to count seven sabbaths complete, and on the morrow after the seventh sabbath, which was the first day of the week again; and this Pentecost upon which we now are, then they were to have a new meat offering, with meat offerings and drink offerings, &c.
This gift must be referred to the Lord’s day, the first day of the week, to fulfil the scripture, and to sanctify yet farther this holy day unto the use of all New Testament churches of the saints. For since on the first day of the week our Lord did rise from the dead, and by his special presence, I mean his personal, did accompany his church therein, and so preach as he did, his holy truths unto them, it was most meet that they on the same day also should receive the first fruits of their eternal life most gloriously. And, I say again, since from the resurrection of Christ to this day, the church then did receive upon the first day, but as we read, upon no other, such glorious things as we have mentioned, it is enough to beget in the hearts of them that love the Son of God, a high esteem of the first day of the week. But how much more, when there shall be joined to these, proof that it was the custom of the first gospel church, the church of Christ at Jerusalem, after our Lord was risen, to assemble together to wait upon God on the first day of the week with their Lord as leader.
1. The church was now, as on other first days, all with one accord in one place. We read not that they came together by virtue of any precedent revelation, nor by accident, but contrariwise by agreement, they were together ‘with one accord,’ or by appointment, in pursuance of their duty, setting apart that day, as they had done the first days afore, to the holy service of their blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. 2. We read that this meeting of theirs was not begun on the old sabbaths, but when Pentecost was fully come: the Holy Ghost intimating, that they had left now, and began to leave, the seventh day sabbath to the unbelieving Jews. 3. Nor did the Holy Ghost come down upon them till every moment of the old sabbath was past, Pentecost, as was said, was FULLY come first. ‘And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.’ And then, &c. And why was not this done on the seventh day sabbath? But, possibly, to shew, that the ministration of death and condemnation was not that, by or through which Christ the Lord would communicate so good a gift unto his churches (Gal 3:1–5).
Third, Add to this, that upon Pentecost, which was the first day of the week, mention is made of their being together again: for Pentecost was always the morrow after the sabbath, the old seventh day sabbath. Upon this day, I say, the Holy Ghost saith, they were again ‘with one accord together in one place.’ But oh! the glory that then attended them, by the presence of the Holy Ghost among them: never was such a thing done as was done on that first day until then. We will read the text, ‘And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost’ (Acts 2:1–4). Here is a first day glorified! Here’s a countenance given to the day of their Christian assembling. But we will note a few things upon it.
Churches also meet together now on the week days, and have the presence of Christ with them too in their employments; but that takes not off from them the sanction of the first day of the week, no more than it would take away the sanction of the old seventh day, had it still continued holy to them: wherefore this is no let or objection to hinder our sanctifying of the first day of the week to our God. But,
Hence now we conclude, that this was the custom of the church at this day, to wit, upon the first day of the week to meet together, and to wait upon their Lord therein. For the Holy Ghost counts it needless to make a continued repetition of things; it is enough therefore if we have now and then mention made thereof. Obj. But Christ shewed himself alive to them at other times also, as in John 21 &c. Ans. The names of all those days in which he so did are obliterated and blotted out, that they might not be idolized; for Christ did not set them apart for worship, but this day, the first day of the week, by its name is kept alive in the church, the Holy Ghost surely signifying thus much, that how hidden soever other days were, Christ would have his day, the first day had in everlasting remembrance among saints.
Perhaps some may stumble at the word ‘after,’ after eight days; but the meaning is, at the conclusion of the eighth day, or when they had spent in a manner the whole of their sabbath in waiting upon their Lord, then in comes their Lord, and finisheth that their day’s service to him with confirming of Thomas’ faith, and by letting drop other most heavenly treasure among them. Christ said, he must lie three days and three nights in the heart of the earth, yet it is evident, that he rose the third day (1 Cor 15:4). We must take then a part for the whole, and conclude, that from the time that the Lord Jesus rose from the dead, to the time that he shewed his hands and his side to Thomas, eight days were almost expired; that is, he had sanctified unto them two first days, and had accepted that service they had performed to him therein, as he testified by giving of them so blessed a farewell at the conclusion of both those days.
Second, On the next first day following the church was within again; that is, congregated to wait upon their Lord. And John so relates the matter, as to give us to understand that they were not so assembled together again till then. ‘After eight days,’ saith he, ‘again his disciples were within,’ clearly concluding, that they were not so on the days that were between, no not on the old seventh day. Now why should the Holy Ghost thus precisely speak of their assembling together upon the first day, if not to confirm us in this, that the Lord had chosen that day for the new sabbath of his church? Surely the Apostles knew what they did in their meeting together upon that day; yea, and the Lord Jesus also; for that he used so to visit them when so assembled, made his practice a law unto them. For practice is enough for us New Testament saints, especially when the Lord Jesus himself is in the head of that practice, and that after he rose from the dead.
But we are as yet but upon divine intimations, drawn from such texts which, if candidly considered, do very much smile upon this great truth; namely, that the first day of the week is to be accounted the Christian sabbath, or holy day for divine worship in the churches of the saints. And SECOND, Now I come to the texts that are more express. Then First, This was the day in the which he did use to shew himself to his people, and to congregate with them after he rose from the dead. On the first first-day, even on the day on which he rose from the dead, he visited his people, both when together and apart, over, and over, and over, as both Luke and John do testify (Luke 24; John 20). And preached such sermons of his resurrection, and gave unto them; yea, and gave them such demonstration of the truth of all, as was never given them from the foundation of the world. Shewing, he shewed them his risen body; opening, he opened their understandings; and dissipating, he so scattered their unbelief on THIS day, as he never had done before. And this continued one way or another even from before day until the evening.
Seventh, Hence this day is called ‘the Lord’s day,’ as John saith, ‘I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day,’ the day in which Jesus rose from the dead (Rev 1:10). ‘The Lord’s day.’ Every day, say some, is the Lord’s day. Indeed this for discourse sake may be granted; but strictly, no day can so properly be called the Lord’s day, as this first day of the week; for that no day of the week or of the year has those badges of the Lord’s glory upon it, nor such divine grace put upon it as has the first day of the week. This we have already made appear in part, and shall make appear much more before we have done therewith. There is nothing, as I know of, that bears this title but the Lord’s supper, and this day (1 Cor 11:20; Rev 1:10). And since Christians count it an abuse to allegorize the first, let them also be ashamed to fantasticalize the last. The Lord’s day is doubtless the day in which he rose from the dead. To be sure it is not the old seventh day; for from the day that he arose, to the end of the Bible, we find not that he did hang so much as one twist of glory upon that; but this day is beautified with glory upon glory, and that both by the Father and the Son; by the prophets and those that were raised from the dead thereon; therefore this day must be more than the rest.
Now, saith the text, when he bringeth him thus into the world, he requireth that worship be done unto HIM. When? That very day, and that by all the angels of God. And if by all, then ministers are not excluded; and if not ministers, then not churches; for what is said to the angels, is said to the church itself (Rev 2:1–7, 8, 11, 12, 17, 18, 29; 3:1, 6, 7, 13, 14, 22). So then, if the question be asked, when they must worship him: the answer is, when he brought him into the world, which was on the first day of the week; for then he bringeth him again from the dead, and gave the whole world and the government thereof into his holy hand. This text therefore is of weight as to what we have now under consideration, to wit, that the first day of the week, the day in which God brought his first-begotten into the world, should be the day of worshipping him by all the angels of God.
Sixth, Nor is that altogether to be slighted, when he saith, ‘When he bringeth in the first-begotten into the world, Let all the angels of God worship him.’ To wit, at that very time and day (Heb 1:6). I know not what our expositors say of this text, but to me it seems to be meant of his resurrection from the dead; both because the apostle is speaking of that (v 5), and closes that argument with this text, ‘Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? and again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the first-begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.’ So then, for God’s bringing of his first-begotten now into the world, was by his raising him again from the dead after they by crucifying of him had turned him out of the same. Thus then God brought him into the world, never by them to be hurried out of it again. For Christ being now raised from the dead, dies no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
I say again, shall God, as with his finger, point, and that in the face of the world, at this day, saying, ‘Thou art my Son, this day,’ &c., and shall not Christians fear, and awake from their employments, to worship the Lord on this day! If God remembers it, well may I! If God says, and that with all gladness of heart, ‘Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee!’ may not! ought not I also to set this day apart to sing the songs of my redemption in? THIS day my redemption was finished. This day my dear Jesus revived. This day he was declared to be the Son of God with power. Yea this is the day in which the Lord Jesus finished a greater work than ever yet was done in the world; yea, a work in which the Father himself was more delighted than he was in making of heaven and earth. And shall darkness and the shadow of death stain this day! Or shall a cloud dwell on this day! Shall God regard this day from above! And shall not his light shine upon this day! What shall be done to them that curse this day, and would not that the stars should give their light thereon. This day! After this day was come, God never, that we read of, made mention with delight, of the old seventh day sabbath more.
And, as I said, this day is the first of the week; for it was on that day that God begat his beloved Son from the dead. This first day of the week therefore, on it God found that pleasure which he found not in the seventh day from the world’s creation, for that in it his Son did live again to him. Now shall not Christians, when they do read that God saith, ‘This day,’ and that too with reference to a work done on it by him, so full of delight to him, and so full of life and heaven to them, set also a remark upon it, saying, This was the day of God’s pleasure, for that his Son did rise thereon, and shall it not be the day of my delight in him! This is the day on which his Son was both begotten and born, and became the first fruits to God of them that sleep; yea, and in which also he was made by him the chief, and head of the corner; and shall not we rejoice in it? (Acts 13:33; Heb 1:5; Col 1:18; Rev 1:5). Shall kings, and princes, and great men set a remark upon the day of their birth and coronation, and expect that both subjects and servants should do them high honour on that day, and shall the day in which Christ was both begotten and born, be a day contemned by Christians! And his name not be but of a common regard on that day?
Fifth, God the Father again leaves such another stamp of divine note and honour upon this day as he never before did leave upon any; where he saith to our Lord, ‘Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee’ (Acts 13:33). Still, I say, having respect to the first day of the week; for that, and no other, is the day here intended by the apostle. This day, saith God, is the day: ‘And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give thee the sure mercies of David. Wherefore he saith also in another Psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.’ Wherefore the day in which God did this work, is greater than that in which he finished the work of creation; for his making of the creation saved it not from corruption, but now he hath done a work which corruption cannot touch, wherefore the day on which he did this, has this note from his own mouth, THIS day, as a day that doth transcend.
For can it be imagined, that the Spirit by the prophet should thus signalise this day for nothing; saying, ‘This is the day which the Lord hath made’; to no purpose? Yes, you may say, for the resurrection of his son. But I add, that that is not all, it is a day that the Lord has both made for that, and that we might ‘rejoice and be glad in it.’ Rejoice, that is before the Lord while solemn divine worship is performed on it, by all the people that shall partake of the redemption accomplished then.
Fourth, The psalmist speaks of a day that the Lord Jehovah, the Son of God, has made; and saith, ‘we will rejoice and be glad in it.’ But what day is this? Why the day in which Christ was made the ‘head of the corner,’ which must be applied to the day in which he was raised from the dead, which is the first of the week. Hence Peter saith to the Jews, when he treateth of Christ before them, and particularly of his resurrection. ‘This is the stone which WAS set at nought of you builders, which IS become the head of the croner.’ He was set at nought by them, the whole course of his ministry unto his death, and was made the head of the corner by God, on that day he rose from the dead. This day therefore is the day that the Lord Jehovah has made a day of rejoicing to the church of Christ, and we will rejoice and be glad in it (Psa 118:24).
Third, And on THIS day some of the saints that slept arose, and began their eternal sabbath (Matt 27:52, 53). See how the Lord Jesus hath glorified this day! Never was such a stamp of divine honour put upon any other day, no not since the world began. ‘And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection,’ &c. That is, they arose as soon as he was risen. But why was not all this done on the seventh day? No, that day was set apart that saints might adore God for the works of creation, and that saints through that might look for redemption by Christ. But now a work more glorious than that is to be done, and therefore another day is assigned for the doing of it in. A work, I say, of redemption completed, a day therefore by itself must be assigned for this; and some of the saints to begin their eternal sabbath with God in heaven, therefore a day by itself must be appointed for this. Yea, and that this day might not want that glory that might attract the most dim-sighted Christian to a desire after the sanction of it, the resurrection of Christ, and also of those saints met together on it: yea, they both did begin their eternal rest thereon.
Second, Hence he calls himself, The ‘Lord even of the sabbath day,’ as Luke 5; Matthew 12:8 shews. Now to be a LORD, is to have dominion, dominion over a thing, and so power to alter or change it according to that power; and where is he that dares say Christ has not this absolutely! We will therefore conclude that it is granted on all hands he hath. The question then is, Whether he hath exercised that power to the demolishing or removing of the Jews’ seventh day, and establishing another in its room? The which I think is easily answered, in that he did not rest from his own works therein, but chose, for his own rest, to himself another day. Surely, had the Lord Jesus intended to have established the seventh day to the churches of the Gentiles, he would himself in the first place have rested from his own works therein; but since he passed by that day, and took no notice of it, as to the finishing of his own works, as God took notice of it when he had finished his; it remains that he fixed upon another day, even the first of the week; on which, by his rising again, and shewing himself to his disciples before his passion, he made it manifest that he had chosen, ‘as Lord of the sabbath,’ that day for his own rest: consequently, and for the rest of his churches, and for his worship to be solemnized in.
So then, that being the day of the rest of the Son of God, it must needs be the day of the rest of his churches also. For God gave his resting day to his church to be a sabbath; and Christ rested from his own works as God did from his, therefore he also gave the day in which he rested from his works, a sabbath to the churches, as did the Father. Not that there are TWO sabbaths at once: the Father’s was imposed for a time, even until the Son’s should come; yea, as I have shewed you, even in the very time of its imposing it was also ordained to be done away. Hence he saith, that ministration ‘was to be done away’ (2 Cor 3:7). Therefore we plead not for two sabbaths to be at one time, but that a succession of time was ordained to the New Testament saints, or churches of the Gentiles, to worship God in; which time is that in which the Son rested from his own works as God did from his.
Nor may this be slighted, because the text says, as God finished his work, so Christ finished his; He also hath ceased from his own works as God did from his. He rested, I say, as God did; but God rested on his resting day, and therefore so did Christ. Not that he rested on the Father’s resting day; for it is evident, that then he had great part of his work to do; for he had not as then got his conquest over death, but the next day he also entered into his rest, having by his rising again, finished his work, viz., made a conquest over the powers of darkness, and brought life and immortality to light through his so doing.
FIRST, for those texts that are more close, yet have a divine intimation of this thing in them. First, The comparison that the Holy Ghost makes between the rest of God from his works, and the rest of Christ from his, doth intimate such a thing. ‘He that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his’ (Heb 4:10). Now God rested from his works, and sanctified a day of rest to himself, as a signal of that rest, which day he also gave to his church as a day of holy rest likewise. And if Christ thus rested from his own works, and the Holy Ghost says he did thus rest, he also hath sanctified a day to himself, as that in which he hath finished his work, and given it (that day) also to his church to be an everlasting memento of his so doing, and that they should keep it holy for his sake. And see, as the Father’s work was first, so his day went before; and as the Son’s work came after, so his day accordingly succeeded. The Father’s day was on the seventh day from the creation, the Son’s the first day following.
This then is the conclusion, that TIME to worship God in, is required by the law of nature; but that the law of nature doth, as such, fix it on the seventh day from the creation of the world, that I utterly deny, by what I have said already, and have yet to say on that behalf. Yea, I hope to make it manifest, as I have, that this seventh day is removed; that God, by the ministration of the spirit, has changed the time to another day, to wit, The first day of the week. Therefore we conclude the time is fixed for the worship of the New Testament Christians, or churches of the Gentiles, unto that day. Now in my discourse upon this subject, I shall, I. Touch upon those texts that are more close, yet have a divine intimation of this thing in them. II. And then I shall come to texts more express.
I do not question but that worship by the godly is performed to God every day of the week; yea, and every night too, and that time is appointed or allowed of God for the performance of such worship. But this time is not fixed to the same moment or hour universally, but is left to the discretion of the believers, as their frame of spirit, or occasions, or exigencies, or temptations, or duty shall require. We meddle then only with that time that the worship aforesaid is to be performed in; which time the law of nature as such supposes, but the God of nature chooses. And this time as to the churches of the Gentiles, we have proved is not that time which was assigned to the Jews, to wit, THAT seventh day which was imposed upon them by the ministration of death; for, as we have shewed already, that ministration indeed is done away by a better and more glorious ministration, the ministration of the spirit; which ministration surely would be much more inferior than that which has now no glory, was it defective as to this. That is, if it imposed a gospel service, but appointed not time to perform that worship in: or if notwithstanding all its commendation, it should be forced to borrow of a ministration inferior to itself; that, to wit, the time without which by no means its most solemn worship can be performed.
QUESTION V Since it is denied that the seventh day sabbath is moral, and it is found that it is not to abide as a sabbath for ever in the church, What time is to be fixed on for New Testament saints to perform together, divine worship to God by Christ in? Upon this question hangs the stress of all, as to the subject now under consideration: but before I can speak distinctly to it, I must premise, as I have in order to my speaking to the questions before, something for the better clearing of our way— [Therefore I remark, that] we are not now speaking of all manner of worshipping God, nor of all times in which all manner of worship is to be performed; but of that worship, which is church worship, or worship that is to be performed by the assembly of saints, when by the will of God they in all parts of his dominion assemble together to worship him; which worship hath a prefixed time allotted to, or for its performance, and without which it cannot, according to the mind of God, be done. This is the time, I say, that we are to discourse of, and not of ALL time appointed for all manner of worship.
What can be more plain? The text says expressly, that this ministration doth NOT remain; yea, and insinuates, that in its first institution it was ordained with this proviso, ‘It was to be done away.’ Now if in its first institution upon Sinai it was thus ordained; and if by the coming in of the ministration of the spirit, this ordination is now executed; that is, if by it, and the apostle saith it, it is done away by a ministration that remains: then where is that seventh day sabbath? Thus therefore I have discoursed upon this fourth question: And having shewed by this discourse that the old seventh day sabbath is abolished and done away, and that it has nothing to do with the churches of the Gentiles; I am next to shew what day it is that must abide as holy to the Christians, and for them to perform their New Testament church service in.
first of all, .god did not Ake only the people of Israel to Know the word of God, he wanted them to preach to all other nations, why do your think god did miracles in other places with people like the gentiles. second, I don’t know where you got that verse, but it doesn’t say that in my version, it says nothing about the resting on the first day. genesis 2:2 says “and he rested from all his work which he had made, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.”
And I say again, the seventh day sabbath cannot be it, for the reasons shewed afore. Eighth, Especially if you add to all this, that nothing of the ministration of death written and engraven in stones, is brought by Jesus, or by his apostles, into the kingdom of Christ, as a part of his instituted worship. Hence it is said of that ministration in the bowels of which this seventh day sabbath is found, that it has now NO glory; that its glory is done away, in or by Christ, and so is laid aside, the ministration of the Spirit that excels in glory, being come in the room thereof. I will read the text to you. ‘But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: [It was given at first with this proviso, that it should not always retain its glory, that sanction, as a ministration]. How shall not the ministration of the Spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. For if that which was done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious’ (2 Cor 3:7–11).
And in that he saith ‘There remains a rest,’ referring to that of David, what is it, if it signifies not, that the other rests remain not? There remains therefore a rest, a rest prefigured by the seventh day, and by the rest of Canaan, though they are fled and gone. ‘There remains a rest’; a rest which stands not now in signs and shadows, in the seventh day, or Canaan, but in the Son of God, and his kingdom, to whom, and to which the weary are invited to come for rest (Isa 28:12; Matt 11:20; Heb 4:11). Yet this casts not out the Christians holiday or sabbath: for that was not ordained to be a type or shadow of things to come, but to sanctify the name of their God in, and to perform that worship to him which was also in a shadow signified by the ceremonies of the law, as the epistle to the Hebrews doth plentifully declare.
Seventh, No man will, I think, deny but that Hebrews 4:4, 5 intends the seventh day sabbath, on which God rested from all his works; for the text doth plainly say so: yet may the observing reader easily perceive that both it, and the rest of Canaan also, made mention of verse 5 were typical, as to a day made mention of verses 7 and 8 which day he calls another. He would not afterwards have made mention of another day. If Joshua had given them rest, he would not. Now if they had not that rest in Joshua’s days, be sure they had it not by Moses; for he was still before. All the rests therefore that Moses gave them, and that Joshua gave them too, were but typical of another day, in which God would give them rest (Heb 4:9, 10). And whether the day to come, was Christ, or Heaven, it makes no matter: it is enough that they before did fail, as always shadows do, and that therefore mention by David is, and that afterward, made of another day. ‘There remains therefore a rest to the people of God.’ A rest to come, of which the seventh day in which God rested, and the land of Canaan, was a type; which rest begins in Christ now, and shall be consummated in glory.
Sixth, Thus Paul writes to the church of Colosse. ‘Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ’ (Col 2:16, 17). Here also, as he serveth other holy days, he serveth the sabbath. He gives a liberty to believers to refuse the observation of it, and commands that no man should judge against them for their so doing. And as you read, the reason of his so doing is, because the body, the substance is come. Christ saith he, is the body, or that which these things were a shadow or figure of. ‘The body is of Christ.’
Fifth, I find by reading God’s word, that Paul by authority apostolical, takes away the sanctions of all the Jews’ festivals and sabbaths. This is manifest, for that he leaves the observation or non-observation of them, as things indifferent, to the mind and discretion of the believers. ‘One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind’ (Rev 14:5). By this last clause of the verse, ‘Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind,’ he doth plainly declare, that such days are now stript of their sanction. For none of God’s laws, while they retain their sanction, are left to the will and mind of the believers, as to whether they will observe them or no. Men, I say, are not left to their liberty in such a case; for when a stamp of divine authority is upon a law, and abides, so long we are bound, not to our mind, but to that law: but when a thing, once sacred, has lost its sanction, then it falls, as to faith and conscience, among other common or indifferent things. And so the seventh day sabbath did. Again,
They do it, I say, for good reasons; reason drawn from the scripture; or rather, for that the scripture draws them so to conclude: yet they cast not away the morality of a sabbath of rest to the church. It is to be granted them, that time for God’s worship abideth for ever, but the seventh day vanishes as a shadow and sign; because such indeed it was, as the scripture above cited declares as to the sanction thereof as a sabbath. The law of nature then calls for time; but the God of nature assigns it, and has given power to his Son to continue SUCH time as himself shall by his eternal wisdom judge most meet for the churches of the Gentiles to solemnize worship to God by him in. Hence he is said to be ‘Lord even of the sabbath day’ (Matt 12:8).
Fourth, The seventh day sabbath, as such, was a sign and shadow of things to come; and a sign cannot be the thing signified and substance too. Wherefore when the thing signified or substance, is come, the sign or thing shadowing ceaseth. And, I say, the seventh day sabbath being so, as a seventh day sabbath it ceaseth also. See again Exodus 31:13, 14; Ezekiel 20:12, 21; Colossians 2:14. Nor do I find that our Protestant writers, notwithstanding their reverence of the sabbath, do conclude otherwise; but that though time as to worshipping God, must needs be contained in the bowels of the moral law, as moral; yet they for good reasons forbear to affix the seventh day as that time there too
Now if these be the laws of the sabbath, this seventh day sabbath; and if God did never command that this sabbath should by his church be sanctified without them: and, as was said before, if these ceremonies have been long since dead and buried, how must this sabbath be kept? Let men take heed, lest while they plead for law, and pretend themselves to be the only doers of God’s will, they be not found the biggest transgressors thereof. And why can they not as well keep the other sabbaths? As the sabbath of months, of years, and the jubilee? For this, as I have shewed, is no moral precept, it is only a branch of the ministration of death and condemnation.
If they say, they retain the day, but change their manner of observation thereof; I ask, who has commanded them so to do? This is one of the laws of this sabbath. ‘Thou shalt take fine flour, and bake twelve cakes thereof: two tenth deals shall be in one cake. And thou shalt set them in two rows, six on a row, upon the pure table before the Lord. And thou shalt put pure frankincense upon each row, that it may be on the bread for a memorial, even an offering made by fire unto the Lord. Every sabbath he shall set it in order before the Lord continually, being taken from the children of Israel by an everlasting covenant’ (Lev 24:5–8). You may see also other places, as Numbers 28:9, 10; Nehemiah 13:22 and Ezekiel 46:4.
Third. This seventh day sabbath has lost its ceremonies (those unto which before you are cited by the texts) which was with it imposed upon the old church for her due performance of worship to God thereon. How then can this sabbath now be kept? Kept, I say, according to law. For if the church on which it was first imposed, was not to keep it, yea, could not keep it legally without the practising of those ceremonies: and if those ceremonies are long ago dead and gone, how will those that pretend to a belief of a continuation of the sanction thereof, keep it, I say, according as it is written?
3. By telling of them it is a ministration that tendeth to blind the mind, and to veil the heart as to the knowledge of their Christ: so that they cannot, while under that, behold his beauteous face, but as their heart shall turn from it to him (2 Cor 3). 4. And that they might not be left in the dark, but perfectly know what ministration it is that he means, he saith expressly, it is that ‘written and engraven in stones.’ See again 2 Corinthians 3. And in that ministration it is that this seventh day sabbath is found. But shall we think that the apostle speaks any thing of all here said, to wean saints off from the law of nature, as such! No verily, that he retains in the church, as being managed there by Christ: but THIS ministration is dangerous now, because it cannot be maintained in the church, but in a way of contempt to the ministration of the Spirit, and is derogatory to the glory of that. Now these, as I said, are weaning considerations. No man, I do think, that knows himself, or the glory of a gospel ministration, can, if he understands what Paul says here, desire that such a ministration should be retained in the churches.
Second, I find, as I have shewed, that this seventh day sabbath is confined, not to the law of nature as such, but to that ministration of it which was given on Sinai: which ministration as it is come to an end as such, so it is rejected by Paul as a ministration no ways capable of abiding in the church now, since the ministration of the Spirit also hath taken its place (2 Cor 3). Wherefore instead of propounding it to the churches with arguments tending to its reception, he seeks by degrading it of its old lustre and glory, to wean the churches from any likement thereof: 1. By calling of it the ministration of death, of the letter, and of condemnation, a term most frightful, but no ways alluring to the godly. 2. By calling it a ministration that now has no glory, by reason of the exceeding glory of that ministration under which by the Holy Spirit the New Testament churches are. And these are weaning considerations (2 Cor 3).
First, Because we find not from the resurrection of Christ to the end of the Bible, anything written by which is imposed that seventh day sabbath upon the churches. Time, as I said, the law as moral requires; but that time we find no longer imposed. And in all duties pertaining to God and his true worship in his churches, we must be guided by his laws and testaments. By his old laws, when his old worship was in force; and by his new laws, when his new worship is in force. And he hath verily now said, ‘Behold, I make all things new’ (Rev 21:5).
So then, that law is still moral, and still supposes, since it teaches that there is a God, that time must be set apart for his church to worship him in, according to that will of his that he had revealed in his word. But though by that law time is required; yet by that, as moral, the time never was prefixed. The time then of old was appointed by such a ministration of that law as we have been now discoursing of; and when that ministration ceaseth, that time did also vanish with it. And now by our new law-giver, the Son of God, he being ‘lord also of the sabbath day,’ we have a time prefixed, as the law of nature requireth, a new day, by him who is the lord of it; I say, appointed, wherein we may worship, not in the oldness of that letter written and engraven in stones, but according to, and most agreeing with, his new and holy testament. And this I confirm further by those reasons that now shall follow.
Now in the law, as moral, we conclude a time propounded, but no seventh day sabbath enjoined. But in that law, as thus ministered, which ministration is already out of doors; we find a seventh day; that seventh day on which God rested, on which God rested from all his works, enjoined. What is it then? Why the whole ministration as written and engraven in stones being removed, the seventh day sabbath must also be removed; for that the time nor yet the day, was as to our holy sabbath, or rest, moral; but imposed with that whole ministration, as such, upon the church, until the time of reformation: which time being come, this ministration, as I said, as such, ceaseth; and the whole law, as to the morality of it, is delivered into the hand of Christ, who imposes it now also; but not as a law of works, nor as that ministration written and engrave in stones, but as a rule of life to those that have believed in him (1 Cor 9:21).
6. It was given to Israel also in the hand of Moses, as mediator, to shew, or typify out, that the law of grace was in after times to come to the church of Christ by the hand and mediation of Jesus our Lord (Gal 3:19; Deut 5:5; Heb 8:6; 1 Tim 2:5; Heb 9:15; 12:24). 7. As to this ministration, it was to continue but ‘till the seed should come’; and then must, as such, give place to a better ministration (Gal 3:19). ‘A better covenant, established upon better promises’ (Heb 8:6). From all this therefore I conclude, that there is a difference to be put between the morality of the law, and the ministration of it upon Sinai. The law, as to its morality was before; but as to this ministration, it was not till the church was with Moses, and he with the angels on Mount Sinai in the wilderness.
2. The very stones in which this law was engraven, was a figure of the tables of the heart. The first two were a figure of the heart carnal, by which the law was broken: the last two, of the heart spiritual, in which the new law, the law of grace is written and preserved (Exo 34:1; 2 Cor 3:3). 3. The very mount on which this ministration was given, was typical of Mount Zion. See Hebrews 12 where they are compared (vv 18–22). 4. Yea, the very church to whom that ministration was given, was a figure of the church of the gospel that is on Mount Zion. See the same scripture, and compare it with Acts 7:38; Revelation 14:1–5. 5. That ministration was given in the hand and by the disposition of angels, to prefigure how the new law or ministration of the Spirit was to be given afterwards to the churches under the New Testament by the hands of the angel of God’s everlasting covenant of grace, who is his only begotten Son (Isa 63:9; Mal 3:1; Acts 3:22, 23).
That ministration cannot be moral for three reasons. 1. It commenced not when morality commenced, but two thousand years after. 2. It was not universal as the law, as moral, is; it was given only to the church of the Jews in those tables. 3. Its end is past as such a ministration, though the same law as to the morality thereof abides. Where are the tables of stone and this law as therein contained? We only, as to that, have the notice of such a ministration, and a rehearsal of the law, with that mode of giving of it, in the testament of God. But to come to particulars. 1. The very preface to that ministration carrieth in it a type of our deliverance from the bondage of sin, the devil, and hell. Pharaoh, and Egypt; and Israel’s bondage there, being a type of these.
Now before I shew the grounds of my questioning of it, I shall enquire into the nature of that ministration in the bowels of which this seventh day sabbath is placed. And, First, I say, as to that, the nature of that law is moral, but the ministration, and circumstances thereunto belonging, are shadowish and figurative. By the nature of it, I mean the matter thereof: by the ministration and circumstances thereto belonging, I do mean the giving of it by such hands, at such a place and time, in such a mode, as when it was given to Israel in the wilderness. The matter therefore, to wit, ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength’: and ‘thy neighbour as thyself,’ is everlasting (Mark 12:29–31), and is not from Sinai, nor from the two tables of stone, but in nature; for this law commenced and took being and place that day in which man was created. Yea, it was concreate with him, and without it he cannot be a rational creature, as he was in the day in which God created him. But for the ministration of it from Sinai, with the circumstances belonging to that ministration, they are not moral, nor everlasting, but shadowish and figurative only.
QUESTION IV Whether the seventh day sabbath did not fall, as such, with the rest of the Jewish rites and ceremonies? Or whether that day, as a sabbath, was afterwards by the apostles imposed upon the churches of the Gentiles? I would now also, before I shew the grounds of my proposing this question, premise what is necessary thereunto; to wit, That time and day were both fixed upon by law, for the solemn performance of divine worship among the Jews; and that time and day is also by law fixed, for the solemnizing of divine worship to God in the churches of the Gentiles. But that the seventh day sabbath, as such, is that time, that day, that still I question.
Take your time, Whitetigie. Thank you SOO much for taking the time write this all out. I appreciate you.
Notice the term “lay something aside” in 1 Corinthians 16:1-2. Greenfield, in his Lexicon, translates the Greek term, ‘by one’s self, i.e., at home. 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 does not prove that the Corinthian church was assembled for public worship on that day; but, on the contrary, it proves that each must be at his own home where he could examine his worldly affairs, and lay by himself in store as God had prospered him. If each one should thus, from week to week, collect his earnings, when the apostle should come their bounty would be ready, and each would be able to present to him what he had gathered. ESRS 15.1
this is taking me forever to write things out 😆
ESV, NASB, CBS all translate it as “Sabbath rest.”
Where does it say that the “Sabbath was not rest enough??” Actually, it says that some people were NOT KEEPING IT!
I don’t know.... That’s a verse i didn’t look up that Whitetigie used...
Just because Paul happened to break bread on Sunday doesn’t make it a Holy day. According to that logic, since Acts 2:42 says that the early church broke bread together daily... does that make every day Holy?
Also Acts 13:33 doesn’t constitute as proof of a change in the day of worship....
who also made us sufficient as ministers of the NEW covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious?
How does Matthew 28:51-52 show that Sunday is the new Sabbath??
In other words, God blessed the Seventh Day and made it a time of rest. Some of the Israelites refused to keep it. so He again reiterated a rest day. And so Paul (or whoever wrote Hebrews) says that “there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God.” Mind you, “people of God.” that means all who believe in Jesus.
Hebrews 4:11 Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience.
Hebrews 4:9 So then, there REMAINS a Sabbath rest for the people of God.”
Hebrews 4:6-7 Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, again he appoints a certain day....”
Hebrews 4:4 For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.”
You mentioned Hebrews 4:10. That is one of my favorite passages in Scripture on the Sabbath because it CLEARLY states that the 7th day is to be kept.
2 Corinthians 3 Do we begin again to commend ourselves? Or do we need, as some others, epistles of commendation to you or letters of condemnation from you? You You are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read by all men; clearly you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Holy Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone, but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart. And we have such trust through Christ to God. Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God,
on Colossians 2:16-17: Notice that the word “sabbaths” is plural. In all the previous texts you gave, the word “Sabbath” was always singular. Why? because when you say “sabbaths” you mean the seven ANNUAL sabbaths outlined that the Jews observed, namely: 1. The first day of unleavened bread. 2. The seventh day of that feast. 3. The day of Pentecost. 4. The first day of the seventh month. 5. The tenth day of that month. 6. The fifteenth day of that month. 7. The twenty-second day of the same. In addition to all these, every seventh year was to be the sabbath of the land, and every fiftieth year the year of jubilee. There were 7 ANNUAL SABBATHS and these are the ones Paul is saying we need not keep. I have proof that this is the case, by studying the usage of the word “Sabbath” and “sabbaths” in the OT.
the passage you quoted from Leviticus 24 says the Sabbath is an “everlasting covenant.” Why would God lie by saying the Israelites are to keep the Sabbath forever, but then do the opposite? The Sabbath is not a ceremony any more than lying or stealing is.
“The reason for that is. when Jesus died on the cross and resurrected, he made ALL THINGS NEW.” Um, Jesus actually told John that He will make “all things new” at Jesus’ second coming, not when He was resurrected.
on Exodus 20:12: I believe you mean EZEKIEL 20:12. and again just because God gave the Israelites the Sabbath does NOT mean that He gave it ONLY to them. We know that Abraham kept the Sabbath because Genesis 26:5 clearly states that Abraham was blessed ONLY because he kept God’s “commandments.”
not for me falling asleep for answering your post 😂
The reason for that is, when Jesus died on the cross and resurrected, he made ALL THINGS NEW
“The Sabbath was meant for the Jews to keep, to distinguish them from other nations.” 1. on Exodus 16:29: God was addressing the Israelite nation, so naturally He would use a personal pronoun to address them. That does not show that the Sabbath was meant only for the Jews. 2. on Exodus 31:16: Has it ever occurred to you that the Apostles were Jewish? Why, then, do you say that they didn’t keep the Sabbath after Christ’s resurrection? if they didn’t, obviously the Sabbath wasn’t a “perpetual covenant” that the “children of Israel forever” were to keep. So if this verse was indicating that ONLY the Jews are to keep the Sabbath, then why in the world did the apostles, according to you, not keep the Sabbath?
Whitetigie wrote: “The Israelites did not know the Sabbath before Moses and the Ten Commandments.” Unfortunately, that is incorrect. The first mention of rest on the seventh day is Genesis 2:1-3. Then we hear about the Sabbath in Exodus 16 when the Israelites were given manna to eat. Notice something. These two incidents of God proclaiming a rest day happened BEFORE Moses received the 10 Commandments. Besides, the fourth commandment starts with the word “REMEMBER.” How could the Israelites remember about something unless they had already known it?
Whitetigie, thank you writing all that!! You’re doing a fantastic job. however, I have a few disagreements I would like to share if you don’t mind.😊
I'm super tired 😆 but I'm not done
From the resurrection of Christ nothing was written that imposed the seventh day Sabbath among the churches. We should be guided by His old laws when His old worship was in force and by his new laws when his new worship is in force. And He said in Revelation 21:5 the He who sat on the throne said, "Behold, I make all things new." And He said to me, "Write, for these words are true and faithful."
The not A first day, they collected money for the poor saints 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, so you must do also: On the FIRST day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as He may prosper, that there be no collections when I come.
Again, the first day, the disciples meet Acts 20:7 Now on the FIRST day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight.
On the first day he begat His Son from the dead Acts 13:33 God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. And it is also written in the second psalm: "You are my Son, TODAY I have begotten You."
Also, some of the saints that slept arose when Jesus did Matthew 27:51-52 and the graves were opened, and many of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.
Now it's fifth 😂 the first day of the week is honored by God and on this day He rested from His work of redemption Hebrews 4:10 For he who has entered His REST has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His.
Fifth, the Jewish Sabbath was a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ. Colossians 2:16-17 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or SABBATHS, which are the SHADOW of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.
Ezekiel 24:4 The burnt offerings that the Prince offers to the Lord on the SABBATH Day shall be six lambs without blemish and a ram without blemish;
Nehemiah 13:22 And I commanded the Levies that they should cleanse themselves, and that they should go and guard the gates, to sanctify the SABBATH Day.
Numbers 28:3 Now the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, "Command the children of Israel...And on the SABBATH day two lambs in their first year, without blemish, and with two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour as a grain offering, mixed with oil, with its drink offering─this is the burnt offering for EVERY SABBATH, besides the regular burnt offering with its drink offering...
Third, the ceremonies which were commanded to be performed as the Sabbath worship, can no longer be observed Leviticus 24 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: "Command the children of Israel...EVERY SABBATH he shall set in order before the Lord continually, being taken from the children of Israel as an everlasting covenant...
Exodus 20:12 Moreover I also gave THEM My Sabbaths, to be a sign between THEM and Me, that THEY may know that I am the Lord who sanctifies THEM.
Exodus 31:16 Therefore the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between Me and the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL forever; for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed."
Second, the Sabbath was meant for the Jews to keep, to distinguish them from other nations Exodus 16:29 See! For the Lord has given YOU the Sabbath;...
Deuteronomy 5:15 And remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; THEREFORE the Lord your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.
So, first of all, the Israelites did not know the Sabbath before Moses and the ten commandments Nehemiah 9:13-14 You came down also on Mount Sinai, and spoke with them from Heaven, and gave them just ordinances and true laws, good statutes and commandments. You MADE KNOWN to them Your holy Sabbath, and commanded them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses Your servant.
Proof is coming any second
Wonderful, magnificent, Biblical truth/proof
Would you like to "hear" it? 😆
yeah, and since you have proved that point the Bible says”the seventh day is the sabbath of the lord your god, in it you shall do not work”so do tell, when did the sabbath change(give me a specific verse, no one has correctly met this challenge yet)
Yes. But that is not possible, scientifically and historically. We have records of the week from Julius Caesar’s time till now. Julius Caesar lived decades before Jesus was born. Therefore we know that the order of the days have not changed. The Saturday that exists now is the same as the Saturday that Jesus kept in His time.
Do you know that some people say that Sunday is the seventh day of the week?
the Mormon explained some of their religion. I wanted to ask them some questions though
huh, someone was Mormon who I debated with, I’m not quite sure who though. their thoughts were really interesting, anyone here Mormon?
Shannon, that is so true!! LIV, thank you so much for your prayers!! They are so very much appreciated. Don’t hesitate to shout-out your opinion!!
good, I always liked when you debated with me, are you Mormon? I seem to remember you being Mormon. we had a Mormon come to our house and try to convince us their faith yesterday😜
Liv
Saturday, Feb 15, 2020 at 11:48 AM
remove
Oh wow guys!!! There are SO many posts!!Sadly i really don't have time to debate. But will be praying 4 u guys!!❤
sorry, I messed up in one of them it's supposed to say and of mirth, and it says and of North 😂 I just remembered as I was reading it
so I'm adding a lot of my own things, but I'm using the titles of the points someone else made, it's kinda confusing 😂
I got most of the information about it from a service I was in about it but I didn't take very good notes 😆
No, no shoot right ahead! Thank you for the work you’re putting into it! It’s fantastic.
😂 is it too much? There are still 2 more points 😂
Super interesting, Whitetigie! Thank you for sharing!! I was blessed.
That was the second point 😆
So I became great and excelled more than all who were before me in Jerusalem. Also my wisdom remained with me. Whatever my eyes desired I did not keep from them. I did not withhold my heart from any pleasure, for my heart rejoiced in all my labor; and this was my reward from all my labor. Then I looked on all that my hands had done and on the labor on which I toiled; and indeed all was vanity and grasping for the wind. There was not profit under the sun
I made myself great, I made myself houses and planted myself vineyards, I made myself gardens and orchards, and I planted all kinds of fruit trees in them. I made myself water pools from which to water the growing trees of the grove. I acquired male and female servants, and I had servants born in my house. Yes, I had greater possession of herds and flocks than all who were in Jerusalem before me. I also gathered for myself silver and gold and the special treasures of kings and of the provinces. I acquired male and female singers, the delights of the sons of men, and musical instruments of all kinds.
Then he gathers possessions Ecclesiastes 2:1-11 I said in my heart, "Come now, I will test you with mirth; therefore enjoy pleasjre; but surely, this also was vanity. I said of laughter─"Madness!"; and of North, "What does it accomplish?" I searched in my heart how to gratify my flesh with wine, while guarding my heart with wisdom, and how to lay hold on folly, till I might see what was good for the sons of men to do under heaven all the days of their lives.
I'll try again but separate it, maybe there were too many pixels 😂😂😂
I’m just kidding, that wouldn’t do anything even if you did say you agreed😂, and yes please get content4thefaith on this group, I don’t want him spoiling final events SDA cause it is so unites, this group is much more friendly and agreeable in debates
it literally took me 20 minutes! 😆
I just typed a whole new section and it didn't post it 😂
hey Shannon, agree with me or I will tell everyone what your name is😈
It took me 8 minutes just to type that?! 😂
Ecclesiastes 1:14-18 I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and indeed, it is all vanity and grasping for the wind. What is crooked cannot be made straight, and what is lacking cannot be numbered. I have communed with my heart, saying, "Look, I have attained Greatness, and have gained more wisdom than all who were before me in Jerusalem. My heart has understood great wisdom and Knowledge." And I set my heart to know wisdom and to know madness and folly. I perceived that this also is grasping for the wind. For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow."
I forgot it goes on through verse 18 😆 In verses 12-18 he starts his quest
2.ᎢᎻᎬ QᏌᎬᏚᎢ After explaining about life under the sun, he tells us about human wisdom Ecclesiastes 1:12-13 I, the Preacher, was king over Israel and Jerusalem. And I set my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all that is done under heaven; this burdensome task God has given to the sons of man, by which they may be exercised."
tbh, there's always at least one book on my bed 😂
Got it, totally understandable 😉 I'll post the next point in a sec I just have to find my notes 😆 and my bed is literally littered with literature 😂 sorry I mean my bed has a ton of books on it 😉
Hey! I hope we can move our discussion hear we need to get contend4thefaith her and We need Marylen too
Should I post the second point now?
lol idk maybe 😆 that was only the first point 😂
Whitetigie, so interesting? I think you have the makings of a theologian in you!! are you planning to follow your father’s footsteps and become a theologian?
FYI: I didn’t write that, it’s from a very helpful book that I’ve read which, to me, does a fantastic job in explaining. I will cover the other verses later. I just have to finish compiling my rebuttal to them.
Paul wished to be loosed, or set free, from earth. He earnestly longed not to live longer on the earth, nor to die and be buried in the earth, but to be caught up from the earth, to meet the Lord in the air, and to be “for ever with the Lord.” He did not, however, live to see the fulfillment of his heart’s desire, as he suffered a martyr’s death. But he “died in faith,” awaiting the “crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give” him “at that day: and not to” him “only, but unto all them also that love his appearing” (2 Timothy 4:8).
The deep feelings, yes, the fervent desire, of the great apostle in his lonely confinement, as he contemplated this blessed hope of being with Christ, was to “depart” (analuo), as of a ship from port, or a prisoner from confinement. Paul’s wish was not to become a discarnate ghost-spirit, as some have interpreted, but to realize the Christian’s hope. It was one of the two designated means of being with Christ—there being no other way. There is thus no conflict or inconsistency here.
Paul’s “desire to depart” was mentioned in the midst of his discussion of the alternatives of life amid many perils, and dying and being at rest. He at first did not know which he should choose. But there appears this third consideration, which was “far, far better”—to “depart,” or go to be with Christ through translation, and thus be personally with Christ without dying. That was his heart’s deepest desire.
This was “very far [pollo mallon, “much more”; “far, far”—Weymouth] better”—a double comparative. “Better” than what? Clearly, than either of the two he had just mentioned (living or dying). Therefore it cannot mean death, but some event or means by which alone Paul could be with Christ—by being “caught up” alive (1 Thessalonians 4:16, 17) through translation, either at the Advent, or a special translation, as with Enoch and Elijah. Paul had been in a strait between the first two, having difficulty in choosing between them. But the third alternative ended all indecision.
To the two alternatives (to “live” or to “die”), upon which he could not make up his mind, Paul now adds a third choice, which was his deep desire—and that was to “depart” and “to be with Christ,” which is “very far better” (Philippians 1:23, R.V., A.R.V.). That would be to be caught up with Christ, through translation, to meet the Lord in the air when Christ comes to be “glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe ... in that day” (2 Thessalonians 1:10). This sound solution has been set forth by various reputable scholars back through the years, with no theory on the nature of men to sustain.
We should now note carefully Paul’s comparison when he speaks of “departing” to be with Christ as “far better.” It was not that to die was better than to live, and that he therefore desired to die. The desire of his heart was to be “with Christ,” or “with the Lord,” which is vastly different.
Therefore it is not at death but at the resurrection of the dead that the saints will be ushered into the presence of Christ. And for this Christ must first return from Heaven. It is only when He comes again that He will receive us unto Himself (John 14:3). Again, “when Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory” (Colossians 3:4). Paul told the Romans that he, with them, awaited “the redemption of our body” (Romans 8:23). This is the glorious “change” about which Paul wrote to the Philippians, when he said: “A Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: who shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation, that it may be conformed to the body of his glory” (Philippians 3:20, 21, A.R.V.). That occurs only at the Second Advent (1 Corinthians 15:51, 54)..
We are told there will be “fulness of joy” in Christ’s presence (Psalm 16:11). But those who are fallen asleep are not yet enjoying that presence. If they were, the resurrection would be unnecessary. And as stated, Paul makes all life beyond the grave depend on resurrection. Thus the saints of old were “tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection” (Hebrews 11:35). Again, “if there be no resurrection of the dead,” “then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished” (1 Corinthians 15:13, 18). They are consequently not in Heaven. And once more, the sleeping saints of the ages do not go to Jesus before the saints living at the time of the Advent (1 Thessalonians 4:14-17).
It would follow that, on the premise of the Immortal-Soulist, the saints would already possess the fullest transformation that they could ever look for and obtain, and thus long anticipate Christ’s actual personal advent. But such a view brings a denial of an antecedent resurrection uniformly taught by Paul. Either that, or it implies that the resurrection occurs at death, and is already past (2 Timothy 2:18), which Paul likewise condemned as a heresy. Paul repeatedly went on record as to when the Christian goes to be with his Lord. Here is the Pauline testimony. It is an eight-strand cable of evidence—so strong that it cannot be broken:
The notion that during the state of death believers are “with Christ” in a state of life in Heaven, involves an inescapable denial of one of the cardinal doctrines of Scripture—the sleep of all the dead, in gravedom. Further, if the deceased saints were already with Christ in glory, and were able to see Him “as he is,” they would already have been changed into the “likeness” of Christ (1 John 3:2). But here is the timing for that change according to Scripture: “But we know that, when he [Christ] shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2).
It is commonly assumed by the Immortal-Soulist that one goes into the presence of Christ immediately upon death. But the text states nothing of the kind. There are many verses pointing that we will go into His presence only at the Second Advent and the concurrent resurrection. Entrance into Christ’s presence is therefore a future event, to be experienced simultaneously by all saints alike—except for those privileged few who have a prior special resurrection (like Moses), or special translation (like Elijah), both of whom appeared with Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration. But in either case, it is still only by resurrection or translation. Clearly, then, it is by resurrection or translation, there being no other way of going to be “with Christ” (John 5:21, 29; 1 Thessalonians 4:17).
The intermediate state has been injected into this passage, but the text is totally silent on the condition of the dead. That is not the point. Surely, if all the prophets and apostles, and saints and martyrs were already in Heaven, death would indeed be more desirable—if that were the pathway to Heaven.
The Lord Jesus Christ Himself went down into death. But it was not the prospect of death that filled Him with joy—except as He was fulfilling His Father’s will and providing salvation for man. His joy was over the fact that God would not leave His soul in she’ol (the grave) nor suffer His “Holy One to see corruption” (Psalm 16:9, 10). Christ “passed into the heavens” (Hebrews 4:14), and now ministers for us in the presence of the Father (Romans 7:23-27). But that was through the designated resurrection and ascension provision. On the contrary, the worthies of old passed into the earth, the grave, and are dependent upon the living Son of God to come forth from the heavens to call them from their graves (John 5:28, 29).
The intervening period between death and the return of the Lord would, for the sleeper, be annihilated, and the glories of the eternal world, through the resurrection, would open instantly, as it were, upon his view. The waiting period, however long, is an utter blank—seemingly but a moment of time, like the twinkling of an eye. The very moment he would regain consciousness, upon the call of the Life-giver, he would be in the presence of Christ. So he need not actually wait a single conscious moment, for, we repeat, those who are sound asleep have no awareness of the passing of time.
I believe that to Paul, death was a state of unconsciousness for the sleeper, as he so often and clearly taught, with no conscious lapse of time between death and the resurrection. He knew that, after he had lost consciousness in death, the next moment of awareness would be the hearing of the voice of the returning Christ, calling him to arise and be with his Lord forever. The first face he would look upon would be that of his beloved Life-giver. Thus he could say, “For me ... to die is gain” (Philippians 1:21). But how could death be “gain” if it reduced him to a state of unconsciousness? Just as it would be to Job, who entreated, “O that thou wouldest hide me in the grave” (Job 14:13).
He had a desire to end this mortal pilgrimage. He could well say that to die is “gain,” for he would then be at rest. But the cause of God and his sympathetic heart drew him to remain here in labor if acquitted. On the other hand, his own weariness and sufferings were an urge for rest in the sleep of death. He was in a quandary. These strong pulls were just about balanced, though he did think it more needful for him to remain to give the benefit of his counsel and labors to the church. Thus “gain” to the cause of Christ would come by martyrdom, and there would be gain to himself as a martyr through the resurrection, for in his affliction any form of death would be a release. Thus he reasoned.
Paul was “in a strait” (sunechomai, “being pressed”) “betwixt” the two alternatives of “to live,” or “to die.” “For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain,” he wrote. In the context Paul had just said that Christ would be “magnified in my body, whether it be by life, or by death.” So, if Paul lived, Christ would be “magnified” (Philippians 1:20), and the church profited (Philippians 1:24). If he died, Christ would still be “magnified” (Philippians 1:20), and it would still be “gain” to Christ. Paul had been beaten eight times and stoned once. He had been in perils of waters, robbers, the Jews, false Christians, the heathen, perils in the city, the wilderness, and on the sea, and had been times innumerable in weariness, pain, sickness, hunger, thirst, cold, and nakedness (2 Corinthians 11:23-27).
If we go to be with the Lord by means of our immortal spirit when we die, then we do not go by means of, and at, His visible coming and the miraculous resurrection of the dead and the translation change of the living. In such an event Paul is made to falsify and deceive. There is no way to avoid such a conclusion. It must be clear that the descent of the Lord from Heaven, the mighty shout, the voice of the archangel, the sound of the trump of God—and the resurrection of the dead, or the change of the living—do not take place at death.
The “so” (houtos), which is emphatic in the original, emphasizes the fact that not by our dying but by our Lord’s descending from Heaven, at His second advent, shall both the living saints and the sleeping saints enter the Lord’s presence together in the grand home going. “So” means “in this way,” “in this manner,” “by this means.” That is how we shall ever “be with the Lord.” Therefore, when Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4:16, 17 describes the sole way and precise method by which we are to go to be with the Lord, he thereby precludes every other means. There is no other way save by (1) resurrection, or (2) translation.
To the Thessalonians he wrote of this in its inseparable relation to the Second Advent: “For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain [at the Advent] shall be caught up together with them [the resurrected saints] in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord” (1 Thessalonians 4:16, 17).
Paul expressly declared, “I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you” (Acts 20:20). He did keep back, however, everything concerning any disembodied immortal soul or spirit. Again, he said, “I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). But he never uttered a single syllable about an immortal soul or a deathless spirit in man.
Paul determined that under all circumstances Christ should be magnified in his “body,” whether by his life or by his death. Life and death are here tied in, by Paul, with his body, not primarily his soul, or spirit. There is not a word in the entire recital about a separate soul or discarnate spirit. If Paul meant that his real, inner self was a conscious immortal soul, which would leave the body at death to go to be with the Lord, then, we ask, why did he not once say so some place in the one hundred chapters of his various epistles—comprising more than a third of the entire New Testament. But let us pause a moment for two texts.
I think it would be appropriate to look at the historical background of this passage. The background for Paul’s famous Philippian passage is this: Some ten years had passed since Paul had preached the gospel at Philippi. During his third missionary journey Paul was beaten by a mob at Jerusalem and brought before the Sanhedrin (Acts 22:30). Paul there skillfully divided the opposing Pharisees and Sadducees by referring to the doctrine of the resurrection. He was then sent, under duress, to Felix the governor. But his trial was deferred for two years, being resumed under Festus in A.D. 59. Paul then appealed to Caesar, and Festus ordered him sent to Rome for trial.
Here is the text of this famous “depart, and be with Christ” passage in Philippians: “According to my earnest expectation and my hope, that in nothing I shall be ashamed, but that with all boldness, as always, so now also Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether it be by life, or by death. For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot [gnorizo, “declare”] not. For I am in a strait [sunechomai, “being pressed”] betwixt [the] two [living and dying, having a desire to depart (analusai, “return”)], and to be with Christ; which is far better: nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you” (Philippians 1:20-24).
wait. help me. what are we debating about?
and I’m really interested for someone to say when the sabbath was changed from Saturday to Sunday🙂I havn’t found anywhere
did anyone see what I said before?🤨 I’m not sure. so if Jesus died on Friday, and the priests wanted him down early so the bodies wouldn’t hang on the sabbath, then obviously since he also rose on Sunday that means Saturday is the sabbath.
Then he starts describing life under the sun Ecclesiastes 1:4-11 "One generation passes away, and another generation comes; but the earth abides forever. The sun also rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it arose. The wind goes toward the south, and turns around to the north; the wind whirls around continually, and cones again on its circuit. All the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea is not full; to the place from which the rivers come, there they return again. All things are full of labor, man cannot express it. The eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear with hearing. That which has been is what will be, that which is done will be Done, and there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which it may be said, "See, this is New"? It has already been in ancient times before us. There is no remembrance of former things, nor will there be any remembrance of things that are to come by those who will come after."
man from all his labor In which he toils under the sun?"
1. ᎢᎻᎬ ᏢᎡᎾᏴᏞᎬᎷ In Ecclesiastes 1:1-3, Solomon is talking about the vanity of life. Ecclesiastes 1:1-3 The words of the Preacher, the son of David, King in Jerusalem. "Vanity of Vanities," Says the Preacher; "Vanity of vanities, all is vanity. What profit has a
So, Ecclesiastes has 4 main points, let's talk about the first first 😂
Ok I'm back, now you can hear my "expertise" on Ecclesiastes 😆
I gtg but I'll brb in a bit 😬
I totally agree that his point of view is looking at the darker side. But I don’t think that he’s wrong on his viewpoint of death (LOL.) I think the wisest thing to do is to compare scripture with scripture and allow God’s Word to interpret itself. So now this leads me to the question. Solomon contends (and I do to) that when both the righteous and wicked die, they don’t know anything. This talking about the FIRST death. Can you please show me verses in the Bible that show that during the FIRST DEATH (not the second) people are in Heaven or Hell immediately? do you get what I mean?
Ava, you are correct, he was testing life under the sun, I could explain the whole book of Ecclesiastes because of the study I did on it 😉
Ecclessiastes, it is Solomon exploring life without God, life under the sun. Whenever something is refered to as under the sun, it means life on earth without God. That's why Solomon says life is vanity, or the hebrew Hevel, which means vapor or cloud. With God life has purpose and there is life after death. Without God life is meaningless and when you die youre done and nothing happens. NOTE: I'm saying life without God as in life without a God exsisting. Like as an atheist, from their perspective you die and nothing more is there.
I totally disagree that Solomon’s perspectives are skewed. Certainly chapter 12:1 isn’t a “skewed” perspective. There is wisdom in what he says.
yep, I can tell you where she got it
Precisely, Whitetigie. Shannon wrote that Solomon said such a thing and I was wondering where she read that.
Yeah I know, and I was just answering 😉
Whitetigie, I’m sorry. I was tagging a post Shannon wrote...
Solomon never says she Should eat, drink and be merry, since we're going to die
If you take that position, you’re going to have to believe that when Solomon wrote Proverbs they were just proverbs, old wives tales that mustn’t be taken seriously.... Are you sure you want to take such a position? that will undercut completely your alcohol argument....
Sri, its the date and time the person wrote the post
I don’t get what Fri Feb 14 1:58 PM means??
Where does Solomon say that “we should just eat, drink, and be merry, since we’re going to die?”
Loved by Jesus, I could explain the book of Ecclesiastes if you would like
Even if Ecclesiastes is full of sarcasm, it would NEVER contradict the Bible. Sarcasm is only effective when it mocks something true. So unfortunately just because it is “sarcasm” does not make it a falsehood or something untrue.
Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God; and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books
The unbelievers, when they die, they are judged by God, by the book of life as it says in Revelation 20:12
So let’s keep the two deaths separate. What happens to the wicked when they die the first death?
I'm sorry but you cracked me up Teresa 😂
Loved by Jesus, in Ecclesiastes, there are 4 things he talks about: 1. The Problem, 2. The Quest, 3. The Discovery, and 4. The Conclusion
lol ok amigo is the Spanish word for friend
If we were on a boat id have you call me a mate I've got no idea about amigos i don't fell like pals or chums I would like companions or allies or friends dudes sounds to boyey so there you go!
Loved by Jesus, I remember recently doing a study on that and that at the beginning, Solomon said: Vanity, all vanity 😂 I think
good morning btw folks, dudes, friends, companions, allies, buddies, amigos, mates, pals, chums, or whatever you want me to call you 😆
Loved by Jesus, so my parents are missionaries to Peru, I have not been to Bolivia I don't think but I have been to Chile and have been to lots of places in Peru 😉
That’s so cool, Whitetigie! How long have you been there?
I didn’t answer all the questions, including the ones about the verses that could be interpreted as pointing to a eternal hell, but I will get to those a little later.
Another difference is in what happens to the righteous dead. Most Christians believe that the righteous souls will be in Heaven until the second coming when their bodies are reunited with their souls. Adventists believe that the righteous dead will stay in their grave until the Second Coming when Jesus will resurrect them with incorruptible bodies. Psalms 115:17 clears says that “The dead do not praise the Lord, nor do any who go down into silence.” Obviously, not even the righteous dead’s souls are alive in Heaven right now because if they were, they would be praising God. Actually, per the Bible, they are in “silence.” Ecclesiastes 9:5 is even more explicit: “The dead know nothing.” “It is the same for all.” (Ecclesiastes 9:2) “As the good one is, so is the sinner.” (Ecclesiastes 9:2) “The same event happens to the righteous and the wicked, to the good and the evil.” (Ecclesiastes 9:2) Recap: what happens? Both the righteous and the wicked will die and they “know nothing.” Per verse 6, their love, hate, envy has perished with them. In other words, they don’t have any emotions anymore because they don’t know anything.
Talking to Loved by Jesus btw
Well the one he's at is actually in Peru it's called Seminario Teológico Bautista where does you dad teach?
Ezekiel 28:18 makes it clear that Satan, too, will be destroyed. This verse says he will be “consumed” by fire, “turned... to ashes.” Per Nahum 1:9, God will completely destroy sin: “He will make a complete end.” That doesn’t sound like God will keep people burning for all eternity if He’s going to “make a complete end” of them.
Those who haven’t accepted Christ as their personal Savior won’t have life, according to 1 John 5:12. “Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.” Obviously, the wicked don’t have life. If they don’t have life, they are dead. Common sense, right? If they are dead, how can they be alive in Hell?
Most Christians believe that Hellfire will rage for all eternity. Adventists believe that Hellfire will last until all the wicked become “ASHES,” until “the arrogant and all evildoers will be STUBBLE.” The wicked will be “ablaze, says the Lord of hosts, so that it will leave them NEITHER root nor branch.” (Malachi 4:1, 3) In Hell, as Jesus said in Matthew 10:28, there will be “destroy[ed] BOTH SOUL and body in hell.” Notice the word “destroy.” So, per Jesus, our souls will be destroyed, effaced, annihilated. Why? Because “the wages of sin is death.” (Romans 6:23) “The soul who sins shall die.” (Ezekiel 18:4)
Most Christians believe that every soul is immortal and ALL, including the wicked, will live forever in Heaven or Hell. Adventists, however, believe that no soul is immortal. No where in the Bible do we read the term “Immortal Soul.” Neither is there any verse in the Bible that points to a never-perishing soul. In fact, the opposite exists. Ezekiel 18:4 says “The SOUL who sins shall die.” Clearly, if our souls can die, they are not immortal. Immortality/eternal life is a GIFT (per Romans 6:23). A gift invariably means that we do not have it already. Romans 2:7 says that people “seek for honor and glory and IMMORTALITY.” If our souls were immortal why seek for something we already have? Furthermore, 1 Timothy 6:16 says that Jesus Christ “alone has immortality.” Clearly, you and I are not Jesus; therefore we don’t have immortality.
Whitetigie, what a cool name! I’m SDA, FYI. Our views on Hell differ some compared to your views. Most Christians believe that Hell is burning right now. Adventists believe that Hell will start burning “at the end of the age” as Jesus said in Matthew 13:40 and 49.
I should have probably not said anything to when Larissa called me a “He.” 🤭 I don’t mind if you use the wrong pronoun. I’ll respond to both, lol. @Shannon, I rather not say but its probably obvious to you what I really am
I’m just gonna like say I am a boy just so everyone knows for sure
@Larissa, no getting an email would be awesome but I’ve never received one. Shannon wrote to me on another group that this group is getting active again 😉
Wait.... I’m a “He?” Where did that come from?
😂😂😂 nice to meet you too Ava, gtg to sleep but we can chat tomorrow if you would like, gn!
Ava
Thursday, Feb 13, 2020 at 10:45 PM
remove
Nice to meet you Whitetigie, I'm Ava if you can't tell
I'm Whitetigie if you can't tell 😉😆
Ava
Thursday, Feb 13, 2020 at 10:33 PM
remove
Hi
Ava
Thursday, Feb 13, 2020 at 10:24 PM
remove
I checked Final SDA... Legends won't load on my device and closed the app down. I've tried several times. Might have to pull my computer out tomorrow and see. But I can't get access until tomorrow so I'm gonna have to stick with about 2/3 of this
Ava
Thursday, Feb 13, 2020 at 10:14 PM
remove
Hi... I'm here... Gonna get caught up now
my oldest is in 2nd grade
Oh, my comment about denomination wasn't meant to discourage people from mentioning their denomination btw. I was just clarifying why I can't really put down a denomination after my name.
Larissa, now you know I'm not in elementary 😆
Shannon, I see. You guys have an underground network! You also got him to admit he's a "him" huh? Good to know ;]
lol Whitetigie, thanks for the info! I feel like I know you sooo much better now! haha
Also talking to Larissa 😂 I'm using CC right now it's pretty good definitely an option to consider, if you choose to do that, the math is separate, I used abeka till 6th then switched to Saxon and am using shorman now
Larissa, I personally think that no denomination can get every single thing right cause we are not perfect, I think I'm Baptist my parents are missionaries
I noticed on the Legend group that some of the verse collections are labeled as Classical conversation levels. Are any of you that are homeschooled in CC? I'm considering it next year for my kids but am still on the fence.
I'm Whitetigie, I'm as old as I am and I live somewhere in the world! 😂
For the Newbies, I don't really identify with a denomination. Since leaving Seventh-Day-Adventism almost exactly 2 years ago, I have come to realize there really isn't anyone who has it ALL right, and that's ok! I think that this mystery is a gift from God so we will dig into His word and seek him. My family and I do attend an Evangelical Free church which is a denomination if you haven't heard of it.
I guess I should introduce myself 😉
Hi Siri! Did you just happen to check in on this group at this time or do you get notified when someone posts something here?
Sometimes it's confusing 😉
I see, thanks for filling me in.
Here's a question: Did contend4faith change their name/picture? That was confusing to me. Are they in this group?
Looks like she took down everything that Rougeone said and a couple others. But I was still able to see the gist of it. I love you guys already! I admire your passion. Ok, still catching up on legends.
Ok, I'm starting to get a clearer picture of what everyone was trying to do. It was interesting to see the different ways that each of you approached the SDA group with the gospel. Personalities are so different, it is interesting to see. Let me look at the Legends group first and then I will come back.
Woah! This group has resurrected itself. I’ve really missed you, Larissa! And a warm welcome to the new members on here. Super excited to discuss with new members the Bible. always fantastic to do!!
Oh wow, I'll go look now! But also, I have to say I disagree with you. Most SDAs do need the gospel. But I don't think that telling them about hell is the gospel....
Welcome to all the new members! Quick question for you all before I go read what I've missed. Do you get a weekly email with all the posts from this message wall in it? I get one for other groups I'm in but not for the one I admin....
Wow that was long!!! Hopefully that helped a bit.
There are other verses. But I gtg. And u should read the whole chapter of the references that I posted down there. 😉
How could we say that about unbelieving loved ones? Only when we are made perfect. With our minds one with God's will. There is no pity or love in hell. On Earth the wicked enjoy that, but there is an expiration date. In the parable about Lazarus. The rich man asks Abraham to send Lazarus to his family and tell them to repent but he is told " And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. " - Luke 16:31
Our hearts MUST be perfect and one with God's will!! Psalm 139:21-24 - " Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? and am not I grieves with those that rise up against thee? I hate them with PERFECT hatred: I count them mine enemies. Search me, O God, and know my thoughts: And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting. "
How can we live like that? Our unbelieving friends can't possibly be loved friends or relatives then. And how could we possibly bear under that? It has to be because we will have perfect conformity to God's will. Only friendships with Christ will extend over the river to heaven.
So in Isaiah 66 where it says that the righteous will see the carcases of the wicked, It could be like in that parable.
And in the parable in Luke 16. Luke 16:23-26 " And in hell lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cries and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime recievedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass us, that would come from thence. "
The verse says " their worm " and " their fire " so how could they be dead? Or be weeping and gnashing there teeth?
I don't believe that they will be die once they get to hell and will have no punishment. I have trouble with this, but I do believe that it is true. I believe that they will be as carcases after the end of the world. John 5:29 - " And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. " And in Isaiah 66:24 - " And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh. "
And what about Luke 13:28 -, "There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out " and Matthew 8:12 - "But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. " If they are going to be in outer darkness and be weeping and gnashing there teeth, I don't see how they could be dead. Or only there souls be there.
But why would hell go on for ever and ever if the wicked got destroyed instantly? "Where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. " - Mark 9:44; 46, and 48. ( Those 3 verses are identical in the KJV ) Why would there be worms that NEVER died , if there wasn't anyone in hell?
We cannot perfectly obey, or submit to God's will, because of the presence of sin. We are no longer under the law, but that doesn't mean that we make void of the law. The law cannot save it can only convict us. If there was no law, there would be no sin, because sin is the transgression of the law. But when you are saved you aren't burdened by the law. "Thy law is a delight" But you love and live by it. A Christian is under grace, but he still follows the law. They are God's commands and he loves them. But in this life we can never perfectly follow the law. We have our sins covered for, but our old habits still cling to us. Btw this is all in Romans. Especially chapter 6.
TRYING TO GET THERE! 😆 Because we are not perfect we will have trouble understanding why unbelievers will burn in hell for ever, unbelievers who once were our friends. But our minds and wills will be perfectly conformed to God's LAW and will.
Our purpose, our chief end, is THAT END! To bring glory to God. We should be wrapped up in that ONE thing.
Why doesn't the Lord save all? Well, his first concern is not the saving of wicked sinners, but his first concern is his own glory. Rev. 4:11 - " Thou art worthy, Oh Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. " Colossians 1:16 -For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: "
I believe based off of a bunch of verses and Matthew chapter 25 that there will be a day of final farewell. Where believers will say goodby to unbelievers forever. It will be a day, just as real as today was. Matthew 25:34 - " Then shall the king say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world " Matthew 25:41 - " Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: "
It will probably be long,
Scroll down to where this conversation starts and you'll be able to see by reading the posts 😉
Matthew 25:46 And these things will go away into e͟v͟e͟r͟l͟a͟s͟t͟i͟n͟g͟ p͟u͟n͟i͟s͟h͟m͟e͟n͟t͟ , but the righteous into eternal life
God loves us very much, he gives us multiple chances
sorry for that wierd font 😂
𝔅𝔲𝔱 𝔰𝔬𝔲𝔩𝔰 𝔡𝔬𝔫'𝔱 𝔡𝔦𝔢, 𝔴𝔥𝔢𝔫 𝔴𝔢 𝔯𝔢𝔞𝔠𝔥 𝔢𝔱𝔢𝔯𝔫𝔦𝔱𝔶, 𝔴𝔢 𝔴𝔬𝔫'𝔱 𝔟𝔢 ℑ. 𝔬𝔲𝔯 𝔟𝔬𝔡𝔦𝔢𝔰, ℑ 𝔥𝔬𝔭𝔢 ℑ 𝔭𝔥𝔯𝔞𝔰𝔢𝔡 𝔱𝔥𝔞𝔱 𝔠𝔬𝔯𝔯𝔢𝔠𝔱𝔩𝔶 😆
also, I don’t think a God of Love will burn all the evil ones forever and ever.
lol. I see what you are talking about. but I also think that hell is not eternal because it doesn’t say anything about souls being punished or never dying.
I meant 2 Thessalonians 1:9 sorry 😆
is it another bible verse, perhaps?
and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 2 Thessalonians 1:7 - that’s what I get in NKJV 🤣
well it says everlasting DISTRUCTION. also. some translations do have refrences to eternal hell. so try to use KJV or NKJV.
2 Thessalonians 1:7 These shall be punished with e͛v͛e͛r͛l͛a͛s͛t͛i͛n͛g͛ d͛e͛s͛t͛r͛u͛c͛t͛i͛o͛n͛ from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power
I think he’ll will last forever. the evil will not.
yes. they are thrown in there. but the fire will completely distroy them.
but it never says the soul burns forever.
your soul is not in torture forever. you just do not go to heaven.
hell is not eternal for the body. you burn and die.
My first question is, what do they believe about hell?
Sorry if I ask too many questions 😆
I believe that abortion is wrong, some people say that it's ok because they "aren't alive" but they are, and if they do choose to abort, the baby will go to heaven, but he will have missed his life here on earth
I think those babies will be saved, too.
I think we shouldn’t practice it because it is taking babies from life before they have a chance at anything, what do you think happens to them when god comes? I honestly don’t know but I would guess they either go to heaven or just don’t go anywhere, as if they had never been there
what do you guys think of abortion?
That is so cool, Ava! I love such interesting facts. IKR, it IS quiet on here.
Tomorrow's date is a palindrome... It reads the same forwards and backwards... 02/02/2020 and 0202/20/20... It is the first date that is a palindrome in 909 years, the next one will be in about 100 years, and then after that, there won't be another until 909 years later. Then it's about 1000 till the next one. It's also a palindrome in Asian and some European countries where they write the year first. 2020/02/02 and 20/20/0202. Just a fun fact to get everyone talking again... It's been so quiet on scripture typer lately...
Ava
Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 at 12:06 AM
remove
I think skyler meant they ate fish, not they are fish
plus they are fish because they didn’t have as many foods around and so fish were one of the available things with all the water around them
That’s spot on. Our bodies are a gift from God too. Food should never be made into a religion.
Tue Jan 28 8:09 AM, EXACTLY Siri! Jesus said something similar to that, in Matthew 15, "Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled? But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone." What comes from the heart matters more than food restrictions. We should take care of our bodies, but what diet (or none at all) varies on how we do that or don't do the best we can. Food is also a gift from God, so I try and enjoy it while generally being healthy.
In the end, what we eat (or don’t eat) won’t save us. We eventually will die. However, I believe that God wants the best for us and wants us to be happy on this earth, so I believe it is an important thing to take care of our bodies. Of course, how we do that varies from person to person and what the Spirit is leading each one individually. But in the end, what matters is where our heart is. not what we eat or drink.
So true!! what we grow up with is what we are used to.
There are certainly some healthy things in meat. however the bad effects of meat-eating outweigh the good. And yes, vegan is very healthy. but the healthiest, healthiest diet is a whole-foods plant-based diet.
Ava is right. That alone cannot be used as proof whether her visions are of God or Satan. Like I said, the only way is to go and compare the content of her visions and see if they contradict anything in the Bible.
They were also to keep the Israelites as healthy as possible especially for their tramp in the desert...
the Jewish food laws were mostly to set the Jews apart from the world.
Pork is unclean according to Jewish food laws, but that's not saying much actually, rabbit, owls, shellfish, etc, are all forbidden. The Jewish food laws dont ban all meat,
I think your prejudice against meat is mostly due to growing up vegetarian/vegan, if you grew up eating meat, believe me you would have no problem with it. If I grew up Korean or Brazilian, I'd have no problem with anything they eat. But as it is right now, I find some things they eat gross.
but i have nothing against it though unless it’s unclean
ya, I think a little meat is ok but I don’t eat it anyway, meat has some good things in it but is mostly made up of bad things. I think it looks, smells, and tastes(I have accidentally eaten it before) gross🤮
Even Satan masquerades as an angel of light... So if I am forced to go down the demonic route, seeing a beautiful place that may or may not be heaven would not be any proof at all for me. To answer your first question, I think Satan could give useful info if he wanted to, to acomplish a greater loss. I don't think all meat is bad for you, and I don't think science is conclusive about that. being vegan is very healthy, but it isn't the only healthy diet in the world.
in visions she sometimes would see a glimpse of heaven and when she woke up from her vision she would say the world was so dark, do you think god would allow her to see that kind of stuff???
I think it wouldn’t have been demonic because she said many things like that eating meat was bad for you when science didn’t know that yet and then later they found it our, why would satan want us to know that stuff that would save our lives
However, naturally I disagree that EGW’s theology was wrong. But that isn’t what this current discussion is on. My point in the EGW “debate” is to refute the myths critics have attempted to paint her with. As for the theology, we must study the Bible (only!) to see whether her theology was wrong. But as I said, that’s a different discussion. Maybe we can do that in the future?
No. That is not offensive. I too believe that there is no middle ground. so I don’t have a problem for you to hold such a position because I know that there are some major theological differences.
I'm not meaning to be super offensive, but that's what I believe the Bible and her statements have forced me into. I don't think there is much of a middle ground to go on
Yeah... Idk what exactly I think, but if anything is have to go with demonic because Larissa quoted earlier something she said about her either being from God or from Satan. So I feel I have no choice but to go with the Satan thing. Because I don't believe in her and her writings and think she was just plain wrong on some of her theology.
I’ve been reading a super interesting book on D. L. Canright written by his secretary. Here’s the title: “I was Canright’s Secretary.” This secretary was the one to whom D.M. Canright dictated his book to. Here’s the link to his entire book free online: http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/canright/index.htm
LOL. So true. Either they’re of God or they’re of Satan. No middle wish-washy could-be-brain-damage roundabout. I think that it is a telling fact that a good many of EGW’s critics don’t out-right say that EGW was demonic. For instance, D.M. Canright went to EGW’s funeral and said "There is a noble Christian woman gone!" I think that’s telling, especially since he left the Adventist Church decades before EGW’s death.
and also do you think Ellen white could have faked all the visions of god? she was a very frail women but during one vision she picked up a extremely heavy bible that strong people could barely lift and held it above her head. also she wouldn’t breathe during a vision for so long that you would die if you stopped breathing that long. she had to have actually had actual heavenly experiences
I have memorized Amos, and hosea 1
tomorrow I have a test of bible memorization, I hope it goes well
Are you on a specific diet?
Would it be wrong for God to give EGW more visions than the rest? Is that a crime for God to do? Secondly, that estimate includes dreams.
I could not find any evidence that Willie wrote such a letter to Dr. Paulson. Searched on the app, then the EGW websites, finally googled it. It cannot be proven to be an authentic letter.
“Why would she copy from the books of Drs. Jackson, Trall and others to lend credibility to her articles if she actually had the highest authority for her own writing: God Himself?” 1. She did not copy. Sydney Cleveland tries to make us believe that but that is not the case. 2. Human nature likes confirmation. It’s like for Creation vs. Evolution. We all know about the Flood because it is written in the Bible, but we still make a big deal when science comes out with evidence pointing to a world-wide flood. The same is with EGW. She was shown these things about hygiene and wanted to prove that science is confirming this too.
“Why would God reveal to her in vision what she admitted reading in the books of other writers?” If you read the entire statement EGW made, she wrote that she DID NOT read those articles by Drs. Jackson, Trall, and others until AFTER she wrote her “six articles.” And she found that the TEACHING/MESSAGE that she saw in her vision was “so nearly in harmony” with what she had seen.
Mon Jan 20 11:51 PM: Funny how Sydney tries to warp the meaning of EGW’s words by placing her own definition by the word. EGW wrote that she “extracted” and Sydney immediately jumps on and puts in parentheses “(copied).” Sorry but “extracted” DOES NOT MEAN “copied.”
The last two quotes: I’ll deal with them together as I’m running out of time before my next class. 1. When she was in limbo as to what to write, God inspired her. I don’t know how that fits your narrative about her... 2. She is telling people that the message she writes is “one straight change of truth, without one heretical sentence.” Again. does NOT say she claimed that all her writings are of her own creative work. Rather, she says that the message is without one heretical sentence.
Anyhow, the CONTEXT is very clear. She was counseling her son in that paragraph to not strive for “misdirected ambition.” “Misdirected ambition will lead you into sorrow as surely as you yield to it.” the VERY NEXT SENTENCE is the sentence you posted. Again she is talking about the specific surrounding why she is counseling her son thus. Again, a read though the entire setting of this quote shows that she was saying that she is trying to catch the very words and expressions that were made in reference to her son’s predicament. and as she isn’t certain how to put it down, she is gifted with the right words.
Fourth quote: She wrote that letter to her son. I read the letter and I will be honest, I teared up. so I know that God had some higher purpose when you reposted that quote. The entire letter was SUCH an encouragement to me!!
Thank you for your kind words, Skyler.
Third quote: READ THE CONTEXT!! She says that God gives her the right words to use when she is SPEAKING!! She wrote that in a letter to her children, praising God that He was helping her preach. Here is the VERY NEXT SENTENCE you skipped over: “I am also greatly strengthened when I stand before large congregations. I will not distrust the Lord, but will hang my helpless soul on Christ.”
nice work Siri, that explains things well👍👍👍
Second quote: She does not write one TESTIMONY pointing out people’s faults writing her own ideas. The rebukes she gives are of God. Read the entire article. Context. Context.
The first quote: She says that the view expressed on the length of a women’s dress is not hers, the words she used to describe the length of the dress were her own. If she put something down that the angel said, she put that in quotation marks. READ THE CONTEXT.
What I understand from your point here is that EGW can only be point of plagiarism or lying if she had claimed that each specific words that she writes was her own.” 1. SHE DID NOT PLAGIARIZE. 2. She would be guilty of lying if she claimed something that is untrue. You are totally correct that “she didn’t claim that the words are from God or that the words are [entirely] from herself.” you rightly said that because of that “she is innocent.”
“Many SDAs can’t get through his book because they are turned off by his tone. It’s a pity.” I finished the book. Trust me, I’ve heard more blasphemous things than that. But that isn’t the point. You will admit that he willfully misrepresented (for instance) that Ananias, saying that he saved some of the money to pay the rent, when the Bible is clear Ananias kept the money for other reasons? He had no excuse. He was a pastor. I’m I mean, he can use as much colorful language as he wants, but twisting a common story makes you wonder whether he’ll twist other things as well... I would say it is a little bit of a stretch to say that the Adventist Church fractured.
B. “Brief Statements Regarding the Writings of Ellen G. White,” by W. C. White and D. E. Robinson. “The Ellen G. White Writings,” by Arthur L. White.
Here’s how Attorney Warren Johns described such usage when consulted about EGW: “The situation is something like the builder who wishes to build a house. There are certain basic, essential units of building materials that are available to him—windows, doors, bricks, and so on. There are even certain recognizable kinds of textures and styles that have been created by various combinations of these different materials by earlier builders.The builder brings together many of these and uses them. Yet the design of the house, the ultimate appearance, the ultimate shape, the size, the feel, are all unique to the immediate, contemporary builder. He individually puts his own stamp upon the final product—and it is uniquely his. (And he doesn't say—or need to say—I got this brick here, that door there, this window there, either!) I think it was that way with Ellen White's use of words, phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs, yes, and even pages, from the writings of those who went before her. She stayed well within the legal boundaries of ‘fair use,’ and all the time created something that was substantially greater (and even more beautiful) than the mere sum of the component parts. And I think the ultimate tragedy is that the critics fail to see this.”
EGW NEVER DENIED THAT SHE USED SOURCES. You asked me to give some evidence. Here it is: A. Her forward in the “Great Controversy” is a testimony to the fact that she was not trying to cover up or hide anything. She added this forward to the second edition because some people took issue that she didn’t say anything about her quoting historians. Also, in that edition, she added quotation marks to every direct quote she made. But even if she hadn’t done that, it STILL would not be wrong or literary piracy because those books were NOT copyrighted. They were public property. And as such, she had full rights to use them as she wished. She used them only in the historical parts, where she was NOT an expert in.
4. IT DOES NOT DIMINISH EGW’S CLAIM ON INSPIRATION. Luke was inspired. He writes in his “foreword to Theophilus,” that he sourced his book on Jesus from other people’s accounts. If Luke’s inspiration is not diminished because of his candid disclosure, neither can EGW be diminished because of her usage of sources.
Need more proof that EGW’s usage was normal then? Here’s a quote from what Chief Justice Story, recognized as the most influential person in this field in the 1800s, wrote In 1845. He concluded that “the question is not, whether the materials which are used are entirely new, and have never been used before; or even that they have never been used before for the same purpose. The true question is, whether the same plan, arrangement and combination of materials have been used before for the same purpose or for any other purpose. . . [The author] may have gathered hints for his plan and arrangement, or parts of his plan and arrangement, from existing and known sources. He may have borrowed much of his material from others, but if they are combined in a different manner from what was in use before, and a fortiori, if his plan and arrangement are real improvements upon the existing modes, he is entitled to a copyright in the book embodying such improvement.”
2. LITERARY BORROWING WAS A COMMON PRACTICE DURING HER TIME. You attempted to squash this by pointing to two examples of writers who gave credit. These authors were the forerunners of what would LATER become norm in the literary world. So nice try to make it sound as though those two authors were just complying to the accepted standards. They were not. The “Father of Literary Ethics,” H. M. Paull, wrote his book, “Literary Ethics” in 1928. This book laid the foundation for the current rules and practices of the literary world. Notice that this book came out in 1928, some time AFTER EGW passed away.
“Based upon our review of the facts and legal precedents . . Ellen White was not a plagiarist, and her works did not constitute copyright infringement/piracy.”—Vincent Ramik “The charges [against Ellen White] about plagiarism, literary piracy, copyright infringement, and so on, are shown to be entirely without foundation in law.” —Warren Johns “Considering all factors necessary in reaching a just conclusion on this issue, it is submitted that the writings of Ellen G. White were conclusively unplagiaristic.”—Ramik “If I had to be involved in such a legal case, I would much rather appear as defense counsel than for the prosecution. There simply is no case!”—Ramik
1. EGW DID NOT PLAGIARIZE. Contrary to what you’ve alluded and even said at times, EGW did NOT commit anything near plagiarism/literary theft. I already mentioned the report one of the most respected Washington D.C. attorneys in this field made on this. I researched Vincent Ramik and he is an authority on this very issue!! He did this study independently, he self-funded himself, he is a nominal Catholic. His words describing EGW’s writings were “conclusively unplagiaristic.” Pretty strong language. He read Walter Rae’s book, D.M. Canright and so on. And yet he cleared EGW of any wrongdoing. So who am I to believe? Walter Rae or Sydney Cleveland, who doesn’t have experience in law? or Vincent Ramik, who is a specialist in this very field and one of the most respected attorneys in such matters? I think I’ll go with the one who has the credentials.
I’ve decided to structure my counter-argument differently this time so as to create a smoother read, instead of refuting point by point as they are listed. There are a few reoccurring themes that keep appearing in your posts and I would like to deal with them now.
I am sorry to have hurt you with the term “anti-SDA.” It was not meant to be derogatory in any way...
plus i don’t like the thought of animals dying
Jesus ate fish, I’m not against eating mean, so long as it isn’t stuff like pork, I just don’t eat meat cause it looks and smells gross
havnt been on for a while but I will try to be more now
Figured I would toss out some more anecdotes about vegetarian living just to spice things up. ;] I was born and raised a lacto-ovo vegetarian. Fairly healthy one too in that I ate fruits and vegetables everyday and limited my veggie meat and sugar intake. A few months ago, I started adding meat (pretty much just fish) to my diet. Along with eating fewer grains (which the SDA diet is heavy on) I've lost 30 pounds and I don't have that afternoon slump that I used to get. I think eating some meat is healthy for humans and there is scientific evidence to back that up. Now if I can just get past the psychology of it...
I should mention that he included before this paragraph before the chart. "Ellen White actually recorded 203 "divinely inspired visions" spread over the 71 years of her prophetic ministry (188 dated visions plus 15 undated). However on the basis of Arthur White's estimates the church now claims Ellen White had some 2,000 visions. See Seventh Day Adventist Believe pg 224, 1988."
Also, I thought you guys might be interested in this chart I'll type in here from White Washed by Sydney Cleveland. It compares the frequency of Major Bible prophets visions. So it will go prophet, years of ministry, visions. I.E. Elijah (prophet), 21 (years of ministry), 0 (visions). Elisha, 54, 1. Isaiah, 50, 2. Jeremiah, 40, 2. Ezekiel, 22, 7. Daniel, 67, 4. Hosea, 25, 1. Joel, ?, 1. Amos, 14, 5. Obadiah, ?, 1. Jonah, ?, 1. Micah, 50, 1. Nahum, 50, 1. Habakkuk, ?, 1. Zephaniah, ?, 1. Haggai, 16, 5. Zechariah, 5, 6. Malachi, ?, 1. Jesus, 3.5, 0. John, 60, 1. Now compare this to Ellen White. EGW, 71, 2,000. On the next page, he mentions this: total angelic encounters in the Bible: 45. Ellen White claimed: 100s throughout her life.
Ok, here is another newspaper clipping. This article appeared in the Healdsburg California newspaper in 1889. Here is the first part of the article: "Webster defines Plagiarist as follows:
"One that purloins the writings of another and puts them off as his own."
Plagiarism, according to the same authority, is:
"The act of purloining another man's literary works, or introducing passages from another man's writings and putting them off as one's own; literary theft. (Swift)" Italics our own.
We desire in this article to compare a few extracts from the following books: "History of the Sabbath," (Andrews); "Life of Wm. Miller," (White); "History of the Waldenses," (Wylie); "The Sanctuary" (Smith) and "History of the Reformation" (D'Aubigne), with corresponding extracts from Mrs. White's "Great Controversy," [Spirit of Prophecy] Vol. IV, in order to see if Mrs. White has "introduced passages from another man's writings and put them off as her own." If she has done this, then, according to Webster, Mrs. White is a plagiarist, a literary thief.
We do not claim that the following comparison is by any means complete, time and space have only permitted a partial examination; we doubt not that further search would reveal much more of the same character." Then they display side by side comparisons of egw writings to those she copied. So. even back in 1889, they knew what literary theft was and EGW was on the hook for it even back then. You can access the complete article and newspaper clipping here: https://www.nonegw.org/egw77.shtml
This one is not from a newspaper clipping but from one of her son's letters. This is from D.M. Canright's book The Life of Ellen G White: Her False Claims Refuted. "January 30, 1905, Dr. David Paulson of Chicago, wrote her (EGW), asking permission to make extracts from her writings for his monthly magazine, The Life-boat. February 15, 1905, her son W.C. White, replied as follows: "Mother instructs me to say to you that you may be free to select from her writings short articles for The Life-boat. Or you may make extracts from these MSS, and from similar writings, in your articles, in each case giving proper credit." Why did not Mrs. White do as she wished to be done by, and "in each case," where she made use of the writings of others, give "the proper credit"?" Something to note: D.M. Canright was a contemporary of EGW and the book that this excerpt was written in was published in 1919 just a couple years after EGW died. If he knew what literary theft was, even "back in those days", then we can be sure that EGW did too.
"Larissa, you live in 21st century, where lawsuits about even frivolous things are fought in court. How do you know that the common, unbiased man in the 1800s would have the same opinion that “she was acting immorally.”" We have newspapers from that era that give us hints. Here are a couple of examples so we can peek into their mentality back then. This 1867 edition of Review and Herald is photocopied into Sydney Cleveland's book White Washed. Here are his comments next to it: "The October 8, 1867 Review and Herald contains Ellen White's reply to the Wisconsin and Illinois Conference Committees who wanted to know why her views published in How to Live, were so similar to the teachings of Drs. Jackson, Trall, and others. She wrote: "After I had written my six articles for How to Live, I then searched the various words on Hygiene and was surprised to find them so nearly in harmony with what the Lord had revealed to me. And to show this harmony, and to set before my brethren and sisters the subject as brought out by able writers, I determined to publish How to Live in which I largely extracted (copied) from the words referred to." Why would God reveal to her in vision what she admitted reading in the books of other writers? Why would she copy from the books of Drs. Jackson, Trall, and others to lend credibility to her articles if she actually had the highest authority for her own writing: God Himself? And why didn't she give credit to those authors as the source of of her material, if as she claimed, her copying was to "set before my brethren and sisters the subject as brought out by able writers"? How would her readers know who the "able writers" were when she didn't even list their names?
Prophecy according to dictionary.com is: 1.the foretelling or prediction of what is to come.
2. something that is declared by a prophet, especially a divinely inspired prediction, instruction, or exhortation.
3. a divinely inspired utterance or revelation:
oracular prophecies.
4. the action, function, or faculty of a prophet." So yes, she copied even the words of her prophecies is what my earlier point was.
"I am now looking over my diaries and copies of letters written for several years back...the people must [see] that there is one straight change of truth, without one heretical sentence, in that which I have written." Letter 329a, 1905
"When writing these precious books, if I hesitated, the very word I wanted to express the idea was given to me." Letter 265, 1907
"I am trying to catch the very words and expressions that were made in reference to this matter, and as my pen hesitates a moment, the appropriate words come to mind." Letter 123, 1904
"The Spirit of God works upon my mind and gives me appropriate words with which to express the truth." 3SM 51.5
"I do not write one article in the paper expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision- the precious rays of light shining from the throne." 3SM 50.5
Here are some more quotes from EGW about her writing. I think some of these have been written down before but I thought I'd bring them up the thread so we can look at them all at once. These were accessed from the EGW writings app. "Although I am as dependent upon the Spirit of the Lord in writing my views as I am in receiving them, yet the words I employ in describing what I have seen are my own, unless they be those spoken to me by an angel, which I always enclose in marks of quotation." 3SM 49.7.
"Unfortunately, NONE of the quotations you provided show that she claimed all credit for the words or claimed God showed her which word to use and what word to put down. Again, those quotes don’t answer the question, namely, whether EGW claimed to be the originator of the words she wrote down." What I understand from your point here is that EGW can only be guilty of plagiarism or lying if she had claimed that each specific word that she writes was her own. She can claim that the message is from God but since she didn't claim that the words are from God or that the words are from herself she is innocent? Am I understanding you correctly?
"She is another time she testifies that the message in her writings are from God and that she is dependent upon the Holy Spirit to relate or write the vision down. Would it be wrong for the Holy Spirit to remind her of a phrase she read that fits her point? Would that be wrong?" It wouldn't be wrong if she cited her sources. Even a "Historians say..." or "I once read something that seems to fit this situation..." would have mitigated her guilt. But she didn't do that.
"it wasn’t wrong for her to do it either, given the customs of the time." Here is a excerpt from the book White Washed by Sydney Cleveland about this idea. "...a brief look at the books of well-known authors of Ellen White's time reveals they religiously credited their sources. For example, William Hanna's book The Life of Christ, lists four pages of "authorities used in this book." Alfred Edersheim's book The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah lists five-and-a-half pages of "authorities chiefly used in writing this book. Cunningham Geikie's The Life and Words of Christ lists three pages of "authorities used in this book". The facts are these well-known authors of the 1800s though it a matter of integrity to list their sources- something Ellen White lacked and the Seventh-day Adventist defense chooses to misrepresent."
"EGW never denied that she used sources. That’s a fact. She and her family were very open about it." Please provide some examples.
About Walter Rae. Many SDAs can't get through his book because they are turned off by his tone. It's a pity. I don't feel like I really need to defend the ad hominem attacks against him because it's not his bitterness toward the peddlers of guilt and fear that is devastating to the SDA church. It is his book full of hundreds of side by side comparisons of EGW writings next to the writings of those she copied from. He could've added no commentary at all and it would still be an incredibly damning book. Indeed it was half the reason the SDA church fractured in the 1980s.
Let's start with this: "You see, I could well have been what you are now, Larissa, anti-SDA." This is an interesting label to me. If you mean I am anti-Seventh day adventist, you are dead wrong. I love 7th day adventists with all my heart. If you mean I am anti-seventh day adventism, then yes, I am anti-SDA. I am anti-Seventh Day Adventism precisely because I love SDAs. It kills me that the 7th day adventist religion and it's false prophet has deceived the people I love. That's pretty much the only reason why I am in this discussion to begin with.
I have a lot to respond to! Ok, let's get started.
That was the prophetic part of her. But her prophetic part was a very small part of her ministry. She had a big passion for missions. She went to Europe and Australia to hold revivals. She used the royalties from her books to further various missions. She and her husband traveled from place to place encouraging people to keep pressing on in faith.
It’s so true that all Christians must point others to the Word. But a MODERN-day prophet takes that a step further. You well said that “God obviously spoke to Nathan and told him what was going on and what to say, or how else would he have known?” Thats precisely the same with a modern-day prophet. God revealed things that people had done, which she had NO way of knowing such things had happened. The Bible certainly didn’t predict that a certain young man would be caught as a thief? No, but God revealed that to EGW BEFORE the incident even occurred.
Here’s an example. David knew that having sex with Bathsheba was sin. He knew that it went against what they had of the Bible. However, if you look at the account of David and Bathsheba, it sounds like he hadn’t repented of his sin. UNTIL Nathan the prophet came along the scene. What did Nathan do? He delivered a “plain and pointed testimony” to bring David “back to the Word that” he had “neglected to follow.” EGW’s role was the same.
Precisely. You said better than I could.
Let me just mention something. Adventists DO NOT NEED ANY of EGW for ALL of our beliefs to stay intact. She is NON-ESSENTIAL to our faith.
Because of the people who are NOT following the Bible.
“If there is nothing in EGW’s writings that can’t be found on the Bible then why not just stick to the Bible alone? I mean, why not find it all in the Bible is (personally, I think) so much clearer and easier to understand than EGW. I think you would agree that it is very easy to misunderstand what she says.” 1. EGW said her ONLY desire was to point people to the scriptures. 2. All the principles that EGW advocated for are ALL from the Bible. 3. Unfortunately, the Pharisees who had God’s Word were not abiding by it. So even if we have the Bible doesn’t mean that we will be living the lives outlined in it. So her role (and this is what she says about herself) is to show a practical way of living out the Biblical principles. 4. NOT ONE of the Adventist beliefs come from her or her visions. 5. The Bible is VERY CLEAR. She called them “the greater light,” while her work was “a lesser light.” EGW is less clear because they were NOT WRITTEN for universal adaptation. Most, if not all, of the misunderstandings come from counsel she gave to specific people. That counsel is NOT for universal adaptation like the Bible is. That is a CORE difference between EGW and the Bible. The Bible was written for ALL humanity, regardless of ethnicity, gender, culture, etc. EGW’s writings are for specific instances and MUST be treated as such.
In the Scriptures God has set forth practical lessons to govern the life and conduct of all; but though He has given minute particulars in regard to our character, conversation, and conduct, yet in a large measure, His lessons are disregarded and ignored. Besides the instruction in His Word, the Lord has given special testimonies to His people, NOT AS A NEW REVELATION, but that He may set before us the plain lessons of His Word, that errors may be corrected, that the right way may be pointed out, that every soul may be without excuse. (Letter 63, 1893.)
“Brother J would confuse the mind by seeking to make it [p. 31] appear that the light God has given through the Testimonies is an addition to the Word of God, but in this he presents the matter in a false light. God has seen fit in this manner to bring the minds of His people to His Word, to give them a clearer understanding of it. The Word of God is sufficient to enlighten the most beclouded mind, and may be understood by those who have any desire to understand it. But notwithstanding all this, some who profess to make the Word of God their study are found living in direct opposition to its plainest teachings. Then, to leave men and women without excuse, God gives plain and pointed testimonies, bringing them back to the Word that they have neglected to follow. The Word of God abounds in general principles for the formation of correct habits of living, and the testimonies, general and personal, have been calculated to call their attention more especially to these principles. (Testimonies, vol. 5, pp. 663, 664.)”
This is what she said: “The Lord desires you to study your Bibles. He has not given any additional light to take the place of His Word. This light is to bring confused minds to His Word, which, if eaten and digested, is as the lifeblood of the soul. Then good works will be seen as light shining in darkness. (Letter 130, 1901.)”
I agree 100% with both posts. But EGW did not make any new revelations that are not already in the Bible.
Question: did the ball of fire hit her in real life or in vision?
I disagree that such experiences were reserved only for Bible times. So how do you understand that from Scripture? I agree that the canon of Scripture is closed but that does not ban things such as prophecies, signs, etc. I’m even surprised you mentioned miracles. So in your opinion, God doesn’t perform miracles any more?
Fanny criticized Mrs. White multiple occasions. She made various unsubstantiated claims, contradicting herself MANY TIMES in the process. And then, on more than a dozen occasions, she wrote out "confessions" of her wrong course. Yet, through all this, EGW kept her. Out of the some dozen times Fanny criticized her and then wrote a “confession,” EGW’s patience was so great that she continued to employ Fannie through many of these cycles of criticism and confession, and on the occasions when she did dismiss her from employment, SHE HIRED HER AGAIN. But in the end, Fannie left Ellen White's employment by her own choice.
“She also fired her literary assistant 3 times for questioning EGW’s methods of using other’s work. Her assistant would then be subject to testimonies and would come crawling back, repenting of her folly.” I hate to say this, but you are misrepresenting the facts. You are talking about Fanny Bolton. Ellen White was concerned about Miss Bolton's spiritual immaturity from the first time she employed her. In the course of her employment, her experience was very unstable.
“Unfortunately, she also used her power as a ‘messenger of the Lord’ to keep her followers in control. If one of them questioned her, she would ‘get a word from the Lord’ about them, write a scathing ‘testimony’ and demand that they stand up and read it in front of their local congregation.” There are a few claims that you made which are sheer nonsense. 1. She herself wrote that she has no problem for people to be admitted to the church who don’t believe that she is a prophet. She clearly stated that it SHOULD not be a prerequisite to join the church. 2. Her assistant wrote later on that she would see Ellen White crying as she would write her rebukes. 3. Never did she demand that they read it in front of their local congregation. THAT IS FALSE. In fact, some nosy leaders asked her to tell them specifically to whom the letters in her testimonies were addressed to. SHE REFUSED!! on the premises that it was not right for her to reveal and shame people.
@Shannon, I haven’t found a thing that EGW wrote that contradicts scripture...
The visions were a result of brain damage? I’m sorry, but every time I hear that, I shake my head in wonder. So you think that it was because of a damaged brain she would stop breathing while in vision, going up to 3 hours, and still live after that? Come on, your husband should know that no one can survive without breathing more than 3, many 4 minutes, MUCH LESS HOURS. And she died of old age and nothing else. Furthermore, Physicians saw her when she was in vision and it is a fact that she did not breathe during her vision. Besides, if it were a brain damage that caused visions, how was she able to remember what she saw? I mean, if she falls into a coma or something, you won’t remember what happened. Better say that you believe her visions are from Satan because the “brain damage” is ridiculous.
On dress this is what EGW wrote: Christians should not take pains to make themselves a gazingstock by dressing differently from the world. But if, when following out their convictions of duty in respect to dressing modestly and healthfully, they find themselves out of fashion, they should not change their dress in order to be like the world; but they should manifest a noble independence and moral courage to be right, if all the world differ from them. If the world introduce a modest, convenient, and healthful mode of dress, which is in accordance with the Bible, it will not change our relation to God or to the world to adopt such a style of dress. Christians should follow Christ and make their dress conform to God's Word. They should shun extremes. They should humbly pursue a straightforward course, irrespective of applause or of censure, and should cling to the right because of its own merits.. CG 414.2-CG 414.3
@Shannon, flames of fire on people’s heads sounds a little fanatical too.
“His warning against false teachers/prophets are so clear.” You have yet to show me instances in which her ministry goes against what God underlined as a prophet/teacher. All the things you have brought up so far can be proven otherwise...
I’m curious, Larissa, did you look up the quotes on Google and see what context they are being used? because I did that and the phrases EGW borrows are used differently in their original context and in the context EGW uses. She just used similar phraseology but to make A TOTALLY DIFFERENT POINT.
“I consider those visions to be under the umbrella of prophecy, don’t you?” No, I don’t. They don’t even fit the definition of a prophecy. A prophecy is “a prediction about a future event.”
“I found your proof that Jeremiah 23:30 cannot be applied against EGW lacking. It was again just semantics.” Again, the semantics excuse (sorry). You have my full liberty to go point by point and explain why my proof is “lacking.” If you can provide logical reasons, other than labeling it “just semantics,” I will continue to hold that Jeremiah 23:30 cannot be used against EGW. Prove it! that’s all I want
“Even with that preface she made little to no changes in her use of quotations.” Actually she did. but that was to the end of her life.
It’s not defending EGW at the expense of the Bible because it’s common ground that the Bible is not plagiarized (or at least should be). If you consider what EGW did plagiarism, naturally you will have to consider the Gospels as such as well. A double standard doesn’t work
“Provide something to be read during these long winter evenings. For those who can procure it, D'Aubigne's History of the Reformation will be both interesting and profitable.” "Holiday Gifts," Review and Herald, December 26, 1882, p. 789.
EGW wrote this: “The Life of St. Paul by Conybeare and Howson, I regard as a book of great merit, and one of rare usefulness to the earnest student of the New Testament History.” Signs of the Times, February 22, 1883, p. 96.
Give me evidence to back such a claim, please.
Now, are YOU being sarcastic? lol. I agree with “The message=God’s instruction.” But God did NOT say “here’s a message. now go find another who can say it better than you.” Google has a great feature which allows you to look up quotes and in old books even see the context surrounding the passage. I did that with the quotes you gave and compared the point EGW was making and the point the other author was making. Totally different connotation and adapted in a way as to make a DIFFERENT point. So EGW did not go hunting for a person who wrote it better. Rather, she instilled language others used to make TOTALLY DISTINCT POINT.
ellenwhite.org has an article that I read on “The Development of Adventist Thinking on Clean and Unclean Meats.” That is a website run by the church.
“What makes it different is her claims. She claims that what she wrote came from the Lord, but much of it came from ‘uninspired’ writers.” 1. Its a gross exaggeration to claim that “much” of her writings came from others, when only 2% of her entire writings have similarities. 2. She claims that the MESSAGE is of the Lord.
Larissa, you live in 21st century, where lawsuits about even frivolous things are fought in court. How do you know that the common, unbiased man in the 1800s would have the same opinion that “she was acting immorally.”
“You are resting on semantics when the meaning of her words are clear.” Excuse me, but I don’t see that in ANY WAY. besides, if your line of defense is to say “oh, you weight each word too much...,” when I show that you are not placing the correct meaning she intended when writing. It’s like saying Philippians 4:13 says that “I can do anything I want to do” when it clearly says that “when I’m with Jesus, He and I can do all things.” That’s callee twisting and taking out of context.
“EGW claimed to be a prophet and then some. She said her word embraces the work of a prophet but does not end there.” Wait. She said she didn’t want to be called a prophet. I’ll agree, her work is that of a prophet. But I said that long ago.
Unfortunately, NONE of the quotations you provided show that she claimed all credit for the words or claimed God showed her which word to use and what word to put down. Again, those quotes don’t answer the question, namely, whether EGW claimed to be the originator of the words she wrote down.
“As soon as I take my pen on hand I am not in darkness as to what to write. It is as plain and clear as a voice speaking to me.” Do you think that God was dictating to her what she was to write? I don’t think so. She however (again) says that the message she is to write is “as plain and clear as a voice speaking to me.”
I never said that quote doesn’t exist. You wrote: “She claimed that her words were her own and that if she ever used anyone else’s work she put it in quotations.” Then I said: “Oops. She never wrote such a thing. You are referring to a statement she made regarding her vision on the appropriate length of dresses.” Then I went on to paste the entire quote along with some of the context surrounding it. You’ll admit that you gave a false description that “if she ever used anyone else’s work she put it in quotations” when EGW said clearly that she puts the ANGEL’s words in mark of quotation.
*the point, not her point
“I am just as dependent upon the Spirit of the Lord in relating or writing a vision as in having the vision. It is impossible for me to call up things which have been shown me unless the Lord brings them before me at the time that he is pleased to have me relate or write them.” Again, all interesting, but that doesn’t deal with whether she claims that God gave her each word she was to write. She is another time she testifies that the message in her writings are from God and that she is dependent upon the Holy Spirit to relate or write the vision down. Would it be wrong for the Holy Spirit to remind her of a phrase she read that fits her point? Would that be wrong?
Sorry for me being clear. 1. EGW never denied that she used sources. That’s a fact. She and her family were very open about it. 2. No, it’s not God’s fault and it wasn’t wrong for her to do it either, given the customs of the time.
that’s from page 45. You see, I could well have been what you are now, Larissa, anti-SDA. but reading those claims made me start researching the rest of his claims. because how do you know if he’s going to be so wrong on God, what makes you think that he will be a fair judge in his book? anyhow, I began researching his claims and sad to say many would not carry water.
God’s dealing with people is expressed in shocking terms: “Freethinkers have always gotten into trouble. In the time of Moses, if anyone started a fire on his own to enjoy a cup of hot herb tea on Sabbath, he was stoned, and not in the modern sense of the word either. If he wandered around in the local swapmeet on Sabbath in the days of Nehemiah he might run the risk of having his beard pulled or his toupee disrupted. Even in the New Testament times, if Ananias kept out a few shekels from the tithe to pay the rent, he was told by the local divine to drop dead--which he did.”
His take on religion: “In most libraries, the religion department is under the subject heading of philosophy--and that is what it is, the defining and redefining of terms and ideas that have defied defining for centuries.” pg. 38
Here’s his description of Heaven: “Not very often, if ever, is one dealing with pure truth, either small or large, in religion. One is dealing with truth as filtered, expanded, diminished, bounded, or defined by the I-saws of all the Ellens of Christendom with a lot of help from the divines. What does emerge from all the froth is that the map for this life and the one to come, if indeed it does come, is drawn by the clan--and thus becomes the Clan Plan. Heaven becomes the main gate to isolation, where all the bad as we conceive of it (which in humanity's case means other people) is snuffed out, and only us good guys go marching through. Thus we make our own ghetto.” pg. 35
Page 32: “Who tagged all of us with sin? Was it God, or that snake in the grass that came in when Adam was down on the south forty? Or do we get it from our ancestors of past eons? Or is the Devil, like Santa Claus, our dad?” See, he’s ridiculing the story of Adam and Eve!!
That’s from page 191. When I read that, coming out of the occult, my first reaction was this guy doesn’t really know what a cult is. Certainly Shannon’s father isn’t a “supersalesman” who “sells the advantages of his particular name brand.”
These are some of the quotes from Walter Rae’s book that disturbed me: “All supersalesmen sell the advantages of their particular name brands. In the cults and sects, it's the brand of their saint and what is required by that saint to be saved. In the larger and longer established forms of religion, it's the Clan Plan, mother's religion, the faith of the fathers, the true light.”
Ok, I gotta go to bed. I promised myself I would be asleep by 11 tonight and here it is almost midnight yet again!
She also fired her literary assistant 3 times for questioning EGW's methods of using other's work. Her assistant would then be subject to testimonies and would come crawling back, repenting of her folly. She held those poor people in the grip of fear and even after her death, a lot of that fear remains in her followers today.
"And they are about very specific things to, different people in the church who are in sin, or issues dividing the church then, and she just goes off into a vision and gets the answer. I hate to say it...but that is one of the big trademarks of a cult prophet….like J Smith." Yes, unfortunately she also used her power as a "messenger of the lord" to keep her followers in control. If one of them questioned her, she would "get a word from the lord" about them, write a scathing "testimony" and demand that they stand up and read it in front of their local congregation. Here is an example from one such testimony to an ill church member:"I was shown...nearly all your thoughts are now upon yourself...In your present state of mind you are not fit to marry. There is no one that would wish you, in your present helpless, useless condition. If one should fancy he loved you; he would be worthless; for no sensible man could think for a moment of placing his affections upon so useless an object... At the present time your condition is not acceptable in the sight of God..." (Testimonies, Vol. 2, pp. 324,325)
"Do you think her visions were real, from God, or completely made up, or from Satan?" I do believe she really had some visions actually. There are three options: The visions were from God, they were from the devil, or they were the result of a brain injury that she suffered when she was 8 or 9 when another little girl threw a rock at her head. I don't believe the visions were from God. As far as the other two options go. I can't say for sure. There is evidence for both.
"I am curious Larissa, do you think EGW was saved? Do you think she is in heaven now?" Oh gosh, that question tears me apart. I just don't know. I know how merciful God is but his warnings against false teachers/prophets are so clear. I just don't know if her early conversion was authentic. How else could she write some of the things she did? I actually haven't even put some of the worst ones on here yet. I guess we will find out in Heaven.
Did you ask your mom if you could read that ebook about EGW I sent you the link to? I think you would find it very interesting. Here is the link again: https://www.nonegw.org/canright/egw16.htm
Shannon, that gives me more motivation to come back on here more often!
Her testimonies were not "her books of her miscellaneous writings". They were the "precious rays of light from the throne" that God showed her information about certain individuals in the SDA church. They are all "I have been shown" and "I SAW" clearly relating to visions that she "was given from the Lord" about people. And yet she copied the words describing those visions too. I consider those visions to be under the umbrella of prophecy, don't you?
"Then you went on to say that “that is hardly the point,” quoting Jeremiah 23:30 as proof. I then came back and showed how Jeremiah 23:30 clearly cannot be used against EGW, and to this you offered no rebuttal, instead going back to a point already disproved." No offense, but I found your proof that Jeremiah 23:30 cannot be applied against EGW lacking. It was again just semantics.
"“The Great Controversy:” “In some cases where a historian has so grouped together events as to afford, in brief, a comprehensive view of the subject, or has summarized details in a convenient manner, his words have been quoted; but in some instances no specific credit has been given, since the quotations are not given for the purpose of citing that writer as authority, but because his statement affords a ready and forcible presentation of the subject. In narrating the experience and views of those carrying forward the work of reform in our own time, similar use has been made of their published works.” As far as her preface to the Great Controversy goes. That was an addition to a later edition and was only added because of public outcry. Plus, even with that preface she made little to no changes in her use of quotations.
"So my belief that EGW did NOT wrong or unworthy of someone like her stems from a time when I had NO OPINIONS on her. Literally, until I started studying her in depth, she was just an Adventist writer whom the occult hated. That’s all I knew. I never read a single book of hers until two years ago..." I'm not trying to cast doubt on your experience AT ALL! But I do want to say that if you were attending SDA churches your whole life, you were hearing EGW even if you didn't know it was from her. Even if your pastor never quoted her a single time, you were still getting her messages because the SDA worldview by in large comes from her interpretation of the Bible.
I've heard the "if EGW's writing are plagiarized then the gospels are plagiarized too!' argument from some SDA's when defending EGW and I find it very disconcerting. Why defend EGW at the expense of the Bible? It is just a far different thing.
"Ellen White urged her readers to get copies of some of the very books she made use of--demonstrating that she did not attempt to conceal the fact of her use of literary sources, and that she had no intention to defraud or supersede the works of any other author." I'd be interested in more information on this point. I always heard that EGW very strongly spoke against reading outside of SDA literature.
Shannon wrote: "She could have said, "Now I am going to quote from so-and-so and what they say expresses what the Holy Spirit showed me, ect" but instead she signs her name to all this fraudulent work....this is quite horrible. If I did this with a school paper I'd be in such huge trouble." So true. she could've and should've done this. In fact, when others wrote and asked for permission her writings, she gave permission "if they gave proper credit". She knew what plagiarism was.
“These books contain clear, straight, unalterable truth and they should certainly be appreciated.Te instruction they contain is not of human production.” Ah, the “instruction they contain.” That certainly doesn’t mean that the means of jotting down the instruction is not of human production. Rather, this CLEARLY means that the message, the instruction “contained” is of God." So God gave EGW a message for his people. The message=God's instruction. Then God was like, "Here is a message! Now go find another who can say it better than you." But since the original message was the instruction of God then she's not lying in this quote?
"these meats are avoided, NOT BECAUSE GOD PLACED THEM IN THE UNCLEAN LIST but because they happen to be the unhealthiest meats." I see. Is that your interpretation or do you have some sources more official than the 28 fundamental beliefs to back you up?
"I’m glad you finally agree that if someone (other than EGW) uses sources in their writings, it’s “no big deal.” I 100% agree." Actually, if EGW was just any other author in the 1800's I would still say she was acting immorally even if she could have won in court. What makes it different is her claims. She claims that what she wrote came from the LORD, but much of it came from other "uninspired" writers.
"Thanks for backing my claim with quotes that she did NOT consider herself a prophet. " Again with the sarcasm? EGW claimed to be a prophet and then some. She said her work embraces the work of a prophet BUT DOES NOT END THERE. You are resting on semantics when the meaning of her words are clear.
"As soon as I take my pen in hand I am not in darkness as to what to write. It is as plain and clear as a voice speaking to me." 3SM 49.2
"Although I am as dependent upon the Spirit of the Lord in writing my views as I am in receiving them, yet the words I employ in describing what I have seen are my own, unless they be those spoken to me by an angel, which I always enclose in marks of quotation." Is this the quote you were saying doesn't exist early on this thread? It's from 3SM 49.7
"I am just as dependent upon the Spirit of the Lord in relating or writing a vision as in having the vision. It is impossible for me to call up things which have been shown me unless the Lord brings them before me at the time that he is pleased to have me relate or write them."—Spiritual Gifts 2:292, 293. 3SM 48.4
"1. EGW has NEVER claimed that the words she used were her own originally. She also made very clear that the MESSAGE came from God, but she was the one who had to put it in writing." So wait. If there is a sentence in EGW's writings that is exactly the same as another writers from a book she had in her library then it was God's fault? I guess I'm not sure what you are saying here.
"Walter Rae’s Book was so thorough that he even attacked God Himself, God’s judgment, and pastors, regardless of denomination" Really? Where?
Larissa, it doesn’t even require me to go and look up the quote in “Sun Jan 12 11:08 PM” to get it that it is not a prophecy that quote is about. This is what you wrote: “These show that she was copying her ‘prophecies’ from others, not just her random writings/commentaries.” Yikes, this quote is exactly a “random writing” she wrote in “Testimonies,” her books of her miscellaneous writings. Hate to disappoint you, but that quote does NOT fit the description you gave. That quote is rather pitiful proof that she is copying “prophecies from others.”
On the Great Controversy quote you shared showcases EGW’s usage of sources, that WAS NOT considered plagiarism by contemporaries in her age. Besides, as I already wrote, she freely said and even BROUGHT into the attention of the reader that she had used sources in that book and quoted them without specifying it in the text. I already showed how this was customary for writers of her age to do, and Larissa already admitted earlier that her “plagiarism may not have broken any copyright laws during her time.” Then you went on to say that “that is hardly the point,” quoting Jeremiah 23:30 as proof. I then came back and showed how Jeremiah 23:30 clearly cannot be used against EGW, and to this you offered no rebuttal, instead going back to a point already disproved.
Larissa, I don’t deny that Adventists consider her to be a prophet. I think I was pretty clear in my post “Fri Jan 10 9:54 AM” by saying “Adventists consider her to be a prophet.”
“When writing these precious books, if I hesitated, the very word I wanted to express the idea was given me.” Notice the words “if I hesitated.” That means that if she was stuck grasping for words while writing, the Holy Spirit would supply the word. Why you shared that quote, I don’t understand as it doesn’t even deal whether EGW claimed she coined together all-by-her-self every phrase and sentence.
Shannon wrote, “She could have said, ‘Now I am going to quote from so-and-so and what they say expresses what the Holy Spirit showed me, etc.’ but instead she signs her name to all this fraudulent work.” When people began to create controversy about her writings, SHE DID JUST THAT. This is what she wrote in the FORWARD of the book, “The Great Controversy:” “In some cases where a historian has so grouped together events as to afford, in brief, a comprehensive view of the subject, or has summarized details in a convenient manner, his words have been quoted; but in some instances no specific credit has been given, since the quotations are not given for the purpose of citing that writer as authority, but because his statement affords a ready and forcible presentation of the subject. In narrating the experience and views of those carrying forward the work of reform in our own time, similar use has been made of their published works.”
“No offense Siri, but I think that your bias as an SDA is making you stick up for EGW like this.” 1. I studied EGW for an entire year. As for me being SDA, that is a rather recent development. Not even an entire year has passed since I considered myself SDA. When I studied this and other issues in depth, I did not consider myself Christian!! much less an Adventist. So my belief that EGW did NOT wrong or unworthy of someone like her stems from a time when I had NO OPINIONS on her. Literally, until I started studying her in depth, she was just an Adventist writer whom the occult hated. That’s all I knew. I never read a single book of hers until two years ago...
“What’s worse is to say that you got stuff from God and then plagiarize.” 1. I think it’s pretty clear that she didn’t plagiarize by the standards available. 2. She NEVER claimed that she got her words from God.
And by the way, Vincent Ramik is a Catholic. And this is what he wrote: “It is impossible to imagine that the intention of Ellen G. White, as reflected in her writings and the unquestionably prodigious efforts involved therein, was anything other than a sincerely motivated and unselfish effort to place the understandings of Biblical truths in a coherent form for all to see and comprehend. Most certainly, the nature and content of her writings had but one hope and intent, namely, the furthering of mankind's understanding of the word of God. Considering all factors necessary in reaching a just conclusion on this issue, it is submitted that the writings of Ellen G. White were conclusively unplagiaristic.”
Here are some of the factors Ramik pointed out that critics of Ellen White's writings have failed to take into account when accusing her of literary theft or deceit. 1) Her selections "stayed well within the legal boundaries of 'fair use.'" 2) "Ellen White used the writings of others; but in the way she used them, she made them uniquely her own"--adapting the selections into her own literary framework. 3) Ellen White urged her readers to get copies of some of the very books she made use of--demonstrating that she did not attempt to conceal the fact of her use of literary sources, and that she had no intention to defraud or supersede the works of any other author. Ellen White "did not copy wholesale or without discrimination. What she selected or did not select, and how she altered what she selected" reveals that she used literary sources "to amplify or to state more forcefully her own transcending themes; she was the master, not the slave, of her sources.”
Even the Gospels are attacked as plagiarized. More than 90 percent of the Gospel of Mark is paralleled by passages in Matthew and Luke. But the mere use of another's language does NOT constitute literary theft, as noted by an attorney named Vincent Ramik, a specialist in patent, trademark, and copyright cases. After researching about 1,000 copyright cases in American legal history, Ramik issued a 27-page legal opinion in which he concluded "Ellen White was not a plagiarist, and her works did not constitute copyright infringement/piracy."
Shannon, I hear you. But critics make the mistake of judging EGW by the current rules and laws. If EGW wrote that in the 21st century, of course that would be considered plagiarism. But EGW lived in the nineteenth century and they had different rules, different customs then. All the literary greats before the 20th century did what is known as “uncredited paraphrasing.” Elgar Poe, Longfellow, John Bunyan, John Wesley. The list goes on. Mark Twain even wrote that there is nothing "anything in any human utterance, oral or written, except plagiarism!"
“These books contain clear, straight, unalterable truth and they should certainly be appreciated.Te instruction they contain is not of human production.” Ah, the “instruction they contain.” That certainly doesn’t mean that the means of jotting down the instruction is not of human production. Rather, this CLEARLY means that the message, the instruction “contained” is of God.
Currently, the Adventist Church advocates for its members NOT to consume unclean meats listed in the Mosaic Law, but NOT BECAUSE they are listed there. Therefore, huge distinction must be made on this point—these meats are avoided, NOT BECAUSE GOD PLACED THEM IN THE UNCLEAN LIST but because they happen to be the unhealthiest meats. For THIS simple reason, Adventists (generally speaking) don’t eat those meats, NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE UNCLEAN.
I’m glad you finally agree that if someone (other than EGW) uses sources in their writings, it’s “no big deal.” I 100% agree.
Sun Jan 12 10:09 PM: Thanks for backing my claim with quotes that she did NOT consider herself a prophet. As for John the Baptist, He was also the “Elijah,” So we see that he outranks EGW. (Sorry, I am a rank-fanatic because of my days in the occult.;)
If she had claimed that she came up with every phrase, every sentence, every jot, tittle, comma, I PROMISE I will concede and admit that EGW lied about her usage of sources.
“But if I claimed to be a prophet, quoted Walter Rea and said that his work was mine that came directly from God, that would be a different story.” 1. EGW has NEVER claimed that the words she used were her own originally. She also made very clear that the MESSAGE came from God, but she was the one who had to put it in writing. So therefore, she used expressions and sentences that MEANT exactly what God showed her. So unfortunately, that claim is unsubstantiated. You’ve been trying to prove, during the course of this conversation on her “plagiarism,” that she claimed that her work was 100% original. Unfortunately, NONE of the quotations you showed have proved that she ever claimed that.
Walter Rae’s Book was so thorough that he even attacked God Himself, God’s judgment, and pastors, regardless of denomination.
1. “It doesn’t prove anything.” Well, it proves that they were not initially biased against pork, for certain. And I believe that he could have said the very same thing after her health visions. She was pretty clear later on that not everyone will adapt to what she was shown.
I can give more examples of course but I guess we can stop there.
John Harris was one of her favorites apparently. I'm just grabbing a couple from the huge list of examples found here. https://www.nonegw.org/egw103.shtml
This is John Harris first: "'He pleased not Himself.' The whole of his course was a history of pure disinterested benevolence. He had assumed our nature"... (p. 82) and then EGW, the plagiarist: "Christ pleased not Himself. The whole of His life was the development of a pure, disinterested benevolence. He assumed human nature... "
(The Bible Echo, July 20, 1896)
Here she copies from John Harris' book again. "Here are infinite wisdom, infinite love, infinite justice, infinite mercy. Here are depths and heights, lengths and breadths, for our consideration. Numberless pens have been employed in presenting to the world the life, the character, and the mediatorial work of Christ"... EGW,
(The Review and Herald, April 4, 1899, para. 10) and the original: "Here is ... — infinite wisdom — infinite love — infinite justice — infinite mercy ! Depths, heights, length, breadth — all passing knowledge! Innumerable pens have been employed upon the life, character, preaching and mediatorial work of Christ." (p. 16)
"When the love of God is expelled, the love of the world quickly flows in to supply the vacuum". EGW, (The Review and Herald, March 31, 1896) copied from John Harris,
The Great Teacher: Characteristics of Our Lord's Ministry (p. 35)
"Sin having expelled from his heart the love of God, the love of the world has rushed into the vacuum."
I'm going to leave only that one there for now. Think I need to go check out the white lie from my church's library before I can post any more of the I was shown plagiarisms.
Let's grab a few examples of times when she was recounting a vision and quoted someone else. These show that she was copying her "prophecies" from others, not just her random writings/commentaries. I'm going directly to Walter Rae's book The White Lie for these. "I WAS SHOWN that one great cause of the existing deplorable state of things is that parents do not feel under obligation to bring up their children to conform to physical law. Mothers love their children with an idolatrous love and indulge their appetite when they know that it will injure their health and thereby bring upon them disease and unhappiness.... They have sinned against Heaven and against their children, and God will hold them accountable. The managers and teachers of schools," and now the book she copied from: "Parents are also under obligation to teach and oblige their children to conform to physical law for their own sakes.... How strange and unaccountable that mothers should love their children so tenderly as to indulge them in what they have occasion to know may injure their constitutions and impair their happiness for life. May many children be delivered from such mothers, and from such cruel kindness" The managers and teachers of schools."-L(arkin) B. Coles, Philosophy of Health: Natural Principles of Health and Cure
We haven't looked at any examples of her plagiarism yet. Let's do that quick. The Great Controversy by EGW written in : "The bull invited all Catholics to take up the cross against heretics. In order to stimulate them in this cruel work, it absolved them from all ecclesiastical pains and penalties; it released all who joined the crusade from any oaths they might have taken; it legalized their title to any property which they might have illegally acquired, and promised remission of all their sins to such as should kill any heretic. It annulled all contracts made in favor of the Vaudois, ordered their domestics to abandon them, forbade all persons to give them any aid whatever, and empowered all persons to take possession of their property" (p. 83) Now for the book she took it from- History of the Waldenses By Rev. J.A. Wylie:
"The bull invited all Catholics to take up the cross against heretics, and to stimulate them in this pious work, it absolved them from all ecclesiastical pains and penalties, general and particular; it released all who joined the crusade from any oaths they might have taken; it legitimatized their title to any property they might have illegally acquired, and promised remission of all their sins to such as should kill any heretic. It annulled all contracts made in favor of the Vaudois, ordered their domestics to abandon them, forbade all persons to give them any aid whatever, and empowered all persons to take possession of their property" (p. 28)
Here are some more: "These books contain clear, straight, unalterable truth and they should certainly be appreciated. The instruction they contain is not of human production." (Letter H-339, Dec. 26, 1904)
"These books, giving the instruction that the Lord has given me during the last sixty years, contain light from heaven, and will bear the test of investigation." (Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 35, 1906)
"How many have read carefully Patriarchs and Prophets, The Great Controversy, and The Desire of Ages? I wish all to understand that my confidence in the light that God has given stands firm, because I know that the Holy Spirit's power magnified the truth, and made it honorable, saying: 'This is the way, walk ye in it.' In my books, the truth is stated, barricaded by a 'Thus saith the Lord.' The Holy Spirit traced these truths upon my heart and mind as indelibly as the law was traced by the finger of God, upon the tables of stone..." (Letter 90, 1906)
"When writing these precious books, if I hesitated, the very word I wanted to express the idea was given me."
(Selected Messages, Book 3, pp. 51-52; Letter 265, 1907)
"As Samuel was a prophet to Israel in his day, as Jeremiah was a prophet to Israel in the day of captivity, as John the Baptist came as a special messenger of the Lord to prepare the way of Christ's appearing, so we believe that Mrs. White was a prophet to the church of Christ today. And the same as the messages of the prophets were received in old days, so her messages should be received at present times."(Review & Herald, October 4, 1928)--not her quote obviously. This was written in the official SDA magazine after her death.
I grabbed most of these quotes from the website nonegw.org
Both Siri and Skyler are right about why SDAs are vegetarians. The official SDA belief cites keeping our bodies healthy AND some meats being unclean as why they do this.Here is the 21st Fundamental Belief: We are called to be a godly people who think, feel, and act in harmony with the principles of heaven. For the Spirit to recreate in us the character of our Lord we involve ourselves only in those things which will produce Christlike purity, health, and joy in our lives. This means that our amusement and entertainment should meet the highest standards of Christian taste and beauty. While recognizing cultural differences, our dress is to be simple, modest, and neat, befitting those whose true beauty does not consist of outward adornment but in the imperishable ornament of a gentle and quiet spirit. It also means that because our bodies are the temples of the Holy Spirit, we are to care for them intelligently. Along with adequate exercise and rest, we are to adopt the most healthful diet possible and abstain from the UNCLEAN FOODS IDENTIFIED IN THE SCRIPTURES. Since alcoholic beverages, tobacco, and the irresponsible use of drugs and narcotics are harmful to our bodies, we are to abstain from them as well. Instead, we are to engage in whatever brings our thoughts and bodies into the discipline of Christ, who desires our wholesomeness, joy, and goodness. Support is found in these Bible passages: Romans 12:1,2: 1John2:6: Ephesians 5:1-21: Philippians 4:8: 2Corinthians 10:5: 2Corinthians 6:14-7:1: 1Peter 3:1-4: 1Corinthians 6:19,20: 1Corinthians 10:31: Leviticus 11:1-47: 3John 2 (emphasis mine)
"Why have I not claimed to be a prophet? Because in these days many who body claim that they are prophets are a reproach to the cause of Christ; and because my work includes much more than the work 'prophet' signifies." 1SM 32.4
"My commission embraces the work of a prophet, but it does not stop there. It embrace much more than the minds of those who have been sowing the seeds of unbelief can comprehend." 1 SM 36.2
I'll post this one again. ""In ancient times God spoke to men by the mouth of prophets and apostles. In these days he speaks to them by the testimonies of his Spirit" Testimonies for the Church," Vol. IV., p. 148; Vol. V., p. 661; No. 88, p. 189. RECALL that the "testimonies of his spirit here she uses to refer to her own writings.
"My work includes much more than this name signifies. I regard myself as a messenger, entrusted by the Lord with messages for His people." —Letter 55, 1905, Selected Messages, book 1, pp. 32, 35, 36. So she claims to be the Lord's messenger which is a prophet plus even more! She must've been VERY special since the last person called "The Lord's Messenger" was John the Baptist.
My claims that EGW was a plagiarist probably sound like Walter Rae's book because his book was so thorough. If I mention something she plagiarized, he mentioned it first. But I didn't open his book and quote from it or paraphrase anything in it or anything like that. And if I had, like you said, no big deal. But if I claimed to be a prophet, quoted Walter Rae and said that his work was mine that came directly from God, that would be a different story. Here is what Ellen G White claimed for herself and her prophethood:
""We do not, by any means, believe that the Bible teaches that its [pork] proper use, in the gospel dispensation, is sinful," James White wrote in 1850.2" He wrote this before EGW had her health visions so it doesn't prove anything.
@Skyler, a study of what the Adventist Church OFFICIALLY believes will paint the conclusive picture that Adventists generally abstain from pork, NOT BECAUSE ITS LISTED AS UNCLEAN in the Mosaic Law, but because it’s consumption is hazardous to our health. Unfortunately, some people assume that is because of the list of clean and unclean in the Old Testament that that is the case, but a deep study into how this became custom in the Adventist Church will prove otherwise.
i don’t think we should eat pork, it is unclean according to the Bible and has many things in it like worms that can kill you
I said it is a little bit of a stretch to say that ACTS 10:9-16 condones pork-eating. I am talking about that specific passage, not the entire Bible.
Ellen White wrote that to her daughter-in-law in 1882. If Adventists go by what the ceremonial unclean-clean foods, she would have NOT asked for oysters, which are classified unclean in the Mosaic law.
"Mary, if you can get me a good box of herrings, fresh ones, please do so. These last ones that Willie got are bitter and old. If you can buy cans, say, half a dozen cans, of good tomatoes, please do so. We shall need them. If you can get a few cans of good oysters, get them."
Ellen White said that in a talk she gave in 1901.
"Sister White has not had meat in her house or cooked it in any line, or any dead flesh, for years and years. And here is the [basis of some people's] health reform: `Now I have told you Sister White did not eat meat. Now I want you not to eat meat, because Sister White does not eat it.' "Well, I would not give--I would not care a farthing for anything like that. If you have not got any better conviction--you won't eat meat because Sister White does not eat any--if I am the authority, I would not give a farthing for your health reform. "What I want is that every one of you should stand in your individual dignity before God, in your individual consecration to God, that the soul-temple shall be dedicated to God. `Whosoever defileth the temple of God, him will God destroy.' Now I want you to think of these things, and do not make any human being your criterion."25
"We do not, by any means, believe that the Bible teaches that its [pork] proper use, in the gospel dispensation, is sinful," James White wrote in 1850.2
That is taken from Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1, pp. 206-207
"Those who labor with their hands must nourish their strength to perform this labor, and those also who labor in word and doctrine must nourish their strength; for Satan and his evil angels are warring against them to tear down their strength. They should seek rest of body and mind from wearing labor when they can, and SHOULD EAT OF NOURISHING, STRENGTHENING FOOD to build up their strength;... I SAW THAT YOUR VIEWS CONCERNING SWINE'S FLESH would prove no injury if you have them to yourselves; but in your judgment and opinion you have made this question a test, and your actions have plainly shown your faith in this matter. IF GOD REQUIRES HIS PEOPLE TO ABSTAIN FROM SWINE'S FLESH, HE WILL CONVICT THEM ON THE MATTER. He is just as willing to show His honest children their duty, as to show their duty to individuals upon whom He has not laid the burden of His work. If it is the duty of the church to abstain from swine's flesh, God will discover it to more than two or three"
Adventists don’t eat pork, generally. That is true. But we do it for TOTALLY DIFFERENT REASONS than that they are listed as unclean animals. We don’t eat pork because it is the unhealthiest of the unhealthiest and we believe that we should take care of our bodies.
Secondly, each person has various “idols” they have to deal with. like the Rich young Ruler. His idol was money. the solution? “Go and sell all that you have and give the proceeds to the poor.” Does that automatically make every Christian march and sell all their possessions and give it all away? No! What makes us think that when EGW counsels a specific person that their meat is an issue for them, that she is making a broad statement to include absolutely everyone?
EGW never “demanded abstinence from foods.” No, she never claimed that meat eating is a sin. Again. she ate meat herself occasionally. If, and I repeat, if she were truly saying that meat is “what gives us a bent to sin,” as Shannon wrote, she would have never allowed meat touch her lips from the time she understood meat to be unhealthy.
No, Ava. I have no problems with you eating steak or any other meat in front of me.
I honestly find basically no difference in terms of grace-works salvation anything different than other Protestants. But Steps to Christ IS considered by the Adventist Church to be the blueprint, the core essentials of our beliefs. So I don’t consider it to be a book that focuses on the common ground we share as Christian Protestants. Larissa, tell me if you misunderstood my post, please😉
I think it is a little bit of a stretch to say that Acts 10:9-16 condones pork-eating.
EGW NEVER forbid anyone to eat meat. She simply told them that meat is not the best for them and that for some it was important to give it up.
I am sorry that it comes off as though she is judgmental. Like I said, read the rest of the book, and also the “Ministry of Healing” which she wrote (not post humanly cut and paste together). It makes a big difference when you understand what the person she was writing to was dealing with and also what ELSE EGW wrote that the editors for the sake of length had to cut out. So looking at it that way, I don’t have an issue that she claims to have been inspired.
EGW never said that anyone is in sin if you aren’t a vegetarian. I also can’t see how she implies that that is the case for everyone. YOU ARE NOT GUILTY FOR EATING TERIYAKI. Lol. of course not. I pretty much agree with your post, Ava, except that EGW is being judgmental. She herself has warned and even scolded people for being judgmental and judging others by their plate. I understand that she comes across as abrasive but that is because of the format those quotes are found. They have been chopped up from the rest of the letters and don’t contain everything she wrote to that individual and all the aspects she covered.
Notice she says that that is for the “best development of the physical, mental, and spiritual powers.” Obviously, she is talking about the ideal.
Fri Jan 10 11:42: EGW is NOT suggesting that because you drink coffee that means you will drink alcohol or smoke in the future. If truly so, I would agree that that is most unfair. Remember, THIS IS A LETTER written to a specific person with a specific case. For him/her, it well may be that one thing leads to another. So don’t take her customized advice that she wrote for one person and say that that implies that this is relevant to you. Most if not all of the quotes you provided are of the same character. They were written for a SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL, not for the masses.
I don’t think that when EGW states that meat-eating is not good for health or morals it means that eating meat induced sinfulness it sinful thoughts. Sorry, I really don’t get it.
I don’t think that is saying that meat-eaters are not on the Lord’s side. I just don’t see how you understand she says that...
“every one who transgresses the laws of health will surely be visited with God’s displeasure.” Smoking transgresses the laws of health. We all know the illnesses that come from smoking.
The quote about the ministers is taken out of context. If you read what is around it, you will find that it is a recommendation. EGW never called someone evil because of their health habits. She even said not to judge people by what they eat because it is a personal choice. Again, EGW NEVER said that meat-eating is wrong for EVERYONE.
I’m not sure all the kinds are vegan. But yeah I love Oreos too. sadly they are not very healthy...
@Ava, EGW gave up meat-eating completely a few years before she died— it was to give support to a women’s group in Australia.
but when I got older, I had the ability to choose what I was going to eat. I stayed vegan but I was a bad vegan hence my weight issues.
It depends on what you are used to. My parents served me veggies and I got used to them. It has been proven to take about two weeks for someone to change their tastebuds. So my parents consistently gave me veggies and I got used to them and enjoyed them. So it is a matter of training your tastebuds.
Well, obviously at 2, I didn’t know they was another option. 😂 Well, it’s what you are used to. People imagine that being vegan is healthy. Actually, there are unhealthy vegans too. Like Oreos are vegan😂😂
Meat is NOT the same as it is now. Meat was WAYY cleaner then. But now they put hormones and other (literally) poison into meat animals, so they grow quicker and faster and therefore they are VERY unhealthy.
Well, I don’t think it’s sin and even EGW NEVER said it’s sin. She HERSELF for the longest of times ate meat too.
I suggest you read chapter 11 where she talks about extremes.
In Peter’s vision, the purpose was NOT to show that Christians can eat anything they want to. Rather, that all PEOPLE are worth the same in God’s eye.
LOL, Ava. It ain’t a sin, unless that is something Jesus has convicted of being a sin for you individually.
Meat doesn’t have good stuff on it. I’m really sorry to say that but that’s the truth. I can send you some scientific articles on it if you want.
Actually, red meat causes cancer, and that’s the official statement from the American Association of Cancer (and I think UN Health too)
Not at all! I’m super sorry if I hurt you in any way. I totally understand you! Just a little word of encouragement, I’ve been through the same ordeal and there IS a way out.🙏🏼
Narcotics had a looser definition in her day and age. So we have to judge her writing historically as well.
I’m super sorry you were offended. I don’t think she equalized alcohol and coffee. But I understand that we have different view points.
Scientifically speaking, it DOES dull the mind when you eat meat. Sorry.
No, you’re fine!! I totally understand you. I was vegan since I was two, but a unhealthy vegan. And I’ve lost 50 pounds and I KNOW the shame that comes with it. So I even have cried when I’ve felt slighted in this issue.
“But why is the Lord telling her all this? I mean, it all boils down to, what does the Lord think of this health reform stuff?” Are you deep reading that book, or just skimming through it? You will find places where SHE writes that vegetarianism is NOT for everyone, that it is NOT a sin to eat meat. Answering to your question though, I think that it’s different from person to person. Unfortunately, in this world of sin, NOT everyone live ideally. So the bar is set differently from person to person.
Actually, science is proving that meat perverts a human body. Since you plan to go in a medical field, you will study about how humans (even evolutionists agree) were originally herbivores. Just like God created us to be.
Yeah, I’ve been looking up the quotes and seeing their context in the app. It have a nifty feature that you can click and see the entire letter from which that quote was cut from. That helps in understanding what EGW is REALLY saying.
“Vegetables, fruits, and grains should compose our diet. Not an ounce of flesh meat should enter our stomachs. The eating of flesh is unnatural. We are to return to God’s original purpose in the creation of man. 1. Notice the world SHOULD. Quite clearly, she is painting an IDEALIST picture. That is the ideal. No one can deny that.
It is TRUE that God never designed meat to be eaten and it is cursed. That is totally true. Did God give Adam and Eve meat to eat in the Garden of Eden? No. He allowed them to eat meat AFTER the fall. It was part of the package of curses.
Her statements are very dogmatic sounding because they have been CROPPED out of their original setting.
“I have been plainly instructed by the Lord that flesh meat should not be placed before the patients in our sanitation dining rooms.” What was the purpose of their sanitariums? IT WAS TO SHOW PEOPLE what the best food is for people to eat. I mean, it doesn’t take must sense that if you lecture against using meat, you probably shouldn’t serve meat either.”
“Is EGW implying that if you seek the Lord and find Him you will never eat any meat? Obviously not, since she herself continued to occasionally eat meat. When the context is taken into consideration, she is CLEARLY NOT implying that.
Physicians are not employed to prescribe a flesh diet for patients, for it is this kind of diet that has made them sick. Seek the Lord. When you find Him, you will be meek and lowly of heart. Individually, you will not subsist upon the flesh of dead animals, neither will you put one morsel in the mouths of your children. You will not prescribe flesh, tea, or coffee for your patients, but will give talks in the parlor showing the necessity of a simple diet. You will cut away injurious things from your bill of fare. . CD 294.2 Context is CRUCIAL to understand this. She was addressing PHYSICIANS who worked at the church sanitariums and taught people that meat-eating is unhealthful. She is telling THEM (not everyone) that they got to practice what they preach.
On the first quote: “A man is not converted unless his appetite and diet correspond with his profession of faith.” 1. That is addressing a SPECIFIC person. What you’re implying is like saying that Jesus told EVERYONE that they must sell their possessions to able to follow Him. NO! That was JUST for the Rich Young Man, who had a problem with money. In the same way, we can’t go and say that what EGW wrote is for everyone. She wrote that in a letter that was addressed to an individual person, who had an individual case, and an individual issue.
Shannon wrote: “She makes it sound like non vegetarian Christians are not able to be good Christians, and depending how you take the quotes I’m about to give, maybe not Christians at all.” 1. EGW continued to eat meat occasionally herself for a VERY long time after she was shown that she should not do so. Do you know when she wouldn’t eat meat? When she was at someone else’s house and didn’t want to offend them!!
Let me comment on that book further. Post-humanly, before there was the Internet, people had NO way of accessing her letters that she wrote to counsel specific people. So editors cut and copied from her letters what she had to say on specific issues so people could read what she wrote and glean from it whatever the Spirit told them to do. I also thought (at one point) that I must adopt EVERYTHING she wrote and obey it. THAT IS TOTAL NONSENSE.
Let me repeat what I said earlier: EGW’s writings are NOT to be taken as though they apply to everyone! THEY DO NOT!! The book you quoted from, “Counsels on Diet and Foods” is taken ENTIRELY from letters she wrote to people, counseling them what they should do in THEIR specific situation. I misunderstood this core principle too, that EGW’s writings taken from her LETTERS are NOT for universal acceptance.
No, you did not offend me. Actually, I had a few chuckles along the way
Hey Shannon and Ava! Sorry I was gone the entire day.😊
Siri, Fri Jan 10 12:18 PM, I think what Larissa meant by that is that EGW's work in that book is the most aligned with common protestant beliefs, where as others take different positions on topics, that most other denominations wouldnt. So I don't think she was trying to say it wasn't explicitly Adventist, but that it had the most in common with other denominations. If SDA believed differently in terms of basic salvation, then they would be a cult. So i think Larissa complimented the book and it's theology saying it focuses on what we have in common, whereas we are focusing more on what we don't have in common. So whereas your post focused on the irony, maybe focus on how we agree about the basics and celebrate that. Idk exactly what your point behind the post was, but I just wanted to show my opinion
Now, EGW might have been someone called to be vegetarian by God, and got overzealous about it. Because I'm pretty sure she genuinely believed she was called to be vegetarian by God. So maybe she just took it further than she should have. Idk... But I do know that I'm not in sin when I eat meat.
I honestly think that EGW is a bit crazy here... Implying that you are in sin of you are not a vegetarian... I ate teriyaki without any guilt, because God, as of now, has not called me to be vegetarian. He may call some to be, but I don't exactly know. If being vegan brings you closer to God, be vegan, but if steak reminds you of the goodness of God,go ahead and eat steak... I have a mostly vegetarian friend. She eats chicken sometimes, but other than that she is vegetarian. She just doesn't like meat but has no problems if you eat steak when you eat dinner with her. Siri seems to be similar, I think he/she said they were vegetarian, but won't judge you if you arent. I appreciate this, and find it respectable, unlike what we read from EGW. She comes off as judgmental, whether she meant it like that or not. I wouldn't have as much of a problem with this if she wasn't supposed to be speaking for God. But she is. I don't see how that could possibly be divinely inspired. Siri, you probably have great explanations for all of this, but even if EGW didn't mean that meat eating is a sin in all cases, it comes off strongly that way and I'm glad you are so much nicer in your statements regarding these things.
Haha... I had chicken teriyaki, shall I repent of this sin equivalent to murder? (I'm not saying EGW was saying that btw)... Anyway, God has prescribed different diets for different periods, at first it was vegetarian, then meat and plants, in Noahs day he said you can eat anything, the Jewish diet, and now the new covenant... I would say close to what Paul says when people were wondering about meat sacrificed to idols. People who feel it better to be vegan or vegetarian go for it, but people who want to eat chicken and steak as gifts given by God, then go for it. We should take care of ourselves, but being Vegan is not the only healthy diet. I think Japan has the highest life expectancy and their diet consists of mostly rice and seafood. South Koreans live longer than Americans as well, partially due to their diet. But SDA, since they are healthier than your average American, live longer in general. Vegan/vegetarian is a very healthy diet, but I'd say it's not the only healthy one. And it's not the only one prescribed by God over the years... I hope there is chicken teriyaki in heaven as it is my favorite dish, and I believe God could do that without death and it would better. Idk what we'll eat in heaven, but I don't think we will be strictly vegan, but that's a personal hope not necessarily biblical.
I think it’s a great idea to read the Bible chronologically!! I may be, though, a few days ahead of you, as I started on the first.😉
I find it fascinating how both you and I started our journeys at around the same time, albeit totally opposite results.
sorry for the confusing quotation marks😕
Actually, James White wrote that “S[eventh]. D[ay]. Adventists hold the divinity of Christ so nearly with the Trinitarians, that we apprehend no trial here.” He also declared his “belief in the equality of the Son with the Father” condemning “any view as erroneous that “makes Christ inferior to the Father.” Mind you, he wrote that in 1876 and 1877 respectively, decades before EGW wrote the Desire of Ages in 1898. Certainly you don’t claim that most of the church pioneers were dead by 1876? Remember that James White died an early death some 5 years later!! So unfortunately, it is inaccurate to claim that by that time “most of the pioneers were dead.”
I find it funny how we’ve transitioned. First, it was that Adventists had their grace/works theology mixed up, then came that Adventists don’t believe in a moment of rebirth, all of a sudden it changed to “Adventists don’t believe in eternal security” (as if I hadn’t been saying that from my first conversation with Ava). But now, when Shannon is recommended to read the book that MOST CLEARLY defines what Adventists believe in terms of salvation, it is labeled “regular Protestant” with not “much to offend in there in all.” Ah, the irony of it all.
Great recommendations, Larissa! Those books are fantastic! I second Larissa, ASK THE HOLY SPIRIT TO LEAD YOU. He will!! Also, “Prayer,” “Faith and Works,” “Life Sketches.” You can’t go wrong with any one😊
I notice you mentioned the Camden vision. This vision cannot be proven that it is totally authentic. Especially since the FIRST copy comes from an opponent who attacked EGW a lot. So this cannot be used against her because of the sketchy surroundings of this vision. There is no manuscript of this vision written by EGW or her husband or even reference made by them to it. Also the dates don’t match up with history and conflicting, unverifiable dates are listed in various copies. So unfortunately this cannot be attributed to EGW. Some of it may be hers, but since it originally comes from an opponent, he more than likely tampered with it and changed and modified it. Bottom line: we can’t use this vision to judge EGW fairly because of the issues surrounding the Camden Vision.
“I’m not surprised that he was skeptical she wrote it herself! because she didn’t write it.” Umm, it’s a little too farfetched to claim that she didn’t write something when the vast majority has been proven original. Besides, he himself went and saw her HANDWRITTEN manuscript with his own eyes. He clearly says that he found out that she TRULY did write that.
Sorry about Uriah Smith. You’re right.
Reading them back to back shows that there is no difference in what you and I was saying. But when I read what you wrote, it sounded like you were saying that the church would blindly follow her vision, even if it didn’t make sense. “Then that was that.” Also, by Shannon’s response, it is pretty clear that she understood the same thing as I. Anyhow, glad to have cleared this up😊
Even IF she herself called herself a prophet, usage of sources can not be used to discredit her. Because, as I already showed, two of three of the points DO NOT fit her. At all. She never stole a prophecy from someone. She never wrote a prophecy based on other people’s books. She never used another prophet’s writings and then called them her own. This case should be closed.
And I have NO PROBLEM with your usage of sources. I do research, too. I adapt articles for this group, too. I paraphrase ideas and thoughts I’ve read. There is no issue whatsoever in me or you or anyone doing that. Except for Ellen White!?! Again, A DOUBLE STANDARD DOESN’T WORK.
If you consider that plagiarism, you’d have to call your own posts plagiarized. I’ve read many of the books, articles you mentioned before I even knew the ST group “Former SDA” existed. And I can’t think of a single time when you’ve brought up something against EGW that I hadn’t already read about. You’ve been “loosely paraphrasing.” I asked you where you’re getting your information. You said “I haven’t quoted or pulled from his work in our conversations.” Well, so, so much of what you’ve posted sounds almost identical to his book. And you admit to having read his book, but yet, you mock EGW for saying that she skips over certain articles in a magazine. “It was on a really high shelf.”
Obviously, 70% is completely her own. Can it really be said that she didn’t write “most of the Desire of Ages”, but that it’s written by others? Furthermore, even in the 30% derived part, the parallel seen between her book and other books is mainly “loose paraphrase.” I mean, what’s the big deal with that? I already explained how her usage is not unBiblical or wrong for someone to do. You said yourself that it’s ok “for a Christian author [in] quoting others’ research.” Also she NEVER claimed that ALL her writings were 100% her own creative work!!
Well, yeah, I was being sarcastic, but I wrote that because I knew I’d get a reaction from you. Sorry. lol. There are a few inaccurate statements that you made. “Most of the Desire of Ages had been derived from other books.” Unfortunately, that statement is plain wrong and even misleading. NOT EVEN HALF of the book is derived. “He [Fred Veltman] found evidence of some literary relationship [mind that word] in 31% of the sentences appearing in The Desire of Ages. On a scale of 0 to 7, with 0 being strict independence and 7 being strict verbatim (a word-for-word copy), the average ranking of those 31% of the sentences was 3.3, where 3 represents ‘loose paraphrase.’ The other nearly 70% of the sentences were ranked as ‘independent.’”
Oh, and when did she say they were a really high shelf? If you read the quotation I shared, she says that she DOES read that magazine, but skips over the articles that those two men in conflict wrote. I do that all the time! I read Apple News and there is a frequent writer who I NEVER agree with plus I don’t like her writing style. So I can see who’s written what and I skip her articles.
I find “Wed Jan 8 11:24” rather amusing. The thing is, though, is that you cannot prove that. That is mere speculation. Really, I’m not trying to be rude but that is how it sounds. Critics have accused the Synoptic Gospels of being “knock-offs” and “plagiarized” from each other because of their great similarities and small variances in content. People accuse Isaiah for being a sham who actually lived AFTER King Cyrus. Why? because the doubting critic cannot fathom how the unknown future can be predicted hundreds of years ahead with such accuracy. If you believe that what EGW did is impossible, you must believe that Daniel, Isaiah and all the rest are, too, shams, just like Bible critics claim they are. I wish I could put this in bold: A DUBBLE STANDARD DOESN’T WORK. Thank you.
If you read the entire letter that quote is found, you will read that she consistently says that she does not base her reproofs of the church on here-say or gossip. Rather, she writes that her reproofs contain only light given by God. Notice, her statement does not claim that the words she uses to express the truth will be original phrases and expressions that she alone came up with. Rather, she claims that the message contained is from a higher source— God. So yet again, we see that we cannot use this quote to claim that Ellen White said that all “her words were her own.”
This is the other quote with a little more around it: “When I went to Colorado I was so burdened for you that, in my weakness, I wrote many pages to be read at your camp meeting. Weak and trembling, I arose at three o'clock in the morning to write to you. God was speaking through clay. You might say that this communication was only a letter. Yes, it was a letter, but prompted by the Spirit of God, to bring before your minds things that had been shown me. **In these letters which I write, in the testimonies I bear, I am presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me. I do not write one article in the paper expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision—the precious rays of light shining from the throne.** 5T 67.2”
By the way, did you read what I wrote earlier? because the very two excerpts you pasted in “Wed Jan 8 11:19 PM” were ones I already had posted and dealt with... but it’s ok. Review is always good ;)
Your caption for that quote? “This quote [the one below] covers pretty much the rest of her writings.” Sorry, but it is VERY clear that is not the case. It does not require a whole lot to understand that she was talking about something specific. She was not making any blanket statement concerning ALL of her writings.
“As I have before stated, the length was not given me in inches, and I was not shown a lady's boot. **And here I would state that although I am as dependent upon the Spirit of the Lord in writing my views as I am in receiving them, yet the words I employ in describing what I have seen are my own, unless they be those spoken to me by an angel, which I always enclose in marks of quotation.** As I wrote upon the subject of dress the view of those three companies revived in my mind as plain as when I was viewing them in vision; but I was left to describe the length of the proper dress in my own language the best I could, which I have done by stating that the bottom of the dress should reach near the top of a lady's boot, which would be necessary in order to clear the filth of the streets under the circumstances before named. . RH October 8, 1867, par. 9
Here’s something else you wrote: “She claimed that her words were her own and that if she ever used anyone else’s work she put it in quotations.” Oops. She never wrote such a thing. You are referring to a statement she made REGARDING HER VISION ON THE APPROPRIATE LENGTH OF DRESSES. Here’s the entire quote you posted with the context surrounding it. I’ve placed asterisks so you can locate easily the part in question.
In recap, what does this leave us with? Evidence, to quote you, that EGW “fails the [Biblical] test of a prophet?” No!! ONLY ONE POINT of the criteria clearly defined in Jeremiah 23:30 can be said to fit EGW, and even that is debatable. So you see here why Ellen White’s writings do not come close in conflict with Jeremiah 23:30. I hope that was clear.😊
Now for point C: Must steal a PROPHECY. None of the quotes EGW’s critics attack her of plagiarizing are prophecies she made. Point out the prophecy she made that she stole from someone else. Actually, you ridiculed the fact that her prophecies aren’t “overwhelming” or “shocking.” But all that aside, we see that Point C fails enormously. She NEVER used a prophecy that someone else made and then called it her own. Also, the similarities are all in her Biblical commentary books or on her Health books, NOT PROPHECY. So this point, too, does not work.
Point B: “Must steal from ANOTHER prophet.” Ellen White is accused of drawing from around 100 books, most of which ONE SENTENCE has a similarity in her work. This leads us to the question: how many of the authors of those books were prophets? None, actually. So point B falls flat on its face because EGW clearly does NOT draw from ANOTHER prophet’s work in any instance.
Let’s look at each point one at a time. Starting with A: “Must claim to be a prophet.” EGW did NOT claim to be a prophet, or considered herself to be one, contrary to what you said. In fact, NOT ONCE did she call herself a prophet. She, however, believed she was a “messenger of the Lord.” Now, Adventists consider her to be a prophet, but huge distinction should be made that she did not consider herself one. But for clarity’s sake, we will say that she fits Point A.
You wrote: “If she hasn’t claimed to be a prophet and that she hasn’t stolen work from anyone else you would have a point.” No offense, but you are misapplying Jeremiah 23:30. Let me try explaining another time. Here’s the verse: “Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, declares the Lord, who steal my words from one another.” Notice that this passage lays very clear parameters on which to judge whether someone is an offender of this principle or not: A. Must claim to be a prophet. B. Must steal from ANOTHER prophet C. Must steal a PROPHECY. If only one of the above criteria does NOT fit, Jeremiah 23:30 CANNOT be used to undermine EGW’s credibility. However, if ALL of the criteria listed out in that verse fit her writings, I’ll stop believing that EGW is an inspired author. Deal?
Dear Father, please help Larissa experience unexplainable peace. Even through this trial that she is facing. I pray that she be of good cheer because God has already overcome Satan and He has promised to give her the peace that passes all understanding! So bless her, I pray. In Jesus’ name, Amen.
Hello Larissa! I really appreciate that your took the time to respond back, even writing at unearthly hours at night (or rather morning)!! I can only imagine the pain you must be experiencing with your friend’s sickening loss. I pray that Jesus command all the winds and stormy seas of doubt, that Satan is trying to instill in your heart, to vanish away. Do you mind if I pray right now?
I am still very confused... 😕
I started reading through the Bible chronologically again this year! I haven't done that since I left the SDA church about 2 years ago. I'm excited to see what new insights the Holy Spirit will reveal to me through the word! Anyone want to join? You could go Jan 9, 2020-Jan. 9 2021!
Shannon, Steps to Christ is probably EGW's most "regular protestant" friendly work. You probably wouldn't find much to offend in there at all. There are some beautiful things in there. But it probably wouldn't give you the best idea of her ministry. For that, I would start at the beginning. Read "A Note to the Little Flock" by Jame White (it is included in her writings collection though). She makes her first appearance in it talking about an early vision. Then I would go on to Early Writings and then Spiritual Gifts. Through those you can see why she and her teachings are pretty unique. The Great Controversy in probably her most popular book and lots of people rave about it. I never liked it to be honest. But it gives a good overview of the foundation of SDA thought, i.e. the great controversy and also the investigative judgement. Do me a favor though while you are reading through her writings. Before doing so, ask the Holy Spirit to give you discernment and to show you what He wants you to see.
You are so right Skyler! Looking outside and really trying to grasp the magnitude of the miracle of life make me such in awe of our creator. He is real, present, and powerful. And full of love for us!
Siri wrote: "Larissa, I’m curious. Are you getting your information from Walter Rea’s Book, “The White Lie?” I've read that book but as far as I recall, I haven't quoted or pulled from his work in our conversations. Although maybe some of the places I got the information from got it from him. Dunno. There are lots of really good resources out there. I've already given Shannon a couple of them.
I mostly agree with LBJ and Siri in your discussion about the gift of prophecy and the last days. I believe that the Holy Spirit is active in this day and age. He nudges us and gives some visions and dreams. This is not the same as being a prophet in the Old testament sense of the word.
Shannon wrote: "I am curious, Larissa, do you believe that God speaks through prophets these days at all?" Where I stand now is by interpreting Hebrews 1:1 as saying that there are no more prophets like the days of old and that nowadays we have the testimony of Christ that we read and interpret through the help of the indwelling Holy Spirit and it is all we need. The canon is closed.
The Camden vision was in 1851, 7 years after her first vision in 1844. Her first vision, which she "misinterpreted as being pro-shut door" according to SDA leadership or "corrected our [shut door] error" according to EGW.
About the shut door. So basically what the SDA leadership is claiming is that EGW didn't understand that her first vision was anti-shut door and instead thought it was pro-shut door for a number of years. Here is a quote from her report of her Camden vision, "Then I saw that Jesus prayed for his enemies; but that should not cause us or lead us to pray for the wicked world, whom God had rejected—when he prayed for his enemies, there was hope for them, and they could be benefitted and saved by his prayers, and also after he was a mediator in the outer apartment for the whole world; but now his spirit and sympathy were withdrawn from the world; and our sympathy must be with Jesus, and must be withdrawn from the ungodly....I saw that the wicked could not be benefitted by our prayers now—and although he sent it upon the unjust, yet their day was coming. Then I saw that scripture did not mean the wicked whom God had rejected that we must love, but he meant our neighbors in the household, and did not extend beyond the household;"
Siri wrote: "Her writings and position on the trinity created controversy and debate at the General Conferences, so how you can claim such a thing is beyond me." I think you must referring to what I said here? "“She certainly was not going against the SDA anti-trinitarian view or chastising any pioneers because of their anti-trinitarian views.” By 1898, most of the pioneers were dead. The foundational doctrines of the church were already established. When she had her most visions and when most of the doctrines were being ironed out, she did not chastise or go against any of the pioneers anti-trinitarian or arian beliefs.
Siri wrote: "When she published her book, “The Desire of Ages,” she stirred a LOT of controversy because she expressed in no uncertain terms the trinity. M.L. Andreasen wrote about this and said that he was so shocked because it directly contradicted his anti-tribulation view. He even speculated that someone other than EGW had written that, so he went to her house and saw the handwritten manuscript and saw that she and no one else had written that. He wrote that that changed his belief about the trinity and revolutionized the church pioneer’s viewpoint that around 10 years later, the belief in the trinity was added to the list of Church doctrines." Desire of Ages was written in 1898, pretty late in her ministry. And as we have already discussed, mostly derived from trinitarian sources. I'm not surprised that he was skeptical she wrote it herself! Because she didn't write it.
Uriah Smith died an Arian. I don't argue that the other two changed their minds.
Siri wrote: "Your accusation against EGW rings hollow on this one. It says an explanation would be given her. As a premed student, an explanation means to logically and thoroughly show the proof behind a certain interpretation. AFTER she gave the explanation would they accept it. See the sequence here: 1. Studying the Word of God and not understanding it 2. EGW would (sometimes) get a vision in which the explanation was shown her 3. She would relate the explanation given to her to the brethren 4. They accepted it because it was so clear to them. Of course, if my professor gives a very clear and good explanation, why need to discuss and try to understand it anymore? What’s the point? Seriously?" Ok, let's go back to my original quote that upset you so much. Shannon was asking about the nature of EGW's revelations and I said: "Often they would all be studying the Bible and debating what certain passages meant. She would suddenly go off into vision and the answer to their question would be given to her. Then that was that, they didn’t need to discuss it anymore." How is that different from what you are saying -the numbering-above? I was telling Shannon what happened, you assumed I was attacking I guess.
Siri wrote: "Thank you for explaining! I agree that SDAs don’t believe in the “notion” (your word, not mine) of eternal security. Do you not agree that we must “ask Jesus into our hearts” or “accept Jesus as Savior?” yes I agree.
Siri wrote: "LOL, of course Desire of Ages is derived. She based them on the Gospel accounts of Jesus. 😂" Come now. You aren't actually suggesting that the Fred Veltman report i quoted, after 8 years of in depth study, discovered that The Desire of Ages was entirely devoted from the Bible? Maybe that's why you said lol? You are being sarcastic? I can't tell. No, the study found that most of the Desire of Ages had been derived from other books (NOT the Bible). Google Fred Veltman report and you can read his findings. Again, this was a church sponsored study.
Siri wrote: "Honesty, I don’t think we can be good ANY time on our own. WE (emphasis is on we) can never be good. The quote-in-quote “good” we do is really from God, because all good things (that includes our deeds) come from God." I 100% agree!
Siri wrote: "This letter was written at a time when G. I. Butler and E. J. Waggoner were locked in heated debate over the meaning of the "law" in Galatians. At this crucial juncture, when she had to counsel both men, she avoided reading doctrinal articles in the paper [The Signs of the Times] in order that her counsel would not bear the mold of either Waggoner's or Butler's theories." She actually claimed this many times. Any time someone confronted her about her views being copied from others her default response is, "I didn't read his view until after I wrote mine. Sure his pamphlet/book was in my house while I was writing my letter/vision/book. But it was on a really high shelf!"
Siri wrote: "A big problem with the quote you provided about EGW saying that every word she wrote was of her own. You quoted her as saying: "My views were written independent of books or of the opinions of others." But when the statement is put in proper context, as it can be found in the Review and Herald of Oct. 8, 1867, one discovers SHE WAS SPEAKING OF HER EARLIEST HEALTH WRITINGS". Oh, I can go on about her health visions but it gets so muddy. Instead, I will give you several other quotes so you can see she claimed the same thing in other contexts. “In these letters which I write, in the testimonies I bear, I am presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me. I do not write one article in the paper expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision—the precious rays of light shining from the throne.” Testimonies 5, p. 67. This quote covers her all her testimonies. "Although I am as dependent upon the Spirit of the Lord in writing my views as I am in receiving them, yet the words I employ in describing what I have seen are my own, unless they be those spoken to me by an angel, which I always enclose in marks of quotation."—The Review and Herald, October 8, 1867. This quote covers pretty much the rest of her writings...
Siri wrote: "In the end, we see that EGW does not come close to breaking this test of prophet, because 1. that verse deals with prophecies, not Biblical commentary." Sorry I don't see that at all. Maybe if she hasn't claimed to be a prophet and that she hadn't stolen work from anyone else you would have a point. If she was merely a Christian author, quoting others' research before her then I would have no ground to stand on. But she doesn't even fit that category. Because she claimed that her words were her own and that if she ever used anyone else's work she put it in quotations. But she didn't. Also it can be shown that there were also times where she said, "I was shown..." {indicating something learned through a vision} and then inserted some plagiarism.
Siri wrote: "In the end, we see that EGW does not come close to breaking this test of prophet, because 1. that verse deals with prophecies, not Biblical commentary." Sorry I don't see that at all. Maybe if she hasn't claimed to be a prophet and that she hadn't stolen work from anyone else you would have a point. If she was merely a Christian author, quoting others' research before her then I would have no ground to stand on. But she doesn't even fit that category. Because she claimed that her words were her own and that if she ever used anyone else's work she put it in quotations. But she didn't. Also it can be shown that there were also times where she said, "I was shown..." {indicating something learned through a vision} and then inserted some plagiarism.
Hey all, sorry i've been gone so long. Truth be told, my friends' grief has brought some of my own to the surface and I've been dealing with that. Pray for me please as I've been a bit discouraged. Now, I'm going to do back and read everything you guys have written since I've been gone. phew! Wish me luck!
she had many visions of many things, in one vision she saw the Ten Commandments and they all glowed but the forth commandment glowed the most, stuff like that
So nice to see you on here, Bible Quizzer. Really neat name!! EGW stands for Ellen Gould White, who played an instrumental role in the creation of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. She was a prolific writer and was blessed with the gift of prophecy.
wow, i would start with steps to Christ and the great controversy
just look outside and you can see a million things god made from microbe to space
Take your time. I can only imagine how busy you are with 5 kids!! (it was 5, right?)
Oh no. That’s horrible! Praying for them.
I haven’t been posting much lately cause I usually get on here to memorize
I haven’t had a chance to catch up on what you guys have been taking about while I’ve been off but I’d like to request prayers. A very dear SDA family whom I love very much has had too much grief in the past few weeks. Just in the past month or so, my friend has lost her grandpa, father, and then a couple days ago her only child. I’m just so devastated for them. Will you pray for comfort for the whole family please? I’ll try to get back in again sometime soon.
Yes! I’m with my family, so that is amazing!!
Larissa, I’m curious. Are you getting your information from Walter Rea’s Book, “The White Lie?”
On what makes one a true prophet: 1. Will point back to Holy Scripture as the basis of faith and practice. 2. Will illumine and clarify teachings already present in Scripture. 3. Will apply the principles of Scripture to the daily life. 4. May be a catalyst to direct the church to carry out its commission as charged in the Scriptures. 5. May assist in establishing the church. 6. May reprove, warn, instruct, encourage, build up, and unify the church in the truths of Scripture. 7. May function to protect the church from false doctrine and to establish believers in the truth.
I don’t think however people get to choose what they become. Like EGW did NOT want to become one, because she was a woman and also only had a third-grade education and had had an accident that deformed her face, so she had insecurities which made her battle the conviction that she was to share what she had seen
God can use anyone! He certainly can use you, I have no doubt of that. Whether that’s the role He wants you to play, I cannot say.
On speaking in tongues, I don’t believe in them in the traditional sense. In the Pentecostal Church, speaking in tongues signifies speaking in a language that you yourself don’t understand. I believe though that the speaking in tongues is speaking in real languages as evidenced by Peter and the rest at Pentecost, so I believe God gives this gift to certain people.
I believe that the “prayer of faith will raise the sick.” Remember, Jesus said if you have enough faith, even a mountain will move at our bidding.
Here’s the rest of the passage: Acts 2:18-21 even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy. And I will show wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke; the sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to blood, before the day of the Lord comes, the great and magnificent day. And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
On whether the gift of prophecy is only for the apostles time: Remember the passage Peter quoted from Joel? It says there very clearly that there will be an outpouring of the Holy Spirit akin to Pentecost, and one of those gifts will be prophecy. Acts 2:17 “‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.”
That’s wonderful! Will pray the Holy Spirit touches them in a mighty way!
Hope I didn’t miss anything! Oh and thank you for your prayers for my finals! God pulled me through!
Her writings and position on the trinity created controversy and debate at the General Conferences, so how you can claim such a thing is beyond me.
“She certainly was not going against the SDA anti-trinitarian view or chastising any pioneers because of their anti-trinitarian views.” I hate to say this, but that is false. Here’s an example. When she published her book, “The Desire of Ages,” she stirred a LOT of controversy because she expressed in no uncertain terms the trinity. M.L. Andreasen wrote about this and said that he was so shocked because it directly contradicted his anti-tribulation view. He even speculated that someone other than EGW had written that, so he went to her house and saw the handwritten manuscript and saw that she and no one else had written that. He wrote that that changed his belief about the trinity and revolutionized the church pioneer’s viewpoint that around 10 years later, the belief in the trinity was added to the list of Church doctrines.
On the trinity: 1. It’s true that EGW never used the word trinity, but she used the word GODHEAD, so honestly that’s a rather cheap shot. 2. You forgot to mention that James White, Uriah Smith, W.W. Prescott, and others changed their minds on their beliefs. I have quotes those very people wrote if you need proof.
Your accusation against EGW rings hollow on this one. It says an explanation would be given her. As a premed student, an explanation means to logically and thoroughly show the proof behind a certain interpretation. AFTER she gave the explanation would they accept it. See the sequence here: 1. Studying the Word of God and not understanding it 2. EGW would (sometimes) get a vision in which the explanation was shown her 3. She would relate the explanation given to her to the brethren 4. They accepted it because it was so clear to them. Of course, if my professor gives a very clear and good explanation, why need to discuss and try to understand it anymore? What’s the point? Seriously?
Thank you for explaining! I agree that SDAs don’t believe in the “notion” (your word, not mine) of eternal security. Do you not agree that we must “ask Jesus into our hearts” or “accept Jesus as Savior?”
The dawning of the light, in early 1845, on the transfer of the ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary which occurred in 1844 ultimately provided a solution to the problem. The pioneers of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, seeking light, saw a door that closed and another which was opened as Christ took up His ministry in the Most Holy Place in the sanctuary in heaven. This unfolding truth enabled our forefathers to maintain their confidence in God's leadings in their past experience, even as they grasped the concept of a great mission yet before them. Ellen White, who passed through the experience, explains this transition of understanding in her 1884 book, The Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 4, in the chapter titled "An Open and a Shut Door" and in The Great Controversy, published a few years later, in a chapter titled "In the Holy of Holies." Reading the setting of the experience in chapter 22, "Prophecies Fulfilled," and chapter 23, "What Is the Sanctuary?" provides an illuminating background. Ellen White also gave helpful explanations in 1883 in a document reproduced in Selected Messages, book 1, chapter 5, "An Explanation of Early Statements."
In 1874, in answering charges made on this point, she declared, "I never had a vision that no more sinners would be converted."[109] Pioneer writers were clear on this as well. For instance, Uriah Smith wrote two years later: The visions have never taught the end of probation in the past, or the close of the day of salvation for sinners, called by our opponents the shut-door doctrine.
The shut door era in Adventist history is a fascinating but involved one. To understand it clearly requires a thorough knowledge of the events of 1844 and the years immediately following. The fact that early Adventists at first concluded that probation closed for the world on October 22, 1844, and that Ellen White's first vision seemed to support this view has for more than a hundred years been used against her by people who seek to impair confidence in her work. Immediately after the passing of the time in 1844, those Adventists who believed prophecy had been fulfilled could only conclude that probation for the world had closed on Oct. 22. The sacrilegious scoffing and sarcasm of worldly people lent credibility to this conclusion. Although the youthful Ellen Harmon at first apparently believed that her visions confirmed the shut door position, she later realized that this was not the case. She did consistently maintain, however, that the door was shut against those individuals who had resisted their honest convictions by rejecting the message of warning. Meanwhile, references in her very first vision to the 144,000 gave a broad hint of a yet future evangelistic thrust.
“In response to your EGW’s quotes about the shut door, she says her first visions were what brought her away from the shut door theory. If you had read the letter that she wrote to Joseph Bates, you would see that that is a lie. Her first visions are what she says confirmed the shut door theory. So again, here she is caught in another lie.” I think she was VERY clear that her definition changed as to what the shut door meant. Notice that she did not receive a definition of the shut door. So naturally, she understood it to be what she had been taught the shut door was. But as she writes, her understanding changed, and therefore, her understanding of the the vision changed as well. Caught in a lie? Actually, she ADMITTED her understanding changed on this. Doesn’t quite sound like you can call that a lie. Here’s a helpful article I found on whiteestate.org.
LOL, of course Desire of Ages is derived. She based them on the Gospel accounts of Jesus. 😂
Honesty, I don’t think we can be good ANY time on our own. WE (emphasis is on we) can never be good. The quote-in-quote “good” we do is really from God, because all good things (that includes our deeds) come from God. On your second question: there is no such thing as loving God only 50% or even 75% of our hearts. There are two options: that we love God “with all our hearts, minds and soul” or we don’t truly love God. It’s like a marriage. Marriage would not be satisfying if your husband loved you 75% of the time and loved his coworker (per instance) the rest of the time. You would throw up your hands and tell him “You don’t truly love me.” It’s the same with God.
Ellen White's statements about the source of her writings refer consistently to the ultimate authority by which she spoke, not to the "diverse manners" in which the Lord communicated to her, nor to the aid she received in expressing God's truth. I hope that’s clear😊
Here’s another example: “I have not been in the habit of reading any doctrinal articles in the paper, that my mind should not have any understanding of anyone's ideas and views, and that not a mold of any man's theories should have any connection with that which I write.” But once again, the context is essential to understanding. This letter was written at a time when G. I. Butler and E. J. Waggoner were locked in heated debate over the meaning of the "law" in Galatians. At this crucial juncture, when she had to counsel both men, she avoided reading doctrinal articles in the paper [The Signs of the Times] in order that her counsel would not bear the mold of either Waggoner's or Butler's theories.
This statement was made in a long article responding to charges from Battle Creek that her reproofs of the church there were merely her own opinions based on gossip she had heard. This charge Mrs. White honestly and forthrightly denied. She affirmed her deep conviction that the messages she bore were messages from heaven. This would not rule out the fact that they might occasionally contain concepts or words gleaned from her reading; but even in such cases it was the Holy Spirit that convicted her of the truth and value of what she was reading.
Here she is clearly drawing a distinction between words she has to provide and divinely dictated words. Since she described her vision of the proper length for women's dresses in different language on different occasions, some women questioned her vision. She had to explain that except in rare instances, the visions did not provide the exact words in which to describe what she was seeing. Elsewhere, Mrs. White wrote: I do not write one article in the paper expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision--the precious rays of light shining from the throne.
A big problem with the quote you provided about EGW saying that every word she wrote was of her own. You quoted her as saying: "My views were written independent of books or of the opinions of others." But when the statement is put in proper context, as it can be found in the Review and Herald of Oct. 8, 1867, one discovers SHE WAS SPEAKING OF HER EARLIEST HEALTH WRITINGS. After her initial writing on health, she tells us in this very same article that she read the books of various reformers and then proceeded to publish excerpts from them in Health: or, How to Live. Why? She says it was to show how the things shown her in vision had also been brought out by other able writers on the subject. It was also in the context of those early health writings that she said: Although I am as dependent upon the Spirit of the Lord in writing my views as I am in receiving them, yet the words I employ in describing what I have seen are my own.
In the end, we see that EGW does not come close to breaking this test of prophet, because 1. that verse deals with prophecies, not Biblical commentary.
1. Jeremiah 23:30 deals with prophets who steal prophecies from OTHER prophets, which she NEVER did. 2. These books are not prophecies, rather her commentary of the Bible stories. All her writings follow the common literary practices of the day. 3. If it is wrong for an inspired author to research and draw upon another person’s understanding of the Bible, you must take offense as well with Luke, who writes that he uses the other written accounts that “many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us.” So if you take offense that an inspired writer like EGW drew upon other people’s work, you MUST take issue with Luke as well. A double standard CANNOT work.
Siri, you wrote: "Umm, none of the quotations you posted said that when “she would suddenly go off into vision and the answer to their question be given to her. Then that was that, they didn’t need to discuss it anymore.” It does not say that like puppets they listened to every word she spoke and followed it. Again the second quote does not say that they blindly followed her. Rather, she was able to give a clear explanation of the subjects they were studying. A far cry from your claim." Let's look at my claim, with the EGW quotes right next to them so that we can see how I came to my conclusion. Me: Often they would all be studying the Bible and debating what certain passages meant. EGW: Sometimes whole nights would be devoted to searching the Scriptures, and earnestly asking God for guidance. Me: She would suddenly go off into vision and the answer to their question would be given to her. EGW: We accepted the truth point by point, under the demonstration of the Holy Spirit. I would be taken off in vision, and explanations would be given me. Me: Then that was that, they didn’t need to discuss it anymore. EGW: They [the brethren] accepted as light direct from heaven the revelations given.
Something has been bothering me and I'd like to correct some thing I said earlier if you all don't mind. On Tuesday, Dec 17, 2019 at 2:09 PM I wrote: "The SDA notion of salvation is really vague as you can probably tell. There is no "moment of rebirth", it's just a lot of "if you love God" and "if you stay close to Jesus", etc. Can you imagine the turmoil? To top that off, I thought it was my fault that I didn't have any assurance and would ask God to forgive me for not being "assured enough"." What I should have written was, "The SDA notion of eternal security [or assurance] is really vague." because that is what I actually meant. In SDA, the method of salvation is always spoken of as "asking Jesus into your heart" and "accepting Jesus as your savior" or other similar terms. I apologize for that, really!
Just a little more clarification, if you don’t mind Siri. “when I say [God looks at the heart], I mean that God judges is by our inner motives. He sees when we love him with all our hearts and desire to be in a relationship with him”. So if I understand your thought process correctly, you are saying that when God judges believers to see if they will go to heaven or not, he will look at our motivations and see if they are good or not. If they are good and if we love him with all our hearts, then he will let us go to heaven? What if our motives are only good 50% of the time, what if we don’t love God with ALL of our hearts and only 75% of our hearts? Will we make it?
In response to your EGWs quotes about the shut door, she says her first visions were what brought her away from the shut door theory. If you had read the letter that she wrote to Joseph Bates, you would see that that is a lie. Her first visions are what she says confirmed the shut door theory. So again, here she is caught in another lie.
That’s not even mentioning the 8 year long SDA church sponsored study into her plagiarism in Desire of Ages which concluded that “The content of Ellen White's commentary on the life and ministry of Christ, The Desire of Ages, is for the most part derived rather than original.” At best, she lied about using other people’s work and trying to pass it off as words from God given to her.
AG Daniels quote says that he feared a lawsuit, not that one was ever formalized. I didn’t claim anything more than that. SDA miss the point with this copyright business. Her plagiarism may not have broken any copyright laws during her time, but that is hardly the point. “Therefore behold, I am against the prophets,” declares the LORD, “who steal My words from each other.” Jeremiah 23:30 NASB. This is just one more way that she fails the test of a prophet. I’m sure you still remember EGW’s claims that nothing she wrote was of her own opinion but everything was “precious rays of light from the throne”. She claims not to have copied anyone. “Although I am as dependent upon the Spirit of the Lord in writing my views as I am in receiving them, yet the words I employ in describing what I have seen are my own, unless they be those spoken to me by an angel, which I always enclose in marks of quotation.” 3SM 49.7
Will respond to the rest tomorrow
Let me respond to the legality of literary borrowing, Attorney Vincent Ramik, who is not a Seventh-day Adventist, investigated Ellen White's use of sources ACCORDING TO THE COPYRIGHT LAWS and cases of the NINETEENTH CENTURY. He concluded that her use did not constitute literary piracy even if all the books from which she drew had been legally copyrighted.
Like many of Ellen White's books, Sketches From the Life of Paul was out of print for some time while Mrs. White worked toward enlarging it into The Acts of the Apostles, but aside from scurrilous speculation and faulty memories, there is no evidence that this had anything to do with any alleged criticism of Ellen White's use of Conybeare and Howson.
When the Crowell company was quizzed about the matter some thirty years later, they replied: We publish Conybeare's Life and Epistles of the Apostle Paul, but this is not a copyrighted book and we would have no legal grounds for action against your book and we do not think that we have ever raised any objection or made any claim such as you speak of. “
Large quantities of Conybeare and Howson's book had earlier been purchased from the Crowell Co. to give away as prizes to those who would secure subscriptions to the Signs of the Times. W. C. White, the only source of information about this letter, wrote that it was written in a "kindly spirit" and contained "no threats of prosecution, nor any complaints as to plagiarism."
In spite of A. G. Daniells' (the President of the Adventist Church) faulty memory in this regard, Mrs. White was never accused of plagiarism by the British authors Conybeare and Howson, nor was she threatened with a lawsuit, NOR WAS HER BOOK WITHDRAWN because of criticisms of its use of sources. In the 1890's there was a letter of inquiry about Sketches From the Life of Paul addressed to the Review and Herald Publishing Association by one of the several American publishers of Conybeare and Howson, the T. Y. Crowell Co. of New York.
It has been rumored that Ellen White was threatened with a lawsuit for her literary borrowing from Conybeare and Howson's Life and Epistles of the Apostle Paul. What are the facts?
I am glad I humored you. You humored me as well when using that very example. For you see, this very example was an “aha” for me to start really scrutinizing what EGW’s opponents attacked her with. 😊
"Those who did not see the light, had not the guilt of its rejection. It was only the class who had despised the light from heaven that the Spirit of God could not reach. And this class included, as I have stated, both those who refused to accept the message when it was presented to them, and also those who, having received it, afterward renounced their faith. These might have a form of godliness, and profess to be followers of Christ; but having no living connection with God, they would be taken captive by the delusions of Satan. These two classes are brought to view in the [first] vision--those who declared the light which they had followed a delusion, and the wicked of the world who, having rejected the light, had been rejected of God. No reference is made to those who had not seen the light, and therefore were not guilty of its rejection" (Selected Messages, book 1, pp. 62-64).
"There was a shut door in Christ's day. The Son of God declared to the unbelieving Jews of that generation, 'Your house is left unto you desolate' (Matt. 23:38). "Looking down the stream of time to the last days, the same infinite power proclaimed through John: "'These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth' (Rev. 3:7). "I was shown in vision, and I still believe, that there was a shut door in 1844. All who saw the light of the first and second angels' messages and rejected that light, were left in darkness. And those who accepted it and received the Holy Spirit which attended the proclamation of the message from heaven, and who afterward renounced their faith and pronounced their experience a delusion, thereby rejected the Spirit of God, and it no longer pleaded with them.
Here is Ellen White's explanation of what she believed regarding the "shut door:" "For a time after the disappointment in 1844, I did hold, in common with the advent body, that the door of mercy was then forever closed to the world. This position was taken before my first vision was given me. [Emphasis supplied. Here Ellen White states that her visions were not the source of her belief in this Millerite error.] It was the light given me of God that corrected our error, and enabled us to see the true position. "I am still a believer in the shut-door theory, but not in the sense in which we at first employed the term or in which it is employed by my opponents. "There was a shut door in Noah's day. There was at that time a withdrawal of the Spirit of God from the sinful race that perished in the waters of the Flood. God Himself gave the shut-door message to Noah: "'My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years' (Gen. 6:3). "There was a shut door in the days of Abraham. Mercy ceased to plead with the inhabitants of Sodom, and all but Lot, with his wife and two daughters, were consumed by the fire sent down from heaven.
Yes, I have. My interest, though, why people find them problematic.
Again the second quote does not say that they blindly followed her. Rather, she was able to give a clear explanation of the subjects they were studying. A far cry from your claim.
Umm, none of the quotations you posted said that when “she would suddenly go off into vision and the answer to their question be given to her. Then that was that, they didn’t need to discuss it anymore.” It does not say that like puppets they listened to every word she spoke and followed it.
Oh! Also I think Skyler or Bible Memorizer asked about verses that support eternal security. You can look up the verse collections on this group page. There is one collection entitled "Eternal Security" that lists a bunch of verses. Take a gander! ;]
James White, Jospeh bates, and Uriah Smith were all anti-trinitarians. Along with many of the other pioneers of the faith. "A selective list of Adventists who either spoke against the Trinity and/ or rejected the eternal deity of Christ include J. B. Frisbie, J. N. Loughborough, R. F. Cottrell, J. N. Andrews, D. M. Canright, J. H. Waggoner, and C. W. Stone." -Ministry magazine. Are there any founders of the SDA church that were trinitarian that you would like to mention Siri? EGW never actually used the word "trinity" in her published works. Which is fine, the Bible doesn't either. But she certainly was not going against the SDA anti-trinitarian view or chastising any pioneers because of their anti-trinitarian views.
And that's just scratching the surface. If any of you guys only have time for videos rather than reading whole books and also like history, this is a really interesting video. It is an interview of Desmond Ford and Walter Rae on the John Ankerberg show back in the early 1980's. These two guys had just caused a great split in the SDA church and they talk to them about what happened. If you can't click the link, just go to youtube and search for those three names together. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnO8BfYqbbg
You are funny Siri, "propagating conspiracy theories". Ha! Was it a conspiracy theory that got her book Sketches from the Life of Paul removed from the shelves because "Credits were not given to the proper authorities" and "There I saw the manifestation of the human in these writings." These quotes are from the president of the general conference in regards to that book. He was worried the church would be sued! "Conybeare and Howson, and were liable to make the denomination trouble because there was so much of their book put into The Life of Paul without any credit or quotation marks."
Have you read her account of her first visions yet Siri? I think it would probably interest you. You can see a copy of the letter she wrote to Joseph Bates recounting it. It shows that her first visions was about the shut-door doctrine (a pre-cursor to the investigative judgement, the shut door doctrine claimed that no one could be saved after 1844). I know that this is from an "anti-SDA" website, but you can skip all the commentary if it bothers you and click straight on the photos of her handwritten letter if you want. http://www.truthorfables.com/EGW_to_J.Bates_1847.htm
And “We are to be established in the faith, in the light of the truth given us in our early experience. At that time one error after another pressed in upon us; ministers and doctors brought in new doctrines. We would search the Scriptures with much prayer, and the Holy Spirit would bring the truth to our minds. Sometimes whole nights would be devoted to searching the Scriptures, and earnestly asking God for guidance. Companies of devoted men and women assembled for this purpose. The power of God would come upon me, and I was enabled clearly to define what is truth and what is error. CIHS 7.3 “As the points of our faith were thus established, our feet were placed upon a solid foundation. We accepted the truth point by point, under the demonstration of the Holy Spirit. I would be taken off in vision, and explanations would be given me. I was given illustrations of heavenly things, and of the sanctuary, so that we were placed where light was shining on us in clear, distinct rays. CIHS 7.4 “
The “faulty description” of EGW and the other founders studying the Bible were taken partially from the following quotes. During this whole time I could not understand the reasoning of the brethren. My mind was locked, as it were, and I could not comprehend the meaning of the scriptures we were studying. This was one of the greatest sorrows of my life. I was in this condition of mind until all the principal points of our faith were made clear to our minds, in harmony with the Word of God. The brethren knew that when not in vision, I could not understand these matters, and they accepted as light direct from heaven the revelations given .”—Selected Messages, 1:206, 207. CIHS 7.1
I see what you mean Siri. Since we have both studied the church, but have come to different conclusions about it, the most charitable thought we can have about each other is that the other just doesn't understand. I'll try to remember that the next time someone seems to imply I don't know what I'm talking about.
I agree Shannon, I have really loved what memorizing verses has done for me. Sometimes when old fears or misunderstandings about God come into my mind, I recall a certain verse. It always helps to 'speak truth to myself".
Larissa, forgive me for hurting you. It NEVER was my intention. I appreciate and value your honesty. I, however, cannot help but notice that we differ on what exactly the Adventist Church believes. I certainly don’t believe you are lying about your understandings about church doctrine, so that is the only plausible way to understand this as I studied the official positions of the church for already two years, plus spoken to some of the leading figures of the Adventist Church. But, I really, really appreciate you and your honesty with me. You have been a blessing to me.
wow you guys talked a lot since I was here last
Here’s a document refuting Walter Rae’s Book: https://whiteestate.org/legacy/issues-whitelie-html/?hl=The%20truth%20about%20the%20white%20lie
Sorry to bother you, Siri, but the link didn’t work for some reason. Could one of you memorize a verse to make the group appear?
Also, here is the entire report a Catholic lawyer did on whether EGW plagiarized. https://whiteestate.org/legacy/issues-ramik-html/
Since Larissa recommended a few books criticizing EGW, I will offer a few recommendations of my own 😊 Better than reading what OTHERS say about EGW, why not read her own books and you judge whether or not she’s truth. I recommend “Steps to Christ” for her beliefs on salvation, also “Faith and Works.”
@Larissa, are people still propagating conspiracy theories about her “copious plagiarism?” That is one of the easiest myths to debunk.
The Millerites DID have faulty beliefs. But the amazing thing about God is that He uses imperfect things for His glory.
“Often they would all be studying the Bible and debating what certain passages meant. She would suddenly go off into vision and the answer to their question hold be given to her. Then that was that, they didn’t need to discuss it anymore.” I kind of wish it were that way because that would have settled a lot of the various arguments going in the church. Most were FAR from just taking EGW at her word. So that is a FALSE description. I’m sorry.
Well, the Adventist Church is more structured than that. If there are dissents (and there certainly are in 21 million people) there is a mechanism to deal with that. But for the most part, the issues dividing the church now is Women’s ordination (which is so stupid.)
Ellen White was a force in the Adventist Church who was a founder. But I’ve studied Adventist history and it was a totally different scene than what you describe. She WAS NOT led by older men who were millerites. She actually chided them and had many differences which led to clashes and many even left the church and began to spread rumors about her. And actually, her visions, contrary to what you said, ARE NOT NECESSARY to understand the Bible.
Actually, only a few of the Adventist founders had unBiblical views. There were not quite so many. So it wasn’t really founded by a bunch of heretics.
On “God looks at the heart”: when I say that, I mean that God judges us by our inner motives. He sees when we love him with all our hearts and desire to be in a relationship with Him. Is that clear?
5. “Which is the real Adventism? Can those early years of heresy be cut out of the church without changing core doctrines like the Investigative judgment and the nature of man and the state of the dead? I don’t think so.” If you’re going by heresy, Martin Luther was a heretic. He had faulty beliefs. Yet no one trashes him like people do some of the Adventist founders. Seriously, God’s going to have to start somewhere. And God starts working right wherever we are. And again I will repeat this: a good number of Adventists who believed in no trinity changed their minds! but going back to your question, I answer “yes!!” On The Investigative Judgment I must say that you have had a wrong knowledge of the what this truly is. I’m telling you, if it TRULY was the way you describe IJ, I would leave Adventism as well! But it isn’t. and I would love to talk about this. On the nature of man, I need to hear your differences to understand what’s going on. On the state of the dead? We have a SOUL. Period.
Yes, a good number of the Adventist founders held anti-Trinitarian views. EGW never did and actually, a good number changed their views. So just because some of the founders had some crazy notions that never became church doctrine, doesn’t (or shouldn’t) make reason for someone to ditch the church. Yes, EGW’s visions changed a lot of beliefs of the early Adventists. But I highly contest the idea that she was shown conflicting messages in her visions, as you alluded to. Even critics admit that EGW was the main force that brought and made official the mainstream Protestant beliefs! 4. “Her visions got much fewer and her doctrines got less and less fanatic. Probably helped that she wasn’t influenced by these founders anymore.” I have yet to read any fanatical vision she had. NOTHING I’ve read that she’s written has contradicted the Bible. Going onto the second sentence: Actually, she and the other leaders had a lot of friction over these very subjects.
Ellen White said herself at the 1888 General Conference when asked that very question: “Why. I have been preaching this very message all along! This is no new light that we have.”
“Why was it inclined into salvation-by-works in the first place? They had EGW visions to guide them. The church was largely salvation by works until then yes. But supposedly, EGW was a prophet before 1888.” 1. Just because they had a prophet in their midst doesn’t mean they will listen to the counsel. Think of Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Jeremiah who preached, taught— and a lot went unheeded. 2. “Supposedly EGW was a prophet before 1888. Why did God create a salvation by works church from the beginning and only changed it 20 years later?” EGW ALWAYS believed in salvation by grace alone. I can show you sermons she gave BEFORE 1888 preaching righteousness by faith. I don’t think God created the Adventist Church believing in salvation-by-works. No! People gradually slid away from the truth and placed greater emphasis on the works of a Christian.
Thu Dec 19 9:55 PM: Amen!
I can’t speak for Skyler, but I have a sneak feeling that he wasn’t trying to make a blanket statement and damn all alcoholics who died because they were under the influence to Hell. Or if you are converted and then decide to turn your back on God later in life and therefore sin.
If I can answer the question you gave Skyler and Bible Memorizer, I would say that we will never stop sinning. Even as born-again Christians.
Siri, also share your understanding of the phrase “moment of rebirth”. I don’t want to put words in your mouth.
Also “White Lie” by Walter Rae. But that’s mostly just about her copious plagiarism.
Ok, that would be awesome if your library had any of these. I’m skeptical. 😉 Anyway, try “White Out” by Dirk Anderson first, if they don’t have that, try “White Washed” by Sydney Cleveland and “Life of Mrs. E G White, Seventh Day Adventist Prophet: Her False Claims Refuted” by DM Canright. This last one is available to read online in PDF format.
forget all those numbers and letters at the end, you can just stop after gov.
😂 yup. That’s only scratching the surface. I can point you to some books about some of the even weirder stuff if you are interested. One thing you can do is go to this newspaper archival site and type in Millerite or Millerism. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/?fbclid=IwAR174tJVaphfaakw0PjmiJCd2_NKa7J2GSNxxOBs0EhlH3blgfCoFYtf1OE
Often they would all be studying the Bible and debating what certain passages meant. She would suddenly go off into vision and the answer to their question would be given to her. Then that was that, they didn’t need to discuss it anymore.
She did. and she didn’t. She was one of the founders. Bit she was very young So she was necessarily led by some older men who were also Millerites. She was the only founding prophet though and they used her visions to decide what scripture we and when they were trying to understand it.
Siri, I have a question that might help us unpack all this a little more. Can you expound on what you believe “God looks at the heart” means? You’ve said it several times in connection to salvation and judgement. Like what is it that God is looking at the heart for in your opinion? I’m not saying your wrong, I just want some clarification on what you are claiming. thanks!
Siri on Deb 18 at 8:52am you said, “Yes, there was a period in the Adventist Church when the church was heavy inclined into salvation-by-works. But EGW and a few ministers spearheaded in 1888 a revival back to the true gospel.” Why was it inclined into salvation-by-works in the first place? They had EGW visions to guide them. The church was largely salvation by works until then yes. But supposedly, EGW was a prophet before 1888. Why did God create a salvation by works church from the beginning and only changed it 20 years later? Interestingly 1890, is also around the time that SDAs started to slowly accept the trinity as truth. before that, SDA was anti-Trinitarian. Can the “true remnant church” actually be founded by arians and anti-Trinitarians. Most of these founders died still holding these views. EGWs visions changed a lot over the course of her ministry. Her visions got much fewer and her doctrines got less and less fanatic. Probably helped that she wasn’t being influenced by these founders anymore. So. Which is the real Adventism? Can those early years of heresy be cut out of the church without changing core doctrines like the investigative judgement and the nature of man and the state of the dead? I don’t think so.
I referring to the phrase “moment of rebirth”. I don’t think that SDAs and Protestants have the same definition.
oh no, you’re confused too? Shoot. Well I was referring back to what I said on DEC 18 12:25 am if that helps.
I have heard a rumor somewhere that a preacher in New York wrote a story for his family and then Joseph Smith borrowed it and said an angel gave it to him on gold plates. That was a long time ago and I didn’t really look much into it but I guess it was interesting enough to stick in my head.
Sure Siri. I’ve tried to share the Protestant Christian definition of rebirth before, I will again and try to compare it to the SDA one. But I think that will have to wait until tomorrow. I gotta go to bed. Good luck on your finals!
Shannon, does your dad think that Joseph Smith’s vision were from the devil?
Akyler and Bible Memorizer, I have a question for you both. If a person sins after receiving Christ as their savior and that means that they can’t go to heaven, what did Jesus save them from in your opinion?
still coughing and run down but a lot better thanks. Now 3 of my 4 kids have it! 😰 Poor pathetic things.
We’d Dec 18 8:45am “Larissa, can you say that is an OFFICIAL belief of the Adventist church, not just an unfortunate widespread misunderstanding of the gospel?” As far as I can tell Siri, my beliefs as and SDA almost perfectly lined up with yours. So the gospel that you, Skyler, and Bible Memorizer are describing is VERY familiar to me. It is distinctly Adventist and it is SDA doctrine that undergirds each point you all have made about eternal security and why you can’t have assurance that you HAVE eternal life. And since you asked me to tell you if you ever offended me, I have to say that every time you imply or state that my experiences are not Adventist and that’s why I left or that I don’t understand SDA teaching, It is very upsetting to me. I had no reason to look for reasons to leave the SDA church. I loved being a member and never could have imagined a scenario in which I could possibly ever have a reason to be a “former”. But God brought me on this journey and here I am. My offense taken is less because I know that when I was an SDA I would’ve said the same thing as you. I remember thinking the SAME thing.
For some reason, this app won’t let me copy and paste...
No, I don’t consider an average Mormon to be an Occultist.
That might be a good idea😊
First of all, most people don’t realize how big the occult is. My family is Jesuit. Most people don’t think them to be occultists.
I don’t blame your dad one bit. If I were in his shoes, I would think the very same thing. I have evidence, alright. But I have to be careful what I say because I signed a non-disclosurer statement when parting ways with occult.
but there are specific cases in which the Holy Spirit was poured out in greater strength upon individuals after their conversion.
Yes, receiving the Holy Spirit is a sign of true conversion. You’re right about that as well, Ava😊
You’re right about Peter. We don’t know exactly when he surrendered his life to God.
@Ava, I don’t think I said that or even meant that. Could you explain? Like what did you understand that I’m claiming? Because I have a hutch you didn’t get what I meant??
Shannon. I am more than happy to share with you what I know. Yes, the Mormon Church was founded by occult. it is a branch of the occult. However, it’s a tightly-kept secret. Only the top top top 2% of the Mormon Church know that it’s part of Occultism, sadly.
Jesus being the only way and What you are claiming can't both be true... If Jesus is THE only way then there can be no way of salvation except through him. You cannot be saved except by believing in what Jesus did on the cross and that he rose again. You can't believe in heresies and be a follower of Jesus. You can't be a poly theist.
Um... I say he was saved whenever he first truly believed that Jesus is savior. I say that he was a foolish new believer with a lot to learn, and the denying was a check of his faith, and through this experience he had sanctification. Because I don't think Peter would have gone to hell had he died before denying Jesus. That experience sanctified Peter. But I wouldn't say it's his salvation. He also didn't have the Holy Spirit yet, they received the holy spirit at Pentacost. When gentiles were first saved, Peter's reasoning involves that they received the Holy Spirit.
The giving of the holy spirit, once it initially happened in Acts, is always accompanied with salvation. There are special fillings of the holy spirit in the nt but whenever someone received salvation, they received the holy spirit
You’re right that it doesn’t say point-blank that he was converted, but reading his story pointing a complete u-turn in his life before denying Jesus and after denying Him. Remember Big Bold Brash Peter? always having an answer to everything? but then, his meekness at the sea of Galilee stands in direct conflict with the Peter we read about earlier. So something must have happened then. I think he experienced heart conversion.
Also, Acts 19:1-7 Paul in Ephesus And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the inland country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John's baptism.” And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying. There were about twelve men in all.
Ava, you asked for a time in the NT after Jesus’ resurrection in which the Holy Spirit was poured out on someone after their conversion. 1. Peter. Peter’s conversion took place when he wept in the Garden of Gethsemane. The Holy Spirit was poured on Peter at Pentecost a few weeks later. 2. Cornelius. The description given twice about Cornelius indicates that his heart was already at rest with God. The Holy Spirit was poured out on him after Paul came to his house.
Please tell me what “different definition” SDAs have??
“Siri, ... your analogy shows first, that you are confusing justification and sanctification. It also shows that YOU don’t believe there is a moment of rebirth.” I apologize that my analogy wasn’t clear on this. It was to make a different point. This analogy never was intended to showcase all my beliefs. 2. I don’t think you can claim that because I have experienced a moment of rebirth. So making such sweeping statements won’t change the fact that I have experienced a moment of rebirth. Btw, EGW also experienced a moment of rebirth. So how you can claim that Adventists don’t believe in a moment of rebirth is beyond me.
Yes, there was a period in the Adventist Church when the church was heavy inclined into salvation-by-works. But EGW and a few ministers spearheaded in 1888 a revival back to the true Gospel. Interestingly, Dave Ratsliffe (I probably am misspelling his name) admits that EGW really pushed the Adventist Church into the mainstream beliefs that our other Protestant Christians hold— on the very subjects we’re discussing now!
Larissa, can you say that is an OFFICIAL belief of the Adventist Church, not just an unfortunately widespread misunderstanding of the Gospel? Because to me, it seems, that you weren’t taught the true gospel by your parents or the local church you attended and therefore conclude that that is official...
I rather not share my gender on a public chat. 😉
Then why are we having this discussion? 😂 Jesus said that the rocks could do the work even!
“So when people listen to the Holy Spirit and ignore Him, they are being charged with faith?” You can’t truly listen to the Holy Spirit without obeying Him.
Shannon, if only more young people were like you and Ava— all powered up and zealous for Christ’s work. It’s so refreshing to read your enthusiasm. Jesus would be here if the church had more people like you. Lethargy is such a sad ailment.
I want to expound on this a little more. “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing the word of God.” This passage indicates that when we hear God’s Word, we receive faith. Now, reading the Bible isn’t the only way to hear God speaking. The Holy Spirit also is God’s Word speaking IN US. So when people listen to the Holy Spirit, even if they don’t have a direct knowledge of Jesus’ ministry on earth, they are being charged with faith. That is the Holy Spirit’s role!! To lead and guide us into ALL truth. Remember what Jesus told the disciples about the Holy Spirit? This is the comforter’s role.
“‘Blessed are those who believe and have not seen’ ... is talking about all those who have not physically seen the risen Savior.’ In the present sense of the story, true. But Jesus, when He said that, also had a way broader meaning than that! There is a blessing to ANYONE who believes without seeing!
“That makes your salvation dependent on whether you are good. Think about it. Are you really saved fully by grace and not by works if doing a bad work could make you lose your salvation?” 1. I totally disagree with people who believe that if your last act was bad (before you died), then you won’t be saved. I’ve said this time and time again: God looks at the heart. 2. Not believing in eternal security does not mean that works are the way to salvation. No, in fact, I believe that this increases our dependency on God. On our own strength, I can never resist Satan’s attacks. But praise God! I don’t have to. That’s the whole point of conversion. It’s surrendering to God’s will and in return God is our “very present help in trouble.”
Shannon: “I believe that if you are searching for the truth God will give you a vision or send a missionary.” So true! There are thousands of ways of which we know nothing!
Siri, on Dec. 17 at 8:10pm, your analogy shows first, that you are confusing justification and sanctification. It also shows that YOU don’t believe there is a moment of rebirth. Apparently you have to wait until Jesus is finished perfecting you before you can be secure in your salvation. Other comments that you, Skyler and Bible Memorizer have posted show that you don’t believe in a moment of rebirth. I don’t think you are lying or anything. Most likely what is happening here is that you don’t understand that SDAs have a different definition for that phrase than the rest of us Protestants.
Siri, name one time in the nt, after the resurrection, when being filled with the holy spirit isn't associated with salvation
Shannon, how is the little 4 year old girl? is she out of danger or still really struggling?
My husband and I have discussed this very question. I want to ask God when I get to heaven in what moment I was born again. But I think, yes that I was saved while I was still a member of the SDA church. I also believe that there are many regenerate believers in Adventism. You can hear the gospel preached in some Adventist churches today. But there are more complications when you add in historical SDA thought and it can cloud the true simplicity and beauty of the gospel of grace. I think in many cases what ends up happening is true belief in two contradicting ideas at the same time. For example, as an SDA I would have told you that we are saved by grace alone but in the next breath I might have said we can’t be sure we’re saved because at some future point we might not follow God well enough. And then not understood how those contradict....
Siri, can you get me the link to our group?
I would love to see Bible references saying that those who’ve never heard the Gospel won’t be saved. Giving me that verses that say Jesus is the only way to salvation won’t help because that is an uncontested issue.
So this story actually helps my belief because it shows how a man, who was converted, hadn’t learned the whole truth.
On Cornelius: 1. Sharron wrote: “The Bible says, that even though he was a Godly man, who worshiped God the Father, it is only after He believes in Jesus Christ’s the Son, that he is SAVED and received the Holy Spirit.” I capitalized the word “saved” because interestingly, “saved” does not appear once in Cornelius’ story. In fact, I have reason to believe that Cornelius had already been converted.
We can NEVER make up for our sin. Just as Larissa pointed out, grace is a gift from God! A gift isn’t something you deserve, something you’re entitled to. Grace is a gift from God.
Ava: “Returning the stolen items would not forgive or make up for that sin.” Here is where Jesus’ grace kicks in.
“You cannot have a relationship with Jesus without repenting according to his standards and trusting in his work on the cross and resurrection.” I totally agree. Period. But what about the people who never even heard about Jesus? will they perish for something that wasn’t their fault? That’s so painful. To think that we are to blame that billions are dying and won’t be saved....
Ava wrote: “You have to know who Jesus is to be following him.... You have to know what something is to believe in it.” There is something called faith. “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of a thing not seen.” Basically, what’s you’re saying is like Thomas. Unless I “know what something is” or “know who Jesus is,” (in your own words) can I follow and believe in Him. Even Jesus said there is a special blessing to those who believe without seeing.
Am praying you recover quickly!
Larissa, I’ve said this before: I think that you believe that Adventists don’t believe in the saving power of Jesus, that Adventists don’t believe that it is by faith alone that we are saved. I want you to know: Never have I heard Adventists preach a works-based gospel. The only place I’ve heard that they believe in works-not-faith-salvation is on anti-Adventist websites.
@Shannon and Larissa, could you please explain how not believing in eternal security makes me believe in salvation-by-works? I don’t get the logic.
On your post on Justification and Sanctification. I agree 100% with it. The Adventist Church believes that as well. The last sermon I heard was on that very subject: sanctification vs. justification and it expounded on the very things you outlined.
“The SDA notion of salvation is really vague as you can probably tell. There is no ‘moment of rebirth’ [sheer nonsense], it’s just a lot of ‘if you love God’ and ‘if you stay close to Jesus,’ etc. Can you imagine the turmoil? To top that off, I thought it was my fault that I didn’t have any assurance and would ask God to forgive me for not being ‘assured enough.’” Larissa, you made me very sad that you claim that the Adventist Church does not believe that. I apologize as a member of the Adventist Church for it not showing you the true gospel. Praise God, I have been taught (by Adventists) what you say you were never taught. I find that appalling and praise God you’ve come to a clearer light on this issue.
One thing I want to note is the difference between justification and sanctification. I copied this from thgospelcoalition. "Justification refers to God’s declaration that someone is determined to be righteous in his sight. This justification is a one-time act whereby God declares a sinner like you and me to be not only not guilty but perfectly righteous before his high bar of justice. How does God do this and maintain his justice? The basis for the divine declaration is the doing and dying of Christ. God credits (or imputes) us with the righteousness (merit) of Jesus. We are justified by grace (a gift) through faith (trusting in Jesus). Some great verses are Rom. 3.24; 4.1-5; 5.1; 2 Cor. 5.21, Tit. 3.7.
Sanctification, on the other hand, is the continual process of being made more holy. It is the progressive conformity of the one who has been justified into the image of their Savior through the work of the Holy Spirit. Like justification, sanctification is a work of grace through faith. And, sanctification is possible because of the finished work of Christ on our behalf. Some great verses are Rom. 6; 8; Tit. 3.5; 1 Thess. 4.3, 5.23; Heb. 12.14; 2 Pet. 3.18; Jud. 1.20.
What’s the difference? A few helpful things to remember about the two:
-Justification happens outside of you, you are declared righteous.
-Sanctification happens inside of you, you are made righteous.
-Justification is a one-time event, and sanctification is a continual process. When we are justified, we are declared righteous positionally (that is, before God we are righteous). However, while we are positionally righteous, we are practically not perfectly righteous. While doubtless growing in grace, we are still, when compared to Christ, unrighteous. Sanctification then is the gradual conformity to the likeness of Christ. In other words, sanctification is the gradual process of becoming practically what we are positionally (righteous).
-Justification is not being made righteous.
-Justification is not based upon what we do."
There are so many things I want to respond to specifically but I think I only have the energy for one or two things. Still basically couch bound. This has been a bad year for illnesses so far. :[
The SDA notion of salvation is really vague as you can probably tell. There is no "moment of rebirth", it's just a lot of "if you love God" and "if you stay close to Jesus", etc. Can you imagine the turmoil? To top that off, I thought it was my fault that I didn't have any assurance and would ask God to forgive me for not being "assured enough".
Yes, I agree with you Shannon. Understanding eternal security is way up there in importance to me. I think this conversation between us and SDAs shows that it is more than just Calvinism vs Arminianism but like you say, it boils down to grace vs works salvation.
Shannon and Ava, I pray that my children will grow up understanding the gospel like you both do. Reading your responses brought me to tears, just as it does when I hear grace preached at my new church.
PLEASE keep this conversation here! This is what I've been wanting. We are finally unpacking some differences. These have always been there but aren't obvious to see because we use similar terminology.
no no no I did not mean it like that I meant it in a good way like it is insane how much you guys are posting not anything about what you said I realize how that could have Ben taken differently sorry 😐
By this standerd, you could make the argument that Muslims are following God as best they can, so they'll make it. FALSE. God will only save those who have repented and trusted in Jesus.
Returning the stolen items would not forgive or make up for that sin
I memorized this whole book, I've read commentaries,looked at greek, heard sermons on this passage. Not what Paul is saying. His point there is that God is just in condemning those who haven't heard. That's why he addressed it. He heard the objection you're making that it would be unjust to condemn them, but he says that they have the law written in their conscious, So they are condemned justly.
You cannot have a relationship with Jesus without repenting according to his standards and trusting in his work on the cross and resurrection
I got to run to class now. Will reread our conversation and then I’ll write.
Maybe I’m not writing clearly?
That’s not what I think Paul is saying. I think he’s saying that they (the Gentiles) will be judged according their standard, aka their conscience. You may, per day, steal something and violate your conscience, but then your conscience pricks you to return the stolen item, you’re living by what you know. What triggers you to return the item? Your (unknown) relationship with Jesus!
You have to know who Jesus is to be following him. No offense, that is the most illogical statement I've heard in a while. You have to know what something is to believe in it. And salvation is repenting of sin, and trusting ALONE IN JESUS.
Whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking it all. Even if they kept most of their law, they will have broken it once. Therefore they are condemned.
I believe he's hypothetical with the excuse there. Because in the flow of the passage, what he's saying makes sense to be that their law will accuse them on the day of judgment, but if somehow they managed to keep it perfectly they would hypothetically be saved.
Just because you don’t realize that you’re trusting in Jesus, doesn’t make you not a believer in Him!!
Ummm, I already said I KNOW AND BELIEVE that Jesus is the only way. My point is that you don’t have to know, point-blank, that you’re following Jesus.
So in other words, when people try to live up their conscience as best they can, God will judge them according to their standard by Jesus Christ.
I memorized Romans 2... That's not what it's saying. Besides, theologians have a rule in hermeneutics, when there are two passages saying different things, interpret the easy one as true and then examine the harder one in light of that one. John 14 is clear Jesus is the ONLY way. So what that is saying will not contradict John 14
Notice how it says that “their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when... God judges the secrets of men by Jesus Christ.”
Yeah, the law on their hearts condemns them. I guarantee you that EVERY PERSON ON EARTH has broken their conscious AT LEAST once. I break my own standards every day.
You are alluding to God's love rather than his word. If you are going to disagree with me, respond with scripture, not with sympathy
Romans 2:12-16 God's Judgment and the Law For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
No, but I believe you are saying heresy. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life NO ONE comes to the father except through ME."
What scriptures do you have to back this up? I have a ton. I haven't heard you refer to God's word when claiming this. Nothing I have said contradicts scripture. If you disagree, Show me the scripture to back it up.
Was it their fault that they didn’t know better?
When I say I believe Jesus is the only way. I BELIEVE HE IS THE ONLY WAY
You cannot have the holy spirit without Jesus. When you become saved the Holy Spirit comes on you. It worked a little different in the old testament but now, no one can be with the holy spirit without being saved. YOU CANNOT HAVE THE HOLY SPIRIT WITHOUT THE GOSPEL. The holy spirit was a gift to the followers of Jesus.
So you’re saying that all the millions who’ve died living their religion to the utmost without knowing anything better will all end up in hell?
In essence I agree with Mon Dec 16 8:46 PM. Christ will and does continue “the good work that He began in us.” But I believe we can cut Him off and not allow Him to finish. I was at my hairdresser and there was this little boy who didn’t want to get his haircut. They cut part of his hair off, but then the little boy decided that was enough and ran off the chair and tried to hide his head. In the same way, we can submit ourselves to God but then have a change of heart and decide that’s not what we want to do. I can’t stress this enough: GOD NEVER LETS GO. We however have the ability to let go.
If someone doesn't know the gospel, they will not love God as who he is. If they don't love God rightly, then they cannot worship him rightly. And any good works they have will be to earn salvation. Because as humans we always try to earn salvation. A gift seems to easy, and God's plan is simple to understand, and yet, no one can ever understand fully. No one in Africa would come up with the gospel rightly on their own. God may reveal part of his gospel to them through visions and they may start searching, but they won't get the whole gospel until missionaries come to share.
@Shannon on Mon Dec 16 8:41 PM: Amen!!
Yes, faith and works is a very important subject.
People may know nothing about Jesus, but if they have the Holy Spirit, they have Jesus. (Jesus and the Holy Spirit are equal.) They may not have all the knowledge, but as long as they follow the light, they will be saved.
It was implied, so I believe that it is important to address.
I trust that God will be completely fair. If a person who has never heard the name of Jesus, but then was dissatisfied with whatever religion they had, and knew it was false, and was searching for God, and cried out to whatever being was out there asking for truth, then I know God would send someone to tell them. I've heard many missionary stories where the missionaries have been an answer to prayer, or visions.
@Ava, I don’t think that’s what Skyler is saying. He wrote: “I don’t think are saved by your works but I think that you are saved by the spirit today your heart.” In other words, where your heart is. Good works are “fruit of the spirit—“ they are indicators that the Holy Spirit dwells within you and me. “By their fruits you will know them.” James makes it pretty clear what role works have in the Christian’s life. We do good works, NOT FOR SALVATION, but so that “others may see you and glorify your father who is in Heaven.”
I agree that our works NEVER save a person. However, I believe that it would not be fair for God not to save those who’ve never heard about Christ, yet lived in a God-fearing manner in the light they had.
Skyler... You cannot be saved by trying to do right. The ONLY way to salvation is through Jesus. If there was another way, Jesus wouldn't have died. Often though, whenever someone in a country is searching for God, then missionaries will come soon after. God orchastrates all of that. Or he'll give them visions of himself and then missionaries come to explain. All our righteousness is filthy rags... We can't earn salvation, no one can. It's an act of grace.
but what if you had faith and good works yet you have become a disbeliever a do bad works? can the good works of yesterday blot our the bad works of today?
i think that if someone who does not know about god is good and tries to do what is right but does not worship god that they will go to heaven because they were trying to be kind and not mean
i don’t think you are saved by your works but I think that you are saved by the spirit of your heart
So would God talk to a unconverted man so intimately as He did to Balaam?
And reading the story of Balaam, he actually was a real prophet. Remember that he said he couldn’t go with the men because God told him not to?
Actually, Balaam himself prophesied about Jesus’s birth.
Balaam was actually more of a pagan prophet... IF he is in heaven, he would have had to trust that a Jewish Messiah would come and save the world...
It’s too subjective an issue to place such broad statements...
I think I get what you mean, Skyler, but it really isn’t like that in ALL cases. some, perhaps, but it really isn’t like that all the time.
I like to think of baelem(I hope that’s how it’s spelled. he was a profit of God and trusted Him in every circumstance, but greed overtook him so that he would do anything for money. do you think he is going to heaven?
i think that eternal security is not a truth because you could be saved and then do bad stuff after word until you die and then in heaven you would cause trouble and not be kind to others
SDA doesn’t believe in eternal security. but in that question i think that god would judge you according to your life of how you loved god at that point. if you did good all your life and then hated god right before you died you wouldn’t go to heaven, so I think if you got drunk you probably wouldn’t go to heaven
and sorry, you’re correct that unconverted people have in some degree the Holy Spirit and can commit the unpardonable sin.
I already believe that. When I’m in a relationship with Jesus, I know it. One can’t lie from themselves. Our difference is that you believe that if a person rejects God, never did they experience true conversion, while I believe that a person may experience true conversion and fall out. It’s really not that huge difference in our understanding because, in the end, those who are with Jesus ALL will be saved.
there is no point for me being in this group anymore because it is way too active
Yes Bible.Memorizer,.we are discussing whether the Calvinist doctrine is true, that if you are really saved, you will stay saved, or if the Arminian side is true, that salvation can be lost. We are going to discuss this further on the Calvinism vs Arminainism group
the question is can someone who is saved become not saved?
I rather not enter such ground. God only can say that they had the Holy Spirit or not. For certain, some of them did for certain.
I disagree that it is impossible that for a believer to blaspheme because A. having the Holy Spirit is the mark of conversion so if someone blasphemes the Holy Spirit, he/she must have the Holy Spirit in the first place. How can you blaspheme something you don’t have?
Let's talk about this On our Calvinism vs Arminainism group
“Can an SDA clarify what you think could make you loose salvation?” This is different from person to person. Have you heard about the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? If someone blasphemes the Holy Spirit, they will lose their salvation. I cannot say what exactly would trigger blasphemy of the Holy Spirit because it is different for every person.
“If you mess up a little too badly then you lose your eternal life.” Paul makes it clear that our righteousness is like dirty rags. In other words, never will we be perfect!! It is Christ alone that salvation is found. It is a gift— something we have to receive. We can choose to throw it away, or keep it but it is OUR choice.
“If you don’t believe in eternal security, then in a way, you believe a works based gospel. Because you have to be so good in order to get to Heaven.” I totally disagree. GOD’S RIGHTEOUSNESS IS WHAT COVERS US! We have to accept His righteousness. He only gives His righteousness to those who BELIEVE in Him. We can stop believing in Him.
When we are with Jesus, we WILL know that we DO have eternal life. If we’re not with Jesus, we naturally won’t have eternal life.
It’s the same thing. If one can renounce evil, they can renounce good.
Look. I’m born into the occult. My family from the time of the Reformation have been in the occult. I am a direct descendant from a powerful Counter-Reformation leader. According to what you’re saying, that makes me forever an occultist. However that is NOT the case. I praise God it isn’t. I can renounce all my past and occultism.
How could God allow Adam and Eve to sin when “nothing can legally change the fact that they were being into His family.”
God NEVER disowns us. We can disown him. You asked: “How could He.... let you disown Him?” God allowed Adam and Eve to make a choice. They had the ability to choose life or death. God was very clear. They were the children on God! They had direct communication with Him. But they had the power of choice. And God respected that choice.
I don’t understand how John 10:27-29 says that?
On Sat Dec 14 9:16 AM: Amen!
God never lets go, true. But we obviously can let go. The ball is ALWAYS on our side of the field. No one can snatch you from His hand, also correct. No one but yourself if you choose to get out. God never holds someone who doesn’t want to be with Him. He has given EVERYONE freedom of choice.
Ahhh. You’re spot on! As I said, it varies from case to case. God looks at the heart.
“Once you become Jesus’ child, He can not legally unadopt you.” So true!! But we are the ones who make the decision. God chooses ALL PEOPLE for salvation. We are all “sons of God and heirs of His Kingdom.” Some people stupidly refuse to accept it.
No, because Judas never repented and truly followed Jesus. His heart was NEVER in the right place
On Sat 14 9:09 AM: Yes, all who’ve experienced conversion are legally part of the family of God. However, people choose whether to continue the ties or to sever them. We have choice. Like in the parable where one son said “yes, I’ll work in your field today,” and ended up not working. while the other one said “no, I won’t” but actually DID work in the field.”
According to that logic, Judas Iscariot will be saved even though he committed suicide.
No, we are NOT dependent on works for our salvation. Could you tell me whether works has a role in a Christian’s life, though?
“Do you mean to say that God cannot forgive that [they committed suicide, therefore] God cannot forgive that and they’re in hell?” Unfortunately, I don’t have the answer for that. It varies from case to case. God is the judge and He will judge according to the heart.
I said I think that that man who killed himself will, but they certainly will be those who committed suicide who won’t be saved. Again, it is a matter of where your heart is.
what versus you have to prove that “once saved always saved”
“If the Spirit is what gives me life and He departs from me when I sin, then if I sin and then die, I am lost. How is this not works [for] salvation? If there is no ladder of works to climb to reach salvation, then there is no ladder of WORKS to climb down that will cause me to lose my salvation.” I think you’re confusing two concepts. First, God looks at the heart. If this man, in your story, repeatedly strayed to his addiction, because of shunning the Holy Spirit’s warning (a.k.a., blaspheming the Holy Spirit), I think the logical explanation is that he won’t be saved. Again, the alcohol IS NOT the root problem. it is a spiritual problem. So this would not be a works-based salvation. 2. Again, Jesus looks at the heart. For some people, they will be still saved, while others won’t. So it’s a little risky to make such broad statements because each situation is unique. So a man in the occult understood that he was on Evil’s side. And I believe he was converted. But the agony and not being able come out of it forced him to commit suicide. Do you think that this man won’t be saved because of his final act? After all, it wasn’t his choice to be an occultist! I think he will be saved, because, again God looks at the heart. But for other people who commit suicide, that will impede their salvation.
On your hypothetical situation: I don’t know how that would work because when you’re dead, you can’t have the Spirit anyway, cause you’re dead😂. Second, I think that this story and the moral pertained to it is really over-reading what EGW said. As I said before, that excerpt is from a letter, so how can you say that she believed that was for everyone? I already explained how this counsel is not anti-Biblical or contradictory (our first question.)
Oh dear, will pray you recover quickly. And I really appreciate your prayers!
@Shannon, no I don’t believe in eternal security. I believe that we must “die daily.”
I just saw a meme that I thought was really beautiful and speaks to this. "The LORD did not check to see who inside the house was worthy. He checked for blood on the doorpost. None are worthy. The blood of Christ covers us." We don't lose our salvation if we sin after accepting Christ. We don't lose our salvation if haven't yet "remed[ied] the defects in our characters".
On the topic of foods and drinks and what drives the Holy Spirit away.... Let's discuss a hypothetical situation. Let's say I drank alcohol to the point of drunkenness (which the Bible speaks against) and the Holy Spirit leaves me as EGW suggests He would, and then right after He leaves me, I get hit by a car and die, what would happen to me? I don't have the Holy Spirit indwelling me anymore according to EGW so I am lost and can't go to heaven? Romans 8:11 says "And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you." If the Spirit is what gives me life and He departs from me when I sin, then if I sin and then die, I am lost. How is this not works salvation? If there is no ladder of works to climb to reach salvation, then there is no ladder of WORKS to climb down that will cause me to lose my salvation.
Praying for you Shannon and you Siri, that your parents will leave the occult.
Hey everyone, I'm back. I was on vacation and am now sick. Just mustered up enough energy to post on here quick so that you guys don't think I died or something! ;) Shannon, I applaud your decision to follow your parent's rules. I hope you will be able to post! I've really appreciated your input on this and other groups. Maybe if you show your parents some of the things we've talked about here and in other groups they wouldn't feel so concerned?
sorry that that happened, I’ll pray for you, hope things get better
my no doesn’t like technology but she isn’t that much freaked out like that
Let me just tell you, you’re doing the right thing by following your parents wishes! You’ll be blessed 10-fold.
Thank you so much for your prayers! Please pray for my parents to leave the occult.
Shannon, I will miss you and your input. Will pray that your parents decide the right thing to do!
In the end, we’re all going to die. No matter what we eat, drink, do, we’re eventually going to become dust (if Jesus doesn’t come before that). So what is MOST IMPORTANT is our spiritual health. But for some people (the people EGW addresses in these quotes), that will include taking care of our bodies health. But in the end what matters is our state with God. All else is paltry.
No, by NO means is tea drinking/coffee is on the same level as alcohol. Again, it’s not herbal tea, but black/green tea that is bad.
Coffee is actually considered a mild drug. Unfortunately, you don’t hear that often because the coffee industry has done such a good job advertising their product.
Shannon, that’s perfectly alright! That’s why I said this varies from person to person. No, you can’t get drunk on coffee though. But I guess you asked the wrong person about how often people have caffeine-induced problems. My dad is a neurologist. He constantly tells patients that their coffee is the problem.
You’re absolutely correct! That’s why it isn’t a sin for everyone to eat meat, drink coffee, etc.
I don't have a caffeine dependency.... I don't drink it often enough to form one... I don't like alcohol of any kind... However the Bible doesn't condemn alcohol itself, it condemns drunkenness... But the wise course is to not drink at all, because if you don't drink, you cannot get drunk. Just saying what the Bible says.
Unfortunately, I can’t copy and paste from this app...
I agree with you about the alcohol.
I hope that’s clear? Do you get what I mean?
You’re so true that many good Christians in the Bible ate meat. Even Jesus ate meat! So again, meat-eating isn’t something that FOR EVERYONE is wrong. There is a huge distinction between meat-eating being a requirement for salvation and an issue that God convicts certain, select people to stop eating. EGW is addressing that select group.
Notice that EGW says that this is only applicable to those who “know how they should eat for health.” So even EGW was saying that this is for people who’ve been convicted by the Holy Spirit about their eating habits.
“Are you saying those who overeat cannot have the Spirit?” Yes and no. Yes, if the Holy Spirit has CONVICTED you that you’re sinning by overeating so often. No, if the Holy Spirit hasn’t made it an issue.
2. We live in a sin-stricken world. God looks at the heart, right? Imagine that you’ve been convicted to donate your all of your money for a specific cause. You know God is calling YOU to give up the money. Naturally, however you don’t want to and you struggle and push away your conscience which tells you “give the money!!” Do you think that God, after seeing you resist doing the very thing the Holy Spirit has been convicting you to do, will still bless you with the same Spirit you pushed away? No, He won’t. God respects your choice. Substitute coffee (or anything else unhealthy) instead of money into the story. Will God give you the Holy Spirit, to quote EGW, “while they persist in a course that will enfeeble mind and body,” even though “they know how they should eat for health?”
You mentioned that alcohol destroys the brain. That’s so true!! But coffee also destroys the brain as well. As you know, coffee contains caffeine which is a stimulant that it blocks drowsiness in the brain. That’s why most people drink coffee, right? But as is the case with stimulants, you need more and more caffeine to get the same job done. And caffeine dependency is formed. Many of the symptoms are severe. Depression, sleep apnea, sleep disorders, drowsiness because pretty soon your nerves aren’t sensitive anymore and stimulated any longer. One other issue with caffeine is that because it creates unnatural stimulation on the brain, the brain stops producing vital chemicals, which may cause brain damage. Tea (EGW isn’t talking about herbal tea; she is talking about green/black tea) also has caffeine is fermented for several weeks. So basically you’re drinking something like of like an alcoholic beverage.
Shannon, I get your confusion! Let me say this before delving into the questions you raised: the issue isn’t really about food— what we drink, eat, etc. Because that is very subjective, and it varies from person to person.
Shannon, so good to have you back here!
Jesus is who is really great. From then on, it’s really pointless to argue greatness. If I remember correctly , Jesus even rebuked some disciples about this😂
Well then I can say that the truth is great and I hope you sda find it... No offense to SDA
I think if we’re to have such a conversation, Skyler, we should probably move to another group. Trying to be inclusive here 😉
Just got baptized this Saturday, however I’ve been considering myself Adventist for about a year
Isn’t the truth great?(no offense non SDA people)
I’m back from the trip now
And so, most, if not all, of the excerpts Larissa shared, are from letters EGW penned. And each person se counseled had a different case, a different story, a different background. So we can’t go and say, “Oh, EGW said that. That means it’s applicable to everyone.” It’s like the Rich Young Ruler. Just because Jesus told HIM to sell everything doesn’t mean that automatically every Christian has to sell their belongings. Some may be called to, of course, but it’s only applicable to a certain few. Here’s a major difference between the Bible and EGW. The Bible was written for all humanity. It was written for the entire world to read it and obey the principles found in it. EGW’s writings are mostly written in a case-by-case scenario dealing with each person individually. So we can’t assume that when EGW says in a letter, “drinking coffee is sin,” that it is sin for everyone. We don’t know who she was writing that to, and why she was saying that. It’s like a doctor. Larissa’s husband is a physician, so he can relate. You don’t prescribe the same medication to every patient. No. Because each case is different and the each patient has different ailments. So you have to keep an individualized plan for the patient to return to health. It’s the same way with EGW’s counsel.
Those are two very important rules. I love how they’re put!
Ava, thanks so much for making me clarify. LOL. No, I don’t think you’re sinning when you drink coffee every morning. A lot of Adventists do so as well. It all nails down to what Jesus is convicting you to do. For you, and many others, you won’t have an issue spiritually (I’m not talking about the health implications here). But for me, I (and this is something personal which doesn’t apply to everyone), I’m one of those “weak” people who only eats vegetables. For me, it would be sin, because I’m violating my conscience if I drink coffee. But for you, and everyone else, that often isn’t the case. In the end this is a personal decision.
My youth pastors rules of life are don't be sinful and don't be stupid, not everything that is stupid is sinful but everything that is sinful is stupid. I think he has good rules there that help me see how I would interpret this. Coffee may be a stupid thing to do, but no scripture indicates that it is sinful. Wine however, is warned about in the Bible, but wine itself is not condemned, drunkenness is, so drunkenness is sinful, therefore wine should probably be avoided, just to be safe.
So siri, do you really believe that me drinking coffee in the morning once a week, (I drink it black), is SINFUL? Not just unhealthy? Really? I find no BIBLICAL basis for that at all.
And just to make it perfectly clear, what I wrote about the end-times seal wasn’t directly based on the excerpts you shared. I was sharing belief on the matter, so that those who aren’t as aquatinted with this belief get a rounded picture. Just making sure everything is clear, so that we don’t have a future misunderstanding. Have a blessed night!😊
Really, Larissa, this is isn’t “another example of a difference in understanding between SDA and regular Protestant belief.” It’s another example of the beliefs we have in common with the rest of the Protestant world.😊
You wrote: “Protestants believe that when a person trusts in Jesus as their Savior, they are born again.” All Adventists I’ve met believe this. And I’ve spoken with theologians such as Mark Finley, Ted Wilson, John Bradshaw, etc. These are some of the most famous Adventist theologians. And ALL of them believe in what you said. “At that moment the Old has passed away and they are a new creature. This all happens spiritually. It’s not like they all of a sudden become perfectly behaved, although God does work on us until Jesus comes.” If you think that Adventist Church and EGW did not believe in that, let me break the news. This is something the Adventist Church fully believes in. I agree that people with dementia will be saved because God looks at the heart. If I were saying that demented people won’t be saved, that means I would have to include my grandmother, who died from dementia.
You wrote: “ Ooooh, here’s a good one! ‘God cannot let His Holy Spirit rest upon those who, while they know how they should eat for health, persist in a course that will enfeebled mind and body.” James has the response for you when he said it is sin when we don’t do good when we know we should do it.
“Here’s another, “The transgression of physical law is the transgression of God’s law... And the human being who is careless and reckless of the habits and practices that concern his physical life and health, sins against God.” So you don’t agree with that? Let’s make a deal. Tonight, take a nice big dose of LSD, or if you prefer some cocaine and then we can talk whether EGW was wrong when she wrote that “the human being who is careless and reckless of the habits and practices that concern his physical life and health, sins against God.”
“EGW never said, ‘Eating meat is sin.’ You are correct [yay?]. She came close though [really??]. For example, ‘It is a as truly a sin to violate the laws of our being as it is to break the Ten Commandments.” Let’s unpack that. When we “violate the laws of our being” by not sleeping for several days straight, what happens? We die! If I’m not mistaken, there is a commandment that says “Do not kill.” That’s killing oneself! Need another example? Try “violate[ing] the laws of our being” by being promiscuous and having sex with multiple partners. That breaks one of the commandments and puts one up higher for infectious diseases, sometimes death!
And besides, I DID say “for salvation reasons.” You even quoted me saying that in the same post you said I didn’t say such a thing. Hmmm.
“You didn’t say ‘for salvation reasons’ and I didn’t either.” If you do something for religious reasons, you’re doing it for salvation reasons, too. Ok?
“According to your definition, EGW is wrong.” That isn’t true. You have yet to show me a place where EGW says that we will be saved by what we eat. (She never said anything like that.)
On Sun Dec 1 3:17: Excuse me, but you yourself said this: “The Holy Spirit inspired Paul to instruct the Colossians not to listen to the human teachers who say ‘don’t handle, don’t taste, don’t touch.’ when Paul never said such a thing.
“Not one of us will ever receive the seal of God while our characters have one spot or stain upon them. IT IS LEFT WITH US to remedy the defects in our characters. to cleanse the soul-temple of every defilement.” Yes, it is left with us to remedy the defects of characters. “It is left with us” does not mean WE do it, rather we GIVE GOD PERMISSION to cleanse us. God never forces us. We have to choose to follow him.
In its setting, then, her assertion that "it is a sin to be sick" really means that one should try to find the cause for the illness and make whatever change is necessary to promote healing. She was not making a blanket statement that anyone who is sick is therefore shown to be a sinner until regaining health. Her statement about suffering for one's parents' sins shows that she did not hold such a position. Rather, I believe she was doing no more than saying, "Most often, there is something you can do to regain and preserve your health, and if it’s in your power to do so, God holds you responsible if you fail to do it. Take charge of your body— it’s a gift from God that you have no right to squander. This will deliver you from many of the sicknesses that you now suffer."
Quote 2: EGW's concern here is found in the opening question: "What course shall I take to best preserve my health?" Her answer, written to a specific person, which a specific case, basically, is to live in harmony with God's laws concerning our health and well-being. She correctly noted that "all sickness is the result of transgression." Remember that the origin of sickness certainly goes back to Adam and Eve, who before sin were not subject to illness at all. The entry of sin into the world brought with it sickness and death. You see, EGW did not blame the sick person for every illness that comes upon him or her. She noted that "many are suffering in consequence of the transgression of their parents." The sufferers are not the sinners here. Though "all have sinned," she was not laying blame for the sickness in this case on the sick person, but on the parents. Even so, she maintained that there was something the sick person could do: "change their course, and place themselves by correct habits in a better relation to health." Her phrase "a better relation to health" implies improvement but does not guarantee complete healing in every case.
Here’s the second quote with the context around it: “Many have inquired of me, "What course shall I take to best preserve my health?" My answer is, Cease to transgress the laws of your being; cease to gratify a depraved appetite; eat simple food; dress healthfully, which will require modest simplicity; work healthfully; and you will not be sick. {CH 37.1} It is a sin to be sick, for all sickness is the result of transgression. Many are suffering in consequence of the transgression of their parents. They cannot be censured for their parents' sin; but it is nevertheless their duty to ascertain wherein their parents violated the laws of their being, which has entailed upon their offspring so miserable an inheritance; and wherein their parents' habits were wrong, they should change their course, and place themselves by correct habits in a better relation to health. {CH 37.2}”
On the 1st quote: We mustn't forget the context of the quote. On first glance, it does appear to say that for all people, “EGW claims [tea and coffee drinking] is a sin" when in reality that's not what she's saying. This excerpt is from a letter she penned to a friend. In it, she describes an illness she had (some kind of stomach bug, it sounds). And so, in the letter, she writes how she went to a "Health Home" to recover, and there they would use what science now knows is harmful to cure people. And in this letter, EGW writes that the Adventist Church needs to open a Sanitarium to help people get well and not use "narcotics—tea, coffee, fermented wines, and stimulants of all kinds, and to discard the flesh of dead animals." It is a sin to serve people harmful substances, especially when you know they will not help the person recover, right? Also, I know I’ve mentioned this verse before, but we KNOW FROM THE BIBLE that if we know how to do good (that includes doing good for our bodies) and don’t do it, it is sin. So if you look at it that way, it is sin to continue using harmful substances, such as coffee and tea (not herbal tea) because they kill (albeit, slowly) our bodies, just as smoking destroys our bodies. Again, EGW did NOT contradict the Bible.
Oh, no. I knew that it’s the same phrase in ESV, KJV, etc. You mentioned previously that you would use NLT for personal reflection, and ESV and NASB for deep comprehensive study like this.
Larissa, my acquaintance was Presbyterian. And I would say Adventists believe in being born again. We believe in everything you mentioned except that our spirit/soul is asleep. Asleep in Jesus is how I think about it.
Your story of your acquaintance with dementia was very sad. A devastating disease. :( But it also is a story of hope. And another example of a difference in understanding between SDA and regular protestant belief. Protestants believe that when a person trusts in Jesus as their savior, they are born again. At that moment, the old has passed away and they are a new creature. This all happens spiritually. It’s not like they all of a sudden become perfectly behaved, although God does work on us until Jesus comes. So even if a person has dementia so badly that they forget who Jesus is, that has nothing to do with their spirit which has been joined to the Holy Spirit. When they finally shrug off this mortal earthsuit, their spirit will go to be with the Lord as surely as if they were praising Jesus with their last breath. As long as they had been born again through the Spirit.
Ok last one about EGW and her claims about sins. "It is a sin to be sick, for all sickness is the result of transgression." CH 372
Speaking of sin, (as I was before we took this little detour ;] ), here is one thing that EGW claims is a sin: "Tea and coffee drinking is a sin, an injurious indulgence, which like other evils, injures the soul." (Counsels on Diet and Foods, p. 425
Ok, you said that you glossed over the fact that I used the NLT for my Colossians quote. I assumed that you meant it wouldn't use the same words "don't handle, don't touch, don't taste." in the version that EGW used. What WERE you referring to when you said you glossed over the fact that I used the NLT?
No. I wasn’t offended. I know how hard it is to communicate via text, without mentioning debating
I believe you Siri, I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt when I said you must have skimmed, but it doesn't seem like you are taking that way. So I'm sorry I offended you. That wasn't my intent.
I don’t get what you mean?
Sorry that wasn’t very clear. I was responding to when you said I glossed over the fact that EGW was inspired by the Holy Spirit. I responded by saying that if there was something that I glossed over, it was that you used NLT. Maybe you didn’t get why I said it? because my response seems to fit perfectly (at least to me 😅)
That's fine if you don't accept my interpretations, I'd just like to know how any of the quotes I posted support your interpretations, because I can't see it.
I read and reread what you’ve written multiple times. For example, notice the time when I wrote on Saturday. I wrote something in the morning, didn’t have time do research, so then I wrote you in the afternoon. Look at the time.
I assumed you skimmed and that's how you misread it. But fine, I'm glad you didn't skim and thanks for looking up the quotes I posted.
For example: I said, "Ok, yes. EGW didn't use the NLT. lol. Here is the verse in the KJV which is what she did use." Then you responded: "No. You used NLT. I posted almost the entire verse in ESV. The only translation they had at that time was KJV" That's what I was referring to.
I’m sorry, Larissa, that I’m not accepting your interpretations on a silver platter. If that is the case, there is no need to continue this conversation. I have studied for myself, have not found anything wrong with EGW. But I totally get it that you don’t! That is fine and wholly acceptable. You have the right (and it’s a God-given right) to believe whatever you believe. I respect that and you.
No, I mean what I wrote, not what I quoted from EGW
“I think you are banking on people seeing huge chunk of EGW quotes I posted and not reading them, just your responses to them.” I disagree. That never crossed my mind and I actually encourage everyone to read what she’s written for themselves. Besides, if your line of attack is just to accuse of “banking” on something I have no control over...
“I’m wondering if maybe you skimmed what I wrote.” I read every quote looked them up in the EGW app. Sorry, not true.
"The light has come to me for many years that meat eating is not good for health or MORALS." CDF 413
Ooooh, here's a good one! "God cannot let His Holy Spirit rest upon those who, while they know how they should eat for health, persist in a course that will enfeeble mind and body." CDF 55
Here's another, "The transgression of physical law is the transgression of God's law... And the human being who is careless and reckless of the habits and practices that concern his physical life and health, sins against God." CDF 43
EGW never said, "Eating meat is sin." You are correct. She came close though. For example, "It is as truly a sin to violate the laws of our being as it is to break the ten commandments," CDF 17
"your argument that EGW contradicted the Bible in that what you eat matter for salvation is false." That was never my argument. I simply posted a quote of EGW's and a verse in the Bible. You are actually the one who said that "Those who say we must not “handle, touch, taste” FOR RELIGIOUS reasons are wrong." According to your definition, EGW is wrong. You didn't say "for salvation reasons" and I didn't either. Neither did Paul....
"Then I was shown a company who were howling in agony. On their garments was written in large characters, "Thou art weighed in the balance, and found wanting." I asked who this company were. The angel said, "These are they who once kept the Sabbath, and have given it up.”
"Not one of us will ever receive the seal of God while our characters have one spot or stain upon them. IT IS LEFT WITH US to remedy the defects in our characters, to cleanse the soul-temple of every defilement."
" If [they]...make the Sabbath a common day, then the seal of God cannot be placed upon them. They will be destroyed with the world;"
First, I think you are banking on people seeing a huge chunk of EGW quotes I posted and not reading them, just your responses to them. I can't think of any other reason why you would say that the quotes I gave support your claim that EGW says it's all about your heat being right with God. In case you are correct and people just skipped over those quotes, I'll give them their own special lines.
Siri, I'm wondering if maybe you skimmed what I wrote? Go back and start reading again at what I wrote at Friday, Nov 29, 2019 at 9:16 PM and then continue on to read how you responded....some of your responses don't match what I said. Anyway, I have totally done that before and it takes me like 3 rereading to see how I was misreading something! lol
To wrap it up, EGW never believed that meat-eating is sin. Obviously, it isn’t a good thing to eat meat, but again, NEVER did she say that people won’t be saved if they eat meat. So unfortunately, your argument that EGW contradicted the Bible in that what you eat matter for salvation is false.
On Sat Nov 30 4:41 PM. *she would have not eaten meat herself, not followed her own counsel. She never said that meat-eating is a sin.
*just to give a note on the female-empowerment group, those groups did way different things and had way different beliefs than the current feminist movement.😉
In fact, a long while after EGW wrote that meat was not good for one’s body, she continued eating meat occasionally. She finally gave up meat-eating, NOT FOR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES, but to give her support to a female-empowerment group in Australia. Obviously, if meat were a religious prerequisite for Heaven, she would have followed her own counsel.
So again, IF it were a religious requirement, EVERYONE who eats meat would not be saved. However, SHE DOES NOT SAY THAT. None of your quotes have shown that it is a matter of salvation for everyone not to eat meat.
“Here she is claiming that if you eat meat, you are endangering your spiritual health and many who keep eating meat will apostatize.” Ummm, a warning doesn’t mean absolutely everyone will suffer the same fate. It’s like texting and driving. There are warning in the freeway (at least in my state) warning that you can be killed if you text and drive. Obviously, not everyone who texts and drives shares the same fate. However, the warning still applies and is VERY RELEVANT. It’s the same with EGW’s warning about meat. Notice she says “many,” “there are those.” Obviously not say that EVERYONE who eats meat will apostatize.
*even in her mind, she knew what fried chicken was. She didn’t know who her husband was though either
Quote 2: Again the same thing. NOWHERE does she say we won’t be saved if we eat meat. “There are those who ought to be awake to the danger of meat eating, who are still eating the flesh of animals, thus ENDANGERING the physical, mental, and spiritual health.” This is a warning. A warning that science is proving true. Meat eaters have WAY higher percentage of dementia, which effects the mental, physical, even spiritual health of a person. I have an acquaintance, she’s 59. Born Christian. Knew Romans, Jonah by heart. Had an amazing knowledge of the Bible. Loved Jesus with all her heart. 10 years ago, she was diagnosed with dementia. She has forgotten everything. Even how to pray. Who Jesus is. It’s so very sad... She couldn’t stop eating meat. She LOVED fried chicken. Believe it or not, she knew what fried chicken was and wanted some.
Quote 1: She is writing about people who have been convicted to stop consuming harmful substances must do it. So in that quote she is addressing a specific group who were convinced that they must cut out those things from their lives. “To him who knows how to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.” 2. “God demands that the appetite be cleansed.” Food/smoking/alcohol can and often is an idol Satan uses. Very dangerous.
The only translation they had at that time was KJV.
No. You used NLT. I posted almost the entire verse in ESV.
So the Sabbath seal is not just about keeping a day— it’s about believing that God is the Ruler, Creator and Redeemer of this world.
Larissa, thanks for filling Ava on the Sabbath seal! As I said, it all is about the heart. Where your heart is. If your heart is right, God sees and will save!! If your heart isn’t right, God’s sees that as well and will judge.
Ok, yes. EGW didn't use the NLT. lol. Here is the verse in the KJV which is what she did use. "Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
(Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?"
So you see the same words are used here. Siri you said, "Point made. Those who say we must not “handle, touch, taste” FOR RELIGIOUS reasons are wrong." Since it can be argued that the excerpt I quoted is speaking about not using harmful substances because they are harmful, not for religious reasons, let's look some other of her quotes on health and see if it falls into the 'wrong' category: "Those who have received instruction regarding the evils of the use of flesh foods, tea, and coffee, and rich and unhealthful food preparations, and who are determined to make a covenant with God by sacrifice, will not continue to indulge their appetite for food that they know to be unhealthful. God demands that the appetite be cleansed, and that self-denial be practiced in regard to those things which are not good. This is a work that will have to be done before His people can stand before Him a perfected people."—Testimonies for the Church 9:153, 154, 1909
"Greater reforms should be seen among the people who claim to be looking for the soon appearing of Christ. Health reform is to do among our people a work which it has not yet done. There are those who ought to be awake to the danger of meat eating, who are still eating the flesh of animals, thus endangering the physical, mental, and spiritual health. Many who are now only half converted on the question of meat eating will go from God's people to walk no more with them." CD 382.1 Here she is claiming that if you eat meat, you are endangering your spiritual health and many who keep eating meat will apostatize.
Ava, let's look at how EGW answers that question. "If parents allow their children to receive an education with the world, and make the Sabbath a common day, then the seal of God cannot be placed upon them. They will be destroyed with the world; and will not their blood rest upon the parents?" CCH 269.1
"Not all who profess to keep the Sabbath will be sealed. There are many even among those who teach the truth to others who will not receive the seal of God in their foreheads. They had the light of truth, they knew their Master's will, they understood every point of our faith, but they had not corresponding works...Not one of us will ever receive the seal of God while our characters have one spot or stain upon them. It is left with us to remedy the defects in our characters, to cleanse the soul-temple of every defilement. Then the latter rain will fall upon us as the early rain fell upon the disciples on the day of Pentecost." CET 189.1-2
There are so many I could quote but I'll leave off with this one which apparently EGW and her "accompanying angel" claim will happen to those like me: "Then I was shown a company who were howling in agony. On their garments was written in large characters, "Thou art weighed in the balance, and found wanting." I asked who this company were. The angel said, "These are they who once kept the Sabbath, and have given it up.” I heard them cry with a loud voice, “We have believed in Thy coming, and taught it with energy.” And while they were speaking, their eyes would fall upon their garments and see the writing, and then they would wail aloud. I saw that they had drunk of the deep waters, and fouled the residue with their feet,—trodden the Sabbath underfoot,—and that was why they were weighed in the balance and found wanting. " CET 101.1
Natalie, you weren't intruding. :] I just wanted you to know a better place to get your questions answered. All the best!
I was going to leave without saying anything, but decided that would be rude. Thank you Siri. I don’t know what I was thinking when I asked you that, as if you knew where I live. And Larissa, forgive me for being intruding.
I praise God that He’s judge, not me! He looks at the heart. Praise Him!
Ava
Thursday, Nov 28, 2019 at 11:30 AM
remove
*Seal, not deal
Ava
Thursday, Nov 28, 2019 at 11:30 AM
remove
But what happens, in your view, when a Christian who has the holy spirit deal doesn't have the Sabbath seal?
Correction: They had what we call now “herbal tea.” But when you said “tea” then it signified green, black, or beef tea. All bad for you.
The seal of the Holy Spirit is the seal that we receive when we accept Jesus into our hearts.
“If you have the Holy Spirit seal but not the Sabbath seal, what happens? What if you have the Sabbath seal but not the Holy Spirit seal?” That deals with something totally unrelated to whether EGW contradicted the Bible. I’m glad you get that she certainly didn’t contradict the Bible with this one. On the question, the Holy Spirit’s role is to “lead and guide us into all truth.” So we can’t have the Sabbath seal unless we have the Holy Spirit seal.
“You can’t really say that EGW never contradicted the Bible because she just did.” Theory debunked.
In other words, this is NOT a contradiction because Paul and EGW were making two very different points. Paul is saying that these rules are not to gain salvation. EGW says the only way not to risk “the indulgence of perverted appetite” is by abstaining from those harmful substances.
EGW is NOT saying that we have to abstain from these things because of religion. She is saying that “The only safe course is to touch not, taste not, handle not, tea, coffee, wines, tobacco, opium, and alcoholic drinks.” THAT IS TRUE!! Even Proverbs says that drinking wine is not a wise idea. How about tasting opium? Bad idea. Very addictive. Coffee is not healthy either. Increases chance of hypertension and diabetes. Need I go into smoking? Or tea? I already explained about that.
“You are skipping over the fact that EGW is claiming that her words ‘don’t handle, don’t taste, don’t touch’ are coming directly from the Holy Spirit.” One thing I did gloss over is that you used NLT. But never mind, let’s continue. “Yet the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to instruct the Colossians not to listen to the human teachers who say ‘don’t handle, don’t taste, don’t touch.’” Let’s sit with that a little bit. We understand from the ESV study notes that these rules are not to gain salvation. True!! But Paul DOES NOT SAY don’t “listen to the human teachers who say” that. Paul says that “these [rules] have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.” Point made. Those who say we must not “handle, touch, taste” FOR RELIGIOUS reasons are wrong.
This is what the ESV Global Study Bible Notes says: “Specific rules the teacher of the false philosophy insists the Colossians must obey. God does not give these rules; under the new covenant, the food a person eats is not important in his or her spiritual life.”
*because they have caffeine
“I am perfectly comfortable as a physician’s wife telling people that the Bible doesn’t condemn their tea drinking.” Ok. Great. I agree that a nice herbal tea is not sinful. But we mustn’t interpret what she writes as though she lives in our century. The only tea they had back then was green and black tea. Both are just as bad as caffeine. This “tea” goes through a weeks-long process of fermentation in a pit. (Google it if you don’t believe me.) Therefore, one is drinking tea that has caffeine in it AND is like alcohol.
What you’re saying totally true. Jesus sets us free from sin. EGW does not say that in order to accept Jesus, we never sin. “Stop sinning” means to “put away in heart.” These are her words on accepting Jesus: You have confessed your sins, and in heart put them away. You have resolved to give yourself to God. Now go to Him, and ask that He will wash away your sins and give you a new heart. Then believe that He does this because He has promised.”
On an Adventist marrying a non-Adventist. It is a RECOMMENDATION to marry an Adventist, just like it is a recommendation for people not to eat meat in the church. No one is expelled from the church for marrying whoever they please. So I don’t get why you have an issue with this, when you yourself agree that it is easier web they’re part of the same denomination.
“EGW is talking about a different seal.” Ok I see what you’re saying. So the Holy Spirit seals people before the end times but only the people who keep the Sabbath receive God’s end time seal? In other words, there are two seals, one is the Holy Spirit and then on top of that one is the Sabbath. If you have the Holy Spirit seal but not the Sabbath seal what happens? What if you have the Sabbath seal but not the Holy Spirit seal?
I am perfectly comfortable as a physician’s wife telling people that the Bible doesn’t condemn their tea drinking. You are skipping over the fact that EGW is claiming that her words “don’t handle, don’t taste, don’t touch” are coming directly from the Holy Spirit and yet the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to instruct the Collosians not to listen to the human teachers who say “don’t handle, don’t taste, don’t touch”. We can argue about the wisdom of telling people they can drink coffee or wine, but you can’t really say that EGW never contradicted the Bible because she just did.
EGW: “In order to let Jesus into our hearts, we must stop sinning.” Siri: “Ummmmm, what egw says is totally true.” Jesus came to save us from our sin. HE sets us free. What do you understand “trusting Jesus as our savior” to be? Also, how long do we have to stop sinning before Jesus can come into our hearts? A day? A week? A year? Our salvation is a gift, a gift we don’t deserve. It’s not a payment for stopping sinning. “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” Ephesians 2:8-9 If stopped sinning on my own, I think that would be something to boast about....
Siri, when you claim that you believe the same as all other Christians except you keep the Sabbath and don’t believe in hell but then say that marrying a Christian is being unequally yoked, I have to question if you understand what being unequally yoked means. It’s not like, “he says to-mah-to, I say to-may-to, let’s call the whole thing off”. The context is not being joined with UNBELIEVERS. “Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?” 2 Corinthians 6:14 Life is much easier when you and your spouse naturally go through life in the same way but I would never call it being unequally yoked unless one of them hasn’t trusted Jesus as their savior.
Hi Natalie, welcome to our group. This is a group for Former Adventists. So while there are some SDAs who have come on to debate with us, the best place to get recommendations for SDA churches on this site is in an SDA group like Final Events SDA. There you more likely to find someone in your area.
Just a quick question. Why are you looking for a new church?
Welcome Natalie! Thanks for your kind words. I don’t know where you live but adventist.org has a very helpful feature to find a church near you. Just scroll down the page and you should find a church finder. Hope that helps.
Hi, I’m Natalie. I’ve been reading your conversations all along. Really enjoying myself. I have a question for Siri. Do you know of an Adventist Church near me? I like your reasoning on here. I’ve been looking for a new church.
Your last “contradiction” deals with two different seals. In Revelation, we read about the mark of the beast and the seal of God. EGW is talking about the end-of-times seal. Ephesians 1:13 talks about a totally different seal. Do you think that during Paul’s time, the mark of the Beast was being distributed? If so, read Revelation. God’s end time seal will be given at the same time as Satan’s. So, again, this does not contradict Scripture.
2. There are two ditches, two extremes. Paul warned about one of them. He certainly wasn’t advocating laxity in all regards. Remember how he with the church told he members not to eat blood? According to your theory, he contradicted himself. First, he said don’t “taste” blood, but now, don’t listen to people who tell you not to taste things. This puts us in a quandary if your theory is correct. Paul, however, was talking about one extreme. Just because one extreme is bad, doesn’t make the extreme of laxity right either. 3. You know the verse “To him who knows how to do good, and does not do it, to him it is sin.” It is sin to do bad things to your body. That includes using controlled substances, smoking and alcohol. So, yet again, we have another example how EGW did NOT contradict the Bible.
I find it alarming that you, whose husband is a physician, believe that it is fine to use controlled substances and addictive stimulants and also that the Bible approves of such activities. 2. A good number of people in the church at her time were former alcoholics. It would be stupid and downright detrimental to tell them that they can “touch, handle, taste” the very substance that they were addicted to. It’s like, in today’s opioid crisis, to tell people that the Bible approves of them handling opioids and placing them in a precarious position
On Mon Nov 25 8:42: ummm, what EGW says is totally true. How can you serve two masters at once? Either Jesus is in your heart, or Satan is controlling you. Yes, we must stop sinning to allow Jesus into our heart. That is totally Biblical. Yes, it doesn’t mean we will never sin after we accept Jesus into our hearts. But one VERY important step to accept Jesus is to put aside our sins. Besides, Romans 5:6-10 doesn’t contradict what she said. Romans says that even when we were still sinners, Jesus went and paid the price for us. Do you think that, automatically, the blood he pre-bled for us covered absolutely everyone— no exceptions made? No!! We have to “cast aside every weight that” that is weighing us down and accept Jesus. This includes putting aside our sins. Totally Biblical concept.
Thank you so much!! It’s wonderful to know that people I’ve never even met are praying. Prayer is the key to God’s throne, you know.
I don’t find an issue with being re-baptized. And marrying an non-Adventist is known to create friction and discord in the family. I hope you’ll all for removing as many as possible road blocks for newlyweds to have a strong marriage??
EGW: "The enemies of God's law, from the ministers down to the least among them, have a new conception of truth and duty. Too late they see that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment is the seal of the living God" (Great Controversy, p. 640) BIBLE: Eph 1:13 “And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,”
remember Ellen G White is claiming this coming directly from the Holy Spirit. There are SOOOOOOO many more like this. ok, one more before I get off.
So that is what the Bible says. Here is what EGW says in CD 428.1 "The only safe course is to touch not, taste not, handle not, tea, coffee, wines, tobacco, opium, and alcoholic drinks. The necessity for the men of this generation to call to their aid the power of the will, strengthened by the grace of God, in order to withstand the temptations of Satan, and resist the least indulgence of perverted appetite, is twice as great as it was several generations ago.”
This one is actually one of my favorites. Mostly because it is so blatant but also because I found it myself completely by accident. Colossians 2:16-23 "So don’t let anyone condemn you for what you eat or drink, or for not celebrating certain holy days or new moon ceremonies or Sabbaths. For these rules are only shadows of the reality yet to come. And Christ himself is that reality. Don’t let anyone condemn you by insisting on pious self-denial or the worship of angels, saying they have had visions about these things. Their sinful minds have made them proud, and they are not connected to Christ, the head of the body. For he holds the whole body together with its joints and ligaments, and it grows as God nourishes it. You have died with Christ, and he has set you free from the spiritual powers of this world. So why do you keep on following the rules of the world, such as, “Don’t handle! Don’t taste! Don’t touch!”? Such rules are mere human teachings about things that deteriorate as we use them. These rules may seem wise because they require strong devotion, pious self-denial, and severe bodily discipline. But they provide no help in conquering a person’s evil desires.”
Here is what the Bible says, “For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.” Romans 5:6-10 EGW says: “In order to let Jesus into our hearts, we must stop sinning.” ST March 3, 1890, par. 3
Before I get off tonight, I’m just going to mention a few quotes from EGW that I have a problem with.
It’s possible my husband had your mom as a professor. That would be funny wouldn’t it? He said there was a very large team of professors who taught his gross anatomy classes but one of them was a woman.
I’m so happy for your sisters! What an answer to prayer! I have prayed for your family several times since you asked me to and it is always wonderful to see the Holy Spirit work.
If you are being baptized into Jesus death and resurrection for the forgiveness of your sins and you are trusting in Christ only for your salvation then I think it is a good thing. There is only one baptism. Interestingly, if a Christian has been baptized but wants to join the SDA church, they are required to be rebaptized. If an SDA wants to marry a regular Protestant Christian, they will usually be discouraged from it by the SDA minister because they would be “unequally yoked”.
my family member who is into the occult. Well, I don’t know what branch. I know he has been “channeling” Ellen G White and “Jesus Christ”. He’s into Christ consciousness, etc. New age stuff maybe that’s not considered occult? I don’t know.
My mom taught A&P first, then she moved to another department, and then to another school.
Also, my sisters and I have made the decision to be baptized. We’ll be baptized together this Sabbath. I know this isn’t something you think is good, but you were a blessing and actually strengthened my faith in Jesus. These conversations on the Sabbath, death and EGW have really convinced me of their truth. I really appreciate you and the many (late) hours you’ve spent responding and asking and making me hash out my beliefs. I look forward to continuing our “debates.”
Speaking of my family, I have an update to make. Both of my sisters severed ties with the occult. So thanks so much for your prayers and I ask that you continue praying for my parents.
Got it. What order of occultism did they go into?
What subject did your mom teach at Loma Linda?
my husband left with me. sorry, I meant the only one in my larger family group. And I don’t recall what exactly I said but others have left the church in my family but to atheism, agnosticism, occultism, etc. But my husband and I are the only ones who have left and gone into the greater Protestant world.
Is your husband still Adventist? (If I remember correctly, you said you’re the only one in your family who’s left?)
I wonder, Larissa, if your husband had my mom as a professor. She used to teach at Loma Linda.
@Shannon, that’s the plan. Paramedic is so cool. My best friend’s wife is a paramedic.
Have a great vacation, Shannon!
I couldn’t find the medical group...
My husband is a physician so I went through the SDA med school as a spouse. 😉 So I guess you could count that too. 😆
I tried adding verses but there’s a bug or something in the new update that doesn’t let me put verses up. Shannon, are you on a computer or phone? If you’re on a computer you may be able to add verses to the group.
Cool! I don’t attend an Adventist University. I have 3 weeks and one semester left!! And then I’ll be going to med school😊
Are there any verses current in the group yet? That would help me find it on the big list...
I still can’t find the group. When I search for any of the words in the title, nothing comes up...
I went to Walla Walla and Andrews. Are you still in college Siri or are you through with your undergrad?
Oh, ok. Learned something new. I guess it means the same things as saying “damn it.”
um, Shannon, do you mean that “Hell” is considered a bad word? I didn’t know that...
Tell me if you have more issues finding it
The group is called “Hell: Eternal or Temporary.”
Cool. Would it be too sensitive of a subject if I asked what college you attended?
We moved around a lot but I went to SDA school whenever we had the opportunity. Let’s see, I attended sda school for some portion of 7 years of my 12 pre-university years. Then I attended sda university all 4.5 years until I graduated.
I tried to join the group in hell but I couldn’t find it... can you type the name again?
On Marylin: I don’t think she has something specifically against non-SDAs. She deleted something I wrote as well.
@Larissa, I was worried I had hurt your feelings too. Please forgive me if I have and don’t hesitate to tell me😊
By the way, Larissa, kind of curious, did you go through Adventist education?
Languages are so cool! My parents didn’t do Latin, for the very reason that it isn’t useful other than helping you learn English. But they forced me to learn French, Spanish, Danish (One set of my grandparents are from there.) I started German but am way to busy in college to keep up. I would love to chat in French but my grammar has gotten very rusty and never really was my strong point...
Ava
Saturday, Nov 23, 2019 at 11:07 PM
remove
I responded Shannon
Ava
Saturday, Nov 23, 2019 at 10:54 PM
remove
I personally don't like Latin... But I have heard it helps with English Grammar... I personally took up foreign languages because I enjoy them. I did French, I'm doing Biblical Hebrew now, I plan to do Biblical Greek in about two years, and I have hoped to get decent at Korean...
Ava
Saturday, Nov 23, 2019 at 10:52 PM
remove
I learned French on Duolingo and got really good at it... But I've lost most of it, although since my background with it I can still pick up some of what it means.
I meant to say, “Is Hebrew the first foreign language you learned?”
I also love learning foreign languages. I have a minor in Italian and used to work as the “reader” for the German professor. Nowadays I mostly just use Duolingo to keep sharp but I’ve forgotten a lot. 😔 Shannon, it was you who knows Latin right? I’m trying to decide if I should have my kids learn Latin. It seems the thing to do in homeschool circle. What is your opinion? Ava, is the first foreign language you have learned?
Ava, I think you definitely have the makings of a theologian! Keep on studying and continuing to let the Lord lead. Wherever he takes you, it is exciting to serve Him isn’t it? 😃
I mean that scripture can often be difficult to take at face value, not because there is something wrong with the Bible but that we naturally come to the word with preconceived ideas because we have all been taught what certain things mean. But it’s so true that we have to almost deliberately read the Bible as a child, as if it is our very first time reading it. That is when epiphanies happens with the help of the Holy Spirit.
I read the post you made in hell Shannon, the one that you posted on here anyway. I assume it has already been deleted from the other group. I thought it was well written and well thought out. Your pint about taking scripture at face value is so so important! Hard to do, but important nonetheless.
thanks for offering to find a pic for the group, Skyler!
wow guys!! I so enjoyed reading everything I missed while I was offline! I didn’t enjoy hearing how you guys were hurt in other groups but I am happy that you guys are here and feel comfortable discussing these things openly. Please tell me if I ever hurt your feelings ok? I have always been pretty sensitive too and when I was your age, that kept me from debating or even bringing up my opinions or thoughts to anyone. It is such a blessing to have brothers and sisters in Christ that we can trust with our hearts. So please don’t anyone stop you from discussing and sharing what you think. Please know that Marilyn’s responses are indicative of what is going on inside her, NOT what is going on in you.
that will help thinking that way also
I’m gonna be gone for the week to my grandparents, I might talk sometime but most likely not, bible memorizer will be gone also
I think that’s what Larissa’s picture symbolizes. When you see it, think that it’s not breaking away from the BIBLICAL principles Adventists believe in and with which Larissa disagrees, but from sin and Satan.
man wasn’t made for the sabbath, but the sabbath was made for man
about the description i think that you can’t be set free form our doctrines but actually the doctrines of the seventh day Adventist church are actually making a better and much happier way to live by
I see the picture now, breaking chains as symbolizing for...?
Larissa already put a picture up. It’s a cool one.
can I be admin Larissa so i can make a group picture? you can unadmin me afterwards, you can trust me
LOL. Are we going to debate what the term “debate” means?
By debating she has defined it as "going back and forth" about an issue... So by that standard we're debating. I'd agree that this is more of a discussion... I'd call it a friendly debate, since there are some aspects of a debate. The difference between our debates and normal ones is we know we all respect each other, and we know we are all brothers and sisters in Christ..
Yeah... But still... She says all debate and discussion is pointless
*real debating live in a competition
I wouldn’t really call this debating. It’s more discussing. I and Burger have done real debating. Gets way more heated than this.
@Bible Memorizer, I think this group proves Marilyn wrong about debating.
Yeah, I feel bad that we overran her group in such a fashion. hopefully the new group’s will solve it
Ohhh. I mean the note app on my phone. I posted it on the Hell group
thanks for the comfort to Shannon, Siri. I’m glad we can all debate and yet be nice to each other.
I get it Shannon... I had a hard time forgiving her. Just remember you didn't cause this, and pray for her well being. It's hard to be mad at someone if you are praying for them to have a good life. Jesus said to turn the other cheek, and speaking from experience, it's really hard to do. But harboring anger against someone else is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die. So that's partly why we need to forgive because it's for our own good. It's going to be hard, and I'll be praying for you as you try to do this.
Ava, I have been cast into the same lot: a message I posted was deleted....
Dear Jesus, I’m asking you know to comfort Shannon now. Give her peace and rest. Thank you so much for her and the delight she has in studying the Bible. Heal the wounds that have been caused by this unfortunate situation. In your name, Amen.
FYI, there is now a group that we can discuss Hell in. “Hell: Eternal or Temporary.”
I did read it. Have the response on Notes 😀
I'm sorry Shannon, Marilyn can be very hypocritical. when she called me a tool of Satan twice, then I apologized and asked her to be more careful in how she words things, and then when she accepted my apology, she called me a tool of Satan again. Then she continues to be rude and I left. Then you come and she does the same thing to you. *sigh... I really don't know why she is so rude to non SDA. She deleted a post of mine that just said something like we were all Christians who deeply love God, although we disagree about Sabbath.
@Shannon, I am really sorry that Marilyn has made you feel this way. about a year ago, she said the same things to me. unfortunately, I have had that said to me before and I didn’t let it get to me. I will be praying for you and your relationship with the Lord.
@Shannon, I agree. I read the messages. you were not “poisoning” anyone. I think that Marilyn twists words that people say to sound more like... I don’t really know how to describe it.
she mentioned that adults don’t like to be corrected. if you are a true Christian, you need to be open to others words. in fact, my pastor said the other day that there are times when a new believer is more in tune with in the word than those who have been believers for years. everyone needs to be open for correction and learning.
I just made a group called Calvinism vs Arminianism.
I would love to join that!
I made a group called Eschatology: End Times Theology. There we can discuss various views on the end times. I'm adding verses now, so you might not be able to see it for a few minutes
And yes, I think it would be a great idea to create a group for the various subjects we discuss. Feel kind of bad taking over Larissa’s group like this...
Just a question, what do you prefer me to call you: Shannon or LBJ?
Yes, I do believe that church will be on earth during the tribulation. I would love to hear what problems you have with this, Ava!
I believe in the rapture, but not secret rapture.
No, SDA believe Premil posttrib... I can explain more later, but basically they believe the church will be in the tribulation, which has problems
I’m pre-millennial as well😊
I just got it to show up, look again
Shannon, I made the group
I'm pre mil pre trib so I could create a group to explain it to you more of you want.
it’s ok. she has not been the nicest to me so I am kinda used to it.
@LBJ, just a random question. What are your thoughts on the millennium? Pre, Post, etc?
ni I think the way you handled the whole situation was good.
yeah. in case y’all didn’t know, I left her group. she was not being open to other thought and deleted anything she didn’t agree with. which finally pushed me over the top. I ended up leaving.
@Ava, I love languages too!
@Ava, I totally understand your point. However, that is the only place in the Bible that we hear about people being Heaven or Hell right now. I want you to notice something. Read all of the parables and you won’t find a single instance where Jesus introduces a new theological belief. 2. This story goes directly against verses in the Bible such as Psalms 115:17 where it says: “The dead do not praise the Lord, nor do any who go down into silence.” So how do you explain this parable when it says that people don’t talk when they die, while Lazarus and the Rich Man converse...
@LBJ, so sorry for your fallout with Marylin. I don’t know what to say except I’m really sorry. Please forgive her. If you have any questions concerning what Adventists believe, I am more than happy to respond. Again, I apologize for this unpleasant situation.
To clarify: I'm not learning Greek yet, but I will in a few years
I'm on a partial media fast rn... I get on once or twice a week
Lol... Latin is supposed to help you understand grammar... I haven't tried Latin, as I don't find it as fun. I have reasons for every language I learn, French- I still love everything french. Hebrew and Greek- to read the original Bible. Korean-... It's kinda embarassing... But my friend got me to like a Korean band.
Haha, I watched it last year and my mom skipped the part. It's not graphic, just a little too real for me. I saw part of it one time and it made me uncomfortable. There's a PluggedIn review for it that explains it better. I can kinda play piano... It takes a while to read the music, but after that I can do it.
Alright, lol, I'm doing good with it right now, but if I ever have a question, I'll ask. I just recently found a good learning method and it's going well. I am fascinated with foreign languages. I love learning them, I used to know quite a bit of French and I'm also looking at how Korean works right now. It's very interesting...
I told her, and she deleted my post. Maybe make one post that explains why you're leaving, and another that simply says goodbye. That's what I did, even though she did delete both posts.
If you can watch it, please do. It's my all time favorite movie and it's an amazing story. The musical version is the best in my opinion. There is a semi-bad scene involving prostitution that you might need to close your eyes for. It's only about 30 seconds long and the song right after is beautiful. a warning, it's a very sad, emotional movie.
I wish I could talk to your dad and you. I'm learning Hebrew right now and am going to study biblical languages for my undergrad. God uses our talents for his mission, and I think he will definitely use you LBJ. The world needs more teenagers with a passion to use their talents for God
Funny, Marilyn used the example of the bereans when that's exactly what she didn't want. she may say she does, but her actions have continually proved that she doesn't want that. She wants to be right 100% of the time
Yeah, and who knows, maybe God really is calling me to the mission field, if he is, I'll go. I think I'm called to teach the Bible though, in what setting though, I have no idea. But according to my student pastor, who first mentioned the idea of me getting a Ph.D, there is a push right now for women to be more involved in Theology. Not in the pastorate btw. But as professors and theologians, and I want to be one of the women who are not ordained, but teach the Bible and Theology.
@Ava, prostitution is very heartbreaking
@Ava, that is amazing!! I pray that God will bless you in your journey in studying in this field!
I've heard about prostitution and find it heartbreaking. Some people want it legalized and I find that appalling. LBJ, have you ever seen Les Miserables?
I think that everybody can pray for wisdom on how to counteract the lies that are being thrown our way as believers.
@LBJ, I will pray for your faith in the Lord to be restored after what Marilyn has said to you.
LBJ, I just read your story about wanting to go into the Medical field. That's awesome! I used to want to be a missionary in another country, but now I really want to get my PH.D in Systematic Theology and be a theologian... Now, looking back, I never really did feel called to the mission field. I wanted it, but I never had a feeling that it was what God wanted me to do, now I want to train people in the Bible and Theology, because I believe part of what you are called to do is what you are passionate about and part what you are good at. Theology and Biblical Studies is what I'm really passionate about and I've been told that I'm good at it. It sounds like you're the same way with what you want to do.
@Ava. I have had the same experience with Marilyn. she ended up kicking me and my sister out because we were testing what she was saying with truth. I am not trying to cause an argument or gossip. I have been assured though that not all SDAs act in this way.
Yeah, I know, I felt the same way. Tenessee, I'm not going to say more, because I don't want to disclose my location in here
I read it. That's when I checked on here... We seem like the same person, I'm surprised we are so much alike. She asked me before if I was some other person, and I told her this is the only account of ever had... Maybe she thinks I've come back for revenge of something... Idk
I'm sorry... She has no problem calling believers tools of Satan if they are not SDA. I spent about 30 minutes sobbing after what she said to me. My suggestion is you leave before it gets worse. Marilyn can be very sweet to SDA, but I find she is not that great to us non SDA. She says she wants to protect the children and teens, but she came after me, a 14 year old and now you... I tried to make up with her, but she continued to shut me down, after I asked why she deleted a post, just so I could avoid posting stuff like that in the future, and her whole tone was obviously agitated. She can be very hypocritical and seems to say.... Some weird things... she seems to think everything bad that happens to her is directly from the Devil himself. By what she's said to me, you'd think that I was the anti christ. That group isn't like this one, here we all respect each other and never, ever would use terms like that. And we actually encourage questions. I wouldn't recommend staying on there, but you can try if you want. again, so sorry for what happened... I was hoping no one else would have to go through what happened to me.
Nice story siri, is say the difference between that story and the parable of Lazarus and the rich man is that I don't think Jesus would purposefully use a theologically false statement. I don't remember one instance in the NT where he uses a theologically false statement the way, in your opinion, he does here. What the story of the three trees does is give human characteristics, such as thought and speech, to trees. This story is not really comparable because it is not making non humans seem human. Jesus was making a point about the afterlife. He could have easily modified the parable to be true of soul sleep. Instead he uses the example of a heaven and hell we go to right after we died. He could have said... And during the final judgement Lazarus was taken to be with Abraham, but the rich man was rejected into the lake of fire. But he didnt. So I come to the conclusion that heaven and hell exist with people in them now. He also seems to predict his resurrection and the unbelief following it, in the last verse in the passage, he says basically that if people don't really believe the Scriptures, then they won't believe if someone was raised from the dead, and his statement there did come true, many people didnt, and don't believe that Jesus is God, even when the evidence is clear. Sorry for the tangent there... I just find that interesting.
Ava
Thursday, Nov 21, 2019 at 12:10 PM
remove
LBJ, I noticed you're on Final Events SDA... I had a big fallout with that group. From my experience Marilyn is not that nice to non SDA, especially when we ask innocent questions, she called me a tool of Satan 3 times. she deleted our whole conversation, so you won't find it, but I just wanted to warn you about that. Maybe she'll be nicer to you than she was to me.
I am unable to see the picture...
@LBJ, Thanks for the explanation. I totally understand.
No problem! Like LBJ, I’ve also love that story. Someone from church gave me a really beautifully illustrated copy of “The Three Trees” when I was really young and I still have it.
Group picture looks great! Like it!!
I’ll try to get back on tomorrow morning. Gotta get to bed earlier, it’s starting to catch up with me.
That was a really beautiful story, thanks for sharing Siri. I don’t think I’ve ever heard it before.
I’ve been meaning to add a pic for awhile, thanks for lighting a fire under me LBJ and Skyler!
if you do accept my offer then just tell me what kind of picture you want for the group
I made the picture for final events SDA, and just like there you can take me off admin as soon as I am done if you want to
yeah, admin can only do it, if you make me admin then I could make a picture for us, on the other hand if you make me admin I can delete the group, I wouldn’t do that though, I promise
A group picture would be great! An admin can only do that, and Larissa is the Administrator here, so you’d have to talk with her.
I like that story, I have heard it before but not for a while, it is a good story
But on Sunday morning, when the sun rose and the earth tremble with joy beneath her, the third tree knew that God’s love had changed everything. It had made the third tree strong. And every time people thought of the third tree, they would think of God. That was better than being the tallest tree in the world. The next time you feel down because you didn’t get what you want, sit tight and be happy because God is thinking of something better to give you.
One evening a tired traveler and his friends crowded into the old fishing boat. The traveler fell asleep as the second tree quietly sailed out into the lake. Soon a thundering and thrashing storm arose. The little tree shuddered. She knew she did not have the strength to carry so many passengers safely through with the wind and the rain. The tired man awakened. He stood up, stretched out his hand, and said, “Peace.” The storm stopped as quickly as it had begun. And suddenly the second tree knew he was carrying the king of heaven and earth. One Friday morning, the third tree was startled when her beams were yanked from the forgotten woodpile. She flinched as she was carried through an angry jeering crowd. She shuddered when soldiers nailed a man’s hands to her. She felt ugly and harsh and cruel.
“What happened?” the once tall tree wondered. “All I ever wanted was to stay on the mountain top and point to God...” Many, many days and night passed. The three trees nearly forgot their dreams. But one night, golden starlight poured over the first tree as a young woman placed her newborn baby in the feedbox. “I wish I could make a cradle for him,” her husband whispered. The mother squeezed his hand and smiled as the starlight shone on the smooth and the sturdy wood. “This manger is beautiful,” she said. And suddenly the first tree knew he was holding the greatest treasure in the world.
The first tree rejoiced when the woodcutter brought her to a carpenter’s shop. But the carpenter fashioned the tree into a feedbox for animals. The once beautiful tree was not covered with gold, nor with treasure. She was coated with sawdust and filled with hay for hungry farm animals. The second tree smiled when the woodcutter took her to a shipyard, but no mighty sailing ship was made that day. Instead, the once strong tree was hammered and sawed into a simple fishing boat. She was too small and too weak to sail on an ocean, or even a river; instead, she was taken to a little lake. The third tree was confused when the woodcutter cut her into strong beams and left her in a lumberyard.
The second woodcutter looked at the second tree and said, “This tree is strong. It is perfect for me.” With a swoop of his shining axe, the second tree fell. “Now I shall sail mighty waters!” thought the second tree. “I shall be a strong ship for mighty kings!” The third tree felt her heart sink when the last woodcutter looked her way. She stood straight and tall and pointed bravely to heaven. But the woodcutter never even looked up. “Any kind of tree will do for me,” he muttered. With a swoop of his shining axe, the third tree fell.
The third little tree looked down into the valley below where busy men and women worked in a busy town. “I don’t want to leave the mountain top at all. I want to grow so tall that when people stop to look at me, they’ll raise their eyes to heaven and think of God. I will be the tallest tree in the world.” Years passed. The rain came, the sun shone, and the little trees grew tall. One day three woodcutters climbed the mountain. The first woodcutter looked at the first tree and said, “This tree is beautiful. It is perfect for me.” With a swoop of his shining axe, the first tree fell. “Now I shall be made into a beautiful chest. I shall hold wonderful treasure!” the first tree said.
Once upon a mountain top, three little trees stood and dreamed of what they wanted to become when they grew up. The first little tree looked up at the stars and said: “I want to hold treasure. I want to be covered with gold and filled with precious stones. I’ll be the most beautiful treasure chest in the world!” The second little tree looked out at the small stream trickling by on its way to the ocean. “I want to be traveling mighty waters and carrying powerful kings. I’ll be the strongest ship in the world!”
I’ve never heard the stories of the three trees.
@LBJ, take your time. I check regularly as you can probably tell😅
For those of you who recognize those two posts, I’m just reposting it for LBJ.
How many of you are familiar with the fable of the three trees? I've heard ministers use it in their sermons. But how many of you, after hearing the story, start believing that trees can talk and have dreams and an imagination? Of course not. That's not the point of the story to show us that trees have a "mind." It's the same thing with this parable Jesus shared. It's not to describe the afterlife, but to teach valuable truths.
It is interesting to me that you mentioned the story of the rich man and Lazarus. Notice the context surrounding the story. By telling this parable, Jesus wasn't illustrating the realities of the afterlife, but He wanted to teach His hearers some vital lessons: 1. Wealth (in the case the rich man) is not a guarantee of God's blessings. Neither is poverty (in the case of Lazarus) a sign of lacking God's pleasure. 2. Salvation is not by birthright. Many Jews felt that because they were descendants of Abraham, they were guaranteed salvation. This parable demonstrated to Jesus' hearers that your ethnicity does not provide salvation.
sorry i havnt been on for a while
That’s very kind of you. Just so you know this, I’m not trying to change your beliefs or anything. You asked for my rationale in this belief and that is why I’m sharing. Just to make it clear.😊
When the Bible says “forever,”it means “as long as a thing can exist.” So how do we know that God lasts forever? 1 Timothy 6:16 says that God “alone has immortality.” Therefore, since God is immortal, He can continue existing without end. How about the saved? Do they have the capability to have immortality? Yes!! That’s the whole point of choosing Jesus. “The gift of God is ETERNAL life.”
On Revelation 20:10-15: The words forever and ever in the original are eis tous aionas ton aionon. Aionas, and aionon are derived from aion on which Greenfield says, “Duration, finite or infinite: unlimited duration, eternity: a period of duration, past or future, time, age, lifetime; the world, universe.” From this we may learn that the term for ever and ever, does not in all cases signify eternal duration. Dr. Adam Clarke, in commenting on the words for ever and ever, gave us a rule to be guided by in ascertaining its extent of duration when applied to objects. It is this: that it signifies only, as long as a thing, considering the surrounding circumstances, can exist.
In this passage “Gehenna” is the word Jesus used for Hell. Those who whom Christ was talking with understood perfectly the meaning of the term, gehenna, and never could get the idea of eternal misery from it. Because, what idea would a Jew naturally associate with the fires of the valley of Gehenna? Evidently that of entire destruction; for everything they had seen cast into that fire had been consumed.
On Mark 9:48: I think it would be helpful to understand where Jesus gave this talk in which he says Mark 9:48. He was in the valley named “Gehenna.” This valley is located originally south of Jerusalem in which fires were kept constantly burning. The filth of Jerusalem, and dead bodies of malefactors were cast into those fires. Whatever might escape the ravages of the flames and fell outside of the fire, was consumed by worms.
In Jeremiah 17:27, God talks about a fire that shall not be “quenched.” Notice that in 2 Chronicles 36:19-21, this fire is referred to and took place when Jerusalem was destroyed by Babylon. If it were to be take literally that the fire shall not be “quenched,” that means Jerusalem is still in flames, which it isn’t.
Let me start by asking: where does it say in the Bible that people are burning RIGHT NOW in hell? Actually, it doesn’t. Jesus says in Matthew 13:40-42 that hell will not start until “the end of the age.”
@LBJ, thanks so much for your response! Also Ava, thank you!
My point is a good majority of the time
Idk for sure if it's 90%, but from what I've learned that's probably close.
Also there is the word sheol, which actually is just talking about death 90% of the time. Three are a few times when it refers to hell, but if you use those verses that contain Sheol when referring to death to prove your point, then you are misinterpreting, I haven't seen anyone do that, but just a heads up about that word in Hebrew
@Larissa, on Nov 17 11:50 PM you wrote “Alright so you didn’t like my quotes.” It’s not whether I like it or not. It’s about whether the quotes you’re providing really mean what you say they do— that “the SDA organization disagrees with” me whether EGW is equal to the Bible. So far, none of your quotes have shown that it is the Adventist Church’s position that EGW is equal and on the same level as the Bible.
I love it as well! Thanks, Larissa, for facilitating this discussion!
I love listening/reading this convo. it is really making me think.
Even though EGW does reference her writings as from “the Holy Spirit,” I don’t find that problematic at all. That’s far from saying that her writings are equal to the Bible. In fact, the VERY NEXT CHAPTER is titled “Not To Take The Place of the Bible.” There she writes: “Brother J would confuse the mind by seeking to make it appear that the light God has given through the Testimonies is an addition to the word of God, but in this he presents the matter in a false light. God has seen fit in this manner to bring the minds of His people to His word, to give them a clearer understanding of it.” [Testimonies for the Church 4:246 (1876).] The word of God is sufficient to enlighten the most beclouded mind and may be understood by those who have any desire to understand it. But notwithstanding all this, some who profess to make the word of God their study are found living in direct opposition to its plainest teachings. Then, to leave men and women without excuse, God gives plain and pointed testimonies, bringing them back to the word that they have neglected to follow.. 5T 663.2”
*I’m paraphrasing. Here’s how ESV translates it: Hebrews 1:1-2 The Supremacy of God's Son Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
On 5T 661.1,2: Sorry, you were correct that she is talking about her writings. But that certainly is not anti-Biblical or even contradictory to Hebrews 1:1,2. The speaker (scholars speculate that Hebrews is a sermon) started out by saying “God though Jesus spoke to us some time ago. This was instead of speaking to us through prophets like He did to our ancestors.” I don’t understand how you can use that verse to say that EGW is trying to supersede God when Hebrews is only saying that Jesus spoke to them some time ago.
Yeah, I deleted Mon Nov 18 9:03 and reposted it because I accidentally used Burgers real name. So sorry!
I think some of the messages were deleted.
this is the most confusing group I’ve ever been in
I know, Larissa. That was there just for effect. Burger can testify as both of us have done debate.
Thanks! Got to go as well! Have a great day, y’all!
Yes, akamburger I know it looks disjointed! Sorry! I wish this was set up more like FB so you could tell what I was actually responding to. Siri types faster than me so it looks like I am just bringing up random things. lol!
Thank you for the link. However, I can’t copy and paste from here. I looked up testimonies 4, page 147
I gave you the link. I got it from EGW writings
@Burger, her post deals with something we’ve been discussing below. It’s messy, I know!
"Giggles. According to you, the Ten Commandments are some [done] away with." According to the Bible actually. But I digress, according to EGW, who wrote the quote (not me so my view on it doesn't matter does it?) the 10 commandments are not done away with so my point still stands.
Where did that last paragraph come from? It wasn’t in the book.
but does that answer Siri’s question?
Siri, why do you think she called her letters of reproof "testimonies"? Here is the quote I mentioned before with the next sentence too. “In ancient times God spoke to men by the mouth of prophets and apostles. In these days He speaks to them by the testimonies of His Spirit. There was never a time when God instructed His people more earnestly than He instructs them now concerning His will and the course that He would have them pursue.
The Lord has seen fit to give me a view of the needs and errors of His people. Painful though it has been to me, I have faithfully set before the offenders their faults and the means of remedying them.... Thus has the Spirit of God pronounced warnings and judgments, withholding not, however, the sweet promise of mercy...."[Testimonies for the Church 4:147, 148 (1876).] 5T 661.1,2 If you want to read the whole page, here is the link: https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/113.3212#3212
Larissa, I’m not trying to attack you but you’ve had a number of warped ideas about the Adventist Church. That the Adventist Church believes that we have “no soul,” per instance? Yes, there are more. But I would disagree that they are as major as hell. But then, that’s very subjective. I just don’t know what you mean by “many, many, many differences” you mentioned. You can say that another Adventist belief is that EGW was inspired by God, you’ll be surprised to find out how many SDAs don’t believe that.
Do you have an issue with reading devotionals from John Piper and Max Lucardo for instance? Somehow, the entire point of devotionals is to read them daily.
“If so, she wouldn’t have contradicted the Bible such much.” You have still to show me somewhere that she contradicted the Bible.
Giggles. According to you, the Ten Commandments are some away with. And besides she isn’t saying that they are on the same level as the law of God. She says that what she writes was so deeply ingrained in her mind as when God carved the 10 Commandments in stone.
I totally get it! I hope I don’t come across as angry either. I’m not angry at you.
@Larissa, thanks for your kind words. I don’t think I would be doing this had it not been for Jesus literally pulling me out of Satan’s clutches.
“Too bad EGW didn’t understand that and decided to tamper with the word of God to make herself appear more important.” Seriously?
I am impressed by your willingness to discuss and search, Siri. And Skyler and Bible Memorizer and Ava too! So young but willing to jump in and look for and discuss truth. Debating with formers is something I would never have done at their ages! I wasn't even willing to listen to anything a former had to say until just a few years ago. And that was because an adventist scholar I trusted gave a certain former pastor a character recommendation. Ha! I was such a scaredy-cat!
“She is ABSOLUTELY claiming that “the testimonies of His Spirit means her writings. You can tell this from the context.” I went and read the entire chapter. Guess what, she doesn’t claim that. She’s saying that pre-Jesus, they had the prophets. But now, we have the testimonies of His Spirit. She NOT saying that SHE is the testimonies of His Spirit. She’s saying that God now also talks directly to us through the Holy Spirit.
Umm. I don’t think I did. The church we attended had a children’s program and it just covered the basic stories of the Bible. When I became a teenager I stopped attending church regularly.
I didn't read her writings till college either. But if you went to SDA church every week, you heard her teachings every week even if you didn't hear her name.
I know that there are a lot of quotation marks. I thought that would be the best way to explore her writings. I certainly can't suggest that readers go read all 35 million of her words to see for themselves that she is a false prophet, just like we can't just respond, "Go read the entire Bible for your answer to that question". Actually, I have said that on here haven't I? Ha! But we always quote the Bible too. That's what we have to do to discuss writings....
If you think creating Mormonism is a dull response, think again! Who did you compare EGW to? to the Book of Mormon. Yes, it didn’t work like Satan wanted it (Satan IS a defeated foe!!) and that’s why now his strategy is to infiltrate and change from within.
Precisely. Satan HATES it when people open their Bibles and study for themselves. You can be as incredulous as you want, that is the truth. Satan studies the Bible, and in Revelation it symbolizes the Great Disappointment by the scroll sweet to the mouth but bitter to the stomach. (You probably don’t believe this, but Satan sure does.)
Larissa, forgive me, but the website says that just to try to make themselves look more “Christian.” Yes, they do use the Bible. But read the book of Naphtali in the Book of Mormon. You’ll read that it really is their new Bible. The real Bible, writes Jospeh Smith, is for Jews.
Oh no, I know you didn’t. But really there were too many “...” in all the passages you quoted. So you could do the same to my writings on here and make it sound like what you write.
On the Investigative Judgment, I am more than happy to discuss it on here when we finish with EGW
I would dispute that I grew up SDA. True, I went to church every week but I never read her books until I was in college. Let me repeat what I said earlier: I am a passionate believer that we need to study and see for ourselves what is truth. That includes studying Mormonism, EGW, etc. I am a firm proponent of this, as should be obvious by my participation in this conversation.
Now for a quick recap of the gospel before I get off for the night. I feel it's important to keep going back to the MOST important thing every once in a while. We were all born spiritually dead because of Adam and Eve's sin and cannot be reconciled to a Holy and perfect God by any works of our own. Humans sin because we are sinners, we don't become sinners because we sin. Because of this sin, we deserve to die and be forever separated from God. God loved us so much that He sent his son to live a perfect life and die a substitutionary death for us. He became our sin so that we could be the righteousness of God. This is a GIFT. There is nothing we can do to earn it. It is ONLY through being hidden in Christ that we can be reconciled to God. Not through our righteousness, but through Jesus'. The only way we have life is through the Holy Spirit who raised Christ from the dead. We are made spiritually alive when we trust Christ as our salvation. When we believe in him, we are sealed with the Holy Spirit, and at that moment our eternal life begins. Nothing can separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord! His worked is finished and we can rest in Him! Hallelujah! Good night.
"@Loved by Jesus, thanks for your interest. I believe in the keeping of the Sabbath, specifically the seventh day, and that hell is not eternal. Those are the two main differences with our Protestant counterparts. We believe in the trinity, Sola Scriptura, etc." It's funny, i would have said the same thing a couple of years ago. When I understood the actual differences between SDAs and true Biblical protestantism, it blew my mind. Now my list would be a LOT longer. Just saying, I understand why you are saying this and I'm not accusing you of lying about your beliefs but there are many many many many many differences in beliefs between SDAs and their "protestant counterparts", eternal hell NOT being the most significant.
"I’ve heard non-SDAs quote from, teach from, study to bring light on a situation or doctrinal issue, memorize, John Piper, C.S. Lewis, Billy Graham. etc. I hope you don’t find it sinful to read and study other people’s knowledge on the Bible?" Siri, you know that "non-SDAs" don't treat these authors like the SDA church treat EGW. You know that....right? Any Christian church that tells their congregation to read "so and so" daily should be ashamed of themselves if that "so and so" is not the Bible. Lake Union Herald, Dec. 22, 1915, says: "We would urge all our people to study the 'Testimonies' daily. Our workers, especially, should read them over and over again."
Alright so you didn't like my quotes. Here are some more then that maybe you will accept. “In my books, the truth is stated, barricaded by a ‘Thus saith the Lord.’ The Holy Spirit traced these truths upon my heart and mind as indelibly as the law was traced by the finger of God upon the tables of stone.” Letter 90, 1906. Here EGW claims her writings are as infallible as the 10 commandments, both written by the finger of God. "As with ancient prophets, the talking is done by the Holy Spirit through her vocal organs. The prophets spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” Review and Herald, Oct. 5, 1914. Did the Holy Spirit speak through EGW's vocal organs? If so, she wouldn't have contradicted the Bible so much. "If you lessen the confidence of God's people in the testimonies he has sent them, you are rebelling against God as certainly as were Korah, Dathan and Abirum" ("Testimonies," Vol. V., p. 66). Her testimonies are as much from God as were Moses'....
I hope you are reading these posts in the spirit in which I am writing them. As an earnest appeal, not a sneering condemnation. I am angry with EGW for her deception, not with you.
"Read Hebrews 1:1, 2 closely. It doesn’t say “in the last days he will speak to us by his Son.” It says “In THESE last days he HAS spoke to us by his Son.” Obviously, Hebrews was talking about the past, when Jesus lived among them and spoke with them." Yes, I agree with you. Too bad EGW didn't understand that and decided to tamper with the word of God to make herself appear more important.
"Your argument rests on that when she says “His Spirit” she means “her writings.” You must have added that in there because that isn’t even the point she’s trying to make. She saying that the Holy Spirit will lead and guide and instruct us. Sounds like what Jesus said the purpose of His Holy Spirit is." She is ABSOLUTELY claiming that "the testimonies of His Spirit" means her writings. You can tell this from the context. I highly recommend you go and read the context. I would post it here but it is too long. Here is the reference so you don't have to look back. Testimonies 4, p. 147 and in Testimonies 5, p. 661 (1876)
"Could it be that you’re forgetting that the Adventist Movement actually started with William Miller in 1818. Satan saw what was happening and started working." So Satan saw that William Miller was starting to calculate that Jesus was coming back in 1843 and was worried? Or are you saying that he somehow knew the true remnant church (SDAs) would be the eventual outcome of William Miller's Bible study along with the Jehovah's Witnesses, The Advent Christian Church, Church of God (Seventh Day),etc and thought he'd better create some Mormons to combat them?
You said Siri that JS believed the Book of Mormon is the "new Bible". Is that what Mormons claim? Here is an answer to a FAQ as listed on Mormonnewsroom.ca: "Do Mormons believe in the Bible? Yes. The Church reveres the Bible as the word of God, a sacred volume of scripture. Latter-day Saints cherish its teachings and engage in a lifelong study of its divine wisdom. Moreover, during worship services the Bible is pondered and discussed. Additional books of scripture — including the Book of Mormon— strengthen and reinforce God’s teachings through additional witnesses and provide moving accounts of the personal experiences many individuals had with Jesus Christ. According to Church apostle M. Russell Ballard, “The Book of Mormon does not dilute nor diminish nor deemphasize the Bible. On the contrary, it expands, extends, and exalts it.”"
Siri, I never claimed that Joseph Smith and Ellen G White had the same doctrinal beliefs. You said that they didn't sound anything alike and I was showing how they do sound alike. You may say that EGW is WAY different than Jo Smith but that's because you grew up SDA, you can't really see how EGW looks to an outsider. In the end, they both claimed to be prophets, both had visitations from "angels" and both started large and growing religions. We can't just dismiss one as crazy and give the other the benefit of the doubt...
Siri, I understand that you think Dale Ratzlaff twists a lot of things. He is a former adventist so naturally he would believe differently than you do. He tried for years to get SDAs at all levels to tell him how the Investigative Judgement is biblical and no one was able to. None of his seminary professors could, no scholars could, he tried and tried to stay in the church but in the end his morals required that he couldn't teach something that was untrue. I recommend reading his memoir "The Truth Led me Out" and then you can talk about whether or not he twists things.
alright. I got a summary. lol
can I get a summary? I was gone the last few day camping so I wasn’t able to get on.
Ava, thanks for being vulnerable and sharing! I have to agree with you on that one.
I don’t think Skyler and Bible Memorizer said they will reject God? I have reason to believe that an eternal hell goes directly contrary to God’s character, and I don’t think it would be justice for God to burn people without end.
@I would love to see the texts you base your beliefs on! Feel free to chip in too, LBJ! ‘Cause I may be wrong...
@Ava, could you give me the verses that say that Heaven is eternal the same why it says that Hell is eternal. ‘Cause for some reason I couldn’t find any like that...
I agree that part of Hell will be separation and all that. My only difference with you all is that I don’t believe hell will last forever...
Thanks so much for sending your journal post! So beautiful. Thanks again!
Could I please have the reference to the Mark verse please? Thanks so much for sharing!
Siri, when I talk about modern worship, for me it's positive. For several reasons, one of which is that I feel like I'm not just going through the motions, but actually worshiping God when I use more modern songs. Whenever I sing hymns, I just don't worship, I don't know why, but I always feel like I'm doing it for my family, not for God. People can disagree with me, and that's fine... It's just my personal preference.
LBJ, I completely agree with you on the nature of hell, I talked more about it on Mon Oct 21 2:03 PM, Wed Oct 23 9:44 AM, and Fri Oct 25 10:02 AM-2:30 PM. I think that's where !y best points were made about hell. To me, if we have an eternal heaven, and we can say the times it refers to heaven as eternal it's literal, but when it refers to hell it's not, just doesn't make any sense. And that's not even diving into biblical texts. I think if God is truly a God of justice, Hell will be eternal. But if SDA was right (even though I don't think they are) I would not reject God like so many SDA say they would if God punished people in Hell forever. Many times I have heard SDA say on here that they would not serve a God who punished people in Hell forever. I know Siri said she would deal with it, but I wonder if the rest of SDA believes like that... Because saying God would be a tyrant is ridiculous, I went into that on Mon Oct 7 10:01 PM and the next posts.
If you have ANY questions, opinions, see an error in something, I would love to hear it! It would be help for me. I try to keep an open mind🙂
That isn’t exactly where we started in-depth to look at it, but from there you’ll get a intro into the subject!😊
@LBJ: Haha, we had a very wide spanning conversation on this before you came. “Mon Oct 14 8:48” is where the conversation shifted towards an eternal hell.
@Larissa, LBJ very kindly and accurately filled us in on Mormonism. (Thank you, LBJ!) I hope you won’t say that EGW’s writings sound like that, do you? ‘Cause I’ve read a good many of her books and they sure don’t talk about some fairy tale happening in Meso-America, unless you call her descriptions of Heaven as a fairy tale?
I can’t say this enough: EGW isn’t on the same level as the Bible. Period. That is the official view.
Comparing EGWs writings to Mormonism is a very sad parallel because EGW NEVER (or the Adventist Church either) ever claimed to replace God’s Word! If you’ve been following our conversation, I testified that I studied for an entire year the various problems EGW’s critics have. And I found her in total harmony with the Bible and fulfilling the tests of prophet. That’s my personal testimony but I totally understand that you and the rest who don’t agree with the Adventist Beliefs will not consider her a true prophet. That’s totally fine! I get it. However, I cannot stay quiet when her opponents use unfair, chopped up smears to paint her in a bad light.
@LBJ (I hope you don’t mind if I call you that), you’re totally correct about Mormonism! My family for centuries have been part of the occult and I can testify that Mormonism is from Satan. And unfortunately, most of their members don’t even know it!
Recap, it is totally true that the Mormon Church was the backlash from the occult. 2. It is not the position of the Adventist Church that EGW is equal to the Bible.
Thanks so much Larissa for sacrificing a good portion of your sleep to come on here!
I’ve heard non-SDAs quote from, teach from, study to bring light on a situation or doctrinal issue, memorize, John Piper, C.S. Lewis, Billy Graham. etc. I hope you don’t find it sinful to read and study other people’s knowledge on the Bible?
Point C: “She was canonical INSOFAR AS DOCTRINAL INTERPRETATION IS CONCERNED.” Doesn’t say that EGW is on the same level as the Bible. It says that her writings doesn’t contradict the Bible.
Point B says that the Holy Spirit was EGWs source. I hope you don’t believe that the Holy Spirit was only for the Apostles and their associates? Second, “equal quality” doesn’t mean equal to the Bible.
Sat Nov 16 12:12 AM: No where does it say that EGW is like the Bible. The first quote you provided is so short I have to wonder whether the complier cut it so because it probably didn’t mean that in the way presented (I’m assuming you’re getting these quotes from some source, right? I doubt you have a quarterly and a teacher’s guide of all things from 1978?).
Read Hebrews 1:1, 2 closely. It doesn’t say “in the last days he will speak to us by his Son.” It says “In THESE last days he HAS spoke to us by his Son.” Obviously, Hebrews was talking about the past, when Jesus lived among them and spoke with them.
Your argument rests on that when she says “His Spirit” she means “her writings.” You must have added that in there because that isn’t even the point she’s trying to make. She saying that the Holy Spirit will lead and guide and instruct us. Sounds like what Jesus said the purpose of His Holy Spirit is.
On Sat 16 12:03 AM: What you’re saying is correct that the same Spirit who impressed the apostles and prophets to write worked on EGW as well. That is totally different from saying that her writing are equal with the Bible. They are not.
Mormonism according to Wikipedia started “in the 1820s and 1830s.” So, unfortunately, I am correct. Satan saw what was happening and started working.
“You’ve got your history a little mixed up.” Goodness. Could it be that you’re forgetting that the Adventist Movement actually started with William Miller in 1818. He began publicly sharing in 1831.
EGW believed that the Bible was the only authority and that anything that went against His Word was not of Him. These are her words: “We are to receive God's word as supreme authority. We must accept its truths for ourselves. And we can appreciate these truths only as we search them out by personal study. Then, as we make God's word the guide of our lives, for us is answered the prayer of Christ: “Sanctify them through Thy truth: Thy word is truth.” John 17:17. The acknowledgment of the truth in word and deed is our confession of faith. Only thus can others know that we believe the Bible.. 6T 402.3
Your cherry-picked quotations were amusing to read. 1. EGW and Joseph Smith had major theological differences on very major things. The most major was whether the Bible could be added to or not. Jospeh Smith believed that the Book of the Mormon was the NEW Bible.
I’m sorry to say this, but that Former Adventist pastor is NOT reliable source. I’ve read his stuff and he twists a lot of things, unfortunately.
@Loved by Jesus, thanks for your interest. I believe in the keeping of the Sabbath, specifically the seventh day, and that hell is not eternal. Those are the two main differences with our Protestant counterparts. We believe in the trinity, Sola Scriptura, etc.
Oh gosh, I have GOT to go to sleep. See why I try to only get on here every other day or so? Thank you for all your input Siri and others! I hope everyone has a wonderful weekend!
Siri wrote: "If the church you attended placed EGW on the same level as the Bible, your church was the exception. That is not the mainstream belief or the official one." By the time I was a senior in high school, my family had moved 22 times. Each move brought us to different SDA churches. Although some of the moves were back to places/churches we had been before... My point is, I have sampled a great range of SDA churches all over the country for more than just a weekend visit. While I agree with you that most people claimed that EGW was not on par with the Bible, in practice, her writings are used in much the same way the Bible is during sermons and in Sabbath schools. Quoted from, taught from, studied to bring light on a situation or doctrinal issue, memorized, etc.
Siri wrote, "I’ll agree that she played an important role in the SDA church. However, her writing are NOT considered at the level to the Bible (she’s said so herself)" Here are some quotes from the SDA organization that disagree with you. A. "The Bible and the writings of Ellen White are inerrant.” Sabbath School-Quarterly; Feb. 11, 1978, Teacher's Edition, p. 112. B. "We believe the revelation and inspiration of both the Bible and Ellen White's writings to be of equal quality. The superintendence of the Holy Spirit was just as careful and thorough in one case as in the other." Ministry, October 1981. C. "Shall we accept the view that a Seventh-day Adventist theologian is more dependable than a Seventh-day Adventist prophet? I highly respect many of our Seventh-day Adventist theologians. I have sat at their feet and been taught by them. I admire and respect them highly. I would like to remind you, however, that you can search the Bible from Genesis to Revelation and you will not find a single text marking out theologians as having the gift of the Holy Sprit. The Scriptures indicate however, that prophets have a gift of the Holy Spirit. Ellen White had that gift and she was canonical insofar as doctrinal interpretation is concerned." Letter from D. A. Delafield trustee of the EGW Estate, to P. C. Drewer, June 24, 1981.
Siri wrote: "The first quote you mentioned does NOT say that her writing are the “keystone to the SDA arch.” It really is talking about that EGWs visions AND testimonies must be taken together." I see your point. But it also says if the testimonies are taken away, then all the special messages would fall. That is referring to the special/unique doctrines of the SDA church. Therefore he is saying that if you take out the keystone of the testimonies, then al of SDA would fall.
Siri wrote: "“She also considered her writing equal to the prophets and the apostles of the Bible.” FALSE, FALSE, FALSE. EGW famously called her writings a “lesser light” compared to the Bible which she termed the “greater light.” " She did say that yes. She also wrote: "In ancient times God spoke to men by the mouth of prophets and apostles. In these days He speaks to them by the testimonies of His Spirit [her writings]. There never was a time when God instructed His people more earnestly then He instructs them now concerning His will and the course that He would have them pursue.” Testimonies 4, p. 147 and in Testimonies 5, p. 661 (1876). Does this quote sound familiar to you non-sdas? Maybe you it reminds you of Hebrews 1:1-2 "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe." I think you mentioned this akamburger. Take a look at who EGW says God talks through in these last days...
Siri you said, "The Mormon Church came out at around the same time as the Adventist Church because it is the direct response from the Occult to the threat the Adventist Church gave to Satan’s kingdom." You've got your history a little mixed up. It can happen to anyone. Joseph Smith had his last vision and died in June 1844. Ellen G White's first vision was shortly after the Great Disappointment so let's say October or November 1844. "Many of Ellen White’s relatives had Mormon connections, and Mormonism was flourishing in the area where Ellen lived in the early years of her life. In 1842, Ellen Harmon’s [future Mrs. White] second cousin, Agnes Moulton Coolbrith Smith, widow of Don Carlos Smith, became a wife of Mormon prophet Joseph Smith at Nauvoo, IL." So we can see that Mormonism rising up as a response to Adventism is not correct.
Now let's compare some passages from the Book of Mormon to EGW's writings:
EXHIBIT D: ..I have seen a vision ... and I saw...And it came to pass that there arose a mist of darkness; yea, even an exceeding great mist of darkness insomuch that they who had commenced in the path did lose their way, that they wandered off and were lost ... and they fell into forbidden paths..." vs "...God has shown me in holy vision... I saw... The light behind them went out leaving their feet in perfect darkness, and they stumbled and got their eyes off the mark and lost sight of Jesus, and fell off the path down in the dark and wicked world below. It was just as impossible for them to get on the path again and go to the City as all the wicked world which God had rejected. They fell all the way along the path..."
EXHIBIT E: "Behold, I have dreamed a dream ... And I also beheld a straight and narrow path, which came along by the rod of iron ... And it came to pass that I beheld others pressing forward, and they came forth and caught hold of the end of the rod of iron ... And they did press their way forward continually holding fast to the rod of iron...and many were lost from his view, wandering into strange roads ... I beheld a large and spacious field ... And I also beheld a straight and narrow path, which came along by the rod of iron ... unto a large and spacious field..." vs "I dreamed...As the path grew more narrow... small were let down ... These we eagerly grasped... exclaiming, 'We have hold from above! We have hold from above!' The same words were uttered by all the company in the narrow pathway... Where were such now? They were not in the company. At every change, some were left behind ... Before us, on the other side of the chasm, was a beautiful field ... Nothing I have seen upon earth could compare in beauty and glory with this field..."
EXHIBIT F:"I dreamed of seeing a temple to which many people were flocking...In my anxiety to reach the temple I did not notice or care for the throng that surrounded me. On entering the building I saw that the vast temple was supported by one immense pillar... Even after entering the building a fear came over me and a sense of shame that I must humiliate myself before these people..." vs "And I ... beheld ... a great and spacious building ... he saw other multitudes pressing forward ... And he also saw other multitudes feeling their way toward that great and spacious building. And great was the multitude that did enter into that strange building. And after they did enter into that building they did point the finger of scorn at me..."
"Have you read the Book of Mormon? It sounds so different from EGW, to begin with". Here are some quotes from Joseph Smith, the prophet of Mormonism and Ellen White, the prophet of Adventism side by side. Can you tell which is which? EXHIBIT A: "I often felt condemned for my weaknesses and imperfections...after I retired to bed for the night, I betook myself to prayer and supplication to the Almighty for forgiveness of all my sins, and follies, and also for a manifestation to me that I might know of my state and standing before him." vs "Words of condemnation rang in my ears day and night, and my constant cry to God was, What shall I do to be saved? ... My sufferings of mind were intense. Sometimes for a whole night I would dare not to close my eyes...then quietly leave my bed and kneel upon the floor, praying silently, with a dumb agony that cannot be described."
EXHIBIT B: "While prayer was offered for me, the thick darkness that had encompassed me rolled back, and a sudden light came upon me. My strength was taken way, I seemed to be in the presence of angels." vs "While I was thus in the act of calling upon God, I discovered a light appearing in my room, which continued increase until the room was lighter than at noonday..."
EXHIBIT C: "...when immediately a personage appeared at my bedside...his whole person was glorious beyond description... When I first looked upon him, I was afraid; but the fear soon left me. He called me by name, and said..." vs ".Just then the door opened, and a person of beautiful form and countenance entered...I tried to shield myself from his gaze, feeling unable to endure his searching eyes, but he drew near me with a smile, and, laying his hand upon my head, said, 'Fear not.'"
Siri, the book of Revelation is extremely symbolic, I am sure you would agree. Are you suggesting in EGW's vision I quoted that the tall people who had never sinned were symbols for something else? Or that EGW saw Enoch but that his appearance was actually standing for something else?
If you want more resources LBJ, let me know. I have plenty of books and youtube videos I can recommend.
Hi Loved by Jesus! You can find the 28 Fundamental beliefs of SDAs here: https://www.adventist.org/en/beliefs/ and for a take on their beliefs from a current Christian but former SDA pastor, check out this article. https://www.gospeloutreach.net/Truth_About_SDA_Truth.pdf
Let me try to explain. Larissa called something EGW wrote “science fiction.” To counter such a baseless claim, I sent Bible texts (two of which deal with what EGW was talking about: Heaven) with the caption “Sci-fi.” Why? Labeling is only labeling. You can use any adjective to disparage. It don’t change anything.
Sarcasm, Skyler, sarcasm.
why was that stuff science fiction if it is from the Bible?
Mercy. That’s so unbiblical!
I remember being told by some one in the other sda group that egw stated that she was serving as a mediator. I guess I was misinformed lol
Thanks so much for sharing, burger! You’re spot on and I can agree with your post.
I agree that we don’t need any religious leaders to go to Heaven. That never was EGW’s point. She said many times the only reason behind her writings were to lead people to the Bible. EGW by no means mediates between us and Christ. We go directly to Christ! Amen!
I think that God only had one mediator (excluding the Old Testament prophets) on this earth. and that was Jesus. when he died on the Cross, he opened up the ability to have a one way relationship with Christ. I recently did a research paper on the Great Awakening. before the great awakening, the religious leaders were acting as a mediator between man and god. then when the people began to realize that they don’t need to religious leaders to get to heaven. they realized that they could have their own personal relationship with Christ. no church leaders necessary. so those are my thoughts.
If the church you attended placed EGW on the same level as the Bible, your church was the exception. That is not the mainstream belief or the official one.
I’ll agree that she played an important role in the SDA church. However, her writing are NOT considered at the level to the Bible (she’s said so herself) and I’ve searched and searched and compared and compared and read and read for an entire year to see whether she was a true prophet or not. I could not find a single thing that contradicts the Bible, history, or anything else.
The first quote you mentioned does NOT say that her writing are the “keystone to the SDA arch.” It really is talking about that EGWs visions AND testimonies must be taken together. She was coming back at people who took her prophecies as from God, but put aside her counsel (testimonies) as her own opinion. So that passage cannot be used to say that she is “a keystone to the SDA arch.” The arch it talks about is solely her writings.
“She also considered her writing equal to the prophets and the apostles of the Bible.” FALSE, FALSE, FALSE. EGW famously called her writings a “lesser light” compared to the Bible which she termed the “greater light.” She wrote that her writings are “to lead men and women to the greater light.”
why group so active pant pant
So you see, the parallels people find, such as word count and all are there because of Satan’s wiki schemes to destroy God and His people
Let me give you a little background into the Mormon Church. 1. The Mormon Church came out at around the same time as the Adventist Church because it is the direct response from the Occult to the threat the Adventist Church gave to Satan’s kingdom. However, it did not work. And the Jehovah’s Witnesses came into the picture. That did not work either to stop the Adventist Church. Here is where it gets super close to my family’s ally. When all that didn’t work, the occult sent Jesuits (yes, my entire family is Jesuit) to infiltrate the Adventist Church and destroy it.
1. Have you read the Book of Mormon? It sounds so different from EGW, to begin with. 2. If you’re going by word count, you’ll probably be better off reading people coffee. You’ll get SLIGHTLY more accurate results.
This sounds like it could come straight from Star Wars: “So I prophesied as I was commanded. And as I prophesied, there was a sound, and behold, a rattling, and the bones came together, bone to its bone. And I looked, and behold, there were sinews on them, and flesh had come upon them, and skin had covered them. But there was no breath in them. Then he said to me, “Prophesy to the breath; prophesy, son of man, and say to the breath, Thus says the Lord God: Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe on these slain, that they may live.” So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived and stood on their feet, an exceedingly great army.”
sci-fi. SCI-FI! “Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. No longer will there be anything accursed, but the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will worship him.”
@Larissa, I have some sci-fi for you as well! It’s even on the same scene. “Then came one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues and spoke to me, saying, “Come, I will show you the Bride, the wife of the Lamb.” And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great, high mountain, and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God, having the glory of God, its radiance like a most rare jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal.”
Here is the thing about EGW. She claimed to speak for God as his messenger. She claimed her writings and her testimonies were infallible. She also considered her writings equal to the prophets and apostles of the Bible. SDA leaders teach that EGW's writings are infallible. Also, Ellen might not be the FOUNDATION of SDA but they claim her as the keystone to the SDA arch: "Our position on the Testimonies is like the keystone to the arch. Take that out, and there is no logical stopping place till all the special truths of the message are gone. . . Nothing is surer than this, that the message and the visions [of Mrs. White] belong together, and stand or fall together"(Review and Herald Supplement, Aug. 14, 1883). "The Spirit of Prophecy [Mrs. White's writings] is a fundamental part of this message. . . Since the rise of this message, this denomination has believed in the Spirit of Prophecy. We have preached it as widely as we have the Sabbath and other kindred truths, and believe it as thoroughly. . . To us it makes a vast difference whether one whom we have regarded from the rise of this message as being endowed with the prophetic gift is a prophet of God, or whether she is not" (A Statement [by the General Conference Committee], May, 1906, pp. 10, 86).
My former step-aunt was a Mormon Crimson and took me to a Mormon 101 class when I was visiting her one weekend. It was quite the eye-opening experience! I had a hard time composing my face to hide my incredulity at their heresy.
No, Siri, I haven't read it, but I did some research on Mormonism and read a brief overview on it. That was PLENTY enough for me.
I must ask, Siri, in your view how is what EGW wrote different from the book of Mormon? Besides that she wrote the equivalent of like 135 Books of Mormons as far as word count goes...
Speaking of science fiction, here is some for you. "The Lord has given me a view of other worlds. Wings were given me, and an angel attended me from the city to a place that was bright and glorious. The grass of the place was living green, and the birds there warbled a sweet song. The inhabitants of the place were of all sizes; they were noble, majestic, and lovely. They bore the express image of Jesus, and their countenances beamed with holy joy, expressive of the freedom and happiness of the place. I asked one of them why they were so much more lovely than those on the earth. The reply was, "We have lived in strict obedience to the commandments of God, and have not fallen by disobedience, like those on the earth." Then I saw two trees, one looked much like the tree of life in the city. The fruit of both looked beautiful, but of one they could not eat. They had power to eat of both, but were forbidden to eat of one. Then my attending angel said to me, "None in this place have tasted of the forbidden tree; but if they should eat, they would fall." Then I was taken to a world which had seven moons. There I saw good old Enoch, who had been translated. On his right arm he bore a glorious palm, and on each leaf was written "Victory." Around his head was a dazzling white wreath, and leaves on the wreath, and in the middle of each leaf was written "Purity," and around the wreath were stones of various colors, that shone brighter than the stars, and cast a reflection upon the letters and magnified them. On the back part of his head was a bow that confined the wreath, and upon the bow was written "Holiness." Above the wreath was a lovely crown that shone brighter than the sun. I asked him if this was the place he was taken to from the earth. He said, "It is not; the city is my home, and I have come to visit this place." He moved about the place as if perfectly at home. I begged of my attending angel to let me remain in that place. I could not bear the thought of coming back to this dark world again. Then the angel said, "You must go back, and if you are faithful, you, with the 144,000, shall have the privilege of visiting all the worlds and viewing the handiwork of God."
Early Writings, page 39-40 (1882)
No. I do not believe it AT ALL. And really, the Mormon Church is just a another order in the occult. Their high ranking members know that, but the majority of their people don’t have a clue!
Crimson, you made me laugh😂😂😂 Have you actually tried reading it? It sounds like a sci-fi fantasy!
does anybody remember David or kellerpeter
I have been on for four or five years
I seen "Book of Mormon" and got worried for a second. Good to know that you don't believe it, because, like I said, I got worried that you did for a second😅
She is not the foundation of the Adventist Church. The Bible is, and only the Bible.
Just to make a little note: many people when they hear about EGW throw a fit because they thing that what she’s written is like the Book of Mormon. Totally false.
We’ve been debating Ellen White. Larissa brings up different problems she has and we’ve been going back and forth on it.
Larissa brought up something Ellen White wrote and asked my opinion on it. I’m wondering why.
You piked my curiosity, Larissa, when you mentioned the “green cord vision.” I would love to know why you brought it up.
Oh dear. Wouldn’t want that to happen to you, Larissa. It’s been so great discussing these topics with you! I really appreciate and value you and the time you set aside to write on here. Thank you!
It’s weird it won’t let you stay in Dogs for Jesus, Skyler! Especially since you made the group. Makes me worry about me getting kicked off this one. 😳 Did you make another person admin? Have you talked to tech support?
I've had ST for slightly over a year now.
I’ve been on Scripture Typer for a little over a year I think? A year and a half?
Welcome Loved by Jesus and akamburger! Glad you are here. I like the sound of your youth pastor Ava, he sounds like a good one.
scroll down in groups like silent echoes and you will see me
back in the days when this was extremely active I was constantly talking, I made dogs for Jesus but it won’t let me stay in the group for some reason but it is ranked high
I have been here for a couple years
However, I’ve not been active on the groups for that entire time.
I joined ST a little after they created the app.
I’ve been on for a little over a year.
how long have you been in scripture typer, Siri?
@Skyler, Akamburger (as well as Crimson) are long-standing friends from ST. We’ve had and continue to have a lot of fun together.
Thanks, burger! Looking forward to hearing more! This is so neat.
how did you find final events SDA and this group loved by Jesus
I can explain more later.
yes I do. so reformed means that changes have been made in something. the reformed Baptist’s are a group of people that are a form of Baptist’s. we believe in all 5 points of Calvinism. and we believe in life after death for those who are believers.
oh that would be interesting
Hey Burger! If I remember correctly, you’re Reformed Baptist and you believe in all the 5 points, correct? Would you mind explaining what “Reformed” means? Thanks so much, burger!
I heard y’all were talking about Calvinism?
Just wondering, when you mention that “he uses modern worship over hymns,” is that something positive for you or negative?
Thanks so much Ava. Very fascinating and learning lots!
Here's that link I mentioned Siri. I hope it helps you understand the differences a little better http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/acloserlook.asp
My Student Pastor is Reformed... He doesn't take a lenient view on practical living. His two rules of life are, "don't be sinful" and "don't be stupid" he says, "not everything that is stupid is sinful, but everything that is sinful is stupid." He has no view on the end times except that it will happen... and he uses modern worship over hymns. Ironically, he preached a whole sermon on legalism and how it's wrong and we need to worship God. We haven't had a discussion about Calvinism yet, but he said he isn't a five point Calvinist... so I'm assuming there is something he disagrees with there. He seems to keep all the good things about being Reformed and disowns all the typical baggage you described although sadly with typical Reformed Baptists, those things are true. Our college pastor is also Reformed, I haven't been able to talk to him about it so I don't know exactly what he thinks about that... But from having many other conversations with him, luckily he seems to avoid these negative things as well.
Churches in the Southern Baptist convention are members of the organization, they are not governed by it. Here's a link describing what the Southern Baptist Convention is. If you find the section saying "Flexibility and Freedom" That will tell you more about church government in the Southern Baptist churches.
Welcome, Loved by Jesus! So great to have you a part of this conversation! Thanks so much for sharing! Independent Baptist is basically like Southern Baptist except it’s governed at a local church level instead of the Southern Baptist Convention? That’s always been my understanding but I may be wrong...
And if your beliefs are similar to Ava, I’d say I agree pretty much completely with you then, except on election.😊
Oh. I wasn’t trying to pit you against someone. So sorry if it came out that way.
By political response I mean that no one could pin me down with that response.
On the green cord vision: I find it a very touching story how through faith we can come to Jesus. Do you have an issue with it?
What do you mean by “political response?”
About the 5 points, I’d say my understanding is about like Ava’s but I’m still open to learning more and cementing my views on most of them. How’s that for a political response? 😄
Hey, I’m wondering what you guys think about EGW’s green cord vision?
@Larissa, I don’t think I’ve understood whether you believe in any/some of the 5 points of Calvinism.
Yes, so interesting! Thanks a lot for the information. If I remember correctly, another one of my ST friends (akamburger) is Reformed Baptist. And she told me she believes in all of the points.
Um... Idk exactly what he means by free will Baptist, but I think it mainly has to do with whether you are Calvinist or arminian... Which I am neither. A reformed Baptist is a Calvinist Baptist who believes in the beliefs of Baptists, specifically baptism by total immersion and protestant beliefs, and the five points of Calvinism. Crimson can clarify this more, but I believe free will Baptist would be a Baptist who believes the Baptist beliefs and is Arminian. I'm a southern Baptist, which means my church is a part of the southern Baptist convention. As opposed to independent Baptist which basically believe a same thing, but aren't a part of the southern Baptist convention. So I am not reformed Baptist or free will Baptist, as I said before I'm a 3.5 Calvinist who can't decide on election, but I'm leaning towards Calvinism on that, and disagree with limited atonement as defined by Calvinists and agree 100% with Arminianism on that. Sooooo... Crimson can explain exactly what he means by free will Baptist, but that's what I've heard about them... So correct me if I'm wrong Crimson. Oh and reformed is a little more than just Calvinism, but we don't have time to go into that right now so I'll leave it at that.
@Ava and Crimson: Ava, I know that you’re southern baptist while Crimson is Free Will Baptist. Could you both explain what the differences are?
yeah. that would be hard. five stars to the person that actually had to write that!
LOL. No, I copied it from ellenwhite.com
you must’ve posted like 40 times
hey Siri do your fingers hurt 😢
hmm. Don’t know how that got there 😂
oh ok, thanks for the correction on the county treasurer. at 9:48, you wrote about her science and nutrition stuff briefly.
I find it interesting that really what she predicted (I didn’t post all of it here) is very similar to what Jeremiah and Isaiah prophesied, except in a different century.
Thanks for summarizing! A few corrections, however: 1 I didn’t have one on science and nutrition but that’s a valid point 2 It wasn’t her treasurer; he was the county treasurer in a county she was visiting
Don’t worry Siri, you didn’t. 😉 So to recap, EGW predicted the SDA newspaper would be a success and it was, that rappings and knockings would become more and more common and spiritualism is on the rise, that EGW presented a lot of science and nutrition that was unknown at that time, that everyone would soon know that her treasurer was a bad seed and he was, that the civil war would be worse than people expected and that families in the meeting would lose sons and they did, that there would be an increase in earthquakes and floods and that especially SF and Oakland would be targeted and they were, that ships would be sunk and they were in the world wars, that cities would grow and they have, that the ability to travel and spread the advent message would soon be harder and then passports became required to travel, that pollution would increase and it seems to have. I think that pretty much sums up the paragraphs below in case others don’t want to read all of it just to follow along with the next part of or conversation.
I wasn’t trying to “overwhelm” you with all that, Larissa. 😂 Guess if you want more I can post more. FYI, this all is from ellenwhite.com.
"Senator Barry Goldwater, whose home is on a hilltop overlooking Phoenix . . . complained that the air had become so dirty he couldn't even see the city."--U. S. News and World Report, Feb. 9, 1970, p. 23. Addressing a United Nations conference of some 450 leading experts on human environment, was said, "Our spacecraft called the earth is reaching its capacity."--Ibid., Feb. 1970. The pollution of the atmosphere by "poisonous gases," and of the rivers, bays, seas, and lakes by oil slicks from oil tankers, refuse from power plants and chemical firms, and sewage from the great cities, has become a giant national and international problem. Another offender: Thermal pollution--heated water from certain industrial plants killing fish in lakes and rivers. An article by Jack Shepperd, Look Senior Editor, reads: "We are fouling our streams, lakes, marshes. The sea is next. We are burying ourselves under 7 million scrapped cars, 30 million tons of waste paper, 48 billion discarded cans and 28 billion bottles and jars a year. A million tons more of garbage pile up each day. The air we breathe circles the earth 40 times a year, and America contributes 140 million tons of pollutants, . . . one-third of the world's total . . . . --Look, April 21, 1970, p. 23. 100
Pollution of our Atmosphere and Earth Forecast: "In the future the condition of things in the cities will grow 99 more and more objectionable. . . . From the standpoint of health the smoke and dust of the cities are very objectionable."--Testimonies, vol. 7, p. 82. (1902) "The physical surroundings in the cities are often a peril to health. The constant liability to contact with disease, the prevalence of foul air, impure water, impure food . . . ['poisonous gases' MH 262] are some of the many evils to be met."--Ministry of Healing, p. 365. (1905) "See the storms and tempests. Satan is working in the atmosphere; he is poisoning the atmosphere, and here we are dependent upon God for our lives--our present and eternal life."--Selected Messages, bk. 2, p. 52. (1890) Fulfillment: In the U.S. in the 1970's urban dwellers worried most about: inflation, air, water, and food pollution, education, crime, war, and housing problems. (U. S. News and World Report, Feb. 9, 1970)
The Move to the Cities Forecast: "It is Satan's purpose to attract men and women to the cities, and to gain his object he invents every kind of novelty and amusement, every kind of excitement. And the cities of the earth today are becoming as were the cities before the flood."--Selected Messages, bk. 2, p. 355. (1908) Fulfillment: "Only ten cities in the world had populations in excess of one million persons in 1900. More than 60 did in 1962. . . . By 1980, over 90 per cent of the American people will be living in urban areas. The figure in 1920 was exactly 51.2 per cent. In 1962 it was just under 70 per cent. . . . Five metropolitan areas accounted for 20 per cent of the nation's total population in 1960. One out of every five Americans then lived in either greater New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, or Detroit."--Sick Cities, pp. 17, 16, 14.
At the time these words were penned, and for another decade and a half, one was free to travel without passport or restriction in practically every part of the earth. How easy it was to send missionaries to distant lands! How simple it was for General Conference leaders to inspect the work and give encouragement and help in almost any part of the globe! Not until 1-8 did the United States enact a law requiring all American citizens who travel abroad to carry passports. 96 The words of this prediction have been literally fulfilled before our eyes. Large parts of the world are entirely cut off from visitors and even the exchange of mail. Certain other countries are will nigh impossible to enter. Mission appointments are not infrequently canceled when entrance to, or residence in, a country which in years past we entered with freedom, is now denied. Surely the way is "hedged up" "on the right hand and on the left."
Avenues of Travel to be Hedged Up In Testimonies for the Church, published in 1900, this interesting prediction is found in words destined to hasten the spread of the gospel message: "We have no time to lose. The end is near. The passage from place to place to spread the truth will soon be hedged with dangers on the right hand and on the left. Everything will be placed to obstruct the way of the Lord's messengers, so that they will not be able to do that which it is possible for them to do now."--Testimonies, vol. 6, p. 22.
- [ ] "Collision" "on the great lines of travel" in the year 1956 injured more persons in the United States than were wounded on all the battlefields in the nation's history. Who but God could have foreseen this at the time Ellen White, in the 1890's, was inspired to pen the words of solemn prediction of "what God's foreknowledge had seen would be"?
On battlefield and in the bombing of scores of large cities, "human lives" were "sacrificed by millions." The palaces of the earth were literally "swept away in the fury of the flames." Incendiary bombs, unthought of in 1890, created fires that "no human effort" could quench. How literal has been the fulfillment of this prediction of the coming tempest! But we should take a second look at this amazing prediction of 1890. Note these words: "Disasters by rail will become more and more frequent; confusion, collision, and death without a moment's warning will occur on the great lines of travel." Two years after these words were published, the first American auto was produced. A decade later the first plane made its trial flight. The words of the prediction come to the mind with force with each recurring headline of sudden death by rail, car, or plane. And the words seem doubly important when we contemplate that in the United States from the year 1900 to the year 1955, 1,149,414 Americans died in highway accidents alone--20,000 more American lives than have been lost in all wars in which the United States has participated.
These words do not sound strange to us now, but they were bold words for 1890--a time of peace and of anticipated lasting tranquility thought to be ushering in the hoped for "millennium" when there would be no more war. This prediction, with its call for preparation for the fury of the coming tempest, stood out in bold relief as one from a prophet of gloom, in a world of bright hopes. 95 Again in 1904, through the columns of the church paper, Ellen White warned: "Soon great trouble will arise among the nations,--trouble that will not cease until Jesus comes."--Review and Herald, Feb. 11, 1904. Just a few years later the fury of World War I broke forth, and this was followed by World War II. The sinking of the proud navies of great world powers easily fulfilled the prediction, "Navies will go down." The heavy shipping losses on the part of all participating countries marked the "thousands of ships" that were to be "hurled into the depths of the sea."
Prediction of 1890 - The Tempest is Coming In a message published to the world in the Signs of the Times in 1890 Ellen White solemnly predicted: "The tempest is coming, and we must get ready for its fury by having repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord will arise to shake terribly the earth. We shall see troubles on all sides. Thousands of ships will be hurled into the depths of the sea. Navies will go down, and human lives will be sacrificed by millions. Fires will break out unexpectedly, and no human effort will be able to quench them. The palaces of earth will be swept away in the fury of the flames. Disasters by rail will become more and more frequent; confusion, collision, and death without a moment's warning will occur on the great lines of travel. The end is near, probation is closing. Oh, let us seek God while He may be found, call upon Him while He is near!"--Signs of the Times, April 21, 1890. (Published in Messages to Young People, pp. 89, 90.)
Repeatedly she warned by voice and pen: "I am bidden to declare the message that cities full of transgression, and sinful in the extreme, will be destroyed by earthquakes, by fire, by flood. All the world will be warned that there is a God who will display His authority as God."--E. G. White Manuscript 35, 1906. (Published in Evangelism, p. 27.) In oral and written word she warned two cities located less than one hundred miles from her home with the prediction: "Not long hence these cities will suffer under the judgments of God. San Francisco and Oakland are becoming as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Lord will visit them in wrath."--E. G. White Manuscript 114, 1902. (Published in Evangelism, pp. 403-404.) Not a few, and among them non-Adventists, heeded the warning and moved with their families from San Francisco and Oakland to more retired locations. Those who remained soon understood the full significance of the prediction of disaster when on April 18, 1906, San Francisco was largely destroyed by an earthquake followed by fire, and Oakland and other cities also suffered. Reflect, for a moment, on the rapid increase in the destruction of cities the world around by fire, flood, earthquake, and then in the recent cataclysmic wars. All stand as bold evidence of predictions accurately fulfilled!
Disasters Predicted At about the turn of the century warnings came from Ellen White's pen that because of crime and corruption and capital-labor tensions, there would soon be great distress and disasters. Through the columns of the Review she warned: "Calamities, earthquakes, floods, disasters by land and by sea will increase. God is looking upon the world today as He looked upon it in Noah's time. He is sending His message to people today as He did in the days of Noah."--Review and Herald, Dec. 11, 1900, p. 796. Three years later she cried: "O that God's people had a sense of the impending destruction of thousands of cities, now almost given to idolatry."--Review and Herald, September 10, 1903. (Published in Evangelism, p. 29.)
No one expected actual war, and it was not until a full three months after this that President Lincoln called for an army. But a deep impression was made upon those in the little church as Ellen White, coming out of vision, told the audience that the nation was on the brink of war, and a number of states would join South Carolina in secession. She described views of armies in conflict, with terrible carnage by bullet and bayonet. She saw battlefields covered with the dead and dying. She described scenes of suffering in overcrowded prisons, and she saw homes where distress and anguish reigned because of the loss of husbands, sons, or brothers. Then looking around she said solemnly and sadly, in 92 words which startled the audience, "There are those in this house who will lose sons in that war." (Great Second Advent Movement, p. 338.) In a few months the dreadful war was in progress. For four sad years it dragged on. Newspaper accounts brought ever new and convincing evidence of the accuracy of the prediction in the Parkville Church. No less than five families in the room that day lost sons in the carnage.
Prediction of Civil War Bloodshed It was a joyous occasion for the Parkville Seventh-day Adventist Church. Several of the leading workers were present to assist in dedicating this new house of worship to the service of God. In connection with the afternoon meeting, Ellen White, who had been speaking, was taken in vision. This was Sabbath, January 12, 1861. Just three weeks earlier South Carolina had seceded from the Union. Three other states had followed, one each on Wednesday, January 9, Thursday, January 10, and Friday, January 11. Of the action of these last three states, the believers at Parkville may or may not have known.
An inquiry made by the sheriff brought only solemn denials from the treasurer of any knowledge of the missing money, until another officer observed the treasurer's wife hastily hide something in a snow bank, and found the bag containing the money, and confronted the embezzling treasurer with the evidence. Needless to say, the revival collapsed, and Hiram Patch and his affianced, with the words of prediction still fresh in their ears, became fruitful members of the remnant church. This experience of a prediction fulfilled within two weeks after the words were spoken inspired confidence in the hearts of those who looked on. This was also true of the prediction made at the dedication of the Parkville, Michigan, church a little more than a decade later.
The County Treasurer and His Embezzlement Elder Loughborough, early in the work, gives us an account of what took place at Oswego, New York, in the winter of 1849-1850. While Elder and Mrs. White were there laboring for souls, a revival was started in one of the Protestant churches by a layman who was county treasurer. This man seemed to have a great burden for the unconverted. A young man, Hiram Patch, and his fiancee were in the balance as to whether to cast their lot with the revival or join with the Sabbath-keeping Adventists. In vision Ellen White was shown the true character of the man conducting the revival, and as she spoke of it to Mr. Patch, she told him she was instructed to tell him, "Wait a month, and you will know for yourself the character of the persons who are engaged in this revival, and who profess to have such a great burden for sinners. He has no real burden for sinners." Mr. Patch replied, "I will wait." Two weeks went by and the treasurer-revivalist, in his affected agony for sinners, burst a blood vessel in his stomach and was confined to his bed at home. When others took over the treasurer's work at the county office, a shortage of $1,000.00 in county funds was immediately found.
Spiritualism in 18 declares: "A medium foretold the birth of Jesus, whose brief life on earth was filled with the performance of many so-called miracles which in reality were spiritual phenomena."--Centennial Book, p. 68. Ellen G. White Prediction in 1850: "I saw that soon it would be considered blasphemy to speak against the rapping, and that it would spread more and more."--Early Writings, p. 59. Spiritualism in 18 declares: "Neither priest nor press should uncharitably speak of, or touch this holy word Spiritualism, only with clean hands and pure hearts; and Spiritualists themselves should honor their blessed gospel of immortality."--Centennial Book, p. 34. 91 Here we have it, the fulfillment in almost the very words penned by inspiration a hundred years in advance.
These sentences taken from fuller, gripping presentations explained the real source of the phenomena, foretold its rapid acceptance, and forecast its future religious characteristics. Spreading with the speed of wildfire, Spiritualism is far from obscure today. It has penetrated the churches, and has also its own churches and ministers. Adherents from all professions and walks of life are numbered in the millions. As to its "religious garb" an official publication of the Spiritualists daringly declares: "Spiritualism, with its signs, wonders, visions and healing gifts was the religion of the apostles; of the post-apostolic fathers, and the primitive Christians."--Centennial Book of Modern Spiritualism in America, p. 115 (18) "Spiritualism is the coming universal religion. It is the life blood of Christianity; in fact, it is Christianity plus."--Ibid., p. 69. Before hastening to other topics, let us take two more early predictions and compare them with declarations made by Spiritualistic leaders in 18, just one hundred years after the mysterious rappings at Hydesville, New York: Ellen G. White Prediction in 1850: "I was shown that by the rapping and mesmerism these modern magicians would yet account for all the miracles wrought by our Lord Jesus Christ."--Early Writings, p. 59.
Here are her words: I saw that the mysterious knocking in New York . . . was the power of Satan, and that such things would be more and more common, clothed in a religious garb, so as to lull the deceived to greater security.--Early Writings, p. 43. * See the 48-page pamphlet "Medical Science and the Spirit of Prophecy" for scientific corroboration of many E. G. White statements in the field of physiology, hygiene and nutrition. 90 This initial warning constituted a protection to God's people, and other warnings soon followed. Its rapid growth was re-emphasized in 1854 in an interesting symbolic representation: "I saw the rapidity with which this delusion was spreading. A train of cars was shown me, going with the speed of lightning. The angel bade me look carefully. I fixed my eyes upon the train. It seemed that the whole world was on board. . . . Then he showed me the conductor, who appeared like a stately, fair person, whom all the passengers looked up to and reverenced. I was perplexed and asked my attending angel who it was. He said, 'It is Satan. He is the conductor in the form of an angel of light. He has taken the world captive. . . . They are all going with lightning speed to perdition.'"--Early Writings, p. 88.
The Rochester Rappings and Spiritualism The year 1848 witnessed some strange developments or manifestations in the village of Hydesville, New York, not far from Rochester. These, Ellen White predicted, were destined to become world-wide in proportions and would take on religious significance. This has since become known as Spiritualism. But in 1848 it was only a mysterious signal code of "rappings" and "knockings." When these communications first became known, many regarded them as a fraud or trick, or some sort of a short-lived delusion. But on March 24, 1849, Ellen White wrote of a revelation given her regarding this mysterious phenomenon. She predicted that it would become more and more common and would assume a religious garb.
Now the numbers have actually grown way more since those dates.
"Streams of light . . . clear round the world" How could this be? Jesus was coming so soon. Their numbers were few. There were none of wealth in the group. There were no great scholars among them. The world was unbelieving. And yet here was a young woman in their midst who predicted that a work of publishing to be started by her penniless husband would grow until it would encompass the globe. More than half a year went by before James White could make even the smallest beginning, arranging for the printing of a thousand copies of an eight-page paper on a charge account. Fulfillment: 1973-74 Statistics 50 Publishing Houses $50,403,635.00, Sales of Literature 4,373 Literature Evangelists 179 Languages in which literature is issued.
Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Work "Like Streams of Light" It was just a little company of Sabbath-keeping Adventists who met in the home of Otis Nichols in Dorchester, Massachusetts, that November day in 1848 to study and pray. These pioneer workers were seeking light from God as to their responsibility to convey to others the thrilling truths they held concerning the Sabbath, Christ's ministry in the heavenly sanctuary, and His imminent return to this earth. Heaven seemed near, and Ellen White was taken in vision. From the words spoken to her husband when the vision was over, we gain a glimpse of the startling revelation of that hour. "I have a message for you," she said. "You must begin to print a little paper and send it out to the people. Let it be small at first; but as the people read, they will send you means with which to print, and it will be a success from the first. From this small beginning it was shown to me to be like streams of light that went clear round the world."--Life Sketches, p. 125.
oh UGG I’m getting tired of reading all of this
I like NLT too! I agree that it isn’t the best for comprehensive Bible study but sometimes for personal reflection I find it really nice.
It would be my pleasure to do so! I will do it when I get home later today after my classes.
Oh also! Before we move on Siri, did you want to post some predictions of hers that you found were fulfilled?
Oh, just saw your response about the evening morning thing, Ava. Thanks. I use a bunch really. when I am just reading, I use NLT or NIV. When I am studying, I use NASB or ESV.
It’s great that we have a Hebrew guru in on our midst. Way to go!
Thanks Larissa for the compilation of quotes. In summary she says that what she writes is not of her own. Like Amos when He said “The Lord has spoken. Who can but prophecy?”
I need to get to bed. But in preparation for our next test of a prophet, I'd like to post some of EGW's claims for herself. We should keep these in mind as we proceed. "The Holy Ghost is the Author of the Scriptures and of the Spirit of Prophecy." (Selected Messages, Vol. 3, p. 30) [FYI, Spirit of Prophecy in SDA is referring to Ellen G White's writings, SOP for short] "These books contain clear, straight, unalterable truth and they should certainly be appreciated. The instruction they contain is not of human production." (Letter H-339, Dec. 26, 1904) "In these letters which I write, . . . I am presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me. I do not write one article in the paper expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision - the precious rays of light shining from the throne" (Testimonies, Vol. 5, pp. 63-67). "In my books, the truth is stated, barricaded by a 'Thus saith the Lord.' The Holy Spirit traced these truths upon my heart and mind as indelibly as the law was traced by the finger of God, upon the tables of stone..." (Letter 90, 1906) "The Spirit of God works upon my mind and gives me appropriate words with which to express the truth."
(Selected Messages, Book 3, p. 51; Letter 90, 1907) "God does nothing in partnership with Satan. My work for the past thirty years bears the stamp of God or the stamp of the enemy. There is no halfway work in the matter. The Testimonies are of the Spirit of God, or of the devil. In arraying yourself against the servants of God you are doing a work either for God or for the devil.” (Testimonies, vol. 4, p. 230) "In the testimonies sent to Battle Creek, I have given you the light God has given to me. In no case have I given my own judgment or opinion." (Testimony for the Battle Creek Church, pp. 50-58 (1882)) "Yet now when I send you a testimony of warning and reproof, many of you declare it to be merely the opinion of Sister White. You have thereby insulted the Spirit of God." (Testimonies for the Church Vol. 5 (1882-1889), p. 64)
Ok, that's it for now. Goodnight!
Boqer means morning or break of day. Ereb means evening. Normally it is accompanied by yom, but even without it, evening + morning= one literal 24 hour day. What version do you primarily use?
But anyway, that is very interesting about the rules of Hebrew. I just went on Biblehub out of curiosity and looked up Dan. 8:14. It doesn't use the word yom, just Ereb for evenings and boqer for days? Don't know what that means, I thought mornings would show up.....
It's very interesting that you are learning Hebrew Ava! Good for you! I am always tempted to learn Greek. Maybe I will someday. Maybe one of my kids will want to learn it in homeschool and it will give me an excuse to learn it with them. I saw this cool curriculum that has you learning Greek by reading through these books and as you learn, you solve a mystery. At least that is what it looked like....
but she really is nice when you know her other than that, I think I really like debating on here but I don’t want to talk baldy behind her back because I think she is nice
technically she said she was glad I would stay out of this stuff and that I should never go here when I told her about this group except that I debate on the group(this message will be deleted
yeah I think she just might
that is horrible sorry Ava
In Hebrew if the word for day yom is accompanied by evening and morning, that's just indicating its a 24 hour day. It's one of the rules in Hebrew. Also if yom has a number with it, it's literal 24 hour days... So evening and morning= one day... I'm learning Hebrew btw
We need to do a concrete study on that. We can do that after we finish with EGW.
A morning and evening constitutes one day. If, wherever you live is different, I’ll believe you😂
Besides, even if that weren’t the case, this can’t be used to discredit EGW because A. it does not contradict the Bible B. It does not contradict history (contrary to your first argument). So this even if you argue that it doesn’t fill the definition of a prophecy, it CANNOT be used to prove that EGW is not a valid prophet.
1. I don’t think that’s a valid point because her audience (the Adventist Church) was in a unique position to help the Abolition Movement. They had sent one of their leaders to Washington D.C. to first allow SDAs to fight as “conscientious objectors.” Which also led to Adventists being used a test models for the medicines and different experiments needed to advance the primitive technology at that time. So we don’t know whether the Adventist’s representative told the Administration about EGW’s predictions. He well may have, because he was in a very unique position in having their ear and also representing an organization that some of the founders of the Abolition Movement were of.
Skyler, Bible Memorizer, and Siri, I want to thank you guys for coming here to support Ava. You didn’t have to but you cared enough to say something to her. Thanks for being kind on here!
Oh before I go for the night, I wanted to mention. The 2300 days thing from Daniel 8:14. If the text reads evenings-mornings, which most apply to the evening and morning burnt offerings, then you could interpret it as 1,150 days. Plus, since “days” are not actually mentioned in this verse, there would be no basis to apply the faulty day=year construct. Anyway, ironically Daniel 8:14 was fulfilled by the horrible persecution of the Jews by Antiochus Epiphanes in 171-165 BC which was precisely or approximately 2,300 literal days (no way to tell for sure) long. But again, I’m assuming she is referring to Jesus moving into the most holy place in 1844 when she talks about the understanding prophecies of Jesus through KJV. I can’t be sure since she won’t answer Ava’s question. 😉 But I mean, you’re right Siri, it wouldn’t totally shatter the foundation of the IJ, but it does strike at the heart of some of the assumptions that SDAs must rely on to make the IJ true.
hey sorry again about what happened Ava, I don’t think that you were overreacting at all, Marylin can be a little over protective I think even though she really is nice otherwise
*past each other not last each other
But hey, it looks like we are to the point of arguing last each other on this test of a prophet because disagree on the very basic level of what a conditional prophecy looks like. So we should probably leave this test of a prophet and go on to the next. Which I will do maybe tonight if I have the time. Otherwise I’ll try to get back on tomorrow evening.
Sorry my response was unclear Siri, let me try again. 1. I don’t believe that EGW’s prediction that England would invade was conditional as she didn’t take the message to any players who could’ve changed the outcome. It doesn’t fit the pattern of conditional prophecies that you outlined from Jeremiah 18:7-10. 2. IF IT WERE conditional (as you claim), then it was a pointless prediction because it wouldn’t have changed anything about the outcome of the war(like you said). Hope that makes my position more clear.
Ava, I’m sorry about your experience in the other group. 😞 One of the most upsetting things to me is when there is a misunderstanding and the other person won’t even believe or let you explain why it is a misunderstanding in the first place and then questions your motives. It sounds like that is what is happening here and I can totally understand why that would make your blood boil.
and she also said that debating doesn’t get us anywhere🤣
well I suppose that leaving the group would be one of the optional things to do. I don’t see how I am one of the little children if I am in my teens, but I think she just got angry.
talking about Marilyn did she say that
I do... I just needed someplace to get this all out. It just hurts. She talks so much about protecting the youth, but I think she forgets that I'm only 14. I don't think she'd say anything like that to Skyler or Bible Memorizer.
Anyhow, I apologize that she was so offensive... Please forgive her.
The reason she writes that is because she feels attacked. And then you feel like you’re being attacked and it goes on and on. I think the wisest decision would be to drop it and be the peacemaker.
If I were you, I wouldn’t write anything more. I understand that it’s hurtful and one feels like lashing out, but it’s not going to help anyone. It’s only going to cause more rumpled feathers.
I shouldn’t say what I’m thinking but even if Marilyn were right, there are much pleasanter ways to express oneself.
Again accusing me of being Satan's tool. That is unacceptable. I would NEVER EVER accuse a professing believer of being a tool of Satan
"Yes, I removed Ava's comment because her $.02 turned into $.50. Do you all understand why I removed her comments? She said she was not going to debate, but that is exactly what she has done. She was fine with finding fault with me, and she might find fault with you if you disagreed with her! This situation has once more made me think of the verse that says that Satan is the "accuser of the brethren." He is also the "author of confusion." I'm sorry she feels that her feelings were hurt. She didn't seem to mind disobeying the rules on here and crossing paths with me. 😒" This is what she said. Such hypocrisy... Do you think I was debating? I don't know what standards she has but they aren't reasonable, I apologized multiple times and she rejected it
I’m sorry again Ava. I personally use ESV. It doesn’t matter what translation we use (other than doctored ones like the JW Bible). I can use any translation and prove from it what I believe. Larissa’s claim that because ESV says “morning and evening” instead of “days” unravels our explanation is false. It doesn’t matter what adjective(s) you use to describe “day.” It has the same meaning in prophecy.
Plus if you read it she's basically accusing me of being a tool of Satan for asking an innocent question.
We always have respected each other on here and never shut anyone down like that... Makes me appreciate this group, even if I can't be on every day. Marilyn herself invited me on. What she removed was me asking about a statement she made about saying the KJV was the only version you could clearly see the prophecies of Jesus in... I asked what she meant because I can do that easier in ESV... She avoided my question the first time and then deleted it on Final Events the second time. Then she basically calls me a troll when I tried to explain my intention behind the post. and she removed a link and said she'd check it out, but I doubt she will. I think I'd check a link out before removing it, but I think she doesn't agree with it so she removed it. I really tried to be understanding and kind and respect the rules, but apparently since my positions don't line up, I'm breaking the rules. It makes me appreciate this group even more. Thanks to everyone in here for being understanding
Dear Ava, I am so sorry for what happened. I am a passionate believer that you and anyone else has the right to express and compare your beliefs with fellow Christians. I really am sorry for the bad taste you probably have in your mouth from this. I apologize to you. I don’t think it would make matters any better if you continued conversing in Final Events, but you’ll be ALWAYS welcome to share your thoughts here without feeling marginalized. (I’m sure Larissa would agree.) Again, I am so sorry for this unpleasant situation.
I just had to leave Final Events SDA... Can you read it and tell me if you think I'm overreacting?
men I am EXTREMELY confused
@Larissa, you said that your “point exactly” was that even if EGW had told the leading powers, it wouldn’t have changed anything. However, earlier you wrote, “My point is that: You claim that ... this one was also conditional.” “If she had gone to the President then I think the messages would be conditional.” “It matters who the prophet tells the message to.” Can you please this reversal of opinion? Because those two statements contradict each other. First: It would changed the message if she had told the President. But later: Even if she had told the President would not have changed anything.
@Ava, EGW was not a pastor.
Just to give a heads up about those wondering who “Joseph Bates” is, he was one of the founders of the Adventist Church, something like Roger Williams.
okay and yeah Ava, Marylin is really nice but she doesn’t like debating on that group cause she thinks it will confuse the younger folks(me and biblememorizer mainly) so yeah, o think she is nice but I figure it this way, the our,d is full of debating and no mater what I am going to face some of it someday so this is training me for later years
yeah crimson dawn, the thing that I like about this group is that everyone is friendly even when it doesn’t seem like it everyone knows they are being friendly😁😁😁
also Larissa I am memorizing verses but only admin people can actually add verse collections to the group, I am memorizing a verse a day and have memorized like 400 verses so far
oh yeah, check our dogs for Jesus anyway! I made it, unfortunately I am not able to stay on it though for some reason, so I have to rejoin it all the time. also Larissa I think it is pretty true that our nation became divided with loyalists and patriots, and that actually did cause a lot of problems which made our nation go into really bad shape.
and the War Between the States.
And so this that EGW was shown in her vision was related to the work Adventists had undertaken to end slavery. God was showing them what the current state of affairs with the abolition movement.
Why God was giving such a message to EGW? It was related to the work that Adventists were doing: the ending of slavery. I don’t know how much you’ve studied SDA church history, but the SDA church took a decided stance against the horrors of slavery.
I’ll look into the Joseph Bates thing and then I’ll comment when I can give an educated answer,
“If EGW told the leading powers that, it wouldn’t have changed anything!” My point exactly. Why was God giving this message then?
Sorry, Seal of the Living God. You probably figured that one out. 😉
In “Seal of the Loving God” page 15.1 Joseph Bates says that time of trouble has begun. And sorry! I was wrong about it being the civil war. He was referring to a general war in Europe that was happening in 1849. Then on page 25 he recounts a vision from EGW as they were discussing all this. He writes down what she says word for word. One of the things she says is that the time of trouble has begun already. Also as far as I can tell, they still believed in the shut door at that time. But that part was a bit confusing. Like I said, this was in the 1840’s. If you go on the app under pioneer library, then Joseph Bates, then SLG then chapter “Ascending from the rising of the sun” you will find it.
When Jeremiah said “when,” he did not know what the Israelites would choose. Unfortunately, they chose Egypt. Now with EGW, she did not know herself what was going to happen either. So when she said “when,” she was also in limbo as to what would happen.
If EGW told the leading powers that, it wouldn’t have changed anything! England would attack only if it were beneficial for her! So I don’t understand how you come to such a conclusion.
How does going to the President make her message conditional? England’s attack wasn’t hinged in whether slavery would be abolished or not! Rather, whether England could regain what she had lost during the Revolution and War of 1812.
My point at 12:15 was the error in comparing the Jeremiah story to Ellen’s. Jeremiah’s story said, if, if, if, when. And there really was a when. EGW said, if, if, if, when. But there never was a when. So why compare the two, it seems to make my point, not yours...
No offense taken. I know you are just defending someone you believe deeply in. My point is not that EGW gave the message to the wrong person and is therefore disqualified. my point is that: You claim that, like the first message I mentioned, this one also was conditional. But the nature of the message is not conditional. If she had gone to the president then I think the message would be conditional. Let’s say for example, that Jeremiah (in the example we were speaking of earlier) went and told the people in his small local community that bad things would happen to some other group when they went to Egypt. Then he went about his business. That other group never went to Egypt and bad things never happened. What would’ve been God’s point in sending Jeremiah to do that?That would be the closest equivalent to what happened with EGW in this instance. So in that way, it matters who the “prophet” tells the message to.
Mon Nov 4 12:15 “God (though EGW) told a group of 10,000 SDAs what would happen WHEN England invaded the US.” Seriously? You don’t realize that EGW wasn’t saying that England will, will, will, without a doubt, invade the US? Come on, it’s not complex to understand that she did NOT say that the way you portrayed it!
Ava, here is another quote from EGW about how the Holy Spirit would leave us in the last days. “Therefore the last church will be one year on the earth without an intercessor, while the plagues are falling. Read Psalm 111. If therefore the church should come to the time of trouble with the least stain upon their characters, they could not be saved; for there will then be no more pardon, and the destinies of all will be unalterably and everlastingly fixed. But the Scriptures teach that some will be alive on the earth and will be saved when Christ comes; 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17; Hebrews 9:28; Isaiah 26:9; and we are shut up to the conclusion that these will have developed perfect characters previous to the time of trouble SLH 106.2
Please give me evidence that she and Joseph Bates believed that. An anti-EGW website is not a reliable source.
I agree that Deuteronomy verse is still valid; however I couldn’t help but notice the discrepancy. As I told you, I put EGW through the test of prophet and she came out unscathed!
That’s ridiculous, Larissa. Please forgive me if I’m too sharp but seriously you’re going to discredit EGW because your gut says that she didn’t deliver her message to the right person?
I quoted Deuteronomy because SDAs claim that EGW is a prophet in the same mold as the Old Testament prophets, so whether we are still under the old covenant or not isn’t really the point here. SDAs should be putting her through the tests of a prophet that God have his people in the Old Testament.
Actially she and Joseph Bates actually claimed that the Civil war was the beginning of the time of trouble.
Siri, God (through Jeremiah) told the Israelites not go to Egypt before they went to Egypt to warn them what would happen WHEN they went (famine and sword would wipe them out). They went anyway and what Jeremiah said would happen, happened. “God” (through EGW) told the group of 10,000 SDAs what would happen WHEN England invaded the US (our country would be humbled into the dust). England never invaded and the US was not humbled into dust. I might concede to the conditional nature of this prophecy if she had been instructed to take this message to the queen of England or even to President Lincoln. Other than that, what really was the point of her revelation?
You ask “Why would God give EGW such information?” Well, He gave information to Ezekiel, to Daniel, to Jeremiah, and more about current events happening in their lives.
People expected the war to last for a few months. However, as EGW predicted, the war dragged on for several years.
And that isn’t really true. Even Lincoln expected a speedy victory over the South. However, EGW said “No” that’s not going to happen. God is using the war to punish the South for allowing slavery to flourish and the North for allowing such a evil practice to continue for so long. And notice, for every slave in the US at that time, 2 soldiers (both sides included) died.
How do you know that “she didn’t really dish out any information that couldn’t be gleaned for the popular opinions of the day.”
That’s beside the point. You said that what she said contradicted history (false), that England WOULD join the war (false). Therefore, according to those misconceptions, you say that she should not be trusted.
No, EGW didn’t dish out all the info about the civil war. True. She didn’t really dish out any information that couldn’t be gleaned from the popular opinions of the day. Yet she claims it was from a vision. To what purpose I wonder was God giving her such a vision? We can’t even tell with the reality of history to our benefit.
Ava, I’m guessing the she is referring to Dan 8:14 on which the foundational SDA doctrine of the Investigative Judgement is based. In KJV, it reads “And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.” They used a day= a year principle to calculate Christ’s return in 1844. The when he didn’t come, they decided it meant he entered into the second apartment of the heavenly sanctuary to begin the second half of his atonement world. Anyway, if you use the ESV, you get this: “ “And he said to me, "For 2,300 evenings and mornings. Then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state."” Daniel 8:14. The translators of the ESV Bible had more information available to the to be able to understand that the evenings and mornings were in regards to the morning and evening sacrifices not necessarily a day. But the day=year thing doesn’t work in this translation so they have to use KJV or the whole foundation of their foundational doctrine crumbles.
Even though Jeremiah was a prophet, that doesn’t mean that he knew everything that was about to happen. If he had know before the fact, that the remaining Jews would go to Egypt, I’m certain that he would have mentioned it. However, he’s actually trying to convince the Jews NOT to go to Egypt.
God’s wisdom is foolishness to man. Even if you see no need for that statement, that cannot be used to discredit EGW.
When does Jeremiah say this, before they went to Egypt or after? This is the before the fact. So that isn’t a valid argument.
“God is not constrained by time.” Amen! Hallelujah! However, just because He doesn’t dish out all the information about an event, specifically the Civil War, does not make the little He’s given a falsehood.
What exactly was the point in telling the SDAs that England might invade and humble the US to dust? Why would they need that light at all?
Siri, you mentioned Jeremiah 42:10-19 and the “when” being used as an if. The problem with that argument is that they actually DID go to Egypt after Hod told them what would happen WHEN they went. Maybe if they hadn’t gone, this would be a valid parallel.
1. Does God share everything at once? No. He only gives enough light that one can digest. Remember what He told the disciples in John? “I have many things to tell you but you cannot bear them.” (I’m paraphrasing). God is not entitled to say everything, is He?
I chopped up her prophecy because it was several pages long. Anyway, it may be a historical fact at the BEGINNING of the war, but God is not constrained by time. He know what is going to happen. So while this may be a historically valid way for a human to describe a war, it certainly isn’t valid if it is supposed to come from God, which is what she claims.
A far cry from your chopped up version of her statement. Besides, it is a HISTORICAL fact that during the beginning of the war, the Union’s goal was to preserve unity and didn’t care about slavery. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation was actually born way later in his Presidency and was really to fulfill his political pledges. Notice his opponent when running for re-election. He promised to end the war and allow slavery to continue. Bottom line: EGW is correct historically. Unfortunately, EGW’s opponents try to take advantage of the fact that most people reading their stuff don’t know their history and fall for the trap.
Our leading men are perplexed, their hearts are failing them for fear. They fear to proclaim freedom to the slaves of the rebels, for by so doing they will exasperate that portion of the South who have not joined the rebellion but are strong slavery men. And again they have feared the influence of those strong antislavery men who were in command, holding responsible stations. They have feared the effects of a bold, decided tone, for it fanned to a flame the strong desire of thousands to wipe out the cause of this terrible rebellion, by letting the oppressed go free and breaking every yoke. . 1T 254.2
That is from the ellenwhite.com. It says it way better than I could.
With the clause "when England does declare war," understood as synonymous with "if England does declare war," the statement changes from a prediction to a statement of mere possibility, but a possibility, however, whose full potentialities many might not realize.
A similar use of the word "when" is found on the preceding page in her work: "When our nation observes the fast which God has chosen, then will He accept their prayers as far as the war is concerned." No one will argue that the word "when" in this connection introduces a simple statement concerning a future fact that will undebatably happen. An inspired parallel to this "if" and "when" construction is found in Jeremiah 42:10-19. The prophet speaks to Israel about abiding in Palestine rather than going down into Egypt: "If ye will still abide in this land. . . ." Verse 10. "But if ye say, We will not dwell in this land. . . ." Verse 13. "If ye wholly set your faces to enter into Egypt. . . ." Verse 15. "When ye shall enter into Egypt . . . ." Verse 18. It is evident that the phrase "when ye shall enter into Egypt" is synonymous with "if ye shall enter into Egypt."
Note the conditional character of these statements: "She fears, if she should commence war abroad, that she would be weak at home." "But if England thinks it will pay." Then follows the sentence: "When England does declare war. . . ." It is evident that Mrs. White is here using the word "when" as a synonym for "if," which is good English. In fact, if we do not thus understand the word "when" in this connection, we have an unusual situation--a series of problematical "ifs" is followed by a simple statement that England is going to declare war. Thus Mrs. White's last sentence would make pointless her preceding sentences.
"England is studying whether it is best to take advantage of the present weak condition of our nation, and venture to make war upon her. She is weighing the matter, and trying to sound other nations. She fears, if she should commence war abroad, that she would be weak at home, and that other nations would take advantage of her weakness. Other nations are making quiet yet active preparations for war, and are hoping that England will make war with our nation, for then they would improve the opportunity to be revenged on her for the advantage she has taken of them in the past, and the injustice done them. A portion of the Queen's subjects are waiting a favorable opportunity to break their yoke; but if England thinks it will pay, she will not hesitate a moment to improve her opportunities to exercise her power, and humble our nation. When England does declare war, all nations will have an interest of their own to serve, and there will be general war, general confusion" (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1, p. 259).
Sun Nov 3 9:55: Another example that shows, when people are determined to do a hit piece, how they twist and warp and take out of context her true meaning.
Looking forward to your appearances, Ava! 🙂 Have a blessed time.
On Sun Nov 3 9:19: NEITHER DID GOD WITH JONAH AND NINEVEH! You can’t disprove EGWs validity as a prophet just from this when there is a parallel in scripture! You can say that Jonah wasn’t a true prophet because that was the ONLY prophecy known that he carried. AND IT (according to your logic) TURNED TO BE FALSE.
I’m sorry. My bad. There should’ve been quotation marks before “God relented.” I was quoting Jonah 3:10. I’m sorry for the mix-up.
You’re going to have throw most of the minor prophets if you reason that way. And again, a double standard for EGW isn’t right.
Larissa, if you’re looking to be awed and shocked by a prophecy, you’ll find very few (mainly John and Daniel). Look at the rest. Isaiah— turn from your wicked ways, oh house of Judah. You’re whoring after other gods. If not, I will destroy you. Jeremiah— Babylon will destroy you if you look to Egypt for help. Pretty underwhelming, right? So your feelings and assumptions aren’t the way to judge a prophet.
Note: I am NOT equating EGW to the Bible. She is not considered anywhere near or part of the Bible. Larissa says that, to frame our beliefs, we need “EGW-colored glasses.” That is false. We base everything on the Bible and ALL can be proved from the Bible.
as the prophets in the Bible?
I think you’ll agree that we must judge EGW by the same standard as everyone else?
So, if we’re to go by what you’re saying we’ve got to toss out Jonah and a number of other prophecies out the window.
I know you’ll say that she didn’t say that it was conditional. Well, forgive me for repeating the same thing, neither did God say that it was conditional to Jonah.
2. Not every prophecy is conditional (i.e. Isaiah 53, Daniel, and many more.) How do we understand this specific one is conditional? because it deals with the second coming. And the second coming is hinged on us— that we fulfill the Great Commission. Obviously, those in EGW’s time did not do that. EGW was later shown that if they had put away strife and bickering and done the Lord’s work, He would have come.
1. Deuteronomy 18:22 isn’t the only prerequisite for a true prophet. (I have to ask: what makes you trust Deuteronomy? Isn’t that part of something that we need not keep?)
I love opening and seeing the message wall covered with posts! Your two cents happen to be very valuable, Crimson.😜
Ok, I read her post....guess what? It didn't make sense to me. I think the verse is basically Jesus telling his disciples that His physical body ascend into Heaven. The people wouldn't see Him anymore, but his disciples (later called Christians) would have the Holy Spirit. They still wouldn't physically see Jesus on earth, but they could see Him working in our lives and we can have a close relationship with Him. I will correct myself. I understand what Marilyn is trying to say, but it doesn't quite make sense. I think the Holy Spirit will always be available until death or Jesus' return, but I can see Him being rejected more and more today. So, I don't necessarily agree with her, but, once again, that's just me.
No offense intended by that statement, by the way. I just mean that I'm not familiar with their beliefs and certainly not familiar with Ellen White. Once again, no offense!🙂
Ava, to be honest, I usually don't have a clue what SDAs are talking about.
Just to put my two cents in, I don't celebrate Halloween either. Sure, I don't necessarily mind for kids to dress up like their favorite superhero and collect enough candy to last them until next year (trust me, I've seen some people's Halloween collection😂), but the concept of Halloween is anything but ok. I never really did anything for Halloween (maybe a small exception a long time ago), and Trick-or-Treating probably isn't the best idea in my town. I know I probably seem like a religious weirdo, but that's just me. Thanks for putting up with me! P.S. Thanks, Siri, for not using my real name on a public chat.
Ah... Thanks Larissa! She's using a verse to prove a belief she has, even if by doing so she completely takes it out of context. I don't think that's what that verse refers to but on it's own she could interpret it to prove her point, so she did. She said some strange things about the KJV being the only Bible you could trade the ot messianic prophesies clearly in, but when I said I can do that easier in ESV and asked several times what she meant, she never answered. Does anyone have any idea what I'm the world she was talking about?
Hi Group members! I wanted to add a quick note on the wall for you! To add verses from this group to your "my verses" and therefore be able to memorize them in the app, you have to go to the group verses tab and then click "add collection". The verses in the collection you added will be in your "my verses" tab so you can start getting them memorized through the app. Hope that helps!
Also Ava, before you go. I happened on over to the FINAL EVENTS SDA message wall because I was curious. When Marilyn was talking about John 14 and the Holy Spirit leaving us, the reason that seems so out of the blue to you is because it comes from Ellen G White's writings, not from that verse. Here is the quote: "When He [Jesus] leaves the sanctuary, darkness covers the inhabitants of the earth. In that fearful time the righteous must live in the sight of a holy God without an intercessor. ... The wicked have passed the boundary of their probation; the Spirit of God, persistently resisted, has been at last withdrawn. Unsheltered by divine grace, they have no protection from the wicked one." GC 614.1
She also made many false predictions about the Civil War. She said "Jan. 4, 1862 I was shown some things in regards to our nation." And then gives her message about the civil war. In this message, she says the following: That the soldiers who joined the war "have been deceived; that the object of this was is not to abolish slavery, but to preserve it as it is." and "The soldiers inquire, 'If we succeed in quelling the rebellion, what has been gained?' They can only answer discouragingly, 'Nothing' and "The system of slavery, which has ruined our nation, is left to live and store up another rebellion." and "As this war was shown to me [from God mind you], it looked like the most singular and uncertain that has ever occurred... It seems impossible to have the war conducted successfully" AND " This nation will yet be humbled into the dust... When England does declare war, all nations will have an interest of their own to serve, and there will be general war." and "Had our nation remained united, it would have had strength, but divided, it must fall." Old Testament prophets took their messages to the kings or rulers to them how to conduct or what the outcome of future wars would be. Instead EGW wrote her civil war message only to the few thousand SDAs in her Testimonies to the Church volume 1.
Check out Dogs for Jesus to here my side on women's ordination. Nice to see you too siri. We go trick or treating but we don't dress up as anything close to demonic. Normally we dress up as cartoon characters. I understand the reasoning why you don't celebrate, and why other people dont. We do it because we want candy and have fun dressing up. Maybe I'll be on every other Sunday, so then I don't get that far behind but still get a nice break. Soooooo... See you in 2 weeks!
I looked up Jeremiah 18:7-10 "If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it." I don't think this applies to the prediction that some of the people at the 1856 conference would still be alive at Jesus return. God didn't announce any doom toward a certain country through EGW. All she said was that they would still be alive when Jesus comes. She wasn't even warning them about anything or saying, "You won't survive that last plagues if you don't...." or "Turn from your wicked ways of the world or you will not be alive when Jesus comes!" It was simply that Jesus was coming soon and some there would see it.
I was mentioning that there was no disaster looming because of what you said earlier: "So this is not a failed prophecy because, just like with Nineveh of old, God relented. God relented of the disaster that he had said he would do to them, and he did not do it.”
You know, back before my journey out, I looked up EGWs fulfilled prophecies, assuming there would be a ton. I was underwhelmed with the results. And that was looking at Adventist sources. Which of her prophecies do you claim were fulfilled?
Seriously though, how could Deuteronomy 18:22 help us weed out false prophets if every prophecy is conditional?
I think women should be ordained because They can be important to god just as much as men can, think of how many people would hear gods work if all the women in the world would go out and be missionaries. plus why would God make over half the people on the earth worse then the other half just because they were born that way? another thing there were people in the Bible like debrah who did great things for god even though they were women
well now that we have less topics here maybe we can talk about women’s ordination
Sure! Take your time. I wasn’t certain whether you forgot to respond when I first asked that. Keep bugging me if I don’t respond to something. It usually is out of forgetfulness.😝
Jesus’ return is also conditional. Matthew 24:14 “And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.” EGW is talking Christ’s return. Some will see Christ if they do their jobs and spread the Gospel.
“Anyone could say anything and then when it didn’t happen just say God changed His mind.” Correct! However, look at the many other prophecies she’s made and have been fulfilled! If you’re looking for dirt, you’re always going to find something. Come to think of it, critics of the Bible keep finding problems!
Anyone can say anything. True, so that’s why we have to compare EGW with the Bible. This does not contradict the Bible.
Read Jonah in context. No where does it say that if they repent God will relent, either.
2. We know for CERTAIN that Jesus will come back. We also know that eventually Nineveh was destroyed. THE TIMING in both cases IS THE DIFFERENCE. Will the second coming be in our lives if we do our part, or in Nineveh’s case, will we repent from our evil deeds and turn to Jesus?
@Larissa, so conditional prophecies must include disaster?
Hey Ava. Nice seeing you! I personally don’t celebrate Halloween as I’ve participated in the real thing and I now don’t want to do anything even remotely close. However, that is a personal decision and if you’re doing for innocent reasons, I won’t judge.
I definitely want to get back to the sign of the covenant, I’m not avoiding your question. But I’d like to finish up this topic first so we don’t have so many loose threads. That can get really confusing. 😉
I understand your point Siri. But there was not a disaster being predicted. She was claiming that Jesus would return soon enough that some at the conference would still be alive. So what was conditional about it? Jesus coming back is not a disaster. When you read it in context, she also never said that Jesus won’t come back if they don’t change their ways. If we look at this prophecy or any other prophecies that show NO sign of being conditional, and just say that all prophecies are conditional, what would be the point of the LORD telling his people to test prophets this way? Anyone could say anything and then when it didn’t happen just say God changed his mind.
I'm trying not to break my media fast that much, but yeah... And no offense to her, but some of her interpretations of scripture make 0 sense at all. Like John 14:19... I memorized John and that's not what that verse means... Here's the link again. https://micahfries.com/micah-fries/2019/6/5/is-halloween-the-devils-holiday
hey Ava if you see this just say so
You mentioned way back that Sabbath is the sign of the old covenant. How do you back that claim with the Bible!
That prayer app sounds cool. I should check it out!
Mmmm. I didn’t say that most of the “contradictions” are from her letters. Yes, they do use that in a few of their augments against EGW, but what I was trying to do is to clear the water for any future problem concerning this. I’m sorry for the misunderstanding.
Moses is not the only one who says not to eat swine. One of the prophets, Isaiah says that those who eat “pig’s flesh” God will “will not keep silent, but I will repay.”
Read Jeremiah 18:7-10 to understand about conditional prophecies.
Do you doubt Jonah’s validity as a prophet?
So this is not a failed prophecy because, just like with Nineveh of old, God relented. God relented of the disaster that he had said he would do to them, and he did not do it.”
We can say that God’s “prediction was quiet straightforward,” to put it in your own words. Read Jonah cover to cover and you won’t read anywhere that God said that this was a conditional prophecy. God said: “Nineveh shall be overthrown.” “God knew ahead of time what would happen.” TRUE. God “made NO conditions for the fulfillment of the prophecy” that Nineveh would be destroyed. TRUE.
What you’re saying is basically what Jonah said when he was upset at God.
*sorry for the extra “when He.” I am plagued by typos too😂
I find it interesting that you mentioned that EGW is not making a conditional prophecy. Because she actually is. True, she didn’t walk around with a megaphone proclaiming “This is a conditional prophecy.” But neither did God when He when He told Jonah to tell Nineveh Jonah 3:4“Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!”
Ooph, sorry for the typos. going to bed.
Let’s just look at one biblical test of a prophet. Deuteronomy 18:22 says, “ If the prophet speaks in the Lord’s name but his prediction does not happen or come true, you will know that the Lord did not give that message. That prophet has spoken without my authority and need not be feared.” In just going to mentione one of her failed prophecies tonight because it it late and I need to get to bed. Here is a prediction that EGW made at the 1856 General Conference."I was shown the company present at the Conference. Said the angel: Some food for worms, some subject to the last plagues, some will be alive and remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus'" (4bSG 18.1). Every one present in that meeting is now dead. I’ve beard some SDAs try to say that this was a conditional prophecy or that it didn’t happen because SDAs failed in their work of faithfully passing on the advent message. But this doesn’t work because God knew ahead of time what would happen. Also, Ellen made NO conditions for the fulfillment of her prophecy. Her prediction is quite straightforward.
Also Siri you mentioned that SDAs follow certain health guidelines not because they want to keep the law of Moses but because of EGW health visions. This quote from egw is probably one reason why so many SDAs give different answers about this topic. `The use of swine's flesh is contrary to his express commandments'' (Testimonies to the Church, Vol. 2, page 96).
I’d like to go back to our EGW discussion. Siri, you said that the contradictions listed were from EGWs “testimonies to the church” or some of her other saved letters. Actually very few of the contradictions listed come from “testimonies” or any other letter. Most of the ones listed were from her published books, and I’m not talking about the compilations that were published posthumously.
Another app I really appreciate is Echo. It is a prayer app. you can add prayers and mark them answered. Then you press the pray button and it cycles through your prayer requests to remind you what you want to pray for. You can also have prayer groups. And I think there is a way to send your prayer for others in the app to pray for but I haven’t used that yet. Also you can send people notifications when you pray for them. I think that is really uplifting for people to know that you literally prayed for them not just the standard “I’ll pray for you” thing.
yes Crimson, I have really appreciated your contributions to this group, so don’t be bashful!
I would also encourage you guys to join prayer requests, it is pretty active and a great prayer group, also if you join I would like it if you do praises and not just requests, cause everyone except me just asks god for things and doesn’t seem to thank him enough
I love the Bible with all my heart
@Crimson, I was going to use your and burger’s real names, but then I thought that it may not be best to do so, so yeah. 😊 I’m certain that even though you aren’t thoroughly aquatinted my beliefs, you still know the Bible, right? We’re all interested in the Bible (I hope) and the truths contained in it, not anyone’s creed. So don’t be bashful and drop a line anytime you want! “In the multitude of counsel there is safety” 😝
that was a confusing paragraph Skyler
you have been listening? wow! I remember when you me john jesuscrew(now biblememorizer) and scripture typer girl with red shirt(not blondie) we’re debating on John tries to explain
Hey, Siri! I actually have been reading most of this conversation. I can't really speak intelligently because I hadn't even heard of SDA before I downloaded this app, so I'm anything but an expert. Also, nice job on using my new username!
also my mom is almost out with the new book, humble stones
I think praying with each other really brings joy in these debates
I agree that we should follow everything that she wrote as closely as possible. However, some people forget that a lot of the writing left us are in the form of letters written to various people. EGW did a lot of counseling and we don’t have their letters to understand exactly what their situation was, what they said, who they were referring to. So, notice that in the “contradictions list” that is used to say that she contradicted the Bible. When they can’t really claim that because she was addressing a specific situation.
EGW’s not off the hook for certain. I am a passionate believer that we need to compare and test for ourselves her validity. She herself said that she encourages people to go and dig and look for themselves. That shows that we all want a vibrate, real connection with Jesus, not a hand-me-down religion from our parents or whoever.
I’m not very old so it’s been around two years that I’ve left my order, and one since I began considering myself a true SDA. (If Crimson and Burger are reading this, just a shoutout that our many conversations were at that time and were such a great blessing to me.) During that year, I studied and studied the different positions, read countless articles (some of which you posted here), and yes, I did put EGW through the test of prophet. And she came out unscathed.
Thank you so much for your prayer! You can’t realize how much I appreciate it! Thank you!
I think we can all agree that if Ellen White is a prophet of God, actually a messenger of God is what she claimed to be, then we should follow everything she wrote as closely as possible. If she is not a prophet from God, then we should toss her and all her writings out. I think you will agree with me on that. So what I’m asking you guys is, have you ever put Ellen through the biblical tests of a prophet? The Bible tells us to test every spirit because many false prophets have come into the world. If you have put her to the test and have come to the conclusion that she is a true prophet, please share! I will listen.
Siri, I mentioned the Adam and Eve contradiction because it was the second one on the list as I was scrolling down looking for one that was not theological in nature. I could’ve picked from a hundred others. So I don’t think that just because that one has plausible solution that EGW is off the hook.
Siri, I will pray for you and your family. Now if you don’t mind. Dear Father in Heaven please be with Siri’s family. You have given us these bonds of love and you know most how desperate we are to see our loved ones free from trauma, fear, evil and deception. So I ask that you break the bonds that tie this family into the occult. Show them your truth, bind Satan and let those who seek you, find you. Get everything else out of the way and help them to run to you and your everlasting grace, love, and mercy. I ask also this in Jesus powerful, the only name that we are saved by. Amen.
Thanks for explaining for me Siri.
I am SDA, @Eaglets, so I can’t speak for Larissa, from what I’ve come to understand (correct me if I’m not correct, Larissa) her belief is that we need not keep the 10 Commandments, specifically the 4th, because it was annulled along with the Mosaic Law. If you want to find what stumbling blocks she has, we discussed this in real depth below.
so what do you mean “bound” exactly
we are not bound I can talk about it more tomorrow
@Eaglets, Larissa does not dispute that if we’re to keep the 10 Commandments, we must keep the 7th day, Saturday. She however believes that we are not bound to the 10 Commandments. If you’re interested in the debate about this, scroll down to around the middle and you can read her and my stance.
when is the sabbath ever changed to Sunday though that’s my question
well I think we were never blinded to Sabbath in the first place, you see when Adam and Eve were created and Sabbath was created on the same day that loved it and couldn’t wait for it every week, I think we should be like that also, I enjoy taking a break from work and looking at God for all my problems. so I don’t think we could be released from something that we never were blinded to
You mentioned way back that Sabbath is the sign of the old covenant. How do you back that claim with the Bible?
We understand from Creation that EVERYTHING God made was good. Satan hates God and wants to destroy anything good because it’s connected with God. Take family, for instance, and in the occult, you either get married or stay single (depends on the role you play). But in neither cases are they really “single” or “married.” Orgies are commonplace and are even part of some of the satanic rituals.
My other sibling and I were born and dedicated the same way. I wish that was the craziest and horrifying thing I’ve witnessed. I’ve seen multiple human sacrifices, especially children, murder for political and money purposes, human trafficking, and I would say more but I want to be respectful of age.
My sister and my entire family needs prayers (me included). I am the only one who has left the occult but both my sisters are trying to leave as well. My parents have come to realize (secretly) that they are on the wrong side, but the older you are, the harder it is to wrench oneself from something that you’ve had no choice but to grow in. So I would really appreciate prayers for them and the others involved in the occult.
I’m glad you read the articles (there are more than one) that were written to counter the supposed “contradictions” EGW made. I have to wonder, though, why would you repeat such a ridiculous “contraction?” I understand that the verse *can* be interpreted either way without changing the moral or outcome of the story. I understand that you may believe that Adam was with Eve. However, since when is it called a contraction of the Bible just because it doesn’t align with your viewpoint of a minor detail in a story? Seriously? What‘s the problem if you think the opposite of what she wrote on part of a story that can be understood either way? That shows that EGW’s critics are only engaged in a smear campaign and are willing to use even trumped up accusations that have no ground.
Siri, wow that is crazy about your first memory! Is your sister ok? Or is she still in the occult?
Siri, thanks for the article from the white estate about the contradictions that Ellen white made against the Bible. I have read through the SDA explanations before of course. Have you ever read any of EGW’s early writings? IE, “Early Writings”, “Spiritual gifts”, and James White’s “A Word to the Little Flock” where where EGW’s visions make an appearance?
Skyler, Saturday was the Sabbath back when the Sabbath was still binding on the Children of Israel. Now Jesus is our Sabbath. But, I appreciate the intention behind your “Happy Sabbath” greeting. 😉
Bue Ava, thank you for your stimulating discussions and for jumping in here with gusto to speak with us. I can’t tell you how much I appreciated your presence! Have a wonderful media break and hope to see you back again!
I think we agreed Saturday was the Sabbath at least with everyone
it was fun talking with you
I'm with you there. I've gotta go now. Goodbye everyone!
Oh, ok! I get it. That’s a valid point. Again, we don’t know what hell will exactly be like, what emotional, physical and spiritual pain people will have to go through. All I know is that I don’t want to experience it.
Um... I don't either... my point is that on the cross Jesus experienced physical pain, so will people in hell (fire). And Jesus was more afraid of the separation from God then the physical pain, so I think we should be too
I don’t think people in hell will be crucified?
Ava, it’s been SUCH a pleasure discussing the Bible with you! Will be looking forward to your return. 😊
Goodbye everyone... It's been fun and I'll be back in a little while.
I think the fire will not be the worst part. I don't think we know how much God's presence is necessary until we don't have it. That's the worst part. Being without God's presence is the worst part of Hell. I pick up on that, because it was the worst part of the cross for Jesus. I think if Jesus was troubled over it, and not the awful physical pain, then we should be concerned most about that. But you can disagree
fire is not something to be taken lightly though, fire IS active punishment, you can’t go into a fire and then shrug it off like it never hurt, that stuff is DEADLY
yeah Siri, our church is building a church for itself and currently is renting a church from the United Methodist church, and they have a vending machine there!
Here’s the link to the entire article: https://whiteestate.org/legacy/issues-contradictions-html/#2
This is an argument over semantics, insisting that "with her" (KJV, NASB, RSV, Amp & Darby versions, among others, do not include the words "who was" [with her]) means that he had been with her during her entire walk to the Tree and conversation with the serpent. Ellen White was certainly not the inventor of the belief that Eve was alone at the tree. Even without looking at the Hebrew, consider a few facts: — In his conversation with Eve, the serpent never acknowledges Adam's supposed presence (Gen. 3:1-5). In fact, Adam's opinion of her decision is never mentioned until he "did eat." (verse 6). — When confronted by God, Adam doesn't blame the serpent, but casts the blame on Eve (verse 12). Had he been at the Tree at the same time, it seems he and Eve together would have blamed the serpent. — When confronted by God, Eve doesn't say "the serpent beguiled us, and we did eat" but rather, " the serpent beguiled me, and I did eat." (verse 13). Many Bible scholars have taken this position through the ages, long before Ellen White ever commented on it.
Larissa, I bumped across an article that I think would be helpful about E.G.W.’s “contradictions.” Here is what it says about Adam and Eve and the fruit.
that they did to dedicate her to the spirits.
One of my first memories is of my little sister being born in a pentagram and then seeing the rituals (involving sorcery and idolatry— the worship of the very same idols as in Bible Times still consists.)
They were born into it but they knew as well. My grandparents were the first to join the SDA church to infiltrate it. They, along with a number of other couples, were specifically sent by their order to join the Church to cause confusion.
Siri, that’s sooooo true. There are so many things Satans uses to distract us from focusing on and sharing the gospel
Siri, did your parents know they were in the occult circle? Or was that way of dealing with the church something they were just “born into”? Thanks for sharing!
on the hell thing I don’t think god would do the he loves us and I don’t think he would torture us for that long I think that being dead for eternity is enough
I just want to clarify why I refuse to take part in the “Women’s Ordination” discussion. I have my own opinion, but I think that a case can be made for either side of the question. Since this is not an issue that will determine our salvation, I won’t comment on this issue.
Awesome! Thank you so much!
Ava
Wednesday, Oct 23, 2019 at 10:45 AM
remove
Well, I'll get together my beliefs about hell in the next few weeks.
Ava
Wednesday, Oct 23, 2019 at 10:43 AM
remove
Skyler, I discussed the women ordination thing on Dogs for Jesus.
I understand. The main issue I disagree with is that hell will last eternally. What and how God will punish the wicked— I don’t want to experience it
Ava
Wednesday, Oct 23, 2019 at 8:44 AM
remove
Idk, you can disagree with me but that's what I think. Hell is being separated from the source of life which is God. So it only makes sense to me that that's the worst part of Hell. It's not God actively punishing them, it's the result of their actions playing out and God's giving them what they want. My point is not that it won't be bad. It will be awful. My point is that God is not actively torturing people like some interrogation. Fire will play a role, because that's what scripture says, however I have come to believe that the main punishment is separation from God. which is what the people who will be in hell want. God can't be called a tyrant for giving people what they want.
@Ava, that IS torture! I think that’s just as bad as being burned for all eternity! How does fire play out in this?
That’s why I really appreciate this group: that we’re studying the Bible. That is so important and the exact opposite of what Satan wants us to do! I was about 11,12 when I understood that I wasn’t really SDA.
Also on a church level, not only world-wise. Divide a church, per say, about liberalism and conservatism and watch the results! The members get distracted from what they should be doing— sharing the good news of the gospel!
@Larissa, it was way more subtle than that. My parents, high ranking as they are, weren’t very powerful. Intrigues and power grapples are commonplace in the occult circles and it requires a lot of politicking to get to power. So my parents weren’t very powerful. The way they worked to pervert the church is by dividing: the prime example of which is women’s ordination. They would fuel one side and then fuel the other side and allow them to clash. Something like the old adage, “Conquer And divide.” They would distract people from spreading the Gospel and studying their Bibles and instead focus on stuff that is really stupid (forgive me). Theological wise, it was even more subtle. Because, after all, if you go up front and say things that are really different, that makes people open their Bibles for themselves, and that is exactly what Satan doesn’t want! One topic that we mired was Creation. Are the days of Creation literal or each day represented a long period of time when people evolved. That lie has gotten headstrong winds in a good number of the Adventist schools. And this goes further: If the world wasn’t created in a literal weekday, how about the Sabbath? You see, one question brings up another and another.
and I think that women should be ordained, but that IS adding another subject to our many, let’s get back to that later
also I think that burning to death but always being alive is very much torture
really? you think they would be in jail forever? for all eternity for just that? sure they murdered and stole but all eternity is just longer then you seem to grasp, this is infinite we’re talking about!
I'll try Siri, but if I dont, I'll get something together to post sometime in the next few weeks.
I just got into AIO a few months ago, now I'm totally addicted to it and Eugene is my favorite. That episode was amazing. I think the way we see what the punishment will be in hell also affects whether or not we feel it's just for eternal punishment.
Ava, I vaguely remember that AIO episode. I haven’t heard it since I grew up or left SDA but I can hear Eugene’s voice describing it right now. That’s how I see it too.
Siri, thank you for sharing about the way Jesus liberated you and saved your life! it is always inspiring to see him work. I’m curious, when you were in the occult, did you realize it? I mean, did you sit around the Sabbath dinner table with you family and discuss how you could deceive the SDAs? Or was it something where you realized you had been taught a certain thing the purpose of which was to deceive others around you?
@Eaglets, let’s not get into that. I personally don’t think that is the most vital thing to talk about on here.😊
hey Siri do you believe that women can’t be pastors
Like on what verses you base that hell is eternal?
Before you start your media fast, would it be possible if you wrote down your beliefs about Hell from the Bible? I’m certain you’re busy, especially before your weekend trip! But if you could do that, I would REALLY appreciate it.😊
https://summitchurch.com/message/accused-for-me - this is a sermon on the garden of gethsemane that is REALLY GOOD!!!!! It changed my perspective on the story
You look at the crucifixion of Jesus and you see two basic things that were going on: the physical torture and death, and the separation from God. Jesus, in the Garden of Gethsemane gets a glimpse of the cross and separation from God. He is shocked and gets a condition called hematidrosis where he is under such emotional trauma that he sweats blood. You look in the passages and as Jesus is crying out to the Father, he never answers. I believe that while the physical pains were AWFUL. The spiritual separation from God was the worst part. The separation was the part that made Jesus sorrowful and troubled in the garden of Gethsemane. So that contributes to my view of Hell.
No, they wouldn't be tortured, but they would be in jail for as long as they lived. Which if they lived forever they would be in jail forever. I don't think hell will be a torture chamber. I think that the separation from God causes all the pain in hell. Which is why I think the description of hell I gave from Adventures In Odyssey was so good, because it focused not on the fire, but rather on the separation from everyone including God. So it won't be a torture chamber but rather God giving everyone what they want, which is to not be with God. If you're thinking of my view of hell as a constant torture chamber with fire and pain forever, you're wrong. It is described that way in the Bible so I'm not denying there will be fire, but I also think that the main reason there is so much pain is just because of the separation from the source of life. Hell is death and separation from God just as Heaven is life and fellowship with God.
@Ava Relieved. Just making sure😊
but see the punishment for sin is death! God doesn’t want us to suffer any more than we have to, have you ever seen an example in the Bible where God made a treacherous punishment which was just for pain for the victim? I can’t find any and I wonder if you can. you see how it works? God must kill people for sinning because people have no more hope and will be totally rebellious and never come to Gods side if they are not already. if in the bank robbery example, if the guys were caught then would they be tortured? would their fingers be cut off and their eyes be plucked out? if they lived forever would they be tortured in unthinkable ways for eternity for the one crime? surely not!
No, I just feel like I'm a tech addict and need a break. You did nothing. I just need a break. I'll come back and be really active again in a few months.
Is there something that I said that hurt you? If so, I’m really, really sorry. I would be grateful if you would tell me.
Idk, maybe I'll start up again in February. It depends. I might be on every once in a a while but I won't be on daily.
Cool. I did one for 4 months year ago. How long is yours going to be?
Haha... kinda. I'm going on a trip this weekend with no devices allowed and then I'm taking a media fast for a while after that.
Are you doing a internet fast?
Hey, starting friday, I won't be able to be on here for a couple months. So is there anything you'd like to discuss before then?
I meant on Mon Oct 21 2:23 PM that if I find out in Heaven about an eternal hell, not a Hell in Heaven 😂
They are dead and dead forever! Their choice of choosing Satan is irreversible. God gave them the chance to choose eternal life. They chose death.
Another thing, I also agree with Larissa that “the punishment ‘the wicked’ will receive is eternal in that they will be no second chances after they die.”
@Ava, I believe that the Bible contains existence that God will NOT burn people forever. And you said yourself that only one of us is right. So it must be in His Word. 2. If, if, if I were wrong, and I found out that there is an eternal hell in Heaven, I am certain that Jesus will be able answer our questions perfectly. However, like I said, I don’t believe an eternal hell is Biblical. so if you have any contrary evidence, I would LOVE to see it.
@Larissa, I agree on your statement about God’s holiness being a consuming fire to those who don’t accept Christ’s righteousness. I don’t know either what God will do, but 1. it will involve fire, 2. it will not be without end (I know Ava disagrees) 3. God will be just AND merciful.
It’s something like what you said about the rapture. Adventists don’t believe in SECRET rapture, and some skip the word “secret” and call it just “rapture.”
@Larissa, I think your confusion on what Adventists believe is that many people say “We have no soul/spirit” when they mean “We have no immortal soul/spirit.”
But Jesus’ grace is what pulled me through. Jesus SAVED me so many times and liberated me.
Larissa, I understand that. Those two verses do not contradict each other. A few years back, I was trying to leave the occult, however, Satan had me so tight it seemed impossible that I would break free without someone murdering me. I fell into depression and I decided that the dying would be better and happier than living. So I actually put myself in situations that 13 other people were in and were murdered because of putting themselves there. Because death would be better than the inner turmoil of serving Satan while knowing that was wrong. When you’re dead. you’re dead! You don’t know anything, you don’t care about anything, you have no worries, no conflicting battles. One is “happier” when dead.
I agree with you about the nature of hell. That demons and Satan are torturing people in Hell forever is the stupidest idea. Hell was made to be a prison of sorts for Satan and his fallen angels. Hell was meant for them and it's not Maybe one of the most powerful descriptionsof Hell I've ever heard came from Adventures in Odyssey from Eugene when he tried a life after death program, he wasn't saved so he ended up in hell. When asked about it after this is what he said, "I-It was the most horrifying thing I've ever experienced. I—I've never felt such loneliness or isolation. It was as though I were completely separated from—everyone and everything... completely and thoroughly alone. Not like I was off by myself somewhere, but... but as though I were... nonexistent in a dark void of solitude. I was alone, Connie! Utterly alone in a—in a burning blackness and I've had nothing but nightmares since then!"
Siri, I understand what you are saying about Ecclesiastes 9:1-6. Here is another quote from the got questions page on it. I didn't copy and paste the whole thing before. "Ecclesiastes 9:5 cannot contradict Ecclesiastes 4:2. There, Solomon states that the dead are “happier than the living.” However, when a person is dead, the opportunities to enjoy things on earth no longer exist."
Ava, I hope you don't feel like I've abandoned you to defend the hell topic alone. The truth is, I haven't made up my mind about it yet. I believe that the punishment "the wicked" will receive is eternal in that there will be no second chances after they die. I certainly don't believe that there are demons down in hell torturing people at God or Satan's command (I'm sure you don't believe that either! Just a silly thing that some people assume), Satan and the demons will be suffering with everyone else. I think that whatever the punishment is, the torture is going to be the result of being totally separated from God, not God torturing people. I hope the difference is clear. I mean, anything we have in this life that is good: love, pleasure, purpose, community, etc. are all blessings from God who pours it out on all people, believers and non. So when they are separated from him, they won't ever experience love, friendship, joy, pleasure, etc ever again. It's not God like smacking them around and laughing gleefully while watching them writhe on a spit over a fire. It's him removing himself from them. Giving them what they want (not him). Another thing I've heard that makes sense to me is that God describes himself as an all-consuming fire. No one can be in his presence and live unless they are as perfect as him. You see multiple times in the Old Testament him protecting his people from himself, as it were. He loved us and sent his Son to rescue us from the inevitable end of being a fallen being in a fallen world. Those who refuse his rescue will be consumed by his holiness not because he is a tyrant but because they cannot be near such perfection and light. So yeah, I'm really not sure if hell will be a eternal conscious experience or not but I have to trust that God is going to do the most just AND most merciful thing. I just cannot say exactly what that will be. None of us can for sure, hell is debated by biblical scholars the world over and I think there is a lot less agreement on it than one would think.
Thats a good point Ava. If when you get to Heaven, you find out God is punishing people in eternal hell, would you call him a tyrant and ask to be put in hell with them?
Glad to hear you agree. I don’t think that’s what SDA teaches though Siri since as you know they teach that man had no spirit. And yes, Adam was saved along millions of other pre cross. They were saved by trusting in the God, that he would one day send a savior to redeem them.
Siri, so if When we are resurrected you find out I'm right and hell is eternal, will you regret your salvation? Would you not want to serve God then? Because one of us is right and if I'm right I'm wondering what your response would be. In case you're wondering, if you happened to be right, I would feel like there was injustice but I know God defines justice so if deal with it.
that’s what I believe also.
Ava, let me set this clear. God COULD burn people eternally. He has the power. However, I believe that that is directly in opposition to His character and also contradictory to the Bible. Again, God certainly has the power to do so, but I don’t believe He will.
@Ava Hmmm. I couldn’t find the verse you said says that Heaven is “forever and ever” like Rev. 20:10.
You’re correct that sin must be punished. But eternal hell isn’t the only punishment available. Eternal death is also a severe punishment. And yes, people do choose their salvation.
Just in case if you’re wondering, my other set were the occultists.
Yes, I do think God would be a tyrant if he sent Hitler, Stalin, and the rest to eternal hell. One set of my grandparents went through concentration camp for helping Jews. Even after hearing their stories, I don’t think God would be just in allowing their tormentors, who were brainwashed to believe the way they believed, to suffer for all eternity!
Ava, it doesn’t matter who disobeyed God. God was very clear that death would be their punishment.
Notice how it says that “It is the same for all [talking about death], since the same event happens to the righteous and the wicked.” Also. “This is an evil in all that is done under the sun, that the same event happens to all.” So understandably, when it says that the dead know nothing, also talks about the death of “the good and te evil, to the clean and the unclean.” “As the good one is, so is the sinner.”
Ecclesiastes 9:1-6 Death Comes to All But all this I laid to heart, examining it all, how the righteous and the wise and their deeds are in the hand of God. Whether it is love or hate, man does not know; both are before him. It is the same for all, since the same event happens to the righteous and the wicked, to the good and the evil, to the clean and the unclean, to him who sacrifices and him who does not sacrifice. As the good one is, so is the sinner, and he who swears is as he who shuns an oath. This is an evil in all that is done under the sun, that the same event happens to all. Also, the hearts of the children of man are full of evil, and madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that they go to the dead. But he who is joined with all the living has hope, for a living dog is better than a dead lion. For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten. Their love and their hate and their envy have already perished, and forever they have no more share in all that is done under the sun.
That is totally true that Solomon contrasts life w/ Christ with life w/o Christ. However, notice the verses right before vs. 5.
@Larissa You can add my name in agreement to Oct 20 9:05. That is also what the Adventist Church teaches. I though believe that Adam believed in Jesus and will be saved. When you say spiritually alive, I take it you are saying that our carnal flesh is being replaced with a new spirit?
So how God saves people and that's his work but why he can't be blamed for hell is explained in this story. 6 friends were going to rob a bank, a seventh friend, not involved in the planning of this found out and went to try and stop it. He couldn't persuade them to stop so while they were walking to their van the 7th guy tackles the smallest guy, so the other 5 go rob the bank. In the robbing of the bank 2 officers and an innocent bystander were all killed, so the five guys are charged with murder. Now the 6th guy wasn't charged because there was no evidence against him. But can the guy who was tackled brag about how he did the right thing? No, because he would have robbed the bank if he hadn't been tackled. But can the 5 others blame the 7th friend as the cause of them going to prison? Also no, because they made the choice on their own to rob the bank. This story is not scripture, so discredit it if you must, but this really helped me deal with election and hell and heaven.
No, I dont think he enjoys it. But he's just. Skyler, you seem to have no concept of the God of the Bible. He is loving, just, slow to anger, patient, kind, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscience, merciful. BUT SIN MUST BE PUNISHED. Hell forever isn't unjust, whether you believe that the Bible teaches it or not, an eternal hell would be completely fair. what's not fair is that any of us get eternal life. It's fair because Jesus took hell for us on the cross. I'm more concerned with how a just God could take me to heaven then how a loving God can send people to hell. God sends people to Hell because he's just and God sends people to heaven because he's loving. The only way those attributes can perfectly coexist is the cross. Jesus, because of his love for us, took the just punishment of God on the cross, so that we could get his reward in heaven. So does God like seeing people being tormented? NO!!!! But he lets people choose and some people choose Hell. God doesn't send people to Hell, they send themselves there.
so do you think God likes seeing people be tormented? if so I don’t even want to serve him whether he is real or not!
As far as the oft quoted verse from Ecclesiastes that “the dead know nothing”, I believe that that verse is taken out of context. Ava has talked about the context of the book a bit. Here is an excerpt from gotquestions.org, I like how they explain. “The key to understanding the statement “the dead know nothing” is found in the theme of the book of Ecclesiastes. Ecclesiastes is written specifically from an earthly perspective. The key phrase, repeated throughout the book, is under the sun, used about thirty times. Solomon is commenting on an earth-bound life, “under the sun,” without God. His conclusion, also repeated throughout the book, is that everything from that perspective is “vanity” or emptiness (Ecclesiastes 1:2). When a person dies “under the sun,” the earthly perspective, without God, is that it’s over. He is no longer under the sun. There is no more knowledge to give or be given, just a grave to mark his remains. Those who have died have “no further reward” in this life; they no longer have the ability to enjoy life like those who are living. Eventually, “even their name is forgotten” (Ecclesiastes 9:5).”
The underlying issue to both the state of the dead doctrine and the idea that we deserve hell seems to be the nature of man. Ava and I think the Bible says that a human we are born in Adam (that is, dead in sin, spiritually dead). Jesus came down into this mass grave of spiritually dead people and he makes those who believe in him spiritually alive. So we can stay “in Adam” dead in our sin, spiritually dead from the very birth, unable to make ourselves spiritually alive with anything we do OR we can believe in Jesus. When we do that, we become spiritually alive, we are new creations because we died with Christ, were buried, and by the same Spirit that resurrected Jesus, made spiritually alive! I think if we skip past this, we are debating the symptoms, not the root of the issue.
thanks Siri, that makes more sense now. 😉
If you wouldn't have sinned in the garden God would have chosen you instead of Adam.
Plus you would have made the same decision as Adam so you cant use that line of logic.
1. Satan lied, they died immediately spiritually, and they died later physically. 2. We are dead in sin already, so that makes your argument invalid, because we are dead in sin unless we come to know Jesus and Jesus has to give the us life so he couldn't be telling the truth when we don't have life in the first place. We are dead in sin and we will die physically. And as I've said REPEATEDLY, hell is a living death. You are literally dying for all eternity. Hell is death, forever. So... Your passages saying the wages of sin is death is not proof for your view over mine. You have to say that a word is figurative when in Greek it's not in order to prove your view. I'm a dispensationalist, so I believe in a natural interpretation of the Bible, which requires that verse to be literal and hell to be eternal. If we can have assurance that heaven is eternal then we can have assurance that hell is eternal. God is not unjust to send people to Hell forever. He defines justice
Do you think God would be a tyrant if he sent Hitler to eternal hell?
Yes, annihilation would be a mercy. I don't know if God loves Satan, I don't think it ever says one way or another. God loves people. We choose to go there. We violate God's law again and again and again and again and again each and every day. We commit treason against the God of the universe.
It uses the same word in the same context for both heaven and hell. Proper hermeneutics states that if one is true, so is the other.
Can you show me how an eternal hell is more Biblical?
Thank you for asking Dr. Dyer!
So if people don’t die in hell, Satan is correct.
Remember what the serpent said to Eve? He told them that they will not die as God had told them would happen if they are the fruit. This has been Satan’s lie from the very beginning: that we cannot die!
We can be sure that Heaven is eternal because 1. the Bible is very clear that eternal life is the gift that we will receive when we accept Jesus 2. John says that there will be no more death 3. Jesus said that life is through Him, and that anyone who believes in Him will have life
Ava, I’m not trying to change your beliefs. I am just stating my reasoning from the Bible why I believe the way I do, and I would like you to do the same. That’s all.
The mercy? Is being annihilated mercy? I don’t think so. Jesus loves everyone, including Satan. I agree that God is not a tyrant and people choose where they will go. I think that God would be unjust to burn us with no end for just a few years of sin. I never chose to be born in sin. Yes, we have committee capital offenses. But death is our punishment. NOT Hell. God does know what is best. But I have not seen any conclusive evidence that God’s plan is to burn sinners for all eternity. GOD IS NOT A TYRANT.
Sorry about not responding to that. It certainly is not intentional. I often would plan to get back on something but then (since we’re so active) it would get lost among everything else written and I would forget... Please forgive me.
I believe we deserve eternal punishment.
Also, is it coincidence that no one has responded to my posts at Mon Oct 7 10:01 PM until 10:58 PM? Because I have referred to it many times and no one has yet to respond.
I don't think I phrased the questions that clearly. Looking back on my emails I asked what the passage meant, not the specific part. If you want I can ask more specifically. All I know is that he's an incredible Greek and Hebrew Scholar so he knows what he's talking about. I believe in an eternal hell because it's more biblical than your proposal. Let's face it, I'm not going to become an annihilationist and you aren't going to believe in an eternal hell. I again pose my question, if we can't be sure that when God says hell is eternal, then how can we be sure heaven is eternal?
Could you say why you disagree with what I said?
All I know is that the “dead know nothing.”
@Larissa, I don’t know everything. As Ava pointed out, we will NEVER understand everything. Whether there is a part of us that still is dormant and unconscious while we are dead, or whether God completely recreates us from scratch, I don’t know. Frankly, I don’t care. Whatever God does will be BEST, for His ways are not our ways. What matters is that we accept the gift of eternal life.
Basically, Dr. Dyer didn’t respond to what we were really wondering about, but instead shifted the focus to something else in the passage, which, frankly, I don’t dispute. But that was never the issue. You have to ask yourself: why is he doing that?
On Acts 2:34-35, I agree that Peter does quote Ps. 100:1, which was also quoted by Jesus. Acts 2:34 For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, “‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand.” Notice that it says that David, NOT Jesus, did not ascend into the heavens. We KNOW that Jesus did ascend into the Heavens, so this cannot be referring to Jesus. I agree that the quotation (which comes after the “David did not ascend” part) talks about Jesus and about David. Again, notice how the real question about David is deflected and that statement deals with what the quote Peter made is about. Again, I agree that the quote is about Jesus, but that isn’t the issue. What we have in issue isn’t even part of the quote. I agree with everything said but the references to Lazarus and the Rich Man, which I showed why cannot be used to say that there is immortality right away after we die.
I looked up in Strong’s the meaning of the word “forever” in the Revelation passages about the eternal fire. One definition of the word is “perish” another “to the end.”
Oh. My. Thanks, Larissa, for pointing that out. Shows how befuddled my sick brain was... So sorry for the term mix-up. I meant to say that the concept of an immortal soul is not a biblically founded belief. SO SORRY.
Yes, I agree that it is a parallel between Tyre and Satan/Lucifer. However, I that’s kind of bouncing the ball a bit. Yes, the ruler of Tyre will “suffer the same fate” as Satan, but that doesn’t answer the question on the ashes. Dr. Dyer actually helped prove my point by saying the ruler of Tyre will burn to ashes as well as Satan. Basically, what Dr. Dyer said is totally true; however it does not deal with why I brought this verse up.
Siri, you said on oct 17, at 10:08 that “I understand the concept of soul sleep. I however, don’t believe it is a biblically founded belief.”. Then the same day at 10:56 you wrote “”Soul sleep isn’t biblical.” Can you please back up that claim with the Bible, not just rhetoric?” I’m a bit confused. Do you think Soul sleep is biblical or not?
I really appreciated your prayer Siri, thank you for being responsive and compassionate to our Ava. Ava, we all appreciate your passion, compassion, and earnest love for others. So glad you joined this group!
2. The context of 2 Corinthians 5:6-8 does not support your conclusion.
Siri, of course God COULD recreate us. That doesn’t mean that’s what he will do. In Jesus said that anyone who believes in him “HAS” eternal life. Present tense. As in, when we believe that’s when we start having eternal life. If we die and then have to be recreated, how is that eternal life?
I assume you are referring to Acts 2:34–35 where Peter says, “For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said, ‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”’” In that passage Peter is quoting Psalm 110:1, which was written by David. Peter is arguing that in Psalm 110 and in Psalm 16 (which he also quotes) David must be referring to Jesus and not to himself. Peter’s point is that David died and his physical body was still in his tomb in Jerusalem, while Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. David’s soul and spirit would have gone to what Jesus called “Abraham’s bosom” (Luke 16:22) and “Paradise” (Luke 23:43), but David’s physical body remained in the grave. And that’s why Jesus is the only One who could have fulfilled the predictions made by David in those psalms -Dr Charlie Dyer
I believe the key is recognizing that Ezekiel’s purpose in the larger context was to announce the destruction of the literal city of Tyre and its king. Though Ezekiel is describing the “ultimate” ruler of Tyre (Satan) in verses 11–19, his purpose is still to announce the city’s destruction. So toward the end of his lament against Tyre’s ultimate ruler Ezekiel begins to blend the characteristics of this “satanic king” with Tyre’s human ruler. Satan would be cast to the earth (v. 17a), and the human ruler of Tyre would also be cast down before other kings, who are his enemies (v. 17b). Satan’s ultimate destiny will be the lake of fire (cf. Rev. 21:10), and that’s why I also believe Ezekiel pictures the defeat and death of the human ruler of Tyre as being consumed by fire (v. 18). Both Satan’s and the human ruler’s defeats would shock those nations who had followed them. They would be appalled because of Satan’s and Tyre’s horrible end (cf. 27:35-36). Anyway, I write all that to say that I think Ezekiel is blending elements together so that even as he describes Satan’s downfall, he is showing the actual human ruler of Tyre that he will suffer the same fate. Dr. Charlie Dyer. I hope this helps Siri
that just means that once they die in hell they will come to the Final attack and then they will not come back
Like in exodus 15:18, do you think the word there is figurative? No. Because the word for forever there is the same as in Jonah, but it also adds emphasis to the word forever by adding another word to it so it reads forever and ever. This is what happens in the hell passage and it pretty much can't be metaphor in Greek because of the context of the word. There is no stronger way to say that something is eternal in Greek. So if it can be figurative there then the things referring to God as eternal can be discarded and the things about heaven being eternal.
In Jonah the word for forever can mean a long time as in figurative forever, like we would say today, "it took forever at the store". But the word can mean literal eternity as well.
CSB translated it permanently, not ESV
Well, I couldn't even find the verse at first because the ESV translates it as permanently, and I looked at the Hebrew and that's what the Hebrew means, so it's not even saying forever. It's saying permanently or that Samuel will stay there permanently.
Their souls aren't gone, I don't think heaven and hell are in this universe. As you know, I believe in a pre-trib rapture. So the souls of the believers will be with God and he will put them back and resurrect their bodies. PURGATORY IS RIDICULOUS. Their souls immediately go away from the presence of God or directly in the presence of God.
And the Bible does use exaggeration, Would you cut your hand off of it caused you to sin? I don't think so, because Jesus was trying I make a point, not practical application. But as I've said before when it says eternal judgment it's definitely literal based on the Greek and it's not poetry or metaphor. Plus it's the same word used repeatedly for eternal life. If we can have no assurance that the word for eternal in regards to hell is eternal then we have no assurance the heaven will be eternal. The Hebrews used the word eternal in metaphor and literally. THEY DON'T ONLY USE IT in METAPHOR.
also I was really inspired by how you prayed after ending a discussion, that was nice
well what about when Samuel went into the temple, and how do we know that the hell thing is not being exaggerated? I don’t see how Jonah was being in poetry, how do you figure that?
also Ava if someone goes to heaven or hell or if you believe in purgatory there, then why does God say that the dead will rise up in the resurrection and they will be the first ones into heaven? what is the point if there souls are gone?
THE JONAH THING IS A POETIC PRAYER, HE'S USING AN EXAGGERATION. Would someone address what I said Mon Oct 7 10:01 PM and the next few posts please?
I think when it says the fire is not quenched that means that you cannot put it out, but it will still kill you, it might mean when he says they will be tormented forever and ever that they will be there as long as they last, for example when Samuel went into the temple it was said in the Bible that he was there forever, however he was obviously not. Again when Jonah was in the belly of the whale it was said that he was there forever, the Hebrews thought that forever meant something other then what we think
Thanks,I tried to post my prayer, and my internet died.
Those are such great goals!
We’re all growing in the truth! God isn’t done with any of us.😉
Dear Father, thank you so much for this time spent with Ava searching the Bible! Thank you that you have given the Word for reproof, instruction, and guidance. Thank you that in it you reveal your amazing plan of salvation! Thank you so much for your love that was so sacrificial. Please bless Ava as she grows in you. Thank you so much that you’ve given her a passion for your Holy Word. Help her always to stay faithful to you and to lead others to Christ. Give us a good night’s rest. In Jesus’ name, Amen.
Ava
Thursday, Oct 17, 2019 at 10:55 PM
remove
Yay! You want to start?
Then we’re in the same time zone!
Ava
Thursday, Oct 17, 2019 at 10:54 PM
remove
Sure! Yeah, it's about midnight. I'm 14 btw, so I'm not an expert but I am working on it. I'm currently learning Hebrew and memorizing the New Testament.
Yeah, sorry. I think you’re probably right. I don’t know really what a lot of the terms used to describe Biblical interpretations.
Ava
Thursday, Oct 17, 2019 at 10:52 PM
remove
I'm sooooooooooo emotional, so it's not just this. Especially over matters like this. Ya ever seen the musical movie Les Miserables? Yeah, I've liked cutting through all the baggage that comes with the label SDA or mine as a southern Baptist. It's not even what you believe really, it's the ramifications of the logic you're getting at. What you're saying now is more soul sleep rather then the recreating thing. The recreating thing is problematic Biblically but also just common sense. Soul sleep I don't think is Biblical, for reasons posted before, but it's better then the whole recreating with nothing from this life left over.
And then I got to go to bed. Don’t know what time zone you’re in but where I am it’s l.a.t.e.
Would you like it if we prayed on here together? (I write a prayer on here and you do too)?
Thank you! I really appreciate it!
Ava
Thursday, Oct 17, 2019 at 10:47 PM
remove
I'll ask about the David passage. Maybe it's talking about how he didn't exalt himself as God or as a higher authority than he was but instead he took his proper place? Idk. I'll look into it more. I figure dr. Dyer's answers are more educated and I generally agree with him, so I figured you would find it more helpful than to just yell out opinions with no facts behind them all day.
The next thing we’ll know (after dying) is Jesus coming!
Amen to death gives no sting!
When we die, I believe it is like sleep. The time flies! We have no understanding of time in the grave. So basically when we die, we will “instantly” see Jesus coming because the last thing we remember is death.
Ohhhhh nooooo. Please don’t get over emotional over this. I really think that on that we believe more similarly than is being portrayed. It’s kind of hard to understand exactly what someone is saying on a forum.
Ava
Thursday, Oct 17, 2019 at 10:41 PM
remove
You're fine. I probably sound worse most of the time. Besides I probably should have clarified that sooner
Thanks for going and asking! I really appreciate how you post their responses so I can see them too! Helps me see clearer how they think and interpret the word of God.
Ava
Thursday, Oct 17, 2019 at 10:39 PM
remove
You believe what I believe about a soul, but you reduce it to my character, but a character isn't surviving if it doesn't have somewhere it is. It can't disappear and reappear without having been somewhere. Someone can be exactly like me but not me. I'm probably getting to overworked about the implications of this, I'm literally sobbing right now. I have hope that as soon as I die, I'll be with God. to die is gain now. If I'm just going to not remember anything and let's just say I'm still there somehow, why would it be gain? I'm going to be with Jesus the same time as everyone else so I might as well live. Dying to me then wouldn't be gain. It would be a setback that I would NEVER consider gain. But I have a beautiful hope. It's a good that I can't have taken away. I hope in Jesus and I know that I will see him. I will come to see my Lord and savior face to face. And I won't perish because my soul will be with him existing and I will meet him as soon as I die. It's a beautiful hope that gives death no sting. Jesus took the sting of death, so death becomes a wonderful thing because we get to be with God. Not that we should hasten its arrival.
Acts 2:29 “Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.” Acts 2:34 For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, “‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand,”
I’m super sorry if that sounded rude...😕
Ava
Thursday, Oct 17, 2019 at 10:30 PM
remove
No, you posted like a book on here, I'm working on it. What did you say about king David? I can't find it. I'm looking into the Satan ashes thing. That passage is paralleling the king of Tyre (a real nation btw) with Satan. So I don't know yet, but I'm looking into it. I interpret scripture by scripture and seek the counsel of those who know a lot more than me. So I'm not trying to dance around scripture. I probably won't respond to every single thing you said because it was pretty comprehensive (good job btw).
Reading back, Adventists actually DO believe in soul sleep. We don’t know anything happens while we’re dead. Jesus then comes and wakes us up.
The part of us that remains is unconscious.
that happened while you were dead.
Ava
Thursday, Oct 17, 2019 at 10:25 PM
remove
You don't believe what I believe about the soul. Because you pretty much have to believe something happens to the soul. Either it stays with the body (soul sleep) or it goes somewhere else (heaven and hell) it can't cease to exist. If it ceases to exist you can't recreate it and have it be the same person. the reason that works with a new body is because our souls live on. So a part of us remains.
Yes, the heavenly “Ava” will be the same because you will still have the ingredient that makes you different from your “twin:” you will have the same character! You will remember your past on earth— you just took a long nap till Jesus returns and therefore you don’t remember anything!
Were you dancing around verses when you didn’t respond to the verses that say that we will turn into ashes or that King David is not in Heaven?
Ava
Thursday, Oct 17, 2019 at 10:20 PM
remove
thu Oct 17 11:11 That doesn't work at all. IT WOULDN'T BE ME. I'D BE GONE. That scares me. Yes everything would be the same but it wouldn't be me. Just a recreation of me. If you had two twins and they thought the same way, looked the same way, were genetically identical, would they be the same person. NO! It's the same way. I could never believe that. To me it's as depressing as atheism. When I did I'm gone. You're taking my hope away. I have hope in the resurrection because my inner self is there. Part of me remains. Take that part away after I die and I cease to exist. Even if you recreate me, I'm gone. If you want back in time or something weird, that's a different story. But it brings me no joy, you have me meet a person EXACTLY LIKE ME. BUT SHE WOULDN'T BE ME. We wouldn't share the same memories, the same perspective on life and we wouldn't be the same. It just doesn't work.
May I here add my agreement to Ava’s statement that “a God small enough to be understood is not big enough to be worshiped.”
So in other words you’re saying that it can be taken metaphorically and literally?
On 1 Thessalonians 5:22. I believe that we have a soul. Just not an eternally living soul that if cast into hell will burn forever. That’s what I meant with that question. I didn’t quite phrase it right... so sorry.
Ava
Thursday, Oct 17, 2019 at 10:14 PM
remove
The Lord's prayer is metaphorical in the sense that the phrases have a deeper meaning. For instance, give us this day our daily bread, doesn't necessarily mean give me food today. Could it mean that? Yes obviously. But I often pray this prayer over my thought life, when I'm frustrated with ongoing sin. I say give us this day our daily bread as saying give me what I need to combat this sin today.
I think we have a misunderstanding. We will have our same minds, characters, everything will be the same except our new bodies. You are totally correct that God is creating NOW a clean heart in us. This started when we accepted Christ as personal Savior.
Ava
Thursday, Oct 17, 2019 at 10:11 PM
remove
No, there are different forms of poetry. In your argument, pretty much every use of the word eternal is metaphor for something. IT'S POETRY. TRUST ME ON THIS ONE. It's praising God. Are you familiar with Hebrew poetry? It's a lot different than what we think of as poetry. So no it's not poetry like what we think of today. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Psalms, and many other books have a lot of Hebrew poetry in them. Prophecy uses a lot of poetry sometimes.
On Nicodemus and Jesus. Jesus is saying that he must be born again. Born of whom? of the Spirit. The Spirit is God. So basically we are born of God. How does that tie into never-ending soul?
Ava
Thursday, Oct 17, 2019 at 10:07 PM
remove
God HAS RECREATED ME. If anyone is in Christ he is a new creation, old things have past away, all things have become new. he created in me a new heart the day I repented of my sins and turned to Jesus. But he won't just throw me as I am now out. He'll purify my soul from evil and give me a resurrected body. So I'll still be me. It's very depressing to me to think that if I believed as you did, I cease to exist and God creates a new form of me who will be better then me in all ways, who will live eternally. We cannot be resurrected as ourselves of there is nothing left of us that's immaterial (soul or spirit). If the inner parts of me die with me, then whoever God recreated is not me. Sure they may be on the outside but they aren't me. I cease to exist, my life is meaningless now, because whether I reject Jesus or not, it just affects a future version of me.
Is the Lord’s Prayer metaphorical? Poetry?
I don’t even think that his prayer even falls under the category of poetry.
First of all, is ALL poetry metaphor? I don’t think Jonah was trying to use metaphorical language in praising God for deliverance.
Ava
Thursday, Oct 17, 2019 at 10:02 PM
remove
We don't ditch it, but we understand he's using metaphor because it's poetry. So when Jonah says he was there forever, in a prayer, we get that he felt like he was there forever. Just like when I'm talking to God I'll say something went on forever when it obviously didnt. How we ought to approach scripture is naturally. Take it as poetry, when it's poetry, metaphor when it's metaphor, narrative when narrative, prophecy as prophecy, and laws as laws. So I'm saying we don't take poetry like it's narrative or prophesy. Is my view of hermeneutics invalid?
Once we die we are NOT done. This is not like atheism because Jesus will resurrect us— including the wicked and they will be thrown in the lake of fire! (Rev. 20:5 and beyond)
Yes, it doesn't contradict itself. But it uses metaphors. So, I'm assuming if your hand causes you to sin, you won't go take a knife and cut your hand off.
Don’t you want God to recreate you? To put a new heart in us, a new body— free from the damage of sin?
What I believe about soul sleep and why it's not biblical was basically posted in Wed Oct 16 8:53 PM and after. Any more questions after that I'd be happy to try and answer.
“Soul sleep isn’t Biblical.” Can you please back that claim up with the Bible, not just rhetoric?
Ok, then we got to ditch it because poetry cannot teach Biblical truths? The Bible, EVEN IN POETRY, does not contradict itself.
We will have the same everything physically. But when there's nothing connecting our current self to our new self, they become a recreation of us. And yet they cannot be us. Because there is no connection. Could God make it the exact same, sure. But if there is no spirit or soul which remains it ceases to be us.
@Ava “The Bible does not teach Satan will be destroyed.” How do you explain Ezekiel 28:18 where it says that he (Satan) turned to ashes?
It's poetry, Hebrew poetry. It was a prayer, but it's Hebrew poetry.
Soul sleep isn't biblical, neither is what you're contending for. Most of the book does. If you read it right you will see that there is the author, who many people believe to be Solomon, and an editor, who we don't know the identity of. You normally know when the editor is cutting in because it becomes more God focused and less cynical. That's a major scholar opinion on Ecclesiastes, that didn't make it any less scripture.
@Larissa, you’re pretty correct on your short summary on the Adventist belief. Do you think it’s too hard for a God who just had to speak and “it was so” to recreate us? Does He have to keep us in a refrigerator of sorts to allow us to have the same personality, same looks, same everything?
Actually, Jonah was not speaking in poetry. It was his prayer of thanksgiving to God for deliverance.
So Solomon says death is the same for all!
Ecclesiastes does not only deal with life without God. In fact, right before vs. 5,6 of chapter 9, Solomon writes: Ecclesiastes 9:2 It is the same for all, since the same event happens to the righteous and the wicked, to the good and the evil, to the clean and the unclean, to him who sacrifices and him who does not sacrifice. As the good one is, so is the sinner, and he who swears is as he who shuns an oath.”
4. Read Revelation 21:4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” John clarifies that in Heaven there will be “no more death.” So we understand that Heaven is eternal. Think why there is death first of all. Adam and Eve sinned and the punishment was death. In Heaven, there will be no more sin. Why should we be inflicted with the punishment?
If you have the opportunity, thank Dr. Dyer for taking the time to write back!
3. Revelation 6:9-10 is symbolic. Notice that that is one of the seals that the lamb opens. It is not saying that John literally saw the souls of the martyrs.
2. 2 Corinthians 5:6-8 is not talking about death. Rather, Paul is describing when we take off “the old self” and replace it with the “new.”
1. On Lazarus and the Rich Man: How many of you are familiar with the fable of the three trees? I’ve heard ministers use it in their sermons. But how many of you, after hearing the story, start believing that trees can talk and have dreams and an imagination? Of course not. That’s not the point of the story to show us that trees have a “mind.” It’s the same thing with this parable Jesus shared. It’s not to describe the afterlife, but to teach valuable truths, of which I covered previously.
@Ava I understand the concept of soul sleep. I, however, don’t believe it is Biblically founded belief.
Good evening, everyone! What a pleasant surprise to find the message wall covered with conversations on the Bible. This group has been a blessing to me. I hope it has been to all of you as well.😊 Unfortunately, I wasn’t active earlier because I’m sick and all I’ve basically been doing is sleeping and a little studying for my classes. Anyway.
Ava, another question I have about the rapture as you understand it: How do we know that the wrath that the church is not appointed for is NOT hell? In other words, an argument for the pre-trib secret rapture is that we are not appointed to Gods wrath. But who says that wrath is the tribulations and not hell?
Bible Memorizer, even though it doesn’t mention the word death, it is implied. And even if it wasn’t about death, what time in the SDA mindset would we be away from our bodies? When we are dead, we would be with our bodies or nonexistent, after the resurrection, we would have a resurrection body. So there would be no time without a body.
Hi Eaglets, welcome. What will be hard?
La La La, welcome to our group!
“A God small enough to be understood is not big enough to be worshipped.” So important to remember!
SERIOUSLY JUST READ MON OCT 7 10:01 AND AND AFTER
Whenever it talks about the wages of sin is death that DOESN'T CONTRADICT AN ETERNAL HELL. Mon Oct 7 10:01 PM and after. Can we just be honest here? If the Bible said a thousand times that hell is eternal, I have a feeling that you would still just say it's not just because you can't comprehend how a loving God could punish people in Hell forever. I can't fully comprehend. But A GOD SMALL ENOUGH TO BE UNDERSTOOD IS NOT BIG ENOUGH TO BE WORSHIPED. In order to believe in annihilationism you have to dance around verses that say hell is eternal by saying it's not meant literally there. And yet somehow the same Greek word used in the same way for life after death is literal. If we can have assurance that heaven is eternal then we have the same scriptural foundation for an eternal hell. Dancing around verses doesn't help.
Jesus in Mark 9:44-48 where Jesus described hell as the place where the “worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.” That is, it’s an eternal fire. Second, in Revelation 19:20 the beast and false prophet were thrown into the lake of fire. A thousand years later Satan is also thrown into the same lake of fire (Rev. 20:10). But note in this verse that the beast and false prophet are still there because John ends the verse by saying “they [plural] will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.” The “they” includes the beast and false prophet, who are still being tormented. And John notes that the torment will continue “for ever and ever.” In Greek it is literally “unto the ages of the ages.” There’s no stronger way to say the torment is eternal! It’s not just the fire that is eternal, it’s also their conscious torment in that fire. -DR CHARLIE DYER
third sanctuary book coming out really soon, called humble stones, also we are starting the next book, wings of love
look. the verse”absent fromthe body, present with the Lord” has no mention of death. it is meaning that we are gone from our body. we are with God. we have given up all our earthly things.
just keeping a happy note
😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😃😃😀😃😀😃😃😃😀😃😃😆😆😆😆
well what is a verse that says there is eternal hell???
Ava
Wednesday, Oct 16, 2019 at 10:11 PM
remove
You're welcome. This bothered me for a while, so I studied on it and came to the conclusion that the notion Jesus went to hell is false. Also if humans don't have a spirit, did Jesus? If not, when he resurrected, if he truly resurrected as we do by SDA logic, he wasn't exactly Jesus anymore. I'm assuming they believe he's the exception, because that wouldn't work theologically.
Interesting Ava, thanks for that....
Here is another text that talks about humans being body and spirit. John 3:4-8
4“How can a man be born when he is old?” Nicodemus asked. “Can he enter his mother’s womb a second time to be born?”
5Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh is born of flesh, but spirit is born of the Spirit. 7Do not be amazed that I said, ‘You must be born again.’ 8The wind blows where it wishes. You hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”
Ava
Wednesday, Oct 16, 2019 at 10:03 PM
remove
That's what Dr. Michael Rydelnik says on the topic. If you to michaelrydelnik.org and go to his blog you can find a blog that is entitled Did Jesus Go To Hell? It pretty much sums up what I've learned.
Ava
Wednesday, Oct 16, 2019 at 10:00 PM
remove
A second misunderstood passage is 1 Peter 3:19-20 which says that “He went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison who in the past were disobedient, when God patiently waited in the days of Noah.” These verses are not talking about the Lord Jesus preaching in hell. Rather, the passage actually refers to the Son of God preaching through Noah, in the past to people who were alive in the days of Noah. When they rejected Noah’s message, they became “spirits who are now in prison.” They were disobedient in Noah’s day, the eternal Son of God, through Noah, gave them a message to repent, they rejected it, and they are now “spirits in prison” awaiting final judgment. -Dr. Michael Rydelnik
Ava, you mentioned that you studied where Jesus went when he died. What did you discover about 1 Peter 3:18-20 "For Christ ...being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah..."?
I think that verse also answers your question about a verse that shows that man has "two parts: the soul and physical body" that you were asking for earlier Siri. Here is another: How may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming our Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Thess 5:23
Ava
Wednesday, Oct 16, 2019 at 9:52 PM
remove
That's proof that we have a part of us that can be away from our body. Any other way of understanding is dancing around it to try and prove a point. And the thing about it not being us. That would make both heaven and hell unfair. Heaven, because a perfect new version of us (who's not really us) would get to go into heaven without technically ever relying on God's grace. And the person going to hell wouldn't have done anything wrong, because technically they aren't the same person who rejected Christ, if I understand correctly. Even soul sleep, as normally understood, is more biblical (and it's really not). We are saved by grace but in this view it doesn't really matter what we do because we don't reap the benefits (whether good or bad), because we aren't there anymore. This becomes like atheism in that once we die we're done. Because it would be like us, but still not us, because nothing would be left from ourselves. Am I misunderstood on anything? (I'm still new at SDA theology)
Ava
Wednesday, Oct 16, 2019 at 9:41 PM
remove
TRUE!!! never thought about that. Thanks for pointing that out. If there's no spiritual being-part of us then we will always be in the body. So we can't be absent from the body, so that verse would be useless, and the word of God isn't pointless
Ava
Wednesday, Oct 16, 2019 at 9:39 PM
remove
I answered why I'm Pre-mil pre-trib fri Oct 11 4:32 PM and after
Ava, the verse you posted about being away from the body means being present with the Lord is a really important one. I wanted to point out something that I didn't notice for an embarrassingly long time. 2 Cor. 5:8,9 "We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord. So we make it our goal to please him whether we are at home in the body or away from it." I had always noticed the first part of this verse, but look at the second. How can we please God when we are away from our body in the SDA mindset? We will literally never be away from our bodies.
Ava
Wednesday, Oct 16, 2019 at 9:38 PM
remove
Ah, I agree partially. SOME is the key word. So Matthew 24:4-35 I believe refers to the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. The rest of the chapter refers to the second coming. I guess I'm generally a futurist, it passages must be taken individually, but yes in general I'm futurist I believe. Some of them do refer to that, but context, original languages, and basic hermeneutics must be applied to passages individually, so I'm generally futurist.
So I guess that is just my view on Revelation or rather, end time prophecy. The other options are Historicist, futurist, or idealist. I think most dispensationalists fit into the Futurist camp? That all the tribulation prophecies will come true at some future date.
Ava, A partial preterist believes that many of the prophecies used to describe the great tribulation were actually fulfilled in A.D. 70 at the destruction of Jerusalem (and the Temple).
Ava,"he'd be recreating a perfect version of us, but it wouldn't really be us, if no part of us remained after we die." yes exactly.
Ava
Wednesday, Oct 16, 2019 at 8:55 PM
remove
And it's basically the concept of soul sleep, just explained slightly different with a slightly different outcome. But you're basically unconscious, well, from your explanation you're basically gone until you're recreated. which as I've tried to explain, isn't biblical. Soooo... God wouldn't really be saving us, he'd be recreating a perfect version of us, but it wouldn't really be us, if no part of us remained after we die. So then the future of a recreated version you rests on us today.
Ava
Wednesday, Oct 16, 2019 at 8:50 PM
remove
Yeah, I see what you mean Larissa, I answered why I'm a dispensational premillennialist below, and I'll ask again, I've never heard of a partial preterist, so what do you believe as one?
Ava
Wednesday, Oct 16, 2019 at 8:49 PM
remove
Again EVERYONE CHECK MY POST FROM MON OCT. 7 10:01 PM, AND THE POSTS AFTER. God is love, that is undeniable, but God is just. He must punish sin. the wages of sin is death, FOREVER. If it can be interpreted literally that we have ETERNAL life, then by just common rules of hermeneutics it should definitely be interpreted literally we those who reject Christ will be in ETERNAL death (aka hell)
Ava
Wednesday, Oct 16, 2019 at 8:45 PM
remove
THE BIBLE DOES NOT TEACH SATAN WILL BE DESTROYED. The verse you mentioned actually prove my point. Having asked an expert on Biblical Greek, he says the phrase forever and ever there is the strongest most literal term in Greek to use to imply something goes on for all eternity.
I hope you guys will look through the State of the Dead folder in the group verses, also the spiritual man collection. Both very pertinent to current discussions.
Ava, I did want to set one thing straight. Adventists don't actually believe in soul sleep. Soul sleep is when you believe your immaterial spirit is basically unconscious when you are dead. SDAs believe that the body goes to the ground and the breath of life goes back to the Father. Therefore when Jesus returns, he basically recreates us from memory (but if you think about it, no part of us would really be us...).
You guys wrote so much while I was offline! more than 150 posts! Siri wrote a book on hell. lol! You were very thorough Siri. ;)
Ava, thanks for all your input! Do you see what I mean about the nature of man being a very foundational difference between SDA and us? When one believes that there is no immaterial spirit, that affects the doctrines of original sin, spiritual death, being born again, Christian living and soul sleep.
Ava
Wednesday, Oct 16, 2019 at 8:03 PM
remove
To address quickly several things, 1. Jonah was speaking in poetry, which means it's metaphor. 2. Samuel, if he was chosen by God he would be with God in Heaven and the resurrection. So he will technically serve God, as all Christians will, forever.
Ava
Wednesday, Oct 16, 2019 at 8:01 PM
remove
And Ecclesiastes is the inspired word of God, but taking the Bible naturally, you are a pessimist looking at life without God. So we are to see Ecclesiastes with the metaphors referring to life without God.
Ava
Wednesday, Oct 16, 2019 at 7:59 PM
remove
So if the word eternal is used in a nonliteral sense as a metaphor for hell, then why would the same word be used in a literal sense for heaven??? All the passages which clearly refer to Hell as eternal use the same word as the passages which clearly refer to Heaven as eternal. If one is eternal, so is the other.
Ava
Wednesday, Oct 16, 2019 at 7:56 PM
remove
In conclusion, Jesus described a conscious existence after death, Paul pictures death as a time when we’re absent from our physical bodies but present with the Lord, and John pictures those who have died as being able to cry out to God and to then have God answer (Revelation 6:11). All that tells me there is a conscious existence for both believers and unbelievers following physical death. -DR CHARLIE DYER
Ava
Wednesday, Oct 16, 2019 at 7:55 PM
remove
The last post is from Dr Dyer as well
Ava
Wednesday, Oct 16, 2019 at 7:54 PM
remove
Finally, in Revelation 6:9–10 John is shown the souls of those who have been slain during the future Tribulation period. Far from being asleep, these martyred saints are able to cry out to the Lord “in a loud voice,” suggesting a conscious existence following their deaths. And God answers them, suggesting they are able to hear and respond even after death.
Ava
Wednesday, Oct 16, 2019 at 7:54 PM
remove
In 2 Corinthians 5:6–8 Paul speaks of being “absent from the body.” He describes it as the time when we are “at home with the Lord.” This suggests we are in Christ’s presence in some conscious way once we have departed from our earthly bodies. -DR CHARLIE DYER
Ava
Wednesday, Oct 16, 2019 at 7:53 PM
remove
But that passage needs to be balanced against those passages that specifically tell us what happens to an individual’s soul and spirit at that moment of death. In Luke 16 Jesus tells the story of the rich man and Lazarus. And though it’s just a story, it’s grounded in Jesus’ knowledge of what really does happen at the moment of death. Jesus says that when Lazarus died, “the angels carried him to Abraham’s bosom” (v. 22). And both Lazarus, the rich man, and Abraham (who had died two thousand years earlier) are pictured as having a conscious existence—either in bliss or in agony, and able to speak to each other. -DR. CHARLIE DYER
Ava
Wednesday, Oct 16, 2019 at 7:53 PM
remove
Soul sleep is the idea that a person ceases to have a conscious existence after death until the time when our physical bodies are resurrected. At first, passages like 1 Thessalonians 4:13, which talks about “those who are asleep” (specifically referring in verse 16 to those who have physically died), sounds like it supports the idea of soul sleep. But in that passage Paul was using a euphemism to refer to the physical state of the body. That is, someone who has died looks physically as if they have simply gone to sleep. -DR. CHARLIE DYER
Anyhow, that’s I prove from the Bible that hell is not eternal. I woke up rather ill today, and so that is why I was able to take the time to write all that. Hope it was clear.
God is clarifying a very solemn point: nothing will be able to in any way lessen the seriousness of hellfire. Hell will burn until it has done its work. Nothing evil will be able to escape the seriousness of Hell. It will completely annihilate everything it touches.
In Jeremiah 17:27, God discussed a fire that shall not be “quenched.” This fire is referred to in 2 Chronicles 36:19-21, and took place when Jerusalem was destroyed by Babylon. Jerusalem is not still burning today!
Luke 3:17 His winnowing fork is in his hand, to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”
Those who choose Satan over God will be destroyed along with Satan in what Matthew 25:41 calls “everlasting fire.” As the rest of the Bible makes clear, it is not the fire itself that is everlasting, but its effects. Anything or anyone destroyed in hellfire will be totally destroyed—forever.
Hell is the way God will rid the universe of sin and Satan. God, however, does not have pleasure in the wicked. Ezekiel 33:11 Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel?
Matthew 25:41 “Then he will say to those on his left, Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
The same will be with wicked, Peter argues. Jude says they are an example of the punishment of eternal fire! Sodom and Gomorrah are still not burning today. Clearly, “eternal” doesn’t mean a never-ending fire. While the effects of hellfire are eternal, sinners in hellfire will reduced to ashes, just as Sodom and Gomorrah were.
Dr. Dyer was right when he said that Sodom and Gomorrah are an example of the judgment of the wicked. Notice how 2 Peter 2:6 says that Sodom and Gomorrah are “an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly” and how these cities were turned to ashes and condemned to extinction.
Jude 1:7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. 2 Peter 2:6 if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;
While on two occasions the Bible does refer to hellfire as lasting “forever,” it uses the word “forever” in the same why it does on dozens of other occasions where “forever” refers to “as long as an event should last.” Many times the Bible uses the phrase “forever” in conjunction with an event that has long expired.
See with both of these cases, “forever” does not mean “forever” in the sense of an event lasting eternally. If “forever” meant “eternal,” we could still expect to find Samuel in the temple today, and Jonah still in the belly of the fish.
Again the word “forever.” Jonah said that he was in the sea “forever,” yet Jonah 1:17 says, “And the Lord appointed a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.
Jonah 2:6 at the roots of the mountains. I went down to the land whose bars closed upon me forever; yet you brought up my life from the pit, O Lord my God.
So we understand that in this case “forever” means “as long as Samuel lives.”
1 Samuel 1:28 clarifies, “Therefore I have lent him to the Lord. As long as he lives, he is lent to the Lord.” And he worshiped the Lord there.
You’re probably wondering why I’m using that verse. Notice the usage of the word “forever.”
1 Samuel 1:22 But Hannah did not go up, for she said to her husband, “As soon as the child is weaned, I will bring him, so that he may appear in the presence of the Lord and dwell there forever.”
As we already seen, the Bible teaches that Satan will be reduced to ashes in the fires of hell. It isn’t possible for the devil to be reduced to ashes and burn forever and ever at the same time.
Revelation 14:11 And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.” Revelation 20:10 and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
Hell exists to cleanse the world, to rid the planet and God’s universe of every last trace of sin. Why would God have interest in reserving a small corner of the universe as an eternal cesspool where people endure indescribable torment for all eternity? As in the days of Noah, God will cleanse the earth once more, but sin WON’T rise again. Nahum 1:9 What do you plot against the Lord? He will make a complete end; trouble will not rise up a second time.” Sin and sinners will be gone forever!
Even Satan is reduced to ashes by the fires of hell. Satan and his angels won’t be given authority to torture the lost in Hell. Satan himself— along with every other fallen angel— will be blotted out of existence in the fires of hell.
Ezekiel 28:18 By the multitude of your iniquities, in the unrighteousness of your trade you profaned your sanctuaries; so I brought fire out from your midst; it consumed you, and I turned you to ashes on the earth in the sight of all who saw you.
It is NOT God’s intention that the wicked should exist forever. In fact, it isn’t possible for them to live forever. Eternal life is a gift given only to those who have faith in Christ. The lost are lost because they do NOT have faith in Jesus. God will not grant immortality to those who have not chosen to love Him. 1 John 5:12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.” The lost don’t have the Son (Jesus) and therefore cannot live forever— even in Hell!
Notice how plain the Bible is when discussing the fate of the lost in Hell. The hellfire destroys the wicked. “It will leave them neither root nor branch.” “They will be ashes.”
Malachi 4:1 The Great Day of the Lord “For behold, the day is coming, burning like an oven, when all the arrogant and all evildoers will be stubble. The day that is coming shall set them ablaze, says the Lord of hosts, so that it will leave them neither root nor branch. Malachi 4:3 And you shall tread down the wicked, for they will be ashes under the soles of your feet, on the day when I act, says the Lord of hosts.
People who find themselves in the lake of fire DIE in hell. Remember Romans 6:23? Anyone who believes in Jesus “will not PERISH.” The Bible does not teach that people will suffer in hell throughout eternity.
Ezekiel 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die. Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Revelation 20:14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
The Bible teaches that hellfire takes place ON THE EARTH. Hellfire will consume the “heavens and the earth”— the entire planet.
2 Peter 3:7 But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.
Revelation 20:9 And they marched up over the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, but fire came down from heaven and consumed them,
According to Jesus, hellfire will not start burning until the “end of this age,” which means that there is presently no one burning in Hell!
Matthew 13:40-42 Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Matthew 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
While it is evident that not everyone will repent, God’s wish is that all people would find salvation in Him. Jesus invited ALL who labor and are heavy laden to come to Him, while WHOEVER believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
In Romans 9, Paul discusses God’s election to a specific task. The Israelites were chosen to bring the good news about God to the world. The phrase “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated” (Rom. 9:13, NKJV) is commonly misunderstood to mean that God loved only one of the brothers. However, in the context of this passage, Paul is saying that Jacob was chosen but Esau was not. What was Jacob chosen for? To be the father of the Israelite nation. Thus, there are two types of election/ choosing that God does. First, God chooses every single one of us for salvation and wants us to be transformed into the image of Jesus. Second, God chooses different people for specific tasks.
So God wants ALL to be saved. Here I add something on Romans 9 and the election.
Do you believe that God is Love? I do. 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.
It is interesting to me that you mentioned the story of the rich man and Lazarus. Notice the context surrounding the story. By telling this parable, Jesus wasn’t illustrating the realities of the afterlife, but He wanted to teach His hearers some vital lessons: 1. Wealth (in the case of the rich man) is not a guarantee of God’s blessings. Neither is poverty (in the case of Lazarus) a sign of lacking God’s pleasure. 2. Salvation is not by birthright. Many Jews felt that because they were descendants of Abraham, they were guaranteed salvation. This parable demonstrated to Jesus’ hearers that your ethnicity does not provide salvation.
I mostly agree with your last post, except that the dead are in conscious fellowship with God. (Ps. 115:17, Ecc. 9:5,6)
I believe that all who are saved will receive as a gift an immortal body at Jesus’ second coming. What the ESV Study Bible says is correct. However, those who don’t accept the “gift of eternal life” won’t have immortal bodies that burn forever.
That's an interesting explanation. I've never heard someone say that what Ecclesiastes says is discredited because of its mood. Solomon doesn't say that money answers everything. He said that he tried to make his life fulfilling by getting all that he wanted. And he said that is vanity, striving after winds.
Ava
Wednesday, Oct 16, 2019 at 10:21 AM
remove
And what it says about 1 Thess 4:13-18, "we do not want you to be uninformed. The Thessalonians are unaware of the things Paul will explain in vv. 14-17. those who are asleep. Paul refers to Christians who have died as being “asleep” (cf. vv. 14, 15; 5:10; also 1 Cor 15:6, 18, 20, 51), which reinforces his main point that they will awake from the grave at the second coming. The metaphor is not intended to deny that the dead are in conscious fellowship with God in the intermediate state. Referring to death with the metaphor of sleep is simply suggested by the physical condition of those who sleep. It gains appropriateness from the fact that all who have died will rise at Christ's return. grieve as others do who have no hope. Grieving per se is not wrong (cf. Acts 8:2), but it is wrong to grieve in a hopeless manner like unbelievers. The Thessalonians apparently did not understand that deceased Christians would rise from the dead and thus would not miss out on the blessings brought by the second coming. Epitaphs from the first century indicate that most first-century Greeks had a strongly pessimistic view of death."
Ava
Wednesday, Oct 16, 2019 at 10:20 AM
remove
Here's what the ESV Study Bible says about 1 corinthians 15:52 "Christians who are alive at the time of the resurrection will be transformed so that their bodies become spiritual and immortal like the bodies of those who are resurrected from the dead. (See 1 Thess 4:13-18.)"
Ava
Wednesday, Oct 16, 2019 at 10:16 AM
remove
ah. The type is SUPER SMALL on my computer so it looked like Ephesians, sorry. About Ecclesiastes in general, Ecclesiastes is Solomon being a pessimist and looking at life through a pessimist perspective. So... It's hard to interpret. In Ecclesiastes it says that money answers everything. sooo... just keep that in consideration when interpreting. It is divinely inspired but it's a pessimistic view on life so what he's saying in most of the book is, "when your life is without God, money answers everything... or just insert most phrases from Ecclesiastes into that sentence Again sorry, super small print and I misread. So just keep the general view of the book in mind when quoting verses from it.
Did you memorize it on ST? ST is a great memorization tool.
I am young earth creationist as well😊
Hmmm. I didn’t quote anything from Ephesians.... Do you mean the passages I quoted from Ecclesiastes 9?
Can you find a verse in the Bible that says that we have two parts: the soul and physical body? I would love to see it.
Ava
Wednesday, Oct 16, 2019 at 9:27 AM
remove
I'm asking Dr. Dyer about this. But one correction that you misstated Ephesians has 6 chapters and you quoted Ephesians 9. We have a part of us that's not physical. Our spirit/soul returns to God. Hence the immortal part of us is with God. The word we define as soul is in Hebrew nephesh and the Bible project has a great video explaining the word. Nephesh refers to a person as a whole being, however they clarify that there definitely is a concept for a part of us that is immortal. I am a young earth creationist (just so you know) and death came as a result of the fall of man. this refers to a spiritual death and a physical death. So they did die as a result of the fall immediately. Martha knew that Lazarus would rise again PHYSICALLY. I memorized this passage and nothing about it contradicts what I believe about the state of the dead. She was referring to that he died and Jesus reminds her that he will be physically alive again. He was about to resurrect him. It would not be comforting to tell her, "Your brother is in heaven, you'll see him when you die." that ain't comforting. The concept of resurrection is so much more comforting. JESUS WAS COMFORTING A FRIEND AFTER HER BROTHER DIED. He's not going to use the depressing statement that you're going to die and see him again. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus. I get that it's a parable but there's definitely a concept of an afterlife that if soul sleep was true Jesus would have set this up a lot differently. Don't have time to refute all of this now, I'll get back to it later
Notice that even Martha knew that the dead sleep till the resurrection. John 11:23-24 Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” Martha said to him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.”
The trumpet will sound and the resurrection of the saved takes place on the day that Jesus returns to the earth.
1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.
Paul makes it clear that the dead sleep till the resurrection, when the trumpet sounds. This has not taken place. Therefore, the dead have not ascended to Heaven.
1 Corinthians 15:51-52 Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.
1 Timothy 6:15-16 which he will display at the proper time—he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen.
The Bible says nowhere that human beings possess an immortal soul. In fact, Romans 2:7 says that people “seek for” immortality. If we were already immortal, why bother seeking for it? 1 Timothy 6:15,16 says that God “alone has immortality.”
I think you touched on this, Ava, about the whether we possess an immortal soul. Ezekiel 18:4 reads, “Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die.”
Wouldn’t you expect Kind David to have been in Heaven by the time Peter was around, it is very clear that “David did not ascend into the heavens.” So where was David? David was still in his tomb, Peter said.
Acts 2:29 “Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.” Acts 2:34 For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, “‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand,”
This is important. Do saved people go straight to Heaven when they die? Read Acts 2:29 and 34.
Do you remember how long Lazarus was dead? for four days! Still, Jesus didn’t call him down from Heaven; instead, He called Lazarus forth from the place he was buried.
John 11:43 When he had said these things, he cried out with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out.”
Jesus described death as a “sleep.”
It’s interesting to notice how Jesus described death. John 11:11 After saying these things, he said to them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I go to awaken him.” John 11:14 Then Jesus told them plainly, “Lazarus has died,
Do dead people praise the Lord immediately after they die? Psalms 115:17 The dead do not praise the Lord, nor do any who go down into silence.” Just as the dead “know nothing,” the dead do NOT praise the Lord. The Bible describes their state as silence!
Are people conscious in death? According to Ecclesiastes 9:5, obviously not. Ecclesiastes 9:6 says “Their love and their hate and their envy have already perished, and forever they have no more share in all that is done under the sun.” Therefore their minds are inactive.
Ecclesiastes 9:5 For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten.
Rather than being something living or conscious, the breath of life is simply the life force that keeps a person alive. What happens if you stop breathing? You die! So the Bible says that when we die, our breath returns to God.
Therefore, the “spirit” that returns to God and the “breath” that returns to God is one and the same thing.
Job 27:3 “As long as my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils,” Job defines this “spirit” as “breath.”
Notice that Ecclesiastes 12:7 says that “the spirit returns to God who gave it.” What is this spirit?
Ecclesiastes 12:7 and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.
So notice how at death, the dust we humans are made of “returns to the earth,” and the breath God breathed into us “departs” from our bodies.
Psalms 146:4 When his breath departs, he returns to the earth; on that very day his plans perish.
Therefore, the dust of the ground the breath of life = a living soul
Genesis 2:7 says how God created mankind. Notice that man was NOT given a soul. The Bible teaches that the man WAS a soul. Notice how the combination of body and breath is called a “living soul.”
Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Satan said the exact opposite of God. He contradicted God. Notice that this is the first recorded lie in the Bible. And unfortunately, Adam and Eve fell for the trap. Therefore, their disobedience brought death.
Genesis 3:4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die.
I think God was very clear. If they disobeyed, the result would be death.
This is the first mention of death in the Bible: Genesis 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
I think to be able to understand this subject fully, we must first examine how humanity was originally made. I take it that all of us believe in Creation, so let’s go to Genesis 2:17.
Hell is you dying forever. It's like a living death, you are separated from the source of life.
HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THE SAME THINGS *SIGH. Check Mon Oct 7 after 10:01 PM.
for the living know that they will die, but THE DEAD KNOW NOTHING.
for the wages of sin is death. thats what the Bible says. it doesn’t say hell, torture, or anything else. it’s just death.
I'm well aware that translators are flawed. But they are experts in the Greek and Hebrew languages, much more than I am now and I'm assuming you don't read either of those languages. HE WAS SAYING HE HAD NOT YET PHYSICALLY ASCENDED TO THE FATHER. The key word is PHYSICALLY. Did his body stay in the grave? YES! Did his spirit? NO! What I'm saying is that most Jews in the time of Jesus didn't believe in SOUL SLEEP. The Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the dead, not soul sleep. The Sadducees however didn't believe in a resurrection of the dead. I hate having to repeat the same things. Jesus wasn't lying, his body had not yet gone to the father. He doesn't claim to not have seen the father. He said, "Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ASCENDED to the Father." He was right in that he had not yet physically ascended. Whether or not the Jewish people believed in an eternal hell, I do. And I am not one to speculate and believe things without evidence. I BELIEVE IN AN ETERNAL HELL BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES, your view comes from the fact that you can't reconcile a loving God sending people to Hell forever. SIN MAKES US DESERVE IT. Romans 9.
Then why did He say that He hasn’t seen the Father? According to what you’re saying, Jesus lied! (And we know He didn’t.)
Translators, Ava, are human beings with opinions, cultures, preconceived ideas, beliefs. Just because a translator translates the Bible doesn’t make them infallible.
until the angel came and rolled the stone and called Him out of the tomb
I believe he stayed in his grave the entire time
Mercy. I didn’t mean that Jesus went to hell😂😂😂
Here's a blog post from Dr. Michael Rydelnik on the subject. https://www.michaelrydelnik.org/jesus-go-hell/ here's an exerpt from this about the passage you raised, "A third passage, John 20:17, records Jesus words to Mary Magdalene, “Do not cling to me (some versions say ‘do not touch me’) for I have not yet ascended to the Father.” This isn’t saying that Jesus’ spirit had not yet been to His Father, but rather, that Mary should stop clinging to the Lord Jesus because His bodily ascension was yet future. Once she had recognized that it was her resurrected Lord, she became so excited, that she grabbed a hold of Him and was not letting go. In other words, Jesus is saying, you can let go of me, Mary. I will be with you for the next 40 days because I have not yet made my final ascension to the Father (cf. Acts 1:9-11)." -Dr. Michael Rydelnik
So what he was saying is that he wasn't going away yet, so there's no need for Mary to keep clinging on to him so tightly
No, Jesus wasn't going away right then until his ascension 40 days later
The Greek word for the phrase "It is finished" means paid in full. So there would be no point if Jesus went to hell because he paid for our sins in full. So there's no reason for Jesus to go to hell or anywhere else except for heaven
wait, I didn’t quite get that, do you think that Jesus resides in the earth
That doesn't make sense. why would Jesus tell her that he went to hell or somewhere else? It makes no sense. That verse bothered me until I studied up on it. What he's saying is basically, "I'm not going away yet, no need to cling so tightly." He meant he was not physically ascending yet. He was just telling her not to cling so tightly because he would be there for a while. I did a whole debate on this, which I studied for, so I'm not just saying stuff. Translators have reasons for translating things the way they do. Notice how none of the translations translate it that way? There has to be a reason. Which I believe that isn't what that means. Paradise is the word for heaven. Jews believed in heaven in Jesus's time and no one who wrote the new testament believed in soul sleep. Jesus said father into your hands I commit my spirit. 1. He affirms the fact he has a spirit. 2. He says into your hands so we can imply he went to heaven. After thoroughly studying I have come to understand the fact that Jesus went to heaven when he died.
John 20:17 Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
Unfortunately, it’s not true that Jesus went to Heaven right away. Remember how Mary wanted to touch Jesus? He told her not to because He had not yet ascended into Heaven.
See the totally different meaning it has? It now says something like this: I am affirming to you now that you will be with me in Heaven.
Luke 23:43 And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise.”
In the original Greek, there is no punctuation. So Bible Translators have to add punctuation to the Bible. Move the comma after “you” to after “today”.
Luke 23:43 And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.”
And siri, the deads bodies aren't in heaven, just the immaterial part of us.
(I accidentally hit post) immaterial part of us. Soul sleep is not biblical in its nature. We have a spirit that when we die, goes to be with Jesus immediately (I believe). Today you will be with me in paradise. If there is no heaven what do we go to when we die? Instead of Jesus saying today you will be with me in paradise he would have said something more along the lines of you will be resurrected with me in the New earth. But that's not what he says. (The fact that he says today you will be with me points to the fact that Jesus went to heaven to be with the father rather than to Hell for 3 days before he was resurrected.) When Jesus died by your logic what happened to him? He was God, so heaven is where God's spirit resides, so then why wouldn't people be present with God if he made a place to reside. Obviously he's omnipresent but heaven is a place where he manifests his presence in a more understandable form. Sorry for sorta ranting, but I really don't get the theology, if any SDA wants to try and answer my questions I would be appreciative.
Um... I don't see that at all. Sooo, so do you all not think we have a spirit or an immaterial part of us? Because the Bible seems to make itself pretty clear that we have an imma
that verse I think could mean that we died and so God took the spirit of life from us
Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.
2 Corinthians 5:6, 8-9 KJV
https://bible.com/bible/1/2co.5.6-9.KJV
I don't believe in the rapture specifically from the verses used to prove a rapture. It is the only view I believe to be theologically correct. (I clarified my reasons for being a dispensational premillennialist below)
What do you guys think of the verse, to be absent with the body is to be present with the Lord. And our spirits will be with God in Heaven, the resurrection is the reuniting of our bodies with our spirits (the material meeting the immaterial
I have a question. If people are in Heaven, why does Paul say that those who are “dead in Christ will rise first?” Why is there need of a resurrection if the dead are already in heaven?
Adventists don’t believe in SECRET rapture. I think these verses make that very clear. 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.
@Larissa, how do you interpret Rev. 14:12? Strongs says “Commandments” means the law.
let’s see... we all believe in creation... we all believe Saturday is the Sabbath... I guess we could debate about EGW being a prophet
what should we debate about now?
Well, I am a southern Baptist, if that gives you a clue about what I think
more of John the Baptist. Jesus baptized with the spirit. but I think that full submersion is what we should do. it’s what the disciples did and we should too. the Bible never mentions a sprinkle of water on the head.
SDA people think that you should do full submersion, I think you should do full submersion because that is what Jesus did
well there’s baptism. do you think that we should baptize fully under water, or can you sprinkle some water on your head?
Hi... Anything ya wanna talk about?????
yes actually It was my dad who was the one who gave my real name and I was going to change it but everyone objected, so yeah, here I am. yeah actually you could totally track some of the others on groups like yo people of the lord and stuff, like I know everything about someone named eaglets(doesn’t matter that he is my friend, I still no everything about him)😋
we do believe that the dead and the living will go to heaven if they are with Christ, but only at the same time
well we don’t believe that people will disappear and then 7 years will go by of tribulation, you know?
Don’t have time to write on the other stuff right now. It sounds interesting😊
I don’t know you, Skyler. I’ve seen you though. Don’t ask me where!😂😂 Well, I’ve been on ST for a long time, and you’ve dropped different hints, especially when you wrote something (on another group) with your father’s account.
Well, your description of the last days might be a little different from what Pre-mil post trib believe. But it's the same in regards to the order of the tribulation and the millennium. The specifics do vary among Pre-mil post trib.
What you're describing is the Pre-mil post-trib view of what the rapture is. So when I use the rapture I mean before the tribulation but when she uses it in regards to you it's what you're saying. Another way to state your position is historic premillennialism or nondispensational premillennialism. Or the more common way of Pre-mil post -trib. I hold to dispensational premillennialism or Pre-mil pre-trib.
rapture? SDA’s believe in the rapture? that’s not true. but what you may be referring to is that we believe that the righteous will be taken up to heaven with the evil dead and Saten will be chained for 1,000 years. then we willl return to earth, the evil will be resurrected, and then saten will try to enter the holy city with the evil and and God will destroy the soul and body of the evil and they will never live again and then live with God forever.
You're probably pan-millenial. You believe it'll all pan out. Sorry for the theology joke, but it is a position. My student pastor is pan-millenial.
What does a partial preterist believe? I'm not familiar with that.
The tribulation is NOT the wrath of Satan (Revelation 6:16-17; 11:18; 15:1,7; 16:1) and the Bible specifically says the church cannot endure the wrath of God (1 Thessalonians 1:10; Revelation 3:10; Romans 5:9) so therefore the church could not be a part of the tribulation or at least could not be affected by it.
The reason I'm pre-trib rather than post trib: so we learn from scripture that the coming of Jesus is imminent. (2 Peter 3:10, Revelation 3:3, 1 Thessalonians 5:2, Matthew 24:42-44) He will come like a thief in the night, thieves don't make appointments. So therefore he can return at any moment. But post says that he can't come until the tribulation is over. So if the imminent return of Christ is true as post, that would leave you to say that the tribulation might be occurring now. Which when you read the book of Revelation you see that the tribulation is much more serious then any events described there. Also post-trib people typically say that the tribulation is the wrath of Satan.
The reason I'm pre-mil is because as I've said before I take the Bible literally. amillinialists say it's a metaphor and so is the tribulation. And postmillinailism is dumb.
When SDAs use the word rapture, typically what they are referring to is the Pre-tribulation secret rapture believed by dispensationalists.
But actually, SDAs do believe in rapture (being caught up in the clouds with Jesus), just that it happens after a tribulation and before the millennium. So if you want to use language that other Christians would understand you would describe your beliefs as Pre-Millennial, post-trib.
Oh, I was answering Ava's questions Skyler. ;)
Siri said, "All the ceremonies represented the Gospel. What Jesus will do to save us. And here I echo Ava, that the Gospel was one in the OT and the NT." I agree with you that the ceremonies of the sanctuary represent the gospel, but I believe that Jesus ALREADY did everything to save us. I just read the other day that the Greek word that we translate into "It is finished" means more specifically "paid in full". He already paid everything, he has finished his atoning work and is now sitting at the father's right hand.
SDA doesn’t believe in the rapture as you probably know, just in case you were talking to me
you are right Larissa😀😀😀 emojis do help🤗🤗🤗
I was wondering the same thing Skyler. I figured you guys just knew each other. You know how small the SDA world is!
And as far as the end times go, I would describe myself as a partial preterist in regards to many of the classic "end times prophecies". And as far as the millennium goes, I would say I am an agnostic! Meaning, I don't know what I believe about the millennium. I don't think there is a TON of clear biblical evidence about it. Can you share with me some of the reasons why you believe in in pre-trib rapture? The church I attend believes that (or at least most of the pastors do) but they haven't preached about it so I'd love to hear any biblical evidence you have about it!
btw Siri, how do you know it is our mom who wrote two books on the sanctuary
Ava, thank you for your explanation. I understand where you are coming form as far as sin in this current age. We of course should not try to sin! I absolutely agree with you. My point is, the law is one big thing. The Bible never actually divided it into ceremonial, civil, etc. I understand that the individual laws can fit into these categories, but you keep all of the law or your are a lawbreaker as it says in the Bible. For example, when you were born again, did you all of a sudden feel convicted to add tassels to the four corners of your coat? Of course not, lol! This was one of the laws though. My point is that when we strive to please our savior Jesus, we look to do that by walking in the Spirit. And we check our conscience against the New Testament scriptures where the apostles talk about living a Christian life. We don't look back to the law for that. Check out Galatians 3:1-5 "O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing with faith?
3Are you so foolish? After starting in the Spirit, are you now finishing in the flesh? 4Have you suffered so much for nothing, if it really was for nothing? 5Does God lavish His Spirit on you and work miracles among you because you practice the law, or because you hear and believe?
Larrisa, what is your view on end times btw. I'm pre-mil pre-trib. My point is to not get trapped into legalism but also not go into liberalism. it's a delicate balance between trying to follow the laws without going overboard and making that the point of your faith. Which is why I believe that you can become a Christian in a "serious" sin but will not continue in the sin after salvation. So we need to take the moral laws and follow them, but not make that what defines our faith. Our church's college pastor says, "The prayer for our college students is not that they would stop sinning or be better. What a weak prayer. Our prayer is that our college students will be formed into the image of Jesus." The point is we will follow the law when we become more like Jesus. So we are to strive to love and know God above all. We shouldn't strive to sin however. We should try to follow the law because we love Jesus. It's complicated.
Siri, of course I would rejoin SDA if it was true! Do you assume I took the easy way out? I certainly didn't. My whole family and all my loved ones are still SDA. I am fiercely loyal and leaving SDA was the hardest thing I've ever done. But OH SO WORTH IT, Hallelujah, I'm free! I have found the truth and it set me free! I don't think you could convince me otherwise because I have already heard and used to believe all the arguments SDAs use. I don't think there is going to be some magic explanation that I didn't uncover as I was searching for the truth about SDA and God.
Skyler, I am glad you enjoy debating on this group! Ava and Skyler, I also struggle with worry that I will come off the wrong way on here. It is hard enough to find the balance between boldness and gentleness when you are debating in person, let alone on a forum with only emojis to help!
Ava, I agree our lives will naturally begin to look more moral as we learn to follow Jesus and walk in the Spirit. But I think it's because we have the Spirit living in us, not because there is a list of rules that we stare at and try to live by. I think you probably agree. Notice when Paul tells the new church not to sleep with prostitutes, he doesn't say we shouldn't because of the law, he appeals to the fact that Jesus lives in us and that we shouldn't join Jesus with a prostitute. "Should a man take his body, which is part of Christ, and join it to a prostitute? Never!" 1 Cor 6:15.
Ava, I can see from what you wrote that you do understand what it means to be under the New Covenant. But a more in depth study will show some of the stumbling blocks that SDAs have with it. Such as the Sabbath being the sign of the Old Covenant. If you are interested, I recommend this study: https://lifeassuranceministries.org/studies/covenants/index.html I think you will agree with it all, but it might open up your eyes to a few things that you never noticed before. Or if you are more of a video fan, here is a really great video: https://youtu.be/XHF3gwvL46I I feel the need to add a disclaimer that I don't agree with the video on their view of the millennium but you might as a dispensationalist.
No, sorry if I was unclear! I think you SHOULD look at the Old Testament through the lens of the new! I was saying that is a good thing that you are doing.
Thanks Ava for setting me straight! I am only familiar with covenant theology and dispensationalism, I will be honest and say I don't know either of them in depth. I personally ascribe to New Covenant theology which I believe takes the best aspects from both of the above. :)
I don't know if God loves satan. I don't think the Bible ever mentions if God loves angels or not. I know he does love hitler, but hitler did die in his sin. So he's going to punishment. After killing 6 million jews doesn't he deserve punishment? Mao Zedong killed about 45 million people. As I've said before I'm not a vindictive person. But I have a sense of justice. If you go back and read you'll see more of what I have to say about it.
And yes, if the BIBLE, clearly taught your doctrines over the Southern Baptist beliefs, I would join. However, since I have studied the passages you use and don't believe they mean that this conversation is strengthening my current beliefs and I will stay Southern Baptist probably for the rest of my life or until they stop upholding God's word with high standards. If I were to leave my denomination now I wouldn't become SDA
This is what Dr. Charlie Dyer had to say about the Sodom and Gomorrah passage you were referring to. "I find it interesting that the passage they use to try to disprove eternal punishment is Jude 7 with its reference to Sodom, Gomorrah, and the other cities of the plain. Jude specifically says that these cities serve as an example of eternal punishment. The key here is the word he uses for “example.” In Greek it’s the word deigma. Here’s the definition of that word from Thayer’s Greek Lexicon: “deigma, deigmatos, to (deiknumi); a. properly, thing shown. b. a specimen of anything, example, pattern: puros aiōniou, set forth as a warning.” My point here is that Jude is using Sodom and Gomorrah as an example of the future judgment awaiting the evil men of his time. Jude isn’t saying that Sodom and Gomorrah experienced “eternal judgment.” Rather, he is saying they are an illustration of the judgment by fire God will send on all who are evil. The one key difference in the comparison is that the punishment by fire still to come is “eternal.” The word he uses is aionios, which means “without beginning or end.” The comparison is between Sodom and Gomorrah and the final judgment. Sodom experienced a one-time judgment by fire, but the one judgment still to come is aionios. It’s a fiery judgment without end." -Dr. Charlie Dyer
doesn’t quite make sense to me, but I get what you are saying, but when Soddom and Gamorrah where destroyed God said it was be eternal fire, but they died, yet he says hell is eternal fire also. So I have concluded to myself that eternal fire is just fire that cannot be put out. Well about your question I would not want either hitler or Satan to be in hell forever because if you really think about it that is a really long time with no hope of having anything but eternal pain. also that would seem a little cruel to be like them by doing to them what they did I to others and therefore bringing ourselves to the same level. oh yeah! my mistake, I didn’t see that it was quite for that question.
@Ava Your post “Thu Oct 10 6:05 pm.” Amen!
All the ceremonies represented the Gospel. What Jesus will do to save us. And here I echo Ava, that the Gospel was one in the OT and the NT.
Now, under the new covenant, we have direct access to Jesus, and inherently to the Father.
I disagree that the Sabbath was the sign of the Old Covenant. The sign of Creation, yes. I think that the difference between the old covenant and the new covenant is that sin don’t pass through the lamb, priest, the temple, and then finally Jesus takes it on the Day of Atonement. Skyler’s And Bible Memorizer’s mother wrote two wonderful books on the sanctuary.
Don’t worry, Ava. I think it’s very important to be passionate about what you believe.😊
The reason a lot of people don’t understand Jesus’ plan of salvation is because the church is very lukewarm. I don’t know if you still believe that the 7 churches in Revelation signify 7 periods in the Christian Church from the Apostles time till Jesus’ coming. We believe that we are in the period of Laodecia, the lukewarm church, the ones who thought they were rich but were actually poor, who see but are really blind. That is why there is such great lethargy in Christian world. We don’t understand the basics! I wholeheartedly believe in what the Adventist Church believes, but even that won’t save us. Many people right now in the church are waking up from their slumber and are beginning to pray— praying for the Holy Spirit to give each one of us the true relationship with Jesus that we need.
Can I ask the same question to you and Ava? If you were shown in God’s Word that what Adventists believe is true, would you return/join?
@Larissa, Technically, yes. But I know too much, seen too much, to probably stop being SDA. The very arguments you are bringing forth, we would use them to create confusion in the SDA church. I’d say we were pretty successful.
Ava, does Jesus still love Satan? and Hitler and all the rest?
Ava, I agree with you that we will only keep the law (10 Commandments) because of love. Both Paul and John say that love is the fulfillment of the law.
I think we're probably the most active group on here right now.
That's where I go more in depth on your question
Skyler, can you respond to what I said Mon Oct 7 after 10:01 PM. I sound mad there but I'm not.
I've got a question for you skyler, would it bother you if Satan was in Hell forever? And another question, would it bother you if Hitler was in Hell forever?
The wages of sin is death. So now we need to get into the nature of what hell is. Hell is separation from God. Hell i would define as a living death. So you are in existence forever but although you're kinda alive you're constantly dying. It's a living death. and hell was not made for humans. Hell was made for Satan and the fallen angels. Matthew 25:41. If you scroll way back I elaborate a lot more.
We are free from the law but if our faith is true we will naturally follow the law. So I'm not saying we still have to follow the law and our salvation depends on it. Because we all agree that we can't keep the law, Jesus did keep it though and that frees us from our salvation relying on it. So we are free from the law in that our salvation is not affected by it. We will however naturally follow it as we become more like Jesus. Romans 9, God does choose us (how and why he chose us is under debate) but that's no excuse to not pursue God. He takes the first steps though.
😃I really enjoy debating on this group😃
I hadn’t noticed up that you had answered and was wondering if you could repeat it
yeah I understand that you are trying to just debate in a friendly way, sometimes I think people will think I am mean also, but that’s what I like about this group, it’s that is a friendly group and people know others are being friendly, also I was wondering what you said about when we were talking about hell burning forever and God said the punishment for sin is death, not burning forever
Ava, I totally agree. there was no covenant that makes us free from the law. I’ve heard that we do not need to find God because He finds us. that’s not true. God doesn’t find us. He waits for us to call to Him. and as you said in James that Faith without works is dead. that is true and God wants us to obey Him although we have made flaws. that’s why He died on the cross!
I'm always worried when debating about stuff like this that I sound mad and people are going to think I hate them. I just get really passionate when discussing what I believe , so I'm not mad at anyone on here and I'm trying never to be rude and sorry if anything I say comes off as rude
I said I'm dispensationalist thu Oct 10 5:50 PM if that's what you're looking for
yeah, great job for being kind and stuff, I think I mentioned this before but once I was debating with someone and they were nice until one point when they were just kinda...rude. yeah, about the laws, the Ten Commandments cover all the other laws that could be necessary. they are also the main laws which were given to us by God himself. Larissa, I think that we should not eat pork because the Bible says so, I think that EGW’s books were really just explanations to help us understand the gospel. I would also never leave being a SDA unless I knew it was the wrong theology. Ava me mistake for not seeing where you said it, could you say it again? I don’t remember what you said, also as I said before i would not leave the Ten Commandments even if we could because they make us live happier lives.
Larissa, what lens of theology do you hold to? As I've said I'm leaning towards being a dispensationalist. I know you are not covenant theology.
I struggle with legalism but it's bondage, so while the moral laws absolutely do apply as I've said repeatedly we are free from the law but will naturally follow it when we become more like Jesus. And we will become more like Jesus by spending time with him in his word and through prayer.
The moral laws do apply because they are what God thinks about sin. Homosexuality for instance remains sin. The other laws don't because they were given to the Jews. We're not picking and choosing out of all the laws. Jesus reiterated some of the moral law as did paul. We are free from the law but we will naturally follow it when we become more like Jesus.
I know what it means to be under a new covenant. The law is not binding on us anymore. We are free from the law. But does that mean we should sin? As Paul says by no means, for how can we who have died to sin still live in it. But since we are free from the law the goal is not to do more. It's to love God with all your heart soul mind and strength and if you do that the law comes more naturally. Romans 7 says we all struggle with sin still. We will always be struggling to do good but the solution is not legalism because the gospel frees us from the pressure to do good. Like James says faith without works is dead. But what that does not mean is oh I don't have enough works so I'd better go work harder. That is enslaving yourself to legalism. But we need to pursue God and as we pursue him we will become more like him naturally, because you become who you hang out with. So if we pursue God in his word he will put a desire in us to obey his word. And we will find fulfilment because this is what we were made to do. We were made to follow God and to proclaim his name. I can't sum it all up here but this is what I can do for now to try and explain. It's so complex and so wonderful and freeing. We are dead to sin and alive in Christ and as we pursue him he will make us more like him
The point of the law is to show us our sin. And I do tend to look through the New Testament back at the laws because I can't really help it. I have the whole big picture in mind and looking back at the law I remember in Romans what Paul says about the law. Do you have a problem with looking back with the bigger picture in mind? That's all I'm doing. My beliefs most clearly line up with dispensationalism.
I'm absolutely NOT in covenant theology. From what I've studied about it it's dumb and unbiblical. I'm leaning towards being a dispensationalist. Which means I take scripture naturally (narrative as literal, poetry as metaphor.) And I see a distinction between Israel and the church and believe God has different plans for them. Covenant theology is also known as replacement theology, which is absolutely opposite of what dispensationalists believe. Replacement theology states that God replaced Israel with the church. Now in dispensationalism we do believe in different periods where God's rules are a little different. But God has always saved us the same way, through hope in jesus. However covenant theology seems to say God made a works based covenant with Adam and since he failed God had plan B which is the covenant of grace. I disagree. So when I say things about the law I'm not in covenant theology. There may be some aspects true of covenant theology but I believe the premise is wrong.
no. I wouldn’t leave the Advent Faith. but Hebrews 8 and 9 talks about a new covenant replacing the old. yet there is no notion of the 10 Commandments or the other laws. it talks about us not having to sacrifice lambs and that God did not need a Sanctuary on earth because He had a Sanctuary in heaven!
Here is a question for any SDAs out there. If what I am saying IS TRUE, would you leave adventism?
It is mixing the old with the new. The Sabbath was the sign of the OLD covenant. So if one still thinks that they should keep the sign of the old covenant while also keeping the new covenant, they are mixing the old with the new.
Siri said, "Works do NOT save you. Keeping the Sabbath does NOT save you. Only a true relationship with Jesus will save us."
AMEN!!
I recognize that there are a lot of protestant groups that believe the 10 commandments are still binding on Christians today. It does sound like Ava comes from a covenant theology background. I already told her what I thought about that. But again, I'm not worried because she has a true grasp on the gospel. And because those in the covenant theology group usually look back at the Old Testament through New testament (gospel) glasses as Ava has already shown. However, if they want to witness to SDAs, they better do a deep study of the covenants to see exactly what it means to be under a new covenant. Otherwise, I think they will always just be "Sunday-keepers" to SDAs and therefore not taken seriously.
I'm glad you read the group verses Siri, thanks. I'm not as concerned about you because I think you pretty much have a grasp of the true gospel. That's why part of me feels uncomfortable debating all these side issues with you. But I know that there are many people who believe in a false gospel that look through this message board so I have to "go there".
Nah, I don't think I misunderstand the SDA view on health. The truth is that the SDA reasoning on this doctrine and many others is hard to pin down. Ask 10 SDAs why they SDAs don't eat pork and 5 will say the Bible says so, the other 5 will say EGW says so. I do know that a good friend of mine had to sign a paper when he started working for the church that he would abstain from unclean meats based on Leviticus 11. I also know another person who had to commit to abstaining from unclean meats when they signed their baptismal vows. I was young when I signed mine so I really don't remember what I signed. And I think the vows vary by conference.
I agree. the Ten Commandments are more than laws. they were written in stone by God’s own hand and put in the ark of the covenant!
Siri, I don't think that the Ten Commandments are JUST part of the law. They are part of it but they're the summation of the law and the most important part. And the principle behind all of the commandments matters. The fifth commandment for example: Honor your father and mother. The principle behind this is honor the people in authority over you. The new covenant does not include the Sabbath as the Old Covenant does. I don't think the Mosaic laws except the ones mentioned as good in the NT apply as written. The principles behind them TYPICALLY do. The moral laws ALL apply. The ceremonial laws it depends, but whether I'm going to follow a law is based on the New Testament because we are not under law but under grace. We follow the law naturally out of a love for God. Jesus said the greatest commandment is to love God with all your heart soul mind and strength. and the second is to love your neighbor as yourself. He said all the law and prophets are summed up in that statement. So if we keep that command that Jesus called most important than we will keep all the commandments naturally.
God knows when we try our hardest to serve Him. Even though it isn’t perfect He still forgives us.
Works do NOT save you. Keeping the Sabbath does NOT save you. Only a true relationship with Jesus will save us.
It is only through Jesus that we are saved. Remember John the Baptist’s call? Behold the Lamb of God takes away the sin of the world?
@Larissa Please correct me if I’m wrong
I’m sorry if this isn’t true, but I really feel that you don’t believe that Adventists believe in the saving power, love, righteousness in Jesus. I feel like you think that EGW did not believe in the saving grace of Jesus. That is false. Read her book “Steps to Christ.”
God does forget our sins. Amen! He’s promised to cast them to the depth of the seas! Does He do that for everyone, or only for those who accept Jesus?
When we accept Jesus, we accept His righteousness and forgiveness, correct? But we need to repent. Peter preached his first sermon in Acts where he said “Repent and be baptized.” We must repent. That is part of accepting Jesus. Do you dispute that?
@Ava Our Church has Wednesday prayer meeting
I read the gospel group verses. is there any verse you would like to point out, Larissa?
I already read your verses in your group collections.
On your quote about the records: What you pasted deals with people who professed to be Christians but who weren’t. The tares among the wheat. Something like my family: professed Christians but actually worshipping Satan!
When I answered those two questions, mine answers didn’t contradict Ellen White. Are you saying (in your response to Skyler) that everyone will be saved? I agree that when we break one commandment we break all of them. But THAT IS WHY JESUS CAME! He came to be our Righteousness.
I’m sorry, but SDAs have not tried to portray Him as a Levitical High Priest.
Hebrews 7:12 says that there is a change in the law as well. I understand it as the annulment of the Mosaic Law, not the Ten Commandments.
Was not reiterated in the NT? I said the Hebrews passage, Jesus’ teaching about the Sabbath. If you’re wondering why there isn’t any point-blank statement about it that’s because it wasn’t an issue then. Everyone kept the Sabbath.
How do you point out something without defining it?
We were discussing this issue (Are 10 Commandments part of Mosaic Law) in depth below.
First of all, you forget that SDAs believe that the 10 Commandments are not part of the Mosaic Law. From what I understood, Ava believes this as well with the exception that the mention of keeping the 7th day doesn’t matter. (Correct me if I’m wrong.) So it’s not really “mixing the old with the new.”
Excuse me, Larissa. You do not have a true understanding of where SDA’s dietary principles come from. They do not come from the Mosaic Law. We eat healthier because God showed EGW foods we should not eat because our bodies our the “Temple of the Living God.” Otherwise, it is not wrong by any means to eat meat.
Ava
Wednesday, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:23 PM
remove
the Adam and Eve one is obvious. There's really no way around that. She said Adam wasn't with Eve, the Bible clearly says he was.
Ava
Wednesday, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:19 PM
remove
Yeah, I don't really get the emphasis on the Sabbath. I guess it's because I'm not SDA. Yeah it is hard to choose and I would agree with you that the nature of man is probably more different but other protestant denominations do think that way. I just think annihilationism is a bigger difference than Sabbath. As I said my Baptist church had a Saturday service for a long time. I just picked one that I thought was bigger. My youth group service was starting.
Ava, I don't think that the doctrine of hell is the biggest difference. That's actually a hard one to choose...... I think something really foundational that changes everything is the SDA worldview of the nature of man.
Going back aways to where Siri said she laughed at my list of EGW Bible contradictions. Did you read any of them? Because many of them aren't even about theology or doctrine, just simply a plain contradiction. I will copy and paste the 2nd one here.
2. Was Adam with Eve when she was tempted in the garden?
EGW: NO "The angels had cautioned Eve to beware of separating herself from her husband while occupied in their daily labor in the garden; with him she would be in less temptation than if she were alone. But absorbed in her pleasing task, she unconsciously wandered from his side. On perceiving that she was alone, she felt an apprehension of danger. ... She soon found herself gazing with mingled curiosity and admiration upon the forbidden tree" (Patriarchs and Prophets, pp. 53, 54).
BIBLE: YES Gen 3:6 (NIV) 6When the woman saw 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.
And also, God DOES forget our sins! That is the good news!! Isaiah 43:25" I, I am he who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins." and Hebrews 10:17 "I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.” and Psalm 103:12 "as far as the east is from the west,
so far does he remove our transgressions from us." So either way, she's wrong.
Bible Memorizer, it is not different. In it's context it is talking about the sins that would be on record during the IJ. I am sure you have a copy of the Great Controversy, go read the context.
My other challenge for Skyler and Bible Memorizer is to go to the memory verses tab (on the website) or group verses (on your phone) and read through all of the verses in the "gospel" collection in this group. Pray for the Holy Spirit's guidance to see what He wants you to see.
that’s different. what she is saying there is that although men forget our sins, Hod doesn’t. that’s all I can say right now because it’s late and I need to go.
Bible Memorizer, I have a challenge for you. It might take awhile. Go read through Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy and then tell me where it says that the 10 commandments were not included in the book of the laws. Or as you say, the laws from the books of Moses.
Bible memorizer, "How solemn is the thought! Day after day, passing into eternity, bears its burden of records for the books of heaven. Words once spoken, deeds once done, can never be recalled. Angels have registered both the good and the evil. The mightiest conqueror upon the earth cannot call back the record of even a single day. Our acts, our words, even our most secret motives, all have their weight in deciding our destiny for weal or woe. Though they may be forgotten by us, they will bear their testimony to justify or condemn." GC 486.3
are you talking about the laws from the books of moses
Bible Memorizer, God made all 613 laws, not just the 10 commandments. And there are many of those laws that are healthy living but SDAs don't press the other ones.
Skyler, thanks for chiming in and answering my 2 questions. Your answers pretty much line up with what Ellen White taught. Here is my response though. 1. Where is the line? What I mean is, you can always do better don't you think? Jesus said that being angry at your brother is murder. We've been angry before right? So we have murdered. And we know that to break one commandment is to break them all, so we are lawbreakers. Right? So do you think God in his perfection is going to be like, "Oh, well he tried to the best of his abilities." No, we are sinners, the Bible says DEAD in our sin, spiritually dead. Jesus came to make us alive again. We are new creations when we are born again in the Spirit. We are reconciled to God through his son Jesus. If there is nothing we can do to earn salvation, then there is nothing we can do to lose our salvation. That's why Paul says We have been saved by grace, through faith and this is a gift from God, not by works so that none can boast. And also, If we boast, we can only boast about Christ. Because it has nothing to do with our works.
where does she say the forgotten sins are counted?
Siri, you said earlier that the IJ is simply Jesus checking to see if you have accepted Jesus or not. So the quote I posted does contradict that because it says that Jesus is ONLY checking out BELIEVERS in the IJ. "When any have sins remaining upon the books of record, unrepented of and unforgiven, their names will be blotted out of the book of life.” IJWEGW 10.4 So if BELIEVERS have not confessed a sin, then their names are blotted out of the book of life. She says even forgotten sins count here.
Larissa, you said in there that the Seventh day Adventist’s chose the Ten Commandments and the dietary laws from the 613 laws. God made the Ten Commandments and the dietary laws are more than laws- they’re a healthier lifestyle.
Ava, In regular Christianity, Sabbath is an opinion. In SDA, not so much. They teach that keeping the Sabbath is the seal of God. This is why I think it is such a big deal to understand the covenants if you are wanting to witness to SDAs or leave adventism. We can't mix the old with the new. I've already mentioned the analogy that Paul used to describe the Old and New Covenants. How Christians are not children of the slave woman (the old covenant) but of the free woman (the new covenant). Jesus talked about how one would never put new wine in old wineskins or never patch old fabric with new. You can't mix the old system of law with the new. You can't mix law and grace. The Sabbath was part of the law, grace is through the New Covenant (I know you understand this but you have to go all the way with this). We CANNOT say that we have to look through the 613 rules of the law and then decide which ones apply today. How would we even begin to do so? SDAs have tried and they have decided that the 10 commandments and then randomly, the dietary laws apply today. It's all the law or something else. Siri, you mentioned that Jesus is our high priest. Yes he is. But as much as SDAs try to portray him as one, he is NOT a levitical high priest. He is a high priest in the order of Melchizedek. Hebrews 7:12 says "For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well." Our new law is laid out in the New Testament writings. And as Ava has already said, the Sabbath is the only one of the 10 commandments that was not reiterated in the teachings of the NT. We still serve a moral God, of course morality would still be important to him. But now we walk in the Spirit. That is how we live and serve God, not through checking off a list of rules given to the children of Israel. The law pointed out sin but didn't define it.
One more question about Sabbath, what do you think about services on Wednesday?
Or if you and the rest want to call it quits and shake hands, we can do that too!
or also any other subject that you want to talk about 😊
@Ava I appreciate your honesty. I try to keep an open mind. We can discuss our differences in Annihilation, but only if you want to. I wouldn’t want to talk about it unless you and the rest wish.
@siri I also think annihilationism is more of a major difference. But whatever. Annihilation has to do more with theology but Sabbath is more opinion. you'll probably disagree with everything I'm saying.
Siri, I think we should discuss this but we're at the point where we're using the same arguments over and over again. I think it's time to say that we agree to disagree. My view is not in the New Testament, as I've said repeatedly it comes from church tradition. And texts used to help my view could be interpreted the other way.
@skyler, I did answer earlier.
I can’t agree that keeping Sunday over Saturday is not in the NT and that we get our view only from the OT. Anyway.
The Sabbath issue has been discussed because that is the biggest difference between SDAs and their Protestant counterparts.
Why we’re having this debate? Well, way back in the beginning some people (very nice people btw) asked Larissa about the SDA beliefs. I didn’t join immediately because I didn’t want any nasty argument to start. But I couldn’t help it. I joined so that I could give the opposite angle of the questions discussed and Larissa was super kind and welcoming. A big shoutout to all who’ve participated in this “debate” of sorts and still have kept it friendly and fun😊
also do you guys believe that animals will go to heaven, I certainly do because just lately my dog died(the one in my picture and in biblememorizers picture) and I could never be fully happy In heaven without her, I hope you agree!
well good job guys, this is actually the most active group there is I think, I might be wrong though, but anyway don’t forget to answer about God saying the punishment for sin is death
now Larissa, 1 I think to maintain the salvation of yourself you must obey Gods commandments to the best of your abilities and try to do everything you can to serve him and love him. 2. I think that if you stopped with keeping the sabbath then you could not come to heaven if you knew better, if you did not know better then you might and it would be the job of others to minister to you. then I don’t think you would burn forever in hell, but you would die still
well I personally think that women should really be in leadership because they really are just as smart as men and I think it would be a little unfair for God to make someone inferior from their birth just because of their gender. plus women are just as smart as men and many women have been spiritual leaders, take Debrah for instance, she was a judge and also let men into battle. I think you know the story but yeah. but yes we do need to keep the amount of subjects down😁. And well I don’t quite get what your saying about living water ministries but no one wants to be In hell, I think that bad people would not want to be in heaven because of all the glory of God but they would still not want to burn forever. It’s okay I don’t think you are mad, tell me if I am wrong though. I didn’t see anything that you said about what I said about God saying the penalty of sin is death.
No, I do not believe in Infant Baptism. I'm not saying it's the best thing we worship on Sunday, but it is not 100% scripturally wrong as infant baptism is. The proofs for Sabbath are in the Old testament and not reiterated in the new and Baptism is a clear NT ordinance. The principle of the Sabbath is important but honestly idk why we're still having this debate. Do you think it would be wrong if believers over in China could only meet on every other Tuesdays? Church tradition is not infallible. But it must be proven against scripture and nothing in scripture would say it's INHERENTLY wrong. I think we can just agree to disagree on this issue. So... can we talk about something else for a while. You guys draw your view from the OT commandment. We draw ours from the memory of when the resurrection happened. Is it bad to keep the Sabbath, NO. Is it wrong to observe the principle on sunday, I would argue NO.
Is church tradition infallible? You’re Baptist so you don’t believe in infant baptism, right? That was a tradition kept for centuries but later proven false.
As I've said, the Sabbath is not Sunday, it's Saturday. Church tradition has us worship on Sunday in memory of Jesus's resurrection. Not necessarily from scripture but church tradition has us worship on Sunday
That does not contradict what I said earlier. You said yourself in the past the earthly sanctuary pointed to Jesus’ work of redemption. Hebrews makes it clear that Jesus is our High Priest who atones for our sins.
And yes, read Revelation 20:11-15. The judgment of the wicked takes place after the millennium.
@Larissa Ok, so how is that “anti-Gospel?”
Acts 18:4 And he(Paul) reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and tried to persuade Jews and Greeks.” This was after Jesus’ death and yet Paul was still keeping the Sabbath. and here’s another. where did you get the idea of worshiping God on Sunday?
a few things. what about Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. and it never talks about worshiping on Sunday, but it does talk about worshiping on the Sabbath.
Ava
Wednesday, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:40 AM
remove
@siri, thanks for the clarification.
Ava
Wednesday, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:39 AM
remove
I have no problem with attending church on the Sabbath. The Sabbath's purpose is to be a day of rest to focus on God and remember what he did for us. Actually my church did have a Saturday night service for quite a few years. But it had to end last year because not enough people went to it. It was very popular at first though.
But yeah reading EGWs book that you mentioned is a good idea too. Here is a quote from the great controversy about the IJ. “In the typical service only those who had come before God with confession and repentance, and whose sins, through the blood of the sin offering, were transferred to the sanctuary, had a part in the service of the Day of Atonement. So in the great day of final atonement and investigative judgment the only cases considered are those of the professed people of God. The judgment of the wicked is a distinct and separate work, and takes place at a later period.”—The Great Controversy, 480. As you can see, EGW says that the IJ is only for believers.
You What’s not true? The book is called the Investigative Judgement in the writings of Ellen G White. by Robert Olson
Some Anabaptists kept the Sabbath too and were martyred for it. (For those who don’t know, Anabaptists are the founders of modern day Baptists.)
Back on the Sabbath. We have historical proof that the Sabbath was kept by the early Christians. Not until Justin Martyr (who kept BOTH Sabbath and Sunday) do we have evidence of Sunday worship. He was born in the 2nd century. Other famous church fathers such as Saint Patrick!
I can tell you what the book EGW wrote on the Investigative Judgement. It’s called “Christ in His Sanctuary.” It’s free on the EGW app.
Where does it say in the Bible that the “Lord’s Day” means Sunday? (Revelation 1:10 doesn’t work as proof.)
You’re correct that the Bible doesn’t specifically mention going to church/synagogue. I don’t mind if someone doesn’t go to church but still keeps Sabbath at home. A lot of people mistake worship on the Sabbath as going to church. It’s something I’ve been blessed by doing, but even I’ve sometimes skipped church and have done something else worshipful. (spending time in nature on a all day hike, per instance)
Actually, the Sabbath was made to “Keep it Holy.” That includes rest from work. Why? because Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
I naturally disagree with what was said about the Sabbath. Yes, we do worship God everyday. But the Sabbath is a day of “remembrance.” A day that we spend time with God. I like to think of it in terms of a “date” with God, a day that I spent time with Him and enjoy Him. A day where He is the focus. Does it mean that we stop loving Him the rest of the days? No! We send texts back and forth, pay special attention to his/her instagram feed, and look forward to phone call! It’s the same with the Sabbath.
Do you mind telling what the book is called? I can’t copy and paste it.
It does not contradict what I said or what most Adventists believe in. As you know, I came from occult. Satan would direct us to bring topics like this and twist and pervert them so that they lose their real meaning. Then, we would go to those who aren’t stable in their faith and confuse them.
@Larissa, I’m sorry but that is incorrect. I’ve read EGW’s book on the Investigative Judgement.
1. Sorry about that. Didn’t catch that mistake. No, people who accept Jesus as Savior have their name in the Book of Life. All those whose names are not there will be thrown into the lake of fire.
We worship God every day. Jesus is our Sabbath rest and we rest in him daily. Sunday is the Lord’s day. Sabbath was never switched to Sunday. But the day of meeting was switched to Sunday. You know that Sabbath was never described in the law as a day of worship right? It was only to be a day of rest. In the synagogue era, the tradition began to be to meet and listen to teaching on the Sabbath started up. But it was a tradition of man, NOT part of the commandment. In other words, the command was to rest on the 7th day, not worship on it. The Lord’s Day is the day we worship and meet together, not a Sabbath replacement where we rest.
Sorry it’s not a link to everything she wrote about it. The second link I described is what it is.
Siri, the Investigative Judgement is more than that. Although having talked to many SDAs, that’s what many people think it is. Probably one reason why more people don’t leave the church. The church split over the IJ in 1980 and thousands of SDAs left the church over this doctrine. Here is a link to everything that Ellen White write about the Cleansing of the Heavenly Sanctuary and the Investigative Judgment. This is a link from the online catalog of EGW’s writings. I believe this site is curated by the white estate. You would have to read an awful lot of her writings to understand what she thought of the IJ (she wrote over 35 million words!!) but here on the site is a short book written of the subject of EGW and the IJ by a well known SDA theologian. It should give you a good idea of the doctrine Ava as it comes straight from the SDA prophet and is explained by an SDA theologian. https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/746.6#6
And what scriptural evidence is there that you can lose your salvation?
So siri, whose names are written in the book of life to begin with? Is everyone's name there and then when they reject Jesus their name is blotted out?
We don't believe the Sabbath has switched to Sunday, but we worship on Sunday because that's the day Jesus was raised from the dead. This is what some believers call the Lord's day. It's not the Sabbath but is like the Sabbath only on a different day. Christians changed it because of Jesus's resurrection from the dead.
here a quick question, Ava. you said a while back that no one on this group believes that the Sabbath is Sunday. that good! so why do you worship God on Sunday?
Please tell me if that is clear. Don’t hesitate at all to bring something up if you see fit😊
So basically Jesus is seeing who will be accepted into His heavenly kingdom. Jesus sees the inner motives and so He will judge accordingly.
That is what Adventists term the “Investigative Judgement.” I don’t think it contradicts the Gospel.
About the investigative judgement. I suppose you believe that there is a judgment? Well, so Jesus is in the Holy of Hollies looking at our records. For Christians who’ve accepted His righteousness, their sins are wiped off. They will spend eternity with Him. But for those who don’t accept Jesus, their names will be blotted out of the Book of Life. Death is their reward.
I’m so sorry. I meant to write about that this morning.
siri, since you said I misunderstood what investigative judgment is, what do you believe about it?
People often focus what what we are to do and what we are not to do. And unfortunately, many (especially multi-generational SDAs) don’t get the true picture of who God is and their faith becomes a sort of tradition, not real and poignant!
I believe that if we are sincere and have a true relationship with Jesus, He’ll guide our lives. And believe me, I can tell you, when we’re with Jesus, we’re in the best place of all!
I can understand your point as it highlights the different beliefs that we have in Sabbath.
I would answer the same way as you on question 1. For question 2, I would say that Christian are under no obligation or expectation to keep the Sabbath if they are truly born again, nothing happens if they don’t keep the Sabbath. Also, yes, we are saved at a moment in time according to eph 1:13-14 and other verses.
Yes, I believe in the Protestant definition of the trinity.
Btw, do you believe in the trinity?
What would be your responses to those questions?😊
Sorry... misread your question
oh ok! yes, saved is my question, not polishing our characters.
WE CANNOT SAVE OURSELVES. Jesus only can. (and forgive if I’m mistaken, I don’t think you think the SDA church believes in that)
2.1 Can you give me an example of someone who was saved as the work of a lifetime just so I can understand where you are coming from?
I just noticed you said “saved.” The work of a lifetime is polishing our characters.
2.2 That question cannot be answered by a direct yes or no. We have some example in the Bible that were saved at a moment (i.e., thief on the cross) and work of a lifetime
nope that’s not my intention
Cool. We’re on at the same time 😀
2. Just to clarify, do you believe that Christians are saved at a moment in time or that it is a work of a lifetime?
2. God looks at the heart. If our heart is right, He’ll lead us “in the way everlasting!” If we are not keeping the Sabbath because we want to go contrary to what His Word says, He sees that and will judge.
1. That is theologically incorrect. We cannot maintain our own salvation. it is only through the grace of God that we may be saved AND NONE OTHER.
It’s no problem at all! Maybe we can start using 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1,3 for separate posts that deal with one subject.
I have two questions I’d love if Siri, Skyler, and Biblememorizer would answer for me about their beliefs. 1. What must Christians do to maintain their salvation? 2. What will happen to a Christian if they do not keep the Sabbath? Or if you want to be more specific, what happens to an SDA if they stop keeping the Sabbath until the end of time?
well I was going to chime in but got way too tired. will try to find time tomorrow. must. sleep. 😴
So I guess when I restarted the numbering system it didn’t really help because I numbered them all the same. Oops! I wish this app had a similar set up to FB so we could reply to specific posts.
I'm sorry if I sound really mad at you skyler, I'm not. I promise I'm not. I get really overzealous about my faith and love defending it. So I'm not mad, just overzealous
GOD KNOWS BETTER THEN US. We all seem to say we believe that but what we truly believe is that we know best. Sometimes I don't feel like an eternal hell is just, but then I read Romans 9 (the passage I quoted in the last post) and I know that even though something may seem unjust God knows best and he will do what is right regardless of what we think. The lake of fire will burn forever and ever. and whoever has rejected God will be in the lake of fire burning forever and ever. Why? Because they rejected him, not because God is some tyrant wanting to destroy us. But because THEY chose it. That is what I know the Bible says and although you disagree don't call God a tyrant IF he designed the world that way.
@skyler, you also said that you are glad God isn't a tyrant making people burn forever. God is not a tyrant for people being in Hell. He doesn't send people to Hell, they send themselves by rejecting his message. also the worst part about hell isn't the fire and burning, it's the separation from God. I don't think you understand how bad sin is. Look at the crucifixion in depth, then tell me honestly that we don't deserve eternal punishment. That wouldn't be admitting we get eternal punishment, you don't have to reject annihilationism. But tell me that God would be cruel and unjust to send people to Hell forever. We have committed capital offenses. Hell is our punishment. You are saying God can punish us for sin but he can't do it eternally because that would be unjust. "Who are you O man to speak back to God, will what is molded say back to its molded why have you made me like this. Has the potter no right over the clay to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use."
Not that I don't deserve hell, but extreme examples better explain what I mean
Would you at SDA say that Satan would be given the mercy of being annihilated? Because what I mentioned in revelation before, Hell is meant for Satan and his angels, and people are only there because they choose to be. It would genuinely bother me if Satan were given a pass on eternal judgment. Same with Hitler and Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin. They were unrepentant sinners who were mass murders in a crazy level. I'm a merciful, non vindictive person. If you've ever seen Les Miserables (musical movie version) I cried A LOT, but I cried most when Javert died. Because I knew that he did not know Christ. So I knew if he couldn't accept grace from Jean Valjean, he couldn't accept grace from God. So he was in hell, when he had the opportunity to accept grace. If you haven't seen Les Miserables I highly recommend it, it has one kinda bad part, but nothing explicit is shown. It's PG-13. My point is that I don't want people to go to Hell, but when sin is that great without repentance then I do believe they deserve punishment forever.
@skyler, I saw on another group you said because you are annihilationist God is kind. God is loving REGARDLESS. It is one of his attributes whether you believe in an eternal hell or not. I believe God loves everyone. Hell is God giving people what they want. If you see Living Waters ministry's YouTube videos there are some people that Ray Comfort has interviewed who say they want to be in hell because all the fun people will be there. These people are crazy but nonchristians are also saying this by their actions. They refuse to believe in the God of the Bible and keep resisting. So hell is God giving them what they want.
What I was referring to was the thing about annihilation, when I post something from Dr. Dyer I put his name at the bottom of the quote
No, I just asked him about it. So I'll post a response tomorrow. That's from my previous conversations with my pastors and my personal study
Is what you posted about women’s ordination from Dr. Dyer?
He has a radio program called The Land and the Book on Moody Radio and your questions might be put on the radio, although I've asked quite a few and none of them have been on air yet just to let you know if you did ask.
I posted what Dr. Charlie Dyer said in the comments below Siri. He gives responses to emails that are sent to him asking about things like this. If you or anyone else on here wanted to ask him questions yourself you can email him at thelandandthebook@moody.edu
I don’t think that is an essential issue to talk on here. Let’s try to keep one subject at a time😊
The 1 Timothy 2 passage has alternate interpretations but none of them are Biblical. What it's saying is plain. Women cannot be pastors. I could never attend a church with a woman pastor because they would not have a high enough view of scripture based upon the fact that they call themselves a pastor.
Notice in 1 Timothy 3, the requirements for pastors are all referring to men. All the pronouns are male, husband of one wife. Men only can be pastors.
The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.
1 Timothy 3:1-7 ESV
https://bible.com/bible/59/1ti.3.1-7.ESV
Women as pastors is wrong, Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
1 Timothy 2:11-14 ESV.
The wages of sin is death. Hell is a living death. You are dying for all eternity. Also, NO ONE ON HERE THINKS THE SABBATH IS SUNDAY.
also even though it is kinda starting a new conversation what do you guys think of women’s ordination, I am sad the the SDA convention just lately said that women should not be ordained but I think that should be
I am really interested to see what you think about what I said about”the punishment for sin is death”
well you see God said that the punishment for sin is DEATH, the punishment of sin is not eternal torture without death. and no if Ellen said something that was against the Bible then I would not believe her. and yes Ellen did not ever contradict the Bible and those other posts were really just out of the Bible, I mean she is a nice person on other group but they just didn’t go with the Bible. about the people who think Sunday is the Sabbath, it is not bad to celebrate then but we need to remember that the actual Sabbath is not that and I think they still should worship on Saturday. well when she said that stuff, she said she had the WORK of a prophet and not that she was a prophet. also how could Ellen have laid down for sometimes hours without a pulse and without breathing and done things she could never do without Devine help. And yeah I am trying to be nice also even when sometimes it sounds like I am being kinda mean. I don’t have time to read all the stuff right now but I might later, I read most of it at least.
the Bible says if we confess our sins He is grateful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness!
yeah. God doesn’t judge us by if we keep the law, he judges us by faith and works.(James 2)
Hey Ava, set your heart at rest. That is a gross misrepresentation of the Adventist belief. Don’t believe everything the Internet says. Unfortunately, you’ll read a lot of nonsense. Don’t have time to write more.
*the commandments not the because, idk how my autocorrect did that
@siri, what do you believe about investigative judgment? If I misunderstood what most SDA and you believe about it tell me what I got wrong.
If Jesus is judging is based on our righteousness then we're all doomed and the gospel message that there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus is wrong. But if Jesus's judging is based on his righteousness then we have nothing to worry about and the doctrine is shut down. I believe the final judgement for believers will not be for our unrighteousness but rather for our good works, since Jesus has taken all our unrighteousness away.
From what I read on investigative judgment, it said the Jesus was in the holy if hollies looking at believers and how they kept the law, anyone who did not keep the law is rejected as an unbeliever. I agree we shouldn't try to break them. Romans 6. But the reality is if you look at Jesus's standards for the commandments he judged the inner thoughts behind the commandments. So just because I've never killed someone doesn't mean I'm not guilty of murder because I've had hate toward others. If Jesus judged me by the ten commandments, I'm not going to make it into heaven, because I mess up constantly. I don't try to sin but I do because I have a sinful nature. From what you're saying you believe as a Christian does, that no one can keep the because and we rely on Jesus's righteousness. What you're saying is Biblical. So I don't see how you could reconcile that with investigative judgment.
Just because we can’t keep the commandments doesn’t mean that we should try to break them.
Recap: Adventists believe in pretty much everything you/your friends pointed out. We believe however that the 10 Commandments will be used to judge us. However, since no one can keep the 10 Commandments, we need to accept Jesus’ righteousness.
The last 2. I agree we will become perfect—when we go to Heaven.
Third 2: That actually helps my point. Thanks!
Post 2. (the second 2) I mostly agree with that. Only one thing: you said that we’re to compare ourselves to Jesus. Jesus kept the law. He kept the Sabbath.
On your post no. 2: Ok, lets say it is so. Does the 10 Commandments contradict those verses?
Just to make it clear, everyone will miss the mark and continue to do so for the rest of their lives. But that is why Jesus came to this earth. Jesus came to take the guilt from us so that we would not die (as is the punishment for sin) but live with Him eternally.
Tell your friend that I appreciate his/her work. Good writing skills!
I responded to your comment on the Greek definitions. Both words have similar meanings.
I think we have a misunderstanding here. NO ONE CAN EVEN KEEP THE TEN COMMANDMENTS! Only Jesus could. If you kept the 10 Commandments perfectly while you were SDA, please tell me. I would love to shake your hand.
Thank you for your kind words, but I don’t deserve it. I just wrote the first things that came to my mind. I hope it was clear.
If SDA’s need “EGW-colored glasses” to be able to believe what we believe, how how SDAs been able to convict people who’ve never read EGW. Last year, the Adventist Church became the largest Protestant denomination in the world! and second-largest church in the world!
Why is the investigative judgment so “very anti-gospel?”
Speaking on Ellen White, I couldn’t help but laugh when you said she contradicts the Bible. of course for you she will contradict the Bible. Her teachings are consistent with mainstream Adventism. You don’t believe in their teaching, so of course for you she contradicts the Bible
Another reason I became SDA: the occult world hates, hates, hates the Adventist message (especially Ellen White). Let me tell you, I tried and many still try the destroy the SDA church. Occultists don’t attack any other church or denomination as much as the Adventists. And as really high ranking occultists, we knew what they taught.
First, I’ll respond to why I became SDA. If you look back on the surface for about 3,4 generations, we were “SDA.” But in fact, we were occultists. (Many of my family still are.) Our job as occultists was to infiltrate the Adventist Church and change it. But where there is great darkness, God’s truth shines brightest! In occultism, the very thing we believe is No Trinity. Satan is the “brother” of Jesus. So that’s why Jehovah’s witnesses were out of the question.
Good morning! Ao nice to see this group active and studying God’s Word!
Thanks Ava, I LOVE book recommendations. I actually have that one on my amazon wishlist, so I'll have to move it up to the top. Sounds good!
Ava, the Investigative Judgement (IJ) is the first doctrine that fell for me. I didn't actually know too much about it but when I looked into it, I saw what you did. Very anti-gospel! And unbiblical to boot. That led to me looking into EGW, as I was reading about her, I found a Bible study about the covenants which was the last straw for me. Understanding the covenants was what finally opened up my eyes to the true beauty and simplicity of the gospel. I am also interested to see if any SDAs in the group here believe in the Investigative Judgement as Ellen White called it the “the foundation of our faith” (Evangelism, page 221).
Ok, so there's a book by J. D. Greear called Not God Enough: Why Your Small God Leads to Big Problems. I highly recommend it to anyone, his theory he tries to show is that all your spiritual misconceptions and problems with theology come from a view of God that is too small. As SDA's I don't know how much of it you'd agree with but it's really good even if you don't agree with everything. I see his theory being proven so many times in day-to-day life. He's a Southern Baptist.
Wow, that's all beautifully written!
I was going to try to shorten that up for you guys but it really reads well as is. I'm still waiting to see if he wants to be credited or stay anonymous.
2. “Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you.” Philippians 3:12-15 ESV
Do Christians EVER become perfect? Yes.
"And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ." (Philippians 1:6 ESV)
Likewise, the Apostle Paul, in Romans 7, discusses at length the futility of trying to attain righteousness through the law. It is simply counter-productive. We will all be sinners - hopefully sinners saved by grace, but sinners nonetheless - until we are delivered from this "body of death." And those who say otherwise are pretty roundly condemned by Scripture.
As with all things, the greatest heresies are not in what is said, but in what is left out. To try to create a monolithic definition of sin to exclusion of the rest of the counsel of Scripture will result in a diminished view of sin, a diminished view of righteousness and a diminished view of the grace which bridges the abyss between the two.
2. So, where does that leave us? Well, desperately in need of a Savior. Not one to be a "good example" for us. But one who becomes our substitute. One who gives us His righteousness and takes upon Himself our sin. That, my friends is the "Great Exchange."
"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." (2 Corinthians 5:21 ESV)
Do you see that? Not an example; a substitute. We don't become perfect by imitation. We receive righteousness and justification by gift.
What do we do if we sin? We own it. We confess it. We repent of it (Turn towards God which inevitably means that you turn away from your sin). We burn the bridges that lead to our sin so that we cannot go back to it again. Part of this repentance is "Godly grief."
"For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death. For see what earnestness this godly grief has produced in you, but also what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what longing, what zeal, what punishment! At every point you have proved yourselves innocent in the matter." (2 Corinthians 7:10-11 ESV)
So, do we ever become sinless in this mortal life? I am afraid not.
“If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” (1 John 1:8-10 ESV)
What is John saying about those who claim that they have no sin?
1. They deceive themselves;
2. The truth is not in them;
3. They make Jesus out to be a liar; and
4. The Word of Jesus is not in them.
That is pretty serious stuff.
2. Paul then continues to address the Jews - those to whom the law was given. Paul establishes the universal condemnation since neither Jew nor Gentile has ever measured up to the standards that God has required.
"Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law." (Romans 3:19-28 ESV)
2. Another misconception about sin is that it can only exist if there is a specific commandment to be broken. In other words, that the law precedes sin. This is contradicted by Scripture:
"Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law." (Romans 5:12-13 ESV)
Does this mean that, because sin precede the law that sinners get a "free pass" to sin? No. Sin and death are absolutely linked. However, sin and the law are not.
"For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law." (Romans 2:12 ESV)
Paul, in Romans, analyzes two distinct groups. Gentiles - to whom the law was not given. And Jews - to whom the law was given. Paul makes the point that Gentiles are condemned because of the general revelation God has given about Himself to them. He then points out that
"For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus." (Romans 2:14-16 ESV)
Notice that it does NOT say that the law is written in the heart of Gentiles ("Gentiles, who do not have the law . . ."). It says that the "work of the law " is written in the heart of Gentiles. What is the "work of the law?" The "work of the law" has as its design, purpose, and object that which is contemplated by the revealed law. The purpose of the law? To convict all of their sinfulness and the utter depravity of that sin. To break down the "resolve to reform" and to cast one's self entirely upon Jesus in faith. To stop man's futile attempt to merit and humble him to receive the free gift. That truly starts the process of killing the old man - the Adamic nature - that convinces us that there is something good in us (other than Christ). Those who boast in their righteousness or boast in the law, have never really been to Sinai and have no comprehension of what the law really is.
2. God has established His perfect standard, and by that standard He measures every man. The Divine verdict in every instance has been the same, “You have come short, you have missed the mark.” And when the best of men have done their best, our Lord would challenge each with the words, “Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?” (Matthew 6:27). However much the difference that is lacking, no man can by himself raise himself to meet God’s moral standard, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Yes, all without exception, for, says God, “We have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin” (Romans 3:9); that is, both Jew and Gentile have missed the mark.
Oh, and what is that "mark" that we miss? What does it mean when it says that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God? The measure of righteousness is not a set of ten rules or something written on stone or even paper. It is not a checklist. It is a person.
"And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes." (Ephesians 4:11-14 ESV)
2. Some people erroneously believe that there is one definition for sin and that is it is a transgression of the law. This is an error based upon the poor translation of a verse by the King James Version of the Bible.
I John 3:4 reads "Πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν καὶ τὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ καὶ ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐστὶν ἡ ἀνομία" in the original language, koine Greek. The key word is ἀνομία. ἀνομία is derived from "a" - no, or without and "nomos" - law. The term means "no-law" or "without-law" - lawlessness. The idea of "trespass" of an existing law is not in view in the original text.
When we look at I John:3:4 in other translations, we see this perspective. Here's how the New King James Version translates this verse: "Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness." (I John 3:4, NKJ). Likewise, the English Standard version: "Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness." (1 John 3:4 ESV)
As we can see, there are a great many definitions of sin that have nothing to do with lists of rules. Here are a few:
"All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that does not lead to death." (1 John 5:17 ESV)
"But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin." (Romans 14:23 ESV)
"But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” (Galatians 3:12 ESV)
"So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin." (James 4:17 ESV)
2. Siri, I asked for evidence that the Mosaic law is separate from the 10 commandments. Thank you for your answer. I know that took a lot a work and thought. There seems to be 1 assumption underneath your argument that holds the whole thing up. Namely, that the definition for sin is lawlessness. So, without the 10 commandments, there can be no sin, and we know there is sin, so we must still be under the 10 commandments! A friend of mine said it really well so I will copy and paste here: In the Hebrew there are at least eight basic words for sin, the New Testament has at least twelve basic words for sin. As you can see, there are a great many definitions of sin. The word that is used most frequently is hamartia, missing the mark. It is the most comprehensive term for explaining sin. Paul used the verb ἁμαρτάνω ("hamartano") when he wrote, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Harmartia, which means “missing the mark,” suggests inability, the absolute inability of man to measure up to God’s moral standard. Actually God has placed the standard so high so that none can ever reach it. You see, God, because of Who He is, could not stoop to the human standards of man’s sinful heart. Frankly, I believe God set the target out of man’s reach by a deliberate act. And why do I believe this? I believe it because I know the pride of my own heart, and I am but one member of a fallen and depraved race. Now suppose that we were able to meet the demands of God. Those who made it would never cease to boast about how they did make it, and the unfortunate one who could not make it because of inability or some special inferiority on his own part would be lost forever. But God is not so cruel and compassionless. He tells us that we “all have sinned,” all have missed the mark, and that if we confess to this fact, admitting that we have sinned, He will forgive and cleanse our sin and guarantee salvation in time and for eternity.
Ok, to the SDA people on here. Do you believe in investigative judgment? I'm reading some articles on SDA and this one is very anti gospel. If we are judged by the keeping of the Law and not our faith in Christ we will all perish in hell. Whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. If Jesus's death is sufficient this can't be true. The whole point of the law is to point out our sin (Romans 7). The gospel is that we are broken sinners saved by grace alone through faith alone IN CHRIST ALONE. I don't know how many SDA's believe that but I truly believe it is wrong and you should hope that it is for humanities sake. P. S. I get a little overzealous sometimes and it sounds like I'm mad, I'm not I just love defending what I believe.
Ava, thank you for your kind words! And yes, it is so important for SDAs to actually look at what EGW claimed about herself, which foundational doctrines come from her visions, put her through the biblical tests of a prophet, etc. I didn't look into it for so long as an SDA because I didn't think it mattered. After all, I was taking my views straight from the Bible. What I didn't know was that I was wearing EGW colored glasses without even realizing it and interpreting everything I read in the Bible through that viewpoint. Once I started reading the Bible through from beginning to end, with the Holy Spirit's help, holes started appearing in my understanding and I realized certain beliefs I held didn't quite make sense when seen through the larger picture of the Bible.
1. Siri, it's interesting that you quoted Romans 3:31 and then said "Paul makes it clear that the law is not done away with by Jesus’ death". So you think "the law" he mentions in this verse here includes the 10 commandments but the law that we have been released from and have died to in Romans 7:6 does NOT include the 10 commandments but is Moses law? "The law" in both of these cases is the same greek word (nomos). Strong's 3551.
Oh wow, I think she said it best, it's either God's work or Satan's. She's claiming her works are divinely inspired and perfect in truth. I'm not going to start a dispute with the SDA people on here who think she's a prophet, but I strongly encourage them to see what the Bible says about it and compare her works to the Bible. The Bible is the divine word of God which never contradicts itself, so always compare "prophets" to the truth in God's word.
@Larissa, I read through all your previous comments and found them very helpful when trying to learn about SDA. It's sad to me some of these beliefs, I think the annihilation thing comes down to a view of sin that it's not serious enough. Like Paul says in Romans 9, But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
Romans 9:20-24 ESV
I'm going to start using some numbering again as I think it helps keeps our messages organized. Hope you don't mind since you guys have been having lots of conversations while I've been away.
Actually, before I didn't list any times that EGW contradicted the Bible. If you look back, I only listed some of the times she contradicted herself. First, here is what EGW claimed about herself: "Why have I not claimed to be a prophet?--Because in these days many who boldly claim that they are prophets are a reproach to the cause of Christ; and because my work includes much more than the word 'prophet' signifies." (Review and Herald, July 26, 1907) "My commission embraces the work of a prophet, but it does not end there." (Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 36, 1906) "God does nothing in partnership with Satan. My work for the past thirty years bears the stamp of God or the stamp of the enemy. There is no halfway work in the matter. The Testimonies [her writings] are of the Spirit of God, or of the devil. In arraying yourself against the servants of God you are doing a work either for God or for the devil.” (Testimonies, vol. 4, p. 230) "If you lose confidence in the testimonies [her writings] you will drift away from Bible truth." (Testimonies, Vol. 5, p. 98) "These books contain clear, straight, unalterable truth and they should certainly be appreciated. The instruction they contain is not of human production." (Letter H-339, Dec. 26, 1904) "The Holy Ghost is the Author of the Scriptures and of the Spirit of Prophecy [her writings]." (Selected Messages, Vol. 3, p. 30) "These books, giving the instruction that the Lord has given me during the last sixty years, contain light from heaven, and will bear the test of investigation." (Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 35, 1906) Let's take her at her word and investigate! Here is a link cataloging many of the times she contradicted the Bible. http://truthorfables.com/EGW_Contradicts.htm
Siri, may I ask what you were before you became Adventist? If the idea of an eternal hell was abhorrent to you and that is why you converted to SDA, what made you choose SDA over other annihilation millerite root groups like Jehovah's Witness? I'm always curious about how people convert to SDA. Did you hear about SDA through a Revelation seminar, did a friend ask you to church, or?
BTW, welcome to our group Ava, I have appreciated reading through your input here!
Adventists don't believe in original sin. They believe that humans are born with a propensity to sin. But if you believe something different Siri, don't let me speak for you! ;)
Two final points. First, Jude was the half-brother of Jesus. It’s very possible that Jude has in mind the words of Jesus in Mark 9:44-48 where Jesus described hell as the place where the “worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.” That is, it’s an eternal fire. Second, in Revelation 19:20 the beast and false prophet were thrown into the lake of fire. A thousand years later Satan is also thrown into the same lake of fire (Rev. 20:10). But note in this verse that the beast and false prophet are still there because John ends the verse by saying “they [plural] will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.” The “they” includes the beast and false prophet, who are still being tormented. And John notes that the torment will continue “for ever and ever.” In Greek it is literally “unto the ages of the ages.” There’s no stronger way to say the torment is eternal! It’s not just the fire that is eternal, it’s also their conscious torment in that fire. -Dr. Charlie Dyer
I find it interesting that the passage they use to try to disprove eternal punishment is Jude 7 with its reference to Sodom, Gomorrah, and the other cities of the plain. Jude specifically says that these cities serve as an example of eternal punishment. The key here is the word he uses for “example.” In Greek it’s the word deigma. Here’s the definition of that word from Thayer’s Greek Lexicon: “deigma, deigmatos, to(deiknumi); a. properly, thing shown. b. a specimen of anything, example, pattern: purosaiōniou, set forth as a warning.” My point here is that Jude is using Sodom and Gomorrah as an example of the future judgment awaiting the evil men of his time. Jude isn’t saying that Sodom and Gomorrah experienced “eternal judgment.” Rather, he is saying they are an illustration of the judgment by fire God will send on all who are evil. The one key difference in the comparison is that the punishment by fire still to come is “eternal.” The word he uses is aionios, which means “without beginning or end.” The comparison is between Sodom and Gomorrah and the final judgment. Sodom experienced a one-time judgment by fire, but the one judgment still to come is aionios. It’s a fiery judgment without end. -Dr. Charlie Dyer
@siri what do you think about original sin?
I just said annihilationist, that shouldn't come with as many negative stereotypes.
Iow I wanted to ask without being kicked off
Because I read through these comments and Crimson Dawn got kicked out of the other group for challenging doctrine, they didn't want the younger generation getting too confused, not because he asked. Plus I knew there were current SDA's on here who wouldn't kick me off
Awesome! Thanks so much for doing asking for me! But I must ask, why did you join a “former SDA” group?
Yeah, my friend when I told her I joined a SDA group she asked if they were a cult or something like that. I told her NO and told her the beliefs we have in common and the differences. I try to be fair and I didn't know what SDA's believe which is why I joined to help better understand what you believe. I'll also ask my pastor about it Wednesday so I'll give that response Wednesday night or Thursday morning if I forget.
Now there is a difference between murder and hate in consequences, obviously you aren't going to get put in prison for hate unless you act on it. But God knows if the antisemite was given the opportunity he would probably take it to murder Jews
Revelation 20:10 refers to the lake of fire as an eternal punishment for Satan and his angels, in other words, God didn't create hell for man, but rather for satan, but when humans choose sin (Satan's works) over righteousness (God's works) then they go to hell with Satan. Would you be uncomfortable with Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, who total have killed over 60 million people going to hell for eternity? I'm not very sympathetic to them, because they do deserve punishment. But God says hate is murder, so if you hate a specific people group then you are murdering them in your heart. hence you are guilty too. So the antisemite who goes to hell is just as guilty as Hitler, because he hates the Jewish people.
I'm asking some Bible scholars right now and should get a response back by tomorrow, but until then, Matthew 25:46 both life and punishment are modified by the same Greek word eternal, which means that if life is eternal so is the punishment
I have to go now, but if you want, post all your reasons here. I am interested in this. Have a wonderful day!
Ok. Where does it say that there is such a thing as “eternal hell?” How can we know that isn’t a fable?
and the next few verses that wouldn't post, vs 19-23, which is where I get the idea that God knows more so even if we don't like a doctrine such as an eternal hell then we trust that God knows best and that he will work it out
And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, "The older will serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
Romans 9:10-18 ESV
https://bible.com/bible/59/rom.9.10-18.ESV
To a certain extent that is correct. We have a lifetime on this earth to choose God. If during our life we don’t choose Jesus, we will die.
when a person rejects God they are choosing to go to hell, in C. S. Lewis's book the Great Divorce, he tells a story about how some people are allowed to visit heaven from hell and they are given the opportunity to stay in heaven or go back to hell. they choose to go back to hell. When someone rejects God they are saying to him, "my will be done." Instead of thy will be done, so hell is God giving them what they want, he says to them, "Thy will be done." Sort of like you didn't have time for me on earth so you don't get to be with me for eternity. The Great Divorce is not scripture but it makes a good point
Where in Romans 9 does it say that?
Remember Judas? Jesus certainly gave him a chance to choose Him. But Judas chose otherwise.
Yes. I know that is a foreign concept for a Baptist.
I think you're equating being in fellowship with God to being saved, when we sin we are out of fellowship with God but I don't believe it changes the status of salvation
No. The Bible says “The wages of sin is death.” And we know that fire is the way God will cleanse this earth. I have a problem with believing that God will burn someone eternally. That repulsed me and made me become Adventist.
so you think I can lose my salvation
What about Romans 9 where it talks about election? the arminian view is that God chose the people who he knew would respond, so is that what you're saying about election
I'm trying to say that sin is an offense against God which is why it's serious
Ok. So what are you trying to say by that little story?😊
Ok. Point 1. I agree with it. Point 2. I believe that salvation is open to anyone. 3. Christ died for all who sinned. We had to accept that gift. 4. I agree in the sense that when God calls there will be an answer— the answer may be “no.” 5. I believe that we must choose God daily to be saved. Just because today I am good with God doesn’t mean I will saved tomorrow.
So do you have a problem with people going to hell in general?
Here's a helpful illustration by J. D. Greear, if you kick a wall you are going to have to pay to fix any damage you cause, if you kick your neighbor's dog then they will think you are a bad person and not let you play with their kids, if you kick the lady in front of you at the grocery store then you might spend a night in prison and pay fines, but if you go into Buckingham Palace and try to roundhouse kick the queen of England then you are not going the see the light of day for a very long time. So our sin is not offensive based on how big the sin is but rather who it is against. We are committing treason against a holy God. In the illustration something as small as a kick can get you thrown in jail for a very long time. Why? Because it was the queen you were kicking.
Sorry, I put my phone down for a little while.
Again, who defines justice? God is above is in knowledge and sometimes we have to trust that he knows best. An eternal hell shows us how bad our sin is. It's an offense against a holy God.
so I do believe in limited atonement as defined in Arminian theology. Unlimited atonement is universalism which is unbiblical
No, I am on the fence about election, and don't agree with limited atonement as Calvinists define it. I think Christ died for the world but it is only effective in those who follow him. Limited atonement comes from logic and not directly from scripture, unlike the other points
It did, but God made it an official law at Mt. Sinai, correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think Abraham kept the Sabbath.
Do you believe in all the points?
Original sin is part of total depravity.
Never mind 😊, I make a ton of writing errors as well.
The 5 points are
1. Total depravity - we are completely dead in our trespasses and sins and are unable to save ourselves
2. Unconditional election - God elected people to salvation and it was not based on what man's response is.
3. Limited atonement - Christ only died for the elect
4. Irresistible Grace - God calls man to himself and when he calls man will respond
5. Perseverance of the saints- if someone is saved they will persevere to the end and not fall away. So no losing salvation
The Bible has never called the Sabbath a Jewish feast. Sabbath has its roots before the Jewish nation existed. God instituted the Sabbath at Creation.
I agree sin is bad, and culture cannot change God's word, however since my church goes with the evangelical view about church on Sunday I worship on Sunday.
Eternal torment for a few mere years of sin because we’re born with a sinful nature? That doesn’t sound just.
I meant the specific day of the week doesn't apply, like we don't keep Jewish feasts anymore, I have been consistent in my belief that the principal does. In Hebrews the whole point of the text when reading it is you need a day of rest. For SDA they choose the traditional Sabbath which is good, for most other churches they celebrate on Sunday because that's when Jesus rose from the dead which is okay too. The commentaries I have say this passage is referring a heavenly rest through the metaphor of the Sabbath. I think we still need a day of rest and if you choose Saturday that's fine. I try not to contradict myself but in this case I wasn't clear what I meant, so I apologize for that.
Ellen White did not contradict the Bible. Earlier, Larissa sent a number of passages that contradicted the Bible. I call them cheap shots at best.
5 points of Calvinism. I know what they are about but don’t remember them specifically. Could you post them?
Culture should not change what God said. Just because some cultures believe it is acceptable to steal doesn’t mean that it isn’t wrong.
Ah yes. But they had made the law a bondage, totally different than what God intended.
I already posted Hebrews 4:4-11 where Paul, or whoever wrote Hebrews, says that we must keep the Sabbath. Furthermore, you contradicted yourself. You said that the Sabbath doesn’t apply, but now the principle does? Why was then God so specific about which day?
@siri, what do you think about the 5 points of Calvinism?
In their culture it was considered work
Healing people was considered work to the Pharisees.
@skyler, If something Ellen White said clearly contradicted the Bible would you still believe in her as a prophet?
Where did Jesus work on the Sabbath? Healing people and eating straight off the plant is not work.
@skyler, if the passages about an eternal hell are figurative then how can we be sure that there's eternal life? Because I've looked at the passages with referring to heaven as eternal and it is the same Greek word.
Siri, no God didn't make a mistake with his laws, they are all mixed in through the old testament. as I said this law does have a moral law component to it, don't put work over God. The heart of the law is moral, but it falls more into the ceremonial law side. In the new testament all the laws are reiterated and espoused except for the Sabbath from what I remember. Jesus worked on the Sabbath and when he did I believe he was saying that they were getting too legalistic about the day and needed to go back to the heart of the law. So the principal of the Sabbath still applies, but not necessarily the Sabbath itself. You can worship on the Sabbath, I think that's good. But ultimately Jesus is more important than the Sabbath is.
What you are referring to with Adam and Eve is called the doctrine of original sin. Basically saying that Adam is our legal representation before God, and we affirm his decision when we sin. But Jesus took the penalty for sin so we can choose him as our legal representation before God. This sounds very unfair, but again who are we to question God. Here's a few reasons why it is fair for Adam to be our representation. 1. You would do the exact same thing. We all would have done the same thing if we were Adam, so saying we would have done better isn't realistic. 2. We couldn't have chosen a better representative than Adam. Adam was the first human, he was perfect, God chose Adam out of all the people in the earth he would create. 3. If we all had to represent ourselves before God then we would all be condemned. If one man condemned us then one man could save us. Not all people believe this doctrine but all the other views on it don't line up.with scripture. The scriptural foundation for this is Romans 5.
@Skyler, so, God is a just God who must punish unrighteousness. But he is also a loving God which is why he sent Jesus. Our sin was so bad that Jesus had to die for it. He took the weight of our sin onto himself on the cross and he went through hell. God is also all knowing. So he knows what's going to happen, he knows the best plan for the world because he is God. If he decides like I believe, to send people to an eternal hell, then who are we as finite humans to question his decisions. It's complicated, but if you believe sin is as bad as God says it is then hell is appropriate.
About which law the Sabbath is in. Why isn’t it with the rest of the ceremonial laws instead of the moral law? Did God make a mistake in arranging His law?
You said, “I think that they aren’t drawing their conclusions from Scripture.” That is false. We do NOT believe in anything that is not in the Bible, and that includes man-made traditions that contradict the Bible. We follow Martin Luther’s cry, “Sola Scriptura.”
Hey Y’all! Welcome, Ava, to our conversation! Ok, about Adventists. We totally believe is Jesus. Ellen White is NOT considered at the level of Christ or the Bible. She herself has said that.
that is my personal oppinion, I try to keep these debates nice and friendly
also not all SDA people believe Ellen G. White was actually a prophet but I do. God made prophets like Samuel in older days because the church was praying and surrendering to God, but then we stopped praying so much but when the great disappointment happened then people were praying all the time from their hearts so it would make sense that God would have another prophet, do you see
hell’s fire is eternal but if God made people burn forever in it that would be cruel, also the Bible says we are all sinners. so basically we would all be cause into burning forever just because Adam and Eve sinned in the beginning of time? is that supposed to be fair?
so your saying that God would burn people forever? if so I wouldn’t want to serve a God like that, and also it says that when sodum and guimorrah were destroyed by raining fire that the fire was eternal but they didn’t burn forever and neither did the fire, so basically I think when God said the fire is eternal he meant that it cannot be put out, but if God is a loving God then why would he do that?
The places where it says the second death doesn't contradict an eternal hell. Hell is an eternal death, unlike the first death. Hell is basically a state of living death. You're alone without the presence of God in a horrific place meant for Satan and the fallen angels. It is said to be eternal there, and the Bible doesn't contradict itself.
The term used for hell some places in the NT is gehenna, which refers to the hinnom valley where sadly, unwanted children were thrown in and it was basically a trash heap that burned constantly. The metaphor would clearly have been understood as eternal in Jesus's time.
Same lake of fire in your verses
and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
Revelation 20:10 ESV
https://bible.com/bible/59/rev.20.10.ESV
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' Then they also will answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?' Then he will answer them, saying, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.' And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
Matthew 25:41-46 ESV
https://bible.com/bible/59/mat.25.41-46.ESV
I can’t find any verses with hell and eternal in the same verse.
And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.Matthew 10:28
Revelation 21:8 But the cowardly, [e]unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” do you see that it never says eternal? it also includes the word “death”
A question for the seventh day Adventists here, why do most of you believe that he'll is not eternal? Aka annihilationism. I'm Baptist, and am curious as to why.
Reading about SDA, I see why I disagree strongly with their beliefs. But as long as they believe Jesus lived the life we couldn't live, died the death we were condemned to die, and rose again defeating death, he's the only way of salvation, and he's coming back someday, I can call them my brothers and sisters in Christ, but if they raise the keeping of the law, or the "prophet" Ellen white up to the level of Christ then I will have doubts about the authenticity of their faith. I fully disagree with annialationism, soul sleep, as well as other things, I think they aren't drawing their conclusions from scripture, but rather from their church's doctrine then looking for their world view in the text. They can worship on the Sabbath, I can worship on Sunday, and other believers in different parts of the world can worship on different days. The point of the Sabbath is to rest and rely on God rather than work or all the other things distracting us, to have a day set apart for God. this is referred to as the Lord's day to many Christians. It's the same principle as the Sabbath but we do it on a different day and we don't meet in synagogues like in the ot but rather in church as the body of Christ
Ananais and Saphira does because they were lying to the holy spirit (Go read the passage), not because they lied to Peter. He gave them a chance to tell the truth but they didnt. They were probably not genuine Christians, from what all the commentaries I've read say. Like James teaches, our works show if we have faith, if the works aren't there faith probably isn't either.
@Bible Memorizer, I would encourage you to go read Romans and see what God said here through Paul. If you still have questions about sin and law after reading Romans then I would be happy to try and help.
Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?
Romans 5:20-21; 6:1-2
@Bible Memorizer, Romans has a lot to say on many of the questions about law you are raising. Especially Romans 5-6.
In the civil, ceremonial, moral view of ot law, you can figure out which laws apply to us. The civil laws applied to Israel as a nation. The ceremonial laws applied to the Jews and are not mandatory, but the moral laws are the only ones consistently upheld in the new testament.
Then if you find this lens okay, you go back and look at the ten commandments. When you look at things such as lying, murder, or adultery that falls under the moral code because lying, murder and adultery are condemned as wrong. But when you look at the Sabbath, that falls under ceremonial and civil laws. I would argue for that because what God is not saying is, "Its wrong not to rest." But rather, set apart a day as holy. In one sense it does fall under the moral law because you aren't supposed to be a workaholic, but that is not how it is stated so I think it's more of a ceremony kept in Israel as a nation.
Hi, I just joined and read through all the previous posts. About the old testament laws. There were three main categories of laws that we see in the Old Testament. 1. The civil laws. 2. The ceremonial laws. 3. The moral laws. The question then becomes which laws from the old testament are applied to Christian life. 1. The civil laws were the laws given to Israel telling how the nation was to be run. 2. The ceremonial laws, these were the sacrifices and cleanliness laws. 3. The moral law, which declared actions that God finds immoral.
we should give this group a picture sometime
1 John 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
and if the Ten Commandments were nailed to the cross then why did Ananias die for lying to Peter?
so we can commit adultery and steal? if they were nailed to the cross then we do not sin when we murder.
I think that the Ten Commandments were not bad but they actually make our lives much happier, we can live nice and happy lives when we obey them and they are not restrictions so even if they were taken away I would still follow them. it also shows that Christians are good people to others and that they are not mean
@Skyler Larissa said that she knows that the Bible never changed Sabbath from Sunday. She debates the value of the Ten Commandments (specifically the Sabbath). She believes that the Ten Commandments were “nailed to the cross.”
Hebrews 4:4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.
look it up! there I no verse in the Bible that has Sunday and the sabbath in the same context.
the good thing is that I think we are all in the same opinion that Saturday is the Sabbath cause there is no verse that says the Sabbath was changed
I read the definitions in both verses, and neither mentioned “teachings” as a definition/synonym. Both are actually mean the “law.” So I’m not sure where you are getting that from.
Just one more thing in Larissa’s posts that I didn’t respond to: the Greek meanings of commandments. So I did what every non-Greek scholar does when faced with word meanings— I used Strong’s!
It’s sad, Skyler. But many people don’t want to be accountable to God for their actions.
Thanks Bible Memorizer, you’re very kind. I guess I really took Larissa’s challenge up😊
with all due respect, I don’t quite see why people cannot believe in God sometimes when there are so many miracles happening all around the world
wow. that was a long post. I really like how you said that the Sabbath was made before the Jews were ever alive. I never thought of it that way.
I recommend reading 1 John. John explains masterfully the role of the 10 Commandments. So beautiful.
Going in retrospect: Both the Sabbath and the law (which the Sabbath is part of) were given at Creation BEFORE THE JEWISH NATION EXISTED. The Sabbath (and the rest of the law) are given to humanity as a whole. Jesus put it very well: “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.”
Does that contradict the 10 Commandments? No, in fact, Jesus summarizes the commandments beautifully and the scribe realized it.
Mark 12:28-34 The Great Commandment And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” Jesus answered, “The most important is, Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him. And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one's neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions.
Some people will say that when John is giving a totally new, totally different commandment. This is not the case. Notice the story when Jesus gives the great commandment. In fact, let me paste it here.
1 John 3:22-24 and whatever we ask we receive from him, because we keep his commandments and do what pleases him. And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us. Whoever keeps his commandments abides in God, and God in him. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us.
But just because He gives us grace, doesn’t mean we can keep on sinning. We MUST keep His commandments.
Sinning is wrong. Breaking God’s law is wrong and is sin. But here is where God’s marvelous grace comes in. He comes and gives us His righteousness. And that is what matters.
1 John 3:4-10 Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God. By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.
Love is why. We keep the commandments because of love. Notice that John says that it is no new commandment!
1 John 2:7-9 The New Commandment Beloved, I am writing you no new commandment, but an old commandment that you had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word that you have heard. At the same time, it is a new commandment that I am writing to you, which is true in him and in you, because the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining. Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness.
So why must we keep the commandments? because of Jesus’ example. 1 John 2:1-6 Christ Our Advocate My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.
Everyone who says we are “100% lawful” is lying. Even if we are in Christ, that does not mean we won’t stop sinning. Even Paul writes that what he doesn’t want to do, he does just that because he is a fallen human being.
1 John 1:8-10 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
So if the 10 Commandments are part of the Mosaic Law as suggested and annulled with them, there would have been no need of a Savior to come, because Satan would have been right! No one can keep the ENTIRE law! But Jesus came to dispel that notion.
John 3:8 continues: “The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.”
Even Satan knew what is sin. 1 John 3:8 says that “the devil has been sinning from the beginning!” (May I add here that Ellen White did NOT write Isaiah 14:12-21.)
To show them what is sin!!
All these people were saved by faith in Jesus. They knew the Gospel! So why did they have the 10 Commandments then?
Hebrews 11:26 esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt; for he looked to the reward.
Read Hebrews 11. Notice the sheer amount of people mentioned that had faith in Jesus! We even know Moses did.
Obviously, Abraham knew about Christ and the gospel!
John 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.”
Galatians 3:8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.”
Hebrews 11:39-40 And all these, having obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise, God having provided something better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us.
So, we must invariably conclude that people, from Creation till now, had the Gospel, and were saved by faith in a Redeemer to come.
Notice that this verse says that Christ was “slain from the foundation of the world.”
Revelation 13:8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
Here we know that Adam sinned.
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.
But we know there is no sin without the law.
The last part of the sentence means that those, per say, in Africa, Asia, North America, and even Europe who didn’t know about the Ten Commandments, will not be judged by the law because they didn’t know about it.
Sin was in the world before God gave Moses the tablets of stone.
Romans 5:13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.
So we understand that sinning is breaking the law. Sin=lawlessness
1 John 3:4 Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.
Hey Skyler! Nice seeing you again! Seems as though everyone is busy😊
I think when Paul said that it was that he was saying everyone thinks that they are right but when we keep a day for God then we are doing it for God and others are not doing it because they want more for themselves
sorry I have not been on in some time
Have to go now! Will continue later!
He furthermore says that we will be judged by this law. So if we are not under this law, why are we judged by it? He echos Jesus by saying that we must keep the ENTIRE law.
James calls the 10 Commandments “the royal law” and “the law of liberty.” (Note that he quotes two commandments)
James 2:8-12 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty.
Paul makes it clear that the law is not done away with by Jesus’ death
Romans 3:31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
Jesus actually affirms the Law in the Sermon on the Mount
Matthew 5:17-19 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
3. Certainly! It would be my pleasure to do so. I want note that the belief that the 10 Commandments are separate from the Mosaic law isn’t an Adventist view only. Many Sunday-keeping denominations believe that as well.
2. On Romans 14:5,6, notice that Paul is NOT talking about the Sabbath. We can understand from the pretext that he is talking about the Jewish “days” or festivals. Take this verse into that context (which I dare say is the correct interpretation) and that dispels your argument.
1. I’m glad we agree on something together. I really feel like that is the most important thing- that Jesus is our Savior and Friend.
Good morning, everyone! So sorry for such a tardy reply. Didn’t read your response till yesterday and was in the middle of something so I couldn’t answer then. Thank you for answering back! I enjoy these discussions as I hope all of us do😊
Ok should go to sleep now and get back to the rest later. Goodnight all!
4. As Christians, we are hidden in Christ. He is our substitution. He is also the only one who was 100% lawful. So because we are hidden in him, we also are 100% lawful. Anyone who tries to keep the law by themselves will never keep the law 100% so they are lawbreakers. We that are clothed in Christ's white robes are the true law keepers because we depend on him to be our covenant keeper. All HAVE sinned and fall short of the glory of God before they trust Christ's substitutionary sacrifice as their salvation.
4. With all due respect, we don't know that about Lucifer at all. This is the Great Controversy mindset given by Ellen White. It doesn't say this in the Bible.
4. The whole if you love me you will keep my commandments thing. I think I already posted what Jesus's says his commandments were. Also the thing with our English translations is that we use the word commandment to talk about teachings AND the 10 commandments. The greek in the Bible, specifically the writings of John, distinguish between the 10 commandments (nomos in greek) from teachings (entole in greek). Here, Jesus says if you love me you will keep my teachings.
1. Yes, sorry it is Galatians 4:21-31 that shows the comparison between the old and new covenants. But I'm confused about which conclusion you disagree with...
1. I agree with you that one purpose of the law is to reveal sin. So here is a question about your take on 2 Corinthians 3. When Paul is comparing the "Ministry of Death" (the law including the 10 commandments) with the "ministry of the Spirit" (the new covenant) what exactly is his point? Why is he comparing them if they are both still valid? "They are both the same thing but different but still you gotta do both!" That doesn't make sense. He is comparing the Old Covenant to the New. The new took the place of the old. Hebrews 8:13 says, "By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear."
Ok, so I haven't convinced you that "the law" includes the 10 commandments. Let's try this instead then: how about you try to convince me that the Mosaic law is separate from the 10 commandments. I'd like to see any Biblical evidence you can share with me.
Also, I want to clarify something to you guys because I'm not sure I have yet. I don't believe it is wrong to take a day, rest from your work, and devote it to God. That's just fine! What I don't believe is that a Sabbath is required in the new covenant. Paul says in Romans 14:5,6 "One man regards a certain day above the others, while someone else considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes a special day does so to the Lord; he who eats does so to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God." Would he say this about keeping a Sabbath commandment where the penalty for breaking it is death? I think not. Would he says this if the Sabbath is the seal of God as SDA claims? I think not.
Hello! I'm traveling again so that's why I haven't been on. I had a free half hour so I thought I'd post. Siri is right, Skyler. Jesus came to the Earth not to show us how to live moral lives but to save us. 1 John 4:14 says "God sent his son to be the savior of the world. John 3:17 says "God sent his son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through him." All those sacrifices of the perfect lambs were all pointing toward the hope of Christ, the "perfect lamb of God". Galatians 4:4-6 says "But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship. Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” In John 6:28,29 we see some people come to Jesus, "Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” You would think this would be the perfect time for Jesus to tell them the best way to be perfect or live righteously if this was his purpose in coming to Earth. But instead, "Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
yes it is true that you cannot be perfect but also I think Jesus showed us you can be perfect form the age that you know right from wrong. that’s why I think Jesus cane, to show us what to do
if you look in the Bible even Jesus kept the sabbath.
The concept that Jesus is our Sabbath rest is not foreign to me. And to a certain extent, it is correct. Remember, Jesus said, “I am the Lord of the Sabbath.” and how He healed multiple people on the Sabbath and gave them rest? In the same way, He wished to heal us from busyness of life here so He gave a day to rest and enjoy Him and His Creation.
Here’s the rest of my scope on Hebrews 4. Notice that it says that they were not keeping the Sabbath because of “disobedience.” We rest from our works on the Sabbath by not working, studying, etc.
Romans 13:8-10 Fulfilling the Law Through Love Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
I think I understand what you mean, but we cannot and will not be perfect. The reason why we keep the 10 commandments is because of love. Paul writes in Romans 13 that love is the way we fulfill the law.
that is I think God might only hold you accountable when you know right from wrong
I agree with that, you can be perfect by following Gods example if you are really committed
Looking forward to more discussions on the Bible!😊
I will respond more on this passage as I am running out time.
About Hebrews 4. Paul is actually referencing to the manna story. I disagree that Joshua did not give them the Sabbath rest. It says “another rest.”
Exodus 16:23-30 he said to them, “This is what the Lord has commanded: ‘Tomorrow is a day of solemn rest, a holy Sabbath to the Lord; bake what you will bake and boil what you will boil, and all that is left over lay aside to be kept till the morning.’” So they laid it aside till the morning, as Moses commanded them, and it did not stink, and there were no worms in it. Moses said, “Eat it today, for today is a Sabbath to the Lord; today you will not find it in the field. Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day, which is a Sabbath, there will be none.” On the seventh day some of the people went out to gather, but they found none. And the Lord said to Moses, “How long will you refuse to keep my commandments and my laws? See! The Lord has given you the Sabbath; therefore on the sixth day he gives you bread for two days. Remain each of you in his place; let no one go out of his place on the seventh day.” So the people rested on the seventh day.
I’m sorry, but the Israelites DID know about the Sabbath before they received the 10 Commandments. They received manna (chapter 16).
5. We all know that languages were created at Babel. So the term “Sabbath” for the seventh day hadn’t originated.
I’m glad we all care! It’s important for our faith not just to be some crutch we have for convenience!
Furthermore, it says that “we are 100% lawful.” What about the verse that says “For all have sinned, but fall short of the glory of God.”
If it were so (as this article suggests), Jesus need not have come and Satan would have been right!
4. So why does Jesus say “If you love me, keep my commandments.” The article that you pasted fails to recognize that we try to keep the law, not as a means for salvation but as a way to show Jesus love. We know that Lucifer rebelled against Jesus because he wanted to be “like the most high.” He accused God of having laws and expectations that no one could keep. So that is why God sent him to Earth– to prove his theory. Jesus came though to prove that, yes, one can keep the law and that it is not impossible. Jesus, however knows that we can’t keep the law because of the degeneration sin has on us. So we must “believe in Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.”
3. I agree with most of your post on circumcision. But Paul does not say that people must not be on the Ten Commandments. (No, you have not convinced me that the 10 Commandments and the Mosaic Law are the same thing.)
2. Galatians 5:21-31. Chapter 5 has only 26 verses. I think you mean chapter 4. And reading that, I don’t know how you can come to such a conclusion.
Notice vs. 16. The veil is removed when one comes to the Lord. The veil is the hardening/dulling of sin on our minds/hearts. We then look to Jesus and He removes all that scum and replaces it with His righteousness and freedom. This is a far cry from saying that the commandments on stone are annulled.
Here is where the New Covenant comes in.
1. Vs. 7, 8 do not say that the “ministry of death” is void. It is and still is a ministry of death because it shows us what sin is. We know that “the wages of sin is death.” Therefore, these commandments on stone show us our sin. THEY DO NOT SAVE US. They are there to show how imperfect and worthy of death we are.
I think we’re even because I brought up the same arguments before. I am still not a baptized SDA.
Lol. Homeschooling can and will be stressful. But once you get to 5th, 6th grade, the rest is easy. They just do it on their own😊
3 this clearly states that God did make a blessed day for rest. he says the work sabbath several times before the later times with the Israelites
“And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; And he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blesses the seventh day and sanctified it: because that in it he rested from all his work which God created and made.” Genesis 3:2-3:3 KJV
I've mentioned before that Jesus is our Sabbath rest. I'm sure that seems like a very strange thing to you. Here is a link to an article about what that means. https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-Sabbath.html
3.5 I have to make a quick note about the Hebrews verses you mentioned. Let me copy them here again first so we can reference it easier. Hebrews 4:4-11 "For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.” And again in this passage he said, “They shall not enter my rest.” Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, again he appoints a certain day, “Today,” saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted, “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.” For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on. So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his. Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience."
Notice where it says that Joshua did not give them rest. When Joshua was leader, the penalty for breaking the Sabbath was death. So despite the fact that the children of Israel were keeping the Sabbath, they did not enter God's rest! So this cannot be talking about the weekly Sabbath. The next verse says we enter God's rest by resting from our works. In other words, in this context we enter God's rest by not trying to earn our salvation anymore. Romans 4:5 "But to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness."
3. Where did Sabbath originate. Yes, God rested at the end of creation. But notice first, that Sabbath is not mentioned in those verses. It's not even mentioned in the book of Genesis. Second, notice that there was no command for humans to rest or to take a Sabbath. Look at Nehemiah 9:14 "You made known to them your holy Sabbath and gave them commands, decrees and laws through your servant Moses." (side note- another place that says that the 'commands came through Moses"). This tells us they were not familiar with the Sabbath before this point. At Mt. Sinai with the 10 commandments is when he asked them to start keeping it. Also look at Deuteronomy 5:3 "The LORD did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, with all those of us alive here today." He is referring to the 10 commandments here which include the Sabbath. There really is no Biblical evidence that it was kept by God's people before that time.
Skyler, 4. I know you don’t go to Sunday school. This was an excerpt from a website. He was not specifically talking to SDAs, but anyone who thinks we should be focusing on the law.
and Larissa, the way to keep the law is in James 2. is says that faith AND works are what GOD wants. even though we can’t do perfect works GOD will and Larissa, the way to keep the law is in James 2. is says that faith AND works are what GOD wants. and although we don’t have perfect works we can ask God to forgive us and He will.
5 We can never be pure just because of our heritage but we must be pure in heart and do all we can to serve God
3 you can never do enough for God and if you are doing everything for him on earth and in your heart you will praise God and not yourself 4 I don’t quite know what you mean by this but we don’t keep Sunday, we go to Sabbath school
well no one on earth has ever completely kept the law but Jesus, Jesus was our example and I think that he was trying to show us what we should try to do.1 Jesus came to earth to show that we actually can, he was tempted as a human but was faithful through it all showing us we can do the same. 2 I think that verse is stating that just sacrificing to God is not all you need but you need to love Him also 3 if you get grace in your heart you will(if you keep all other virtues)be a good person.
I think I'll get back to you about number 3 tomorrow. It wasn't really numbered but I will number the Sabbath question (where did it originate?) 3 and deal with it tomorrow. Have a great night!
Thank you Skyler, I really appreciate your compliments. I care about this a lot and am glad that comes through.
2.5. About Romans 3:31. How does living by faith establish (or uphold) the law? I like the way Paul Ellis says it on his website so I will copy and paste an excerpt from it here instead of reinventing the wheel so to speak.
"How do we establish or uphold the law? By trusting in Jesus who kept the law perfectly and by whose perfect sacrifice we are made righteous:
So the law was put in charge of us until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law. (Gal 3:24-25, TNIV)
Those who trust in their law-keeping performance may scorn those of us who are walking by grace, but the fact is we are 100% lawful while they are the lawbreakers.
You do NOT establish the law by:
-trying to keep it (you can’t)
-adopting it as a standard for holy living (it’s a recipe for inferior living, see Heb 10:1)
-mixing it with grace (you’ll end up lukewarm and alienated from Christ)
-thinking your rule-keeping pleases the Lord (trusting in your flesh never pleases him)
-posting it on your Sunday School wall (it’s a ministry that condemns!)
-telling yourself “it’s part of our Christian heritage” (it never was!)
You DO uphold the law by putting your faith in the One who fulfilled all the righteous requirements of the law on your behalf and who offers you his perfect righteousness as a gift.
Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes. (Rom 10:4)"
and even if you don’t think you are a really good debater, you actually are. you are making good points when some people don’t actually say things that make sense. you seem to put a lot of work into these discussions as I do also. some people just say one little thing and one person I debated with just didn’t answer on that group when she did talk on other groups because we made a good point
I use the verses I think are verses Jesus would use to show us his way. I’m glad I’m a Seventh-day Adventist’s because I think it is what God would have me do. also some religions say that God is bloodthirsty and wants to see us suffer. If God is that way I will not serve him. however this religion shows us how much God loves us and helps us to be kind to others.
2. Circumcision was the sign of the covenant between God and Abraham. Genesis 17:1-12 "This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring." This was the sign that signified that a person is part of the covenant people (The children of Abraham). 430 years later, the law came into effect as a covenant that took place at the same time as the other covenant. In other words, the Abrahamic covenant was not done away with. But the children of Israel were under both the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic/Sinaitic covenant. So, one could not be in the Sinaitic covenant and not the Abrahamic covenant. Therefore every male Israelite was circumcised in order to be part of the covenant people. It was an entrance sign into the covenants. Acts 15 tells us that Judaizers were coming to the gentiles telling them that they had to be circumcised to be part of God's people and they had to follow all of the law. Galatians is Paul's response to those in Galatia who believed that they must be circumcised and be under the law to be God's people.
1. Thank you for reading the verses I mentioned! Let me get a little more specific with them. 2 Corinthians 3 is comparing the New and the Old Covenant. Here are some of the ways he describes the new covenant: ministry of the Spirit, surpassingly glorious, brings righteousness, lasting. How about the old covenant: ministry of death, glorious, engraved in stone, brings condemnation, transitory. Notice that this old covenant is engraved in stone (10 commandments). In vs. 14 Paul says that whenever the 'old covenant' is read a veil remains which hardens or dulls the reader's minds. In vs. 15, he says that same thing. Only this time he refers to the old covenant as "Moses". Have I convinced you that the old covenant is the 10 commandments + the rest of the law yet? No? How about turning over to Galatians 5:21-31. Here is another analogy Paul uses to show up the difference between the old and new covenants. The story of Hagar and Sarah. Vs. 24 says that Hagar and Sarah represent 2 covenants. 1 covenant is from Mt. Sinai (10 commandments are the words of the covenant given on Mt. Sinai) and bears children who will be slaves. Paul goes on to say that as Christians, we were born under the free woman, and we are children of freedom and of the promise. In vs. 30 he tells us that scripture tells us to get rid of the slave woman (10 commandments + the rest of the law).
Skyler, I don't know if I'm a great debater or not. I do know that everything you guys are bringing up, I believed at one point. If I had ever had the guts to debate anyone, I would have used the same verses you are. So I suppose I have you all at a bit of a disadvantage because I pretty much know what you are going to say. I hope that doesn't sound condescending. I don't mean it that way. I just mean that this is one reason why we are able to have a friendly debate, because I believed like you did only 2 years ago. It would be silly for me to be angry at you for having the same beliefs that I once did.
Ok, I like this numbering system Siri. This will help me reply to your specific points better. I do homeschool my kids. This is our first year and it's going ok. It's hard to get everything done though. I'm trying to have grace on myself. I'm a recovering perfectionist.
Hebrews 4:4-12 For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.” And again in this passage he said, “They shall not enter my rest.” Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, again he appoints a certain day, “Today,” saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted, “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.” For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on. So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his. Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience. For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
Remember how the Israelites broke the Sabbath in the wilderness by picking mana?
The Sabbath was given for man to rest.
Exodus 20:8-11 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
Next we hear about the Sabbath in the Ten Commandments
Genesis 2:1-3 The Seventh Day, God Rests Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation.
We have the first mention of it at Creation.
Where did the Sabbath come from originally
But what law is being “upheld?” Certainly not circumcision.
The law of Moses is now replaced by this “law of faith.” And that is how we are justified. Through faith.
Romans 3:27-31 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
2. Paul was writing (among other reasons) to refute the claim that Gentiles must be circumcised. Now in which law is this spoken about? In the Law of Moses.
To get that all-important context right, let’s see why Paul was addressing those issues in his letters to these two churches.
I read all of Galatians and the parts in Romans where Paul deals with the law and grace.
1. Notice vs. 15 in 2 Corinthians 3. It says that whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over our hearts. That is because the Law of Moses is just a reflection of Jesus, of “things to come.” Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Ten Commandments are abolished.
I am a kid myself and I am homeschooled, it helps me focus more on the Bible
Do you homeschool your kids?
But don’t ruin your health by staying up so late. I don’t know what time zone you’re in but 12:06 a.m....
Thanks for getting back! I can only imagine what a chore it is to wash all your laundry by hand. especially after traveling!
you said they they took out the old law and replaced with the new and that law is basically just taking out the sabbath. Why?
well look at it this way, can you break any of the “old” commandments and still love your neighbor as yourself and love the led your god with all you heart would mind and strength. by obeying those two commandments you are obeying all the commandments. you debate very well, but I still think that God is just sort of simplifying the law, the Ten Commandments are more specific. the “new law” is just covering them. glad we’re sticking to friendly debates though. friendly debates make things much better. anyway we are not being “released from the law and are no longer captive to it” because it is happier to live by it. if there were no law I would still obey it because it is a happier lifestyle.
Ok, still more to respond to but I'm going to sleep. Good night!
Romans 7:6 also talks to your comment Siri when you mentioned that the law doesn't save us. True! But here in this verse we see that even serving God after we are saved is not done through the law. "But now we have been released from the law, for we died to it and are no longer captive to its power. Now we can serve God, not in the old way of obeying the letter of the law, but in the new way of living in the Spirit." We can also glean this from Galatians 3:2-5 "I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh? 4 Have you experienced so much in vain—if it really was in vain? 5 So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard?" I encourage you to read the entire book of Galatians through in one sitting. Actually, I really encourage everyone to read through the Bible Chronologically. It's an amazing way to see the big picture of everything an you learn so many new things each time. Very exciting!
So yeah, of course as Christians we don't lie, cheat, murder, etc. Anyone who claims to be a christian and says those actions are ok is very confused. Ephesians 1:13 says "And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,". We see that when we trust Jesus as our savior, we receive the Holy Spirit as a seal. What are the fruits of the Holy Spirit? Look up and read Galatians 5:13-26 Here Paul tells us we are free (from the law. Context!) but that we shouldn't use our freedom to indulge the flesh. He then points out what the works of the flesh compared to the works of the Spirit are. We should walk in the Spirit in the New Covenant. Romans 7:6 "But now we have been released from the law, for we died to it and are no longer captive to its power. Now we can serve God, not in the old way of obeying the letter of the law, but in the new way of living in the Spirit." When we live in the Spirit, we bear the fruit of the Spirit and against such fruit there is no law. In verse 14 he says, "For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” This agrees with Jesus' commandments that he gave his followers before he left the Earth. John 13:34. “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another." Yes, we love because he first loved us! In first John we see God's commandments in the new covenant again. 1 John 3:21-23 "Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God; and whatever we ask we receive from him, because we keep his commandments and do what pleases him. And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us."
Going way way back. Well, I disagree with you about the context of these verses of course. But really that is a hard thing to argue in this setting. A sit down Bible study setting is more conducive to such an analysis. Anyway, have you guys sat down and read the comparison between the old and new covenant in 2 Cor. 3? I had read the whole book just weeks before someone pointed it out but had never noticed it. It talks to the law we are NOW under.
My washer broke while I was out of the country. I've been spending the last few nights after the kids have gone to bed stomping around on our dirty clothes in a bathtub full of detergent and water like a washerwoman of old. Ha! So I haven't had as much time to get on here. I don't know how much I can write tonight. It's late already but there is a lot I want to respond to!
yeah, I don’t know where you’re leading us. candy land? jk
I believe in global warming although not all people do, but what do you mean
I assume when you say climate change, that you're talking about "global warming", or something along those lines, correct?
That verse doesn’t say that they were keeping that day holy. Notice it says that Paul was going to leave the next day. This was a farewell meeting where the had a meal together.
I was once debating with someone else and they were friendly until eventually they just weren’t
glad we are staying friendly
as biblememorizer said, that doesn’t make it so we are free to do whatever we want. was not the”new law” to love god with all your heart mind and strength and to love your neighbor as yourself? all the commandments fit into those two commandments. I can’t find a commandment that doesn’t fit into them
Here's an interesting verse. 7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
and one more point. if we don’t need to obey the Ten Commandments, then we can steal, commit adultery, murder, worship other gods, and the other commandments? i
Let me just make a point. The commandments are not what save us. It is Jesus’ grace. If someone saved me from death, I would be eternally grateful to that person and love them. so we show love to Jesus by trying to keep His law.
The Gospel is the message that Jesus wants to save us from our sins. How do we define sin without the commandments?
Even the Jews worshipped God with the morning and evening sacrifices daily! The Sabbath is a day that you consecrate to God, a day you spend special time with Him.
We must invariably ask, “Which commandments are they talking about?”
1 John 5:2-3 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.
So basically you are saying that we can do whatever we want? That we can lie, steal, do what ever? Why did Jesus say “If you love me keep my commandments.”
Paul himself writes that we should not sin. How can we sin if there’s no law?
So if the Ten Commandments were removed at the cross, how do we know what is sin? And furthermore, that means that no one will perish. “For the wages of sin are death, but the gift of God is eternal life.”
Obviously Jesus will save us from our bodies of death.
2. Romans 7:6,7 does not say we don’t have to keep it. Instead, Paul writes Romans 7:24-25 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.”
James 2:11 is actually talking about if we break 1 commandment, we also break the rest of the commandments. In Romans 7:6,7, Paul is actually talking about the function the law has. He writes how hard it is to keep the law. And how when a person dies, he is released from the law. In the same way, when we die in Christ, we aren’t saved by keeping the law. Paul then continues that the law is there to show us what is sin.
With all due respect, I notice several discrepancies. 1. I looked up each of the verses you gave and I looked for the context of the verses. Unfortunately, these verses don’t lend themselves to your point when you read them with their surrounding verses. Lets day you quote me one day as saying: “I don’t like honey.” But what I really said is “I don’t like honey ON MY SALAD.” It has a totally different meaning!
Good morning, everyone! Thanks Larissa for responding. I like the term “friendly debate.” It captures perfectly the essence of what we’re doing.
Thank you for sharing your belief about the Bible Skyler. May I ask what you believe the gospel is?
Skyler, here are several verses that tell us we are released from the law. “But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.” Romans 7:6 “So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.” Galatians 3:24-25 NIV “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” Romans 10:4 ESV “He did this by ending the system of law with its commandments and regulations. He made peace between Jews and Gentiles by creating in himself one new people from the two groups.” Ephesians 2:15 NLT Ok, I could go on but I think that is enough to make my point. 🙂
to me the Bible is a book for us to read and learn about gods love for us. it is a ancient manuscript helping us to know the character of god better and to know what lessons Jesus taught while he was here on earth. a book to show us what god wants of us to be in his kingdom and make us happy
for your second post I find no verse in the Bible where is says the Sabbath is Sunday. I believe that we should worship god every day of the week but god assigned a special day for us to rest and for us to think about god. it helps us to remember god above ourselves.
answering the first post I think that the law can be more then one thing to obey. for instance the law of the United States of America is more then one thing, however when you speed or drive recklessly you are accused of disobeying”the law”. I also find no place where it says we are relieved from the law.
Well, there are several ways that could be answered. The entire Bible is considered the Gospel most times, which isn't necessarily wrong, but I think of when Jesus gives the Great commission. He told his disciples to spread the Gospel to all the world. I think the meaning here was the good news of Jesus' life, death, resurrection, and salvation for all.
Siri, you were also right when you said what really matters is that we have all placed our hope for salvation in Jesus. With that in mind, I'd love to throw this question out there for all of you folks to turn our conversation toward the essentials: What is the gospel to you? What do you think the gospel is?
Notice that the Sabbath command to the Israelites is not about what day to worship. It is about which day to rest. Now, there are those out there in the Puritan tradition that KEEP Sunday as a Sabbath, i.e. a day of rest. I am not a proponent of that. Here is what I propose (and I dare say, what the Bible proposes): Sabbath pointed toward the rest we would find in Christ (you were right about those ceremonial laws pointing to Jesus Siri!). Therefore, we enter his rest when we trust him as our savior, not when we go to Sabbath school or take a nice long Sabbath afternoon nap. Not that I'm against napping or church school! :D
Secondly, I noticed that there was a change in terms in our friendly debate. ;) I have been giving information about how the apostles and early Christians MET TOGETHER on the Lord's Day to celebrate the Lord's Supper and Jesus' resurrection. Siri, when you gave information, you used the term "kept" Sunday or "kept" the Lord's Day. This implies "keeping" Sunday or the Lord's Day as a Sabbath. These are two different things. Do you consider meeting together with other believers and worshiping as keeping a day? If so, wouldn't you be implying that worshiping on a day other than Saturday is wrong? What if I worshiped God every day of the week? Would I be wrong to do so 6 of those days, but not the 7th? I'm honestly having a hard time responding to your comments because you keep using the word "kept" to refer to both 1. keeping Sunday as a replacement Sabbath and 2. to worshipping together with other believers on Sunday.
First, I wanted to respond to Siri's comment that the Mosaic Law and the 10 Commandments are separate "laws". Crimson and others who aren't as familiar with SDA, this is what is taught in SDA. I believed the same thing when I was an Adventist. Then I read through the Bible chronologically a couple times and that didn't make sense anymore. Here are some verses that should help us determine which viewpoint is correct. Let's start with James 2:11. "For He who said, “DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY,” also said, “DO NOT COMMIT MURDER.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law." Here we see the 10 commandments being referred to as "the law". But if there are two "the law"s like Adventism says and one of them has been done away with, which one is it? Let's look in Romans 7:6,7 "But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. 7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” Verse 6 tells us that we are released from the law. Which law? Verse 7 tells us the law includes the command, "You shall not covet". That is from the 10 commandments. So we have been released from the 10 commandments. What about the Mosaic law? Is it a different thing altogether? I could chase the evidence trail through the Old Testament but I think it would be simpler to offer this verse from the NT instead. Mark 7:10, "For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’e and, ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death." Notice that Jesus attributes the 5th commandment to Moses. These are just a few of the reasons we should conclude that the 10 Commandments are part of "the law", the one we have been released from.
Alright, I'm back and I see you guys were quite active while I was gone. Nice! It makes it difficult to respond to individual comments though so what I think I will do is respond to the bigger topics mentioned. If there are any responses you think I missed, feel free to ask/comment them again.
that you and me are going somewhere? oh wait, you mean the baby thing
this is a hard concept, but I guess we will all know in heaven
heads up biblememorizer and I will be gone for the weekend starting sometime on Friday
I think god could make extra babies with no real soul because he knows they will have abortion ahead of time but that seems kinda unfair. your suggestion crimson dawn was good though, god may cover them with the blood from the cross before they know any better
No offense, but I don't think I understand what you're saying.
same concept with giving the baby no soul. that would make the baby not go to heaven. but what if that baby lived and would have gone to heaven if it did. then the parents would’ve made the diction if the the baby would go to heaven. the baby would have no choice to go to heaven or not.
like if that person would’ve sinned and not go to heaven, but they were killed by abortion. then they would go to heaven because. if this were true then abortion is good.
how about this? Maybe God decides by what we were going to do. because is we would go to heaven is we were killed a a young age then it would be the person that killed them whether they went to heaven or not.
Here's the link if you want to read the entire article. https://www.focusonthefamily.com/family-qa/heaven-and-the-eternal-destiny-of-preborn-infants/
I found this from an article that came from a very reputable source. "Biblical passages such as Isaiah 7:15 and 16 seem to indicate that children can’t be held responsible for their own actions and decisions until they reach a certain age. Scripture doesn’t indicate precisely where this line should be drawn. But we are led to assume that any person whose life ends before he crosses this threshold into “spiritual maturity” is “automatically” redeemed. That person is covered by the blood of Christ and passes immediately into the presence of God. Traditionally, this teaching has provided invaluable comfort to parents who endure the loss of an infant or a very young child. It seems only logical to apply the same reasoning in the case of children who die before birth."
I don't believe the babies disappear. From the moment of conception, the baby is a living being. I believe that the babies go to Heaven, but I'd have to look up a verse to support that. My main thought is that every living human has a soul, but maybe there is a exception that I'm not aware of.
about abortion(the destruction of babies before they come into the world as you probably know), what happens to them, I am wondering what answers there might be, in yo people of the lord the answers were, god know is they would have been good or bad, they go to heaven, and they just disappear
also though I don’t get why god would make a Sabbath and a holy day, I think the Sabbath is the holy day of god, and we all believe the Sabbath is Saturday I think. we could also discuss something that happed in another group that was being discussed
yes yes I agree with it all Siri, you use this😊 emoji a lot, you say you were here before? I don’t remember any Siri’s
When more and more gentiles came into the faith, they brought into the church some of their pagan traditions. Gradually, whole groups/churches were keeping Sunday. But there is no evidence AT ALL of the apostles keeping Sunday.
You also mentioned traditions. We can create as many traditions as we want, but that doesn’t mean they are correct. Take for example the Anabaptists (later known as Baptists). They were against the teaching of infant baptism (a centuries-long tradition). But that didn’t make it right and so some Anabaptists were even martyred for not keeping that tradition.
The Ten Commandments, however, already existed. They were ingrained into Adam and Eve’s heart. And the Sabbath didn’t originate from the Jews, it comes from Creation.
The Mosaic Law was necessary after the fall of Adam and Eve. We know that God instructed them to sacrifice a lamb morning and evening just as in the Mosaic Law.
If you look closely at the Mosaic Law, you will see that it all symbolizes Jesus and the plan of redemption. So when Jesus came He fulfilled this law.
There are two kinds of law. The Ten Commandments (i.e., stealing, adultery) and the Mosaic Law (circumcision, the sacrifices).
Hi Larissa! Thank you for the welcome. I hope you are having a fantastic time abroad!😊
So John (who wrote down Revelation) died in around A.D. 90. So when the Bible was written Sunday-keeping wasn’t a issue.
The first mention we have of people worshiping on Sunday is from Justin Martyr who actually lived in the second century. That is the first mention of Sunday being kept.
Good morning Red! (I hope you don’t mind me continuing to call you that as that is how we first “meet”😊) I totally agree that these discussions should remain impersonal. We are all Christians who believe in Jesus and want a relationship with Him. That is the most important thing. As for all the rest, He has promised to “lead us into all truth.”
Hey, Siri!👋🏻 I assume that when you say "Red", you're referring to my old username. I read somewhere that the believers started meeting on Sunday approximately the first century A.D. Don't you thing that if this was such a huge problem, that Jesus would have said something about it in the letters to the seven churches? This is just my opinion, by the way.
well what your saying is that, although it’s not in the Bible, there are christian traditions that have the lords day on Sunday?
so isn’t the sabath the lords day?
The Bible verses that give evidence to this I mentioned in an earlier post.
Here is the article. https://christianheritagefellowship.com/lords-day-early-christianity/
Hi Siri! You are definitely welcome to join in! The more the merrier. 😉 Firat I have a question for you in regards to the verse you posted. what does it mean to “fulfill the law”? Secondly, for those of you who asked about evidence of the Lord’s Day being Sunday, we are told this by early Christian writers. The writings they left behind give us insight into the earliest Christian traditions. Here is an article that mentions several of these passages. We also see a couple verses in the Bible that give evidence that the Lord’s Day was the day Christians met even during the apostles time.
anyway I agree about what you said
yes yes, I totally agree, anyway hi there Siri, I haven’t seen you before, I prefer groups code group, BMW=sweet deal supporters group and yo people of the lord
Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Red, I totally get what you mean. But Jesus said himself that He did not come to change the law or the prophets.
I hope you don’t mind me jumping into the conversation😊 I’ve heard that Lords Day refers to Sunday. And I’ve been wanting to look it up. Larissa, could you help me by telling me how you come to that conclusion? Thanks a lot!
I don’t get what you are getting at.
Liv
Thursday, Aug 29, 2019 at 12:40 PM
remove
Why don't u read Hebrews 10, and tell me what u think. ;D
Liv
Wednesday, Aug 28, 2019 at 7:49 PM
remove
Lolz, sorry Skyler! No, the bible doesn't say so in so many words.
okay, hope you have a good time there
sorry, I’m getting ready to go on an international trip for a week. I’ll try to respond before I leave tomorrow
are you going to answer???
does it say that Sunday was the Lords day?
Note: Revelation 1:10 is the ONLY verse in the Bible which says The Lord's day.
and if you think the lords day is Sunday bc of Revelation 1:10 it never says that Sunday is the lords day. it never say that in the whole Bible.
why don’t you agree? sort of get It, are you saying that every day is the lords day? if not I disagree.
okay I was a little cunfuzzled but I got it now.
Saturday is the Sabbath and also the seventh day of the week. “The Lord’s Day” is Sunday, the first day of the week. The Lord’s Day and Sabbath are not the same thing.
I am glad for that but before you said the lord’s day=the first day of the week. the Saturday is the seventh day of the week. that is what I believe
Adventism teaches that “The Lord”s Day” is just another term for Sabbath. That is not the case. The Lord’s Day is the first day of the week and has been ever since the apostles days.
Skyler, nope. I never have nor will I ever say that Sabbath is Sunday.
Crimson Dawn, as far as I have read, the early Christians had communion every time they met. Our church does communion every month, the sda churches I grew up in did it quarterly. I think that those time schedules are human tradition.
in fact, you can look through the whole Bible! there are no verses as Sunday as the sabbath.
so when DID Sabbath change. because, there can’t be two sabbaths in a week. and this verses states that Saturday was the sabbath. and you can look through all the verses of Jesus’ resurrection. there won’t be any about the sabbath changing.
ummmm......what about Matthew 28:1? After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.
wait a second, Saturday is the seventh day of the week not the first day. or are you saying Sunday is the sabath?
I think I can agree with most of, if not everything you just said. Our church doesn't take communion every week though. We do it four times a year. I'm not sure how often everyone else takes communion.
That's right Crimson Dawn. But when you read the Sabbath command in the Old Covenant, you will notice that the Sabbath was for rest. You were supposed to stay on your property and cease from labor. In fact, a man who was caught gathering sticks on the Sabbath was stoned to death. That really doesn't correlate to worshipping and meeting together. The meeting together of early christians on the Lord's Day was not a replacement of the Sabbath or Sabbath traditions but a new thing all together. They got together on the the Lord's day, the first day of the week, to break bread (which is to celebrate the Lord's supper, 'communion' to SDAs) which is the remembrance sign of the New Covenant.
We as Christians still need church. The Bible does say, "Forsake not the assembling ourselves together."
Again, there is no longer a weekly Sabbath, not Saturday, not Sunday, not Tuesday etc. Sabbath was fulfilled in Christ. Check out Colossians 2:16,17. “Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.”
The Lord’s Day=the first day of the week.
the Saturday= the Sabbath on Saturday
I really hate arguing with people I don't know on open forums, but I'll make an exception and come out of retirement for a brief moment. Please, if I sound mean, don't take offense. I don't try to be rude, but sometimes I come across as mean, while doing this type of thing. I have to agree with Larissa on this one. I think if keeping the Saturday was that important, Jesus would have at least mentioned it. Instead, he warns his disciples to be careful of the teachings of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Now, this warning may have nothing to do with the Sabbath teaching, but the Pharisees were all into the legalistic side of Christianity. They were so extreme about the trivial things that they missed the big picture. So, to answer your question again, there is no Scripture that says the Sabbath changed. On the other hand, there isn't much New Testament Scripture at all, and when there was, the Pharisees were usually involved.
Revelation 1:10 so he was in the spirit of the Lords day.
acts 20:7 say that Paul preached until midnight. and the Bible says that the sabbath is from sunset to sunset. so the sabbath would’ve ended while Paul was preaching. it was also his last day there. so he need to instruct them in the ways of Hod before he left.and it never says anything about the sabbath in there.
also about that, the Bible ha no thing that says the sabath changed to Sunday, if it changed, why not to Monday or Tuesday? and when Jesus died they priests had him taken off the cross at Saturday because it was the Sabbath. so the Sabbath was Saturday then
Oshkosh was great 👍 there was great pin trading, the worships were just amazing and fun, you can look them up on YouTube I think. look up”chosen Oshkosh” there was a really funny ventriloquist also.
Also, I’d like to see a verse in the New Testament that commends Christians to keep the Sabbath. Don’t you think it’s odd that if the Sabbath is “basically the most important part of the Christian faith”, that the apostles or Jesus neglected to dwell on it or even mention such a command?
Yes, Sabbath of the Old Covenant was the 7th day. As Christians we are under a New Covenant in which we find our Sabbath rest every day in Jesus Christ who came and fulfilled the law. We are no longer under the law (Galatians 3:24-25). Thank you Ariana. Yes, the apostles and early Christians began meeting together on the first day of the week. we can see evidence of that in the two verses that Ariana mentioned among others.
Thats the OT. That goes with circumcision, sacrifices, and feasts, and solemn days, etc. Looking and waiting for the FULFILLMENT of the Messiah. But he has come, and his disciples met, half a sec!
yay! another person who can see the sense in the Sabbath being Saturday, I agreed totally!
Thank you, for the welcome Larissa!
Skyler and Bible Memorizer, look at my reply from yesterday at 4:20. I answered your question there.
Hi Eaglets! Welcome to our group.
Ok, I will say it again but ok it’s own line so you won’t miss it. Sunday is not the Sabbath. Sabbath never was transferred to Sunday. If you would like more information about why most Christians worship on Sunday instead of Saturday, read through my previous replies. I answered that there.
yeah. we want a bible verse about Sunday as the Sabbath.
yes yes, we will have fun i think, thanks😃, I like to keep discussions friendly. but could you add a bible verse to your thing, one that says the Sabbath changed
Welcome Ariana, thanks for chiming in!
I did actually answer your question. “It being the most important thing in the Christian beliefs basically” 😳 it is one of the most important thing in the Adventist’s faith, not in the rest of Christendom. Bible Memorizer “just because other people keep Sunday as Sabbath doesn’t make it right” absolutely! I agree. I don’t think it is right. I hope you’ve picked that up from what I write below. But also, just because everyone in your denomination keeps a Sabbath doesn’t make it right either. Have fun in Oshkosh, my family is there too. 😉
bible memorizer and me will be gone for about 1 week, leaving about 9:00 AM tomorrow, we are going to some thing called Oshkosh
just because other people keep Sunday as the sabbath doesn’t mean it’s right.
I mean it being the most important thing in the Christian beliefs basically
you still are not answering our question Larissa, please tell us where the Bible says that the Sabbath switched, surely god would mention something that is that important. wouldn’t he?
Why dont we go get the bulls and ghoats and start sacrificing in the temple. Christ has come and we dont need those signs anymore. Why would we go look at a picture of someone, when they are standing right in front of us, yelling our name.
I guess it would be the same as...
But also, I'll point you back to the chapter I mentioned before Exodus 31. In verses 13-17. “The LORD then gave these instructions to Moses: 13“Tell the people of Israel: ‘Be careful to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you from generation to generation. It is given so you may know that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. 14You must keep the Sabbath day, for it is a holy day for you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. 15You have six days each week for your ordinary work, but the seventh day must be a Sabbath day of complete rest, a holy day dedicated to the LORD. Anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death. 16THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL must keep the Sabbath day by observing it from generation to generation. This is a covenant obligation for all time. 17It is a permanent sign of my covenant WITH THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day he stopped working and was refreshed.’”
Well, I guess I can ask you a similar question: Where does it say in the New Testament that Sabbath is for Christians?
The tradition of keeping Sunday AS Sabbath began with the puritans in the 1500s and many christians that follow in the puritan tradition keep Sunday as a Sabbath day. I do not as I believe the Sabbath was a sign of the Old covenant and is therefore obsolete. Christians are under a new covenant! The tradition of Christians MEETING together to worship on the first day of the week began in the early church. Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week, Pentecost was on the first day of the week, Jesus met with his disciples after his resurrection on the first day of the week, etc. That is why the early church began meeting on "the lord's day". This is recorded in numerous accounts from the 1st century on. Again, Sabbath was NEVER transferred to Sunday. Sabbath found its fulfillment in Jesus who is our true provider of DAILY rest. So every day for the Christian is the Sabbath, we rest in Christ.
and where does it say that Saturday was only for the Jews?
and where does it say about Sunday as the sabbath or people keeping Sunday as the sabbath?
Skyler, I’m wondering if you believe that the Bible is the authority that Christians must go to to determine who is a prophet and who is not?
Yes the women who came to the tomb did keep the Sabbath. It was the law back then. First, they would’ve been expelled from the Jewish community or put to death if they were caught breaking the Sabbath (see exodus 31). Second, Jesus disciples didn’t know what was happening. Jesus spoke in parable and was not clear with them about what his death would mean. they had just lost their leader and it would be some time before they would understand the import of what had just happened. Check out Hebrews 8:13 and 10:9 and
Bible Memorizer, Sunday is NOT the new Sabbath. The seventh day was the only Sabbath that God asked the children of Israel to observe. It was to be the sign of the covenant that God made with the children of Israel at Sinai. Kind of like a wedding ring is a sign of the covenant of marriage. Check out Exodus 31. When Jesus died, he fulfilled the law (the law was the rules of the covenant, see Deuteronomy 4:13). Jesus sacrificial death on the cross ushered in a new covenant (see Jesus talk about the new covenant in Luke 22)). Jesus is the new covenant to enter into it, one believes and receives Jesus as their savior. It has nothing to with works like the old covenant. The Sabbath was a shadow of the rest we would find when we stop striving for our salvation and rest in Jesus sacrifice (see Colossians 2).
also I say below you said that you don’t think that Ellen white is a prophet, how could that be? she could reveal things that were not even known yet, like she said the lord would come out of s certain star in organs belt. and later when they could get pictures of it the more they zoomed in the brighter it’s got. she also said it was not good to eat meat when people did not know that it was not good yet. I strongly believe she was a prophet
it never says anything about Sunday as the sabbath or any swap.
it says at the end of the sabbath. when Sunday began.
Matthew 28:1 KJV In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
you say that the sabbath was changed when Jesus died on the cross. but then why did the women who brought spices to Jesus’ dead body rest on Saturday as the sabbath?
we are brothers and why he doesn’t is because he believes in the the seventh day and other stuff like that which you are apposed of. where in the Bible does it say that sunday is the sabbath and people keeping Sunday as the sabbath?
May I ask why you want to be admin Skyler if you “disagree with all my teaching”?
Hello new members! Unfortunately this app does not alert me when someone posts on this message board so I am just now seeing your posts! Sorry about that! Bible Memorizer and Skyler, I know it’s hard for you to believe but I was a baptized 5th generation member of the SDA church. I’m sure it’s confusing and angering when you read the beliefs of the SDA church written out like I have done. I felt the same way when I came across these doctrines. I studied the source materials and read my bible through cover to cover a couple times asking the Holy Spirit to show me what he wanted me to learn. I will talk more about your specific questions when I get the chance Bible Memorizer but until then I encourage you to read through the verses I’ve compiled on this group page. All the best!
maybe now is not the time to ask, but can I be admin?
well I disagree with all of the teaching of Larissa and I hope you don’t fall for it crimsondawn, Marilyn for the most part is right, and I do not want to get angry, but it is obvious some people on this group are not true seventh day Adventist’s
also, where does it say that hell will last forever? do you think that God would let people burn forever? it also says in Revelation that in the end the evil will be distroyed by the roots?
didn’t it say that the living know that they will die but the dead know nothing?
first of all, where does the Bible say that Sunday is the sabbath? is it right for the Bible to overwrite itself? the only commandment that says remember on it is the 4th. where in the New Testament did it say anything about people keeping Sunday as the sabbath.
uhhhhhh I have a few questions........
So glad to see you on here Josh!
Thanks for making this!! It's awesome.
yep. he wasn’t our senior pastor but our worship leader/pastor. but he’s pretty good too.
ahhh, I see. It is good the he researches and helps you guys think through different theories.
I believe it was global as well. So your pastor doesn't agree with himself?
and by none of us that includes the pastor
global. he also said that he found that nature testified to a local flood and scripture testifies to global. but none of us agree with this
I think it probably happened globally. What did your pastor say?
I am mainly asking Larissa but other can answer too
I already answered that in the other group.
so in church today our pastor talked about the flood and if it happened universally or locally. what do you think?
If it is the Sabbath, then it is a very debated subject.
I feel like this is a greatly debated subject
absolutely! He is our covenant keeper and we are hidden in him. Praise God!
No one can keep all the commandment except Christ.
I know it does. 😞 As an organization, they have made Sabbath into an idol. They say they are the only ones who are actually keeping Gods commandments and point to Rev 12:17 saying that therefore they are the remnant and everyone who doesn’t keep the entire commandments are in some BIG trouble.
And I'm doing well on verse memorization. I have 69 verses (not in this group) mastered.
That sounds absurd. Why wouldn't we be in Heaven if we don't go to church on the same day?
ok thanks for the heads up. I’ll keep an eye out for that
Draco, I didn’t when I was an SDA either. But Ellen White did teach that all other churches that weren’t SDA were “Babylon”. Then she later said it was the Roman Catholics specifically that is Babylon. Anyway, I’m sure you’ve heard about the coming Sunday Law? That comes from EGW’s books. She said that those who worshipped on Sunday would hunt down and kill Sabbath keepers. She also recounted a vision where she saw a group of people howling in agony at the end of time and when she asked her accompanying angel what they had done to deserve such punishment, he said that they had once kept the Sabbath but had given it up. I think you can see why SDAs who really believe that EGW was a prophet would think that most non SDAs won’t be in heaven.
I totally do NOT think like that!
In other words, he is asking questions not because he wants to know the answers but because he already thinks he knows the answers. He wants to use those answers to lead you into Adventism. Adventists believe they are the remnant church and those who don’t have the “Advent truth” most likely won’t make it to heaven. This is not how all SDAs think but it is pervasive.
Astros, just read your exchange with him. the reason he knows all the answers to his questions is because he’s not actually asking questions, he is leading you toward a certain conclusion by asking questions. He is trying to show how Adventist beliefs are logical. notice how much he talks about sanctuary and judgement. it’s because that is the basis the core sda doctrine, the investigative judgement.
great! Frantz seems to know the answers to his own questions but he seems to think to hard. so that is why I think he is confused
Hello all! How are you guys doing on verse memorization? I love the way that this app helps me memorize. Cool technique! Astros, how are your conversations with the SDA group going?
Looked up free will baptist. learning so much, thanks!
OK Astros, I looked up Reformed Baptist. Got it. :]
Reds, what is FWB? First something Baptist?
Siri, here are the references I promised. More than prophet claim: Review and Herald, July 26, 1907 also Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 36, 1906. Every word from God: Testimonies, Vol. 5, pp. 63-67 also Letter H-339, Dec. 26, 1904. God does not love naughty children: An Appeal to Youth, 1864, pg 42 and 62, also letter to son Willie on March 14, 1860. Nevermind: Signs of the Times, February 15, 1892. Shut door: Letter to Joseph Bates B-3-1847, also Present Truth, pg 21-22, 1849, also in A Word to the Little Flock pg 22. "Never said that!": Selected message, vol 1, pg 63, 74. Atonement complete: Acts of the Apostles, pg 29, also The Desire of Ages, pg 758. Not complete: The Great Controversy, pg 623 Character polishing: Testimonies, vol. 2, p. 316 also Review and Herald, September 27, 1906, p. 8 also Review and Herald, vol. 77, No. 39, p. 1, September 25, 1900 also Testimonies, vol. 4, p. 28 also Signs of the Times, Dec. 28, 1891. Saved by grace: Steps to Christ, pg 62. Happy digging!
like I’m reformed baptist
In case you wanted to know.
Astros, I'm not certain what you mean by that, sorry. Reformed as in Calvinist? Baptist as in I believe in immersion?
I like your answer about Muslims. Good point! I wonder if they were asking about different denominations instead of religions....
“Take Muslim for example people claim to “hear” things from God but then what they “hear” from God always contradicts the Bible, which was written by His apostles, which God told them what to write. No God is not a God of confusion. or at least I don’t believe he is. he makes what he says as clear as he can.” He also asked: “Is God a God of confusion?”
So someone in Final SDA asked a question do u think I answered it pretty good and if not what do I need to add? Here is the question and my answer: “I will ask this question here also. If we believe in the same Bible and believe in the same Gos why are there so many religions I’d differences?” and here is my answer:
Larissa r u reformed, baptist, or both?
Sure Siri, let me get home and I’ll get those posted. 🙂
reds fan, I’m a new covenant Christian saved by grace alone. We attend an Evangelical Free church now.
Hey Larissa, I would appreciate it if you sent the references for the quotes you were talking about. I would like to look them up. Thank you!
If you don't mind my asking, what are you now that you're not an Adventist?
Reds fan to answer your question. First the thing you must keep in mind is that Ellen White claimed to be even higher than a prophet. She said every word she wrote was given to her directly from God and that she didn’t ever write her own opinion. Secondly, one of the SDAs fundamental beliefs (creeds) says that EGW is a continuing and authoritative source of truth. Her teachings are the foundation of the sda belief system even if they don’t admit/realize it. She contradicted herself on minor issues such as telling children that God won’t love them if they do wrong yet later telling parents to never tell their children that God won’t love them if they do wrong to major issues like claiming that the door to salvation closed in 1844 then later claiming she had never said/believed that, that Christ’s atonement was complete then later saying that his atonement is not complete. Other major issues where she contradicted herself (we aren’t even getting into how she contradicted the Bible) include claiming that the only way to get to heaven is by polishing your character enough and conquering all you vices but also writing that we are justified by grace. I have references for all of these.
Thanks! I’m glad to be of help. 😊
agreed to both red and Larissa.
Thanks, Larissa. This has been one of the more helpful groups I've been in.🙂
😀At least they don't hate me! The more confusing part is when they DID try to explain theirs.
Starlight, no I’m referring to the group verses under the group section of this group page.
red I went to one of the SDA groups the asked if that was the group that red was kicked out of and Marilyn responded, “@Astros4Christ: I wanted to let you know that Reds fan is not a bad person. Far from it. He’s very smart! It’s just that it’s an SDA group, and some of the people are young. I didn’t want them to be confused by doctrines of faiths. The discussion had gotten out of control causing much confusion. We are not here to discuss other churches’ denominational beliefs, but to explain ours. I hope you will understand. 😊”
the is supposed to be they.
I don't think it matters what day of the week we go to church. The Christians in countries where Christianity is illegal have to meet secretly whenever the can. That doesn't mean they're not Christians.
if you are talking about the website article thing before....I can’t look at that bc this is a school iPad and internet access is restricted
starlight/venom, I understand. The Sabbath was the sign of the old covenant that God made with the Israelites. The 10 commandments are the words of the covenant. When Jesus died he ratified a new covenant. As Christians, we are under the new covenant. As gentiles (non Jews) we were never even under the old covenant. The Sabbath was a foreshadowing of the rest we would have under Jesus in the New Covenant. He is our Sabbath rest. Take a look at the old covenant and new covenant folders. Also check out the state of the dead folder that I mentioned to you before.
and the part where the dead don’t go straight to heaven when they die makes sense too
it’s seems fine to me...like going to church on sabbath makes sense bc god said make the sabbath day holy
idk exactly what is wrong with sda....
And it's supposed to be a question mark at the end of the second sentence.
So you said that Ellen White contradicted herself multiple times. In what ways did she contradict herself. I hope you don't mind all my questions. Feel free to tell me to stop asking questions at any time.
reds fan and Astros4Christ, interesting! Glad you joined in!
Venom, I understood that you haven’t left. You are very welcome here. Just clarifying why I set up this group. It’s not to bash SDAs, but to help those who have left. But I am ALWAYS happy to answer questions along the way.
We need to treat them with love.
also Larissa, I have not left sda, I was just wondering about this group...but I’m not judging bc I don’t do that
oh red, my group...the Bible dragons.....is a sda group..but everyone is welcome bc I could care less what religion they have bc everyone is EQUAL even though some people think they are not and they SUCK
and he got me into this group
Well, I was looking through the groups and I found one that said Seventh-Day Adventist. I had never heard of them, so I wanted to find out what they believed. Unfortunately, it seems like they believe almost opposite of what I do.
reds fan out of curiosity, what got you interested in SDA beliefs?
Venom, the Bible is very clear that man is spiritual. That is, we have a body, a spirit, and a soul. It is also clear that the moment that we trust in Jesus as our savior, that is the point in which we begin to have eternal life. If we completely died and then were recreated at the resurrection as is taught in Adventism then we would only have temporary life. Jesus tell us we will never die. Paul says he would rather be absent from the body and present with the Lord. Jesus said that God is the God of the living, not the dead when referring to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob whose bodies had been dead for centuries at that point. These scriptures helped me understand the truth about what happens when our bodies die. Check out the other verses I have listed in the State of the Dead folder under the group verses. Also, I really appreciated this article when I was trying to make sense of things. https://www.exadventist.com/Portals/0/Repository/The%20Dead%20in%20Christ%20by%20I%20M%20Haldeman.pdf
oof. I have always been Baptist
Cool. I never was SDA, but the SDAs threw me out of their group for spreading "error and confusion."
reds fan, not all SDAs are vegan. I’m not, though I am a vegetarian and always have been. Adventists are mixed bag in how they relate to the health message. I always said I was a vegetarian because it is healthier not because of Ellen white. But really it was because of egw because my family became vegetarians when they converted.
Astros4Christ this group is for people who have left the sda church and need help rewiring their brains (renewing their minds) to biblical truth that is not taught in the Adventist church. It is not anti-sda as much as it is a group to help “speak truth to ourselves”. All the best!
so...finally events is for ppl for SDA and this is for ppl against?
She is in Final Events SDA if you want to reach her.
I am saddened by Marilyn's state of mind. I haven't found any sense in almost anything she's said on this app.
Wow. When you kicked me out of your group, I didn't blow up in your face.
Larissa, I totally disagree with you. I am not going to waste my time reading your stuff. I know what is the truth, and that is enough for me. I hope that no one else who gets on here who is a true believer will be led astray by your false doctrines. It would be a shame for you to be held responsible for the loss of people's salvation because they chose to leave a lie.
I’m just wondering what people think is the right thing for the dead
Thank you, Larissa. I have one or two more questions, but I'm going to save them for tomorrow. Your posts were very helpful and thanks again for taking the time to post them!😀
Venom, I am really impressed with your questions! I can tell you have a heart for truth. I think I mostly covered your answer in my reply to Reds fan but I can go into more detail on any one doctrine you have further questions on. As I told reds fan, it was only a general overview written so a non-Adventist could understand. You probably have more in-depth questions. I will say that when I was an SDA, I thought the same as you. That Adventists were no different than regular “Sunday church Christians” except that we actually kept the 10 commandments and were more enlightened about the state of the dead. As I began to read the Bible in context and study the SDA doctrines, I started to see that they didn’t line up! It was a total shock as I loved being Adventist and never imagined that I would actually leave the church, ever. May the Holy Spirit guide you as you explore the word of God!
Well Reds Fan, that will be difficult in this forum but I can give you a very general idea. :)The SDAs came out of the Millerite movement of the mid 1800s. A group of Millerites didn’t want to believe that Miller was wrong when Jesus didn’t return as predicted in 1844 based on their interpretation of Daniel 8:14. So they decided Jesus actually moved compartments in the heavenly sanctuary and began investigating the lives of BELIEVERS in 1844. The believers whose characters are pure enough to be worthy of his blood will then have their sins covered. Once he has finished this investigation, he will return to earth for the second time. This is the basic Doctrine of the Investigative Judgement (IJ). According to the SDA prophet, Ellen G White, the IJ is the central doctrine of SDAs. Now if the IJ is true then people won’t be able to go straight to heaven when they die because Jesus only started investigating in 1844.
So SDAs believe that there is no spirit in man and that when you die, your body stays in the grave and you know nothing until Jesus returns and resurrects you. Since they believe that man is only physical, they have a different perspective of the indwelling Holy Spirit than evangelicals. They also don’t understand that man is dead spiritually and when you are born again Jesus makes you spiritually alive. Ellen G White was a millerite teenager in 1844 who started having visions and quickly gained a following among the other Millerites/Adventists. The reason it is confusing to talk to a group of Adventists is because their worldview comes from the teachings of Ellen White (EGW) even if they don’t read her writings. And EGW contradicted herself (and the Bible) over and over.
So two SDAs can both be quoting EGW but saying opposite things. It has been shown that EGW plagiarized much of the 35 million words she wrote including many things she said were from visions and made predictions that didn’t come true which makes her fail biblical tests of a prophet. Also, EGW didn’t understand that the new covenant has taken place of the old covenant and therefore she trended towards a works salvation and made an extraordinarily big deal out of keeping the 7th day Sabbath. To the point where she taught that going to church on Sunday would be the mark of the beast in the end times and that only those who keep the Sabbath can be sealed by the Holy Spirit. Many SDAs don’t press that now but all believe it is very important to keep Friday night sundown to Saturday night sundown as a holy day of rest. This is another doctrine that can be confusing as every Adventist has a very different idea of what it means to keep the Sabbath. They all agree that keeping the Sabbath means that Saturday is the day you should worship on.
Another key theme that comes from EGW is the idea of The Great Controversy. She says that when Lucifer fell he accused God of being unfair because no one can keep the law. The whole earth’s purpose is to prove that God is fair and his law can be kept perfectly. When Jesus came to Earth he took on the FALLEN nature of man to prove that the law can be kept perfectly. When we ask Jesus into our heart, his grace helps us keep the law. Salvation is the work of a lifetime and we have to try hard to get rid of all character defects before Christ returns so we are safe to save. Progressive Adventists use many of the same phrases and words that evangelicals use but little do either of them know, they mostly have a different definition. That’s why it can be difficult to understand what they truly believe. They also believe in the annihilation of the wicked instead of everlasting hell and teach a health message. EGW even said that God won’t hear your prayers if there are eggs and milk at your table. This is just a very shallow overview of what Adventists believe that is different than the mainstream. Not knowing your background, I hope you can see the errors in what I have listed here. If not, please check out the verses I have included in this group’s folders. Hope that helps!
I wrote a nice long post for you Reds fan but it’s not letting me post it because it’s too long apparently. 😂 I’ll try to post it in two parts or something.
ok, so I have a question. is there really anything wrong with SDA? ok, I don’t really think I know the SDA doctrines, so can you please explain each one if you have the time? I’m a SDA, and I just believe going to church on sabbath is right, dead people don’t go straight to heaven when they die, because, if they did, what would be the point of Jesus coming back to bring us all to heaven. And If you don’t mind...can you please explain what is wrong with Ellen G. White? thank you
Thank you. I joined an SDA supporting group to ask about what they believed and instead of being informed, I became more confused. I'm still not sure what they believe and I was hoping you could clarify.
Hi Marilyn! Thanks for your interest! All of the distinctive sda doctrines are biblically false. The Investigative Judgement and Cleansing and the Heavenly Sanctuary, Ellen G White as a source of truth (prophet), State of the dead, the solely material nature of man, the continuation of the old covenant including the Old Covenant sign of the Sabbath, the nature of Jesus, even the gospel has been tainted in Adventist teachings. If you are a current Adventist, this may be hard to believe. But The Holy Spirit will lead us into truth if we humbly ask and mean it. All the best!
Hi. I just joined. I don't know what you mean by false doctrines of Seventh Day Adventism. Can you clarify what you believe they are? Thank you.
FYI, once you join the group, the group verses are added to “my verses” tab at the bottom of your screen. To have the app help you start to memorize them, go to “my verses” then touch the verse you want to start memorizing. It will take you through a little technique for memorization. then it will even send you review notifications to help the verse stick in your mind!
Glad you are here! I’m still uploading some verses and categories. Let me know any verses you think would fit!