You've read Isaiah 53, and you don't understand why Jesus had to become a man and die on the cross. I'm sorry, but I don't think I can improve on Isaiah.



I think I've asked you several times why you are asking this.



I don't think this is the point.



Ellen White never claimed this of herself. She said that Waggoner could teach righteousness by faith more clearly than she, and that the Lord had given him special light on this question. Over and over she exhorted that the light that God sent through Waggoner and Jones be heeded.

You say, "I don't see where Waggoner explained vital truths that cannot be found clearly explained in the SOP. Do you?"

I certainly see vital truths they explained that you don't see present in her writings.

Regarding Satan, I don't see what you said in the quote you provided. The quote I provided was clear that Satan suffers for his responsibility towards both the wicked and the saved. This is not something arbitrarily imposed upon Satan by God, but simply the result of Satan suffering the guilt of his actions.



I haven't said anything about this. I said that sinners would be saved if they didn't not resist Jesus' love. You said you did not believe this. I produced a couple of statements which say what I said, that if the sinner does not resist He will be saved.



Point 4 doesn't say "lost sheep are lost because they made a conscious decision to be lost based on their misunderstanding of God’s character."

Do you disagree with something point 4 actually says? If so, what?



Why are you asking this? I'm not a Calvinist. God does not unilaterally convert people.



This has nothing to do with the point. Robert Wieland has suggested as a definition for faith that faith is a heart appreciation of the love of God, especially as revealed at the cross. I think this is a fine definition for faith.

When we appreciate the love of God, that love transforms us, motivates us. This is the love of which the phrase "faith which works by love" is in reference to.

The SOP speaks a number of times of the love of God shining from the cross which leads us to repentance if we do not resist. There is something special in the love of God, which is why Paul prayed:

Here's how you answered my question the first time:


From the beginning you have insisted that people before the Exodus had more reasons for keeping the Sabbath than what is contained in the seven verses above. Not until now, 13 pages later, did you finally admit that, yes, those verses do not contain enough reasons to obey God intelligently. That's all I was asking in the beginning. But we ended up discussing the oral tradition point you brought up. I realize you believe with all your heart people before the Exodus had many reasons for keeping the Sabbath and that they were able to do so intelligently and not slavishly. So, again, thank you for answering my question.


While under the terms and conditions of the OC, did you think God required them to obey and observe everything He commanded (i.e. the moral law, the ceremonial laws, the laws of Moses)?

While under the terms and conditions of the NC, did you think God required them to obey and observe everything He commanded (i.e. the moral law, the ceremonial laws, the laws of Moses)?

Please post the verses you think explain why Jesus had to die on the cross. Thank you. I do not see where you did this.


Because it is important to me. If you don't know the answer that's fine. I just thought maybe you did.


I'm not sure how this answers my question. If you don't know the answer that's fine. If Waggoner didn't say anything vital that cannot be found in the SOP then I see no reason to read Waggoner. Do you?

Also, if Waggoner explained something "more clearly" than Ellen did, please show me. Post something he said that is "more clearly" explained. Place his and her explanations side-by-side so we can compare them. Thank you.


Okay. Thank you for clarifying what you believe.


Now that you've clarified what you meant, I have a different question I'd like you to answer. Here it is - Do you think sinners are lost by default? Or, do you think they are saved by default? If sinners do nothing at all are they lost or saved?


I believe most people cannot identify misunderstanding the character of God as the reason why they are lost. Does this contradict anything in point 4 as you see it?


Is your answer to my second question - yes?


Thank you for clarifying what you believe. But I prefer “faith that works by love and purifies the soul” as a definition of genuine faith. This kind of faith makes both justification and sanctification realities in the life.

I'm not really understanding your question. There are a number of Gospel promises, including Gen. 3:15 and so forth. Jesus said that Moses saw His day and wrote of Him.



(From my point of view, of course) you have misunderstandings of a number of different things that you read from the SOP. You understand these things correctly, or at least more correctly, when you read Waggoner, but you disagree with what Waggoner says, and because of your misunderstanding of the SOP you think he disagrees with her. So I think it would be of value if you took to heart her endorsements of them, that they brought a message from God, light which would enlighten the world, etc. and read and learned from what they wrote and corrected your misunderstanding of the SOP. I don't think you could get this simply by reading the SOP, because you would be likely to keep reading the SOP as you always have.



I think this would be a better exercise for you to do on your own. Ellen White said that Waggoner could explain righteousness by faith better than she, but she didn't point to specific passages she wrote which were less clear than things that she wrote, and I don't feel impressed to go beyond where she went.

One area I think Waggoner wrote particularly clearly is in regards to the covenants, which EGW described as "truth" and "as clear as sunlight." I'd be happy to quote some passages of Waggoner on this subject if you'd like.



Before going on to a new question, how about some closure on the previous one. Do you agree that this statement



says that if one does not resist one will be saved?



It neither contradicts nor affirms what point 4 says. Point 4 doesn't address this. Point 4 said nothing about people being able to identify a cause for their being lost.



This isn't a definition. A definition describes what something is. "Faith that works by love and purifies the soul" is a qualification of a certain type of faith.

Here's an example. A definition of "car" would be "a motor vehicle, smaller than a truck, with 4 wheels." The phrase "a car which zooms down the highway" is not a definition for "car."

You never asked this question! You admit this here:



So how can you say I didn't answer a question for 13 pages which you hadn't even asked?



No and yes. Saying that God required this may give a wrong impression. The NC is simply the writing of the law in the heart. Since love is the fulfilling of the law, it's equivalent to saying that God requires love. But love is not something one can require, it has to be voluntarily given. You don't meet a girl you like, and the require that she love you. It doesn't work that way. Love is awakened by love. We love God because He first loved us. His wonderful character inspires us to love Him, and love our neighbor too, if we do not resist the prompting of the Holy Spirit.

Are you calling me a liar? Check it out. Here's the first time I asked the question (posted above) - "Do these verses require "slavish" obedience since they do not contain better reasons why God commands people to rest on the seventh day?" Other questions arose afterward. But this was the original one. At any rate, thank you for answering my original question.


I don't see where you answered my question. While under the NC did God require the Jews to obey and observe everything He commanded them {the moral law, the ceremonial laws, the laws of Moses)? Was there anything God commanded them that stands in contradiction to the law of love, the moral law?

Again, Isa 53 does not explain why Jesus had to die. It merely describes how He died. It also says it pleased God to bruise him.


I’ll reword the questions: Please show me where Moses explained why Jesus had to become a man and die on the cross. Gensis 3:15 does not explain why. Also, show me where Moses explained why the animal sacrifices symbolize the death of the Son of God.


What vital truths are you referring to? And, how does my view differ from the view presented by Ellen and Elliot? Please post quotes from the SOP to support a view you believe contradicts what I believe. I cannot think of anything she taught that contradicts what I believe.


As you know I have already compared Ellen and Elliot and have come to conclusions, namely, I have found nothing he explains “more clearly” than she does. I doubt there is anything you can post which explains something “more clearly” than she did.


Yes, sinners would be saved if they responded to the loving entreaties of God.

No, your problem here is not one of deceit but of lack of comprehension. Here's our conversation:



When you say, "yes, it is a different question," that means it is a different question! Not the same question you asked before, but a new, different one.

Since this is a different question, it is not one I could have answered earlier.



Here's what I said:



Your whole way of looking at this is different than mine. I cannot answer your questions according to your perspective because I disagree with your perspective. Your perspective involves requirements and rules. Mine involves promises and love freely given, which is the fulfilling of the law.

God was not arbitrarily requiring things of the COI either under the NC or OC, but was seeking to lead them into the truth. He wanted a relationship with them, entered into by faith as a response to His incredible love. Love is the fulfilling of the law, which can only be obtained by a transformation of the heart. God had to take the COI where they were, and seek to lead them from that point of unbelief to a loving relationship with Him. What God communicated to them through Moses was intended to bring them to that point.

If you don't see that Isaiah 53 explains Christ's death, I don't think I can help you. I'm sorry about that.



I don't understand why you're requesting these things. What's your point?



I already suggested a course of action. Read what Waggoner wrote, being open to the possibility that when you disagree with him that he's right. I already explained that simply reading the SOP isn't likely to help, because you'll simply read her the same way you've been reading her. My opinion is that you could use something to give you a different perspective.

She said that Waggoner could teach righteousness by faith better than she. You disagree with her on this, thinking she is clearer than Waggoner. I see another possibility. It might be that she is right about this, and that you are wrong. It might be that Waggoner's teachings are clearer than hers, and that you have been misunderstanding her teachings. So, again, my suggestion is that you read Waggoner's teachings with an open mind, ready to investigate candidly the areas where you disagree with him, open to changing your mind about his being wrong and disagreeing with the SOP.

If you wish a specific point to study, I would suggest the covenants, and I suggest you start by reading Waggoner's comments in "The Glad Tidings" to Gal. 3:16-18, as well as his comments to Gal. 4:24.



Your opinion on this matter disagrees with her. I agree with her opinion, that Waggoner's teachings were clearer than hers, and I also agree with her opinion that she was in agreement with what Waggoner taught, as opposed to your opinion that they differed.

My suggestion, again, would be to read Waggoner with an open mind. I would further suggest that you consider his arguments and reasoning, setting aside your own ideas temporarily, and investigate if what Waggoner says makes sense on its own merits.



To be clear, you are disagreeing with what you said previously? Namely, this:



Regarding your question to me, I don't think that sinners are either lost nor saved by default.

I am amazed you think it does. Nowhere does it say so. It merely describes Him suffering. You are mistaken if you think it describes why Jesus had to die.


Please.


I'm getting the impression you do not want to take the time to prove that Waggoner explains RBF or the NC/OC "more clearly" than did Ellen. Fine. Suit yourself. But I'm not the only one who disagrees with you. It would serve you well to take the time to substantiate you claims. Simply saying it is so, or quoting the SOP as saying so, does not cut it any more. Please lay their quotes side-by-side and prove that he explains it "more clearly" than she does. That should settle it once and for all. But if you don't think you can do it, then please stop insisting it is so.


I agree with both of my statements above. Sinners are lost until they embrace Jesus and abide in Him.

Please elaborate on what you mean by - "I don't think that sinners are either lost nor saved by default." If they are neither lost nor saved what are they? Are they lost because they have sinned? "All have sinned." Who does this exclude? Does it mean, Not all have sinned.