"We Have No Sin"

Below is a sermon by Larry Kirkpatrick. What do you guys think about it? Does it cover 1Jn 1:8 thoroughly enough for you?

I have my own concerns about it. I've emailed Pastor K my comments and questions, which I'll post later. I want to see if the same things jump out at you guys.

---

If We Say That We Have No Sin. . .

Presenter: Larry Kirkpatrick
Location: Mentone SDA Church, CA, USA
Delivery: 2008-03-09 16:54Z
Publication: GreatControversy.org 2008-03-09 16:54Z
Type: Sermon
URL: http://www.lastgenerationtheology.org/lgt/doc/1ant/kirl-ifwesay.php

Sometimes the texts that vex us carry tremendous insight. Their challenge to our assumptions makes them great allies toward our growing in truth.

Seventh-day Adventists reject the doctrine of original sin, the teaching that men are born guilty, born condemned. We also reject any notion that man was not damaged by the fall. We are decidedly damaged; one might say, born broken. But we are not lost until we choose rebellion. And all who have lived in human flesh, except Jesus, have chosen rebellion at some point; all these, then, need Jesus. The Bible is clear: “All we like sheep have gone astray” (Isaiah 53:6). How thankful we are that in Jesus a Savior is provided!

Some good and godly brothers dispute what has just been stated. They hold that all men have sin at birth, and that all men have sin throughout the full length of their experience. Indeed, they say that men—even “saved” men—die in sin. The belief that in the power of God men can obey His law, that they can live without sinning after Probation closes, mystifies. A favorite text suggested is 1 John 1:8. You recall the text:



Look at it. It would be a fair question, would it not, to ask how we can say that man can live without sinning? And are we not obligated to read the above text in the manner expected by conventional Christianity?

A fair question deserves a fair answer; a biblical one. This we now offer.

Text and Method

What the Text Does and Doesn’t Say

Some hold that this text is teaching that if one claims to be born without guilt (and thus without sin), that person must be teaching anti-biblical error. All men, they say, have sin. To say otherwise—that all men do not have sin—is obviously an indicator of self-deception, a life where the inward warmth of the Holy Spirit is lacking, where truth is rejected and not permitted to indwell. Are such charges right? Is not the Bible plain enough?

It is indeed sufficiently plain. A major goal of the Christian must be to rightly understand the teaching of Scripture. It is not enough to assume that those who have gone before us have rightly interpreted the Word; have prevailed against longstanding biases and mindsets; have avoided traps of mediocrity and confusion, and are not teaching the commandments and the doctrines of men. We need to wrestle with God’s Word, and with all caution and care verify that we are rightly dividing it. If we have the truth in us, no less will do.

Scripture Interprets Scripture

If we would set our method apart from the Roman Catholic, we must proceed under the plan that Scripture interprets Scripture, that Scripture is authoritative in a way that tradition is not. Where a devout Roman Catholic openly states his granting of mighty authority to tradition, and will as often as not gladly share his strong reasons for functioning that way, often a Protestant does not fare as well. Some, at least, are as truly ruled by tradition but refuse to admit it, being either unwilling to confess it, or ignorant of their course.

The Protestant method, truly upheld, is to grant ultimate authority to the Scripture. No, not to popes or traditions, not to pet ideas or themes persisting more from well-worn mental ruts than the Word of God. Scripture, rather, is granted primary interpretive authority over Scripture. We seek, so far as possible, to let the meanings provided by the Word dominate over theological meanings we might, if otherwise incautious, impose upon the Word from outside. Admittedly, perhaps fewer than we would like can be claimed to have soundly applied this principle. And yet, poor execution does not condemn the power of the idea. We must labor to rightly divide the Word, refusing to sunder what God has joined together; that we not divorce the one flesh of inspired Writ.

Proof-Texting and Circles of Context

Another challenge ever at hand is the risk of proof-texting. What is it? Proof-texting illegitimately isolates a text. It lifts a snippet here and a text there. It is another form of false division of the Word. Proof-texting in its most obvious form is a neglect to properly consider the bearing of adjacent portions of text upon a portion which is separated from those neighboring portions. The selected text will be lifted from the longer passage and assertions made about its meaning that fail to take into consideration its meaning as integrated into that longer passage.

Another more subtle form of proof-texting is to disregard larger circles of context. Context has its ever expanding circle, from the text itself, to passage, to chapter, to book, to testament, to the whole of Scripture, to the whole of inspired writings. And there are other considerations, such as literary genre. The Bible contains history, wisdom literature, messianic and apocalyptic prophecy, epistles, etc. Thus, when crossing from one type to another, care should be exercised in order to avoid treating one form like another form. For example, the literal history found in Genesis and the highly apocalyptic imagery found in Daniel are as equally inspired, but they are different types of texts. We take care so as not to interpret Genesis overly symbolicaly, or the apocalyptical portions of Daniel over-literally. Our purpose is to rightly divide the Word.

We should understand that having proper regard for circles of context is not intended as a way of preventing one text from having its proper bearing on another text, but of our benefitting from internal safeguards that God has provided in His Word. It is a basic principle that we let an author define his own meaning according to his own language. General meanings will not differ greatly, but important nuances in usage will be seen and aid us in rightly dividing the word.

Searching Elsewhere in 1 John

The most immediate context for the passage of 1 John 1:5-10 is the book of 1 John. Here we find the topic of sin/transgression/unrighteousness noted many times (beside 1 John 1:5-10, also 2:1, 2; 3:4, 5, 8, 9; 4:10; 5:16, 17). A careful review of the passages involved lends no suggestion that John elsewhere in these passages writes of sin as birth-nature. Rather, the tenor of these references to sin is that it can and must be overcome.

Searching Elsewhere in John

The next broadest level of context for us is the Johannine corpus. We expand our consideration to include the Gospel of John, Second and Third John, and Revelation. If the idea of sin as a persistent and ineradicable feature of the human condition is intended by John in 1 John 1, surely then we will find some indication of this same theme at least somewhere in the other four Bible books authored by him. If we consider sin/transgression/iniquity/unrighteousness, etc. beyond 1 John, the texts to be reviewed are found in John 1:29; 5:14; 7:18; 8:7, 11, 21, 24, 34, 46; 9:2, 34, 41; 15:22, 24; 16:8, 9; 19:11; 20:23; Revelation 1:5; 18:4, 5. A review of these texts offers no support to the idea of anyone being born guilty.

Pre-Birth Sin Ruled Out as Cause for Blindness

One passage at least, should have our attention: John 9. Jesus is passing by a man who was born blind. The disciples ask Jesus, “Who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?” This is an illuminating question because of what it tells us about the disciples understanding of sin and punishment. The disciples had apparently understood that being born blind is a specific punishment by God. Their question was, Was this case a punishment of the child, or of the parents of the child? Their query, “Who did sin” shows that they thought that blindness was a punishment for sin.

Jesus’ answer was, Neither case A nor case B: “Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents” (John 9:3). Blindness in the context of birth is not a direct punishment by God for sin. Jesus explicitly ruled out such an idea. Jesus finished by stating that while it was not the case that child or parent had sinned and were being punished for the sin via the blindness of the child, that the blindness was permitted “that the works of God should be made manifest in him.”

Although Jesus did not here elaborate on the specific reason for blindness in a child, the Scriptures elsewhere make clear that the entrance of sin into the world carries with it a host of effects. Genesis tells us that after the entrance of sin, death entered also, that thorns grew up in the previously thornless vegetation (Genesis 3:18), that the environment was affected.

The whole creation groaneth, waiting for the restoration of man (Romans 8:19-23). A world groaning under the imposition of sin is waiting for God to draw him and for man to return to Him. Thus, we see the results of sin in our world.

God never cooperates with Satan, but Against satan’s wishes, He brings good out of evil. The man had been permitted to be born blind that the works of God should later be made manifest in him, which they were when Jesus healed him. Blindness is one of many indirect results of a world groaning under sin. The impositions of sin upon our world give God opportunity to work in blessing. The man had not the capacity, as a prenatal infant, to intelligently and intentionally choose rebellion against God; he could not sin. He had no birth sin. Neither did his parents have it or transmit it to him. Guilt is not like genetics, and does not transmit from one generation to another. We may be sure that his parents had chosen sin and that he himself, after coming to an accountable, responsible age, had sinned. But his blindness from birth was no specific divine judgment on him or them for sinning.

The Passage

We start with a verse or a passage of interest. Today, ours is 1 John 1:8. From there, we seek to determine the main block of Scripture within which it is found. In this case, we find that in 1 John 1:5-10:



Let’s pause to consider a brief word on the importance of knowing how to tell where the passage begins and ends. This is one of the key issues in working out a helpful understanding of a passage. We need to be able to determine where the section is so as to concentrate our efforts onto it. How can we tell where the passages begin and end?

We look for patterns in the words and themes. While we do not believe in “word” inspiration, we do accept that in a cooperative process, God guides the writer’s thoughts, assuring their suitability and of the expressions chosen for His purposes.

Five “Ifs”

Here we look closely at 1 John and we find what? Reading through, we suddenly begin to see the word “if” all over the place. There are five “ifs” in vv. 5-10. A closer look at those five “ifs” reveals that not only is the word “if” repeated, but other patterns are present. Try this:

if we say
if we walk
if we say
if we confess
if we say

You see the pattern. “If we say” is present in verses 6, 8, 10. These are all negative statements.

Why do we take these five “ifs” and ignore the 13 other “ifs” found in 1 John (2:1, 3, 15, 19, 20, 21; 4:11, 12, 20; 5:9, 14, 16)? Well, there are certainly some interesting things and relationships going on in some of those other references. But we can hardly probe them all in depth in one sermon that is too full already. So we stay with just 1:5-10.

Now let’s carry on and notice vv. 6, 8, 10.

If we Say We Have Fellowship With Him

First in v. 6 we have “If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth.” First is the claim that we have fellowship with Him. Who? Verse five said God, who is light and in whom there is no darkness at all. Since it is a claim of fellowship with Him, it is a claim about Him. You are known by the company you keep, and God is known by the company He keeps.

If we claim to have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie. Notice that the lie is manifest in our making a false claim. The claim is false because we are not doing the truth. Notice also that it says “we lie,” and the implication is that we know we are making a false claim.

(The bulk of our discussion of fellowship is addressed later in our study.)

If We Say That We Have No Sin

Let’s look at the middle statement, v. 8. “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” Here is another claim. But in this case, the claim says more about us than about God. The claim to sinlessness is made without reference to God. To claim sinlessness is to provoke self-deception.

Just a quick jump to larger contexts for a moment. Recall Jeremiah 17:9: “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” Jeremiah warns us of the preeminent deceitfulness of the heart of fallen men. Nothing is more potentially deceptive than the heart. It is not merely wicked, but “desperately” wicked. In that light Jeremiah asks the provocative question, “Who can know it?” When it comes to reading our own sinlessness or righteousness, we are exceeding poor judges. Of all creatures, we must maintain a deep humility.

But this is not all. We all have read these familiar items from the book Steps to Christ:



If we would see our own sinfulness, we need to see Jesus first. See how it does not imply a glance, but a clear viewing: “as we behold Him.” And it is as the light shines into our souls that we see “how impure” we are. This indicates that although the human heart unaided cannot see with clarity, the human heart reviewed in the light of Jesus will be more accurately revealed. Just one ray that penetrates makes distinct our defilement, deformity, and defects. Notice that these are defects of character, not nature.

The two men went up to the temple to pray. The repentant one was forgiven and made righteous, but the Pharisee stood marking out his imagined sinlessness. He had, we are told, no sense of his own defilement. The farther away you are from God, the more righteous you appear to yourself. The closer we come to Jesus, the more faulty we will appear in our own eyes. That is, the more you actually “have fellowship with Him,” the less you will be inclined to indulge in any claim that you “have no sin” (1 John 1:8).

Some have heard the strong claims that we make on behalf of Christianity, that a final generation will, in the grace and power of God, cease from sinning, and have quite wrongly inferred that in saying that we were making laying claim to sinlessness. But this is illogical. We look at a text like Revelation 14:1-5 and see unambiguously that those composing the last generation will have drawn exceeding close to Jesus. That means that the brightness of His spotless purity will be shining upon these followers more than it has ever shone on any other group. Thus, the group that in all history will feel the most sinful, will in fact be this end-time group. Not only will they feel more sinful than any other humans ever have, but they will actually have more depraved, more disordered human natures than any other group of followers has ever had. Then to think that followers of Jesus in this last generation would be uttering claims of being without sin, begs the imagination! Rather, if there is any people apt to be restrained in personal claims to heightened spirituality and sinlessness, it is precisely these. How dangerous and unchristian it is to infer such supposed claims to sinlessness, and to use such unfair representations to discredit our desire to answer Jesus’ desire that we sin not (Exodus 20:20; Psalm 4:4; Ezekiel 3:21; John 8:11; 1 Corinthians 15:34; Ephesians 4:6; 1 John 2:1, etc.).

And so, even apart from the sampling of precious Ellen G, White statements from Steps to Christ, we still have the very clear statement in Jeremiah 17:9 telling us that we cannot be too sure about our own spiritual estate. In light of these things, it is exceptionally clear that if we would say that we have no sin, we would deceive ourselves, and the truth could not be in us.

If We Say That We Have Not Sinned

The third statement in series is v. 10: “If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.” Where the first statement, that fellowship was had with God (v. 6) cast God in a false light, and the second (v. 8) reflected mostly on the one claiming to be without sin, this third in series now claims that one has not sinned. It is the most obscene claim of all.

This statement casts God in the worst kind of false light. It makes “Him a liar.” The statement would not have made Him a liar before Adam sinned. It would not have made Jesus a liar, for He was tempted “in all points like we are; yet without sin” (Hebrews 4:15). But, when it comes to all the rest of us who have attained to moral accountability, then it is true, and we have unambiguous evidence for that, Romans 3:23—“For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” To say that we have not sinned is to deny the truth of Romans 3:23. Romans 5:12 echoes the point again, telling plainly that “death passed upon all men, for that [because] all men sinned.”

To “make God a liar” in v. 10 does not actually make Him a liar; it makes Him out to be a liar; it causes it, superficially, at least, to appear that He is a liar. It makes Him a liar in His assertion that all men have sinned, because one is claiming to be an exception to the statement. To make God out to be a liar is to impugn His character. But this is opposite the mission of the last generation; our purpose is to be used of God in vindicating His character. Few claims do more to undermine His character and gospel than to misrepresent God (as being untruthful) and man (as not standing in need of redemption).

There is a linkage between all three of these “if we say” ifs. First, in (v. 6), one lies about himself, claiming to have fellowship with God (but in works denying it). In v. 8 he deceives himself with his claim that he has no sin. Finally, in v. 10 he is so self-deceived that he can claim never to have sinned. The progression is from knowing lie, to self-deception, to utter delusion. There is sometimes seen a similar progression in those who became stubbornly involved in congregational conflicts. Original claims are stretched by being retold again and again. The story changes. At last, the person who cherished his bitterness comes to see the matter not as it was but as they have reimagined the story. How important is the counsel of Scripture warning not to let the sun go down on our wrath (Ephesians 4:26), and to find resolution with those we are set at odds with (Luke 12:58).

There is a further linkage: All of these are claims that are contrary to fact. In v. 6 the claim-maker does not have fellowship with the Father. In v. 8 the claimer is not without sin, for he is disagreeing with the divine warning that he cannot lay such a claim. His fallen human equipment is fallible. Remember, he claimed fellowship with God in verse six, but the closer we come to Jesus the more faulty we will appear in our own eyes. Inspiration uses words like wicked, deceitful, impure, defiled, defect, faulty, imperfect, moral deformity to describe our sense of sinfulness. In v. 10 his abandonment of God and His Word is such that he presents to the world the strongest character misrepresentation.

If We Walk In the Light

We have examined the dreary “if we say” series. But vv. 6, 8, and 10 are interspersed with verses 7 and 9. As 6, 8, and 10 go together, so do 7 and 9. Consider closely now those two verses again:



You will immediately see some parallels. First, both have action at the front. Whereas the three “if we say” statements all made claims that were falsified by the actions of the one laying the claims, in v. 7 and v. 9 there is no claim to start with; these start with action.

In contrast to the falsified claim of the one who says he has fellowship with God, but does not have such fellowship and is walking in darkness, John presents here a class of believers who are doing more than saying. They are walking in the light. And here is the key to understand the phrase walking in the light: “as He is in the light.” Who? Jesus (1 John 1:1-3). The Christian walks in the light, not according to some plan offered by a rabbi or a PhD or an expert in spirituality or psychology. He walks in the light according to the pattern-man: Jesus Christ is his pattern.

And where do we acquire our representation of Jesus Christ? From the inspired writings. These are our source. In contrast to the one claiming that he has not sinned (v. 10) and thus testifying against the authenticity of Scripture, these are of a different sort. These follow the Lamb wherever He goes (Revelation 14:4). Consequently, in them is seen the reproduction of the pattern.

If we do this—if we walk, that is, if we are in motion, actively acquiring the image and copying it, reproducing it, living as He is in the light, then we have fellowship. What fellowship? The fellowship indicated in v. 3: with John and his associates, with the Father, and with the Son Jesus Christ. It is a fellowship of believers; a “fellowship one with another.” It is the fellowship that the liar claimed in v. 6 but did not actively pursue; he was a talker, a chatterer. But these are seeking to be like Jesus and supporting one another, strengthening one another, walking one with another, fellowshipping one with another, enduring one another, and growing with one another. They are participants in a church setting.

Now this may perplex some. How can it be that if we walk like Jesus we have fellowship one with another and that fellowship could be related in any way to the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleansing us from all sin? Some will say that this borders on a legal, works-salvation emphasis, or even crosses the line. How to answer?

We are going to support John on this. It matters not that someone’s understanding comes crashing up against the impervious wall of Bible truth. People are used to functioning in terms of systematic theology. Systematic theology endeavors to combine the broad sweep of Scripture testimony into a systematic understanding of salvation. This is not a bad goal. Unfortunately, if core principles of such an understanding are faulty, then you can inadvertently begin to bend Scripture to match the system, instead of revising the system to conform to Scripture. We need to stay close to biblical Theology and take our strongest cues from the text itself and not from our derived understandings.

Combining together in a church relationship is a special and unique kind of experience. It is voluntary. It has many friendly benefits, but also so many frustrations. It means putting yourself in the path of so many... people. Some are too positive, some too negative, some are to brusque, some are not conscientious enough, some are too conscientious, some are like Peter (talking before engaging the brain), and some like John (let’s bring down fire from heaven and destroy these blasphemers). Some are like Judas, too. But Proverbs 27:17 remains especially true in the church setting: “Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.”

If we are walking in the light as He is in the light, that will mean none of this fakery as in vv. 6, 8, 10. It will mean agreeing with the statement at v. 5 that “God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all.” Talk is cheap; action costs something. Copying Jesus costs something. Judas could not have things both ways and neither can we. The New Testament is adamant. We walk in the light as Jesus is in the light, or we are just clanging cymbals, chatterers, pretenders, walkers in darkness, claimers.

The epistle of 1 John builds upward from its very first verses. John affirms that he has, truly, touched Jesus; he has seen and experienced the real thing. God is real, authentic (1 John 1:1). The epistle also builds from the affirmation in verse 5 that there is no darkness in God; He is all light. And if we are His followers, there will be no darkness in us. We will be all light. Paul understood: “Ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light” (Ephesians 5:8).

God is light: First John’s behavioral exhortations all flow from this principle. If He is light and if we have fellowship with Him, we will not make false claims. Our Christ-like actions will speak. The world will know that we have “been with Jesus” (Acts 4:13). I say again, as we live the lives of believers, mix together in worship, labor side-by-side in service, as we truly give our hearts to follow Jesus, God will work in us to will and to do His good pleasure (Philippians 2:13). In this washing in His blood (1 John 1:7; Revelation 1:5) we will be cleansed from all sin.

If We Confess Our Sins

Here is another parallel thought between v. 7 and v. 9. At the end of v. 7 we are cleansed from all sin, and at the end of v. 9 we are cleansed from all unrighteousness. The parallel is unambiguous; the same thing is meant. Even 1 John itself affirms that “all unrighteousness is sin” (1 John 5:17).

Verse 9 has “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” This is the text among all these that we are the most familiar with. If we admit to God that we have sinned, He will forgive us. But surely in the mind of John was Proverbs 28:13: “He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.” The very context of 1 John 1:9, comparing true-hearted action (vv. 7, 9) with mere claims that do not match one’s actions (vv. 6, 8, 10), tells us that saying one is confessing is not enough. God is not mocked. The prophet Isaiah marked such: “this people draw near Me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour Me, but have removed their heart far from Me...” (Isaiah 29:13). We must not only confess but also forsake our sins.

Here is yet another point. These are not mere generic sins or faults. If we confess “our” sins. We take ownership, responsibility. Pause to consider the echo in Steps to Christ, p. 39:



Again, true confession is specific:



If we confess our sins—and forsake them—“He is faithful and just.” Perhaps we have in time past emphasized how God’s forgiveness was actually unfair, how we did not receive that which we deserved. Be careful with this. Sins that God has forgiven us have indeed been paid for; it is only that Jesus rather than us has paid the price. The wages of sin is death, and Jesus died in our place; He bore the full, undiluted penalty. Justice was indeed served. It is righteous of God to make the transaction He makes. Jesus becomes sin for us that we may become the righteousness of God in Him (2 Corinthians 5:21). He is within His rights to do what He wants to with His own (Matthew 20:15), and we are bought with a price and we are His own (1 Corinthians 6:20; 7:23). No man has been forgiven in a way that is not both merciful and just.

He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins. “Forgive” is a big word for us, isn’t it? But you might be interesting in knowing that in all five writings of John found in the Bible, the word is used only once: 1 John 1:9. Now, once is enough. Still, we should notice that John’s main focus may not have been the low-grade kind of forgiveness we may be used to thinking about. Forgiveness in John is no mere declaration but an event of both, forgiveness and cleansing. This is what He does. You see the parallel in these verses. He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. It is a complete forgiveness. Just as the confession must include forsaking, so God’s forgiveness must inevitably include cleansing.

We should not miss the dual dynamic for God’s people found in these six verses, especially the two positive ones (vv. 7, 9). In v. 7 you see the corporate dimension of true Christianity. As we live in harmony with one another in church, as we bite our tongue and keep to ourselves our frustrations, or as we, led of God, quietly and humbly approach a brother or sister in private and thoughtfully offer not our rebuke but our gentle counsel, as we remain Christlike when the local complainer approaches us, we are showing forth this community aspect. We are shaping one another, hopefully by our positive Christianity, but sometimes by quietly enduring an unchristian tirade. And as we are patient and merciful, praying for those who misrepresent Jesus and His cause, we ourselves grow.

We so quickly embrace v. 9 and its personal aspects of confession and forgiveness and even cleansing. But v. 9 is not isolated from v. 7 and we cannot have the reality of v. 9, fellowship with God, if we do not humble ourselves and do our part in making fellowship with our fellow believers (v. 7) a living reality. Let me be plain: some have missed this. One who knows something of “Last Generation Theology” asked me quite specifically about this communitarian dimension and where it fits into LGT. One way that it fits is as indicated in this passage.

If you want to be cleansed of all sin by the blood of Christ, you must keep self under, and that will not mean locking yourself away in a room but that along with study and prayer and personal piety in the closet, action and evangelism and personal labor with souls is spent in and out of the churches. It means character growth as we interact with, and in God’s grace, find blessing also in one another.

Being Without Sin

Finally, consider the incongruity of affirming that 1 John 1:8 is teaching that we cannot be without sin—a point of which some are quite sure—and of denying the cleansing from “all sin” and from “all unrighteousness” spoken of in vv. 7 and 9. Why would we take v. 8 at more than what it says, and verses 7 and 9 at less? They do say that Jesus cleanses from all. Neither verse puts this cleansing off into the distant future. In v. 7 it comes as we interact with fellow believers, in v. 9, as we go aside into private and truly confess and forsake our sins. Thus, if we can have fellowship now, we can have cleansing now, and it is cleansing from all.

Let us have a care, and go neither farther nor any less far than Scripture. First John 1:8 certainly holds a warning for us. We should never say that we have no sin; we should never presume to have more power of self-discernment than Scripture permits of. Our hearts cannot be trusted. Who can know them?

God can know them. He can cleanse them. He can heal them. He can remove all unrighteousness—all sin—from them. It is not a paper removal only, a declaration from some distant corner of the heavenly bureaucracy. It is not a fiction.

Mrs. White spoke plainly as she prepared to quote the very passage we have studied today.



The claim to “have no sin” is exceeding offensive to God and never encourages others to think rightly of Him and His gospel. We may urge that Jesus has power to cleanse from sin and will cleanse from sin, and that we may live without sin now, that “We may go to Jesus and be cleansed, and stand before the law without shame and remorse” (The Great Controversy, p. 477).—but we should never claim to have no sin.

Let us go further. On the basis of the issue of presumption, we offer that neither should we even entertain the thought in our hearts that we have no sin. After all, the closer we come to Jesus, the more faulty we will appear in our own eyes. How can that be reconciled with saying, “Well, just between the two of us, I can say that I have no sin”? Danger lurks in such an attitude. The greatest danger is that of misrepresenting what Seventh-day Adventists believe to others. The second greatest is self-deception. John says that if we say this, we deceive ourselves. That, at least, is plain speaking, and we need to receive it with plain hearing.

The passage itself makes clear that God can cleanse us from all sin and he can do it now. We let the fact of cleansing rest with Him. For our part, we should keep low to the ground and plead with Him always, in this manner:



His grace is sufficient for us and if He leads us to repent He will also abundantly pardon. Praise Him to the heavens for His goodness and kindness to undeserving men, and His Scripture which explains His Scripture. LGT

Does this mean that it is theoretically possible that a human would be born who would live its entire life without choosing rebellion? Would such a human then be eligiable to salvation without the salvation provided through Jesus? I wonder if adventism really is that far from original sin as is suggested here. Yes, if humans are born without sin, the text would not apply to all humans. Maybe it only applies to humans who are capable of telling themselves anything about sin, in other words children only after the age when they can understand the concept of sin?I fully agree with the above two paragraphs. I wonder about the last sentence here. Recognizeing important nuances in usage may very well lead to major changes in the take-home message. Depending on how diligently one was previously proof-texting ones way through. 1 John is a short book, lets just read it all for proper context. I think Johns point is as was suggested above that sin must be overcome, but if(when?) we fail, Jesus is there to help us up again. Many of the texts refered to speak about cleansing from sin, the one who do not sin need no cleansing. They offer mainly two views of sin. One of sin as being disbelief in Jesus and the other as sin being unrighteousness. Sin as disbelief in Jesus is of course acquired, but are newborns really righeous in themselves?Could it be summarised as "talk is cheap"?Looks right to me.Hmm...Think there is some to ponder in this part. I think the above is quite good. If this is not a contradiction to what was written above, it is at the very least very close and anyone not very carefull is risking to cross the line. In conclusion I think in the main parts this is a good sermon that shows why remnant theology and the idea that the last generation will stand in its own merits rather than in Jesus merits as everyone else are so dangerous.

The sermon is very long and, due to special time constrictions this week, I still wasn't able to read it all. But I disagree with this:


This means, as Thomas pointed out, that those who weren't yet able to choose rebellion, that is, babies, are not lost and do not need Jesus.

I liked many parts of the sermon, but, like others, there were parts that didn't look quite right.

One of those questionable parts is that one is lost only after he indulges in known, willful rebellion. So, yes, it is theoretically possible for a person to "live its entire life without choosing rebellion." Yes, babies are not lost until they choose rebellion. This is a point over which Pastor K and I have wrestled many times before.

But he does say that babies still need Jesus to die for their "disordered human organism," if I understand him correctly. Essentially, they have no sin that needs atonement, but they need atonement for their fallen flesh. It's not a satisfying explanation as far as I'm concerned, but he has stuck with it so far.

As for Romans 3:23, he does not believe that the verse applies to those younger than the oft-invoked "age of accountability."

Here are some LGT definitions (from http://www.lastgenerationtheology.org/lgt/ori/ori-glossary.php)
Note that willful violation is required for sin and guilt. Unknown violation is not a sin, and incurs no guilt.

But LGT supporters do hold that all people, with the exception of Jesus, have chosen or will choose to willfully violate God's law. Hence, Romans 3:23 will become true.

My big problem with this position is the fact that people can be born filled with the Holy Spirit (e.g., John the Baptist). Taken to the logical conclusion, this facet of LGT denies the possibility that those filled with the Spirit can remain filled with the Spirit and abstain from all known sin. Their explanation of the AA quote that tells us that men who would rather die than commit known sin still confess the sinfulness of their nature also goes in this direction.

Here's what I sent to LK the day after his sermon.

Whether or not infants who die before the age of accountability are saved is a matter settled by Jesus. He knows all the factors involved. He will make the right decision. That all need a Savior is abundantly clear. All have sinned; there is none righteous; all are under sin; all need grace.

No one can claim to be without sin. All have sinned. No one can claim to have never sinned.

Nevertheless, Jesus has promised that if we are born again, if we abide in Jesus, if we walk in the Spirit and the mind of the new man - we do not and cannot commit a known sin. This is not to say we have no sin; for all have sinned. Our record and memory of sin will not be blotted out until after we judged and found "worthy" of eternal life.

No one will inherit eternal life if they are practicing known sins, if they are not abiding in Jesus, if they are clinging to pet, darling sins.

To claim to be without sin would mean that one has never committed a sin, so it will never be possible to claim that, this side of Jordan.

Regarding the question of the basic definition of sin, an important factor to consider is that our behavior results from our beliefs and feelings regarding God. The serpent convinced Eve to believe that God did not have her best interests at heart (God knows when you eat the fruit, you will be as gods. God doesn't want that. He wants to keep you low. He doesn't want what's best for you).

The result of distrusting God is seen by Adam and Eve's hiding from God when He went to be with them for their daily walk. That God was not angry with them is evident by how He acted. He asked them questions, and the tone of His voice was such that they lost their fear, and came out of hiding. They must have perceived that God was not angry at them.

Sin does not change God, but it changes us. Profoundly. It causes us to view God in a way He is not. This confusion in regards to God's character is how Satan is able to enslave.



Satan deceives us by investing his own evil characteristics upon God. Few, even among Christians, really believe that God is good, like Jesus is.

What this all points out is that our behavior is but the tip of the iceberg. The real issues of the Great Controversy involve the character of God. If we are convinced of God's goodness, and the rightness of His principles, we will "sign on" and our service to His cause will be from the heart. If the law is written on our heart, our behavior can't help but follow.

I think LGT is correct in pointing out the possibilities, and emphasizing the reality, of our being able to overcome sin by faith in Christ. However, I think the lack of emphasis on God's character causes a message to be presented with an emphasis which isn't right.

TE: The result of distrusting God is seen by Adam and Eve's hiding from God when He went to be with them for their daily walk.

MM: Where does this idea come from? It makes it sound like God was unmindful of the Fall.

TE: Sin does not change God, but it changes us. Profoundly. It causes us to view God in a way He is not.

MM: They had every reason to be afraid. Fear is the result of faithlessness, of unfaithfulness, of being separated from Jesus. They hadn't heard of the plan of salvation, yet, so how could they not be afraid? Being alone, without hope, is a fearful thing. Even Jesus, on the cross, cried, Why have you forsaken me? For a time, He was lonely and afraid. Of course, the source of fear was different for A&E.

This comes from Genesis 3. God was not unmindful of the fall. He was dealing with it as gently as possible. That He was successful is shown by the fact that Adam and Eve presented themselves to God, even though they had been hiding from Him.



I'm not seeing how your response here to do with what I wrote, which is that sin causes us to view God in a way He is not.

Tom, what you said about God showing up for "their daily walk" makes it sound like the fact A&E had sinned was no big deal. This idea is not biblical.

Being afraid of God was right and natural for A&E after they had sinned. "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." Their fear was not simply a result of sinning and misunderstanding God. It is how it is when sinners are without hope. They hadn't learned of the plan of salvation yet, so being afraid of God was right and natural.

Sin was certainly a big deal. It caused Adam and Eve to be afraid of God, and run and hide from Him, which is crazy. It's a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God, if one doesn't know what God is like, and sin causes us to be confused as to God's true character. Jesus came to reveal the truth about God.





I hadn't seen this one before. Very nice.

1.Satan is the destroyer, Christ the restorer.
2.God does not make light of sin, but He seeks to rescue us from sin. Amen! This is the point I've been making all along.
3.Christ (and God) is not harsh, or forcing, but true, pure, generous, and loving.

Fear is learned. Animals living on isolated islands usually are not afraid of the first humans they encounter. Before they learn to be afraid, it may be to late for them. Many species have turned into food this way. Adam and Eve had no reason to know what fear is, unless someone else had told them before.

It does sound like the Lord gave the appearance of ignorance of the fateful events that had took place. He asks, where are you? He asks, who told you? God does not blame man for what had taken place, He sets up an inquiry to investigate. That this in no way negate the seriousness of sin is shown later, when all facts are on the table and judgement is pronounced, verses 14-19.

8They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
9Then the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, "Where are you?"
10He said, "I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself."
11And He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?"
12The man said, "The woman whom You gave to be with me...

BTW; the two oldest self-justifying tricks in the book, blame the woman and blame God... "Being afraid of God was right and natural"... That does not sound right. Can you point to any text in the scripture where God or an angel tells any specific individuals to be afraid of Him?

Then again, maybe it is natural for us to be afraid of God. If truly honest with ourselves, can any of us say that we are not the slightest afraid of God? That we rather trust Him 110%? Any who answer 'Aye' to those questions have reached perfection.

I agree. And He did so in a way that allayed their fears.



John says that perfect love casts out all fear, and that fear has to do with torment.

There's no reason to fear God. God is like Jesus Christ.

Regarding trusting God, there are other reasons that one can have for not trusting God other than being afraid of Him. In other words, one can not be afraid of God, and yet still not trust Him fully.

Perfect love casts out all fear, and loving perfectly is being perfect just as God is perfect, thus one who has had love cast out all fear has reached perfection.

If love has thrown out your being afraid of God, what would those other reasons be?

One need not be perfect nor love perfectly in order to not be afraid of God. Simply knowing that He is like Jesus Christ is sufficient.

Why should one be afraid of God? God loves us and has our best interests at heart. John wrote:



John didn't say that you have to be perfect in love not to fear, but that one who fears is not made perfect in love. One needn't be perfect not to fear God.



First of all, what does it mean to say that perfect love casts out all fear? I understand this to mean that if we believe that God is like Jesus Christ, the perfect embodiment of love (another way of saying what John said, that God is love -- agape), then we won't fear Him.

Regarding reasons why one might not trust God fully, other than being afraid of Him, the first thing that pops into my mind is that one might simply choose not trust Him because one doesn't want to. I've got to believe that's reason #1.

God said that on the day they eat the fruit, they will die.
A&E ate the fruit, then here comes God in the afternoon. It would not be too far of a stretch to think that A&E were expecting death. So fear is quite natural at that point.

Perfect love casts out fear. And we see in the record that A&E did not have perfect love. If anything, they had perfect selfishness. That's one of the consequences of sin - selfishness takes the place of love. So, I don't see how A&E could have avoided being afraid when God came looking for them.

Also, remember the first step in their path to disobedience: Satan got them to doubt God's love. Surely, that error was not wiped away by any other step along the way to their rebellion.

At that point, why wouldn't they be afraid of God, whose love they doubted, and who had told them that they would die for eating the fruit?

Good points, Arnold. Especially this:



There's a vicious cycle that goes on here. Satan tempts us to doubt God, leading us into sin, which causes us to doubt God more, which leads us further into sin, etc.

Fortunately there's a circle that works the other. To know God is to love Him. Trusting Him leads to obedience, which leads to trusting Him more.

Or, to put it another way, as we contemplate God as He is in truth, we become transformed into the same image.

Yes, it's a very vicious cycle. God had very good reasons for discouraging us from taking even one step down that path.

I'm planning on covering the three-step process into sin one of these days:

1) Doubt God's love.
2) Distrust God's word.
3) Disobey God's command.

That's the path Satan led A&E into, and that's what he uses today.


Yes. And the three-step process to start that cycle counters every step into sin:

1) Know God's love.
2) Trust God's word.
3) Obey God's command.

And it is very important to do it in that order.

Knowing God's love means the same thing as knowing God, right? I don't disagree with what you're saying, but would state things a bit differently.

I'm thinking of the following:



I love this quote!

Satan's tactic is to gain homage to himself by misrepresenting God's character, by representing God to be such a one as himself, severe, harsh, one who uses force to get his way, not having the best interests of those below him but thinking only of himself, etc. This is how Satan deceived man. Therefore the way back is to undo the deception, which is what Jesus Christ did. We are brought back to God as we believe the truth.

Right.

God is love is not the same thing as love is God. Love is an active principle in the hearts of those who obey Jesus - but love is not a god. Love is an attribute of God. Perhaps it is more accurate to say - God is loving.

Also, do we agree it was natural for A&E to fear Jesus before they learned of His plan to save and redeem them? To sin, wherever found, our God is a consuming fire.

I think that's just semantics. Bottom line: Know God, know love; no God, no love.


I agree.

Mountain Man typed the following:

"No one can claim to be without sin. All have sinned. No one can claim to have never sinned."

I have NEVER sinned. I'm saying it, I'm typing it, and I'm telling you all, I've never sinned.

Now, clearly you are wrong in your statement. You MIGHT have meant that no one PROVE they have not sinned, or something like that, but alas, I can CLEARLY claim to have not sinned, as well I claim to have jumped the grand canyon on a go kart. Oh, and I also can leap tall buildings in a single bound, and bend metal with my teeth, and a whole bunch of other stuff you might not believe, but I promise, I can in fact claim anything I want.

Ted, what was your goal with your last post? And did this post achieve its intended goal?

Ted, surely you must agree no one can claim, in light of what God said about it, to have never sinned. God said, "All have sinned." To claim otherwise is to say God is a liar. Can I or you "prove" God is not a liar?

Dear Mountain Man,

Surely you must agree that I've already said (typed, but I said it out loud in my house when typing the previous post) that I have NEVER sinned, not once. I have never, ever, ever sinned, not in light of what anybody, anything, or otherwise might have or have not said. I did NOT call anybody a liar. Re-read my last post and tell me where I SAID (typed, wrote, spoke out loud) that anybody was a liar?????????????

Well, I'll go ahead and fill you in on that one. I didn't. I'm not saying anything other than I've never sinned, not ever, not even now. I can "claim", "say", or otherwise convey any piece of information that I so choose, you see me doing it now don't you. So, I can in fact "claim" (type, write, speak, e-mail, text, scribble, use hyroglyphics, or otherwise convey) to have never sinned.

If god said "all have sinned" those are his words, not mine. My words are as follows (and yes, you may quote me on this)

"I, Ted Farmer, being of sound mind and body, do hereby solemnly swear, before all of you reading this, and with hand upon the holy bible, I have never sinned"

So once again, I've said it, I've claimed it, and PROVEN it to you and all reading this, that I (or anybody else for that matter) can "claim" to have never sinned. That's all I'm saying. I'd appreciate it if you would kindly refrain from "implying" that I'm calling god a liar. I know you didn't directly "say" I'm calling god a liar, but you did infact "imply" that's what I did.

I don't know what you can prove; as far as god being a liar, I made no claim to such a statment (re-read my last post for clarification on this one).


Happy Sabbath!

Dear västergötland,

My goal was to prove that you CAN infact "claim" to be sinless.

"No one can claim to be without sin. All have sinned. No one can claim to have never sinned."

And infact, I have proven my point. My point was NOT a lot of other things. My ONLY point was to show you CAN "claim" to have not sinned (as well as anything else, it's easy try it at home with family and friends, it makes a great game for children too).

Yes, it did achieve it's goal, thanks for asking.

Happy Sabbath!

Seems like a rather trivial point to make. Obviously the poster meant that one cannot validly claim to be without sin. The word "claim" has an implicit assumption of validity built into it, so it seems to me the poster wasn't really off in what he wrote. At any rate, it was clear what his intent was.

Dear Mr. Ewall,

Thanks for trivializing my point, and marginalizing me as a person. And yes, it may seem to YOU to be trivial, but alas, you are taking that "assumption", where I took the literal meaning of the words written. Maybe that is a prime example of how you have come to know the word of the lord?

I clearly did not read any "assumption of validity" into the words written. I was trying to take Mountain Man at his word, not trying to "read" into them, or make them right for my point of view.

Words only have the meaning that we give them.

To me it's obvious that your response was rather pompus, but then I should think everybody would know that via the words you wrote. Is that something I should point out, or let people read your words on their own? It's kind of like the bible. We all read into it what we want to.

Dear Mr. Ewall,

Just one more point on the subject. I can and do "validly" claim to be sinless. I can do this because only god can define sin for me personally, not you, nor the chruch, nor anybody else on this planet.

Sin is defined by god, and it applies to me on a personal level. You have pointed that out along with Mountain Man by saying that god can infact turn a blind eye to sin, even though he has told us what sin is and isn't. And ONLY god can judge what sin is in my life, or your life, or your cat's life. You may well like to apply YOUR personal views of sin to my life, but again, your judgement means nothing to my eternal salvation.

So I say again, I'm sinless. I'm a perfect being. You have no right to say I'm not, nor a right to say I'm wrong. You may disagree with my view, but that only makes me wrong in your opinion, not the eyes of the lord, since he uses his own eyes, not yours. I can tell you don't like my line of thinking, and that's ok. There's plenty of room in heaven for all of us.

Here's something from the Spirit of Prophecy on the subject:

Here's something from me:

Once again, that is a HUMAN trying to tell who is holy and who is not. That is NOT the place of HUMANS, it's god's job, and his alone. Sop can "claim" things, just like I have. We've both now made claims that neither can prove until we are with the lord and can ask him face to face. So until that point, I'll reserve judgement, unlike some others. I may fail at times, but always I'll try my best, and ask the lord to walk with me, thus knowing his nature.

The statement that a human has no "true conception" is also just that, a statement by a human. It holds no power over what god is judging in my own life, for only god can judge those things. For sop to say that I have no "true conception" of anything is meaningless in the eyes of god. For only he can aquit us. You are more than welcome to extrapolate out any info you find usefull in the above stament by sop, I however, will only use my relationship with god to know his character.

"the more inadequate his conceptions" is also just that, her conception, not that of the lord. For neither man nor sop will be the judge of my own soul, that job is reserved for god alone.

I do sincerely hope that you are knowing the lord, and that you are going to be in heaven with me. I look forward to spending time with you and the lord, may we break bread together and enjoy the fruits of his labor.

Here's something from Scripture:

I say again, there' is no man that can judge me. Not my actions, not my intentions, nor my truth. There will be but one judge to rule over life, and we all know who that is.

Don't for get these:

Ted,

You are absolutely correct. You can claim to be sinless, and anything else you want to.

However, on this point of being sinless, John the disciple and Paul the Apostle make claims which are incongruent with your claim. Therefore, we will each have to decide for ourselves whether to believe you or the Bible; but we cannot believe both to be true.

I generally find it annoying when people insist on disregarding generally accepted and known idioms. It empowerishes the language greately.

Ted, surely you must agree no one can claim, in light of what God said about it, to have never sinned. God said, "All have sinned." To claim otherwise is to say God is a liar. Can I or you "prove" God is not a liar?

Please believe me, Ted, I did not mean to imply you personally called God a liar. I understood you to be making a point, not that you truly believe you have never sinned. But no one can "claim" to have never sinned IF they believe what God said about it. That was my point.

Yes, I realize you were making a totally different point. And, yes, anybody can "claim" anything, but outrageous claims are worthless without proof. If we agree God is the soul authority on this particular matter, then claiming to have never sinned is perfectly bogus.

Can we agree?

Ted, what is your opinion about the Bible? Do you accept it as the authoritative word of God? Which definition of sin do you feel applies to you personally? How do you define "the" truth?

Also, why do you spell the word God with a lower case "g" (god)?

Mountain Man,

I am replying with what will probably be my last post, since I'm sure I'll be asked to leave after you and daryl read what I have to say. I do not in fact believe in the bible, christianity, or god. I was arguing for the sake of argument, and not really making a point regarding sin. I do however feel, that I have not sinned. I do not believe in your definition of sin, so thus it does not apply to me personally.

I'm sure that as many are reading this, they are gasping with horror! Not really, but alas, I don't believe in any of this stuff, not at all. That's not to say I don't know exactly what you are talking about, I do. I spent the first 18 years of my life within the Adventist religion. But for personal reasons, I have found christianity so completely devoid of any meanig for me personally, that I no longer am a part of the church, or any church for that matter.

And since I openly admit I don't go to your brand of church, much less don't believe in god, I know I'll be asked to leave. That seems like a funny thing to do to someone, but I can tell this place is only for the hard core believer. You would probably kick me out of your chruch as well, if I showed up. I don't think that's what your god would want you to do, but I strongly feel that is what would happen.

I'm not an evil person, although I've been called that by the principal of the Shenandoah Valley Academy bording school I attended. I didn't fit in, so I was asked to leave. It's something that's not new to me at this stage of my life, but it still stings sometimes. I don't believe I'm any different than the next guy, but I do feel like I look at life with eyes more wide open than most.

I know that if you are not SDA, you won't really be held in much regard to those within the church. I know, I lived that life for over half of my life. It's not a chruch doctrine, or some rule, but it is reality. If you think it's not true, try stepping back from your own life, and see who's in it, and where they attend. Once again, that's not true of every single SDA, but by far, the majority will gladly look down on those "not in the know".

I've never in my life found a group of people with a bigger set of blinders on than the church of my upbringing and family. My family, both immediate and extended, have a long history with this church, and I feel I speak/type these words with a good level of authority on the subject. People of adventism generally like to think of themselves as closer to god, because they read the bible differently than others.

I don't think that if several people looked at a famous painting, and all had different idea's of what the artist meant by the brush strokes, that any one person would be more right than the next. But that's the way with christianity. Every brand is SO sure they have it right, and they are going to heaven faster and will be closer to god than the rest. And that's knowing that everyone in every religion admit's there will be all religion's in heaven, and even non believers will be there.

I know there will be a bunch of questions asked after reading this post, why are you here?, what do you believe?, on and on. Some will have no problem with me being here, not believing. Those would say, it's our chance to bring back a lost soul. Others will find me revolting, akin to satan himself, with the need to remove me like a cancer. I personally think that neither is the case, but what I think does not matter. But what you think (either out loud, or in your head), and what you do will be watched by your god. And you wil be judged based on those actions (weather actions, thoughts, or words).

Now, I don't personally think there's some guy up there actually taking note of what you do or say, but I KNOW that for you, you really do believe that. You (SDA's, christians, religous folks in general) do create your own reality, and the more you believe in something, the more true it becomes for your own reality. It does not make it "reality" for everyone, and it does not make it "fact" for humanity. Your beliefs and fears hold no power over me, I don't ask for eternal life, because I wouldn't want that.

Life for me is a revolving thing, there is no forever. There is NOTHING in nature (the world and space around us) that last's forever. There is nothing that would indicate "forever" is even a plausability. Everything in the world we live in, and know of, has a cycle. Even something as massive and indestructable as a mountain, does not last forever. Science clearly show's the "skin" of our planet is constantly changing, tectonic plates (maybe you've never heard of them, I know I didn't until the latter part of my senior year of HS when I went to public school for the first time and learned of their existance in a freshman earth science class). They are real, verifiable, and testable. But that was not the focus of my primary education. I was not taught how to live in this world. The only prize was eternal life. All focus was placed on that end. No tools for living in this world we inhabit. No life lesson's on how to deal with people. No lessons on what the rest of the world is like, only our church, our school, and our piece of heaven. It's this view that most caused me trouble in seeing god in my life.

I was once a full on total believer. I'd have died for my church. Now, after seeing what SDA's are like, how they treat other people, and even those within it's own walls, I try to stay far from it. I think it's a brain washing cult. I think people are spoon fed information, with no encouragement to think on their own. I have to believe the way Tom Ewall say's, or the way you interpet the bible, or the way a pastor reads his version of the bible. There's no chance for me to find my own way, only the way you tell me how to live and believe.

So why am I here? I'd like to save a life. My life has been saved, from this cult. I should just cut and run, glad that at least I'm still alive. But I know other's are suffering, and for some reason I feel the need to save a life. It's like when someone is in a burning building, I want to go in and bring them out. They can't see because of all the smoke, their oxygen is running out, and they just need a helping hand. I want to be that hand. I've just barely made it out with my life, and yet still I try to help others.

I risk much by being here, it's damaging to my health, and this I know. But I would risk life and limb to help someone get out of this cult. And if someone else can see that they are being controlled, brainwashed, and that it's possible to live a happy, healty life without the church, that's what I want to do. It's not so different than what you belive, it's just at the opposite end of the spectrum. If that's what makes me evil, then so be it, I hope I'm the worst ever. I hope to release all people from the strangle hold of this church.

Most of this will be falling on deaf ears, as people are so wrapped up in their own dogma to see the big picture, but it's worth it to me to try to help. So remove me if you must, but know I'll keep coming back, I won't give up on you. I'm a real person, flesh and blood.

I wish all of you the best in life, I'd never hope for your downfall in any way. I do however, hope that you can find the strength in yourself, not in an etherial idea, to love yourself enough to help youself. Find the courage to see that we are in the here and now, and that old bedtime stories are just that, like santa, the easter bunny, and the tooth fairy.

It's been fun to be here, I'll sign off now. Should any of you ever like help getting out, don't hesitate to let me know, I'd move mountains to release you from this grip.

Hmm, Interesting. Not sure what to think of this, more than that it explains where Ted is comming from.

Wow Ted! You sure played a joke on us.

With such a fair well, I feel that you deserve some type of send off.

How should we respond to an agnostic? I supose that Godspeed or God Bless would be inappropriate? How to say goodbye?

May the force be with you? so long, fair well, Hello Goodbye, sayonara, Let him go boys? adios, Aloha Oe.

Unfortunately, I have a bit of experience with the anti-Adventist mindset. His sentiments sound a lot like my Dad's, with the exception that my Dad has moved on to another religion.

A major point in common is that their view of Adventism is very different from what it should (and must) be, and they are intent on saving people from the "Adventism" they have grown to hate. And we must admit that there are groups that practice forms of "Adventism" that should be hated. But that doesn't mean that such groups are normative, or even common.

It is possible that people like Ted and my Dad know what Adventism really is, and they just don't like it. Not everyone who saw Jesus liked what they saw. So that's not necessarily an indictment of Adventism.

But perhaps people like Ted and my Dad have not seen, and maybe cannot even imagine what Adventism is supposed to be. And whose fault would that be? If they come in contact with us to let us know what they think of us, why is it that they still have no idea of the blessedness that is our privilege to have and share? If we are faithfully lifting up Christ, why are people not drawn to Him? Sadly, that is an indictment of our Adventism.

As Tom often points out, one of man's biggest problems is a misunderstanding of who and what God is. One of Adventism's big problems is that many of its members don't help in clearing up the misunderstanding.

Ted, I appreciate your desire to rescue people you feel are in need of help. It is a worthy goal. But what are you offering? From what you've written above it seems like all you are offering is the absence of adventism. But if I give it all up what is left? Will I be better off? Please explain to me how your offer will improve my life. Thank you.

PS - So we do not derail this thread you can send me a private message or email me directly. Thank you.

I grew up in California during the Hippie Movement - love, peace, joy, dope, and free sex. We often cited Jesus and the Bible to support our beliefs, especially what we believed about free sex. We called it love. I assumed Jesus advocated free sex because He spoke so much about love. It wasn't long, though, before I realized free love always ended in jealousy and fist fights. That's also when it began to dawn on me men and women were made to be monogamous.

So, it is more than semantics for me. Love must be clearly defined. And, from my perspective, love is not a god. There is a fundamental difference between who God is and what love is. Do you see what I mean?


And, what about people who forfeit salvation to serve sin? Isn't it right and natural for them to fear God, to be afraid of what He will do to them in judgment, in the lake of fire? The following passages say as much, don't they?

Hebrews
6:4 For [it is] impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put [him] to an open shame.

Hebrews
10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance [belongeth] unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
10:31 [It is] a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Matthew
18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and [that] he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
18:7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

2 Peter
2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
2:21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known [it], to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
2:22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog [is] turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

It is also possible that Adventism as it is supposed to be is as rare as adventism deserving to be hated.

A problem I am having with what you write Arnold is that what you say in paragraphs 3,4,5 ought really to be said about christendom as a whole. Maybe you are talking about Adventism as part of Christendom and thereby including the whole in your characterisation of the part, but anyone familiar with adventism reads your words with the suspicion that you are really working out of the idea that adventism has replaced the whole of christianity as God's body on earth. And if that is really what you want to say, then your words are unfortunately part of the problem rather than part of the sollution.

I would also be interested in the responce if one is comming.

Thomas, do you agree with the SOP regarding the role of the SDA church as the Remnant Church of Prophecy? In other words, do you believe Jesus has commissioned the SDA church to call His people out of the Babylonian churches (protestantism and catholicism), and to invite them to join the SDA church?

Revelation
12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Revelation
18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

PS - Perhaps we should discuss this in a different thread?

Mike,

At best I am highly sceptical.

Ted Farmer, or should I say Eugene Shubert, I would also be interested in your reply to MM's post here in this thread.

Daryl, sorry, I'm not "Eugene Shubert". I assume that is some person who has perviously visited this site and caused you some trouble? I am not Eugen Shubert I assure you.

The world for some is very black and white. The world for others is very gray. And yet for all people, there is a bit of both. I know it's true of the folks here, because I've read most everything that's been written here, and most have also said as much. Mountain Man seems to think (as I'm pretty sure most here would agree) that if not adventist, then there is only the "absence" of adventism. It's full on pro-SDA or full on anti-SDA.

To me that line of thinking would imply that if you don't espouse the views of this church, that you are thus the complete and polar opposite. It would imply that if you don't worship god, you worship satan. If you don't go to church on Saturday, you go on Sunday (or not at all), or even the church of satan. Well, there's a whole bunch of other possibilites that don't have anything to do with either.

I don't worship satan. I don't slaughter animals on alters (as your past hero's did), and would never advocate such treatment. I would never expect someone or something else to die for anything I've done. I take FULL responsiblity for my actions, and need no other outside force to condone my actions. I don't see there world in adventist v.s. non-adventist. So that's not how I see it, there's SO MUCH MORE to life than that.

Without my belief and the chruch, what is left you ask? The rest of you life I say. The chance to think on your own. The opportunity to be free from someone else's idea of what is right for you, for you own unique and individual life. The chance to believe in yourself, and be proud of the things you've done, not shamed for all the things you've done wrong in someone else's eyes. The chance to no longer live a life driven by fear.

Yes, I think christians live in fear. They fear the loss of eternal life. An idea so unlike anything else, that people would completely overlook simple truths in life just to hope for the idea of living forever. There's is nothing in our univers that even points to the idea of eternal anything. But as a species that is so genetically driven to survive, there's also nothing more powerful for someone to hang in front of you, like a carrot for a donkey. You might not think that's what's happening, but it is, and not just for christians.

Many religions of the middle east lure people to slay themselves and others, for the same thing, eternal life (plus a bunch of virgins, an even better motivator). Yes, it's a fairly common theme in many religions, the idea of living without dying. Dying is the only thing humans have never had any power over. All other fronties we have overcome, new lands, water, underwater, space, computers, power. But life, and the continuation of it after this biological vessel fails us, is what everyone wants more of.

So religion offers you the chance to have more of it, if only you "buy" into their idea's and ideals. I know, you think that's not true as well, but it is. There's NO better business model than a church. You are a tax free business. You produce nothing. You sell idea's, nothing concrete. You have only to ask for "tithe" or "offerings", and yet operate by almost no other business principle. Church's are some of the wealthiest business on this planet. Even this one here. Church's, schools, college's, university's, hospitals, propaganda making machines. And all for good reason, to support it's own mission of survival, just like the rest of life on earth.

And they lure you into all this with the "chance" at eternal life. Who wouldn't want that? All you have to do is believe in "our way of thinking" and your in for sure. As we show you our way of thinking, you will want to obey these rules we present. And if you don't believe, then you will SURELY perish, no question about it, 1000000% chance of your death, but not us, we will live forever. It's funny, but ALL the religions are the same on this. Now, that's not to say that they all don't also have a way around that little caveat, but they won't tell you this. You must buy into their brand of religion (yeah, it's a brand, with a logo, special monogrammed stuff in their own stores, it's a business, don't say it's not) or you are doomed.

So they control you by keeping you scared to death, literally. If you don't choose us, then it's death. So fear is the driving motivator of christianity, as well as most other prominent religions. I don't want to live out of fear, and I would never want to worship anybody/anything that esposes that. I live with free will, and as soon as that's taken, I'll gladly end this life, no worries. There's nothing about eternal life that is enticing to me. I don't think that is free will. If I'm saved (as in the christian way of thinking), and go to heaven to live forever, I no longer have free will. I can't kill my self, I can't stop living, ever! You might say "you wouldn't want to stop living!", but you've never lived for a 100 quadtrillion years, so you don't know how boring it's going to get. And besides, that's just such a silly notion, there's nothing, nothing at all that show's it's eternal, it's just our driving ambition as the most dominent species to ever hit this planet to continue on.

And it's this control over people that I most object to. That is not all I object to, but it's a major player. And when it comes to adventism, I feel much more strongly about certain aspects that harm the psyche of it's members. And it's not so much the biblical view's, as it is the social conditions adventism creates. This idea of perfection. You must strive for it, though it's unachievable for all, or you are an automatic sinner. If you fail in any way to not be the best, the most devoute, more pius than your neighbor, you aren't going to make it to the big party in the sky.

So you have people beating themselves up over the most trivial of subjects. Don't eat pork, or you are sinning, and not taking god into you life if you eat bacon. You take that idea from times of old, for what used to be good reason. When you look at what we as a species knew about food safety even 200 years ago, you we as a species were clueless. The idea to not eat animals was good for a population, as no one got food borne illness and died of simple dehydration (another simple thing we didn't have the faintest idea of). And those simple idea's of how to live, what to do and not due, were rooted in good idea's for the populations. If city's, and countries, and religions, and groups of people wanted to prosper, they did well to do things that benefited them, even if they didnt' know why. They didn't understand that if you just cook you meat (any meat, any muscle tissue at all) to the right temps, you can guarantee there is nothing living in it that will make you sick, which unless you have an IV and someone who know's how to use it, you will die from the loss of fluid out of both ends of your body.

So there are some great lessons to be learned from the bible, as well as the koran, and most every other religion, and study of history that's available to us. But to let such ancient idea's rule and control your life (yes, control, through fear), is not letting yourself live. Live free or die. But few really ever want that, just the few who have been brainwashed enough to lose sight of how great life is.

For me it's the control, the spoon fed info, the rules that have been set up by someone else that I wish to save people from. There's no perfect world, there's no utopia where all are completely free, and are not oppressed in any way, but there's sure way more to offer than living out of fear. I want people to look inside themselves and see how great they are. To do what's right for them, not by someone else. There's nothing wrong with a group of people in for some common cause, but it should never be done by coercion or out of fear for loss of life and loved ones.

Now, as far as how I think you all here might benefit in your own lives, let's look at what exactly goes on here. This site is dedicated to the intense study of a rule book for life. There is intense debate about the most minute of pieces of information, from a book that is thousands of years old. We see in every single thread how different idea's (strong, valid, good debates) come out of the same passages. So many various view's on the same subject, each person sure their own view is the most correct view. Continually surgically cutting apart each and every nuance of passage's that have been handed down over centuries, translated over and over, into different languages, with subtle difference's implied with each re-writing. Possible one of the most dogmatic view's on christianity ever to come along. And that's what adventists think set them apart from the rest, their more devoute rule following (in my ever so humble opinion, if ever I had a humble opinion).

What is not going on here is any type of positive vibes. It's all, it say's this, so you have to believe this way, or you must be a total sinner. Or, you can clearly see how your view is wrong, and if you don't agree with me, then you'll never make it to the pearly gates. People don't say, "hey, guess how awsome god was to me today". People aren't encouraging others, they aren't helping people with the tough times in their personal lives. It's not, sorry to hear your mom got sick, any way I can help. I've never seen anybody offer any pracitcal advice on how to be more happy and healthy.

Sure there's a health message. It's as follows. Don't eat meat. Oh but if you do, make sure it's clean. Don't drink, smoke, dance, and don't do anything on Saturday. Don't use pepper, it makes you masterbate (that one is straight from ellen), don't eat pickles (once again, ellen picking out the great food ideas of the last century), and don't drink coffee. Plus you shouldn't play with poker cards, they are for betting, which is wrong, but rook is ok, since we just count points, not money! You don't find people telling you how to eat better, just what not to eat. You don't find people telling you how to be more healthy, just what not to do.

Next time you are at church, take a mental note of the physical fitness of the average member. Look at their height to weight ratio. What you will find is someone who does not eat meat, or just "clean" meat, who thinks they are better off then the rest because they follow all the rules of what not to do. What you won't find are people who are physically active. You won't see people who use their body to keep them healthy. They all want the easy way out. Just because you don't eat meat or pepper, does not make you any more healthy. And just because you are more ruthless in your abiltiy to control people, does not make you a better person. That's not a physically or mentally healthy way to live, once again, in my ever so humble opinion.

The adventist "culture" is what's making people fear. They keep trying to be better, better then their neighbor, better than other christians, better than the people in front of them at chruch. But they stop looking at their own lives, to see where they could help themselves, always's worried about how much better the next person is.

I want to help someone get out of this system. I made it out, out of 5 days a week of sda school, 24 hours of sabbath, only knowing and keeping up with those who espouse the same views. I want people to be happy to be alive, and enjoy the few precious years we have on this planet. I want to offer positive encouragement, and not shame you or scare you with fear. Maybe if that's what religion was about, more people would join, but then that's no way to control people, so that wouldn't work very well either, would it?

So most will continue to let others tell them how to live, because they don't think they have it in themselves, to make it on their own. And I guess that's ok, you can't save all the people on a sinking ship. I hope you can all someday realize they power you hold within yourself, to realize the potential you have to make a positive differnce, instead of all the negative views on life. Should you ever wish to have a helping hand out of the burning building, just let me know, or most anybody else who's ever made it out of the control cult.

If I had to guess, I would say rarer. It is much easier for us to be bad than to be good.


Perhaps it applies more generally, but I'll let someone else say it about Christendom as a whole, since I am in no position to make such a proclamation. What I said about Adventism was meant to apply only to Adventism.


There are Adventists who are part of God's body on earth, and God's body has parts who are not Adventist. God's body is made up of those who have God as head. Anyone whose head is not God might claim to be part of God's body, but the claim would be false.

However, I am unapologetic about my conviction that there is no better option than true Adventism - the way it's supposed to be. If there was a better option, whether within Christianity or without, I would be there, not here. Regardless of the fact that we are not what we are supposed to be, what we are supposed to be is awesome.

Has Adventism replaced the rest of Christianity? No. But I firmly believe that true Adventism represents what Christianity should be.

"Seventh-day" reminds us of God's Sabbath rest, rest in what God has accomplished for us.

And while Jesus cried, "It is finished" 2000 years ago, "Seventh-day" also teaches us of the need to walk in His footsteps today. His law of love continues to be a hedge about us.

"Adventist" reminds us of the promise of what God will do for His faithful people. No matter how ugly the past has been, or how hard the present is, the future is glorious.

I reject the idea that all Christendom is equally viable. While Adventism has not replaced the rest of Christianity, the rest of Christianity may be able to learn a thing or two from Adventism.


I'm not sure what you think I wanted to say, but I hope this post makes it a bit clearer. However, I am unclear about what you regard as the problem and the solution.

For me, the problem seems pretty clear. Jesus said, "As the Father sent Me, so send I you." Jesus was sent to reveal God's glory in the flesh. That's what we were sent to do.

The problem is that we who claim to know God's glory the best, are much more proficient at debating each other over what that glory means, than displaying that glory to those around us. By beholding, we are changed into the same image we behold. What are we giving our neighbors to behold?

Considering that you felt free to say that adventism is the best christianity has to offer, I do think you would be in a position to speak on the whole of christianity. Your knowledge of the whole must be impressive to be able to say you have found the best. Most adventists would agree that this is the theory. Then many would follow it with "but". And again your statements regarding adventism would of course apply to christianity as a whole. I affirm that both christianity as a whole and adventism would mutually benefit if both learned from the other. Just as other groups could learn from adventism, so adventism has things to learn from them. The problem is that we are much more like the diciples before pentecost than after. We look at other christians and then we run to Jesus complaining that: Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons[preaching, worshiping, defending the defenceless...] in Your name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us.; And then we expect a different answer than Jesus once gave: Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us is for us.

The sollution to this would be the realisation that in the following sentence: 'By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another' "one another" is not limitied to our own group but very much includes all of those whom you previously said are not equally viable. If some of them are weaker, all would know we are Jesus diciples if we carried the other group so that they could reach the goal, without, and this is important, without any ulterior motives of canibalizing the weaker group. A stronger christian group helping a weaker christain group without any self interest would defuse some of what Ted and all others who share his experience have to point at while at the same time fulfilling one of Jesus commandments that many of us commandmentkeeping people risk missing only because it is not spelled out in the decalogue but said by Jesus. And the post just preceding yours show how we have failed to do just that. The experience told in that post, sometimes even with a hint of desperation I think, tell the tale of people more interested with ones own glory than with God's. Jesus said to His diciples, 'you ARE the salt of the earth, you ARE the light of the world, [you are] the city on a hill' which means Jerusalem (to any Jew it would anyway). If any of us who claim to know God's glory the best are not salt and light of our world, is there really any substance to our claim. And I am painfully aware that this question is to myself equally or more than it is to you or anyone else reading. Is there substance or is that claim as empty as the sound of clashing cymbals? Is there substance or have I/we taken the Lords name (in claiming to be His children) in vain?

Thanx for answering my question. How do you interpret and apply the passages I quoted above?

It's true that many are motivated by fear of punishment and hope of reward, but it needn't be that way. Before Enoch received the dream from God (related in the Book of Enoch, and quoted by Jude), Enoch wasn't aware there was an afterlife. He "walked with God" for no motivation other than that's what he wanted to do.

No carrot.

Are Ted Farmer and Dean Hunt one and the same person?

Tom, please consider the following insights (I've taken liberties to reformat these two paragraphs):

SC 21, 22
Oh, let us contemplate the amazing sacrifice that has been made for us! Let us try to appreciate the labor and energy that Heaven is expending to reclaim the lost, and bring them back to the Father's house.

Motives stronger, and agencies more powerful, could never be brought into operation;

1) the exceeding rewards for right-doing,

2) the enjoyment of heaven,

3) the society of the angels,

4) the communion and love of God and His Son,

5) the elevation and extension of all our powers throughout eternal ages,

are these not mighty incentives and encouragements to urge us to give the heart's loving service to our Creator and Redeemer? {SC 21.3}

And, on the other hand,

1) the judgments of God pronounced against sin,

2) the inevitable retribution,

3) the degradation of our character,

4) and the final destruction,

are presented in God's word to warn us against the service of Satan. {SC 21.4}

You may believe so, but I don't. Just because I've rejected every other one I've looked at because they do not offer what I need, doesn't mean that I know a whole lot about them.


But then, we agree that most Adventists are not what they are supposed to be. They are accustomed to "yeah, but" theology.


Very true.


I don't see how your problem/solution is conceptually different from mine. It's the same thing, said differently.

However, there is a caveat. We can love others, even while believing that their paradigm is not viable. Jesus told the Samaritan woman, "You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews." (John 4:22) But that did not mean that He loved her any less. On the contrary, He loved her, and that's why He was about to give her a viable paradigm.

So also with us. Yes, we are to help others. But that does not mean that we are to help them reach a goal that is not viable. Rather, we help them by showing them a better way. And if they happen to have a better way in some aspects, then we learn from them.

Is that cannibalizing each other? No. That's merely dying people helping other dying people get a better look at the serpent on the pole.


Yes. And the question before us is this: Will it cause us to point out someone else's error, or send us to the foot of the cross for our own shortcomings?


Indeed, we take His name in vain if we claim to be His children, but prove that He is not our Father.

But let us not forget that salt does its work when surrounded by that which is not salty; light does its work when surrounded by darkness. In short, we are to be in the world, but not of the world.

We should also keep in mind that to much salt is inedible. We need the right mixture.

Do you obey the laws of the land? If so, then are you truly free and free of fear?

Or, do you disregard the laws of the land? If so, have you ever been caught and imprisoned?


Do you fear death? If not, why not?

If you were imprisoned for breaking the laws of the land, would you kill yourself?

Are you happily married? Do you love your children? Do you enjoy spending quality time with your spouse and children? If so, do you really think spending eternity in heavenly bliss with your loved ones would be boring?


Where on this planet are people living as you believe? Where on this planet can people live according to the dictates of their own conscience? Is it even possible? Wouldn’t it require everyone to believe in and live by the same set of rules and standards? Otherwise, what if my standards of right and wrong conflict with your standards of right and wrong? Who would be right - me or you?


So far, though, all you have offered is the absence of Adventism. You haven’t offered anything better. Just because I attend public schools, just because I work on the Sabbath, just because I refuse to believe the 28 Fundamental Beliefs, just because I do not believe Jesus will reunite me and my deceased loved ones and live eternally in heavenly bliss – how is my life any better?

If you hope to save me from religion or Adventism you're going to have to make your offer more attractive. For example, if you bought a remote tropical island somewhere far away from people who disagree with your standards of right and wrong, and if it was governed in such a way that guarantees me no one will mess up my mojo, then I might be willing to accept your offer.

But, is such a thing even possible? Are humans capable of living peaceably with one another? If so, show me the proof. When and where has it happened? By what standards of right and wrong did they live? Who decided what was right and wrong?

If it hasn't happened yet, why not? Why do you think people have never been able to live peaceably with one another?

I grew up in California during the Hippie Movement - love, peace, joy, dope, and free sex. We often cited Jesus and the Bible to support our beliefs, especially what we believed about free sex. We called it love. I assumed Jesus advocated free sex because He spoke so much about love. It wasn't long, though, before I realized free love always ended in jealousy and fist fights. That's also when it began to dawn on me men and women were made to be monogamous.

So, it is more than semantics for me. Love must be clearly defined. And, from my perspective, love is not a god. There is a fundamental difference between who God is and what love is. Do you see what I mean?


And, what about people who forfeit salvation to serve sin? Isn't it right and natural for them to fear God, to be afraid of what He will do to them in judgment, in the lake of fire? The following passages say as much, don't they?

Hebrews
6:4 For [it is] impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put [him] to an open shame.

Hebrews
10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance [belongeth] unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
10:31 [It is] a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Matthew
18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and [that] he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
18:7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

2 Peter
2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
2:21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known [it], to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
2:22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog [is] turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

True. In fact, too much salt is fatal. We need water.


And what does the salt look like when you put it in the water? Nothing. It disappears.

What if you take a glass of water, then add a lot of salt to it so that there's undissolved salt at the bottom? How do you make the salt disappear? You heat it up. What's the object lesson in that? But that's getting way off the topic.

Especially when love is defined as the world defines it. But in a biblical sense, God and love always go together.


Yes, they should be afraid. But increasing that fear does not make them faithful children of God; it just makes them more rebellious.

The love of Christ constrains. And perfect love casts out fear. That is what will make a sinner want to live with God forever.

Arnold, a heartfelt amen, brother. Thank you.

Just because they were not the answer you were looking for does not mean that they wont bring the right answer to somebody else who go seeking the same answer as you are but with different questions. The main difference is propably in who it includes and who it excludes. In who the "we" are that Jesus is adressing in the quote you gave. Though it is possible once again that you are more inclusive than my posts recognise. This is true, for our relationships with the muslim and with the buddhist and with the pagans and voodoo worshipers. But if you say about a baptist or a methodist or maybe a pentecostal that they worship what they do not know while we worship what we do know, then you are out of line IMO. Between adventist and methodist to take one example, these words of Paul seem a much better fit: For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ." Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I imagen that all christians have the same goal including us, living worthy of our Father and fullfilling our Lord's orders. If this goal is not viable for some christians, I cant see why it would be viable for any, and the opposite is also true of course.Not all adventists would happily let baptists or presbytarians remain in their respective denominations if they could bring them to the adventist church. Christian canibalism. I guess that depends on if we are still talking in plural or if we have moved on to talking on an individual level. True.

Let me start out by saying I respect each and every one of you, as fellow people. I respect and honor your right to free choice, and would never want anything other than that for all life. I'm here on a personal journey, this is a time of healing for me. I openly admit this is all about me, and what it's doing for me. Like with volunteering, you are helping others, but it's the selfish reason that really drives you, you wouldn't do it if it was not that way.

I want to take another look at my personal view of the SDA social structure and business model, from my own personal and unique viewpoints (yes, we all have those, it's great isn't it?) I'm not an anthropologist, but I play one on TV, just kidding. But I do want to point out a few things, just on an observational level. Take it for what it is, an unasked for outside view of what the SDA church is, and how I PERSONALLY find, for me, that it is unhealty. Now, should you read this, and think it's all malarky for your own unique viewpoints, just write it off altogether.

Christianity, as a belief system and a business model, offer the following(not excusively, nor exactly the same in all viewpoints, just mine):

-Eternal life, that's an offer that no one else can top. It's the only thing unattainable by humanity, it's the best carrot you can find.

-Eternal damnation, that's an offer that no one else can top. It's the best stick you can find.

-It's the best belief system around (With adventism this is especially true, that's exactly why Asyago like's it, he said so. It's the "most" "best" there is, but only because the system say's it's the best. It's not measureable, it's just a subjective opinion, like many thiings in life).

-There is nothing to produce, no resources needed (other than people), and there's is no outgoing payments.

-There is the "claim" of payment, eternal life, but you only get that AFTER you die! (once again, as a business model, that is BRILLIANT! Unbeatable, you never have to payout, just take in).

-Don't kill yourself getting to the prize. With this latest and greatest version of christianity (SDA), you will actually get the prize before death, in 1844! Opps, didn't happen, but it will, any day now, I swear! And even if you don't get to heaven before you die, you know you are totally gonna make it there after you die, you know cause the church you pay tithe to said so, the promise is in it's doctrines.

The previous are some of my own personal views on the subject. That does not make it right for anybody else. My way is not the only way, or even the best way. I would never want someone to follow my footsteps exactly, that would never be right for that person. We are too unique (in finger prints, dna, or the life that we each lead) for all things to be the same for everyone.

I'll now try to answer a few of the many questions ask by MM. I once again want to make clear that my answers are my own view points, your results may vary. And that's great, the way I think it should be, to me that is what's natural. It's how the system works, nothing exactly the same, and nothing lasts forever (at least not in our human ability to conceptualize things beyond our capabilities).

Freedom and Fear: Am I free? Sure, to the extent that I make most of my own choices. For any type of society to exist, there must be some rules in place, and most people must follow them. There is no utopia, no perfect place, no hippie village where everyone can have every single freedom offered to them. Because then you could kill people, and that ends the other person's free will and that ends the game. So I'm not advocating any "perfect" society. But on a personal scale, I do believe that you should make your choice's by your own free choice, not under pressure from anyone else. You certainly may choose to have counsel, and I personally advocate having input from others when making choices, but not when that limits your choices. And I feel that is what happens when the christian belief system is your counsel, your results may vary.

I fear many things. So does everyone here. Fear is one of the things that keeps us safe and alive. I do not fear death, it's natural. It's never NOT happened. There is not a single person on earth that has ever escaped it, not even your own jesus. I do not think it's healthy for me to fear the lack of living forever. I just don't see anything about life that would point in that direction (eternal life), your results may vary. So I don't rush forward to death, and I don't think there's life that can go one forever. You must have death to have life, rinse and repeat, that's my personal view.

What I have personally found works better for my own life (taking into account, physical, mental, and spiritual health) is to not lean onto a belief system based on someone else's life, but that of my own life. I find for me, standing on my own two feet is best. Not asking for etherial help, but doing the work myself. I think most people feel better about themselves when they do the work, and not ask someone else to do it for them. I don't think Mountain Man would climb mountains if that was not the case. You know how empowering it is to make it to the TOP, ALL BY YOURSELF! You wouldn't risk life and limb, and the chance of never seeing your beloved family again, if that were not true. You are drawn to it because it's a place you can prove to yourself, that you did it by yourself. Did jesus carry your pack to the top? Did jesus self arrest your fall? No, you did, it was all you. And that belief in yourself is what makes you such a powerful person. Even climbers who use porter's and oxygen tanks wish they could do it all on their own. Most strive all their lives to use a "better" style; solo, unaided, up the most difficult route, during the worst season, for the maximum reward.

To me, that's how I see it. When I was in the church, I wasn't doing the work. I did something wrong, I asked god to forgive me. I didn't ask myself to stop beating myself up over the mistake, I asked someone else to do it. And that didn't fix anything for me. I'm now fixing my life by coming back to the place I had a problem, and taking care of it myself. I have been very hurt by the adventist movemet, obviously, otherwise I wouldn't be here. But that's just it, I'm here, trying to be better. I didn't just kneel down by my bed and hope someone else would make me feel better. I went the tough road instead. I made the hard choice to help myself, for myself. And odds are this whole thing is only helping me, but that's the way of it. You have to look out for yourself (yes, look out for number 1, but also help others when you can, like others have done for you in the past, it's natural).

I don't think there is some magical island where you can achieve total happiness. It's not a material thing. It's the mental health part of it. I don't think it's someplace (not utopia, not an island, not heavenn or hell), and it's not the "stuff" (not the day of the week, not public school, it's not about jewelry or food choices), it's about making the right healthy choices for me, on a daily basis. Like do I choose to be happy today? Do I choose to try to work on me today? Will I try to be a better person, both to myself, and those around me? Will I help others in need?

I guess I'm really just learning and putting to practice another life lesson for myself. I'm here, to help myself get over the feelings I have about my own time spent within the walls of the adventist regimen. I'm sorry if I've hurt anybody along the way, I meant no harm. I'm working on me, trying to be a better me, and maybe helping along the way. I have no right to tell you that your belief system is wrong for you. We are all unique and individual, and we have the ability and right to choose what's best for our own lives. I think that as a child growing up in the adventist schools, church's, and family's, I failed to see that. I was an excitable child, with a vivid imagination, asking countless questions that no one had answer's to. I am now finding answer's to those questions (some will never be answered, and that's ok), and I am now helping myself to see those people meant no harm.

I wan not abused by the church. I was not beaten, I was not molested, I was not "forced" to take on their beliefs. But when you are a child, you rely soley on those around you, those older and wiser than you, to help shape and mold your reality. And I think my own reality was far different than those around me. And I feel that with such an "authoritarian" type of view on life, and most things coming down to a child as "you can't do this, or you can't do that", it broke my spirit. And I'm just now getting over that, almost 20 years later. I did not feel that when I was part of the church, that I could make my own decisions, because every single choice I made was completely wrong by the standards of the church, and thus I was damned for ever. The system did not take into account my own unique individualness. I feel I was steam rolled by the big machine, to conform and pay my tithe, and beg for forgiveness, like the rest of the sinners.

Well, I have come to the current conclusion that this is not a healthy life style choice for me. I find it's most healthy to stand on my own two feet, to take the wheel myself, and lead my life where I so choose. I do truely understand that's not the right choice for everyone. For some, it may be best to have someone else be the pilot, and let them lead. But that's not what is right for me, in my humble opinion. And that's what I base my life and choices on.

I don't think there will ever be any total peace. There's nothing in nature or the worlds around us that would lead me to think that could be the case. Nothing is "peaceful", not animals or plants(they kill each other, and cause harm by taking over another species space for resources), nor the planets around us. There is explosive violence all around us, from atoms bumping into each other, making new and wonderful things, to volcano's, astroids, and solar flares.

To me, life must not be static, total peace to me means the end of life. Heaven is not possible to my reality, because it's incongruent with life, it's static, forever, like nothing else we can conceive. That does not make it impossible, I think that anything, anything at all is possible, but for MY reality, it's not probable. And those are choices we all have to make on our own. This really has been all about me, I see it more and more.

Yes, I've been here (on this site for some time) as many different people. I'm not the eugene person Daryl speaks of, but just a regular joe, who's working on himself, to be a happier, healthier person. I say again, if I've harmed even a single person here, I'm sorry. I do sincerely wish each and every one of you the best that life has to offer. I do not have the answers to life, not for myself, and most certainly not for others. I am on a personal journey, life, and it's a great time. Every day is an opportunity to see and do the most wonderful things, to interact with others, and hopefully make a positive difference in someone else's life. That is also what I'm here for. I say it's just like being a volunteer, you outwardly do it for others, but it's really about your own needs. And that's ok, that's life, enjoy!!!!!

So with that I'll sign off. The people on this site, and within the adventist and christian community, as well as all life, are wonderful and amazing creatures. I don't think that anybody has all the answers to life and all it's complexeties, and we never will. I hope that each and every one of you find true happiness in your life, whereever, or however you may choose to find that. Thanks for the lending of you ear (as it were), and the time you have spent helping me. I do feel better, and that's always what I'm looking for, ways to feel even better, and make life even more cool.

Take care, good luck, and thanks.

I got to say Ted, the christianity you described above deserves to be deserted. I agree with what you say about making choises by ones own free will. I don't know what kind of input you are refering to that would limit your choises. Do you see input from a christian belief system as comparable to input recieved from a trafic police telling you to either slow down or loose your license? I assume that when you ask friends that you trust for advice that you consider the advice seriously and maybe more often than not follow it. Forgeting about christianity for a while and assuming that God exists, would your view of God be more like the trafic officer or the trusted friend? Maybe the answer here is the root issue. But you did say you did not believe God existed at all, right? You'r right about that. Travelling, if not uncharted, so at least after own plans and means is better than being bussed around by a sheepherd. This can apply to every field that humans strive to excel in. I hear there are problems that face humans where it is almost impossible for any person to help themselves, even though their will and whatever effort that can be mustered are necessary for success. 12 step groups for different kinds of addictions don't exist for their own sake. Alone is not always strong.May your journey bring you to places and to people and through experiences where and through whom you will find what you seek.

Perhaps. Each person is unique, and needs a unique approach. Sometimes, the final answer is not always the needed answer. But in the end, the goal must be the same: Christ in you, the hope of glory.


It's probably more likely that I am more exclusive than many would be comfortable with. The "in" group is the one composed of those whose head is God. That's the criterion, regardless of what these people may be called.


Again, I do not really put much stock in labels such as Muslim, Buddhist, Baptist, or Methodist. The determining factor is the head.


Not everyone who calls himself a Christian has the goal you mention. I know of a group who goes to church on the 1st day of the week because God said to keep the 7th day holy.


If all Adventists and Baptists and Presbyterians believed and practiced as God would have them, would the difference in name be significant? I don't think so.

Therefore, everyone can keep the name they want, as long as God is our head.


I don't need to move to the individual level, because that's where I've been all along. Though Christian groups can get pretty big, Christianity happens one person at a time.

And when each person gets his act together, the group will take care of itself.

Sorry, Ted, I'm not buying any of it. From reading your last couple of post, I find you to be very manipulative to say the least.''

I also find conflicting statements, here are a few.

verses



Perhaps you are me, myself, and I, alias "The Cult Busters"? Who you "guna' call"?

I have to agree with you that you don't like to follow the rules.

TV: Christian cannibalism.

MM: Thomas, doesn't the truth matter? Should we be content to let our fellow brothers and sisters wander in darkness worshiping Jesus ignorantly? Does it matter if they are unwittingly breaking the law of God, unwittingly missing out on the blessings of keeping the Sabbath with Jesus?

Jesus said, When this Gospel, not another gospel, is preached to everyone everywhere then the end will come. Until then we are forced to remain in this sin sick world full of war and violence and disease and death. The truth as it is in Jesus is the ticket out of here, the ticket to heaven.

Can we say the Methodists and the Baptists and the Pentecostals have the truth while they are ignorantly breaking the law of God, while they are ignorantly communicating with the spirits of darkness thinking they are fellowshipping with their deceased loved ones?

Who is going to tell them truth if you and I don't? Again, until then we are force to live in hell, this old world full of sin and death. Should we be content with that?

Ted, your tale is a tragic one, terribly tragic. Your story makes me sad, incredibly sad. I feel so bad for you. You seem so lonely, so lost. Your insatiable desire to stand alone, to make your own choices, to determine your own destiny, to look out for number one - sounds so lonely.

I appreciate your attempt to help me, to set me free the bondage of being in fellowship with Jesus and from the rules and standards of the Christian faith and religion. I thank you for offering me a different path, a different journey, a different way to do this thing we call life and living. But at this point I must decline your offer. Let me explain why.

My story is pretty much the exact opposite of yours. I was born to parents who believed much the same way you have expressed here. They wanted to be free. They didn't want anybody telling them what they could and could not do. Number one came first. They were Woodstock nonconformists. The rules and standards of society didn't apply to them. They rebelled against their parents and against anyone and anything they didn't agree with.

They brought three of us into the world. Which, unfortunately for them, turned their world up side down. It totally ruined what they were trying to achieve for themselves. The common realities and responsibilities of life interfered with their personal goals and desires. They couldn't be who they wanted to be. They couldn't do what they wanted to do. Life became a burden. So, they rebelled.

This time they rebelled against us. One day dad disappeared. Just like that he was gone. He left us and he left mom, his wife. He felt compelled to do his own thing, to look out for number one. He was absent for ten years. No one knew where he was or what he was doing. He was on the governments missing people list. Turns out he ran away to Mexico to sing and paint. He lived on the beach, lived off the land, without a care in the world.

Mom, in the meantime, was struggling with her own desires to be free, to pursue her own desires and destiny. To her credit, she tried to raise us, to provide for our needs. She went on welfare. But the call of the wild, the calling to be free was weighing on her heart. One day we came in from playing outside and found her in a pool blood, her wrists slit wide open. Be free or die, that was her motto.

The police and social services intervened. But mom insisted she could take care of us. Within a few weeks, though, she gave up and asked her parents to take us. They refused. But somehow she managed to put us on a plane. While we were en route she called her parents and told them when we would be at the airport and hung up the phone. We never saw mom again as children. She was free at last. She was taking care of number one.

We were four, five, and six years old when our parents abandoned us. Three little boys, and nobody wanted us. Our grand parents reluctantly picked us up at the airport. In time though they too abandoned us. One relative after another took us in for awhile. We were bounced around like so much dirty laundry. Finally, we were shipped off to far away Boystown, Nebraska. They immediately separated us, and we never saw each other again as children.

I felt like a number, and that number was definitely not number one. The employees came and went like factory workers. Nobody cared about me. I was a job, a paycheck, and that was it. I began to misbehave, to act out my frustrations, and Boystown promptly kicked me out. But that's when things finally turned around for me, things began to improve. An obscure relative, my dad's sister and her husband and family, took me in.

At first they seemed weird. They were nice, and enjoyed spending time with me. They valued my thoughts and feelings and opinions. And they had an invisible friend named Jesus. They talked about Him and to Him all the time. It seemed to make them happy. Right away I associated their good treatment of me with their love and devotion for Jesus. There were others like them. They met regularly twice a week to sing and talk about their friend Jesus. I liked it. Being friends with Jesus made them like me, even love me.

I reveled in their love for me and their love for Jesus. Yes, they had rules, and they expected me to follow them. They even punished me one time for not obeying the rules. It was the first time anyone cared enough about me to insist I do what they felt was best for me and my happiness. And I loved it. My first and only spanking made me love them and the rules. It meant they cared about me, that they loved me.

They sent me to church school and academy. And I loved it. The teachers showed an interest in me. They encouraged me to do well in school, and penalized me when I slacked off. They were quick to praise me when I excelled and quick to remind me succeeding in life meant following the rules and doing my best. All these things motivated me to obey, to follow the rules, to do my best. I felt loved and appreciated, not simply because I was complying with their expectations, but because they truly loved me and wanted what was best for me.

By the time I was 22 years old I accepted Jesus as my personal Savior. I have been friends with Him ever since. I have never been happier. Knowing He loves me dearly makes all the difference in the world. Knowing He will return someday to end all human suffering and restore paradise is comforting. Spending time with Him and my family and friends on the Sabbath is awesome. Sharing part of my income to help pastors and missionaries demonstrate the love of Jesus is a privilege.

Will I die in the lake of fire at the end if I refuse to comply with the conditions of salvation? The thought never even enters my mind. I love Jesus. Obeying His rules is freedom at its best. It is the truth as it is in Jesus that set me free in the first place, and is what continues to keep me free now. No one is forcing me to live my life contrary to how I would rather live it. I am doing exactly what I want to do. I am living my life precisely the way I want to live it. I wouldn't exchange it for anything else in the world. It is utopia. It is peace that defies worldly reason.

Am I deceived? Am I afraid to disobey Jesus? Am I in bondage to His rules? Am I willing to go along with them because I am selfishly motivated to inherit eternal life in heaven? Well now, that's not for anybody else to decide, is it? Who can judge me? Who can sit there and say my reasons for being friends with Jesus, for following his rules are selfish and self-serving?

I'm not saying that's what you're doing, Ted. Please hear me. I'm simply saying it is my choice if I want to be friends with Jesus, if I want to follow His rules. It doesn't mean I'm weak-willed and incapable of original thoughts and feelings, that I'm a follower and not a leader. Not at all. Everyone alive must decide how they are going to do life. Nevertheless, there is nothing new under the sun. Neither you nor I can invent original rules and standards to live by. No matter what we do we are duplicating what someone else has already done.

A smart person will examine the fruits of this and that lifestyle and decide which one they like best. I know what my parents chose, and I am not endeared by their lifestyle choices. I know what my aunt and uncle chose, and I have made a choice to follow their example. I have also studied the life of Jesus, and I am totally convinced He made the right choices. The results of the lifestyle He chose speak favorably of Christianity. And, I like the results in my own life. Imitating the example of Jesus, being His friend, meets my every want and need. I am the happiest I have ever been. I am free. And I love it.

That's my story, Ted.

Thank you for sharing you story Mountain Man.

Ah, so it all really comes down to sabbath or no sabbath? One could be excused for believing that adventists worship the sabbath rather than its Lord... And what, may I ask, is the gospel? Is the gospel
'He's making a list
He's checking it twice
He's gonna find out
Who's naughty or nice'
Or is the gospel the proclamation that the exile of Gods people is all but over, that the King has been crowned, that the bridegroom is coming, that the Jubilee year is before us? If you are refering to spiritism, I agree that would be suspect, but you better show that the average member of either group is dabbling in it for your reference to be relevant. As to ignorantly breaking the law of God, maybe you noticed what I wrote in post 97580 to Arnold? I guess you did considering that it is the post where I mentioned christian canibalism. I wrote that we risk breaking Jesus command to us that we must love one another simply because it is not spelled out in the ten words. And regarding some of us (sda) as better than others of us (baptist, methodist et al) is a first huge step towards disregarding this command. Simply because you cannot love someone you disrespect.They wont care what you have to tell them until they can tell you that you are their brother. To be heard is not a right, it is a privilege. And privileges must be earned. And earning it you do by being their brother. To be their brother you must regard them your equals. In other words, there are no them, only us. Not even Jesus could be our brother before He became a man.

Very nice point.



Dare we go yet further, the "second mile," and even esteem them as "better than ourselves."?

But let us remember that it is not incongruous with respecting someone, and even esteeming him better than ourselves, to tell him when he is wrong. In fact, it is hypocrisy to do otherwise. If you really love your brother, you would help him to have all the light that you are privileged to have.

Now, if you're not quite sure if what you have is light or darkness, it's understandable why you wouldn't want to tell others about it. But if you know you have light, and one you respect and love is walking in darkness, tell him that his zipper is open.

Arnold,

That is not the way of SDA and you know it. SDA will run the second mile to tell others they are wrong but are nowhere to be seen when this someone else throws a party. No wonder the suspicion comes up that SDA is not regarding them equals, much less as better than ourselves.

And then we should not even mention letting the other one move in with us if he is evicted or grows out of his old place. Such a suggestion will really start a riot among SDA and the stiff resistance to it does nothing to suggest brotherhood with the other.

TV: They wont care what you have to tell them until they can tell you that you are their brother. To be heard is not a right, it is a privilege. And privileges must be earned. And earning it you do by being their brother. To be their brother you must regard them your equals. In other words, there are no them, only us. Not even Jesus could be our brother before He became a man.

MM: Once you win their love and affection and trust and respect and confidence - then what? Do you tell them they are unwittingly missing the mark, ignorantly breaking the law of God, wrongly believing our loved ones are alive and well in heaven? Or, do any of these truths matter? Can Jesus return while people are still ignorant of these truths?

TV: That is not the way of SDA and you know it. SDA will run the second mile to tell others they are wrong but are nowhere to be seen when this someone else throws a party. No wonder the suspicion comes up that SDA is not regarding them equals, much less as better than ourselves.

MM: This testimony sounds a lot like Ted Farmer.

Once you are good friends, I am sure you will end up discussing your different beliefs, whereupon you can tell what you believe as it naturally falls in place during your discussion.

Sure, but ask yourself, when did you last see adventists in your local area partake on mutual terms with the other denominations activities?

What is the truth? Are you right and they're wrong and do they need to change and convert to your ways? Does the truth matter? Or, is it okay for them to go on believing a lie about Sabbath keeping and where their deceased loved ones are?

In my neck of the woods we do it quite regularly. Every Friday we meet with area Christians to sing and praise God. We call it Common Ground. Every Easter we participate in what we call Holy Week. People from different churches take turns sharing a morning message at different churches throughout the week.

And several times during the year, around the major holidays, our church school, which is composed of kids from several different local churches, put on a program. We fill up the church with families from all over the city and county.

In addition to the community church school, we also run a Thrift Store, Food Bank, Dorcas Center, Nursing Home, Assisted Living Community, Pathfinders, Ski Club, Climbing Club, Rafting Club, and Teen Challenge.

Our church family is very active in the community. We are well known as the church that cares about people. Over the last 10 years, though, only two families have joined our church. We have not made proselytizing our goal, which may very well be the reason why we are so well accepted by the other churches in the community.

Jesus is the full revelation of the Truth about God. Am I right and they wrong about what, more exactly? The truth does matter. If they are to convert to the religion of sabbath-keeping and soul-sleep, then it is very important what they believe about these two issues. But if they are to believe in Jesus, then following the lead of the Spirit will be quite right, moving when and where He leads.

I wish your situation would be mine aswell.

TV: Jesus is the full revelation of the Truth about God. Am I right and they wrong about what, more exactly?

MM: Are they right or wrong where their views disagree with the 28 fundamental beliefs of the SDA Church.

TV: The truth does matter. If they are to convert to the religion of sabbath-keeping and soul-sleep, then it is very important what they believe about these two issues.

MM: Are Sabbath-keeping and soul-sleep truth?

TV: But if they are to believe in Jesus, then following the lead of the Spirit will be quite right, moving when and where He leads.

MM: True. But going back to what we were talking about before - Once you win their love and affection and trust and respect and confidence - then what? Do you tell them they are unwittingly missing the mark, ignorantly breaking the law of God, wrongly believing our loved ones are alive and well in heaven? Do either one of these two truths matter? Can Jesus return while people are still ignorant of these two truths?

Not all of the 28 are equal IMO. Truth but not THE foundational most important truth. Why could He not? Almost noone understood what He was about the first time around.

Thomas, it sounds like you're not concerned about whether or not people accept the truth regarding imitating Jesus' example in keeping the Sabbath and believing in soul-sleep.

If it doesn't matter if people break the Sabbath or don't believe in soul-sleep, like Jesus did, what is Jesus waiting for? Why hasn't He returned yet? To break one commandment is to break them all, so why wait? So long as everyone chooses for or against believing Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, it shouldn't matter if they keep or break this or that commandment, right? If not sinning is not important, why wait?

Thomas, the following insights lead me to believe it is important for people to understand the truth about Sabbath-keeping and soul-sleep:

LDE 157
The saints must get a thorough understanding of present truth, which they will be obliged to maintain from the Scriptures. They must understand the state of the dead, for the spirits of devils will yet appear to them, professing to be beloved friends and relatives, who will declare to them that the Sabbath has been changed, also other unscriptural doctrines.--EW 87 (1854). {LDE 156.3}

The apostles, as personated by these lying spirits, are made to contradict what they wrote at the dictation of the Holy Spirit when on earth. They deny the divine origin of the Bible.--GC 557 (1911). {LDE 157.1}

Through the two great errors, the immortality of the soul and Sunday sacredness, Satan will bring the people under his deceptions. While the former lays the foundation of spiritualism, the latter creates a bond of sympathy with Rome.--GC 588 (1911). {LDE 157.2}

Persons will arise pretending to be Christ Himself, and claiming the title and worship which belong to the world's Redeemer. They will perform wonderful miracles of healing, and will profess to have revelations from heaven contradicting the testimony of the Scriptures. . . . {LDE 157.3}

But the people of God will not be misled. The teachings of this false christ are not in accordance with the Scriptures. His blessing is pronounced upon the worshipers of the beast and his image, the very class upon whom the Bible declares that God's unmingled wrath shall be poured out.--GC 624, 625 (1911). {LDE 157.4}

As I cannot make anyone accpet or reject sabbath or soul-sleep, being over the edge concerned with it seems like a waste of time to me. Bring the person to Jesus and He will teach them all that they need to know. I have not been called to gather diciples of my own, merely to introduce others to the Lord. He will call them as His own diciples in due time. The Lord is Jesus and not any right belief about any subject, including sabbath or souls. So why does Jesus wait? Peter was of the opinion that Jesus waits until such a time when no more people will choose Life. Obviously there are still people who are willing to choose God if they are introduced to Him.

I have two comments to the above. One is, knowing the true voice of the sheepherd is a better defence against imposters than any amount of secondary knowledge. Two is something Ellen wrote:

Christ crucified for our sins, Christ risen from the dead, Christ ascended on high, is the science of salvation that we are to learn and to teach. {8T 287.2}

Does the Gospel Commission apply to you personally? "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you."

Matthew
28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen.

TV: One is, knowing the true voice of the sheepherd is a better defence against imposters than any amount of secondary knowledge.

MM: How do you discern between voices? If a voice or spirit tells you to keep the Sunday instead of the Sabbath day, how do you know if it is telling you the truth? If a voice or spirit tells you to turn in Sabbath-keepers to the authorities, during the upcoming Sunday-Sabbath crisis, how do you know if it is the right thing to do?

Abraham, knowing the voice of God bound his son Isaac on a stone altar in obedience and through this he was confirmed as righteous.

And what has Christ commanded us to observe?

TV: And what has Christ commanded us to observe?

MM: "All things." No doubt this includes the law and the prophets. "To the law and to the testimony." What else do you think it includes?

But how do you (not Abraham) discern between voices? Would you turn in or kill Sabbath-keepers if a voice told you so?

If a voice or spirit tells you to keep the Sunday instead of the Sabbath day, how do you know if it is telling you the truth?

If a voice or spirit tells you to turn in Sabbath-keepers to the authorities, during the upcoming Sunday-Sabbath crisis, how do you know if it is the right thing to do?

As Jesus told the pious pharisees, while titheing seeds of mint, dill and cummin are included, the weightier matters are justice for the defenceless and lowly, mercy to the sinner and faithfullness to all.

In the end it wont help me an inch closer to Life to know all the truths about sabbath and soulsleap or any other truth and preach these things loud from every street corner and in every gathering where people are found if I do not recognise the voice of the Sheepherd. I could preach these in every tounge under the heavens and prophecy them to all who would hear me, I could give all my belongings and even my life for the success of this knowledge but if I do not know the voice of the Sheepherd it will not avail me at all.

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

Thomas, I guess it is wishful thinking to expect you to answer my questions directly. You have already made it clear you do not think Sabbath-keeping and knowing the truth about soul-sleep is necessary to be translated alive when Jesus returns. From this I can conclude neither of these two truths are, from your perspective, included in the Gospel Commission - "Teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." Which is fine. That's all I was trying to find out - what you believe about it. Now I know. Thank you for sharing your point of view.

I think you are asking the wrong questions, questions which appear founded in the false idea that my or yours salvation is somehow built on what I or you do or believe about it. That complete knowledge is somehow part of complete salvation. Instead, salvation is based upon what Jesus has done for each of us and all any could do in responce is to accept it. Try any other reply and you are doing to much. What is important for translation wether in ressurection or otherwise is knowing Jesus Christ. Sabbathkeeping will not save you, knowing Jesus will. Right knowledge about the human soul will not save you, knowing Jesus will. Right knowledge about translation will not save you, knowing Jesus will. It is possible that knowing Jesus will in turn bring with it these three other issues, but none of them are in the slightest way primary. This kind of scrutiny on sabbath or soulsleap is like so intensely studying one pair of pine needles that one entierly misses the mighty 150 feet pine tree they grow on. Or like studying one tree on the forest edge so intently that one is compleately oblivious to the fact that the tree belonged to a forest.

Again, Thomas, thank you for confirming what you believe about the relationship between knowing Jesus and doctrine and obedience. Jesus said, "The truth shall make you free... If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death." Words to live by.

John
8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, [then] are ye my disciples indeed;
8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
8:33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?
8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
8:35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: [but] the Son abideth ever.
8:36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
8:51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.

While focusing on the needles might lead one to miss the tree, knowing the tree in all its beauty will also inform one of the needles. In the same way, while focusing on doctrines might lead one to miss Jesus, knowing Jesus in all His beauty will also inform one regarding His doctrines.

It is true that salvation is firmly founded on what Jesus has done for us. However, accepting His work is not the only acceptable response.


Yes, Jesus did much for us, because He loves us. Now, we are elected to do much for Him, because we love Him. But we work, not for what we will get, but for what we already got. We love Him because He first loved us.

Nice find.

Here's a similar one, with a couple of details added:

I agree with this, but wonder if this is understood to mean simply that Jesus kept the law or died on the cross, as opposed to understand that Jesus Christ revealed God to us, which is what we so dearly needed.



John expresses the same thought succinctly:

Exactly.

The obedience of a diciple would apply to those who have first been introduced to and called by the Master?

True obedience can only be rendered by one who fully loves God, for that is the first and greatest commandment.

This works in both directions. That is, knowing the doctrines helps us to know "Jesus in all His beauty", which I would take to be synonymous with "God's character." (quite a nice equivalence; "Jesus in all His beauty" is quite beautiful).

For example, the doctrine of the state of the dead tells us certain things about God. We know God will not torture those who disobey Him for all eternity. That's a stumbling block for many.

The message which God has to prepare the world for the coming of Christ is a message of His character. The doctrines help us to understand His character, and, as pointed out, His character (aka "Jesus in all His beauty") gives meaning to the doctrine.

The pharisees are examples on the fact that full knowledge of the doctrines in no way guarantees even the slightest knowledge about Jesus.

I don't think so. They didn't have a full knowledge of their doctrines. Not even close. They only thought they did.

Jesus told them, "You make vain the commandments of God by your traditions" (I can't remember the exact quote). If they had understood the commandments, they wouldn't have substituted manmade traditions for them.

If they had understood the sanctuary doctrine, they would have understood Christ's mission.

I think they had full knowledge of the doctrines, but I admit to you that they lacked full understanding of them. As to manmade traditions, they were just a few generations ahead of us regarding that. Keep the sabbath holy the doctrine says. They asked, how do we do that? By not walking in our own buisness. Hence a choise to limmit ones walking in one generation became a custom in the second and a tradition in the third until it was all but codified in the fourth generation. We asked, how do we keep the sabbath holy? By not washing ourselves on sabbath hours. Washing was done by full immersion of the body, as is swimming. Thus no swimming since it is almost washing and therefore unlawfull, said the first generation. The second generation made it custom and the third generation made it tradition. Im sure there are fourth generations around who are busy codifying right as we speak and had it not been for the loss of ground by our fundamentalist factions we would read about it in the 28th by now...

Knowledge without understanding is counterproductive. It's "unknowledge."

I fully agree. Doctrinal truths, when understood, helps us understand Him who is the Truth.

I'm going with Tom on this one. We cannot have real knowledge of doctrine without understanding.

A: We cannot have real knowledge of doctrine without understanding.

MM: Amen! The Proverbs agree, too.

Proverbs
2:6 For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth [cometh] knowledge and understanding.

Proverbs
9:10 The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy [is] understanding.