Conference yukon::christian_v7

Any religious sect that places higher authority on another source other than the
Bible is considered to be a cult.  Mrs. White wrote 66 books/volumes, same
number as the Holy Bible.  She claimed her writings were on the same level as
the divinely inspired Holy Bible.  She also claimed her writings would help
Bible readers understand its truths better.

In Volume 4 of her "Testimonies to the Church", she said, "My work bears the
stamp of God or the stamp of the enemy.  There's no halfway work in the matter."
This is where she willingly set herself up to fail the tests of a prophet
according to Deuteronomy 13 and 18.  The Bible clearly warns against adding to
its words as well.

One of the interesting things she has taught that the SDA church has tried to
suppress for years is in mss DF97-C.  Here she teaches anyone born after 1900 is
of the Devil.  She says she has special light in regard to these things and
"the time is and has been for years, that the bringing of children into this
world is more an occasion of grief than joy.  Satan controls these children
and the Lord has little to do with them."  This places her grandson Arthur
White in a difficult position.  The Word of God says that children are a gift
from the Lord and happy is the man who has a quiver full of them.

The writings of Ellen G. White, like Joseph Smith, are locked in a vault and
only certain SDA officials are allowed to review the original mss.  That alone
should cause some concern.  However, if you write the White estate, you can
request DF97-C.

In volume 7A, page 907, she says, "Men need to understand that deity suffered
and sank under the agonies of Calvary."  In the same volume, page 1129, she
says, "Deity did *not* sink under the agonizing torture of Calvary."
Scripturally speaking, God did not sink on Calvary, despite her contradicting
herself.

In her 1847 edition of "Early Writings", she had a vision which she said was
from God, where she went up to heaven and saw Abraham, Issac, and Jacob there.
This contradicts the SDA stance on "soul sleep", where the dead do not go to
heaven and also II Corinthians 5, Philippians 1.  In later editions of "Early
Writings", these quotes were edited out to support the SDA stance on "soul
sleep."

She also taught for 5-6 years after 1844 that nobody could be saved except for
those that believed Jesus was going to return October 22, 1844, which she got
from a vision.  She said the door of salvation was shut.  When the date passed,
she said she never taught that.

Mrs. White also contradicts science, which a true prophet would not.  She wrote
twice as much that disagrees with science than that which supports science.
Based on her "inspiration," taught this about wigs in volume 6 (1871), "...the
artificial hair and pads covering the base of the brain, heat and excite the
spinal nerves centering in the brain.  The head should ever be kept cool.  The
heat caused by these artificials reduces the blood to the brain.  The action of
the blood upon the lower or animal organs of the brain, causes unnatural
activity and tends to recklessness, immorals, and the mind and heart are in
danger of being corrupted. Many have lost their reason and become hopelessly
insane by following this deforming fashion.  Yet the slaves to fashion will
continue to thus dress their heads and suffer horrible disease and premature
death rather than be out of fashion."

Ellen White taught that the planet Saturn was inhabited.  In the book "The Great
Second Advent Movement" (by J.N. Leftborough one of the SDA pioneers), page
260, quotes Ellen White, "This was her first view of the planet Terreworld(sp?):
After counting aloud the moons of Jupiter, and soon after those of Saturn, she
gave a beautiful description of the rings of the ladder.  She then said, 'The
inhabitants are a tall majestic people so unlike the inhabitants of earth.'"
This is truly sad and is not being taught in SDA elementary schools or colleges,
yet she is taught as a scientific visionary.  She claimed to have seen this in a
vision, but obviously this isn't from God.

SDA members were taught that Mrs. White was divinely inspired in her writings
and speaking, but it can be proven that she was wrong, in every place she uses
her favorite phrases "I was shown...", "In the visions of the night...", "I
dreamed...", or "The Angel said...", that these were all copied from books in
her library.  This is very damaging because she declared her words were her own
and she never copied from another person unless she used marks of quotation.
The early SDA church was well aware of plagiarism because Ellen's husband,
James, fell victim to it and wrote about how big a sin it was in the "Herald."
For those of you familiar with the Kellogg family (cereal manufacturer), they
were part of the early SDA church, which was also centered in Battle Creek, MI.
The Whites and Kelloggs were good friends and Ellen helped raise young John
Harvey Kellogg.  When Mr. Kellogg discovered that Ellen was copying her
writings, he was going to blow the whistle on her.  Before he could, Mrs. White
made the statement that the very last work of the Devil would be to make her
writings of non-effect.  She also said she never copied from anyone, but knew
she was lying the whole time.

In "Testimonies for the Church" volume 2, page 594-597, Mrs. White dreams a
dream which is one of her most famous visions.  Here she dreams of the SDA
people journeying to the heavenly city, the road growing narrower.  Their wagons
fell off eventually, then it became to narrow for their shoes.  Finally, it
became so narrow that cords were let down from heaven so that they can hang on
them.  Then they use the cords to swing from one side of the chasm to a green
meadow.  If you read in I Nephi 8:19-26 (from the Book of Mormon written by
Joseph Smith), he has the same vision except rods of iron are let down instead
of cords.  Joseph Smith died in 1844 when Ellen White started her work so
obviously she copied from him.  Mrs. White is on record of copying from him
several times.

Another dream is where she sees many people flocking to the temple, and she
feeling humiliated, finally enters the temple and humiliates herself before the
temple.  The same dream is in I Nephi 8:26-30.  In "Testimonies for the
Church" volume 4, page 251, Mrs. White says, "Jesus died not to save man in
his sins, but from his sins."  This comes from the Book of Mormon - Helliman
5:9-10.  Now read Jeremiah 23:30-32.

The Bible (I John) says that we can know we are saved, but the SDA church
does not believe this and Mrs. White said it is a sin to say "I am saved."

If you need to know more, let me know, but if you are a member of the SDA
church, feel free to call or write to:

Calvary Community Church - Pastor Mark Martin
PO Box 39607
Phoenix, AZ 85069
(602) 973-4768

He was a graduate of Pacific Union College and was an SDA pastor for 6 years.
If you tell him you are an SDA member, he will give you the tape series (6
cassettes) for **free** (normally only $7).  

      Hi Mike,
    
        Thanks for your inputs.  I really don't know how to reply to
        it.  I must admit that anyone who would read just what you 
        wrote would be a fool to not suspect that Ellen White was
        "a total crackpot."
    
        But, because I have read several hundreds of her pages including
        from some of the Christ-centered books I have mentioned, I have
        a different perspective than you have.
    
        To be honest, I still believe Ellen White was a prophet.  (By the
        way, what I believe is not because of Ellen White...I came to the
        church believing in most of its beliefs before ever hearing of
        Ellen White.)
    
        God says that He does not look on the outward act, but on the 
        heart.  Even though I believe Ellen White was a prophet, I would
        assume that the motive of your heart is pure and that's really
        the most important thing.  God bless you for the purity of your
        motive.
    
        In the meantime, I will study this matter.  And yes, I will consult
        with others (who are SDA).  I'll try to be as honest as possible.
    
        With what you have shared, they are worthy of being shown to the
        Conference at large.  We must be protected from wolves in sheep's
        clothing and if what you entered basically sums up your perspec- 
        tive, I would have done the same thing.
    
                                                    God Bless,
    
                                                    Tony

Just one reaction to the posting in .1:

I know basically nothing about Ellen White, I have no inclination toward her
status as either prophet or heretic.  Some of what you have posted indeed
sounds (way) off-base, no doubt many a quote could be entered from her that
was wonderful.  But there's one thing in this argument that doesn't
necessarily follow for me, and that's the assertion that since her dreams are
similar to other recorded dreams, that she must have copied from the other
people.  That's not necessarily true.  Ezekiel and John both had visions of
some entity with lots of eyes and wings.  Did John therefore copy his vision
from Ezekiel, or did he just see the same thing?

Paul

    Here's a couple of Ellen White excerpts I happened to have 
    left hanging in my account.  I figure if nothing else, they 
    are uplifting.
    
                                           Tony
    
 Brothers and Sisters,

   Do you ever have feelings of alienation from God?  Does
   it seem that noone cares?  Those thoughts are so far from
   the truth!  Somebody cares!  Does it ever seem you are
   too wicked to enjoy God's favor?  Not true!  The intensity
   of God's favor is because you are so wicked!  Jesus came
   to save sinners.

   His arms are wrapped around you even now.  We all just don't
   perceive the reality of that.  Why if we had a right conception
   of just how lovingly God's armed are wrapped around us all,
   we would be so changed!

   Find comfort in these words...

              "This Man Receiveth Sinners"

' "What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of 
   them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness,
   and go after that which is lost until He find it?"

   These souls whom you despise, said Jesus, are the property
   of God.  By creation and by redemption they are of value
   in His sight.  As the shephard loves his sheep, and cannot
   rest if even one be missing, so, *in an infinitely higher
   degree*, does God love EVERY outcast soul.  Men may deny 
   the claim of His love, they may wander from Him, they may
   choose another master; yet they are God's and He longs to
   recover His own...

   In the parable the shephard goes out to search for one
   sheep - the very least that can be numbered.  So *if there
   had been but one lost soul*, Christ would have died for 
   that one.

   The sheep that has strayed from the fold is the most helpless
   of all creatures.  It must be sought for by the shephard,
   for it cannot find its way back.  So with the soul that has
   wandered away from God; he is as helpless as the lost sheep,
   and *unless divine love had come to his rescue* he could never
   find his way to God.

   The shephard who discovers that one of his sheep is missing
   does not look carelessly upon the flock that is safely housed,
   and say, "I have ninety and nine, and it will cost me too
   much trouble to go in search of the straying one.  Let him
   come back and I will open the door of the sheepfold, and let 
   him in."  No; no sooner does the sheep go astray than the
   shephard is filled with grief and anxiety.  He counts and 
   recounts the flock.  When he is sure that one sheep is lost,
   he slumbers not.  He leaves the ninety and nine within the
   fold, and goes in search of the straying sheep.  The darker 
   and more tempestuous the night and the more perilous the
   way, the greater is the shephard's anxiety and the more
   anxious his search.  He makes every effort to find that one
   lost sheep.

   With what relief he hears in the distance its first faint cry.
   Following the sound, he climbs the steepest heights, he goes
   to the very edge of the precipice, at the risk of his own 
   life.  Thus he searches, while the cry, growing fainter, tells
   him that his sheep is ready to die.  At last his effort is
   rewarded; the lost is found.  Then he *does not scold it*
   because it has caused so much trouble.  He does not drive it
   with a whip.  He does not even try to lead it home.  In his
   JOY he takes the trembling creature upon his shoulders; if it
   is bruised and wounded, he gathers it in his arms, *pressing 
   it close to his bosom, that the warmth of his own heart may
   give it life*.  [AMEN!]  With gratitude that his search has
   not been in vain, he bears it back to the fold.

   Thank God, He has presented to our imagination no picture of
   a sorrowful shephard without the sheep.  The parable does not
   speak of failure but of success and joy in the recovery.  Here
   is the divine guarantee that not even one of the straying sheep
   of God's foal is overlooked, not one is left unsuccored.  Every
   one that will submit to be ransomed, Christ will rescue from 
   the fit of corruption and from the briers of sin.

   Desponding soul, take courage, even though you have done 
   wickedly.  Do not think that perhaps God will not pardon
   your transgressions and permit you to come into His presence.
   God has made the first advance.  While you were in rebellion
   against Him, He went forth to seek you.  With the tender heart
   of the shephard He left the ninety and nine and went out into
   the wilderness to find that which was lost.  The soul, bruised
   and wounded and ready to perish, He encircles in His arms of
   love and joyfully bears it to the fold of safety.

   It was taught by the Jews that before God's love is extended
   to the sinner, he must first repent.  In their view, repentence
   is a work by which men earn the favor of heaven.  And it was
   this thought that led the Pharisees to exclaim in astonishment
   and anger, "This man receiveth sinners."  According to their
   ideas He should permit none to approach Him but those who
   had repented.  But in the parable of the lost sheep, Christ 
   teaches that salvation does not come through our seeking after
   God BUT THROUGH GOD'S SEEKING AFTER US.  "There is none that
   understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.  They 
   are all gone out of the way."  Rom. 3:11, 12.  We do not repent
   in order that God may love us, but He reveals to us His love
   in order that we may repent. '

   from Christ's Object Lessons
   by Ellen White


   Oh may we all allow the warmth of the love of Christ to flow
   into our hearts!  As He holds our trembling souls in His arms,
   may we not choose to resist His grasp.  Let Him lead us!

   Believe in His love.

                                           God Bless,

                                           Tony

  Hi All,

    This particular one just really warmed my heart...

   "No outward observances can take the place of simple
    faith and entire renunciation of self.  But no man
    can empty himself of self.  We can only consent for
    Christ to accomplish the work.  Then the language of 
    the soul will be, Lord, take my heart; for I cannot
    give it.  It is Thy property.  Keep it pure for I
    cannot keep it for Thee.  Save me in spite of myself,
    my weak, unchristlike self.  Mold me, fashion me, raise
    me into a pure and holy atmosphere, where the rich 
    current of Thy love can flow through my soul."

                                    Christ's Object Lessons
                                    p. 159
                                    by Ellen White

>        In the meantime, I will study this matter.  And yes, I will consult
>        with others (who are SDA).  I'll try to be as honest as possible.
>    
>        With what you have shared, they are worthy of being shown to the
>        Conference at large.  We must be protected from wolves in sheep's
>        clothing and if what you entered basically sums up your perspec- 
>        tive, I would have done the same thing.
    
    Actually those were notes from just 1 of the 6 tapes in the series. 
    Since I'm from Lancaster, MA. (home of Atlantic Union College), I know 
    quite a few SDA people.  I've always admired their thirst for truth and 
    the love of God and I know you share the same qualities.  As Pastor Mark 
    has said, there's quite a bit of her writings that are inaccessible to 
    most SDA members.  While he was attending Pacific Union, his classes
    required him to dive deep into the Word of God instead of relying on
    the SDA volumes.  He said the more he studied and researched, the more
    he found the SDA writings contradicting God's Word.  
    
    After being exposed to the good news in Romans (clearly the best
    presentation of the gospel ever written), he started teaching it in the
    SDA church where he pastored.  It came to a point where church
    officials made him make the choice of preaching Ellen G. White and
    denouncing the Bible or leave the church.  Leaving the SDA church cost
    him dearly in various ways, but God has blessed his pursuit of the
    truth.
    
    sincerely,
    Mike
    
    BTW - I brought all the tapes in and am prepared to enter more if
    you're curious.

      Hi Mike,
    
        I wrote down the guys name and I will get some tapes.
        I actually am curious as to exactly how Romans and
        Ellen White contradict each other.
    
        I've gotta run (lunch...people waiting), I'll reply
        more.
    
        I hope to talk to the pastor.
    
        Enter as you'd like...I'll hear it all in the tapes (I
        hope).
    
                                               Thanks Mike,
               
                                               Tony

    >        I hope to talk to the pastor.
    
    Feel free to mention my name.  They'll be more than happy to send you a
    free copy.

      Hi Mike,
    
        Ok...I'll mention your name!!!
    
        Thanks again.
    
                                             Tony

    
    
    ref: 416.6
    
    AUC I know it well I went to school there, for a year...
    
    EGW does state that her writings a "a LESSER light" pointing
    to " a GREATER light "... she never placed her works above the
    bible....
    
    As to her writings being "inaccessible"  I dare say that this is
    also false... you can purchase ALL of her writings on a CD-ROM
    
    I currently have all of them backed up off my pc they take up
    over 52mb in a ziped format which I was using Lotus's MAGELLEN
    to view with out unziping the files...
    
    Sorry but I thing your friend has a Mighty ax to grind and may not
    be totally open as to his dismissal...
    
    
    Ben,
      

>    As to her writings being "inaccessible"  I dare say that this is
>    also false... you can purchase ALL of her writings on a CD-ROM
    
    are they all unedited copies of the original manuscripts?

 Hi All,

   This is kind of a drag feeling a need to put some effort toward replying
   because I know its real possible that a lot of people are just going to
   not bother reading this topic anyway.  But, the denomination that I attend
   and that I believe is closest to 'the whole truth and nothing but the
   truth' (though far away from that ideal) is Seventh-Day Adventism.

   I mean...someone publically states that SDA is a cult and that Ellen White
   was a false prophet...I just have to reply.

   Before replying to specifics, I think it is important to acknowledge the
   Spirit that wrote the holy scriptures.  What I mean is that the Bible
   is fraught with seeming contradictions and (at times) it may be years
   before some texts are reconciled with others.

   I truly believe that people often require that the writings of a prophet
   _do not have_ this same characteristic.  To me this would be tatamount to
   requiring that they be 'inspired' by another Spirit, i.e. by the spirit 
   of Satan.  In other words, there may be difficulties.  There may be
   seeming contradictions.  And it is irrational to deny this once we realize
   this characteristic exists in scripture.

   I'll give just a couple examples of which there are MANY.

   In the book of Job, God allows Satan to heap havoc on Job.  After some of
   the damage is done, God says that Satan INCITED HIM TO DESTROY JOB!  
   (Job 2:3).

   In Psalms, it is said that God hates the workers of iniquity.  During the
   Sermon on the Mount, Jesus calls us to be perfect even as our Father in
   heaven is perfect and one of the things He says is "Love your enemies."

   The Bible says all over the place that we are justified by faith.  James
   appears to say that we are justified by faith + works.

   The Bible often speaks of predetermined events (prophetically) including 
   the second coming.  The theme sounds as though the time is set by God.
   Peter says we can _hasten_ the time of the second coming.

   Jonah prophecies the destruction of Ninevah, but then we find the prophecy
   to be _conditional_, if Ninevah repents, she shall be spared.  Ninevah is
   not destroyed.

   If any of you out there are honest, you would know that there are many who
   scoff at Christianity on the very same basis (at least partial basis) that
   Ellen White is being appraised here.  They find what they see to be contra-
   dictions.  And they denounce it all.  We on the other hand (while perhaps
   not being able to reconcile all texts) see the SPIRIT in the word. We know
   in whom we believe and we know the words are of inspiration.

   I am pretty sure one would find a fair amount of success by cutting out 
   certain passages of scripture and presenting an incomplete work and of
   course giving one own's commentary of it.  And we could do a mighty fine
   work for Satan.  We could make the Bible seem like an absolute pack of 
   lies.

   In fact, I've seen that some in this Conference (such as Barry Dysert) have
   recognized this and have expended much effort in attempting to show the
   harmony that exists, but is unseen to others.  (Praise God for this work
   of Barry's.)

   I'll stope here...

Continuing...

   I believe this is what has been done with Ellen White.  Its so easy to cut
   isolated pieces from 100,000 pages worth of writing, apply your own commen-
   tary (i.e. state "This is what she is saying!") and denounce her.

   There is only one way to test a prophet.  One must read what is written at
   some length.  The fullest test is one that seeks for the Spirit in the
   writings.

   I honestly do not believe that was done.

   I stated that no court decides a case unless two sides are heard.  Some 
   witness for the defense and some witness for the prosecution.  Mike (in 
   reply) seemed to infer that he saw both sides and raised up a former SDA
   minister as his proof.

   I find it completely irrational that what I would consider a star witness
   for the prosecution could even remotely be considered a star witness for 
   the defense.  There is no rational basis for any claim that prosecution and
   defense were heard.

   I know of a person who left Adventism and returned very much on the basis
   of his personal exhaustive research into Ellen White where he concluded 
   that surely this was a prophet of God.  His name is Rene Noorburgen and he
   wrote a wonderful book on Ellen White.

   With that, time requires me to stop (and I don't have much time).  I will
   slowly reply as I am able and I freely acknowledge that I very likely will
   be dumbfounded by some of White's writings, but then again, I have been 
   dumbfounded by some of what the Bible says (when comparing it with other
   scripture and seeing what looked to be irreconcilable contradictions).

   In my last 'first reply' to Mike, I do reply to one thing (continuing)...

    
Continuing...

   But, I must reply to one thing...

�Any religious sect that places higher authority on another source other than 
�the Bible is considered to be a cult.  

 Agreed.

�Mrs. White wrote 66 books/volumes, same number as the Holy Bible.  She claimed 
�her writings were on the same level as the divinely inspired Holy Bible.  She 
�also claimed her writings would help Bible readers understand its truths 
�better.

 This is not altogether accurate.  Several times she claimed that her writings
 were consistent with scripture.  SHE NEVER ONCE stated that the Bible had
 to be consistent with her.  This is a vital point.  She always required that
 what she wrote had to be TESTED by the Bible.  She NEVER required that the
 Bible had to be tested by her writings.  This is key.  She NEVER placed her
 writings above the scriptures.

 I know of an occasion where a few people were giving sermons and quoted her
 writings pretty much.  She got up and said (her grammar not always being
 accurate..."Don't you never quote Ellen White until you can quote the Bible!"

 I have also heard that two preachers by the names of E.J. Waggoner and A.T.
 Jones preached without hardly ever quoting her writings and she just LOVED
 that!  She also said that if the church wasn't in such a state of apostasy 
 they never would have needed her writings.

 One of the last things Ellen White publically said was "I commend to you 
 the book" as she held up a Bible.

 In fact, in the late 1800's, there used to be a lot of public debates on
 scripture (I'm not saying this is commendable) and SDA's would have quite
 some success on these.  SDA (at that time) had a certain 'tag'.  They were
 known as 'the people of the Book' (referring to the Bible and not to
 Ellen White).

 Personally, I love Ellen White, but I find little time for her.  I'm pretty
 glued to 'the book.'  (I would like to read more of her however.)

 So much credibility of the last reply is lost if anyone can honestly 
 believe that Ellen White really tried to supercede scripture.  That is an
 example of some really poor, flawed research.

                                                     God Bless,

                                                     Tony

      re: .10
    
      Hi Ben!,
    
        Good to see you in here fella!
    
        Its been awhile!  How're you doing?
    
                                                 Tony

>   There is only one way to test a prophet.  One must read what is written at
>   some length.  The fullest test is one that seeks for the Spirit in the
>   writings.
    
    It is our responsibility to TEST the prophets!  This is explained in
    Deuteronomy 13:1-5, Deuteronomy 18:20-22, Isaiah 8:20, Isaiah 9:15, and
    you could also consider I John 4.  The bottomline here is that if it comes 
    to pass, it's of God!  If it doesn't, it's not of God!  God has yet to 
    give a prophecy that hasn't come to pass and never will do so!  God
    *NEVER* contradicts His Word.
    
    Along with these verses for testing prophets, you need to set up some
    guidelines or questions to be asked of each prophecy.  These are to be
    kept in mind when discussing the prophets.
    
    1. It must be determined that the prophetic utterance really came from
       from said prophet.
    2. It must be determined that the prophecy puportedly came from God.
    3. You have to determine that the prophecy was fulfilled exactly as
       outlined.
    4. You have to determine if the prophecy CAN come to pass.  Try to be
       honest at this last point especially.  Don't perform "mental 
       gymnastics" in order to save the prophet in question from becoming a 
       false prophet.
    
    Finally, I understand the need you have to defend yourself, but I
    really would rather not comment further until you've had a chance to 
    hear the tapes for yourself.  It will save me from any duplication of
    effort ;-)
    
    regards,
    Mike

> This is not altogether accurate.  Several times she claimed that her writings
> were consistent with scripture.  SHE NEVER ONCE stated that the Bible had
> to be consistent with her.  This is a vital point.  She always required that
> what she wrote had to be TESTED by the Bible.  She NEVER required that the
> Bible had to be tested by her writings.  This is key.  She NEVER placed her
> writings above the scriptures.
    
    Well as a *true* prophet(ess) of God, her writings should be 100%
    consistent with God's Word.  There is no room for error.   I'm also
    afraid that her wanting the Bible to be used as a test against her has
    also set her up for failure.  That applies to anyone that stated under
    "divine inspiration" that men lived in outer space and could go insane
    by wearing a hairpiece.
    
    Mike

      Hi Mike,
    
        I really don't have any problem with the hairpiece excerpt.
        I think the word 'cool' is relative.  I have a feeling that
        some people wore those long head dresses back then even when
        it was in the mid 90's.
    
        And I would not be surprised if not allowing the head to 'cool'
        could be damaging - especially over extended periods of time.
    
        I do not have a problem with the general statement that it is
        unhealthy for a person to wear stuff on his/her head in very
        hot weather and that something real bad could possibly result.
    
        I can't imagine wearing something like a wool cap over an entire
        summer with no air conditioning and perhaps with 90+ heat waves.
    
        Mike, I have no problem with this.
    
                                                     Tony

    She said they would go insane.  Has any medical journal did a study of
    people that have gone insane from wearing wigs?  
    
    Since you didn't mention the thing about men living in outer space, I 
    assume you're embarassed by it.  Just remember: you only need 1 false 
    prophecy to have a false prophet.
    
    Mike

      Mike,
    
         Some prophecies are conditional.
    
         Ninevah was an example of a conditional prophecy.  They saved
         themselves from a prophecy of soon to come destruction because
         there was a condition - if they didn't repent.  And they repented.
    
         It is very possible that much of what White said would be believed
         to not be true on the basis of _interpretation_; that is, a belief
         that all prophecy must be fulfilled.
    
         I don't believe in that interpretation.  I believe that some
         prophecies are conditional.
    
         In fact, I believe that we can hasten or delay the 2nd coming.
         I believe that had Israel accepted the Messiah, Christ would have
         come THE SECOND TIME within 3.5 years.  I believe that God never
         meant for Ephesus to lose her first love and that had she not,
         they could have ushered in the 2nd coming.
    
         Interpretation of scripture could be a problem here Mike (so far
         as prophecy [at least] is concerned).
    
         Waiting for the tapes.  ;-)
    
                                                       Tony

      Mike,
    
        I'm not embarrased by the outer space thing.  I'm lacking in
        time.  Ellen White did say there are unfallen worlds out there.
        I'm not sure she said it was Saturn - and I really don't care.
    
        I honestly don't see how this supports or contradicts scripture.
    
        I've heard that C.S. Lewis has written the same, hasn't he?
    
        I think Job supports the notion that there are unfallen worlds.
    
        I just don't have time and I'd like to read to see if it was
        Saturn (not if that matters much).
    
                                                    Tony

>        I honestly don't see how this supports or contradicts scripture.
>    
>        I've heard that C.S. Lewis has written the same, hasn't he?
    
    One does it by stating it's under divine inspiration and the other does
    it out of artistry.

      Mike,
    
        All I'm saying is that I do not see that it contradicts the
        word.
    
        Can you show me by the word that Ellen White seeing creatures
        from some unfallen world is 'obviously' a contradiction to the
        word?
                                                              
        Actually, I am embarrased by the quote.  But, when I look at what
        it is saying and honestly look at the word, I see no contra- 
        dictions.
    
        Do you?  Just show me by the word Mike.
    
                                                         Tony 

    Deuteronomy 13:1-5, Deuteronomy 18:20-22, Isaiah 8:20, Isaiah 9:15.
    
    Not to mention the times she gave dates for Christ's return (i.e.
    October 22, 1844), which we're still waiting for.
    
    Mike

      Mike,
    
        I'll check those scriptures, but do any of them say that there
        are no unfallen worlds wherein 'people' (inhabitants of the 
        unfallen worlds - I know she didn't mean human beings) lived?
    
        Yes or no?  
    
        If not...what's your point?
    
        Speaking of 1844, Ellen White had no prophetic utterances of any
        kind until some years after that.  I think you expect too much.
        Perhaps you do not believe John the Baptist (WHO DOUBTED CHRIST
        WAS THE MESSIAH) could be a prophet _on that basis_.
    
        To what you expect of Ellen White (apparently infallibility even
        outside of prophetic utterances) I believe if expected of the 
        greatest prophet of all (John the Baptist/except for Christ of
        course), you would have denied him.
    
        Are you sure you know how to test the prophets?
    
        One other thing Mike...I think 'uplifting' dialogue would include
        retraction (or at least the mention of possibility) where it is
        due.
    
        I mentioned that Ellen White never placed her writings above the
        scriptures.
    
        Can you make a public retraction of your assertion, prove your
        stance, or at least allow that your assertion _might_ be incor-
        rect?
    
                                                      Tony
                                                       

>        Perhaps you do not believe John the Baptist (WHO DOUBTED CHRIST
>        WAS THE MESSIAH) could be a prophet _on that basis_.
    
    Not to start a rathole, but it was John the Baptist, who when first
    seeing the Messiah, proclaimed:  "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh
    away the sin of the world.  This is he of whom I said, After me cometh
    a man which is  preferred before me: for he was before me." (John
    1:29-30)  John had no doubts who the Messiah was.  "Behold...*this is
    he*...."  I know what you're referring to, but I would submit to you
    that when John (from prison) sent his disciples to pose the question to
    Jesus, it was for the disciples sake, not John's.  He had no doubts.
    
    Mark L.
    

>        Perhaps you do not believe John the Baptist (WHO DOUBTED CHRIST
>        WAS THE MESSIAH) could be a prophet _on that basis_.
 

         Huh?


   
       

 Jim                                                       

    re: infallability
    
    The OT prophets wrote 332 Messianic prophecies that were all fulfilled
    by Jesus Christ against astronomical odds.
    
    You're darn right I expect infallability!!!

1. Tyre - Ezekiel 26:8-21
   - Mainland city will be destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar (26:8).
       Fulfilled in 573 BC.
   - Many nations against Tyre (26:3).
   - Make her a bare rock; flat like the top of a rock (26:4).
   - Fishermen will spread their nets over the site (26:5).
   - Throw the debris into the water (26:12).
   - Never be rebuilt (26:14).
   - Never to be found again (26:21).

2. Sidon - Ezekiel 28:22-23
   - No mention of her destruction.
   - Blood in the streets (28:23).
   - Sword on every side (28:23).

3. Samaria - Hosea 13:16 & Micah 1:6
   - Fall violently (Hosea).
   - Become 'as a heap in the field' (Micah).
   - Vineyards will be planted there (Micah).
   - Samaria's stones will be poured down into the valley (Micah).
   - The foundations shall be "discovered" (Micah).

4. Gaza-Ashkelon - Amos 1:6-8, Jeremiah 47:5, Zephaniah 2:4-7
   - Philistines will not continue (Amos 1:8).
   - Baldness shall come upon Gaza (Jeremiah).
   - Desolation shall come on Ashkelon (Zephaniah 2:4).
   - Shepherds and sheep will dwell in the area around Ashkelon (Zephaniah 2:6).
   - Remnant of House of Judah will reinhabit Ashkelon (Zephaniah 2:7).

5. Moab-Ammon - Ezekiel 25:3-4, Jeremiah 48:47,49:6
   - Will be taken by easterners who will live off the fruits of the land
     (Ezekiel 25:4).
   - 'Men of the east' will make Ammon a site for their palaces (Ezekiel 25:4).
   - People of old Moab and Ammon will reinhabit their land (Jeremiah).

6. Petra and Edom - Isaiah 34:6-15, Jeremiah 49:17-18, Ezekiel 25:13-14, 35:5-7
   - Become a desolation (Isaiah 34:13).
   - Never populated again (Jeremiah 49:18).
   - Conquered by heathen (Ezekiel 25:14).
   - Conquered by Israel (Ezekiel 25:14).
   - Shall have a bloody history (Ezekiel 35:5-6, Isaiah 34:6-7).
   - Make Edom desolate as far as the city of Teman (Ezekiel 25:13).
   - Wild animals will inhabit the area (Isaiah 34:13-15).
   - Cessation of trade (Isaiah 34:10, Ezekiel 35:7).
   - Spectators will be astonished (Jeremiah 49:17).

7. Thebes and Memphis - Ezekiel 30:13-15
   - Destroy the idols of Memphis (Ezekiel 30:13).
   - Thebes will be destroyed ("broken up") and fired (Ezekiel 30:14).
   - Thebes: I will cut off the multitude of...(Ezekiel 30:15).
   - There will no longer be a native prince from Egypt (Ezekiel 30:13).

8. Nineveh - Nahum 1:8,10,2:6,3:10,13,19
   - Would be destroyed in a state of drunkenness (Nahum 1:10).
   - Would be destroyed in "an overflowing flood" (Nahum 1:8,2:6).
   - Would be burned (Nahum 3:13).
   - Would be totally destroyed ("Your wound is incurable") and become desolate
     (Nahum 3:19).

9. Babylon - Isaiah 13:19-22, 14:23, Jeremiah 51:26,43
   - Babylon to be like Sodom and Gomorrah (Isaiah 13:19).
   - Never inhabited again (Jeremiah 51:26, Isaiah 13:20).
   - Tents will not be placed there by Arabs (Isaiah 13:20).
   - Sheepfolds will not be there (Isaiah 13:20).
   - Desert creatures will infest the ruins (Isaiah 13:21).
   - Stones will not be removed for other construction projects(Jeremiah 51:26).
   - The ancient city will not be frequently visited (Jeremiah 51:43).
   - Covered with swamps of water (Isaiah 14:23).

10. Chorazin, Bethsaida, Capernum - Matthew 11:20-24

11. Jerusalem's enlargement - Jeremiah 31:38-40

12. Palestine - Leviticus 26:31-33, Ezekiel 36:33-35
   - Palestinian cities will resemble waste (Leviticus 26:31,33).
   - Desolation will come over the sanctuaries (Leviticus 26:31).
   - Desolation will come over the land (Leviticus 26:32-33).
   - Palestine will be inhabited by enemies (Leviticus 26:32).
   - People of Israel will disperse (Leviticus 26:33).
   - Jews will be persecuted (Leviticus 26:33).
   - Palestine will become reinhabited by Jews, cities will revive and the
     land will be farmed (Ezekiel 36:33-35).

      Mike,
    
        You miss my point entirely.
    
        I agree the prophecy must be 100% infallible.  I do not agree 
        that everything that utters from a prophets mouth is prophecy and
        thus when the prophet is not prophesying, we cannot consider 
        that to be prophetic utterance.
    
        I did not read through your last reply, but if I understand the
        gist of it, you are providing slews of prophetic utterances.
        I agree...they must be infallible.
    
        To me...if a prophet must be infallible (all the time), not just
        while receiving a dream or a vision, they'd basically have to be
        perfect in character, they could never sin for sin is the ultimate
        in fallibility.
    
        Do you understand what I'm saying?
    
        You are taking something that Ellen White said that is previous in
        time to the first time she ever had a dream or vision (before God
        ever used her as a prophet) and you are saying that even though
        this is not 'a prophetic utterance' (being before she was used as
        a prophet), it must be infallible for her to LATER be used by God
        for prophesy.
    
        That just doesn't make any sense at all.
    
        I'd also (again) like to offer you the oppurtunuity to extend a
        courtesy (which I think would be a Christian thing to do and which
        _not_ would be contrary to being a Christian thing to do).
    
        And that is to make a public retraction of your asserion that Ellen
        White placed her prophecies ABOVE the scriptures.  Or at the very
        least, provide documented proof.
    
        How about it?
    
        And again...on what basis do you contend Ellen White could not be a
        prophet on the basis of something she said (which was false) which
        preceded her having yet been used by God as a prophet?
    
        I am losing a lot of credibility of your method of proving the
        prophets.
    
                                                             Tony

      Hi Mark L.,
    
        I disagree.
    
        John the Baptist gave a prophecy.  It stands on the basis that
        God worked through him and used him as a prophet.
    
        It does not need to stand on John's own conviction later on.
        He very likely did not have a full understanding of the Messiah's
        work.  He possibly could not understand why the prophet who fore-
        told of Christ would end up rotting in a jail cell.  He need not
        be perfect in character.  He can doubt.
    
        Maybe your interpretation is right Mark although I don't think it
        is...it seems plain that the word says (Luke 7:19 And John calling
        unto him two of his disciples SENT THEM TO JESUS, saying, Art Thou
        He that should come?  or look we for another?) that John sent the
        disciples to question Jesus of this very thing.  In fact Jesus
        responds by saying "Go your way AND TELL JOHN."  (Thus they asked
        _for_ John and Jesus answered _for_ John.)
    
        Either way...a prophet can have seasons of doubts after giving his
        prophecy.  God does not require perfection from His prophets. 
        That's not what I see in the word.
    
                                                       Tony

    >        Do you understand what I'm saying?
    
    yes and as I understand it, she said she spoke these things under divine
    inspiration.  That's where I question her status as a prophet.
    
>        White placed her prophecies ABOVE the scriptures.  Or at the very
>        least, provide documented proof.
>    
>        How about it?
    
    as I understand it, your proof is on its way to your doorstep.  I don't
    want to have to type everything in since you're going to hear it for
    yourself.  Like I said before, give it a listen, then we'll talk.
    
    Mike

    Calvary Community Church - Pastor Mark Martin
    PO Box 39607
    Phoenix, AZ 85069
        (602) 973-4768
    FAX (602) 789-7165
    
    Office hours are M-F, 9-5 MST

     Hi Mike,
    
       Ok.  I will listen to ALL the tapes very intently.
    
                                                     Tony

Hi everyone,

Starting from the viewpoint of someone who knows very little
at all about the SDA church or their beliefs, I would like
to fire a couple of shots at both sides of the arguement
(and then duck).

To me the outsider from across the atlantic it seems that
the main thrust of the arguement is on the validity of Ellen
G. White. Now if I was thinking of joining a Church my
concerns wouldn't be so much about the beliefs of the
founder(s) (though obviously they would be of interest), but
of where the Church is now and what it ACTUALLY teaches.

a) If a church incourages reading of books to the detriment
of reading the bible then they are obviously not biblically
based. As yet the case that the SDA does this has not been
shown. 

b) A prophet(ess) can be very different things to very
different people. In its broadest sense it can mean anyone
who says any thing that is inspired by God. They are not 
neccessarily messages for all people for all time (though
they must be universal truths - if you see the difference). 
Those prophets in the Bible obviously had messages for all
people for all time.  
        Now a post-Jesus prophet(ess)  cannot add anything
to the word of God, s/he cannot reveal any "new" truths. In
short a post-Jesus prophet can only restate the word of God
in a way which is applicable to the particular situation and
times in which they live.
        (I hope this bit makes sense, and if so would the SDA 
side like to comment on this.)


c) On the whole I am tending to side with the SDA side of
the arguement, except for one point:
"But, the denomination that I attend and that I believe 
 is closest to 'the whole truth and nothing but the
 truth' (though far away from that ideal) is Seventh-Day 
 Adventism."
It is not that I believe that my particular denomination is
closest to the truth (actually I don't!), it is not even 
that I don't believe that the SDA are closest to the
truth. The point is we DO NOT KNOW. Only GOD KNOWS.
With due respect it is this sort of attitude (I am right you
are wrong) that has led to the division of God's Church.


Scott.

ps I'm new to this game, how do you get those quotes after the author bit?

Hi Scott,

Good to see someone else who knows when the sun's up ;-)  I'm in Reading, 
Berks, though I have a son in Manchester (Heaton Moor church).

� ps I'm new to this game, how do you get those quotes after the author bit?

Notes> Set Profile /Personal_Name="This is my name!"

Or from windows, 
	select OPTIONS at the top of the window
	click on Show / Modify Profile.

	 - eventually gives you a window where you can fill in a personal name.

But I'm not getting into the SDA argument (yet) ... 

					God bless
							Andrew

    Well there are a few guidelines commonly used to identify a cult:
    
    1. Attributes of God - usually humanize God
    2. Person of Christ - usually strip His deity
    3. Nature of Man - usually deify man
    4. Requirements of Atonement - usually minimize sin
    5. Source of Revelation - usually ostracize the Scriptures
    
    Now I'm not saying the SDA does any of these, but I see this as a basis
    from which to continue from.
    
    Mike

      Hi Scott,
    
        Thank you very much.  That was a very thoughtful reply.
    
        It is a tall thing to say that Adventism is closest to
        the truth.  Yes, it most certainly is.
    
        All I can say is that there is no room for spiritual pride
        there.  But, there are some foundational things that I 
        believe that is consistent with Adventism that I (for the
        most part) cannot find outside of it.
    
        Among those are...
    
        1) Christ's role as High Priest
             This would include the belief that His High Priestly
             work is a work of redemption and that it culminates 
             in the antitypical work of which the OT Day of Atonement
             (Yom Kippur) prefigured.  That would be the cleansing
             of the heavenly sanctuary with all that that means.  I'm
             just making an observation here...I believe it is a necessary
             work before Christ can come and take us home and it is a
             work that while I believe it is critical, it finds no signi-
             ficance that I know of outside of Adventism.
    
          2) Great Controversy Theme
                This is a belief that before Christ can come, there must
                be a settling of a great controversy.  The controversy is
                one of issues and ideas.  I find this to be absolutely
                pivotal.  Outside of Adventism, I find it to be either
                ignored (at best) or almost despised.
    
          3) Conditional Immortality of Man
                The controversy theme will settle God's fairness before the
                entire intelligent creation (both saved and unsaved).  The
                unconditional immortality of man belief makes null and void
                any discussion of fairness; it cuts it at the knees.  No
                one can accomadate 50 years of a sinful life with an
                eternity of unspeakable torment.  We say God is fair on the
                basis of pronouncement; but we cannot rationalize it.  Thus
                there can be no great controversy in the sense of a
                rational understanding of God's fairness with the belief
                in the unconditional immortality of man and that which it
                implies - eternal consciouss torment.
    
                Of course the true belief also aids us from spiritualism.
    
          4) The Immutability of the Ten Commandment Law of God
                By this I mean the 10 as written in the Bible.
    
          5) An Apocalyptic Message
                By this I mean a message that when understood fully will
                divide the world as fully as did Noah's message.  There
                really is no apocalypticism out there that I can see.  No
                message that contains as a moral imperative the kind of
                preparation that is called for in the book of Hebrews;
                a moral imperative far exceeding conversion, one that
                ultimately requires PERFECTION.  Only perfection can 
                survive inhabiting Mount Zion.  Perfection is alluded to
                in the call to rest perfectly in Christ and in the looking
                _forward_ to a covenant yet unfulfilled - the law being
                written in the heart (see hebrews).
    
         There's more, but here's a couple fairly fundamental planks.
    
         The cleansing of the sanctuary finds no significance in most of
         Christianity, yet it is Christ's last work as High Priest and is
         extremely significant _to me_.
    
         So those are a couple reasons why I said what I did.
    
                                                God Bless,
    
                                                Tony

Tony,

Thanks for that reply, however...

With the exception of (4) The Ten Commandments with which I agree totally
(if you are saying that all of the 10 commandments still apply in their 
entirety), I'm afraid that I don't understand any of your points!

Could you have another go (perhaps one at a time) using words of less
than one syllable, for those of us who are feeling particularly
thick today?

Your points look quite interesting, but they really have gone over my head.

	Scott

      Hi Scott,

        Sorry, the problem is not you're being thick, its probably
        a combination of my not being a clear writer, disconnects as
        a result of 'Adventist jargon' (or my own jargon for that matter!),
        and disconnects as a result of unfamiliarity with things I
        brought up.
    
    
        �1) Christ's role as High Priest
        �     This would include the belief that His High Priestly
        �     work is a work of redemption and that it culminates 
        �     in the antitypical work of which the OT Day of Atonement
        �     (Yom Kippur) prefigured.  That would be the cleansing
        �     of the heavenly sanctuary with all that that means.  I'm
        �     just making an observation here...I believe it is a necessary
        �     work before Christ can come and take us home and it is a
        �     work that while I believe it is critical, it finds no signi-
        �     ficance that I know of outside of Adventism.
    
              Most Christians believe that Christ's redemptive work was
              finished at the cross.  I believe that Christ's redemptive
              work is finished by Himself as High Priest.  I think this
              would be consistent with what the OT as well as Hebrews and
              other NT writings would say.  The High Priestly work is 
              necessary.  The High Priest utilizes the merits of the cross.

              One very simple scriptural study is dividing redemption into
              works of sacrifice and priest.  As applied to Christ, Hebrews
              states that Christ WAS NOT a Priest on Earth; He is a Priest
              in a sanctuary "made not with hands" which was "but a pattern"
              (the earthly being a type of the heavenly).

              Check out the book of Leviticus concerning the Day of atonement.
              It mentions _repeatedly_ that the priest makes atonement.  I
              believe the Bible clearly states that one work of the atonement
              is finished at the cross and another is finished by the High
              Priest.

              You can read about the cleansing of the sanctuary by using a
              Concordance and looking up atonement and cleansing.  Just 
              check out what the Bible says.  Let your own study of the naked
              word of God point you to a fuller picture of atonement and
              the role of the Priest.

          �2) Great Controversy Theme
          �      This is a belief that before Christ can come, there must
          �      be a settling of a great controversy.  The controversy is
          �      one of issues and ideas.  I find this to be absolutely
          �      pivotal.  Outside of Adventism, I find it to be either
          �      ignored (at best) or almost despised.
    
               I can't get into this now.  Lack of time.  To summarize, I
               believe two things need to be proven and they are 1) that 
               when God is known well enough, He is EASY to serve, i.e. 
               impossible to sin against.  1 John 5:3 says "This is the love
               of God that you keep His commandments and they are not 
               burdensome [not hard]."  I believe the last generation must
               come to a sufficient knowledge of Christ such as this issue
               is proven by them.  2) Death is inherent to sin and life is
               inherent to righteoussness.

          �3) Conditional Immortality of Man
          �      The controversy theme will settle God's fairness before the
          �      entire intelligent creation (both saved and unsaved).  The
          �      unconditional immortality of man belief makes null and void
          �      any discussion of fairness; it cuts it at the knees.  No
          �      one can accomadate 50 years of a sinful life with an
          �      eternity of unspeakable torment.  We say God is fair on the
          �      basis of pronouncement; but we cannot rationalize it.  Thus
          �      there can be no great controversy in the sense of a
          �      rational understanding of God's fairness with the belief
          �      in the unconditional immortality of man and that which it
          �      implies - eternal consciouss torment.
    
          �      Of course the true belief also aids us from spiritualism.
    
                 What don't you understand about this Scott?  What I mean
                 by conditional immortality is that only God by very nature
                 is immortal and that cessation of life is death and includes
                 cessation of conscioussness and when one dies, one lacks
                 conscioussness unless one is resurrected by Jesus Christ.

                 As far as the great controversy theme.  I mean that God's
                 fairness is something that can be reasoned out - rationally
                 understood.  And that the idea that the unsaved would have
                 to undergo endless consciouss torment is such that there can
                 be no understanding of God's fairness, its just accepted.  We
                 can't reason it, we accept it.  Thus, there can be no great
                 controversy of issues with this view.

          �4) The Immutability of the Ten Commandment Law of God
          �      By this I mean the 10 as written in the Bible.
    
                 I include the 4th commandment.  Some reasons given are in
                 Topic #382.

          �5) An Apocalyptic Message
          �      By this I mean a message that when understood fully will
          �      divide the world as fully as did Noah's message.  There
          �      really is no apocalypticism out there that I can see.  No
          �      message that contains as a moral imperative the kind of
          �      preparation that is called for in the book of Hebrews;
          �      a moral imperative far exceeding conversion, one that
          �      ultimately requires PERFECTION.  Only perfection can 
          �      survive inhabiting Mount Zion.  Perfection is alluded to
          �      in the call to rest perfectly in Christ and in the looking
          �      _forward_ to a covenant yet unfulfilled - the law being
          �      written in the heart (see hebrews).
    
              What I am saying here is that I believe Christianity has basically
              stopped at conversion in terms of 'preparation for the endtimes'
              is concerned.  The Bible points (as an endtime apocalyptic
              message) to far more than conversion - it points to 
              perfect sinlessness this side of the second coming.  Hebrews
              is clear on this matter.  The author doesn't allude to God
              'making us perfect' just before He comes (by this I refer to
              our characeters, not our flesh).  Hebrews EXHORTS ALL OVER THE
              PLACE.  Rest perfectly in Christ!  Begin partaking of the MEAT
              of the word!  Understand the reality pointed to by symbol!
              Have your conscience purged!  (NO MORE remembrance of sin)
              Be prepared to inhabit Mount Zion - all within the context of
              being prepared this side of the second coming.

              What I am saying is, there is no call in Christianity that I
              can see - it all stops when we are spiritual infants.  This is
              what I mean by a 'moral imperative.'

              I could say more, but this is lengthy enough.

                                                God Bless,
    
                                                Tony

>          �4) The Immutability of the Ten Commandment Law of God
>          �      By this I mean the 10 as written in the Bible.
>    
>                 I include the 4th commandment.  Some reasons given are in
>                 Topic #382.

This also translates into a belief that if you remember your Sabbath on
anything but Saturn's day (Saturday) then you're breaking the fourth
commandment.

Someday, we'll be able to communicate better, I hope, and understand the
Truth as He has intended it from the beginning.

Mark

      Hi Mark,
    
        Man might call _part of the seventh-day Sabbath_ Saturday.
        (God calls the seventh day Sabbath sundown of what we call 
        the 6th day (Friday) until sundown of what we call the seventh 
        day (Saturday).
    
        I just don't want incorporating man's pagan names into God's
        naming of the days.  This incorporation can negatively bias
        the truth.
    
        Mark, I am sure God wants us to better understand the realities
        implicit in symbols of baptism, foot washing, and communion.  I
        agree wholeheartedly.  But, just because this is true, DOES NOT
        IMPLY the reasoning that the symbols are not a part of God's 
        will for man.
    
        As an example, lets say a person just became a Christian.  He has
        yet to be baptized.  If he gave a beautiful exhortation of some
        of the reality which baptism symbolizes, I would not then come
        to the logical conclusion: "Ahhhh, this man has reached beyond
        symbol...he'd be a FOOL to undergo water baptism!!!!"
    
        Yes, the Sabbath (just like baptism) is a symbol.  But, let us not
        make an incorrect leap of logic on that basis.  (No longer obey
        symbol.)
    
        Let's take the word as it stands.
    
        After the cross, the women did not annoint Jesus because of the
        commandment.  "There remains therefore a Sabbath rest to the 
        people of God."  "Pray that your flight does not take place on the
        Sabbath day."
    
                                                       Tony
        

Tony (and all those other people who are just reading),

Thanks for the explaination. Firstly I understand the answer
to my original question now, ie your statement that
Adventism is closest to the truth. From your point of view
that is obviously true, and indeed should be true if you are
to honestly hold your expressed views. 

A few more questions for you if I may however...

1) Christ's role as High Priest


�I believe that Christ's redemptive work is finished by
�Himself as High Priest.  

What sort of redemptive work do you see Christ doing as
"High Priest"? More of the same or Something extra?

As I understand the OT High Priest, his role was to be an
intermediary between Israel and God in the same way that
Jesus is an intermediary between us and God now, is this
what you mean?

�The High Priest utilizes the merits of the cross.
You mean Jesus as High Priest doesn't have to do any more
sacrifices, as the one sacrifice for all has been made
already (ie Jesus on the cross) ?

2) Great Controversy Theme

I agree that the better you know God the easier it is to
serve him, and certainly if you see following Christ as a
burden then things aren't as they should be. 

But surely this is a long way from "impossible to sin
against".

3) Conditional Immortality of Man

I think that you are saying here that as it is just not
plain fair that a sinner for 50 years should have to spend
the WHOLE OF ETERNITY in Hell, that the "unsaved" either:

i) Are just extinguished, ie cease to exist when they die
OR
ii) Only spend some time in Hell before ceasing to exist.



4) The Immutability of the Ten Commandment Law of God

This one I understand and so will leave for now.


5) An Apocalyptic Message

A basis to what you are saying here is that we should all be
seeking to grow towards perfection. Is this right?

I know that you are also saying far more than this but what
I'm trying to do is to work out the point at which our two 
views differ.

Or to put it another way. 

Do you consider the "orthodox non SDA" to be Christians
(saved) ?

If you do, what do you see as the practical advantage of
SDA.

If not, what must we do to be saved?



Honest answers only here please, I'm not trying to catch you
out it is just that I want to work out if you are for or
against me ( ie non SDA), and also conversly what my
response to you should be.

OR to put it yet another way, just how fundamental are our
differences?


Scott

      Hi Scott,
    
        I couldn't reply today.  I replied to something in 382.
    
        But, rest assured, there are born-again Chrisitans in
        all the churches (I believe).
    
                                             God Bless,
    
                                             Tony

>        Yes, the Sabbath (just like baptism) is a symbol.  But, let us not
>        make an incorrect leap of logic on that basis.  (No longer obey
>        symbol.)
    
By this interpretation, which alone is not the only reason to worship
on Sunday, millions of Christians in many Sunday-worshipping denominations
OBEY the SYMBOL of the sabbath, but not the literally defined Jewish (OT)
sabbath.

MM

Some of the objections I see to Tony's positions in .40 are summarized
as follows:

(1) Christ's work is finished at the Cross; nothing personally remains between
    salvation, holiness living, and the judgment.

(2) Despite the inability to accept it or "reason it", Hell and eternal
    condemnation is a pretty clear tenet of Christianity.  I think there
    is a lot of   s t r e c h i n g   to alter the orthodox view.  
    Nevertheless, I find this to be unimportant where saved persons
    are concerned and extremely important where the unsaved is concerned.
    (This is counter to the conditional mortality tenet of Adventism.)

(3) I find the adherence to the literal sabbath a curiosity, or perculiarity,
    and not worth debating except where breaking God's law is concerned.

(4) Perhaps most curious is the doctrine of perfection which is distinguished
    differently from the doctrine of Christian perfection (that is, Holiness);
    the former believes in the inability to err; the latter believes in 
    holiness living (Christian perfection) where while one is ruled by
    the spirit and not the flesh (sanctification; set apart) there is nothing
    that forbids a person from defiling the sanctified object (oneself) and
    making a conscious decision to fall away.  (This begs the question of 
    OSAS and the ability to choose darkness while ruled by light; Lucifer did.)

    I believe in Christian perfection and can supply scriptures such as God's
    commandment to "Be ye perfect, as I am perfect".  However, Tony's position
    is distinct from mine and should not be confused.

    I believe I have a topic in here about Holiness.  I'm too lazy to find
    the number.

There, I've summarized my objections and feel better.  I think I've stayed
away from telling Tony what he thinks, except how I understand Tony's
idea of perfection.

Mark

.44>        But, rest assured, there are born-again Chrisitans in
.44>        all the churches (I believe).

And this is the glue that keeps Tony and I together, despite our objections
to each other's doctrinal tenets.

Mark

      Hi Mark,
    
        No, they are not obeying the symbol because the symbol is
        obeyed on the seventh day.
    
        As an analogy, one might accept all the symbolism (he is aware
        of) about baptism.  And then decide to be baptized by sprinkling.
        I cannot honestly say that because the person understood much of
        what the symbolism means, he obeyed the symbol.
    
        I think its a pretty good analogy actually.    
    
        I have one other...(for which I'd love to hear a reply)
    
        Suppose Adam and Eve had not yet fallen.  Suppose they decided 
        that to specify THE tree was too _literalistic_.  They decide 
        they will abstain from eating of the fruit of _some other tree_.
        If you could tell them anything, what would you say?
    
        I would say "do not generalize where God specified.  Abstain from
        the tree God specified."
    
        On what basis would you tell Adam and Eve that what tree they
        choose matters if (when God specified a specific day) you say the
        day you choose matters not - that the choice is yours?
    
                                                   Tony

  Hi Scott,

>1) Christ's role as High Priest


�I believe that Christ's redemptive work is finished by
�Himself as High Priest.  

>What sort of redemptive work do you see Christ doing as
>"High Priest"? More of the same or Something extra?

 Here is what I believe and this gets radically different than
 'traditional Christianity' (for want of a better term and no
 negative connotation implied).

 I believe we are delivered from sin (period).  I believe that
 to be justified is to be made righteouss.  It is the work of
 Jesus actually removing the killer [sin] from the life.

 I believe that today's Christianity 'flip-flops' from two
 types of deliverances.  One is a destructive force intrinsic to
 sin and activated by God's love (see Isaiah 6 as an example)
 and two is deliverance from a punishment God must give as a 
 judicial penalty for sin.  I do not believe God punishes anyone
 for sinning, but that His entire work of redemption is one of
 removing sin from the life.

 In fact, if you'd peruse the deliverance topic (#423), you would
 see the same 'flip flop'.  People are talking about being delivered
 from sin and then they talk about the cross being our atonement all
 the while unless some other work is performed by Christ, it hasn't
 taken a single sin out of anybody's heart.  The way I look at it,
 the flip is the stance that we must be delivered from sin and the
 flop is the stance that the cross meets a judicial price God required
 (and thus by inference the deliverance is not from sin, but from God).

 Here is how I understand God's work of deliverance (in a nutshell).
 The word of God actually recreates our hearts.  The reason God accounts
 a person justified is because His word which declares a person justified
 ACTUALLY MAKES HIM JUSTIFIED.  (This was the wrench the Protestants 
 didn't see when they 'argued' about justification with the Catholics for
 centuries.  The Protestants said justification was by faith and His
 word accounts us righteouss.  The Catholics said NONSENSE!  How can God
 call righteouss what actually isn't?  The answer:  That same word is molding
 the faithful hearer.  "God calls those things which be not as though they
 are."  The same word which declares righteouss is the same word which makes
 the faithful hearer righteouss.  Actually, I've not heard a single person 
 in this Conference note this crucial point...just an observation.  We under-
 stand so little of the gospel, this observation is support of that I think.)

 Christ was the Word.  Faith works by love.  The cross is the sum total of
 love demonstrated such that if it is received by faith it actually cleanses
 the heart of sin.  The work of Christ as Lamb is the work of Christ providing
 all of the love that performs the work of deliverance.

 The work of Christ our High Priest is the work of Christ wooing us to 
 receive that love.  That is...Christ applies the merits of the sacrifice 
 to us.  We could never receive that love (which justifies) outside of
 Christ's High Priestly redemptive work.

 I'll continue...

Continuing on...

 To cite two analogies.

 Say an entire town is critically ill.  Say a doctor expends virtually all
 of his resources in order to come up with a pill.  This pill, when received,
 makes everybody well.  With this analogy, the work of Christ as lamb
 equates to the work of the doctor MANUFACTURING THE PILL.  The work of
 Christ as High Priest equates to the work of the doctor getting the 
 people to receive the pill.  

 With another analogy, say a bunch of people are dirty.  Someone manufactures
 a whole bunch of soap.  After making the soap, that person applies it to
 the people and cleans them.  With this analogy, the work of Christ as Lamb
 equates to the work of manufacturing all the soap.  The work of Christ as
 High Priest equates to Christ's work of applying the merits of the cross
 to cleanse our hearts from sin.

 Thus I believe in a split atonement.  One part accomplished at Calvary and
 the other by the High Priest.  By the way, this lends a whole different
 idea to "without the shedding of blood, there can be no remission of sin."
 I see this as Christ had to go to the cross (shed His blood) so that He
 could apply the merits of the sacrifice (that love expressed) so that He
 could rid sin from the life.  The common interpretation 'flops' a person
 right from deliverance being from sin to deliverance being from God who
 requires death as a punishment for sin.  It is not consistent with the
 idea of a High Priest who sprinkles the blood (reveals His love slowly 
 as he must - see Romans 7, he can't unveil His full love all at once;
 this would consume us.  He reveals Himself gradually).


 One last thing, the basis of our justification when sin is not rooted from
 our hearts is that God honors our first steps.  The life of Abraham would
 be a good read for this.  Part of the reason Abraham was accounted righteouss
 is WHAT HIS FAITH BECAME.  He came to believe God was as good as His word.
 In fact, the Bible states that part of the reason Abraham was accounted 
 righteouss is that he survived the three day Mount Moriah experience.  This
 experience is a type of the cross.

 All Christians have begun to allow our High Priest to administer the merits
 of His sacrifice, but the work has been incomplete.  It remains for the
 last generation to allow Christ to go all the way with them.  That is, He
 ADMINISTERS THE FULL CUP.  They are cleansed from sin and enabled to   
 reach behind the veil.  See God's love to its fulness, receive a full
 revelation (via sinful flesh) of how sinful they are according to the flesh
 and survive this experience by faith.  This is what Christ did on the cross
 (though with no forerunner).

>As I understand the OT High Priest, his role was to be an
>intermediary between Israel and God in the same way that
>Jesus is an intermediary between us and God now, is this
>what you mean?

 Yeah, there's a few things.  He is a Mediator...we cannot see God's face
 and live.  There is a veil.  He works to enable us to be able to reach
 behind the veil as he did.  He applies the blood so as to cleanse our 
 hearts (1 Peter 1:2 is an EXCELLENT text for this).

�The High Priest utilizes the merits of the cross.
>You mean Jesus as High Priest doesn't have to do any more
>sacrifices, as the one sacrifice for all has been made
>already (ie Jesus on the cross) ?

 Yes, but again, what the cross accomplishes is RADICALLY different with 
 my view.  It is the blood which cleanses.  This is an actual cleansing
 not only a declaratory.  yes, we're pardoned, but the blood cleanses.
 The High Priest cleanses.

 I don't see the cross satisfying ANY penalty God requires because I
 don't see God requiring any.  What I do see is the merits of the cross 
 being the sum total of that cleansing agent which rids us of exactly 
 what we need to be delivered from - sin.  And those merits are applied
 by our High Priest.  Just do a Bible study.  ALWAYS the merits (the
 blood - this is symbolic) are applied by the Priest.  Always.  And always
 the piest makes atonement.

 I better stop here.

                                              Tony

Note 416.47       STRATA::BARBIERI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>        I would say "do not generalize where God specified.  Abstain from
>        the tree God specified."
>
>        On what basis would you tell Adam and Eve that what tree they
>        choose matters if (when God specified a specific day) you say the
>        day you choose matters not - that the choice is yours?

Jesus showed that the sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath.
He went out of his way to illustrate this.  He went out of his way to show
where the spirit of the law transcended the letter of the law, and that the
letter of the law (legalism) only led someone to know they were dead in
their sins.  Hate was equated to murder; lust equated to adultery.

The apostles undertook a serious question about circumcision and Jewish
law and spoke to these issues.

Mark

      Hi Mark,
    
        I'll let you have the last word.  ;-)   
    
        (see 382.50)
    
        But, as to the _gospel_...well...I just might hang in a while 
        longer!
    
                                                     God Bless,
    
                                                     Tony

Note 416.48    STRATA::BARBIERI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I do not believe God punishes anyone
> for sinning, but that His entire work of redemption is one of
> removing sin from the life.

  Adam and Eve may beg to differ.

> People are talking about being delivered
> from sin and then they talk about the cross being our atonement all
> the while unless some other work is performed by Christ, it hasn't
> taken a single sin out of anybody's heart.

Perhaps you misunderstand the (largely Calvinistic) view about sin. Perhaps a
refressher on the way the Calvinists and Welseyans define sin would be of help.
Calvinist believe that anything contrary to God's "perfect" will is sin,
including sins of omission of things you could have done but did not.  The
Wesleyans believe that sin ia willful act of rebellion against a known law of
God.  That sin is intentional.  As you have explained the Adventist view, I
understand you to say that sin is intrinsic to the flesh (sarx) and willful or
no, action or no, we have sin until God changes our flesh on this earth, or
beyond.  To be clear, the redemptive work of the cross took away my sins. For
the Calivinists, as I understand their position, the cross took away their
sins, past, present, and future.  These are different perspectives of the same
thing.  Your statement is in error because it DOES take sin out of the heart of
the redeemed.

================================================================================
Note 416.49 STRATA::BARBIERI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Thus I believe in a split atonement.  One part accomplished at Calvary and
> the other by the High Priest.  By the way, this lends a whole different
> idea to "without the shedding of blood, there can be no remission of sin."
> I see this as Christ had to go to the cross (shed His blood) so that He
> could apply the merits of the sacrifice (that love expressed) so that He
> could rid sin from the life.  The common interpretation 'flops' a person
> right from deliverance being from sin to deliverance being from God who
> requires death as a punishment for sin.  It is not consistent with the
> idea of a High Priest who sprinkles the blood (reveals His love slowly
> as he must - see Romans 7, he can't unveil His full love all at once;
> this would consume us.  He reveals Himself gradually).

  You never once asked yourself why the priest sprinkles the blood?
  Why it had the efficacy to atone for people's sins?

  The sprinkling of the blood is what God sees as >payment< and we
  are therefore JUST AS DELIVERED FROM DEATH AND PUNISHMENT from
  the symbolic sprinkling of the blood as we are from the symbolic
  shedding of blood.

  Whether sprinkled, or shed, the end result is the same, we are atoned
  for by the blood and ***will not face the righteous judgment of God for 
  the sin in our lives*** that those who are no covered by the blood of
  Christ shed or sprinkled will face.  

  Therefore atonement is not split in either way you view this.

  I hope this helps you see that.

Mark

      Hi,
    
        Just an emphasis.
    
        I have heard it stated that the scriptures which speak of there
        being no remission of sins without the shedding of blood proves
        that Christ had to die in order to satisfy a punishment.
    
        In this case _remission_ would be defined as a payment satisfied.
    
        In consideration of .48 and .49, I would like to suggest that
        it speaks of sin being remitted and the context of scripture is
        that it refers to AN ACTUAL REMOVAL.  Here I would especially
        cite hebrews where it refers to perfection throughout and even
        mentions the imperfection of animal sacrifices (there is still a
        REMEMBRANCE of sins).  Whereas with the cross, what is looked 
        forward to is no conscioussness of sin.  SIN IS ACTUALLY GONE!!!!
    
        1 Peter 1:2 is another good quote and of course the passages that
        talk about the day of atonement.  They speak of the blood
        _cleansing_, that is remitting sin (removing it).  It is actually
        being removed from the life.  This would follow from an under-
        standing of what the sanctuary typifies.  "Build Me a sanctuary 
        that I may dwell among you."  It is God indwelling the heart.
        Thus the blood being applied to the sanctuary is actually God's
        agape being applied which blood (when received) actually removes
        sin from the life.
    
        To summarize...one of the passages given as strongest proof of a
        judicial model when studied within context is one of the strongest
        proofs of a physician model where deliverance is from sin and sin
        alone.
    
                                                       Tony

      Mark,
    
        I just read your last reply.  No, how you thought I defined sin
        is incorrect - by a long shot.  Sin is something 100% in the mind.
        The combination of sinful flesh and a revelation of God's love
        leads one to experience the same pain (whether or not sin is in the
        mind).  It leads one to see what he is capable of (according to the
        flesh) and it seems to the person he is that sinner.
    
        If one does not have sin in the mind, he overcomes this awful 
        experience by faith - just as Christ did (Psalm 22).  If one has
        sin in his mind, he despairs and his life is crushed out by the
        psychic destruction.  He lacks faith and all is darkness for him.
    
        As for atonement.  No, the High Priest must administer the merits.
        Without that work we are lost.  Atonement is reconciliation.  Sin
        is alienation.  The atonement is finished when all alienation is
        removed.
    
        Yes, Romans says we have now received the atonement (reconciliation)
        Its all in the cross.  But it must be applied by the Priest.
        Scripture also says we are now clean by the word, but it also 
        looks forward to a last day people whose robes are made white 
        by the blood of the Lamb.  We have all begun to receive Christ,
        but the mystery of God (which is Christ in you, the hope of glory)
        _is not finished_ (Rev 10:7).
    
        Leviticus defines the finishing work of the atonement as the
        cleansing of the sanctuary and it says that the High Priest 
        cleanses the entire congregation.
    
        This hasn't happened yet.
    
        I know...you insist that the atonement is completed at the cross.
        Fine, thus some will say I have a cultic belief.  But, the Bible
        speaks of us being clean, but also of further cleansing.  Yes, the
        sacrifice has been given to us.  We have received the atonement
        (reconciliation), but it has not been received by us to such an 
        extent that the cleansing performed by the High priest on the
        day of atonement is finished.
    
        I don't know what you'll do with the many scriptures that state 
        that the atonement is completed by the Priest.  Or the one that
        says Christ was not a Priest on earth.  Or the one that says He
        mediates in a _heavenly_ sanctuary.  Or the ones that say atonement
        includes a work IN the sanctuary.
    
        Oh...I'll admit there is tension with the Romans verse, but there 
        is far more tension when one contradicts all of the above.
    
        We have received the atonement, but we have not done so fully.
        And when it has been received fully, Christ's work will do what 
        Leviticus and hebrews state exactly what the atonement accomplishes
        (cleanse the hearts of the congregation completely from sin).
    
        Mark, why don't you refer to Hebrews.  CLEARLY, it speaks of 
        actual heart cleansing in the context of Christ's High Priestly
        work in agreement with Leviticus 16 and in agreement with what 
        anyone could understand what it means for the heart to be clean.
    
        Its simple really.
    
                                                      Tony 
    

 When Jesus said "It is finished", what was finished?







Jim

      Hi Jim,
    
        Excellent question.
    
        I would answer...PASSOVER.
    
        His work as Lamb (sacrifice) was finished 100%
    
        His work as High Priest had not even started yet.
    
        Hebrews 9:4,5
        For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that
        there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
        Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as
        Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the
        tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things
        according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
    
        A line upon line, precept upon precept study of the entire Bible
        would assist in determining what is meant by the 'IT' in "It is
        finished."
    
        I suggest looking at Leviticus and see what it says about the
        atonement.  Who finishes the work of atonement.  What that work
        accomplishes.  And then turn to Hebrews and find out who Christ
        was on earth (not a Priest) and when He is a Priest, and if the
        work of atonement (as described clearly in Leviticus and referred
        to in Hebrews and elsewhere) was in fact accomplished at Calvary.
    
                                                  Tony

    When Jesus was done creating the universe in Genesis 1, what did he
    mean then by "It is Finished!"?  Why did he repeat this again on the
    cross?

If I may,

It is finished!

From the Greek teleo {tel-eh'-o}

AV - finish, fulfil, accomplish, pay. perform, expire

1) to bring to a close, to finish, to end
 1a) passed, finished
2) to perform, execute, fulfil, (so that the thing done corresponds to what 
   has been said, the order, command etc.)
 2a) with special reference to the subject matter, to carry out the contents
     of a command
 2b) with reference also to the form, to do just as commanded and generally
     involving the notion of time, to perform the last act, which completes
     a process, to accomplish, fulfil
3) to pay
 3a) of tribute

"It is finished or paid" John 19:30

Christ satisfied God's justice by dying for all to pay for the sins of the 
elect. These sins can never be punished again, since that would violate God's 
justice. Sins can only be punished once, either by a substitute, or by yourself

Part of what is finished is His victory over the world, the flesh, and 
the devil. A victory He has assured us we can share. 
    
>His work as High Priest had not even started yet.

I disagree, as in Romans 8:34

... yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God,
who also maketh intercession for us.

I think this is only part of His High Priestly ministry. Perhaps more is the
construction of the mansions in which some day we shall all reside? 

Bob

      Mike,
    
        I'm just using what scripture says.  Apparently, redemption
        required two distinct works one of which was finished at the
        cross.
    
        I understand your reasoning, it just completely fails to 
        accomadate what the Bible says about 1)what the atonement is,
        2)who performs the finished work of atonement, and 3)where
        that work takes place.
    
        The answers of which are:
        1)actual heart-cleansing from sin, 2)Performed by a Priest, 
        3)In the heavenly sanctuary.
    
        You can decide to contradict the numerous plain teachings of
        scripture and thus come to a conclusion that the atonement was
        finished at the cross.  I choose to accomadate these other verses.
        I believe the medicine and soap analogies nicely delineate the
        two works of atonement (sacrifice and priest).
    
        And again...I'm just sharing my belief.  We are not delivered
        from a punishment.  God requires no punishment for sin.  Agape
        does not seek its own.  We are delivered from sin itself.  If it
        is in your heart, to some extent, you are alienated from God.
        Yes, if you die today, you will someday see Christ in the clouds.
        Yes, God is honoring our first steps.  But, that which needs to 
        be reconciled is our minds/hearts to him.  If there is any sin in
        your experience, there is a reconciling work for our High Priest
        left to do.  Sin is alienation against God and is proof there is
        more reconciling to be done.
    
        I see some 'flip-flopping' again.  By this I mean stating that 
        we must be delivered from sin (see topic #423) and now saying the
        atonement is finished not because sin has been rooted from the
        life, but because some penalty was met by Christ.
    
        Without our High Priest, not a soul could come to God by faith.
        Not a soul could receive the merits of the cross.  How then can 
        the cross be all that the atonement is?
    
        The priest applies the blood and that blood _actually cleanses_.
        And that work is a work of atonement.
    
        I'm willing to accept what you guys believe.  I am not willing to
        discuss this further unless any of you are willing to accomadate
        what Leviticus and Hebrews state about who finishes the work of
        atonement (priest), what they say that work is (cleansing), and
        where it is finished (sanctuary).
    
        I fail to see any point in giving credibility to your stances when
        they do not address this multitude of inspired text.
    
                                                        Tony
                                                 

      re: .58
    
      Hi Bob,
    
        I agree with that Romans verse.  When I said He had yet started
        His High Priestly work, I meant before His ascension.  
    
        I believe that intercessory work alluded to by Paul in Romans
        is a redemptive work and is a Priestly work.  It was not a work 
        performed by Christ as Lamb on earth.  It is a work performed by
        Christ as High Priest in heaven in the sanctuary "made without
        hands."
    
                                                     Tony

    Tony, did they arrive yet?

>   God requires no punishment for sin.  Agape
>   does not seek its own.  We are delivered from sin itself.  If it
>   is in your heart, to some extent, you are alienated from God.
    
    this does not make sense to me.
    
    the ultimate punishment is separation from God.
    
    yet, you say "God requires no punishment for sin." and "If it
    is in your heart, to some extent, you are alienated from God."
    
    how can this be?
                                              
    if God does not require punishment for sin, then why would He keep us
    from Him, regardless of how sinful or not sinful we are?

RE:      <<< Note 416.59 by STRATA::BARBIERI "God can be so appreciated!" >>>
              -< Incomplete Picture Forming Incorrect Conclusion >-

   >        from a punishment.  God requires no punishment for sin.  Agape
    
             Romans 6:23 "The wages of sin is death".  Sounds like some form
             of punishment to me.





                                                            Tony
                                                 

.54  Tony

I won't be able to catch up on all of this but I found this to be a very big
disconnect in the definition of sin:

   "Sin is something 100% in the mind...."  

and what follows is equally convoluted.

Back to skimming....

Note 416.54  LUDWIG::BARBIERI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>        Yes, Romans says we have now received the atonement (reconciliation)
>        Its all in the cross.  But it must be applied by the Priest.

  We have received, but it must be applied.  Ah, yes: we have received
  the pill, now we must swallow it.

  Recieving atonement means to have the pill applied already.
  So we disagree again.

>        I don't know what you'll do with the many scriptures that state
>        that the atonement is completed by the Priest.  Or the one that
>        says Christ was not a Priest on earth.  Or the one that says He
>        mediates in a _heavenly_ sanctuary.  Or the ones that say atonement
>        includes a work IN the sanctuary.

  Or the verse that say we are the temple of the Holy Ghost, eh?
  I don't know what you've done with the many scriptures to come to
  your view, either.

>        Oh...I'll admit there is tension with the Romans verse, but there
>        is far more tension when one contradicts all of the above.

  So it seems from your perspective, despite the mulitplicity of other
  perspectives.

>        Mark, why don't you refer to Hebrews.

  Would you like me to?

>        Its simple really.

  Apparently not, if you have a different view.  And from my perspective,
  you have taken what is simple and made it something very complex and
  unwieldy.

MM

================================================================================
Note 416.56  LUDWIG::BARBIERI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>        His work as High Priest had not even started yet.
>
>        Hebrews 9:4,5
>        For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that
>        there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
>        Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as
>        Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the
>        tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things
>        according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

You mean Hebrews 8:4,5

I believe you err on a number of things: what the sanctuary is in verse 8:2
qhich could also be rendered as "holy things"; but more importantly, in verse
4 it clearly states that the reason he should not be an earthly priest is
because Christ supersede the *Levitical System*.  All these verses say is that
Jesus performs the duties of the High Priest in atoning for us transcendant
above the Law.

Read further down in the chapter where he "obtained a more excellent ministry"
because he is the mediator of a "better covenant."   The Levitcial Law is
supplanted with a new law (verse 10) which is written in minds and on hearts.

Now read als Hebrews 9:12 (remembering that these verses are still flowing
together in one context:

    Neither by the blood of goats and calves, [earthly model]
    but by his own blood [the High Priest's of v 11 - spiritual model]
    he entered [past tense - done - performed] in once to the hol place,
    having obtained eternal redemption for us.  [also performed and DONE]

Skip to 9:24 read the words beyond the first "For Christ is not entered into
the holy places..."

    For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which
    are the figures of the true; but into heaven [he is entered here!] itself,
    now to appear in the presence of God for us:

That's just a start....

MM

    Dear Mods,
    
    If this is inappropriate "advertisement" please set hidden, or delete,
    and inform me on how this valuable resourse can be spoken of without
    breaking any rules of the Corporation.
    
    If anyone is interested, the following information (on cassette) is
    available from CRI.
    
    Seventh Day Adventism
    
    Interview with Desmond Ford - by Walter Martin 
    2 tapes - Part # C-135 - Price = $12.00
    
    Seventh Day Adventism - by Walter Martin
    1 tape - Part # C-035 - Price = $6.00
    
    For credit card orders only, call 800-443-9797
    
    For a full Resource Listing catalog, covering topics from Angels to the
    Worldwide Church of God (and *EVERYTHING* in between!) write to:
    
    Christian Research Institute International
    PO Box 500 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92693
    
    In His Love, By His Grace,
    
    Bob

    .66 has been hidden until moderator discussion on PPP can be
    ascertained.
    
    Nancy
    Co-mod CHRISTIAN
    

    .66 unhidden couldn't find any PPP that would stop it.
    
    :-)

�    .66 unhidden couldn't find any PPP that would stop it.

Just glad it wasn't .666
			 - that'd be the antisnarf to out-antisnarf them all...

				- *have* to hide that one!

								&

      Hi All,
    
        I was out sick Weds. afternoon and Thursday.  I don't know 
        if I can contribute today because I first must reply to Mike
        Heiser (Hi Mike!  and yes, I got the tapes) offline.
    
        Because the nature of what is being shred is so central to
        the themes of what we are delivered from, how we are delivered
        from what we are delivered, why the cross is necessary, what
        is justification, and what is the atonement, I am compelled to
        continue.  This is hitting pretty central to the plan of redemption
        and to God's character of agape.
    
        I'll contribute as time allows.
    
        God bless you all and may all of us enjoy a deeper revelation of
        Christ hung for us so that it turns us further away from sin and
        deepens the destruction of our alienation and deepens the extent
        of the reconciliation of our hearts to Him.
    
                                                   Tony

      Hi,
    
        I've been real busy, but I am still forming some replies.
    
        Could be a couple weeks.
    
                                                  Tony

    
1Peter 3:15 says that we should "be ready always to give an answer to every man 
that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear".

I would like to take this opportunity to "give an answer" here and share my 
views with you on the Seventh-day Adventist church.  I believe you will find 
them interesting.  I also believe that Mike Heiser has been lead to believe
a lie because of the tapes he has been listening to, and if you will be 
patient, I think I can explain a few things here.  I will not take apart
the original posting word for word for we will surely wind up in a big rathole
but I will try to answer any specific questions you send me from the Bible
and from the beliefs of my church.  (Dear Brother Mike, I have walked in
your shoes so I cannot keep silent here).

Here's my story:  I haven't always been a Seventh-day Adventist.  In fact, I
was happily attending the Assembly of God church, seeing miracles, hearing the
Lord speak to me daily, and studying cults so as to rescue my mother and sister 
who were Seventh-day Adventists.  Doing my best 'Saul of Tarsus' impersonation 
I came before a body of Seventh-day Adventists with an armful of evidence such 
as listed here in 416.1 by Mike Heiser plus much, much more.  All of this was
later proved to be false.  Bear in mind here that I am completely skeptical of 
just about everything unless I can see it or it can be proven to me from the 
Bible. (Funny thing - my being skeptical only worked one-way here.  I just 
assumed what I was reading and hearing was true when it was cutting down the 
SDA's).  Well, it took about 3-4 weeks of my constant yammering and Bible 
thumping at them, with them patiently answering all of my questions and showing 
me what they believe and why they believe it.  No other church, not even my own 
was able to do that.  I thought they could.  Can yours? (think carefully here 
about what your beliefs actually are, lots of people cannot articulate them). 
It was now time for them to lovingly ask me some hard questions about my 
beliefs and would I please back them up with Scripture?  I thought I could.  
I had learned all of the handy phrases and read all of the current authors 
that so many of you mention here and quote from.  It turns out there are quite 
a few unsubtantiated church traditions in the Protestant world.  And some of 
the views on End Time Prophesies that are preached from a lot of pulpits and
written in books have just too many errors when you compare them with the 
entire Bible.  (Please see #397.114 for a brief outline).  You see, that's one 
thing the Adventists did that intrigued me.  They would always show me why I 
was wrong a Chapter or a Book at a time, not a Verse at a time as I see done 
almost everywhere.  It makes a difference. It turns out that they are not a 
cult, not by any stretch of the imagination.  I'm so glad that I took the time
to "prove them".  They are a denomination full of real people, like you and me, 
and they don't pretend to be perfect.  What follows here is probably more than 
you'll ever want to know about Seventh-day Adventists.  Let me know what you 
think. Talk to Jesus about this and see what he says.  Oh, and by the way, they
never once quoted Ellen G. White to me.  Just the Bible.  They did, however
introduce me to her writings AFTER we discussed the Bible. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

�We believe the Bible is God's inspired word, and is the full, sufficient, and
 the only basic rule of faith and practice.

�Seventh-day Adventists do not consider the writings of Ellen G. White as
 either a substitute for or an addition to the Holy Bible.  For Adventists,
 the Bible stands unique and supreme as the test of Christian faith and
 practice, while the writings of Ellen G. White serve, in her own words,
 as "a lesser light to lead men and woman to the greater light".  Her writings
 do not present a new way of salvation, but are designed to lead men to
 understand and appreciate the Bible, and to avail themselves of the fount 
 of salvation therein revealed.  Here are some quotes taken from her writings:
 (the word "testimonies" is used to describe her writings in general)

	- The Bible, and the Bible alone, is our rule of faith.

	- The written testimonies are not to give new light, but to impress
	  vividly upon the heart the truths of inspiration already revealed,
	  that all may be left without excuse.

	- Additional truth is not brought out; but God has through the
	  testimonies simplified the great truths already given.  The
	  testimonies are not to belittle the word of God, but to exalt it
	  and attract minds to it, that the beautiful simplicity of truth
	  may impress all.

	- We are to receive God's word as supreme authority.

	- The Bible is our rule of faith and doctrine.

	- Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser
	  light to lead men and women to the greater light.

�We were organized as a denomination in 1863, not 1844.  

�"Adventist" means we believe in the Advent (or Second Coming) of our Lord
 and Savior, Jesus Christ.  If you believe Jesus is coming again as stated in
 the Bible, then technically, you are an "Adventist".

�"Seventh-day" means that, unlike most of the Christian world today, we
 observe the seventh day of the week (commonly known as Saturday) in accordance
 with the 10 Commandments, as God's Sabbath.  (See creation week story in 
 Genesis; see Ten Commandments in Exodus)  The Sabbath is not just for the Jews
 as commonly believed.  If you read Acts 13 carefully you will see that even the
 Gentiles kept the Sabbath in Jesus' time.  

�We share the historic doctrines of the larger Protestant denominations such as
 the virgin birth or Christ, His crucifixion and resurrection, the Holy Spirit,
 the inspired Bible, and salvation through the atonement of Christ, just to
 name a few.

�We are strongly dedicated to separation of church and state and seek to 
 maintain this distinction between religion and the civil government, a
 time-proven blessing to all citizens.

�We do not belong to the National or World Council of Churches.

�All of our pastors receive the same salary.  It makes no difference how big
 or small their church is, or how many millionaires or poor people are members
 of their congregation.  They do not depend on contributions from anyone to
 meet their needs.  This frees them to preach the word of God without worrying
 about preaching a strong message about repentance, for instance, that may 
 annoy the rich people in the congregation. 

�How do we worship?  Central to our worship service is preaching from the Bible.
 The word, the word, the word!  We have congregational singing, choirs and 
 organ music.  Some of the larger churches occasionally play host to a
 Symphony Orchestra (my own church has the Thayer Conservatory Orchestra there
 to perform 6 or 8 times a year).  The service is nonliturgical, but dignified,
 orderly, and reverent.  We kneel for prayer.  Preceding the church service,
 Sabbath school is held, with systematic Bible study.

�We practice "open communion", welcoming Christians of every faith to partake
 of the communion with us.  Our communion, which takes place about 4 times a
 year, begins with foot washing and ends with the partaking of bread and
 unfermented wine.  I'll describe this in great detail if any of you are
 interested.  There is something about washing someone else's feet or having
 your feet washed by someone else that changes you deep down inside.

�I will give you a complete run down of all of our Doctrinal Beliefs if any
 would like to see them.

Would you like to read some of Ellen G. White's writings for yourself?
I would be happy to share my books on the teachings of the Seventh-day 
Adventists with anyone who is interested and contacts me offline.
    
    God Bless,
    Janet

    

      WHAT THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH BELIEVES ABOUT PROPHECY
      -------------------------------------------------------------

�Amos 3:7 - Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret
 unto his servants the prophets.

�Seventh-day Adventists do not consider the writings of Ellen G. White as
 either a substitute for or an addition to the Holy Bible.  For Adventists,
 the Bible stands unique and supreme as the test of Christian faith and
 practice, while the writings of Ellen G. White serve, in her own words,
 as "a lesser light to lead men and woman to the greater light".  Her writings
 do not present a new way of salvation, but are designed to lead men to
 understand and appreciate the Bible, and to avail themselves of the fount
 of salvation therein revealed.

�Some have speculated that there are degrees of inspiration.  Accordingly,
 they consider such prophets, for example as Deborah, Nathan, and Agabus, as
 possessing a lower, or inferior, kind of inspiration then the canonical
 writers.  On the same premise they would consider Ellen G. White as possessing
 a lower, or inferior, kind of inspiration.  But the Bible says nothing about
 degrees of inspiration, nor does it lend any support to the idea.  Adventists
 believe that all such speculation is not only idle but dangerous.  How can
 finite minds hope to understand the mystery of how God, through the Spirit,
 uniquely illumines the minds of His chosen spokesman?

�In Rev 12:17 John speaks of "the testimony of Jesus" which is "the spirit of
 prophecy" as one of the identifying marks of the "remnant".  The word
 "prophecy" describes any inspired message communicated by God through a
 prophet.  Prophecy may be a prediction of future events, though more commonly
 it is not.  The expression "spirit of prophecy" refers specifically to the
 "manifestation of the Spirit" in the form of a special gift of the Holy Spirit
 that inspires the recipient and enables him to speak authoritatively as a
 representative of God (1Cor 12:7-10) when "moved by the Holy Ghost" to do so
 (2Peter 1:21).  The context of the expression in Rev 19:10 defines "the
 testimony of Jesus" and "the spirit of prophecy" in this sense.  In view of
 the fact that the "remnant" of Rev 12:17 specifically refers to the church
 after the close of the 1260 prophetic days of vs. 6 and 14, that is, after
 1798 (see Dan 7:25), Rev 12:17 stands as a clear prediction of the special
 manifestation of the "spirit" or "gift", of prophecy in the church in our day.
 Seventh-day Adventists believe the ministry of Ellen G. White meets the
 specifications of Rev 12:17 in a unique way.

�The Bible writers refer to more than 20 of their contemporaries who exercised
 the gift of prophecy, though their messages were not incorporated into the 
 canon.  Such were Nathan, Gad, Iddo, Agabus, and others (2Sam 7:2,1Chron 29:29,
 Acts 11:27,28;21:10).  It is evident, furthermore, that the gift of prophecy
 was not limited to men, either in OT or in NT times, for there were 
 prophetesses such as Deborah (Judges 4:4), Huldah (2Chron 34:22), and the 
 four daughters of Philip (Acts 21:9).

�New Testament writers nowhere suggest that the gift of prophecy was to end 
 with the apostolic church.  On the contrary, Paul declares that, with the 
 other gifts of the Spirit he lists in Eph 4:11, it was to continue "till we
 all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God,
 unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ"
 (v.13).  All of the other special gifts mentioned in v.11 are still needed in
 the church, and men and women are still qualified by the Holy Spirit to fill 
 these offices.  Why should the office of prophet be considered an exception?

�There have always been counterfeit manifestations of the prophetic gift.  Not
 only was this so in OT times (see 2Chron 18, Jer 27-29), but our Lord warned
 that the Christian church would be troubled by false prophets, particularly
 as the time for His second advent should draw near (Matt 24:11,24).  The 
 deceptive power of these false prophets was to be so great that if it were
 possible they would "deceive the very elect".  The fact that Christ warned
 against a false manifestation of the prophetic gift prior to His second coming
 argues strongly that there would also be a genuine manifestation of this gift,
 as otherwise He could simply have warned against any and all prophets who
 might arise.

�In harmony with Christ's warning John counsels the church to test those who
 claim to have been entrusted with spiritual gifts (1John 4:1), to determine
 whether these gifts are genuine.  The Scriptures specify certain standards by
 which those who profess to speak for God are to be measured:

   (1) The personal life of the prophet will be in harmony with the teachings
       of Scripture (Matt 7:15-20)
   (2) His messages will likewise accord with Scripture
   (3) His ministry will exalt Christ as the Son of God and the Savior of men
       (1John 4:2)
   (4) His ministry will be confirmed by fulfilled predictions (Jer 28:9,
       1Sam3:19) 

 It is reasonable also to expect that the message he bears will be of practical
 benefit to the church, that they will be timely and appropriate, that they 
 will be free from human influence, and that when he is in open vision his 
 experience will be similar to that of the Bible prophets.  The life, ministry, 
 and writings of Ellen G. White fully meet these various requirements.
 

    do folks remember a few years back when a noter volunteered to send
    everyone a copy of the book "America in Prophecy"?  When I received my
    copy, I didn't have the time for it.  For some strange reason, I picked
    it up this weekend to scan through it.  I was reading through the
    chapter named after the book and saw some things that sent up the red
    flags:
    
    - the judgment started in 1844.
    - lots of condemnation toward the Roman Catholic church and their
      supposed role in Revelation.
    
    I immediately checked out the copyright pages of the book.  This book
    was originally published under the name "The Great Controversy."  Also,
    the author's name, which is not on the cover, is listed as E.G. White
    on the 2nd page into the book.  It became obvious who this book is
    from.  It's now in the local landfill.
    
    Mike

{ from The Berean Call (Dave Hunt's newsletter), April 1992 }

Seventh-Day Adventists encourage us to present the facts concerning Roman
Catholicism.  Should we not be equally frank concerning the Adventism's errors?
The following is from a response I wrote recently to an Adventists friend who I
believe knows Christ despite holding some significant errors.

Q: Why don't you accept Ellen G. White as a prophet?

A: I have investigated E.G. White and reject her because she made false
prophecies: that "Old Jerusalem never would be built up" - _Early_Writings_
p 75, etc; that she would be alive at the rapture (_Early_Writings_ pp 15-6);
that Christ would return before slavery was abolished (Ibid. pp 35,276); that He
would return IN A FEW MONTHS (written in the 1850s, Ibid, p 67); that Adventists
living in 1856 would be alive at the rapture (_Testimonies_for_The_Church, vol
1, pp 131-2) etc.

EGW also taught much false doctrine: that Jesus is Michael the Archangel
(_Early_Writings_ p 164; _Spiritual_Gifts_, vol 2 p 276, vol 4a p 58;
_Testimonies_for_The_Church, vol 9 p 239); the sins of the penitent will be
placed on Satan (_The_Great_Controversy_, pp 422,485); Jesus did not ascend to
the right hand of the Father in the Holy of Holies until October 22, 1844;
salvation merely gives mankind another chance (_Selected_Messages_, bk 1, p
250); "Those that accept the Savior...should never...say or feel that they are
saved" (_Christ's_Object_Lessons, p 155); etc.

In referring to the Gospel, Paul calls it "the gospel of your SALVATION"
(Ephesians 1:13), "the gospel...by which ye ARE SAVED" (1 Corinthians 5:1-2) and
he says that the Gospel is "the power of God UNTO SALVATION" (Romans 1:16).  In
1 Corinthians 1:18 Paul says that the preaching of the cross is foolishness "to
them that perish, but unto US WHICH ARE SAVED it is the power of God."  So Paul
counted himself and all believers as SAVED.

One of Mrs. White's most serious errors is the teaching of "The Investigative
Judgment" which is set forth in pages 479-91 of _The_Great_Controversy_.  On p
480 she states that in 1844 Christ entered into "the holy of holies" in order
"to make an atonement for all who are shown to be entitled to its benefits."
(So He couldn't have ascended earlier to the Father's right hand as Scripture
clearly teaches.)  This heresy, like Catholicism, in spite of Christ's
triumphant cry, "It is finished," denies that He completed His redemptive work
upon the cross!

Like Catholicism, Adventism makes our redemption dependent upon our good works.
Moreover, sins we forgot to repent of or were not aware of will damn us.  "Our
acts, our words, even our most secret motives, all have their weight in deciding
our DESTINY...though...forgotten by us, they will bear their testimony to
JUSTIFY OR CONDEMN." (pp 486-90)  I have undoubtedly failed to recognize or have
forgotten sins (such as not always loving God with my whole being) and thus not
repented of them, and am therefore lost by EGW's standards.  But this is not
Scriptural.

Please read again Hebrews 9 and 10.  Our redemption is an accomplished fact
through Christ's once-for-all offering of Himself.  In God's view, we're already
seated with Christ in the heavenlies (Ephesians 2:6).  Those who have believed
in Him "shall not come into condemnation but have passed from death to life"
(John 5:24).  I know that I am saved.  "Investigative judgment" suggests
Catholicism's purgatory.  Yes, we must all appear before the Judgment Seat of
Christ so that our works can be tried in fire (1 Corinthians 3).  That has
nothing to do with one's salvation, however, but with one's reward.

As for Saturday, this is indeed the sabbath that was kept by the Jews before the
cross.  It is the day God rested from creating the universe we now inhabit; but
a new universe will be made and we are already new creatures in Christ, so we
worship Him on the day He rose from the dead, the first day of the new week.
That old covenant was for Israel, not for Gentiles (Ephesians 2) and is surely
not for the Church.

In spite of our differences, I do appreciate your interest and prayers and
encouragement.

    Rather than engaging in a pointless argument here I would like to
    suggest you check with some different sources.  A lot of .76 is untrue
    or just plain twisted.  Perhaps I could point you to Walter Martin?
    His work is the accepted standard for references on Denominations and 
    Cults; which churches are and which churches are not.  He has a lot to 
    say about Seventh-day Adventism.  In the beginning of his ministry he
    used to believe as 'Dave Hunt' does (see .76) but he wrote an entire
    book to retract what he had previously said about SDAs.  May I suggest
    you head for the library and read "The Truth About Seventh-day
    Adventism" or "The Kingdom of the Cults" where he includes a large
    chapter about SDA reaffirming that they are, indeed, Christians and
    that a lot of what is passed on as info about them is not necessarily
    true.
    
    I will end this here in the Spirit of Christian love and fellowship.
    
    God Bless,
    Janet Brown

    Janet, Dave Hunt said up front that he believed SDA's are Christians,
    but they have some serious doctrinal errors.  Walter Martin said the
    same.  So has Chuck Smith.  The issue of Dave Hunt's letter is why EGW
    is not a prophet of God.
    
    FWIW - my pastor was a former SDA pastor (even graduated from Pacific
    Union College).  After God revealed to him the justification by faith
    as revealed in Romans, he started preaching it in his SDA church.  SDA
    officials in the state and on the West Coast gave him an ultimatum: 
    teach EGW's writings over the Bible or leave the SDA church.  He chose
    the Bible and left the church.  Now I ask you, why would SDA church
    officials issue such an ultimatum over one of its pastors?  Placing
    anything above God's Word is very dangerous and paves the way for
    doctrinal errors and cultic thinking.
    
    Mike

    >FWIW - my pastor was a former SDA pastor (even graduated from Pacific
    >Union College).  After God revealed to him the justification by faith
    >as revealed in Romans, he started preaching it in his SDA church. SDA
    >officials in the state and on the West Coast gave him an ultimatum:
    >teach EGW's writings over the Bible or leave the SDA church.  He chose
    >the Bible and left the church.  Now I ask you, why would SDA church
    >officials issue such an ultimatum over one of its pastors?  Placing
    >anything above God's Word is very dangerous and paves the way for
    >doctrinal errors and cultic thinking.
    
    Mike,
    
    I'm having a hard time believing this.  Don't misunderstand, I'm not
    calling you a liar, but I would never attend any church that put
    ANYTHING ahead of the Bible, as I stated in a previous note.  And most
    of the Adventists I know are the same.  We do not allow anyone to
    'preach Ellen White' to us at all.  There are no two ways about it!
    I don't know what kind of a church your pastor was in but I hope and
    pray that, if what you and he say is true, that they have been
    disfellowshipped from the Seventh-day Adventist church.  If I ever find
    this to be true in any of our churches - I'm leaving.  And I know I
    speak for many, many people.
    
    Also, you are dead wrong when you say we teach salvation by works.  
    We are saved by grace through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.  Period!  
    There can NEVER be any works involved.  NEVER!  
    
    I don't mean to shout but is any of this getting through to you?
    
    In Christ,
    Janet

>    I don't know what kind of a church your pastor was in but I hope and
>    pray that, if what you and he say is true, that they have been
>    disfellowshipped from the Seventh-day Adventist church.  If I ever find
>    this to be true in any of our churches - I'm leaving.  And I know I
>    speak for many, many people.
    
    He and his wife were 4th-generation SDA members and they were both 
    disfellowshipped.  They are thankful for that though.  SDA officials
    aren't too happy about it either because SDA pastors (his old friends
    and co-workers) are following in number after discovering what went on.
    
>    Also, you are dead wrong when you say we teach salvation by works.  
>    We are saved by grace through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.  Period!  
>    There can NEVER be any works involved.  NEVER!  
    
    Do you have 100% assurance of your salvation?
    
>    I don't mean to shout but is any of this getting through to you?
    
    It sure is, Janet.
    
    Mike

    Hello All,
    
    As a SDA member I feel it nessary to respond to this note. SDA's
    believe in the BIBLE as our ONLY rule of Faith. EGW's prophetic
    ministry has stood the test of scripture. Her ministry does not 
    replace the bible nor add to the bible. All our doctrines are 
    biblically based.
    
    I have 100% assurance of salvation because of WHO Jesus is and what
    He HAS done for me and Is now doing in me.  [ROMANS 5,8; EPESIANS 2;
    HEBREWS 8:10-14; JUDE 24,25]
    
    
    "In the light from Calvary it will be seen that the law of
    self-renouncing love is the law of life for earth and heaven; that the 
    love which "seeketh not her own" has its source in the heart of
    God." Desire of Ages p. 20 E.G. White
    
    It quotes like these that encourages me to search deeper into scripture
    so that I may know HIM who loves me SO MUCH.
    
    I will be posting some of E. G. White's quotes so that others may see
    that see believed in Salvation by Grace through Faith ALONE and that
    works are evidents that true faith exist.
    
    Clay
    

    RE: .80 
    
    >He and his wife were 4th-generation SDA members and they were both
    >disfellowshipped.  They are thankful for that though.  SDA officials
    >aren't too happy about it either because SDA pastors (his old friends
    >and co-workers) are following in number after discovering what went on.
    
    Perhaps you could be a little more specific?  If you don't care to put
    it on-line you could at least write to me at TOLKIN::JBROWN.  If it's
    this important I think I should hear some facts.  How else can I make a
    determination?  
    
    
    >Do you have 100% assurance of your salvation?
    
    Yes I do.  Thank you for asking.  Do you have 100% assurance of your
    salvation?  
    
    Mike, I have a serious question for you and the moderators: 
    Considering some of the things you've posted here, and that were
    obviously approved by the moderators, do you think it would be alright 
    if I did the same thing regarding your Church?  I have reams of material, 
    mostly from Catholic and former Catholic sources that really cut to the 
    bone, and considering what you have posted, none of it necessarily has
    to be factual.  I'm not saying I would post such a note, I'm just asking 
    if I would be allowed to post such a note here as you have been allowed 
    to post in your notes #416.1 and #416.76 slamming the SDA denomination.  
    Somehow I don't really think so.  
    
    Moderators?
    
    Regards,
    Janet

>    Perhaps you could be a little more specific?  If you don't care to put
>    it on-line you could at least write to me at TOLKIN::JBROWN.  If it's
>    this important I think I should hear some facts.  How else can I make a
>    determination?  
    
    Yeah I could say some more, but probably later in the week or next
    week.  My other studies are consuming more time ;-)
    
>    Yes I do.  Thank you for asking.  Do you have 100% assurance of your
>    salvation?  
    
    Absolutely!
    
>    Mike, I have a serious question for you and the moderators: 
>    Considering some of the things you've posted here, and that were
>    obviously approved by the moderators, do you think it would be alright 
>    if I did the same thing regarding your Church?  I have reams of material, 
>    mostly from Catholic and former Catholic sources that really cut to the 
    
    Well I'm not Catholic and can't speak for the Mods, but I have no
    problem with it.
    
>    bone, and considering what you have posted, none of it necessarily has
>    to be factual.  I'm not saying I would post such a note, I'm just asking 
>    if I would be allowed to post such a note here as you have been allowed 
>    to post in your notes #416.1 and #416.76 slamming the SDA denomination.  
>    Somehow I don't really think so.  
    
    I haven't posted anything that isn't factual yet.  My information comes
    from someone who personally experienced it, and definitely from a
    higher level than your typical SDA member.
    
    Mike

Hello Janet, 

In 416.82 you ask Mike whether he would countenance a negative analysis of
his denomination, as he has given on the SDAs, and you also ask for a
reponse from the moderators. 

Naturally we review very carefully any notes which take a confrontational 
stance, and there are clear procedures which we follow when these depart 
from company - or conference - guidelines.  

The main criteria we apply are that :
 � God Himself is not dishonourably referenced.
 � God's Word, the Bible is not dishonourably referenced
	(to sum up the full conference guidelines)
 � Debate is addressed around principle and theory, and does not descend to 
   personalities, or personal attacks between participants.

The last of these is the most likely to need careful control, as this is 
such an emotive area.

If anyone feels they are being attacked, or that any guidelines are being 
infringed by any note, they should mail the moderators (or any one of 
them!), who then set the note hidden until the situation is resolved.

This sort of situation is not at all uncommon, and Mike's fund of experience 
has given us practise in delicate negotiations over the years ... ;-) 

I hope this answers your question - ie, you would certainly be permitted to
raise your problems with particular branches of the church, but the
dialogue over different areas might need careful control.  And it doesn't
actually sound as if your dialogue would be with Mike!

					God bless
							Andrew Yuille
							(co-moderator)

Entered without the prior moderator consultation which is our norm...

    Re: .83
    
    Sorry, Mike, I got the impression you were Catholic.  I stand
    corrected.  What denomination are you?
    
    >>I haven't posted anything that isn't factual yet.  My information
    >>comes from someone who personally experienced it, and definitely 
    >>from a higher level than your typical SDA member.
    
    I beg to differ.  You have most certainly posted things that are false
    and your only source you claim as fact is a set of tapes from someone
    who was disfellowshipped from our church.  How can you say you know 
    more about us as a denomination than we do?  You have impugned us and
    your remarks show that you couldn't care less.  
    
    I'll let you have the last word here.
    
    Goodbye,
    Janet

    Re: .84
    
    >>negative analysis
    
    Negative analysis?  Is this a joke?  

    Janet,
    
    I think Andrew has summed up well in two words what has happened here,
    a "negative analysis" of the SDA denominiation and you have asked if
    you could do likewise regarding his.
    
    I understand your frustration and hurt intimately, believe me I do, I
    hope that you realize that the mods of CHRISTIAN are not against *you*,
    as I stated before my Grandmother and her family are SDA, and I find
    that our likenesses seem to come through more than our differences when
    we are together.
    
    Perhaps we should focus on some of those likenesses a bit more.
    
    :-)
    
    Your Sis,
    Nancy

    thanks, Andrew! (I think ;-))
    
    > Sorry, Mike, I got the impression you were Catholic.  I stand
>    corrected.  What denomination are you?
    
    I don't belong to any denomination.  I'm a Christian.
    
>    I beg to differ.  You have most certainly posted things that are false
>    and your only source you claim as fact is a set of tapes from someone
    
    I know this person personally.  He's my pastor.
    
>    who was disfellowshipped from our church.  How can you say you know 
>    more about us as a denomination than we do?  You have impugned us and
    
    Over the past few years, there have been dozens of SDA pastors that
    have followed in my pastor's footsteps.  They were all given the same
    ultimatum by SDA officials: "Ellen G. White or the Bible!"  They all
    discovered on their own that EGW is a false prophet and the gospel of
    works they were *commanded* to preach is not the same as the Gospel of
    Jesus Christ.  It's that simple.  In studying God's Word, the evidence
    told them that EGW was a false prophet and salvation is by grace.  This
    is why they were disfellowshipped from your church.
    
    You can imagine that this was a tough thing to do for all these
    pastors.  Most of them are at least 3rd and 4th generation Adventists. 
    They were forced with the reality of losing a good salary by TFSOing
    themselves, and they all have families to care for.  It took many nights 
    of prayer and seeking assurance from God that they were doing His Will.
    
    Mike

>    I don't belong to any denomination.  I'm a Christian.

I belong to a denomination *and* I'm a Christian.  *I* needed to 
clarify that, even if you didn't.  ;-)

A non-denominational church is a more difficult "target" for 
inspection    ;-|

Even non-denominational Christians have beliefs that can come under
scrutiny.  I think this was the point.

Mark

    I agree Mark.  I've been a non-denominational Christian and denominational
    Christian.  Church may change but "Christian" doesn't.
    
    I think the Seeker Movement is a good example of something borne of the
    non-denominational churches which deserves great scrutiny, as an
    example.
    
    And then there's the Church of Christ which is actually a denomination
    but doesn't want to admit it.  So many of their doctrines are worth
    inspecting, so to speak.
    
    jeff
    

    Actually, my non-denominational church has grown to be so large in the
    western U.S. that it is sort of a denomination.  The next problem have
    is pigeon-holing us in comparing us to existing Protestant and
    Charismatic denominations.  We're somewhere in between there.
    
    BTW - I'm speaking of Calvary Chapel.  Our parent church is in Costa
    Mesa, CA. and is pastored by Chuck Smith.  You've probably heard his
    program "The Word for Today" on national radio.  With a congregation of
    20,000+, it's the 2nd largest Protestant church in the U.S.
    
    If you have criticisms of this church, by all means fire away ;-)
    
    Mike

>    If you have criticisms of this church, by all means fire away ;-)

Me, too!  I'm in the Church of the Nazarene, and have stated that I'll
climb over any doctrine for the Truth (captial T).

I have all the articles of faith of my church online.  Anyone?  Anyone?

:-)

Mark

    ...and another thing...
    
    I'd like to think I've matured enough to the point where I place God's
    Truth above any denomination or church.  I've learned somethings the
    hard way (see my 2nd to last entry in 157.*).  I've placed God's Truth
    first, so even if I start hearing false doctrines or twisting of
    Scripture in my current church, I will no longer hestitate to leave.  
    
    So I may have said "fire away" with a smile, but I am partially
    serious.
    
    Mike

    wooah!  

    Mark,
    
    What are you doing - trying to pick a fight?  ;-)
    
    Mike,
    
    If the doctrine is twisted, don't you owe it to the pastor(s)/elders to
    show them where you think there is error *before* leaving?
    
    What do you think about that (not asking to pick a fight like Mark
    was.... ;-)
    
    
    steve

;-)  

Bumping the head on such things is not a bad thing!  ;-)

    >    If the doctrine is twisted, don't you owe it to the pastor(s)/elders to
>    show them where you think there is error *before* leaving?

    I've thought about that.  Someday I would like to do that, but don't
    feel led to right now.  I still have family members involved in my past
    denomination and most of my time in such matters is spent with them at 
    the moment.  I praise God that my mom and sister are finally getting
    into some solid teaching and are enjoying it immensely!

    Mike

>    What are you doing - trying to pick a fight?  ;-)

No.  Just a not-so-concealed invitation to hold my church's doctrine
up for inspection and scrutiny.  Would that bring on a fight?
Oh, perhaps it might.  But I wouldn't entertain it with some,
but would engage in serious dialogue about the understandings of
our stated doctrine.

Now if you want to fight, Steve, I certainly would not pick one
with you with your obvious muscle-weight advantage you have.  
You're a   B I G    man.    :^D  Nice fella.  Nice fella.

    hee hee ;-)
    
    It's just that you ended your note saying...
    
    	"Anybody?  Anybody?"
    
    ....as if you were just chomping at the bit to have someone challenge
    your congregation's doctrine ;-)  it was funny....
    
    and thanks - i'm a nice fella ;*}

    SNARf

    Hi Janet,                
    
    >Mike, I have a serious question for you and the moderators: 
    >Considering some of the things you've posted here, and that were
    >obviously approved by the moderators, do you think it would be alright 
    >if I did the same thing regarding your Church?  I have reams of material, 
    
    Not a good idea I think. Revenge is a bad idea put it behind you and
    look a head and most importantly keep faith.  Remember I started a
    topic about "God is Dead" and was told that faith is important, you
    will always get people testing your faith.  In many ways you have given
    me and hopefully the otherside of the story and that's important, we
    can not change peoples attitudes but we can give them an insight.
    
    I too was hurt by some peoples remarks about my faith but now it hurts
    no more I have grown closer to my faith.  Just think you could have
    been part of the previous conference and when I opened my topic on my
    faith I was tested.  Now looking back it was an experience that made me
    stronger so revenge too me is negative God has given you the strength
    to speak up and that's positive.  Just think you could have been one of
    the people who tested me.
    
    Thanks for your insightful replies.  Regards,
    
    Sunil

    Hello Sunil,
    
    1. Thank you for your kind words, but I think you and a few others may
    have missed the point.  I have no problem with anyone disliking my
    religion or putting it down.  What I do mind is that some of the people
    here have just assumed that since I am an SDA that I must devoid of
    thought and reason, and that my personal relationship with Jesus Christ
    is in question, or that I blindly follow E.G. White and not Jesus
    Christ. They appear to put an 'SDA filter' on all of my words assuming 
    that I must be parroting responses that I was taught at my church.  I 
    gave them the benefit of the doubt and common courtesy where some of 
    their beliefs conflicted with mine, but I don't feel, from the tone of 
    some of the replies, that I was always given that same courtesy.  A bit 
    like an outsider rather than a child of God.  It doesn't feel 
    Christ-like to me.
    
    2.  Revenge was NEVER the issue if you read it carefully.  I simply 
    asked how he would like it if I put forth some false material about 
    his church.  The point being that it wasn't very nice, and as I said 
    before, a lot of it is twisted or just plain false or taken out of 
    context.  And the moderators let this trash through.  And I am told
    that since I am only a 'typical SDA member' that I don't know what's
    going on in my own church.  I was pointing I that I could do the very 
    same thing, using their criteria, with any religion.  It didn't need 
    to be factual.  Do you see?  I don't believe the Lord operates this 
    way.  That's all I will say for now.
    
    3.  >>Just think you could have been part of the previous conference 
    >>and when I opened my topic on my faith I was tested....Just think you 
    >>could have been one of the people who tested me.
    
    Sunil, I don't operate that way.  Christians are supposed to build each
    other up and comfort one another, while the world and the devil test
    our faith.  I don't see a whole lot of that happening here unless you
    have been in the conference for a while and are good friends with
    everyone here, 'part of the gang', which I unfortunately am not. It's
    too bad.  I was enjoying the camaraderie here as I read previous posts
    and replies.  It was a minor slap in the face to find that, even though
    I am a Christian, I am not really a part of it.  This has nothing to do 
    with any hurt feelings.  I'm not that sensitive.  It's just that when I
    open up a CHRISTIAN Notes files, that is what I expected to get. Silly
    me.  I don't know which Bible some of the people in here read, but when 
    I read my Bible I don't see Christ acting this way towards members of His 
    family.  
    
    That's how it is,
    Janet

Hello Janet, 

I'm sorry that you have had such a negative reception.  You will understand
that expectations are coloured by experience.  As Mike expressed, the
general understanding is that Seventh Day Adventists place Ellen White's
teachings above the Bible.  This conflicts so directly with Biblical
teaching that there is considerable reservation before accepting an SDA as
a brother in the LORD.  Especially, when they are perceived to come over
strongly.  After an uncomfortable reception, you have made it clear that
not only do you place the Bible above any other specific teaching; you
believe that to be the general stance of Seventh Day Adventists.  The 
uncomfortable taste is not easily removed, but I hope you will feel able to 
examine the different understandings together, of where we stand, and which 
position the SDA takes, as an organisation (or different branches 
thereof...), and clarify the situation to everyones comfort!

One crucial point is whether you perceive us as Christians!  Some groups
think that they alone will be in heaven, ruling out salvation through faith
in Jesus Christ alone.  This makes the basis of *their* claim to salvation
suspect.  If you sincerely expect to meet us in heaven, we know that your
basis of salvation is not from a unique SDA teaching, and we can explore
common ground more comfortably.  Your initial introduction here was, I
believe, specifically supporting SDA, rather than getting to know us in a
less confriontational, general, 'Biblically Christian' context.  Hence the 
somewhat negative reception.

I hope this explains at least a little of your disappointment - which I can 
certainly understand - and helps us to move on together from there.

								Andrew

    Janet,
    
    The moderators will not stop debate over doctrinal or Biblical issues
    as long as the guidelines of the conference are not violated.  I'd urge
    you to read 2.10 for a better understanding of personal insult.  
    
    I have had my beliefs challenged and raked over the coals many times in
    this conference which I moderate and I will not use my moderator
    privileges to stop the discussion.
    
    I understand intimately how you feel when your beliefs are being
    scrutinized, but remember we are all here to struggle for Truth.  One
    man's truth is another man's fable.  Perhaps the question to ask is do
    I have the Absolute Truth or my truth.  I have no problem seeing you as
    a Sister in Christ and receiving you as such.  I do not agree with some
    of the SDA doctrine and particularly I take exception EGW, but that
    doesn't preclude my love and care for you as a sibling.
    
    It's hard sometimes to read into a person's writing their heart's
    intention.  Mike comes off gruff, but really is a gentle man.  His
    motivation is not to hurt you, but to hopefully bring light into
    people's lives.  Of course the crux of the problem is that conflict
    arises over just who needs the light. :-)
    
    Doctrinal debates will abound as long as this file exists... let's use
    the Bible as our basis for discussion as per the guidelines and
    struggle there, leave personal insult behind as 2.10 states.
    
    If you feel as though you have been personally insulted and not
    doctrinally challenged, please discuss that offline first with the
    individual from whom you feel the insult.  If you have no results, then
    contact the moderators.
    
    Love in Him,
    Nancy
    

>    	"Anybody?  Anybody?"

Actually, Steve, it just that a lot of people don't really want to
take me up on the offer; not because of a challenge but I'm really 
interested in what people may have to say about it in particular.
We've seen how some of the discussion come down in regard to 
"OSAS v. FFG" and "Predestination and free will" and "ABC v XYZ."
But a discussion of specific doctrine could be a good thing!

MM

    Re: Note 416.102 by TOLKIN::JBROWN
    
    (Janet, I, and others, are shamed by the treatment that newcomers
    occasionally receive in this conference... but please keep noting,
    what you say is worth while reading.  James).

    Hello James,
    
    Thank you for your kind words.  I will continue to post here.
    
    In Christ,
    Janet

    Hi
    
    "There is not a point that needs to be dwelt upon more
    earnestly, repeated more frequently, or established more
    firmly in the minds of all than the impossibility of fallen
    man meriting anything by his own best good works. Salvation
    is through faith in Jesus Christ alone."  Faith and Works p.19
    
    "If man cannot by any of his good works, merit salvation, then it must
    be wholly of grace, received by man as a sinner because he 
    receives and believes in Jesus. It is wholly a free gift. Justification
    by faith is placed beyond controversy." Faith and Works p.20
    
    "'By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is
    the gift of God.' [Eph 2:8]  Here is truth that will unfold the subject
    to your mind if you do not close it to the rays of light. Eternal life
    is an infinite gift. This places it outside the possibity of our
    earning it, because it is infinite. It must necessarily be a gift. As
    a gift it must be received by faith, and gratitude and praise be
    offered to God."  Faith and Works p.27
    
    The author is Ellen G. White. 
    
    Clay
    

    I started listening to some tapes Tony B. sent me today and need a
    couple clarifications.
    
    What is the Sanctuary Doctrine?
    
    What is the meaning behind the Split Atonement Doctrine?  I have to
    admit that when he said that the work of atonement was not finished at
    the cross, all the big red alarms went off.  I don't believe this
    notion supports the Biblical perspective.
    
    thanks,
    Mike

    Hello Mike,
    
    I don't know which tapes Tony B. sent you, but he and I have had a few
    chats about this very thing in the past.  He sent me some tapes a while
    back that I didn't even finish listening to because they were not
    really in line with our beliefs (I'm being charitable here).  I'll let
    you discuss this with Tony.
    
    >What is the meaning behind the Split Atonement Doctrine?  I have to
    >admit that when he said that the work of atonement was not finished
    >at the cross, all the big red alarms went off.  I don't believe this
    >notion supports the Biblical perspective.
    
    Big red alarms went off for me also.  The atonement was finished once
    and for all at the cross.  Period.  Point blank.  End of discussion.
    I cannot account for anyone bringing this up since it is not true and
    it is not Biblical.  This notion even goes against the writings of E.G.
    White, if this is the source they are claiming.  Now, if they want to
    take some things out of context, we can make the Bible, yourself,
    E.G. White, etc.... say anything we want them to say.  I don't buy it.
    
    >What is the Sanctuary Doctrine?
    
    Hold on to your hats, this is where I get disfellowshipped.  This
    doctrine is where the SDA church and I have always parted company.
    I have many things to say about this doctrine, but not here, not just
    now.  For your understanding, I will give you what is considered to be
    Fundamental Belief #23 (as revised in 1980).  We as a church do not
    have, and have never had, a formal creed, but we have had occasions in
    the past were we have been asked to summarize our general beliefs. 
    These are updated and added to periodically.   I personally do not like
    the way the 'updates' are worded, so I generally refer to the older
    version.  I will post these for you.
    
    God Bless,
    Janet 

    Continuing:
    
    
    Christ's Ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary
    -------------------------------------------
    
    23.  We believe that there is a sanctuary in heaven, the true
    tabernacle which the Lord set up and not man.  In it Christ ministers
    on our behalf, making available to believers the benefits of His
    atoning sacrifice offered once for all on the cross.  He was
    inaugurated as our great High Priest and began His intercessory
    ministry at the time of His ascension.  In 1844, at the end of the
    prophetic period of 2300 days, He entered the second and last phase of
    His atoning ministry.  It is a work of investigative judgment which is
    part of the ultimate disposition of all sin, typified by the cleansing
    of the ancient Hebrew sanctuary on the Day of Atonement.  In that
    typical service the sanctuary was cleansed with the blood of animal
    sacrifices, but the heavenly things are purified with the perfect
    sacrifice of the blood of Jesus.  The investigative judgment reveals to
    heavenly intelligences who among the dead are asleep in Christ and
    therefore, in Him, are deemed worthy to have part in the first
    resurrection.  It also makes manifest who among the living are abiding
    in Christ, keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, and
    in Him, therefore, are ready for translation into His everlasting
    kingdom.  This judgment vindicates the justice of God in saving those
    who believe in Jesus.  It declares that those who have remained loyal
    to God shall receive the kingdom.  The completion of this ministry of
    Christ will mark the close of human probation before the Second Advent.
    
    (Taken from "Seventh-day Adventists Believe... A Biblical Exposition
     of 27 Fundamental Doctrines", Review and Herald Publishing, 1988.)

    Regarding the Sanctuary Doctrine:  I must address at least one aspect
    so that you will have a better understanding of why there is a little
    conflict here:
    
    On one hand, we have some very dear Adventists who believe that Christ
    is the center of and basis for our religion.  
    
    On the other hand, we have some very dear Adventists who believe that 
    Christ is the center of and basis for our religion, but that the 
    Sanctuary Doctrine is the only reason we exist as a denomination.
    
    I know which hand I am in.  Everyone else must speak for themselves.
    
    God Bless Us All,
    Janet
    (Born to be a heretic)

>    I don't know which tapes Tony B. sent you, but he and I have had a few
    
    They are teachings by Tony Phillips.  
    
>    chats about this very thing in the past.  He sent me some tapes a while
>    back that I didn't even finish listening to because they were not
>    really in line with our beliefs (I'm being charitable here).  I'll let
>    you discuss this with Tony.
    
    Janet, this man referred to some divisions within the SDA church.  One
    he referred to as Historic Adventists.  Another he called Contemporary
    Adventists.  Which might you be?
    
    Tony sent these to me on his own and I thought I would be at least
    open-minded enough to give them a listen.  The speaker, Tony Phillips,
    is certainly gentle and loving in his approach, but like you, I just
    can't reconcile some of his teachings with the Bible.  I think I'm
    beginning to understand where Tony B. gets his "Two Crosses"
    perspective from.
    
    regards,
    Mike

    Re: Sanctuary Doctrine
    
    This must be where the belief comes from that the cross wasn't the
    finishing atoning work for our sin.  It seems to imply to me that the
    cross wasn't sufficient, so now Jesus our High Priest spends time on
    our behalf in the heavenly tabernacle.  
    
    The Bible makes it clear to me that Christ paid this debt in full on
    the cross and He ascended to the right hand of the Father and has been
    there since.
    
    Mike

    RE: .113
    
    >Tony sent these to me on his own and I thought I would be at least
    >open-minded enough to give them a listen.  The speaker, Tony
    >Phillips, is certainly gentle and loving in his approach, but like you, 
    >I just can't reconcile some of his teachings with the Bible.  I think 
    >I'm beginning to understand where Tony B. gets his "Two Crosses"
    >perspective from.
    
    Yes, Tony Phillips is certainly gentle and loving in his approach.  I
    enjoyed listening to him until I realized what he was saying.  I like
    to be open-minded, but I did not need to listen to all of the tapes.  
    I understood what was going on immediately.  I have heard this many 
    times before with a slightly different flavor to each.   Yes, I do 
    believe that this is where Tony B. gets his perspective from.  He is 
    my brother in Christ and I love him, but we have discussed this. 
    
    >Janet, this man referred to some divisions within the SDA church.  One
    >he referred to as Historic Adventists.  Another he called Contemporary
    >Adventists.  Which might you be?
    
    Good question.  I'm not sure what his definition of each is but I can
    guess.  I might not belong to either.  Did you read Walter Martin's
    Kingdom of the Cults: The Puzzle of Seventh-day Adventism?  I really
    like him and respect his opinion.  He talked about a movement within
    the SDA church without giving it a name.  I wish I could remember how
    he worded it.  He made it sound as though the movers and thinkers (and
    heretics ;-) ) within the church were getting away from any 'mistakes'
    of the past positions and defining their own position.  This is
    probably me.  I don't want to rock the boat but we have a few holes and
    need to bale.  Lots of churches have changed over the years.  Just look
    at the difference between the Dark Ages and now.
    
    The logical question here is "Why Doesn't She Just Leave?"  This is
    what I would consider 'a last resort'.  Things are changing.  I am
    watching them change even now.  Not to say that I am right and others
    are wrong, but I know what I read in the Bible and I listen to what 
    others have to say about these things.  We already have an off-shoot 
    to the SDA church (no, it's not the Branch Davidians) called the 
    "Church of God, Seventh-day" (I think).  I understand that these 
    people are God fearing, loving Christians who wanted a little less 
    "law" and a little more "Christ" preached at them.  I praise God that
    we get "Christ" from our pulpit.  I understand that others in our 
    denomination may not.  I only heard about this off-shoot recently, 
    so I have no other information, and I am not shopping for a new church.  
    But I would like to sit and talk with them. 
    
    Frankly speaking, I have thought back over all of the sermons I have
    heard from my own pulpit and I have concluded that there hasn't been
    one sermon that I wouldn't be proud to have you all listen to.  All
    Bible based, loving, thoughtful, not necessarily 'historic' if you get
    my drift.  I have come away from each with a renewed sense of awe at my 
    Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.  My Pastor is a great man.  He is not a 
    New Englander (God Bless us all) and he has his own mind.  If you heard 
    him preach you would be 100% certain that he is a Christian, and you 
    probably would never guess he was an SDA, although he does quote from
    E.G. White once in a while.  We are not supposed to pigeon-hole people.  
    Likewise, we are not to give cause to others to pigeon-hole us.
    
    
    RE:  .114
    
    AMEN!
    
    
    God Bless,
    Janet Brown
    
    Getting off the subject:  Do you have any other books by Walter Martin?
    

�    >Janet, this man referred to some divisions within the SDA church.  One
�    >he referred to as Historic Adventists.  Another he called Contemporary
�    >Adventists.  Which might you be?
�    
�    Good question.  I'm not sure what his definition of each is but I can
�    guess.  I might not belong to either.  Did you read Walter Martin's
�    Kingdom of the Cults: The Puzzle of Seventh-day Adventism?  I really
    
    The only thing I have from Dr. Martin is a tape on the LDS Church. 
    Speaking of gentle, loving approaches, he also is to be commended on
    how delicately he handles these issues.  The Church sure misses men
    like him!
    
    After today's discussion, I can see why you were so offended by some
    information I posted in here.  It seems entirely probable that my
    Pastor was in a different "movement/division" within the SDA church
    than you.  Obviously, you could probably understand now why he left
    and/or was disfellowshiped (was a mutual decision).  As for Dave Hunt's
    article, he was obviously discussing the same division.
    
    In Christ,
    Mike

    Thank you my dear brother.  I myself have had to ask other Adventists
    exactly what they were talking about in the past so I could make sure
    we were on the same wavelength.  This would cause me to go and search
    for myself.  Sometimes we were in agreement.  Sometimes I truly had to 
    ask which planet their particular church was on because that certainly 
    wasn't my church they were discussing.  I know that doesn't sound very 
    nice, but I do try to be loving when I ask.  I can easily understand 
    why this would confuse anyone outside looking in.  It shouldn't be 
    this way! 
    
    I will be posting a list of our beliefs for all to see.  I should 
    have it finished by Monday.
    
    God Bless,
    Janet

    Hello All,

    In the course of my investigation of the charges leveled here, I have
    discovered that Ellen G. White did say:  "...the artificial hair and
    pads covering the base of the brain, heat and excite the spinal nerves
    centering in the brain.  The head should ever be kept cool.  The heat
    caused by these artificials reduces the blood to the brain.  The action
    of the blood upon the lower or animal organs of the brain, causes
    unnatural activity and tends to recklessness, immorals, and the mind
    and heart are in danger of being corrupted. Many have lost their reason
    and become hopelessly insane by following this deforming fashion.  Yet
    the slaves to fashion will continue to thus dress their heads and
    suffer horrible disease and premature death rather than be out of
    fashion."

    [  On the topic of wigs, I did find the quotation, in an article titled
     "Words to Christian Mothers," from the 1 October 1871 _Health
     Reformer_.  This, along with statements which rely on the vital
     force theory, seems problematic.  No doubt you have heard the
     explanation/excuse that "science just hasn't caught up with EGW's
     knowledge."  That seems hard to accept in many of the instances,
     especially those relying on vital force and other very outmoded
     theories.  (For the uninitiated, the basic idea of the vital force
     theory is that an individual begins life with a certain amount of
     "vital force," and expends that force slowly or quickly--the more
     quickly, the sooner it runs out--death follows.) ]

    This information [] was confirmed by an Instructor at
    La Sierra University.  (Name available upon request)

    I will keep you all informed about whatever other info comes my way.

    (I wish I had read this before I joined.  Oy!)

    In Christ,
    Janet

    .118
    
    Janet,
    
    My Great Aunt and Grandmother are born-again separated southern 7th Day
    Adventist women.  And while this information you have been given is
    certainly disheartening to you, be careful not to throw out everything.
    
    Remember Cain and Abel???  God says that death should come for one who
    kills another.
    Yet Cain was banished not killed?  Why?  Because Cain was an
    exception??? :-)  No because our God is just and he couldn't hold Cain
    accountable for that which had not been given to man.  At this time,
    Cain the commandments of God had not been disseminated to man.
    
    I feel the same applies to you in regards to this doctrine...  Be
    assured that your salvation isn't being judged, but your response now
    to what was revealed.
    
    :-) With love,
    Nancy

    Janet, I commend you for your persistence in finding the truth.  Be
    confident in your salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ and don't let
    false prophets or prophetesses sway you.

    Mike

    Thanks Nancy & Mike,
    
    I am entirely sure of my salvation.  I have always been since the first
    moment I accepted Jesus.  That has never changed.
    
    I assumed the Seventh-day Adventist church believed the same thing 
    since that's what they told me before I joined.  And that's what 
    their/our writings say.  But that isn't quite the truth as they see it.  
    It turns out that maybe they have a different idea of 'righteousness by 
    faith' since a great many internal squabbles are about that very subject.  
    
    More later.  Please pray for me.
    
    In Christ (and that's a fact!)
    Janet

>    In Christ (and that's a fact!)

I know.  :-)

    Hello All,
    
    True to my word, I am posting more information regarding Ellen G.
    White.  This post, and the next 11, are some of what I have been able
    to find with my own meager resources.  As a refresher, you might like
    to read reply # .76.   Here we go:
    
The Claim:
---------
"Old Jerusalem never would be built up" - _Early_Writings_ p 75, etc;


The Evidence:
------------
        "Then I was pointed to some who are in the great error of believing
        that it is their duty to go to Old Jerusalem, and think they have
        a work to do there before the Lord comes....I saw that such a mission
        would accomplish no real good, that it would take along while to make
        a very few of the Jews believe even in the first advent of Christ,
        much more to believe in His second advent....I also saw that Old
        Jerusalem never would be built up."

                                Early Writings, p 75
                                                           

The Claim:
---------
Mrs. White said she would be alive at the rapture (_Early_Writings_ pp 15-6)


The Evidence:
------------
        "While I was praying at the family altar, the Holy Ghost fell upon
        me, and I seemed to be rising higher and higher, far above the dark
        world....Soon we heard the voice of God like many waters, which
        gave us the day and the hour of Jesus' coming.  The living saints,
        144,000 in number, knew and understood the voice, while the wicked
        thought it was thunder and an earthquake....Soon our eyes were
        drawn to the east, for a small black cloud had appeared, about
        half as large as a man's hand, which we all knew was the sign of
        Son of man."

                                Early Writings, pp 14-15

The Claim:
----------
That Christ would return before slavery was abolished (Early Writings,
pp 35,276);


The Evidence:
------------
        "I saw the pious slave rise in triumph and victory and shake off
        the chains that bound him, while his wicked master was in confusion
        and knew not what to do; for the wicked could not understand the
        words of the voice of God.  Soon appeared the great white cloud
        ....On it sat the Son of man."

                                Early Writings, pp 35


  [Note: Slavery was not abolished for another 6 years after this statement:]

        "I saw that the slave master will have to answer for the soul of his
        slave whom he has kept in ignorance; and the sins of the slave will
        be visited on the master.  God cannot take to heaven the slave who
        has been kept in ignorance and degradation, knowing nothing of God
        and the Bible, fearing nothing but his master's lash, and holding
        a lower position than the brutes.  But he does the best thing for
        him that a compassionate God can do.  He permits him to be as if he
        had not been, while the master must endure the seven last plagues
        and then come up in the second resurrection and suffer the second,
        most awful death.  Then the justice of God will be satisfied."

                                Early Writings, pp 276

The Claim:
---------
That He would return IN A FEW MONTHS (written in the 1850s, Early Writings,
p 67);


The Evidence:
------------
        "As I saw what we must be in order to inherit glory, ....Some of us
        have had time to get the truth and to advance step by step, ....But
        now time is almost finished and what we have been years learning,
        they will have to learn in a few months."

                                Early Writings, p 67


        In 1856, Mrs. White claimed that Jesus would come before some of
        the people she was speaking to at a Conference died:

        "I was shown that the company present at the Conference....Said the
        angel, "some food for worms, some subjects of the seven last plagues,
        some will be alive and remain upon the earth to be translated at the
        coming of Jesus."

                                Testimonies 1, pp 131-132

The Claim:
---------
The sins of the penitent will be placed on Satan (_The_Great_Controversy_,
    pp 422,485);


The Evidence:
------------
        "When Christ, by virtue of His own blood, removes the sins of His
        people from the heavenly sanctuary at the close of His ministration,
        He will place them upon Satan, who, in the execution of the judgment,
        must bear the final penalty."  pp 422

        "As the priest, in removing the sins from the sanctuary, confessed them
        upon the head of the scapegoat, so Christ will place all these sins
        upon Satan, the originator and instigator of sin.  The scapegoat,
        bearing the sins of Israel, was sent away "unto a land not inhabited"
        (Leviticus 16:22); so Satan, bearing the guilt of all the sins which
        he has caused God's people to commit, will be for a thousand years
        confined to the earth, which will then be desolate, without inhabitant,
        and he will at last suffer the full penalty of sin in the fires that
        shall destroy all the wicked."  pp 485

The Claim:
---------
"Those that accept the Savior...should never...say or feel that they are
    saved" (_Christ's_Object_Lessons, p 155); etc.


The Evidence:
------------
       "Never can we safely put confidence in self or feel, this side of
        heaven, that we are secure against temptation.  Those who accept
        the Saviour, however sincere their conversion, should never be
        taught to say or to feel that they are saved.  This is misleading.
        Everyone should be taught to cherish hope and faith; but even when
        we give ourselves to Christ and know that He accepts us, we are
        not beyond the reach of temptation....Those who accept Christ, and
        in their first confidence say, "I am saved," are in danger of
        trusting to themselves....We are admonished, "Let him that thinketh
        he standeth, take heed lest he fall.' 1 Cor. 10:12"

                                Christ's Object Lessons, p 155

The Claim:
---------
Jesus did not ascend to the right hand of the Father in the Holy of Holies
    until October 22, 1844;


The Evidence:
------------
        "And, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven,
        and came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him.
        And there was given Him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all
        people, nations, and languages, should serve Him: His dominion is an
        everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away." Daniel 7:13,14. The
        coming of Christ here described is not His second coming to the earth.
        He comes to the Ancient of Days in heaven to receive dominion and glory
        and a kingdom, which will be given Him at the close of His work as a
        mediator. It is this coming, and not His second advent to the earth,
        that was foretold in prophecy to take place at the termination of the
        2300 days in 1844."

                                Great Controversy, pp 479,480

The Claim:
---------
        One of Mrs. White's most serious errors is the teaching of "The
        Investigative Judgment" which is set forth in pages 479-91 of _The_
        Great_Controversy_.  On p 480 she states that in 1844 Christ entered
        into "the holy of holies" in order "to make an atonement for all who
        are shown to be entitled to its benefits."  (So He couldn't have
        ascended earlier to the Father's right hand as Scripture clearly
        teaches.)  This heresy, like Catholicism, in spite of Christ's
        triumphant cry, "It is finished," denies that He completed His
        redemptive work upon the cross!

   [Note: I, personally, have never accepted this doctrine.  Interestingly,
          it is not taught in Adventist churches all over the world, only
          in America, Australia, and a few other places.  I only just learned
          this yesterday, 11/6/94.]

The Evidence:
------------
        Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists; #23:

        23.  Christ's Ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary
        ------------------------------------------------
            There is a sanctuary in heaven, the true tabernacle which the Lord
        set up and not man.  In it Christ ministers on our behalf, making
        available to believers the benefits of His atoning sacrifice offered
        once for all on the cross.  He was inaugurated as our great High Priest
        and began His intercessory ministry at the time of His ascension.  In
        1844, at the end of the prophetic period of 2300 days, He entered the
        second and last phase of His atoning ministry.  It is a work of
        investigative judgment which is part of the ultimate disposition of all
        sin, typified by the cleansing of the ancient Hebrew sanctuary on the
        Day of Atonement.  In that typical service the sanctuary was cleansed
        with the blood of animal sacrifices, but the heavenly things are
        purified with the perfect sacrifice of the blood of Jesus.  The
        investigative judgment reveals to heavenly intelligences who among the
        dead are asleep in Christ and therefore, in Him, are deemed worthy to
        have part in the first resurrection.  It also makes manifest who among
        the living are abiding in Christ, keeping the commandments of God and
        the faith of Jesus, and in Him, therefore, are ready for translation
        into His everlasting kingdom.  This judgment vindicates the justice of
        God in saving those who believe in Jesus.  It declares that those who
        have remained loyal to God shall receive the kingdom.  The completion
        of this ministry of Christ will mark the close of human probation
        before the Second Advent.  (Heb. 8:1-5; 4:14-16; 9:11-28; 10:19-22;
        1:3; 2:16,17; Dan. 7:9-27; 8:13,14; 9:24-27; Num. 14:34; Eze. 4:6;
        Lev. 16; Rev. 14:6,7; 20:12; 14:12; 22:12)


        "Attended by heavenly angels, our great High Priest enters the holy
        of holies and there appears in the presence of God to engage in the
        last acts of His ministration in behalf of man--to perform the work of
        investigative judgment and to make an atonement for all who are shown
        to be entitled to its benefits."  pp 480

        "So in the great day of final atonement and investigative judgment the
        only cases considered are those of the professed people of God. The
        judgment of the wicked is a distinct and separate work, and takes place
        at a later period. "Judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it
        first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the
        gospel?" 1 Peter 4:17."  pp 480

        "As in the typical service there was a work of atonement at the close
        of the year, so before Christ's work for the redemption of men is
        completed there is a work of atonement for the removal of sin from the
        sanctuary. This is the service which began when the 2300 days ended.
        At that time, as foretold by Daniel the prophet, our High Priest
        entered the most holy, to perform the last division of His solemn
        work--to cleanse the sanctuary."  pp 421

        "As anciently the sins of the people were by faith placed upon the sin
        offering and through its blood transferred, in figure, to the earthly
        sanctuary, so in the new covenant the sins of the repentant are by faith
        placed upon Christ and transferred, in fact, to the heavenly sanctuary.
        And as the typical cleansing of the earthly was accomplished by the
        removal of the sins by which it had been polluted, so the actual
        cleansing of the heavenly is to be accomplished by the removal, or
        blotting out, of the sins which are there recorded. But before this
        can be accomplished, there must be an examination of the books of
        record to determine who, through repentance of sin and faith in Christ,
        are entitled to the benefits of His atonement. The cleansing of the
        sanctuary therefore involves a work of investigation--a work of
        judgment.  This work must be performed prior to the coming of Christ
        to redeem His people;"  pp 421,422

        "...in 1844, Christ then entered the most holy place of the heavenly
        sanctuary to perform the closing work of atonement preparatory to His
        coming."  pp 422

        "So when Christ entered the holy of holies to perform the closing work
        of the atonement, He ceased His ministration in the first apartment."
        pp 428

        "When in the typical service the high priest left the holy on the Day
        of Atonement, he went in before God to present the blood of the sin
        offering in behalf of all Israel who truly repented of their sins. So
        Christ had only completed one part of His work as our intercessor, to
        enter upon another portion of the work, and He still pleaded His blood
        before the Father in behalf of sinners."  pp 430

        "....forgiveness of sins was offered to men through the intercession of
        Christ in the most holy. One part of His ministration had closed, only
        to give place to another. There was still an "open door" to the heavenly
        sanctuary, where Christ was ministering in the sinner's behalf."  pp 430

        "It is those who by faith follow Jesus in the great work of the
        atonement who receive the benefits of His mediation in their behalf,
        while those who reject the light which brings to view this work of
        ministration are not benefited thereby."  pp 430

        "Therefore the announcement that the temple of God was opened in heaven
        and the ark of His testament was seen points to the opening of the most
        holy place of the heavenly sanctuary in 1844 as Christ entered there to
        perform the closing work of the atonement. Those who by faith followed
        their great High Priest as He entered upon His ministry in the most
        holy place, beheld the ark of His testament. As they had studied the
        subject of the sanctuary they had come to understand the Saviour's
        change of ministration, and they saw that He was now officiating before
        the ark of God, pleading His blood in behalf of sinners."  pp 433

        "We are now living in the great day of atonement.  In the typical
        service, while the high priest was making the atonement for Israel,
        all were required to afflict their souls by repentance of sin and
        humiliation before the Lord, lest they be cut off from among the
        people.  In like manner, all who would have their names retained in
        the book of life should now, in the few remaining days of their
        probation, afflict their souls before God by sorrow for sin and true
        repentance. There must be deep, faithful searching of heart. The light,
        frivolous spirit indulged by so many professed Christians must be put
        away."  pp 489,490

        "The sanctuary in heaven is the very center of Christ's work in behalf
        of men.  ....The intercession of Christ in man's behalf in the
        sanctuary above is as essential to the plan of salvation as was His
        death upon the cross. By His death He began that work which after His
        resurrection He ascended to complete in heaven."  pp 488,489


But the Bible clearly says:
--------------------------
Isaiah 43:25
I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake,
and will not remember thy sins.

Isaiah 44:22
I have blotted out, as a thick cloud, thy transgressions, and, as a cloud,
thy sins: return unto me; for I have redeemed thee.

Isaiah 38:17
Behold, for peace I had great bitterness: but thou hast in love to my
soul delivered it from the pit of corruption: for thou hast cast all my
sins behind thy back.

Jeremiah 50:20
In those days, and in that time, saith the LORD, the iniquity of Israel
shall be sought for, and there shall be none; and the sins of Judah, and
they shall not be found: for I will pardon them whom I reserve.

Ezekiel 33:10
Therefore, O thou son of man, speak unto the house of Israel; Thus ye
speak, saying, If our transgressions and our sins be upon us, and we
pine away in them, how should we then live?

Daniel 9:24
Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to
finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make
reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness,
and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

Micah 7:19
He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us; he will subdue our
iniquities; and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea.

(These are but a few examples)

The Claim:
---------
Mrs. White says we will be without a mediator before the second coming, so we
must make ourselves ready.  We must be perfect if we are to stand in front of
a Holy God without a mediator.  Great Controversy, page 425


The Evidence:
------------
        "Those who are living upon the earth when the intercession of Christ
        shall cease in the sanctuary above are to stand in the sight of a holy
        God without a mediator."  pp 425

        "But so long as Jesus remains man's intercessor in the sanctuary above,
        the restraining influence of the Holy Spirit is felt by rulers and
        people. It still controls to some extent the laws of the land."  pp 610

        "When He leaves the sanctuary, darkness covers the inhabitants of the
        earth.  In that fearful time the righteous must live in the sight of a
        holy God without an intercessor. The restraint which has been upon the
        wicked is removed, and Satan has entire control of the finally
        impenitent. God's long-suffering has ended."  pp 614

        ""These are they which came out of great tribulation;" (Rev 7:14) they
        have passed through the time of trouble such as never was since there
        was a nation; they have endured the anguish of the time of Jacob's
        trouble; they have stood without an intercessor through the final
        outpouring of God's judgments."  pp 649

        "Their confidence in God, their faith and firmness, will be severely
        tested.  As they review the past, their hopes sink; for in their whole
        lives they can see little good. They are fully conscious of their
        weakness and unworthiness....Though God's people will be surrounded by
        enemies who are bent upon their destruction, yet the anguish which they
        suffer is not a dread of persecution for the truth's sake; they fear
        that every sin has not been repented of, and that through some fault
        in themselves they will fail to realize the fulfillment of the Saviour's
        promise: I "will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall
        come upon all the world." Revelation 3:10. If they could have the
        assurance of pardon they would not shrink from torture or death; but
        should they prove unworthy, and lose their lives because of their own
        defects of character, then God's holy name would be reproached.
        pp 618,619


But the Bible says:
------------------
Hebrews 13:5
Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things
as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.

Hebrews 7:25
Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by
him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

Romans 8:26
Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we
should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us
with groanings which cannot be uttered.

Romans 8:27
And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit,
because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

Romans 8:34
Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is
risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh
intercession for us.

The Claim:
---------
Like Catholicism, Adventism makes our redemption dependent upon our good works.
Moreover, sins we forgot to repent of or were not aware of will damn us.  "Our
acts, our words, even our most secret motives, all have their weight in deciding
our DESTINY...though...forgotten by us, they will bear their testimony to
JUSTIFY OR CONDEMN." (pp 486-90)


The Evidence:
------------
        "Our acts, our words, even our most secret motives, all have their
        weight in deciding our destiny for weal or woe. Though they may be
        forgotten by us, they will bear their testimony to justify or condemn.

                                Great Controversy, pp 486,487

                       Mrs. White contradicts the Bible:
                       --------------------------------

Mrs. White says we shouldn't used the phrase God Almighty:
---------------------------------------------------------
        "I saw that God's holy name should be used with reverence and awe.
        The words God Almighty are coupled together and used by some in prayer
        in a careless, thoughtless manner, which is displeasing to Him.  Such
        have no realizing sense of God or the truth, or they would not speak
        so irreverently of the great and dreadful God, who is soon to judge
        them in the last day. Said the angel, "Couple them not together; for
        fearful is His name."


But the Bible says:
------------------
        Genesis 28:3
        And god almighty bless thee, and make thee fruitful, and
        multiply thee, that thou mayest be a multitude of people
                                                                  
        Genesis 35:11
        And god said unto him, I am god almighty: be fruitful and multiply;
        a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall
        come out of thy loins;

        Genesis 48:3
        And Jacob said unto Joseph, god almighty appeared unto me at Luz in
        the land of Canaan, and blessed me,

        Exodus 6:3
        I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name
        'The Lord' I did not make myself known to them. (NRSV)

        Revelation 4:8
        And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they
        were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying,
        Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.

        Revelation 11:17
        Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and
        wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great
        power, and hast reigned.

        Revelation 15:3
        And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the
        Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty;
        just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.

        Revelation 16:7
        And I heard another out of the altar say, Even so, Lord God Almighty,
        true and righteous are thy judgments.

        Revelation 16:14
        For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go
        forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather
        them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

        Revelation 21:22
        And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are
        the temple of it.


[Note:  Of course we should always reverence God.  That's obvious.  But God
        Himself said His name was God Almighty.  And He introduced Himself as
        such to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  Yet Mrs. White's 'angel' said to
        her we should not couple them together.  If I introduced myself to you
        as 'Janet', I would expect you to call me Janet.  But if one of my
        acquaintences (not necessarily a friend) said to you "She prefers to be
        called 'Miss Brown'", I would certainly expect you to continue calling
        me 'Janet' because that is what I told you.  The God of Abraham, Isaac,
        and Jacob is our God.  And He says we are to come boldly to the throne
        of grace (Hebrews 4:16 - Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne
        of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of
        need.).  We are not to be afraid of Him.  He is our Father.

        The crux of the whole issue is this:  Whenever Mrs. White is shown
        something or told something by her 'angel' it is supposed to be from
        heaven.  And if a prophet ever disagrees with the Bible we can know
        that he/she is not a true prophet.  I now see too many places where
        Mrs. White was 'shown' something that turned out to disagree with the
        Bible.  That is not right.

                         Mrs. White contradicts herself:
                         ------------------------------


        Manuscript 153, 1898 (and BC, Vol 7, page 907)

        "Men need to understand that Diety suffered and sank under the
         agonies of Calvary."



        Manuscript 140, 1903 (and BC, Vol 5, page 1129)

        "The Diety did not sink under the agonizing torture of Calvary"

   -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here they are in their context:

Manuscript 153, 1898 - "In him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead
bodily."  Men need to understand that Diety suffered and sank under the
agonies of Calvary.  Yet Jesus Christ whom God gave for the ransom of the
world purchased the church with His own blood.  The Majesty of heaven was
made to suffer at the hands of religious zealots, who claimed to be the
most enlightened people upon the face of the earth."

Manuscript 140, 1903 - "The man Jesus Christ was not the Lord God Almighty,
yet Christ and the Father are one.  The Diety did not sink under the agonizing
torture of Calvary, yet it is nonetheless true that "God so loved the world,
that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in hom should not
perish, but have everlasting life."

    Janet, thanks for your research and your desire for the truth!
    
    God Bless,
    Mike

I'm not about to defend Ellen G. White,

However, the claim that Catholicism denies that Jesus finished his redemptive
work on the Cross is not based on any teaching of the Church.

It is possibly based on a common protestant misunderstanding of sacraments
and of the Catholic teaching that the one sufficient sacrifice of Christ
on the Cross, completed once and for all, is continually offered by Jesus
to the Father in heaven (outside of time), and is made present _as_the_same_
_sacrifice_ _as_the_one_and_only_sacrifice_on_the_cross_ in the Holy Eucharist,
through which the benefits of that _one_ sacrifice are made available to us
today.

/john

>Like Catholicism, Adventism makes our redemption dependent upon our good works.

This has been discussed elsewhere.  The Catholic teaching is the biblical
teaching.  The "faith only" teaching, with no concern for doing good works
as a showing forth of that faith, is a heresy.

Martin Luther almost decided to move the book of James out of the Bible
because it so clearly requires good works of those who have been redeemed
by faith.

/john

> The "faith only" teaching, with no concern for doing good works
>as a showing forth of that faith, is a heresy.

Probably a tangent, but I'll bite.

Faith is expressed (lived out) with works.  However, faith alone
("whosoever believeth" of John 3:16) is "belief unto salvation."
Now, as John the Bpatist admonishes: "Bear fruit in keeping with
repentance.

We all can see that faith and good works are integrally related.
There is no argument there.  We wrestle (an important) semantic.

Mark

      re: .128
    
      I read this far.
    
      Man, it is clear that White's context of salvation (in this
      passage) is FROM SIN.
    
      It IS NOT from the context of "If I died today would I end up
      in heaven?"
    
      Look at the context Janet!!!

    Sorry, Tony, but that's not true.  The central theme of Adventism is
    the Investigative Judgment, and NO assurance of salvation.  Don't just
    read this one piece (.128), look at the whole picture.  Read The Great
    Controversy again.  This is the same teaching that says the atonement
    was NOT finished at the cross.
    
    Janet

      Hi Janet,
    
        Well, my own understandings of inv. judgment, atonement, and
        salvation are such that I beg to disagree!
    
        But, to be fair, my own understandings are not identical to
        SDA's (as we well know)!!
    
        I believe we are saved from sin.
    
        I believe the atonement is finished when our reconciliation
        (atonement) to God is so complete that we will never choose
        sin again, i.e. we disagree on WHAT the atonement is.  And
        finally, I believe I don't have the effort to explain what
        I believe the inv. judgment means!!   :-)
    
                                                Tony

    Hi Janet,
    
    Hi Tony, 
    
    Hello everyone,
    
    well, I just happen to believe the investigated judgement [at present
    anyway], but also have assurance. I base my assurance on the words of 
    Christ:  "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and
    believeth on him that sent me, HATH everlasting life, and shall not
    come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." John 5:24
    
    "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish,
    neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." John 10:28
    
    Thats my two cents worth.
    
    Clay
    
    
    

      Hi Clay,
    
        But, to be fair, there is a need to elaborate.
    
        The investigative judgment has often been thought of as meaning
        that God investigates the works of even the faithful and if he
        finds anything 'naughty'...their GONE!
    
        That _aspect_ of the inv. judgment is definitely one that is
        presumed and maybe WE (we as in SDA) are to blame for that.
    
        I do believe elaboration is needed else we look kind of foolish
        trying to 'superficially' coexist the inv. judgment and the idea
        of full assurance of salvation.
    
                                                      Tony

    Hi Tony,
    
    I shall explain, but don't have the time at present. 
    
    stay tune.....
    
    Clay
    

      I'll tell ya what Clay...I'll explain too!

    Re: .1
    
>One of the interesting things she has taught that the SDA church has tried to
>suppress for years is in mss DF97-C.  Here she teaches anyone born after 1900 is
    
    I now have a copy of mss DF97-* which contains the supressed testimony
    of Ellen G. White.  If you want a copy let me know.
    
    regards,
    Mike

    Re: .1 
    
    \In her 1847 edition of "Early Writings", she had a vision which she
    \said was from God, where she went up to heaven and saw Abraham, 
    \Issac, and Jacob there. This contradicts the SDA stance on "soul 
    \sleep", where the dead do not go to heaven and also II Corinthians 
    \ 5, Philippians 1.  In later editions of "Early Writings", these 
    \quotes were edited out to support the SDA stance on "soul sleep."
    
    I now have [on-line] a complete explanation of this from the White
    Estate.  They also attempt to explain the point raised in .146 about
    MSS DF97-* [this is actually "b" and not "c"].  Just let me know if you
    are interested in seeing it and I will forward it to you.  It is far
    too long to post.
    
    Also, I would like to make available to all of you the following files:
    	PREDICTIONS OF ELLEN G. WHITE
    	STATEMENTS MADE BY MRS. WHITE WHICH CONTRADICT THE BIBLE  (Part I)
    	STATEMENTS MADE BY MRS. WHITE WHICH CONTRADICT THE BIBLE  (Part I)
    	ADDITIONS WHICH MRS. WHITE MAKES TO THE SCRIPTURES
    	MRS. WHITE CONTRADICTS HERSELF
    	E.G. WHITE ESTATE ADMITS TO EGW'S UNETHICAL "BORROWING" OF MATERIAL
    	MRS. WHITE SAYS SDA MESSAGE AND HER WRITINGS STAND OR FALL TOGETHER
    
    Just ask and they will be sent to you at once.
    
    God Bless,
    Janet Brown

    Well friends, it's been almost a full year since I last posted anything
    here and I thought I would update my listing of information that I am
    making available to anyone that asks.  Below you will find a large list
    of files concerning E.G. White and the Seventh-day Adventist church.
    These files are for informational purposes only and not meant to flame
    the Seventh-day Adventist church or it's members.  They are meant to
    shed light on some truths that have been hidden away.  The info speaks 
    for iteself.  If you want it, just ask.  
    
    God Bless,
    Janet Brown
    :)
    
    
  Predictions of Ellen G. White
    
  Statements made by Mrs. White which contradict the Bible  (Part I & II)

  Additions which Mrs. White makes to the Scriptures

  Mrs. White Contradicts Herself

  E.G. White Estate Admits to EGW's unethical "borrowing" of material

  Mrs. White says SDA Message and her writings stand or fall together

===========================================================================

Long files:

 Beware This Cult by Gregory Hunt, MD

 Bible Q&A [40 questions]

 The Significance of Ellen White's Head Injury

 The Problem of the "Shut Door" 

 The Arrest and Trial of Israel Dammon
 
 The Salamanca Experience: Confirmation of Ellen White's Prophetic Powers?

 Walter Martin Interview

 Seventh-day Adventism: Who Is Telling The Truth?

===========================================================================

Short Files:

 The Book of the Law of Moses

 The Decalogue Examined

 William Miller's Prophetic Periods

 1844 --- Is It Prophetic?

 Justification by Faith?

 Development of the Investigative [or Pre-Advent] Judgment

 The Investigative Judgment

 A Major Error in the Sanctuary Doctrine

 The Temple in Heaven Problem

 EGW's Dr. Letter

 EGW: More than a Prophet?

 Mrs. White's Position in the Adventist Church

 New Testament Law 

 Old Testament Law 

 Five Students:  A Parable

 Why should we study the Sabbath?

 Jesus:  The Law's Fulfillment 

 Jesus is the New Covenant

 Is the seventh-day sabbath supposed to be a day of worship?

 Is Jesus "GOD" or Isn't He?

 Law, Grace and Salvation  (Part 1,2)

 The Sabbath, the Lord's Day, and the Mark of the Beast 

 The Sleep of the Soul and the Destruction of the Wicked 

 Our True Identity in Christ

 You might be an SDA if . . . (Humor)

    .148
    
    Good to *see* you. :-)

    Hi there, Janet!  Keep plugging away and defending the Word!

    Hi Janet,
    
    I must be 'thick' - can you provide a 'pointer' to those files please?
    
    H

    No, you're not 'thick'.  It was very easy to miss.  Just send a note to
    my account - TOLKIN::JBROWN - and request whichever files you want. 
    
    Janet
    :)

      Hi,
    
        I chanced upon this topic.  I sure can't explain all of the
        things stated about Ellen White, but I continue to believe 
        God used her as a prophet. (I can't explain the whole Bible
    	either!)
    
        I feel some need to defend Adventism from a doctrinal point of
        view.  The crux, as I see it, is this...
    
        We are redeemed by the blood which is the word.  The sacrifice
        does not redeem us by the blood, our High Priest does.  The
    	sacrifice provides the blood.
    
        God does not condemn us because we sinned and then have *His*
        condemnation of us satisfied in Christ.  Sin condemns us and
        He has Christ deliver us from sin by His blood (the word).
    
        The investigative judgment, rightly understood, is the going 
        forth of the word which investigates our hearts and exposes
        sin so that we can see it and thus turn away from it in repentence.
        It is a blessed work.  Rightly understood, there is no reason 
        for lack of assurance with the investigative judgment idea.  
        Anyone who has faith and thus has begun to allow Christ to 
        investigate his heart and reveal sin should have perfect assurance.
    
        The atonement is the reconciling of man to God.  When man can see
        God face to face and live, he is perfectly reconciled.  Passover
        was accomplished at Calvary.  When our High Priest completely 
        applies all of His blood (the word) to the church, atonement will
        be complete for the blood will perfectly cleanse the congregation.
        No unclean heart can bear to see God face to face, but a people
        cleansed by the blood of the lamb can.
    
        These are rather fundamental points which I believe with all my
        heart and thus I remain an Adventist.
                                     
    						Take Care and God Bless,
    
    						Tony

    Tony, there are still far too many overtones of non-assurance and
    non-grace (i.e., works).
    
    Mike

      Why Mike?
    
      Overtones in what I wrote?
    
      The only works I speak of are works produced entirely 
      by grace!
    
    					Tony

    Tony, I'm talking about official SDA doctrine.  

 Tony, you may wish to go back and read previous contributions to the
 topic so as to avoid duplication of effort.



 
Jim

      re: .156
    
      Hi Mike,
    
        I suppose 'official' SDA doctrine can be found in the 27
        Fundamentals book.  I doubt you'll see a works program
    	in there.                                   
    
        And while I belief its all of faith (as I think the 27
        Fundamentals states), my own belief in truth differs rather
    	markedly in some ways from the 'official' church.
    
      	But, the path of the just and all that.
    
    						Tony

      But, let me add that I believe in all the pillars.  I just think
      there is much more light to be had in each and every one of them.
    
    						Tony