| Author |
Message |
Grace_alone
Registered user
Username: Grace_alone
Post Number: 275
Registered: 6-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, November 04, 2006 - 2:58 pm: |     |
Jeremy, I think you have a little angel too, showing you all the plethora of information you bring up.
Hehe!!
 Leigh Anne |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1601
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, November 04, 2006 - 3:06 pm: | |
Ack! Nooo!!
Jeremy |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 607
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, November 05, 2006 - 11:19 am: | |
Jeremy,
You are making a claim about what you think without any Biblical support. The verses that you are applying to conclude that there is no hope that ellen could have been saved by God don't say anything about the length of time that one proclaimed a false gospel. You challenged me to be consistent, I am simply asking the same of you. How can you apply this verse consistently yet come to different conclusion for different people? I have to ask this because it is the just this type of consistency that forces me to leave that option, no matter how slim, open. |
Jackob
Registered user
Username: Jackob
Post Number: 372
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 05, 2006 - 1:25 pm: | |
Wanting to know what others think about the issue, I started to ask my adventist friends if it's possible for Ellen White to change the course on the deathbed. Until now I received only negative answers. They think that it's not possible for her to change what she sustained all her life. I expect that their attitude will not be conisdered as a as vitriolic attack against her (smile) It seems that adventists are eager to close the heaven gates before Ellen, rejecting the slightest possibility for her to change the course.
What's amusing is that if she escaped hell and many will be in hell because she brainswahsed them when she was under an unholy spirit influence, they will be entirely displeased to see her in heaven. Actually, this will be the supreme irony of life for an adventist: a true follower of her teaching to be in hell, and she, who was instrumental in bringing him or her there, enjoying a happy life forever.
I recognize that what it is between a man and God in his last moments can change his destination. But I have great doubts that this applies to the false prophets, because the Bible, when talking about false prophets talks about them as their destiny is already knows: destruction.
quote:But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought themóbringing swift destruction on themselves. ... In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping 2 Peter2:1-3
And there is a comparision about the fate of fallen angels and false prophets. The idea advocated is that God hold the fallen angels
quote:For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment 2 Peter 2:4
and after many ifs, the conclusion is
quote:if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment. 2 Peter 2:9
In the same way God is holding the fallen angels for the judgment, He is holding the false prophets for judgment, because in there verses "unrighteous". As the final state of the fallen angels is sure, the same can be said abou the final state of false prophets.
The second chapter of 2 Peter is similar in many aspects with the epistle of Jude. There are many common things, even the angels who are hold for the judgment "in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day" Jude 6. About these "godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord." it is said that their "condemnation was written about long ago" Jude 4. What is written must be fulfilled.
Now you may understand my problem when talking about false prophets. Out of compassion for them, I will happily leave the door open for their salvation. But I have great doubts that this is possible after reading 2 Peter 2 and Jude. |
Cw
Registered user
Username: Cw
Post Number: 123
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 12:27 am: | |
Dd, thanks for asking. I'm not here as much lately because my schedule has actually been much busier since retirement. And I hope the others don't mind a short "aside" here to answer your question. I did post a lengthy explanation several weeks ago of D and J breaking up because of doctrine. I'm proud of them both for that although I've heard he wanted to get back together. D wasted no time and now has a new boyfriend. But she is beautiful and charming and no way could she go unattached for long. She is 20 and M is 23 which concerns me. At least he is a worker in their church as D is. I haven't met him but I know what I was like as a 23 year old unmarried Christian-hormone wise- I'm sure you get my drift. And that concerns me. D has made a commitment to purity until marriage but I know she is at least somewhat given to obsession with these boyfriends. After all she seemed on the verge of becoming SDA for quite some time because of J's influence. I would appreciate your continued prayers. At least I trusted J with D'd virtue. I don't think I will ever be totally at ease with any of her boyfriends. Again, thanks for asking and now I'll return this thread back to it's original topic.
To legitimize this post I would say that God has blessed us with a spirit of discernment.
Although we can't know for sure about another's salvation, we as Christians know what to look for and false prophets are rather harshly dealt with in scripture. So I would say we can make a pretty good guess about the Joseph Smiths, Mary Baker Eddy's and such. EGW is a tougher call because many , or even most, of today's SDA members are probably saved within EGW doctrine. It just seems that they give up so much of the freedom that Grace grants us and probably some of the joy of salvation as a result.
I'm not a Former however, so what do I know?
CW |
Susans
Registered user
Username: Susans
Post Number: 100
Registered: 8-2006
| | Posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 5:11 am: | |
Hello CW,
I'm glad to hear your daughter broke up with her SDA boyfriend, and sorry I somehow missed the post telling that. I'll continue to pray for her that she will follow God's leading and that He will send the man He has prepared for her from eternity into her life. It is difficult to have purity no matter which denomination you are in, and she is to be applauded for her belief in purity until marriage.
Don't apologize for not being a present or former SDA! I think those who have never been entangled can sometimes see things more clearly! Thanks for your posts, here, they have been a blessing to me.
Susan
|
Grace_alone
Registered user
Username: Grace_alone
Post Number: 286
Registered: 6-2006
| | Posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 6:12 am: | |
CW, I second what Susan said! I'm glad for you that you don't have the stress that came with the last boyfriend anymore.
Please don't stop posting because of that, though! There are sure enough of us here who are not directly SDA. I know I've always enjoyed your posts as well.
Leigh Anne |
Dd
Registered user
Username: Dd
Post Number: 767
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 7:43 am: | |
CW,
Thanks for the update...
You are entitled to love your daughter...that's your job...I would worry about you if you didn't care. God gave D a very special dad.
Blessings,
Denise |
Melissa
Registered user
Username: Melissa
Post Number: 1505
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 8:44 am: | |
CW, you cracked me up...20 and 23? My ex is 39 (theoretically divorced 3 times) and his new 'girlfriend' is 21. Count your many blessings...it could be worse!
I'm glad to hear she broke up and is sticking to her decision. She sounds much wiser than I was at her age and her strength to make that decision shows a sound relationship with her father through the years, not just at this time. |
Grace_alone
Registered user
Username: Grace_alone
Post Number: 288
Registered: 6-2006
| | Posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 9:01 am: | |
Melissa, it sounds like B has more problems than just being a hardcore SDA!
Boy I'm glad that you're free from that wacko. <g>
Leigh Anne |
Flyinglady
Registered user
Username: Flyinglady
Post Number: 2995
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 9:06 am: | |
CW, somehow I missed the post about your daughter breaking up with her SDA boyfriend. I am so happy and I praise God for that. She does have a very special father who loves God and her. As Denise said that's you job and I would worry if you didn't care. God is always awesome.
Diana |
Mwh
Registered user
Username: Mwh
Post Number: 261
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 10:03 am: | |
"EGW is a tougher call because many , or even most, of today's SDA members are probably saved within EGW doctrine." Cw
Well EGW doctrine is that the Devil will be punished for the sins of the believers, how much different is that from the Gospel of Christ?
If one believes that the Devil ultimately will pay for sin instead of Christ, is that an acceptable gospel, a saving one?
In Christ |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1605
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 10:12 am: | |
Rick, you seemed to indicate above that you taught a different gospel at some point in your life. Do you believe that you were "accursed" (anathema) at that time? Also, do you believe that "anathema" is equal to being "unsaved"?
Jeremy |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 609
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 10:38 am: | |
Jeremy, please quit dodging my question. You have claimed that anyone who ever taught a different gospel is eternally condemned and applied this to indicate that the such a person could not be later brought to salvation. Most people here who did any "witnessing" as an SDA taught some aspect of a different gospel. The former SDA pastors perhaps even moreso. So please explain how you can consistently apply this passage to formers in the way that you have applied it relative to ellen.
And BTW, if even angels would be accursed for teaching a different gospel, how can I not apply it to myself? Being sincere about your presentation of an error doesn't make it any more truthful. Fortunately Jesus was made a curse for us that we might be redeemed from being cursed. |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1607
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 11:10 am: | |
Rick, you may be right in your understanding of Galatians 1, but I'm just not quite convinced that the curse there is reversible. That would mean that Paul's curse of those who were preaching a false gospel to the Galatians may have never come to fruition?
The ones preaching to the Galatians knew that they were preaching a Gospel contrary to the Gospel that Paul taught. But, if those Galatians accepted that false gospel wouldn't they teach it to others? And yet they were saved Christians, and could not be "anathema."
Also, the curse in Revelation 22 does not seem to be reversible. In fact, I know that you posted on CARM that Ellen is under that curse. But then again, does that curse apply to us, since we went along with/taught EGW's additions and subtractions to Revelation?
Jeremy |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 611
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 11:55 am: | |
I don't think that being under a curse precludes God's ability to redeem the person from that curse. I can't find any basis for placing such limits on God's powers.
In Gal 1, I would personally be hesitant to add any list of qualifiers to what Paul said. Paul claims that "if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received". At least in my mind, "any man" is a fairly sweeping statement.
I specifically wanted to deal with Gal 1 before I tackled Rev 22. I do think that the curse of Rev 22 applies to Ellen's writings. And if she never repented then I fear that every curse in Scrpiture you have pointed out would apply to her. I sincerely hope that she did repent, even if no one but God heard that repentance.
Rev 22 certainly is a challenge in how we would apply it consistently. Should we apply it to Tim LaHaye's work? How about study Bibles? Nearly every sermon taught on the book adds the words of the one explaining their view. What do these verses mean about adding or taking away from the book? Does it apply to the Clear Word? The Living Bible?
I am not trying to avoid the question, simply to point out how difficult it is to try and apply this verse in a consistent fashion. I struggle with each of those questions in trying to understand the intended application. As a result, if I am going to err when it comes to applying this verse to comment on a person's eternal status with God, I will err on the side of grace. I believe that God's power is far greater than the most persistent sin or satanic bond. I will always hold out hope, even if it is the slimmest glimmer, for God's grace prevailing in a person's life. |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 4913
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 12:02 pm: | |
Jeremy, I understand what you're saying. Rick is making some good points, however.
The Biblical statements about the eternal doom of false prophets and teachers of false doctrines are strongóyet Jesus says that whosoever will may comeóeven career criminals like the thief beside Jesus and the persistently wicked Ninevites (to Jonah's disappointment).
It's another paradox: while we CAN KNOW that unrepentant false prophets will be lost, we can't know exactly what transpires between God and individuals if we're not there.
We all agree about Ellen's status as a false prophetóand I believe we can allow for God to be the final judge of whether or not she ever repented. While I agree with Jeremy's insistence that she was false and that her falseness is condemned, I also agree with Rick that we can't definitively state her final status with the Lord Jesus. I might think I knowóbut in reality, I don't.
Colleen
|
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1608
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 12:29 pm: | |
I agree with Rick that God's power is far greater than anything. But that same argument is used by the WCG (as was discussed on another thread) to say that God is able to save people after death. I don't think the question is about God's power, but rather His sovereign choice. I see the Bible as saying that God in His sovereign power has ordained false prophets to destruction. Jackob posted about some of the Scripture for that above. Romans 9:22 speaks of "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction." My understanding of Scripture is that false prophets are in that category.
But, I think this thread was originally about EGW before the last part of her life. And there is just no way that I can put EGW in a different category than other false prophets and say with Walter Martin that she was regenerate. Jesus says that we can know they are ravenous wolves.
Jeremy |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 612
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 12:59 pm: | |
Jeremy, it appears you are using logical fallicies to attack the ideas I have put forward. While I made no mention of any change being possible after death, you have pulled this out to create a guilt by association.
You have been very specific in calling me out to challenge my statements, yet I never suggested that ellen should be placed in any category besides that of all other false prophets. Again it appears to be an attempt to imply guilt be association.
If find no Scripture that affirms that false prophets are vessles of wrath prepared for destruction" that simply appears to be an interpretation that you would like to apply for those verses.
We are not made aware of any of God's sovereign choices. Which is all the more reason for me to avoid making judgments about whether God can or will save any specific individual.
|
Mwh
Registered user
Username: Mwh
Post Number: 262
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 1:01 pm: | |
Rick and Jeremy are you counting in the distinction between a teacher who teaches false doctrines being deceived and a teacher who teaches false doctrines with his full knowledge?
Like I would think that the one deceived is not a ravenous wolf, but the other is.
I would like to place former SDA's in the category of being deceived and thus not obliged to care the curse of teaching false doctrine forever.
Just a thought.
In Christ. |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1609
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 1:22 pm: | |
Rick, no I was not trying to create guilt by association. I was merely pointing out that I am not limiting God's power. I only used that example to show that your particular argument about God's power is not a valid argument. I also would not agree with the statement that, "We are not made aware of any of God's sovereign choices." We know that God has chosen not to save people after death. You would also agree with me I am sure that we know God has chosen not to save the fallen angels. The Bible also reveals to us the very names of certain individuals that are lost. I also see the Bible indicating the same for false prophets.
As for the last paragraph in my last post--that was not directed towards you. I was not saying that you had put her in a different category.
Jeremy |
Cw
Registered user
Username: Cw
Post Number: 124
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 9:54 pm: | |
Mwh, I'm the first to admit that I am the least informed and experienced in SDA of anyone on this forum. Which is a great "out" for me if/when I post something way off the mark. But I know nothing of an SDA doctrine saying that Satan "ultimately will pay for sin instead of Christ". I never questioned J's character or his salvation. My beef was that his doctrine questions/attacks MY salvation.
There are many Christian denominations that teach some differing doctrines. But if those differences don't get in the way of salvation by grace they are minor in the end. SDA may think they are the only ones heaven bound because only the Remnant Church goes there and the Remnant Church is made up of sabbath keepers only, but in the end so what? We know they're wrong. my complaint to my daughter was that just as she and J had a right to be offended if I challenged his salvation, I had the same right when J's doctrine challenges mine. I managed to get that point in once in one of our rare conversations that she allowed me. Whether it had anything to do with the break up I'll probably never know. But I know my -and this forum's-prayers were heard.
Just because SDA members seem to give up a lot of the joy that salvation should bring, I haven't seen anything to preclude salvation within that doctrine. Again I stress however, y'all know a lot more about this than I so I am not about to be adamant about it. This is just how this particular "outsider" perceives it.
And thank you all for your kind words and support regarding my daughter. And Melissa, I know you're right, it could be worse. But until now J had been D's only serious boyfriend. I trusted him in all things moral although I didn't/don't want him as a son-in-law. At 23 years old this new boyfriend is a walking time bomb or he's not normal-if you know what I mean. I know what my body was doing to me at 23 and single and I don't doubt that every man on this forum would testify to the same. Thus, I worry. D has made a commitment to purity-but I doubt it has been tested severely up to this point.
CW
|
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 613
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 07, 2006 - 12:05 pm: | |
Jeremy, I can not believe that you are going to continue to argue against the idea that God can save whomever He chooses, whenever He chooses. To say that this is not a valid argument is to flatly deny God's sovereignty. You can create whatever strawmen and baseless comparisons you wish, but the end result is the same. God is either sovereign or He is not. There is nothing in Scripture that teaches a false prophet is beyond His redemptive powers. There is nothing in Scripture indicating that one who has taught a false gospel is beyond His redemptive powers.
I teach, because I believe that is what Scripture teaches, that God chose whom He would save before they were even born. If this choice occurs before their birth, there is no basis for concluding that I am teaching that He saves people after they were dead. You keep returning to this topic in an obvious attempt to smear both my reputation and my comments with a topic that I have never endorsed. Personally I am offended by such baseless attacks. If you want to challenge something that I believe and teach, take your best shot. Plenty before you have. But your continued attacks and insinuations that are unrelated to my teachings are offensive. |
Jackob
Registered user
Username: Jackob
Post Number: 377
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 07, 2006 - 1:16 pm: | |
Ric
What do you think about Jude 4, the text I pointed above? It speaks about some men "whose condemnation was written about long ago". The idea of "written" remembers the language used by the Bible when it speaks about the elect, their names being "written from the creation of the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain" Revelation 13:8. The language is the language of election, also the timing is similar, "long ago".
As I pointed, it seems that the two groups described in the epistle of Jude and 2 Peter 2 are the same type, and 2 Peter 2 is explicit about the fact that these are false prophets, not only false teachers. The conclusion is that false prophets are not saved, not being chosen for salvation.
There is another proof: Jesus called the elect "my sheep" (John 10:14) in opposition with those who were not choosen " you are not my sheep" (John 10:26).
I'm not sure if He decided to use the word "sheep" with the same meaning when He spoke about the false prophets (Matthew 7). If He used the word "sheep" in the same way, meaning "the elect", false prophets are surely not included, being called wolves.
I'm not sure that he used the word "sheep" with the same meaning, but I have no reason to believe that He used the word in a different way. Of course, this leaves open the possibility to use the word in a different way, but if I want to be consistent, I must recognize that He used the word sheep as a name for the elect. And the wolves are not the sheep, the elect. |
Mwh
Registered user
Username: Mwh
Post Number: 267
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 07, 2006 - 1:31 pm: | |
But I know nothing of an SDA doctrine saying that Satan "ultimately will pay for sin instead of Christ" Cw
Its their core doctrine, learn more about it here:
http://www.truthorfables.com/Scapegoat.htm
Also see A Quick intro to SDA on exadventist.com:
http://www.exadventist.com/Home/Intro/tabid/64/Default.aspx
Point 4.
This in my opinion really constitutes another gospel than that of Jesus Christ.
In Christ! |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1611
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 07, 2006 - 3:26 pm: | |
Rick, you are misunderstanding my posts (which may be my fault for not wording them clearer!). I never said that you teach that people can be saved after death. I was trying to say the exact opposite. The fact that both you and I believe that people cannot be saved after death was part of my point that I was trying to make (but apparently failed at making!).
I never intended to smear your reputation or comments, or attack you.
I apologize for not wording my posts more clearly.
Jeremy |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 614
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 07, 2006 - 4:05 pm: | |
Jackob, I think Jude is a good place to look. For later it also says, presumably about some people within the same group opposing the Truth-- "And have mercy on some, who are doubting; save others, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh."
It appears from Jude that not all of these are beyond the grasp of God's mercy.
Regarding sheep and wolves, my approach to parables is to approach them with a few cautions. The focus should be plainly on the "point" or message of the parable. Trying to combine symbols from different parables in order to create a teaching can be very dangerous. I learned this looking at how SDAism uses aspects of parables as building blocks for their eschatology. I am a strong proponent of keeping parables as specific object lessons about a topic.
|
Jackob
Registered user
Username: Jackob
Post Number: 380
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 07, 2006 - 9:55 pm: | |
Ric
I mentioned my caution about "sheep". What make me still see a link between them is the fact that in both parables, Jesus named his faithful disciples with the same name "sheep". This is a fact and not an interpretation. In this way he choosed to use the same word to speak about the same group, true believers. If this word means also the elect, as it is used in one of parables, I'm precaucious, like you.
Jackob
|
Walkonwater
Registered user
Username: Walkonwater
Post Number: 96
Registered: 9-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 08, 2006 - 9:18 am: | |
CW
Are you AKA CJW Pastor that posted on Christianity.com?
If so, we had a number interactions on that web site. Glad to meet you again, if that is YOU. |
