The books of Hebrews and Revelation prove the unchangeableness of God's Holy Law. (2)

[Stryder06]

I don't think we need to accept Stryder's contention over the terms used. "Messenger" and "prophet" can be interchanged as they both convey the meaning of divine inspiration. SDA authorities recognize this, and accept the usage of 'prophet' to describe Ellen White.

1st) What official church document calls her a prophet?

2nd) Do you realize that no "authority" in the SDA church has the right to declare something that the rest of us must follow. If the higher ups say something that's wrong, that makes them wrong. So even if they did call her a prophet, that wouldn't trump her own statement where she said she wasn't.

I remember how Stryder convinced many of us that Ellen White wasn't inspired a few months ago, after subjecting her to a litmus test finding that she contradicted the Law's testimony, and there wasn't any light in her. From there all I have seen is denial over any number of sources, including himself.

Incorrect. Please stop lying on me. I grow weary of it. What I did was subject your teachings to that test. What you did, instead of answering the simple question, was talk about a vision that Sr White had that wasn't in the bible, and then twist the text to try to mean "If XYZ teaching isn't in the scripture, than the one who professes it has no light."

The sad part is that you didn't even see the own flaw in your logic. If we took that the way you propose we ought to, than anything written after Isaiah would have had to be cast out.

 

[VictorC]

1st) What official church document calls her a prophet?

2nd) Do you realize that no "authority" in the SDA church has the right to declare something that the rest of us must follow. If the higher ups say something that's wrong, that makes them wrong. So even if they did call her a prophet, that wouldn't trump her own statement where she said she wasn't.

As I mentioned before, you're attempting to get mileage out of specific terms used, just as Bill Clinton did when testifying to Congress over his scandal with Monica Lewinsky. It doesn't get you anywhere when terms such as these are interchanged to convey divine inspiration.

Incorrect. Please stop lying on me. I grow weary of it. What I did was subject your teachings to that test. What you did, instead of answering the simple question, was talk about a vision that Sr White had that wasn't in the bible, and then twist the text to try to mean "If XYZ teaching isn't in the scripture, than the one who professes it has no light."

The sad part is that you didn't even see the own flaw in your logic. If we took that the way you propose we ought to, than anything written after Isaiah would have had to be cast out.

I didn't imply that you had convinced yourself regarding the alleged inspiration of Ellen White. What I wrote is that you successfully convinced many of us that her claim to inspiration is false. I think I have watched the mechanics of denial long enough to conclude that your testimony is so full of contradictions that it isn't reliable, and your witness can't be accepted.

 

[Stryder06]

As I mentioned before, you're attempting to get mileage out of specific terms used, just as Bill Clinton did when testifying to Congress over his scandal with Monica Lewinsky. It doesn't get you anywhere when terms such as these are interchanged to convey divine inspiration.

Actually what I'm doing is showing what she actually said versus what other people say about her. It's called telling the truth.

I didn't imply that you had convinced yourself regarding the alleged inspiration of Ellen White. What I wrote is that you successfully convinced many of us that her claim to inspiration is false. I think I have watched the mechanics of denial long enough to conclude that your testimony is so full of contradictions that it isn't reliable, and your witness can't be accepted.

This would be the opposite of true. First, I don't think there's anyone here who agree's with the inspiriation of Sr White outside of us Adventists. Second, all I proved is that you can't answer simple direct questions. Have you tested your teachings against the law and the testimony? Dance around that as much as you want, but the fact remains that I can test my doctrines and teachings against it and they stand. You simply can't do the same.

 

[VictorC]

Second, all I proved is that you can't answer simple direct questions.

You haven't shown where the IJ is depicted in Scripture.
You haven't explained why Adventists accept a doctrine they can't support (disagreement with the Sanctuary Doctrine still remains probably the leading reason members leave the SDA church to join other Christian fellowships, between 80-90% according to surveys I have seen).
What you accuse others of is your own practice.

When your empty claims are replaced with tangible content, I would be happy to respond to them.

 

[Keachian]

You've been answered. You just don't like the answer you've been given. It's one thing to disagree with a doctrine. It's another to continue to say it's something that it isn't. If you've convinced yourself that it means one thing while we're telling you it means another, you can't be helped.

LLoJ has kindly resurrected one of my threads: http://www.christianforums.com/t7735006/

You offer the same dodging dismissal of my understanding of what I see as the key passage, Tall73 also gives detailed exegesis of the context of the passage and we all look at Lev 16 in detail which you seemed to think was what was lacking in my understanding of the Hebrews passage and how it interacts with the IJ.

Did it say she was a prophet, or that the Spirit of Prophecy was manifested in the church, chiefly through her ministry? Again, if you're going to convince yourself of one thing despite what is being said, then you can't be helped.

You treat her as a prophet, she acts like a prophet, by all outward appearances she looks like a 19C prophet. To claim that she doesn't fill that role in your sect is sophism, even on her part.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Exercising my prophetic gifts - unique to GT threads on a Friday morning - I foresee this thread getting longer and longer with less and less chance of any resolution as the posts multiply and a second thread split approaches.

Lord have mercy!

 

[Sophrosyne]

Exercising my prophetic gifts - unique to GT threads on a Friday morning - I foresee this thread getting longer and longer with less and less chance of any resolution as the posts multiply and a second thread split approaches.

Lord have mercy!

Sorry but you are way too late to join the ranks of 19th century prophets.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Sorry but you are way too late to join the ranks of 19th century prophets.

That is true, but I am merely exercising the gift of prophecy without calling myself a prophet

 

[Sophrosyne]

That is true, but I am merely exercising the gift of prophecy without calling myself a prophet

but are you being greater than a prophet while doing it?

 

[Keachian]

but are you being greater than a prophet while doing it?

Oh the Biblical prophets never had to deal with the internet and the constant attack from trolls, socks and the like, so I would say that he is as justified as EGW is in saying that.

 

[Leuko Petra]

Nice job you've successfully read IJ into scripture where not even IJ claims it should be read in. The IJ started in 1844 and so there is no reason for God to be "looking" as you say before then.

Brother, there has been misunderstanding of what I stated and what was presented.

Of course the Investigative Judgment begins in AD 1844, and this was never in question, nor stated otherwise, for that is when Christ Jesus moved into the final phase of Ministry, into the Heavenly Most Holy.

It seems others have read a little too quickly about what I was presenting and the reasons for the text and examples, which was simply this, which I prefaced the examples by, "...the investigation process..." and showed several examples beginning in Genesis of how this investigative process works.

The actual Investigative Judgment, we as Seventh Day Adventists preach, deals with the end-time Judgment, which comes in several phases.

What was demonstrated is how God has done this same process, of investigation, from the beginning whenever judgment was involved, and those examples were cited.

[1] "...in the garden." with Adam/Eve/Serpent.

[2] "...outside the garden." with Cain.

[3] "...just before the flood..." with Noah.

[4] "...at the tower of Babel."

[5] "...at Sodom and Gomorah." involving Abraham/Lot.

[6] "...Jesus comes unto His own..." with Jewish Nation.

[7] "...Jesus in Heaven."

...only [7] is the actual Investigative Judgment [which is part of the total, iow, one phase, of the final Judgment, which another phase of is the executive Judgment, Great White Throne, for the sentence Judgment is already gone forward, [2nd] Death for sin], the others are examples, precursors to how God would do things. Ensamples as it is written...

For notice I clearly referenced Revelation 14:6-7, and stated that "...The Hour of His Judgment is Come...", and therefore the actual Investigative Judgment was not ongoing at any point before then.

Therefore as a doctrine it is all throughout the Bible, in how God operates in the Judgment we are now in.

This was all that was being stated.

This was further demonstrated at the beginning with the following:

"Sins are forgiven - that is covered by the blood of the Lamb, or as it says elsehwere the sins are thrown into the depth of the sea [again covered], but they are not gone, but norn away, and merely covered by the waves of the sea, or covered by the blood. These can be reinstated to our account.

Matthew 18:23-35, and elsewhere, like Ezekiel, etc, shares this quite well, in that sins can be forgiven by God, though it costs dearly, but forgiveness does not blot them out, therefore they are not totally gone, merely covered in grace until such time to be removed or reinstated, since they are reinstated upon the one that had not mercy during his probation of grace in forgiveness, this is the perfect example.

Sins are to be blotted out, even as foretold in the type given us by Jesus Himself, in Leviticus 16 and 23, the Day of Atonement. That is that they were covered, and then through another atonement distinct from the Leviticus 4 atonement, are then totally removed, gone forever, and cannot be reinstated, since it will then be past the time of probation, all cases decided, Luke 13:25, Daniel 12:1, Revelation 22:11, etc.Investigative Judgment is all throughout the Bible from Genesis to Revelation."

and even beforehand, "...why the need for the investigation process, like any parolee out on grace and good faith..."

The question goes forward, "Who shall be able to stand?"

I later cited the following even more closely:

"Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt." Matthew 18:27

"Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:" Matthew 18:32

"And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him." Matthew 18:34


******

"...Since even that servant who was unmerciful to his fellow-servants, until he demanded the hundred pence, had the grace of his master abiding on him. But when he made that demand, it was taken from him, and he was delivered to the tormentors...." [Chrysostom; Homily 1 on Philemon] - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/23091.htm]

This reveals that God forgave, and gave grace period. That grace period was not utilized as it should have been. That servant, which was forgiven, all the debt forgvien, becomes after his cruel deeds in the period of grace, the wicked servant, and that grace is removed, and therefore he is unforgiven all the debt, which he must now pay back all, and the wages for sin is the 2nd Death...

He owed, wages of sin, he was dead.
He was forgiven, owed gratitude, likewise forgiveness to others.
He was forgiven, but forgave not others and instead cruelly treated in spite of the grace he himself was in, having owed far greater that what he was owed.
He then was brought before His Lord, now called wicked, grace removed, and unforgiven, now he owes all again, plus what was done in the grace period...
He owes, wages of sin, he is now to be put to death again...

So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses. Matthew 18:35

[Future tense] It will happen unto us, even as unto that 'wicked servant' which did not right in the period of grace.

We can be unforgiven.

Forgiveness, does not blot out sin.

Even those which brought the sacrifice to the temple gates and killed it, were forgiven, free to go, their sin 'transfered' symbolically to the blood, and they were free to go in grace, but to obey, not transgress, and that blood was then carried inward... the person forgiven, the blood still carried the sin... it was not blotted out. The record remained. Another process, the Day of Atonement was required.

Ask questions, and let us not jump to conclusions rashly. Let us take time in discussion.

 

[Leuko Petra]

Verses without context are a pretext for false claims.

The story in Matthew 18:21-35 is a parable. The Master of the unforgiving servant is a fictitious character as is the servant.

The lesson of the parable is not fictitious. The lesson, as stated in post #219, is "Forgive others and then you will be forgiven".

Verses read in context form the proper basis for doctrine.

No, that is incorrect. Rome has it backwards. It is rather, you are forgiven [vs 27], now forgive likewise [vs 33], otherwise your own forgiveness is forfeit [vs 34-35].

As you have done unto others so it will be done unto you... with what measure you mete so it will be measured unto you... etc...

There is an accounting to be done...

Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants. Matthew 18:23

 

[Leuko Petra]

It is good to quote in context, Leuko Petra...

I did, see again:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7752117-31/#post63907293
http://www.christianforums.com/t7752117-31/#post63907439

 

[Keachian]

For notice I clearly referenced Revelation 14:6-7, and stated that "...The Hour of His Judgment is Come...", and therefore the actual Investigative Judgment was not ongoing at any point before then.

First bit of actual relevance, however your exegesis is still trying to shoehorn in the IJ, there is no mention of any of the types concerned and the three Angels seem to be in closer history than the placing of 1844 for the 1st and the fall of the RCC as the 3rd.

Therefore as a doctrine it is all throughout the Bible, in how God operates in the Judgment we are now in.
This was all that was being stated.

Again only because you presuppose it to be there, there is no reason to, the IJ is an incredibly new doctrine when it comes to the grand scheme of Church History.

<snip>

More EGW drivel, not worth the bits used to transmit again.

<snip>

You haven't addressed MoreCoffee's correction, you are quotemining and therefore this is irrelevant.

Ask questions, and let us not jump to conclusions rashly. Let us take time in discussion.

You mean opposed to you monologuing?

 

[from scratch]

Brother, there has been misunderstanding of what I stated and what was presented.

Of course the Investigative Judgment begins in AD 1844, and this was never in question, nor stated otherwise, for that is when Christ Jesus moved into the final phase of Ministry, into the Heavenly Most Holy.

It seems others have read a little too quickly about what I was presenting and the reasons for the text and examples, which was simply this, which I prefaced the examples by, "...the investigation process..." and showed several examples beginning in Genesis of how this investigative process works.

The actual Investigative Judgment, we as Seventh Day Adventists preach, deals with the end-time Judgment, which comes in several phases.

What was demonstrated is how God has done this same process, of investigation, from the beginning whenever judgment was involved, and those examples were cited.

[1] "...in the garden." with Adam/Eve/Serpent.

[2] "...outside the garden." with Cain.

[3] "...just before the flood..." with Noah.

[4] "...at the tower of Babel."

[5] "...at Sodom and Gomorah." involving Abraham/Lot.

[6] "...Jesus comes unto His own..." with Jewish Nation.

[7] "...Jesus in Heaven."

...only [7] is the actual Investigative Judgment [which is part of the total, iow, one phase, of the final Judgment, which another phase of is the executive Judgment, Great White Throne, for the sentence Judgment is already gone forward, [2nd] Death for sin], the others are examples, precursors to how God would do things. Ensamples as it is written...

For notice I clearly referenced Revelation 14:6-7, and stated that "...The Hour of His Judgment is Come...", and therefore the actual Investigative Judgment was not ongoing at any point before then.

Therefore as a doctrine it is all throughout the Bible, in how God operates in the Judgment we are now in.

This was all that was being stated.

This was further demonstrated at the beginning with the following:

"Sins are forgiven - that is covered by the blood of the Lamb, or as it says elsehwere the sins are thrown into the depth of the sea [again covered], but they are not gone, but norn away, and merely covered by the waves of the sea, or covered by the blood. These can be reinstated to our account.

Matthew 18:23-35, and elsewhere, like Ezekiel, etc, shares this quite well, in that sins can be forgiven by God, though it costs dearly, but forgiveness does not blot them out, therefore they are not totally gone, merely covered in grace until such time to be removed or reinstated, since they are reinstated upon the one that had not mercy during his probation of grace in forgiveness, this is the perfect example.

Sins are to be blotted out, even as foretold in the type given us by Jesus Himself, in Leviticus 16 and 23, the Day of Atonement. That is that they were covered, and then through another atonement distinct from the Leviticus 4 atonement, are then totally removed, gone forever, and cannot be reinstated, since it will then be past the time of probation, all cases decided, Luke 13:25, Daniel 12:1, Revelation 22:11, etc.Investigative Judgment is all throughout the Bible from Genesis to Revelation."

and even beforehand, "...why the need for the investigation process, like any parolee out on grace and good faith..."

The question goes forward, "Who shall be able to stand?"

I later cited the following even more closely:

"Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt." Matthew 18:27

"Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:" Matthew 18:32

"And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him." Matthew 18:34


******

"...Since even that servant who was unmerciful to his fellow-servants, until he demanded the hundred pence, had the grace of his master abiding on him. But when he made that demand, it was taken from him, and he was delivered to the tormentors...." [Chrysostom; Homily 1 on Philemon] - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/23091.htm]

This reveals that God forgave, and gave grace period. That grace period was not utilized as it should have been. That servant, which was forgiven, all the debt forgvien, becomes after his cruel deeds in the period of grace, the wicked servant, and that grace is removed, and therefore he is unforgiven all the debt, which he must now pay back all, and the wages for sin is the 2nd Death...

He owed, wages of sin, he was dead.
He was forgiven, owed gratitude, likewise forgiveness to others.
He was forgiven, but forgave not others and instead cruelly treated in spite of the grace he himself was in, having owed far greater that what he was owed.
He then was brought before His Lord, now called wicked, grace removed, and unforgiven, now he owes all again, plus what was done in the grace period...
He owes, wages of sin, he is now to be put to death again...

So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses. Matthew 18:35

[Future tense] It will happen unto us, even as unto that 'wicked servant' which did not right in the period of grace.

We can be unforgiven.

Forgiveness, does not blot out sin.

Even those which brought the sacrifice to the temple gates and killed it, were forgiven, free to go, their sin 'transfered' symbolically to the blood, and they were free to go in grace, but to obey, not transgress, and that blood was then carried inward... the person forgiven, the blood still carried the sin... it was not blotted out. The record remained. Another process, the Day of Atonement was required.

Ask questions, and let us not jump to conclusions rashly. Let us take time in discussion.

What exactly is being investigated and why? You should be able to do this with less than say 20 words.

 

[from scratch]

I guess it's a shame she died so long ago. She says she's not a prophet so I leave it at that. She says her works requires more than what the word prophet entailed, so I leave it at that.

As far as examples of people who "more than a prophet", which again she didn't say she was, you could look at the disciples. All of them prophesied, but none of them were prophets, and I would say their work extended beyond that which a prophet did.

Dang you're great entertainment.

 

[from scratch]

Actually what I'm doing is showing what she actually said versus what other people say about her. It's called telling the truth.

This would be the opposite of true. First, I don't think there's anyone here who agree's with the inspiriation of Sr White outside of us Adventists. Second, all I proved is that you can't answer simple direct questions. Have you tested your teachings against the law and the testimony? Dance around that as much as you want, but the fact remains that I can test my doctrines and teachings against it and they stand. You simply can't do the same.

Certainly. Grace simply cancels the law.

 

[from scratch]

That doesn't address the post made where she is compared to a prophet. How can one be more than a prophet without AT LEAST being a prophet in the first place? Also how can a messenger be more than a prophet if they are not a prophet also? I just don't get the comparison. We don't see any examples of "more than a prophet" in the Bible that are NOT a prophet also unless you can come up with one.

Great question. Bet it gets side stepped.

 

[from scratch]

I see, but don't most evangelicals have bibles and use them?

No. Most repeat only what they've been told without examination. At best for many the Bible isn't anything more than a source of proof texts.

 

[MoreCoffee]

No. Most repeat only what they've been told without examination. At best for many the Bible isn't anything more than a source of proof texts.

Strange that you should say that; I was beginning to think that was what this thread had become - proof text upon proof text, line upon line, here a little and there a little (Isaiah somewhere or other)